The Project Gutenberg eBook of The origin and development of the atomic theory
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The origin and development of the atomic theory
Author: Maynard Shipley
Release date: September 2, 2025 [eBook #76795]
Language: English
Original publication: Girard: Haldeman-Julius Company, 1924
Credits: Tim Miller, Laura Natal and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATOMIC THEORY ***
LITTLE BLUE BOOK NO. =608=
Edited by E. Haldeman-Julius
The Origin and
Development of
the Atomic Theory
Maynard Shipley
HALDEMAN-JULIUS COMPANY
GIRARD, KANSAS
Copyright, 1924
Haldeman-Julius Company
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF
THE ATOMIC THEORY
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I—THE PYTHAGOREAN ATOMISTS 5
CHAPTER II—THE MATERIALISTIC ATOMISTS:
LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS 22
CHAPTER III—THE ELEATIC VIEW 37
CHAPTER IV—EPICURUS AND LUCRETIUS 51
CHAPTER V—POST-CLASSICAL ATOMISM 59
THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATOMIC THEORY
CHAPTER I
THE PYTHAGOREAN ATOMISTS
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ATOMIC THEORY
It is safe to say that there is no more romantic story in the history
of science than that of the origin and development of the atomic
theory of matter. Dr. Robert A. Millikan has said that the physical
principles laid down by Leucippus in the fifth century before our era
might, with a few modifications and omissions, “almost pass muster
today” (“The Electron,” Page 7). The importance to modern students of
sound knowledge of the teachings of the ancient Atomists was emphasized
by Sir William Osler (1829-1919), who even went so far as to say that
“the student of physics may know Crookes’ tubes and their relation to
Roentgen, but he cannot have a true conception of the atomic theory
without a knowledge of Democritus; and the exponent of Madame Curie and
of Sir J. J. Thomson will find his happiest illustrations from the
writings of Lucretius”[1]--the Roman exponent of Epicurus (342-270 B.
C.), who revived the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus, despite
the adverse criticisms hurled at this doctrine by the great Aristotle.
Le Sage observed that “if Epicurus had had but a part of the
geometrical knowledge of his contemporary Euclid, and conceptions of
cosmogony the same as many then living, he might have discovered the
laws of universal gravity, and not only the laws, but, what was the
despair of Newton, its mechanical cause” (“_Lucrèce Newtonien_,”
Berlin Academy, 1782).
Writing of the value to science and modern thought of the atomic theory
of the early Greek philosophers, Professor Walter T. Marvin, of Rutgers
College, points out that a theory can be significant in at least three
ways, namely:--“(1) by destroying or inhibiting other beliefs; (2) by
arousing interest in new problems and by suggesting new methods of
investigation; (3) by what it itself enables us to explain correctly.
This theory was most significant in destroying old beliefs or, to
adopt a much used expression, in ‘_enlightening_’ the cultured
Greeks. A thoughtful Greek could hardly believe that the universe is
a cloud of atoms moving about in accordance with necessary mechanical
laws, and at the same time continue to believe the primitive traditions
and superstitions of his people. The worship of the gods and the old
magical rites and ceremonies must needs seem to him utterly ineffective
and useless, valuable customs no doubt for their purely psychological
influence upon the ignorant and unruly masses but of course absurdities
for the cultured and disciplined man. Hence no wonder that the spread
of this and the preceding cosmological theories would result, in
a society such as that of the Greek world in the sixth and fifth
centuries B. C., in a _radical enlightenment_. No wonder that
their spread was opposed by men of conservative tendencies. In this
first respect early Greek science and in particular the atomic theory
were of great historical significance.”[2]
THE ATOMIC THEORY OF THE PYTHAGOREANS
In the ancient Sanskrit literature of India (written prior to 500 B.
C.), an atomic theory of matter is formulated by Kanada (literally
“atom eater”--a term of derision), founder of the Nyaga system of
philosophy, and said to have been a pupil of Buddha. He states that the
atoms are eternal and that the ultimate atom is simple.
Kapila, the leading exponent of the Sankhya philosophy, speaks of
“five subtle” kinds of particles (atoms), and a substance akin to our
luminiferous ether--the five particles being, no doubt, the “five
elements” of the Laws of Menu; viz., earth, water, wind (air), fire and
ether--this last the parent, so to speak, of all the other elements,
through a process of successive transformations.
In the “Angutarra Nikaja,” consciousness (mind) is mentioned as a sixth
element, also atomic in structure.
In his “History of Hindu Chemistry,” Sir P. C. Ray expresses the
opinion that the atomic theory of the ancient Greeks was derived
directly from the more ancient Hindu doctrine--a view upheld by the
great German Sanskrit scholar, Dr. Max Müller, as also by some Greek
scholars.
_The_ atomic theory, the earliest known to have been worked out in
detail, is that of the Greek philosopher Leucippus, of Miletus, Ionia;
though the mantle of honor has fallen mostly on the shoulders of his
far better known pupil, Democritus of Abdera, Thrace.
But the Pythagoreans also were exponents of a form of atomic theory,
and it seems probable that Pythagoras, a native of the island of Samos,
was the first Greek to advance the doctrine of the discontinuity of
matter. At least, none of his disciples ever claimed to have been the
originator of this doctrine, and Pythagoras was born some time between
580 and 570 B. C., while the Atomic School of Leucippus was not founded
until some time after 500 B. C. Unfortunately, Pythagoras did not
commit his doctrines to writing, though a few of the so-called “Golden
Sentences” may have been written by him. Most of them, however, are
probably no older than the fourth century of our era. Moreover, these
throw no light on the subject under discussion.
The first written exposition of the Pythagorean atomic theory was put
forward by Philolaus, a native of Tarentum, South Italy. Only fragments
of his work have survived, and of those ascribed to him some are
undoubtedly spurious. But all of them are very old and contain valuable
information concerning Pythagorean doctrines.
Porphyry (233-304? A. D.), a Syrian Neo-Platonist, residing for some
years in Alexandria, wrote a “Life of Pythagoras,” and a few years
later another “Life” of this philosopher appeared, this time from
the pen--or stylus--of another Syrian and Neo-Platonist, Iamblichus.
But these works contain much that is wholly mythical concerning
Pythagoras.[3]
Our best sources of information are Plato (_Timaeus_), Aristotle
(_Metaphysica and Physica_, _De Anima and De Caelo_), Diogenes Laertius
(_De Vitis_) and Stobaeus (_Eclogarum physicarum et ethicarum_). From
these authorities we learn that, according to the Pythagoreans, the
cosmos was at a certain stage of its (cyclic) changes a compact, inert,
spherical mass of lifeless matter, having no distinguishable parts.
After a long period of quiescence the “void”--i. e., the limitless
outer air--broke in upon the world, entering into “the heaven itself”
as if it--the heaven--were breathing. The result of this cosmic
inhalation was “a certain separation and definition of things that
lie together” (Aristotle, _Physica_, iv, 6)--that is, a separation of
the homogeneous mass into different “elements.” These fragments were
eventually ground into an all but infinite number of infinitesimal
particles, or “monads,” analogous to the “atoms” of Leucippus and
Democritus.
Now, Philolaus was a famous geometrician as well as an eminent
physician and astronomer. Hence he--and presumably Pythagoras before
him--thought of these particles (or atoms) not in terms of various
qualities, chemically considered,--as Anaxagoras (500-428 B. C.), who
was not a Pythagorean, had done before Philolaus wrote--but in terms
of form (shape) and number. Each of the various substances known to
the ancient world as “elements”--generally recognized as compounds of
the real elements since the eighteenth century only--was regarded as
made up of particles of a certain geometrical configuration. Philolaus
explained that the “element” earth was composed of cubical particles,
fire of tetrahedra (pyramidal forms), and the “ether” was identified
with the dodecahedron (particles having twelve plane faces, or twelve
regular pentagons). In the _Timaeus_ of Plato we find this
conception further developed, bringing all the five regular solids into
the theory. Thus, the octahedron was now assigned to air, and the
icosahedron (a figure having twenty equilateral triangular faces) to
water.
