dier love. Like a burning diamond, it continued to shed, for
six-and-forty years, its white and smokeless glow.

Faraday was married on June 12, 1821; and up to this date Davy appears
throughout as his friend. Soon afterwards, however, disunion occurred
between them, which, while it lasted, must have given Faraday intense
pain. It is impossible to doubt the honesty of conviction with which
this subject has been treated by Dr. Bence Jones, and there may be
facts known to him, but not appearing in these volumes, which justify
his opinion that Davy in those days had become jealous of Faraday.
This, which is the prevalent belief, is also reproduced in an
excellent article in the March number of 'Framer's Magazine.' But the
best analysis I can make of the data fails to present Davy in this
light to me. The facts, as I regard them, are briefly these.

In 1820, Oersted of Copenhagen made the celebrated discovery which
connects electricity with magnetism, and immediately afterwards the
acute mind of Wollaston perceived that a wire carrying a current ought
to rotate round its own axis under the influence of a magnetic pole.
In 1821 'he tried, but failed, to realise this result in the
laboratory of the Royal Institution. Faraday was not present at the
moment, but he came in immediately afterwards and heard the
conversation of Wollaston and Davy about the experiment. He had also
heard a rumour of a wager that Dr. Wollaston would eventually succeed.

This was in April. In the autumn of the same year Faraday wrote a
history of electro-magnetism, and repeated for himself the experiments
which he described. It was while thus instructing himself that he
succeeded in causing a wire, carrying an electric current, to rotate
round a magnetic pole. This was not the result sought by Wollaston,
but it was closely related to that result.

The strong tendency of Faraday's mind to look upon the reciprocal
actions of natural forces gave birth to his greatest discoveries; and
we, who know this, should be justified in concluding that, even had
Wollaston not preceded him, the result would have been the same. But
in judging Davy we ought to transport ourselves to his time, and
carefully exclude from our thoughts and feelings that noble subsequent
life, which would render simply impossible the ascription to Faraday
of anything unfair. It would be unjust to Davy to put our knowledge
in the place of his, or to credit him with data which he