The Physical Sciences and the Romantic Movement

Review copies were received of the following works of Hegel: The Science of logic, transl. Miller A. V. (Allen & Unwin, London, 1969); the Philosophy of nature, transl. Petry M. J. (3 vols, Allen & Unwin, London, 1970); the Philosophy of nature, transl. Miller A. V. (Clarendon Press: Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970).

Froude J. A. , The nemesis of faith, 2nd ed. (London, 1849), 86.

Coleridge S. T. , quoted in T. McFarland, Coleridge and the pantheist tradition (Oxford, 1969), 207.

This review will be chiefly concerned with sources in English. For an account of German Romantic science, see the paper by my colleague Gower B. S. Dr , forthcoming in Studies in history and philosophy of science; Snelders H. A. M. , “Romanticism and naturphilosophie and the inorganic natural sciences”, Studies in Romanticism, ix (1970) 193–215. See also Williams L. Pearce , Michael Faraday (London, 1965) and The origins of field theory (New York, 1966); Levere T. H. , “Faraday, matter, and natural theology”, British journal for the history of science, iv (1968) 95–107. For the view that Davy worked simply from soundly-based analogies see Siegfried R. , “Sir Humphry Davy … on the diamond”, Isis, lvii (1966) 325–335.

Goethe's theory of colours, Transl. Eastlake C. (London, 1840; facsimile, London, 1967). It is a pity that this reprint has no introduction. Other books mentioned will be described below. We might also notice Oersted H. C. , The soul in nature (London, 1852; facsimile, London, 1966). It is regrettable that Oken Lorenz , Elements of physiophilosophy, Transl. Tulk A. (London, 1847), has not yet been reprinted.

Jones H. M. Cohen I. B. , (eds), Science before Darwin (London, 1963), 7.

Hartley D. , Observations on man (2 vols, London, 1749; facsimile, Gainsville, Fla., 1966), ii, 255.

Furst L. R. , Romanticism in perspective (London, 1969). For a more cosmopolitan view, see Schenk H. G. , The mind of the European Romantics (London, 1966); his account of Naturphilosophie, pp. 178–181, is perhaps a little harsh; see n. 4 above.

Coleridge S. T. , The friend, ed. Rooke B. E. (2 vols, London, 1969), i, 292–293. A recent valuable study of the problem of the collision of hard bodies, Scott W. L. , The conflict between atomism and conservation theory 1644 to 1860 (London, 1970) emphasises the importance of national traditions in this branch of physical science. See also Cannon W. F. , “History in depth: The early Victorian period”, History of science, iii (1964) 20–38; on a contact between Germany and Britain see Gillies A. , A Hebridean in Goethe's Weimar (Oxford, 1969).

Thackray A. , “Matter in a nut-shell: Newton's Opticks and eighteenth-century chemistry”, Ambix, xv (1968) 29–53, and Atoms and powers (Cambridge, Mass., 1970); Schofield R. E. , (ed.), A scientific autobiography of Joseph Priestley (London, 1966). See also McGuire J. E. , “Force, active principles, and Newton's invisible realm”, Ambix, xv (1968) 154–208.

Bragg W. L. Porter G. , (ed.), The Royal Institution library of science: Physical sciences (11 vols, London, 1970), ii, 282–290. These handsome volumes are marred by a flashy binding; they do make available a wide range of papers on various levels, and are invaluable for the student of the dissemination of science after 1851.

Schlegel F. , The philosophy of life, transl. Morrison A. J. W. (London, 1847), 86.

Raine K. , Defending ancient springs (London, 1967), “Thomas Taylor, Plato and the English Romantic movement”, British journal of aesthetics, viii (1968) 99–123; and Harper G. M. , (ed.), Thomas Taylor the Platonist: Selected writings (London, 1969). See also Yates F. , Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition (London, 1964); Debus A. , “Alchemy and the historian of science”, History of science, vi (1967) 128–138; and on Neoplatonists, Armstrong A. H. (ed.), The Cambridge history of later Greek and early medieval philosophy (Cambridge, 1967). Those disposed with Coleridge and Hegel to wrestle with the science of Jacob Boehme might note that The aurora, Transl. Sparrow J. , ed. Hehner D. S. Barker C. J. (London, 1914) has been reprinted (London, 1960); this is a seventeenth-century translation. Cf. also Plotinus , The Enneads, Transl. MacKenna S. (4th ed., London, 1970).

