Volume 2 — VOLUME II. (continued 4)

STATEMENT OF EUDOXUSTRUE TIME

Mercury 1 year— 87d. 23h.

Venus 1 " — 224d. 16h.

Mars 2 " 1y. 321d. 23h.

Jupiter12 " 11y. 315d. 14h.

Saturn30 " 29y. 174d. 1h.

Upon this determination two remarks may be made. First, the error with respect to Mercury and Venus is considerable; with respect to Mercury, it is, in round numbers, 365 instead of 88 days, more than four times too much. Aristotle remarks that Eudoxus distinguishes Mercury and Venus from the other three planets by giving them one sphere each, with the poles in common. The proximity of Mercury to the sun would render its course difficult to observe and to measure, but the cause of the large error with respect to Venus (130 days) is not apparent.

Sir G. Lewis takes Eudoxus as making the planets move round the sun; he has accordingly compared the geocentric periods of Eudoxus with our heliocentric periods. What greater blunder can be made by a writer on ancient astronomy than giving Eudoxus the Copernican system? If Mercury were a black spot in the middle of the sun it would of course move round the earth in a year, or appear to do so: let it swing a little on one side and the other of the sun, and the average period is still a year, with slight departures both ways. The same for Venus, with larger departures. Say that a person not much accustomed to the distinction might for once write down the mistake; how are we to explain its remaining in the mind in a permanent form, and being made a ground for such speculation as that of the difficulty of observing Mercury leading to a period four times what it ought to be, corrected in proof and published by an industrious and thoughtful person? Only in one way: the writer was quite out of his depth. This one case is conclusive; be it said with all respect for the real staple of the work and of the author. He knew well the difference of the systems, but not the effect of the difference: he is another instance of what I have had to illustrate by help of a very different person, that it is difficult to reason well upon matter which is not familiar.

(P. 254). Copernicus, in fact, supposed the axis of the earth to be always turned towards the Sun.⁽¹⁶⁹⁾ [(169). See Delambre, Hist. Astr. Mod., Vol. I, p. 96]. It was reserved to Kepler to propound the hypothesis of the constant parallelism of the earth's axis to itself.

If there be one thing more prominent than another in the work of Copernicus himself, in the popular explanations of it, and in the page of Delambre^[288] cited, it is that the parallelism of the earth's axis is a glaring part of the theory of Copernicus. What Kepler^[289] did was to throw away, as unnecessary, the method by which Copernicus, per fas et nefas,^[290] secured it. Copernicus, thinking of the earth's orbital revolution as those would think who were accustomed to the solid orbs—and much as the stoppers of the moon's rotation do now: why do they not strengthen themselves with Copernicus?—thought that the earth's axis would always incline the same end towards the sun, unless measures were taken to prevent it. He did take measures: he invented a compensating conical motion of the axis to preserve the parallelism; and, which is one of the most remarkable points of his system, he obtained the precession of the equinoxes by giving the necessary trifle more than compensation. What stares us in the face at the beginning of the paragraph to which the author refers?

"C'est donc pour arriver à ce parallelisme, ou pour le conserver, que Copernic a cru devoir recourir à ce mouvement égal et opposé qui détruit l'effet qu'il attribue si gratuitement au premier, de déranger le parallelisme."^[291]

Parallelism at any price, is the motto of Copernicus: you need not pay so dear, is the remark of Kepler.

The opinions given by Sir G. Lewis about the effects of modern astronomy, which he does not understand and singularly undervalues, will now be seen to be of no authority. He fancies that—to give an instance—for the determination of a ship's place, the invention of chronometers has been far more important than any improvement in astronomical theory (p. 254). Not to speak of latitude,—though the omission is not without importance,—he ought to have known that longitude is found by the difference between what o'clock it is at Greenwich and at the ship's place, at one absolute moment of time. Now if a chronometer were quite perfect—which no chronometer is, be it said—and would truly tell Greenwich mean time all over the world, it ought to have been clear that just as good a watch is wanted for the time at the place of observation, before the longitude of that place with respect to Greenwich can be found. There is no such watch, except the starry heaven itself: and that watch can only be read by astronomical observation, aided by the best knowledge of the heavenly motions.

I think I have done Sir G. Lewis's very excellent book more good than all the reviewers put together.

