Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus repaired [by] Petrus Gassendus ; augmented [by] Walter Charleton ...

SECT. III. Concerning the Figures of Atoms.

IN all the sufficiently prolix Discourses of the Ancient Assertors of A∣toms, concerning their FIGURE,* 1.1 and the no sparing Commen∣taries of the Moderns thereupon; whatever seems either worthy our seri∣ous animadversions, or in anywise pertinent to our Designation: may be, without perversion, or amission of importance, well comprized under one of these 3 Canons. (1) That Atoms are, in their simple essence, variously figurate; (2) That the distinct species of their Figures are Indefinite, or Incomprehensible, though not simply, or absolutely Infinite; (3) That the Number of Atoms retaining unto, or comprehended under each peculiar spe∣cies of Figure, is not only indefinite, but simply Infinite.

Concerning the FIRST; we advertise,* 1.2 that no man is to conceive them to have supposed the Figure of Atoms deprehensible by the Sight, or Touch, no more then their Magnitude, the termination whereof doth essence their figure, according to that definition of Euclid, lately alledged; but such, as being inferrible from manifold reasons, is obvious to the per∣ception of the Mind. Which Plutarch (1. placit. 2.) personating Epicu∣rus, expresly declares in his, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Atomos pro∣prias habere, sed ratione, seu mente contemplabiles Figuras. To avouch the verity hereof, we need no other argument but this; insomuch as every Atome hath some determinate Quantity, or Extension, and that all Quantity must be terminated in some certain Figure: therefore is it necessary, that however exile the dimensions of an Atome are, yet must the superfice thereof be or plane, or sphaerical, or angular, or Cubical, &c. i. e. of some figure either regular, or irregular.

Doth any incline to believe,* 1.3 that the extreme Exility of Atoms may necessitate their general Roundness; and the rather because he perceives all those dusty fragments of bodies, visible in the aer by Sunshine, (which are the Atoms of the Vulgar) to be clad in that figure: We advise him to collect a multitude of them, on a clean sheet of the finest white Paper, and then speculate any the smallest granules among them with a perfect En∣gyscope. For, in so doing He will acquire autoptical satisfaction, that none of them are exactly orbicular and perpolite, but all of various angular figures, pyramidal, pentahedrical, cubical, trapezian, heptahedrical, octahe∣drical, dodecahedrical, icosahedrical, &c. nay of so many irregular and dissi∣milar apparences, as must refute his error with a delightful Wonder. Though, in troth, it can be no wonder to him that considers the Defect of any Cause, that should break off the angles from those fragments vo∣latile, after their detrition from hard bodies, and so tornate them into smooth sphaerules: observation ascertaining, that when hard bodies are broken into large pieces, those pieces are alwayes angular, and ex∣tremely discrepant in the parts of their superfice; and Reason

thence inferring, that lesser pieces must confess the like irregularity and dis∣parity of figures among themselves. True it is, they enter the eye in a per∣fect sphear, because of the exiguity of their Angles; for every small, or re∣mote Icosahedrical body, nay even Oblong and Cylindrical, posited at ex∣cessive distance, the extremities of their images being, in their long trajecti∣on through the aer, confracted, retused, and so entering the Retina tumica in a lesser angle; alwayes appear orbicular. Thus, if we speculate any star, which is not of a spherical figure, as Saturn, which both Kircher and Hevelius, having beheld it with their excellent Telescopes, describe in this apparence

[illustration]

it will deradiate its species in a pyramid,* 1.4 which hath so many distinct faces, as are comprehended in the Section, made from the po∣sition of the eye, in right lines drawn to the circumference thereof; and yet in the decurse of the angle, they all become so retused, as that the image of the Starr is received by the eye in a figure perfectly sphaerical. And, as the excessive Remotion, so likewise doth the immo∣derate Exiguity of objects cause our sense not to discern their genuine Fi∣gure and so to delude the common judicatory Faculty, by giving in dissimilar images: as is demonstrable from the reason, whereby Magnifying Glasses meliorate the sight, i. e. their enlarging the basis of the Radius Visorius, according to the theory of Kircherus (in Magia Catoptrica.) and Schei∣nerus (in Fundam. Optic lib. 3. part. 2.). Thus, if he credit the single information of his eye, who doth not judge a Handworm to be exactly round? and yet let him but behold it through an Engyscope, and he shall at first inspection discern the several di••arications of its Members, Leggs, Feet, Tail, and other parts, no less diverse in propor∣tion, then those observed in multipedous Insects, of farr greater bulk.

