(Chemists and Chemistry 13) Sidney Ross (Auth.) - Nineteenth-Century Attitudes - Men of Science-Springer Netherlands (1991)

NINETEENTH-CENTUR Y ATTITUDES :
ME N OF SCIENCE
Chemists and Chemistry
VOLUM E 13
A seriesof booksdevotedto the examination of the history and development

of chemistryfrom its early emergenceas a separatediscipline to the present
day. The series will describe the personalities processes,theoretical and
t
technicaladvances which have shapedour current understanding of

chemicalscience.
The titlespublishedin this seriesare listedat the endof this volume.

NINETEENTH-CENTUR Y
ATTITUDES :
ME N OF SCIENCE
by
Sidney Ross
Springer-Science+Busines
s Media, B.V.
Librar y of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Ross, Sydney, 1915-

Nineteenth-centur y attitude s : men o f scienc e / b y Sydney Ross.
p. cm. — (Chemist s and chemistr y ; v . 13)
Include s bibliographica l reference s and index .
ISBN 978-94-010-5591-8 ISBN 978-94-011-3588-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3588-7
1. Science—Philosophy—History—19t h century . 2 . Electricity -
-History—19t h century . I . T i t l e . I I . Series .
0174.8.R67 1991
501— dc2 0 91-18945
Printed on acid-freepaper
Al l Rights Reserved
© 1991 Springer Science+Busines s Media Dordrecht
Originall y published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1991
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner.
TO MY SISTER BETTY
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IX
ILLUSTRATIONS Xl
CHAPTER 1.
SCIENTIST:THE STORY OF A WORD 1
CHAPTER 2.
THE STORY OF THE VOLTA POTENTIAL 40
CHAPTER3.
THE SEARCH FOR ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION 1820-31 84
CHAPTER4.
FARADAY CONSULTSTHE SCHOLARS:
THE ORIGIN OF THE TERMS OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY 126
CHAPTERS.
HERSCHELAND HYPO 173
CHAPTER6.
HERSCHELON FARADAY AND ON SCIENCE 194
CHAPTER 7.
HERSCHEL'SMARGINAL NOTES ON MILL'S ON LIBERTY 203
EPILOGUE 214
lNDEX 221
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The essaysincluded in this volume were, with one exception,

publishedin various periodicals,as follows:
'Scientist: the Story of a Word' in Annals of Science,1962, Vol. 18,
pp. 65-84;'The Story ofthe Volta Potential'in SelectedTopicsin the
History of Electrochemistry,'editedby GeorgeDubpemelland J.H.
Westbrook,The ElectrochemicalSociety,Inc., Princeton,N.J., 1978;
'The Searchfor ElectromagneticInduction 1820-1831'in Notesand
Recordsof the Royal SocietyofLondon, 1965,Vol. 20, pp. 184-219;
'Faraday Consults the Scholars: The Origin of the Terms of
Electrochemistry'in Notes and Records of the Royal Society of
London,1961,Vol. 16, pp. 187-220;'JohnHerschelon Faradayand
on Science'in Notes and Recordsof the Royal Societyof London,
1978, Vol. 33, pp. 77-82; 'Herschel'sMarginal Notes on Mill's On
Liberty' in The Journal of the History of Ideas, 1968, Vol. 29, pp.
123-130.The essay'Herscheland Hypo' has not been previously
published.
Permission to reprint previously published material (with
substantialrevisionin somecases)hasbeengrantedby Taylor and
Francis,Ltd (for ChapterOne) and by the Royal Societyof London
(for ChaptersThree,Four, and Six).
I am indebtedto the following for readingparts of the book and
for helpful commentsthereon: ProfessorThomas P. Carroll, Mr.
Henry Hunter, Mr. Larry Schaaf.
lowe a specialdebt of gratitudeto ProfessorR.M. Lichtenstein
of RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute and to ProfessorH.D. Cameron
of the University of Michigan, for their contributionsto Chapters2
and 4 respectively.
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE 1-1 WILLIAM WHEWELL 14
FIGURE 1-2 FITZEDWARD HALL 26
FIGURE 1-3 THE REVENGE OF TIME 28
FIGURE II-I UNIVERSITY PRIZE LABEL 54
FIGURE 11-2 LORD KELVIN 62
FIGURE 11-3 ALESSANDRO VOLTA 63
FIGURE 111-2 ANDRE-MARIE AMPERE 93
FIGURE 111-5 STATUE OF MICHAEL FARADAY 117
FIGURE IV-1 WHITLOCK NICHOLL 133
FIGURE IV-2 WILLIAM WHEWELL 149
FIGURE V-1 SIR JOHN HERSCHEL 181
FIGURE V-2 HERSCHEL'SMARGINAL NOTE 191
FIGURE VI-1 MICHAEL FARADAY 198
Xl
CHAPTER ONE
SCIENTIST: THE STORY OF A WORD
It is one thing to understandthe meaningof words, as they are explained

by other words in a glossaryor dictionary, and anotherto know their
value, as expressiveof certainfeelings and humoursin the speakersto
whom they are native, and as signsboth of temperand condition among
thosewho are familiar with their import.
-Lord Jeffrey, EdinburghReview,1817, Vol. 28, p. 198.
This is a questionof words and names.

I know the strife it brings. -Kipling, Gallio's Song
The appellationscientist is considereda title of honor, hotly con-

tendedfor by economists,engineers,physicians,psychologists,and
others. The word itself is widely believedto havebeenclassicalfor
centuries;yet it is actually of recentorigin and had a hard fight to
establishitself against a number of competitors. The argument,
which is now an old andforgottencontroversy,was chiefly aboutits
etymology; but the history of a word is never solely a matter of
etymology: the needfor a new word is socially determined,right at
the start, and any subsequentchangesof denotation,as well as the
cluster of connotationssurroundingit, are also in responseto de-
mandsfrom society. The word cannotbe isolatedfrom its historical
background;indeedsomekey words offer a conciseand suggestive
clue to the historian or sociologist
The presentaccountof the history of the word scientist is not
simply an excursioninto philology, thoughphilology necessarilyhas
a prominentplacein the story. When an appellationis acceptedor
rejectedas the designationof a group of people,ostensiblereasons
for or againstmay be basedon philology, but the motives,which are
not usually admitted consciously, are dictated by quite another
consideration,namely,the imagethat the word evokes. To the his-
torian of sciencethe presentstory is significantbecauseit marksin
a dramaticway the transitionof the cultivation of sciencefrom the
handsof the amateurto thoseof the professional. The designation
scientist, with its overtonesof specialismand professionalism(cf.
1
2 NINETEENTH-CENTURY ATTITUDES
dentist,pediatrist, etc.) was not in accordwith the personathat the

gifted amateurhad of himself and his scientific pursuits:his ideal
was that of a man liberally educated,whoseavocationwas science
as an intellectualcum philanthropicrecreation,to which he might
indeeddevotemostof his time without eversurrenderingthe image
of himself as a private gentlemanof wide culture. In particular,to
be thoughtof as pursuingsciencefor gain was distasteful. Men like
Davy and Faraday,who were not gentlemenby birth and who ac-
tually earnedtheir livelihoods by the practice of science,were so
imbued with this attitude as to reject opportunities to enrich
themselvesby patentingor otherwiserestrictingthe publicationor
the use of their discoveries. Both the genuineamateurs,with a few
exceptions,l and the actual professionals,who had absorbedthe
gentlemanlyideal, chose sciencefor its own sake and regarded
themselvesas benefactorsof mankind. They scorned
To heapthe shrine of luxury and pride

With incensekindled at the Muse'sflame.
They did in fact use similar lofty expressionsin describingtheir

ideals. To them the word scientist implied making a businessof
science:it debasedtheir labors of love to a drudgeryfor profits or
salary.
The old ideals died hard, but they could not survive the edu-
cationalreformsthat placedtechnicaleducationon the samefooting
as education for the learned professionsof medicine, law, and
theology. To the studentpreparingfor a career,sciencewas now
presentedmerely as anotheralternativeprofession;and the word
1 WollastonandFox Talbot hadno suchscruples;but they were gentlemen

by birth, and as suchlessaffectedby what FitzedwardHall, an American
residing in England,and of whom more hereafter,called 'the talismanic
force of the word gentleman.'Hall observed'the spell which, it seems,may
be cast on almost any Briton by the term gentleman. Whoeverit may be
that takesupon himselfto pronouncethat this thing, or that, or the other,
is "unbecominga gentleman,"an Englishman who, on hearing such a
judgmentpassed,is not immediatelysubduedinto acquiescence,may be
accounteda man of unusualboldnessandindependence.' FitzedwardHall,
'On English Adjectives in -able, with special Referenceto Reliable,'
London, 1877, p. 224 and p. 40.
scientistcarriedno less desirableconnotationsthan did physician,

lawyer, or clergyman.
1.1 Evolution of Science
By way of introduction to our story of scientist we should glance

at the words scienceand scientific. Scienceenteredthe English
languagein the Middle Ages as a Frenchimportation synonymous
with knowledge. It soon gained the connotationof accurateand
systematizedknowledge,by a semanticinfection from the technical
meaningthat the earliest Latin translatorsof Aristotle had con-
ferred on the adjectivescientificus. This latterword wasunderstood
by the Schoolmenin terms of the Aristotelian theory of knowledge.
One had 'scientific knowledge'when it had beenarrived at demon-
stratively, that is, by a syllogism that startedfrom necessaryfirst
principles graspedby pure reasonor intuition (vo{)~). Demonstra-
tive knowledgerestson the principle that a propositionis true if its
contrary is self-contradictory. Demonstrationis not to be under-
stoodas it might today, i.e., by experiment,but in the samesense
as the quod erat demonstrandumof Euclid.
The adjective scientific means 'pertaining to science',but its
etymologicalmeaningis 'productive ofscience',This peculiarityhas
been traced (see the O.E.D. under scientific) to a phrasein Aris-
totle's Posterior Analytics, I, ii, (71b), where it is said that when
certain conditionsare met a syllogism will be demonstrative'for it
will produceknowledge';such a syllogism was called by the trans-
lator (supposedto be Boethius, 6th century) 'syllogismum episte-
monicon,id est facientemscire'; andlater in the text, remembering
the phrase, he translated at tmO"'tll}lovtlcat a.1to&{~El~ by
'scientificaedemonstrationes'.This looks as if the Greek adjective
tmO"'tT\J.lovtK6~ (pertaining to knowledge; med. Latin scientialis)
when it refers to demonstrableknowledgeshouldbe translatedby
scientificus. Subsequent commentatorsof Aristotle, andtranslators
of other works by the sameauthor, were perhapsglad to receive a
term that pointed out the Aristotelian distinction betweendemon-
strative knowledgeand other less certainkinds of knowledge,and
for this benefit choseto disregardthe literal interpretationof their
text, which they would otherwisehave renderedby scientialis, in
favor of the freer but more significantrendering,scientificus,which

thus in a single wordconveyedAristotle'sideaof the type of certain
knowledgearising from demonstrableproof. Or perhapsthey did
not think of any of this but slavishly reiteratedBoethius'sterm
without being awarethat it would be inaccuratein other contexts.
At all events,by being used consistentlywith the samemeaning,
scientificus, regardlessof its etymology,becamea technicalterm of
the Schoolmen,meaning'pertainingto demonstrableknowledge,or
science'. The word enteredthe Romancelanguages(It. scientifico;
Fr. scientifique)with this meaning,but cameinto English only as
late as 1600.
The linguistically curious phrasescientific knowledgewas not a
tautology: its purposewas to createa distinction betweencommon
knowledge and scientific knowledge. From now on science and
knowledgewere not to be consideredas synonymous:sciencestood
for a particular kind of knowledge--firmer and less fallible
knowledge-whetherthat knowledgeis to be derived, as Aristotle
hadtaught,by straightdeductivelogic, with thegeometryof Euclid
as a model; or whether,as Baconwas to apprehend,it must gradu-
ally evolve,usingobservationandexperiment,by refining andclari-
fying its former partial truths. If we date the inaugurationof the
latter insight as 1620, with the publication of Bacon's Novum
Organum, we may appropriatelydate its full realization as 1830,
the year in which the youngerHerschelpublishedhis Discourseon
the Study of Natural Philosophy. This book enthusiastically
endorsedthe Baconianrejectionof scholasticism,basingits caseon
the achievementsof the new method;achievementsof which Bacon
had beengrantedonly a Pisgahsight. From 1620to 1830,then, we
find a shifting of the philosophicalpoint of view aboutthe sourceof
scientific knowledge,which is reflectedby a correspondingchange
in the significanceaccordedto the word science.
The sciences,as understoodby the Scholasticphilosophersin the
Aristotelian sense,were specializedbranchesof philosophy, and
included the sevensciencesof medievallearning: grammar,logic,
rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry,and astronomy. When the
number of scienceswas enlarged,they were classified under the
headingsof natural, moral, and first philosophy(or metaphysics).
But we actually find Grosseteste,the 13th-centuryadvocateof ex-
perimentalscience,maintainingthat'demonstrative'knowledgewas
not possiblein the experimentalsciencesand thereforeseekingto
deny them the title of sciences:'natural philosophy offers its ex-
planationsprobably rather than scientifically.... Only in mathe-

matics is there scienceand demonstration.'2
This heritageof Aristotelian thought was also in Locke's mind
when he wrote: 'I am apt to doubt, that so far howeverhumanin-
dustrymay advanceusefulandexperimentalphilosophyin physical
things, scientifical will still be out of our reach;becausewe want
perfect and adequateIdeasof thosevery bodieswhich are nearest
to us and most under our command.'3And again,'This way of get-
ting andimproving our knowledgein substances only by experience
and history, which is all that the weaknessof our faculties in this
stateof mediocrity,which we are in this world, can attainto, makes
me suspectthat natural philosophyis not capableof being madea
science.>'! A recent writer, commentingon the last clause of this
sentence,expressedsurprisethat Locke was 'so scepticalaboutthe
possibilities of physics, only a few years after the publication of
Newton's Principia.'5 But Locke was far from feeling any such
scepticism:the misunderstanding arisesby readingthe modernsig-
nificanceof scienceinto Locke'suseof the word. Newton himself, it
will be remembered,had castthe Principia into the form of Euclid's
Geometry in a tacit effort to elevate natural philosophy into a
'science'. Even as late as the 19th centurywe find Hegel denyingto
physicsthe title of science. The physicistsmerely shrugged:what
would have disturbedNewton, only amusedHelmholtz.
Such rigorous definitions and philosophicalrefinementshardly
affect commonspeech. Scienceretainedas one of its meaningsany
knowledge acquired by study, or any skill acquired by practice.
JaneAusten usedit in that way:
'Every savagecan dance,'[said Mr Darcy.] Sir William only smiled... .'1

doubt not that you are an adeptin the scienceyourself, Mr Darcy.'
But anothermeaningwas also currentin the languageof 18th-

and early 19th-centuryEngland. The claim madeby Newton and
2Grosseteste's
commentaryon the Posterior Analytics, I, xi: quotedfrom
AC. Crombie,Medievaland Early Modern Science,revisedsecondedition,
New York, 1959, vol. 2, p. 16.
3 John Locke, Essayon Human Understanding,Book IV, Chapter3, § 26.
4 Idem, ibid., Book IV, Chapter12, § 10.
5 AE. Bell, NewtonianScience,London, 1961, p. 136.
rejectedby Locke was now conceded:any kind of knowledgeacquir-

ed by observationor experimentwas freely called scientific and
admittedto the companyof the older sciences,which had not yet
lost their claim to that title. The precise classificationsof the
philosophiesandtheir constituentscienceswerethe technicaljargon
of the Universities:outsidethe classroomsa related,thoughlooser,
usageheld-thetermsphilosophyandsciencewereinterchangeable
in certain connections:e.g., experimentalscienceor experimental
philosophy;andmoral scienceor moral philosophy. A book publish-
ed in 1821 illustratesthat one word had becomean elegantvaria-
tion for the other: 'Elementsof thePhilosophyof Plants:Containing
theScientificPrinciplesof Botany;Nomenclature,TheoryofClassifi-
cation, Phytography,Anatomy, Chemistry,Physiology,Ecography,
andDiseasesof Plants:with a History of the Science,and Practical
Illustrations,'(by A.P. Decandolleand K. Sprengel). The period of
synonymity lastedabout fifty years, approximately1800-1850;in-
creasinglyduring that time the consensusof opinion, perhapsinflu-
encedby the example of French usage,favored the allocation of
philosophyto the theological and metaphysical,and scienceto the
experimentalandphysicalbranchesof knowledge.We seethe latter
word broughtinto prominencewith its modernmeaningin the cre-
ation of the British Association for the Advancementof Science
(1831). Two volumesin my possessionaptly illustrate the change:
they are both collectionsof offprints or reprints on various topics of
physics;the first, boundabout1825,is letteredPhilosophicalTracts;
the other, boundin the eighteen-sixties,is letteredScientificMem-
oirs.
The growth of the linguistic distinction had its origin in the
differencebetweenthe methodsof physicalscienceandofmetaphys-
ical philosophy. Each of them cannot be called both scienceand
philosophyfor long without confusion;if 'naturalphilosophy'is to be
called 'physical science',then 'moral science'must perforcebecome
'moral philosophy'. At the sametime a strongpredispositionexisted
in favor of sciencebecauseof the tangible benefitsderivedfrom it,
comparedto the barrennessof philosophy,so that the exchangeof
nameswas probably felt to be also a re-arrangementof relative
ranks in the hierarchyof knowledge.Carlyle, writing anonymously
in the EdinburghReviewin 1829,pointedout a trendin a tone that
is familiar in our own days:6
6 [ThomasCarlyle,] EdinburghReview,1829, Vol. 49, pp. 444-447.

It is admittedon all sides,that the Metaphysicaland Moral Sciencesare

falling into decay, while the Physical are engrossing,every day, more
respectand attention.... This condition of the two greatdepartmentsof
knowledge;theouter,cultivatedexclusivelyon mechanicalprinciples-the
inward finally abandoned,because,cultivated on such principles, it is
found to yield no result-sufficientlyindicatesthe intellectualbias of our
time, its all-pervadingdispositiontowardsthat line of enquiry. In fact, an
inward persuasionhas long beendiffusing itself, and now and then even
comesto utterance,that exceptthe external,there are no true sciences;
that, to the inward world (if there be any) our only conceivableroad is
through the outward; that, in short, what cannot be investigatedand
understoodmechanically,cannotbe investigatedand understoodat all.
Carlyle had indeedcorrectly interpretedthe signs of the times.

As a small indicator of the trend, the word science in common
speechcameto havethe dominantmeaningof 'naturalandphysical
science',while other applicationsshrankinto disuse.
The growing prestige of physical sciencein the 19th century
explains why it could thus arrogateto itself the word previously
usedfor all knowledge. The usage,onceestablished,gavelinguistic
support to the crude belief, advertedto by Carlyle, that the only
true knowledgeis that of the materialworld as exploredby physical
science. The cultural implications of this opinion have ramified
throughoutrecenthistory, political aswell asintellectual,andhave
contributedto our contemporarydisquiet. Our great-grandfathers,
who might have protectedus againstthe unjustifiableverbal usur-
pation, were singularly complaisant. Ruskin alone seemsto have
scenteddangerand growled a warning, in 1875, too late to arrest
the trend.7
It hasbecomethe permittedfashionamongmodemmathematicians, chem-

ists, and apothecaries,to call themselves'scientific men', as opposedto
theologians,poets,and artists. They know their sphereto be a separate
one;but their ridiculousnotion of its beinga peculiarlyscientific one ought
not to be allowed in our Universities.8 There is a scienceof Morals, a
7 JohnRuskin,Ariadne Florentina, 1874. Reprintedin The Works of John

Ruskin,ed. E.T.Cook and AlexanderWedderburn,London, 1906, Vol. 22,
p.396n.
8As an undergraduateat Oxford in the 1830sRuskin was familiar with a
peculiarlyOxonianuseofthe word science,which wascurrentlyappliedto
the study of Aristotle's Ethics, JosephButler's Analogy of Religion, etc.
scienceof History, a scienceof Grammar,a scienceof Music, and a science

of Painting; and all theseare quite beyond comparisonhigher fields for
humanintellect,andrequireaccuraciesofintenserobservation,thaneither
chemistry,electricity, or geology.
Again, in 1878, writing of modesof investigation'vulgarly called

scientific', he added:9
The useof the word scientia,asif it differed from knowledge,[is] a modern

barbarism;enhancedusuallyby the assumptionthat the knowledgeof the
differencebetweenacids and alkaliesis a more respectableone than that
of the differencebetweenvice and virtue.
Fifty years later Professor Saintsbury, more resigned than

Ruskin but barely more reconciled,referredto Scienceas 'science
[scientia] in the more limited sensebut with the largestcapital S.'
1.2 Introduction of Scientist
With the new meaningof sciencethe need to designatea man of

sciencebecamemore pressing. Hitherto philosopherhad served,
but, as I havesaid, philosophyhadnarrowedin meaningto exclude
natural philosophy, except in the minds and mouths of an older
generation.An Englishmanof sciencewho calledhimselfa philoso-
pher now did so ratherself-consciously,or hastenedto qualify the
name with the adjectives'experimental'or 'natural'. The French
wordphilosophewas immediatelybroughtto mind, but thosedesig-
nated by that word were not men of science,besideshaving been
(i.e., moral philosophy,)logic, and cognatestudies,includedin the study

for a degreein the school of Literae Humaniores. Here we find science
used in strict accord with Grosseteste'sinterpretationof Aristotle; the
usagewas thereforea relic of the 13th century; it was retaineduntil ca.
1850. (Is this a recordfor academicconservatism?)Ruskin, returningto
Oxford as a professorin 1870, opposedall encroachments by modem sci-
ence,andresignedhis chairin 1884as a protestagainstthe establishment
of a laboratoryfor physiology, which arousedfears of vivisection.
9 JohnRuskin, 'The Three Colours of Pre-Raphaelitism,'
1878. Reprinted
in The Works of John Ruskin,ed. E.T. Cook and AlexanderWedderburn,
London, 1908,Vol. 34, p. 157n.
notoriousatheists. The namescientistwas fIrst propoundedin the

Quarterly Reviewfor March, 1834. The anonymousreviewermade
the suggestion,too jocularly, however, to be taken entirely in
earnest,in the courseof a review of Mrs. Somerville'sbook On the
Connexionof the Physical Sciences. From Todhunter'sbiographylO
we learn that the reviewer was William Whewell (1794-1866).
Whewell wrote:l l
The tendencyof the scienceshas long been an increasingproclivity to

separationand dismemberment .... The mathematicianturns awayfrom
the chemist; the chemistfrom the naturalist; the mathematician,left to
himself, divideshimselfinto a puremathematiciananda mixed mathema-
tician, who soon part company; the chemist is perhaps a chemist of
electro-chemistry;if so, he leaves common chemical analysis to others;
between the mathematicianand the chemist is to be interpolated a
'physicien'(we haveno Englishnamefor him), who studiesheat,moisture,
and the like. And thus science,evenmerephysicalscience,losesall traces
of unity. A curious illustration of this result may be observedin the want
of any nameby which we can designatethe studentsof the knowledgeof
the material world collectively. We are informed that this difficulty was
felt very oppressivelyby the membersof the British Associationfor the
Advancementof Science,at their meetingsat York, Oxford, and Cam-
bridge, in the last three summers. There was no generalterm by which
thesegentlemencould describethemselveswith referenceto their pursuits.
Philosopherswas felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very
properlyforbiddenthemby Mr. Coleridge,both in his capacityofphilologer
and metaphysician;savanswas rather assuming,besidesbeing French
insteadof English; someingeniousgentleman[Whewell himself] proposed
that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and addedthat
there could be no scruplein making free with this termination when we
have such words as sciolist, economist,and atheist-butthis was not
generallypalatable;othersattemptedto translatethe term by which the
membersof similar associationsin Germanyhave describedthemselves,
but it was not found easy to discover an English equivalentfor natur-
forscher. The processof examinationwhich it implies might suggestsuch
10 Isaac Todhunter,William Whewell, An Account of his Writings, with

Selectionsfrom his Literary and ScientifLCCorrespondence,London,Vol. 1,
p. 92. The editor of The Quarterly Review,J.G. Lockhart, had prescribed
'a lightish paper' for the review of Mrs. Somerville'sbook, and he com-
mendedWhewell for his 'spirited' contribution.
11 [William Whewell,J The Quarterly Review,1834, Vol. 51, pp. 58-61.
10 NINETEENTH-CENTURYATTITUDES
undignified compoundsas nature-poker,12 or nature-peeper,for these
naturae curiosi; but thesewere indignantly rejected.
Proposedin this way, especiallywith the detractiveassociation

of sciolist andatheistthrown in for humorouseffect, the suggestion
was obviouslyfrivolous andcouldnot havebeenconsideredseriously
for a moment. Six years later, in his Philosophyof the Inductive
Sciences,Whewell madethe suggestionagain,this time more sober-
ly, in the following passage:
13
The terminationsize (ratherthan ise), ism, and ist, are applied to words
of all origins: thuswe haveto pulverize,to colonize,Witticism, Heathenism,
Journalist, Tobacconist. Hencewe may make such words when they are
wanted. As we cannotuse physician for a cultivator of physics, I have
calledhim a Physicist. We needvery much a nameto describea cultivator
of sciencein general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we
might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter,or Poet,a Scientistis
a Mathematician,Physicist,or Naturalist.
Commentswere not slow in coming. Faradaywrote:14
I perceivealso anothernew andgoodword, the scientist. Now canyou give

us one for the Frenchphysicien? Physicistis both to my mouth and ears
so awkwardthat I think I shall neverbe able to use it. The equivalentof
three separatesoundsof i in one word is too much.
Had Faraday overlooked mysticism? As for hailing scientist as

'good', that was mere politeness:Faradaynever usedthe word, de-
scribing himself as a natural philosopherto the end of his career.
Some of Faraday'sbiographersinterprethis choice of self designa-
tion assomethingmore thanmeredistastefor the euphonyofphysi-
12 When the GermanAssociationmet at Berlin, a caricaturewas circulated

there, representingthe 'collective wisdom' employedin the discussionof
their mid-day meal with extraordinaryzeal of mastication,and dexterity
in the use of the requisite instruments,to which was affixed the leg-
end-'Wiedie natur-forschernatur-forschen,'which we ventureto trans-
late 'the poking of the nature-pokers.'[Whewell's note].
13 William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences,founded
upon their History, London, Vol. 1, p. cxiii.
SelectedCorrespondenceof Michael Faraday, L. PearceWilliams, ed.,
14
CambridgeUniversity Press,1971, p. 377.

cist. JosephAgassiin his book Faraday as a Natural Philosopher15

seesit as an expressionof Faraday'simageof himselfas a theorist
16
as well as an experimenter. Lionel Trilling observes:
It is told of Faradaythat he refusedto be called a physicist;he very much

disliked the new nameas beingtoo specialand particularand insistedon
the old one, philosopher,in all its spaciousgenerality: we may suppose
that this was his way of sayingthat he had not over-riddenthe limiting
conditionsof classonly to submit to the limitation of profession.
Lord Kelvin, when his attention was drawn to physicist some

fifty yearslater, also disapproved.17 He preferrednaturalist, which
he found defined in Johnson'sDictionary (1755) as 'a personwell
versedin natural philosophy'.
Armed with this authority, chemists, electricians, astronomers,and

mathematiciansmay surelyclaim to be admittedalongwith meredescrip-
tive investigatorsof nature to the honourable and convenienttitle of
Naturalist, and refuseto acceptso un-English,unpleasing,and meaning-
less a variation from old usageas physicist.
It was, of course,too late by 1890 to turn the clock back to that

extent. But contemporarycommenthad beenequally devastating:
Blackwood'sMagazine had this to say:18 'The word physicists,
where four sibilant consonantsfizz like a squib... .'
At first both of Whewell's new words were slow to be adopted.
For a time savantcamenearto being naturalized:the review peri-
odicalsgot so far as printing it without the italic type that formerly
set it off as a foreign word.19 But physicist and scientist were too
15 JosephAgassi,Faraday as a Natural Philosopher,Chicago,1971.

16 Lionel Trilling, Commentary,June, 1962, pp. 461-477.
17 Sir William Thomson, Mathematical and Physical Papers, Vol. 2,
London, 1890,p.318.
18 Blackwood'sMagazine,1843, Vol. 54, p. 524.
19 In Frenchthe distinction betweenle philosopheand le s~avant had al-
ready been establishedin the modern sensequite early in the 18th cen-
tury. In the post-Darwinperiod, 1860-1900,le scientisteappeared,to des-
ignatea believerin the philosophyof scientificmaterialism,e.g.,Littre and
Berthelot. Its English translationmight well be scientismist.
much in accordwith the needsof the times to be neglectedindefi-

nitely. The latter word appearsindeedto have beencoined again
by other writers: it appearedin Blackwood'sMagazinein 1840,20
probablyindependentlyof Whewell; in 1849, the Americanastrono-
mer Benjamin Apthorp Gould (1787-1859)proposedit,21 unaware
that he was not its first introducer; and in 1853, FitzedwardHall
(1825-1901),the Americanphilologist,thinking it a fancy of his own,
madeuseof it in a short-livedIndian periodical,Ledlie'sMiscellany,
vol. 2, p. 169.22 In the United Statesscientistwas immediatelyat
home;Americanswere not troubled, even had they beengenerally
awareof it, that their seeminglyinnocentimport was the outcome
of a heinouslinguistic impropriety.
Whewell was never one to entertainfine-drawn scruplesabout
so-calledphilologicalanomalies:conveniencein usehadmoreweight
with him than linguistic propriety, especiallyas there could be no
pleasinga grammarianwith any neologism:to a grammarian'sear,
all such extensionsof the language,no matterhow conformableto
analogy,could not seemotherwisethanas solecisms.Whewell held
that althoughanomalies,such as hybrid words or incorrectforma-
tions, should be avoided as much as possible, they are to be
admittedwhenevermanifestlyadvantageous terms,easyto acquire
and convenientto use, are unattainablewithout them. For the
scientific studyof tidal phenomena,for example,he hesitatednot to
20 Blackwood'sMagazine,1840, Vol. 48, p. 273.

21 BenjaminA. Gould, The Christian Examiner,September,1949,in a hos-
tile review of Herschel'sOutlinesof Astronomy.
22 The O.E.D. gives this referenceincorrectly as Leslie's Miscellany. The
word appearedin an unsignedarticle by Hall, in the courseof which he
spoke sharply of British travelerswho publishedcriticisms of the United
Stateson their return. One categoryof thesevisitors was describedby the
phrase'atrabiliousscientists';Hall probablyhadSir CharlesLyell in mind
as the archetypeof this class.
offer the hybrid tidology.23 He coined scientistwith the samenon-
doctrinaireandmasculineattitude,well awarethat philologically it
23 'Not evenhis high authoritycanreconcileme to the barbarouscompound

tidology.' I. Todhunterin ref. 10, Vol. 1, p. 86. Also critical of tidology was
George Comewall Lewis (1806-1863),as follows: 'Dr. Whewell certainly
producessomeprecedentsof hybrid compoundssuchas this; but the main
objection to a scientific word, formed partly of an English and partly of a
Greek word, is, that it is unintelligible to a foreigner unacquaintedwith
our language.M. Comtehasproposedthe word sociology;but what should
we say to a German writer who used the word gesellology, or
gesellschaftology?' (A Treatise on the Methods of Observation and
Reasoningin Politics, London, 1842, Vol. 2, p. 337.) But Whewell had
justified tidology on the grounds that the termination ology is familiar
enoughto be a formative suffix in English, rather than an elementfrom
the Greek language. Hence, when it is difficult or impossibleto find a
Greek term that clearly designatesthe subject of the science, it is
allowable to use someother.
Someotherof Whewell's wordsincurredthe scornof anotherformidable
critic--Henry W. Fowler. Although Lyell is blamed in the following
passage,Whewell was the original offender(seeref. 25):
'Pleistocene,pliocene,miocene,are regrettableBARBARISMS. It is
worth while to mentionthis, not becausethe wordsthemselvescan now be
either mendedor ended,but on the chancethat the men of sciencemay
some day wake up to their duties to the language--dutiesmuch less
simple than they are apt to suppose.
'That barbarismsshould exist is a pity; to expend much energy on
denouncingthese that do exist is a waste; to create them is a grave
misdemeanour;and the greaterthe need of the word that is made, the
greaterits maker'sguilt if he miscreatesit. A man of sciencemight be
expectedto do on his great occasionwhat the ordinary man cannot do
every day, ask the philologist's help; that the famous eocene-pleistocene
nameswere madeby "a good classicalscholar"(seeLyell in D.N.B.) shows
that word-formation is a matter for the specialist.' (H.W. Fowler, A
Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford, 1926, p. 440 and p. 42).
Fowler perhapsobjected to the arbitrary Anglicizing of the Greek
diphthongs in these words, but the liberties that Whewell permitted
himself in this matter were to avoid confusionin the pronunciationand,
moreover,had somewidely acceptedprecedents.ProfessorH.D. Cameron
suggeststhat the 'barbarism' is the formation of comparatives and
superlativesby meansof two adjectivesinstead of an adjective with a
suffix. Most Greekcomparativesareformedby attaching-teros or -ion, and
superlatives-tatos or -istas, to the stem of the positive.
Figure 1-1. WILLIAM WHEWELL, D.O., F.R.S.(1794-1866)

is of dubious legitimacy. The suffIX -ist is derived originally from
Greek words, through their latinized versions. No Greek word
correspondsto the Latin scientia,andthe ancientRomanswould not
have enduredscientistesor scientista as a new type of hybrid: in
orderto acclimatizeit they would haverequired,normally, the pre-
existenceof a Greek verb ending in -{SEtV or -{s£O'9rn, such as
~a1t't{sEtv, cro~{SEtV, aYOlv{s£O'9rn, Aoy{sfcr9rn. The agent
nouns formed from theseverbs consist of the agential suffix -'t1'l~
added to the verb stem, as in ~a1t't{cr-'t1'l~, dipper; cro~tcr-'t1'\~,
clever man, sophist; aycoVtcr-'t1'l~, combatant, competitor; Ao)'lcr-
't1'l~, calculator, English words derived therefrom include baptist,
sophist, antagonist,andphilologist.24 The word scientistis, there-
fore, a Latin-Greekhybrid or, at best, a formation from incorrect
Latin.
Had Whewell beentimid he would have selectedan alternative
free from this objection, or perhapsa form for which he could find
some ancient precedent: sciencer, sciencist, scientiate, scient,
scientman,andscientific(sb. analogousto academic,classic)hadall,
at one time or another,been used previously. But they had not
served. The form of any word in -ist can be discriminatedfrom its
form in -er by the professionalor systematicsensethat is implied
by the morelearnedending:comparejoker andhumorist,duelerand
duelist, copier andcopyist,cycler andcyclist: hencescientistis more
suitablethansciencer,andindeed,becauseof this implication, more
suitable than any other word that lacks it. Another possibility in
-ist, sciencist,is ugly becauseof sibilance. Whewell's flair for the
appropriateword is evident here, as in other words of his coin-
age;25his attemptsto 'bid the new be English, ages hence,'were
successfulpreciselyfor the reasongiven by Popein the next line of
the couplet: 'For Use will father what's begot by Sense.' Those
undefinablequalities,the geniusofthe languageand the climate of
opinion, determine what is meet and proper and reject all else,
24 O.E.D. under-ist, and ref. 37, p. 28.

25 Mr. P.J.Wexlerhasfound that the O.E.D. creditsWhewell with the first
recordeduse, and in many caseswith the invention, of 21 words (and
doubtlessmany others), to which Mr. Wexler has added 41 more first
attestationsfrom Whewell's books and letters. See "The Great Nomen-
clator: Whewell's Contributionsto Scientific Terminology," in Notes and
Queries, N.S., Vol. 8, 1961, p. 27.
despitethe scholars.In this case,the scholarsandtheirjournalistic

echoershad much to say.
1.3 Objections to Scientist
The argumentthat followed aboutscientistcametoo late to affect

the shift in usageby which all knowledgesavethat of the material
world hadbeenexcludedfrom science;that changehadbeenaccom-
plished a generationor two earlier, had been almost universally
acceptedand was no longer open to debate. But by establishing
scientistas a specific designation,the new position of sciencewould
be buttressedandimmeasurablystrengthened.Wasthereno cham-
pion to repudiate this exclusive title held by a small group of
professionalmen, the knowledge of other men being deemedno
better than nescienceor ignorance? There were, significantly
enough,no opponentsto scientist,other than Ruskin, who objected
to it on that score. They seizedon the irregularity of its construc-
tion: 'scients or savantsbut, please,Mr. Cocks, not scientists.'26
They also playedfor all it was worth their conviction (alas! a false
one) that it had a trans-Atlantic origin. Those who objectedto
scientist wished to uphold the worth and dignity of the study of
science. By inescapablemental association,attributesof the word
and of the thing are equated. The ignobility of scientist,as long as
it was felt to be so, lessenedthe statusof those designatedby it.
Mter many years the currentran the oppositeway, and the name
acquiredthe honor paid to the individuals who carriedit. At first,
however,anduntil ca. 1910,carefulwriters in Britain usedscientist
only as a colloquialism, the phrase'man of science'being used in
formal discourse or writing: for example, the title-pages of the
earlier volumes, from 1888 to 1914, of the great Oxford English
Dictionary carry the line: 'With the assistanceof manyscholarsand
men of science.'
In the United Statesthe word met less opposition. In 1881,
Appleton and Company, New York publishers,were advertising
works of 'EminentModernScientists'in a list that includedHerbert
26 O.E.D. underscient, citing Ibis, October, 1894, p. 555.

Spencer,CharlesDarwin, ThomasH. Huxley, and JohnTyndal1.27

The Americanadvocacyof scientistmilitated againstits acceptance
in Britain. Not all Englishmenwould haveexpressedthemselvesso
rudely but many sympathizedwith Ruskin'sobservation:'England
taughtthe Americansall they haveof speech,or thought,hitherto.
What thoughts they have not learned from England are foolish
thoughts; what words they have not learned from England,
unseemlywords.'28 AlexanderJ. Ellis (1814-1890),presidentofthe
Philological Society, concurred. In a letter published in the
Academyfor 19 September,1874, he confidently affirmed scientist
to be 'an Americanbarbaroustrisyllable', for which he would have
substitutedthe disyllable scient. He also took the opportunity to
proposethe adoptionof uty, utians, phillogy, andphillogs, in place
of utilitarianism, utilitarians, philology, and philologists. In his
translationsof Helmholtz, however,Ellis usedphysicist,thoughin
view of his desireto removeexcesssyllablesone might well expect
that he would have preferredphysist,29 or even, as befitted an
advocateof simplified spellingandthe founderof the periodicalThe
Fonetic Frend, the versionfizzist.
Comments of various kinds and in various tones, from the
humorousto that of impassionedhostility, were forthcomingin the
period known as the gay nineties. Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925)
wrote as follows in 1891:30
27Advertisementinsertedin JosephLe Conte'sSight, New York, 1881.

[The InternationalScientific Series,Volume 31.]
28 John Ruskin, Fors Clavigera, Orpington, Kent, 1874, Letter 42, p. 118.
Reprinted in The Works of John Ruskin, ed. E.T. Cook and Alexander
Wedderburn,London, 1907,Vol. 28, p. 92.
29The O.E.D. doesnot cite any exampleofphysist;but I havefound it used
at least once, by John S. Brewer (1810-1879)in an edition of Bacon's
NovumOrganum,preparedfor his studentsat King's College,London,and
publishedby the College in 1856. In the Introduction to the book occur
thesesentences:
'The grammarian, the moralist, the historian, assume that they are
following Bacon'smethod,-atonce tacitly acknowledgingits excellence.
The physistdoesthe same,althoughhe hasrejectedthe preciseand rigid
applicationof Bacon'srules as impracticable.'
30 Oliver Heaviside,ElectromagneticTheory, 1894, Vol. 1, pp. 4-5.
Sir W. Thomsondoesnot like physicist,nor, I think, scientisteither. It

must,however,be notedthat the naturalist,as at presentgenerallyunder-
stood, is a studentof living nature only. He has certainly no exclusive
right to so excellenta name. On the otherhand,the physicistis a student
of inanimatenature,in the main, so that he hasno exclusiveright to the
name, either. Both are naturalists.But their work is so different, and
their type of mind also so different, thatit seemsvery desirablethat their
namesshouldbe differentiated,and that naturalist, comprehendingboth,
should be subdivided. Could not one set of men be inducedto call them-
selvesorganists?We haveorganicchemistry,and organisms,and organic
science;then why not organists? Perhaps,however, organistsmight not
careto be temporarilyconfoundedwith thosemembersof societywho earn
their living by setting a cylinder rapidly in motion. [This refers to the
barrel organ on wheels, pushedaround the streetsby mendicant'organ
grinders', the bane of the irascible Charles Babbage.] If so, there is
anothergood name,viz., vitalist, for the organist,which would not have
any ludicrousassociation.Then aboutthe other set of men. Are they not
essentiallystudentsofthe propertiesof matter,andthereforematerialists?
That materialist is the right nameis obviousat a glance. Here,however,
a certain suppositiousevil associationof the word might militate against
its adoption. But this would be, I think, an unsoundobjection,for I do not
think there is, or ever was, sucha thing as a materialist,in the supposed
evil sense. Let that notion go, and the valuableword materialistbe put to
its properuse, and be dignified by associationwith an honourablebody of
men.
Buffon, Cuvier, Darwin, were typical vitalists.
Newton, Faraday,Maxwell, were typical materialists.
All were naturalists. For my part I always admiredthe old-fashioned
term natural philosopher. It was so dignified, and raisedup visions of the
portraits of Count Rumford, Young, Herschel,Sir H. Davy, &c., usually
highly respectablelooking elderly gentlemen,with very large bald heads,
andmuch wrappedup aboutthe throats,sitting in their studiespondering
calmly over the secretsof naturerevealedto them by their experiments.
Thereare no natural philosophersnow-a-days. How is it possibleto be a
natural philosopherwhen a SalvationArmy band is performing outside;
joyously, it may be, but not most melodiously? But I would not disparage
their work; it may be far more importantthan his.
And here, more solemnly and eloquently, are the thoughts of

CharlesSandersPeirce(1839-1914)on scienceand scientist:31
31 C.S. Peirce,Annual Report of the SmithsonianInstitution for the Year

endingJune 30, 1900. Washington,D.C., 1901, pp. 694-695.
The glory of the nineteenthcentury has been in its science,and its
scientific great men are thosewhom I meanhere to consider. Their dis-
tinctive characteristicthroughoutthe century, and more and more so in
eachsucceedinggeneration,hasbeendevotion to the pursuit of truth for
truth's sake. In this centurywe havenot hearda Franklin asking,'What
signifies a philosophywhich doesnot apply itself to someuse?'-aremark
that could be paralleledby utterancesof Laplace,of Rumford, of Buffon,
and of many another well-qualified spokesmanof eighteenth-century
science. It was in the early dawn of the nineteenththat Gauss(or was it
Dirichelet?)gave as the reasonof his passionfor the Theory of Numbers
that 'it is a pure virgin that neverhasbeenand never can be prostituted
to any practical applicationwhatsoever.'It was my inestimableprivilege
to havefelt as a boy the warmth of the steadilyburningenthusiasmof the
scientific generationof Darwin, most of the leadersof which at home I
knew intimately, and somevery well in almost every country of Europe.
I particularizethat generationwithout having any reasonto suspectthat
that flame has sinceburneddimmer or less purely, but simply becauseif
a word belongedto one'smother tongue, one may be supposedto know
unerringly the meaningthe teachersof one'sboyhoodattachedto it.
The word sciencewas one often in thosemen'smouths,and I am quite
surethey did not meanby it 'systematizedknowledge',as former ageshad
definedit, nor anything set down in a book; but, on the contrary, a mode
of life; not knowledge, but the devoted, well-consideredlife pursuit of
knowledge;devotion to truth-not 'devotion to truth as one seesit', for
that is no devotion to truth at all, but only to party-no,far from that,
devotion to the truth that the man is not yet able to seebut is striving to
obtain. The word was thus, from the etymologicalpoint of view, already
a misnomer. And so it remainswith the scientistsof today. What they
meant and still mean by science ought, etymologically, to be called
ohilosophy. ... For a snapshot at the nineteenthcenturyman of science
one may take Sir Humphry Davy, willing, as early as 1818, seriouslyto
investgatethe liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius;or JohnTyndall,
with scientific ingenuousnessproposing that prayer test to which no
clerical Elijah hasyet beenfound with the faith and good faith to respond;
Dr William Crookes,devotingyearsof his magnificentpowersto examining
the supposedevidencesof the direct action of mind upon matterin the face
of the world's scorn.
Someyearsearlierconsiderablepublic attentionhadbeendrawn
to the word scientistby J.T. Carrington,the editor of Science-Gossip,
who entereda protestagainstits use, in which he said:
[ts applicationis not satisfactory,and is usually the offspring of a paucity

of erudition and expression which comes of the modern system of
crammingwith text-books,andgeneralhurry in education.Why not speak

of nomenclators as 'nameists', or a sempstressas a 'sewist', or a
conchologistas a 'shellist'. All these words may come into use among
'progressivists',but are equally abominablewith 'scientists'.
This extractwascopiedby severaldaily newspapers, andaroused

some comment, adverseto the word. Desiring an 'authoritative
declaration'Carringtonaskedeight prominentpersonages for their
opinions, seven of whom at once replied. The following are the
answershe received:32
The Rt. Hon. Sir John Lubbock,Bart., M.P., F.R.S. (1834-1913)
High Elms, Farnborough,RS.O., Kent;

7th December,1894.
Sir,-I quite concur with you as to the word 'Scientist',and have never
usedit myself. Why not retain the old word 'Philosopher'?
I am, your ObedientServant,John Lubbock.
ProfessorAlfred RusselWallace, F.R.S. (1823-1913)
Parkstone,Dorset;
December8th, 1894.
Dear Sir-I thought the very useful American term 'Scientist'was now
adoptedand I seeDr. Armstrongusedit at the ChemicalSociety,yester-
day. As we have Biologist, Zoologist, Geologist, Botanist, Chemist,
Physicist, Physiologistand Specialist,why should we not use 'Scientist'?
It seemsto me that it has, as the Americanssay, 'come to stay', and it is
too late in the day to object to it.
Yours very truly, Alfred R Wallace.
His Grace the Duke of Argyll, K.G., K.T., F.R.S. (1823-1900)
Gosford, Longniddry, N.B.;

December8th, 1894.
Sir,-In reply to your question,I can only answerfor myself, that I never
use the word 'Scientist'in any seriousliterary work, and that I regardit
with great dislike.
Yours obediently,Argyll.
32 Science-Gossip,1894. N.S., Vol. 1, pp. 242-243.

The Right Hon. Lord Rayleigh,F.R.S. (1842-1919)
Terling Place,Witham, Essex;

10th December,1894.
DearSir--I dislike the word 'Scientist'andhaveneverusedit myself; but
I foreseea difficulty in avoiding it unlessa substitutecan be provided.
Lord Kelvin's suggestionof revertingto the wider meaningof 'Naturalist'
might afford a solution.
Yours faithfully, Rayleigh.
The Right Hon. ThomasH. Huxley, F.R.S. (1825-1895)
Hodeslea,StaveleyRoad, Eastbourne;
December10th, 1894.
Sir--To anyonewho respectsthe English language,I think 'Scientist'
mustbe aboutas pleasinga word as 'Electrocution'. I sincerelytrust you
will not allow the pagesof Science-Gossipto be defiled by it.
I am, yours sincerely, Thos. H. Huxley.
Mr Grant Allen (1848-1899),a popular writer.
The Croft, Hindhead,Haslemere;

December20th, 1894.
DearSir--PersonallyI dislike the word 'Scientist'and neveradmit it into
my own vocabulary. No fellow is compelledto use any particular word
himself unlesshe chooses. 'Man of Science'seemsto me to do the duty
well enoughfor any purpose. But I fully recognizethe fact that languages
grow, and grow irresponsibly. If the majority of the personswho speaka
particularlanguagechooseto adopt a new word, howeverill-formed, it is
mere pedantry for individuals to object to it. We have swallowed
'Sociology';we haveswallowed'Altruism'; andI don't seewhy, after camels
like those, we need strain at a comparativegnat like 'Scientist'. It has
come to stay. Many of us don't like it; but I am afraid we have only the
usual alternative-oflumping it.
Faithfully yours, GrantAllen.
Dr. Albert Gunther(1830-1914),Head of the Zoological Department

of the British Museum
British Museum,Cromwell Road; London, W.;

December13th 1894.
Dear Sir--The illegitimacy of formation of the word 'Scientist'has been
sufficiently exposedin the daily pressof a week or so ago. I believeit has
been shown to be an American importation. However, as within the last
quarter of a century a crowd of writers has sprung up who dabble in
science,and especiallyin the great scientific questionsof our time, the

word 'Scientist'might be retainedas an appropriateterm for this class.
Yours truly, A Giinther.
SilvanusP. Thompson,commentingon this correspondence in a

footnote in his biography of Lord Kelvin, recountedthe following
anecdote,which he evidently thought was pertinentto the theme:
'A well-known CambridgeProfessorwas showing a distinguished
foreigner aroundthe place, when the foreigner remarked:tryou do
not appearto have any vat ve call savans." "Oh, yes," replied the
Professor,'we have;but we call them p_p_p_prigs."'33
The stammer is a conversational mannerism, not entirely
involuntary, to signal the delivery of the punchword and to ensure
that the hearerwill catch it. CharlesLamb was said to use it to
good effect. Unlike most abusivemonosyllabicepithetsthe word
prig is not a meregeneralor indefinite term of contemptbut applies
to a specificcombinationof severalunlovely qualities:cocksureness,
self-righteousness, and pedantry. The point of the anecdote,rather
hard to capture at this interval of time, lies in its expressionof
hostility to what is conceivedto be a narrowly educatedprofession-
alism, with an implied claim on behalfof the hurler of the epithet
to a broaderculture, and thereforea higher status,than that of a
specialist;that, in short, he is a 'gentleman'ratherthan a 'player'.
To this, the anecdoteaddsthe spiceof managingto equate'players'
with the French or other foreigners not even worth specifying,
whereasthe 'gentlemen'are English or, more exactly, Cantabs.
H.G. Wells (1866-1946) was one of Huxley's studentsat the
Normal Schoolof Sciencein SouthKensington. 'I believedthenthat
he wasthe greatestman1 waseverlikely to meet,and1 still believe
that all the more firmly today,' he wrote in 1901.34 But Wells had
evolveda 'blasphemousandirreverentstrain'for conversationwith
his peers,and it was in this vein that he referred,in the introduc-
tory paragraphof his novel The Food of the Gods (published1904),
to the high feelings arousedby scientist:
33 Silvanus P. Thompson,The Life of William Thomson,Baron Kelvin of

Largs, London, 1910, Vol. 2, p. 1120n.
34Quoted by Rosslyn D. Haynes,H.G. Wells: Discoverer of the Future,
London, 1980,p. 14.
In the middle yearsofthe nineteenthcenturytherefirst becameabundant
in this strangeworld of ours a classof men,men tendingfor the mostpart
to becomeelderly, who are called, and who are very properly called, but
who dislike extremelyto be called-'Scientists.'They dislike that word
so much that from the columnsof Nature, which was from the first their
distinctive and characteristicpaper, it is as carefully excluded as if it
were-thatotherword which is the basisof all really badlanguagein this
country. But the Great Public and its Pressknow better, and 'scientists'
they are, and when they emergeto any sort of publicity, 'distinguished
scientists'and 'eminentscientists'and 'well-known scientists'is the very
leastwe call them.
In a later fiction,35 Wells has one main characterwho 'as an

intrusive outsidelecturercarrieson a feud with the academictradi-
tions of Cambridge. He writes, he talks, he lectures,aggressively
and destructively.' In the guise of this character,which gives him
leaveto exaggerateor evento spoutnonsense,Wells echoesHuxley
and addshis own gloss:
All the so-called sciencesare applications of philosophy to particular

regions of factual difficulty. They ought still to be called natural philo-
sophy.But someof theseteachersof philosophyhere [CambridgeUniver-
sity] will talk of 'scientists'-preposterousword!-and opposethem to
'philosophers'as though they were cats and dogs who are bound to fight
when they meet. What they mean by a 'scientist' or 'science'per se, I
cannotimagine.Therearen'tsuchthings. They seemto think a 'scientist'
is a man who goesaboutmeasuringandweighingthings andbeingstupid
aboutthe results.Biologists and physicistsare all the sameto them.
Any stick ('scientist') to beata dog (Cambridge)!
1.4 Hall's Defenseof Scientist
The groundsof the oppositionhaving beendefinedin suchnarrow

terms as philological propriety, it merely required a learnedand
articulate scholar to overthrow it completely. The American
35H.G. Wells, Babesin the Darkling Wood, New York, 1940,p. xiii and pp.
210-211.
philologist, FitzedwardHall, then residingin England,was such a

man.
FitzedwardHall (1825-1901)was born in Troy, New York, and
obtainedthe degreeof C.E. (Civil Engineer)at RensselaerInstitute
(now RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute) in 1842, at the age of eigh-
teen. From there he went to HarvardCollegewhere he graduated
with the class of 1846. The remainderof his life was passedin
India and in England. He was the first Americanto edit (in 1852)
a Sanskrit text. He also discoveredseveralinterestingSanskrit
works supposedto havebeenlost. ThevariousSanskritinscriptions
that he decipheredand translatedthrew much new light on the
history of ancientIndia. The importanceof thesecontributionsto
scholarshipwas acknowledgedby the University of Oxford, which
conferredon him an honorarydoctor'sdegree(D.C.L.) in 1860,when
Hall was thirty-five yearsold-unusuallyyoungfor sucha distinc-
tion. Two yearslater he was appointedto the chair of Sanskritand
Indian jurisprudenceat King's College,London. Hall then became
active as a scholar of English philology. The undertakingof the
NewEnglishDictionary (now known as the O.E.D.)by the Philologi-
cal Societybroughthim the opportunityto put to usehis enormous
collection of English words, phrases, and idioms, containing
quotations from thousandsof books of the previous four centu-
ries-thefruits of a lifetime's study and reading. His devotedand
unselfish serviceswere given gratuitously, as a labor of love, for
many years during the serial publication of the Dictionary.
Murray'sspecialacknowledgments of his servicesareto be found in
the Prefacesto the various volumes as they appeared. For his
friendship with Murray seeK.M. ElisabethMurray, Caught in the
Web of Words: JamesMurray and the Oxford English Dictionary,
Yale University Press,1977.
On one occasionHall was solicitedby the presidentof Rensselaer
PolytechnicInstitute for copiesof his books, to be exhibited at the
World's Columbian Exposition (1893) as indicative of how wide-
spreadand important had beenthe work of Rensselaergraduates.
He was askedspecifically, not only for books.but for blueprintsor
otherdrawingsof structures,machines,or engineeringworks of any
kind that he had designed,as well as copiesof any patentsthat he
had taken out. He was assuredthat this materialandinformation
would be well displayed at the Exposition, which would create
avorable publicity for himself as well as for the Institute. His

esponseto this sly inducementmusthavesurprisedits recipient.3s
Marlesford,
Wickham Market,
April 25, 1892.
lear Sir--I am in receiptof your letter of the 7th instant.
Enclosedherewith is a list of somewhatless than half of my publica-
ions. No other native of Troy has approached,in point of mere quantity,
ne literature which, with long and arduouslabour, I have produced.
On submittingmy booksto the judgmentwhich comeswith advancing
ears,I find them, however,so inferior to what I could wish, that I would
IlUch ratherhave them unknown than known.
To assisttheir oblivion, I am glad to be able to addthat I haveno spare
opiesof any of them, and that, for the most part, they are difficult, and,
11 somecases,impossible,to be procured. One and all, they may well be
lassed by, especially as they have no connexion whatever with Civil
:ngineering.
Yours very truly, FitzedwardHall.
As an expatriateAmerican, Hall was angeredby the irrational

Intipathy of someEnglish writers to any words they suspectedof
,riginatingin the United States. Hall himselfwasunsparingin his
riticisms of his countrymenfor the deteriorationof the English
onguein the United States,as the following passageshows:37
~y nobody who is capableof judging can it be gainsaid,and it behoovesa

rise patriot to acknowledgeand to lament,that the phraseologyof nearly
11 our recentpopularauthorsis tarnishedwith vulgarisms,importedand
Ildigenous,at which a cultivatedtastecannotbut revolt. Nor is this the
ole uncouthtrait that sullies the written style of our fellow-countrymen.
:onspicuous,with them, almost in like degree,are slovenliness,want of
lcidity, breachof establishedidiom, faulty grammar,andneedlessAmeri-
anisms,generalor sectional. Of theseoffencesagainstthe aestheticsof
iterary compositionthey are seen,moreover,to show themselves,year by
ear, increasinglyregardless.
; RensselaerPolytechnicInstituteArchives. P.C. Ricketts'Papers,Box 16,

'older 293.
7 Fitzedward Hall, Two Trifles: I. A Rejoinder. II. Scientist, with a
'reamble. London, privately printed, 1895, pp. 2-3.
Figure 1.2. FITZEDWARD HALL , C.E., M.A., D.C.L. (1825-1901)

The man who wrote that cannot be accusedof entertaininga

lind partiality toward the verbal malpracticesof his countrymen.
:ut, Hall enquired,is it this, admittedlydeplorable,stateof things
lone that so often promptsan Englishmanto denounceoffhand as
n Americanismany expressionthat offendshim? Hall detectedan
nimusagainsthis country-anhostility that wasglad to seizeany
rounds,real or fancied, for disparagement.For more than thirty
ears he had collected, from English newspapersand periodicals,
xamplesof denigration,amongstwhich scientistfigured frequently.
[ere is someof his testimony:38
In The Guardian for March 6, 1878, a reviewer characterizedscientist

s 'very questionable'. A note to the editor, in which I maintainedthat
lUch could be advancedin its favour, was deniedpublication. Within six
lOnthsThe Guardian againattackedthe word, and I againcameforward
) defendit, but with the sameissueas before.
On the 20th of September,1890, the London Daily News branded
~ientist as an 'ignoble Americanism'and as a 'cheapand vulgar product
f trans-Atlantic slang'. In correction of this descriptionof it, I wrote to
:tat journal, pointing out that, in 1840, it was advocated,togetherwith
hysicist,by Dr. Whewell, as thoughof his own fabricating. My communi-
ation never saw the light. To print it might have checkedthe diffusion
f an error which affrontedvanity preferredto the truth.... On the 30th
f last November[1894], the Daily Newsreturnedto the word under cor-
ection, apparentlyapprovinga censurewhich had been passedon it in
'cience-Gossip.A letter in reply, an expansionof my former one, which I
t once drew up and addressedto the Daily News, sharedthe fate of its
lllow, in feedingthe editorial waste-paperbasket.
Ofthelettersquotedabovefrom Science-Gossip, Huxley'swasthe

ne whose peevishtone was most likely to draw Hall's wrathful
ttention; by mentioning electrocution, an American blend of
lectricity and execution, Huxley revealed that he considered
cientistto be an equallyunscholarlyAmericanism. Hall's irritation
.t Huxley, aggravatedby the cumulative effect of the other
xamples of English arrogancethat he had met, induced him to
,ndertakea full-length defenseof scientist,which he presentedas
n imaginarydialoguebetweenProfessorHuxley, thena formidable
pponentwith whom to engagein controversy,and theshadeof Dr.
I Ref. 37, pp. 25-26.

CIIITI T,. II I T Ala EDUCATOR
CY IL I
,...........,
Figure1·3. The revengeof time: Huxley describedas a scientist.

