|
A speck to us! A world to
those
Who bask within its sphere;
Whose sun-bright sky with ardour glows,
That would consume us here!
For what are matter’s noblest forms
If mind be wanting there?
A chaos Reason’s rays ne’er warms,
Were dark midst brightest glare.
Eta.
The year 1854,—although one
of the most engrossing work,— commenced with prostrating illness, in the
form of a long low influenza. Before my father had recovered from it, he
received a request from Professor Fraser, then editor of the North British,
to review a certain anonymous volume entitled Of the Plurality of Worlds, an
essay which was exciting much attention. All illness was forgotten, and he
was soon in one of his entirely absorbed states upon the subject. The
severity of the review has been ascribed to a certain amount of personal
feeling which existed between the author and the critic, owing to some
passages of arms at “the tournament of science,” at various times and
places. This may afterwards have added a shade of severity to his satire,
but he had fully made up his mind as to the merits of the argument and the
volume, before he knew who had written it. I make the following extracts
from two contemporary letters :—
Feb. 4, 1854.
“Tell me anything you know or can collect about ‘the Plurality of Worlds;’
he [Sir David] has been particularly requested to review it, and is going
over it just now, groaning at every line; he says it is quite disgusting,’
and displays great ignorance; he wants very much to know who is the author.
He has not finished the perusal, and may be in better humour with it before
he closes. You will make allowance for his strength of expression! I must
say, however, that the passages he has read to me are rather weak. We are
also reading Fontenelle’s little book on the same subject, or rather the
same name, more honestly used, and it is very amusing, quaint, sparkling,
and vivacious.”
“Feb. 10.—Many thanks about the ‘Plurality.’ We have since heard from
authority that it is by Whewell!!! which is surprising, as his views in his
Bridgewater Treatise seem rather different.”
To those behind the scenes, it was abundantly evident that the personal
depth of feeling which he displayed upon this occasion arose from his
characteristic liveliness of participation in any subject which deeply
touched him. The eye and the mind, accustomed from early childhood to gaze
out at the beautiful worlds rolling above, felt personally injured by the
dreariness and narrowness of the views which he combated. Sir Isaac Newton
had written long before,—“For in God’s house (which is the universe) are
many mansions, and He governs them by agents which can pass through the
heavens from one mansion to another. For if all places to which we have
access are filled with living creatures, why should all these immense spaces
of the heavens above the clouds be incapable of inhabitants V’ And his
disciple had clung to the same belief since the days of' his youth.
I shall never forget the delight and satisfaction with which, in the course
of his own private study of the Bible, he came upon this verse in
Isaiah,—“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, God himself that
formed the earth, and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in
vain, he formed it to be inhabited; ” which his mind at once seized with
ardour, as a logical demonstration that the others, if uninhabited, would
have been “ created in vain.” In fact, as he studied this subject, the
habitation of “more worlds than one” by intelligent creatures seemed
impressed on his mind as if written by a sunbeam; and although in the midst
of his greatest work, the extended biography of Sir Isaac Newton, he felt
impelled to lay it aside for a time, and bent all his energies in preparing
a volume with the above happy title. Rapidly his occupied mind poured itself
upon paper, and the work was soon in proof. Just at this time we proceeded
to Clifton, on the occasion of the marriage of a young friend and connection
to whom he was much attached. We visited, en route, his friend and
correspondent, Mr. Chance of the great glassworks at Birmingham, where he
was much interested in seeing the English and French methods of blowing
glass, the latter with its inventor, M. Bontemps, as cicerone. It was at No.
