Hadley nr Barnet | July 3d, 1845
Dear Sir,
I have read your lecture on the nature of matter2 with all the delight, which any one must feel in finding the opinions, which he has long held, so ably vindicated and so clearly illustrated.
There is however one difficulty, which will be felt in adopting the theory of Boscovich3, namely that matter, or the physical agen[t]s, fills indeed Space, that is by virtue of its forces, but does not occupy it4. The ideal points, which are the foci of forces attractive and repulsive, do not present any intelligible conditions for the origination and renewal of the forces. There is a want of the idea of Substance. This it is true is unfortunately an equivocal word: but I flatter myself that in the appendix to the "Vital Dynamics", of which I ordered a copy to be sent to you, - namely in the "Evolution of the idea of Power"5, I have given it a correct philosophical import in assigning to it an equivalent meaning with the term "Subject", id quod jacet sub 6, - that it is therefore essentially supersensuous, beyond the possible apprehension of the senses, but necessarily inferred as quovis modo ejusdem generis7 with that which constitutes our own subjectivity and consciously known as Will, Spirit, Power.
This seems to me to be the true ground and key of all dynamic philosophy: but it has led me further, and I cannot but think that you have been also induced to extend your views in the same direction. Taught by your researches that chemical combination depends upon the equilibrium and neutralization of opposite forces, the liberation of which by decomposition resolves them into voltaic currents, I have been unavoidably forced back upon the question: If the electric forces are the true agents of chemical change what share have the the [sic] material substances or chemical stuffs in the phaenomena? And though my knowledge of the subject is too imperfect to permit me to come to any satisfactory conclusion I must say that all the arguments I can muster bring me to the result: That these supposed stuffs are but the sensuous signs and symbols of the forces engaged in their production. Would that it were my good fortune to communicate with you more at large on this matter.
Your obliged | Jos Henry Green
M. Faraday Esq | &c &c &c
BOSCOVICH, Roger Joseph (1763): Theoria philosophiae naturalis, Venice.
FARADAY, Michael (1844a): “A speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter”, Phil. Mag., 24: 136-44.
GOODING, David (1978): “Conceptual and experimental bases of Faraday's denial of electrostatic action at a distance”, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 9: 117-49.
GREEN, Joseph Henry (1840): Vital Dynamics, London.
SPENCER, J. Brookes (1967): “Boscovich's Theory and its Relation to Faraday's Researches: An Analytic Approach”, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., 4: 184-202.
Please cite as “Faraday1758,” in Ɛpsilon: The Michael Faraday Collection accessed on 2 May 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/faraday/letters/Faraday1758