OF THE PHENOMENA OF FORCE, AND OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NATURAL BODIES.

(232.) Natural History may be considered in two very different lights: either, 1st, as a collection of facts and objects presented by nature, from the examination, analysis, and combination of which we acquire whatever knowledge we are capable of attaining both of the order of nature, and of the agents she employs for producing her ends, and from which, therefore, all sciences arise; or, 2dly, as an assemblage of phenomena to be explained; of effects to be deduced from causes; and of materials prepared to our hands, for the application of our principles to useful purposes. Natural history, therefore, considered in the one or the other of these points of view, is either the beginning or the end of physical science. As it offers to us, in a confused and interwoven mass, the elements of all our knowledge, our business is to disentangle, to arrange, and to present them in a separate and distinct state: and to this end we are called upon to resolve the important but complicated problem,—Given the effect, or assemblage of effects, to find the causes. The principles on which this enquiry relies are those which constitute the relation of cause and effect, as it exists with reference to our minds; and their rules and mode of application have been attempted to be sketched out, (though in far less detail than the intrinsic interest of the subject, both in a logical and practical point of view, would demand,) in the foregoing pages. It remains now to bring together, in a summary statement, the results of the general examination of nature, so far as it has been prosecuted to the discovery of natural agents, and the mode in which they act.

(233.) The first great agent which the analysis of natural phenomena offers to our consideration, more frequently and prominently than any other, is force. Its effects are either, 1st, to counteract the exertion of opposing force, and thereby to maintain equilibrium; or, 2dly, to produce motion in matter.

(234.) Matter, or that, whatever it be, of which all the objects in nature which manifest themselves directly to our senses consist, presents us with two general qualities, which at first sight appear to stand in contradiction to each other—activity and inertness. Its activity is proved by its power of spontaneously setting other matter in motion, and of itself obeying their mutual impulse, and moving under the influence of its own and other force; inertness, in refusing to move unless obliged to do so by a force impressed externally, or mutually exerted between itself and other matter, and by persisting in its state of motion or rest unless disturbed by some external cause. Yet in reality this contradiction is only apparent. Force being the cause, and motion the effect produced by it on matter, to say that matter is inert, or has inertia, as it is termed, is only to say that the cause is expended in producing its effect, and that the same cause cannot (without renewal) produce double or triple its own proper effect. In this point of view, equilibrium may be conceived as a continual production of two opposite effects, each undoing at every instant what the other has done.

(235.) However, if this should appear too metaphysical, at all events this difference of effects gives rise to two great divisions of the science of force, which are commonly known by the names of Statics and Dynamics; the latter term, which is general, and has been used by us before in its general sense, being usually confined to the doctrine of motion, as produced and modified by force. Each of these great divisions again branches out into distinct subdivisions, according as we consider the equilibrium or motion of matter in the three distinct states in which it is presented to us in nature, the solid, liquid, and aËriform state, to which, perhaps, ought to be added the viscous, as a state intermediate between that of solidity and fluidity, the consideration of which, though very obscure and difficult, offers a high degree of interest on a variety of accounts.

Statics and Dynamics.

(236.) The principles have been definitively fixed by Galileo and his successors, down to Newton, on a basis of sound induction; and as they are perfectly general, and apply to every case, they are competent, as we have already before observed, to the solution of every problem that can occur in the deductive processes, by which phenomena are to be explained, or effects calculated. Hence, they include every question that can arise respecting the motions and rest of the smallest particles of matter, as well as of the largest masses. But the mode of reasoning from these general principles differs materially, whether we consider them as applied to masses of matter of a sensible size, or to those excessively minute, and perhaps indivisible, molecules of which such masses are composed. The investigations which relate to the latter subject are extremely intricate, as they necessarily involve the consideration of the hypotheses we may form respecting the intimate constitution of the several sorts of bodies above enumerated.