I will give an old instance in which literature got into confusion about astronomy. Theophrastus,^[292] who is either the culprit or his historian, attributes to Meton,^[293] the contriver of the lunar calendar of nineteen years, which lasts to this day, that his solstices were determined for him by a certain Phaeinus of Elis on Mount Lycabettus. Nobody else mentions this astronomer: though it is pretty certain that Meton himself made more than one appointment with him for the purpose of observing solstices; and we may be sure that if either were behind his time, it was Meton. For Phaeinus Helius is the shining sun himself; and in the astronomical poet Aratus^[294] we read about the nineteen years of the shining sun:

Some man of letters must have turned Apollo into Phaeinus of Elis; and there he is in the histories of astronomy to this day. Salmasius^[296] will have Aratus to have meant him, and proposes to read ἠλείοιο: he did not observe that Phaeinus is a very common adjective of Aratus, and that, if his conjecture were right, this Phaeinus would be the only non-mythical man in the poems of Aratus.

[When I read Sir George Lewis's book, the points which I have criticized struck me as not to be wondered at, but I did not remember why at the time. A Chancellor of the Exchequer and a writer on ancient astronomy are birds of such different trees that the second did not recall the first. In 1855 I was one of a deputation of about twenty persons who waited on Sir G. Lewis, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of a decimal coinage. The deputation was one of much force: Mr. Airy, with myself and others, represented mathematics; William Brown,^[297] whose dealings with the United States were reckoned by yearly millions, counted duodecimally in England and decimally in America, was the best, but not the only, representative of commerce. There were bullionists, accountants, retailers, etc. Sir G. L. walked into the room, took his seat, and without waiting one moment, began to read the deputation a smart lecture on the evils of a decimal coinage; it would require alteration of all the tables, it would impede calculation, etc. etc. Of those arguments against it which weighed with many of better knowledge than his, he obviously knew nothing. The members of the deputation began to make their statements, and met with curious denials. He interrupted me with "Surely there is no doubt that the calculations of our books of arithmetic are easier than those in the French books." He was not aware that the universally admitted superiority of decimal calculation made many of those who prefer our system for the market and the counter cast a longing and lingering look towards decimals. My answer and the smiles which he saw around, made him give a queer puzzled look, which seemed to say, "I may be out of my depth here!" His manner changed, and he listened. I saw both the slap-dash mode in which he dealt with subjects on which he had not thought, and the temperament which admitted suspicion when the means of knowledge came in his way. Having seen his two phases, I wonder neither at his more than usual exhibition of shallowness when shallow, nor at the intensity of the contrast when he had greater depth.]

DECIMAL COINAGE.

Among the paradoxers are the political paradoxers who care not how far they go in debate, their only object being to carry the House with them for the current evening. What I have said of editors I repeat of them. The preservation of a very marked instance, the association of political recklessness with cyclometrical and Apocalyptic absurdity, may have a tendency to warn, not indeed any hardened public-man and sinner, but some young minds which have yearnings towards politics, and are in formation of habits.

In the debate on decimal coinage of July 12, 1855, Mr. Lowe,^[298] then member for Kidderminster, an effective speaker and a smart man, exhibited himself in a speech on which I wrote a comment for the Decimal Association. I have seldom seen a more wretched attempt to distort the points of a public question than the whole of this speech. Looking at the intelligence shown by the speaker on other occasions, it is clear that if charity, instead of believing all things, believed only all things but one, he might tremble for his political character; for the honesty of his intention on this occasion might be the incredible exception. I give a few paragraphs with comments:

"In commenting on the humorous, but still argumentative speech of Mr. Lowe, the member for Kidderminster, we may observe, in general, that it consists of points which have been several times set forth, and several times answered. Mr. Lowe has seen these answers, but does not allude to them, far less attempt to meet them. There are, no doubt, individuals, who show in their public speaking the outward and visible signs of a greater degree of acuteness than they can summon to guide their private thinking. If Mr. Lowe be not one of these, if the power of his mind in the closet be at all comparable to the power of his tongue in the House, it may be suspected that his reserve with respect to what has been put forward by the very parties against whom he was contending, arises from one or both of two things—a high opinion of the arguments which he ignored—a low opinion of the generality of the persons whom he addressed. [Both, I doubt not].

"Did they calculate in florins ?" In the name of common sense, how can it be objected to a system that people do not use it before it is introduced? Let the decimal system be completed, and calculation shall be made in florins; that is, florins shall take their proper place. If florins were introduced now, there must be a column for the odd shilling.

"He was glad that some hon. gentleman had derived benefit from the issue of florins. His only experience of their convenience was, that when he ought to have received half-a-crown, he had generally received a florin, and when he ought to have paid a florin, he had generally paid half-a-crown." (Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the hon. gentleman make this assertion of himself, it is not for us to gainsay it. It only proves that he is one of that class of men who are described in the old song, of which one couplet runs thus: I sold my cow to buy me a calf; I never make a bargain but I lose half, With a etc. etc. etc.

