by the dense combination of which all compound bodies may be closely compacted, and exhibit powerful strength.* Moreover, if no limit has been appointed to the dissolution of bodies, there must remain certain bodies in the world which have not yet been assailed with any trial of their strength. But since (dissoluble bodies) are endued with a fragile nature, it is inconsistent to suppose that they could have lasted through an infinite course of time, harassed age after age with innumerable assaults.† *

"Primordial atoms are therefore of pure solidity, which, composed of the smallest points, closely cohere, not combined of a union of any other things, but rather endowed with an eternal, simple existence, from which nature allows nothing to be broken off, or even diminished, reserving them as seeds for her productions.

* *

"Moreover, unless there be some least, the smallest bodies will, individually, consist of infinite parts.‡ *What therefore will be the difference between the greatest and smallest of bodies ? It will not be possible that there should be any difference; for though the whole entire sum of things be infinite, yet the smallest things which exist will equally consist of infinite parts. ||

*

*

Those who think that fire is the original principle of things, and that the universe is maintained from fire alone, do greatly err from true reason; of which Heraclitus, as leader, first comes to the battle, celebrated for the obscurity of his language. * * * * For fools rather delight in all things which they see hid under inversions of words. *

"For how, I ask, could things be so various if they were produced from fire alone and pure (from mixture)? Since it would be to no purpose that hot fire should be condensed or rarefied, if the parts of fire retained the same nature which the whole of the fire still has? * But if they think that fire may by any means be extinguished in condensation, and change its natural consistence, and if they shall not hesitate to allow that this may take place absolutely, then all heat, it is evident, will fall utterly to nothing, and whatever things are reproduced, will be made out of nothing. For whatever departs from its own limits, this straightway is the death of that

* 1. 484-577.

Not in my copy of original.

1. 613-616.

1. 603-610.

which was before. Something, therefore, must necessarily remain unchanged in that fire of theirs, that all things as you see, may not utterly fall to nothing, and that the multitude of objects in the universe may not have to flourish by being reproduced from nothing.*

"It would be to no purpose that some (of these elements) should detach themselves and depart, and be assigned to another place, and that some should have their order changed, if they all still retained the nature of fire, for whatever (fire) should produce would be in all forms only fire. But, as I think, it stands thus:-There are certain elementary bodies, whose combinations, movements, order, position, shapes, produce fire, and which, when their order is changed, change their nature; nor, as I think, are they like to fire, or to any other thing, which has the power of emitting particles to our senses, and affecting our touch by its application.

"Wherefore those who have thought that fire is the primary matter of all things, and that the whole universe may originate from fire; and those who have determined that air is the first principle for the production of things; those who have imagined that water can itself form things of itself, and that the earth produces all things, and is changed into all substances of things, appear all to have wandered extremely far from the truth.

*

"Also those who couple the elements of things, uniting air with fire, and earth with water, and who think that from these four things all bodies proceed. * * § Moreover, if all things were produced from these four bodies, and all things dissolved into these bodies, how can these be called the primary elements of things, rather than, on the other hand, things (called the elements) of them, and a backward computation be made?

* * *

And now let us examine the oporoμépeia (homeomeria), as the Greeks call it, of Anaxagoras, nor does the poverty of our native tongue allow us to name it in our own language. He thinks that bones are produced from small and minute bones. So likewise flesh is generated from small and minute particles of flesh, and so on.

* 1. 636-675 † 1. 681.

1. 706. § 1. 764. || 1. 830.

66

* **

Moreover, since food augments and nourishes the body, we may understand that veins and blood, and bones, and nerves consist of heterogeneous parts. Or if they shall say, that all food is of a mixed substance, and contains in itself small elements of nerves and bones, and also veins and particles of blood, it will follow that both all solid food, and liquid itself, must be thought to consist of such heterogeneous matter, and be mixed up of bones and nerves, and veins and blood. Besides, if whatever bodies. grow from the earth are previously in the earth, earth must consist of all these heterogeneous matters which spring from the earth."