(237.) On the other hand, those which respect the equilibrium and motions of sensible masses of matter are happily capable of being so managed as to render unnecessary the adoption of any particular hypothesis of structure. Thus, in reasoning respecting the application of forces to a solid mass, we suppose its parts indissolubly and unalterably connected; it matters not by what tie, provided this condition be satisfied, that one point of it cannot be moved without setting all the rest in motion, so that the relative situation of the parts one among another be not changed. This is the abstract notion of a solid which the mechanician employs in his reasonings. And their conclusions will apply to natural bodies, of course, only so far as they conform to such a definition. In strictness of speaking, however, there are no bodies which absolutely conform to it. No substance is known whose parts are absolutely incapable of yielding one among another; but the amount by which they do yield is so excessively small as to be demonstrably incapable, in most cases, of having any influence on the results: and in those where it has such influence, an especial investigation of its amount can always be made. This gives rise to two subdivisions of the application of mechanical reasonings to solid masses. Those which refer to the action of forces on flexible or elastic, and on inflexible or rigid, bodies, comprehending under the latter all such whose resistance to flexure or fracture is so very great as to permit our adoption of the language and ideas of the extreme case without fear of material error.

(238.) In like manner, when we reason respecting the action of forces on a fluid mass, all we have occasion to assume is, that its parts are freely moveable one among the other. If, besides this, we choose to regard a fluid as incompressible, and deduce conclusions on this supposition, they will hold good only so far as there may be found such fluids in nature. Now, in strictness, there are none such; but, practically speaking, in the greater number of cases their resistance to compression is so very great that the result of the reasoning so carried on is not sensibly vitiated; and, in the remaining cases, the same general principles enable us to enter on a special enquiry directed to this point: and hence the division of fluids, in mechanical language, into compressible and incompressible, the latter being only the extreme or limiting case of the former.

(239.) As we propose here, however, only to consider what is the actual constitution of nature, we shall regard all bodies, as they really are, more or less flexible and yielding. We know for certain, that the space which any material body appears to occupy is not entirely filled by it; because there is none which by the application of a sufficient force may not be compressed or forced into a smaller space, and which, either wholly, as in air or liquids, or in part, as in the greater number of solids, will not recover its former dimensions when the force is taken off. In the case of air, this condensation may be urged to almost any extent; and not only does a mass of air so condensed completely recover its original bulk, when the applied pressure is removed, but if that ordinary pressure under which it exists at the earth’s surface (and which arises from the weight of the atmosphere) be also removed by an air-pump, it will still further dilate itself without limit so far as we have yet been able to try it. Hence we are led to the conclusion that the particles of air are mutually elastic, and have a tendency to recede from one another, which can only be counteracted by force, and therefore is itself a force of the repulsive kind. Nevertheless, as air is heavy, and as gravitation is a universal property of matter, there is no doubt that this repulsive tendency must have a limit, and that there is a distance to which, if the particles of the air could be removed from each other, their mutual repulsion would cease, and an attraction take its place. This limit is probably attained at some very great height above the earth’s surface, beyond which, of course, its atmosphere cannot extend.

(240.) What, however, we can only conclude by this or similar reasoning respecting air, we see distinctly in liquids. They are all, though in a small degree, compressible, and recover their former dimensions completely when the pressure is removed; but they cannot be dilated (by mechanical means), and have no tendency, while they remain liquids, to enlarge themselves beyond a certain limit, and therefore they assume a determinate surface while at rest, and their parts actually resist further separation with a considerable force, thus giving rise to the phenomenon of the cohesion of liquids.

(241.) Both in air and in liquids, however, the most perfect freedom of motion of the parts among each other subsists, which could hardly be the case if they were not separate and independent of each other. And from this, combined with the foregoing considerations, it has been concluded that they do not actually touch, but are kept asunder at determinate distances from each other, by the constant action of the two forces of attraction and repulsion, which are supposed to balance and counteract each other at the ordinary distances of the particles, but to prevail, the one, or the other, according as they are forcibly urged together or pulled asunder.

(242.) In solids, however, the case is very different. The mutual free motion of their parts inter se is powerfully impeded, and in some almost destroyed. In some, a slow and gradual change of figure may be produced to a great extent, by pressure or blows, as for instance in the metals, clay, butter, &c.; in others, fracture is the consequence of any attempt to change the figure by violence beyond a certain very small limit. In solids, then, it is evident, that the consideration of their intimate structure has a very great influence in modifying the general results of the action of such attractive and repulsive forces as may be assumed to account for the phenomena they present; yet the general facts that their parts cohere with a certain energy, and that they resist displacement or intrusion on the part of other bodies, are sufficient to demonstrate at least the existence of such forces, whatever obscurity may subsist as to their mode of action.