Very interesting in this connection is the fact that the positions of
the electrons in atoms (the real elements) are being referred to today
in terms similar to those employed by the Pythagoreans. Take, for
example, the following passage from _Science Progress_ (London),
July, 1922 (No. 65), Pages 21-22:
“The modifications proposed in the expressions for electric and
magnetic forces allow of the electrons in [Sir J. J.] Thomson’s
model [atoms] to take up positions at rest at the corners of certain
well-known polyhedra, such as the tetrahedron, the cube, the rhombic
dodecahedron, the cubo-octahedron; and so in the sharing of electrons
between atoms and the consequent fitting together of such models we
have the explanation of certain facts of crystallography.”
But we know now that “fire” is not an “element” composed of tetrahedral
atoms; but the combustible portion of coal and wood is the real element
_carbon_--and the carbon molecule _is_ of tetrahedral form.
(See Bragg, Sir W. H. and W. L., “X-Rays and Crystal Spectra.”)
On the Pythagorean theory--as on that of Leucippus, and on the latest
theories of today--matter is broken up into parts (atoms) that are in
themselves unchangeable--apart from radioactivity--but produce by their
changes of position in relation to one another all the substances of
earth and of living organisms.
To illustrate this principle in terms of modern science: Add four
electrons (two positive and two negative) to the hydrogen atom, and
you have the element lithium; knock out of the lithium atom (composed
of three positive and three negative electrons) one positive and
one negative electron, and you have one atom of helium (composed of
two positive and two negative electrons.) And _electrons are all
alike_, except that some carry a charge of positive electrification
and some a negative charge--each kind (species) of atom having an
equal number of positive and negative charges, thus attaining stable
equilibrium. (See Soddy, _The Interpretation of Radium_, 1922.)
Until quite recently it was believed that atoms could be disrupted
only by temperatures higher than those obtainable in our physical
laboratories, or by bombardment by electrons and helium atoms
spontaneously expelled (always with enormous velocities) from
radioactive substances. But this is now known to be an erroneous
assumption. It was lately discovered by P. M. Basset, engineer of
the Sperry Gyroscope Company, and Dr. Louis Bell, that when carbon
is brought to a temperature of 5,000° C., in an arc-light used in
connection with their amazingly powerful searchlight, alpha particles
(helium atoms) are liberated. Such discoveries may some day lead to
the transmutation of “the baser metals into gold,” thus fulfilling the
dream of the alchemists of old.
Quite recently, Drs. Milliken and Bowen not only developed a method
for “stripping” planetary (valence) electrons one by one from atoms,
but these investigations also proved that Bohr’s (simple) theory
of electron orbits--which includes the statement that the energy
developed when an electron jumps from one orbit to another is exactly
proportional to the frequency (or wave-length) emitted--is correct.
Professor Sommerfeld’s theory explaining the cause of double lines
in the spectrum of hydrogen and other elements was also verified
experimentally. (See _The Scientific Monthly_, Pages 665-669,
June, 1924).
An atom of mercury, for example, contains 80 positive charges
(electrons) on its nucleus, and 80 negative outlying electrons. Were
we able to expel two of its _protons_ (positive electrons), it
would instantly become the metal platinum. If a negative (“planetary”)
electron were also taken from it, the mercury atom would then have
lost two positive charges (electrons) and one negative; that is, one
positive charge on the whole: and hence it would retain 79 positive
charges on the nucleus and 79 outlying negative electrons--and thus
_become gold_!
Thus, one element differs from another only in the number of electrons
composing its atom. And this is only a more precise statement of the
essential doctrine of the ancient Greek atomists.
Parmenides, the Eleatic philosopher, who was at the height of his
fame about 475 B. C., declared that both motion and change of
substance were illusory--that no substances ever transform from one
to another. The Pythagoreans and the School of Leucippus admitted
that there was, indeed, an element of elements that knew no change,
no transformations; and they declared that this primal element was
the stuff that _all_ atoms are made of. Today we believe his
primal element (atom) to be hydrogen--as was suggested by the English
physician, William Prout, in 1815. In other words, we are being forced
by the mathematical and experimental data to conclude that all of
the 87 known species of atoms (or elements) are but compounds of the
original (simplest) hydrogen atom, consisting of one positively charged
nuclear electron and one outlying negative electron. However, there
is ground for difference of opinion on this question, as shown by Sir
Oliver Lodge in his recent article, “Within the Atom,” _Scientific
American_, November, 1923.
“Thought,” comments Professor Alfred Weber (“History of Philosophy,”
Pages 43-44), “discovers in the atomistic hypothesis the middle
term that unites Parmenides, who denies the great empirical fact of
generation and change, and Heraclitus, who sacrifices being and its
permanence to becoming,--thereby combining the two rival systems
into a higher synthesis,--and lays the foundation for every rational
explanation of the process of becoming. Henceforth philosophy no
longer regards matter as a continuous mass, the essential properties
of which are incessantly transformed. It breaks them up into parts
that are in themselves immutable, but which continually change their
relative positions. As a consequence, there can be both perpetual
change in the aspects of matter (bodies) and permanence in the essence
and properties of matter. All change is reduced to change of place:
_mechanism_.”
THE FIERY “MONADS” (ATOMS)
“Fire,” with the Pythagoreans, as with the followers of Heraclitus of
Ephesus (535-475 B. C.), is _the_ element _par excellence_;
and, as previously stated, was regarded by them as made up of
excessively minute particles of tetrahedral (pyramidal) form
(Philolaus). This “subtile element” was looked upon as the symbol
of the divine principle in nature. They taught that this “fire” is
concentrated in a central sun, “the hearth of the universe,” “mother
of the gods,” “citadel of Zeus,” etc., around which revolve the earth
and the other heavenly bodies.[4] The soul of man is a portion of the
world-soul, a spark of the celestial fire, and in this sense material.
Aristotle states (_De Anima_, i, 2) that some of the Pythagoreans
held the solar corpuscles (atoms) to be souls, while others referred
to that which set them in motion as the soul. Schlottman’s reading of
this passage is: “The solar corpuscles are moved by a soul, and the
soul is, generally speaking, the moving principle.”
Professor Burnet calls attention to the singular power exhibited by
the Pythagoreans in adapting their theories to conditions; and among
certain radical changes in their point of view, he thinks the most
remarkable is the way the religious side of the doctrine was gradually
dropped. “The effort was made to clear the name of Pythagoras himself
from the imputation of mysticism. We have the echo of this in the
remains of Aristoxenos and Dikairchos, but it must be older; for in
their day scientific Pythagoreans had ceased to exist. The statement
that Hippasos of Metapontium was guilty of publishing a mystic
discourse ‘with the view of misrepresenting Pythagoras’ (Diogenes,
viii, 7) must go back to this generation of the school; for at a later
date no one would have any interest in making it.”[5]
According to Stobaeus (_Eclogarum physicarum et ethicarum_, i,
308), Ecphantus--an immediate successor of Pythagoras, according to
Röth--was the first philosopher to explain the Pythagorean monads
(atoms) as something corporeal. But this view is regarded by most
authorities as being contrary to the doctrine of the Pythagoreans.
While Ecphantus is included among the disciples of the School, his
doctrine of material atoms as the original constituents of the
Pythagorean “numbers,” as well as of matter, cannot, according to
Zeller, have been derived from his reputed master. Unlike the followers
of Leucippus, Ecphantus believed, with Anaxagoras (500-428 B. C.),
that the movement of the atoms (or monads), as well as the formation
of the universe, was produced by mind or soul. Atoms, according to
Ecphantus, differ among themselves in size, form and _force_. It
is interesting to note that this philosopher had not only accepted as
true the affirmation of Pythagoras that the earth is a sphere, but he
knew also that it rotated upon its axis (Schiaparelli, “_I Precursori
di Copernico nell’Antichita_,” in _Memorie del Reale Instituto
Lombardi_, xii).