Vhewell.39 As the publicationis hard to comeby, lavish quotation

; justified.
Since, in the flesh, Dr. Whewell was never backward in asserting

imself, let it be imaginedthat, in his excarnateattenuation,he is so still.
nd let it be further imaginedthat, releasedawhile from the shades,in
le courseof a round of calls he visits ProfessorHuxley in his study.These
onditionsfulfilled, what follows may, conceivably,be supposable.
Dr. W. (considerably materialized). Good morning! Don't mind my
bruptness.I have comeback to pick a bone with you. As an anatomist,
nd a trifle osseouslyhard in manner,you will allow that my metaphoris
ot inappropriate.
Prof. H. (impatiently). Who are you?
Dr. W. A wit once said, of somebody,that sciencewas his forte, and
mnisciencehis foible. To the successorof that myth, realized,I makemy
beisance. (Genuflects.)
Prof. H. (more impatiently). I ask you who you are, and what are you
riving at.
Dr. W. I am advancingpedetentously.40
Prof. H. (visibly fidgeting). Your bearingis rude, while your English
; peculiar.
Dr. W. I never particularly studied the graces; but my jocular
edetentouslywill compareadvantageously with your seriousxenogenesis.
Prof. H. (subirascently). You are intrusive and impertinent. You will
Ie so good as to leave the room.
Dr. W. Pardon me, worthy Professor. Out on ticket of leave from
lades, and 'going to and fro in the earth', I have taken the liberty of
ropping in on you. I am Dr. Whewell.
Prof. H. (smiling). Solidiform spirits, whether hylomorphous or
therwise, are an object of rational curiosity; and for 1m:U"(E I.a'tavrx
4.vaunt thee, Satant] I gladly substitute XUtpE StMOKUAE. [Hail, cher
laUrel]
Mter this preliminary banter of an appropriatelyphilological

tyle, Hall, speakingin the role of Dr. Whewell, outlines three
lossible justifications for scientist, based on analogieswith the
ormation of other well acceptedwords:
j Ref. 37.
) pedetentously:proceedingstep by step, cautiously. This word was not
oined by Whewell, as Hall implies, but by SydneySmith (1771-1845)in
.837. Smith was also the authorof the epigramon Whewell quotedin the
ext: 'scienceis his forte and omnisciencehis foible'.
1. What if I took the stem seenin scientific, as also in scientia, duly

modified it, and added-ist to the result? My proceedingwould be much
aboutthe sameas that of whoeverfashioneddeista, deiste,or deist. Here
the full stem,deo-, is weakenedinto dei-, and this, before-ista, -iste, -ist,
is truncatedto de-, i being elided to precludea hiatus. Of the final i of
scienti- there is, towardsthe making of my word, also elision. If scientia
hadnot scire behindit, scientistwould, accordingly,be every whit as good
as aurist, dentist, florist, jurist, oculist, and the old copist, now copyist.
Where I indulgedin a licence was in operating,not on the stemof a sub-
stantive,but on that of a part of a verb, a presentparticiple. Surely, you
would not quarrelwith colloquist, determinist,funambulist,noctambulist,
somnambulist,and ventriloquist, which differ only slightly from scientist?
2. But I have not yet done. Dissatisfiedwith the Germanobskurant
andthe Frenchobscurant,we give the preferenceto the elongatedobscur-
antist. Be it, then, alternatively,that we havein scientist,-ist suffixed to
the old adjectivescient,occurringin Lydgateand Bp. John King; in which
case it is, as regards its elements,analogousto absolutist, extremist,
indifferentist,positivist.
3. Once again, what if I guided myself, in my straits, solely by the
demandsof expedienceandeuphony,andsimply fastened-ist to the scient-
of scientific, satisfiedwith combiningconstituentsunmistakableof import
into a whole nowise lessperspicuous?Besidethe numerousexisting com-
poundswhich gravel ordinary folk so vexatiously, mine, with its conve-
nience and instant intelligibility, is, I contend, in the highest degree
creditable. Well is it able to stand on its own worth. Faulty as it is
acknowledgedto be, I have been assuredthat not one philologist of the
slightestreputehas as yet declaredagainstit, under a practical aspect.
And I predict that it will live.
Hall concludes:
Anomalousin structureasscientistadmittedlyis, still, now that, after Dr.

Johnson'srimist, we have got, composedly, to landscapist, red-tapist,
routinist, and faddist, there seemsto be every likelihood that utility will
soon legitimate it, as it has legitimated botany, facsimile, idolatry,
monomial, orthopedic,posthumous,racial, suicide, telegram, tractarian,
and vegetarian,to namea few establishedirregularities.
The passageof yearssince 1895 has completelyconfirmedHall's

prophecythat the word would live. Evenwhile the debateaboutits
proprietywasgoing on, the word wasbecomingmoreandmorefirm-
ly embeddedin the language. It was not to be eradicatedby a few
expressionsof distaste,howevereminenttheir sourceand oracular
their style of delivery. Hall's defenseof scientist cannotbe given
redit for its modernacceptance,nor can he evenbe creditedwith
laving convincedhis contemporaries to overcometheir dislike of the
mrd. Subsequentgenerationsof writers, however,with small skill
n Latin and less in Greek, were hardly aware of any objection to
he word on the groundsof philology. What may be regardedas the
!lSt commenton the controversywasmadeunwittingly by a modern
'iographerof Huxley: on the title-pageof his book, in all innocence,
le applied the hatedword to the great man himself.41 Truly, the
i'hirligig of time brings in his revenges.
But time or Fate has not yet done sportingwith the memory of
'homasHenry Huxley. Circumstantialevidencepointsto his being
he unconscioussource of the wartime slang term for a scientist
I'Orking with the Services,boffin. We canreadily imaginewhat the
nan who detestedscientistandelectrocutionwould havethoughtof
loftin! Nevertheless,Huxley may well have had a hand in its for-
nation.
While a young man in his twenties, Huxley was assistant
urgeonandunofficial naturaliston boardH.M.S. Rattlesnakeon its
urvey voyagethroughAustralasianwaters,from 1846 to 1850. In
his capacity he messedin the gunroom with the midshipmen-
10ys betweenthe ages of twelve and sixteen. His constantgood
pirits andfun, when he was not absorbedin his work, andhis lack
f any assumptionof authority over them,madetheseboys his good
omradesand allies. The curiosity natural to their age led to their
aking a keeninterestin his vocationalactivities,unusualin a man-
'-war. As the Rattlesnakebeatacrossthe seas,Huxley trawledfor
pecimensof sea creatures,using an improvisednet. The sailors
lisliked the dirt that his catchmadeon the deck, which it was their
luty to keep clean, and they also blamed his trawling net for
lowing the ship's progress. But the boys were fascinated.They
ook to calling his specimens'buffons', their attentionhaving been
lrawn to the word by the sight of Huxley's copy of Buffon's Natural
listory, which, in a seriesof many volumes, displayedthe name
1 Cyril Bibby, T.H. Huxley: Scientist,Humanist, and Educator, London,

.959.
repeatedlyin large gilt letters on a shelfin the chartroom. Mter a
while even Huxley himself called the specimenshis 'buffons'.42
Having enteredRoyal Navy slangin this way, the word might
quite reasonablyhave beentransferredfrom the specimento the
specimencollector,and,its origin forgotten,its vowelsmight equally
reasonablyhave undergonea sea change making 'boffin' out of
'buffon'. I supposealso that the slang term was confined to the
esotericvocabularyof sailors for a hundredyears,until the rise of
the boffins43 in the secondworld war broughtit to the attentionof
the generalpublic.
The Q.E.D. statesthat the etymologyof boffin is unknown, and
that numerousconjectureshavebeenmadeaboutits origin but all
lack foundation. In vain has a connectionbeensoughtwith Nico-
demusBoffin, the 'goldendustman'of Dickens'sOur Mutual Friend.
Sir RobertWatson-Watt(1892-1973),himselfa boffin, nay, an arch-
boffin of that glorious hierarchy,speakingof the origin of the word,
says: 'It certainly has somethingto do with an obsoletetype of
aircraft called the Baffm, somethingto do with that odd bird the
Puffin; I am sureit has nothing at all to do with that first literary
Back Room boy, the claustrophiliacColonel Boffin.'44 Thoseunac-
quaintedwith the pawky humor of the Scot will searchunsuccess-
fully in referencebooksfor mention of the elusive Colonel Boffin. 45
With so much in doubt about the sourceof the term, its deriva-
tion from Huxley's set of Buffon on boardH.M.S. Rattlesnakehas a
betterclaim to being true than many anotherconjecture.
42L. Huxley, Life and Lettersof ThomasHenry Huxley, London, 1900,Vol.

1, pp. 29-30; J. Huxley, ed., T.H. Huxley's Diary of the Voyageof H.M.S.
Rattlesnake,London, 1935, p. 76 and p. 209.
43 I have taken this phrasefrom the title of the book by R.W. Clark, The
Rise of the Boffins, London, 1962.
44 Quotedin the O.E.D. underboffin.
45pawky, accordingto the ConciseOED is Sc., dial. meaningsly, arch. A
pawky pun is hiddenin my text: it all but statesthat Watson-Wattwas an
arch boffin as well as an archboffin.
1.5 Scientistin Modern Use
Exactly thirty yearsafter the correspondence publishedin Science

Gossipthe samequestionwasraisedandansweredin the sameway
in the pagesof Nature. As before,the editor had declaredthat he
would not adm.it the word scientistinto his pages. He did not need
to circulateenquiriesamonghis subscribers;lettersarrivedwithout
solicitation!6 Some of the correspondentsdisliked the word, but
nonegaveits hybrid etymologyas the reason;they were largely in
agreementthat to object to it on that ground would be pedantry,
even'antiquatedpedantry'. But objectionswere still made. D'Arcy
W. Thompson(1860-1948)wrote:
It seemsto me, however, that the word has already got a sort of taint
aboutit, very much as the word sophistdid in Greek. It is often usedin
an equivocal or even disparagingsense,by people who have no great
respecteither for scienceor the 'scientist'. Most men of sciencewould
surely ratherbe called so than be dubbedscientist. The widely usedterm
'ChristianScientist'hashelpedto make mattersworse; what the phrase
meansI do not know, but if I did know I am sure I should not like it any
the better. On the whole, I take it that the word scientisthasbeenin low
company,and I shouldbe very slow to introduceit into better.
H. Wildon Carr (1857-1931)madea similar observation:
My intensedislike of the word scientistis due to the fact that it debases

the currency. The word is not appliedto a man to indicate respectfor his
scientific or philosophicalattainments,but to indicatea certaindisdainful
attitudetowardsthe truth claims of aesthetic,moral, and religiousvalues.
The distinction so often expressedbetweenphilosophersand scientistsis
a false one whenit implies (and it is meantto imply) that philosophersare
uninterestedin or indifferent to the positive resultsof science.
Sir Ray Lankester(1847-1929)found anotherkind of contamination

of meaningas the use of the word becamewidespread:
I havelong thoughtthat it is desirable,but perhapsnot possible,to control

the use of the words 'science'and 'art' and derivativesfrom them. The
populartendencyis to makerubbishboth of the original words and of the
46 Nature, 1924, Vol. 114, pp. 823-824;ibid., 1924,Vol. 115, p. 50 & p.85.
adjectivesderivedfrom them. Thus 'science'is definitely usedto describe
the skill of the boxer, the text of Aristotle's writings, the highestmathe-
matics, the twaddle of Mrs. Eddy, and the elementsof chemistry.... I
hopeNature will continueto refuseto usethe word scientist. Its formation
can be defended,it is true, as parallel to that of artist. But the example
of the word artist gives us no encouragement, for it is the mostvagueand
ill-used word in our language.All sortsof mysteriousqualitiesareclaimed
for 'the artist', and any impostorcan defendhis claim to be 'an artist', and
to worship art with a big A We shall have otherssayingthey 'standfor'
sciencewith a big S and calling each other 'Scientist'. The eminent
scientistBarneyBunkum is alreadyflourishing in the United Statesand
in English newspapers.
Thosewho objectedto scientist,however,were outnumberedtwo to

one by thosewho felt no qualmsabout acceptingit. The lexicogra-
pher H.W. Fowler (1858-1933),author of Modern English Usage,
wrote as follows:
The Oxford Dictionary definesscientistsimply as 'A man of science'. It

definesmanofscience(s.u. Science,6) as:a. (a senseruled out as obsolete);
b. 'In modern use, a man who has expert knowledgeof somebranch of
science(usually, of physicalor naturalscience),and devoteshimselfto its
investigation.' All this with no suggestionwhatever that the usageis
blameworthyor questionable,or that there is any other modemaccepta-
tion.
Accordingly, in the Pocket Oxford Dictionary publishedthis year, the
only definition of scientistgiven is '(esp.)personlearnedin one or more of
the naturalsciences,'in which '(esp.)'merely indicatesthat the limitation
to the natural sciencesis, though usual, not so far obligatory that, e.g., a
pure mathematicianmight not, exceptionally,be called a scientist.
My opinion is, then, that to refuse the word the now prevalentand
extremely convenientsensethat you mention, 'a worker in the field of
physical or biological science',is antiquatedpedantry. I may add that
nothingis gainedby the substitutionof man of science,so far as meaning
is concerned;for any undesirablevaguenessthat may attachto scientist
comesto it only as a consequenceof science'shaving also more than one
sense. But I suspectthat thosewho really havean instinctive (as opposed
to a merelyimitative) aversionto this useof scientistare influencednot by
doubts of its meaning,but by dislike of its (and many other -ist words')
slightly abnormal formation; but that is not the point raised in your
question.
On the sameside was Sir Clifford Allbutt (1836-1925):

In my little book Notes on the Compositionof Scientific Papers I have

defendedthe use of scientist: it is quite a nonnal word, such as artist,
economist,etc. Againstit is the dislike of all new words or spellings;they
are contrary to our habits. But there is more than this: in England
(especially as comparedwith Gennany or Scotland) there has been a
certain prejudice againstscienceas a profession.Many of our great men
(e.g., Darwin, Rayleigh, Clerk Maxwell, etc.) have beengreat amateurs;
and the generationsbred upon letters only (e.g., Swift) have regarded
scienceastoo arid for exclusiveculture. The amateuris savedfrom being
narrow or inhuman. So there has been an unconsciousantipathy to
scienceas a calling or profession. But I am speakingof our prejudices-
remnantsof the past-whichnow are cobwebs,and no more. I should
acceptthe word were I in your place.
Other prominentmen who respondedto the editor were Sir Oliver

Lodge (1851-1940), Sir Israel Gollancz (1863-1930), Sir Herbert
Maxwell (1845-1937),andReginaldA. Fessenden (1866-1932).This
latter, writing from ChestnutHill, Massachusetts,
on December15,
1924, attackedscientiston groundsof euphony:
Writing as a student of the history of words, 'scientist' can never

becomea permanentpart of any language,for its quantity is 'impossible'.
It has a destructiveeffect in a sentence,and when spokenthe last syl-
lables must be gobbled. 'Naturalist' may be gobbled fairly easily; few
peoplenotice it; but 'scientist'is difficult. So perhapsit scarcelymatters
whetherthe word receivesor not the approvalof the dictionaries;words
which we instinctively feel are repulsivedrop out of use.
The only possiblesalvationfor the word is for its advocatesto introduce
the morecorrectpronunciation'scientist',that is, middle syllableaccented.
Thesist,logist, are alternativeswhich suggestthemselves;the latter would
be in conformity with 'biology' and the many other 'logy's'.
All these correspondentswere elderly-late Victorians-and

expressedstrong feelings, essentially those of the nineteenth
century.The youngerreadersof Nature, it seems,were Laodiceans,
neither cold nor hot on the issue, and felt no impulse to write.
Today it is unimaginablethat an editor would refuseto allow the
word scientist,so far has opinion moved since 1924. But common
speechhaving sanctionedthe narrower meaningsof scienceand
scientist,the words continuedto take part in further socio-cultural
evolution. Here are someexamplesof modern'usageandabusage'.
1. Today, science denotes more than physical science: any
disciplineis saidto be scientificwhenit consciouslyemploysmental
attitudes and techniquesdevelopedby practitioners of physical

science:scepticismof authority; dispassionatedescriptionof phe-
nomena;the framing of hypothesescapableof beingtested;andthe
measurements of the limits of reliability of data. Examplesof this
usageoccurin the expressions'thebiologicalsciences'and'thesocial
sciences',both of which werein usebeforethe endof the nineteenth
century.
Oneobserves,however,that a higherstatusis generallyaccorded
to the physicalandbiological sciences,andto physicsin particular.
Perhapsas a result, physicistsdisplay an intellectualsnobbishness
that is sufficiently pronouncedto be recognizableas a professional
characteristic.The following witty sneerwasreportedin the course
of a tea-tableconversationwith a Russianphysicistat an Interna-
tional Conferenceon Scienceand HumanWelfare:47
I mentionedthatan increasingnumberof socialscientistshadbeencoming

to PugwashConferences,and [AcademicianL.A] Artsimovich madea face.
Generallyspeaking,he said, he found social scientistsa pretty ineffective
bunch. 'Gatherers of material', he said. 'Fifty years ago, Professor
Rutherford,the great British physicist, said that scientistswere divided
into two categories-physicists and stampcollectors.'
2. Another extension,of more recentvintage, is derived from

physical scienceviewed as providing the rationale for certain tra-
ditional processes, such as cooking, dyeing, the making of soap,
glass,or ceramics;from this by analogyare obtainedtermsfor new
disciplines (or older ones glamorized) such as domestic science,
military science, sanitary science, building science and library
science, to denote the study of the principles underlying their
respectivepractices.
3. But if sciencecan be extendedthus far, otherswill extendit
farther. In the loosenesswith which the words science,scientist,
and scientific are usedin the newspapervocabulary,the extension
is carried nearly all the way to nonsense.Thesewords, according
to a modern scholar,48 are 'used too much, and by the wrong
people';they are 'vogue words' of high prestige,bandiedabout for
effect, but basedon vagueandimprecisenotionsof what they stand
47 Daniel Lang, The New Yorker, 21 December,1963, p. 54.

Eric PartridgeandJ.W. Clark, British andAmericanEnglish since1900,
48
New York, 1951, pp. 236-238.

for. The referentsof the word scientistcommunicateonly with their

peers; they cannot satisfy the craving for definitive answersto
social, economic,and political problems,which, so the great half-
educatedhas been led to expect, sciencehas in it the power to
deliver. An abstractionnamed'the scientist' has taken form in
people'sminds as a figure of authority whose'scientific' pronounce-
mentscan be acceptedwith childlike reliance. The notion is dan-
gerous not only becauseit is untrue but becauseit is irrational.
Equally irrational is it to see'the scientist'as the fiend responsible
for atomic bombs,chemicalsin food, water and air contamination,
and irreversiblealterationof the earth'sclimate.
In Christian Science,whateverits spiritual value, we have an
exampleof the introduction of the terms scienceand scientistin a
contextwherethey areinapplicable. The practicecould be exempli-
fied further in host of minor charlatanisms,particularly in the
advertisingof goodsor servicesto the public. The remedylies in a
broadeningof generalcultureto includeboth a sounderunderstand-
ing of what sciencereally is, and a cultivated dislike of laxnessin
the choice of words. The latter desideratum,unfortunately, is
becomingevery year harder to achieve. The developmentof the
language,the Zeitgeist as it were in matterslinguistic, is not in a
direction to preservethe nuances,or even gross distinctions, of
meaning. The scholarswho might be expectedto protectthe heri-
tage,enrichedandrefinedthroughthe centuries,of anincomparable
language,areto be found aiding the forcesof attrition-and,a final
paradox,in the nameof science.
The study oflanguage,now re-namedlinguistic science,is one of
a number of disciplines that were formerly fields of humanist
learning,but which are now eagerto be classifiedwith the sciences.
The assumptionof the currently more honorific title demandsa
changeof attitude on the part of its disciples:a new orientationof
studies is required that can lend credibility to their claim to be
scientists.Is not sciencea disinterestedrecordingof facts, uncon-
taminatedby valuejudgments?The new schoolof linguistic scien-
tists, in accordwith this conceptof science,refusesto condemnas
incorrect any departure,no matter how illiterate, if only it be
sufficiently widespread,from what is traditionally acceptedas
properspeech.The editorsof a recent(1961)unabridgeddictionary
of the English language,Webster'sNew International Dictionary,
third edition, belongedto this schoolof thought. The power of the
word science was their patent of authority to include in their
dictionary a mass of ephemeralterms, and also to accept as

standardEnglish a great many that prior to their time had been
labelled vulgar and colloquial, or, even more bluntly, erroneous.49
The frame of mind behind these decisionsis called'permissiveness';
it styles itself scientific; but it is likewise clearly in harmonywith
a sour puritanical dislike of authority and tradition.50 In the
history of the interactionsbetweenscienceand society we have
already experiencedthe effects of the missionaryzeal that stems
from sucha combinationof moral and scientific fervor: it hasbeen
the corrosivesolvent of much that we may now regrethaving lost.
Operatingon the language,through the medium of an influential
49 Most of the reviews of the Dictionary in the American popular press

were adverse,though someunfairly so. That of the New York Timeshad
the salt of wit:
'A passelof double-domesat the G. & C. Merriam Companyjoint in
Springfield, Mass. have been confabbing and yakking for twenty-seven
years-whichis not intended to infer that they have not been doing
plenty work-andnow they havefinalized Webster'sThird New Interna-
tional Dictionary, Unabridged,a new edition of that swell and esteemed
word book.
'Thosewho regardthe foregoingparagraphas acceptableEnglish will
find the new Webster'sis just the dictionary for them.'
50 The spirit that animatesthis undertakingwas describedat greater
length by de Tocqueville:
'The Americans,accordingto M. de Tocqueville, not only profess,but
carry into practice, on all subjectsexcept the fundamentaldoctrines of
Christianity and Christian ethics, the habit of mind which has been so
often inculcated as the one sufficient security against mental slav-
ery,-therejection of authority, and the assertionof the right of private
judgment. They regardthe traditions of the past merely in the light of
materials,and as'a useful studyfor doing otherwiseandbetter.' They are
not accustomedto look for guidanceeither to the wisdom of ancestors,or
to eminentcotemporarywisdom, but require that the groundson which
they act shall be made level to their own comprehension. And, as is
natural to thosewho govern themselvesby commonsenseratherthan by
science,their castof mind is altogetherunpedanticand practical: they go
straight to the end, without favor or prejudicetowardsany set of means;
and aim at the substanceof things, with somethinglike a contemptfor
form.' - J.S. Mill, Essayon Democracyin America
dictionary, the samespirit promotesthe systematicrelaxation of

standards.Eric Partridgewrote:51
Are we to sacrifice lucidity and clarity and the subtle employmentof

nuance to the sacred cause of carelessness?Is the lowest common
denominatorto be the norm?
Scientistsespeciallyhaveto insiston retainingsharpdistinctions

of meaningbetweenwords;moreso thanhumaniststhey arerequir-
ed to attendto nice differences. The following pairs, for example,
are synonymsin commonspeechbut are not so to physical scien-
tists: speedand velocity, stressand strain, massand weight, force
and pressure,accuracy and precision, denseand heavy,fluid and
liquid. Every intellectualactivity is hurt by the impoverishmentof
language.The very processof t.hinking becomesless penetrating
when the words that it useshave lost their precision.
51 Eric Partridge,Usageand Abusage,London, 1947, p. 215.

CHAPTER TWO
THE STORY OF THE VOLTA POTENTIAL
... the besettingdangeris not so much of embracingfalsehoodfor truth,

as of mistakingpart of the truth for the whole.
- JohnStuartMill, Essayon Coleridge
The discoveryof galvanismby Luigi Galvani (1737-1798)and the

seriesoffurtherdiscoveriesthat almostimmediatelygrew from that
event, burst unexpectedlyand dramatically on the intellectual
world. It marked the beginning of the Age of Electricity and
heraldedthe modernworld. Even at the time the realizationthat
somethingof momentoussignificancehad taken place was vividly
apprehended.With the invention of the electric battery by Ales-
sandroVolta (1745-1827),excitementmounted.Napoleoncorrectly
glimpsed its implications; summonedVolta to Paris; extolled his
achievement;heapedprizes and honors upon him. Everywherein
Europe men startedto build larger and larger batteries,and one
discoveryfollowed hard on the heels of another. The intellectual
fermentwasintense.In the wordsofF.W.J.Schelling(1775-1854):1
'How Nature herself seemedto come forward and meet the new
knowledgein the seriesof brilliant and revealingdiscoveriesthat
followed the first appearanceof galvanism! How, to use an expres-
sion of Goethe's,a very heavenof knowledgeseemedto be let down
upon us!'
Of all this, Volta, not Galvani, was the provider; for Volta had
harnessedthe feeble action of the first observationand made of it
an instrumentof greatpotentiality. The heaven-bestowed gift was
seizedavidly and universally exploited. The heavenlyerrand-boy
was questionedeagerlyon how he hadfound it; andlot his answers
arousedincredulity and doubt. He describeda theory of the cell
basedon dubiouspremises,on the existence,hitherto unsuspected
and subsequentlywidely disbelieved, of a potential difference
createdby the mere contactof two dry metals,which continuously
1 F.W.J. Schelling,SammtlicheWerke, 1856,Vol. 2, § 3.14
40
generatesthe flow of electricity in the cell. Volta himself had to

admit: 'Theperpetualmotionmayappearparadoxical,perhapsinex-
plicable; but it is nonethelesstrue andreal, and canbe touched,as
it were, by the hands.'2 Was it possiblethat the great discovery
was really a lucky accident? that Volta, misguided by a false
theory, hadneverthelesswon the immortal garlandby blundering?
that the Como professor was actually appallingly ignorant of
physics? Therewere many who thoughtso, then and since.
The reality of his discoverycould not be denied;it was thought,
nevertheless,that Volta, by juggling a limited numberof physical
components,hadhit empirically on the onecombinationthat works,
but that he could explainit only on the basisof his prior knowledge
of contactpotentials,which hadinitially servedhim well in guiding
him away from Galvani'svitalist concepts.An early critic (Eusebio
Valli, 1762-1816)wrote that the contacttheory is 'ridiculous', for
'how is it possiblefor a single shilling to containelectricity enough
to move the leg of a horse?'2 Even a centurylater, Ostwaldwas to
trumpet that Volta had set electrochemistryback by a hundred
yearsby his shamefulmistakesandthatit werebetterhe hadnever
beenborn (cf. Matthew 26:24). Presumablysomeonebetter quali-
fied, the GermanelectrochemistJohannWilhelm Ritter (1776-1810)
in all probability, would have invented the battery anyway. We
should then have had no nonsenseabout contactpotentials. (We
might well have had a worse kind of nonsense,however, about
Naturphilosophie.) The continuedadvanceof electrochemistryhas
put these doubts into proper perspective. Developmentsin our
knowledgeof the solid statehaveadvancedour understandingof the
electrochemicalcell andVolta's ideasnow seemless untoward.
Volta announcedhis discovery of contact potentials between
unlike metals in 1797,3 and went on from that discovery to the
2Quotedin H.L. Heilbron, Dictionary of ScientificBiography, New York,

1976, Vol. 14, pp. 69-82.
3 A.Volta,Annalidi Chimica e Storia Naturali, 1797,Vol. 13, pp. 226-274;
ibid., 1797, Vol. 14, pp. 225-256. ApparentlyVolta discoveredthe contact
potential as early as 1792 and knew even then how to construct an
elementalcoupleof two dissimilarmetalsseparatedby an aqueousconduc-
tor. The reasonfor the long delay beforehe assembledcouplesinto a Pile
or a Couronnede Tassesis discussedby SydneyGill in 'A Voltaic Enigma
and a possibleSolution to it,' in Annalsof Science,1976,Vol. 33, pp. 351-
370. Also see Giuliano Pancaldi,'Electricity and life. Volta's path to the
constructionof the Voltaic pile, or column of electric generating

couples. The following statementssummarizehis experimental
resultsin modernterms:
1. Law of Contact. If two bodies are in contact at the same
temperature,a finite differenceof potentialis setup, which depends
on their nature, and which is independentof their dimensions,
shape,extentof surfacein contact,and of the absolutevalue of the
potential on eachof them.
2. Law of SuccessiveContacts. When severalmetals at the same
temperatureare placedin contactwith eachother so as to form a
continuouschain, the differenceof the potentialsat the extremesis
independentof the intermediatemetals, and so is the sameas if
they werein direct contact. It follows from this law that the metals
can be arrangedin a definite numericalsequence,and Volta gave
the first series of this kind. He attributed the actions to an
impulsion or attraction of electricity by matter, varying with the
differencein the natureof the substance,which producedunequal
potentialsand then set up an oppositionto their equalizing. This
hypothesisis still the simplestand most plausible. The phenome-
non has subsequentlybeenthoroughly investigated,both theoreti-
cally and experimentally,on dry, clean, outgassedmetal surfaces.
In general,the metal with the higherwork function Wa will become
negativeto that with the lower work functionWb, so that on contact
Vb - Va = Wb - Wa' Electronsmigratefrom metal b to metala in this
process. The effect is thereforeelectronicand clearly defined. But
the presenceof impurities andadsorbedfilms of gasor othermatter
on the surfacegreatly affectsthe work function. Even at a pressure
of air of 10,8 mm of mercury, a monomolecularlayer of adsorbed
oxygen can form within seconds. Reproducibleresults, therefore,
require the exerciseof extremecare. The electrical exchangesin
contactsbetweenmetalsand semiconductors,suchas cupric oxide,
are more complicated because of the complex electronic-level
structuresin suchsubstances.Effectsobservedwith semiconductors
are greatly modified by changes of temperature.In all cases,
however,the electronis what movesacrosstheboundaryandcauses
charging.
I havegiven the foregoingbrief accountof the presentview ofthe
source of Volta's contact potential in order to avoid the dispute
battery,' Historical Studiesin the Physical and Biological Scieces,1990,

Vol. 21, pp. 123-160.
waged for more than a century about whether contact potentials

could exist only when a chemicalreactionoccursat the surfaceof
one of the metals. Evidently no chemicalreaction is required to
excite a contactpotential.
Volta next went on to give a theory of the voltaic pile in termsof
his discoveredcontactpotentials. The couple in Volta's defmitive
pile consistedof a disc of zinc andone of silver, separatedby a piece
of pasteboardsoakedin salt water to makeit a conductorof electri-
city, the silver discbeingin dry contactwith the zinc disc thatforms
part of the next couple.4 Thus betweentwo terminals of the same
kind there are three contacts: zinc Isilver, silver I water and
waterI zinc. The voltagemay be expressedby the ordinarysymbols:
v = ZnlAg + AglAq + AqlZn [1]
Volta ascribed'the faculty to incite the electric fluid' chiefly to the

Zn IAg bimetallic contact,but did not rule out contributionsfrom
the contactsbetweenmetalsand solutions.He wrote:5
... je n'aijamaisattribueaux metauxexclusivementla faculte d'inciter Ie

fluide electrique par leur contact mutuel, lorsqu'ils sont de differentes
especes,ayantreconnu,et prouve par un grandnombred'experiencesdi-
rectes,quecettefaculteappartenoit,sansexception,atousles conducteurs;
et que si elle etoit en generalplus marqueeentreles metaux,elle ne lais-
soit pasque de se manifesteraussidansIe contactd'un metal, ou conduc-
teur de premiereclasse(commej'appelloisles metauxet Ie charbon)avec
un de Ia seconde,ou conducteurhumide.
Volta, who wrote before the law of conservationof energywas

known, did not hesitateto ascribe to his newly discoveredpile,
which is a number of such cells suitably connectedto make an
additive series of their potentials, 'an inexhaustible charge, a
perpetualaction or impulse on the electric fluid.' This claim was
the vulnerablepart of his argument:much of the persuasiveness of
4 A Volta, 'On the Electricity excited by the mere Contactof conducting

Substancesof different Kinds,' Phil. Trans. Royal Society, 1800, pp.
403-431(in French);Phil. Mag. 1800, Vol. 7, pp. 288-311(in English.)
5 A Volta, 'Aux Redacteurs de la BibliothequeBritannique,'Bibliotheque
Britannique, 1802, Vol. 19, p. 270. Reprintedin Le Opere di Alessandro
Volta, Edizione Nationale,Milan, 1923,Vol. 2, p. 155.
the early anti-Voltalstslay in its refutation.The Florentinechemist

Giovanni Valentino Mattia Fabbroni(1752-1822)was the fIrst to
object to Volta's explanation;he deniedcontact'force' and ascribed
the electricity to chemical action.6 And then began one of the
longestcontroversiesthathaseverbeenwagedon a point of science;
a controversythat has lastedalmost to the presentday.7 On the
side of Volta have been Davy, Pfaff, Peclet, Marianini, Buff,
Fechner, Zamboni, Matteuci, Kohlrausch, Pellat, and Thomson
(Kelvin). Opposedhave beenFabbroni,Ritter, Wollaston, Parrot,
Oersted, Ritchie, Pouillet, Schoenbein,Becquerel, de La Rive,
Faraday,Nernst,Ostwald,andLodge. Both lists could be extended.
At fIrst physicists were more impressedby Volta's discovery of
contact potentials and chemists were more impressedby the
chemicalchangestaking place within the electrochemicalcell, so
that the former tendedto hold the contacttheory and the latter
tendedto hold the chemicaltheory;but laterthis distinctionwasnot
so clear. Faradaybroughtso many argumentsagainstthe contact
theory that he seemedto have disposedof it once and for all. He
concludedhis two papers(16th and 17th Series)on the sourceof
powerin the voltaic pile by citing Roget's'striking passage'of 1829
criticizing Volta's theory of the pile:8
If there could exist a power having the property ascribedto it by the

hypothesis,namely, that of giving continual impulse to a fluid in one
constantdirection, without being exhaustedby its own action, it would
differ essentiallyfrom all the other known powers in nature. All the
6 G.V.M. Fabbroni,'On the ChemicalAction of the different Metals upon

eachother at the commonTemperatureof the Atmosphere,and upon the
Explanationof certainGalvanicPhenomena,' Rozier'sJournal de Physique,
1799, Vol. 49, pp. 348-357; English translationin Nicholson'sJournal of
Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts, 1799, Vol. 3, pp. 308-310;
ibid., 1800, Vol. 4, pp. 120-127.
7 A summaryof the argumentspro and con up to the mid-centuryis to be
found in L. Figuier, 'La Pile de Volta,' Les Merveilles de la Science,Paris,
1867, VoLl, pp. 598-706. This is supplementedby a later account: O.
Lodge, 'On the Seat of the Electromotive Forces in the Voltaic Cell,'
B.A.A.S.Report 1884, pp. 464-529. Both theseaccountswere written by
anti-Voltalsts.
8 M.Faraday,ExperimentalResearchesin Electricity, London, 1844,Vo1.2,
p.104.
powersand sourcesof motion, of the operationsof which we are familiar,

whenproducingtheir peculiareffects,areexpended inthe sameproportion
as these effects are produced; and hence arises the impossibility of
obtainingby their agencya perpetualeffect; or, in otherwords,a perpetual
motion. But the voltageascribedby Volta to the metalswhen in contactis
a force which, as long as a free courseis allowed to the electricity it sets
in motion, is neverexpended,and continuesto be excited with undimin-
ishedpower,in the productionof a never-ceasingeffect. Againstthe truth
of such a supposition,the probabilitiesare all but infinite.
This is quite an early and clearstatementof a conclusiondrawn

from the inability to set up a perpetuummobile. As the scienceof
thermodynamicswas developedin the next few decadesby Carnot,
Seguin, Clapeyron, Mayer, Joule, Thomson, Clausius, and Helm-
holtz, the more telling and unanswerablethis argumentbecame.
Yet evenin thoseearly dayssomeunderstood,asVolta did not, that
the contact potential is not of itself the source of the power of a
voltaic cell, sincemerecontactprovidesno processthat can produce
energy to maintain a current. A potential difference exists, for
example,betweenthe top and the foot of a cliff, but no energycan
be obtaineduntil water falls over the edge. JosiahWillard Gibbs
(1839-1903), at the 1884 meeting in Montreal of the British
Associationfor the Advancementof Science,provided a domestic
analogy: 'In a hot-water-circulationsystem the energy certainly
derivesfrom the fuel consumedin the furnace;but the moving force
maintainingthe circulation is the differencein weight betweenthe
cold column and the hot, and, so to speak,is locatedin the pipes,
not in the furnace.'9 Humphry Davy had a better grasp of the
underlying reality than had Volta. Davy admittedthat the seatof
the potential differencein the pile is ultimately due to the contact
potential but he could not acceptthat this is also the sourceof the
power, which would then, as Volta himself said, be a perpetual-
motion device (elettro-motoreperpetui). In his Bakerianlecture of
1806, Davy said:lO
9 O. Lodge, Past Years:An Autobiography,London, 1931, p. 180.

10 H. Davy, 'The BakerianLecture:On somechemicalAgenciesof Electrici-
ty,' Phil. Trans. RoyalSociety,1807,pp. 1-56, esp.pp. 44-45;The Collected
Works ofSir HumphryDavy, Bart., London, 1840,Vol. 5, pp. 1-56, esp.pp.
44-45.
The greattendencyof the attractionof the different chemicalagentsby the
positive and negative surfacesin the voltaic apparatusseemsto be to
restorethe chemicalequilibrium.... The electricalenergiesof the metals
with regardto eachother, or [to] the substances dissolvedin the water, in
the Voltaic and other analogousinstruments,seemto be the causesthat
disturb the equilibrium, and the chemicalchangesthe causesthat tend to
restorethe equilibrium; andthe phenomena mostprobablydependon their
joint agency.
This statementand otherswith it, equally penetratingin their

insight, were publishedin the Philosophical Transactionsof the
Royal Societyjust sevenyears after Volta's paperon the pile had
appearedin the same periodical. Thus early, Davy's ability to
separatethe electrical and the chemical equilibria at work in the
pile is most impressive.
As the century wore on the 'contact theory' and the 'chemical
theory' becamerallying points for aggressivegroups of advocates,
who were dubbedVoltalsts and anti-Voltalstsrespectively. In the
midst of theseopposingfactions there were always individuals of
wider vision, suchas Davy, who saw that the two theorieswere not
necessarilymutually exclusive. In 1843 William Robert Grove
(1811-1896)after describinghis 'GasVoltaic Battery,' wrote:l l
Thereare one or two theoreticalpoints as to which the gasbatteryoffers

ground of interestingspeculation:the contacttheory is one. If my notion
of that theory be correct, I am at a loss to know how the action of this
battery will be found consistentwith it. If, indeed, the contact theory
assumecontactas the efficient causeof voltaic action,but admit that this
can only be circulatedby chemicalaction,I seelittle difference,savein the
merehypotheticalexpression,betweenthe contactand chemicaltheories;
any conclusionwhich would flow from the one,would likewise be deducible
from the other; thereis no sequenceof time in the phenomena,the contact
or completionof the circuit and the electrolyticalaction are synchronous.
If this be the view of contacttheorists,the rival theoriesaremeredisputes
aboutterms. If, however,the contacttheory connects[sic] with the term
contact an idea of force which does or may produce a voltaic current
independentlyof chemicalaction, a force without consumption,I cannot
but regard it as inconsistentwith the whole tenor of voltaic facts and
generalexperience.
11 W.R. Grove, 'On the Gas Voltaic Battery.-Experiments made with a

view of ascertainingthe rationale of its action and its application to
Eudiometry,'Phil. Trans. RoyalSociety,1843,pp. 91-112,esp.pp. 108-109.
In this extractwe seea suggestionto redefinethe role of contact

potentialaway from Volta's original theory. Indeedso many modi-
fications of Volta's theorywere madethat, at leastto some,the two
opposing theories were reconcilable. But the two extremes of
opinion-the Voltrusts who saw the contact potential as the
elementalsourceof the potential of the cell, and the anti-VoltaYsts
who saw the chemicalreactionunderlyingthe cell as the sourceof
its energywithout enquiringfurther aboutthe mechanismby which
chemicalenergyis transformedinto electricalenergy-wereso far
apartin principle that mostof the controversywas devotedto trying
to disproveone extremeor the other. The combatantsno doubtsaw
their adversariestoo starkly, but that makesfor a good rollicking
argument.
Faraday'sresearchesmight have been the end of the Volta
theory, as indeedhe hopedthey would be, becausehe pointedto a
rationalsourceof energyfor the voltaic combination. Of coursethat
left the Volta effect to be explained,but theoristsare seldomat a
loss of how to disposeof any inconvenientexperimentalfinding that
is not in apparentaccordwith a satisfyingmentalconstruct. They
simply assert that the experiment was not conductedproperly.
Faradayhad done his work well: his laws of electrolysisquantita-
tively connectedan amount of electricity with a corresponding
amount of cell reaction; on the destructiveside he devisedmany
cells in which there is no contactbetweendissimilar metals,-the
so-calledconcentrationcells. But Faradaywasmistakenin thinking
that Volta held that contactpotentialsare confinedonly to contacts
between dissimilar metals: concentrationcells do have contact
potentials,-namely,metal1solution 1; solution 11 solution 2; and
solution 21 metal-andalso it may be said that their voltage does
not depend on any chemical reaction. As the Voltalsts really
believed that the sum of all contact potentials in the cell is the
sourceof the voltage, rather than that only the contact potential
betweendissimilar metals is operative,Faraday'sargumentwas
irrelevant. However that may be, the chemicaltheory gained the
ascendancyand the contacttheory had few defenders.
Sir William Thomson(1824-1907),elevatedto the peeragein
1892 as Baron Kelvin of Largs, and as a memberof the Houseof
Lords known less formally as Lord Kelvin, was responsiblefor a
resurgenceof interest in contact potentials, arising from his
inventionof the quadrantelectrometer.This instrument,developed
aboutthe year 1860,was createdin responseto the practicalneeds
48 NINETEENTH-CENTURYATI'ITUDES
of submarinetelegraphy;but it had a reflex action, as it were, on

the evolution of pure scienceitself. In its modern variants it is
capable,under controlled conditions, of an accuracyof ± 5 x 10-4
volts. An absolutemeasureof the contact potential is made by
annulling the naturalchargeon the discs,by applying an external
potentialdifferenceequalandoppositeto it. Thomsondemonstrated
the reality of contact potentialsby meansof an electrometerfar
more refined and sensitivethan the electroscopesof his contempo-
raries. He also showedthat on uniting dissimilarmetalsby a drop
of water, insteadof by a metal, no potentialdifferenceis produced.
This is the result he describesto JamesPrescottJoule(1818-1889)
in a letter of January21, 1862:12
For nearly two yearsI havefelt quite surethat the properexplanationof

voltaic action in the common voltaic arrangementis very near Volta's,
which fell into discredit becauseVolta or his followers neglectedthe
principle of conservationof force. I now think it quite certain that two
metalsdipped into one electrolytic liquid will (when polarizationis done
awaywith) reducetwo dry piecesof the samemetals,whenconnectedeach
to eachby metallic arcs, to the samepotential.
From then on Thomsonwas a VoltaYst in the sensethat he was

convinced of the truth of Volta's experimentsand that contact
potentialsareindeedthe sourceofthevoltageof the electrochemical
cell. He found it difficult, nevertheless,to reversethe opinions of
his contemporarieswho, influencedby Faradaisnumerousexperi-
ments and by the reverenceaccordedhis name, believed that
contactpotentialswere insignificant or non-existent. Textbooksof
the period statedthat Volta must have had wet fingers, or that he
rubbedthe platestogether(frictional electrostatics,)or that there
was moisturein the air. This wide-spreadincredulity accountsfor
the emphatictone taken by Thomson and by his faithful Scotch
disciple PeterGuthrie Tait (1831-1901)wheneverthe subjectcame
up in their lectures or their writings. Tait said (1876):13 'The
experimentis one which, althoughperfectlywell known in the time
of Volta, hasbeensteadilydisbelievedsinceVolta's time, andis now
receivedby a comparativelysmall numberonly evenamongphysical
12 W. Thomson, Reprint of Papers on Electrostatics and Magnetism,

London, 1872,p.318.
13 P.G. Tait, RecentAdvancesin Physical Science,London, 1876, p. 309.
philosophers.' He then performed the qualitative experimentin

front of his students(seeingis believing,) and said: 'Sir William
Thomson, by the help of his electrometer,was able to put this
experimentof Volta beyondall cavil.' Tait did not explain why, if
the result was beyond all cavil, so few physicistswere willing to
acceptit.
Most articulateof the incredulouswas Oliver Heaviside(1850-
1925):14
Like many others I had beenfor many years profoundly dissatisfied

with the paradoxicalstateinto which electricaltheory,in otherrespectsso
consistentall round,wasthrown by Sir W. Thomson'sconclusion,from his
experimentswith his wonderful electrometers,that old Volta was right,
and that there could be no doubt the whole thing was simply chemical
action at a distance. Now, if we ignore the Volta-force experiments
altogether,the generaltheoryof impressedforce, potential,andthe taking
in or giving out of energyby the current,is clear and explicit, containsno
paradoxes,and is in harmonywith generaldynamicalprinciples. Was it
really worth while to upset the theory because some very curious
experimentswere difficult of explanation?Certainlytheorymustultimate-
ly be madeto agreewith facts; but when suchfew facts do not apparently
fit into a theory which suits a much greater number of other facts, it
becomesa questionof balanceof advantageswhetherit would be betterto
alter theoreticalnotions, or to leave the facts unexplainedfor the time,
waiting for further information, or for new light on the questionof fitting
the facts into the theory....
Suchwasthe extentof my respect,almostamountingto veneration,for
Sir W. Thomson'sopinions,on accountof his invaluablelaboursin science,
inexhaustiblefertility, and immensego, that I madethe most strenuous
efforts to understandthe incomprehensible,impelled thereto also by a
feeling that it might be prejudiceon my own part that madeit incompre-
hensible. But, failing to understandit, I finally gaveit up.
Although the technicalgroundsof Heaviside'sobjectionsarenow

resolved, the philosophy expressedis strikingly in accord with
Kuhn's descriptionof the receptionof a challengeto an established
paradigm.
Many years after his first use of the electrometerto measure
contactpotentials,we find Thomson,now Lord Kelvin, still anxious
to dispel persistentdoubts. At a Friday evening meeting of the
14 o. Heaviside,Electrical Papers, London, 1894, Vol. 1, pp. 417-418.

Royal Institution, on May 211897, he aroseand without preface

demonstrateda 95-year-oldexperimentof Volta, and then demon-
strated a second one, along with an interesting variation (see
Appendix to this essay.) Then he said:
Thesetwo experiments,with the variation described,put it beyond all

doubt that Volta's electromotiveforce of contactbetweentwo dissimilar
metalsis a true discovery. It seemsto havebeenmadeby him aboutthe
year 1801; at all eventshe exhibitedhis experiments,proving it in that
year to a Commissionof the French Institute (The Paris Academy of
Sciences.)It is quite marvelousthat the fundamentalexperiment[the one
that had just beendemonstrated,]simple, easyand sure as it is, is not
generallyshownin coursesoflectureson electricity to students,and has
not beenevenmentionedor referredto in any English textbooklater than
1845, or at all eventsin anyoneof a large numberin which I havelooked
for it, except in the ElementaryTreatise on Electricity and Magnetism,
founded on Joubert's Traite Elementaire d'Electricite, by Foster and
Atkinson. The only other placesI have seenit describedin the English
languageare Roget's article in the EncyclopediaMetropolitana: Tait's
RecentAdvancesin PhysicalScience,(1876); and ProfessorOliver Lodge's
mostvaluable,interestingand useful accountof all that hasbeendonefor
knowledgeof contactelectricityfrom its discoveryby Volta till 1884,in his
Report to the British Associationof that year, On the Seatof the Electro-
motiveForces in the Voltaic Cell.
The experimentaldemonstrationsmadeby Kelvin in this lecture

to an audienceat the Royal Institution are of the highestinterest.
I brought Kelvin's experimentsto the considerationof Professor
R.M. Lichtenstein of the Physics Department of Rensselaer
PolytechnicInstitute. After carefully analyzingKelvin's repore5 of
his experiments in 1897, he confirms Kelvin's interpretation.
Professor Lichtenstein's communication is included here as an
Appendix. We shall see in the outcome that these experiments
contain, if carefully analyzed, the full proof of Volta's original
15 Lord Kelvin, Proc. Royal Inst. Gt. Britain, 1897, Vol. 15, pp. 521-554;
Mathematicaland PhysicalPapersof Lord Kelvin, CambridgeUniversity
Press,1911, Vol. 6, pp. 110-145.In this paper,whosecontentsare taken
from papersoriginally publishedin 1897 and 1898,Kelvin states(pp. 118-
120) that he first usedhis null methodin 1859-61and first publishedthe
resultsin Nature for April 14, 1881.
contention that the potential of his voltaic couple derives from

contactpotentials.But of this more fully hereafter.
At this point in the historical narrative I pauseto introduce
bibliophilic mementoesof Sir William Thomson(as he then was)
andof his professorialactivities at the University of Glasgowin the
nineteenthcentury. I havein front of me as I write two booksgiven
as prizesby Thomson,at different times, to two of his undergradu-
ates. The first of these is a copy of Lecons sur rElectricite et
Magnetismeby EleuthereMascart(1837-1908)and Jules Joubert
(1834-1910),publishedin Paris in 1882. The prize book was given
to Magnus Maclean16 on May 1884. The Traite elementaire
d'Electricite by Joubertwas not publisheduntil 1889,but the book
by MascartandJoubertincludeda detaileddescriptionof the Volta
potential and the contacttheory as the sourceof the voltage in the
voltaic cell, andit was without a doubtthe treatmentof thesetopics
that influencedThomsonin selectingthis book. The secondof these
prizes is the English translationof the samebook by E. Atkinson,
publishedin 1883, and presentedto JamesErskine-Murrayl7 on
May 1888. Both Macleanand Erskine-Murraywere to becomecol-
laboratorsof Thomsonat GlasgowUniversity a few yearsafter their
awards. Books like thesegratify the taste that finds pleasurein
tangible links with great men of the past; and thesein particular
are appropriateto the presentsubjectas showinghow Thomson's
undergraduateswere not allowed to overlook his advocacyof the
contacttheory.
The textbookby Joubertthat Kelvin praisedin 1898 would not
havewon his approvalin the revisedEnglishtranslation,published
as a third edition in 1909.18 The English editors discussat length
the Volta potentials,andjudge finally that what is measuredis an
16 Magnus Maclean, M.A., D.Sc. (Glasgow), F.R.S.E. (1857-1937)was to

becomethe professorof electrical engineering,Royal Technical College,
Glasgow. Author of Modern Electrical Practice, 6 volumes.Contributorto
Roy. Soc. London; Roy. Soc. Edin.; Brit. Assoc.,etc.
17JamesRobert Erskine-Murray, D.Sc. (Glasgow), F.R.S.E. (1868-1927)
studiedunderLord Kelvin and at the CavendishLaboratory;worked with
Marconi at Chelmsford;wrote A Handbookof WirelessTelegraphy,1911.
18 a.c. Foster and A.W. Porter, ElementaryTreatise on Electricity and
Magnetism,foundedon Joubert'sTraite elementaired'Electricite, London,
1909, third edition.
effect due to casualoxidation of the metal surface. We know what
Kelvin would have said to that: 'The anti-Voltrustsseemto have a
superstitiousvenerationfor oxygen',he hadquippedto his audience
at the Royal Institution, expressing,by the allusion to superstition,
the utmost contemptconceivableto the scientific mind.
Oliver Lodge (1851-1940),whose B.A.A.S. report of 1884 was
praisedby Thomsonwas, nevertheless,an anti-VoltaYst with whom
Thomsonexchangedsome sharp words about their divergenceof
views. At times Thomsonwould soundlike a beleaguredchieftain,
vividly aware of who is for and who is againsthim. Revising a
paperby his protegeErskine-Murray,he admonishedhim to be less
aggressivelycritical of the French physicist Henri Pellat (1850-
1909), an ally, while he might well delete his overly respectful
referencesto thosein the oppositecamp. Kelvin wrote to Erskine-
Murray:19
I think you should omit § 86. There is no validity whateverin Nernstor

Ostwaldon the subject. Helmholtz is importantin showinghis clear and
correctviews regardingVolta, but there seemsno occasionfor apologyfor
not having referredto him.
Theseremarkswere elicited in the courseof Kelvin's advising

Murray on how to revise his paper on contact potentials. The
refereesof the Royal Society rejectedit but Kelvin fought hard to
have it reconsidered.'Murray's is a splendidpiece of work carried
out during three years with great care and with a really large
harvestof goodresults. I am sorry the Royal Societylosesall, or all
but an Abstract', he wrote to A.W. Rucker, the Society's secre-
tary.20 As an editor of the PhilosophicalMagazine,Kelvin was able
to acceptthe paperfor that journal without further ado,21and the
weight of his influence resulted in its publication by the Royal
Societyas well. 22 Evidently Kelvin did all in his power to promote
19 Kelvin to Erskine-Murray,January12,1898. GlasgowUniversity Lib-

rary, Kelvin MSS LB5/48.
Kelvin to A.W. Riicker, January25,1898. GlasgowUniversity Library,
20
Kelvin MSS LB5/77.
21 J.R. Erskine-Murray,Phil. Mag. 1898, [5], Vol. 45, p. 393.
22 J. Erskine-Murray,Proc. RoyalSoc.(London), 1898,Vol. 63, pp. 113-146.
nis views on contactpotentials,consciousthat they had not been

generallyaccepted.
Maxwell,23 and after him Gibbs24 and Guggenheim,25had
pointedout thatthe contactpotentialbetweentwo dissimilarmetals
Ml and M2 does not actually measurethe potential difference
betweenpoints inside eachof the two metals,but betweenpoints
situated in the vacuum (or air) near the metallic surfaces,just
beyondthe reachof the mirror-imageforces emanatingfrom each
metal. The distancein questionis about 10-5 cm. from the metal
surface. The potential difference betweenpoints just beyond the
two metal surfacesis referredto as the psi ('If) potential,while still
retainingits old nameof Volta potential. The absolutemetal-metal
potential difference is referred to as the phi (~) or the Galvani-
potential difference,to distinguishit from the potential difference
named after Volta. Unlike Volta, who actually discoveredthe
potentialdifferencenamedafterhim, Galvanineitherpostulatednor
measuredthe potential namedin his honor. It is indeedpurely a
mental concept,as it cannotbe measured. In what follows,26 the
use of a vertical bar betweenthe symbols of two phases,whether
metallic or liquid solutions, representsthe absolute or Galvani
potential differencebetweenthem: thus
Mll M2 = Ll~ (Ml,M2) = (~Ml - ~M2).
In symbolic termsthe Volta potentialdifferencebetweenmetals

M2 and Ml is:
Ll'lf (M2,Ml) = vac I M2 + M21 Ml + Mll vac [2]
23 J.C. Maxwell, Letter to The Electrician, April 26, 1879; Also see J.C.
Maxwell, An ElementaryTreatise on Electricity, edited by W. Garnett,
Oxford, 1881, p. 149.
24 J.W. Gibbs, The ScientificPapersof Willard Gibbs, London, 1906,VoU,
p.429.
25 E.A. Guggenheim,J. Phys. Chem., 1929, Vol. 33, pp. 842-849;Modern
Thermodynamicsby the Methodsof Willard Gibbs, London, 1933, p. 332.
26 J. O'M. Bockris and A.K Reddy, Modern Electrochemistry,New York,
1970, Chapter7: The Electrified Interface,pp. 623-843.
.Cw~~l
IN.CLASSE.1~ l~
V N I V E SRITAT IS· G LA S GV ENS I S
ALVM NYS·
I N G E NO'
I A C •LAB 0 R E.
INSIGNIS'
PRAEMIVY· HOCCE-
MERITO·COISECVT ..VS· EST-
fvd···
APVD' COLLa G LASGVAE
KA L· MAil S· M D ceeLXXXV1I1
I
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~ _ _ _ _ _ _~
I
Figure n-l. The prize label readsin translation:JamesErskine

Murray, alumnusin Physicsofthe University of Glasgow,notedfor
his intelligenceanddiligence,hasdeservedlywon this prize, andso
attestsWilliam Thomsonat the Collegeof Glasgow,May 1st, 1888
THE 8TORY OF THE VOLTA POTENTIAL 55
8imilarly the Volta potentialdifferencesbetweenthe electrodesand

a solution is:
il'l' (MI,8) = vacI MI + MIl 8 + 8 Ivac [3]
and il'l' (8,M2) = vacI 8 + 8 IM2 + M21 vac [4]
If we now look at the simple voltaic cell MIl 8 I M21 Mr, where the
terminalsMI andMI' are the samemetalthoughat different poten-
tials, its voltage V equals the sum of all the Galvani-potential
differencesin the cell. Each of these separately is a difference in
electricalpotentialbut, inasmuchas it cannotbe measuredwith a
voltmeter, is not a difference in voltage; but when these
phaseI phaseinterfacesare put in the correct order to producea
voltaic cell, their sum is a potential differencethat can be restored
by chemicalaction. The consequentflow of electronsis an electrical
currentwhosevoltageis measurable.Hencewe may write the sum
of theseGalvani potentialsas equalto the voltage of the cell:
V = il~ (MI,8) + il~ (8,M2) + il~ (M2,Mr) [5]
or V = MIl 8 + 8 I M2 + M21 MI' [6]
Adding equations[2], [3], and [4], making the requiredalterations

to retain consistencyin the use of symbols,gives:
V = il'l' (MI,8) + il'l' (8,M2) + il'l' (M2,MI') [7]
The voltage of the cell is, therefore,the sum of three Volta poten-
tials, which, unlike Galvanipotentials,canbe measured.The reader
may note that the Galvani potentials,a purely mentalconcept,are
introducedonly to facilitate the derivation of equation[7] and are
absentfrom the final result, thus playing a role analogousto the
squareroot of minus one in mathematicsor a catalystin chemistry.
Oncethey servetheir pedagogicalpurposethey are got rid of.
Equation[7] has beentestedexperimentally. To do so suitable
apparatuswas requiredto measurenot only the il'l' (MI,M2) contact
potential,alreadymeasuredby Thomson,but alsocontactpotentials
betweenmetalsand solutionsand between differentsolutions. In
1876 William Edward Ayrton (1847-1908)and John Perry (1850-
1920)built in Japansuchan apparatus,27of a constructioncareful-

ly designedto avoid a numberof damagingconditions;its complexi-
ty excited Lodge's comment of 'very ingenious but somewhat
unwieldy.' Lodge also acknowledgedthat 'the energy neededto
devise, construct, and use such an apparatusmust have been
immense.'7 With this instrument and with the help of their
Japanese studentsthey conductedan extensiveandlaboriousseries
of determinationsof metal-metal, metal-solution, and solution-
solution contactpotentials. Their data allow the voltagesof some
well known cells to be built Up.28
The Daniell cell--TheDaniell cell is describedas follows:
Cu I CuS04 (sat'dsoln) I ZnS04 (sat'dsoln) I Zn I Cu
The left-handcopperis the positive electrode. The cell reactionis:
Zn + CuS04 (sat'dsoln) = ZnS04 (sat'dsoln) + Cu
Therearefour differencesof contactpotential,measuredasfollows:

Copperand saturatedcoppersulfate +0.070 v.
Saturatedcoppersulfate and saturatedzinc sulfate -0.095 v.
Saturatedzinc sulfate and zinc +0.430 v.
Zinc and copper +0.750 v.
Total voltage 1.155 v.
The measuredvoltage of the Daniell cell is 1.104 volts.
The Grove Cell--The Grove cell is describedas follows:
Cu I Pt I HN03 (conc.)I H2S04 (diI.) I Zn I Cu
The left-handcopperis the positive electrode. The cell reactionis:
Zn + H2S04 (diI.) = ZnS04 + H2

and H2 + 2 HN03 (conc.) = 2~O + 2N02
27 W.E. Ayrton and J. Perry, Phil. Trans. Royal Society,1880, pp. 15-34.
J.D. Everett,Illustrations ofthe C.G.S.Systemof Units, 4th ed., London,
28
1891, pp. 186-190.
'hereare five differencesof contactpotential,measuredas follows:

Copperand platinum +0.238v.
Platinum and concentratednitric acid +0.672 v.
Concentratednitric acid and dilute sulfuric acid +0.078 v.
Dilute sulfuric acid and zinc +0.241 v.
Zinc and copper +0.750v.
Total e.mJ. 1.979v.
'he measuredvoltage of the Grove cell is 1.884volts.
TheLatimer Clark cell--TheLatimerClark cell is described

.s follows:
Pt I Hg I Hg2S04 (solid) + ZnS04 (sat'd)I Zn(Hg)x I Pt
'he left-handplatinum is the positive electrode. The cell reaction

,:
Zn + Hg2S04 (solid) = ZnS04 (sat'd) + 2 Hg
'hereare four differencesof contactpotential,measuredas follows:

Platinum and mercury +0.156 v.
Hg & mixt. of Hg2S04 (solid), ZnS04 (sat'd) -0.210 v.
Mixt. of Hg2S04 (solid), ZnS04 (sat'd) & Zn(Hg)x +0.520 v.
Zn(Hg)x & platinum +1.125 v.
Total voltage 1.591 v.
'he measuredvoltage of the Latimer Clark cell is about 1.46 volts.
'he dataare notablylessreproduciblefor this cell thanfor the first
woo
Theseresults,impressiveas they are,hadto contendfor recogni-
ion with a host of determinationsby otherless skilful hands. The
.eedfor critical evaluationof datais seldombetterillustratedthan
1 the resultsreportedfor potentialdifferencesof contact. The wide
ariationsin thesedatadisgustedthosewho, like OrestDanilovich
illvol'son (1852-1934), undertook to collect and compare them.
.iter presentinga Tableof datacollatedfrom varioussources,he wrote:29
IO.D. Chwolson,Lehrbuchder Physik,Braunschweig,1904,Vol. 4, p. 214.