(243.) This division of bodies into airs, liquids, and solids, gives rise, then, to three distinct branches of mechanical science, in each of which the general principles of equilibrium and motion have their peculiar mode of application; viz. pneumatics, hydrostatics, and what might, without impropriety, be termed stereostatics.

Pneumatics.

(244.) Pneumatics relates to the equilibrium or movements of aËrial fluids under all circumstances of pressure, density, and elasticity. The weight of the air, and its pressure on all the bodies on the earth’s surface, were quite unknown to the ancients, and only first perceived by Galileo, on the occasion of a sucking-pump refusing to draw water above a certain height. Before his time it had always been supposed that water rose by suction in a pipe, in consequence of a certain natural abhorrence of a vacuum or empty space, which obliged the water to enter by way of supplying the place of the air sucked out. But if any such abhorrence existed, and had the force of an acting cause, which could urge water a single foot into a pipe, there is no reason why the same principle should not carry it up two, three, or any number of feet; none why it should suddenly stop short at a certain height, and refuse to rise higher, however violent the suction might be, nay, even fall back, if purposely forced up too high.

(245.) Galileo, however, at first contented himself with the conclusion, that the natural abhorrence of a vacuum was not strong enough to sustain the water more than about thirty-two feet above its level; and, although the true cause of the phenomenon at length occurred to him, in the pressure of the air on the general surface, it was not satisfactorily demonstrated till his pupil, Torricelli, conceived the happy idea of instituting an experiment on a small scale by the use of a much heavier liquid, mercury, instead of water, and, in place of sucking out the air from above, employing the much more effectual method of filling a long glass tube with mercury, and inverting it into a basin of the same metal. It was then at once seen, as by a glaring instance, that the maintenance of the mercury in the tube (which is nothing else than the common barometer) was the effect of a perfectly definite external cause, while its fluctuations from day to day, with the varying state of the atmosphere, strongly corroborated the notion of its being due to the pressure of the external air on the surface of the mercury in the reservoir.

(246.) The discovery of Torricelli was, however, at first much misconceived, and even disputed, till the question was finally decided by appeal to a crucial instance, one of the first, if not the very first on record in physics, and for which we are indebted to the celebrated Pascal. His acuteness perceived that if the weight of the incumbent air be the direct cause of the elevation of the mercury, it must be measured by the amount of that elevation, and therefore that, by carrying a barometer up a high mountain, and so ascending into the atmosphere above a large portion of the incumbent air, the pressure, as well as the length of the column sustained by it, must be diminished; while, on the other hand, if the phenomenon were due to the cause originally assigned, no difference could be expected to take place, whether the observation were made on a mountain or on the plain. Perhaps the decisive effect of the experiment which he caused to be instituted for the purpose, on the Puy de DÔme, a high mountain in Auvergne, while it convinced every one of the truth of Torricelli’s views, tended more powerfully than any thing which had previously been done in science to confirm, in the minds of men, that disposition to experimental verification which had scarcely yet taken full and secure root.

(247.) Immediately on this discovery followed that of the air-pump, by Otto von Guericke of Magdeburgh, whose aim seems to have been to decide the question, whether a vacuum could or could not exist, by endeavouring to make one. The imperfection of his mechanism enabled him only to diminish the aËrial contents of his receivers, not entirely to empty them; but the curious effects produced by even a partial exhaustion of air speedily excited attention, and induced our illustrious countryman, Robert Boyle, to the prosecution of those experiments which terminated in his hands, and in those of Hauksbee, Hooke, Mariotte, and others, in a satisfactory knowledge of the general law of the equilibrium of the air under the influence of greater or less pressures. These discoveries have since been extended to all the various descriptions of aËrial fluids which chemistry has shown to exist, and to maintain their aËriform state under artificial pressure, and even to those which may be produced from liquids reduced to a state of vapour by heat, so long as they retain that state.

(248.) The manner in which the observed law of equilibrium of an elastic fluid, like air, may be considered to originate in the mutual repulsion of its particles, has been investigated by Newton, and the actual statement of the law itself, as announced by Mariotte, “that the density of the air, or the quantity of it contained in the same space, is, cÆteris paribus, proportional to the pressure it supports,” has recently been verified within very extensive limits by direct experiment, by a committee of the Royal Academy of Paris. This law contains the principle of solution of every dynamical question that can occur relative to the equilibrium of elastic fluids, and is therefore to be regarded as one of the highest axioms in the science of pneumatics.

