Abstract
This chapter analyses eighteenth-century accounts of aether, a mysterious imponderable fluid, which was used as a model to explain the operation of electricity. Accounts of electrical aethers were derived from the work of Isaac Newton and George Berkeley, and were very imperfectly defined. Electrical aethers were understood as both quasi-spiritual entities, sometimes described as the anima mundi, and as superfine forms of matter. Benjamin Franklin, Ebenezer Kinnersley, Joseph Priestley and Adam Walker all grapple with the question of whether electricity is a material or spiritual phenomenon, and the associated implications for their professions of faith.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
Walker, System of Familiar Philosophy, 391.
- 2.
Steven Shapin notes that models of matter and spirit are ‘available for commenting upon the genus hierarchy’. Shapin, ‘Social Uses of Science’, 138.
- 3.
See also Yolton, Thinking Matter, 103–104.
- 4.
Baxter, An Enquiry, 1.
- 5.
Ibid., 6.
- 6.
Shapin, ‘Social Uses of Science’, 136.
- 7.
Baxter, An Enquiry, 11.
- 8.
Ibid., 13.
- 9.
Ibid., 14.
- 10.
Ibid., 36.
- 11.
Ibid., 37.
- 12.
Heimann, ‘Voluntarism and Immanence’, 273–274.
- 13.
Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’.
- 14.
Heilbron, Electricity, 2. See in contrast Cantor, ‘Theological Significance of Ethers’.
- 15.
‘An Historical Account of the Wonderful Discoveries’, 197.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
Priestley, History and Present State of Electricity, 151.
- 18.
Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’, 2.
- 19.
Schaffer, ‘Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle’, 4.
- 20.
Fara, Entertainment for Angels, 116.
- 21.
Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’, 5.
- 22.
Schaffer ‘Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle’, 5.
- 23.
Cohen, ‘Preface’, xxxv–xxxvi. See also Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science, 14; and Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 120.
- 24.
Newton, Opticks, 349.
- 25.
Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’, 5.
- 26.
Newton, Opticks, 342.
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
Ibid., 352.
- 29.
Newton, Mathematical Principles, vol. II, 393.
- 30.
Boas Hall and Hall, ‘Newton’s Electric Spirit’, 473.
- 31.
Ibid. See also Cohen, ‘Preface’, iv; Heilbron, Electricity, 239, 241; Home, ‘Newton on Electricity’, 191.
- 32.
Home, ‘Newton on Electricity’, 207.
- 33.
Newton, Opticks, 404.
- 34.
Ibid., 369.
- 35.
Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’, 2; Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 141. See also Rousseau, ‘Nerves, Spirits and Fibres’, 140; Roe, ‘Life Sciences’, 398–399, 405.
- 36.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 177; Newton, Opticks, 399–400.
- 37.
Newton, Opticks, 401–402.
- 38.
Riskin, Science in the Age of Sensibility, 75.
- 39.
Newton, Opticks, 403. See also Yolton, Thinking Matter, 94–100.
- 40.
Heilbron, Electricity, 52.
- 41.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 172.
- 42.
See Reill’s discussion of the way in which occult phenomena were not banished by the influence of Newtonian thought. Reill, ‘The Legacy’, 28.
- 43.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 178; see also Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 161–162; Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science, 17.
- 44.
Peter Collinson to Cadwallader Colden, 30 March 1745, cited in Schaffer, ‘Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle’, 8.
- 45.
Schaffer, ‘Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle’, 496.
- 46.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 173.
- 47.
See Guest, A Form of Sound Words, 133–134 and 204–205 on Smart’s objections to Newton’s methods and findings.
- 48.
Smart, Poetical Works, vol. I, 89. See also ibid., 55.
- 49.
Gibbons, Spirituality and the Occult, 42.
- 50.
Fara, Entertainment for Angels, 120–121.
- 51.
Myers, ‘How Body Matters’, 117; Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 165–166, 169–170; Fara, Sympathetic Attractions, 27.
- 52.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 190. Walmsley disagrees, making Berkeley’s aethereal spirit a combination of Newton’s aether and Boerhaave’s fire. Walmsley, Rhetoric of Berkeley’s Philosophy, 168–169. Many electrical researchers conflated Boerhaave’s fire and Newton’s aether; see Heilbron, Eletricity, 69, and Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 324.