'ranslatedby R.M. Lichtensteinfrom the following passagein the ~rman
dition ofthe Russianoriginal:
'Weitere Kommentarezu dieserTabelle sind iiberfliissig.... Unsere
'abelle bestatigt,besserals dies mit vielen Worten moglich ware, alles
Furthercommentaboutthis Table would be superfluous .... It confirms,
better than many words can do, everythingI have said aboveabout the
presentstate of the subject: it showsthe total lack of agreementof the
measurements obtainedto date. Whoeverfacesthe questionobjectivelyis
forced to conclude that we know nothing about the componentsof the
electromotiveforce of an electrochemicalcell, and that at present,as a
centuryago,it remainsan openquestionwhetherthe sourceof the voltage
is in the contact betweenmetals or in the contact betweenmetal and
electrolyte.
Oliver Lodge too felt the samefrustration on reviewing experi-

mental results for differences of contact potentials: but while
Khvol'son was contentto let the wide variability of the dataspeak
louderthan words, Lodgetook it as a text for a shortsermonon the
currentstateof science:7
If everybodyexperimentedwith proper care there would be vastly fewer

paperspublishedin Germany,andsciencewould progressmuchfaster. At
presentit seemsto me overladenwith a massof publication, mostly of
necessityby men of not absolutelythe first order, much of it with no sort
of clearnessor insight, but rough, crude, and ill-digested. A man makes
a numberof experiments;he doesnot stopto critically examineandweigh
them, and deducefrom them their meaning,nor indeeddoeshe often take
the trouble to examinewhether any definite meaningcan in their then
shapebe drawnfrom them;but he rusheswith theminto print, producing
a memoir of wearisomelength and sometimesextremeilliteratenessof
style. Someone else then has the trouble of wading through the heapto
seewhetherany fragmentsof value may perchancebe imbeddedin it, and
probably he is unable to come to much definite conclusion,becausehe
cannotbe in so good a positionfor criticism of the experimentsas was the
original author. He therefore writes a paper pointing out defects and
errorsin the communication. Otherstake up the sameline, the original
man replies,and so thereis a controversy,and nothingis really settledat
wasvorhin tiber dengegenwartigenStandder ganzenFragegesagtworden

war; sie zeigt unsdie totale Nichttibereinstimmungder bishererhaltenen
Messungsresultateund zwingt jeden, der sich leidenschaftslosund
durchausobjektiv zur Sacheverhalt, dem Satzebeizustimmen,daB wir
gegenwartigiiber die Komponentender elektromotorischenKraft eines
Elementeseinfach gar nichts wissen und daB es jetzt, wie vor einem
Jahrhundert,fraglich bleibt, ob die Quelle fUr die Elektrizitat in der
Beriihrung der Metalle untereinanderoder die Beriihrung zwischenden
Metallen und Elektrolytenzu suchenist.'
ll. Finally, someone elseindependentlygoesover the whole groundfrom

)me distinct point of view, makesa few well-planned,clear,and decisive
q>eriments,describesthem in a compactand readableform, and there
lsults a definite gain to science. But how muchbetterwould it havebeen
'this last paperhad beenthe only one published!
And so the true believers(centeredin Glasgow) were outnum-

ered by those who consideredthe Volta effect to be merely the
dventitious consequenceof insufficiently careful experimental
~chnique. By the time this bogeywas discredited,Kelvin's experi-
lents and his hard-wonknowledgeof the subjectwere forgotten.
[e wasright to complainthat textbooksdid not include discussions
r the Volta potentialand that professorsdid not demonstrateit to
tudents:suchneglectof a topic is the high road to its oblivion. In
916 Langmuir said that the contacttheory of electromotiveforce
adbeencompletelygivenup by electrochemistsandthat physicists
egardedit with suspicion.ao In this paperLangmuirhadreviewed
ile more refined methodsthen available for the measurementof
[)ntact potentialsandalso studiesof electronemissionfrom heated
letals and photoelectricphenomena. He reported that contact
otentials of large magnitudedo indeedexist, even betweenpure
letals in high vacuum. He pointed out a general parallelism
etweenthe thermionicwork functions and the standardelectrode
otentials,andarguedthat the contactpotentialdifferencebetween
ure metals is often the principal term in the sum of the phase-
oundarypotentialsthat make up the voltage of the cell.
In spite of the antagonismshown in the nineteenthcentury to
ile contact-potentialtheoryit wasneverentirely supplantedby the
hemical theory; and now, after more than a century'sadvancesin
cience, it is recognizedas having initiated a new and exciting
ranch of electrochemistry,the scienceof electrodics.26 (Whewell
rould havewelcomedthis coinage,analogousto his thermotics--the
rdenceof heat.)
The modern interpretation of the relation between contact
otential differences and the voltage of a cell is expressedby
quation [7] and verified experimentallyby the results of Ayrton
nd Perry.2728 It saysthat the cell potential V equalsthe sum of
ile contact-potentialdifferencesat everyphaseboundaryin the cell.
II. Langmuir, Trans. American ElectrochemicalSociety, 1916, Vo1.29,

p.125-80;CollectedWorks, New York, 1961,Vol. 3, pp. 173-217.
This is exactly as Volta had it. To what extenthave his ideasbeen

confirmed by later work?31 The voltage of a cell may be treated
electrostatically,as in equation[7], or thermodynamicallyfrom the
point of view of the changeof Gibbsfree energyfor the cell reaction.
Volta pointed to the electrostatic treatment; Walther Nemst
(1864-1941)pointedto the thermodynamictreatment. The persis-
tenceof the controversywas due to the denial by the adherentsof
eachtreatmentof the validity of the other. Volta's original belief
that the contact-potentialdifferencesare a never-failing sourceof
electrical energywas soon disposedof. Then, as new discoveries
were made,such as the existenceof the electronand the electron
theory of metals, the theoretical understandingof the Volta
potential becameclearer. Volta's theory was never rejectedcom-
pletely as was advocatedby some,until today, insteadof opposing,
a version of his conceptis compatiblewith and indeeda necessary
complementto the chemicaltheory.
The end of the controversyshould be dated from this result,
which can be tracedbackto Willard Gibbs,via Guggenheim. 25 The
compatibility of the two theories, the contact theory and the

chemical theory, of the cell voltage, thus adumbrated by
Guggenheim,was ultimately madepainstakinglyclear in a series
of sevenpapersby Chalmers,32who carefully definedthe potential
differencesat phaseboundariesandconcludedthat thereis nothing
to choosebetweenthe two theories.The differencein the chemical
potentialsof the electronsin the two metallic electrodesis equalto
the differencein the chemicalpotentialsbetweenthe reactantsand
the productsin the cell reaction. The sum of the contactpotentials
measuresthe former; the voltageof the cell measuresthe latter. The
changeofthe Gibbsfree-energyfunction thatdeterminesthe voltage
of the cell can be indifferently ascribedeither to the difference in
chemicalpotentialof the electronsin the cathodeand in the anode,
or to the differencein chemicalpotentialbetweenthe reactantsand
the productsof the cell reactionby meansof which the electronsare
31 SeeLeon H. Fisherand RobertN. Varney, 'Contactpotentialsbetween

metals: History, concepts, and persistent misconceptions,'American
Journal of Physics,1976, Vol. 44, pp. 464-75. Also Idem, 'Electromotive
force: Volta's forgotten concept,'Ibid., 19S0,Vol. 4S, pp. 405-S.
32 J.A. Chalmers,Phil. Mag. 1942,[7], Vol. 33, pp. 399-415,pp.416-30,pp.
496-505,pp.506-13,pp.594-S,pp.599-60S,pp.60S-13.
'ansferred.For the cell reactionis merelythe mechanismby which

.ectronsaretransferredcontinuallyfrom oneelectrodeto the other.
And so we reachthe end of a long controversyof a centuryand
half, in which both sideshadpart of the truth, while eachclaimed
I have the whole truth. An allegorical tale relates that two
'avelersapproacheda statuefrom oppositedirectionsand, looking
~ it on oppositesides,one maintainedthat it was madeof gold and
le other that it was madeof silver. Eachwas half-right and half-
Tong, for it was actually madeof gold on one side and of silver on
le other. This allegory might have been written of the Volta
otential and its history.
Figure ll -2. Photographof Sir William Thomson, Baron Kelvin of Largs

Fipre U-3. Al essandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta (1745-1827)

APPENDIX TO THE STORY OF THE VOLTA POTENTIAL
EXPLANATION OF KELVIN'S EXPERIMENTS
By RolandM. Lichtenstein
In a paperof May 21,1897(Royal Institution of GreatBritain) Lord

Kelvin describeda demonstrationexperimentthat invites some
thoughts,basedon hindsight,aboutthe connectionbetweencontact
potentialsand the voltage of galvaniccells.
First let us review the basicdemonstrationof contactpotentials.
A capacitoris built with two parallelplatesof dissimilarmetals,say
copperand zinc. (SeeFigure 1)
II' , ,IJI
Cu
I :! I I Contact
Zn
Figure 1.
The zinc plate is grounded. The copper plate is insulated. The

copperplate is permanentlyconnectedto the 'high'-terminalof an
electrometer,heredepictedby the electroscopesymbol. Initially the
two platesare connectedthrough a dry metallic contact. The elec-
trometeris adjustedto read zero. This readingKelvin called the
'metallic zero'. Although the two platesare still connectedthere is
an electric field betweenthem of magnitudeE. The field lines are
sketchedin togetherwith arrows that indicate their sense. The
quantity Ea, where a is the plate separation,is called the contact
potentialdifferencerzn,cu' It turnsout thatEais independentof the
separationa; it dependsonly on the nature of the two opposing
surfaces. (Thereis no contradictionbetweenthe non-zerovalue of
r Zn,Cu andthe fact that the platesare still in electricalcontact. The

contactprovides equality of the chemicalpotential of electronsin
the two plates. But the chemicalpotential,althoughrelatedto the
electrical potential, is not identical with it. Thus although the
difference of the chemicalpotentialsof electronsin the two plates
is zero-thecontactseesto that-thecontact-potentialdifference
rzn,cu = Ea neednot be zero.)
Now the upperplate is raised;the contactis severedas soon as
the plate is raised only a little bit. Since the copper plate is
insulatedthe (negative)chargeon its bottomsurfaceis trapped. (To
simplify the discussionwe regardthe capacitanceof the electrom-
eter and its lead wire as negligibly small when comparedto the
capacitanceofthe platecapacitor.)As the separationa is increased
from a1 to a2, the field lines betweenthe platesbecomestretchedby
the amount of a2 - a1• The field strengthE, however, does not
change.Thus the electrometerwill read
(The minus sign indicates that the 'high'-terminal will become

negativewith the polarity shown.) The indication of the electrom-
eter is a measureof the contact-potentialdifferencerzn,cu.
We may vary this basicdemonstrationslightly so as to incorpo-
ratethe principle of the Kelvin null-method. We interposea voltage
source of variable voltage V betweenthe lower contact and the
groundedzinc plate. (SeeFigure 2)
Cu
In
v
Figure 2.
Now the field strength,at the beginningwith a = aI' is no longer

equalto E, but equalto
Whenthe copperplateis raisedto a = a2, the electrometerwill show

the reading [(a 2 - al)lal].[rZn,cu - V]. The experimentis repeated
with different settings of V. For a particular setting of V the
electrometerwill remainat its metallic zero. This null effect occurs
when V = rzn,cu' This is the principle of the Kelvin null method:
Adjust V until a null-effect occurs; then the contact-potential
differenceis given by rzn,cu = V. Note that, for the polaritiesshown,
the negativesideof the voltagesourceis connectedto the zinc plate
and the positive side is connected(initially, before the contact is
broken)to the copperplate.
And now we cometo Kelvin's remarkabledemonstration.
He replacedthe dry metallic contactof Fig. 1 by a wet contact,
i.e., a water drop. (SeeFigure 3). Now initially, before the copper
plate is raised,the electrometerwill no longerindicatethe metallic
zero, but a new value, which Kelvin called the electrolytic zero.
Thesetwo zerosdiffer by the voltageofthe cell Cu / water-drop/ Zn.
The 'high'-terminal of the electrometerwould be positive for this
kind of cell. Then Kelvin raisedthe copperplate, so that the water
drop would break,and continuedto raiseit. The remarkableeffect
was that the electrometerremainedat its electrolytic zero. This
showsthat:
1) Therewere no field lines to be stretched.
2) Consequently:The voltageof the cell Cu /water-drop/Zn was
automaticallyof the exactvalue and polarity to simulatethe right
settingof the voltage sourcein the Kelvin null methodof Figure 3.
3) Hence:rzn,cu = voltage of the cell Cu /water-drop/ Zn.
UnlessKelvin's null result with the wet contactwas fortuitous,
it demonstratesthe equality of the contact-potentialdifference
observedfor a dry contactand the voltageof the cell formed by the
wet contact. Obviously one can invent hindsight explanationsfor
Kelvin's null result, e.g., explanationsbasedon hypothesizingthe
existenceoflayersof moistureon the metallic surfaces;but we shall
now show, by an elementaryanalysisof Kelvin's experiments,that
his results were not fortuitous and that the foregoing hindsight
explanationis correct.
Cu
Figure 3.
At the outsetwe restrictour considerationsto isothermalelectro-

statics: all bodies are at the sametemperature;no currentsflow.
Furthermore,an acceptableexplanationnecessitates the useof only
those conceptsthat reflect actually measurablequantities,rather
than merely hypothesizedones. An exampleof a merely hypothe-
sized quantity is the electric-potential difference between the
interiors oftwo dissimilarconductors,which quantityis often called
the Galvani potential difference. As early as 1899 J.W. Gibbs
pointedout that Galvani potentialscannotbe measured.(Collected
Works, Vol. 1, p. 429; see also Guggenheim,Thermodynamics,for
further comments.) Therefore we shall refrain from using the
conceptof Galvani potentials.
On the other hand an exampleof a meaningful conceptis the
electric-potentialdifferencebetweentwo points that are both in a
vacuum(or air). The only requirementis that both points can be
connectedby a pathentirelyin vacuum(or air). Then,after a survey
of the electricfield-which canalwaysbe done,at leastin principle,
becauseall of the path is in vacuum (or air}--the potential dif-
ferencecan be determinedby meansof the relation:
Potentialdifference= line integral of the field strength.

The result does not dependon the choice of the path, becausethe
electrostaticfield is conservative.In practice one avoids the field
survey; insteadone usesingeniousroundaboutmethods,e.g. the
Kelvin methodof the variable capacitor,which we have described
above.
As to Galvani-potentialdifferences,onemight think of measuring
them in the direct mannerby way of the associatedelectric fields,
accordingto the equality given above;but then we shoudhave to
measureelectric fields inside condensedmatter, e.g. by the force
exerted on a chargedtest body. That, however, is just what we
cannot do, becausewe cannotjam a test body into the inside of
condensedmatter-notevena liquid-without bringing into play
forces other than thosethat could be solely attributedto the action
of an electric field as it would exist in the absenceof the test body.
Perhaps,within the bulk of condensedmatter these additional
forces might add up to zero; but there is no guaranteethat they
would do so in the surface and interface layers. Even the most
delicatetest body we may conceivablyemploy, namelythe electron,
can give rise to additionalforces, sometimescalled chemicalforces
<thoughultimately they are electricalin nature).
One might envisage the possibility that we could calculate
Galvani-potentialdifferencesif we use the atomic constitution of
matteras the startingpoint and quantumtheory as the tool, i.e., if
we apply the methodsof condensed-matter theory.But suchcalcula-
tions lie beyondour capabilities.
Finally, in connectionwith Galvani-potentialdifferences,one is
inclined to ask: Why don't we measurethem with voltmeters or
their equivalents,suchas potentiometers?The answeris, of course,
that we cannot,becausevoltmetersdo not measurepotential dif-
ferencesbut 'voltages'(a common term). The measurementof a
voltage is not subject to the same objection that applies to the
measurement of a potentialdifferencebetweenpoints in condensed
matter, namely, our inability to measureelectric fields inside
condensedmatter. The two kinds of measurementare basedon
different concepts,as we shall see. The voltage VAB betweenthe
terminals A and B of a given device expressesthe tendencyof
electronsto flow through a second,external,device(e.g. a resistor
or an electric motor) that has been connectedto theseterminals.
The first (second)subscriptin VAB indicatesthe terminal to which
the plus-lead(minus-lead)of a voltmetermeasuringVAB would be
connected.ObviouslyVAB = - VBA• Note that we are talking about

the flow of a specificsubstance,namely, electrons,andnot the flow
of somedisembodiedabstractquantity such as electric charge-a
point emphasizedby Guggenheim.This requiresthat the terminals
A and B be composedof electronicconductors,such as metals or
semiconductors, andnot ionic conductorssuchaselectrolytes.Now,
assumefor a momentthat the terminals(or one of them) actually
do consistof electrolytes. Assumefurthermorethat the conducting
parts of the second,external,device are madeof electronicconduc-
tors (e.g. metallic wires) as is usually the case: then, after the
connectionis made, we would have electronic conductorsdipping
into electrolytes,thus forming electrodes.With a slight shift in the
focus of our attention,we move the terminalsfrom the electrolytes
into the electrodesandso getbackto the casepreviouslyconsidered;
only now the voltage would dependon the natureof the electrode,
becausethe electrode-electrolytejunction forms one half of a gal-
vanic cell. (The other half is also present,but somewhereelse.)
Owing to this dependenceon the natureof the electrode,it doesnot
makesenseto speakof voltageswhen one or both of the terminals
may consistof electrolyte. It is also a bit absurdeven to contem-
platethe tendencyof electronsto flow from oneelectrolyticterminal
to anotherthrougha second,external,deviceif thereare no mobile
electrons in the terminals. Mter all, in electrolytic conductors,
electric chargeis transportedby ions, not by electrons.
We have alluded to the 'tendency'of electronsto flow from one
terminal to another.So far we have usedthe word 'tendency'in a
qualitativesense.It remainsto quantifyits meaning. The tendency
of electronsto flow from terminalA to terminalB, througha second,
external,device,is definedas the differenceJ.lA - J.lB of the chemical
potentialsof electronsin the two terminals. This difference,in turn,
is definedin the following way: let n be the amountof electrons(in
moles) transferredfrom A to B, then the maximum work (not
energy)WAB that can be extractedis given by
[1]
The word 'maximum'in the precedingsentencerefersto a reversible

operation(no dissipation). Here it is assumedthat both terminals
and the second,external,device are at the sametemperature,and
that the externaldeviceis in the samethermodynamicstatebefore
andafter the passageof the electrons. For an intuitive graspof the
70 NINETEENTH-CENTURY A'ITITUDES
meaningof the term 'maximumwork', think of the externaldevice

as being an ideal (loss-free)electric motor hoisting a weight.
Equation [1] is written for the condition J1-A > J1-B' so that a
positive amountof work can be extracted;if J1-A < J1-B then work has
to be suppliedto the second,external, device from the outside as
electronsare transferredfrom A to B. In this case,the symbol WAB
in equation[1] describesthe minimum work (not energy)that must
be supplied. The motor mentionedabovewould thenbe replacedby
a generator. Alternatively, for J1-A < J1-B' one may consider the
electronsto be transferredfrom B to A (again, as always, through
the second,external,device). Then WBA (= - WAB) is positive, and
work may then be extracted.
So far we have quantified the term 'tendencyto flow' as the
differenceJ1-A - J1-B of the chemicalpotentialsof the electrons.The
voltageVAB is then definedby
[2]
where-F = -96,500coulombsis the molar chargeof electrons.(The

confusingminus sign stemsfrom the fact that the electroniccharge
is negative.) When we transferan amountn of electrons(in moles)
then the transferredelectric chargeQ is given by
Q = (-F)n [3]
By combining equations[1] to [3], we can expressthe maximum

work WAB by the relation
[4]
The ultimate calibration of voltmetersis madein such a way that

equation[4] is fulfilled.
We couldhavebasedthe definition of voltagedirectly on equation
[4], as is sometimesdone, thus skipping the digression about
chemicalpotentials;but thentherewould be no insight into the fact
that voltage is a thermodynamicconcept, tied to a specific sub-
stance,namely, electrons.
We haveto makean incidentalremark,more aboutterminology
than about facts. We have seenthat the voltage VAB is a concept
relatingto two terminalsor bodies,A andB. But we often speakof
the voltage VA of a single body A. Here the one-bodyvoltageVA is
really a two-body voltage VAB' where the secondbody B is some

agreed-uponstandardbody, usually the 'ground' or the screening
material of a shieldedenclosure. What this amountsto is that, by
agreement,we equateto zero the one-bodyvoltageof the standard
body. A similar remark pertains to the chemical potentials of
electrons,uAand,uBin two bodiesA andB. What canbe measured
is only the difference,uA- ,uB' not the individual terms.Still, we may
speakof the one-bodychemicalpotential,uA if we standardizethe
body B as before.
In summary:what we can measureor otherwisedetermineare:
1) Electric-potential differences 'l'p - 'l'Q for two points both in
vacuum(or air) and connectibleby a path entirely in vacuum(or
air).
2) VoltagesVAB = VA - VB betweentwo bodiescomposedof perhaps
dissimilar electronic conductors. These bodies should be at the
sametemperature;otherwisethe measuredvoltage would depend
on the wiring material in the voltmeter(thermoelectriceffects!).
What we are not able to determineare electric-potentialdiffer-
ences'l'p - 'l'Q whereat leastone of the two pointsP andQ is inside
condensedmatter, i.e., we cannot determineGalvani potentials.
Whereassuchdifferencesas 'l'p - 'l'Q' whereboth termsare electric
potentials in vacuum (or air), or VA - VB' where both terms are
voltages,can be determined,a difference like 'l'P - VA' where the
terms are of dissimilar character,cannot be determined, even
thoughboth terms may be expressedin the sameunit, the volt. At
least this writer cannot point to any methodsof classicalelectro-
magnetismand thermodynamicscapableof determining'l'P - VA.
Yet it is claimedthat experimentsthat go beyondthesetwo discip-
lines, such as photoelectricexperiments,can be usedto determine
'l'P - VA; but the logic behind thesedeterminationsis not entirely
clear to this writer. At any rate we do not needto know the values
of suchmixed-termdifferencesin what follows.
We havenow assembledthe backgroundmaterialfor the discus-
sion of contact-potentialdifferencesor Volta-potentialdifferences.
The basicexperiencerelatesto two dissimilar electronicconductors
A andD in dry contact.This contactestablisheselectronicequilibri-
um betweenthe two conductors,so that,uA = ,uD or, what amounts
to the samething, VAD = 0, i.e., a voltmeter connectedbetweenA
andD will readzero. Isothermalconditionsshouldprevail, andthe
temperatureshouldbe low enoughto suppressdiffusion of matter
otherthanelectronsbetweenthe two bodies.Roomtemperaturewill
72 NINETEENTH-CENTURY ATI'ITUDES
do in most cases. Let A' andD' be two points in closeproximity to

the surfacesof A andD, but still clearly in vacuum(or air). It turns
out that the electric-potentialdifference"'A' - "'D' betweenthesetwo
points dependsonly on the materialsof the two conductorsA andD
and the nature of their surfaces,e.g., on the stateof surfacecon-
tamination and, if relevant,on the crystallographicorientationof
the surfaces,but is independentof the spatial arrangementand
shapeof the bodiesA and D; nor is it affectedby neighboringor
contiguousobjects.This independenceis one aspectof the Law of
Invariance.SO "'A' - "'D' has a fixed value, which we denoteby rAD'
It goesby the namesof contact-potentialdifferenceor Volta-poten-
tial difference.
A secondaspectof the Law of Invariancecomesinto play when
we modify the basic arrangementof conductorsA and D in direct
dry contact.Instead,we interposeseveralother electronicconduc-
tors, say Band C, so that A,B,C,D form a chain; A in dry contact
with B, thenB in dry contactwith C, &c. We are interestedagain
in the electric-potentialdifference"'A' - "'D" It turns out that it has
the samevalue, namely,r AD' that it had beforethe interpositionof
BandC. The contentof this statementcannotbe derivedby logical
arguments;experimentalverification is necessary.
Now let B' and C' be two vacuum(or air) pointsin closeproximi-
ty to the electronicconductorsB andC. Thenthe following equation
is a mere triviality:
Previouslywe mentionedthat, for instance,"'B' - "'c'

is not affected
by contiguousbodies,in this caseA andD, so that "'B' - "'e-
= r BC'
Similarly for the other two terms on the right-hand side. Our
equationthen becomes
Next we use the experimentalobservationthat "'A' - "'D' is not

affected by the interposition of B and C, so that this potential
differenceis equal to rAD' Altogetherthen
[5]
This is the Volta additionlaw for contact-potentialdifferences.With

an obvious adaptationof the notation, it holds for chains of any
length, but only as long as all membersof the chain are electronic
conductors. What happenswhen this condition is not met will be
discussedlater.
So far we havedescribedthe Law of Invariance,which saysthat
"'A' - "'D' is invariantunderspatialrearrangementandinterposition.
Now we cometo the secondlaw, the Law of Tracking(not an official
name). Previouslywe examinedthe potential difference"'A' - "'D'
whenVAD = O. This conditionis met whenthe electronicconductors
A andD arein direct dry contactor in chaincontact. What happens
whenVAD is no longerequalto zero,but hassomenon-zerovalue U?
This would occur when body A is connectedto one terminal of a
battery with voltage U, while body D is connectedto the other
terminal. Of course,A and D must not touch one another,or the
batterywould be short-circuited.Insteadof a battery,we could use
any otherdevicethat maintainsa voltageUbetweentwo terminals,
for instancea resistorwith an appropriateelectric currentflowing
throughit. Even though this current seemsto violate the zero-cur-
rent condition statedat the outset,it is permissiblesinceit is quite
extraneousto the contact-potentialphenomenonat hand. Onefinds
(experimentally)that, as VAD changesfrom 0 to U, the potentialdif-
ference "'A' - "'D' betweenthe vacuum (or air) points A' and D'
changesfrom its original value r AD to r AD + U. Thus we have
[6]
In other words, the potentialdifference"'A' - "'D' tracks the voltage

VAD. This is the Law of Tracking. For equation[6] to be valid we
must, of course,make surethat, as we changethe voltagebetween
the conductorsA and D, the nature of their surfacesremainsun-
changed.
To somebodyinterestedin logical niceties equation [6] may
appearsuspect:for on its right-handside two physicalquantitiesof
different characterare added,a potentialdifferencer AD (expressing
a concept from electrostatics)and a voltage VAD (expressinga
conceptfrom thermodynamics).It is to be hopedthat this scruple
can be allayedby the remark that we are not adding the physical
quantitiesthemselvesbut their valuesin a sharedunit, the volt. In
principle, this practiceis not different from the formulation of the
first law of thermodynamics,in which the heatinput and the work
input are addedto obtain the increaseof energy,all of which are

different conceptsexpressedin sharedunits.
This writer feels boundto admit that he hasattemptedto derive
both the Law of Invarianceand the Law of Tracking from more
fundamentalprinciples, and that he has so far failed to do so. Yet
there does exist a simple argumentcapableof deriving thesetwo
laws from assumptionsthat are, thoughnot fundamental,at least
plausible.It goeslike this. Considera capacitorwhoseplatesconsist
of two dissimilar electronic conductorsX and Y. The dielectric
mediumbetweenthemshall be vacuum(or air). Initially thereshall
be no electric field in the capacitor.(A field-free state cannot be
achievedby shorting the plates, on account of contact-potential
phenomena;but it canbe achievedby meansof an interposedcom-
pensatingsourceof voltage,aswe explainedwhenwe discussedthe
Kelvin null method.)When a batteryis connectedto the capacitor
it delivers a charge+ Q to the X plate and a charge- Q to the Y
plate. Thus a chargeQ passesthrough the battery,so that its free
energy drops by QV where V is the thermodynamicallydefined
voltageof the battery. We shall calculateQ by minimizing the free
energyof the combinedsystem,batteryplus capacitor. First we set
the (arbitrary) zero level of the free energyof each componentto
pertain to the initial state, i.e., the state before the connectionis
made.In the final state,i.e., after the connectionis made,the free
energyof the batteryis - QV. As to the free energyofthe capacitor,
there is the usual contribution Q2/2C from the field energyin the
vacuum (or air), where C is the capacitance. But there are two
additional terms. And this is the point where a plausibleassump-
tion has to be made. Take the examplefor which the chargeQ of
theX-plate is positive: therewill thenbe electric-fieldlines that are
'rooted'at the X-plate and that 'bite' into the Y-plate. We assume
that wherever a field line bites into the Y-plate, an additional
amountof free energyhasto be figured in. Sincethe total number
of field lines biting into the Y-plate is proportionalto the chargeQ,
the extra amountof free energyis l1Q, where11 is a proportionality
factor that dependson the materialandsurfacestateofthe Y-plate,
but doesnot-by assumption--depend on Q. A similar term, with
a different proportionality factor ~, is associatedwith the X-plate;
but here the extra amountof free energyis - ~Q, the minus sign
beingrequiredbecausethe field lines havetheir roots at theX-plate
whereasat the Y-plate they arebiting into the material. Altogether
then, the free energyF of the combinedsystemin its final stateis

given by
F = - QV + Q2/2C + 1'\Q - ~Q [7]
To repeat, the first term on the right-hand side goes with the
battery, the secondterm goes with the medium (vacuum or air)
betweenthe two capacitorplates,while the third and fourth terms
go with the surfacesofthe plates.Now we minimize the free energy
F with respectto the chargeQ, by differentiatingequation[7] with
respectto Q and settingthe derivative equal to zero. Since C, 1'\,
and ~ are constants,the derivative is given by
(aF/aQ) = - V + Q/C + 1'\ - ~
Equating(aF/aQ) to zero gives us
Q/C =V + ~ - 1'\
Now, from basicelectrostaticfield theory, we know that Q /C is the

potentialdifference'IIX' - 'II¥' betweentwo pointsX and Y that are
in closeproximity to the capacitorplatesX and Y, but still clearly
in vacuum(or air). Note that this statementis about a potential
difference,not a voltage. Altogether then, replacingthe symbol V
by Vxy,
In particular,setVxy equalto zero. This happenswhen the bodies

X and Yare in dry contact. But then, 'IIX' - 'II¥' is the contact-
potential differencerxy' Consequently
Combiningthe last two equations,we obtain
[8]
This brings us back to equation[6] (exceptfor the name change

from A,D to X, y), which embodiesboth the Law of Invarianceand
the Law of Tracking. Note that the capacitanceC no longerappears
in equation[8], so that the result does not dependon the spatial

configurationof the conductorsX and Y. Also note that the result
dependson the difference~ - T\ of the two proportionality factors.
Their individual values cannot be determinedby experimentsof
classicalphysics.
Our derivation of equation [8] can be paralleledby a similar
derivationthat is more pictorial. To avoid mathematicalcomplexi-
ties we assumethat the capacitoris of the parallel-platetype with
plateareaA andplateseparationa. Whenthe batteryis connected,
electric-fieldlines swell up from it andmigrateinto the capacitorto
arrangethemselvesin the configurationof a uniform electric field.
(Fringing is neglected.)Let N be the numberof field lines that the
battery sends into the capacitor, each representingan electric
chargeq. The free energyof the batteryhas then droppedby NqV.
Assumethat the dielectricmediumbetweenthe platesis a vacuum
(air has nearly the samedielectric properties).From electrostatics
we know that the electric-field strengthE betweenthe plates is
proportional to the line density N / A and has the value qN/ Eo A,
where Eo is the permittivity of vacuum.The energydensity in the
vacuumis Eo E2/ 2, so that the electrostaticenergystoredbetween
the platesis Eo E 2aA/2, as the effective storagevolume is aA. The
free energy is the same,becausethe vacuum does not store any
entropy. (Helmholtz free energy = Energy - Temperaturetimes
Entropy.)As before,the free energyassociatedwith the surfacesis
proportional to the numberN of field lines, and has the value of
Nq(C; - T\J. Altogetherthen, the free energyof the combinedsystem,
batteryplus capacitor,is given by
F = - NqV + Eo (qN/eoAf aA/2 + Nq(C; - T\J

We minimize F with respectto N by the sameprocedurewe used
before and obtain
Nqa/eoA = V + ~ - T\
or
Ea = V + ~ - T\
But Ea is the potential difference 'VX' - 'VY' betweentwo vacuum

points in closeproximity to the plates,so that
'ifX' - 'If¥' =V + ~ - 11
From hereon, the argumentcontinuesasbefore,leadingto equation

[8].
This equationis valid only if the bodiesX and Yare electronic
conductors;for only then can we speakof a voltage Vxy, as was
pointed out earlier in our discussion. Otherwise there are no
restrictions.For instance,let X andY be in direct dry contact;then
Vxy is zero, so that equation[8] gives us
'ifX' - 'If¥' = rxy

If we now interposea chain of electronicconductorsin dry contact,
then Vxy is still zero, sinceX and Y are still in electronicequilibri-
um. Thus the precedingequationstill holds; and that, as we have
seen,leadsto the Volta addition law. Now supposethat one of the
membersof the chain is an electrolyticconductor,which we denote
by E. For instance,we may deal with the chain X, A, E, B, Y, all
conductors,exceptE, being electronic. The combinationA, E, B
constitutesa galvanic cell, whose voltage VAB is non-zero. The
voltage Vxy betweenthe end membershas the same value VAB'
becauseX andY are in electronicequilibrium with A andB respec-
tively. Thus equation[8] gives us
The valueon the right-handsidediffers (by VAB) from the valuer xy,
which one would predictfrom the Volta addition law. This example
showsthat the Volta law doesnot apply whereelectrolytic conduc-
tors are involved. Nevertheless,the trivial equation
still holds. Here X', A', E', &c. are points in the air in close
proximity to the bodiesX, A, E, &c. (We must use air or its equi-
valent for the surroundingmedium; in vacuum, the electrolyte
solutionwould boil.) We may replacethe variousparentheses on the
right-handsideby the correspondingcontactpotentialsr XN rAB' &c.
Our equationthen becomes
This equationis valid; but we cannotreplace"'X' - "'¥'

by rxy, as we
have pointed out: seeequation[8] when VAB is not zero. The term
rAE is the contactpotentialbetweenthe electronicconductorA and
the electrolytesolutionE, into which A is partially immersed.This
is a meaningful concept,whereasthe voltage betweenA and E is
devoid of meaning.
That the contact-potentialdifference"'M' - "'E' betweena metal
M and an electrolyte solution E in (obviously wet) contact is a
meaningfulconceptdoesnot imply that there will be no complica-
tions. Consider, for example, an initially clean and dry piece of
metal M dipping into an electrolyte solution E. Assumethat the
surroundingmediumis air. Let E' be an air point in closeproximity
to the (horizontal) surfaceof the electrolytesolution, and let M' be
an air point in close proximity to the dry portion of the metal's
surface.Determinethe contact-potentialdifference"'M' - "'E'; after
a while, however,the initially dry part of the metal'ssurfacemay
becomecoveredby a film of moisture.This film hasa metal-to-liquid
interfaceanda liquid-to-air surface.It is not unreasonable to expect
that this surfacehas the sameelectricalpropertyas the surfaceof
the bulk. electrolyte solution. (This property is describedby the
proportionalityfactor, suchas ~ or Tl, that was introducedwhen we
presentedthe plausibility argumentfor the occurrenceof contact-
potentialphenomena.)Thus, after the film of moisturehasformed,
the point M', which originally was a point in air in closeproximity
to the surfaceof the metal, is now a point in air in closeproximity
to the surfaceof the electrolytesolution,to which it bearsthe same
relation as the otherpoint in air E'. In this new circumstancethen,
a more appropriatedesignationfor the point M' would be E". The
contact-potentialdifference,which originally was "'M' - "'E" hasnow
beenchangedto "'E" - "'E'; andthis new valueis evidentlyzero,since
the points in air E' and E" are both near the surfaceof one con-
tinuous (and more or less homogeneous) body, namely,the electro-
lyte solution, which extendsfrom its main bulk in a vesselto the
film of liquid adheringto the metalsurface.A moregraphicdescrip-
tion of the new situation is that we are now dealing with a single
lump of liquid consistingof the bulk of the electrolytesolution and
a bag-like extension,the adsorbedfilm of solution that completely
enshroudsthe metalM. The pieceof metal,beingfully immersedin
thesolution,hasthenvanishedaltogetherfrom the sceneof contact-
potentialphenomena.
A similar situationprevailswhentwo piecesA andB of dissimi-

lar metalsdip into an electrolytesolutionE, without touchingone
another.Alternatively, the two piecesmay be in indirect contact
through a drop of electrolyte solution, as depicted in Figure 3.
Electrically, the two configurationsare the same.Let A' and B' be
two points in air in closeproximity to A andB. One can then deter-
mine the potential difference 'l'A' - 'l'B" for instanceby Kelvin's
methodof the variablecapacitor.(This differenceis not equalto the
contact-potentialdifferencer AB for dry contactbetweenA and B,
becausethis time the galvanic cell A, E, B is interposed.)It may
turn out that this differenceis closeto zero, as Kelvin purportedto
haveshownwith his demonstrationexperiment.Then,accordingto
equation[8], we would have rAB '" - VAB = VBA- This, of course,
would be a significantresult, in that the contact-potentialdifference
rAB for dry contactis nearly equal to the voltage VBA of a galvanic
cell madeof the samemetals.This writer failed to find a theoretical
explanationfor this result.
But it could also be the casethat, when Kelvin madehis demon-
stration,the metallic surfaceswere alreadycoveredwith a continu-
ous fllm of solutionextendingto the bulk of the electrolytesolution.
Then the two pieces of metal A and B would be completely en-
shroudedwithin onecontinuouslump of electrolytesolution,so that
they would have vanished from the scene of contact-potential
phenomena. In the terminology used two paragraphsabove, the
points in air A' and B' near the metals would have turned into
points in air E"(A) and E"(B) near one continuouslump of electro-
lyte solution; thus, what was thought to be the contact-potential
difference'l'A' - 'l'B' hasbecome'l'E"(A) - 'l'E"(B), which is trivially zero.
This writer's opinion is that we do not know at presentwhether
Kelvin's demonstrationshowed somethingthat is significant or
something that is trivial. The whole field of contact-potential
differencesis fraughtwith uncertaintiesresultingfrom the fact that
experimentalresultsdependmarkedlyon the natureof the surfaces
(stateof oxidation, contamination,&c.) Moreover,this field, though
intensively worked on in the nineteenthcentury-thereis a vast
bodyofliteratureon thesubject-has vanishedasanactiveinterest
of researchin the twentiethcentury.
We haveseenthat thereis no electricfield betweentwo dissimi-
lar metalsX and Y, both coveredwith a fllm of moisture,whenX
and Yare in wet (electrolytic) contact. Thus,if (wetX), and(wet Y)'
designatetwo points in closeproximity to the moist piecesof metal,
but still clearly in air, the potentials'I'(wet X)' and 'I'(wet ¥)' fulfIll the
equation
'I'(wetx)' - 'I'(wetY)' = 0 for wet contactbetweenX and Y. [9]
Here the galvanic cell X, E, Y where E denotesan electrolyte

solution, has beeninterposedbetweenX and Y. What can we say
whenX and Y are in dry contactbut otherwisestill coveredwith
layers of moisture? For the sakeof clarity we shouldimaginethat
the layer on X doesnot run into the layer on Y; otherwise,nearthe
junction, there would occur a short-circuitedgalvanic cell, which
would complicate the discussion.So we imagine that near the
junction the two metals are kept artificially dry, while layers of
moisture cover the remaining (and much larger) portions of the
surface.In actual practicewe shouldnot needto adopt the precau-
tion of drying the surfacesnearthe junction, sincethe galvaniccell
formed by the thin layer of moisturehasa high internalresistance,
so that, electrically,the dry contact'wins'. The two cases,electrolyt-
ic contact and dry contact, differ only by the interposition of the
galvanic cell X, E, Y in the former case.Thus, provisionally (see
below) applying the Law of Tracking, we fmd that 'I'(wet Xi' - 'I'(wet YJ'
for the electrolyticcontactequals'!'(wetX)' - '!'(wet¥)' for the dry contact
plus VKEY, where VKEY is the voltage of the galvanic cell X, E, Y.
Sincethe first of thesepotentialdifferencewas shownto be zero,we
obtain
'I'(wetx)' - 'I'(wetY)' = - VKEY for dry contactbetweenX and Y. [10]

Note that the right-handside ofthis equationis equalto a voltage,
not to a potentialdifference.
Here we have taken some liberty with the Law of Tracking.
Originally it was establishedfor electronicconductorsonly. (Only
then can we speakof a voltage.)But herewe haveappliedit to two
electrolytic conductors,namely the two fIlms of moisture.We can
checkthe correctnessof our useby examiningthe potentialsat the
foUr air points (wet X)" (dry X)" (dry Y)', (wet Y)', for we have,
trivially,
The first andlast parenthesesarefixed quantities,namely,contact-

potential differences. The Law of Tracking holds for the middle
parenthesis;hence,it holds also for the left-handside.
Let us interprettheseresultswith a practicalexample.Consider
a sheetof zinc and a sheetof copperlaid againsteachother. We
meetthe following four situations.
1. Both metalsare cleanand dry: the contactis dry.

Thereis an electric field in the spacebetweenthe two sheets.The
relevantpotentialdifference'!'zn' - '!'Cu' betweentwo air points close
to either sheetis the contact-potentialdifferencerzn,cu' It is of the
order of one volt, the zinc side being positive. The voltage between
the sheetsis zero, so that no electric power can be extracted.
2. Both metalsare moist: the contactis dry.
There is an electric field betweenthe two sheets.The relevant
potential differencebetweentwo air points close to either sheetis
equalto the voltageVCu,E,Zn of the galvaniccell Cu, E, Zn, as shown
by equation[10]. (We took care of the minus sign by inverting the
orderfrom Zn, E, Cu to Cu, E, Zn.) The potentialdifferenceis of the
order of one volt, the zinc side being positive. The voltage between
the sheetsis zero, so that no electric power can be extracted.
3. Both metalsare moist: the contactis throughan electro-
lyte solution.
There is no electric field betweenthe sheets.The voltage between
the sheetsis VCIl,E,zn' It is of the order of one volt, the copperside
being positive. Note the inversion of polarity as we go from case2
to case 3. Electric power can be extracted;it is accountedfor by
commensurate chemicalprocessesin the galvaniccell formed at the
electrolyticjunction.
4. Both metalsare cleanand dry: the contactis throughan
electrolytesolution.
There is an electric field betweenthe two sheets,but weakerthan
in cases1 and 2. The relevantpotentialdifferencebetweentwo air
points close to either sheetis rzn,cu + VZn,E,cu = rzn,cu - VCIl,E,Zn from
the Law of Tracking. Kelvin believedthat he demonstratedcase4,
but probably he demonstratedonly the more trivial case 3. The
voltage betweenthe two sheetsis the sameas for case3, namely
VCuEZn' Electric power can be extracted.
At this point of our discussionwe should point out that we

treated all electrolyte solutions we dealt with as being alike.
Actually, of course, they are not, becausethey contain different

kinds and amounts of solutes. But the electrical differences
engenderedthereby are presumablysmall when comparedto the
uncertaintiesthat inherein all experimentspertainingto contact-
potentialphenomena.
We concludewith a topic that is of historicalinterest,namelythe
Volta pile. It consists(say) of n zinc sheetsandn + 1 coppersheets
placedon top of eachother in alternatesequence.The contactsare
dry and electrolytic(abbreviatedas wet) in alternatesequence.We
can representthe pile by the scheme
Cu /wet /Zn /dry /Cu /wet /Zn /dry . .. Cu /wet /Zn /dry /Cu
Bottom Top
There are n wet contacts,constituting galvanic cells, and n dry

contacts. We assumethat all sheets are covered with films of
moisture. The pile then comprisesn instancesof case 2 (for dry
contact) and n instancesof case3 (for wet contact). The voltage
between the two extreme copper sheetsis n times VCu,E,Zn' the
bottom sheetbeing positive. The potential differencebetweentwo
air points adjacentto the two extremecoppersheetshas the same
value, by the Law of Tracking. The bottom sheetis positive. For a
dry-contactpairZn / dry / Cu thereis anelectricfield in the air space
betweenthe sheets;for a wet-contactpair, thereis none.Volta was
thereforecorrect when he ascribedthe potential difference of the
whole pile to the contributionsfrom the dry-contactpairs; however,
the voltageof the whole pile (it hasthe samevalue) comesfrom the
wet-contactpairs, Cu /wet /Zn. Thus the seatsof the voltage (the
wet-contact pairs) are not the same as the seats of potential
difference (the dry-contact pairs). Volta, not being aware of the
conceptual difference between potential difference and voltage,
ascribedthe voltage of the pile to the contributionsfrom the dry-
contactpairs; in this he was wrong. But that was beforethe law of
conservationof energywasknown. Nowadaysit seemsobviousto us
that, when electric power is drawn from the pile, it comesfrom the
chemical reactions in the galvanic cells constitutedby the wet
contacts.Furthermore,the clear distinction betweena potential
difference(a conceptfrom electrostatics)and a voltage (a concept
from thermodynamics)was madeonly in the twentiethcentury.
SUPPLEMENTARYNOTE
We have refrainedfrom using the term 'electromotiveforce' or

'e.m.f.' for short; for there is no consistencybetween different
authorsin the meaningofthe term. First of all it is a misnomer,for
e.mJ.is not a force, but more akin to the spatial line integral of a
force (or ratherto a force per unit charge).Thus it expressessome
sort of work (or rather of work per unit charge).The distinction
between a force and an e.mJ. is analogousto the distinction
betweenan electric-fieldstrengthanda potentialdifference.On this
point all authorsagree;but beyondthat the meaningof the term
varies. To someauthorsit is synonymouswith 'voltage.'To others
it meansthe open-circuitvoltage of a battery. To a third group of
authors it means the open-circuit voltage of any two-terminal
device. This use is met most often in connectionwith Thevenin's
theorem in circuit theory. To a fourth group it meansthe work
accountedfor by agenciesotherthandifferencesofthe (not measur-
able)Galvanipotentials.Suchauthorsequatethe current-resistance
productof a circuit branchto the sum of voltage plus e.mJ.A fifth
group extendsthis use to field theory. The authorsof this group
equatethe product of currentdensity and resistivity to the sum of
electric-fieldstrengthplus an e.mJ.gradient.A sixth group applies
the term to electromagneticinduction. Theseauthorsdefine e.mJ.
as the spatialline integral of the electric-field strengthtakenover
a completeloop. To themthe term 'countere.m.f.' meanssomething.
We thereforethink it advisableto avoid the term e.mJ.altogether.
ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION 85
~xert twenty times the force. Thus were born Schweigger'smulti-

plier andAmpere'ssolenoid. In rapid successionfollowed the elec-
~romagnet (Arago and Davy), the astatic galvanometer(Nobili),
~lectromagnetic rotations(WollastonandFaraday),andthe science
)f electrodynamics(Ampere).
But to one questionthe answerwas stubbornlywithheld. If the
presenceof an electric currentis always concomitantwith a mag-
netic field, why should it not be possible to reverse Oersted's
~xperiment and induceelectric currentsby the action of a magnet?
rhe first to considerthis questionwas Augustin Fresnel(1788-
1827),2 who arguedthat since a steel bar can be magnetizedby
passinga current through a metallic helix surroundingthe bar, it
is naturalto try if a bar magnetwould not in turn createan electric
l!urrent within an envelopinghelix. 'Not that such a result is a
necessaryconsequenceof the original observation,' he added,
:becausethe magneticstateof steelmight, for example,be due only
~o a new arrangementof its molecules,or to a particular way in
which an imponderablefluid is distributed; in which case the
magnetic state would not be expectedto be able to produce the
movementthat originally establishedit.' He thought,nevertheless,
that it might not be uselessto try the experiment. On 6 November
1820,he reportedto the Academyof Sciencesthat he hadsucceeded
in decomposingwaterby meansof a currentinducedin a coil wound
arounda magnet. Emboldenedby this announcement, Amperealso
declaredthat he too hadnoticedsomethingin the way of production
~f currentsfrom a magnet.Beforethe endof the year,however,both
statementswere retracted. Fresnelexplainedthat his announce-
mentwas prematureandthat on subsequent trials the resultswere
not reproduced;asfor MonsieurAmpere,his explanationcontinued,
the indicationshe had obtainedwere so feeble and uncertainthat
b.e would not havepublishedthem at all, had not Fresnel'sresults,
which he thought certain,persuadedhim that his observedeffects
must also have originatedfrom a currentinducedby a magnet.3
IA. Fresnel,Annalesde Chimie et de Physique, 1820, [2], Vol.15, pp.

219-222. Reprintedin Coll. Vol.2, pp. 76-79.
I Others had tried to repeat Fresnel'sobservationand found it to be
erroneous.Gilbert, in Gilbert'sAnnalender Physik, 1820,Vol. 66, p. 410,
after giving a summaryof Fresnel'sreputeddiscovery,statedthat he had
repeatedthe experimentwith no result. The sameconclusionwasreached
by Pohl, Oken'sIsis, 1822,pt. IV, p. 407; also seeremarkssignedP at the
With Fresnel'sexperimentwe seefor the first time the false trail

that made it so difficult to discover electromagneticinduction.
Fresnelhadreasonedthat sincea steadycurrentproduceda steady
magnetic field, the converseeffect would be detectedby merely
placing a magnetin the neighborhoodof a wire, or a coil of wire,
and looking for the presenceof a steadycurrent in the wire. He
argued further, with irrefutable logic, that this converseeffect,
though it might be forthcoming, does not necessarilyexist, so that
repeatedfailures to obtain it would be a good reasonto give up the
search.We now know that this type of converseto Oersted'sexperi-
ment cannotbe realized;but if a fluctuating magneticfield be ap-
plied, pulsesof electric currentwould be generatedin the wire.
Six monthslater, Amperesoughtthe effect with a more carefully
designedexperiment,which turned out negative. He statedhis
conclusion with impressive deliberation:4 'The proximity of an
electric current does not induce another current in a metallic
conductormadeof copper,evenunderthe mostfavorableconditions
for its influence to be effective.' The experimentthat led him to
that conclusionwas simple enough:a light-weight ring made of a
thin strip of copper was suspendedby a fine wire so that it lay
inside, and almost touching,a flat coil wound coplanarto the ring.
Ampere'sown diagram is shown in Figure 1. When a current is
passedthrough the coil, the magneticfield generatedwould have
the samegeometricrelation to the coil and to the suspendedring.
Ampere expectedthat an induced current, if one were called into
existence,would then flow around the ring, and he proposedto
detectit by observingthe action of a magneton the movablering.
In July 1821, when he tried the experiment,he saw no movement
of the ring, despiteits easeof mobility. That result persuadedhim
of the non-existenceof inducedcurrents.
The following year, on an eight-dayvisit to Switzerland,Ampere
setup the experimentagain,in orderto demonstrateit to an ardent
youngphysicist,Augustede La Rive (1801-1873).This time he had
available a powerful horse-shoemagnet,on loan from the Geneva
Museum,as a detector. By its meansan effect,thatat first he had
end of an article by Savary in PoggendorffsAnnalen der Physik und

Chemie,1826, Vol. 8, p. 368.
4A.M. Ampere, Journal de Physique,1821, Vol. 93, p. 447; reprinted in
Coll., Vol. 2, pp. 212-237.
failed to observebecameprominent. But the circumstancesof the
experimentwere actuallypoorly disposedfor a clear-cutdemonstra-
tion of electromagneticinduction: what Ampereand de La Rive ob-
servedwas that the ring would move slightly whenevera current
was initiated in the coil, and that it would return to its original
position once the circuit was broken.
Figure ill-I. The apparatuswith which Ampere and de la Rive dimly

foresawthe presenceof an inducedcurrentin 1822. ABCDEF-the loop
of the primary circuit; M-a glass tube through which passesa fine
thread,suspendingthe copperring GHI that forms the secondarycircuit;
pk, qn-supportsfor an iron horse-shoemagnet (not shown in the
diagram)to producea constantmagneticfield inside which the secondary
circuit GHL will turn at the momentwhen the inducedcurrentflows.
Even though the momentarycharacterof the induced current

was not at all evidentfrom this observation,they hadundoubtedly
witnesseda true effect of electromagneticinduction. Ampere at
least immediately recognized it as such, although he erred in
believing that a steady current persistedin the ring while the
primary current lasted. On his return to Paris he reported the
resultsof this andotherexperimentsto the Academyof Scienceson
16 September1822.
The memoir that Ampere read on this occasionremainedun-
publisheduntil long after his death:young de La Rive had sentan
account5 of the Genevaexperimentsto the Swiss journal Biblio-
thequeUniverselle,andthis was soonafter reprintedin theAnnales
de Chimie et de Physique. Ampere thereforeconsideredthat the
publication of his own memoir on the subject was not required.
Thoughapparentlytrivial, this incident had unfortunaterepercus-
sions. De La Rive, who was only twenty at the time, gave an
inadequateaccountof the experiment,which was to misleadlater
investigators. At a critical time in the history of the subject,the
report by de La Rive was the only one readily available. The few
sentencesdevotedto the experimentoccur as the terminal para-
graph of a paperlargely concernedwith other matters. The para-
graphis quotedbelow in its entirety:
The secondexperimenthad to do with the effect producedon a thin copper

ring that is suspendedwithin a band of strong electric currents,which
surround it without touching it anywhere. This effect, which at first
M.Amperebelievedto be non-existent,hasbeenverified by him very defin-
itely while in Geneva. With a powerful horse-shoemagnetheld near one
face of the ring, it (the ring) was observedto advanceor withdraw between
the two branchesof the magnet,dependingon (suivant)the directionofthe
currentin the surroundingconductors.This importantexperimentshows
that bodiesnot otherwiseable to acquirepermanentmagnetismby the in-
fluence of electric currents,beingin this respectunlike iron and steel,can
at leastacquirea sort of temporarymagnetismwhile they are under the
influence of a current.
5 A de La Rive, BibliothequeUniverselle, 1822,Vol. 21, p. 29; andAnnales

de Chimie et de Physique,1822, [2], Vol. 21, pp. 24-48; reprintedin Coll.,
Vol. 2, pp. 308-328.
What an inept conclusion! Oerstedhad alreadyshownthat the

assageof a currentleadsto a temporarymagnetismin a metalnot
.sually magnetic. The significant point, that the temporary
lagnetismobservedin the Genevaexperimentwas the resultof an
rouced current, was not even suggested. This timid or bland
tatementdeprivedthe announcementof all its potentialdramatic
Illpact. A more experiencedwriter would haveplacedthe empha-
is elsewhere. Ampere certainly saw no reasonto hesitateabout
rawing a conclusion that seemedso obvious. The very first
entence of his unpublished memoir made that clear:6 'The
bjective of the experimentwas to learn if an electric currentcould
Ie producedby the influence of another current.' The memoir
ontinuedwith a descriptionofthe apparatus,which wasessentially
he same as that shown in Figure 1, though one difference, not
rlentionedat the time, was the substitutionof a silk threadfor the
ine metallic wire usedto suspendthe copperring. This substitu-
ion may well havehad an effect on the observedresultsbecauseof
he weak torsion of the thread,which was seeminglyinsufficient to
eturn the ring to its rest position after the passageof a pulse of
uducedcurrent.
The observedresults were next disposedof with the simple
tatementthat 'the ring was alternatelyattractedand repelledby
he magnet,when underthe influenceof the currentflowing in the
uter spiral.' So brief an accountof what wasobservedleavesmany
uestionsunanswered,but it was intendedmerelyas a preliminary
eport. It continued:
'his experiment,therefore,doesnot permit any doubtof the productionof

lectric currentsby meansof induction, assumingthat the presenceof a
ittle iron in the copperforming the mobile circuit is not suspected.There
.ad not, however,beenany reactionbetweenthe ring and the magnetbe-
lre the electric current passedthrough the spiral surroundingthe ring;
.encethe reasonthat I regardthis experimentas proving the production
f an inducedcurrent. Nevertheless,in order to anticipateany objection,
plan to repeatit immediatelywith a ring-circuit madeof a highly puri-
ied non-magneticmetal. The fact that electric currentscan be produced
'y induction is extremelyinterestingin itself, and is besidesindependent
f the generaltheory of electro-dynamicaction.
Publishedfor the first time in Coll., Vol. 2, pp. 329-337.

Unfortunatelythosedefinitive and challengingstatementswere

not publishedat the time. The commentat the end I interpretto
meanthat the effect was not a consequenceof Ampere'stheory of
electrodynamicaction, and this may well have beensignificant in
explaininghis relative lack of interestin following up the result, as
due to impatienceat any diversion of his attention by irrelevant
phenomena.Impatienceis obvioustoo in his written account:in his
hastehe omitted to mentionwhetherthe alternateattractionsand
repulsionsof the ring by the magnetwere causedby alternatingthe
pole presentedto the ring, or by reversing the direction of the
currentin the surroundingspiral circuit. Presumably,going on the
evidenceof de La Rive, it was the latter effect that was obtained.
And hereboth men cannotescapethe accusationof negligence,for
they madeno attemptto determinethe directionof their postulated
induced current relative to the direction of the primary current.
This determinationwas the obvious next step of the investigation;
had they commencedseriously to undertakeit, they could hardly
havemisseduncoveringthe true natureof the inducedcurrent. De
La Rive was content,however,merelyto put on recorda generalbut
unspecifieddependenceof the direction of motion of the ring on the
direction of the current in the surrounding spiral circuit. His
languagewas not sufficiently explicit, perhapsto hide his lack of
more definite information,andat leasttwo subsequentreaders,De-
monferrandand Faraday,were to misinterpretit.
J.B.F. Demonferrand(1795-1844)describedthe new scienceof
electro-dynamicsin his bookManueld'ElectriciteDynamique,Paris,
1823. His accountof the Ampere-deLa Rive experimenthasa cer-
tain precisionof descriptionthat suggestshe may havederivedit in
part from Ampere himself; it is, at all events, a more explicit
accountthan any publishedpreviously. Demonferrandwrote:7
We areto detennineif a galvaniccurrentpassingthrougha conductorcan

produce,by its influence, a current in anotherconductingwire that is
submittedto its action without being connectedto the voltaic pile. To
perform that experimenta coppercircle was suspendedby a silk thread
and surroundedwith a spiral. ... A magnetwas broughtup to the mobile
ring; then at the momentwhen the electric circuit was establishedin the
spiral, the mobile ring turnedinto suchan equilibrium positionasit would
7J.-F. Demonferrand,Manuel d'Electricite dynamique,Paris, 1823, pp.