Hydrostatics.

(249.) The principles of the equilibrium of liquids, understanding by this word such fluids as do not, though quite at liberty, attempt to dilate themselves beyond a certain point, are at once few and simple. The first steps towards a knowledge of them were made by Archimedes, who established the general fact, that a solid immersed in a liquid loses a portion of its weight equal to that of the liquid it displaces. It seems very astonishing, after this, that it should not have been at once concluded that the weight thus said to be lost is only counteracted by the upward pressure of the liquid, and that, therefore, a portion of any liquid, surrounded on all sides by a liquid of the same kind, does really exert its weight in keeping its place. Yet the prejudice that “liquids do not gravitate in their natural place” kept its ground, and was only dispelled with the mass of error and absurdity which the introduction of a rational and experimental philosophy by Galileo swept away.

(250.) The hydrostatical law of the equal pressure of liquids in all directions, with its train of curious and important consequences, is an immediate conclusion from the perfect mobility of their parts among one another, in consequence of which each of them tends to recede from an excess of pressure on one side, and thus bears upon the rest, and distributes the pressure among its neighbours. In this form it was laid down by Newton, and has proved one of the most useful and fertile principles of physico-mathematical reasoning on the equilibrium of fluid masses, as affording a means of tracing the action of a force applied at any point of a liquid through its whole extent. It applies, too, without any modification, to expansible fluids as well as to liquids; and, in the applications of geometry to this subject, enables us to dispense with any minute and intricate enquiries as to the mode in which individual particles act on each other.

(251.) In a practical point of view, this law is remarkable for the directness of its application to useful purposes. The immediate and perfect distribution of a pressure applied on any one part, however small, of a fluid surface through the whole mass, enables us to communicate at one instant the same pressure to any number of such parts by merely increasing the surface of the fluid, which may be done by enlarging the containing vessel; and if the vessel be so constructed that a large portion of its surface shall be moveable together, the pressures on all the similar parts of this portion will be united into one consentient force, which may thus be increased to any extent we please. The hydraulic press, invented by Bramah, (or rather applied by him after a much more ancient inventor, Stevin,) is constructed on this principle. A small quantity of water is driven by sufficient pressure into a vessel already full, and provided with a moveable surface or piston of great size. Under such circumstances something must give way; the great surface of the piston accumulates the pressure on it to such an extent that nothing can resist its violence. Thus, trees are torn up by the roots; piles extracted from the earth; woollen and cotton goods compressed into the most portable dimensions; and even hay, for military service, reduced to such a state of coercion as to be easily packed on board transports.

(252.) Liquids differ from aËriform fluids by their cohesion, which may be regarded as a kind of approach to a solid state, and was so regarded by Bacon (193.). Indeed, there can be little doubt that the solid, liquid, and aËriform states of bodies are merely stages in a progress of gradual transition from one extreme to the other; and that, however strongly marked the distinctions between them may appear, they will ultimately turn out to be separated by no sudden or violent line of demarcation, but shade into each other by insensible gradations. The late experiments of Baron Cagnard de la Tour may be regarded as a first step towards the full demonstration of this (199.). But the cohesion of liquids is not, like that of solids, so modified by their structure in other respects as to destroy the mobility of their parts one among another (unless in those cases of nearer approach to the solid state which obtain in viscid or gummy liquids). On the contrary, the two qualities co-exist, and give rise to a number of curious and intricate phenomena.

(253.) One of the most remarkable of these is capillary attraction, or capillarity as it is sometimes called. Every body has remarked the adhesion of water to glass. The elevation of the general surface of the liquid where it is in contact with the containing vessel; the form of a drop suspended at the under side of a solid: these are instances of capillary attraction. If a small glass tube with a bore as fine as a hair be immersed in water, the water will be observed to rise in it to a certain height, and to assume a concave surface at its upper extremity. The attraction of the glass on the water, and the cohesion of the parts of the water to each other, are no doubt the joint causes of this curious effect; but the mode of action is at once obscure and complex; and although the researches of Laplace and Young have thrown great light on it, further investigation seems necessary before we can be said distinctly to understand it.