Here, then, paradoxically enough, we find in the teachings of the
idealistic Pythagoreans the roots of our modern theories of cosmogony
and the atomic theory of matter. Their “particles” are qualitatively
all alike, differing only in form. By changes in their number and
position these qualitatively homogeneous atoms form all the various
substances of earth, sea and sky.
THE “SEEDS” OF ANAXAGORAS (500-428 B. C.)
The “seeds” (or germs) of Anaxagoras must also, in a sense, be
considered “atoms.” But, so far from being all alike fundamentally,
for him each substance was supposed to be composed of its own peculiar
particles, there being as many kinds of “seeds” as there are kinds of
substances.
Whence came this more or less novel doctrine? Was it wholly original
with the sage of Clazomeniæ? Leucippus, the founder of “the
materialistic” atomic theory, was a contemporary of Anaxagoras, and
both lived after the time of Pythagoras, and may have been indebted
either to him or to suggestions from India for their fundamental
physical conceptions, finding them, indeed, fully accordant with
the primary postulates of the older Ionian physicists--Anaximines
(524-508 B. C.), Anaximander (611-547 B. C.) and Thales (624?-548?
B. C.). All of these believed that all elements are but compounds or
transformations of one primitive element.
It is natural to inquire here how such “suggestions from India” could
have reached Greece. Professor Gompertz, while he does not discuss
the possible Indian origin of the atomic theory, would have an answer
to this question. He admits that the Greeks “owe to the Orient the
elements of material civilization” and much of their science, art and
religion to older civilizations. How were these transferred to Greece?
This question, he recalls, brings up a striking parallel from the
literary history of mediæval Europe. “Practically the entire fairy-lore
of the Occident is derived from India. No one,” he goes on to say,
“disputes this assertion today”; yet, on the other hand, “no one as yet
can give a completely clear account of the ways and means by which its
journey was accomplished” (“Greek Thinkers,” Page 95).
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: “Studies in the History and Method of Science,” edited by
Dr. Charles Singer, Oxford, 1917.]
[Footnote 2: “The History of European Philosophy,” Page 105, New York,
1917.]
[Footnote 3: Cf. Nauck, A., _Porphyrii Opusculati Selecta_, ed.
2, Leipsic, 1886; and _Iamblichi De Vita Pythagorica Liber_, ed.
Nauck, Petrograd, 1884; Chaignet, “_Pythagore et la Philosophie
Pythagoricienne_,” Paris, 1873. See also Cantor, “_Vorlesungen
uber die Geshichte der Mathematik_,” I, 124 ff.]
[Footnote 4: Thus laying the foundation for the true heliocentric
theory, introduced by Aristarchus of Samos about 280 B. C.--a theory
accepted and developed by Seleucus of Seleucia in Babylonia, but
rejected in the following century by the greatest of the Greek
astronomers, Hipparchus of Nicæa, discoverer of the “precession of the
equinoxes,” and author of a catalogue of 1000 fixed stars.]
[Footnote 5: Burnet, Professor John, “Greek Philosophy,” Vol. I, ¶70,
Page 87, London, 1914. See also, by the same author, “Early Greek
Philosophy,” 2 ed., ¶¶138 sq.]
CHAPTER II
THE MATERIALISTIC ATOMISTS: LEUCIPPUS AND DEMOCRITUS
SOURCES OF OUR INFORMATION
While the Atomic Theory is usually identified with the name of
Democritus, its real founder was Leucippus, as is attested by both
Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) and his successor, Theophrastus. Diogenes
Laertius, who flourished about 230 of our era, refers to Leucippus (De
Vitis, ix, 46) as the author of “The Great Diakosmos” (or “The Great
Order of the Universe”), in which were set forth the principles upon
which he based his atomic theory. A treatise “On the Mind” is also
mentioned, which appears to have contained in outline the psychology of
the materialistic Atomists.
Of the works of Leucippus there remains but one extant fragment, in
which Leucippus lays down in clear terms this universal rule: “Nothing
happens without a cause, but everything with a cause and by necessity”
(Aetius, Doxographers 321 B. 10).
Following in the footsteps of his master, Democritus also wrote a book
“On the Order of the Universe,” adhering, it would seem, very closely
to the views of Leucippus. The works of his master the great Milesian,
were incorporated eventually in the collected works of Democritus.
No writer, subsequent to Theophrastus (born at Lesbos about 390 B.
C., died in 286 B. C.), pupil of and successor to Aristotle as head
of the famous Lyceum at Athens, attempted to distinguish the teaching
of Leucippus from that of his more brilliant disciple. Zeller remarks
that “the work and even the name of Leucippus seems to have been pretty
early forgotten by most writers in comparison with the riper and more
exhaustive achievements of his disciple. The persistence with which he
is ignored by Epicurus, the reviver of the Atomistic philosophy, and by
most of the Epicureans, may have contributed to this.[6]
Of the once numerous writings of Democritus himself, only fragments
remain, but these are highly important. The chief collector of the
extant fragments was Mullach,[7] who places Democritus first on
the list of Greek philosophers for genius and knowledge, and thinks
it probable that the great Aristotle himself may owe much of his
reputation for learning to diligent perusal of the words of the sage of
Abdera. Says he: “(Democritus), although in other things dissimilar, in
his equal study of all the arts was most like the famous Aristotle. And
I scarcely know whether the Stagirite did not owe to his reading of the
works of Democritus his erudition, which surpassed that of all other
philosophers.”
Aristotle and some later historians make frequent references to his
teachings, and according to Zeller, “with respect.” Gompertz says that
Aristotle confers “a crown of eulogy” upon Democritus “at the expense
of Plato.”
Professor Lange remarks, however, that “he cites him, for the most
part, only when he attacks him, and this he by no means always does
with a fitting objectivity and fairness. How often he has borrowed from
him without naming him we do not know. Plato speaks of him nowhere,
though it is a matter of dispute whether, in some places, he has not
controverted his opinion without mention of his name” (“History of
Materialism,” page 18).
It seems to be quite possible that Plato knew little or nothing of
the writing of Democritus. At any rate, they were not well known
in Athens before Aristotle’s discussion of his theories. An extant
Democritean fragment states that “I went to Athens and no one knew me.”
Professor Burnet says: “It is not clear that Plato knew anything about
Democritus, for the few passages in the Timæus and elsewhere where he
seems to be reproducing him are easily explained by the Pythagorean
influences that affected them both. Aristotle, on the other hand, knows
Democritus well; for he too was an Ionian from the north.
“It is certain, nevertheless, that the Democritean corpus (which
included the works of Leucippus and others as well as those of
Democritus) continued to exist; for the school maintained itself at
Abdera and Teos down to Hellenistic times. It was therefore possible
for Thrasyllos in the reign of Tiberius to produce an edition of the
works of Democritus arranged in tetralogies just like his edition of
Plato’s dialogues. Even that did not suffice to preserve them.”[8]
Besides being the favorite pupil of Leucippus, Democritus (according
to Glaubus of Rhegion, a contemporary) had also Pythagoreans for
teachers, including the astronomer, geometrician and physician,
Philolaus, who was exiled from Italy in the first half of the fifth
century B. C. because of his membership in the Pythagorean Order.
Burnet, thinks that this accounts not only for Democritus’ geometrical
knowledge but also “for other features of his system.”
THE PHYSICS OF DEMOCRITUS
We know that both Leucippus and Democritus regarded the atoms composing
the various substances of the world as being homogeneous--i.e., all
alike from a chemical stand-point, but differing from one another in
point of size and in rich variety of form. Unlike the minute particles
(homœomeries) of Anaxagoras, which were assumed to be infinitely
divisible as well as qualitatively different for each substance, the
atoms of Leucippus and Democritus were considered indivisible; hence
the name _atoma_ (atoms) (particles which cannot be cut, or
further divided).
But while the atoms are described as “indivisible,” because there is
no vacuum in them, this does not mean that they were regarded by
Leucippus and Democritus as mere mathematical points, like the atoms
of Boscovich[9] or the “point charges” (electrons) of some modern
physicists. They were bodies of a definite magnitude, some larger,
others smaller, but never of visible size (Sextus, _Mathematica_,
vii, 139), much less, as asserted by Stobæus (_Eclagarum physicarum
et ethicarum_, i, 348) “as large as a world.” According to
Simplicius (_Physica_, 18 a), Democritus taught that the atoms
were physically indivisible, but he did not claim that they were
_mathematically_ indivisible.