173-174.
ave assumedhad it been traversedby a current passingin the same
irection as that in the spiral. The first attemptsof M. Ampere at this
cperimentwere unsuccessful,becauseof the lack of power both in the
!llvanic pile and in the magnet;in subsequenttrials he succeeded,and it
lay thereforebe consideredas establishedthat an electric current tends
I put the electricity of conductors,near which it is {lowing, into motion in
~ samedirection. [The italics are Demonferrand's.lEven with a knowl-

ige of this fact, our completeignoranceaboutthe natureof the elemen-
try currentsin iron, leavesit still uncertainwhetherthe magnetization
r metals is the result of the actual production of electric currents or
imply a changeof directionin currentspreviouslyexisting.Note,however,
lat an electric current of finite magnitudehas neveryet beenproduced
1 a conductorby the influence of a magnetor a systemof magnets.Per-
apsmagnetizationis not uniquely dueto one or otherof the causesI have
ldicated,but both of them at once--theaction of a magnetor an electric
piral upon iron giving a common direction to pre-existingcurrents,and
~ the sametime augmentingtheir intensity.
Demonferrandhas added significant details to de La Rive's

ccount. Someof the more explicit statementwas perhapsdue to a
listaken interpretationof de La Rive's phraseology. De La Rive
.ad written: 'En presentantaun cote de cette lame un aimant en
~r a cheval, tres-fort, on l'a vue tantot s'avancerentre les deux
ranchesde l'aimant, tantot au contraireen etre repousse,suivant
~ sensdu courantdansles conducteurs environnants.'Did suivant
nply morethana generaldependence?Demonferrandtook it liter-
lly, andit led him into defining a directionfor the inducedcurrent
1stthe oppositeof what shouldhavebeenobserved:for the primary
urrent inducesa currentof the oppositedirectionin the secondary
ircuit when the currentis startedand in the samedirection when
b.e currentis stopped. What had merely beennoncommittalin de
,a Rive's account was thus converted into a positive error in
)emonferrand'sbook. Ampere often praised the book for its
ccuracy;this particularpoint he seemsneverto havenoticed. The
ook is indeedan importantwork in the history of electrodynamics,
.s it contains the earliest exposition of Ampere's discoveries.
.mperehimself advocatedit and sentmany copiesabroad(includ-
tlg one to Faraday) along with his own papers; soon after, he
ublishedhis Precisde la TheoriedesPhenomenes Electrodynamique
1824), which, on its title-page, is designatedas a supplementto
)emonferrand'sbook.
Demonferrand'saccountis more informative in some other res-
lects than either of the previouswritten versions:it mentionsthe
position of equilibrium assumedby the mobile ring. The equilib-

rium could only be supposedto be that causedby the torsion in the
suspendingthreadcounteractinga continuedmagneticforce experi-
encedby the ring while the currentis flowing in the spiral circuit;
this force, it was clearly implied by Demonferrand,results from a
continuedelectriccurrentin the ring. As we know therewould not
have beenany such continued inducedcurrentin the ring, we can
explain the reportedobservationonly by denying the equilibrium
andsupposingthat the torquein the threadwastoo slight to restore
the ring to its initial position after the first pulseof electricity had
passed,which would have taken place on first turning on the cur-
rent in the spiral circuit. The notion of an equilibrium is reported
herefor the first time, yet it agreeswith a muchlater accountgiven
by Amperehimselfin 1833.8 Furthermore,Demonferrandindicated
in the extractgiven abovethat the object of the experimentwas to
throw light on the question of whether electric currents already
exist in iron when it is in the unmagnetizedcondition,or if they are
broughtinto being as a result of magnetization. The result of the
experimentdid not settle this question,which explains Ampere's
lack of interestin pursuingthe subjectfurther. But onceagainwe
fmd Demonferrandanticipatinga later statement(1833)by Ampere
of his objective in performingthe experiment. How could Demon-
ferrandhavelearnedthesefactssavedirectly from Amperehimself?
And if we are to admit this, then we are left to wonderif the error
aboutthe directionof the inducedcurrentcouldalsohaveoriginated
with Ampere. Someyearslater, after the publicationof Faraday's
discovery, the history of this experimentsuddenlyacquiredsome
importance. The Lycee of 1 January1832, No. 36, in an article
written after the bare news of Faraday'sdiscoveryhad beenmade
public, but before the publishedaccountwas available,'reasoned'
that the inducedcurrentoughtto move in the samedirection as the
primary current,andadded:9 'Amperewas so thoroughlypersuaded
thatsuchoughtto be the directionof the currents-by-influence, that
he neglectedto assurehimself of it in his experimentsat Geneva.'
If this were so, Amperemay havehad a convictionin his mind that
8Corr. No. 490, pp. 773-775.Ampere to Augustede La Rive, 8 November

1833.
9 Thesestatements from the Lycee are quotedby Faraday,Experimental
Researchesin Electricity, Vol. 1, London, 1839, pp. 107-109.
Figure 111·2. ANDRE·MARIE AMPERE (1775-1836)

could have obscuredhis recollection of the actual observation.

Against this suppositionis Ampere'svehementdenial, ten years
later, in letters to Faraday,that he had ever put on record any
observationabout the direction of the inducedcurrent,becausehe
had neverdeterminedit; the article in the Lycee,he asserted,was
written by an enemywith malicious intentionsand did not repre-
senthis thinking.10 Whatevermay have happened,Ampere,prior
to 1832,seemsto have talked of this experimentin an ofihand and
carelessway-ameasureof its lack of importancein his eyes.
Ampere'scontemporaries, however,did not allow the experiment
to remainin total obscurity. Although relegatedto an insignificant
placein Ampere'sown publications,it neverfailed to be includedin
any accountof his work written by others. English readerscould
find it described,with a diagram of the apparatus,in a Cambridge
translationof Demonferrand'sbook, publishedin 1827, by James
Cumming (1777-1861).11 Of more general appeal and far wider
circulation was a popular account of Ampere's work, written by
PeterMark Roget(1779-1869),thoughpublishedanonymously,that
appearedin the January1827 issueof the Quarterly Review. The
Geneva experiment was singled out by Roget in the following
terms:12
By a very curiousexperiment,Amperehasproved,that a powerful electric

currenthas a tendencyto excite similar currentsin neighbouringbodies,
not generally susceptibleof magnetism. A copper wire of considerable
length was rolled round a cylinder, so as to form a coil, all the turns of
which were separatedfrom eachother by silk riband. Within this spiral
coil, a ring of brass was freely suspendedby a fine metallic thread [a
misunderstanding, based on the inadequatedescription of the Geneva
experimentasfirst given by de La Rive andAmpere. Demonferrandwrote
un cordon de soie, and this was later confirmed by Ampere], passing
through a small glasstube, which was placedbetweenthe threadsof the
coppercoil. The circumferenceof the ring, in everypart, was thusbrought
very nearto the copperwire, throughwhich a powerful voltaic currentwas
10 Corr. No. 485, pp. 763-770.Ampere to Faraday,13 April 1833.

11 A Manual of Electro-Dynamics,chiefly translated from the Manuel
d'Electricite dynamique of J.F. Demonferrand, by James Cumming,
Cambridge,1827.
12 [P.M.Roget,] Quarterly Review,No. LXIX, January1827, pp. 237-269.
times;but on holding powerful magnetsto it, or convertingthe bar into a

magnet,no changeoflengtheitheroneway or the othercouldbe observed.
We now know that the effect Faradaywas looking for is a real

one; it is calledmagnetostriction. The changeof length amountsto
only a few partsper million, however,which was beyondFaraday's
power to detect,thoughit can be measuredby modemtechniques
with fair accuracy. The iron core of a transformer,for instance,
contractsand expandssynchronouslywith the alternationof the
electric field, which is one reasonwhy large power .transformers
emit an audible hum. This noise was once the causeof serious
concernto the WestinghouseCompany. The disagreeablenoise of
the transformersunderthe pavementon Park Avenue(New York)
broughtvehementcomplaintsfrom tenantsof the large apartment
housesnearby,andhad to be reducedby the researchefforts ofthe
Company'sscientistsand engineers. 43 It seemssometimesto the
electrical engineerthat whatever problem he looks at, he finds

Faraday'snameconnectedwith it somewhere.
Investigatingpossiblechangesof length on magnetizinga steel
bar did not divert Faradayfrom the main objectiveof his investiga-
tions on electromagnetism.As we haveseen,Demonferrand'sbook
was now in his possessionand he was aware of the description
therein of the Ampere-deLa Rive experiment. He repeatedit for
himself, but by a strangemischancehe had mistranslatedor mis-
understoodthat Amperehad useda circle or ring of copperfor the
movableconductor;for this, Faradaysubstituteda solid copperdisc.
The weakeffect producedwould be further weakenedby this substi-
tution, and in fact Faradaydid not detectany effect when he made
the experiment. Mter that experiencehe wrote off the Ampere-de
La Rive experimentas anothererroneousreport, of which, it will be
remembered,there had alreadybeenone or two instances.
Were Ampere and Faradayto have had the opportunity of a
personalmeetingat that time they would soonhaveclearedup for
one anothertheir points of misunderstanding.Ampere no doubt
would have listened with impatienceto Faraday'saccount of his
unsuccessfulefforts to producean electric currentby induction, for
he believedhe had settledthat questionlong ago, and after several
changesof mind on the matterhad endedwith the opinion that it
43F. Bitter, Magnets: The Education of a Physicist, New York, 1959, pp.
93-94.
had tried to detect it by its electrolytic action. The entry In

Faraday'snotebookfor 28 November1825, readsas follows:41
Experimentson inductionby connectingwire of voltaic battery. A battery

of 4 troughs,ten pairs of plateseach,arrangedside by side.
Expt. I. The polesconnectedby a wire about4 feet long, parallelto which
was anothersimilar wire separatedfrom it only by two thicknessesof
paper. The endsof the latter wire attachedto a galvanometerexhibited
no action.
Expt. II. The batterypoles connectedby a silked helix-a straightwire
passedthrough it and its ends connectedwith the galvanometer-no
effect.
Expt. III. The batterypolesconnectedby a straightwire over which was
a helix, its endsconnectedwith the galvanometer--noeffect.
Could not in any way renderany inductionevidentfrom the connecting
wire [i.e., the primary circuit].
The experimentwas no more successfulin his handsthanit had

beenwith Fresnel,andfor the samereason-bothresearchershad
beenlooking for a sustainedeffect and had not noticed the feeble
indicationsof the inducedcurrentwhen the batterywas connected
or disconnected. Again, 2 December 1825 and 22 April 1828,
Faraday made experiments on electromagnetismthat gave 'no
result'. Theseexperimentswere not published.
Anotherunpublishedexperiment,that of 26 February1828,is of
historical interestalthoughnot directly relatedto electromagnetic
induction. On that occasionFaradayset out to discoverif a bar of
steel changesits length on becomingmagnetized. He wrote in his
notebook:42
Conceivedthat when a bar of soft steel was convertedinto a magnet,the

particlesif they becomeeachmagneticindependentof the othersoughtto
exertsuchpowerof attractionupon eachother as to influencethe density
ofthe bar, for upon the receivedtheory their attractionoughtto be super-
addedto the attraction of aggregationin the direction of the axis of the
magnet. To try whetherany sensibleeffect is really produced,a soft steel
bar 11 or 12 incheslong was put into a wedgewoodpyrometerindicating
~he expansionor contraction by levers which multiplied the effect 400
U Faraday'sDiary, London, 1932, VoU, p. 279.

l2 Faraday'sDiary, London, 1932, Vol. 1, pp. 309-310.
I may offer as an excuse(for want of a better)for the little I do in original

research.
I am sorry to find by one of your letters that you experiencean
unworthyoppositionto the fair andhigh claim you haveto the approbation
and thanks of your fellow philosophers. This however you can hardly
wonderat. I do not know what it is or by whom exertedin your casebut
I neveryet evenin my short time knew a man to do anythingeminentor
becomeworthy of distinctionwithout becomingat the sametime obnoxious
[i.e., subject] to the cavils and rude encountersof enviousmen. Little as
I have done I have experiencedit and that too where I leastexpectedit. 40
I think however and hope that you are somewhatmistakenin your
opinion ofthe feeling here. It is true that someof your views were at first
receivedhere with great reservebut I think that now all your facts are
admitted and are all properly attributed to you. With regard to your
theoryit so soonbecomesmathematicalthatit quickly becomesbeyondmy
reach. At the sametime I know that it has receivedthe considerationof
eminentmen here. I am not howevercompetentto tell you exactlyhow it
is accepted,for in fact being a very busy man and somewhatretired in
habitsI am all day long in my Laboratory,do not go much amongscientific
men, and am in some sort an anchoritein the Scientific world. HenceI
have neither time nor opportunityfor scientific conversationand am fre-
quently surprisedat information which is new to me and old to every one
else.
Be assuredhowever that wheneverthe opportunity occurs I do full
justice to your importantinvestigations,for as far as I can go with them
I am convincedof their accuracyand greatvalue.
Many thanksto you for M. de Montferrand'sbook. I had it only a day
or two ago, and though I have not yet readit, have looked over the table
of contentsand agreewith you in its accuracy.
Soon after writing this letter, Faradayreturnedto his experi-

mentson electricity. He had failed to find any action of a magnet
in affecting an electrical current: perhaps,then, one currentcould
induce another,as Ampere and de La Rive had reported. The ex-
perimentthat he tried this time was similar to that tried originally
by Fresnelin 1820, except that Faradayused a galvanometerto
detectthe possiblecurrent in the secondarycircuit where Fresnel
40Faradaypossiblyrefershereto the unexpectedoppositionof his mentor

Sir Humphry Davy to his electionto the Royal Society.
that Faradaywas later to discoverexperimentally.37But the prin-
ciple of conservationof energyhad not yet beenformulated. Am-
pere'sadvice,therefore,while perfectlysoundsubspecieaeternitatis,
was, as a practicalcourseof action, ratherlike suggestingto Fara-
day that he repeatexperimentsalreadyperformedby Ampere;that,
in fact, there were no further avenuesopen to explore as all the
significant experimentaldiscoverieshad alreadybeenmade. Fara-
day, of course,ignored the advice, as all it would have left open to
him would be an exercisein mathematicaldeduction,which was not
his metier. The incidentexemplifiesa wise generalrule in research:
Faradaymight well haverepliedto Amperewith the thoughtso well
expressedby Watson:38
We have to learn physicsa little at a time, and there is no good purpose

servedby refusingto give a hypothesisa fair trial merelybecauseonefeels
that it doesnot fit easily into our presentschemeof things; one may be
right asjudgedfrom the point of view of the distantfuture, but wrong in
one'sjudgmentas to the way in which the goal is to be reached.
Soon after this, Ampere sent Faradaya copy of Demonferrand's

book, with the earnestrecommendationthat he familiarize himself
with the experimentsdescribedin it. Faraday'sletter of acknowl-
edgmentgives an interestingaccountof his working conditions:39
November17, 1825
Every letter you write me stateshow busily you are engagedand I
cannotwish it otherwiseknowing how well your time is spent. Much of
mine is unfortunatelyoccupiedin very commonplaceemploymentandthis
37Nobody madethe prediction,however,or was likely to makeit, prior to

the experimentaldiscovery. HelmholtzandWilliam Thomsonshowedthat
Faraday'sdiscoveryof the induction of electric currentscould be deduced
mathematicallyfrom Ampere'slaws of electrodynamicsas a consequence
of the principle of conservationof energy:seeE.T. Whittaker,History ofthe
Theoriesof Aetherand Electricity, London, 1910, pp. 243 et seq. Critical
reconsiderationof theseproofshascastdoubton their generality:seeE.S.
Shire,ClassicalElectricity and Magnetism,Cambridge,1960,pp. 168-171.
38 W.H. Watson,On UnderstandingPhysics,Cambridge,1938, p. 54.
39 Original in the Burndy Library, Norwalk, Conn.; SCMF, Vol. 1, pp.
153-154.Faradayto Ampere, 17 November,1825.
one part into a helix with numerousconvolutions,whilst into the circuit,

at anotherpart, wasintroduceda delicategalvanometer.The magnetwas
then put, in variouspositions,and to different extents,into the helix, and
the needleof the galvanometernoticed: no effect, however,upon it could
be observed. The circuit was madevery long, short, of wires of different
metalsand different diametersdown to extremefineness,but the results
were alwaysthe same.Magnetsmore or lesspowerful were used,someso
strongas to bend the wire in its endeavoursto passround it. Henceit
appears,that howeverpowerful the action of an electric currentmay be
upon a magnet,the latter has no tendency,by reaction, to diminish or
increasethe intensity of the former--a fact which, though of a negative
kind, appearsto me to be of someimportance.-M.F.
The magnetwould not havehad any effect as long as it was not

in motion: and evenwhenmovedabout,the feeblecurrentsinduced
were probablymaskedby the currentalreadyflowing in the circuit.
In performingexperimentsof this sort Faradaywasdisregarding
advice coming to him directly from Ampere, who, in a letter of 27
April 1824, had tried to persuadehim that the action betweena
current and a magnetwas not likely to be a productivesubjectfor
research. 'You would thereby bring togethertwo heterogeneous
things,' wrote Ampere, 'whereasthe fundamentalaction should of
necessitybe betweentwo entities of the samenature,such as two
elementsof current. This is the underlyingfact on which all other
phenomenaof this sort depend.'36 What an interesting glimpse
into Ampere'sstyle of thinking and the influence of metaphysical
reasoningupon it! This advice was an invitation to repeat the
dubious Ampere-deLa Rive experiment,which was an attemptto
seeif onecurrentwould inducea like currentin a secondarycircuit,
or to repeatAmpere'scelebratedexperimentof the mutual action of
two elements of current, from which Ampere had deducedthe
mathematicallaws for the mechanicalforcesbetweenthem. Start-
ing with those formulae, Faradaywas told, he would be able to
deducequantitativelythe actionof an electriccurrenton a magnetic
pole, and also that of one magneticpole on another. Although Am-
peredid not know it at the time, by applyingthe principle of conser-
vation of energyto his formulae,they would haveleadhim, by sheer
deductivereasoningto the very resultsof electromagneticinduction
36 Corr. No. 390, pp 652-653.Ampere to Faraday,27 April 1824.

not help now and then comparingmyself to a timid ignorant navigator
who, thoughhe might boldly and safely steeracrossa bay or an oceanby
the aid of a compasswhich in its action and principles is infallible, is
afraid to leavesight of the shorebecausehe understandsnot the powerof
the instrumentthat is to guide him.
Later in his careerFaradaywas to acquiremore confidenceand

a high degreeof skill in the use of his power of reasoning,particu-
larly with the fruitful conceptof lines of force, though still without
the aid of mathematics.
By this time Faradaywas investigatingelectromagnetism on his
own initiative: Davy had turned his attentionto other matters-
the liquefaction of gases,the corrosion of coppersheathingby sea
water, the relation of electricalto chemicalchanges,etc. Faraday's
duties at the Royal Institution, and other assumedobligations,
restricted his freedom to pursue subjects of investigation that
intriguedhim, but he neverentirely lost sight of the grandobjective,
to obtain electricity from magnetism. Nearly two years passed
beforehe took up the subjectagain;then, on 28 December1824,he
tried an experiment that is interesting retrospectively as an
indication of the direction taken by his thinking, and how close it
hadbroughthim to the experimentalarrangementthat ultimately
proved successful. The experimentwas actually a failure, another
stumblein the darkness,but so high was the interestat that time
in the Arago rotations,that even a negativeresult was significant.
Faradaymadehis experimentthe subjectof a note, which he pub-
lished under'MiscellaneousIntelligence'in the Royal Institution's
Journal,of which he was sometimesthe acting editor. It is given
here in its entirety:35
Electro-MagneticCurrent-As the current of electricity, producedby a

voltaic battery when passingthrough a metallic conductor, powerfully
affects a magnet,tending to make its poles passround the wire, and in
this way moving considerablemassesof matter, it was supposedthat a
reactionwould be exertedupon the electric current capableof producing
somevisible effect; andthe expectationbeing,for variousreasons,that the
approximationof a pole of a powerful magnetwould diminish the current
of electricity, the following experimentwas made. The polesof a battery
of from 2 to 30 4-inch plateswere connectedby a metallic wire formed in
35[M. Faraday,]Quarterly Journal of Science,Literature, and the Arts,

1825, Vol. 19, p. 338.
other only so much as to feel a mild wonderor irritation at seeing

him take a divergentpath.31 The ultimate synthesisof the ideas
of Ampere and Faradaywas still in the womb of the future.32
On 10 July 1822, Ampere wrote a ten-pageletter to Faradat 3
in which he explaineda numberof experimentalfacts in terms of

his theory of magnetism. Faradayin his replt4 of 3 September
1822, did not discussthe scientific reasoningat all; he statedthat
he understoodnothing of mathematics(Ampere'sletter, however,
did not employ mathematics)and so felt that he was not capableof
following Ampere'into the domainof abstractions';in orderto base
a judgmentaboutAmpere'sconclusions,he askedfor facts and still
more facts:
I am unfortunatein a want of mathematicalknowledge,and the power of

enteringwith facility into abstractreasoning.I am obliged to feel my way
by facts closely placedtogether,so that it often happensI am left behind
in the progressof a branchof sciencenot merely from the want of atten-
tion but from the incapability I lay underoffollowing it, notwithstanding
all my exertions. It is so just now, I am ashamedto say, with your refined
researchesin electro-magnetismor electrodynamics. On reading your
papersand letters,I haveno difficulty in following the reasoning,but still
at lastI seemto want somethingmore on which to steadythe conclusions.
I fancy the habit I got into of attendingtoo closely to experimenthas
somewhatfetteredmy power of reasoningand chainsme down andI can-
31'Hencearose adisputebetweenthe learnedmen,in which eachdelivered

the reasonsof their severalopinions. Thesewere of suchequalforce, that
they servedboth to confirm eitherdoctorin his own sentiments,andmade
not the leastimpressionon his adversary.' The History of Tom Jones,a
Foundling, Book I, ChapterIX.
32 A somewhatspeculativereconstructionofthe development of Faraday's
ideas on electromagnetismduring this decade is given by L. Pearce
Williams, Michael Faraday, London, 1865, pp. 169-183. ProfessorPearce
Williams credits Faradaywith so much logical coherencein his thinking
prior to the discoverythat the actual event almost appearsas the final
stepin a deductive process. No doubt all the necessaryelementsexisted
for such a deduction but the degree to which they were present in
Faraday'smind, either consciousor unconscious,is problematical.
33 Corr. No. 365, pp. 586-592. Ampere to Faraday,10 July 1822.
34 Corr. No. 369 bis, pp. 928-931. Faradayto Ampere, 3 September1822;
SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.
Figure 111·4. The rotation of a magnet on its own axis. The arrows
indicate the direction of the applied electric current.
Faradaywasnow in direct correspondence with Ampere. 'For the

next ten years,there was to be a true andfertile dialoguebetween
thesetwo men', saysProfessorPearceWilliams in his biographyof
Faraday.The dialoguehad,however,one curiousfeature:although
both men consideredtheir correspondencewith each other as of
prime importance,so much so that Ampere treatedhis reply to a
letterfrom Faradayasa majorresponsibilitytakingprecedence over
his other affairs of the moment,yet neither paid close attentionto
the expressedideasof the other. What they wereeagerto learnwas
news of the latest experimentaldiscoveries. This matter they
alwayspulled out first from eachother'sletters, and the absenceof
any suchnews was felt to be a properoccasionfor an apology. But
in responseto the hypothesesthat Ampere soughtso earnestlyto
persuadeFaradayto adopt, he received finally only weary and
uncomprehending expressions of courteous incredulity; and
Faraday'sreal objections,when on a rare occasionhe was able to
define them articulately, were blandly ignored by Ampere. Each
spoketo the other seriouslyand intently; eachlistenedto the other
with preoccupiedindifference.Highly original and creative minds
are often destinedto this sort of lop-sideddialogue,in which each
pursuesa separatecourseof thought, determinedby his particular
training, experience,and immediateinterest, and is aware of the
as the author of the little book that I sendwith this letter doesnot share
that view, he has written it on the suppositionthat the currents of a
magnet are concentricaround its axis. I have added to that only one
observation,which I think will lead to an answerto the question: the
rotation of a magnetabout its axis by the action of a current can decide
the matterbecausethat rotation can occur only if the electric currentsof
the magnetexist aroundeachof its molecules.
Ampere'sletter also describeshow he had contrived to make a

magnetrotateaboutits axis by passinga currentthroughit in such
a way that only one of the magneticpoles is included in the elec-
trical circuit (see Figure 111-4). Faraday,in his reply,30 capped
Ampere'sexperimentby replacingthe magnetwith a pieceof copper
similar in form to the magnet,floating it upright in mercury and
passingthe currentthrough it, just as Ampere had done with the
magnet;the pole of a strongmagnetwas then placedbeneaththe
cup containingthe mercury;when the pole was exactly in line with
the axis of the copper, the latter beganto rotate slowly about its
axis. Ampere too had, independently,performeda similar experi-
ment: thus both of them hadsucceededin finding the conditionsfor
axial rotation of a conductor carrying a current, and so finally
demonstrated the very type of rotationthatWollastonandDavy had
soughtin vain in 1820.
The importanceof the experimentfor Ampere,however, wasthat
it seemedto him to settle the questionof the reality of the current
aroundeachmoleculein a magnet. Faraday,however,sawit mere-
lyas a specialcaseof a wire rotating arounda magneticpole: any
line of particlesparallel to the direction of the current,exceptthe
line that passesas an axis throughthe pole of the magnet,is in the
samesituationas that of sucha wire, andwill try to rotatearound
the pole; as a result of all the lines acting in the same direction
round the pole, the whole conductorrevolves. Nothing new, as far
as Faradaycould see,had beenbroughtto light by the experiment.
Ampere, however, was only more convinced of the truth of his
theory; for him the questionwas decidedanyway,evenwithout the
help of this experiment,so it really was not importantto him if the
experimentafter all shouldnot be as decisiveas he hadhoped. He
returnedno answerto Faraday'sobjection,but he neveragainrefer-
red to his experimentumcrucis.
30 SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 130-132.Faradayto Ampere, 2 February1822.

In September1821, Faradaydiscoveredhow to produceelectro-

magneticrotations,bringing to a successfulconclusionWollaston's
thoughtthat sucha motion might be possible. With the publication
of this result, Faradaymoved at one bound into the forefront of
thoseactively engagedin developingthe new scienceof electromag-
netism. The effect of his researches uponAmperewas describedby
the latter in a letter to J. Bredin, 3 December1821:27
On arriving heremy headwasfilled with metaphysics;but sinceFaraday's

memoir has been published I dream only of electrical currents. This
memoir containssomevery unusualfacts aboutelectromagnetism,which
perfectly confirm my theory, although the author tries to dispute it by
substitutingone of his own invention.
Faradayhad despatcheda copy of his paper to Ampere, who

immediately enteredinto correspondencewith him.28 Ampere's
first letter,29 dated from Paris, 23 January 1822, reveals his
immediateimpression,which was in termsofthe significanceof the
electromagneticrotations to his own theory of magnetism. The
obvious practical implications of the new discovery, namely, the
harnessingof electricity as a prime mover, did not even rate a
passingmention.
The suppositionof electric currentsflowing around each molecule of a

magnethasalwaysseemedto me to offer the simplestexplanation,andthe
one most conforming to an other physical theories of all the observed
phenomena,whetherthey pertainto the mutual action of two magnets,or
to that betweena magnetand a conductorcarrying current. A year ago,
when I announcedto the Academyof Sciencesthat the phenomenacould
be consideredin this way, I looked on it as most probable. Different
experimentsthat I havemadesincethenhaveconfirmedthat opinion;but
27 Corr. No. 359, pp 576-577.Ampereto Bredin, 3 December1821.

28 Faradayfirst met Ampere in Paris in 1813 when he accompaniedSir
Humphry and Lady Davy on a tour of the Continent. They did not
correspond,however, until after Faraday'spublication of the electro-
magneticrotations. In Ampere'sCorrespondanceare printed 14 letters
from Ampere to Faradayand 3 of Faraday'sreplies.
29 The original is in the library of the Institute of Electrical Engineers,
London. It is publishedin Notesand Recordsof the Royal Society, 1965,
Vol. 20, pp. 217-218.
evidence.... But yet I am by no meansdecidedthat thereare currentsof

electricity in the commonmagnet. I haveno doubtthat electricity putsthe
circles of the helices [of an electromagnet]into the samestate as those
circles are in what may be conceivedin the bar magnet,but I am not
certain that this stateis directly dependanton the electricity, or that it
cannotbe producedby otheragencies.And thereforeuntil the presenceof
Electrical currents be proved in the magnetby other than magnetical
effects,I shall remainin doubt aboutAmpere'stheory.
A slight coldnessor reservealways seemsto havemitigatedthe

respectful courtesywith which the flood of Ampere's papersand
pamphletswere receivedat the Royal Institution. The inability to
appreciatethe true worth of Ampere'swork on electrodynamicswas
perhapsdue to deficienciesin the mathematicaltraining of both
Davy andFaraday:they appearneverto haveappreciatedthe force
of an argumentthat is basedon the agreementbetweenobserved
behavior and the predictions of a theoretical model, when those
predictionsare the outcomeof mathematicaldeduction. Although
such an argument,even when not vitiated by assumptionsor ap-
proximations, can never be a conclusiveproof of the validity of
models, it is no worse off in that respectthan the experimental
'effects' that, accordingto Davy and Faraday,constitutedthe sole
criteria of hypotheses. Much of what Ampere wrote was conse-
quently, as a result of this attitude, discountedin advance;but
whenhe would describean experiment,suchashis methodof caus-
ing a bar magnetto rotate about its axis, Faradaywas prompt to
verify the observation.Ajust appreciationof Ampere'scontribution
hadto wait until JamesClerk Maxwell (1831-1879),trainedas was
Amperehimselfas a mathematicalphysicist,paid him the following
fine tribute:26
The experimentalinvestigationby which Ampere establishedthe laws of

the mechanicalaction betweenelectricalcurrentsis one of the mostbril-
liant achievements in science.The whole, theoryandexperiment,seemsas
if it had leaped,full grown and full armed,from the brain of the 'Newton
of electricity'. It is perfectin form, and unassailablein accuracy,andit is
summedup in a formula from which all the phenomenamay be deduced,
and which must always remainthe cardinalformula of electro-dynamics.
26 J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatiseon Electricity andMagnetism,Oxford, 1873,

Vol. 2, p. 162.
strongesttrait. In this respect,Davy surpassedFaraday,although
he neverequalledthe youngermanin power of observation,experi-
mental skill, or doggednessof purpose.
We candetectbetweenthe lines of Davy'sletter to Amperea hint
of criticism to the effect that theory was all very well, but experi-
mental evidence was lacking to substantiateit. A more direct
expressionof Davy's opinion occurs in one of his published pa-
pers:24
Is electricity a subtile elasticfluid?-----{)r are electrical effects merely the

exhibition of the attractivepowersofthe particlesof bodies?Are heatand
light elementsof electricity, or merely the effects of its action? Is mag-
netismidenticalwith electricity, or an independentagent,put into motion
or activity by electricity? Queriesofthis kind might be considerablymulti-
plied, and statedin more preciseand variousforms: the solution of them,
it mustbe allowed, is of the highestimportance;andthoughsomepersons
have undertakento answerthem in the most positive manner,yet there
are,I believe,few sagaciousreasoners,who think that our presentdataare
sufficient to enableus to decide on such abstruseand difficult parts of
corpuscularphilosophy.
Faradaymerely echoedDavy's opinion, expressingit much more

bluntly, in writing to ProfessorGaspardde La Rive (1770-1834),
the father of Ampere'syoung collaborator:25
September12, 1821
You partly reproach us here with not sufficiently esteemingAmpere's
experimentson electro-magnetism.Allow me to extenuateour opinion a
little on this point. With regardto the experimentsI hopeand trust that
due weight is allowed to them; but theseyou know are few, and theory
makesup the greatpart of what M. Amperehaspublished,and theory in
a greatmanypointsunsupportedby experimentswhenthey oughtto have
beenadduced. At the sametime, M. Ampere'sexperimentsare excellent
andhis theory ingenious;andfor myselfI had thoughtvery little aboutit
before your letter came, simply because,being naturally sceptical on
philosophicaltheories,I thought there was a greatwant of experimental
24 H. Davy, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. 1822, p. 64; CollectedWorks, 1840,Vol.

6, p. 6, p. 245.
25H. Bence-Jones,The Life and Lettersof Faraday, London, 1870,Vol. 1,
pp. 315-317;L. PearceWilliams, Michael Faraday, London, 1965, p. 166;
SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 123-4.
I shall seizethe first favourableopportunitythat offers of placingyour

name amongstthe candidatesfor election on the foreign list,22 but in
generalit is a point of delicacyfor the presidentratherto obey ...
[The remainderof the letter is missing]
The possibility of producingan electric currentby the influence

of magnetismappearedto Davy to be a direct outcomeof Ampere's
theory of magnetism,and it seemsthat Davy had himself made
some unsuccessfulattempts toward realizing it. Faraday, who
worked so closely with him, would certainlyhavebeenawareof the
objective of theseexperiments. We know23 that the following year
Faradaymade out a list headed'ChemicalNotes, Hints, Sugges-
tions, and Objectsof Pursuit';it containedthe germsof many of his
future discoveries,and prominentamongthem was the injunction:
Convert magnetisminto electricity. Faraday has been praised,
sometimestoo fulsomely, for his intuitive perceptionin recognizing
the relation of phenomenato one another:the influence of German
Naturphilosophiehas also beeninvoked as the underlyinginspira-
tion of his work. His consciousquestfor 'electricity from a magnet',
which led to the greatestof his discoveries,is mostfrequentlycited
as a striking illustration of this unprovablethesis. That Faraday,
however,shouldsimply have had the idea directly from Davy, and
that it should have come to Davy as a result of readingAmpere's
papers,as a way to prove Ampere's theory of magnetism,is ex-
tremely probable, however, in the light of this letter. Nothing
discreditableaccruesto Faraday'smemoryshouldthathavebeenso:
the idea was not even original with Davy, having beenexpressed
earlier by Fresnel,and, as Faradaylater said, by somefifty others
as well. But when Davy was in his laboratory,seekinga solution
to a problem,few could havebeenpresentwithout beinginspiredby
the ardor and sharingthe enthusiasmof this most vivacious of re-
searchers.Faradaywas caughtup time and againin the sweepof
Davy's activities. This occasiononly differs from the othersin its
beingthe mostillustrious. It doesnot detractfrom Faraday'sgreat
merits to do justice to his patron and teacher,whosebrilliance at
graspingthe wider implications of phenomenawas precisely his
22 For membershipin the Royal Society:Amperewaselectedsix yearslater

[seeNote 13 above.]
23 S.P. Thompson,Michael Faraday, his Life and Work, London, 1898, p.
89.
3.2 A Decadeof Unrewarded Research
In London, in the laboratoryof the Royal Institution, researcheson

electromagnetism were originatedby Sir HumphryDavy in the first
flush of interest and enthusiasmwith which he had greetedthe
news of Oersted'sdiscovery. At first Davy was occupiedwith an
idea, due to William Hyde Wollaston (1766-1828),that the newly
discoveredeffect might be usedto producerotatory motion. When
the initial attemptsof Wollaston andDavy had failed to bring this
about, other implications of the Oersteddiscoveryremainedto be
explored. The rapid developmentof the subjectby Ampere gave
freshfood for thought,in particularhis theorythatmagnetismcould
be explainedby postulatingthatelectricalcurrentsexistwithin each
atom-anidea that soundsmarvelouslypropheticof our modern
knowledge of atomic structure. Davy too had intellectual powers
amountingto genius; he was, moreover, a romantic idealist who
foresawunlimited practicaloutcomesfrom sciencefor the benefitof
humankind. This was a new viewpoint for a man of science,and a
stimulus for investigationmore powerful than any other. He was
alwayseager,therefore,to move from the realm of theory to that of
practice. In the following lette~\ datedMay 26, 1821, from Davy
to Ampere, we can detectthe writer's anxiety to bring the theories
of the brilliant Frenchmathematicianto sometest of experiment:
Dear Sir--I am very much obliged to you for the last flattering letter
which I had the honourof receivingfrom you.
Your ingenious results and the elaborateconclusionsdeducedfrom
them have excitedgreatattentionamongour Philosophers.
I wish you may be able to furnish somedirect proof of the existenceof
Electrical currentsin the Magnet. As yet all our attemptsto produce
electrical from magneticphaenomena havefailed.
I have worked a good deal on this subjectand I shall soon have the
pleasureof sendingyou two memoirscontainingthe few facts I havebeen
able to establish. They are at leastof a novel kind though I fear of little
importancefor theory.
21 At presentin my possession.
that Ampere had declaredto his friend Antoine Becquerel(1788-

1878) that he had changedhis opinion and had revertedto his
former disbeliefin the existenceof inducedcurrents.
The evidencethat Amperehad thus changedhis opinion is once
again indirect: it is to be found in the courseof a memoir by Bec-
querelon his own experiments.Becquerelwas trying to find out if
magnetismcould be detectedin variousnon-metallicsubstances: he
suspended them,in the form of needles,inside a multiplier coil and
then turned on the current, to seeif they would move. He found
signsof magneticactionin needlesmadeof peroxideof iron, copper,
wood, andshellac. Beforerecountinghis own experiments,he refer-
red to the Ampere-deLa Rive experimentin the following terms:20
One would have concludedfrom that experiment... that the influenceof

the electric current had developedanothercurrent in the strip [Le., the
secondarycircuit], suchasis observedin a metalwire connectedto the two
poles of a voltaic pile; but Monsieur Ampere has subsequentlybecome
convincedthat this is not so. [my italics.]
Becquereldoesnot disclosewhat were the new observationsor

argumentsthat hadpersuadedAmpereto changehis opinion. And
what are we to makeof Ampere'sstatementto Faraday,in his self-
exculpatory and self-justifying letter of April 1833, that he had
repeatedthe Genevaexperimenta numberof times between1822
and 1828 in the presenceof various people, and always with the
samesuccess?The experimentwould have had no significancefor
him or for his audienceif the possibility of an inducedcurrentin the
secondarycircuit wereruled out; why thenshouldhe havetakenthe
trouble to keeprepeatingthe experiment?Theseandothersimilar
questions,which cannotnow be answered,showsomeof the uncer-
taintiesin this historicalreconstructionof Ampere'sactualinterpre-
tation (before 1831)of the Genevaexperiment. This much is clear:
the subjecthad occupiedhis mind only momentarilyfrom time to
time; he had not deemedit worthy of concentratedand prolonged
attention;andthe very easewith which he could changehis opinion
about the interpretationof the experimentis itself indicative that
he had not spentany significant intellectual effort on the subject.
20 AC. Becquerel,Annalesde Chimie et de Physique,1824, [2], Vol. 25, pp.

269-278.
electromagnetfor the magneticneedleof his original experiment.
With Ampere's approval the laboratory assistant (repetiteur),
Ajassonde Grandsagne,assembledthe equipment;but on making
the first trial, at the very momentwhen the pivoted electromagnet
beganto move in responseto the rotation of the copper disc, the
axle of the disc snappedacross. Arago had to leave for the Pyre-
nees-Orientales on the very next day, but he authorizedAmpereto
continuethe experimentin his absence.Colladon,who was in Paris
at the time and witnessedthe first attempt,undertookto repair the
equipment,at the same time making some improvementsin its
strengthand sensitivity. On repeatingthe experiment,the electro-
magnetwas observedto move almost as soon as the copperplate
was put in motion. Ampere immediatelytransmittedthe result to
Arago in the form of a Note for publication, enclosedin a letter
dated 1 September1826, in which he said : 'Allow me to remind
you, my dear and excellentfriend, that you promisedme, should
this experimentsucceed,to adhereto my theory as the true explan-
ation of thesephenomena.In addingthis effect to all the rest that
I have published, I do not see how anyone can continue to find
objectionsto it.'19
To Ampere,therefore,the Arago rotationswere significant only
ashavingprovidedan opportunityto demonstrateyet anothersimi-
larity in behaviorof a solenoidand a magnet. After having demon-
stratedthis point of prime concernto himself, he abandonedthe
investigationas of no further interest. His disinclinationto persist
was relatedto the fact that at that time he had relinquishedthe
grand clue that might otherwisehave stimulatedhis perception.
Colladonhadby now convincedmany of the non-existenceof an in-
ducedcurrentcreatedby the influence of a magnet,and evenAm-
peredid not arguewith his finding. In fact, manyyearsafterwards,
Colladon remarkedthat Ampere had neither offered any critical
remarksnor encouragedhim to continuethe search. Sucha passive
reception of what was, after all, a flat contradiction of his own
published statements,was not typical of Ampere, but could be
accountedfor by someuncertaintyin his own mind of the validity
of his original results. And, sureenough,at aboutthis time we find
19 F. Arago, Oeuvresde Franr;ois Arago, 2nd edition, Paris,1865,Vol. 1, pp.

439-440. Ampere's Note was published in the Bulletin de La Societe
philomathique, 1826, p. 134; translatedinto English in the Quarterly
Journal ofScience,Literature, and the Arts, 1827,N.S. Vol. 1, pp. 228-229.
rotationalmagnetism,evenwhenadvocatedby the greatmathemat-

ical physicistSimeon-DenisPoisson(1781-1840).Faradaywaslater
to praisethe wisdom andmaturity of judgmentdisplayedby Arago
during this time:18 'What an educationArago's mind must have
receivedin relation to philosophicreservation:what an antithesis
he forms with the massof table-turners;and what a fine example
he hasleft us of that conditionof judgmentto which we shouldwish
to attain!'
Freedomfrom error, however, was the most that Arago could
achieve: the rotations were inherently too complex a series of
phenomenafrom which to arrive at the discoveryof electromagnetic
induction. The distributionof eddycurrentsin the rotatingdisc was
laterelucidatedby LeopoldoNobili (1784-1835);andthe experiment
itself becamein Faraday'shandsthe basisof the first electromag-
netic generatorof continuous current; but in the period of our
interest it stood only as an intriguing puzzle, a challenge that
arousedthe interestof many investigators,including Faraday,but
which did not contributedirectly towardshis greatdiscovery.One
manalonemustbe excepted;onemanfor whom the Arago rotations
couldwell havebeenthe final clue that solvedthe mystery:Ampere.
No needfor him to work out the complex problem of mappingthe
eddy currents-thatcould come later. The key fact was the
apparentmagnetismof the copper. Ampere in 1822 had already
superseded de La Rive's phrase'a kind of temporarymagnetismof
the non-magneticmetal' with his own explanationof a current;
usually nobody was more alert than he to transposemagnetismin
his thoughtsinto electric current; and finally he had the grandclue
that an inducedcurrentcould be createdin an independentcircuit
by the actionof anothercurrent-then,why not by a magnet?That
chainof reasoningis so readily completedthat we marvel at his not
having seenit at once.
Ampere,however,seemsto have had no inclination, by himself,
to take up the subject of the Arago rotations. In August 1826,
nearly two years after Arago had first demonstratedthe effect in
front of the Royal Academyof Sciences,Amperewas approachedby
Arago himself, who wishedto makeuseof the voltaic pile andother
equipmentbelongingto the College de Francefor a continuationof
his experiments. Arago had in mind to substitute a solenoidal
Faraday,ExperimentalResearches
18 M. in Chemistryand Physics,London,
1859, pp. 483-484.
needlein the samedirection. If the rate of rotation of the disc were

rapid enough, the needle could be made to rotate continually.15
CharlesBabbage(1791-1871)andJohnF.W. Herschel(1792-1871),
in London, performedthe reverseexperiment:16 by rapidly rotating
the magnet,they were able to set the copperdisc in motion in the
samedirection. They also madethe significantobservationthat, on
substitutingother metals for copper, the better the conductor of
electricity the more readily it respondedto the rotating magnet.
FigureIll-S. The Arago rotationexperiment,disclosedMarch 7, 1825,by

which a magneticneedleis made to drag after a revolving copper disc.
(From B. Dibner, Faraday disclosesElectro-magneticInduction, 1949,
copyright © 1949 by Burndy Library, Inc. and reproducedhere by kind
permissionof the copyrightholders.)
The effectsremainedmysterious,however,becausenobodysus-
pected the presenceof electric currents in the copper disc. A
particularform of magnetismdevelopedby motion was postulated
to explain why a normally non-magneticmaterialcould be affected
by a magnet. The phrasemagnetismofrotation, althoughit seemed
to be no more than a descriptionof what was clearly observedto
occur in the copper disc, actually conjuredup a false hypothesis,
which, in the words of E. Bauer/7 'stoodlike a screenbetweenthe
physicist'smind and reality.' Arago himself does not deservethis
criticism: he describedthe observedeffects without venturingany
hypothesis;and remainedresolutely aloof and incredulousabout
15 F. Arago, Annalesde Chimie et de Physique,1824, [2], Vol 27, p. 263;

ibid., 1825, [2], Vol. 28, p. 325.
16 C. Babbageand J.F.W. Herschel,Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 1825, pp.
467-496.
17'Toujoursles mots d'aimantationpassagere, de magnetismede rotation,
s'interposaientcommeun voile entrel'esprit desphysicienset la realite.'
E. Bauer,L'Electromagnetisme Bier et Aujourd'hui, Paris, 1949, p. 93.
then, in the summerof 1825, a young man and a collaboratorof

Jean-LouisPrevost(1790-1850),caught the generalnotion that a
magnet ought to be able to produce an electric current in an
adjoining conductor.14 His experimentwas better planned than
that previously carried out by Fresnel in search of the same
objective, and only very bad luck preventedhis making the great
discovery. As he had a very sensitivegalvanometer,he fearedthat
the proximity of a powerful magnetwould affectthe pointerreading;
accordinglyhe attachedfifty metersof silk-coveredcopperwire to
it andplacedthe instrumentitself in a bell-jar in an adjoiningroom.
He constructeda tightly woundhelix of insulatedcopperwire, about
ten centimetersin length and four or five centimetersin diameter;
the two endsof this helix were connectedto the long leadsfrom the
galvanometer.He anticipatedthat the pole of a powerful magnet,
which like Ampere he had borrowedfor the purpose,broughtnear
to one end of the helix and in line with the prolongationof its long
axis, would causea permanent currentto flow through the circuit.
This currenthe plannedto detectby meansof his distantgalvanom-
eter. Completingthe arrangementhe walked without haste(sans
me presser) acrossthe passageto look at the needleof his galvanom-
eter' which of courseby the time he arrived showedno changefrom
its original position. Had he stationedan assistantto watch the
galvanometer,as JosephHenry did someyearslater in conducting
a similar experiment,the temporary effect of the electromagnetic
induction might have beendiscoveredat that time. As it was, his
lack of successprobablydiscouragedfurther attemptsby himselfor
that might have beenmadeby others.
And now a new experiment,and a secondclue, makesits ap-
pearance. A Frenchinstrumentmaker, Henri-PrudenceGambey
(1787-1847), noticed that the damping of the oscillations of a
compassneedleis very markedwhen it is placedabove a sheetof
copper. He drew it to the attention of Dominique Fran~ois Jean
Arago (1786-1853)in 1824,who confirmedthe original observation,
and also found that the rotation of a copper disc beneaththe
magnetic needle (see Figure 111-3) produced a deflection of the
14 J.D. Colladon,Recherches
et Experiencessur l'Electricite. Eight memoirs
published 1825-1837,reprinted in Geneva, 1893. The fourth of these
memoirs is entitled Experimenton Electro-MagneticInduction made in
1825. See also Souvenirs et Memoires: Autobiographie de J.-Daniel
Colladon, Geneva,1893, pp. 151-2.
[lade to pass. Underthesecircumstances,the brasswire was attractedor
epelledby a magnet,in the sameway it would havebeen,had it formed
lart of the samevoltaic circuit. The action, indeed,was but feeble, and
rnlpere, in his first trials, failed in his endeavoursto renderit sensible;
illt on perseveringin the attempt,his success,at last, was completeand
mequivocal.
Completeand unequivocalsuccess,indeed! Posterityhasnot so

hought.Meanwhile,the readersof the Quarterly Reviewweretold:
~o theory of electro-magnetismhitherto devised can at all enter into

ompetition with that of Ampere. . . . Every experimentthat has been
ried, and a greatvariety hasbeendevisedby the ingenuity of numerous
xperimentalists,has servedbut to confirm the correctnessof Ampere's
'iews of the theory of magnetism.... It is impossibleto deny that a great
Ldvance will have been made in the philosophy of nature, if it can be
hown, or evenrenderedprobable,that all the phenomenausuallyreferred
o the operationof magnetism,as a principle totally distinct from elec-
ricity, are mere electrical effects; that the former is, in fact, included in
he latter; and that, insteadof two agencies,there existsbut one.
ThefavorabletreatmentthusaccordedAmpereby this influential

leriodical, not usually so genial in its expressionsof opinion about
he achievementsof Frenchmen,may havebeeninstigatedby Davy,
vho hadconnectionsin the highercouncilsof the editorial board;at
III eventsDavy seizedthe propitiousoccasionto put forth Ampere's
lamination to the Royal Society of London, to which he was duly
:lectedon 8 March 1827.13
Geneva,no lessthanParisandLondon,was a centerof scientific
lctivity, with particularinterestbeingshownin the newphenomena
If electromagnetism.De La Rive was only one of a circle of eminent
avants who met frequently to discuss developmentsin natural
lhilosophy. One of thesemen, JeanDaniel Colladon (1802-1891),
3 Ampere'scertificate of candidaturereads:'We recommendM. Ampere,

nember of the Royal Academy of Sciencesof Paris, a distinguished
l1athematician,and authorof variousworks on the Mathematicaltheory
,f electro-Magnetism,as a proper personto be a Foreign Member of the
toyal Society. H. Davy, Pres.R.S.; EverardHome; John Geo. Children;
f.F.W. Herschel;J. South;Wm. H. Wollaston;Wm. Prout; GeorgePearson;
~rancis Lunn; CharlesBabbage;A.B. Granville.' Ballottedfor and elected
vIarch 8, 1827.
is not possible.Faraday,on his side, would have beenbaffied by

Ampere'sargumentsthat derivedtheir supportfrom the resultsof
a theory that he regardedas speculative. But if he had asked
Ampereto showhim experiments,that would haveprovidedfood for
thoughtandpersonalencouragement, for he would havebeenquick
to realize the superiorityof his own techniquesand how the appa-
ratus could be mademore sensitiveto detectfeeble intimations of
a positive effect. As it was his own untiring efforts finally led him
to success.
3.3 Explanationsand Disclosuresex post facto
One cannotbut admire Faraday'spersistencein the face of all the

negativeresultshe had accumulated.But he was not readyto give
up before he had checkedone more possibility-perhapsthe in-
duced current he was looking for was so tiny that it could be
detectedonly by magnifying the powersof the agentsthat elicited
it. By leading the exciting or primary current around a helix of
many turns and by placing a soft-iron core inside it, the magnetic
lines of force could be greatlymoreconcentratedthanthey would be
in air; then by bringing theselines of force aroundin a circle, he
would avoid the dissipationof the magneticflux that would take
place at the two ends of a straight solenoid. Then, by winding a
secondhelix of many turns on the oppositesideof the soft-iron ring,
the lines of force would occupythe samepositionwith respectto the
inactive (secondary)circuit as they alreadyhad with respectto the
active (primary) circuit. Becauseof the multiplication of the lines
of force producedby manyturns of the helix andthe intensification
of them producedby the iron core, the greaterpower of this ar-
rangementmight call forth an observablereactionin the secondary
circuit. Faradayhad a soft-iron ring made(0.875 inch thick and 6
inchesin externaldiameter,)and wound many coils of copper wire
aroundeachhalf. On 29 August 1831, all was ready to begin the
experiment.
The secondarycircuit was completedby connectingthe endsof
the coil with a copperwire that extendedover a pivoted magnetic
needleplacedfar enoughaway from the coil so that it would not be
affectedby the magneticfield emanatingfrom the primary circuit:
this needlewas to be the galvanometer. The primary circuit was

completedby connectingthe extremitiesof the coil to a powerful
batteryof 10 pairs of plates,each4 inchessquare. As soonas this
connection was made, Faraday observed the movement of the
needle. On breaking the connection the needle moved in the
oppositedirection. This linked pair of observationshe repeatedover
andoveragain. For the momentsuppressing his jubilance,he wrote
in his notebook:44 'Henceeffect evidentbut transient,but its recur-
renceon breakingthe connectionshewsan equilibrium somewhere
that must be capableof being renderedmore distinct.' At last he
hadmadethe observationthat solvedthe puzzleof electromagnetic
induction, and that was to determinethe direction of his scientific
work for the rest of his active life.
The rest of the story is too well known to needrepeatinghere.45
True to his own adageof 'Work, Finish, Publish',Faradayreadan
accountof his experimentsto the Royal Society on 24 November
1831,andit was put it into print in PartI of the 1832volume of the
PhilosophicalTransactionsof the RoyalSociety. Four monthselap-
sed betweenthe reading of the paper and its publication; during
that period of time inaccurate and incomplete reports of his
discovery were circulated as far as France,Italy, and the United
States. Much to his subsequentregret,Faradayhadsenta prelim-
inary accountof his findings to J.N.P. Hachette(1769-1834). His
letter was translated(with someerrors) and read to the Academy
of Sciencesat Parison 26 December1831. A copy of it in Le Temps
of 28 Decembersoon reachedItaly, where Leopoldo Nobili (1784-
1835) and Vincenzo Antinori (1792-1865) immediately began to
experiment on the subject, and obtained many of the results
mentioned in Faraday'sletter; other results they could neither
obtain nor understandbecauseof the inadequacyof their informa-
tion. Meanwhile in Paris, Ampere and Becquerelwere tidying up
a few loose endsin the light of Faraday'sresults. Ampere decided
44 Faraday'sDiary, London, 1932, Vol. 1, p. 368.

45 For a detailedaccountofthe history of Faraday's
work on electromagnet-
ic induction see T. Martin, Faraday's Discovery of Electro-magnetic
Induction, London, 1949, 160pp.
Figure nI-5 Michael Faradayholding the soft-iron ring. Statueby

J.H. Foley, R.A. in the possessionof the Royal Institution.
to publish a more detailedversion of the Genevaexperiment.46 Of

this account,SilvanusP. Thompson(1851-1916)remarked:47 'It is
curious to see the change of view.' If at any time Ampere had
doubtedthe existenceof the induced current, nobody would have
suspectedit from a perusalof this article:
During my visit to Genevain September1822, M. Augustde La Rive was

eagerto assistme with someexperimentsI wishedto makebearingon the
productionof an electric current.... We presenteda powerful horse-shoe
magnetto the circle, so that one of its poles was within and the other
outsidethe circle. When the extremitiesof the [primary] conductorwere
connectedto the pile, the circle was attractedor repelledby the magnet,
accordingto which pole had beenplacedinside the circle. This demon-
stratedthe existenceof an electriccurrentproducedthereby the influence
of the currentin the [primary] conductor.
As was pointed out by Silvanus Thompson,this accountof the

experimentdiffers from Ampere'sformer version in describingthe
position of the magnet,andin sayingthat the magnet,which in the
first descriptionof the experimentwasbroughtup after the current
was turned on, was placedin position before the circuit was com-
pleted.
Ampere next went on to describea new seriesof experiments
performedby himself, by meansof which he had confirmed Fara-
day's discovery. He claimed that the new phenomenoncould be
foreseenfrom his own generallaws of electrodynamicaction;but see
his (fortunately unpublished)statement,6 cited on page 89 above,
that 'the fact that electric currentscan be producedby induction is
... independentof the generaltheory of electro-dynamicaction.'He
concludedwith the rather patronizing remark that, although his
laws actuallyrequiredno further proof, yet 'physicistswould not see
with any less pleasurethis new verification of a theory that traced
all magneticphenomenaas producedby electricity in motion.'
This attemptin Paris to establishsome shareof credit for the
discovery of electromagneticinduction, though not without some
46 A-M. Ampere, 'Experiencessur les Couranselectriquesproduits par

l'Influence d'un autre Courant,'Annalesde Chimie et de Physique,1831,
[2], Vol. 48, pp. 405-412.
47 S.P.Thompson,'Note on a neglectedExperimentof Ampere,'Phil. Mag.

1895, [5], Vol. 39, pp. 534-541.
justification, was not well receivedacrossthe Channel.Faraday's

friend JamesDavid Forbes(1809-1868)expressedhis disapproval
with blunt Scottishcandor.In a letter to Faradayhe wrote:48
2 May 1832
I had the pleasureof receivingyour from Brighton two days ago. The
sameday I saw in the Annalesde Chimie for Decemberall that our conti-
nentalfriendshavemadeof the Discovery:with a translationofNobili and
Antinori's paperwhich bearsdate31stJan.... I mustsaythey havemade
but poor pickings of your Discovery, and it is quite a specimenof French
fact to seehow they havepatched together all their little experimentsand
additions (sometimesperfect trifles) with all the formality of r, 2°, &c.
But what is most provoking is to seeAmpere bringing togetherin formal
array his old GenevaExperimentswhich we may be sure he would have
had out long ago if he had madeanything of them; but it is wonderfully
easy to connect crude and unintelligible fragments when anotherhas
furnishedthe key....
Do not doubtmy dearSir that you will get all the credit due to you for
your fine experimentson this subject. All the nibbling of the Fran~ais will
not do you much harm.
The exciteddiscussionsthatsoonwaxedrife impelledFaradayto

add a footnote to his publishedpaperto defendhis priority:49
TheLycee,No. 36, for January1st, [1832] hasa long andratherpremature

article, in which it endeavoursto show anticipationsby French philoso-
phersof my researches.It howevermistakesthe erroneousresultsof MM.
Fresneland Amperefor true ones,and then imaginesmy true resultsare
like thoseerroneousones....
In the samenote Faradaytook the opportunityto praiseFresnel

more highly thanwould be deservedby his mereunsuccessfulanti-
cipation of electromagneticinduction. Faradaywrote:
That great philosopher, at the same time with myself and fifty other
persons,madeexperimentswhich the presentpaperprovescould give no
expectedresult. He was deceivedfor the moment,and publishedhis ima-
48 SCMF, Vol. 1, p. 224. Forbesto Faraday,2 May, 1832.