(254.) As the capillarity and cohesion of the parts of liquids shows them to possess the power of mutual attraction, so their elasticity demonstrates that they also possess that of repulsion when forcibly brought nearer than their natural state. From the extremely small extent to which the compression of liquids can be carried by any force we can employ, compared with that of air, we must conclude that this repulsion is much more violent in the former than in the latter, but counteracted also by a more powerful force of attraction. So much more powerful, indeed, is the resistance of liquids to compression, that they were usually regarded as incompressible; an opinion corroborated by a celebrated experiment made at Florence, in which water was forced through the pores (as it was said) of a golden ball. More recent experiments by Canton, and since by Perkins, OËrsted, and others, have demonstrated however the contrary, and assigned the amount of compression.

(255.) The consideration of the motions of fluids, whether liquid or expansible, is infinitely more complicated than that of their equilibrium. When their motions are slow, it is reasonable to suppose that the law of the equable distribution of pressure obtains; but in very rapid displacements of their parts one among the other, it is not easy to see how such an equable distribution can be accomplished, and some phenomena exist which seem to indicate a contrary conclusion.

(256.) Independent of this, there are difficulties of an almost insuperable nature to the regular deductive application of the general principles of mechanics to this subject, which arise from the excessive intricacy of the pure mathematical enquiries to which its investigation leads. It was Newton who set the example of a first attempt to draw any conclusions respecting the motion of fluid masses by direct reasoning from dynamical principles, and thus laid the foundation of Hydrodynamics; but it was not till the time of D’Alembert that the method of reducing any question respecting the motions of fluids under the action of forces to strict mathematical investigation could be said to be completely understood. But the cases even now in which this mode of treating such questions can be applied with full satisfaction are few in comparison of those in which the experimental method of enquiry as already observed (189.) is preferable. Such, for example, is that of the resistance of fluids to bodies moving through them; a knowledge of which is of great importance in naval architecture and in gunnery, where the resistance of the air acts to an enormous extent. Such, too, among the practical subjects which depend mainly on this branch of science, are the use of sails in navigation; the construction of windmills, and water-wheels; the transmission of water through pipes and channels; the construction of docks and harbours, &c.

Nature of Solids in general.

(257.) The intimate constitution of solids is, in all probability, very complicated, and we cannot be said to know much of it. By some recent delicate experiments on the dimensions of wires violently strained, it has been shown that they are to a certain small extent capable of being dilated by tension, as they are also of being compressed by pressure, but within limits even narrower than those of liquids. Usually, when strained too far, they break, and refuse to re-unite; or, if compressed too forcibly, take a permanent contraction of dimension. Thus, wood may be indented by a blow, and metals rendered denser and heavier by hammering or rolling. There is a certain degree of confusion prevalent in ordinary language about the hardness, elasticity, and other similar qualities, of solids, which it may be well to remove. Hardness is that disposition of a solid which renders it difficult to displace its parts among themselves. Thus, steel is harder than iron; and diamond almost infinitely harder than any other substance in nature: but the compressibility of steel, or the extent to which it will yield to a given pressure and recover itself, is not much less than that of soft iron, and that of ice is very nearly the same with that of water.

(258.) Again, we call Indian rubber a very elastic body, and so it is; but in a different sense from steel. Its parts admit of great mutual displacement without permanent dislocation; however distorted, it recovers its figure readily, but with a small force. Yet, if Indian rubber were to be enclosed in a space that it just filled, so as not to permit its parts to yield laterally, doubtless it would resist actual compression with great violence. Here, then, we have an instance of two kinds of elasticity in one substance; a feebler effort of recovery from distorted figure, and a more violent one from a state of altered dimension. Both, however, originate in the same causes, and are referable to the same principles; the former being in fact only a modified case of the latter, as the effort of a steel spring, when bent, to recover its former shape, is referable to the same forces which give to steel its hardness and strength to resist actual compression and fracture.

(259.) The toughness of a solid, or that quality by which it will endure heavy blows without breaking, is again distinct from hardness though often confounded with it. It consists in a certain yielding of parts with a powerful general cohesion, and is compatible with various degrees of elasticity. Malleability is again another quality of solids, especially metals, quite distinct from toughness, and depends on their capability of being deprived of their figure without an effort to recover it and without fracture.