Davy H. , Consolations in travel (London, 1830); see Fullmer J. Z. , Sir Humphry Davy's published works (Cambridge, Mass., 1969); cf. Davy J. , Memoirs of the life of Sir Humphry Davy, Bart. (2 vols, London, 1836), i, 26–27. The German volume, not in Fullmer, is Buchner W. , Goldkörner aus clem literarischen Nachlasse eines christlichen Naturforschers (Erlangen, 1856). Fullmer promises us a biography, and an edition of Davy's letters; see also Hartley H. Sir , Humphry Davy (London, 1966).

Enfield W. , The history of philosophy (2 vols, London, 1791). In a review of Willich's account of the Kantian philosophy, in the Monthly review, xxviii (1799) 62–69, appears the remark that the writings of the Platonists of Alexandria “do not differ so widely in spirit, as is commonly apprehended, from those of the Königsberg school”; this was not intended as a compliment.

Glanvill J. , Saducismus triumphatus (3rd ed., London, 1689; facsimile Gainesville, Fla., 1966); The vanity of dogmatizing (London, 1661; facsimile, Hildesheim , 1970); More H. , The complete poems, ed. Grosart A. B. (Blackburn, 1878; facsimile. Hildesheim , 1969)—the “Democritus Platonissans” is perhaps the most interesting to the historian of science; Cudworth R. , The true intellectual system of the universe (London, 1678; facsimile, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1964); Cragg G. R. (ed.). The Cambridge Platonists (New York, 1968); Patrides C. A. , (ed.), The Cambridge Platonists (London, 1969). See also MacAdoo H. R. , The spirit of Anglicanism (London, 1965). Approving references to Cudworth can be found, for example, in Spence J. , Anecdotes, observations and characters of books and men, ed. Singer S. W. Dobrée B. (London, 1964), 41, and Maclaurin C. , An account of Sir Isaac Newton's philosophical discoveries (London, 1748; facsimile, New York, 1968), 26. Coleridge read him, but whether any scientists in the early nineteenth century did so is uncertain. By 1809 the Royal Institution had a copy of The true intellectual system. Given an edition of Davy's notebooks, perhaps a Road to chlorine could be written in the manner of the Road to Xanadu; but it might be less entertaining.

Wordsworth C. , Scholae academicae (London, 1877; facsimile, London, 1968).

Faraday M. , Lectures on the non-metallic elements, ed. Scoffern J. (London, 1853), 2, 7.

The Royal Institution library catalogues of 1809 and 1821 survive. See Jung G. C. , Psychology and alchemy (2nd ed., London, 1967); Ashmole E. , Theatrum chemicum britannicum (London, 1652; facsimile, New York, 1968); de Jong H. M. E. , Michael Mater's “Atalanta fugiens” (Leiden, 1969); Berthelot M. , Les origines de l'alchimie (Paris, 1885), Introduction à l'étude de la chimie des anciens et du moyen âge (Paris, 1889; facsimiles, Brussels, 1966).

Sharrock R. , “The chemist and the poet: Sir Humphry Davy and the Preface to the Lyrical Ballads”, Notes and records of the Royal Society. xvii (1962) 57.

Polanyi M. , Personal knowledge (London, 1958); Torrance T. F. , Theological science (London, 1969).

Tucker S. I. , Protean shape (London, 1967); Crosland M. P. , Historical studies in the language of chemistry (London, 1962); Cardwell D. S. L. , “Early development of the concepts of power, work and energy”, British journal for the history of science, iii (1967) 209–224.

Linder B. Smeaton W. A. , “Schwediauer, Bentham and Beddoes: Translators of Bergman and Scheele”, Annals of science, xxiv (1968) 259–273—see especially the last page; Bergman T. , A dissertation on elective attractions (London, 1785; facsimile, London, 1970); Scheele C. W. , Chemical essays (London, 1786; facsimile, London, 1966).