49M. Faraday,'ExperimentalResearches in Electricity,' Phil. Trans. 1832,
p. 146f; reprintedin ExperimentalResearchesin Electricity, London, 1839,
§ 79f.
ginary success;but on more carefully repeatinghis trials, he could find no

proof of their accuracy;and, in the high and pure philosophic desire to
remove error as well as discover truth, he recantedhis first statement.
The exampleof Berzeliusregardingthe first Thorina50 is anotherinstance
of this fine feeling; and as occasionsarenot rare,it would be to the dignity
of scienceif suchexampleswere more frequentlyfollowed.
Ampere'sknowledgeof Englishwasslight, andhe readFaraday's

paper, including this note, only when it appearedin a French
translationin April 1833. He was puzzledby the inaccuraciesof
Faraday'saccountof the Genevaexperimentand he was painedby
the expression'erroneousresults of MM. Fresnel and Ampere',
which seemedto apply to the Genevaexperimentandnot to the one
retractedin 1820. It is indeed quite clear from the text that
Faradayconsideredboth experimentsequally erroneous. In some
distress of mind, Ampere wrote first to his friend de La Rive,
reminding him of the experimentthey had carried out jointly in
1822andstatingthat he intendedto write to Faradayto inform him
of their claim to have actually beenthe first to obtain the induced
current.Ampere wrote:51
It is a fact that we were the first, in 1822, to obtain an electric currentby

influence,or induction asM. Faradaysays,at the momentwhen we estab-
lished the currentwithin a spiral that surroundeda circle madeof a thin
sheetbent in this way [see Figure III-6] and suspendedby a silk thread
GH from a bracketK; thatthe effect madeitself manifestby the attraction
or repulsionexertedby a stronghorse-shoemagnetthat we hadborrowed
50• • • the first Thorina. Berzelius was the discoverer of the element
Thorium in 1828; but had used the name thorine in 1816 for what he
thoughtwasa new earth. He laterfound this to be an error andpublished
a retraction. The editorial voice of the Quarterly Journal of Science,
Literature, and the Arts, which often was Faraday's,noticedthe retraction
in the following terms:
'Thorina, not a distinct earth.--M. Berzelius has ascertainedthat the
substancewhich he described10 yearsago, as a new earth,doesnot merit
that distinction, being merely a sub-phosphateof Yttria. We are glad of
this correction,and think, that in the presentstateof chemistry,the man
who strikes an earth or metal off the list, deservesmore thanksthan he
who puts one on.' [The Quarterly Journal of Science,Literature, and the
Arts, 1826,Vol. 20, p. 391.]
51 Corr. No. 484, pp. 760-763,Ampere to A. de La Rive, [April 1833].
'om M. Pictet[Marc-AugustePictet (1752-1825)],accordingto which pole
ras in the interior of the circle at B and which was outsideat D. Unfor-
Ilnately neitheryou nor I thoughtto analysethis phenomenonand to ex-
lore all its circumstances.We would have seen,what M. Faradayhas
ince discovered,that the currentlastsonly for an instantandthatit runs
1 the contrarydirection to the currentflowing in the spiral circuit, which
roducedit by induction.
H ,..-_-:.;
K
~igure ill-G. Ampere's diagram of the apparatusused in the Geneva

,xperiment.
In a later letter to de La Rive, Ampere expandedfarther on his

Iriginal interpretationof the Genevaexperiment:52
Faradayhascertainlymadeone of the mostbeautiful discoveriesof all

he electro-magneticphenomena;but he is not the author of the very fact
fthe productionof a currentby induction, sincewe obtainedthis current
n 1822....
The thin foil bent into a circle is either drawn toward or carried away
rom the poles of the horse-shoemagnet,to remain almost in the same
)osition that it first assumed,as long as the exciting currentcontinuesto
;2 Corr. No. 490, pp. 773-775,Ampere to A de La Rive, 8 Nov. 1833.

flow in the spiral circuit; precisely because,the first action being only
momentary,thereis no other while the currentcontinues.Then, when it
is stopped,the circle of foil returns to its original position, becausea
currentin the oppositedirectionhasbeencreatedin it. It wasthis return,
which I attributedto the torsionalforce of the thread,that mademe think
of the persistenceof the first action(aslong asthe currentlasted)making
an equilibrium with a supposedtorsional force that did not really exist.
As for the direction of the currents,whetherthe sameor contrary, I had
neverin fact madethe necessaryexperimentsto determineit. But it is a
fact that, in the three or four placesin my memoirsor books in which I
hadspokenof it, I alwaysavoideddeclaringits direction,becauseI always
proposedto undertakea completework on the inducedcurrents,which I
neverdid.
This explanationof the experimentfirst performedsuccessfully

in Genevais much more explicit than any that had beenpublished
previously. The discrepanciesbetweenthe various accountsof the
experimentare no more than might arise from slight alterations
that could creep in during the many times the experimentwas
repeated. The explanationof the supposedtorsional equilibrium
seems,however, as if it were a rationalizationconceivedafter the
whole truth had beenrevealedby Faraday'sresults;though,it will
be recalled,Demonferrandhad vaguely mentionedan equilibrium
as early as 1823. Faradaycanhardlybe blamedfor misunderstand-
ing an experimentso variously and so ineptly reported.
Of much greaterinterestthan any of Ampere'sbelatedattempts
to give a more logical form to his accountof this experiment,is the
question of why he did not appreciate the significance of his
observationat the time when it was first made. In his long letter
of explanation to Faraday, he revealed the basic reason for his
failure to do SO.53
At that time I had but one aim in making theseexperiments.I was

searchingexclusively (as you will recognizeon looking at what I have
publishedat that period, when I describedthe apparatusthat I used)to
resolvethe question:Do electriccurrents,which are the causeof magnetic
attractions and repulsions, pre-exist, before magnetization, around
moleculesof iron, or steel,or the two othermetalswheremagneticeffects
are observed;but exist in sucha statethat they cannotexerciseany exter-
53 Corr. No. 485, pp. 763-770,Ampereto Faraday,13 April 1833.

al action. Or are the currentsproducedat the momentof magnetizingby

le influenceof near-bycurrents?
When, in my first experimentsof July 1821, I obtainedno current of
lis sort, I mentioned(Annalesde Chimie et de Physique,Vol. 118, p. 337,
Ild Recueil d'ObservationsElectro-dynamiques,p. 165) that, since a
lrrent wasnot able to produceanotheroneby influence,then, necessari-
',magnetizationtakesplacebecausethe current,or the bar magnetthat
oes the magnetizing,only acts upon pre-existingcurrentsin the iron or
beel. But, when the experimentthat I madein Genevain 1822 with M.
uguste de La Rive obliged me to retract and admit the production of
llITents by influence, I thought that the great question of the pre-
ristence of molecular currents in magnetizablemetals was not to be
nsweredin this mannerand that it mustremainundecideduntil it could
e resolvedby othermethods;andI placedno further importanceon these
Kperiments,which I erredin not having studiedmore deeply.
On receivingthis long explanatoryletter from Ampere,Faraday

lserted at the end of his Third Series54 an apology and explana-
ion of his original remarks-anapology that mollified Ampere's
~elings though it could not assuagehis regret at having misseda
reat opportunity.
Had Ampere beenimpelled to follow up the phenomenahe had
iscovered,one cannotdoubt that his geniuswould haveled him to
he true natureof the effect. He did, indeed,plan to take it up at
ome indefinite future date, but the very fact that he was willing
hus to postponethe investigation reveals its essentiallack of
mportancein his eyes. He saw the effect only as it relatedto his
heory of magnetism,andbecauseit did not promiseto throw light
n that subject he dismissedit as of entirely secondaryinterest.
'hus his intensepreoccupationwith his own line of thought was
esponsiblefor his neglectof a clue that could havebroughthim to
ne of the greatestscientific discoveriesof the century.
Faraday,had he delayed much longer in starting his experi-
[lents, would have missedthe opportunityhimself. JosephHenry
1797-1878),working in Albany, New York, had already obtained
md recognizedthe momentarynature of the induced current at
ome dateprior to May 1832beforehe had any knowledgeof Fara-
l M. Faraday, 'The Bakerian Lecture. Experimental Researchesin

Third Series,' Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 1833, pp. 53-54;
~lectricity.
eprintedin ExperimentalResearchesin Electricity, Vol. 1, London, 1839,
,po 107-109.
day'sresearches.His experimentshadbeentemporarilyinterrupt-
ed, whenhe reada brief announcement in theAnnalsofPhilosophy
of Faraday'sresults. The notice lacked particulars; apparently
Henry thoughtthat no more were to be given, and he immediately
publishedan accountof his own experimentsin the forthcoming
issue of Silliman's American Journal of Science (that for July
1832).55
It early occurredto me, that if galvanicmagnets,[i.e., electromagnets]on

my plan were substitutedfor ordinarymagnets,in researches of this kind,
more successmight be expected .... With this view, I commenced,last
August, the constructionof a much larger galvanic magnetthan, to my
knowledge,had beforebeenattempted,and also madepreparationsfor a
seriesof experimentswith it on a large scale,in referenceto the produc-
tion of electricity from magnetism. I was howeverat that time, acciden-
tally interruptedin the prosecutionof theseexperiments,and have not
beenable sinceto resumethem, until within the last few weeks,and then
on a much smallerscalethan was at first intended. In the meantime, it
hasbeenannouncedin the 117thnumberof the Library of Useful Knowl-
edge,that the result so muchsoughtafter hasat lengthbeenfound by Mr.
Faradayof the Royal Institution.
Henry wound 30 feet of insulatedcopperwire aroundthe middle

of the soft-iron keeper (or armature) of his electromagnet-a
magnetpowerful enoughto sustaina weight of more than six hun-
dred pounds.The wire was wound upon itself so as to occupy only
about one inch of the length of the keeper,which was seveninches
long in all. The projecting ends of the coil were connectedto a
galvanometer,placedat a forty-foot distancefrom the electromag-
net. Henry stationedhimself at the galvanometerand directedan
assistantto activate the electromagnet. At the instant when the
circuit was completed,the galvanometerneedlewas deflected30°to
the west, indicating that a pulse of electrical current had passed
through the coil on the keeper;on deactivatingthe electromagnet
the needlewas again deflectedfrom a stateof rest, this time 20°to
the east, or in a contrary direction from the first effect. So far,
Henryhadessentiallydoneno more thanconfirm Faraday'sresults:
55 JosephHenry, 'On the Productionof Currentsand Sparksof Electricity

from Magnetism,'AmericanJournal ofScienceandArts, 1832,Vol. 22, pp.
403-408;Reprintedin ScientificWritings ofJosephHenry, Publishedby the
SmithsonianInstitution, Washington,D.C., 1886, Vol. 1, pp. 73-79.
is electromagnet andwoundkeeperwereidenticalin principlewith

'araday'siron ring with its active and secondarycircuits. Before
b.e endof his paper,however,he reportedandcorrectlyinterpreted
n effect of self-induction-theproductionof sparkswhen a wire,
b.irty or forty feet long, andevenmorepronouncedwhencoiled into
helix, is disconnectedfrom a battery. 'I can accountfor these
henomena,'Henry concluded,'only by supposingthe long wire to
ecome chargedwith electricity, which by its re-action on itself
,rojectsa sparkwhen the connectionis broken.' Henry's observa-
ion of self-induction,madein the spring of 1832, anticipatedthat
fFaraday(13 November1834)by more than two years. Faraday's
aterwork, however,wasconsiderablymoredetailedandpenetrated
artherinto the natureof self-induction.
CHAPTER FOUR
FARADAY CONSULTS THE SCHOLARS:

THE ORIGIN OF THE TERMS OF ELECTROCHEMISTRY
Hardly any original thoughtson mentalor social subjectsevermaketheir

way amongmankind,or assumetheir properimportancein the mind even
of their inventors,until aptly selectedwords or phraseshave as it were
nailed them down and held themfast.
JohnStuartMill, A Systemof Logic,
London, 1843,Vol. 2, p. 285.
Our scientists, since they will neoterize, would find their account in
entertaininga few consultingphilologists.
FitzedwardHall, Modern English,
New York, 1878, p. 175.
The origins of the terms of electrochemistry-electrode,electrolyte,

electrolysis, anode, cathode, ion, anion, cation-are so fully
documentedthat their story could well becomethe classicexample
of how new scientific words are inventedand brought into circula-
tion. The story tells the extraordinary pains taken by a great
scientist to secure the precision of his description of facts by
defining new words with explicit denotations,as well as of his
respectfor philological accuracyand euphony. The story is certain
to benefit others who meet the same necessityfor coining new
terms; it has also, of course, a wider utility and interest as a
footnote to the history of science.
The words werefirst publishedby Michael Faraday(1791-1867)
in 1834, with the barestof acknowledgmentsto unnamedfriends
with whom, he said,'I havedeliberatelyconsideredthe subject.' No
subsequentdisclosureof the identity of his friends was ever made
public either by Faradayor by the two men themselves. Behind
Faraday'sapparentlack of courtesy, we can detect his honest
reluctanceto repaythe kindnessof his friends by bringing forward
their namesas though they were partially responsiblefor judging
of the advisability of coining new terms and so sharethe onus of
innovators.The identitiesof Faraday'stwo friends are now known:
126
FARADAY CONSULTSTHE SCHOLARS 127
hey wereWhitlock Nicholl, (1786-1838),whoseidentity is revealed

lere (in the original publicationof this essayin 1961); andWilliam
Vhewell, (1794-1866),a famous Master of Trinity College, Cam-
ridge, whoseidentity was disclosedin 1868 by JohnTyndall.1
No full accountof Faraday'sconsultationswith these scholars
.asyet beenmade:selectionsfrom the Faraday-Whewellcorrespon-
.ence2 have indeedbeenpublishedfrom time to time but rarely in
ufficient detail to discloseall the points discussedbetweenthe two
len.3 4 5 6 7 Dr. Nicholl's contributions have been completely
verlooked;and the subsequentvicissitudesof the terms have not
'een traced. The presentaccountbrings togethera numberof re-
atedletters,someof them from booksor journalsnow hardto fmd,
.nd others that were publishedfor the first time in the original
lrinting of this essay. The author is indebted to the Council of
JohnTyndall, Faraday as a Discoverer, London, 1868, p. 54.

The Faraday-Whewellcorrespondence preservedat Trinity College Lib-
ary consistsof 42 lettersfrom Faradayto Whewell, and 25 lettersfrom
\Thewell to Faraday. The lettersfrom Faradaycameinto the possession
f the Library on Dr. Whewell's death. The letters from Whewell were
rith Faraday'spapers,which passedinto the handsof Miss JaneBarnard,
liece of Mrs. Faraday.Miss Barnardleft themby her will to Mr. Blaikley,
() be dealt with as he thoughtfit. Mr. Blaikley consideredTrinity College
{QuId be the appropriate home for the Whewell letters; they were
resentedby him in August 1914 and in January1916. Not all Whewell's
~tters to Faradaywere in this collection,however;two hadbeenplacedby
'aradayhimself in an album that is now in the possessionof the Royal
rlstitution (see ref. 17); and two more, whose present locations are
nknown to me, were printed in 1898 by S.P.Thompson,ref. 4.
I. Todhunter,William Whewell, an Accountof his Writings, with Selec-
:ons from his literary and scientific Correspondence,London, 1876,Vol. 1,
.46 and p.89; Vol. 2, pp. 178-183.
S.P.Thompson,Michael Faraday, his Life and Work, London, 1898, pp.
63-4 and pp. 205-206.
Faraday'sDiary, G. Bell andSons,Ltd, London, 1932,Vol. 2 betweenpp.
72-273.
R.E. Oesperand M. Speter,The Scientific Monthly, 1937, Vol 45, pp.
35-546.
L. PearceWilliams, The SelectedCorrespondenceof Michael Faraday,
:ambridgeUniversity Press,1971. Referredto hereunderas SCMF.
Trinity College, Cambridge,to the Secretaryof the Royal Institu-

tion, and to the Royal Society of London for permissionto publish
letters,whoselocation is recordedin the footnotes.Little informa-
tion aboutWhitlock Nicholl haseverbeenmadepublic, andstill less
is readily available;morebiographicaldetailsarethereforeincluded
in his casethan were deemednecessaryfor other, better-known
figures.
4.1 Whitlock Nicholl
The friend whom Faradayfirst consultedaboutterminologywashis

personalphysician,Dr. Whitlock Nicholl. Dr. Nicholl had arrived
in Londonin 1826,havinggiven up a countrypracticein Shropshire
for the more stimulating life of the metropolis. Of his country
practice we have an eloquentrecord in a poem that he published
underthe pseudonymQuis.8
The Country Surgeon
Agricolam laudat
Sub galli cantumconsultorubi ostia pulsat.-Hor.9
Lucklessis he whom hard fates urge on

To practiseas a Country Surgeon,
To drag a weary, galling chain,
The slave of all for paltry gain;
8 Edinburgh Annual Register, 1817; reprinted in John Brown, Horae
Subsecivae:Locke and Sydenhamwith Other Occasional Papers,Edin-

burgh, 1858,pp. 450-451. Brown said:'I don'tknow who Quis was,but the
Hudibrasticsare vigorous.' The author is identified in ref. 10, which is
also the sourceof the text quotedhere, differing slightly from that given
by Brown.
9Nicholl's quotationis from Horace,Satires, I, 1, 9-10; freely translated
as:
Upon his door a thund'rousknock
Destroyshis rest, as crows the cock,
A patientneedshim on the spot,
Then praiseshe the farmer'slot.
To ride, regardlessof all weather,

Throughfrost and snow, and rain together,
To smile, and bow when sick and tired,
Consider'das a servanthir'd;
At ev'ry quarterof the compass,
A surly patient,makesa rumpus
Becausehe is not seenthe first,
(For eachman thinks his casethe worst:)
And oft at two points diametric
Called to a businessobstetric;
Therelies a man with brokenlimb,
A lady here with nervouswhim,
Who at the acmeof her fever
Calls him a savageif he leaveher;
For days and nights in somelone cottage
Condemn'dto live on crustsand pottage,
To kick his heelsand spin his brains
Waiting forsooth for labour-pains;
And this job over happyhe
If he squeezeout a guineafee.
Now worn like culprit on the wheel,
He sits him down to a hastymeal,
He sits, when, lo! a patientcomes
With rotten tooth and putrid gums,
The doctor drawshis dentist-tools,
Fixes the screwand tugs and pulls;
His dinner cold, his handsthis messin,
All for a shilling, or a blessing.
Now comesthe night; with toil oppress'd
He lays him down, in hope of rest;
Vain hope! his slumbersare no more,
Loud soundsthe knocker at the door,
A farmer'swife at ten miles distance,
Groaning,calls out for his assistance;
Fretting and fuming in the dark
He in the tinder strikesthe spark,
And as he yawning heaveshis breeches
Envieshis neighbourblest with riches.
Nicholl's move to London fortunately turned out well, due in

greatpart to his qualitiesof sympathy,sincerity,unselfishness,and
gaiety. Testimoniesto his personalcharm occur frequently in his
biography.10 'The easewith which he could tum from grave to gay

... his ready wit, his playful humour, and the flow of clever non-
sensel l in which he would sometimesindulge.... As one of a large
merry party in the country, he was a great acquisition ... dear
Whitlock's gaiety of spirits andkeenrelish for the ludicrous... his
sallies were always irresistible ... his kind courtesyof manner,
evento the rough and uneducated.'
Therewas, of course,much more than this to the man: qualities
of intellect and of professionalcompetencethat would be evident
under other circumstancesthan a merry party in the country. In
1819 he had publishedA Sketchof the Economyof Man, which he
described as a 'physiologico-metaphysico-theologico-anatomico-
medico-Essay,to combinephysiologywith metaphysics,andto bring
theseto strengthenour religiousbelief.' On purely medicalsubjects
he had publisheda small text-book,GeneralElementsof Pathology
(London, 1820) and a numberof papersin medicaljoumals.These
include: On Peculiarity of Vision12 [color blindness,]Affections of
10 A Slight Sketchof the Life of the late Whitlock Nicholl, M.D., together
with a few Manuscripts, written during his Leisure Hours, and left
unfinishedat the Time ofhis Death,privately printed,London, 1841. More
accessiblethough less extensiveis W. Monk, Roll of the Royal College of
PhysiciansofLondon, 2nd edition, London, 1878, Vol. 3, pp. 149-151.
11 the flow of clever nonsense. . . In the autumn of 1833 Mrs. Nicholl's
sisterCarolineHumemarriedhercousinMr. HassardHumeDodgson,and
at a meetingof the family that took place on that occasionDr. Nicholl
becameknown to many of his wife's relations, who 'laughingly thanked
Mrs. Nicholl, for havingbroughtamongthem so delightful a companion.'
Dr. Nicholl and the Rev. CharlesDodgson,the brother of Mr. Hassard
Dodgson and the father of 'Lewis Carroll', thereafterbecameintimate
friends; someof their correspondence is to be found in ref. 10. This thread
of kinship links two lovers of verbal nonsense:the one, the author of
technicalterms in medicineand science;the other, the authorof Jabber-
wocky.
12 'Account of a caseof a curious imperfectionof vision,' Med. Chir. Soc.
Trans., 1816,Vol. 7, pp. 477-481;'Accountof a caseof defectivepowersto
distinguish colours,' Med. Chir. Soc. Trans., 1818, Vol. 9, pp. 359-363;
'Remarkson a peculiar imperfection of vision with respectto colours,'
Thomson'sAnnalsof Philosophy,N.S., 1822, Vol. 3, pp. 128-137.
FARADAY CONSULTS THE SCHOLARS 131
the Cranial Brain in Infants and Erithismal State of the Brain.13

It is worthy of note that the term erithism, usedin this last paper,
was coinedby Dr. Nicholl for his purpose.
His interests,as revealedby his publications,evolvedgradually
from medical to biblical and religious topics, then to comparative
philology. In 1823 he published An Analysis of Christianity,
exhibitinga ConnectedView ofthe Scripturesandshowingthe Unity
ofSubjectwhichpervadesthe Wholeofthe SacredVolume. At about
the sametime he undertookthe studyof Hebrew,in orderto be able
to readthe Scripturesin the original language. He soon extended
his studyto include an analysisof the constructionof the language;
and did not hesitate to include the Samaritan,Arabic, Syriac,
Chaldeeand Persianlanguagesas well, in all of which he detected
common roots. These studies led eventually to publications in
learnedjournals of philology, and to his book NugaeHebraicae.
It wasno ordinaryphysician,therefore,to whom Faradayturned
for help in the framing of new terms, nor was it to a chance
acquaintance.On Nicholl's move to London he first residedat Old
Burlington Street,then removedto a housein CurzonStreet,May-
fair. At this addresshe was very near the Royal Institution, in
AlbemarleStreet. Dr. Nicholl becamea memberof the Royal Insti-
tution, of the Athenaeumand other clubs. It would not havebeen
long before he becameacquaintedwith Faraday,who had then re-
cently beenappointedDirector of the Laboratoryof the Royal Insti-
tution, andwho usedto invite membersto cometo eveningmeetings
in the Laboratory-these meetingswere the precursorsof the cele-
bratedFriday EveningDiscourses.The Athenaeumhadbeenfoun-
ded in 1824 'for the associationof individuals known for their
scientific or literary attainments,artists of eminencein any classof
the fine arts, and noblemenandgentlemendistinguishedas liberal
patronsof science,literature, or the arts.' Gentlemenwho wished
to join the Club were invited to write to Mr. Faraday,Royal Insti-
tution, who had undertakento act as temporarysecretary.14
Dr. Nicholl's friendship with Faradaymust have been formed
readily and flourished rapidly. The connectionwas strengthened
when, on 18 February 1830, Nicholl was electeda Fellow of the
13 Trans. Assn.King's & Queen'sColl. Physicians,Ireland, 1820,Vol. 3, p.

L77 and p. 268.
4 R. Appleyard,A Tribute to Michael Faraday, London, 1931, p. 191.
Royal Society, with Faraday'sname prominently high amongthe

proposers of his election. His certificate of election reads as
follows: 15
Whitlock Nicholl, M.D. of25 CurzonStreet,May Fair, a gentlemanstrong-

ly attachedto scienceand author of severalMedical and Physiological
papers, being desirous of admission into the Royal Society, we the
undersigneddo recommendhim as a personwell worthy of that honour,
and likely to becomea useful and valuablememberthereof.
The certificate was signedby seventeenFellows, of whom the

first wasthe celebratedphysicianB.C. Brodie;Faraday'snamecame
next; other well known supportersof the recommendationwere the
brothersEdmund and FredericDaniell, J.A. Paris, W.T. Brande,
andW. Heberden.This distinction confirmedNicholl's placein the
top rank. of physicianspracticingin London, where for someyears
he possessed 'a selectand respectablepractice'.
In a letter16 written after Nicholl's death,Faradayhas given us
his estimateof the talentsand acquirementsof his friend, in terms
that carry the stamp of feeling and sincerity. Mter mentioning
someof Nicholl's writings, the letter continues:
I believe there are very few [of his writings] of a philosophical[i.e.,

scientific] nature. This has often surprisedme for his mind was very
active amongstsuch subjects,andfrequently when he hascomein whilst
I have been experimentingthe quicknesswith which he has caughtand
canvassedthe idea underinvestigationhasstruck me, and mademe wish
again and again that he would tum experimenter. So correctly did he
catch my thoughts and views that I have often gone to him, as the
combinedphilosopherandscholar,for new words;andseveralthat arenow
currentin electrical sciencewe owe to him.
Again in medicalcases,his penetrationandjudgementoften surprised
me. I was personallymuch indebtedto him in the matterof health, and
so were many of my friends, and when he had occasionto attend us his
attentionand kindnesswere neverweary. But besidesthat he appeared
to have such a clear perceptionof the nature of the derangementof the
systemand to passso well from the mere symptomsto the true causeof
the derangement,and after thatto apply the needfulremediesso well and
15 Original in the Royal Societyof London.

16 Reference10, pp. 112-113.The letter is dated 'Royal Institution, Jan-
uary 23, 1839.' Not in SCMF.
Figure IV·l. WHITLOCK NICHOLL, M.D., F.R.S.(1786-1838)

so quickly that, though unable to judge of these matters except from

experience,I certainly always consideredhim as a most philosophicand
yet a most practicaland safe physician.
All herewho knew him rememberand will continueto rememberhim;
all regrethis loss. I neverknew a man who so quickly and so generously
left pleasant impressionson the minds of those who came into his
company-andthen that we shouldbe so suddenlystruck with the news
of his death when we were in a mannerwaiting for his re-appearance
amongstus!
lowe very much to the kindnessof thosewho are or havebeenaround
me in life, but in the remembranceof them Dr. Nicholl's characterstands
very separateand independent,and I think will ever do so. I can wish
nothingbetterto his boy that in all theserespectshe may prove like his
father.
The bond of friendship betweenthe two men is betterrevealed

in a less formal letter--onethat was written to Faradayby Dr.
Nicholl after his retirement from London, and which Faraday
carefully preserved,along with a portrait of Nicholl, among his
private papers.17
CottageEastCowes(I.W.)
October31, 1836
My dear Friend - Before I tell you anything of me and mine, I must
expressmy hope that your knee has ceasedto trouble you, and that Mrs.
Faradayand yourself are well. Your kind call at Shanklin was sadly
tantalizing-soshort that I could scarcelyenjoy the unexpectedpleasure
of seeingyou. . ..
Pray let me have a line to tell me how you are-howMrs. Faradayis,
andhow all are that you are interestedabout. I take for grantedthat you
are busily engagedin questioningnatureand in worming out her secrets,
but I am pleasedin thinking that you do not fatigue yourselfso much as
you were wont to do. I am quite sure,that, with my friend Mrs. Faraday
at your elbow, you will be remindedsufficiently often that the bow must
sometimesbe released,andthat you will be plied with Quinia & port wine
17 Original in the Royal Institution; SCMF, 1971, pp. 305-306. Faraday

compiled an album of engravedportraits of some of his correspondents,
which he further illustrated by insertingoppositeeachone a letter from
the personconcerned.The portrait of Dr. Nicholl in Faraday'salbum is a
copy of the engravingusedas the frontispieceof ref. 10, reproducedhere.
The portrait of Dr. Whewell in Faraday'salbum is a lithographcopy of a
drawing by E.U. Eddis, publishedin 1835, reproducedhere in Figure 1-1.
when you needtheserestoratives.My kind regardsto Mrs. Faraday,not

forgettingthe little Margery. Prayoffer my kind regardsalso to Frederic
and EdmundDaniell. Believe me to be with real regardand esteemyrs
very faithfully, Whitlock Nicholl.
4.2 Why Faradayrequirednew Terms
Although never specifically acknowledged,it was probably Dr.

Nicholl to whom Faradayturnedin 1831, when in searchof a new
term for what he supposedto be an electricallyinducedcondition of
metals.18 In a letter of November 1831 to his friend Richard
Phillips (1778-1851),Faradaytells19 of his new term: 'THE ELEC-
TROTONIC STATE. What do you think of that? Am I not a bold
man, ignorant as I am, to coin words? but I have consultedthe
scholars.'
Two yearslater Faradayagainfelt the needfor new terms. His
experimentson electrochemicaldecompositionhad progressedfar
enoughto showhim how unsatisfactorywerethe prevailingtheories
on the subject,accordingto which the metallic platesat which the
voltaic current entersand leavesa solution of a salt or acid were
regardedas centersofforce analogousto the polesof a magnet;the
attractiveor repulsiveforces emanatingfrom thesepolestore apart
the molecules of substanceslying betweenthem: 'The pole from
whence resinous electricity issues attracts hydrogen and repels
oxygen, whilst that from which vitreous proceedsattractsoxygen
and repelshydrogen; so that eachof the elementsof a particle of
water, for instance.is subjectto an attractive and repulsiveforce,
acting in contrary directions.'20 Yet, Faradaypointed out, when
the hydrogenand oxygenhavebeenthus elicited at the poles,they
are not retainedtherebut are allowed to escapefreely; moreover,
the hypothesisthat the attraction of the poles is the causeof the
18 M. Faraday,ExperimentalResearchesin Electricity, London, 1839, Vol.

1, § 60.
19 Ref. 4, p. 116; SCMF, 1971, pp. 209-212. Faraday'soriginal letter to
Phillips is now in the Burndy Library, Norwalk, Conn. See B. Dibner,
Faraday discloseselectro-magneticInduction, New York, 1949.
20 Ref. 18, VoLl, § 481.
decompositionleads to the conclusion that the weakestelectrical

attractionis strongerthan the chemicalforces that hold together
hydrogenand oxygen. The actual mechanismof electrolysiswas
unknown at the time, and it is not necessaryto explain it here. In
termsofthecontemporaryunderstanding,Faraday'sobjectionswere
valid and he rightly sensedthat the most urgent requirementat
this stageof the developmentof the subjectwas to mark as strongly
as possiblethe break that his views madewith thoseof the past.21
I conceivethe effectsto arisefrom forceswhich areinternal, relativeto the

matter under decomposition-andnot external, as they might be con-
sidered,if directly dependentupon the poles. . . . I think, therefore,it
would be more philosophical,and more directly expressiveof the facts, to
speakof sucha body, in relation to the currentpassingthrough it, rather
than to the poles, as they are usually called, in contactwith it; and say
that whilst underdecomposition,oxygen, chlorine, iodine, acids, etc., are
renderedat its negative extremity, and combustibles,metals, alkalies,
bases,etc., at its positive extremity.
One experiment in particular seemed to Faraday of prime

importancein proving his thesis: his publishedtext refers back to
it more than once,and he describedit again,in a letter to Whewell,
on an occasionwhen he was anxiousto presenthis viewpoint most
effectively and succinctly. The following accountof it is takenfrom
the ExperimentalResearches: 22
Arrangementswere then made in which no metallic communication

with the decomposingmatter was allowed, but both poles (if they might
now be calledby that name)formed of air only. A pieceof turmericpaper
a fig. 50, and a pieceof litmus paperb, were dippedin solution of sulphate
of soda,put togetherso as to form one pointed conductor,and supported
on wax betweentwo needlepoints, onep connectedby a wire with the con-
ductor of the machine,and the other, n, with the dischargingtrain. The
interval in each case betweenthe points was about half an inch: the
positive point p was opposite the litmus paper; the negative point n
oppositethe turmeric. The machinewas then worked for a time, upon
which evidenceof decompositionquickly appeared,for the point of the
litmus b becamereddenedfrom acid evolved there, and the point of the
turmeric a red from a similar and simultaneousevolution of alkali....
21 Ibid., Vol. 1, § 524.

22 Ibid., Vol. 1, §§ 465-471.
If the combinedlitmus andturmericpaperin this experimentbe consid-

ered as constituting a conductor independentof the machine or the
discharging train, and the final places of the elements evolved be
consideredin relationto this conductor,thenit will be found that the acid
collects at the negativeor receivingend or pole of the arrangement,and
the alkali at the positive or delivering extremity....
This caseof electro-chemicaldecompositionis in its natureexactly of
the samekind as that affected[sic] under ordinary circumstancesby the
voltaic battery,notwithstandingthe greatdifferencesasto the presenceor
absence,or at leastas to the natureof the partsusually called poles;and
also of the final situation of the elementseliminated at the electrified
boundarysurfaces. They indicate at once an internal action of the parts
suffering decomposition,and appearto show that the power which is ef-
fectual in separatingthe elementsis exertedthere,and not at the poles.
Fr:g SO,
To makehis argumentmore conclusiveFaradaynext devisedan

experimentin which electrochemicaldecompositionwas made to
take place againsta water surface. His descriptionis too long to
quote here: I refer the readerto §§ 493-496 of the Experimental
Researches.This experiment,alongwith the precedingone, formed
the basisof Faraday'sargument,which he presentedas follows:23
As, therefore, the substancesevolved in cases of electro-chemical

decompositionmay be made to appearagainst air, which, acording to
commonlanguage,is not a conductor,nor is decomposed,or againstwater,
which is a conductor,and canbe decomposed,aswell as againstthe metal
poles,which are excellentconductors,but undecomposable, there appears
but little reason to consider the phenomenagenerally, as due to the
attraction or attractive powers of the latter, when used in the ordinary
23 Ibid., Vol. 1, §§ 497-498.

way, since similar attractions can hardly be imagined in the former

instances.
It may be said that the surfacesof air or water in thesecasesbecome
the poles, and exert attractive powers; but what proof is there of that,
exceptthe fact that the mattersevolvedcollect there,which is the point to
be explained,and cannotbe justly quotedas its own explanation.
In theseextractswe seeFaradaytrying to frame his new concept

of electrochemicaldecompositionbut forced to usethe old terminol-
ogy coined for the earlier conceptthat he wished to supplant;in
particular, the term 'poles', with its undesirableconnotationsof
magnetic or electrostaticattractionsand repulsions,causedhim
embarrassment,as its repeateduse seemedto affirm the chief
featureof the old theory. We seehim trying to managewith such
qualifications as 'the parts usually called poles' or 'the electrified
boundarysurfaces';but it is evidentthat he felt the needfor a new
terminologythat would not imply hypotheticalinterpretationswith
which he disagreed. 24
24 Ampere had earlier expresseddissatisfactionwith the term poles and

had substitutedrheophores (p~o<;, flow i.e., current + -q,opo<;, bearing,
carrying); but he did so for reasonsof pure logic rather than becausehe
hadnew experimentalfactsto offer. Thefollowing explanationof Ampere's
reasoningis takenfrom A Manual of Electro Dynamics,chiefly translated
from the Manuel d'electricite dynamiqueof J.F. Demonferrand,by James
Cumming,Cambridge,1827, pp. 6-7.
'It has beenusual to designatethe oppositeendsof the pile, and the
wires attachedto them, asits poles,which seemsobjectionable,both as an
improperterm in itself andasfoundeduponfalse analogies.In Geometry,
the poles of a circle are two points in a line drawn perpendicularto its
plane and passingthrough its centre: the word is used, with the same
signification,in Astronomy,the polesof a planetbeingmerely the polesof
its equator;hencethe samenamehasbeengiven to those two endsof a
magnetwhich tum towards the poles of the earth. But there can be no
suchreasonfor applyingthis term to the extremitiesof a Voltaic pile; and
it would be attendedwith this anomaly, that in the case of a circular
conductor,the poles,being the points of exit and entranceof the current,
would be two points in the circle itself, and consequentlyvery different
from its geometricalpoles. As the attachingsuch different significations
to the sameword must, unavoidably,produceconfusionand obscurityin
the explanationof the phenomena,Amperehas proposedto avoid this in-
convenience,by giving the nameRheophoresto the two portions of con-
ductors attached to the ends of the pile, when employed in electro-
Faradayseemsto have consultedWhitlock Nicholl about the

substitutionof new termsin December1833. He obtaineda number
of valuablesuggestions:for poles,'which are merely the surfacesor
doors by which the electricity enters into or passesout of the
substancesuffering decomposition', was substituted electrodes
(1\A.e1crPOV and Mo~ a pathway, though Faradayalso thought of
it as a doorway);bodiesthat are'decomposed directly by the electric
current,their elementsbeingsetfree' were to be called electrolytes
(1\A.e1crPOV + A'\Yt6~ = that which can be electrically loosenedor
decomposed);the phrase electro-chemicallydecomposedwas to
becomeelectrolyzed;the electrolyte when electrolyzedevolves two
electrobeids(possibly derived from the Greek ~a{vEtv, to go or
~ao{~Etv, to walk);25 the extremities of the solution that are in
dynamics; in analogy with the term electrophorus, which has been

similarly applied in electrostatics. This expressionwill therefore be
adoptedin this treatise;the positive rheophorusbeingthat which, in the
interruptedcircuit, would exhibit the positive or vitreous electricity; and
the negativethat which is at the other extremity of the pile.
'The namesof positive and negative rheophorusare substitutedfor
those of copper and zinc, to avoid the confusion which has arisen from
designating the ends of the pile by their respective metals: for, in
consequence of the currentbeingfrom the copperto the zinc, or vice-versa,
accordinglyas the seriesis terminatedby single or double plates,many
[Mr. Faradayand several] English authors have used the expressions
copperandzinc, as appliedto the extremitiesof the pile, in a senseexactly
the reverseof the continentalwriters.'
Faraday'snameis tactfully omittedin Cumming'sEnglish translation
but is given in the original French edition of 1823, a copy of which had
beensentto Faradayby Ampere(seeSCMF, 1971,p. 154;) and this criti-
cism of his early usagemay havecontributedto Faraday'slater resolveto
reform the terminology of voltaic electricity.
25The difficulty posedby Faraday'shandwritinghasled to more than one
version of thesewords. In Faraday'sDiary (ref. 5, pp.183-184)the ver-
sionsgiven are electrobeidand cisodeas readby ThomasMartin. Bence-
Jones,who had accessto the Diaries for his Life and Lettersof Faraday,
London, 1870,gaveelectroleid and eisode,(Vol.2, p.38.) Todhunter(ref.3,
Vo1.2, p.179) gaveeisode,readfrom Whewell'shandwriting. There is no
obviousetymologyfor cisode.
I receivedthefollowing letter, datedMay 29, 1979,from H.D. Cameron,
Professorof GreekandLatin, The University of Michigan, printedhereby
his kind permission:
contactwith the electrodesand where the electrobeidsare evolved

wereto be calledthe eisode(the doorwaywherethe currententers),
and the exode(the doorwaywhere the currentleaves). On Decem-
'I have just read your fascinating article 'Faraday Consults the
Scholars:The Origins of the Tennsof Electrochemistry'and 1 am struck
with admiration. It was broughtto my attentionby a paleontologisthere
who soughtmy advice in naminga seriesof oligocenecreodontfossils. To
comparesmall things with great, 1 occasionallyserve as the Whewell to
our local Faradays.
'As 1 read on your page 194 the term electrobeids or possibly
electroleids,which Faradayrejectedalmost instantly-probablya good
thing-it struck me that somethingwas awry here, and that the correct
transcriptionof Faraday'sDiary at this point had eludedus. The habits
resultingfrom sometraining as a paleographerand textual critic beganto
operate,and I have a suggestionto solve the puzzle.
'First, the two interpretationselectrobeidandelectroleidmakeno sense.
Your brave but gingerly derivation of the former from ~(X{vro or
~a.O{~etV is, I am sure you would be the first to admit, a counsel of
desperation. There is simply no way consistentwith Greek word for-
mation that -beid could be derived from ~atvro or paOtCetv. Too many
elementswould haveto be ignored,andit would bespeaka carelessness of
philological detail on Faraday'spart which is scarcelycrediblein the light
of the restof your article. The otherinterpretationelectroleidis complete-
ly hopeless.
'Second,we must keep in mind the metaphorFaradaywas using. He
thought of Mo~ as a door, although that is not altogetherwarrantedin
Greek where it meansroad or manner,neverdoor. Still it is unambigu-
ously clear that Faradaywas thinking of doors.
'Third, a quick look at a reverseindex of Greek words showsthat the
only noun ending in -leid (actually nominative -A£t~, genitive -A£tOo~)
is the word for key KAe(~ KAet~~. This would be transcribed into
English as -cleid as in the ophicleide,a brassmusicalinstrumentderived
from the old woodenserpentby the addition of keys.
'Fourth, the two false transcriptions of Faraday's handwriting
electrobeidor electroleid are easily explainedby the correct transcription
electrocleid.
'Fifth, sincea key is that which entersa door, this interpretationis at
leastreasonablycongruentwith Faraday'smetaphor.To approachit from
another direction, the electrolyte is unlocked or released,and the key
metaphormay be relatedto that. Admittedly thereis a less than perfect
fit here, but that may be the very reasonFaradayquietly abandonedthe
term.'
ber 17, 1833, and later, theseterms appearedin Faraday'slabor-

atory notebook;on January23, 1834, he usedthem publicly in a
paper read to the Royal Society; but he was not yet completely
satisfiedwith someof them and still felt the needfor a distinction
betweenthe electrobeidthat went to the eisodeand the one that
went to the exode. Before the end of April electrobeidhad been
replacedby zetodeand the two zetodeswere designatedzeteisode
and zetexode. Partington has derived zetode from 'the enclitic
particle ~e, motion towards.'(J.R. Partington,A History of Chemis-
try, London, 1964, Vol.4, p.117.) My consultant on etymology,
ProfessorH.D. Cameron,kindly providedthe following note:
Partington'ssuggestionthatthe wordzetodeis somehowconnectedwith

the Greek 'particle' -~e is incorrect.
First, the so-called'particle' -~e strictly speakinghas no independent
existence,but is the result of a phonologicalrule. The underlyingparticle
is -&, which is always enclitic and post-desinential,that is, always a
non-accentedsuffix and always comes after a case ending of a noun.
Technically it is an enclitic postposition. It is found in its undisguised
form in such a word as o(1(Ov& 'homewards'formed upon the accusative
('accusativeof place to which') of the noun o(1(O~ 'house'. But when an
accusativenounhappensto endin sigma,asfor instancein the accusative
of the place name . A9flv~ the combination sigma-deltabecomeszeta,
hence .A9flv~-& becomes . A9flva~e. So there is no independent
entity -'e; it is alwaysthe particularresult of a phonologicalprocess,and
is not a morphemein its own right. It would never have the form -~£
exceptafter an accusativenoun ending(originally) in sigma. Becauseit is
enclitic and postpositive,it would neverbe usedto begin a word. This is
a fairly simple item of Greek grammar, and any schoolboywould have
known it in Faraday'scentury.
The true etymology,it seemsto me, is clear. Faradayconceivedof an
electrical 'path', and using the Greek word 6&>~, 'road, way, path',
adoptedthe term electrodemeaningsomethinglike 'electricalpathway',as
if from a Greek (hypothetical) word *ftA.t1Ctpooo~. (The asterisk con-
ventionally markshypotheticalforms.) So the secondelementin his term
zetodeis the morphemein the new English term electrode. The first ele-
ment in the term is from the Greek verb ~lltto) to seek. Hence, a hypo-
thetical compound*~1'ttoOO~ would be an adjective meaning'seekingthe
path'. Or in electrochemicalterms, I should think, 'seekingthe anodeor
the cathode'.
Anode and cathode,I gather, are terms that cameinto the literature
later, but obviously are inspiredby the samemetaphor. The differenceis
that anode and cathode are derived from genuine Greek words, wooo~
'road up' and K<'t90oo~ 'road down', and they presenta technicalquestion
of word-formation.
The initial rough breathing(that is 'h') of 6oo~ in combinationshould
affect the precedingconsonant,as it does in K<'t90oo~ (from K<X't<'t 'down'
and 6M~). So why do we not have zethode? The fact that we do not,
leads me to believe that the word was constructedon analogywith the
Englishtermelectroderatherthanfrom a form first put togetherin Greek.
Thatis, the technicalEnglishmorpheme-ode now hasa life of its own, and
can form terms. When later the termsanodeand cathodeare developed,
they are taken directly from the original Greekwords.
So, the upshotis that zetodeis formed from the first part of a Greek
verb ~l1'ttro 'to seek'and the electrochemicalmorpheme-ode, and means
'that which seeksthe electrode'.
Faradayhad hesitatedaboutacceptingeisodeandexodeas they

implied rathertoo strongly that the electric currentwas an actual
current of somethingflowing-entering and leaving a solution
-insteadof its being merely an arbitrary conventionof language.
Faraday'santipathyto the word current is expressedseveraltimes
in his publishedpapers,as for examplein the following sentence:
'though I speakof the current as proceedingfrom the parts which
are positive to thosewhich are negative,it is merely in accordance
with the conventional, though in some degree tacit, agreement
enteredinto by scientific men, that they might have a constant,
certain,anddefinite meansof referringto the directionof the forces
of the current.'26 And again:'By current,I meananythingprogres-
sive, whether it be a fluid of electricity, or two fluids moving in
opposite directions, or merely vibrations, or, speakingstill more
generally,progressiveforces.'27The new terms of electrochemistry,
unlike the old, must not lend themselvesto propagatean analogy
as though it were an ascertainedfact.
26 Ref. 18, Vol. 1, § 667.

27 Ibid., Vol. 1, § 283.
4.3 Robert Willis (1800-1875)
The next personof whom we have certainrecord that he was con-

sulted by Faradaywas the Rev. Robert Willis, a Fellow of Caius
College, Cambridge,who had lecturedat the Royal Institution in
1831 on the subject of sound.28 Willis had not yet indicated his
interestin archaeologyand architecture,for which he was later to
becomedistinguished;but at the time whenFaradayseemsto have
consulted him (1834), he was actually engagedin writing his
Remarkson the Architectureof the Middle Ages,destinedto be an
important book in the understandingof Gothic architecture.29
Faraday'srequestwould almost certainly have arouseda sympa-
thetic responsefrom Willis, who hadhimselfmet a similar problem
in trying to describein wordscertainarchitecturalfeaturesthathad
no fixed and acceptednames. In this dilemma Willis had been
greatly assistedby being able to refer to a publication written by
oneof his colleagues,in which severalof the termshe requiredwere
defmed. The publication in questionwas a small treatise,issued
anonymously in 1830, entitled Architectural Notes on German
Churches;the author was the Rev. William Whewell, then a tutor
at Trinity College, Cambridge,later destinedto be the Master of
that college. In writing his own book, Willis was able to consultnot
only Whewell's publicationbut also its author, when a questionof
architecturalterminologyarose;his indebtedness
to Whewell, veiled
by the needto respectthe anonymityof the authorof Architectural
Notes,is neverthelessclearlyexpressed in Willis's Architectureofthe
Middle Ages.
Had Willis neededto persuadeFaradayfurther of Whewell's
qualifications to come to his aid he could have pointed to Lyell's
recently published Principles of Geology, in which Whewell is
acknowledgedas the source of the namespliocene, miocene, and
28 A biographyof Willis, written by his nephewJ. Willis Clark, is in the

Dictionary of National Biography, 1900, Vol. 62, pp. 21-23.
29Willis's book is credited with having turned Ruskin's attention to
architecture,culminatingin the writing of The Stonesof Venice, 1851-53.
SeeThe Diaries of John Ruskin,Oxford University Press,1956, Vol. 1, p.
321. Also see The Works of John Ruskin, ed. E.T. Cook and Alexander
Wedderburn,London, 1903,Vol. 8, p. xl, for an accountof Ruskin'svisit to
Cambridgein 1851, where he was entertainedby Whewell and Willis.
eocene;30 or he could haveshownthe new nomenclaturedevisedby

Whewell to describeFan-TraceryRoofs;31 and, as evidenceof the
restraintandjudgementwith which Whewell undertooksuchtasks,
he couldhavebroughtforward the following passagefrom Whewell's
ArchitecturalNoteson GermanChurches.32
In architecturaldecription I haveventuredto employ a few new phrases:

or rather, I have fixed and limited the meaningof some of the phrases
which I haveused,with a view to their being employedsteadilyand pre-
cisely for the future. I hope the courteousreaderwill not considerthis to
be a criminal assumptionof philological power. It is scarcelypossibleto
describe new features without this much of innovation, or to describe
anything distinctly without this much of technicality. Mr. Rickman has
shewn, that by the careful use of terms well selectedand previously
defined, languagemay convey almost as exact and completeidea of a
building as can be got from the reality or from the pencil: but in order to
do this with the greatestadvantage,our architecturalvocabularyshould
be much extended. We may learn from the descriptive sciences,as for
instanceBotany, how much may be taughtby meansof a copiousand sci-
entific terminology; and architects are already in possessionof a very
30 CharlesLyell, Principles of Geology,JohnMurray, London, 1833,Vol.3,

p.53. Lyell's note on thesewords is worth reprinting:
'In the terms Pliocene,Miocene, and Eocene,the Greek diphthongsei
and ai are changedinto the vowels i and e, in conformity with the idiom
of our language. Thus we haveEncenia,an inauguralceremony,derived
from tv and X:(l\,vO~ , recens;and as examplesof the conversionof ei into
i, we have icosahedron.
'I have been much indebtedto my friend, the Rev. W. Whewell, for
assistingme in inventingandanglicizingtheseterms,andI sincerelywish
that the numerousforeign diphthongs,barbarousterminations,and Latin
plurals, which have been so plentifully introducedof late yearsinto our
scientific language,hadbeenavoidedas successfullyasthey areby French
Naturalists,and as they were by the earlier English writers, when our
languagewas more flexible than it is now. But while I commendthe
French for accommodatingforeign terms to the structure of their own
language,I must confessthat no naturalistshavebeenmore unscholarly
in their modeof fabricatingGreekderivativesandcompounds,manyofthe
latter being a bastardoffspring of Greek and Latin.'
31W. Whewell,ArchitecturalNoteson GermanChurches,with Remarkson
the Origin of Gothic Architecture,Cambridge,1830, pp. xxxi-xxxiv.
32 Ibid., pp. xxv-xxvi.
numerouslist of terms of art which refer to the ClassicalOrders;so full,

indeed,that there could scarcelyever be much difficulty in describinga
building belongingto that style. To establisha completelanguagefor
Gothic architecture,is a proceedingwhich might not be beyondthe juris-
diction of our eminentarchitecturalauthorities;but sucha languagewould
requireto be illustratedby abundantdrawingsand references. Ihavenot
pretendedto invent or define any words exceptsuch as I had occasionfor
in my own descriptions.
ThatWhewellwaswell preparedfor suchan appealasWillis had

encouragedFaradayto addressto him, is evident from the fol-
lowing passagewritten by Whewell several years earlier, in an
unsignedreview of Herschel'sPreliminary Discourseon the Study
of Natural Philosophy(1830):33
As soon as a law of naturehasbeenobtained,it is desirableto expressit

in somepreciseand brief phraseology.This oncedone,a word or a phrase
enablesus to adducethe law, and thus to renderavailable,at a moment's
warning, all the toil and ingenuity which have been embodiedin its dis-
covery.Thusthe termswe haveused,of conduction,radiation, latent heat,
caloric, are words impregnated,as it were, with a meaningderived from
the laboursof many observersand calculators. It is by such meansthat
the discoveriesandlaboursof one generationbecomeuseful to the next; or
ratherbecomeinevitably subservientto future discoveriesand advances,
by being incorporatedinto the languageof each science,and almost im-
bibed with the air we breathe. Terms of art, well chosen,contain a con-
centratedessenceof all past labours: they connectus, by the shortest
road,with the surestelementsof knowledge-actualphenomena:by their
help we advancethrough a labyrinth of nature,guidedby a threadalmost
invisible, of which the extremityis fixed to remote,but well-known objects;
and we go on, knotting it in our tum, to new points, as the windings of our
path require.
But Faradaydid not requirethis evidence:he was alreadyaware

Df Whewell's interest in scientific terminology. Early in 1831
Faraday,as editor of the Journal of the Royal Institution of Great
Britain, had acceptedand publishedan article by Whewell On the
"(J;mployment of Notation in Chemistry. Faradayalludes to this
paperin a letter to Whewell datedFebruary21, 1831:34
13 [William Whewell,] Quarterly Review, 1831, Vol. 45, p. 374.

14 Ref. 3, Vol. 1, pp. 307-308;BCMF, Vol. 1, p. 190.
Your remarksupon chemicalnotation with the variety of systemswhich

have arisenwith regardto notation,nomenclature,scalesof proportional
or atomic number,&c., had almost stirred me up to regret publicly that
such hindrancesto the progressof scienceshould exist. I cannothelp
thinking it a most unfortunatething that men who as experimentalists
and philosophersare the most fitted to advancethe general course of
scienceandknowledge,shouldby the promulgationof their own theoretical
views under the form of nomenclature,notation or seale,actually retard
its progress.It would not be of much consequence
if it was only theoryand
hypotheseswhich they thus treated,but they put facts or the currentcoin
of scienceinto the samelimited circulation when they describethem in
such a way that the initiated only can readthem.
Willis then did no more than to draw Faraday'sattention to

Whewell's interest and ability in scientific nomenclature;but in
view of the happy results of his advice he deservesto be included
amongthosewho sharethe credit for forming our presentlanguage
of electrochemistry.
4.4 William Whewell
The ReverendWilliam Whewe1l35 to whom Faradaywas referred

hadbeenProfessorof Mineralogyat Cambridge,from which posthe
resignedin 1832,due to the sheernumberof his otherinterests.He
had recentlybecomewidely known as the authorof the first of the
BridgewaterTreatises,36 that on Astronomyand General Physics
For biographicalinformation seeRef. 3; alsoMrs. Stair Douglas,TheLife

35
and Selectionsfrom the Correspondence ofWilliam Whewell,London, 1881;
Leslie Stephen,Dictionary of National Biography, 1899, Vol. 60, pp.454-
463; J. Willis Clark, Old Friends at Cambridgeand Elsewhere,London,
1900, pp.1-76.
36The BridgewaterTreatiseswere commissionedin 1830by the President
of the Royal Society(DaviesGilbert) underthe termsof the will ofthe Rev.
FrancisHenry Egerton,eighth Earl of Bridgewater(1756-1829),who be-
queatheda fund of £8000for the productionof a seriesof treatises'on the
Power,Wisdom and Goodnessof God as manifested inthe Creation.' The
Treatises were the last serious effort to provide a direct teleological
interpretationof Nature.
consideredwith Referenceto Natural Theology. But Architecture,

Mineralogy,Astronomy,PhysicsandTheologyby no meansexhaus-
ted the number of subjects in which this able and remarkably
versatilemantook an activeinterest. At Cambridgeand elsewhere
his omnisciencewas soonto becomelegendary:'he is a portentous
encyclopaedist,and is said to know everythingunderthe sun even
betterthan thosewho know it best,'wrote an enthusiasticvisitor37
in 1858. The direction of Whewell's intereststhroughouthis life
showeda notableprogressionfrom MathematicsandMechanics,his
fIrst loves,throughChemistry,Mineralogy and Geology;this series
of studies culminated with the publication of his History of the
InductiveSciences(1837). A new seriesof studieswas inaugurated
with his Philosophyof the Inductive Sciences(1840), from which he
progressedto Economics,Moral PhilosophyandInternationalLaw.
It may be said that in the course of his intellectual career he
graduallyandsystematicallyenlargedthe objectsof his contempla-
tion from the mosttrivial physicalphenomena,which can,however,
be describedandpredictedwith mathematicalprecision,to complex
social relationsof the utmosthumanimportance.
At about the time of Faraday'srequestfor assistancewith ter-
minology,generalconsiderationsaboutthe languageof scienceseem
to have been occupying Whewell's thoughts. He had already
commencedthe long task of writing his Philosophyof the Inductive
Sciencesin which the subject of technical words is discussedat
length;he alsohadrecentlypublisheda small bookon mineralogical
classification and nomenclature,as well as some articles in the
Philological Museumon definitions and technicalterms. His glad
andimmediateresponseto Faraday'sappealshowshow timely was
the enquiry and how appropriatethe choice of personto whom it
was addressed.
Faraday,on his part, had evidently continued to ponder and
probably to discusswith Dr. Nicholl his dissatisfactionwith the
termshe had employedin his oral presentationto the Royal Society
in January. It now seemedto him that even to use terms that
spokeof electricalcurrent'entering'and'leaving'the solutionmight
imply more knowledgeof the subjectthanwas warranted;who was
to say how false the analogyof 'current'and 'flow' might be to the
actualprogressof electricitythroughan electrolyte?Havinghimself
sufferedfrom terms that connotedhypothesesthat he considered
17 AM. Stoddart,John Stuart Blackie, London, 1895, Vol. 2, p. 315.

erroneous,he was anxiousto clear the terms of his own invention

from any such implications. He decided simply to comparethe
progressof electricity througha solutionwith somegreatterrestrial
phenomenonwith which it could not possiblybe equated.His mind
leaped to a suggestionmade by Ampere38 soon after Oersted's
celebratedexperiment of 1820 had been made public: perhaps
terrestrial magnetismresults from the presenceof an electrical
current moving around the equator from east to west, just as
magnetic poles correspondingto terrestrial north-seekingand
south-seekingmagneticpoles can be producedabove and below a
loop of wire carryinga currentthat movesin that direction. Let the
direction of the current causingelectrolysisbe comparedto this
globe-circlingcurrent:the electrodeat which the currententersthe
circuit would then correspondto an easternentranceand the elec-
trode at which the current left the circuit would correspondto a
westernexit. This analogycarriesno implications of an electrical
fluid entering and leaving the solution, nor does it introduce the
puzzleaboutwhetheronefluid entersat one electrodeanda second
fluid entersat the other.
Fortunatelyfor thehistorianthedistancethatseparated Faraday
and Whewell required them to carry on their deliberationsby
correspondence, so that we have a nearly completerecord of the
stagesthroughwhich the termsevolvedto their final form. Most of
the original Faraday-Whewelliettersare preservedin the library of
Trinity College, Cambridge;someletters are at the Royal Institu-
tion.
Faradayusedlittle punctuationin his letters, and probablythe
careful punctuationof his publishedpaperswas done by another
hand. To reproducehis letters in their original form would give a
false impression of incoherence;for the purpose of publication,
38More likely Faradayhad the ideafrom PeterBarlow (1776-1862). See

Barlow's 'On the probable electric Origin of all the Phenomenaof
Terrestrial Magnetism,'read to the Royal Society on January27, 1831.
(Phil. Trans. Royal Society,1831, pp. 99-108.) Barlow exhibiteda hollow
wooden globe, sixteen inches in diameter,in which grooveswere cut to
representan equatorand parallels of latitude at every 41h degreeseac1..
way from the equator to the poles. Copper wire was laid within th_
groovesand so arrangedthat the currentwould flow in the samedirection
aroundeachparalleloflatitude. On the passageof electriccurrent,all the
phenomenaof terrestrialmagnetismwere representedon a small scale.
Figure IV·2. WILLIAM WHEWELL, D.D., F.R.S. (1794-1866)

therefore, occasionalpunctuationhas been insertedand obvious

mistakeshave been quietly corrected. Subsequentlyto the first
printing of this essayFaraday'sletters were edited by L. Pearce
Williams, with fidelity to the original MSS meticulouslyobserved.7
Whewell's letters needlittle repunctuation,as might be expected
from his more consciouslyliterary style.
Faradayto Whewell, April 24, 183439
Royal Institution
24th April 1834
My dearSir -I am in a trouble which when it occursat Cambridgeis,
I understand,referredby everybodyin the University to you for removal;
and I am encouragedby the remembranceof your kindness,and on Mr.
Willis' suggestion,to apply to you also. But I should tell you how I stand
in the matter.
I wanted some new namesto expressmy facts in Electrical science
without involving more theory than I could help, and applied to a friend
Dr. Nicholl who hasgiven me somethat I intend to adopt: for instance,a
body decomposableby the passageof the Electric current I call an
electrolyte, and insteadof saying that water is electro chemicallydecom-
posedI say it is electrolyzed. The intensity abovewhich a body is decom-
posed beneath which it conducts without decomposition,40I call the
Electrolytic intensity, &c., &c.. What have been called the poles of the
battery I call the electrodes. They are not merely surfacesof metal but
evenof water andair, to which the term polescould hardly apply without
receivinga new sense.Electrolytesmustconsistof two parts,which during
electrolization are determinedthe one in one direction the other in the
other towards the electrodesor poles where they are evolved. These
evolved substancesI call zetodes,which are thereforethe direct constitu-
entsof electrolytes.
All theseterms I am satisfied with but not with two otherswhich I
haveusedthus far. It is essentialto me to havethe power of referringto
the two surfacesof a decomposable body by which the currententersinto
39 Original in Trinity College Library; SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 264-265.

40Faradayimpliesherethatconductionof electricitythroughan electrolyte
can take place without simultaneouselectrolysis. This questionbecame
the subjectof a controversybetweenFoucaultand Buff (1853.) Modern
theorywould not supportFaraday'sopinion: seeAJ. Berry, From Classical
to Modern Chemistry,Cambridge,1954, pp. 59-60.
and passesout of it, without at the sametime referringto the electrodes.

