Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy. Duchess of Margaret Cavendish Newcastle

the earth or ground hath taken a copy of that sent, which copy the sensitive motions in the nose of the Dog do pattern out, and so long as that figure or copy lasts, the Dog perceives the sent, but if he doth not follow or hunt readily, then there is either no perfect copy made by the ground, or otherwise he cannot find it, which causes him to seek and smell about until he hath it; and thus smell is not made by the motion of the air, but by the figuring motions in the nose: Where it is also to be observed, that not onely the motions in one, but in millions of noses, may pattern out one little object at one time, and therefore it is not, that the object of sent fills a room by sending out the sent from its substance, but that so many figures are made of that object of sent by so many several sensitive motions, which pattern the same out; and so the air, or ground, or any other creature, whose sensitive motions pattern out the object of sent, may perceive the same, although their sensitive organs are not like to those of animal Creatures; for if there be but such sensitive motions and perceptions, it is no matter for such organs. Lastly, it is to be observed, That all Creatures have not the same strength of smelling, but some smell stronger, some weaker, according to the disposition of their sensitive motions: Also there be other parts in the body, which pattern out the object of sent, besides the nose, but those are interior parts, and take their patterns from the nose as the organ properly designed for it; neither is their resentment the same, because their motions are not alike, for the stomack may perceive and pattern out a sent with aversion, when the nose may pattern it out with pleasure. And thus much also of Sent; I conclude and rest,

      Madam,

      Your faithful Friend,

      and Servant.

[1] Ch. 29. art. 12.

XXIX.

       Table of Contents

      MADAM,

Concerning your Learned Authors discourse of Density and Rarity, he defines[1] Thick to be that, which takes up more parts of a space given; and thin, which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude: not that there is more matter in one place then in an other equal place, but a greater quantity of some named body; wherefore the multitude and paucity of the parts contained within the same space do constitute density and rarity. Whereof my opinion is, That there is no more nor less space or place then body according to its dilation or contraction, and that space and place are dilated and contracted with the body, according to the magnitude of the body, for body, place and magnitude are the same thing, only place is in regard of the several parts of the body, and there is as well space betwixt things distant a hairs breadth from one another, as betwixt things distant a million of miles, but yet this space is nothing from the body; but it makes, that that body has not the same place with this body, that is, that this body is not that body, and that this bodies place is not that bodies place. Next your Author sayes,[2] He hath already clearly enough demonstrated, that there can be no beginning of motion, but from an external and moved body, and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards cannot be cast down again, but by external motion. Truly, Madam, I will not speak of your Authors demonstrations, for it is done most by art, which I have no knowledg in, but I think I have probably declared, that all the actions of nature are not forced by one part, driving, pressing, or shoving another, as a man doth a wheel-barrow, or a whip a horse; nor by reactions, as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs, or as men with carts meeting each other in a narrow lane. But to prove there is no self-motion in nature, he goes on and says; To attribute to created bodies the power to move themselves, what is it else, then to say that there be creatures which have no dependance upon the Creator? To which I answer, That if man (who is but a single part of nature) hath given him by God the power and a free will of moving himself, why should not God give it to Nature? Neither can I see, how it can take off the dependance upon God, more then Eternity; for, if there be an Eternal Creator, there is also an Eternal Creature, and if an Eternal Master, an Eternal Servant, which is Nature; and yet Nature is subject to Gods Command, and depends upon him; and if all Gods Attributes be Infinite, then his Bounty is Infinite also, which cannot be exercised but by an Infinite Gift, but a Gift doth not cause a less dependance. I do not say, That man hath an absolute Free-will, or power to move, according to his desire; for it is not conceived, that a part can have an absolute power: nevertheless his motion both of body and mind is a free and self-motion, and such a self-motion hath every thing in Nature according to its figure or shape; for motion and figure, being inherent in matter, matter moves figuratively. Yet do I not say, That there is no hindrance, obstruction and opposition in nature; but as there is no particular Creature, that hath an absolute power of self-moving; so that Creature which hath the advantage of strength, subtilty, or policy, shape, or figure, and the like, may oppose and over-power another which is inferior to it, in all this; yet this hinderance and opposition doth not take away self-motion. But I perceive your Author is much for necessitation, and against free-will, which I leave to Moral Philosophers and Divines. And as for the ascending of light, and descending of heavy bodies, there may be many causes, but these four are perceiveable by our senses, as bulk, or quantity of body, grossness of substance, density, and shape or figure, which make heavy bodies descend: But little quantity, purity of substance, rarity, and figure or shape make light bodies ascend. Wherefore I cannot believe, that there are[3] certain little bodies as atoms, and by reason of their smallness, invisible, differing from one another in consistence, figure, motion and magnitude, intermingled with the air, which should be the cause of the descending of heavy bodies. And concerning air,[4] whether it be subject to our senses or not, I say, that if air be neither hot, nor cold, it is not subject; but if it be, the sensitive motions will soon pattern it out, and declare it. I'le conclude with your Authors question,[5] What the cause is, that a man doth not feel the weight of Water in Water? and answer, it is the dilating nature of Water. But of this question and of Water I shall treat more fully hereafter, and so I rest,

      Madam,

      Your faithful Friend

      and Servant.

[1] C. 30. a. 1.

[2] Art. 2.

[3] Art. 3.

[4] Art. 14.

[5] Art. 6.

XXX.

       Table of Contents

      MADAM,

I am reading now the works of that Famous and most Renowned Author, Des Cartes, out of which I intend to pick out onely those discourses which I like best, and not to examine his opinions, as they go along from the beginning to the end of his books; And in order to this, I have chosen in the first place, his discourse of motion, and do not assent to his opinion,[1] when he defines Motion to be onely a Mode of a thing, and not the thing or body it selfe; for, in my opinion, there can be no abstraction made of motion from body, neither really, nor in the manner of our conception, for how can I conceive that which is not, nor cannot be in nature, that is, to conceive motion without body? Wherefore