- 53.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 198–199.
- 54.
Ibid., 199, 227.
- 55.
Ibid., 199.
- 56.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 191.
- 57.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 234.
- 58.
Ibid., 235–236.
- 59.
Ibid., 238.
- 60.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’, 190.
- 61.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 231.
- 62.
Ibid., 257–258.
- 63.
Ibid., 206.
- 64.
Chandler, ‘Languages of Sentiment’, 31. Chandler investigates how the ‘vehicular hypothesis’ is incorporated into and debated in the literary and philosophical works of Lawrence Sterne and Abraham Tucker in the later eighteenth century. Ibid., 21–39.
- 65.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 207. See Walmsley, Rhetoric of Berkeley’s Philosophy, 166–167.
- 66.
Walmsley, Rhetoric of Berkeley’s Philosophy, 163–64; Myers, ‘How Body Matters’, 113–114, 120.
- 67.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 214–215.
- 68.
Ibid., 207–208; see also Vassányi, Anima Mundi, 1–2.
- 69.
Berkeley, Works, vol. III, 246; see also ibid., 235–236.
- 70.
Heilbron, Electricity, 55.
- 71.
Ibid., 68.
- 72.
Worster, Compendious and Methodical Account, 29.
- 73.
Robinson, Dissertation on the Æther, 138.
- 74.
Heilbron, Electricity, 69. See also Heimann, ‘Nature is a Perpetual Worker’, 14.
- 75.
Watson, A Sequel, 45–46.
- 76.
Ibid., 50–51.
- 77.
Ibid., 53.
- 78.
Ibid., 70–71.
- 79.
It is not identical to the vital ‘caliduminnatum’ of ancient philosophy, as Watson points out, ibid., 75.
- 80.
Ibid., 72–75.
- 81.
Wilson, An Essay, vi–vii, 53–54.
- 82.
Ibid., vii–viii.
- 83.
Ibid., 12–13.
- 84.
Ibid., 28.
- 85.
Ibid., 58.
- 86.
Heilbron, Electricity, 296, 302, 378. See also Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 422.
- 87.
Wilson, An Essay, 79–80.
- 88.
Ibid., 200.
- 89.
Hoadly, Observations, 68.
- 90.
Wilson, Treatise, 201.
- 91.
Stewart, Public Science.
- 92.
Rackstrow, Miscellaneous Observations, 6, 49–50.
- 93.
Ibid., 12–13.
- 94.
Ibid., 1–2.
- 95.
Ibid., 1–2, 26, 56.
- 96.
Ibid., 25–26.
- 97.
Wesley in echoes of Berkeley and anticipation of Walker claims electricity as ‘the soul of the universe’, Desideratum,9. See Fissell and Cooter, ‘Exploring Natural Knowledge’, 147–148; Bertucci, ‘Revealing Sparks’.
- 98.
Lovett, Subtil Medium Prov’d, Preface, n.p.
- 99.
Lovett, Philosophical Essays, v–vi. Lovett develops his claims in later text The Electrical Philosopher.
- 100.
Lovett, Subtil Medium Prov’d, 5, 14.
- 101.
Ibid., 14–15, 16, 65–66.
- 102.
‘Sir Isaac Newton’s Aether Realized’.
- 103.
Ibid., 301.
- 104.
Martin, Philosophia Britannica, Preface, n.p.
- 105.
Ibid. See also Schaffer, ‘Consuming Flame’, 499.
- 106.
Martin, Philosophia Britannica, Preface, n.p.
- 107.
Ibid.
- 108.
Ibid.
- 109.
Schaffer, ‘Consuming Flame’, 506.
- 110.
Freke, Treatise, vi. See also ibid., 116, ii.
- 111.
Ibid., v–vi.
- 112.
Lovett, Philosophical Essays, v–vi.
- 113.
Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science, 19; Fara, Entertainment for Angels, 119.
- 114.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 343, 345, 368, 424.
- 115.
For Heilbron this is ‘fortunate’ as he takes a dim view of the philosophical value of that discourse. Heilbron, Electricity, 329–330. Cohen notes the importance of earlier responses to Newton by s’Gravesande, Desagulier and Hales for Franklin’s conception of electricity. Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science, 19–20.