Thus let a be a decomposable body andP andN the positive and negative
poles, which mayor may not be in contactwith a at the points b,c, and
shall yet transmit the electricity which passesthrougha. Admitting the
usualmodeof expressionandtalking of a currentof Electricity proceeding
from the positive pole P through a to the negative pole N, my friend
suggestedandI haveusedthe termseisodefor c andexodefor b, the points
where the zetodesare rendered;and a zetodegoing to c I have called a
zeteisodeand anothergoing to b a zetexode.
b c
But the ideaof a current,epeciallyof one current,is a very clumsy and

hypotheticalview of the stateof Electricalforcesunderthe circumstances.
The idea of two currentsseemsto me still more suspicious,and I have
little doubt that the presentview of electric currentsand the notions by
which we try to conceiveof themwill soonpassaway, and I wanttherefore
namesby which I can refer to c andb without involving any theory of the
natureof electricity. In searchingfor a referenceon which to found these
I can think of nothingbut the globe as a magneticbody. If we admit the
magnetismof the globe as due to Electric currents running in lines of
latitude, their coursemust be, accordingto our presentmodesof expres-
sion, from Eastto West; and if a portion of water underdecompositionby
an electric current be placed so that the current through it shall be
parallelto that consideredas circulatingroundthe earth,then the oxygen
will be renderedtowardsthe east,or at c in the figure, and the hydrogen
towardsthe west, or at b in the figure. I think thereforethat if I were to
call c the east-odeand b the west-odeI should expressthese parts by
referenceto a naturalstandardwhich, whateverchangestake placein our
theoriesor knowledgeof Electricity, will still havethe samerelation. But
Eastodeor Westodeor Oriode and Occiode are nameswhich a scholar
would not suffer I understandfor a moment, and Anatolodeand Dysiode
havebeenoffered me instead.
Now can you help me out to two good namesnot dependingupon the
idea of a currentin onedirection only or upon Positiveor Negative,andto
which I may addthe prefixesZet or Zeto so asto expressthe classto which
any particularZetodemay belong.
I am making very free with you but if you feel inclined to help me I
shall be very much obliged, and if not make no ceremonyin sayingthat
you cannotassistme.
I am, Dear Sir, Your faithful Servt M. Faraday.
Whewell to Faraday,April 25, 183441
Trinity College, Cambridge

April 25, 1834
My dearSir--I was glad on severalaccountsto receiveyour letter. I had
the pleasureof being presentat the R.S. at the readingof your paper,in
which you introducedsomeof the termswhich you mention,and I was re-
joiced to hear them, for I saw, or thoughtI saw, that thesenoveltieshad
beenforceduponyou by the novelty of extentandthe new relationsof your
views. In caseswheresuchcausesoperate,new termsinevitably arise,and
it is very fortunate when those upon whom the introduction of these
devolveslook forwards as carefully as you do to the generalbearingand
future prospectsof the subject; and it is an additional advantagewhen
theyhumourphilologistsso far asto avoid grossincongruitiesoflanguage.
I was well satisfiedwith mostofthe termsthat you mention;and shall be
glad and gratified to assistin freeing them from false assumptionsand
implications, as well as from philological monstrosities.
I have consideredthe two termsyou want to substitutefor eisodeand
exode,and upon the whole I am disposedto recommendinsteadof them
anodeandcathode;thesewords may signify easternand westernway, just
as well as the longer compoundswhich you mention, which derive their
meaningfrom wordsimplying rising and setting,notionswhich anodeand
cathodeimply more simply. But I will add that, as your object appearsto
me to be to indicate opposition of direction without assumingany hy-
pothesiswhich may hereafterturn out to be false, up and down, which
must be arbitrary consequences of position on any hypothesis,seemto be
free from inconvenience,evenin their simplestsense. I may mentiontoo
that anodos and cathodosare good genuineGreek words, and not com-
poundscoinedfor the purpose. Ifhoweveryou arenot satisfiedwith these,
I will proposeto you one or two other pairs. For instance,dexiode and
sceode(skaiode if you prefer it) may be used to indicate east and west,
agreeablyto Greek notions and usages,though their original meaning
would be right and left: but I should say in this casealso, that right and
left, asit cannotbe interpretedto imply a false theory, any more than east
and west, would be blamelessfor your object. Another pair, orthode and
anthode,which meansdirect and oppositeway, might be employed;but I

How that in theseyou comenearerto an implied theory. Upon the whole

think anodeand cathodemuch the best.
I have alreadysaid that I like most of your new words very well, but
hereis one which I shouldbe disposedto exceptfrom this praise;I mean
etode. My objectionsare these. This word beinggroupedwith othersof
he same termination might be expectedto indicate a modification of
lectrode,as eisode,and exode,or anodeand cathodedo. Insteadof this,
t meansa notion altogetherheterogeneous to these,and the ode is here
he object of the verb zete, contraryto the analogyof all the other words.
t appearsto me that, as what you meanis an element,all that you want
s some word which implies an elementof a composition,taking a new
I'ord, however,in order that it may be recollectedthat the decomposition
,f which you speakis of a peculiarkind, namely,electrolytical decomposi-
ion. Perhapsthe Greek word stecheon(or stoicheion)would answerthe
lurpose. It has already a place in our scientific languagein the term
toecheiometry,andhasalso this analogyin its favour, that whereasyour
,ther words in ode meanways,this word stecheonis derivedfrom a word
I'hich signifies to go in a row. The elementsor zetodesare two things
I'hich go, or seekto go, oppositeways. I might add that, if you want a
I'ord which hasa referenceto your other terms,the referencemust be to
he processof decompositionby which theseelementsare obtained. You
night call your zetode,an electrostecheon, especiallyif you hadoccasionto
listinguishtheseelementsobtainedby electrolyticalprocesses from others
Ibtainedby chemolyticalprocesses,that is, the commonanalysiseffected
,y the play of affinities. Elementsobtainedin the latter way might be
aIled chemostecheons in oppositionto electrostecheon.But I am afraid I
lm here venturingbeyondmy commissionand out of my depth; and you
nustjudgewhetheryour stecheonsor zetodes,or whateverthey are to be,
lre likely to require the indication of such relations. If you were to take
mode and cathodeand adopt stecheon,I think anastecheonand cata-
techeonmight indicatethe two stecheons.If you stick to zetode,anazetode
md catazetodewould be the proper terms; but perhapszetanodeand
:etocathodewould be more analogousto zetode,which is a word that, as
have said, I do not much like.
My letter is becomeso long that I will recapitulate:anode, cathode,
:etanode,zetocathodefulfil your requisitions;anode,cathode,anastecheon,
'atastecheonare what I prefer. With great interestin your speculations,
md bestwishes,
Believe me, yours very truly, W. Whewell.
Faradayto Whewell, May 3, 183442
R. Institution
May 3,1834
My dear Sir -I have waited very impatiently for a proof of my paper
that I might sendit to you with my letter of thanksfor your kindness. But
I am afraid I have invoked by that a chargeof unthankfulnesstowards
you, which howeverI assureyou I do not deserve.
All your namesI and my friend approveof, or nearly all, as to sense
and expression;but I am frightened by their length and sound when
compounded. As you will see I have taken dexiodeand skaiodebecause
they agreebest with my natural standardEast and West. I like Anode
and Cathodebetteras to sound,but all to whom I have shewnthemhave
supposedat first that by AnodeI meanNo way.
Then StechionI have taken althoughI would rathernot havehad the
hard soundof ch here, especiallyas we have similar soundsin both the
former words. But when we come to combine it with the two former as
dexio-stechionand skaio-stechion,especially the latter, I am afraid it
becomesinadmissible simply from its length and sound forbidding its
familiar use. For I think you will agreewith me that I hadbetternot give
a new word than give one which is not likely to enterinto commonuse.
It is possibleperhapsthat by this time someother shorterword may
have occurredfor Stechion;if so will you favour me with it. If not I think
I must strike out the two compoundsabove and expressmy meaning
without the use of namesfor the classesof stechions,thoughthey arevery
much wanted.
It wasthe shortnessandeuphonyof ZeteisodeandZetexodewhich were
their strongrecommendations to me.
I am, my Dear Sir, Your Obliged and faithful Servant,M. Faraday.
Can you give me at the bottom of the pagesthe greekderivativesetc. etc.

that whenyou return me the leavesI may havethemright for the printer.
They are of courseuncorrectedat present.-MF
42 Original in Trinity College Library; SCMF, Vol. 1, p. 268.

Whewell to Faraday,May 5, 183443
Trinity CoIl. Cambridge

May 5,1834
{y dear Sir -I quite agree with you that stechion or stecheonis an
wkward word both from its length and from the letters of which it is
omposed,and I am very desirousthat you shouldhave a betterfor your
urpose. I think I can suggestone,but previousto doing this, I would beg
ou to reconsiderthe suggestionof anode and cathode which I offered
efore. It is very obvious that thesewords are much simpler than those
Il your proof sheet, and the advantageof simplicity will be felt very
trongly whenthe words are oncefirmly established,asby your paperI do
lot in the least degreedoubt that they will be. As to the objection to
:node, I do not think it is worth hesitatingabout. Anodosandcathodosdo
eally mean in Greek a way up and a way down; and anodosdoes not
Ilean, and cannotmean,accordingto the analogyof the Greeklanguage,
,0 way. It is true that the prefix an, put beforeadjectivesbeginningwith
, vowel, gives a negative signification, but not to substantives,except
hrough the medium of adjectives. Anarchosmeanswithout government,
nd henceanarchia,anarchy,meansthe absenceofgovernment:but anodos
loes not and cannotmeanthe absenceof way. And if it did meanthis as
\'ell as a way up, it would not ceaseto mean the latter also; and when
ntroducedin companywith cathodos,no body who hasany tinge of Greek
ould fail to perceivethe meaningat once. The notion of anodosmeaning
~o way could only suggestitself to personsunfamiliar with Greek, and
lccidentally acquaintedwith some English words in which the negative
larticle is so employed;and thosepersonswho have taken up this notion
Ilust have overlookedthe very different meaningof negativesapplied to
ubstantivesand adjectives. Prepositionsare so very much the simplest
lnd most decisiveway of expressingopposition,or otherrelations,that it
\'ould require some very strong argumentsto induce one to adopt any
ther way of conveyingsuch relationsas you want to indicate.
If you take anode and cathode,I would proposefor the two elements
esultingfrom electrolysisthe terms anion and cation, which are neuter
larticiples signifying that which goesup, and that which goesdown; and
or the two togetheryou might use the term ions, insteadof zetodesor
techions. The word is not a substantivein Greekbut it may easilybe so
aken,andI am persuadedthatthe brevity and simplicity ofthe termsyou
\'ill thushavewill in a fortnight procuretheir universalacceptation.The
:nion is that which goesto the anode,the cation is that which goesto the
athode. The th in the latter word arisesfrom the aspiratein hodos(way),
! Original in Trinity College Library; SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 269-270.

and thereforeis not to be introducedin caseswhere the secondterm has

not an aspirate,as ion has not.
Your passageswould then standthus:
'We purposecalling that towardsthe eastthe anodetandthattowards
the westthe cathode+.... I purposeto distinguishthesebodiesby calling
thoseanions§which go to the anodeof the decomposingbody, and those
passingto the cathode,cations.4J[ And when I have occasionto speakof
thesetogetherI shall call them ions.
t avf/., upwards,6~, a way; the way which the sun rises.

:j: KO:t6., downwards,MO~, a way; the way which the sun sets.
§ avt,6v, that which goesup (neuterparticiple).
4J[ KUtt.OV, that which goesdown.'
I am so fully persuadedthat these terms are from their simplicity

preferableto thoseyou have printed, that I shall think it a misfortuneto
scienceif you retain the latter. If, however,you still adhereto dexio and
scaio, I am puzzledto combinethesewith ion without so much coalition of
vowels as will startle your readers. I put at the bottom of the pagethe
explanation,if you should persist in this.44 I would only beg you to
recollectthat evenviolent philological anomaliesare soongot over, if they
areusedto expressimportantlaws, aswe seein the termsendosmoseand
exosmose;andthereforethereis little reasonfor shrinkingfrom objections
foundedin ignoranceagainstwords which are really agreeableto the best
analogies.The existingnotationof Chemistryowesits wide adoptionand
long duration to its simplicity.
I am afraid you will think I am fond of playing the critic if I makeany
further objections,otherwiseI would observeon your Article 666, that if
you are not surethat you will want suchwordsasastechion,it is throwing
away your authority to proposethem. If what I have written does not
answeryour purpose,pray let me hearfrom you again, and believe me,
Yours very truly, W. Whewell.
P.S. If, adopting the term ion for stechion,you do want the negative
astechion,I do not think therewill be any difficulty in devisinga suitable
word.
Before Faradayreceivedthis reply to his letter of May 3 he sent

an additional note to Whewell, which was received (according to
Whewell's notation) on May 6 and promptly answered.
44 &~t,O~, on the right hand, and hence, the east; crKUt,~, on the left
hand, and hence,the west. [Whewell's footnote]
R. Institution
Monday [May 5, 1834]
~y dearSir - Hoping that this sheetof paperwill reachyou beforeyou
vrite to me I hastento mention two namesinsteadof eisode and exode
vhich are free I think from objection as to involving a point of theory,
tamely Voltode and Galvanode.
My friend Dr. Nicholl proposesAlphodeand Betode.
Then the compoundsare good in sound:Volta-stechion,Galva-stechion,
Ir Alpha-stechionand Beta-stechion.
Ever truly yours M. Faraday.
Whewell to Faraday,May 6, 183446
Trin. Coll. Cambridge

May 6,1834
\{y dearSir - You will havereceivedmy letter of yesterdayand perhaps
will have formed your opinion of it. I still think anode and cathodethe
lesttermsbeyondcomparisonfor the two electrodes.The termswhich you
lIlention in your last show that you are cometo the conviction that the es-
.ential thing is to expressa differenceand nothing more. This conviction
is nearly correct,but I think one may say that it is very desirablein this
:aseto expressan opposition,a contrariety, as well as a difference.The
Germsyou suggestare objectionablein not doing this. They are also objec-
;ionableit appearsto me, in puttingforwardstoo ostentatiouslythe arbit-
rary nature of the difference. To talk of Alphode and Betode could give
>ome personsthe ideathat you thoughtit absurdto pursuethe philosophy
)f the difference of the two results, and at any rate would be thought
rlfected by some. Voltode and Galvanodelabour no lessunderthe disad-
vantageof being not only entirely, but ostentatiouslyarbitrary, with two
additionaldisadvantages; first that it will be very difficult for any body to
recollect which is which; and next that I think you are not quite secure
that further investigationsmay not point out somehistorical incongruity
in this referenceto Volta andGalvani. I am more andmore convincedthat
mode and cathodeare the right words; and not least, from finding that
both you and Dr. Nichols [sic] are ready to take any arbitrary opposition
()r difference.Ana andKata which areprepositionsof the mostfamiliar use
in composition,which indicate oppositerelationsin space,and which yet

(6 Original in Trinity College Library; SCMF, Vol. 1, pp. 271-272.
cannot be interpretedas involving a theory appearto me to unite all

desirableproperties.
I am afraid of urging the claims of anion and cation though I should
certainly take themif it were my business-that which goesto the anode
and that which goesto the cathodeappearsto me to be exactly what you
want to say. To talk ofthe two as ions would sounda little harshat first:
it would soon be got over. But if you are afraid of this I think that
stechion, as the acceptedGreeknamefor element,is a very good word to
adopt, and then, anastechionand catastechionare the two contrary ele-
ments,which I am sure are muchbetterwords than you can get by using
dexio and scaio or any other termsnot prepositions.
I expectto be in London on Friday and Saturday,and ifI am shall try
to see you on one of those days and to learn what you finally select.
Believe me Yours most truly W. Whewell.
Royal Institution
15 May 1834
My dear Sir -I ought before this to have thankedyou for your great
kindnessin the matterof the namesrespectingwhich I appliedto you; but
I hoped to have met you last Saturdayat Kensington48 and therefore
delayedexpressingmy obligations.
I havetakenyour adviceandthe namesusedareanodecathodeanions
cationsand ions-thelast I shall havebut little occasionfor. I had some
hot objections made to them here and found myself very much in the
condition of the man with his Son andAss who tried to pleaseeverybody;
but whenI held up the shieldof your authorityit waswonderfulto observe
how the tone of objectionmeltedaway.
I am quite delightedwith thefacility of expressionwhich the new terms
give me and shall ever be your debtor for the kind assistanceyou have
given me.
I am, My dearSir, Your obligd and faithful Servant,M. Faraday

48The meeting at Kensington refers to one of the Soireesof the Royal
Society,held at KensingtonPalacewhen H.R.H. the Duke of Sussexwas
Presidentof the Society. The Soireeof 10 May 1834 is noteworthyas the
occasionwhen G.B. Airy was approachedby the Duke of Sussex,on the
part of the Government,abouttaking the office of AstronomerRoyal. See
Airy's Autobiography,Cambridge,1896, p. 103.
Faradayto Whewell, June17, 183449
Royal Institution
17 June,1834
DearSir -I begto offer you a copy ofthe 6th and 7th seriesetc. and am
mxious againto thank you for your kindnessin the matterof the names.
[ felt during the printing very well pleasedwith the way in which they
read....
In the section of his book The Philosophy of the Inductive

Sciences that is devoted to the language of science, Whewell
amplified his objectionto the suggestionsmadeby FaradayandDr.
Nicholl, though without revealingthat he himself had played any
part in the eventshe discussed.The book was publishedin 1840.
Whewell wrote:50
An attempt to circulate a perfectly arbitrary word as a means of

description would probably be unsuccessful. We have, indeed, some
examplesapproachingto arbitrary designations,in the Wemeriannames
[)f colours, which are a part of the terminology of Natural History. Many
[)f these names are borrowed from natural resemblances,as Auricula
fJurple, Applegreen,Straw yellow; but the namesof othersare takenfrom
casualoccurrences,mostly, however, such as were alreadyrecognizedin
commonlanguage,as Prussianblue, Dutch orange,King's yellow.
The extensionof arbitrary namesin scientific terminology is by no
meansto be encouraged. I may mention a case in which it was very
properly avoided. When Mr. Faraday'sresearcheson Voltaic electricity
hadled him to perceivethe greatimpropriety of the termpoles,as applied
to the apparatus,since the processeshave not referenceto any opposed
points, but to two oppositedirectionsof a path,he very suitablywishedto
substitutefor the phrasespositivepole andnegativepole two wordsending
in ode, from 636C;, a way. A person who did not see the value of our
presentmaxim, thatdescriptivetermsshouldbe descriptivein their origin,
might haveproposedwords perfectlyarbitrary, asAlphodeandBetode:or,
if he wished to pay a tribute of respectto the discoverersin this depart-
ment of science,Galvanode and Voltaode. But such words would very
justly havebeenrejectedby Mr. Faraday,and would hardly haveobtained
any generalcurrencyamongmen of science.ZincodeandPlatinode,terms

50W. Whewell, The Philosophyof the Inductive Sciences,London, 1840,
Vol.1, p. xcv.
derivedfrom the metal which, in one modification of the apparatus,forms

what was previouslytermedthe pole, are to be avoided,becausein their
origin too much is casual;and they are not a good basis for derivative
terms. The pole at which the zinc is, is the Anode or Cathode,according
as it is associatedwith different metals. Either the zincodemust some-
times meanthe pole at which the Zinc is, and at othertimesthat at which
the Zinc is not, or elsewe musthaveas manynamesfor polesasthereare
metals. Anodeand Cathode,the termswhich Mr. Faradayadopted,were
free from these objections;for they refer to a natural standardof the
direction of the voltaic current, in a mannerwhich, though perhapsnot
obvious at first sight, is easily understoodand retained. Anode and
Cathode,the rising and the setting way, are the directions which corre-
spondto eastand west in that voltaic currentto which we must ascribe
terrestrialmagnetism.And with thesewordsit was easyto connectani"on
and eatMon,to designatethe oppositeelementswhich are separatedand
liberatedat the two electrodes
4.5 Publicationand Receptionof the new Terms
Faradaywas convincedafter receivingWhewell's letter of May 6,

1834. He changedthe proof sheetsof his ExperimentalResearches,
7th Series,substitutingWhewell'ssuggestions.The paperbeginsby
introducingthe new terms, as follows:51
The theorywhich I believeto be a true expressionofthefactsof electro-

chemicaldecomposition... is so much at variancewith thosepreviously
advanced,that I find the greatestdifficulty in statingresults,as I think,
correctly, whilst limited to the use of terms which are current with a
certain acceptedmeaning.. . .
To avoid, therefore,confusionand circumlocution,and for the sakeof
greater precision of expressionthan I can otherwise obtain, I have
deliberately consideredthe subject with two friends, and with their
assistanceandconcurrencein framingthem,I purposehenceforwardusing
certain other terms, which I will now define. The poles, as they are
usually called, are only the doors or ways by which the electric current
passesinto and out of the decomposingbody; and they of course,when in
contactwith that body, are the limits of its extentin the direction of the
current. The term hasbeengenerallyappliedto the metal surfacesin con-
51 Ref. 18, Vol. 1, §§ 661-663.

Q)
-w
"'0
o
....
0
Q)
- -
Q) ~t0
--->u; a>
~ «
c:
-
0 0
a>
"C Q.. .!=- f- a> 1:
a>
o () "C
0
r...
r...
r... a>
..c: :::1
W u
81
()
a>
W
a> I
>
-..::
c
CI
a>
Z
Figure lV-g Origin of ElectrochemicalNomenclature

tact with the decomposingsubstance;but whetherphilosophersgenerally

would also apply it to the surfacesof air and water, againstwhich I have
effectedelectro-chemicaldecomposition,is subjectto doubt. In placeof the
term pole, I proposeusingthat of Electrode,and I meantherebythat sub-
stance,or rathersurface,whetherof air, water, metal, or any otherbody,
which boundsthe extentof the decomposingmatterin the direction of the
electric current.
The surfacesat which, accordingto commonphraseology,the electric
currententersand leavesa decomposingbody, are mostimportantplaces
of action, andrequireto be distinguishedapartfrom the poles,with which
they aremostly, andthe electrodes,with which they arealways,in contact.
Wishingfor a naturalstandardof electricdirection to which I might refer
these,expressiveof their difference and at the sametime free from all
theory, I have thoughtit might be found in the earth. If the magnetism
of the earthbe due to electriccurrentspassingroundit, the latter mustbe
in a constantdirection,which, accordingto presentusageof speech,would
be from eastto west, or, which will strengthenthis help to the memory,
that in which the sun appearsto move. Ifin any caseof electro-decompo-
sition we considerthe decomposingbody as placed so that the current
passingthrough it shall be in the same direction, and parallel to that
supposedto exist in the earth,then the surfacesat which the electricity is
passinginto and out of the substancewould havean invariablereference,
and exhibit constantlythe samerelationsof powers. Upon this notion we
purposecalling that towardsthe eastthe anode,andthat towardsthe west
the cathode;and whateverchangesmay take placein our views of the na-
ture of electricity and electrical action, as they must affect the natural
standardreferredto, in the samedirection, and to an equalamountwith
any decomposingsubstancesto which thesetermsmay at any time be ap-
plied, there seemsno reasonto expectthat they will lead to confusion,or
tend in any way to supportfalse views. The anodeis thereforethat sur-
face at which the electric current, accordingto our presentexpression,
enters: it is the negative extremity of the decomposingbody; is where
oxygen, chlorine, acids, etc. are evolved; and is againstor opposite the
positive electrode.,The cathodeis that surfaceat which the currentleaves
the decomposingbody, andis its positiveextremity;the combustiblebodies,
metals,alkaliesand bases,are evolvedthere,and it is in contactwith the
negativeelectrode.
An innovation in terminology is certain to attract criticism in

conservativequarters. Somethinglike the following, written by
FrederickCollier Bakewell(1800-1869),might havebeenanticipat-

ed:52
It may seempresumptuous to questionthe proprietyof the courseadopted

by that eminentphilosopher,but so strongis our impressionof the inju-
rious effectsof multiplying termsrequiring constantexplanation,that we
ventureto expressour conviction that it has tendedunnecessarilyto en-
cumberthe study of electricity. The nomenclatureof every scienceought,
in our opinion, to be extremelysimple, and, if possible,clearly expressive
of the characteror action of the thing or processdesignated;nor do we
perceiveany equivalentadvantagegainedby the adoption of words of a
dead language,which often serve no better purposethan to concealby
their unfamiliar soundsabsurd,puerile,or questionabledesignations.The
termspreviouslyin useto expressthe different electricalphenomenaand
conditionswere so variousas to afford amplechoiceto thosewho entertain
differing views of the natureand actionsof the electricfluid. There were
'plus andminus','positiveandnegative','vitreousand resinous',to express
the kinds of electricity excited;-and 'electrics', 'ideo-electrics', 'non-
electrics', 'conductors', and 'non-conductors',to indicate the electrical
qualitiesof different substances.Whenvoltaic electricity gaverise to new
terms, the copperor zinc 'end' of the battery was an intelligible English
expressionto denotewhat thosemorefond of classicnamescalled'termin-
us', and which afterwardsreceivedthe name of 'pole'. Possessed of this
abundanceof expressions,we do not conceivethat any good purposeis an-
sweredby addingto the list a numberof Greekwords andterminationsto
expresssupposedanalogiesin the action of the voltaic battery. Faraday
himself had evidently misgivings on the subject;for after explainingthe
meaningof the new terms,he adds:'I do not meanto pressthem into ser-
vice more frequently than will be required; for 1 am fully aware that
namesare one thing, and scienceanother,'and he afterwardsfound it
advisableto changesomeof the termsfor 'such as were at the sametime
simple in their nature,clear in their reference,and free from hypothesis.'
It is to be wished that he had from the first actedon his own judgment
and knowledge,without being guidedby his learnedfriends.
In a book so compactthat it related the history of electricity

within forty pagesand its applicationsin as many more, Bakewell
useda disproportionateamountof his spaceto castigateFaraday's
terms. He returnedto the chargeagainin a later page:53
52 F.e. Bakewell, Electric Science;Its History, Phenomena,and Applica-

tions, London, 1853, pp. 41-42.
53 Idem, Ibid., pp. 110-111.
164 NINETEENTH-CENTURYA'ITITUDES
We havebeforeexpressedregretat theintroductioninto electricscience

of new tenns,derivedfrom the vocabularyof a deadlanguage,which serve
to mystify, to perplex, and to mislead. The difficulty attendingthe clear
comprehensionof the right characterof the two endsof the voltaic battery
has beenby this meansincreased. To call the extremecopperand zinc
platesin a continuedseries,and the wires connectedwith them, the ends
of the battery, expressesclearly and simply the fact, without giving
sanction to any doubtful theory. But the word 'end' was not deemed
sufficiently dignified. 'Terminals' sounded better, but not being so
generallyunderstoodit was no improvement. As the action of a voltaic
batteryproducesin somecasesa polar arrangement,the name'poles'was
introduced,and the negativeand positive pole of a batteryhave become
familiar tenns. The implied polarizationwashoweverobjectedto, andthe
word 'electrode'has been concoctedfrom the Greekelectron, amber, and
[hlodos, a way or door, signifying the door into and out of which the
electriccurrentpasses.As, however,it is questionedby Faradayhimself,
who sanctionedthe tenn, whether there is any entranceand exit of
electricity, and whether there is any current whatever, we may be
pennitted to doubt the appropriatenessof the tenn; and even if the
signification be admitted, we should much prefer its expressionby an
English word.
Again, the tenns'positive'and'negative'were objectedto, as signifying
conditions of electricity, of the correctnessof which many entertained
doubts. With a view to improve the nomenclature,the much more
objectionabletenns'anode'and 'cathode'havebeenintroduced,signifying
an upward and a downward way, and foundedon a fancied resemblance
betweenthe direction of electric currentsround the earth, and the rising
and settingof the sun.
The passageof time hasbroughtaboutso generalan acceptance

of Faraday'sterms that they are now consideredessentialfor the
communication of ideas in many branches of electricity and
electronics. And this despitethe fact that Faradaydid not possess
our twentieth-centuryconceptof an electrolyte,accordingto which
positively andnegativelychargedcationsandanionsexist separate-
ly, whetherin the solid crystal or in aqueoussolution. To Faraday,
the passageof the electric current was required to polarize the
molecules,after which, by a seriesof successivedecompositionsand
recompositions,the anions(say,oxygenatoms)wentin onedirection
andthe cations(say,hydrogenatoms)went in the other;whenthese
atomsreachedthe boundariesof the solution adjacentto the elec-
trodes,no further recombinationcould occur and the free elements
are 'evolved' or 'rendered',to use Faraday'swords for it, at those
places. To emphasizefurther that he wishedto particularizethe

solution boundaries adjacent to the electrodes as functionally
different from the electrodesthemselves,Faradaywantedto distin-
guish them by specific terms: i.e., the anodeand the cathode.The
termsanodeandcathode,therefore,were not for him, as they have
become(by degenerationof meaning)for us, merely synonymsfor
the positive and negative electrodesrespectively: they were to
represent,in the phasecontainingthe electrolyte,the actualphase
surface in contact with the electrodes. The foregoing diagram,
Figure IV-3, the right hand part of which is basedon a sketch
insertedby Faradayhimself in the margin of his own copy of the
printed version of his 7th Series,54makeshis meaningclear. As
for ions, we now recognizethat their primary quality is that they
carry an electricalcharge,not that they are 'entitiesthat go', since
they can exist without translationalmotion, as in ionic crystals.
Thereforethe origin of the term is lessgeneralthan was originally
intendedby Faradayand Whewell.
The subsequentevolutionof the conceptof an electrolytebelongs
ratherto the history of electricity than to our presentlimited topic;
a good accountof it hasbeenwritten by W.J. Hamer.55
Even after the new terminology had been published, both
FaradayandWhewell at different timesweretemptedto makelater
revisions, regardlessof the generalexperiencethat it is easierto
gain acceptancefor a totally new term than it is to modify one
already delivered. The following letter from Whewell records a
suggestion,fortunately abortive, to eliminate ion while retaining
anion and cation.
Whewell to Faraday,December3, 183456
Trin. ColI. Cambridge

Dec. 3, 1834
My dear Sir -I contrived to get off for Cambridgeby Sundayevening's
mail, and so did not corne to seeyour deviceson Monday which I wanted
very much to do; but engagements must be kept and lecturesgiven at the
54 Ref. 4, p. 145, Fig. 12.

55W.J. Harner,The StructureofElectrolytic Solutions,New York, 1959,pp.
1-8.
appointedtime;-ascientific truth of which you have,I daresay, seenthe

value beforethis time. If I had seenyou I wantedto say a word in con-
nexion with what you intimated,that you did not like the word ion as a
generalterm for the two elementsthe anion andthe cation-orthat your
readersdid not like it. You may recollectthat at first I mentionedthis as
a term which I wasnot satisfiedwith. If you think it worth while to make
the alteration,I would proposestechion, 'element'as a generalterm which
shall mean the anion and cation together. The Greek term (O'tOlXetov)
is the proper word for 'element',and occursin our derivative stoecheio-
metry, a word sometimesusedin chemicalliterature;but the word stech-
ion, the proper English form of it, is not used, and thereforeyou may
introduceit in what senseyou like-moreoverthe terminationof stechion
will especiallyharmonizewith anion and cation, which it is to put people
in mind of, and so will keep them in their places.
Perhapsyou will not think this suggestionof any importance. I do not
say it is of much; but as it occurredto me I have sentit you....
A year later Whewell madeanothersuggestionfor a revision of

one of the terms.
Whewell to Faraday,December11, 183557
My dearSir -I think I told you that I was a little dissatisfiedwith the

word cation from its resemblanceto the common termination of words
which is madeinto cayshun in pronunciation.To avoid this I would recom-
mendputting two dots over the i, catfon. You might also allow anion and
ion in the sameway, but there is not the samereasonfor this, though it
would preventyour Germantranslatorsfrom making your fons intojons
as they do in Poggendorf[sic]. I am desirousyour terms should be as
unexceptionableas possiblebecauseyou sayyou intendto usethemfreely,
andit is easyto seehow importantare the purposesto which you andyour
successorswill have to apply theseterms....
Faradayfollowed this suggestionat once, as can be seenin the

12 Decemberentry in his Diary,58 but he did not persistwith the
usage.

58 Ref. 5, Vol. 2, p. 419.
Whewell addedanothercorrectionin 1837 when, in his History

of the Inductive Scienceshe indicatedhis preferencefor cath'ion:59
'The analogyof the Greek derivation requirescat'ion; but to make
the relation to cathodeobvious to the English reader,and to avoid
a violation of the habits of English pronunciation,I should prefer
cathi:on.'
ThenceforthFaradayusedcathion consistently,60and Whewell
used cathi:on. Other writers were, perhapspardonably,confused:
H.M. Noad (1819-1877)61wrote ton but omitted the diaeresisin
anion and cation, which is a combination never put forth by
Whewell. Even more confusion attendedFaraday'sdistinction
betweenthe anodeandthe positiveelectrode.To Faraday,the anode
was the 'negativeextremityof the decomposingbody'; it wasnot the
positive electrode. Noad (1839), wishing to emphasizethe distinc-
tion still further, suggestedanelectrodeand cathelectrodefor the
positive andnegativeelectrodesrespectively,the anelectrodebeing
next to the anode,and the cathelectrodenext to the cathode.John
FredericDaniell (1790-1845)suggested(1839) the terms zincode
and platinode, the zincode being next to the anode, and the
platinodeto the cathode.Both thesewriters madeit clearthat their
termsreferredto the electrodes,andwerenot alternativesfor anode
and cathode. Daniell wrote:62 'the anode is that surface of the
electrolyte... which is in contactwith the zincode.' The mistaken,
or at least non-Faradayan,interpretationof anodeand cathodeas
alternativenamesfor the positive and negativeelectrodesrespec-
tively was, however, made almost at once, and first, interestingly
enough,by Whewell (1840) in a passagealready quoted(ref. 50.)
59 W. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences,from the Earliest to the

PresentTimes, London, 1837, Vol. 3, p. 166n.
60 See for example his collected edition of ExperimentalResearches in
Electricity, Vol. 1, London, 1839, in which the Index (1839) referenceis
'cations or cathions', although the textual referencesgiven, which date
before 1837, show only cation. Later references(not indexed)in the same
volume (e.g., § 1650 of Feb. 1838) readeathion.
61 Henry M. Noad, A Course of Eight Lectureson Electricity, Galvanism,
Magnetism,and Electro-Magnetism,London, 1839, pp. 148-149.
62 J.F. Daniell, An Introduction to ChemicalPhilosophy,London, 1839, p.
445 and p. 449.
168 NINETEENTH-CENTURYA'ITlTUDES
Alfred Smee(1818-1877)fell into the sameerror: he wrote:63 'Dr.

Faraday, disapproving of the names of poles, has called the
electro-negativethe cathode;andProfessorDaniell, disapprovingof
both, hascalledit theplatinode.' Confusioncouldhardly go farther.
G.W. Francis(1800-1865)in his Dictionary oftheArts and Sciences
(1846) definesanode:64 'The positive pole of a galvanicbattery, as
opposedto cathode the negative. The anode is called also the
zincode.'This is confusionworseconfounded,for the new terminolo-
gy was originally applied to electrochemicaldecomposition, or
electrolysis,not to the galvanicor voltaic battery,andwould require
further adjustmentsbefore it could be so applied. Nevertheless,if
thus early in the history of the termsFaraday'sdistinction was lost
sight of, andanodeandcathodeequatedwith positiveelectrodeand
negativeelectrode respectively,one is not surprisedthat modern
usagecondonesthe contemporaryoversight. Indeedsomecontempo-
raries were well awarethat the terms were acquiringthe statusof
synonyms, and as the distinction that seemedso essential to
Faradaywas less urgent in the thinking of his successors,the
transition in terminology was formally put forward by William
Robert Grove (1811-1896).65
Another source of confusion was introducedby attaching the
termsanodeandcathodeto the terminalsof a voltaic cell or battery.
Faradaynever intendedand almost certainly would not have con-
donedthis usage. It hasled to endlesstrouble, as the anode,which
is positive in the electrolytic cell, is negative in the voltaic cell.
There is, in fact, not only no real need today for the terms anode
63 Alfred Smee,ElementsofElectro-Metallurgy,2nd edition, London, 1843,

p.41.
64G.W. Francis,The Dictionary of the Arts, Sciences,and Manufactures,
London, 1846.
65 Dionysius Lardner and CharlesV. Walker, A Manual of Electricity,
Magnetismand Meteorology,London, 1844, Vol. 2, p. 363 is my authority
for this statement:
'Many electricians both at home and abroad, either intentionally or
throughmisapprehension, hadacquiredthe habit of applyingtheseterms
[anode and cathode] to the electrodesor metal platesthemselves;and Mr.
Grove,finding the inconvenienceof no distinctive characterbeinggiven to
the electrodes,unlessthe old words positive and negative,determinedon
extendingthe original applicationof the termsto the metalsthemselves.'
Insteadof extendingthe meaning,Groveshad replacedit.
and cathodein the sensethat Faradayintended,but also in the

sensein which they are now used. Simply to designatethe termin-
als of a voltaic cell or the electrodesof an electrolytic cell as either
positiveor negativewould meetall presentdemandsandclearaway
somequite unnecessary verbalpuzzlesthat now obscurethe subject
for a beginner. More advancedstudentsmight considerthe sugges-
tions madein a moderntextbookto replaceanodeby electron-sink
electrode, and cathode by electron-source electrode.66 At the
expenseof a few more words, much more information is conveyed.
Of the other terms, Noad found only electrode, electrolyze and
electrolyte completely free from objection; Faradayhimself, as we
have seen,anticipatedonly little use for ion. A generationlater
Tyndall observed:67
All theseterms [electrode,electrolysis,and electrolyte]havebecomecur-

rent in science. Faradaycalled the positive electrodethe Anode,and the
negativeone the Cathode[this is not accurateaswe haveseen],but these
terms,thoughfrequentlyused,havenot enjoyedthe samecurrencyas the
others. The termsAnion and Cation . .. and the term Ion . .. are stiIlless
frequently employed.
The advent of the theory of electrolytic dissociation (1887)

restoredthe importanceof the terms anion, cation and ion, which
were then identified explicitly as bodies having a real physical
existencein solution. As much of this later work was done in
Germany, the revived cation was transferredback to its native
country as kation. Writing in 1898, Silvanus Thompson noted:68
'The wordscathodeandcation arenow moreusuallyspelledkathode
and kation.' All variants, however, at least in Britain and the
United States,havelong sincebeendroppedin favor of the spelling
as first given by Faradayin 1834.
Whewell continuedto be Faraday'ssole advisor on all questions
of nomenclature. On October 12 1837, Faradaywrote to him:69
'Whilst on words I will merelymentionsomeothercaseswherethey
66 J. O'M. Bockris andAKN. Reddy,ModemElectrochemistry,New York,

1970, pp. 1126-1127.
67 Ref. 1, p. 55.
66 Ref. 4, p. 143.
are wanting. Perhapsat sometime they may occur to you. One is

sadly wantedto replacecurrent; othersfor Positive and Negative;
and some terms are required to expressdirection of the force or
forces. If Anode and Cathodewere to be receivedinto use perhaps
they would serve as bases:but somethingstill more generaland
foundedratherupon the word to be usedinsteadof current would
be better. I hope I am not annoyingyou with my fancies. If you
feel fretted by me put my letter in the fire.'
Whewell was not fretted, as his reply indicates:
Whewell to Faraday,October14, 183770
Trin. ColI., Cambridge

Oct. 14, 1837
Dear Sir - I am alwaysglad to hear of the progressof your researches,
and neverthe less so becausethey require the fabrication of a new word
or two. Such a coinagehas always taken place at the great epochsof
discovery; like the medals that are struck at the beginning of a new
reign:----1lr ratherlike the changeof currencyproducedby the accessionof
a new sovereign;for their value andinfluenceconsistsin their cominginto
commoncirculation.
I am not sure that I understandthe views which you are at present
bringing into shapesufficiently well to suggestany such terms as you
think you want. I think that if I could have a quarterof an hour's talk
with you I should probablybe able to constructterms that would record
your new notions, so far as I could be made to understandthem, better
than I can by meansof letters: for it is difficult without question and
discussionto catchthe precisekind of relationwhich you want to express.
. . . I do not catch your objection to current, which appearsto me to be
capableof joggingon very well from cathodeto anode,or vice-versa. Af3 for
positive and negative,I do not seewhy cathodicandanodic shouldnot be
used,if they will do the serviceyou want of them.
The continuation of their correspondencetakes up the terms

dielectric, inductric, inducteous, diamagnetic and paramagnetic.
Whewell also addeda long and scholarlyessayOn the Languageof
Scienceto his Philosophyofthe InductiveSciences(1840),the pages
assignedto it being kept 'in a perfect foam of unpronounceable
Greek, Latin, and Germantechnicalterms', accordingto Sir John
70 Ref. 4, p. 205. Not in SCMF.

Herschel.71 This subject continuesto be important. The needfor

principles, as well as good taste, in the coining of new technical
termsis urgent.Whewell'sessay,which is both the history and the
philosophy of the languageof science,is the first classic in its
field. 72 . In the presentcentury the use of Greek as the basis for
new terms in scienceis in decline,nor is this trend deprecatedby
someword-fanciers:LoganPearsallSmith(1865-1946),for example,
sawno necessityfor scientific neologismsto be basedon descriptive
terms. He wrote:73
It is given, to certain favoured beings, to influence and augment the

resourcesof language. But not all are worthy of their opportunities:
scientists,for example,are of all men the least fitted for word-creation.
Insteadof choosinga convenientand unoccupiedsoundlike gas they re-
constructout of old bonesandfossils immenseskeletonsof nomenclature,
andthe notion neverseemsto occurto themthat what is neededfor a new
discoveryor invention is not a word containingits own explanation,but a
brief convenientlabel. One of the most eminent and prolific of these
abortionistsoncetold me that his methodof creatinghis long explanatory
combinationswas to take a Greek dictionary with him into his bath, and
dig from it the right Greekroots to define his meaningto other scientists.
WhenI askedhim whethertheseotherscientistscould readGreek- 'Not
one of them,' he cheerfully replied, 'can read a word of it, any more than
I can.'
Some of the latest coinagesof physics, quark for example, meet

PearsallSmith'srecommendation, which would havebeeninconceiv-
able to Whewell.
Once in his later yearsWhewell went to inspectthe laying of a
telegraphcable from Englandto Holland. He found the operator
71 Sir John F.W. Herschel, Essaysfrom the Edinburgh and Quarterly

Reviews,London, 1857, p. 254.
72Whewell's last revision of his Essayon the Languageof Sciencewas
publishedas a portion of his Novum OrganonRenovatum,London, 1858,
pp. 257-370.
73The Chime of Words: The Letters of Logan Pearsall Smith, edited by
Edwin Tribble, Ticknor & Fields, New York, 1984, pp. 31-32.
employedin testing, as he was told, the conductivityof the wire.74

The old clergymanwas unusuallygratified at receivingthis infor-
mation:the word, he told the busyyoungman,wasonethat he him-
self had recommended,and he was pleasedto learn that it had
found its way into the working vocabularyof galvanismas an art.75
Today we can find many a word of Whewell's invention deeply
rooted in the internationallanguageof science,and proving even
more useful now than when first originated; each one bearsthe
stamp of its author's scholarship,literary skill, imagination and
commonsense.
74See ref. 50, p. cxiii: 'It is quite intolerable to have words formed in
oppositionto the analogywhich their meaningoffers; as when bodiesare
saidto haveconductibilityor conducibility with regardto heat.The bodies
are conductiveand their propertyis conductivity.'
75 The incident is related by Whewell in a letter to JamesD. Forbes,
August 2, 1862, Ref. 3, Vol. 2, p. 426.
CHAPTER FIVE
HERSCHEL AND HYPO
The applicationby JohnFrederickWilliam Herschel(1792-1871)of

hypol as a preservativein the photographicprocessis an exemplar
of onetype of relationbetweenfundamentalandappliedchemistry.
Today we often hear warnings about dire consequences attending
the failure of the nation to more fully support pure scientific re-
search(that is, investigationsmade with no referenceto possible
uses,)warningsoften couchedas a metaphorin which the resultsof
pure sciencefigure as a kind of primary raw materialout of which
applicationsare madein much the sameway as finished products
are manufacturedfrom natural resources.The implication is that
if the stockof miscellaneousinformationis not constantlyaugment-
ed, the applicationsof sciencewill be reducedby lack of resources.
I haveno quarrelwith this view, savethatit is seldomaccompanied
by anyhistoricalillustrationotherthanthe now hackneyedexample
of the developmentof electrical power from Faraday'sdiscoveryof
electromagneticinduction. ('Sir, of what use is a baby?') But that
examplehardly fits the metaphor,as the applicationin that case
followed hard on the heelsof the discoveryand was fairly obvious,
so it was not a matterof searchingwith barelya clue amonga host
of previously discoveredfacts for the one that would solve a prac-
tical problem. The discoveryof photographer'shypo was precisely
that. The fact that the halides of silver would dissolve in an
aqueoussolutionof sodiumhyposulfitewas discoveredtwenty years
before any application of it arose. It was an obscure point of
inorganic chemistry and little likely to be uncoveredin time to
further the developmentof a new technology. But it was timely
uncovered,becauseby a lucky chancethe original discovererwas
1 To avoid confusion I refer to the chemicalsnow known as thiosulfates

and thiosulfuric acid by their historical names of hyposulfites and
hyposulfurous acid. Also in the spelling of sulfur and all its derivative
words I have used the f insteadof the ph exceptwhen quoting directly
from British authors.
173
also a pioneerof photographictechniques;and, most extraordinary

of all, for so early a contributionto the process,it hasremainedfor
150yearswithout significantchangeasthe bestanswerto the prob-
lem of removingthe excesssilver halide from a photographicplate.
Anotheradvantageof this exampleof how pure scienceis draWnon
to promote applied science is its familiarity. Millions of people
engagein amateurphotography;all have usedhypo and seenfor
themselvesits marvelouspropertyof clearingand fixing negatives
and positives. The history of this discovery and its application
providesmore than a lessonin chemistry;it illustratesby meansof
a widely known examplehow a problemposedby a new technology
dependsfor its solution on the existenceof previously ascertained
information,gatheredfor no purposeotherthanto satisfycuriosity.
Even thosewho havemerely dabbledwith photographyas a hobby
are familiar with hypo, which is well into its secondcenturyof use
as a 'fixer'. The term fixer is an abbreviationof fIXing agent,based
on its function of making permanentthe photographicimage. The
verb to fix meansto make firm, to secure. As a colloquialism it is
a carte blancheto replacealmostany verb that doesnot immediate-
ly come to mind. This imprecise usagewas detestedby Henry
James,a purist of English speech,who oncemet the well intended
statementof his niece: 'I'll fix you a cup of tea, Uncle Henry,' with
the chilling rejoinder:'What will you fix it to, and what will you fix
it with.' The photographicfixer, at least,is not opento criticism on
this score, although a purist could object to its still being called
hypo, a relic of an historical accident. He would be no more likely
than Uncle Henry to changeusageby remonstrance,and just as
likely to rouseresentment. 2
The verb to fix was first usedin photographyby William Henry

Fox Talbot (1800-1877)with a slightly different meaning, as in
'fixing the beautiful image of the cameraobscura,'to describethe
whole photographicprocess,that is, the obtainingof a recordmore
2 As used in photography,the term 'fixing' has not escapedcriticism. H.

Bouassepronouncedit to be inaccurate.'On appellefixage la dissolution
du bromure non utilise; Ie terme est impropre, comme nous allons Ie
voir...Un cliche developpe,lave, non fixe, se conserveassezlongtempssans
alterationnotableaune lumiere moderee. Ce n'estdonc pas tant pour Ie
fixer que pour Ie rendretransparentqu'ondissoutIe bromureen exces. Le
cliche ne pourraitservir arien tant qu'il resteopaque.'H. Bouasse,Vision
et Reproductiondes Formeset des Couleurs, Paris, 1917, pp. 357-358.
or lesspermanentof the optical projectionheld only transientlyby

the camera. The way by which the image thus fixed is retained
without fading or darkening,wrote Talbot: 'I call the preserving
process.'To Talbot the significantfeatureof his inventionwas 'the
fixing of the image.' On this subjecthe waxedeloquent:
The phenomenonwhich I have now briefly mentionedappearsto me to

partakeof the characterof the marvellous,almost as much as any fact
which physicalinvestigationhasyet broughtto our knowledge.The most
transitoryof things,a shadow,the proverbialemblemof all thatis fleeting
and momentary.may be fetteredby the spells of our natural magic, and
may be fixed for ever in the position which it seemedonly destinedfor a
single instantto occupy.3
Customhasso dulled our feelings that we cannotshareTalbot's

enthusiasticwonder. By unconsciouselision, asthe glory faded,the
central verb to fix, which summedfor Talbot so much that was
preciousin the new art that he hadinvented,slid into secondplace,
to representthe activity ofthe preservingprocessandnothingmore.
Certainly'the preservingprocess'is a periphrasistoo clumsyto last
for long, andis well replacedby 'fixing'. Herschel,who contributed
so much to the vocabularyof the new art (e.g.,photograph,snap-
shot, negative,positive) was the first to usefix in its now accepted
sense,as he was also the first to use hypo as a fixer.
5.1 A peculiarAcid and its Salts
The first faint intimation ofthe existenceof hypo canbe tracedback

to the author of the Phlogistontheory, Georg ErnestStahl (1660-
1734), who observedthat sulfurousacid has the propertyof dissol-
ving iron.4 His finding was rediscoveredby the first enunciatorof
the law of multiple proportions,the chemistWilliam Higgins (1763-
3 H. Fox Talbot, SomeAccount of the Art of PhotogenicDrawing, or the

Processby which Natural Objects may be made to Delineate Themselves
without the Aid of the Artist's Pencil, London, 1839.
4 J.R. Partington,A History of Chemistry,London, 1961, Vol. 2, p. 680.
1825);5 but its significance,particularly the fact that no gas was

evolvedduringthe reaction,remainedunpublicizeduntil 1815,when
the Scottishchemistand textbookwriter ThomasThomson(1773-
1852), as he said,'first paid minute attentionto the solution of iron
in sulphurousacid.>6
I concludedfrom the phenomenathat the acid first gave out half of its
oxygento the iron, and convertedit into protoxide of iron [ferrous oxide.]
I found the salt formed a neutral salt; but when I attemptedto separate
the acid it wasimmediatelydecomposed into sulphurousacid and sulphur.
I drew as an inferencethat the salt containeda peculiaracid of sulphur,
consistingof sulphurousacid deprived of half its oxygen, and therefore
composedof one atom of sulphur plus one atom of oxygen. To this new
acid I gavethe namehyposulphurousacid, and I announcedthe existence
of this acid in the fifth edition of my Systemof Chemistry, publishedin
1817. In that edition, the existenceof the acid is stated,and the salts
previously describedin books by the name of sulphurettedsulphitesare
called hyposulphites. 7
In drawing this inferenceThomsonrelied on Dalton's new atomic

theory: his reasoningimplied the equation:
802 + Fe = 80 + FeO
where S02 is the anhydride of sulfurous acid and SO is the

anhydrideof hyposulfurousacid. But, as Herschelwas to point out
later, 'the composition assignedto the acid, though sufficiently
probablea priori, and correctin point of fact, as will soon appear,
is supported by no experiment adduced.'8 In reply, Thomson
5 T.S. WheelerandJ.R. Partington,The Life and Work of William Higgins,

Chemist,(1763-1825),London, 1960, p. 108.
6 ThomasThomson,A Systemof Chemistry, 6th edition, London, 1820,
VoLl, pp. 284-285.
7The prefix hypo was introducedby Pierre-LouisDulong (1785-1838)to
denotehypophosphorous acid, to indicatethatit containslessoxygenthan
phosphorousacid. (Ann. Chim. Phys., [2], 1815, Vol.2, p. 141). Thomson
was alert to currentchemistryin France,as befitted the authorof a stan-
dard textbook that was broughtup to date at frequentintervals.
8John F.W. Herschel,EdinburghPhilosophicalJournal, 1819, Vol. 1, pp.
8-29 & 396-400;Ibid., Vol. 2, pp. 154-156.
adopteda lofty tone, showingmore carefor the nameof a chemical

than for the name of a person: 'I satisfied myself in 1815 that
hyposulphurousacid is a compoundof one atom sulphur+ oneatom
oxygen, or [by weight] of
Sulphur..........2 or 100
Oxygen...........1 or 50
And this determinationhas been confirmed by the more recent

experimentsof Mr. Herschell[sic].' Note that Thomson's'determi-
nation' was completely guess-work. For all that he knew to the
contrary the reduction of sulfurous acid by iron could have taken
othercourses,in which the atomicratio of oxygento sulfur, instead
of 1:1, is someother ratio of small whole numbers,say 3:2. That it
turned out on Herschel'sanalysis to be as Thomson predicted,
simply meansthat his guesswas a lucky one. Encouragedby the
confirmationprovidedby the 'elaborateand excellentset of experi-
mentson this acid ... by Mr. I.F.W. Herschell[sic],' Thomsonbared
his fangs at the Frenchchemists:
I have beenthus minute in my accountof my ideasrespectingthis acid,

becauseI observeGay-Lussaclays claim to the discoveryof it. But I am
not awareof the leasthint at the existenceof any suchacid, either in the
writings of Gay-Lussac,or of any other personprior to the publication of
the fifth edition of my Systemof Chemistry.6
Of courseThomsonwas being lessthan fair: a considerablebody of

work had alreadybeenpublishedin France,as he well knew, that
gavemore thanthe leasthint of the existenceofthe acid. But, only
a few years after Waterloo, national feeling still ran high. 'The
Scienceswere neverat War', said Gavin de Beer,9 but questionsof
priority are seldom entirely peaceful and nationalist sentiment
inflamesany disputeover claims. Someweighty controversiesdate
from this period-DavyversusGay-Lussac,Young versusLaplace,
Young versusChampollion-andlesserfry emulatedthe greater.10
9 Gavin de Beer, The Scienceswere neverat War, London, 1960.

10Much later, when tempershad cooled and headswere clearer, W.S.
Gilbert satirizedthe spirit then prevalent:
He's only a poor parlez-voo,d'ye see,
He is only a poor parlez-voo.
ClaudeBerthollet(1748-1822)hadinitiatedtheFrenchcontribu-
tions to this subjectby preparingand studyinga numberof sulfites
not much investigatedsince the time of Stahl.l l He repeated
Stahl'sexperiment,the dissolutionof iron in sulfurousacid, at about
the sametime that it was also being taken up by Higgins, and he
reached a conclusion not very different from Thomson's later
deduction,namely,that the iron absorbsoxygenandreleasessulfur
from someof the sulfurous acid, to producean oxide, which then
dissolvesin the remainderof the sulfurousacid to producea sulfite,
with which the releasedsulfur has enoughaffinity to combine. In
modernnotation, expressedas a seriesof equations:
2Fe + H2SOa = S + 2FeO + ~O
A modernchemistwould not have postulatedstableintermedi-

atessuchas ferrous oxide, sulfur, or ferrous sulfite; for if thesesub-
stanceswere actually produced,the reaction would not have pro-
ceededfarther. The historical way around this difficulty was to
postulate'the nascentstate',the conditionof a substanceduring its
formation, whenit washeld to be more chemicallyactivethanwhen
fully formed. This conceptis now discarded,exceptfor free single
atoms of gaseswhose less active moleculesare polyatomic, e.g.,
oxygen, hydrogen,or chlorine. Modern reasoningon the subject
would be basedon the valencystatesof sulfur, as follows: the iron
is dissolved, therefore oxidized; something therefore has to be
reduced;it is not hydrogen,as no hydrogengas appears;it is not
oxygen, as that is already reducedas far as it is known to go; it
must therefore be sulfur; but neither elementalsulfur nor iron
sulfide appears,thereforethe reductionof the sulfur must be to a
hitherto unknownvalencystate,lessthan four, which is sulfurous
acid, yet larger than zero, which is elementalsulfur. The question
had to be left there, lacking analytical data. Herschel'swork re-
solved the matter: his analysisshowedthat the unknown valency
stateof the new productis plus two, correspondingto a theoretical
anhydrousoxide of sulfur, SO.
11 C.L. Berthollet, Ann. Chim., [1], 1789, Vol. 2, p. 54.

The nameassignedby Thomsonto the new salt was hyposulfite,

and its parent acid, hyposulfurousacid, in accordancewith his
conclusionthat it embodieda lower valency stateof sulfur than is
presentin sulfurous acid. Although this name accordswith the
French system of nomenclature,earlier workers had suggested
namesbasedon their various methodsof synthesizingthe salts.
The sodium salt was made in 1799 by FrancoisChaussier(1746-
1828), by reducingsulfurousacid with sodium sulfide or hydrogen
sulfide in alkaline solution:12
He called the product hydrosulfuresulfure de soude. Next year,

L.N. Vauquelin(1763-1829)showedthat the salt, which he called
sulfite de soudesulfure, could also be formed by boiling sulfur in an
alkaline solution of sodium sulfite:13
Thomson might be forgiven for having denied Gay-Lussac's

priority, becausethe latter's analysisof the strontium salt of the
parentacid, thoughit actually predatedThomson'spublication on
the hyposulfites,had not been published,but merely read to the
SocietePhilomathiqueat a meetingheld on December10, 1814. The
paper that containedthe analysis was entitled Memoire sur les
SulfitesSulfures. The analysismay be said to have leakedout: it
was quotedby Ampere14 in a footnote to one of his papersin 1816,
and was quotedagain by Gay-Lussacin 1820, in a note appended
to his French translation of Herschel'spapers.15 By 1819, Gay-
Lussac was also referring to the parent acid as l'acide hypo-
sulfureux insteadof l'acide sulfureux sulfure,t6 but without any
12 F. Chaussier,Bull.Soc. Philomath., 1799,p. 270;J. Med., 1809,Vol. 15,

p.19.
13 L.N. Vauquelin,Ann. Chim., [1], 1801, Vol. 37, p. 57
14 A.M. Ampere,Ann. Chim. Phys., [2], 1816, Vol. 2, p. 18.
15 J.L. Gay-Lussac,Ann. Chim. Phys., [2], 1820, Vol. 14, p. 361.
16 J.L. Gay-Lussac,Ann. Chim. Phys., [2], 1819, Vol. 10, p. 312.
acknowledgmentto Thomson. He may well have arrived at the

nameindependently.
It canbe seenthat prior to Thomson'ssettling of the name,and

the subsequentadoptionof his suggestionby later writers, a babble
of notionsandnomenclatures hadexisted,which the interventionof
Ampere, an inveterate neologizer, did more to confuse than
enlighten.14 Although evenThomson'schoice of namewas subject
to later revision, it was undisputed long enoughto confer on the
sodium salt its still currentpopularnamehypo.
Herschel'sthoroughinvestigationof the hyposulfurousacid and
its saltswaspublishedin 1819.8 Chancehadstimulatedhis interest
in the subject. He had set asidefor a few days a solution madeby
passinghydrogensulfide gas into lime water. As well as the reac-
tion betweenwater and hydrogensulfide in alkaline solution, pro-
ducingpolysulfides,the calciumhydroxidereactsto producecalcium
sulfide:
On standingin the presenceof air the compoundsfirst obtainedare

oxidized and the yellow color due to the polysulfides disappears.
Herschel, like all chemists of his time, habitually tasted his
solutionsas a methodof testingfor chemicalchangesand also as a
means of identification. The original taste of rotten eggs had
disappeared on oxidationandbeenreplacedby a bitter tastesimilar
to that of EpsomSalts(magnesiumsulfate.) This led him to suspect
that perhapsthe sourceof his lime water had been a magnesian
limestone,but testsshowedthe absenceof magnesium.The change
of tasteindicatedthe disappearance of the sulfide and this he con-
firmed to his satisfactionby a simple test: the solution gave no
insolublesulfide with either iron or coppersalts. That the calcium
was still presentwas shownby its giving a precipitateof calcium
carbonatewith a solution of sodium carbonate. The most signal
indicator of the stateof the solution, however,was the absenceof
any turbidity or cloudiness.What thenwas the fate of the oxidized
sulfide, that it could be retained in solution in the presenceof
calcium? It would showas cloudinesshadit changedto sulfur; and
also had it changedto sulfite or sulfate, as both of these form
insolublesaltswith calcium. The bitter tasteand the accumulated
evidencethat sulfide, sulfur, sulfite, and sulfatewas none of them
HERSCHEL AND HYPO 181
. ,~
c
: ,
:.
." ;
:i '\
;
t'
'.
..,
~
~
•!
Figure V.I Sir John Herschel (1792-1871)

presentpointed to the existenceof another,unknown, oxyacid of

sulfur. Herschelwrote: 'The inquiry now becamehighly interesting.
. . .A few trials were sufficient to establishmarked distinctions
betweenthe acid in questionand any with which I was then ac-
quainted.'8 A seriesof complicatedrefinementsfollowed. The re-
action Herschelhad discoveredis now describedby the equation:
As a methodof productionthe procedureis tedious and inconven-

ient. Herschelbeganto look for a more expeditiousand productive
processandsoonarrivedindependentlyat the samereactionasthat
usedby Vauquelin:
He first thoughtof namingthe new acidsulfo-sulfurousacid; but

Thomsonhad alreadygiven it its systematicname,hyposulfurous
acid, and this Herscheladoptedalso, his analysishaving indicated
thatThomson'sguessaboutthe compositionofthe acid wascorrect.
The name was basedon the premise that the oxygen to sulfur
atomic ratio of the acid anhydride,which Herschel'sanalysisgave
as o:s = 1, is next lowest to that of sulfurous acid (O:S = 2). In
1861, however, the French chemist Paul Schutzenberger
(1829-1897) determined 17 an O:S atomic ratio of 1.5 for a new
oxyacid of sulfur, ~S208' discovered by Christian Friedrich

Schoenbein(1799-1868),which logically required that the name
hyposulfurousacid be bestowedupon it. Schutzenbergerthen
renamed Herschel's acid as thiosulfuric acid and its salts as
thiosulfates. But 'photographer'shypo' it was and 'photographer's
hypo' it remains,exceptin the technicalliterature of chemistry.
Herschelsucceededin separatingcrystalsof a purified calcium
hyposulfite hexahydrate,which he carefully analyzed. He deter-
mined water of hydration,lime, and anhydroushyposulfurousacid
by meansof threeindependentanalyses. His datacomparedwith
theory are as follows:
17 P. Schiitzenberger,Compt. rend., 1869, Vol. 69, p. 196.