But he cannot mean that Englishmen in general are so easily managed. And as to Jonathan, who is but John lengthened out a little, he would see creation whittled into chips before he would even split what may henceforth be called the Kidderminster difference. The House, not unmoved—for it laughed—with sly humor decided that the introduction of the florin had been "eminently successful and satisfactory."

The truth is that Mr. Lowe here attacks nothing except the coexistence of the florin and half-crown. We are endeavoring to abolish the half-crown. Let Mr. Lowe join us; and he will, if we succeed, be relieved from the pressure on his pocket which must arise from having the turn of the market always against him.

"From a florin they get to 2 2-5ths of a penny, but who ever bought anything, who ever reckoned or wished to reckon in such a coin as that?" (Hear, hear.) Note the sophism of expressing our coin in terms of the penny, which we abandon, instead of the florin, which we retain. Remember that this 2 2-5ths is the hundredth part of the pound, which is called, as yet, a cent. Nobody buys anything at a cent, because the cent is not yet introduced. Nobody reckons in cents for the same reason. Everybody wishes to reckon in cents, who wishes to combine the advantage of decimal reckoning with the preservation of the pound as the highest unit of account; amongst others, a majority of the House of Commons, the Bank of England, the majority of London bankers, the Chambers of Commerce in various places, etc. etc. etc.

"Such a coin could never come into general circulation because it represents nothing which corresponds with any of the wants of the people." Does 2½d. never pass from hand to hand? And is 2½d. so precisely the modulus of popular wants, that an alteration of 4 per cent. would make it useless? Of all the values which 2½d. measures, from three pounds of potatoes down to certain arguments used in the House of Commons, there is not one for which a cent would not do just as well. Mr. Lowe has fallen into the misconception of the person who admired the dispensation of Providence by which large rivers are made to run through cities so great and towns so many. If the cent were to be introduced to-morrow, straightway the buns and cakes, the soda-water bottles, the short omnibus fares, the bunches of radishes, etc. etc. etc., would adapt themselves to the coin.

"If the proposed system were adopted, they would all be compelled to live in decimals for ever; if a man dined at a public house he would have to pay for his dinner in decimal fractions. (Hear, hear.) He objected to that, for he thought that a man ought to be able to pay for his dinner in integers." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The confusion of ideas here exhibited is most instructive. The speaker is under the impression that we are introducing fractions: the truth is, that we only want to abandon the more difficult fractions which we have got, and to introduce easier fractions. Does he deny this? Let us trace his denial to its legitimate consequences. A man ought to pay for his dinner in integers.

Now, if Mr. Lowe insists on it that our integer is the pound, he is bound to admit that the present integer is the pound, of which a shilling, etc., are fractions. The next time he has a chop and a pint of stout in the city, the waiter should say—"A pound, sir, to you," and should add, "Please to remember the waiter in integers." Mr. Lowe fancies that when he pays one and sixpence, he pays in integers, and so he does, if his integer be a penny or a sixpence. Let him bring his mind to contemplate a mil as the integer, the lowest integer, and the seven cents five mils which he would pay under the new system would be payment in integers also. But, as it happens with some others, he looks up the present system, with Cocker,^[299] and Walkingame,^[300] and always looks down the proposed system. The word decimal is obstinately associated with fractions, for which there is no need. Hence it becomes so much of a bugbear, that, to parody the lines of Pope, which probably suggested one of Mr. Lowe's phrases—

"The present system, however, had not yet been changed into decimal system. That change might appear very easy to accomplished mathematicians and men of science, but it was one which it would be very difficult to carry out. (Hear, hear). What would have to be done? Every sum would have to be reduced into a vulgar fraction of a pound, and then divided by the decimal of a pound—a pleasant sum for an old applewoman to work out!" (Hear, hear, and laughter.) A pleasant sum even for an accomplished mathematician. What does divided by the decimal of a pound mean? Perhaps it means reduced to the decimal of a pound! Mr. Lowe supposes, as many others do, that, after the change, all calculations will be proposed in old money, and then converted into new. He cannot hit the idea that the new coins will take the place of the old. This lack of apprehension will presently appear further.