The variety of substances and organisms seen on every hand is due
entirely, according to Democritus--and also to Leucippus, whose views
are expressed by Democritus--to the infinite variety of the atoms
in form, size and _arrangement in space with reference to one
another_--an anticipation of modern stereochemistry (the arrangement
of the atoms of a molecule in space) and the work of van’t Hoff
(1852-1911).[10] In all other respects the atoms are alike, and act on
one another only by pressure or collision.
THE ATOMIC THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Man’s sense impressions--color, sound, bitterness, sweetness, etc.--are
merely the effect of the impact of atoms upon a particular grouping
or arrangement of physically varied but essentially (chemically)
homogeneous atoms, constituting our sense organs. Hence these sense
qualities have no existence in themselves--are mere deceptive
“appearances.” “Only in opinion consists sweetness, bitterness, cold,
color; in truth there is nothing but the atoms and empty space,” says
Democritus.
The great Protagoras (born about 500 B. C.), also of Abdera, a
contemporary of Leucippus and Democritus, had taught that all
sensations are equally true for the sentient subject--i.e., if a
substance tastes sweet to a given person, it is sweet. For Democritus
sweetness and bitterness did not reside as such in the substance
tasted, but were merely subjective effects produced on the palate
of the consumer. Taste is partly dependent upon the shape of the
atoms composing the food (they held) and partly upon the particular
taste-sense of the individual. Thus to the normal (or average) person
honey has a sweet taste, whereas the same honey to a jaundiced person
has a bitter taste.
Parmenides had already declared that taste, colors, sound and the like
were only names, standing for no objective qualities. Democritus agreed
that sensations _represent_ nothing external to ourselves, though
they are _caused_ by something outside us. For example, what we
call pungency, tartness, bitterness, saltiness, etc., were impressions
produced on the palate by atoms of a certain shape--sharp, rough,
pointed or hooked particles of matter producing an effect of pungency
or acidity. Atoms with smooth surfaces form substances which ordinarily
impress the senses agreeably. From this we learn the effect upon our
palates of certain substances, but these sensations tell us nothing of
the true nature of the substances tasted.
“By the senses,” says Democritus, “we in truth know nothing sure,
but only something that changes according to the disposition of the
body and of the things that enter into it or resist it” (Fragment 9).
True reality lies beyond sense impressions; “truth is in the depths”
(Fragment 11). Our ideas represent our impressions, and are not direct
reproductions of the external objects themselves, “the inner essence of
which is concealed from us.”
This ancient theory of the differences of taste depending on
differences in the shapes--or roughness or smoothness--of the particles
composing substances prevailed even well into the eighteenth century
of our own era; dictionaries of the period still defining acidity,
for example, as due to sharp, pointed particles. Today we still admit
that atoms are qualitatively homogeneous--but by “atoms” we now mean
electrons, the constituent electrical charges which make up the “atoms”
of the chemist. Differences in the number of electrons in atoms confer
upon them qualitative (chemical) differences, though all atoms of any
one element are chemically alike--are homogeneous. Differences in the
number of spatial arrangement of these atoms (in groups or “molecules”)
constitute both physical and chemical differences in substances, i.e.,
in compounds. Quite different substances are produced by combinations
of precisely the same _kinds_ of atoms, but in different
proportions.
Take from a molecule of certain substances one single atom, and they
may be changed from a compound necessary to life and growth into a
deadly poison. Phosphorus is an element, and thus contains but one kind
of atoms; but some (common) phosphorus is yellow and some (amorphous)
is red, varying with the spatial distribution of the atoms in the
molecules composing the phosphorus.
But the properties (or quality) of a compound are not merely the
_sum_ of the qualities of the different kinds of atoms composing
its molecules (a molecule being the smallest possible quantity of a
given substance or compound). Water, for example, is not merely the
addition of the qualities of one atom of oxygen to those of two atoms
of hydrogen (H₂O). It is something quite different from either of
these two elements. And just so the color of blue sulphate of copper
is not a mere mixture of the colors of sulphuric acid and copper.
Again, the experiments of Dr. P. W. Bridgman[11] showed that while
the application of ordinary pressures to ice causes it to melt, the
application of high pressures to water causes it to freeze, and that
“there are at least five different kinds of ice, only one of which we
are ordinarily familiar with” (Page 192). Paraffin, under pressures as
high as 20,000 atmospheres, “becomes more rigid than soft steel” (Page
188). Water, heretofore regarded as absolutely incompressible, was
found to decrease in volume about twenty per cent with a pressure under
12,000 atmospheres.
Professor W. T. Marvin could well say, in considering the shortcomings
of ancient atomic theories, that “even with our wealth of physical
information we cannot yet explain by a rigorous atomistic mechanics
water transforming into ice or a stick of wood burning, not to mention
the phenomena of living organisms.”
Modern science recognizes that not only different _results_
may be obtained under different conditions, but that _absolutely
new qualities_ emerge at critical moments, both in the domain of
chemistry and in the phenomena of biology. We talk now of _emergent
evolution_. “We live in a world in which there seems to be an
orderly sequence of events.... But the orderly sequence, historically
viewed, appears to present, from time to time, something genuinely
new.... If there be only regrouping of pre-existing events and nothing
more--then there is no emergent evolution.”[12]
In the gradual transition from non-living to living matter, an entirely
new and peculiar type of energy--“biotic energy” _emerges_, which
is not explicable merely on the grounds of increasing complexity of
atomic structure. “We call things _living_ because of the energy
changes they exhibit, and not because they are complex chemically
or physically.” A dead animal is just as _complex_ as a living
organism. What is missing is “biotic energy”--the form of energy
which gives rise to the distinctive energy-transformations “which we
aggregate together under the term _life_.” The recognition of
this fact, however, does not commit us to the outworn doctrine of
“vitalism” or to the Aristotelian “entelechy.”[13]
Leucippus and Democritus, of course, were not troubled with the
problems raised by such phenomena as we have just been considering,
since they knew nothing about them. For the founders of Atomism, a
multiplicity of substances, living matter, and consciousness could
readily be accounted for by the varied combination of variously formed
atoms, physically considered. What would be their astonishment to learn
that tens of thousands of different substances are actually composed
of only four kinds of atoms--viz., hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and
carbon! Yet for them _one_ element, qualitatively considered, was
sufficient to produce all that is--including the “soul”--provided this
primal matter existed in an infinite number of shapes and sizes of
atomic dimensions.
DEMOCRITEAN COLOR THEORY
“We have no exact information,” says Professor Gompertz, “as to
which bodies in the theory of Democritus were simple and which
were complex,” but he adduces evidences to show that “the infinite
multiplicity which Democritus recognized in the sizes and shapes of
atoms did not arise from his incompetence to perceive or to conjecture
a complex in an apparently simple body.”
He remarks that the Democritean theory of color started from the
assumption of four primary colors--white, black, red and green. “These,
with the exception of green, which had taken the place of yellow, were
likewise the primary colors in the scheme of Empedocles.” But all
other colors “were designated as _mixed_, and we see that all the
numerous bodies which were not equipped with one of the four primary
colors must have been of a composite nature. That is to say, they must
have included other than merely homogenously elementary particles....
The statements about the atomic forms underlying the several tastes
give rise at first impression (to the idea that) each of the countless
‘juices’ or materials of taste is composed of homogeneous atoms
possessing the size and shape required for the purpose.
“But this, we plainly perceive, was not the opinion of Democritus.
His own view of the mixed colors cries against it. The homogeneity
of the atoms was admissible in the case of white salt, but it was not
admissible in that of yellow-gold honey or of brownish-yellow human
bile. It is true that he must have referred the sweetness of the one
and the bitterness of the other to the presence of the atomic forms by
which these impressions were produced. But yellow and brown were mixed
colors in his theory, and he must accordingly have inferred that honey
and bile alike contained atoms of other forms as well.”