* 1.5To guard this Assertion of the variety of Figures in Atoms, with other Arguments of its Verisimility; let us Consider, that all Indi∣viduals, as well Animate, as Inanimate, are distinguishable each from other of the same species, by some peculiar signature of disparity visible in the superficial parts of their Bodies: and Reason will there∣upon whisper us in the ear, that they are also different in their Con∣figurations; and that the Cause of that sensible Dissimilitude, must be a peculiar, or idiosyncritical Contexture of their insensible Compo∣nent particles. For Animals, we may instance in the noblest spe∣cies. Among the Myriads of swarms of men, who can find any two Persons, so absolute Twinns in the aer of their faces, the lines of their hands, the stature of their bodies, proportion of their mem∣bers, &c. as that Nature hath left no impression, whereby not only their familiar friends, but even strangers comparing them toge∣ther, may distinguish one from the other? For Inanimates; doth it not deserve our admiration, that in a whole Bushel of Corn, no two Grains can be found so exquisitely respondent in similitude, as that a curious eye shall not discover some disparity betwixt them: and yet we appeal to strict observation, for the verity thereof. If our leasure and patience will bear it, let us conferr many Leaves, col∣lected at one time from the same Tree; and try whether among them all we can meet with any two perfectly consimilar in magnitude, co∣lour, superfice, divarications of filaments, equality of stemms, and other external proportions. If not; we must assent to a variety of

Configurations in their parts, and consequently admit no less, but in∣deed a farr greater variety of Figures in the particles of those parts, their Atoms.

To these it concerns us to annex one singular Experiment, easie,* 1.6 delight∣ful, and satisfactory. Exposing a vessel of Salt water, to the Sun, or other convenient heat, so as the aqueous parts thereof may be gent∣ly evaporated; we may observe all the Salt therein contained, to reside in the bottome, conformed into Cubical Masses. And, if we do the like with Alum Water, the Alum will concrete in Octohedrical figures. Nay, the Cubes generated of Salt, will be so much the lar∣ger, by how much the more and deeper the Water, wherein it was dis∣solved; and è contra, so much the smaller, by how much shallower the Water: so that from a large vessel will arise saline Cubes in di∣mensions equal to those of a Gamesters Die; but from a small we shall receive Cubes, by five parts of six, lesser, and if we drop a small quantity of brine upon a plane piece of Glass, the Cubical Concre∣tions thereon fixing, will be so minute, as to require the help of an Engyscope to their discernment. Now, as to that part of this Ex∣periment, which more directly points at our praesent scope; we may perceive the greater Cubes to be a meer Congeries or assembly of small ones, and those small ones to be coagmentated of others yet smaller, or certainly composed of exiguous Masses bearing the figure of Isoscele Triangles, from four of which convened and mutually accom∣modated, every Cube doth result. Hence is it obvious to Conje∣cture, that those small Cubes, discernable only by an Engyscope, are contexed of other smaller, and those again of smaller, until by a succes∣sive degradation they arrive at the exility of Atoms, at least of those Mo∣leculae, which are the Seminaries of Salt, and, according to evident pro∣bability, of either exactly Quadrate, or Isoscele Triangular figures. Now, insomuch as the same, allowing the difference of Figure, is conjectural also concerning Alum, Sugar, Nitre, Vitriol, &c. Saline Concretions: why may we not extend it also to all other Compositions, especially such as have their Configurations certain and determinate, according to their specifical Nature.

Again, whoso substracts a diversity of Figures from Atoms:* 1.7 doth im∣plicitely destroy the variety of sensibles. For, what doth cause the Odoratory Nerves of man to discriminate a Rose from Wormwood? but the different Configurations of those Moleculae, Flores Elementorum, or Seminaries of Qualities, which being conflated of exceeding fine and small congregations of Atoms, do constitute the odorable species; and so make different impressions upon them. What makes a Dog, by the meer sa∣gacity of his nose, find out his Master, in the dark, in a whole host of men? but this; that those subtle Effluvia, or Expirations, emitted insensibly from the body of his Master, are of a different Contexture from those of all others, and so make a different impression upon the mamillary processes, or smelling Nerves of the Dog. The like may also, with equal reason, be demanded concerning those wayes of Discrimination, whereby all Ani∣mals agnize their own from others young; and Beasts of prey, in their difficult venations, single out the embossed and chased, though blended together with numerous Herds of the same species.

Nor doth the Verisimility hereof hold only in objects of the sight and smelling; but diffuseth to those of the Hearing, Tasting, and Touching: as may be soon inferred by him, who shall do us the right, and himself the pleasure to descend to particulars. These things jointly considered, we are yet to seek, what may interdict our Conception of great Diversity of Figures in the Principles of Concretions, Atoms.

