Conversations on Natural Philosophy, in which the Elements of that Science are Familiarly Explained — A Closer Reading

(1 User reviews)   324
In Category - Light Heat
Marcet, Mrs. (Jane Haldimand), 1769-1858, Jones, Thomas P. Project Gutenberg 2011
Physics Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words: 107,785
Reading time: 469 min
Text sections: 17
A close look at how Jane Marcet's 1826 physics primer uses Socratic dialogue between a teacher and two students to explain gravity, fluids, and cohesion, with attention to the conversational pacing and the revised American edition by Thomas P. Jones.
Share

Read the Text

Silence was pleas'd; now glowed the firmament With living sapphires. Hesperus that led The starry host, rode brightest, till the moon Rising in clouded majesty, at length Apparent queen unveil'd her peerless light, And o'er the dark her silver mantle threw.

The planet next to Venus is the Earth, of which we shall soon speak at full length. At present I shall only observe that we are 95 millions of miles distant from the sun, that we perform our annual revolution in 365 days 5 hours and 49 minutes; and are attended in our course by a single moon.

Next follows Mars. He can never come between us and the sun, like Mercury and Venus; his motion is, however, very perceptible, as he may be traced to different situations in the heavens; his distance from the sun is 144 millions of miles; he turns round his axis in 24 hours and 39 minutes; and he performs his annual revolution, in about 687 of our days: his diameter is 4120 miles. Then follow four very small planets, Juno, Ceres, Pallas and Vesta, which have been recently discovered, but whose dimensions, and distances from the sun, have not been very accurately ascertained. They are generally called asteroids.

Jupiter is next in order: this is the largest of all the planets. He is about 490 millions of miles from the sun, and completes his annual period in nearly 12 of our years. He turns round his axis in about ten hours. He is above 1200 times as big as our earth; his diameter is 86,000 miles. The respective proportions of the planets cannot, therefore, you see, be conveniently delineated in a diagram. He is attended by four moons.

The next planet is Saturn, whose distance from the sun, is about 900 millions of miles; his diurnal rotation is performed in 10 hours and a quarter: his annual revolution is nearly 30 of our years. His diameter is 79,000 miles. This planet is surrounded by a luminous ring, the nature of which, astronomers are much at a loss to conjecture: he has seven moons. Lastly, we observe the planet Herschel, discovered by Dr. Herschel, by whom it was named the Georgium Sidus, and which is attended by six moons.

_Caroline._ How charming it must be in the distant planets, to see several moons shining at the same time; I think I should like to be an inhabitant of Jupiter or Saturn.

_Mrs. B._ Not long I believe. Consider what extreme cold must prevail in a planet, situated as Saturn is, at nearly ten times the distance at which we are from the sun. Then his numerous moons are far from making so splendid an appearance as ours; for they can reflect only the light which they receive from the sun; and both light, and heat, decrease in the same ratio or proportion to the distances, as gravity. Can you tell me now how much more light we enjoy than Saturn?

_Caroline._ The square of ten is a hundred; therefore, Saturn has a hundred times less--or to answer your question exactly, we have a hundred times more light and heat, than Saturn--this certainly does not increase my wish to become one of the poor wretches who inhabit that planet.

_Mrs. B._ May not the inhabitants of Mercury, with equal plausibility, pity us for the insupportable coldness of our situation; and those of Jupiter and Saturn for our intolerable heat? The Almighty power which created these planets, and placed them in their several orbits, has no doubt peopled them with beings, whose bodies are adapted to the various temperatures and elements, in which they are situated. If we judge from the analogy of our own earth, or from that of the great and universal beneficence of Providence, we must conclude this to be the case.

_Caroline._ Are not comets, in some respects similar to planets?

_Mrs. B._ Yes, they are; for by the reappearance of some of them, at stated times, they are known to revolve round the sun; but in orbits so extremely eccentric, that they disappear for a great number of years. If they are inhabited, it must be by a species of beings very different, not only from the inhabitants of this, but from those of any of the other planets, as they must experience the greatest vicissitudes of heat and cold; one part of their orbit being so near the sun, that their heat, when there, is computed to be greater than that of red-hot iron; in this part of its orbit, the comet emits a luminous vapour, called the tail, which it gradually loses as it recedes from the sun; and the comet itself totally disappears from our sight, in the more distant parts of its orbit, which extends considerably beyond that of the furthest planet.