Professor Gompertz therefore concludes that “the true meaning of those
statements should therefore be expressed as follows: ‘In all substance
of mixed colors at least the kind of atoms which lends them their
specific taste is merely the predominant and preponderant kind, and
without wasting more words on this subject, Theophrastus, who is our
best authority for Democritus’ theory of sensation, relates that this
doctrine was expressly taught by him’.”[14]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 6: Zeller, Dr. Edward, “Pre-Socratic Philosophy,” Vol I. Page
209, London, 1883. (English translation by S. F. Alleyne and O. J.
Reichel.)]
[Footnote 7: _Democriti Abderitae operum fragmenta_, Berlin, 1843.
Cf. Liepmann, Hugo Karl, “_Die Mechanik der leucipp-democrit’schen
Atome_,” Berlin, 1885; and Liard, _De Democrito philosopho_,
Paris, 1873; Lassewitz, “_Geschichte der Atomistik_,” Hamburg,
1890.]
[Footnote 8: “Greek Philosophy,” Vol. I, Pages 193-194, London, 1914.]
[Footnote 9: Boscoyish, Roger Joseph. _Theoria Philosophae
Naturalis_, etc., Vienna, 1758. A Latin-English edition of this work
has been issued from the press of the Open Court Publishing Company,
Chicago, 1923.]
[Footnote 10: Van’t Hoff was first to explain the cause of a known
difference in their behavior toward a beam of polarized light of
two distinct substances--both of which are called amyl alcohol--the
chemical formation of which is identical (i. e., composed of the same
number and kinds of atoms)--by a difference in the order in which
the four different groups of molecules are arranged in space about
the central carbon atom; the arrangements in the two cases being
such that one molecule has the same arrangement as the mirror image
of the other--equivalent to the difference between a right-hand and
a left-hand glove. Democritus could, possibly, on his theory, have
arrived at such an explanation; whereas Aristotle, on his theory of
the elements, could not possibly have done so--any more than could
Empedocles (495-436 B. C.) have done so with his “four elements.”
As for the primal substance (“air”) of Anaximines (588-54 B. C.)
and the “fire” of Heraclitus (535-475 B. C.), Dr. Gompertz contends
that these were implicitly recognized as being composed of “minute,
imperceptible particles” (“Greek Thinkers”, Vol. I, Page 323).]
[Footnote 11: “On the Properties of Matter under High Pressure.” Annual
Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1918.]
[Footnote 12: Morgan, Professor C. Lloyd, “Emergent Evolution,” Pages
1-2, London, 1923. Cf. Mill, J. S., “Logic,” Book III, Chapter VI, ¶2;
Lewes, G. H., “Problems of Life and Mind,” Vol. II, Problem V, Chapter
III, Page 412.]
[Footnote 13: See on this point Moore, Dr. Benjamin, “Biochemistry--A
Study of the Origin, Reactions and Equilibria of Living Matter,”
especially Chapter IX, Pages 125-137, London, 1921.]
[Footnote 14: Gompertz, Opus citum, Pages 333-334. Authorized English
translation, from the German edition of 1896, by Laurie Magnus, M. A.
(Oxon.), London, 1906.]
CHAPTER III
THE ELEATIC VIEW
One of the problems that early perplexed the human mind was that of
motion. Parmenides, of the Eleatic school, could not conceive of
movement of bodies without vacuous space, and for him there could be no
vacuum, since the universe is a _plenum_--the All, the One. Hence
there could be no motion, movement of bodies and physical changes being
mere delusive appearances.
Leucippus granted that he, likewise, could not conceive of the motion
of bodies unless there was empty space for them to move in. But motion
he recognized as a fact of nature, as a reality. The Eleatics must,
therefore, he said, be in error in supporting the premise that “there
is no vacuum.” Given empty space, motion followed.
Neither Parmenides nor Leucippus introduced the conception of the
vacuum. It was a pre-existing doctrine fervently attacked by Parmenides
and supported on logical grounds by Leucippus. “Nor,” says Professor
Gompertz of Leucippus, “did he do more than to refine and to raise to
the dignity of a self-sustained system the atomic theory which existed
before him, though in a rude, rudimentary and imperfect shape.”
Given atoms of various sizes and forms, their movement in vacuous
space was taken as much for granted as their existence. Just as matter
itself had no beginning, and can have no ending, so the natural and
original condition of atoms was a state of motion. The state of rest
was no more “natural” to the Atomists than was the state of motion.
They knew nothing of the doctrine which regards matter as an “inert
mass.” Matter for them was essentially active and non-quiescent, as it
was centuries later for Bruno, Bacon, Leibnitz, Spinoza, and as it is
in our own times for all physicists. For _energy_ is synonymous
with _motion_, and matter itself is but a collection of _energy
units_ (in constant motion).
DEMOCRITUS’ THEORY
According to Democritus the atoms fall with varying degrees of
rapidity, the heavier particles faster, the lighter with less speed,
the heavier overtaking and striking against the lighter ones. To quote
Lange’s succinct statement:
“As the atoms are of various shapes, and the collision will not
take place in the center of the atoms, then, even according to the
principles of modern mechanical science, revolutions of the atoms
on their axes and lateral motions will be set up. When once set up,
these lateral motions must ever become more and more complicated, and
as the collision of constant new atoms with a layer of atoms already
in lateral motion constantly imparts new forces, so we may suppose
that the motion will continually increase. From the lateral motions
in connection with the rotation of the atoms are then easily produced
cases of retrogressive movement. If now, in a layer of atoms so
involved, the heavier--i. e., the larger--atoms continually receive a
stronger impetus downwards, they will finally be collected below, while
the light ones will form the upper stratum.”[15]
Aristotle said that if there could be such a condition as space
devoid of substance (matter), then in such a vacuum all bodies, light
or heavy, would fall with equal velocity, which he considered an
absurdity. For him the differences in the speed of falling bodies are
entirely dependent upon differences in the density of the medium--air
or water--through which they fall toward the center of the earth.
Epicurus agreed with the Stagirite on the point of equal velocities in
a non-resisting medium. But Aristotle not only denied the possibility
of the existence of a void anywhere, but asserted that in such a
void--were a vacuum possible--no motion could take place!
Epicurus believed that all atoms, of whatever weight, would fall with
equal velocity in a vacuum, in simple parallel lines. They are in
everlasting movement, originally a perpetual, equable falling through
the boundless infinity of vacuous space, with an incomparably greater
speed than that of light-rays; though he believed that these traverse
the distance from sun to earth in an instant.[16]
While it is true that in infinite space there is neither an “up” nor
a “down,” the fact remains, as Epicurus in effect observed, that man
considers his head “up” and his feet “down,” and a body as being
relatively distant from, or as near or on or within, the earth. So the
atoms do converge at the earth, falling downwards unless met by bodies
which, by a particular movement and weight, drive them to one side or
upwards, or in a spiral or whirling motion--“the commencement of the
formation of worlds.” But if the movement of atoms is in straight
parallel lines, and all move in the vacuum with equal velocity, how
could one atom drive another “to one side or upwards”?
Just here is where the weakness in the atomic theory is introduced by
Epicurus. Democritus accounted for the collision and rebound of atoms
under law, by a _cause_, not by chance. Epicurus threw away the
cause and introduced “chance collisions.” But no atom was ever deviated
from its flight in parallel lines by “chance”--in this case a wholly
metaphysical invention. No worlds, no suns or planets could be built up
on the theory of particles falling through infinite space in parallel
rectilinear paths. There must be collision and recoil of atoms in order
that the lateral and whirling movements, or vortices, should be set up,
which were supposed to cause the atoms to combine according to their
shape, size, and weight, the heavier forming the denser portions of the
earth, the lighter constituting the atmosphere.
This difficulty did not escape the astute mind of Lucretius. But
in attempting to solve what is really an insoluble problem--the
development of worlds under the conditions stated--the great Roman poet
only made bad matters worse. For here he introduced the dogma of free
will applied to the falling atoms. They were made to deviate from
their parallel lines by a voluntary movement!
