Sir, - I take the liberty of asking whether an erroneous statement which has appeared in several journals1 may be contradicted in The Times? I have no right to request this favour, as the error has not appeared in that paper, but do it with the feeling that, if permissible, one correction there will be sufficient for all the mistakes elsewhere. I am reported to have said, that by experiment I have fully confirmed the extraordinary results of Mr. Crosse, who states that he has obtained living insects by the agency of electricity and silica, &c2. What I said was almost the reverse of this, for I merely stated, upon the occasion of the insects being shown by Mr. Clift3 and Mr. Owen at the Royal Institution4, that we wished it to be distinctly understood we had no opinion to give respecting the mode of their production.
My impression is, that the electricity and the silica are merely accidental circumstances in relation to the production of the insects, and not essentials; and I have refrained from experiments because I thought it only just to Mr. Crosse that he should be allowed the opportunity by further trials in close vessels and with other precautions that will easily suggest themselves, either to correct his views, if they need correction, or to add that clear and confirmatory evidence which the subject at present requires.
I am, Sir, your obliged servant, | Michael Faraday
Royal Institution, March 3.
STALLYBRASS, Oliver (1967): “How Faraday “Produced Living Animalculae”: Andrew Crosse and the Story of a Myth”, Proc. Roy. Inst., 41: 597-619.
Please cite as “Faraday0978,” in Ɛpsilon: The Michael Faraday Collection accessed on 29 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/faraday/letters/Faraday0978