The number of comets belonging to our system cannot be ascertained, as some of them are several centuries before they make their reappearance. The number that are known by their regular reappearance is, I believe, only three, although their whole number is very considerable.

_Emily._ Pray, Mrs. B., what are the constellations?

_Mrs. B._ They are the fixed stars; which the ancients, in order to recognise them, formed into groups, and gave the names of the figures, which you find delineated on the celestial globe. In order to show their proper situations in the heavens, they should be painted on the internal surface of a hollow sphere, from the centre of which you should view them; you would then behold them as they appear to be situated in the heavens. The twelve constellations, called the signs of the zodiac, are those which are so situated, that the earth, in its annual revolution, passes directly between them, and the sun. Their names are Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricornus, Aquarius, Pisces; the whole occupying a complete circle, or broad belt, in the heavens, called the zodiac. (plate 8. fig. 1.) Hence, a right line drawn from the earth, and passing through the sun, would reach one of these constellations, and the sun is said to be in that constellation at which the line terminates: thus, when the earth is at A, the sun would appear to be in the constellation or sign Aries; when the earth is at B, the sun would appear in Cancer; when the earth was at C, the sun would be in Libra; and when the earth was at D, the sun would be in Capricorn. You are aware that it is the real motion of the earth in its orbit, which gives to the sun this apparent motion through the signs. This circle, in which the sun thus appears to move, and which passes through the middle of the zodiac, is called the ecliptic.

_Caroline._ But many of the stars in these constellations appear beyond the zodiac.

_Mrs. B._ We have no means of ascertaining the distance of the fixed stars. When, therefore, they are said to be in the zodiac, it is merely implied that they are situated in that direction, and that they shine upon us through that portion of the heavens, which we call the zodiac.

_Emily._ But are not those large bright stars, which are called stars of the first magnitude, nearer to us, than those small ones which we can scarcely discern?

_Mrs. B._ It may be so; or the difference of size and brilliancy of the stars may proceed from their difference of dimensions; this is a point which astronomers are not enabled to determine. Considering them as suns, I see no reason why different suns should not vary in dimensions, as well as the planets belonging to them.

_Emily._ What a wonderful and beautiful system this is, and how astonishing to think that every fixed star may probably be attended by a similar train of planets!

_Caroline._ You will accuse me of being very incredulous, but I cannot help still entertaining some doubts, and fearing that there is more beauty than truth in this system. It certainly may be so; but there does not appear to me to be sufficient evidence to prove it. It seems so plain and obvious that the earth is motionless, and that the sun and stars revolve round it;--your solar system, you must allow, is directly in opposition to the evidence of our senses.

_Mrs. B._ Our senses so often mislead us, that we should not place implicit reliance upon them.

_Caroline._ On what then can we rely, for do we not receive all our ideas through the medium of our senses?

_Mrs. B._ It is true that they are our primary source of knowledge; but the mind has the power of reflecting, judging, and deciding upon the ideas received by the organs of sense. This faculty, which we call reason, has frequently proved to us, that our senses are liable to err. If you have ever sailed on the water, with a very steady breeze, you must have seen the houses, trees, and every object on the shore move, while you were sailing.

_Caroline._ I remember thinking so, when I was very young; but I now know that their motion is only apparent. It is true that my reason, in this case, corrects the error of my sight.

_Mrs. B._ It teaches you, that the apparent motion of the objects on shore, proceeds from your being yourself moving, and that you are not sensible of your own motion, because you meet with no resistance. It is only when some obstacle impedes our motion, that we are conscious of moving; and if you were to close your eyes when you were sailing on calm water, with a steady wind, you would not perceive that you moved, for you could not feel it, and you could see it only by observing the change of place of the objects on shore. So it is with the motion of the earth: every thing on its surface, and the air that surrounds it, accompanies it in its revolution; it meets with no resistance: therefore, like the crew of a vessel sailing with a fair wind, in a calm sea, we are insensible of our motion.

_Caroline._ But the principal reason why the crew of a vessel in a calm sea do not perceive their motion, is, because they move exceedingly slow, while the earth, you say, revolves with great velocity.