And it appears that this was done on the authority of Epicurus himself:
“In these errors,” says Lange, “Democritus probably had no share;
and yet we shall judge them more leniently if we reflect that, even
to our own day, the essence of the doctrine of the freedom of the
will, with whatever metaphysical subtlety it is elaborated, consists
simply of the uncertainty and perplexity of phenomenal appearances.”
Again: “Whilst, therefore, it is one of the most important efforts of
recent materialism to deduce the whole mass of voluntary movements
from mechanical causes, we find Epicurus adopting a quite incalculable
element into his system.”[17]
For Democritus a “chance” occurrence would be a causeless event, and
this he could not allow under his law of “necessity.” An efficient
cause produces always appropriate and calculable results under
given conditions, and these results are always uniform, predictable
occurrences, given knowledge of the mechanical factors involved.
To the earlier Atomists it seemed clear that particles which are alike
in weight and in form would “naturally,” when whirled about in a
vortex, be brought to the same location; and because of their peculiar
shape, become entangled one with another. Since some atoms were
supplied with hooks or even with balls and sockets, some with mortice
or dovetail, others with sharp, rough or involuted edges, what more
“natural” than that groups or combinations of atoms should be formed,
even to the cohesion of some atoms in places not suitable to their
nature, resulting in the formation of compound bodies?
Some atoms, indeed, were “unsociable,” having no means of mutual
attachment; hence their combination was effected by enclosing them in
a shell formed by the “social” particles. Some atoms had means for
attachment at two points, which accounts, in part, for the greater or
less mobility of the various atoms. The soul consists of the finest
and smoothest atoms, akin to those of fire; and since they penetrate
the whole body, their motions give rise to the phenomena of life.
All objects project into space images of themselves, composed of
atoms, which strike against the senses, and are perceived by similar
atoms--“like atoms are perceived by like.”
These assumptions were wholly unacceptable to the critical mind
of Aristotle,[18] as well as to his distinguished disciple, Strato
of Lampsacus, teacher of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Roman Stoic,
Cicero, regarded the Democritean theory of cohesion and compounding
of substances as wholly fantastic.[19] Yet the critics of Democritus
had no better theory to offer in its place, since they, like the
Atomists themselves, had no conception of the electrical, chemical or
gravitational attraction of bodies for each other, or of the fact that
the pressure of the atmosphere causes the ascent of fire, vapor and
heated molecules in general.
To the foregoing objections, others might be offered, but we add only
that in modern terms, the impact of indivisible and indeformable atoms
upon one another could not produce the required movement of elementary
masses. For “if the atoms are rigid, transmission of motion through
impact is impossible; if they are elastic, they are then deformable
and composed of parts, which is contrary to the hypothesis and implies
forces of cohesion and elasticity.”[20]
Democritus, though he was the greatest physicist of his age, could
not, of course, be expected to anticipate our modern objections to his
doctrine--or his master’s doctrine. The immortal Newton (1642-1727)
himself, even Dalton (1766-1844), founder of the modern chemical
atomic theory (as distinguished from the _physical_ atomic
theories of his predecessors), could not anticipate the advances that
have made possible the relentless criticism of modern physics and
chemistry. Newton, Boyle and Huygens had no idea that the “atoms” of
their conceptions were occupied mostly by “empty space” (using this
phrase in its popular meaning--modern science recognizing no actually
empty space: for all space contains a gravitational “ether” if not an
electromagnetic field of energy).
Thus the “atom” of the chemist is a highly elastic body--highly
resilient. Moreover, thanks to the genius of Professor Frederick Soddy,
of Oxford, and of Sir F. W. Aston, we now know that what we considered
but three years ago to be a homogeneous element--e.g., lead, chlorine,
carbon, iron, etc.--is in many cases--if not in all cases excepting
hydrogen and helium--a compound body containing particles of different
weights (atomic mass). On the other hand, as previously stated, we are
reverting to the Democritean theory that all atoms are composed of but
one primitive element, the hydrogen atom. And the hydrogen atom in
turn is composed of--_energy_; and energy itself is apparently of
atomic structure. All energy is, in the last analysis, electrical in
nature, the stuff that lightning, the stars, fire, rocks and metals,
the bodies of plants and animals--perhaps the mind of man--are all made
of.
With these facts in mind, let us return to Democritus, whose
errors--the errors of his age--we may now regard with due allowances.
“SOUL ATOMS”
With Democritus, as with Pythagoras and Heraclitus, fire had a special
importance, though it was not, as asserted by some of the ancient
writers, regarded by him as an element. The primitive substance, the
source of all things, whether fire, earth, air or water, was the world
of homogeneous atoms, eternal, unchangeable. Fire, composed of minute,
round, smooth atoms, was, on account of its mobility, the living and
moving principle of nature, though not the direct _cause_ of
motion. But because of the fiery, mobile nature of its atoms, they
become a secondary cause of additional motion, from their impact with
and recoil from less mobile atoms. Sensation and consciousness are
possible because of the extreme mobility of the fiery atoms. They are
the “soul atoms,” but sensibility and consciousness arise only as the
result of relatively large aggregations of these excessively minute
bodies.
“EFFLUENCES”
In order to account for the mutual action or influence of bodies upon
one another, when separated by space,--the void,--the Atomists had
recourse to the Empedoclean theory of “effluences,” or emanations,
which were supposed to be emitted by all bodies (Aristotle,
_Generatio et Corruptio_, i, 8). Penetrating the organs of sense,
they excite the appropriate sensation, and, in the case of the brain,
they produce images or ideas of things. Hence sensation is the only
possible source of knowledge, the origin of all thought being the
passage through the sense organs of “effluences” from external objects
or organisms, acting mechanically, by contact.
But while affirming that sensation is the source of all knowledge,
Democritus, nevertheless, agrees with the Pythagoreans and Socrates in
rejecting sensation as such as a source of knowledge. He distinguishes
between a “bastard” (_skotie_) knowledge obtained through the
special senses and a true-born (_gnesie_) knowledge, obtained by
direct-contact of external atoms with the body’s “soul atoms.” These
are not concentrated in the brain nor are they dependent upon the
organs of sense. They are diffused throughout the entire organism, and
come into direct contact, without the intervention of the deceptive
sense organs, with the reality outside our body.
“Poor Mind,” he makes the senses say (Fragment 125), “it is from us
thou hast got the proofs to throw us with. Thy throw is a fall.”[21]
As Burnet points out, the “true-born knowledge is of the same nature
as the “bastard,” and “Democritus refused, like Socrates, to make an
absolute separation between sense and thought,” the former being,
‘after all, not thought, but a sort of inner sense, and its objects are
like the ‘common sensibles’ of Aristotle.’ In the “bastard” knowledge,
Democritus included sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch. “True-born”
knowledge was obtained directly by the diffused soul atoms from the
external objects, and thus made them known as they really are. All
phenomena of life and mind are due to the motion of the mobile fiery
atoms. Even where Democritus speaks of “the Divine,” he means merely
the fiery soul atoms; not a personal being of any kind.
Where there is a large aggregation of the soul atoms, there reason
appears, itself a physical phenomenon. Democritus recognized no
_Nous_ (Anaxagoras) or World-Soul (Plato), or Deity (Aristotle).
The only motive force of the world is gravity, the soul being a
secondary cause of motion only by virtue of the fiery atoms’ being most
easily moved by pressure and contact. “Spirit” is “only one substance
moving side by side with others.”[22]
Every act of the individual, every occurrence in nature, has its
efficient cause from which it follows by necessity--or, as we should
say, under natural law. All change in things must be reduced to an
altered combination of atoms--to new forms and arrangements in space,
under the law of “necessity.”
The soul is material and disappears with the disintegration of the
body, though there exist invisible beings all around us in the air.
But these invisible beings are material bodies also, composed of the
finest atoms. At times they project images of themselves which affect
our soul atoms, rendering these aerial beings, for the time, visible
bodies.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 15: Lange, Frederick Albert. “History of Materialism,” Vol.
I, Page 25, London, 1892.]