9 Princes Buildings, Clifton,—where we were with his old friends and
neighbours of Coates Crescent days, Mr. and Mrs. George Forbes,—that the
proof sheets of More Worlds than One were corrected. There, in an invalid
room, he read day by day his proofs to me and a favourite young friend of
his,1 who sends me the following recollections of a time, when the humility
of the great mind was very touchingly manifested:—
“I may now hope to put down a few long-cherished reminiscences of that dear
father of yours, whom I loved so well, and in whose society we all so
delighted. I am only sorry that my bad memory does not retain many more
vivid impressions and traditional stories, having enjoyed so many
opportunities of intercourse with him, and having heard so many
characteristic traits of him from my own dear father. One of the episodes in
our intercourse which I remember most clearly, occurred that spring we all
spent at Clifton. Sir David was then writing his More Worlds than One, and
he asked you and me to help him in correcting the press. In the course of
this most interesting work we came across several expressions we thought
much too severe, and we summoned courage to point these out to the learned
author—who at once altered them in the meekest way to our entire
satisfaction ; there was, however, one whole sentence which we much objected
to—your father said he had looked at it; he did not see anything so very
objectionable about it; he did not think he could put it differently; it was
printed, so it must just stand, otherwise there would be a blank in the
page, which would never do. We still ventured to persist that we did not
think the passage eould remain as it was, upon which he said, half provoked
and half amused at our audacity and pertinacity, that we were welcome to
strike it out if we could write a paragraph to fill the space; this we
accordingly did, and inserted something which was at all events an
improvement in point of amenity! Another thing I remember in connection with
this subject, is my mother gently remonstrating with Sir David in regard to
the somewhat unmeasured terms in which he spoke of the author in his review
in the North British of the Plurality of Worlds. She said such expressions
were calculated to hurt his feelings. ‘Hurt his feelings!’ broke in Sir
David, ‘why, it is he that has hurt my feelings!’
“All who knew him will, I am sure, unite in testifying to his readiness to
explain, it might be, the simplest principles of a science to some
insignificant person, and the wonderful enjoyment he seemed to find in so
doing, quite as much indeed as in talking of some of his latest discoveries
to the most learned,—if only his listener were thoroughly interested, and
anxious to learn. In illustration of this, I may mention that my dear mother
says she has two sheets he wrote out for her many years ago, explaining some
scientific point she had had some difficulty in understanding.
“It was delightful too to observe the fresh admiration, delight, and wonder
which he himself felt, each time he spoke of or exhibited some of the
exquisite and infinitely small works of creation as revealed by the
microscope, or the infinitely large and splendid heavenly bodies as
presented to us by the telescope. And now how blessed it is to think that,
with all his acquired learning, and his many marvellous discoveries, above
and beyond all these—which he prized so much, and which he had laboured
perseveringly throughout his whole life to attain—he tejoiced most of all in
the ‘ knowledge of Christ and in the power of His resurrection.’”
More Worlds than One became a very popular volume, and produced a flood of
correspondence,—many quotations, original poems, and notices of old books
being sent to him. He wrote on one occasion :—“ Mr. Monckton Milnes gave me
yesterday the following poetical translation of a fine sentiment of Immanuel
Kant’s for another edition of More Worlds:—
"Two things I ever tremble when I scan—
The star-lit heavens, the sense of Eight in man.’”
Another sends, for “next edition,” the following quotation from Samuel
Rogers:— "
“Now the day is spent,
And stars are kindling in the firmament;
To ns how silent—though, like ours, perchance,
Busy, and full of life and circumstance.”
Another, the following by Sir
E. B. Lytton-Bulwer :—
“Can every leaf a teeming
world contain,
Can every globule gird a countless race;
Yet one death-slumber in its dreamless reign
Clasp all the illumed magnificence of space?
Life crowd a grain, from air’s vast realms effaced?
The leaf, a world—the firmament, a waste ?”
And he received the following letter :—
“Reform Club, 17th May 1860.
“Dear Sir,—I have met with so very amusing a proof of the nonplurality of
worlds in a fusty old book, that I cannot resist the temptation of sending
it to you, as it is probably unknown. Two French clergymen were arguing the
question on theological grounds, and one of them took refuge in the parable
of the lepers (Luke xvii. 17), quoting the Latin version, ‘ Erant decern
mundi ; ’ to which the other
answered by continuing the quotation, ‘ubi sunt reliqui novem.’ If Sir
Thomas Browne had written on this subject I am sure he would have trotted
out this argument with great energy; at least in the humble opinion of,
truly yours, C. De la Pryme.”
It is right to state that these two knights of science, true and brave,
Brewster and Whewell, both now passed beyond earthly conflict, were
thoroughly reconciled to each other some years after this severe test of
literary friendship.
After some time spent in London, we went to Leamington, to visit Dr. and
Mrs. Burbidge, where my father enjoyed much congenial society. Among his
many interests there, were Mr. Craig, the constructor of the large
achromatic telescope, and Mr. Buckle, the photographer ; it was a great
pleasure to him also to see his old friend Dr. Jephson, who, although in
blindness and feebleness, and thus enforced leisure, still was in possession
of all his former vivacity of mind.