_Mrs. B._ It is not because they move slowly, but because they move steadily, and meet with no irregular resistances, that the crew of a vessel do not perceive their motion; for they would be equally insensible to it, with the strongest wind, provided it were steady, that they sailed with it, and that it did not agitate the water; but this last condition, you know, is not possible, for the wind will always produce waves which offer more or less resistance to the vessel, and then the motion becomes sensible, because it is unequal.

_Caroline._ But, granting this, the crew of a vessel have a proof of their motion, which the inhabitants of the earth cannot have,--the apparent motion of the objects on shore, or their having passed from one place to another.

_Mrs. B._ Have we not a similar proof of the earth's motion, in the apparent motion of the sun and stars? Imagine the earth to be sailing round its axis, and successively passing by every star, which, like the objects on land, we suppose to be moving instead of ourselves. I have heard it observed by an ærial traveller in a balloon, that the earth appears to sink beneath the balloon, instead of the balloon rising above the earth.

It is a law which we discover throughout nature, and worthy of its great Author, that all its purposes are accomplished by the most simple means; and what reason have we to suppose this law infringed, in order that we may remain at rest, while the sun and stars move round us; their regular motions, which are explained by the laws of attraction, on the first supposition, would be unintelligible on the last, and the order and harmony of the universe be destroyed. Think what an immense circuit the sun and stars would make daily, were their apparent motions, real. We know many of them, to be bodies more considerable than our earth; for our eyes vainly endeavour to persuade us, that they are little brilliants sparkling in the heavens; while science teaches us that they are immense spheres, whose apparent dimensions are diminished by distance. Why then should these enormous globes daily traverse such a prodigious space, merely to prevent the necessity of our earth's revolving on its axis?

_Caroline._ I think I must now be convinced. But you will, I hope, allow me a little time to familiarise to myself, an idea so different from that which I have been accustomed to entertain. And pray, at what rate do we move?

_Mrs. B._ The motion produced by the revolution of the earth on its axis, is about seventeen miles a minute, to an inhabitant on the equator.

_Emily._ But does not every part of the earth move with the same velocity?

_Mrs. B._ A moment's reflection would convince you of the contrary: a person at the equator must move quicker than one situated near the poles, since they both perform a revolution in 24 hours.

_Emily._ True, the equator is farthest from the axis of motion. But in the earth's revolution round the sun, every part must move with equal velocity?

_Mrs. B._ Yes, about a thousand miles a minute.

_Caroline._ How astonishing!--and that it should be possible for us to be insensible of such a rapid motion. You would not tell me this sooner, Mrs. B., for fear of increasing my incredulity.

Before the time of Newton, was not the earth supposed to be in the centre of the system, and the sun, moon, and stars to revolve round it?

_Mrs. B._ This was the system of Ptolemy, in ancient times; but as long ago as the beginning of the sixteenth century it was generally discarded, and the solar system, such as I have shown you, was established by the celebrated astronomer Copernicus, and is hence called the Copernican system. But the theory of gravitation, the source from which this beautiful and harmonious arrangement flows, we owe to the powerful genius of Newton, who lived at a much later period, and who demonstrated its truth.

_Emily._ It appears, indeed, far less difficult to trace by observation the motion of the planets, than to divine by what power they are impelled and guided. I wonder how the idea of gravitation could first have occurred to sir Isaac Newton?

_Mrs. B._ It is said to have been occasioned by a circumstance from which one should little have expected so grand a theory to have arisen.

During the prevalence of the plague in the year 1665, Newton retired into the country to avoid the contagion: when sitting one day in an orchard, he observed an apple fall from a tree, and was led to consider what could be the cause which brought it to the ground.

_Caroline._ If I dared to confess it, Mrs. B., I should say that such an inquiry indicated rather a deficiency than a superiority of intellect. I do not understand how any one can wonder at what is so natural and so common.

_Mrs. B._ It is the mark of superior genius to find matter for wonder, observation, and research, in circumstances which, to the ordinary mind, appear trivial, because they are common; and with which they are satisfied, because they are natural; without reflecting that nature is our grand field of observation, that within it, is contained our whole store of knowledge; in a word, that to study the works of nature, is to learn to appreciate and admire the wisdom of God. Thus, it was the simple circumstance of the fall of an apple, which led to the discovery of the laws upon which the Copernican system is founded; and whatever credit this system had obtained before, it now rests upon a basis from which it cannot be shaken.

