It may be seen, then, that if one was prepared to accept the existence of insulating sheaths on the nerves, all the arguments raised against the proposed identification of the nervous and electrical fluids, except one, could be answered satisfactorily. The single exception involved the question of how an electrical disturbance in the brain could be confined to a single nerve, and, as was indicated earlier, it was scarcely fair to hold this sort of objection against the electrical theory alone. (...) In that case, there remained no convincing argument to show why one should not accept the identification of the two fluids. On the other hand, of course, it remained an open question as to whether there was any convincing argument to show why one should accept the identification either. Galvani thought that his experiments provided just such an argument. (shrink)

ConclusionHistorians of science have usually assumed that the science of electricity developed in the period prior to Franklin, or at least prior to Nollet, in what amounted to a theoretical vacuum. It has been my aim in this paper to demonstrate the falsity of that assumption. I have shown, I hope, that Hauksbee's important researches were guided throughout by strong theoretical considerations, and I have indicated that Dufay's even more important studies were guided by exactly the same considerations. Nor was (...) their theory in any sense a stagnant one. As it was developed by Hauksbee, it could give a fairly adequate explanation of almost all the known electrical phenomena; it even enabled him to predict the outcome of experiments such as the one involving the rubbing of a globe while it was positioned near a second, exhausted, globe. With the discovery of so many new phenomena in the 1730's, the theory turned out to be no longer adequate, but it is not at all surprising that it was a few years before the full extent of its inadequacies was appreciated, nor is it surprising that a strong continuity is evident between it and the theory which eventually replaced it. In the meantime, the theory continued to serve a useful function by suggesting new lines of research to its adherents. The theory functioned, then, in the same way as any other scientific theory, and it deserves a more serious treatment than it has usually received. This paper, I hope, can serve as a beginning. (shrink)