Thence we went to Manchester, paying a most interesting visit to Mr.
Fairbairn, which was shared by the late Mr. Hopkins, of Cambridge, the
celebrated private tutor in mathematics, whose society always afforded my
father peculiar pleasure. No sight, no kind of information, ever came amiss
to the latter, who was, as of old, deeply engrossed in “examining” the
Manchester factories, the locomotives, and engineering improvements of his
host, and the steam-hammer and numberless curious experiments and inventions
of another Scotch friend, Mr. James Nasmyth. One day’s expedition he counted
as “a white day” of his life. It was a visit to Saltaire in company with Mr.
Fairbairn, his accomplished daughter Mrs. Bateman, and Mrs. Gaskell, the
popular authoress, now, alas ! no more. He was deeply interested in the
alpaca factory, in the flourishing flock of alpacas, in the model town of
1000 workers and their families, in which was church and school, and not one
public-house, and, most of all, in Mr. (now Sir) Titus Salt, the creator and
proprietor of all this well-regulated power and wealth, and in his beautiful
and refined home, “The Crow’s Nest.”
In August of the same year we went for the first time to Aberdeenshire,
afterwards to be a place of many tender and happy memories of him. We first
visited Keith Hall, the seat of the Earl of Kintore, whence he was taken to
see many of the fine old castles for which Aberdeenshire is celebrated,—Fyvie,
Castle Forbes, Castle Fraser, etc., which he enjoyed much, and also made the
acquaintance of Lord Aberdeen, the statesman, at Haddo House. The next visit
was to Banchory House, where his previous acquaintance with Alexander
Thomson of Banchory ripened into a warm and sympathetic friendship.
The letters forming his London journal at this period turn very much upon
spirit-rapping and table-turning. As these letters give his vivid
impressions as thrown off at the time, I give them together, although of
different dates. Eegarding a kindred subject, the following quotation well
illustrates the lively interest, mingled with scientific caution, with which
he treated these topics. He went down to Brighton to see the curious
experiments connected with the magneto-scope, and I find a rough draft of
his opinion of these experiments, with this note prefixed:—“This was drawn
up at the desire of Mrs. Lee of Hartwell, who wished my opinion of the
Magnetoscope, and of Mr. Rutter, who was, I believe, her nephew.”
“On the 6th of August 1851, I was requested by Lady Byron and Lady Lovelace
to accompany them to Mr. Rutter’s, at Brighton, to see his experiments with
a pear-shaped ball of wax suspended by a fibre of silk. The experiments were
very successful, and from Mr. Rutter’s character and talents we were sure
that they were honestly performed. The general result was that the waxen
ball revolved from left to right when held by a male hand, but stopped and
revolved in the opposite direction when any article belonging to a female
was laid on the hand or arm of the male. Various changes on the motion of
the ball were produced by animal substances, by light, galvanism, and
electricity. It would be desirable to have these experiments carefully
repeated when the operator is blindfolded, for there is reason to believe
that when there is a previous knowledge of the effect to be produced, a
desire that it should be produced may involuntarily influence the mind of
the operator, and that this desire as involuntarily may influence his hand
to give such an impulse to the suspended line, as maybe required to produce
the expected result. Mr. Rutter, indeed, showed us an experiment in which
his hand was separated from the suspending thread by a fixed arm of glass
and metal, supported by a stand ; but the effect was too evanescent to
entitle us to regard the result as a scientific fact upon which implicit
reliance could be placed. . David Brewster.
“Hartwell House, Oct. 21, 1851.”
“London, May 1851.
“I have been at two mesmeric seances, one with Dr. Macdonald and the Duke of
Argyll, at a Mrs. Holmes’, who failed utterly in her clairvoyante
pretensions. A Count Possenti mesmerised her. The other was at Dr.
Ashbumer’s, where I saw things that confounded me.”
“London, April 25, 1851.
