Letter from J F W Herschel to Dr Cranwick

Page 1

Collingwood May [date illegible]

Sir, The passage you allude to will
be found in my “Preliminary discourse
on the Study of Natural Philosophy” forming
one of the “Cabinet Cyclo-
-paedia” ---[Double-S symbol]. 28. ---

I am glad to see attention turned to
this, as I consider the argument itself to
be incontrovertible [?]. But there is a quite
[illegible] difference between the form of words [?]
in which you state the conclusion viz [?]:
as that of an argument “against the
eternal [?] existence [previous three words underlined] of matter” and mine
as that of an argument against “the
idea of an eternal self-existent [previous two words underlined] matter”
It is not so much against the eternity [?, underlined] as
against the self existence (ie independent [underlined] by
existence) of matter that the [illegible] of the argument
lies. The question about its [illegible] supposing it not [underlined] independent is one
of so [illegible] a metaphysical nature that
Dr [illegible]

Page 2

that it is useless & vain to consider it
and I by no means intent to deny or
bring into question the “creation” of matter
as a definite instant of time or [illegible]
real [?] distinct definite instants. As
regards the other point – the indepen-
-dent self existence [previous 4 words underlined] (which if granted,
must [underlined] have been from eternity [?]) the argument
is not put so strongly in the [Double-S symbol] in question
as it might be. – If the atom of
matter exists independently and if as
chemistry goes far to [illegible] there be several
distinct classes of atom, then each class
must exist as a class [previous 3 words underlined] independently and
therefore independently each of the others
Thus we have several independent self
existences, and [underlined] the independent [double underlined] self existence [double underlined]
of Classes [both words double underlined]. How then came they (the classes) to have
any mutual relations? [previous 3 words underlined] And how is it
that some of these mutual relations are
[illegible] (ie. apply to every combination
of the classes A & B, A & C, B & C, etc)
Page 3

while others are special and apply only
to A & B or only to a few combinations?

The Chemist indeed [?] who maintains (as
some do) that all the atoms known are
only different [illegible] & combinations
of different members of one species of fun-
-damental atom will [?] evade [?] this argument
but only to take on another [illegible] of a
dilemma: for there will arise the ques-
-tion how happens it that these independent
individuals (being all precisely alike in
nature and constitution) have come to
group [?] themselves into diversely arranged
& constituted compound groups? and why
into these and no others? and not to [?]
manifest their individuality at all? – The
[illegible] indeed will have an answer
to this last [underlined] query for they will say “Yes
they do. The [illegible] [illegible] consists
of the truly independent original atoms
all of one sort and what we call “matter”
is only combinations of these”. [previous word underlined] But there

Page 4
But there again come the mechanics [?]
[illegible] to the [illegible] & ask “if so,
whence arise the [illegible] and the mo-
-lecular power in [illegible] of which these
compound atoms form systems, and
where in [?] masses [?]? And so we may
imagine a see-saw argument ad [underlined]
infinitum [underlined]. But in point of fact, so
far as I can see the whole leaning [?]
of Chemical evidence lies in favour
of the poly-atomic system and against
the mon-atomic

Apologising for writing [illegible] at length
instead of confining myself to sim
ply replying to your query! I [illegible]

[next 3 lines illegible]

Sir J. F. W. Herschel,
Astronomer