Cardwell D. S. L. , (ed.), John Dalton and the progress of science (Manchester, 1968); Knight D. M. (ed.), Classical scientific papers: Chemistry (London, 1968); Stallo J. B. , The philosophy of nature (London and Boston, Mass., 1848)—a reprint of this would be useful—and The concepts and theories of modern physics, ed. Bridgman P. W. (Cambridge, Mass., 1960). On Newtonian use of “hypothesis”, see Koyré A. , “Concept and experience in Newton's scientific thought” (1956), reprinted in Newtonian studies (London, 1965).

See n. 22.

Such a study would require careful investigation of Nicholson's journal and the Philosophical magazine among English journals—but it could not be made completely insular; cf. Ritter J.W. , Die Begründung der Elektrochemie, ed. Herman A. (Frankfurt am Main, 1968).

Cuvier G. , Rapport historique sur les progrès des sciences naturelles (Paris, 1810; facsimile, Brussels, 1968), 84 fi.

Collison R. L. E. , Encyclopedias: Their history throughout the ages, a bibliographical guide (New York, 1964); Walsh S. P. , Anglo-American general encyclopedias (New York, 1968).

Hayden J. O. , The Romantic reviewers (London, 1969).

Babbage Though C. , Reflections on the decline of science in England (London, 1830; facsimile, Famborough, 1969), discusses the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal Institution as schools or at least pressure groups. Other mildly-sinister later groups include the American Lazzaroni, described in Reingold N. , Science in nineteenth-century America (London, 1966); and the X Club: See Jensen J. V. , “The X Club: Fraternity of Victorian scientists”, British journal for the history of science, v (1970) 63–72; MacLeod R. M. , “The X Club. A social network in late Victorian England”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxiv (1970) 305–322. On various scientific institutions, see Becker B. H. , Scientific London (London, 1874; facsimile, Famborough, 1969).

Coleridge S. T. , The friend, ed. Rooke , i, 470–471. Whewell suggests that sciences are popular when they lend themselves to dramatic demonstration experiments, and seem easy to understand, but this does not seem to be the whole story.

Hayter A. , Opium and the Romantic imagination (London, 1968); there is in Cottle J. , Reminiscences of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey (London, 1847; facsimile, London, 1970), 464, a letter from Coleridge of 1803, sent with a parcel of Bang (Indian hemp) procured from Sir Joseph Banks, which ends: “We will have a fair trial of Bang. Do bring down some of the Hyoscyamine pills, and I will give a fair trial of Opium, Henbane, and Nepenthe.”

Siegfried R. , op. cit. (n. 4).

Farrar W. V. , “Nineteenth century speculations on the complexity of the chemical elements”, British journal for the history of science, ii (1965) 297–323, iv (1968) 65–67; Knight D. M. (ed.). Classical scientific papers: Chemistry, second series (London, 1970); Beddoes T. , Contributions to medical and physical knowledge (Bristol, 1799), 222; Donovan M. , Philosophical magazine, 4th series, iii (1852) 117–127. Donovan also wrote books on galvanism and on chemistry, the latter for the Cabinet cyclopedia of Dionysius Lardner. Hegel, as we shall see below, held that the unity of nature can only be appreciated when its diversity has been recognised.

Harris R. W. , Romanticism and the social order 1780–1830 (London, 1969). Harris stresses the “scientific” interests of Constable and Turner (pp. 378–381). Studies of the relations between the sciences and the visual arts in the Romantic period might well be rewarding, though apart from studies of optics and colours, and perhaps pigments, this field would chiefly include illustrations of natural history and of technology. The rise of wood-engraving transformed the appearance of physics and chemistry books, putting illustrations on the page instead of at the back of the book, by about 1830. On the ‘chemical’ art of lithography, see Twyman M. , Lithography 1800–1850 (London, 1970); on pigments, Harley R. D. , Artists' pigments c. 1600–1835 (London, 1970).