“We had really a delightful breakfast party at the Chevalier Bunsen’s, one
of the most learned men of the age, and so frank and kind. The great subject
of talk here is spirit-rapping, and the moving of tables; when the party
sitting round the table place both their hands upon it, the thumb of the
left hand touching the thumb of the right, and the little fingers touching
the little fingers of the hands of the persons on each side of you, it is
then said to shake and tremble, and often to be moved along the floor. Just
as we were discussing the subject, Mr. Bunsen received a letter from the
King of Prussia, saying that the experiment was made at the Palace by the
royal party, who were alone, and no conjuror present. Three of the young
ladies had each letters from Berlin, mentioning these experiments, which
sometimes fail. One letter stated that it succeeded three times out of
seven. Another account described the size of the table, the wood of which it
was made, and all the particulars of the experiments, with the greatest
minuteness. Of course it is nonsense, and there must be some trick in it. .
. .
“. . . Mr. Monckton Milnes asked us to breakfast with him tomorrow, to meet
Mr. Galla, the African traveller, who assured him that Mrs. Hayden told him
the names of persons and places in Africa which nobody but himself knew. The
world is obviously going mad. An American whom I met at Rogers’ the other
day told me that hundreds had been sent to lunatic asylums in consequence of
the communications made to them by the spirit-rappers. . . . The
spirit-rapping is exciting great interest in London, but very few believe in
it, and there are many facts which tend to prove that it is done by some
machinery or apparatus by which the hands and feet of the medium may produce
the observed phenomena.
“In the table-turning the table moves round, and you are obliged to follow
it. It often runs away!! and it is now found that it obeys the commands of
one of the movers, and tells secrets to him when asked. The Chevalier
Neukomm, who inquired in the kindest manner after you, told me that the
table when questioned told his age. One of the party desires it to do this
by lifting up one leg, and rapping just one rap for every ten years, then
quick raps for every unit. He pressed me to go and see this done at a
private party, where he was to dine with a scientific medical friend. I
went, and saw and heard the table do all these wonders. It told my age, but
blundered a little. Now all this was done by an involuntary action of the
fingers of the party. My hands were on the table, and I could perceive no
trick on the part of the others there. . . .
“I believe the truth to be this. Electricity and magnetism have nothing to
do with it. Neither the one nor the other can pass from the body unless by a
strong muscular effort, and in that case it requires the most delicate
galvanoscope to make it visible. But even if there was an abundance of
electricity in the body, it could not enter the table, which is a
non-conductor, and, even if the table were a conductor, its effect would not
be to turn it. When a number of hands are so placed, either in contact with
one another or not, there is necessarily a tremulous motion from the
circulation of the blood, and the fatigue of remaining in one position ; and
when this motion is communicated to the table, and the party wish it to
move, as they are directed to do, from right to left, they involuntarily
help it forward, while following its first motion. In this way it succeeds
with most operators. I have no doubt that there are thousands of tables
turning every night in London, so general is the excitement on the subject.”
“London, June 1855.
“Last of all I went with Lord Brougham to a seance of the new spirit-rapper,
Mr. Home, a lad of twenty. . . . He went to America at the age of seven, and
though a naturalised American, is actually a Scotchman. Mr. Home lives in
Coxe’s Hotel, in Jerrnyn Street; and Mr. Coxe, who knows Lord Brougham,
wished him to have a seance, and his Lordship invited me to accompany him,
in order to assist in finding out the trick. We four sat down at a
moderately-sized table, the structure of which we were invited to examine.
In a short time the table shuddered, and a tremulous motion ran up all our
arms; at our bidding these motions ceased and returned.
“The most unaccountable rappings were produced in various parts of the
table, and the table actually rose from the ground when no hand was upon it.
A larger table was produced, and exhibited similar movements.
“An accordion was held in Lord Brougham’s hand and gave out a single note,
but the experiment was a failure; it would not play either in his hand or
mine.'
“A small hand-bell was then laid down with its mouth on the carpet, and
after lying for some time it actually rang when nothing could have touched
it. The bell was then placed on the other side, still upon the carpet, and
it came over to me and placed itself in my hand. It did the same to Lord
Brougham.
“These were the principal experiments; we could give no explanation of them,
and could not conjecture how they could be produced by any kind of
mechanism. Hands are sometimes seen and felt, the hand often grasps another,
and melts away, as it were, under the grasp.
“The object of asking Lord Brougham and me seems to have been to get our
favourable opinion of the exhibition, but though neither of us can explain
what we saw, we do not believe that it was the work of idle spirits." |