Herschel'sAnalysis of CaS2Os.5H2O
Basedon contemporary Basedon modern
molecularweights molecularweights
Observed Theoretical Observed Theoretical
%CaO 21.75 21.71 21.67 21.54
%SO 36.32 36.71 35.20 36.93
% H20 42.01 41.58 42.01 41.53
Totals 100.08 100.00 98.88 100.00
Obviouslya competentanalyst,Herschelwas also a keenminer-

alogist: he could not resist subjectingany unique crystals in his
possessionto polarized light, to the refractometer, and to the
Wollastonreflection goniometer. He reportedthat the crystalsare
'large and exceedingly beautiful', and that they 'affect a great
variety of very complicated forms.' His measurementsof the
interfacialanglesof the crystalsagreewith moderndeterminations.
Herschel'spapercontainsmuch information about the metallic
salts of hyposulfurousacid and showsthat he intendedto make as
complete a survey of the subject as he could. He preparedand
examinedthe characteristicsof about twenty different salts and
quantitativelyanalyzedthe barium and calcium compounds.With
copper and with iron he found that only the cuprousand ferrous
salts could be prepared. He was the first to observethe complex
hyposulfito-anionsof silver and mercuryandto isolateandanalyze
some of their compounds. These complex anions are the means
wherebyinsolublesaltsof silver are broughtinto solutionby double
decomposition:
The reaction describedby this equationis what enableshypo to

removeunreducedand insoluble silver halidesfrom negativesand
prints. Herschelalso describedhow to separatesilver sulfide from
silver chloride, by dissolvingthe latter in a dilute solution of hypo-
sulfite, and also how to recoverthe silver in a metallic statefrom
the complexion by meansof a coil of zinc wire. A similar process,
in which steel wool is substitutedfor zinc wire, is used today to

recovervaluablesilver from spenthypo solution.
At the time, 1819, this work on a seriesof esotericcompounds
would not have beenseenas important or significant. One would
havesaidthat Herschelhadbecomefascinated,perhapsunduly so,
by an accidentaldiscoveryand hadindulgedhimselfby following it
up in exhaustivedetail. If the initiating accidenthad occurredto
someoneelse, Herschelmight have taken less interest in it. His
early reputationwas basedon mathematicalstudies,and this dash
into chemistryrevealedan uncertaintyof aim that auguredill for
future persistenceof effort. It took placeduring a period of divided
purposesin his life. while he was making trials of various career
fields: he began and then abandonedthe study of law; after a
brilliant start he had lost interest in mathematics;nor did he
continuewith chemistryafterthis singlepreoccupationuntil, twenty
yearslater, stimulatedby the invention of photography,he took it
up againfor a shorttime. Herschel,so unlike his famousfather in
this respect,lackedla passioncontinue,and so was at the mercy of
his greatintellectual capacityand wide range of interests. A core
of diffidence and self distrust may be sensedas the underlying
cause.
The younger Herschel displayedanothersymptom of internal
disquiet: he was abashed,withdrawn, and ill at easein society.
CharlesDarwin, who visited him at the Capeof Good Hope during
the Beaglevoyage,saidthat 'he nevertalked much, but every word
that he utteredwas worth listening to. He was very shy and he
often hada distressedexpression.Lady CatherineBell ... admired
Herschelmuch, but said that he always cameinto a room as if he
knew that his hands were dirty, and that he knew that his wife
knew that they were dirty.'18 Lady Catherine,evidentlya personof
poise and security herself, could imagine no cause for social
embarrassment moredeeplyseatedthananimmediatephysicalone.
Herschel left Cambridgewith high academicalhonors (senior
wrangler and Smith's first prizeman,)but ten years of desultory
18 Charles Darwin, Autobiography,London, 1958, p. 107. Darwin mis-

takenly wrote Caroline for Catherine. Lady CatherineBell (1780-1855)
was the wife of ColonelJohnGaterGeneralSir John)Bell, secretaryto the
Governorat the Capeof Good Hope. Shewas the eldestdaughterof James
Harris, the first Earl ofMalmesbury. Shewasnamedafterher godmother,
the EmpressCatherineII, during her father'sembassyin Russia.
activity followed. While his fatherlived Herschelhadnot sharedto

the same extent the enthusiasmfor telescopicobservationsthat
animatedSir William and his devotedsister Caroline. He did not
take up the painstakingwork of observationalastronomyuntil the
deathof his father, who hadwantedhim to enterthe Church,gave
him his opportunity. He continuedhis father'staskof searchingthe
sky for doublestars,fmally decidingto emulatehis father'swork in
the northern hemisphereby completing it in the less completely
chartedsouthernhemisphere.Alas, no new planet swam into his
ken; no grand discovery comparableto his father's discovery of
Uranus lifted his name to the same height. He was a highly
talentedman,nevertheless,leavinga recordof intellectualachieve-
ment in a remarkablenumberof different fields of science.
5.2 The Advent of Photography:Herschel'sClaims
In writing the introduction to his paper of 1819, Herschel was

evidently embarrassed becausehe had found out, after completing
his own experiments,that someof his work had beenanticipated:
the acid had already been discoveredand named, and even its
compositionassigned. But he had much more on hand than what
was known before. He justified the publication of his work, more
diffidently than the circumstancesseemed to require, in the
following terms:
I ventureto hope, that the following experiments,imperfect as they are,

being made in the absenceof most of the conveniencesfor chemical re-
search,may possesssomenovelty aswell asinterest.Even to haveverified
a known fact, by independentobservation,is something,as it gives an air
of reality, and a body to science:but suchis the natureof chemistry,that
it is next to impossibleto pursuean independenttrain of investigation,
without encounteringsomenovelty worthy to be recorded.8
The chemistryof theseobscurecompoundsrose abruptly out of

insignificancewith the adventof photography.Herschel'sextensive
researches on the hyposulfites,pursuedwith no particularobjective
otherthanthe merepossibility offmding somenoteworthynovelty,
were to becomean importantpillar of an impressivemodemindus-
try. In the United States alone, nearly 50,000 tons of hypo is

producedannually, of which 90% is usedin photography.19
The historical developmentis best describedin Herschel'sown
words, in a letter he wrote many years later in responseto ques-
tions addressedto him by Alfred Brothers (1826?-1912)of the
ManchesterPhotographicSociety.20
Collingwood, October29, 1864.

Si~I think I may very fairly claim the discoveryof the hyposulphitesas
fixing agents,as I believe I was the first to call the attentionof chemists
to that classof saltsand their peculiarhabitudesespeciallyin relation to
the insoluble saltsof silver.
In my paperOn the HyposulphurousAcid and its Compounds,which
bearsdateJanuary8th, 1819,andwhich appearedin BrewsterandJamie-
son'sEdinb. Phil. Journal, I, 1819, occur thesewords:
'One of the most singular charactersof the hyposulphites,is the
property their solutions possessof dissolving muriate of silver, and
retainingit in considerablequantity in permanentsolution. (Page11)
19 U.S. production of sodiumthiosulfatepeakedin 1956 at 35,000metric

tons per year, and since then has declined to about half that rate.
Photographyuses90% of the production;chrometanning of leatherand
othermiscellaneousapplicationsaccountfor the remainder.Its usefor the
recovery of silver from its ores (by lixiviation after chloridizing) was
supersededlong ago by cyanidelixiviation. The price in 1956 was $0.10
per Kg and is now approachingthreetimes that amount. 'The marketis
decliningslowly and the outlook is for a further slow decline. Ammonium
thiosulfateis a competitorfor x-ray prints and other situationsin which
immediateprints are wanted; the market in chromeleathertanning is
also slowly decreasing.Lossesin the photographymarketwill more than
offset any gains. The use of videotapeis seriouslyerodingsales;but the
chemicalwill continueto havea placein the photographymarketfor many
years.' W.L. Faith, D.B. Keyes,andR.L. Clark, Industrial Chemicals,4th
edition, edited by F.A Lowenheim and MK Moran, New York: Wiley,
1975.
20 Anonymous,'The ManchesterExhibition,' British J. Photography,1887,
Vol. 34, p. 372. Herschel'sletter was carelesslytranscribedin this article.
The original is letter #22 in the Brothers Collection in the Manchester
Central Library. Brother'sletter soliciting this is #HS4:296in the Royal
Society of London. Herschel'sdraft reply is #HS4:297 and there are
several subsequentBrothers' letters to Herschel in this series. (I am
indebtedto Mr. Larry J. Schaaffor this information.)
(Page 19) 'Hyposulphiteof Potash. ... It dissolvesmuriate of silver,
even when very dilute, with greatreadiness.
(Ibid.) 'Hyposulphiteof Soda. ... Muriate of silver newly precipitated,
dissolvesin this salt, when in a somewhatconcentratedsolution,in large
quantity, and aboutas readily as sugarin water.
(Page 21) 'Hyp' of Strontia. ... like the rest of the hyposulfitesit
readily dissolvesmuriate of silver and alcohol precipitatesit as a sweet
syrup.
(Page27) 'HyposulphiteofSilver. ... Muriate of silver newly precipitat-
ed is solublein all the liquid hyposulphitesand as beforeobservedin that
of sodawith greateaseand in large quantity. This solution is not accom-
plishedwithout mutualdecompositionasits intensesweetnessproves-a
sweetnesssurpassingthat of honey, and diffusing itself over the whole
mouth and fauces,without any disagreeableor metallic flavour.'
In a secondpaper on the samesubject which appearedin the same
Journal,Vol. 1, page396 et seq.,it is shown(inter alia) that the affinity of
this acid for silver is such that the oxide of silver actually decomposes
hyposulphite of sodaand liberatesthe sodain a causticstate-'theonly
instanceI believeyet known of the direct displacementof a fixed alkali via
humidaby a metallic oxide.' (Page397)
'Hypos' of Ammonia& Silver. ... Its sweetnessis unmixed with any
otherflavour and so intenseas to causepain in the throat.... One grain
of the salt communicatesa perceptible sweetnessto 32,000 grains of
water.' (p.399)
In a third communication,datedNovember,1819-
'The habitudesof this acid with the oxide of mercury are not less
singular than its relationsto that of silver.... The red oxide of mercury
is readily dissolvedby ... hyposulphite of sodawhile the alkali is set at
liberty in a causticstate.... &c., &c.'
The very remarkablefacts above describedI have reasonto believe
attracteda good deal of attention at the time-andthenceforwardthe
ready solubility of silver salts, usually regarded as insoluble, by the
hyposulphites,was familiar to every chemist. It would not thereforebe
surprisingif Daguerreshouldhave early tried it to (zx his plates(i.e., to
wash off the iodide coating;)but I havebeeninformed tho' I cannotcite a
printed authority for it that at first he fixed with ammonia or with a
strongsolution of commonsalt.
For my own part the use of the hyposulphiteswas to myself the
readiestandmostobviousmeansof procedureandpresenteditself at once.
My earliestexperimentswere madein January1839 and in my note book
I find:
'Exp: 1012.-1839,JanY 29. Experimentstried within the last few
days since hearingof Daguerre'ssecretand also that Fox Talbot has got
somethingof the same kind." [Here follow some trials of the relative
sensitivenessof the Nitrate, Carbonate,Acetate, & Muriate of Silver. I
shouldobservethat at the time 1 did not evenknow what kind of pictures

Daguerrehad produced.His processwas not revealedtill August 1839.]
'Exp. 1013.-Daguerre's process.Attempt to imitate. Requisites-l"t
very susceptiblepaper. 2d very perfect camera.-3 d meansof arresting
further action.-Triedhyposulphiteof sodato arrestthe action of light by
washingaway all the Chloride of Silver or other silvery salt-succeeds
perfectly. Papershalf actedon, half guardedfrom light by coveringwith
pasteboardwere withdrawn from sunshine, sponged over with hypo-
sulphite-thenwashedin pure water, dried and again exposed. The
darkenedhalf remaineddark, the white half white, after any exposureas
if they had beenpaintedwith sepia.
'JanY 30, 1839.-Formedimage of telescopewith the aplanaticlens .
. . and placed in focus paper with Carbonateof Silver. An image was
formed in white on a sepia-coloredground ... which bore washingwith
hyposulphite of soda, and was then no longer alterableby light. Thus
Daguerre'sproblem is so far solved, &c., &c.
'Exp. 1014.--Jan.30. Tried transferof print andcopperplateengraved
letters, &c., &c.'
The publication of M. Daguerre'sprocess(according to Dr. Monck-
hoven,21for 1 cannotrefer at presentto the original document)took place
on the 19th August 1839. My early experimentsare printed in the pro-
ceedingsof the Royal Society of March 14, 1839 in which occurs this
passagein the abstractof a paperreadto the Society:22
'Confining his attention, in the presentnotice, to the employmentof
Chloride of Silver, the author enquiresinto the method by which the
blackenedtracescanbe preserved,which may be effected,he observes,by
the application of any liquid capableof dissolving and washing off the
unchangedchloride and leaving the reducedoxide of silver untouched.
Theseconditionsarebestfulfilled by the liquid hyposulphites .... Twenty-
21 D.V. Monckhoven,Traite Generalde Photographie. Accordingto the MS

Catalogueof Herschel'slibrary, he owned the 4th edition, Paris, 1863.
22 J.F.W. Herschel,'Note on the Art of Photography,or the Application of
the ChemicalRaysof Light to the Purposesof Pictorial Representation,' in
Proc. Royal Society,1839, Vol. 4, pp. 131-133. Only an abstractof this
paper was published. Herschel suppressedpublication of the work in
extensoin responseto an appealby Talbot, who may well have feared a
dilution of credit for the greatinvention if the nameof so illustrious a col-
leaguewere associatedwith it. Herschelwrote to Talbot, Feb. 12, 1839:
'I shall mention no further the processof washingout with Hyposulphite
if you disapproveof it & shall wait with patiencefor the revelationof your
mode of fixing which must be a very chemicalbijou.' The full text of the
withdrawn paperwas lost until recently,when it was discoveredand pub-
lished by Larry Schaaf,History of Photography,1979, Vol.3, pp. 47-60.
threespecimensof photographsmadeby Sir JohnHerschelaccompanythis

pape~ne a sketchof his telescopeat Sloughfixed from its imagein a
lens.... &c.'
This is the image abovementionedas having beentaken on JanY 30,
1839, and I believe was the first picturefixed from an optical image ever
takenin this country-atleastI haveheardof none earlier.
At the time of makingtheseexperiments,as alreadymentioned,I had
no knowledgeof M. Daguerre'sprocessfurther thanfrom a mentionof the
existenceof a process(a secretone) in a notefrom Admiral (thenCaptain)
[Francis] Beaufort[1774-1857]somewhereaboutJan.23,1839. Of course
I usedpaper not silver. And it was not a suggestionbut my regular and
uniform practice to usehyposulphite.. I haveneverusedanythingelse.
I am, Sir, Your obedientservant,J.F.W. Herschel.
5.3 Herschel'sPredecessor:
Henry Cavendish(1731-1810)
In one of Lamb'sessaysoccursthe statement:'A man may think of

a thing, but Shakespeare thought of it first.' Confined to science,
one might well makesucha remarkaboutCavendish.In chemistry
he anticipatedLavoisier, in the analysisof air he anticipatedRay-
leigh andRamsay,in electricity he anticipatedCoulomb and Fara-
day. And alsoin this specializedsubjecthe recordedan observation
before Herschel.
My attentionwas drawn to Cavendish'scontributionby a mar-
ginal note written by Herschelin his own interleavedcopy of his
Discourseon Natural Philosophy,1831. In the printedtext, discus-
sing the role of accidentin scientific discovery, he gave, as one of
severalexamples,his own discoveryofthe hyposulfiteoflime, at the
sametime modestly withholding his name by writing of it in the
third person: 'A writer in the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
stateshimselfto havebeenled into a seriesof investigationson the
chemicalnatureof a peculiaracid, by noticing, accidentally,a bitter
tastein a liquid aboutto be thrown away. Chemistryis full of such
incidents.'23 Opposite this passage,in his own copy of the book,

Herschelwrote:
Nota bene inter legendum. I find that the samebitternessunder nearly

the samecircumstanceshad beennoticedby Cavendish.SeePhil. Trans.
Vol. 74, AD. 1784,p. 124. He had shakenup hydrog[enate]dsulphuretof
lime with commonair to 'phlogisticatethe air'. He noticedthe bitterness
ofthe liquid, accountedfor it erroneously,andthrew the liquid away. And
so he missedthe hyposulphites.J.F.W.H. May, 1862.
Cavendish describedhis experimentsin the language of the

phlogistontheory.24 In modernterms his objective was to remove
the oxygenfrom air by chemicalmeans,by combiningit with strong
reducingagents. He madea solution of calcium sulfide by boiling
finely divided sulfur in lime water. Theprincipal reaction(we know
now) is expressedby the equation:
In addition, polysulfideswould be formed. On shakingthis solution

in air, renewingthe air from time to time, the yellow color disap-
pearsas the sulfide and polysulfidesare oxidized to hyposulfite:
2CaS + H 20 + 202 = CaS20 3 + Ca(OH)2

Cavendishexpectedthe oxidized sulfur to be in the form of sulfate
and to precipitateas calcium sulfate, which he plannedto remove
by filtration. He was anxiousto removethe calcium sulfate as he
fearedits presencewould interferewith his subsequenttests,which
were to determinethe fate of any residueof air in the solution. To
his annoyancecalcium sulfate did not precipitate. He wrote:
It is well known that common selenite [calcium sulfate] is very little

soluble in water; whereasthat procuredin the last two experiments[i.e.,
with air and with oxygen] was very soluble,and evencrystallizedreadily,
23 J.F.W. Herschel,Discourseon the StudyofNatural Philosophy,London,

1830, pp. 121-2. This copy, in my possession,is interleavedwith blank
pages,on someof which Herschelhaswritten notesandcorrections.Some
of thesewereincorporatedin the lastrevisededition of 1851,but Herschel
continuedto annotatethe text after that date.
24 H. Cavendish,Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 1784, Vol. 74, pp. 119-53.
l' .. ~;:,j:,.VlJ~ U.l Ji::LLI,.O, WI:; llJU.,,, LdAC "ale, U.l Ul'~t:TV.lllg,
to have them all in activity, andto let nothing escape

~~ notice which affects anyone of them. Thus, if
~(Jq
...... r= lightning were to strike the .housewe inhabit, we
~ 11 ought to notice what kind of light we saw-whether
...... (1)
a sheetof flame, a darting spark,or a brokenzig-zag;
S <: in what direction moving, to what objects adhering,
q~ its colour, its duration, &c.; what sounds were
heard-explosive,crashing,rattling, momentary,or
~::t:
<:I) (\) gradually increasing and fading, &c.; whether any
(") '"'I
C Ul smell of fire was perceptible, and if sulphureous,
~~ metallic, or such as would arise merely from sub-
~ .... stancesscorchedby the flash, &c.; whetherwe felt
~ ~
any shock, stroke, or peculiar sensation,or expe-
~
C Ul~
;::s .... rienced any strange taste in our mouths. Then, 65
besides detailing the effects of the stroke, all the
o
s.~
~ (\) circumstanceswhich might in any degree seem
'"'I likely to attract, produce, or modify it, such as
~~
CI:)-
..... (\) the presenceof conductors,neighbouring objects,
~ ~ the state of the atmosphere,the barometer,ther-
~~ mometer, &c., and the disposition of the clouds, ~
should be noted; and after all this particularity,
.g"Z the questionlun.o the housecameto be struck? might
ultimately dependon the fact that a flash of light- ~
~S-
..... ning twenty miles off passed at that particular o
~ 0 :4 v..;,...l.'t.,..../Y. _ [;-11'0.. ~ ~.~j ~~, momentfromthe ground to the clouds,by an effect of
~ ~ J~~~ •• ..,.~,---5'/I<...",~~"" what has been termedthe returning stroke.
'-
a= <~'t.......-.--. A._") c.-.. ~ t.., ("~':G.. . .a... \113.) A writer in the Edinburgh Philosophical
~'!=I p~ (~. V~J~.A~·'J",/'.fo·I'1..4. - ....... ~ Journal·stateshimselfto havebeenled into a series
~
...... I-" .11.4.-." -1"- k;~J:J J'~~ .., t..;._ ~ ~ ~ of investigationson the chemicalnatureof a peculiar
'-t:-:)
~ (f~";~ ~ a..:... r,~ ~~ ~ acid;foy noticing, accidentally, a bitter taste in a
~ I-"
,~.9<'--- hj~{ -......--sD-r--:c- ~5.oC
.g 0 fF.~ ... ~_$-',--:) ~. ct....:) .,.... ~ ~ 'Yz<-. A., ,,.. • Edinburgh Phil. Joum. 1819, vol. i. p. 8.
~....,
~~...:.&:", ._.' j-~. ~. / s.-.'1 ] t k~ Ai/" 'L.'/"/-""'<'''-'_ ~
~e: ~
Ul ~
and wasintenselybitter; this howeverappearedto be owing merelyto the

acid with which it wasformed beingvery much phlogisticated.
This passage,no doubt, is the one to which Herschel made

reference.The evidencefor Cavendishhavingunwittingly obtained
calcium hyposulfite is all here: the method of preparation,the
soluble calcium salt, the readily obtainedcrystals, and the bitter
taste. Knowing so much about it, Herschel had no difficulty in
putting togetherthe story told betweenthe lines (recall his nota
beneinter legendum).But Cavendish'smain interestlay elsewhere:
he believedhe hadobtained'selenite'in an uncommonform, andhe
desiredto convertit to its commoninsolubleform, so as to remove
it by filtration. Reasoningcorrectly that the sulfur was not suf-
ficiently oxidized (or was still too much phlogisticated)for his
purpose,he saw that further dephlogisticationwas in order. To
obtain what he required the solution was evaporatedto dryness,
exposedto air for a few days, taken up again in water, and the
whole processrepeatedoneor moretimes. Cavendishperfectlywell
understood,at least qualitatively, the chemicalchangesthat were
taking placein his solutions,eventhoughhe expressedhis thoughts
within the framework of the phlogistontheory. Herschelunjustly
accusedCavendishof accountingerroneouslyfor the bitter tasteof
his solution;but in termsof the phlogistontheory he hadaccounted
for it quite accurately. The theory was wrong, but the reasoning
and the practical applicationsthereofwere sound.
Cavendishhad no further concern with what he called 'the
phlogisticatedstates of vitriolic acid'. He pausedlong enough,
however, to make this remark: 'The nature of the neutral salts
madewith phlogisticatedvitriolic andnitrous acids[i.e., nitric] has
not been much examinedby the chymists, though it seemswell
worth their attention;and it seemslikely that many [similar salts
of other acids] besidesthe foregoing may differ remarkablyfrom
thosemadewith the sameacids in their commonstates.'
The paperby Cavendishfrom which we havebeenquotingis one
of the classicsof the literature of chemistry,25 for in it Cavendish
25Cavendish'spaperhasbeenreprintedasAlembicClub Reprints, No.3,

Edinburgh,1893. Extractsfrom it appearin A SourceBook in Chemistry,
1400-1900,H.M. Leicesterand H.S. Klickstein, eds.,New York, 1952; and
in Momentsof Discovery,G. Schwartzand P.W. Bishop, eds.,New York,
1958.
laid the experimentalgroundwork to elucidate the structure of

water. Comparedto such a grand objective, the chemistryof the
hyposulfitesseemsinsignificant. According to his modembiogra-
pher,'Cavendishhad, in a pre-eminentdegree,the remarkablegift
of knowing almost intuitively what kinds of problem were worth
investigating.'26I havebeentold by one who workedwith him that
PeterDebye(1884-1966;Nobel laureate,1936) would restrainhis
junior collaboratorsfrom following seductiveside-pathsthat their
work had disclosed,with the remark: 'We may leavethat for some
little man to make his reputationwith.' Somethingof that spirit
animatedCavendish.
Herschel'sphrase,'he threw the liquid away' (not literally true,
incidentally) was perhapsan unconsciousechoof Othello'sdescrip-
tion of himself as 'one whosehand, like the baseIndian's, threw a
pearl away, richer than all his tribe', and implies that Cavendish
was naively ignorant of the significanceof his findings. Such an
elementmay indeedhavebeenpresent. Cavendishwas not aware
of the law of multiple proportionsand so did not think in terms of
discrete states of oxidation or reduction. To him sulfates and
nitrates could be reduced(phlogisticated)continuously and their
phlogisticatedstatesweremerelyslightly different conditionsof the
parentsubstance.The four decadesthat separatedhis paperfrom
Herschel'ssawthe overthrowof the phlogistontheory and thebirth
of the atomic theory. The latter was the greateradvance. Caven-
dish could reason soundly in terms of phlogiston, although the
terminology strikes us as quaint; he goes farther astray from
modemchemistryin lacking the conceptof definite chemicalcom-
pounds associatedwith discrete states of phlogistication. His
'phlogisticatedvitriolic acid' was subsequentlyequatedwith sul-
furous acid, and his 'very highly phlogisticatedvitriolic acid' with
hyposulfurousacid,27 and no doubt they are correctly so identified;
but the differencein conceptshouldnot be ignored,for that was the
reason that what was opaqueto Cavendishwas transparentto
Herschel.
26 AJ. Berry, Henry Cavendish:His Life and Scientific Work, London,

1960, p. 21.
27 G. Wilson, Life of the Hon. Henry Cavendish,London, 1851, p. 234n.
CHAPTER SIX
HERSCHEL ON FARADAY AND ON SCIENCE
p.t'xvn~ exp.'()p.rov ... blamelessseer
Sir John Herschelranks high amongBritish men of science. His

remains lie in WestminsterAbbey next to those of Newton and
Darwin, andnearMaxwell's memorial. His scientific achievements
are outclassedby thoseof his neighbors,but if nobility of character
and generosityof soul are to be consideredhe rankswith them all.
The scion of a celebratedfamily, Herscheldisplayedthroughouthis
long careeran opennessin sharingideas,greator small, on many
topics, with sundry applicants,making no attempt to reserveto
himself any priority rights, and even heedlessof whether credit
accruedto his name. For example,as a pioneerin the development
of photography,he freely disclosedall his discoveriesto Fox Talbot,
whoseown behavioron suchoccasionscomparedmeanlywith that
of Herschel.! Enthusiasmfor sciencewas his passion;personal
questionswere of little moment.
Herschel'sunselfishnesswith ideas was matchedby a serene
inclination to think well of others. No trace of envy or spite mars
his privatelettersanddiaries,muchlesshis publishedwritings. In
appreciatingthe contributions of others he judged them by their
bestefforts and did not dwell on what was lessworthy. His charity
was an essentialpart of the man: not an acquiredhabit of social
tact but so deeplyingrainedas to be almostinstinctive. To men so
unquestionablygreatas not to needany temperingof the wind, his
unstintedadmirationwas given candidly, without fear of diminish-
ing himself by so doing. This too is a measureof his maturity.
Over his grave at least it would not be incongruousto inscribe
Shirley's celebratedepigram:
Only the actionsof the just

Smell sweet,and blossomin their dust.
! BeaumontNewhall, Latent Image: The Discoveryof Photography,New

York, N.Y., 1967, ChapterVIII.
194
HERSCHELON SCIENCE 195
Herschel'sfriendshipwith Michael Faradayillustratesthe finest

featuresof his character.The two menfirst met whenFaradaywas
still a lowly assistantto ThomasBrande(1788-1866)at the Royal
Institution, while Herschel,Faraday'sjunior by six months,was a
graduateof Cambridge,wherehe hadbeenseniorwranglerandfirst
Smith's prizeman,and was alreadya Fellow of the Royal Society.
As Faradayprogressedin his career,Herschelreadily admittedhim
to his friendship as a social equal-somethingthat Sir Humphry
Davy for one could not bring himself to do. When Faradaywas
nominatedfor electionto the Royal Society,Herschelwas amongthe
first to sign his certificate,disregardingthe almostfrenziedattempt
by Davy to have it withdrawn or the nominee not elected. As
Faradaycontinuedon his brilliant course,Herschelneverfailed to
encourageandsupporthim. For example,whenHerschelreviewed
his friend William Whewell's book on the history of the inductive
sciences,2he declaredthat he was pleasedto find his author'doing
full and cordial justice to the transcendentmerits of Faradayas a
philosopher.' Thesemerits he characterizedas 'inferior to none in
clearnessand steadinessof thoughtand refinementof experiment.'
This essaycommunicatesan unpublishedexpressionof respect
by Herschelfor Faradaymore profound than the foregoing, and to
draw out of his cryptic utterance of two words in Greek the
implications that he intended. At the Sothebyauction of books,
manuscripts,and prints from the Herschellibrary, on March 3-4,
1958, my agent obtainedfor me two portfolios containingJ.F.W.
Herschel'scollection of portraits of contemporarymen of science.3
Among theseI found one of Faraday,which had beenclipped from
the pagesof a periodicalof the eighteen-sixties.4 Upon it is written
2JohnHerschel,QuarterlyReview,1841,No. 135;reprintedin Essaysfrom

the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews,London, 1857, pp. 229-230.
3Sold as Lot 431, Portraitsin two portfolios, Sotheby'sSalesCatalogue,
London, 4 March 1958.
4 Presentedby the author to the Royal Institution. The source of the
clipping is not known. The following information will help to locateit: the
verso of the printed page is blank on the portion where strike-through
would hurt the reproduction,but tracesremainof severalcolumnsof print
aboveandsurroundingthe blank area;the drawingis captioned'Professor
Faraday';on the lower left, in small italics, is printed'From a Photograph
by John and Charles Watkins, Parliament-Street';on the lower right is
the Greekwords Muvnc; aJ.lUJ.lffiV, an inscription taken from Book

I of the Iliad (line 92.)
Beforediscussingthe meaningofthis·phrase,we mustestablish,
as far as it canbe done,that the commentwas written by Herschel
and none other. The fIrst presumptionthat this is so is the fact
that the Faradayportrait was included in Herschel'sportfolios.
What about further evidence? Handwriting is not a useful guide
herebecausethe lettersare Greekand are written separately.The
evidence that remains cannot but be circumstantial. On the
marginsof his booksHerschelhabituallypencilledcommentson the
text. Thoseoccasionallytook the form of apt and pithy quotations,
culled from his wide range of reading in classical and English
literature. The quotationwas often what was called in his day a
'short character'of the author, as, in what precedes,imitating the
practice,I have servedHerschelas he servedso many others;or it
might be an appropriatetext for the adjoining argument. His
library is now scatteredafar, but from the small samplingin my
possession it canbe inferredthat scoresof examplesof this practice
must exist. Here are someimmediatelyavailableto me:
J.S.Mill, On Liberty, London, 1859.

A quotation from Macaulay'sHistory of England, and another
from Persius'sSatires,werewritten by Herschelin his copy of Mill's
book. I have discussedthesecommentselsewhere. 5
Henry S. Boase,The PhilosophyofNature, London, 1860.

Herschelgavehis 'shortcharacter'of the authorin the following
coupletfrom Pope:6
printed in Roman type 'See page 259'. The photographfrom which the
drawingwas madeis identifiable as that reproducedin Michael Faraday,
A Biography, by L. PearceWilliams, New York, N.Y., 1965, Fig. 35b,
captionedas'Faradayin later life'. A datein the eighteen-fiftiesor sixties
is indicated.
5 Sydney Ross, 'Sir John Herschel on Mill's On Liberty,' Journal of the
History ofIdeas, 1968, Vol. 29, pp. 123-130. Reprintedbelow as Chapter
Seven.
6 AlexanderPope,Essayon Criticism, 1,80-81var. Herschelwas quoting
from memory. The coupletactually reads:
There are whom Heavenhasbless'dwith store of wit,
Men are whom Heav'nhasblest with flow of wit,

Yet want as much againto governit.
w.s. Jevons,The Coal Question,London, 1865.

In this book Jevonsfirst drew attentionto the finite nature of
Britain's coal resourcesandwarnedof an impendingshortage. On
the fly-leaf of the book Herschelwrote:
Old experiencedoth attain

To somethingof propheticstrain.
The lines are from Milton's Il Pensoroso,andare clearly intendedto

apply to Jevons. Oppositethe author'sprediction of the decline of
Britain when coal was finally consumed,Herschelwrote:
Vixi, et quem cursumdederatfortuna peregi,

Et nunc magnamei sub terrascurrit imago.
The lines are from Virgil (Aeneid, 4, 653) and provide an elegiac
epitaphfor past greatness.'I have lived, and run the coursethat
Fategaveme, and now my shadedescendsillustrious to the grave.'
Finally, in his Capediary, a descriptionof a dreamrecountedto
him by Lady Herschelis followed by a quotationin Greekfrom the
Iliad.7
Thoseinstances,with the exceptionof the last, are taken from
the limited numberof books,formerly in Herschel'slibrary, now in
my possession.Ownersof otherfractionsof Herschel'slibrary could
undoubtedlyextendthis list with further examples. The level of
literary culturedisplayed,althoughwell abovethe lapsedstandards
of today, is hardly more than that to be expectedof an educated
Englishmanof a century ago. My presentpurpose,however,is to
documentthat Herschelcharacteristicallyengagedin this erudite
pastime, which greatly strengthensthe suppositionthat he was
indeedthe writer ofthe Greekcommentplacedbeneaththe Faraday
Yet want as much again to manageit.
7Herschelat the Cape: Diaries and Correspondenceof Sir John Herschel,

1834-1838. Edited by D.S. Evans, T.J. Deeming, B.H. Evans, and S.
Goldfarb. University of TexasPress,Austin and London, 1969, p. 134.
. .,.......
~ ''
. -...
. ',I.( " -' '-...
PROF£,) OR FA RA D.'\ ' ".
!ktlV'IJ ...,....,,...MJy
Figure VI-! An engravingof Faradaywith an

inscription by Sir JohnHerschel.
portrait found in his portfolios.

The Greek words p~.V'n~ <xp'Opcov were translatedby Herschel
himself as 'blamelessseer'. The referenceis to the seerCalchas,
who, in the words of Herschel'sown translationof the Iliad,s is
introducedas follows:
Calchas,Thestor'sson,far-famedas the wisestof augurs,

One to whosemind inspired,the past,the present,the future,
All were alike revealed:that Seer,whosewise divination
(PhoebusApollo's gift) had guidedthe shipsof the Grecians
Safely to Ilion's shore.
At this point, Calchasis apprehensivethat Agamemnonwill be en-

raged should he reveal what he knows. But Achilles swearsby
Apollo, the patrongod of Calchashimself, that no harm shall befall
the prophet, that he [Achilles] is willing to risk his own life in
defenseof Calchas,and urgeshim to speak:
Boldly declarewhat thou knowest. Whate'erthine oracle,say it!

Thus reassured,the blamelessseertook courageand answered.
No stronger proof of sincerity can readily be imagined than

Herschel provides by this gratuitous and private testimonial of
respect,which was neitherelicited by a third party nor ever likely
to come to Faraday's attention. By the adjective 'blameless'
Herschel may have intended to signify no more than a general
nobility of character;or he may have had in mind the gossipthat
once accusedFaraday of profiting unfairly from the ideas of
Wollastonor of Davy,9 andby 'blameless'expressedhis own opinion
of Faraday'sinnocence.
The text of the Iliad adjacentto the words suggests,however,a
deepermeaning. The seermust speakand cannotbe held respon-
sible if his tidings arebad; he is only to tell what he knows; his sole
concernis with the truth; and he himself is blamelessfor the ills
whose causehe describes,or for the eventsthat follow his disclo-
sures. As the archetypeof a man of sciencehow well suited was
8The Iliad of Homer, translatedinto English accentuated

hexametersby
Sir JohnF.W. Herschel,Bart., London, 1866, p. 5.
9 L. PearceWilliams, Michael Faraday; A Biography, London, 1965, pp.
158-160.
200 NINETEENTH-CENTURYA'ITlTUDES
Herschel'sselectionof Calchas,the seerwhom Homer absolvesof

blamefor the natureof his message;and how felicitous his affixing
this designationon Faraday,who certainly ranks amongthose of
Herschel'scontemporaries whosediscoveriesin puresciencehadthe
widestsocialconsequences.(Would the adjectivehavebeenequally
relevant applied to CharlesDarwin? I think not: Darwin was a
consciousiconoclast,but sly withal.)
Should this text seemtoo slight to bear so great a burden of
interpretationwe have, to lend it credibility, Herschel'sexpanded
statementof an attitudetowardscienceconsistentwith theseimpli-
cations. In his review of Alexandervon Humboldt'sKosmosfor the
EdinburghReview,Herschelwrote:10
A greatandwondrousattemptis makingin civilized Europeat the present

time [1848]; neithermore nor lessthan an attemptto staveoff, ad infini-
tum, the tremendousvisitation of war; and,by removingor alleviatingthe
positive checksto the growth of population,to diminish the stringencyof
the preventiveones,andto subsistcontinuallyincreasingmasseson a con-
tinually increasingscale of comfort. May it be successful! But the only
conditionson which it can be so are, that naturebe laid yearly more and
more undercontributionto humanwants;andthat the masses themselves
understandand go along with the exertionsmaking in their favour in a
spirit of amicableand rational conformity. To no otherquarterthanto the
progressof sciencecan we look for the leastglimpse of a fulfilment of the
first of theseconditions. Neither the activity of hope, nor the energyof
despair,acting by stationarymeanson unvarying elements,can coerce
them into a geometricallyincreasingproductiveness.Sciencemust wave
unceasinglyher magic wand, and point unceasinglyher divining rod. The
task now laid on her, however,is not of her own seeking. She declines
altogetherso dread a responsibility,while yet declaringher readinessto
aid, to the utmost of her powers;claiming only the privilege, essentialto
their availableexertion, of free, undisturbed,and dispassionatethought,
and calling upon every class to do its duty; the higher in aiding her
applications,the lower in conformingto her rules.
In this passageHerschel maintainedthat personifiedScience

disclaimssocial ends. 'Shedeclinesaltogetherso dreada responsi-
bility,' he wrote. But if Scienceis to flourish and her benefitsto be
enjoyed,he demandedin her namefreedomfrom social controls,as
10 John Herschel,Edinburgh Review, 1848, No. 175; reprintedin Essays

from the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews,London, 1857, pp. 280-281.
well as aid from 'the higher classesof society', i.e., sponsorshipof
researchin science;and from the lower ordersof the populacean
appreciationand toleranceof scientific activities. The spokesman
for personifiedScienceis of courseHerscheland, throughhim, his
contemporaryscientists.It is they who disclaimthe socialresponsi-
bility, and it is they who set the conditions for the benefits of
scienceto be forthcoming. Herschel'sstronginsistenceon absolute
freedom for scienceand, what logically goes with such a demand,
thatscienceassumesno socialresponsibility,makesunderstandable
what he meantby describingthe scientist,whetherpure or applied,
as 'blameless'. His very insistence,however, may betray some
mental disquiet, perhapsa premonition,which our days have seen
confirmed, that science would not always be allowed to decline
responsibility,that doubtswould arisewhetherscienceshouldhave
the unrestrictedfreedom claimedfor it by Herschel,that, in short,
Calchasmay no longerbe protectedby Achilles. Here,in the words
of a modern spokesman,11is posterity's responseto Herschel's
assertion:
Scientists,stressingthe rationalandempiricalcharacterof their approach,

have claimed ethical neutrality for their work since at least the last half
of the nineteenthcentury, and engineershave, for the most part, given
little attention to the implications of their work beyond the immediate
purposefor which it was carried out. But scienceand technologyhave
grown to such proportionsas social enterprisesand their influence so
pervadesthe daily life of so great a proportion of the world's peoplethat
neither can now ignore the possible consequencesof what they have
wrought. Leonardo da Vinci could contemplatethe principles of flight
without thought of intercontinentalballistic missiles; Descartescould
invent new systemsof mathematicswithout the worry of atomic bombs;
Mendel could crosshis sweetpeaswithout seeingthe prospectof genetic
engineering;Babbagecouldbuild a computingenginewithout anticipating
the issue of data banks and the invasion of privacy. Their modern
counterpartscannotenjoy suchintellectualluxury.
But another difference, even more basic, estrangesus from

Herschel'snineteenth-centuryattitude. Scienceitself has lost its
dignity and aloofnessfrom humanconcerns.It is no longer seenas
a body of absolute truths, but is recognized as subject to the
limitations of our experienceand imagination.Sciencemay not be
11 W. Bevan,AmericanScientist,1977, Vol. 65, p. 540.

American,British, French,or German;but it is nevertheless human.

It is closerto beinga seriesof conceptsandinventionsthan a series
of discoveries.And so we cannotnow acceptHerschel'splea for a
laissez-fairepolicy for science,basedon fear that we may hinder or
damagethe unveiling of truth by interferingwith the priestsof the
goddess.The goddessis powerful, certainly, but is still a human
invention and thereforein needof humancontrol.
CHAPTER SEVEN
HERSCHEL'SMARGINAL NOTES ON MILL'S

ON LIBERTY
The library of Sir JohnF.W. Herschel,which for eighty yearsafter

his deathhad remainedin the possessionof the Herschelfamily,
was ultimately dispersedby auctionsalein 1958.1 Scientific books
constitutedmost of this collection, but the greatVictorian astrono-
mer'swide rangeof interestsandabilities were also representedin
his library by Latin and Greekclassics,English poetry, and many
contemporarybookson history, philosophy,andeconomics.Almost
completelylackingwerefiction, theology,andbookson the fine arts.
The purchasersof thesebooks were gratified to find that Herschel
had usually kept a pencil in hand as he read, for many of the
margins carry sprightly commentsin his handwriting, dashedoff
apparently as thoughts crossed his mind as he read. These
comments often have something of the character of free and
informal conversation,such as only an intimate friend would be
privileged to hear. They have for a reader the same kind of
fascination,thoughperhapsto a lesserdegree,as privatelettersand
personaldiaries.
A copy of the first edition of JohnStuartMill's book On Liberty,
publishedin February1859,is oneof abouta hundredvolumesfrom
the Herschellibrary that I now possess.The book was widely read
soon after its publication and seemsto have beenwell received,if
not with generalenthusiasmat least with the respectdue to the
establishedreputationof the author. Matthew Arnold readit and
was favorablyimpressed.'Haveyou seenMill's book on Liberty?' he
asked his sister in a letter of June 1859. 'It is worth reading
attentively,beingone of the few booksthatinculcatetolerancein an
unalarmingand inoffensive way.'2 Furtheracquaintancewith the
1 Manuscriptpapersof the Herschelfamily and books from their library,

removed from ObservatoryHouse, Slough, were included in a sale at
Sotheby'son March 3-4, 1958.
2 Letters of Matthew Arnold, New York, 1895, Vol. 1, p. 111.
203
book revealed certain opinions about Christian morality that

disturbedArnold, who thereuponproclaimed,in his most Olympian
mannerthat, although Mill is 'a writer of distinguishedmark and
influence,a writer deservingall attentionandrespect',he neverthe-
less'falls just short of being a greatwriter.'3 Ruskin also readthe
book with appreciationand often with assent. His copy of the first
edition, like Herschel's,carried extensivemarginal notations,and
some of thesehave beenpublished.4 It is interestingto find that
the very passagescritical of Christian morality that disturbed
Arnold are markedfor approvalby Ruskin.
Few readers of On Liberty reachedthe pitch of enthusiasm
attainedby CharlesKingsley (1819-1875)who found the book in
Parker'sbookshopand readit immediately,declaringthat it made
him a clearer-headed,braver-mindedman on the spot. Not so
ThomasCarlyle (1795-1881),onceveneratedby Mill as a Seerand
a Teacher,who rejectedthe book with violence,stormedaboutit to
the alarm and dismay of the inoffensive Rev. Mr. Larkin, and, his
rage still simmering,wrote in a letter to his brother: 'As if it were
a sin to control, or coerceinto bettermethods,humanswine in any
way.... Ach Gott im Himmelf'5 Carlyle was at that time immersed
in his study of the Hohenzollernsand had Prussianizedhis sensi-
bility as well as his vocabulary.
Herschel,in the privacy of the margins of his books, could be
quite as scathing and scornful as Carlyle, but nothing of that
temperappearsin his observationson Mill. His notesare serious
commentson the text, rarely disagreeingwith the author. For the
historianof ideasHerschel'snotesprovide valuableevidenceof the
contemporaryresponseto a book that has come to be acceptedas
the most powerful and the most persuasiveexpressionof the
political ideals of the Westerndemocracies.
At the very beginning,Herschelcontributeda significantgeneral
quotationto supplementthe one providedby Mill, who hadprinted
the following lines by Wilhelm von Humboldt(1767-1835)to intro-
ducehis thesis:'The grand,leadingprinciple, towardswhich every
3 M. Arnold, Essaysin Criticism, London, 1865, p. 274.

4The Works of John Ruskin, ed. E.T. Cook and AlexanderWedderburn,
London, 1908,Vol. 34, pp. 707-708.
5New Lettersof ThomasCarlyle, ed. AlexanderCarlyle, London,Vol. 2, p.
196.
HERSCHELON MILL'S ON LIBERTY 205
argument unfolded in these pages directly converges,is the

absoluteand essentialimportanceof human developmentin its
richestdiversity.'6 A sentimentso noble could hardly be disputed;
but how is this developmentto be attained?Everythingdependson
the meanstaken to reachthe desiredend. Where Mill is the pro-
ponentof individualism and points out the value of dissent,others
might advocatethe authoritarianStateand praisethe perfectcon-
cord there displayed,even though such unity were evokedonly in
responseto the perennial national emergencythat such States
either imagine or create. Herschel perceivedthe importanceof
keepinghistoricalfacts well in view. On the preliminarypageof On
Liberty, where Humboldt's splendidedict is enshrinedin solitary
glory, Herschel jotted the following sentencefrom Macaulay's
History ofEngland:'It mustbe rememberedthat, thoughconcordis
itself better than discord, discord may indicate a better state of
things than is indicatedby concord.'7 Referringto the original, we
find that Macaulaywas writing of the eventsof 1688leadingto the
BloodlessRevolution. His text goes on to explain: 'Calamity and
peril often force men to combine. Prosperity and security often
encouragethem to separate.'
By recalling this lessonof history Herschelgave supportto the
generalthesisexpressed by Mill throughouthis essay.But however
muchHerschelagreedwith Mill, both menwerein oppositionto the
currentof contemporarythought. Dissentand individualism were
then in poor repute: exploitation of the working class by early
industrial pioneersdemandedlegislative controls. Michael Packe,
in his biography of Mill, wrote: 'Everyone[in 1859] was tired of
do-nothing government. Dickens, Ruskin, Carlyle, Kingsley, all
were whipping up the social conscience. The advanceof science
promised boundlessrewards for corporate action and increased
interdependence. Tory, tradeunionist,Comtist,ChristianSocialist,
all preachedgreatersolidarity. The tide was settingfor Collectiv-
ism, and althoughthere was profounddisharmony aboutthe form
it was to take, all were agreedthat man had no significanceapart
from the group or societyof which he happenedto be part.'8 Today,
6 W. von Humboldt, The Sphereand Duties of Government,1791. Trans-

lated by Coulthard,London, 1854.
7 T.B. Macaulay,History of England, London, 1849, Vol. 2, p. 394.
8 M.S. Packe,The Life of John Stuart Mill, London, 1954, p. 403.
as a result of some sharp lessons,opinion has turned somewhat

closerto Mill's views; thereis lessfaith in the benefitsof solidarity:
betterthe discordin a societyin which truth is not withheld, than
the concordof one that is systematicallymisinformed.
Herschel'squotationis particularlyapt as a summonsto history
in corroborationof Mill. But Herschelcould not have known how
appropriate,how inevitable almost, was his choice of Macaulayas
the historian to introduce the supporting evidence. Macaulay
standsin a specialrelationto Mill. Their two namespersonifywhat
was for later generationsof liberals the practiceand the theory of
their creed. Macaulaywas for them the historianof a long English
tradition of popularfreedomsandof strugglesagainsttyranny,from
MagnaChartato the fights againstCharlesI andJamesII, culmin-
ating in nineteenth-century liberalism; and Mill was the authorof
the only document that has a claim to be called the Bible of
Liberalism. If that documentitself containsno mention of Mac-
aulay,it is becauseMill was rearedin the Benthamitedoctrinethat
history is one of 'the false methodsof reasoningon the subjectof
legislation.' Lacking any appealto history, Mill's argumentsseem
abstract,bloodless,andincapableof arousingenthusiasm;combined
with those of Macaulay, they have been a potent inspiration of
political action. But the intoxicatingingredienthasprovedto be the
more volatile. Present-dayopinion is more inclined to agreewith
Mill, after all, in denyingfor liberalism the dignity-conferringpast
that Macaulayhad so skillfully fashionedfor it. As Trevor-Roper
has said, it is simply not true. 'There is no necessaryconnection
betweenthe opponentsof the Stuartsandthe makersof the Reform
Bill. Macaulay'sachievementwas that, for immediatepurposes,he
madeit true. With the rangeand sweepof his historical mind, he
gavethe old Whigs a new messageand the utilitarians an old pedi-
gree. That was his serviceto the politics of his time. Nowadays,
the political context having changed,it seemsdated.'9 But Mill's
On Liberty doesnot seemdated.
Herschel'scommentson the body ofthe text beginwith a favorite
argumentof Mill, which is given as follows (34):10 'the opinion
which it is attemptedto suppressby authoritymay possiblybe true.
9H. Trevor-Roper,'Three Historians--I1I: Lord Macaulay,'The Listener,

October14, 1965, p. 565.
10 Numbersin parentheses
are to the first edition of On Liberty.
Thosewho desireto suppressit, of coursedeny its truth; but they

are not infallible. They haveno authorityto decidethe questionfor
all mankind, and exclude every other personfrom the meansof
judging. To refusea hearingto an opinion, becausethey are sure
it is false, is to assumethat their certainty is the samething as
absolute certainty.' In the margin Herschel has written: 'Not
necessarily;it dependson the importance of the subject.' And
farther down the page Herschel wrote: 'It is to be noted that
discussionmay be oral or written. The latter is always legitimate
no doubt-butnot so the former, becauseit may be an infliction
which may be painful.'
Fartherin the text Mill recapitulatesthe sameargument(95): 'If
an opinion is compelledto silence,that opinion may, for aught we
can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assumeour own
infallibility.' The italics weresuppliedby Herschel,whosecomment
on this is: 'Conclusion quite independentof premise.' Mill's
statementis certainlynot castin the rigorousform that one expects
from a teacherof logic. The samecriticism that is madehere by
Herschelhassubsequentlybeenmadeby otherreaders. A modem
critic wrote: 'Mill's defenceof completeliberty of expressionis a
little disingenuous.It is not necessarilythe samething to prevent
expressionof a social opinion as to claim infallibility-the first is
merelyto claim thatoneis right, andhoweveronemay theoretically
admit the possibility of beingwrong, this is somethingthat, in fact,
we do at least from time to time. Mill's reply would no doubt be
that we have no right to enforceour claim upon others-butthat
is shifting the grounds of the argument.'ll Another critic, after
quoting Mill's sentence,comments:'Here, surely, we do well to call
nonsenseby its name:to claim to be right is not the samething as
to claim to be infallible.'12 Any democraticgovernmentwhoseacts
survive criticism by a parliamentand a free pressgains therebya
senseof confidence,but neverany absoluteassurance of beingright.
The necessarydegreeof confidenceto encourageaction can also be
gainedby privatedeliberationwithout public debate.Very oftenthe
governmentis wise to trust to its own judgement,evenso far as to
prohibit discussionof certain opinions. If the right of the govern-
11 ThomasWoods,Poetry and Philosophy;A Studyin the Thoughtof John

Stuart Mill, London, 1961, p. 122.
12 Karl Britton, John Stuart Mill, London, 1953, p. 105.
ment to act in this way is abused,as it may readily be, the remedy
does not lie in denying the right, which would make good govern-
ment virtually impossible,but in the democraticway of correcting
abusesof government.
Mill and Harriet Taylor rewrote and revised the text of On
Liberty severaltimes for four years prior to its publication. Mer
Harriet's deathin 1858 Mill decidedthat the book shouldstandas
a memorial to her and that the text should remain in exactly the
stateit was when shehad last worked on it. Someimprecisionsof
wording,13 some lapses in logic that he might otherwise have
revisedbeforeprinting are,becauseof this surprisinglysentimental
decision,retainedto this day. Herschelnotedlaxity in the following
sentence(66): 'On every subject on which difference of opinion is
possible,the truth dependson a balanceto be struck betweentwo
setsof conflicting reasons.' Herschelwrote: 'Truth is independent
of either: you mean "its acceptationas truth".' The criticism is
certainlyjustified; and if the sentenceis to begin the way Mill has
it, it canend only in somesuchway as Herschelsuggested.But the
contextof the passagein which the sentenceoccurshas to do with
how to arrive at the truth, not with how beliefs about what is true
mayarise.Mill's meaningwould probablyhavehadto be expressed
by a completelyrephrasedsentence,e.g., 'The unknown truth on a
subjectoften lies on a balanceto be struckbetweentwo conflicting
extremesof opinion aboutit.'
A discussionof On Liberty would be incompletewithout reference
to religion. Throughoutthe book Mill gently but constantlysup-
ports thosewho expressdissentfrom Christianity, without openly
declaringhimself as an unbeliever. The frequencywith which he
advocatedtolerancefor anti-Christian opinions, or reminded his
readersof the ethicalcontributionsof atheists,might, however,have
causedsometo suspecthis own lack of religion. Their guesswas to
be confirmed by the posthumouspublication of his Autobiography
fllteen yearslater. On Liberty, despitethe author'sreticenceabout
13 An early biographer of Mill, Alexander Bain (1818-1903), justly

censuredMill's laxities of style, of which an amusing example is the
question:'Shouldwe havereachedthe electric telegraphby any amountof
striving for a means of instant communication,if Franklin had not
identified electricity with lightning, and Amperewith magnetism?'(J.S.
Mill, AugusteComteand Positivism.)Despiteits carelessexpression,the
thoughtis true and important.
bis own stand,was an important influence in the history of free-

thought,all the more so becausethe thin edgeof the wedgewas so
unobtrusively and inoffensively introduced. It contained no
strictures against religion sufficiently severeto disturb the Rev.
Charles Kingsley who, as he could detect it in Newman, must
qualify as the most sensitivemind of his age toward lapsesfrom
Christianfaith or ethics. Arnold, it is true, censuredexpressionsin
the book in which Christianmorality was unfavorablycomparedto
paganmorality, but on thattopic Arnold was particularlysensitive,
not being himself completely convinced of the pre-eminenceof
Christianity in this respect. Out of such suppressedhesitancies
great persecutorsare bred, as are also little ones. Herschel's
religious faith, on the other hand,was that of a generationearlier,
havingbeencradledin calmerdayswhen the argumentsof Paley's
naturaltheologyharmoniouslyrelatedscienceand revelation. For
his generationin its maturity theBridgewaterTreatiseshadprovid-
ed scoresof testimoniesto the existenceof a benevolentCreator.14
Herschel opposed the materialistic-atheisticexplanation of the
universe. He wrote:15
Nothing canbe more unfoundedthan the objectionwhich hasbeentaken,

in limine, by persons,well meaningperhaps,certainly narrow-minded,
against the study of natural philosophy, and indeed against all sci-
ence,-thatit fosters in its cultivators an undue and overweening
self-conceit,leadsthem to doubt the immortality of the soul, and to scoff
at revealedreligion. Its naturaleffect, we may confidentlyassert,on every
well constitutedmind is and must be the direct contrary.
Herschel'sChristian faith, therefore, was much more assured

than that of Arnold, much less defensivelymilitant than that of
14 Herschelhimselfhad beeninvited by the Presidentofthe Royal Society

to write one of the BridgewaterTreatises,but hadrefusedin the following
terms(July 1,1830):'No one, as you well know, is more deeplyimpressed
with the great truths to be inculcatedin this work; but in preciselythe
same proportion is the repugnanceI feel to weaken the weight of my
testimony in their favour by promulgatingthem under the direct and
avowed influence of pecuniary reward.' See W.H. Brock, Notes and
Recordsof the Royal Society, 1966, Vol. 21, p.162.
15 J.F.W. Herschel,A Preliminary Discourseon the StudyofNatural Philo-
sophy, London, 1830, § 7.
Kingsley. Mill's discreetlyworded expressionswere little likely to

arousehis suspicion,andin fact two of theseremarksare endorsed
with Herschel'sassent.He found only onepassagein Mill to which
he may have taken exceptionon religious grounds,though the la-
conic natureof his commentleaveshis opinion inconclusive. Mill
wrote (93): 'It can do truth no serviceto blink the fact, known to all
who havethe mostordinaryacquaintance with literary history, that
a large portion of the noblestandmostvaluablemoral teachinghas
beenthe work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who
knew and rejected,the Christian faith.' Herschel'scommenttook
the form of a mere ~ark of interrogationin the margin. He may
simply havebeenaskingfor information:'Who arethesemen?'or he
may have intendedto expressscepticismof the whole proposition.
Had Mill beenpressedto provide exampleshe probablywould have
mentionedShaftesbury,Bentham,andhis father; but Mill waswise
not to namepersons,every one of whom would at that time have
beena separatecauseof dispute. The absenceof any referenceto
thosenot yet noticedin literary history, that is, living writers, as
well asthe useof that tactful term is, asJ.M. Robertson(1856-1933)
pointedout, 'significant of the ban on openinfidelity.'16
By marginal marking of key sentencesHerschel has made in
effect a pithy synopsisof Mill's arguments. Thesemarkedsenten-
ces, all of which expressopinions that Herschel assentedto, are
arrangedbelow in the form of thirteen aphorisms. The first five
haveto do with intellectualliberty, and are in praiseof dissentand
destructivecriticism; the nextfive aredesignedto increasetolerance
by deprecatingthe attack of orthodoxy on thosewho dissent;and
the last three are in praise of individuality, which Mill saw as in
dangerof decaying.
I-The value of dissent(33).

The peculiar evil of silencing the expressionof an opinion is, that it is
robbingthe humanrace;posterityas well asthe existinggeneration;those
who dissentfrom the opinion, still more thosewho hold it.
II-The value of dissent(64-65).

However unwillingly a personwho has a strong opinion may admit the
possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the
16 J.M. Robertson,A History of Freethoughtin the NineteenthCentury,

London, 1929,p.254.
HERSCHEL ON MILL'S ON UBERTY 211
considerationthat howevertrue it may be, if it is not fully, frequently,and

fearlesslydiscussed,it will be held as a deaddogma,not a living truth..
. . This is not the way in which truth ought to be held by a rationalbeing;
this is not knowing the truth. Truth, thusheld, is but one superstitionthe
more, accidentallyclinging to the words which enunciatea truth.
III-The slumberof orthodoxy(78).

The fatal tendencyof mankindto leaveoff thinking abouta thing when it
is no longer doubtful, is the causeof half their errors. A contemporary
authorhas well spokenof 'the deepslumberof decidedopinion.'
IV-The value of dissent(82).

If thereare any personswho contesta receivedopinion, or will do so iflaw
or opinion will let them, let us thank them for it, openour minds to listen
to them, and rejoice that thereis someone to do for us what we otherwise
ought,if we haveany regardfor either the certaintyor the vitality of our
convictions,to do with much greaterlabour for ourselves.
V-The value of destructivecriticism (81).

It is the fashion of the presenttime to disparagenegative logic-that
which points out the weaknesses in theory or errors in practice,without
establishingpositivetruths. Suchnegativecriticism would be poor enough
as an ultimateresult; but as a meansto attainingany positiveknowledge
or conviction worthy the name,it cannotbe valued too highly; and until
people are again systematicallytrained to it, there will be few great
thinkers,and a low generalaverageof intellect, in any but the mathemati-
cal and physicaldepartmentsof speculation[Herschel'sitalics.]
VI-The dangerof persecutingdissenters(53).

It is a piece of idle sentimentalitythat truth, merely as truth, has any
inherentpower deniedto error, of prevailingagainstthe dungeonandthe
stake. [Herschelhasaddedin the margin: 'Deadtruths tell no tales.Who
shall say how manyhavebeenslain, and haveleft no sign?']
VII-Toleranceof unbelievers(93).
If Christianswould teachinfidels to be just to Christianity, they should
themselvesbejust to infidelity. [In his copy of the book, Ruskin alsonoted
this sentencewith marks of emphaticassent.]
VIII-Tolerance of unbelievers(98).
If it were necessaryto choose,there would be much more needto discou-
rage offensive attackson infidelity, than on religion.
IX--Dissentersare calledintemperate(96).
If the test[of intemperancein discussion]be offenceto thosewhoseopinion
is attacked,I think experiencetestifiesthat this offenceis given wherever
the attackis telling and powerful, and that every opponentwho pushes
themhard, and whom they find it difficult to answer,appearsto them, if
he showsany strongfeeling on the subject,an intemperateopponent.
X-Intemperaterejoindersby orthodoxy are condoned(97).

Againstthe unprevailing[opinion], they[i.e., invective,sarcasm,personali-
ty, and the like] may not only be usedwithout generaldisapproval,but
will be likely to obtainfor him who usesthemthe praiseof honestzealand
righteousindignation.
XI-Limitation of individuality (101).

The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make
himself a nuisanceto other people.
XII-The unusualindividual (62).

No one can be a greatthinker who doesnot recognize,that as a thinker it
is his first duty to follow his intellect to whateverconclusionsit may lead.
XIII-The unusualindividual (104-5).