- 116.
Chaplin, ‘Benjamin Franklin’s Natural Philosophy’, 67.
- 117.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 424.
- 118.
Franklin, Autobiography, 185–186.
- 119.
Kelleter, ‘Franklin and the Enlightenment’, 84.
- 120.
Fothergill, ‘Preface’, 166.
- 121.
Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments, 210.
- 122.
Cohen, Benjamin Franklin’s Science, 21. See also Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 107, 321–322.
- 123.
Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments, 213.
- 124.
Ibid.
- 125.
Ibid., 219.
- 126.
Delbourgo, A Most Amazing Scene, 39.
- 127.
Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments, 229.
- 128.
Ibid., 272.
- 129.
Ibid., 324–325.
- 130.
Ibid. These remarks anticipate a later unpublished paper in which Franklin speculates about universal subtle fluid, but even there he does not refer to the fluid as aether. Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 340.
- 131.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 346.
- 132.
Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Experiments, 327.
- 133.
Cohen, Franklin and Newton, 287, 342.
- 134.
Letter to Benjamin Franklin, 426, 432–433.
- 135.
Reid-Maroney, Philadelphia’s Enlightenment, 56.
- 136.
Ibid.
- 137.
Lemay, Ebenezer Kinnersley, 65.
- 138.
Ibid., 41.
- 139.
Reid-Maroney, Philadelphia’s Enlightenment, 54.
- 140.
Ibid.
- 141.
Ibid., 57–58.
- 142.
Pennsylvania Gazette, 11 April 1751.
- 143.
For Delbourgo this uniting of reason and revelation is a characteristically American move. Delbourgo, A Most Amazing Scene, 141–143.
- 144.
Kinnersley, Course of Experiments, 414.
- 145.
Carroll and Prickett (eds.), The Bible, Genesis 2:7, 2.
- 146.
Kinnersley, Course of Experiments, 418.
- 147.
Ibid., 421.
- 148.
Reid-Maroney, Philadelphia’s Enlightenment, 57.
- 149.
Kinnersley, Course of Experiments, 421.
- 150.
James Alexander to Cadwalader Colden, June 1752, quoted in Lemay, Ebenezer Kinnersley, 79.
- 151.
Pennsylvania Gazette, 11 April 1751.
- 152.
Kinnersley, Course of Experiments, 413.
- 153.
Hall, Contested Boundaries; Mahaffey, Preaching Politics.
- 154.
Kinnersley, ‘A Letter’.
- 155.
‘True and Genuine Account’, 120.
- 156.
Ibid., 120–121.
- 157.
Ibid., 121.
- 158.
Ibid., 122.
- 159.
Kinnersley, Course of Experiments, 6.
- 160.
Delbourgo, ‘The Electrical Machine’, 266.
- 161.
Golinski, Science as Public Culture, 68.
- 162.
McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 326.
- 163.
‘The History and Present State of Electricity’, 464. See Golinski, Science as Public Culture, 73.
- 164.
Priestley, History and Present State, xi.
- 165.
Ibid., vi–vii.
- 166.
- 167.
Ibid., 408.
- 168.
McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 329.
- 169.
McEvoy, ‘Electricity, Knowledge’, 19.
- 170.
Ibid., 64–65.
- 171.
Ibid., 15.
- 172.
In his Familiar Introduction to the Study of Electricity Priestley uses the three terms interchangeably. Joseph Priestley, Familiar Introduction, 82–83.
- 173.
Priestley, History and Present State, 415.
- 174.
Ibid., 424.
- 175.
McEvoy, ‘Electricity, Knowledge’, 12.
- 176.
Priestley, History and Present State, 446, 530–531.
- 177.
Ibid., 449.
- 178.
Ibid., 450.
- 179.
Hartley too was interested in the material and spiritual basis of electricity, basing his account on Newton’s aether. Fulford, Lee and Kitson ‘Man Electrified Man’, 184.
- 180.
McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 350.
- 181.
Priestley, Hartley’s Theory, xvii.
- 182.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, xiii. Priestley is sceptical about a ‘vehicle’ that mediates between the spiritual and material, arguing that there is no distinction between matter and spirit, ibid., 16–17, 61, 74. See also Yolton, Thinking Matter, 114; McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 330.