_Emily._ This was a most fortunate apple, and more worthy to be commemorated than all those that have been sung by the poets. The apple of discord for which the goddesses contended; the golden apples by which Atalanta won the race; nay, even the apple which William Tell shot from the head of his son, cannot be compared to this!

1. (Pg. 80) Into what two classes are the planets divided, and how are they distinguished?

2. (Pg. 80) By what reasoning do you prove that the sun contains a greater quantity of matter than any other body in the system?

3. (Pg. 81) What two circumstances govern the force with which bodies attract each other?

4. (Pg. 81) Were a planet removed to double its former distance from the sun, what would be the effect upon its attractive force?

5. (Pg. 81) Why would it be reduced to one-fourth?

6. (Pg. 81) What is meant by the square of a number, and what examples can you give?

7. (Pg. 81) What then would be the effect of removing it to three, or four times its former distance?

8. (Pg. 81) How is the rule upon this subject expressed?

9. (Pg. 81) Does this apply to any power excepting gravitation?

10. (Pg. 81) How is it that a secondary planet revolves round its primary, and is not drawn off by the sun?

11. (Pg. 82) What is said respecting the revolution of the moon, and of the earth, round a common centre of gravity?

12. (Pg. 82) By what law in mechanics is this explained?

13. (Pg. 82) What motions then has the earth, and are these remarks confined to it alone?

14. (Pg. 82) What effect have the planets upon the sun, and what is said of the common centre of gravity of the system?

15. (Pg. 83) What other motion has the sun, and how is it proved?

16. (Pg. 83) How may you observe the motion of a planet, by means of a fixed star?

17. (Pg. 83) What is represented by fig. 1. plate 7?

18. (Pg. 83) Why are the orbits represented as circular?

19. (Pg. 83) In what order do the planets increase in size as represented, fig. 2. plate 7?

20. (Pg. 83) What are we told respecting Mercury?

21. (Pg. 84) What respecting Venus?

22. (Pg. 84) When does Venus become a morning, and when an evening star?

23. (Pg. 84) What is said of the Earth?

24. (Pg. 84) What of Mars?

25. (Pg. 84) What four small planets follow next?

26. (Pg. 85) What is said of Jupiter?

27. (Pg. 85) What of Saturn?

28. (Pg. 85) What of Herschel?

29. (Pg. 85) Why do we conclude that the moons of Saturn afford less light than ours?

30. (Pg. 85) In what proportion will the light and heat at Saturn be diminished, and why?

31. (Pg. 86) What do the comets resemble, and what is remarkable in their orbits?

32. (Pg. 86) What is said of the number of comets?

33. (Pg. 86) What is a constellation?

34. (Pg. 86) How are the twelve constellations, or signs, called the zodiac, situated?

35. (Pg. 86) Name them.

36. (Pg. 86) What is meant by the sun being in a sign?

37. (Pg. 86) What causes the apparent change of the sun's place?

38. (Pg. 87) The stars appear of different magnitudes, by what may this be caused?

39. (Pg. 87) We are not sensible of the motion of the earth; what fact is mentioned to illustrate this point?

40. (Pg. 87) What does this teach us?

41. (Pg. 88) Would the slowness, or the rapidity of the motion, if steady, produce any sensible difference?

42. (Pg. 88) If we do not feel the motion of the earth, how may we be convinced of its reality?

43. (Pg. 89) Were we to deny the motion of the earth upon its axis, what must we admit respecting the heavenly bodies?

44. (Pg. 89) What distance is an inhabitant on the equator carried in a minute by the diurnal motion of the earth?

45. (Pg. 89) Why is not the velocity every where equally great?

46. (Pg. 89) What distance does the earth travel in a minute, in its revolution round the sun?

47. (Pg. 89) What was formerly supposed respecting the motion of all the heavenly bodies?

48. (Pg. 89) What do we mean by the Copernican system, and what is said respecting Copernicus and Newton?

49. (Pg. 90) What circumstance is said to have given rise to the speculations of Newton, on the subject of gravitation?

