William Whewell to Faraday   14 October 1837¹

Trin. Coll. Cambridge Oct. 14, 1837

My dear Sir

I am always glad to hear of the progress of your researches², and never the less so because they require the fabrication of a new word or two. Such a coinage has always taken place at the great epochs of discovery; like the medals that are struck at the beginning of a new reign:- or rather like the change of currency produced by the accession of a new sovereign; for their value and influence consists in their coming into common circulation. I am not sure that I understand the views which you are at present bringing into shape, sufficiently well to suggest any such terms as you think you want. I think that if I could have a quarter of an hours talk with you I should probably be able to construct terms that would record your new notions, so far as I could be made to understand them, better than I can by means of letters: for it is difficult without question and discussion to catch the precise kind of relation which you want to express. However, by way of beginning such a discussion, I would ask you whether you want abstract terms to denote the different and related conditions of the body which exercises and the body which suffers induction? For though both are active and both passive it may still be convenient to suppose a certain ascendancy on one side. If so would two such words as inductricity and inducteïty answer your purpose? They are not very monstrous in their form, and are sufficiently distinct. And if you want the corresponding adjectives you may call the one the inductric, and the other the inducteous body. This last word is rather a startling one; but if such relations are to be expressed, terminations are a good artifice, as we see in chemistry: and I have no doubt if you give the world facts and laws which are better expressed with than without such solecisms, they will soon accommodate themselves to the phrases, as they have often done to worse ones. But I am rather in the dark as to whether this is the kind of relation which you want to indicate. ‑If not, the attempt may perhaps serve to shew you where my dulness lies. I do not see my way any better as to the other terms, for I do not catch your objection to current which appears to me to be capable of jogging on very well from cathode to anode or vice versa. As for positive and negative I do not see why cathodic and anodic should not be used, if they will do the service you want of them.

I expect to be in London at the end of the month, and could probably see you for half an hour on the 1st of November, say at 10, 11 or 12. But in the mean time I shall be glad to hear from you whether you can make any thing of such conundrums as I have mentioned and am always yours very truly W. Whewell

Address: M. Faraday Esq | Royal Institution | Albemarle Street | London