[Footnote 16: That 498 seconds, over eight minutes, are required for
this transmission of light is a discovery of the eighteenth century.]
[Footnote 17: Lange, _Op. cit._, Page 142.]
[Footnote 18: _De Caelo_, iii, 4; _Generatio et Corruptio_,
i, 21; and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 19: _Academica_, ii, 38, 121.]
[Footnote 20: Rougier, Louis, “Philosophy and the New Physics,” Pages
7-8, London, 1922.]
[Footnote 21: Burnet, Dr. John, _Op. cit._, Page 153; and Note 2,
Page 113. Dr. Burnet is Professor of Greek at St. Andrews University,
Scotland.]
[Footnote 22: Zeller, _Op. cit._, Vol. II, Page 253.]
CHAPTER IV
EPICURUS AND LUCRETIUS
ATOMS NOT INFINITE IN VARIETY
Epicurus (341-270 B. C.) agreed with Democritus in assuming that the
atoms are infinite in number, but he denied that they were infinitely
various in shape, though their variety of form was conceded to be
very great, some smooth and round--like the soul atoms and those of
fire--some rough and pointed, others again branched or hooked. While
the number of forms is limited, there is an unlimited number of each
form. None of these variously formed atoms was ever created, and none
can ever be either created or destroyed. “Out of nothing, nothing
comes.”
MANY INHABITED WORLDS
Since space is infinite in extent and the atoms infinite in number as
well as varied in shape and weights, there must also be innumerable
inhabited worlds (as asserted by Democritus), displaying the greatest
diversity; yet some of them may nevertheless be exactly alike, since
like causes acting upon like bodies or complexes must inevitably
produce like effects.
Metrodorus, of Chios, declared that “a single ear of corn on a
wide-spreading champaign would not be more wonderful than a single
cosmos in the infinitude of space.”
MAN’S GREATEST ENEMY
Study of Democritus convinced Epicurus that the greatest enemy of
mankind is superstition, fear of imaginary gods and of punishment
hereafter, making of man a mental slave. Epicurus was not a lover
of science for science’s sake. He regarded its pursuit as having no
greater justification than that through reasoning and observation it
would free mankind from the fetters of supernaturalism, thus leaving
an open road to peace and happiness. Pleasure is the highest good, and
the highest form of pleasure is derived from cultivation of our mental
faculties.
“Protected as it was by the emperors, the (Epicurean) school destroyed
what remained of the crumbling edifice of polytheism, and at the same
time attacked the new religion and the supernatural Christian.”[23]
ON THE GODS
In supporting his atomic theory of cosmology, biology and ethics, in
refutation of the theological hypotheses of the Platonists and the
Stoics, based, they claimed, upon “a study of nature and the laws
of logic,” Epicurus offered what he regarded as logical evidence
against the doctrine that the world was ever created or that it is the
product of beneficent design. Professor Weber summed up the doctrine
of Epicurus, as derived from the writings of the Poet, Lucretius;
the biographer, Diogenes Laertius; and other authors of lives of the
philosophers of ancient Greece, in the following words (translated
by Dr. Frank Thilly, Professor of Philosophy in the University of
Missouri):
“The absolute creation and absolute destruction of the world are
[according to both Democritus and Epicurus] out of the question.
Creation in the proper sense of the term is impossible. In order to
convince ourselves that the world is not the work of the gods, we have
simply to consider the nature of its alleged creators, on the one
hand, and its imperfections, on the other. Why should such perfect and
supremely happy beings, who are self-sufficient and have no need of
anything, burden themselves with creating the world? Why should they
undertake the difficult task of governing the universe?
“Let us, however, suppose for a moment that the world is their product.
If they have created it, they have created it either eternally or in
time; in the former case, the world is eternal; in the latter we have
two possibilities: either creation is a condition of divine happiness,
and then the gods were not supremely happy for an entire eternity,
inasmuch as they did not create the world until after the lapse of an
eternity of inaction; or, it is not, and in that case, they have acted
contrary to their innermost essence. Moreover, what could have been
their purpose in making it? Did they desire a habitation? That would
be equivalent to saying that they had no dwelling-place for a whole
eternity, or at least, none worthy of them. Did they create it for the
sake of man? If they made it for the few sages whom the world contains,
their work was not worth the trouble; if they did it in order to
create wicked men, then they are cruel beings. Hence it is absolutely
impossible to hold that creation is the work of the gods.
“Let us examine the matter from the stand-point of the world. How can
we assume that a world full of evils is the creation of the gods? What
have we? Barren deserts, arid mountains, deadly marshes, uninhabitable
arctic zones, regions scorched by the southern sun, briars and thorns,
tempests, hailstones and hurricanes, ferocious beasts, diseases,
premature deaths; do they not all prove that the Deity has no hand
in the government of things? Empty space, atoms and weight, in short,
mechanical causes, suffice to explain the world; and it is not
necessary for metaphysics to have recourse to the theory of final
causes.”[24]
Just as astrologists blame the stars for the individual’s
short-comings--while at the same time holding on to the doctrine
of free will, by assuring us that “the stars incline but do not
compel”--and credit the astral bodies for his good traits and
successes, exactly so the ancient Greeks placed responsibility
for man’s derelictions and misfortunes--as well as for his happy
achievements--on the gods. Minerva’s influence endowed the individual
with intelligence; Venus infused the passion of love; Apollo
dispersed manly beauty, health and happiness; Mars involved peoples
in wars; while Mercury was the god of mathematics, inventions,
business transactions, etc. Without denying the existence of the
gods, Epicurus, as we have seen, did seek to show that the Olympian
divinities were not in any way concerned with terrestrial affairs.[25]
Though the gods are dead, we cannot yet say, with Henley,
I am the captain of my soul,
I am the master of my fate.
For modern man has within his own physiological “world” real
substitutes for the imaginary gods of Olympus, which really “incline”
if they “do not compel,” “behavior.” While the gods have been all
but forgotten, and the “fateful” stars have been reduced to vast
incandescent masses of helium, hydrogen, calcium, iron, etc., the
endocrine (ductless) glands still largely control or alter personality;
though these bodies are but constellations of atomic systems, with
electrons for sun and planets, each revolving in an all but inscrutable
cosmos of its own.
These still mysterious glands are today the real “astral
influences”--acting under “necessity”--which confer upon us manly
beauty and intelligence, or, perhaps, a dwarfed body and an imbecilic
brain. The pituitary body, originating tens of millions of years ago
in the roof of the mouth of some lowly chordate (lancelet stage),
in Cambrian times, and now attached to the base of man’s brain, has
taken the place of Minerva and Apollo; the gonads and the thymus
have absorbed the functions of Venus; the adrenals, the combative
“influence” of Mars; while the thyroid makes of us--or “inclines” us to
become--poets, radicals, “up-lifters,”--or maybe, mere lovers of the
lime light![26]
Surely this character-building “by necessity” would have delighted the
soul of Democritus and brought joy to the heart of his great disciple
Epicurus, who introduced an element of chance into Atomism only to
bridge what was to him an impassable gulf between the laws of mechanics
and observed phenomena.
This insistence of the ancient Atomists on the necessity of attempting
to account for all natural phenomena as the result of uniform,
immutable, universal “necessity” or law is one of the greatest
conceptions handed down to us from antiquity--a monument to the
human mind equalled only by the attempt to correlate all qualitative
differences of substances (atoms) with differences of size, shape and
position in space (with relation to one another) and with movement.
Gompertz does not hesitate to declare that this grand work of the
ancient Atomists “is destined to survive all changes of opinion and
thought.” Furthermore, all exact knowledge of nature “rests entirely
on this attempt to reduce qualities to quantities, or, to speak more
precisely, to establish fixed relations between the two. Mathematical
physics was contained there as in a germ, and modern research took
its starting-point thence. Galileo, Descartes, Huygens,--they all
followed the same path. ‘I do not believe,’ declared Galileo, ‘that
anything else is required than magnitudes, shapes, quantities, and slow
movements or swift, to produce in us tastes, smell, sounds.’”[27]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 23: Weber, Alfred, “History of Philosophy,” Page 139.]