(260.) Tenacity, again, is a property of solids more directly depending on the cohesion of their parts than toughness. It consists in their power of resisting separation by a strain steadily applied, while the quality of toughness is materially influenced by their disposition to communicate through their substance the jarring effect of a blow. Accordingly, the tenacity of a solid is a direct measure of the cohesive attraction of its parts, and is the best proof of the existence of such a power.

Crystallography.

(261.) It cannot be supposed that these and many other tangible qualities, as they may be called, should subsist in solids without a corresponding mechanism in their internal structure. That they have such a mechanism, and that a very curious and intricate one, the phenomena of crystallography sufficiently show. This interesting and beautiful department of natural science is of comparatively very modern date. That many natural substances affected certain forms must have been known from the earliest times. Pliny appears to have been acquainted with this fact, at least in some instances, as he describes the forms of quartz and diamond. But till the time of LinnÆus no material attention seems to have been bestowed on the subject. He, however, observed, and described with care, the crystalline forms of a variety of substances, and even regarded them as so definite a character of the solids which assumed them, that he supposed every particular form to be generated by a particular salt. RomÉ de l’Isle pursued the study of the crystalline forms of bodies yet farther. He first ascertained the important fact of the constancy of the angles at which their faces meet; and observing further that many of them appear in several different shapes, first conceived the idea that these shapes might be reducible to one, appropriated in a peculiar manner to each substance, and modified by strict geometrical laws. Bergmann, reasoning on a fact imparted to him by his pupil Gahn, made a yet greater step, and showed how at least one species of crystal might be built up of thin laminÆ ranged in a certain order, and following certain rules of superposition. He failed, however, in deducing just and general conclusions from this remark, which, correctly viewed, is the foundation of the most important law of crystallography, that which connects the primitive form with other forms capable of being exhibited by the same substance, by a certain fixed relation. An idea may be formed of what is meant by this sort of connection of one form with another, by considering a pointed pyramid built up of cubic stones, disposed in layers, each of which separately is a square plate of the thickness of a single stone. These layers, laid horizontally one on the other, and decreasing regularly in size from the bottom to the top, produce a pyramidal form with a rough or channeled surface; and if the layers are so extremely thin that the channels cease to be visible to the eye, the pyramid will seem smooth and perfect.

(262.) Very shortly after this, and without knowledge of what had been done by Gahn and Bergmann, the AbbÉ HaÜy, instructed by the accidental fracture of a fine group of crystals, made the remark noticed already (in 67.), and reasoning on it with more caution and success, and pursuing it into all its detail, developed the general laws which regulate the superposition of the layers of particles of which he supposes all crystals to be built up, and which enable us, from knowing their primitive forms, to discover, previous to trial, what other forms they are capable of assuming; and which, according to this idea, are called derivative or secondary forms. Mohs and others have since imagined processes and systems by which the derivation of forms from each other is facilitated, and have corrected some errors of over-hasty generalization into which their predecessors had fallen, as well as advanced, by an extraordinary diligence of research, our knowledge of the forms which the various substances which occur in nature and art actually do assume.

(263.) In what manner a variety in point of external form may originate in a variety of figures in the ultimate particles of which a solid is composed, may very readily be imagined by considering what would happen if the bricks of which an edifice is constructed had all a certain leaning or bias in one direction out of the perpendicular. Suppose every brick, for instance, when laid flat on its face, with its longer edges north and south, had its eastern and western faces upright, but its northern and southern ones leaning southwards at a certain inclination the same for each brick; a house built of such bricks would lean the same way, if the bricks fitted well together. If, besides this, the eastern and western faces of the bricks, instead of being truly upright, had an inclination eastward, the house would have a similar one, and all its four corners, instead of being upright, would lean to the south-east. Suppose, instead of a house, a pyramid were built of such oblique bricks, with the sides of its base directed to the four points of the compass; then its point, instead of being situated vertically over the centre of its base, would stand perpendicularly over some point to the south-east of that centre, and the pyramid itself would have its sides facing the south and the east, more highly inclined to the horizon than those towards the north and west.

(264.) Whatever conception we may form of the manner in which the particles of a crystal cohere and form masses, it is next to impossible to divest ourselves of the idea of a determinate figure common to them all. Any other supposition, indeed, would be incompatible with that exact similarity in all other respects which the phenomena of chemistry may be considered as having demonstrated. However, it must be borne in mind that this idea, plausible as it may appear, is yet in some degree hypothetical, and that the laws of crystallography, as determined from inductive observation, are quite independent of any supposition of the kind, or even of the existence of such things as ultimate particles or atoms at all.