"It would not be an agreeable task, even for some members of that House, to reduce 4½d., or nine half-pence, to mils." (Hear, hear.) Let the members be assured that nine half-pence will be, for every practical purpose, 18 mils. But now to the fact asserted. Davies Gilbert^[301] used to maintain that during the long period he sat in the House, he never knew more than three men in it, at one time, who had a tolerable notion of fractions. [I heard him give the names of three at the time when he spoke: they were Warburton,^[302] Pollock,^[303] and Hume.^[304] He himself was then out of Parliament.] Joseph Hume affirmed that he had never met with more than ten members who were arithmeticians. But both these gentlemen had a high standard. Mr. Lowe has given a much more damaging opinion. He evidently means that the general run of members could not do his question. It is done as follows: Since farthings gain on mils, at the rate of a whole mil in 24 farthings (24 farthings being 25 mils), it is clear that 18 farthings being three-quarters of 24 farthings, will gain three-quarters of a mil; that is, 18 farthings are eighteen mils and three-quarters of a mil. Any number of farthings is as many mils and as many twenty-fourths of a mil. To a certain extent, we feel able to protest against the manner in which Kidderminster has treated the other constituencies. We do not hold it impossible to give the Members of the House in general a sufficient knowledge of the meaning and consequences of the decimal succession of units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc.; and we believe that there are in the House itself competent men, in number enough to teach all the rest. All that is wanted is the power of starting from the known to arrive at the unknown. Now there is one kind of decimals with which every member is acquainted—the Chiltern Hundreds. If public opinion would enable the competent minority to start from this in their teaching, not as a basis, but as an alternative, in three weeks the fundamentals would be acquired, and members in general would be as fit to turn 4½d. into mils, as any boys on the lower forms of a commercial school. For a long period of years, allusion to the general ignorance of arithmetic, has been a standing mode of argument, and has always been well received: whenever one member describes others as knownothings, those others cry Hear to the country in a transport of delight. In the meanwhile the country is gradually arriving at the conclusion that a true joke is no joke.

"The main objection was, if they went below 6d., that the new scale of coins would not be commensurate in any finite ratio with anything in this new currency of mils." Fine words, wrongly used. The new coins are commensurable with, and in a finite ratio to, the old ones. The farthing is to the mil as 25 to 24. The speaker has something here in the bud, which we shall presently meet with in the flower; and fallacies are more easily nipped in flower than in bud.

"No less than five of our present coins must be called in, or else—which would be worse—new values must be given to them." This dreadful change of value consists in sixpence farthing going to the half-shilling instead of sixpence. Whether the new farthings be called mils or not is of no consequence.

"If a poor man put a penny in his pocket, it would come out a coin of different value, which he would not understand. Suppose he owed another man a penny, how was he to pay him ? Was he to pay him in mils? Four mils would be too little, and five mils would be too much. The hon. gentlemen said there would be only a mil between them. That was exactly it. He believed there would be a 'mill' between them." (Much laughter.) Mr. Lowe, who cannot pass a half-crown for more than a florin, or get in a florin at less than half-a-crown, has such a high faith in the sterner stuff of his fellow countrymen, that he believes any two of them would go to fisty cuffs for the 25th part of a farthing. He reasons thus: He has often heard in the streets, "I'd fight you for the fiftieth part of a farden:" and having (that is, for a Member) a notion both of fractions and logic, he infers that those who would fight for the 50th of a farthing would, a fortiori, fight for a 25th. His mistake arises from his not knowing that when a person offers to fight another for 1/200d., he really means to fight for love; and that the stake is merely a matter of form, a feigned issue, a pro forma report of progress. Do the Members of the House think they have all the forms to themselves?