[Footnote 24: Weber, _Op. Cit._, Pages 136-137. Epicurus was the
author of about three hundred writings, according to Diogenes Laertius,
but only his Letters, preserved by this historian, and fragments of a
work discovered at Herculaneum remain. For the rest we are dependent
on the _resume_ presented by Lucretius and the quotations found
in Greek authors. As Weber remarks (Page 135), “neither polytheism nor
Christianity had any interest in preserving his numerous writings.”]
[Footnote 25: Lange expressed the opinion that Epicurus really believed
in the existence of the gods, reverenced them for their perfection:
“these careless and painless gods did in fact represent, as it were,
an incarnated ideal of his philosophy” (_Op. Cit._, Vol. I, Page
101.)]
[Footnote 26: See Berman, Dr. Louis, “The Glands Regulating
Personality,” New York, 1922; Cunningham, J. T., “Hormones and
Heredity,” London. 1922.]
[Footnote 27: Gompertz, _Op. cit._, Page 349.]
CHAPTER V
POST-CLASSICAL ATOMISM
The two principal links in the chain which binds the world of the
ancient Greek (and _one_ Roman) Atomists with those of our own
times are Descartes (1596-1650) and Gassendi (1592-1655). Gassendi
revived and ably supported the atomic theory of Epicurus; while
Descartes resuscitated the mechanistic conceptions of the Greek
Atomists on the basis of a corpuscular theory of matter, corresponding
in many respects to the doctrine of Democritus.
The work of Leucippus connects through Descartes and Gassendi, Huygens,
Boyle and Newton, directly with that of Higgins and Dalton, founders of
the modern chemical atomic theory.
Dalton had already adopted a physical atomic theory, based no doubt on
the work of his illustrious predecessors, and upon his own thorough
study of the gases of the atmosphere, before he formulated his chemical
atomic hypothesis. He opposed the prevailing belief that the various
gases exist in the atmosphere in a state of chemical combination,
asserting that the atmosphere is a physical mixture.
In 1805, he extended his atomic hypothesis to the explanation of
chemical phenomena. His first postulate was, of course, that all
matter is made up of small particles; these he found possessed the
power of attracting (and holding) other particles. He therefore
concluded that these invisible particles never subdivide in taking part
in chemical changes, and that all atoms of any one element must be
alike. But the atoms of the different elements vary in weight, form and
combining power. He established the rule, already assumed by William
Higgins (1789), that different atoms tend to combine in the porportion
of atom to atom.
When a compound was composed of two elements only, it was presumed to
be binary; that is, since water, for example, was known to be composed
of hydrogen and oxygen, it was supposed by Dalton that it _must_
consist of one atom of each of these elements; as was also assumed in
the case of ammonia, which he knew to be a combination of hydrogen and
nitrogen. Now we know that one atom of hydrogen combined with one atom
of oxygen forms, not water, but oxide of hydrogen; while the combining
of _two_ atoms of hydrogen with one atom of oxygen forms water.
Dalton established the fact that elements combine only in _definite
proportions_--e.g., that oxygen and hydrogen will combine only in
the _proportion_ of 8 to 1. Had Dalton known that a molecule
of water contains _two_ atoms of hydrogen, and _one_ of
oxygen, he would have known that _one_ atom of oxygen must weigh
_sixteen_ times--instead of eight times--as much as one atom of
hydrogen. _One part_ of hydrogen _by weight_ does combine
with _eight parts by weight_ of oxygen, but this does not prove
that the portion of hydrogen in water contains only one atom. Since
it contains two atoms, instead of one, then, in order to preserve the
relative combining (or “equivalent”) weights of the two substances,
we must assume that the _atomic_ weight of oxygen is 16, for
the _combining_ weights of elements represent the relative (not
actual) weights of the atoms. And each element has its own fixed
combining weight, ascertained by experiment.
Water, then, is not a mere mixture or combination of hydrogen and
oxygen, in the sense that a pound of hydrogen and eight _and a
half_ pounds of oxygen will, when exploded, produce 9½ pounds of
water. Combination would indeed be effected, but there would be a
residue in the container of just one-half pound of oxygen. The mass of
oxygen that has combined will weigh exactly eight times as much as the
hydrogen; and now we know that the water formed will contain exactly
twice as many atoms of hydrogen as there are oxygen atoms present in
the combination, uniting not only “one by one,” but, in this case, two
to one. What the law of definite proportions proves is that chemical
combinations always take place _between atoms_.
But there is also a law of _multiple proportions_. It is
found that when one element forms more than one compound with a
second element, the quantities of the first element which combine
with the combining weight of the second element are always simple
multiples--never fractions--of the combining weight of the first
element.
We have seen that the _atomic_ weight of oxygen is 16--i.e., 16
times heavier than the lightest element, hydrogen, which is therefore
(on the relative scale of atomic weights) 1. But the _combining_
weight of oxygen is 8--i.e., eight _parts_ of oxygen will combine
with so many parts (combining weight) of some other element. Suppose
we take for example nitrogen. Now the _combining_ weight of
nitrogen is 14, and its _atomic_ weight is also 14. Fourteen parts
of nitrogen will combine therefore with eight parts of oxygen. But
fourteen parts of nitrogen will also combine with four simple multiples
of eight parts of oxygen, forming in all five different compound
substances. For example:
14 parts of nitrogen combine with 16 or 2x8 parts of oxygen.
14 parts of nitrogen combine with 24 or 3x8 parts of oxygen.
14 parts of nitrogen combine with 32 or 4x8 parts of oxygen.
14 parts of nitrogen combine with 40 or 5x8 parts of oxygen.
John Dalton advanced a theory satisfactorily to explain why in
successive compounds the amount of oxygen goes up in jumps, and why
this jump in each case is equivalent to the combining weight of oxygen.
The regular jumps in the case of the five nitrogen compounds simply
mean that one more atom has entered, in each successive case, into
combination. These combining weights, as we have seen, simply represent
the relative weights of the various elements. “Atomic weight” is merely
the name given by Dalton to the relative combining weights of the
atoms. He had no information as to how many atoms actually combine in
making a compound, much less of the actual weight of the single atoms
of the elements.
Nor did he know _why_ atoms combine at all, in any proportions,
but, being a thorough-going Newtonian, both his physical theory and
his chemical theory have a common basis in Newton’s doctrine of
mutually repulsive atoms. If an element A unites with an element B, the
repulsion of the atoms of B from one another must tend, he thought, to
the formation of a binary compound. “Binary compounds must first be
formed, then ternary, and so on, till the repulsion of the atoms of B
refuses to admit any more.”[28]
While we have traveled quite a distance in atomic and chemical theory
since the days of John Dalton (1766-1844), it is to the everlasting
credit of this (at the time) obscure and poverty-stricken teacher
of mathematics and physics that he gave us, in 1808, “A new System
of Chemical Philosophy” which unites the atomic theory of modern
science, first advanced by his admirers and contemporaries, Baron J. J.
Berzelius (1779-1848) and Sir Humphrey Davy (1778-1829).
Little did Dalton dream that the “atomic weight” of the elements is
equivalent to the number of _electrons_ in each atom of a given
substance![29] Or that the atomic _number_ of an element, arranged
(successively) in the order of their atomic _weights_, from 1
(hydrogen) to 92 (uranium), is an index to the number of positive
electrical charges on the atomic nucleus, around which revolve
in “planetary orbits” an equivalent number of negatively charged
_electrons_--the real building-stones of the Universe.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 28: _Nicholson’s Journal_, 29, 147, 1811.]
[Footnote 29: On this point, see Lodge, Sir Oliver, “Within the Atom,”
_Scientific American_, November, 1923.]
=TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES=
Simple typographical errors have been silently corrected; unbalanced
quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and
otherwise left unbalanced.
Punctuation, hyphenation, spelling and ligatures were made consistent
when a predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise
they were not changed.
The verses of the Invictus poem have been left as they are in the
printed version. A Table of Contents has been added.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATOMIC THEORY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