He gets however into a similar difficulty, by saying that the atoms which make up these substances, have primary particles of a different figure.

* 66 Finally, if you think that whatever things you see in the visible world, could not have been formed without supposing the primary particles of matter to be endowed, with a nature similar to the things formed from them, your original elements of things by this hypothesis fall. For the consequences will be that you must have primary particles of matter, which, being the origin of laughter, are themselves convulsed with tremulous fits of laughter, and others which bedew their own faces and cheeks with salt tears."

As to forces, he says:—

For certainly neither the primary elements of things disposed themselves severally, in their own order by their own counsel or sagacious understanding; nor assuredly did they agree among themselves, what motions each should produce; but because being many, and changed in many ways, they are for an infinite (space of time) agitated, being acted upon by forces, throughout the whole, they thus by experiencing movements, and combinations of every kind, at length settle into such positions, by which means, this sum of things produced, exists."

He speaks again of their being moved of themselves, and urged by secret impulse; and gives their original motion to be a falling straight down, not in a right line. For if they

had fallen in a right line, there" would have been no contact produced, and no collision generated among the primary elements."

He gives a limited number of shapes to the atoms, but sees no need of hooks to keep them together. This variation in shape leads also to a variation in size, but the atoms themselves are infinitely numerous.

Primordial atoms are not sentient, or they would "produce nothing but a crowd and multitude of animals."*

So far Lucretius. This theory of the constitution of material substances requires us only to conceive of one class of substances: for although some are larger than others and differently shaped, that is not a necessary supposition. It is the atomic theory properly so called. Forces are as much left out as possible.

One of the most complete atomic systems seems to have been produced in Hindostan. There it is said matter consists of the smallest possible bodies which are indivisible. We must at last arrive at something limited, otherwise the smallest, as well as the greatest, would be infinite. The first compound is binary, the union of two being the simplest, then there is a formation of three binary atoms, and a new compound of four quaternary atoms, and so on. The atom is equal in size to the sixth part of a particle seen by the sun's rays. A superior force draws the atoms to each other. The union is not a mere juxta-position, but one drawn by a particular affinity.

This is a peculiar mode of combining the atoms, we have not three or four simple as we might expect. It is interesting to find exactly the same course of reasoning about natural things among the Hindoos as in Greece, although Mill, in his history of India, ridicules it as the wanderings of the mind; the same might be said of the Greek ideas. We find there,

* Book II., 1. 917.

that "from intellect arose fire; from ether, air; from air, fire and light; from light, a change being effected, comes water with the quality of taste; and from water is deposited earth with the quality of smell." To fire is attributed the quality of figure: Mr. Mill supposes light is meant; to air the quality of touch; to ether the quality of conveying sound. Mr. Mill thinks hearing is meant. The qualities are confused as in that Greek system, which said, fire only can understand fire; air only can understand air; and so on.* The Hindoos, also, had their four and their five elements; their eternal elements; and the elements proceeding from the will of God, to cease when he pleases. They, too, had a system which made mind a substance and the affections subtle bodies. But they did not always confuse it, as is seen in Menu. "He having willed to produce various beings from his own divine substance, first with a thought created the world." On the constitution of matter we see them speaking as plainly as the Greeks; and now on the philosophy of the combination, we see an instance of still greater farsight. We can readily believe that the following is very beautiful in the original poetry. There is a poetical beauty even in the prose, which makes it dance like the power it describes in spite of the gravity and intellectual nature of the subject.

From the poem of Shi'ri'n and Ferha'd; or the Divine Spirit and a Human Soul Disinterestedly Pious.‡ "There is a strong propensity which dances through every atom, and attracts the minutest particle to some peculiar object; search this universe from its base to its summit, from fire to air, from water to earth, from all below the moon to all above the celestial spheres, and thou wilt not find a corpuscle destitute of that natural attractability; the very point of the first

• History of British India. By James Mill, Esq., 1848. Vol II., pp. 94-95. + Colebrooke, Asiatic Researches. Vol. IX., &c. The Works of Sir William Jones, 1799. Vol. I., pp. 170-171.