"What would be the present expression for four-pence? Why, 0.166 (a laugh); for threepence? .0125; for a penny? .004166, and so on ad infinitum (a laugh); for a half-penny? .002083 ad infinitum. (A laugh). What would be the present expression for a farthing? Why, .0010416 ad infinitum. (A laugh). And this was the system which was to cause such a saving in figures, and these were the quantities into which the poor would have to reduce the current coin of the realm. (Cheers). With every respect for decimal fractions, of which he boasted no profound knowledge, he doubted whether the poor were equal to mental arithmetic of this kind, (hear, hear) and he hoped the adoption of the system would be deferred until there were some proof that they would be able to understand it; for, after all, this was the question of the poor, and the whole weight of the change would fall upon them. Let the rich by all means have permission to perplex themselves by any division of a pound they pleased; but do not let them, by any experiment like this, impose difficulties upon the poor and compel men to carry ready-reckoners in their pocket to give them all these fractional quantities." (Hear, hear.) We should hardly believe all this to be uttered in earnest, if we had not known that several persons who have not Mr. Lowe's humor, nevertheless have his impressions on this point. It must therefore be answered; but how is this to be done seriously? Dialogue between a member of Parliament and an orange-boy, three days after the introduction of the complete decimal system. The member, going down to the House, wants oranges to sustain his voice in a two hours' speech on moving that 100000l. be placed at the disposal of Her Majesty, to supply the poor with ready-reckoners. Boy. Fine oranges! two a penny! two a penny! Member. Here boy, two! Now, how am I to pay you? Boy. Give you change, your honor. Member. Ah! but how? Where's your ready-reckoner? Boy. I sells a better sort nor them. Mine's real Cheyny. Member. But you see a farthing is now .0014166666 ad infinitum, and if we multiply this by 4—— Boy. Hold hard, Guv'ner; I sees what you're arter. Now what'll you stand if I puts you up to it? which Bill Smith he put me up in two minutes, cause he goes to the Ragged School. Member. You don't mean that you do without a book! Boy. Book be blowed. Come now, old un, here's summut for both on us. I got a florin, you gives me a half-a-crown for it, and I larns you the new money, gives you your oranges, and calls you a brick into the bargain. Member (to himself). Never had such a chance of getting off half-a-crown for value since that —— fellow Bowring carried his crochet. (Aloud.) Well, boy, it's a bargain. Now! Boy. Why, look 'e here, my trump, its a farden more to the tizzy—that's what it is. Member. What's that? Boy. Why, you knows a sixpence when you sees it. (Aside). Blest if I think he does! Well, its six browns and a farden now. A lady buys two oranges, and forks out a sixpence; well in coorse, I hands over fippence farden astead of fippence. I always gives a farden more change, and takes according. Member (in utter surprise, lets his oranges tumble into the gutter). Never mind! They won't be wanted now. (Walks off one way. Boy makes a pass of naso-digital mesmerism, and walks off the other way).

To the poor, who keep no books, the whole secret is "Sixpence farthing to the half shilling, twelve pence halfpenny to the shilling." The new twopence halfpenny, or cent, will be at once five to the shilling.

In conclusion, we remark that three very common misconceptions run through the hon. Member's argument; and, combined in different proportions, give variety to his patterns.

First, he will have it that we design to bring the uneducated into contact with decimal fractions. If it be so, it will only be as M. Jourdain was brought into contact with prose. In fact, Quoi! quand je dis, Nicole, apportez-moi mes pantoufles, c'est de la prose?^[305] may be rendered: "What! do you mean that ten to the florin is a cent a piece must be called decimal reckoning?" If we had to comfort a poor man, horror-struck by the threat of decimals, we should tell him what manner of fractions had been inflicted upon him hitherto; nothing less awful than quarto-duodecimo-vicesimals, we should assure him.

Secondly, he assumes that the penny, such as it now is, will remain, as a coin of estimation, after it has ceased to be a coin of exchange; and that the mass of the people will continue to think of prices in old pence, and to calculate them in new ones, or else in new mils. No answer is required to this, beyond the mere statement of the nature of the assumption and denial.

Thirdly, he attributes to the uneducated community a want of perception and of operative power which really does not belong to them. The evidence offered to the Committee of the House shows that no fear is entertained on this point by those who come most in contact with farthing purchasers. And this would seem to be a rule,—that is, fear of the intelligence of the lower orders in the minds of those who are not in daily communication with them, no fear at all in the minds of those who are.

A remarkable instance of this distinction happened five-and-twenty years ago. The Admiralty requested the Astronomical Society to report on the alterations which should be made in the Nautical Almanac, the seaman's guide-book over the ocean. The greatest alteration proposed was the description of celestial phenomena in mean (or clock time), instead of apparent (or sundial) time, till then always employed. This change would require that in a great many operations the seaman should let alone what he formerly altered by addition or subtraction, and alter by addition or subtraction what he formerly let alone; provided always that what he formerly altered by addition he should, when he altered at all, alter by subtraction, and vice versa. This was a tolerably difficult change for uneducated skippers, working by rules they had only learned by rote. The Astronomical Society appointed a Committee of forty, of whom nine were naval officers or merchant seamen [I was on this Committee]. Some men of science were much afraid of the change. They could not trust an ignorant skipper or mate to make those alterations in their routine, on the correctness of which the ship might depend. Had the Committee consisted of men of science only, the change might never have been ventured on. But the naval men laughed, and said there was nothing to fear; and on their authority the alteration was made. The upshot was, that, after the new almanacs appeared, not a word of complaint was ever heard on the matter. Had the House of Commons had to decide this question, with Mr. Lowe to quote the description given by Basil Hall^[306] (who, by the way, was one of the Committee) of an observation on which the safety of the ship depended, worked out by the light of a lantern in a gale of wind off a lee shore, this simple and useful change might at this moment have been in the hands of its tenth Government Commission.