Piper H. W. , The active universe (London, 1962); MacFarland T. , Coleridge and the pantheist tradition (Oxford, 1969). Piper seems to prefer Coleridge the unitarian and pantheistic poet, whereas MacFarland discusses the poetry and delights in the trinitarian philosopher, critic and theologian. MacFarland's point of departure is the enquiry into how Coleridge came to “borrow” such large chunks of Schelling when their basic beliefs were opposed. His discussions of plagiarism are rather tedious, but to follow Coleridge's ambivalent attitude towards pantheism has clearly been worthwhile. MacFarland has an appendix on “Coleridge and scientific thought”, chiefly about Naturphilosophie, but there seems to be more to be said about this topic than he believes. On Erasmus Darwin and his influence, see Schofield R. E. , The Lunar Society of Birmingham (Oxford, 1963); King-Hele D. (ed.). Essential writings of Erasmus Darwin (London, 1968); Ritterbush P. C. , Overtures to biology (New Haven and London, 1964).

Southey R. , Letters from England, ed. Simmons J. (London, 1951); Southey R. Coleridge S. T. , Omniana, ed. Gittings R. (Fontwell, Sussex, 1969), 18. De Quincey's problems increased when, his claims having been reduced to one minute, poor and isolated island which he had to maintain by diplomacy, his brother unfairly suggested that the inhabitants were so backward as still to have tails.

The notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. Coburn K. (London, in progress); Coleridge S. T. , Hints towards the formation of a more comprehensive theory of life, ed. Watson S. B. (London, 1848; facsimile, London, 1970); The friend—see n. 9 above; Encyclopedia metropolitana (29 vols, London, 1817–45)—see n. 27 above. Griggs E. L. , Collected letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Oxford 1959) is, of course, also invaluable. For anyone interested in Coleridge, Coburn K. (ed.), Inquiring spirit (London, 1951) is a most useful introduction.

Goethe's use of the term “elective affinities” to describe human relationships, and Hegel's similar grouping of love and friendship under “chemism”, seem fanciful rather than imaginative; inverted, these comparisons might be constructive leaps of the imagination.

Despite this, it is noteworthy that the headline over the review of Hegel's Logic, in Miller's translation, on the front page of The Times literary supplement, 19 June 1969, was: “Was Hegel a Great Philosopher?”. For details of the Hegel translations, see n. 1 above.

Petry's thoroughness may be gauged from his check from contemporary weather-reports that Hegel has reported an optical observation accurately.

Harré R. , The anticipation of nature (London, 1965); Schelling F. W. J. , On university studies, Transl. Morgan E. S. , ed. Guterman N. (Athens, Ohio, 1966) is probably the most accessible text of Schelling in English.

Patterson E. C. , “Mary Somerville”, British journal for the history of science, iv (1969) 311–339; Sharlin H. I. , The convergent century (New York, 1966). Gillispie's thesis in The edge of objectivity (Princeton, N.J., 1960) that science must be extricated from flux and process and from subjectivity would not have appealed to Hegel.

Ampère A. M. , Essai sur la philosophie des sciences (Paris, 1834) has, for example, recently appeared in facsimile (Brussels, 1966).

Brock W. H. , (ed.), The atomic debates (Leicester, 1967), 23–24.

Similar remarks are made by Davy in his Consolations, p. 198; see Mendelsohn E. , Heat and life (Cambridge, Mass., 1964).

See Harré's R. remarks on Whewell, British journal for the history of science, iv (1969) 399. Two facsimile editions of the Philosophy of the inductive sciences have recently appeared.

I ching, Transl. Wilhelm R. Baynes C. F. (3rd ed., London, 1968); Jung's C. G. foreword, p. xxiii.

Of scientists of the Romantic period, Wollaston W. H. , for example, has probably suffered in posthumous reputation because of the range of his researches, from determinations of equivalent weights, and mechanics, to fairy-rings, sea-sickness, and why the eyes in portraits seem to follow one around. Many of his contemporaries similarly worked in a number of fields which to us, though perhaps not to them, seem almost completely separate.

A recent example of an account of a minor but historically interesting literary figure, William Combe—who was inter alia ghost-writer for John Hunter—is Hamilton H. W. , Doctor Syntax (London, 1969). Combe's career casts light on many aspects of the world of letters; whether there are comparable figures in the scientific community who might provide a similar basis for a horizontal study in the Romantic period would be worth investigating.