It is the privilege and proper condition of a humanbeing, arrived at the
maturity of his faculties,to use and interpretexistencein his own way..
. . Customsare madefor customarycircumstances,and customarycharac-
ters; and his circumstancesor his charactermay be uncustomary. [Her-
schelhasnotedthe secondsentenceof this passagewith double marksof
emphaticassent.]
The foregoingmarginaliaall occurin the first half of On Liberty,

which is more original, vigorous, and appealing than the later
portion of the book. Herschel'slast note appearsat the beginning
of ChapterIV, which is entitled 'Of the Limits of the Authority of
Society over the Individual.' Mill introduced the topic in the
following words (134): 'What, then, is the rightful limit to the
sovereigntyof the individual over himself? Where doesthe autho-
rity of societybegin? How much of humanlife shouldbe assigned
to individuality, andhow muchto society?'Herschelchimedin with
the splendidly appropriateLatin tag: Patriae carisquepropinquis
quantum elargiri deceat? The quotation is from Persius'sthird
Satire(line 71), which has receiveda ratherinsipid translationby
Dryden:
HERSCHELON MILL'S ON UBERTY 213
Learn what thou owestthy country, and thy friend;

What'srequisiteto spareand what to spend.
The English couplet hardly brings out the point of the original or
the respectin which it is appropriateto Mill's theme. A translation
with somewhatless of poetic licence is: 'How much ought to be
bestowedon one'scountry, how much on one'skin.' The difficulty
of deciding the due claims of society versusfamily is thus seento
haveoccupiedthe mind of a 1st-centurywriter; the antiquity of the
problemlends dignity to its modemdiscussion.
Herschel'stwo generalmottoesfor On Liberty, one from Macau-
lay and one from a Latin classic,have this in common,that they
point to the historical pastto find precedentand sanctionfor Mill's
statementand analysisof the modemproblem. Radical doctrines
canbe madeto seemlessshocking,especiallyto an Englishmanwho
is also a scholar,if in anotherpart of his library he can fmd what
seemto be historical parallels or analogousstatements,the older
the better.If the world has allowed those earlier remarksto sleep
peacefullyon the shelves,perhapsoneneednot be unduly disturbed
about any revolutionary results arising from their being stated
again. JamesHilton noted this instinctual response,which he
ascribedto 'the Cambridgespirit'17 and it may be significant that
Herschelwas a Cambridgeman. Mill (whose educationwas far
removedfrom any Cantabrigianinfluence)had panderednot at all
to his countrymen'sneedfor glimpsesof the traditional, to soften
the austerityof his rationalist'sUtopia. By insertingwhateverof
that naturecamereadily to his mind, Herschel,after the mannerof
his time and its national culture, took the first step to naturalize
the new opinions.
'Therewas alwaysthis flavor in the Cambridgespirit-a willingnessto

17
acceptthe new becauseit was not really new at all, or at leastnot as new
as an outsidermight think.' JamesHilton, Time and TimeAgain, Boston,
1953, p. 47.
EPILOGUE
Provincialismis expressednot only in termsof geography,or space,

but alsoin termsof time. The first sort may be offset by travel, and
the secondsort by reading. The secondsort is what concernsus as
historiansin general,andashistoriansof sciencein particular. One
form of the provincial fallacy is to interpret past scienceonly as it
seemsto connectwith modernscienceand not with the stateof sci-
entific knowledgeof the pasttime, which is a form of the provincial
fallacy known as presentismor whiggism.1 The latter name is
probablyderivedfrom the historical writings of ThomasBabington
Macaulay (1800-1859),who was prone to see manifestationsof
Whig liberalism in historical eventsfar removedfrom the concerns
of nineteenth-centuryliberals. Cultural historiansare also apt to
read a modern bias into past events and ascribe motives to the
actors according to standardsunknown at the time--standards
derivedfrom experiencesthat hadnot yet occurred,from lessonsnot
yet learned,-while ignoring their contemporary milieu. As
historiansof sciencewe have to bewareof both kinds of provincial
fallacy as we describethe past: the former when we look at the
history of scientific theories, and the latter when we read the
opinions of pastscientists.
But this havingbeensaid,let us not, for fear of strayinginto sin,
stifle a natural curiosity about how closely our scientific prede-
cessorscame to hitting upon presentideas about the subjectsof
their concern.Sucha questionis boundto occurto a modernmind,
and to answerit is not necessarilythe sameasjudging the ideasof
pastsciencein the light of currentknowledge. We havelearnedby
now the oft-iteratedlessonnot to exalt abovetheir contemporaries
the holders, aheadof their times, of the 'right' notions; we have
learnednot to subscribeto the cynical principle statedby Euripides
that he is the bestprophetwho makesthe bestguess;but still, not
to make the comparisonand not to satisfy an obvious enquiry is a
plain avoidanceof an historian'sduty to his readers.
The essayscollectedin this volumeillustrate how far valuesand
attitudeshavechangedin certainrespectssincethe end of the last
century. The story of the word scientistamazesus: to find that a
1 HerbertButterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History, London, 1931.
214
EPILOGUE 215
designationnow thought to be honorific could once have been re-

jectedso vehemently,andthat not so long ago! The degreeto which
we areastonishedmeasureshow muchwe takefor grantedthe mod-
ern statusof scienceas a profession. Apparentlyit was not always
so.
Scientistis unusualin that with time the word has gainedin
social esteem;usually pejorative connotationstake over, as with
knave and villain. Closer to our own times, and thereforea more
vital example,considernigger. When Gilbert wrote a well known
line in TheMikado (1885) andwhenConradwrote TheNigger ofthe
Narcissus(1898) they used the word innocently of any offensive
intention. Thosewho are not awarethat this is so are guilty of the
provincial fallacy.
The first part of A New EnglishDictionary, now betterknown as
The Oxford English Dictionary, publishedin 1884, carried on its
titlepagethe line WITHTHE ASSISTANCE OF MANYSCHOLARS
AND MEN OF SCIENCE. This line appearedon everytitlepageof
that edition until 1933. Note the avoidanceof the word scientist.
The biographicaldirectoryAmericanMen ofScience,first published
in 1906, managedto convey in its title what would be regarded
todayas threereprehensible-isms: chauvinism,asAmericanmeant
only the United States; sexism, as Men included women; and
elitism, asSciencewasused'in its narrowersense'.It was not until
the 12th edition, in 1973, that the title was changedto American
Men and Women of Science, and the defmition of Science was
broadened.In this we seehow slowly grows the apperceptionof a
changein the cultural environment.
Anything that we come across in the course our reading of
history that seemssurprisingin terms of our presentstandardsis
a warningthat we may be harboringa provincial fallacy. Ifinstead
of beingmerelysurprisedwe find ourselvesin violent disagreement
with an opinion or judgmentexpressedby someusageor personage
in the past,we shouldlook carefully for a provincial fallacy.
The questionof the social responsibilityof sciencedid not occur
to nineteenth-century men of scienceexceptin one context: that of
the conflict betweenscientific findings and revealedreligion. They
felt that science should be free; but not so free as to promote
infidelity. And for thosewho, like JohnHerschel,maturedduring
the first half of that century,eventhat restrictionon sciencedid not
apply, for to them sciencesupportedrevelation. They also sawthe

Malthusian prophecyof doom dispelledby the benefitsof applied
science,andwere not awareof the limitations of thesebenefits. To
their credit, they were not entirely unaware. Jevonswarned in
1865 that coal was running out, Crookeswarnedin 1898 that the
soil was being rapidly exhaustedand predictedthat by 1931 the
bread-eatersof the world would be facing famine. And throughout
the latter half of the nineteenthcentury Ruskin pointed to social
evils introducedby machineryand technology. But the prevalent
moodwas optimism. Nineteenth-century booksof sciencecannotbe
readwith understanding unlessa knowledgeof manysuchhistorical
facts accompaniesour reading.
Other essays in this collection demonstratethe change in
educationthat has taken place since the nineteenthcentury. The
reader will be struck by the attention paid to classical sources,
especiallyGreek,in the coining of technicalterms. Modern neolo-
gisms such as barns or quarks would havebeenseenas inconceiv-
able frivolities. And what other than extreme barbarismwould
have been the nineteenth century's opinion of the following
defmition, which appearsin the second edition of the Oxford
English Dictionary:
SurfactantChem. (f. initial elementsof sUrface-active...)

A surface-activeagent.
1950AmericanDyestuffReporterXXXIX. 379/3 A new word, Surfactants,
hasbeencoinedby AntaraProducts,GeneralAniline & Film Corporation,
andhasbeenpresentedto the chemicalindustryto coverall materialsthat
have surfaceactivity, including wetting agents,dispersants,emulsifiers,
detergentsand foaming agents.
The provincial fallacy is an historian'serror: scientiststoo are

subjectto errorscharacteristicof their profession.Analogousto the
provincial fallacy is l'idee fixe, or mind set. This is illustratedin one
of its various forms by Ampere'sinability to detachhis thoughts
from the bearingthat every new electrical effect had on his own
electrodynamicaltheory and to think aboutit only in thoseterms;
or (another example) by the decadeof unfruitful researcheson
electromagneticinduction, during which only a sustainedeffect of
a magneton a secondarycircuit was anticipated.We meetit again
in the metaphorquotedby Mill-'the deep slumber of a decided
EPILOGUE 217
opinion'-reminiscentof (if indeedit was not derivedfrom) Kant's
remarkthat the readingof Hume'sphilosophyarousedhim from his
dogmaticslumbers. Theseare examplesof the difficulty of tran-
scendingprevailing opinion. This kind of intellectual error was
includedby Baconin his Idols of the Tribe, one of the categoriesin
his poeticaland allusive list of idols to which men have bowed,by
which their senseshavebeenblindedandtheir efforts unrewarded.
Bacondescribedit as follows:2
The humanunderstandingwhenit hasonceadoptedan opinion (eitheras

beingthe receivedopinion or as being agreeableto itself) draws all things
else to supportand agreewith it. And thoughtherebe a greaternumber
and weight of instancesto be found on the other side, yet theseit either
neglectsand despises,or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects;
prejudgingthe matter to a greatand perniciousextent,in order that the
authority of its former conclusionsremaininviolate.... But with far more
subtlety does this mischief insinuate itself into philosophy and the
sciences;in which the first conclusioncolours and brings into conformity
with itself all that comesafter, though far sounderand better. Besides,
independentlyof that delight and vanity which I have described,it is the
peculiarand perpetualerror of the humanintellect to be more movedand
excited by affirmatives than by negatives;whereasit ought properly to
hold itself indifferently disposed towards both alike. Indeed in the
establishmentof any true axiom, the negativeinstanceis the moreforcible
of the two.
In the presentessayswe find examplesalso of Bacon'sIdols of

the Market-place:3
But the Idols of the Market-place are the most troublesomeof all: idols
which have crept into the understandingthrough the alliancesof words
andnames. For menbelievethat their reasongovernswords;but it is also
true that words react on the understanding;and this it is that has ren-
dered philosophyand the sciencessophisticaland inactive. Now words,
being commonly framed and applied according to the capacity of the
vulgar, follow thoselines of division which are most obviousto the vulgar
understanding.And wheneveran understandingof greateracutenessor
2 FrancisBacon,Novum Organum,Aphorism XLVI.

3 FrancisBacon,Novum Organum,Aphorism LIX.
a more diligent observationwould alter thoselines to suit the true divi-

sionsof nature,words standin the way and resistthe change.
We seean exampleof this in the influenceof the hypnoticphrase

'magnetismof rotation', which acted as a veil to obscurea clear
understandingof the Arago effect. No less insidious is the uncon-
sciousinfluence on the mind of customaryverbal usages. We find
Faradayuneasyaboutpossibleimplicationsof describingelectricity
as a flow or a current, and expressinghis reserveaboutwhat could
be implied by atoms. In coining new nomenclaturehe was anxious
to establishthe principle that no theoreticalmodel be included in
the selectionof a new term. Clearly he was alive to the intellectual
dangerof which Boswell was warnedby Dr Johnson:4
My dearfriend, clearyour mind of cant. You may talk as other peopledo:

you may say to a man, 'Sir, I am your mosthumble servant.' You are not
his most humble servant. You may say, 'These are sad times; it is a
melancholything to be reservedto suchtimes.' You don't mindthe times.
You tell a man, 'I am sorry you had suchbad weatherthe last day of your
journey, and were so muchwet.' You don't caresix-pencewhetherhe was
wet or dry. You may talk in this manner; it is a mode of talking in
Society:but don't think foolishly.
The story ofthe Volta potentialintroducesa more confusedtopic

thanthe history of the discoveryof electromagneticinduction. The
phenomenondiscoveredby Volta is influencedby the state of the
metal surfaces in contact, and these are usually energetically
heterogeneousand, as well, likely to retain vapors or gasesby
adsorption. As a result, reproduciblemeasurements are difficult to
obtain, especiallywith the inadequatetechniquesof the nineteenth
century. Small wonder that the controversybetweenthe contact
and the chemicaltheoriesof the voltaic cell was so prolonged,and
that even the reality of the effect was often doubted. Heaviside
called it 'one of the most interesting subjects in the whole of
4Boswell'sLife ofJohnson,GeorgeBirkbeck Hill and L.F. Powell, editors,

Oxford, 1934, Vol. 4, p. 221.
EPILOGUE 219
electricalscience,on which therehasbeenmore debatethanin any

other of its branches.'He added:5
He is a learnedman who is fully acquaintedwith all the details in the

history of the matter. But he may not be thereby made wise; on the
contrary,he may easilybecomeutterly confusedin the attemptto reconcile
the multitude of facts and hypotheses,especiallyas the observationsare
mostly only qualitative.
The subject has gatheredaround it the lucubrationsof hypo-

thesis mongers, and so gives us an example of yet another of
Bacon'sidols, the Idols of the Theatre. Theseare theoriestoo wide
or too narrowfor the basison which they stand,so that they are,in
Bacon'swords, 'so many stageplays, representingworlds of their
own creation after an unreal and scenicfashion.' He goes on to
say:6
Nor is it only of the systemsnow in vogue,or only of the ancientsectsand

philosophies,that I speak;for many more plays of the samekind may yet
be composedand in like artificial mannersetforth; seeingthat errorsthe
most widely different have nevertheless causes for the most part alike.
Neither again do I mean this only of entire systems,but also of many
principles and axioms in science, which by tradition, credulity, and
negligencehave come to be received.
5 Oliver Heaviside,Electrical Papers, London, 1894, Vol. 1, p. 337.

6 FrancisBacon,Novum Organum,Aphorism XLIV.
INDEX
Academy of Sciences(France), induced current in 1822, 120;

85,88, 105 letters to A de La Rive, 120-2;
Airy, Sir G.B. (1801-1892),his explainshis neglectof the Geneva
appointmentasAstronomerRoyal, experiment,in a letter to Faraday,
158n 122-3; dissatisfiedwith the term
Allbutt, Sir C. (1836-1925),de- poles, 138n; coins the term rheo-
fends scientist,35 phores, 138n; suggeststhe source
Allegorical tale, 61 of terrestrial magnetism,148; an
Allen, Grant (1848-1899), dis- inveterateneologizer,180
likes scientist,21 Ampere-de La Rive experi-
Alpha-stechion,term suggested ment,see Genevaexperiment
by Nicholl, 157; rejected by Analogy of Religion, The (But-
Whewell, 157 ler),7n
Alphode, term suggested by Analysis of Christianity, An
Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whewell, (Nicholl), 131
157, 159 Anastechion,term suggestedby
AmericanMen ofScience, chau- Whewell, 153
vinism, sexism,and elitism in, 215 Anatolode, term suggested by
Ampere, A.M. (1775-1836), Nicholl (from anatole, Gr. sunrise,
searchfor electromagneticinduc- east;replacedby anion), 151
tion, 85-123passim;quoted:'elec- Anelectrode,term suggestedby
tric currents can be producedby Noad to distinguishit from Fara-
induction', 89; portrait of, 93; does day'sanode,now replacedby mod-
experiment for Arago, 98-9; ex- ern meaningof anode, 167
pressesdisbeliefin electromagnet- Anion, term suggestedby Whew-
ic induction, 85, 86, 100; expresses ell, 155; Whewell suggestswriting
beliefinelectromagnetic induction, it ani"on. 166
85, 89, 100; electedto Royal Soci- Anode,term suggestedby Whew-
ety (London),95n, 102n;his theory ell, 152-3; Faraday is told it
of magnetism,95, 98, 99, 102, 103, means No way, 154; Whewell
105, 106, 118, 122, 208n, 216; explains it cannot mean No way,
Faraday's opinion of, 103-4; 155; introducedby Faraday,162;
Maxwell's opinion of, 104; his criticized by Bakewell, 164
letter to Bredin, 105; his lettersto Anthode, term suggested by
Faraday,105-8; on rotation of a Whewell, 152
magnet, 106-7; on rotation of a Antinori, V. (1792-1865),repeats
wire carrying a current, 106; his Faraday's experiments, with
experimentum crucis, 106; his Nobili,116
changeof mind about the Geneva Appleton and Co., its use of
experiment, 118-19; observedan SCientist,16
221
222 INDEX
Arago, D.F.J. (1786-1853), his source of terrestrial magnetism,

rotation experiment, 96-8; 148n
praisedbyFaraday,98 Bauer, Edmond (1880-1963),
ArchitecturalNoteson German quoted on magnetismof rotation,
Churches(Whewell), quoted,144 97n
Argyll, 8th Duke of (1823-1900), Beaufort, F. (1774-1857), in-
dislikes sckntist,20 formed Herschel about the exis-
Aristotle, (384-322B.C.), Posteri- tenceof Daguerre'sprocess,189
or Analytics quoted,3; translated Becquerel, A.C. (1788-1878),
by Boethius, 3; commentary by mentioned,44; publishesAmpere's
Grosseteste,5; Ethics, 7n; men- disbelief in an induced current,
tioned.34 100
Artsimovich, Lev Andreevich Beer,Sir Gavin de (1899-1972),
(1909-1973),quoted,36 177,177n
Astechion,term usedby Faraday Bell, Lady Catherine (1780-
(meaningnon-stechion),156 1855),herimpressionsof Herschel,
AstronomyandGeneralPhysics 184
(Whewell), the first Bell, Sir J. (1782-1876),184n
BridgewaterTreatise,146 Bentham,J. (1748-1832),a non-
Athenaeum,The,membershipof, Christian moralist, 210
131 Berthollet, C. (1748-1822), his
Austen,Jane,(1775-1817),quot- synthesisof an iron salt of hypo,
ed, 5 178
Ayrton, W.E. (1847-1908), and Beta-stechion,term suggestedby
Perry, J., their data on contact Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whewell,
potentials,55-7 157
Betode, term suggested by
Babbage,C. (1791-1871), with Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whewell,
J.F.W. HerschelreversedArago's 157, 159
experiment,97 Bevan,W., on socialresponsibility
Babes in the Darkling Wood of scientists,201
(H.G. Wells), quoted on scientist, Boase, B.S. (1799-1883), Her-
23 schel on, 196-7
Bacon,Sir Francis(1561-1626), Boffin (slang term), traced to
NovumOrganon,4; on Idols of the Buffon,31-2
Tribe, 217; on Idols of the Market Bredin, C.J. (1776-1854),letter
Place, 217-8; on Idols of the to, from Ampere, 105
Theatre,219 Brewer, J.S. (1810-1879),quot-
Bain, A. (1818-1903), on Mill's ed, 17n
laxity of style, 208n Bridgewater Treatises, 146,
Bakewell. F.e. (1800-1869), 209n
criticizes Faraday'selectrochemi- British Associationfor the Ad-
cal nomenclature,163, 164 vancementof Science,meetings
Barlow, P. (1776-1854), on the at York (1831), Oxford (1832),
INDEX 223
Cambridge (1833), 9; Montreal Whewell, 155; Whewell suggests
(1884),45 writing it catron, 166; but prefers
Brothers,A. (1826?-1912),letter cathi"on, 167; spelledkation, 169
to, from Herschel,186-9 Cavendish,H. (1731-1810),his
Buff, Heinrich (1805-1878), experiments similar to those of
mentioned, 44; his controversy Herschel, 190; failed to recognize
with Foucault,150n degreesof phlogisticationas sepa-
Buffon, Comte de (1707-1788), ratecompounds,192-3;alsoseeG.
Huxley's set of Buffon's Natural Wilson
History, 31-2 Cells, concentration,47; Daniell,
Burndy Library, 111n, 135n 56; Grove, 56-7; Latimer Clark,
Butterfield, Sir H. (1900-1979), 57; also seeVoltaic cell
214 Chalmers,J.A., on contacttheo-
ry, 60
Cameron,H.D., explainsbasisof Champollion, J.F. (1790-1832),
Fowler's objection to pleistocene, his controversywith Young, 177
pliocene, miocene, 13n; letters CharlesI (1600-1649),206
from, 140n, 141-2 Chaussier,F. (1746-1828), his
Candolle, A.P. de (1778-1841), preparationof hypo, 179
6-7 Children, J.G. (1777-1852),95n
Carlyle, A.J. (1861-1943),204n .ChristianScience,37
Carlyle, Thomas (1795-1881), Christianscientist,33
quoted, 6-7; his disapproval of Chwolson,seeKhvol'son
Mill's On Liberty, 204 Cisode, probably a misreadingof
Carnot, Sadi (1796-1832),men- eisode,139n
tioned,45 Clapeyron,E. (1799-1864),men-
Carr, H.W. (1857-1931),dislikes tioned,45
scientist,33 Clark, J.W. (1833-1910), 143n,
Carroll, Lewis (C.L. Dodgson) 146n
(1832-1898),130n Classicaleducationin the 19th
Catastecheonor catastechion, century, 141, 216
term suggestedby Whewell (re- Clausius, R. (1822-1888), men-
placedby cation), 153 tioned,45
Cathelectrode,termsuggestedby Coleridge, S.T. (1772-1834),
Noad to distinguish it from referredto by Whewell, 9
Faraday'scathode, now replaced Colladon, J.D. (1802-1891),fails
by modern meaning of cathode, to observeelectromagneticinduc-
167 tion, 96; neither criticized nor
Cathode, term suggested by encouragedby Ampere,99
Whewell, 152-3; introduced by Colors, Werneriannamesof, 159
Faraday, 162; criticized by Comte,A. (1798-1857),13n, 208n
Bakewell, 164; spelled kathode, Conductivity, electrical, Whew-
169 ell's coinageof, 172
Cation, term suggested by Conrad,Joseph(1857-1924),on
224 INDEX
nigger, 215 willingnessto acceptFaradayas a

Conservationof energy,law of, social equal, 195
111 Debye,P. (1884-1966),seductive
Contact-potential difference, side-pathsin researchavoidedby,
41-5; also see Volta-potential 193
difference Decandolle,see Candolle
Contacts,wet or dry, the func- Demonferrand, J.B.F.
tion of each,61, 82 (1795-1844), quoted on the Ge-
Contact theory vs chemical neva experiment, 90--1; Ampere
theory, 40-83 passim sends Demonferrand's book to
Controversies, English vs Faraday,111-12;mentioned,122,
French,177 138n
Country Surgeon,The (Nicholl), Descartes,R. (1596-1650),201
128 Dexiode, term suggested by
Crookes,Sir W. (1832-1919),his Whewell (replacedby anode), 152;
investigationof the action of mind usedby Faraday,154
upon matter, 19; his prophecyof Dibner, B. (1897-1988),135n
exhaustionof the soil, 216 Dickens,C. (1812-1870),32, 205
Cumming,J. (1777-1861),trans- Dictionary. See Johnson's; see
lated Demonferrand'sbook, 94 Oxford English Dictionary
Current, electric, Faraday'sdis- (O.E.D.); seeWebster'sNew Inter-
like of the term, 142, 147, 151, national Dictionary
164,170,218 Dissentand dissenters,Mill on,
Cuvier, G.L.C., Baron 210-12
(1769-1832),mentioned,18 Dryden, J. (1631-1700), his
translationof Persius,212-13
Daguerre, L.J.M. (1789-1851), Dulong, P.L. (1785-1838),intro-
his photographicprocess,187, 189 ducedthe prefix hypo to indicatea
Daniell, J.F. (1790--1877),men- next lower stateof valency, 176n
tioned, 132, 135;his useandmodi- Dysiode, term suggested by
fication of Faraday'sterms, 167 Nicholl (from dysis, Gr. settingof
Darwin, C.R. (1809-1882),men- the sun, down; replacedby cath-
tioned, 16, 17,35,194;his impres- ode) 151
sionsof Herschelat the Cape,184;
a consciousiconoclast,200 East-ode,unacceptableterm but
Davy, Sir H. (1778-1829),not a indicateswhat is wanted,151
gentlemanby birth, 2; mentioned, Eisode,term suggestedby Nicholl
44, 109; quotedon contacttheory, (replacedby anode), 140, 151
45-6; letter to Ampere, 102-3; Electricity from magnetism,
Faraday's patron andteacher,102; sought by Davy, 101; sought by
quoted on electricity, heat, light, Faraday,102-115;soughtby Fres-
and magnetism,103; his opposi- nel, 85; soughtby Ampere,85-125
tion to Faraday'selection to the passim; sought by Colladon, 96;
Royal Society,112n;his controver- soughtby 'fifty other persons,'119
sy with Gay-Lussac,177; his un-
INDEX 225
Electrobeid, electroleid, proba- Exode,term suggestedby Nicholl

bly misreadings of electrocleid, (replacedby cathode),140, 151
140, 140n Experimental Researches in
Electrochemistry,126-172pas- Electricity, (Faraday), quoted,
sim 136--8, 160, 165
Electrocleid (reading suggested
by H.D. Cameron),term suggested Fabbroni, G.V.M. (1752-1822),
by Nicholl (replacedby ion), 140n deniedcontact'force', 44
Electrode, term suggested by Faraday'sDiary, quoted, 113,
Nicholl, 139, 150, 162; introduced 116,166
by Faraday, 162; criticized by Faraday,Michael (1791-1867),
Bakewell, 164 mentioned, 2, 10, 18, 44; his
Electrodics, the science of elec- searchfor electromagneticinduc-
trodes,59 tion, 101-15; on Ampere, 103-4;
Electrolytic dissociation,theory his discovery of electromagnetic
of, bringsion into prominence,169 induction, 115-6; letters to, from
Electromagnetic induction, Ampere, 105-6, 110; lettersfrom,
searchfor, 84-125passim to Ampere, 108-9, 111-12; suc-
Electromagnetic rotations, cessfullyexploits Wollaston'sidea
105-7 on electromagneticrotation, 105-7;
Electromotive force, variously on his lack of mathematics,108,
defined, 83 112; his failure to find any effect
Electron-sink electrode (i.e. of a magneton the intensity of a
anodeof a Voltaic cell), 169 current passing through a wire,
Electron-source electrode (i.e. 109-10; Ampere'sadvice to, 110;
cathodeof a Voltaic cell), 169 has experienced'the cavils and
Electrostecheon,term suggested rude encountersof envious men,'
by Whewell (replacedby ion), 153 112; repeatsFresnel'sexperiment
Electrotonic state, 135 without success, 112-3; repeats
Elegyin a CountryChurchyard the Geneva experiment without
(Gray), quoted,2 success, 114; statue of, by J.H.
Ellis, A.J. (1814-1890),objectsto Foley, 117; defends his priority,
scientist,17 119; praisesFresnelfor admitting
Erskine-Murray, JR. (1868- an error, 119-20; praises
1927), receivedprize from Kelvin, Berzelius for admitting an error,
51, 54; advisedby Kelvin on writ- 120, 120n;his opinion ofthe Gene-
ing a paper,52 va experiment,120; apologizesto
Essayon the Languageof Sci- Ampere for a misunderstanding,
ence(Whewell), 170-1 123; publishesthe new terms of
Euclid's Geometry,5 electrochemistry,126;acknowledg-
Euripides (5th century B.C.), es the help of 'two friends,' 126;
quoted,214 friendshipwith Dr. Nicholl, 131-3;
Everett, J.D. (1831-1904),data letter to, from Dr. Nicholl, 134-5;
quotedfrom, 56 new terms of electrochemistry,
why requiredby, 135-42;consults
226 INDEX
Dr. Nicholl on new tenns, 126, to scientist is 'antiquatedpedant-

139; his dislike of the tenn [elec- ry,' 34
tric] current, 142, 147, 151, 164, Francis, G.W. (1800-1865), his
170, 218; his letters to Whewell, definition of anode, 168
146, 150-2, 154, 157, 158, 159; Franklin, B. (1706-1790),208n
letters to, from Whewell, 152-3, Fresnel, A. (1788-1827), his
155--6, 157-8, 165-6, 166, 170; experiment to obtain electricity
his friendship with Herschel,195; from a magnet, 85, 96, 112;
praisedby Herschelfor clearness praisedby Faraday,119-20
of thought and refinement of ex- Friday EveningDiscourses,at
periment, 195; his portrait in- the Royal Institution, 131
scribed by Herschel, 196, 198;
accusedof unfair use of Wollas- Galvani, L. (1737-1798),discov-
ton's or Davy's ideas, 199, blame- ery of galvanism by, 40; did not
less accordingto Herschel,200 postulatea Galvani potential, 53
Faraday,Sarah(Barnard),134 Galvani-potentialdifferenceor
Faraday'sDiary, quoted, 113, q,- potentialdifference,53, 67-8
116,166 Galvanocle, term suggestedby
Faraday-WheweUcorrespon- Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whewell,
dence,whereaboutsof, 127n, 148 157,159
Fechner,G.T. (1801-1887),men- Galva-stechion,term suggested
tioned,44 by Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whew-
Fessenden,R.A. (1866-1932), ell, 157
quotedon scientist,35 Gambey, H.P. (1787-1847), no-
Figuier, L. (1819-1894),his ac- ticed magneticdamping,96
count of the Voltaic pile, 44n Gay-Lussac, J.L. (177&-1850),
Fixing the image,currentmean- his claim to discovery of hypo
ing of the phrase, 174; Talbot's refusedby Thomson,177; his con-
meaning of the phrase, 174-5; troversywith Davy, 177; his anal-
Bouasse'scriticism of its current ysis of the strontium salt of hypo,
usage,174n; Herschelthe first to 179; namedthe parentacid l'acide
use the phrase in its current hyposulfureux independently of
meaning,175 Thomson,179-80
Fonetic Frend, The (Ellis), 117 GeneralElementsofPathology
Food of the Gods, The (H.G. (Nicholl), 130
Wells), quotedon scientist,23 Genevaexperiment,86-94,110,
Forbes,J.D. (1809-1868),on the 114, 118, 119, 121-3; diagramsof,
Genevaexperiment,119; letter to, 87, 121
from Whewell, 172n Gentleman, talismanic force of
Foster,G.C. (1835-1919),50 the word in .England,2n
Foucault,J.B.L.(1819-1868),his Gentlemanlyideal, in England,
controversywith Buff, 150n 2
Fowler, H.W. (1858-1933),criti- Gibbs,J.W.(1839-1903),his com-
cizes Lyell's terms, 13n; objection ment to Lodge, 45; on potential
difference,53, 60, 67
INDEX 227
Gilbert, Davies (1767-1839), Heberden,W. (1767-1845),men-

146n tioned,132
Gilbert, Sir W.S. (1836-1911), Hegel, G.W.F. (1770-1831), his
quoted, 177n; on nigger, 215 denial that physicsis a science,5
Goethe, J.W. von (1749-1832), Heilbron, H.L., 41n
quotedby Schelling,40 Helmholtz,H. (1821-1894),men-
Gollancz, Sir I. (1863-1930), tioned, 5, 45, 111n
mentioned,35 Henry, J. (1797-1878), his gal-
Gothic architecture,nomencla- vanic magnet, 124; his indepen-
ture of, 143-u dent discovery of an induced cur-
Gould, B.A. (1787-1859), his rent, 123-4; quoted, 124; his dis-
early use of scientist, 12 covery of self-induction,125
Granville, A.B. (1783-1872), Herschel, C. L. (1750-1848),
mentioned,95n mentioned,185
Gray,Thomas(1716-1771),quot- Herschel,SirJ.F.W.(1792-1871),
ed,2 his Preliminary Discourse on the
Greek derivatives, of anode, Study of Natural Philosophy, 4,
cathode,anion, cation, 156 209; mentioned,95n, 145; with C.
Grosseteste,R. (d. 1253), on BabbagereversedArago's experi-
science,4, 8n ment, 97; on Whewell'sLanguage
Grove,W.R. (1811-1896),quoted of Science,170; his analysisof the
on contact theory, 46; suggests calcium salt of hyposulfurousacid,
change of meaning of Faraday's 176-7;his interestin the hyposul-
terminology, 168 fites stimulated by chance, 180;
Guggenheim,E.A. (1901-1970), portrait of, 181; measurescrystal
on potential difference,53, 60, 67, anglesof calciumhyposulfite, 183;
69 his claim to be the first to use
Giinther,A.(1830-1914),dislikes hypo as a fixing agentin photogra-
scientist,21 phy, 186, 189; diffidence and self-
distrustof, 184;his careersumma-
Hachette,J.N.P.(1769-1834), re- rized, 184-5; quoted on chemical
ports Faraday'sdiscovery to the research, 185; letter from, to
FrenchAcademy,116 Brothers,186-9;his unselfishness
Halle University, 84 with ideas, 194; his friendship
Hall, Fitzedward (1825-1901), with Faraday,195; his review of
quoted,2n, 126; defendsscientist, Whewell'sHistory of the Inductive
24-30; portrait of, 26; writes Sciencesquoted, 195; his library
imaginary dialogue between sold at auction, 195, 203n; his
Huxley and Whewell, 29-30 marginal annotations,196-7; his
Harris,J. (Earl ofMalmesbury) portrait, 198; his translation of
(1746-1820),father of Lady Cath- Homer, 199; his review of Hum-
erine Bell, 184n boldt's Kosmos quoted, 200; his
Heaviside,O. (1850-1925),quot- pleafor freedomof science,200-1;
ed, 17-18,219;anti-Voltalst, 49 contentsof his library, 203; quoted
on science and religion, 209; his
228 INDEX
refusal to write a Bridgewater Thomson),176, 178; sodiumsalt of

treatise, 209n; his pleasure in (Chaussier,Vauquelin),179; stron-
finding historical or literary ante- tium salt of (Gay-Lussac), 179;
cedentsfor modernideas,213 calcium salt of (Herschel),176-7;
Herschel, Sir W. (1738-1822), other salts of (Herschel),189; its
mentioned,18; his influenceon his reaction with silver halides, 183,
son, 185 186-9;annualproductionof in the
Higgins, W. (1763-1825), his U.S., 186
contribution to the discovery of
hypo, 175-6; 178 Institute of Electrical Engi-
Hilton, J. (1900-1954),quotedon neers,105n
the Cambridgespirit, 213 Ion, term suggestedby Whewell to
History of England (Macaulay), replacezetode,155; Whewell pro-
quotedby Herschel,205 posesto drop ion in favor of stech-
History ofthe InductiveScienc- ion, 166; Whewell proposes to
es,(Whewell), 147, 167; Herschel's write it ion, 166; brought into
review of, 195 prominence with the theory of
Home, Sir E. (1756-1832),men- electrolytic dissociation,169
tioned,95n
Homer, quotedby Herschel,186; JamesII (1633-1701),206
Herschel'stranslationof, 199 James,Henry (1843-1916), on
Horace, (65-8 B.C.), Satires, the verb to fix, 174
quotedby Nicholl, 128 Jeffrey, Francis(Lord Jeffrey)
Horae Subsecivae(Brown), 128n (1793-1850),quoted,1
Humboldt, A. von (1769-1859), Jevons, W.S. (1835-1882), his
his Kosmosreviewedby Herschel, The Coal Questionannotatedby
200 Herschel,197; on the depletionof
Humboldt, W. von (1767-1835), British coal reserves,216
quotedby Mill, 204-5 Johnson'sDictionary, 11
Huxley, L. (1860-1933),32n Johnson'srimist, 30
Huxley, T.H. (1825-1895), dis- Johnson,S. (1709-1784),quoted
likes scientist, 21; describedas a on cant, 218
scientist,16, 28, 31; his imaginary Joubert,J.F. (1834-1910),51
dialogue with Whewell, 29-30; Joule, J.P. (1818-1889), men-
may be unwittingly responsiblefor tioned, 45, 48
the slangterm boffin, 31-2
Hypo, common name of sodium Kelvin, Lord (1824-1907), dis-
thiosulfate,173n; wide-spreaduse likes physicist,11, 18; criticized by
of, 174; history of the discoveryof, Heaviside,49; mentioned,44, 45;
175-80;variousmethodsof prepa- supportscontacttheory, 47-8, 50,
ration, 175-82; namedby Thom- 52; prizes given to his students,
son, 179; chemicalcompositionof, 51; his experiments on contact
177, 183; its ability to dissolve potentials,64-83; portrait of, 62
silver halides discoveredby Her- Kelvin's contact-potentialex-
schel, 183; iron salt of (Higgins, periments, explanation of by
INDEX 229
R.M. Lichtenstein,64-83 Law of successivecontacts,42
Kelvin's null method, to mea- Lewis, Sir G. C. (1806-1863),
sure contact-potentialdifference, quotedon hybrid terms, 13n
65-6, 79 Library of Useful Knowledge,
KensingtonPalace,158n Henry learnedof Faraday'sdiscov-
Khvol'son, O.D. (1852-1936), ery in, 124
quoted on measurementsof con- Lichtenstein,RoM., on Kelvin's
tact potentials,57-8 experiments,50, 64-83
King, John, Bishop of London Littre, M.P.E. (1801-1881),Un
(1559?-1621),30 Locke, J. (1632-1704), denies
Kingsley, C. (1819-1875),praises physicsis a science,5
Mill's On Liberty, 204, 205, 209 Lockhart, J.G. (1794-1854),9n
Kipling, R. (1865-1936),quoted, Lodge, Sir O. (1851-1940),men-
1 tioned, 35; his accountof the seat
Kohlrausch,R.HA (1809--1858), of the voltage of the Voltaic cell,
mentioned,44 44n, 50, 52; quoted on 'rough,
crude, and ill-digested experi-
Lamb, C. (1775-1834),his stam- ments,'58-9
mer usedto good effect, 22 Lubbock,SirJ.(Lord Avebury)
Langmuir, I. (1881-1957), on (1834-1913),dislikes scientist,20
contactpotentials,59 Lunn, F. (1795-1839),mentioned,
Languageof science,Whewell 95n
on, 159, 170; PearsallSmith on, Lyceeof 1 Jan., 1832, on the Ge-
171 neva experiment,92
Lankester,Sir R. (1847-1929), Lydgate, John (1370?-1451),
dislikes scientist,20 mentioned,30
Laodiceans,35 Lyell, Sir C. (1797-1875),'atra-
Laplace, P.S., Marquis de bilious scientist,' 12n; his terms
(1749--1827),mentioned, 19, con- criticized by Fowler, 13n
troversywith Young, 177
Lardner,D. (1793-1859),168n Macaulay, T.B. <Lord Macau-
La Rive, AA. de (1801-1873), lay) (1800--1859),quotedby Her-
mentioned,44, 86; quoted on the schel,205; his Whig bias, 206, 214
Genevaexperiment,88; letters to, Maclean, Magnus (1857-1937),
from Ampere, 120--2 receivedprize from Kelvin, 51
La Rive, G. de (1770--1834), Magnetismof rotation, 97
letter to, from Faraday,103-4 Magnetostriction,114
Law of conservationof energy, Malmesbury,Earl of, seeHarris
43,45 Manuel d'Electricite dynam-
Law of contacts,42 ique (Demonferrand),90, 91
Law of invariance, 72, 74-81; Marianini, S.G. (1790--1866),
alsoseeLaw of successivecontacts mentioned,44
Law of multiple proportions, Mascart,E. (1837-1908),51
193
230 INDEX
Matteuci, C. (1811-1868),men- Newton, Sir I. (1642-1727), 5,
tioned,44 18, 194
Maxwell, Sir H. (1845-1937), Newton'sPrincipia, mentioned,5
mentioned,35 Nicholl, W. (1786-1838),consult-
Maxwell, J.C. (1831-1879), on ed by Faradayabout new terms,
potential difference, 53; on 127; biographical information,
Ampere'swork, 104 12&-35; portrait of, 133; electedto
Mayer, J.R. (1814-1878), men- the Royal Society, 132; letter
tioned,45 about,from Faraday,132-3,letter
Mendel, G.J. (1822-1884),men- from, to Faraday, 134-5; men-
tioned,201 tioned, 157
Merriam Co., G. & C., 38 Noad, H.M. (1819-1877),his use
Mill, J. (1773-1836),a non-Chris- and modification of Faraday's
tian moralist, 210 terms, 167
Mill, J.S. (1806-1873), quoted, Nobili, L. (1784-1835), men-
38n, 40, 126; his book On Liberty, tioned, 85, 98; repeatsFaraday's
annotationsby Herschel,203-13; experimentswith Antinori, 116
occasionallaxity of his style, 208, Nomenclature,origin of electro-
208n; his rationalist'sUtopia, 213 chemical,148, 151,160, 161;Fara-
Milton, J. (1608-1674),quotedby day'selectrochemical,criticized by
Herschel,197 Bakewell, 163, 164
ModernEnglish Usage(Fowler), Notes on the Construction of
critical of pleistocene, pliocene, ScientificPapers(Allbutt), 35
miocene,13n; mentioned,34 NugaeHebraicae(Nicholl), 131
Multiple proportions, Law of, Null method (Kelvin), using
193 variable capacitor,65-6, 79
Murray, see Erskine-Murray
Murray, Sir J.A.H. (1837-1915), Oersted,H.C. (1777-1851),men-
acknowledgesF. Hall's contribu- tioned, 44, 148; opposedto contact
tions to the O.E.D., 24 theory, 41, 44; his discovery of
electromagnetism,84
Naturalist, preferredto physicist Oesper,R.E., 127n
by Kelvin, 11; definedin Johnson's Old Friends at Cambridgeand
Dictionary, 11; defined by Elsewhere(J.W. Clark), 146n
Heaviside,18 On Liberty (Mill), 203-13
Nature,refusesto admit scientist, Orthode, term suggested by
23,33 Whewell, 152
Naturphilosophie,41, 102 Ostwald, W. (1853-1932), op-
Nernst, H.W. (1864-1941),men- posedto contacttheory, 41, 44
tioned, 44, 52; on thermodynamics Othello (Shakespeare),quoted,
of the Voltaic cell, 60 193
Newman, J.H. (Cardinal Our Mutual Friend (Dickens),32
Newman) (1801-1890), and Oxford English Dictionary,
Kingsley, 209 title-pages of, 16, 215; on boffin,
INDEX 231
32; on surfactant,216 Physicist, the word introduced,

Oxford University, meaning of 10; Faradayon, 10-11; Kelvin on,
scienceat, in the 1830s,7 11, 18; Blackwood'sMagazine on,
11; suggested alternatives to:-
Packe,Michael, quotedon collec- naturalist, 11, physist, 17, 17n,
tivism in Englandin 1859, 205 materialist, 18
Paley,W. (1743-1805),209 Platinode, a term suggestedby
Pancaldi,Giuliano, 41n J.F. Daniell, 167, 168; criticizedby
Paris, J.A. (1785-1856), men- Whewell, 15~0
tioned,132 Pliocene,miocene,eocene,terms
Parrot, G.F. (1767-1852),men- coined by Whewell for Lyell, 13n;
tioned,44 some of them criticized by H.W.
Partington, J.R. (1886-1965), Fowler, 13n; H.D. Cameron on
his etymologyof zetode,141, refut- Fowler's criticism, 13n; Lyell on,
ed, 141; 175n; 144n
Partridge,E. (1894-1979),quot- Pohl, G.F. (1788-1849),disputes
ed, 36n, 39 Fresnel'sexperiment,85n
Pearson,G. (1751-1828), men- Poisson,S.D. (1781-1840),advo-
tioned,95n cate of magnetismof rotation, 98
Peclet,J.C.E.(1793-1857),men- Pope,A. (1688-1744),quoted,16;
tioned,44 quotedby Herschel,196-7
Peirce,C.S. (1839-1914),quoted Porter,A.W., 51
on scienceand scientist, 18-19 Potential difference, defined,
Pellat, H. (1850-1909), men- 67-8; not the sameas voltage,68
tioned, 44; Voltai"st, 52 Pouillet, C.S.M. (1790-1868),
Perry, J. (1850-1920),and Ayr- mentioned,44
ton, their data on contact poten- Preliminary Discourse on the
tials, 55-7 Study of Natural Philosophy
Persius (34~2 A.D.), Satires, (Herschel), Whewell's review of,
quoted by J. Herschel, 212-13, 145;Herschel'sinterleavedcopyof,
translatedby Dryden, 213 189-91; quoted on science and
Pfaff, C.H. (1773-1852), men- religion, 209
tioned,44 Prevost,J.L. (1790-1850),men-
Phillips, R. (1778-1851), letter tioned,96
to, from Faraday,135 Prout, W. (1785-1850), men-
Philosophy of the Inductive tioned,95n
Sciences(Whewell), 147; quoted ProvincialFallacy,the, 214,215
on the terminology of science, Principia (Newton),mentioned,5
15HO Principles of Geology (Lyell),
Photography,Talbot's discovery Whewell provides new terms for,
in, 175; Herschel's pioneering 143-4; Lyell quoted on the new
experimentsin, 187-9;Daguerre's terms, 144n
discoveryin, 188-9 Prizes,from Kelvin as Professor
of Natural Philosophy,51
232 INDEX
Pugwash Conferenceon Sci- Rumford, Count (1753-1814),
enceandHumanWelfare, 36 mentioned,18, 19
Ruskin, J. (1819-1900), quoted
Quadrant electrometer, Kel- on scienceand scientist, 7-8, 16;
vin's,47 on Americanwords, 17; his visit to
Quarterly Journal of Science, Cambridge, 143n; his marginal
Literature, and the Arts, 120n annotationson Mill's On Liberty,
Quarterly Review, Ampere's 204; on social evils introducedby
work reviewedby Rogetin the, 94 machineryand technology,205
Quis, pen-name of Whitlock Rutherford,Sir E., (Lord Ruth-
Nicholl, 128 erford) (1871-1937),referred to
by Artsimovich, 36
Rattlesnake, H.M.S., Huxley
aboardasAssistantSurgeon,31-2 Saintsbury, G. (1845-1933),
Rayleigh, Lord (J.W. Strutt) quotedon science,8
(1842-1919),dislikes scientist,21, Savan,savant,s9avant, 11,22
35 Savary, F. (1797-1841), men-
Religion, Mill on, 209-12; tioned,86n
Herschelon, 209-10 Schaaf,L., acknowledgementto,
Remarkson theArchitectureof 186n
the Middle Ages(Willis), 143 Schelling, F.W.J. (1775-1854),
RensselaerPolytechnic Insti- quoted on the discovery of galva-
tute, 24 nism,40
Revolution,the Bloodless,205 Science, as a profession, 2, 35;
Rheophore, term coined by freedom of, Herschel demands,
Ampere (replaced by electrode), 200; social responsibility of, 200;
138n humanlimitations of, 201
Ricketts,P.C.(1856-1934),letter Science,evolution of the meaning
to, from F. Hall, 25 of the word, 3-8
Ritchie, W. (d. 1837), mentioned, Science-Gossip, refusesto admit
44 scientist,19
Ritter, J.W. (1776-1810), men- Scientific, evolution of meaning
tioned, 41, 44 of the word, 3-4
Robertson,J.M. (1856-1933),on Scientist,the word connotespro-
the ban on openinfidelity, 210 fessionalism,2-3; the word intro-
Roget, P.M. (1779-1869),on the duced by Whewell, 9-10; also
contacttheory, 44; on the Geneva proposedby Gould, 12, by Hall, 12;
experiment,94-5 adoptedin America, 12, 16; rejec-
Royal Society of London, The, tion of, by Faraday, 11, by Lord
95, 116, 132, 152; Notes and Re- Kelvin, 11, by Sir John Lubbock,
cords of, 105n 20, by the Duke of Argyll, 20, by
Rucker,A.W. (1848-1915),letter Lord Rayleigh,21, by T.H. Huxley,
to, from Kelvin, 52 21, by Grant Allen, 21, by Alfred
Giinther, 21, by Sir D'Arcy W.
Thompson,33, by H.W. Carr, 33,
INDEX 233
by Sir Ray Lankester,33, by R.A Spencer,H. (1820-1903),dubbed

Fessenden,35; defendedby Fitz- scientistby his American publish-
edwardHall, 23-30, by AR. Wal- er,16
lace, 20, by H.W. Fowler, 34, by Sprengel,K.P.J. (1766-1833),6
Sir C. Allbutt, 35; philology of, 15; Stahl,G.E. (1660-1734),his work
suggestedalternatives:savant,11, the first intimation of hypo, 175
sciencer, 15, sciencist, 15, scien- Stecheonor stechion, term sug-
tiate, 15, scient,15, 17, scientman, gestedby Whewell, 153; used by
15, scientific, 15, philosopher,20, Faraday,154; (replacedby ion)
thesist,35, logist, 35 StonesofVenice(Ruskin), 143n
Schoenbein,C.F. (1799-1868), Sulfur, valency statesof, 178; a
mentioned, 44; discovers a new theoretical anhydrousoxide (SO)
oxy-acid of sulfur, 182 of,178
Schfttzenberger, P. (1829-1897), Surfactant,origin of, 216
analyses Schoenbein'snew oxy- Sussex, H.R.H. the Duke of
acid of sulfur and renames (1773-1843), President of the
hyposulfitesas thiosulfates,182 Royal Society, 158n
Schweigger,J.S.C.(1779-1857), Swift, Jonathan(1667-1745),re-
inventedthe 'multiplier,' 84-5 gardedscienceas too arid for ex-
Seguin, M. (1786-1875), men- clusive culture, 35
tioned,45
Shaftesbury,3rd Earl of (1671- Tait, P.G. (1831-1901), demon-
1713), a non-Christian moralist, strates contact-potential differ-
210 ence,48-9
Shakespeare,W. (1564-1616), Talbot, W.H. Fox (1800-1877),a
quoted,31, 193 gentlemanby birth, 2n; on fixing
Shirley, J. (1596-1666),quoted, the image made by the camera
194 obscura, 174-5; his photographic
Silver, processto recover, (from process,heard of by Herschel on
spenthypo solution), 184 January,1839, 187; begsHerschel
Skaiodeor sceode,term suggested not to publish more on the use of
by Whewell (replacedby cathode), hypo, 188n
152 Taylor, Harriet(1807-1858),her
Sketchof the Economyof Man collaborationwith Mill, 208
(Nicholl), 130 Thermotics, Whewell's word for
Smee,A. (1818-1877),his confu- the scienceof heat,59
sion aboutFaraday'sterms, 168 Thompson, Sir Benjamin, see
Smith, L.P. (1865-1946),on sci- Rumford
entific neologisms,171 Thompson,Sir D'Arcy W. (1860-
Smith, Sydney(1771-1845),his 1948), dislikes scientist,33
epigramon Whewell, 29n Thompson, Silvanus P. (1851-
Somerville, Mary (1780-1872), 1916), anecdoterelatedby, 22; on
her book reviewedby Whewell, 9 the Genevaexperiment 118; has
South, Sir J. (1785-1867),men- previously published selections
tioned, 95n
234 INDEX
from the Faraday-Whewellcorre- Valli, E. (1762-1816), quoted

spondence,127n; on the Germanic againstcontacttheory, 41
spellingof cation andcathode,169 Varney,R.N., 60n
Thomson, T. (1773-1852), his Vauquelin,NJ....(1763-1829),his
investigation of hyposulfurous preparationof hypo, 179
acid, 176; its composition,177; his Vinci, Leonardoda(1452-1519),
claim for priority, 177;his analysis referredto by Bevan,201
of hypo a mere guess,176-7, but Virgil (70-19 B.C.), quoted by
confirmedby Herschel,177;names Herschel,197
hypo, 179 Volta, A. (1745-1827),his discov-
Thorina, an exampleof an error ery of the pile, 40; his contact
correctedpublicly by its perpetra- theory of the voltaic cell, 40-83
tor (Berzelius),120n passim;quoted,43; portrait of, 63
Tidology, a word introduced by Voltage of cells, measured
Whewell, 13; disliked by electrostatically,55-8; thermody-
Todhunter,13n; dislikedby Lewis, namic treatment of, 60; distin-
13n guishedfrom potential difference,
Time and Time Again (Hilton), 68; defined, 68-9
quoted on the Cambridge spirit, Voltaic cell, anodeis the negative
213 terminal in, 168
Times,The New York, its review Voltaic pile, wet anddry contacts
of Webster'sDictionary quoted,38n alternate in the, 82; function of
Tocqueville,A. de (1805-1859), the wet-contactpairs, 82; function
Mill's review of, quotedon Ameri- of the dry-contactpairs, 82
can dislike of authority and tradi- Voltaists vs Antivoltaists, 47
tion,38n Volta-potentialdifferenceor",-
Todhunter, L (1820-1884), his potentialdifference,53-5, 71
biography of Whewell, 9n, 13, Volta-stechion,a term suggested
127n by Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whew-
Tom Jones (Fielding) quoted, ell, 157
108n Voltode, a term suggestedby
Twelfth Night (Shakespeare), Nicholl, 157; rejectedby Whewell,
quoted,31 157, 159
Tyndall, J. (1820-1893),dubbed
scientistby his American publish- Walker, C.V. (1812-1882),168n
er, 16; discloses the identity of Wallace, A.R. (1823-1913), ac-
Whewell as one of Faraday'scon- ceptsscientist,20
sultantson suggestingnew terms, Watson-Watt,Sir R. (1892-1973),
127; on the current usage of an arch boffin, 32
Faraday'sterms, 169 Watson,W.H., quoted, 111
Webster's New International
Usageand Abusage(Partridge), Dictionary, 3rd edition,criticized,
deplorescarelessness
as the norm 37-8
in language,39
INDEX 235
Wells, H.G. (1866-1946),quoted for Gi>thic architecture, 143; his
on scientist,22-3 book on the architecture of the
WestinghouseCompany,114 Middle Ages, 143; suggeststhat
West-ode,unacceptableterm but FaradayconsultWhewell for new
indicateswhat is wanted,151 terms, 145, 150
Whewell, W. (1794-1866),coined Wilson, G. (1818-1859),identifies
scientist and physicist, 9-10; por- Cavendish'sdegreesof phlogisti-
trait of, 14, 149; 'the greatnomen- cated vitriolic acid as sulfurous
clator,' 15n; imaginary dialogue acid and hyposulfurousacid, 193
with Huxley, 29-30; consultedby Wollaston, W.H. (1766-1828),a
Faraday about new terms, 127; gentleman by birth, 2n; men-
biographical information on, tioned, 44, 95n; his idea aboutthe
146-7; letters from, to Faraday, possibility of electromagneticrota-
152-3, 155-6, 157-8; letters to, tion, 85, 101, 105-6, 199
from Faraday, 146, 150-2, 154, Work function of metals,42
157, 158, 159; his review of Her-
schel's Preliminary Discourse on Young, T. (1773-1829), men-
the Study of Natural Philosophy tioned, 18; his controversy with
quotedon the needfor new terms Laplace, 117, with Champollion,
as new discoveriesare made,145; 117
is confusedabout the application
of Faraday'sterms, 167 Zamboni, G. (1776-1846),men-
Whig InterpretationofHistory, tioned,44
The (Butterfield), 214 Zeteisode, zetexode, the two
Whittaker,Sir E.T. (1873-1956), types of zetode(replacedby anion
111n and cation), 141, 151, 154
Williams, L.P., lOn, 107, 108n, Zetode,term suggestedby Nicholl
127n, 150, 196n, 199n (replacedby ion), 141, 151; criti-
Willis, R. (1800-1875), was as- cized by Whewell, 153; etymology
sistedby Whewell with new terms providedby H.D. Cameron,141-2
Zincode, term suggestedby J.F.
Daniell, 167, 168; criticized by
Whewell, 159-60
Chemists and Chemistry
1. M. Morselli: AmedeoAvogadro[1776-1856].A Scientific Biography. 1984
ISBN 90-277-1624-2
2. F.WJ. McCosh:Boussingault[1802-1887].Chemistand Agriculturist. 1984
ISBN 90-277-1682-X
3. D.A. Stansfield: Thomas Beddoes,MD (1760-1808). Chemists, Physician
Democrat.1984 ISBN 90-277-1686-2
4. PieterEduardVerkade(1891-1979):A History o/theNomenclatureo/Organic
Chemistry. Edited by F.C. Alderweireldt, HJ.T. Bos, L. Maat, PJ. Sloot-
maekersand B.M. Wepster.1985 ISBN 90-277-1643-9
5. A. Thackray, J.L. Sturchio, P.T. Carroll and R. Bud: Chemistry in America,
1876-1976.Historical Indicators.1985
ISBN 90-277-1720-6;Pb 90-277-2662-0
6. G.B. Kauffman (ed.): Frederick Soddy (1877-1956). Early Pioneer in
Radiochemistry.1986 ISBN 90-277-1926-8
7. R.B. Seymourand Tai Cheng(eds.):History 0/ Polyole/ins.The World's Most
Widely UsedPolymers.1986 ISBN 90-277-2128-9
8. J.T. Stock and M.V. Oma, OSU (eds.): The History and Preservation 0/
ChemicalInstrumentation.1986 ISBN 90-277-2269-2
9. N.A. Peppas(ed.): One HundredYearso/ChemicalEngineering.From Lewis
M. Norton (MIT, 1888)to Present.1989 ISBN 0-7923-0145-8
10. R.B. Seymour(ed.): Pioneersin PolymerScience.1989
ISBN 0-7923-0300-8
11. H. Benninga:A History 0/ Lactic Acid Making. A Chapterin the History of
Biotechnology.1990 ISBN 0-7923-0625-2
12. R. Mierzecki: The Historical Developmento/ChemicalConcepts.1991
ISBN 0-7923-0915-4
13. S. Ross:Nineteenth-Century Attitudes:Men 0/ Science.1991
ISBN 0-7923-1308-9
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS- DORDRECHT/ BOSTON / LONDON

(Chemists and Chemistry 13) Sidney Ross (Auth.) - Nineteenth-Century Attitudes - Men of Science-Springer Netherlands (1991)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(Chemists and Chemistry 13) Sidney Ross (Auth.) - Nineteenth-Century Attitudes - Men of Science-Springer Netherlands (1991)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NINETEENTH-CENTUR Y ATTITUDES :

A seriesof booksdevotedto the examination of the history and development

technicaladvances which have shapedour current understanding of

The titlespublishedin this seriesare listedat the endof this volume.

Ross, Sydney, 1915-

The essaysincluded in this volume were, with one exception,

FIGURE 1-1 WILLIAM WHEWELL 14

FIGURE 1-2 FITZEDWARD HALL 26

FIGURE 1-3 THE REVENGE OF TIME 28

FIGURE II-I UNIVERSITY PRIZE LABEL 54

FIGURE 11-2 LORD KELVIN 62

FIGURE 11-3 ALESSANDRO VOLTA 63

FIGURE 111-2 ANDRE-MARIE AMPERE 93

FIGURE 111-5 STATUE OF MICHAEL FARADAY 117

FIGURE IV-1 WHITLOCK NICHOLL 133

FIGURE IV-2 WILLIAM WHEWELL 149

FIGURE V-1 SIR JOHN HERSCHEL 181

FIGURE V-2 HERSCHEL'SMARGINAL NOTE 191

FIGURE VI-1 MICHAEL FARADAY 198

SCIENTIST: THE STORY OF A WORD

It is one thing to understandthe meaningof words, as they are explained

This is a questionof words and names.

The appellationscientist is considereda title of honor, hotly con-

dentist,pediatrist, etc.) was not in accordwith the personathat the

To heapthe shrine of luxury and pride

They did in fact use similar lofty expressionsin describingtheir

1 WollastonandFox Talbot hadno suchscruples;but they were gentlemen

scientistcarriedno less desirableconnotationsthan did physician,

1.1 Evolution of Science

By way of introduction to our story of scientist we should glance

favor of the freer but more significantrendering,scientificus,which

planationsprobably rather than scientifically.... Only in mathe-

'Every savagecan dance,'[said Mr Darcy.] Sir William only smiled... .'1

But anothermeaningwas also currentin the languageof 18th-

rejectedby Locke was now conceded:any kind of knowledgeacquir-

6 [ThomasCarlyle,] EdinburghReview,1829, Vol. 49, pp. 444-447.

It is admittedon all sides,that the Metaphysicaland Moral Sciencesare

Carlyle had indeedcorrectly interpretedthe signs of the times.

It hasbecomethe permittedfashionamongmodemmathematicians, chem-

7 JohnRuskin,Ariadne Florentina, 1874. Reprintedin The Works of John

scienceof History, a scienceof Grammar,a scienceof Music, and a science

Again, in 1878, writing of modesof investigation'vulgarly called

The useof the word scientia,asif it differed from knowledge,[is] a modern

Fifty years later Professor Saintsbury, more resigned than

1.2 Introduction of Scientist

With the new meaningof sciencethe need to designatea man of

(i.e., moral philosophy,)logic, and cognatestudies,includedin the study

notoriousatheists. The namescientistwas fIrst propoundedin the

The tendencyof the scienceshas long been an increasingproclivity to

10 Isaac Todhunter,William Whewell, An Account of his Writings, with

Proposedin this way, especiallywith the detractiveassociation

Commentswere not slow in coming. Faradaywrote:14

I perceivealso anothernew andgoodword, the scientist. Now canyou give

Had Faraday overlooked mysticism? As for hailing scientist as

12 When the GermanAssociationmet at Berlin, a caricaturewas circulated

CambridgeUniversity Press,1971, p. 377.

cist. JosephAgassiin his book Faraday as a Natural Philosopher15

It is told of Faradaythat he refusedto be called a physicist;he very much

Lord Kelvin, when his attention was drawn to physicist some

Armed with this authority, chemists, electricians, astronomers,and

It was, of course,too late by 1890 to turn the clock back to that

15 JosephAgassi,Faraday as a Natural Philosopher,Chicago,1971.

much in accordwith the needsof the times to be neglectedindefi-