[Aug. 14, 1866. The Committee was appointed in the spring of 1830: it consisted of forty members. Death, of course, has been busy; there are now left Lord Shaftesbury,^[307] Mr. Babbage,^[308] Sir John Herschel,^[309] Sir Thomas Maclear^[310] (Astronomer Royal at the Cape of Good Hope), Dr. Robinson^[311] (of Armagh), Sir James South,^[312] Lord Wrottesley,^[313] and myself].

THE TONAL SYSTEM.

Project of a new system of arithmetic, weight, measure, and coins, proposed to be called the tonal system, with sixteen to the base. By J. W. Mystrom.^[314] Philadelphia, 1862, 8vo.

That is to say, sixteen is to take the place of ten, and to be written 10. The whole language is to be changed; every man of us is to be sixteen-stringed Jack and every woman sixteen-stringed Jill. Our old one, two, three, up to sixteen, are to be (Noll going for nothing, which will please those who dislike the memory of Old Noll) replaced by An, De, Ti, Go, Su, By, Ra, Me, Ni, Ko, Hu, Vy, La, Po, Fy, Ton; and then Ton-an, Ton-de, etc. for 17, 18, etc. The number which in the system has the symbol

(using our present compounds instead of new types) is to be pronounced

The year is to have sixteen months, and here they are:

Surely An-month, De-month, etc. would do as well. Probably the wants of poetry were considered. But what are we to do with our old poets? For example—

Let us translate—

And again, Fylander thrown into our December! What is to become of those lines of Praed, which I remember coming out when I was at Cambridge,—

If I were asked which I preferred, this system or that of Baron Ferrari^[315] already mentioned, proceeding by twelves, I should reply, with Candide, when he had the option given of running the gauntlet or being shot: Les volontés sont libres, et je ne veux ni l'un ni l'autre.^[316] We can imagine a speculator providing such a system for Utopia as it would be in the mind of a Laputan: but to explain how an engineer who has surveyed mankind from Philadelphia to Rostof on the Don should for a moment entertain the idea of such a system being actually adopted, would beat a jury of solar-system-makers, though they were shut up from the beginning of Anuary to the end of Tonborius. When I see such a scheme as this imagined to be practicable, I admire the wisdom of Providence in providing the quadrature of the circle, etc., to open a harmless sphere of action to the possessors of the kind of ingenuity which it displays. Those who cultivate mathematics have a right to speak strongly on such efforts of arithmetic as this: for, to my knowledge, persons who have no knowledge are frequently disposed to imagine that their makers are true brothers of the craft, a little more intelligible than the rest.

SOME SMALL PARADOXERS.

Vis inertiae victa,^[317] or Fallacies affecting science. By James Reddie.^[318] London, 1862, 8vo.

An attack on the Newtonian mechanics; revolution by gravitation demonstrably impossible; much to be said for the earth being the immovable center. A good analysis of contents at the beginning, a thing seldom found. The author has followed up his attack in a paper submitted to the British Association, but which it appears the Association declined to consider. It is entitled—

Victoria Toto Cœlo; or, Modern Astronomy recast. London, 1863, 8vo.

At the end is a criticism of Sir G. Lewis's History of Ancient Astronomy.

On the definition and nature of the Science of Political Economy. By H. Dunning Macleod,^[319] Esq. Cambridge, 1862, 8vo.

A paper read—but, according to the report, not understood—at the British Association. There is a notion that political economy is entirely mathematical; and its negative quantity is strongly recommended for study: it contains "the whole of the Funds, Credit, 32 parts out of 33 of the value of Land...." The mathematics are described as consisting of—first, number, or Arithmetic; secondly, the theory of dependent quantities, subdivided into dependence by cause and effect, and dependence by simultaneous variations; thirdly, "independent quantities or unconnected events, which is the theory of probabilities." I am not ashamed, having the British Association as a co-non-intelligent, to say I do not understand this: there is a paradox in it, and the author should give further explanation, especially of his negative quantity. Mr. Macleod has gained praise from great names for his political economy; but this, I suspect, must have been for other parts of his system.

On the principles and practice of just Intonation, with a view to the abolition of temperament.... By General Perronet Thompson.^[320] Sixth Edition. London, 1862, 8vo.

