quoted by Whewell, so aptly illustrates the spirit
which animates the scientific inquirer that I may cite it:

'For a long time that sensibility, or that vanity,
which people call love of glory is munch blunted
in me. I labor much less to catch the suffrages of
the public than to obtain an inward approval which
has always been the mental reward of my efforts.
Without doubt I have often wanted the spur of
vanity to excite me to pursue my researches in
moments of disgust and discouragement. But all the
compliments which I have received from M.M. Arago,
De Laplace, or Biot, never gave me so much
pleasure as the discovery of a theoretical truth
or the confirmation of a calculation by
experiment.'

[C] 'Memorable exemple de l'impuissance des recherches
collectives appliquees a la decouverte des verites
nouvelles!' says one of the most distinguished of living
French _savants_ of the corporate chemical work of the old
Academie des Sciences. (See Berthelot, _Science et
Philosophie_, p. 201.)

[D] I am particularly indebted to my friend and colleague
Professor Ruecker, F.R.S., for the many acute criticisms and
suggestions on my remarks respecting the ultimate problems
of physics, with which he has favored me, and by which I
have greatly profited.

[E] I am aware that this proposition may be challenged. It
may be said, for example, that, on the hypothesis of
Boscovich, matter has no extension, being reduced to
mathematical points serving as centres of 'forces.' But as
the 'forces' of the various centres are conceived to limit
one another's action in such a manner that an area around
each centre has an individuality of its own extension comes
back in the form of that area. Again, a very eminent
mathematician and physicist--the late Clerk Maxwell--has
declared that impenetrability is not essential to our
notions of matter, and that two atoms may conceivably occupy
the same space. I am loth to dispute any dictum of a
philosopher as remarkable for the subtlety of his intellect
as for his vast knowledge; but the assertion that one and
the same point or area of space can have different
(conceivably opposite) attributes appears to me to violate
the principle