- 183.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, xxxvii.
- 184.
- 185.
Yolton, Thinking Matter, 112.
- 186.
Benjamin, ‘Medicine, Morality’; 172, McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 387.
- 187.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, 7, 8, 17, and Priestley An Examination of Dr. Reid’s Inquiry, 54.
- 188.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, 7.
- 189.
Ibid., 9.
- 190.
McEvoy suggests, though, that Priestley avoids a reliance on obscure causes in his theory of matter, ‘Electricity, Knowledge’, 18–19.
- 191.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, 12–13.
- 192.
Ibid., 54.
- 193.
McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 386.
- 194.
Priestley, Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit, 109.
- 195.
McEvoy and McGuire, ‘God and Nature’, 336, 339.
- 196.
Priestley, History and Present State, 562–563.
- 197.
Shapin, ‘Social Uses of Science’, 117–118.
- 198.
Schaffer, ‘Priestley and the Politics of Spirit’, 41–42.
- 199.
Ibid., 41.
- 200.
Golinski, Science as Public Culture, 8.
- 201.
Schaffer ‘Priestley and the Politics of Spirit’, 41.
- 202.
Walker, System of Familiar Philosophy, 391.
- 203.
Fara, Entertainment for Angels, 121.
- 204.
Walker, Analysis of a Course of Lectures, 3.
- 205.
Ibid., 8.
- 206.
Ibid., 41.
- 207.
Ibid., xi.
- 208.
Ibid., vii.
- 209.
Schaffer, ‘Priestley and the Politics of Spirit’, 42.
- 210.
Walker, Analysis of a Course of Lectures, 58.
- 211.
Ibid.
- 212.
Ibid.
Bibliography
A Letter to Benjamin Franklin. London: J. Bew, 1777.
Baxter, Andrew. An Enquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul; wherein the Immateriality of the Soul is Evinced from the Principles of Reason and Philosophy. London: Baxter, 1733.
Hoadly, Benjamin. Observations on a Series of Electrical Experiments. By Dr Hoadly, and Mr Wilson, Fellows of the Royal Society. London: T. Payne, 1756.
———. The Subtil Medium Prov’d: Or, That Wonderful Power of Nature, So Long Ago Conjectur’d by the Most Ancient and Remarkable Philosophers. London: J. Hinton, 1756.
Martin, Benjamin. An Essay on Electricity: Being an Enquiry into the Nature, Cause and Properties Thereof, on the Principles of Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Vibrating Motion, Light and Fire; and the Various Phaenomena of Forty-two Capital Experiments; with Some Observations Relative to the Uses That May Be Made of This Wonderful Power of Nature. Bath: Leake, 1746.
———. Philosophia Britannica: Or, a New and Comprehensive System of the Newtonian Philosophy, Astronomy, and Geographys. 2nd edn. 3 vols. London: M. Cooper, 1759.
———. Disquisitions Relating to Matter and Spirit. London: J. Johnson, 1777.
———. Hartley’s Theory of the Human Mind, on the Principle of the Association of Ideas; with Essays Relating to the Subject of it. London: J. Johnson, 1775.
Rackstrow, Benjamin. Miscellaneous Observations, Together with a Collection of Experiments on Electricity. London: Rackstrow, 1748.
Watson, William. A Sequel to the Experiments and Observations Tending to Illustrate the Nature and Properties of Electricity. London: C. Davis, 1746.
Walker, Adam. Analysis of a Course of Lectures. Kendall: Walker, 1766.
———. A System of Familiar Philosophy in Twelve Lectures, Being the Course Usually Read by Mr A Walker. London: Walker, 1799.
Wilson, Benjamin. An Essay Towards an Explication of the Phænomena of Electricity, Deduced from the æther of Sir Isaac Newton. London: C. Davis, 1746.
———. A Treatise on Electricity. 2nd edn. London: C. Davis, 1752.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fairclough, M. (2017). Experiment, Aether and the Soul of the World. In: Literature, Electricity and Politics 1740–1840. Palgrave Studies in Literature, Science and Medicine. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59315-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59315-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59314-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59315-3
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)