Here is General Thompson again, with another paradox: but always master of the subject, always well up in what his predecessors have done, and always aiming at a useful end. He desires to abolish temperament by additional keys, and has constructed an enharmonic organ with forty sounds in the octave. If this can be introduced, I, for one, shall delight to hear it: but there are very great difficulties in the way, greater than stood even in the way of the repeal of the bread-tax.

In a paper on the beats of organ-pipes and on temperament published some years ago, I said that equal temperament appeared to me insipid, and not so agreeable as the effect of the instrument when in progress towards being what is called out of tune, before it becomes offensively wrong. There is throughout that period unequal temperament, determined by accident. General Thompson, taking me one way, says I have launched a declaration which is likely to make an epoch in musical practice; a public musical critic, taking me another way, quizzes me for preferring music out of tune. I do not think I deserve either one remark or the other. My opponent critic, I suspect, takes equally tempered and in tune to be phrases of one meaning. But by equal temperament is meant equal distribution among all the keys of the error which an instrument must have, which, with twelve sounds only in the octave, professes to be fit for all the keys. I am reminded of the equal temperament which was once applied to the postmen's jackets. The coats were all made for the average man: the consequence was that all the tall men had their tails too short; all the short men had them too long. Some one innocently asked why the tall men did not change coats with the short ones.

A diagram illustrating a discovery in the relation of circles to right-lined geometrical figures. London, 1863, 12mo.

The circle is divided into equal sectors, which are joined head and tail: but a property is supposed which is not true.

An attempt to assign the square roots of negative powers; or what is √ -1? By F.H. Laing.^[321] London, 1863, 8vo.

If I understand the author, -a and +a are the square roots of -a², as proved by multiplying them together. The author seems quite unaware of what has been done in the last fifty years.

BYRNE'S DUAL ARITHMETIC.

Dual Arithmetic. A new art. By Oliver Byrne.^[322] London, 1863, 8vo.

The plan is to throw numbers into the form a(1.1)^b (1.01)^c (1.001)^d... and to operate with this form. This is an ingenious and elaborate speculation; and I have no doubt the author has practised his method until he could surprise any one else by his use of it. But I doubt if he will persuade others to use it. As asked of Wilkins's universal language, Where is the second man to come from?

An effective predecessor in the same line of invention was the late Mr. Thomas Weddle,^[323] in his "New, simple, and general method of solving numeric equations of all orders," 4to, 1842. The Royal Society, to which this paper was offered, declined to print it: they ought to have printed an organized method, which, without subsidiary tables, showed them, in six quarto pages, the solution (x=8.367975431) of the equation

The method proceeds by successive factors of the form, a being the first approximation, a × 1.b × 1.0c × 1.00d.... In my copy I find a few corrections made by me at the time in Mr. Weddle's announcement. "It was read before that learned body [the R. S.] and they were pleased [but] to transmit their thanks to the author. The en[dis]couragement which he received induces [obliges] him to lay the result of his enquiries in this important branch of mathematics before the public [, at his own expense; he being an usher in a school at Newcastle]." Which is most satirical, Mr. Weddle or myself? The Society, in the account which it gave of this paper, described it as a "new and remarkably simple method" possessing "several important advantages." Mr. Rutherford's^[324] extended value of π was read at the very next meeting, and was printed in the Transactions; and very properly: Mr. Weddle's paper was excluded, and very very improperly.

HORNER'S METHOD.

I think it may be admited that the indisposition to look at and encourage improvements of calculation which once marked the Royal Society is no longer in existence. But not without severe lessons. They had the luck to accept Horner's^[325] now celebrated paper, containing the method which is far on the way to become universal: but they refused the paper in which Horner developed his views of this and other subjects: it was printed by T. S. Davies^[326] after Horner's death. I make myself responsible for the statement that the Society could not reject this paper, yet felt unwilling to print it, and suggested that it should be withdrawn; which was done.

But the severest lesson was the loss of Barrett's Method,^[327] now the universal instrument of the actuary in his highest calculations. It was presented to the Royal Society, and refused admission into the Transactions: Francis Baily^[328] printed it. The Society is now better informed: "live and learn," meaning "must live, so better learn," ought to be the especial motto of a corporation, and is generally acted on, more or less.