Concerning the SECOND, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.8 esse Figuras Atomorum incomprehensibiles, non infi∣nitas, that the figures of Atoms are so various, as to be incomprehensible, though not simply infinite: this can be nor Problem, nor Paradox. For, though the species of Regular Figures be many, of Irregular more, and of those that are producible from both regular and irregular, according to all the possible wayes of their Commixture and Transposition, so amusing∣ly various; as that the mind of man, though acquainted with all the my∣steries of Arithmetique and Algebra, cannot attain to a definite compute, nor praecise d••••••ription of them all: yet do they not run up to absolute Infinity, so as that there can be no extreme and terminating species. That the variety of Figures competent to Atoms, ought to be held only Incom∣prehensible; these Reasons evince (1) Since Atoms are circumscribed and limitate in Magnitude, that Configurations in diversity infinite should arise from that finite magnitude, is clearly impossible. For, every distinct figu∣ration praesupposeth a distinct position of parts; and the parts of finite Mag∣nitude may be transposed so many several wayes, as no further way of trans∣position can remain possible: otherwise there would be new and new parts inexhaustibly, and so magnitude would become infinite. (2) If the Diver∣sity of figures were infinite, then could not the Qualities arising to concre∣tions from the various Contexture of their parts, be certain and determinate: since, allowing an inexhaustible novelty of Configurations, their insensible particles might be so variegated, as that a better then the best, and a worse then the worst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Configurations might be produced; which is no obscure absurdity. (3) All things are determined by Contrary Qualities, which are so extreme, that they admit many mediate or Inclusive degrees, but none Exclusive, or without their boundaries. (4) That only a Finite va∣riety is sufficient to that incomprehensible diversity of figures, observed in nature.

That the variety of Figures allowable to Atoms, is Incomprehensible; may be thus familiarized. Thinke we, what great multiplicity of words may be composed of only a few Letters variously transposed. For, if we assume only Two Letters, of them we can create only two words; if three, 6; if four, 24; if five, 120▪ if six, 720; if seven, 5040; if eight, 40320; if nine, 362880▪ if ten, 3628800: so that before we fulfil the 24 Letters, the number of words componible of them, according to all the possible ways of positions, will swell above our computation. This done, let us no more but exchange Letters for Figures, and assuming only Round, Oblong, Oval, Eliptick, Lenticular, Plane, Gibbous, Turbinate, Hamous, Polite, Hispid, Conical, Obtuse, Tetrahedical, Pentahedrical, Hexahedrical, Heptahedri∣cal, Dodecahedrical, Icosahedrical, Striate or skrewed, Triangular, Cylin∣drical Atoms: cast up to what an inassignable number the Figures produci∣ble from them, according to the several wayes of their Composition and transposition, may amount. Doubtless, we shall discover so great variety, as

to elude our comprehension. If so, how much more incomprehensible must that Diversity be, which is possible from the assumption, and complica∣tion of all the Regular and Irregular figures, that a good Geometrician can conceive, and which it is justifiable for us to allow existent in Nature?

But as for the LAST; viz. that the number of Atoms,* 1.9 retaining to each distinct species of Figures, ariseth to Infinity, i. e. that there are infinite Oval, infinite Pyramidal, infinite Sphaerical, &c. Atoms: from this we must declare our Dissent. Because, how great a number soever be assigned to Atoms, yet must the same be Defined by the Capacity of the World, i. e. of the Universe, as hath been formerly intimated. And, therefore, the common Objection, that if so, the summe of things existent in the World, would be Finite; is what we most willing∣ly admit, there being no necessity of their Infinity, and a copious syndrome of reasons, that press the Contrary. And as it is unnecessary to Nature: so likewise to her Commentator, the Physiologist; to whom it sufficeth, having exploded this delirium of Infinity, to suppose (1) that the material Principles of the Universe are essentially Figurate, (2) that the species of their figures are incomprehensible, as to their Variety, (3) that the Number of indivisible Particles comprehended under each difference of Figures, is al∣so incomprehensible, but not inexhaustible, as Epicurus inconsiderately imagined.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. An Epitome of all that di∣rectly con∣cerns the Fi∣gures of A∣toms in 3 Ge∣neral Canons.
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. The First Ca∣non, explained and certified.
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. The Exility ••f Atoms, doth no•• necessitate their General Roundness; con∣trary to the common con∣ceit.
• * 1.4

  (In Ph••tism•• C••rporum coel••∣stium; & ••e••e∣nographia.)
• * 1.5

  Art. 4. The Di••e••sity of Figures in Atoms. evi••t¦ed fr••m the sensible Dissi∣militude of in∣dividuals, as well Animate, a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.6

  Art. 5. A singular Ex∣periment, an∣toptically▪ de∣monstrating the various Configurations of the minute Particles of Concretions.
• * 1.7

  Art. 6. A variety of Figures in A∣toms, necessa∣ry to the vari∣ety of all Se••∣sibles.
• * 1.8

  Art. 7. The second Ca∣non, explained and Certified.
• * 1.9

  Art. 8. The Third Ca∣n••n, explain∣ed, & re••uted.