(265.) Still, that peculiar internal constitution of solid bodies, whatever it be, which is indicated by the assumption of determinate figures, by their splitting easier in some directions than in others, and by their presenting glittering plane surfaces when broken into fragments, cannot but have an important influence on all their relations to external agents, as well as to their internal movements and the mutual actions of their parts on one another. Accordingly, the division of bodies into crystallized and uncrystallized, or imperfectly crystallized, is one of the most universal importance; and almost all the phenomena produced by those more intimate natural causes which act within small limits, and as it were on the immediate mechanism of solid substances, are remarkably modified by their crystalline structure. Thus, in transparent solids, the course taken by the rays of light, in traversing them, as well as the properties impressed upon them in so doing, are intimately connected with this structure. The recent experiments of M. Savart, too, have proved that this is also the case with their power of resistance to external force, on which depends their elasticity. Crystallized substances, according to the results of these experiments, resist compression with different degrees of elastic force, according to the direction in which it is attempted to compress them; and all the phenomena dependent on their elasticity are affected by this cause, especially those which relate to their vibratory movements and their conveyance of sound.

(266.) There can be little doubt that modifications, similarly depending on the internal structure of crystals, will be traced through every department of physics. In that interesting one which relates to the action of heat in expanding the dimensions of substances, a beginning has already been made by Professor Mitscherlich. It had long been known that all substances are dilated by heat, and no exception to this law has been found, so long as we regard the bulk of the heated body. Thus, an iron rod when hot is both longer and thicker than when cold; and the difference of dimension, though but trifling in itself, is yet capable of being made sensible, and is of considerable consequence in engineering. Thus, too, the quicksilver in a common thermometer occupies a larger space when hot than when cold; and being confined by the glass ball, (which also expands, but not so much in proportion,) it is forced to rise in the tube. These and similar facts had long been known; and accurate measures of the total amount of dilatation of a variety of different bodies, under similar accessions of heat, had been obtained and registered in tables. But no one had suspected the important fact, that this expansion in crystallized bodies takes place under totally different circumstances from what obtains in uncrystallized ones. M. Mitscherlich has lately shown that such substances expand differently in different directions, and has even produced a case in which expansion in one direction is actually accompanied with contraction in another. This step, the most important beyond a doubt which has yet been made in pyrometry, can however only be regarded as the first in a series of researches which will occupy the next generation, and which promises to afford an abundant harvest of new facts, as well as the elucidation of some of the most obscure and interesting points in the doctrine of heat.

(267.) From what has been said, it is clear that if we look upon solid bodies as collections of particles or atoms, held together and kept in their places by the perpetual action of attractive and repulsive forces, we cannot suppose these forces, at least in crystallized substances, to act alike in all directions. Hence arises the conception of polarity, of which we see an instance, on a great scale, in the magnetic needle, but which, under modified forms, there is nothing to prevent us from conceiving to act among the ultimate atoms of solid or even fluid bodies, and to produce all the phenomena which they exhibit in their crystallized state, either when acting on each other, or on light, heat, &c. It is not difficult, if we give the reins to imagination, to conceive how attractive and repulsive atoms, bound together by some unknown tie, may form little machines or compound particles, which shall have many of the properties which we refer to polarity; and accordingly many ingenious suppositions have been made to that effect: but in the actual state of science it is certainly safest to wave these hypotheses, without however absolutely rejecting them, and regard the polarity of matter as one of the ultimate phenomena to which the analysis of nature leads us, and of which it is our business fully to investigate the laws, before we endeavour to ascertain its causes, or trace the mechanism by which it is produced.

(268.) The mutual attractions and repulsions of the particles of matter, then, and their polarity, whether regarded as an original or a derivative property, are the forces which, acting with great energy, and within very confined limits, we must look to as the principles on which the intimate constitution of all bodies and many of their mutual actions depend. These are what are understood by the general term of molecular forces. Molecular attraction has been attempted to be confounded by some with the general attraction of gravity, which all matter exerts on all other matter; but this idea is refuted by the plainest facts.