OF THE TERRESTRIAL GLOBE. OF THE FIGURE OF THE EARTH. OF THE PENDULUM. OF THE VARIATION OF THE SEASONS, AND OF THE LENGTH OF DAYS AND NIGHTS. OF THE CAUSES OF THE HEAT OF SUMMER. OF SOLAR, SIDERIAL, AND EQUAL OR MEAN TIME.

As the earth is the planet in which we are the most particularly interested, it is my intention this morning, to explain to you the effects resulting from its annual, and diurnal motions; but for this purpose, it will be necessary to make you acquainted with the terrestrial globe: you have not either of you, I conclude, learnt the use of the globes?

Jane Marcet's Conversations on Natural Philosophy (1826) teaches physics through a fictional dialogue between the instructor Mrs. B. and her pupils, Emily and Caroline. The book's distinctive voice emerges from the careful calibration of question and answer: Mrs. B. rarely delivers a monologue longer than a few sentences before one of the students interjects with a doubt or a concrete example. This rhythm gives the exposition a measured, almost theatrical pace, as when Emily asks about fluid equilibrium and Mrs. B. corrects her notion of a flat surface, explaining that fluids must be spherical. The American edition, revised by Thomas P. Jones, adds questions and a glossary, but the core conversational structure remains intact, making the abstract principles of natural philosophy feel like a live exchange.

The Dialogue as a Teaching Instrument

Marcet's method relies on a three-part turn: Mrs. B. states a principle, a student offers a half-correct intuition, and Mrs. B. refines it. For instance, when Emily says a fluid's surface is 'smooth and flat,' Mrs. B. gently corrects: 'Smooth, if you please, but not flat.' This pattern keeps the pace brisk and the reasoning visible. The students' errors are not mere foils; they represent genuine conceptual hurdles. Caroline's observation about oil floating on water—'But I have seen a drop of oil, float on the surface of water, without mixing with it'—prompts an explanation of repulsion and density. By embedding mistakes in the dialogue, Marcet slows the narrative just enough to let readers anticipate the correction, then accelerates again with a new example or instrument.

Pacing Through Physical Demonstration

The text frequently pauses for a described experiment or device, which alters the rhythm of the conversation. When Mrs. B. introduces the spirit-level, she shifts from abstract discussion to a concrete object: 'Here is an instrument called a spirit-level… which is constructed upon the principle of the equilibrium of fluids.' The description of the bubble of air moving to the higher end gives the reader a mental image that anchors the preceding theory. These demonstrations act as breathing spaces—short, vivid interludes that break up longer chains of reasoning. The pace quickens again when Caroline or Emily returns with a new question, often drawing a comparison to everyday experience, such as the difference between a falling body of water and a solid of the same weight.

Voice and the Revised Edition

Jones's preface frames the work as a remedy for poorly adapted schoolbooks, but the voice of the dialogues remains Marcet's. The students' language is colloquial yet precise: Emily says she feels 'rather at a loss to explain it' before attempting a definition. Mrs. B.'s responses are patient but never condescending, using phrases like 'Do you understand…?' to check comprehension. The American edition adds 'appropriate Questions' at the end of each section, which formalizes the review process but does not alter the conversational tone of the main text. Readers should note that the excerpts available do not include the full sequence of dialogues, so the overall arc of topics—from mechanics to optics—can only be inferred from the catalog subjects and the sample on fluids and cohesion.

Because the surviving excerpts focus on a single discussion of fluids and solids, the reader encounters only a fraction of the book's scope. The conversational method, however, is fully visible in these pages: the back-and-forth between teacher and student, the use of everyday objects to illustrate principles, and the careful modulation of pace from definition to demonstration to further questioning. Those interested in the history of science education will find here a clear example of how early nineteenth-century authors tried to make natural philosophy accessible without sacrificing rigor.

There’s something so patient about Jane Marcet’s dialogues—that unhurried back-and-forth, as if understanding were simply a matter of sitting quietly with a question. Reading her gravity lessons, I kept thinking of light, how it, too, asks for that kind of gentle examination. I found myself wandering through the Treatise on light — Key Ideas to Explore afterward, the same old curiosity stirring. Some books just keep the conversation going.

Sofia Smith
4 weeks ago

5
5 out of 5 (1 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

What did you think of this book?

Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Where are you in your reading?

2

How much did you enjoy the reading experience?

3

How likely are you to recommend this book?

4

How easy was the book to follow?

Related eBooks