Horner's method begins to be introduced at Cambridge: it was published in 1820. I remember that when I first went to Cambridge (in 1823) I heard my tutor say, in conversation, there is no doubt that the true method of solving equations is the one which was published a few years ago in the Philosophical Transactions. I wondered it was not taught, but presumed that it belonged to the higher mathematics. This Horner himself had in his head: and in a sense it is true; for all lower branches belong to the higher: but he would have stared to have been told that he, Horner, was without a European predecessor, and in the distinctive part of his discovery was heir-at-law to the nameless Brahmin—Tartar—Antenoachian—what you please—who concocted the extraction of the square root.

It was somewhat more than twenty years after I had thus heard a Cambridge tutor show sense of the true place of Horner's method, that a pupil of mine who had passed on to Cambridge was desired by his college tutor to solve a certain cubic equation—one of an integer root of two figures. In a minute the work and answer were presented, by Horner's method. "How!" said the tutor, "this can't be, you know." "There is the answer, Sir!" said my pupil, greatly amused, for my pupils learnt, not only Horner's method, but the estimation it held at Cambridge. "Yes!" said the tutor, "there is the answer certainly; but it stands to reason that a cubic equation cannot be solved in this space." He then sat down, went through a process about ten times as long, and then said with triumph: "There! that is the way to solve a cubic equation!"

I think the tutor in this case was never matched, except by the country organist. A master of the instrument went into the organ-loft during service, and asked the organist to let him play the congregation out; consent was given. The stranger, when the time came, began a voluntary which made the people open their ears, and wonder who had got into the loft: they kept their places to enjoy the treat. When the organist saw this, he pushed the interloper off the stool, with "You'll never play 'em out this side Christmas." He then began his own drone, and the congregation began to move quietly away. "There," said he, "that's the way to play 'em out!"

I have not scrupled to bear hard on my own university, on the Royal Society, and on other respectable existences: being very much the friend of all. I will now clear the Royal Society from a very small and obscure slander, simply because I know how. This dissertation began with the work of Mr. Oliver Byrne, the dual arithmetician, etc. This writer published, in 1849, a method of calculating logarithms.^[329] First, a long list of instances in which, as he alleges, foreign discoverers have been pillaged by Englishmen, or turned into Englishmen: for example, O'Neill,^[330] so called by Mr. Byrne, the rectifier of the semi-cubical parabola claimed by the Saxons under the name of Neal: the grandfather of this mathematician was conspicuous enough as Neal; he was archbishop of York. This list, says the writer, might be continued without end; but he has mercy, and finishes with his own case, as follows:—"About twenty years ago, I discovered this method of directly calculating logarithms. I could generally find the logarithm of any number in a minute or two without the use of books or tables. The importance of the discovery subjected me to all sorts of prying. Some asserted that I committed a table of logarithms to memory; others attributed it to a peculiar mental property; and when Societies and individuals failed to extract my secret, they never failed to traduce the inventor and the invention. Among the learned Societies, the Royal Society of London played a very base part. When I have more space and time at my disposal, I will revert to this subject again."

Such a trumpery story as this remains unnoticed at the time; but when all are gone, a stray copy from a stall falls into hands which, not knowing what to make of it, make history of it. It is a very curious distortion. The reader may take it on my authority, that the Royal Society played no part, good or bad, nor had the option of playing a part. But I myself pars magna fui:^[331] and when the author has "space and time" at his disposal, he must not take all of them; I shall want a little of both.

ARE ATOMS WORLDS?

The mystery of being; or are ultimate atoms inhabited worlds? By Nicholas Odgers.^[332] Redruth and London, 1863, 8vo.

This book, as a paradox, beats quadrature, duplication, trisection, philosopher's stone, perpetual motion, magic, astrology, mesmerism, clairvoyance, spiritualism, homœopathy, hydropathy, kinesipathy, Essays and Reviews, and Bishop Colenso,^[333] all put together. Of all the suppositions I have given as actually argued, this is the one which is hardest to deny, and hardest to admit. Reserving the question—as beyond human discussion—whether our particles of carbon, etc. are clusters of worlds, the author produces his reasons for thinking that they are at least single worlds. Of course—though not mentioned—the possibility is to be added of the same thing being true of the particles which make up our particles, and so down, for ever: and, on the other hand, of our planets and stars as being particles in some larger universe, and so up, for ever.

I have often had the notion that all the nebulæ we see, including our own, which we call the Milky Way, may be particles of snuff in the box of a giant of a proportionately larger universe. Of course the minim of time—a million of years or whatever the geologists make it^[335]—which our little affair has lasted, is but a very small fraction of a second to the great creature in whose nose we shall all be in a few tens of thousands of millions of millions of millions of years.

All this is quite possible, and the probabilities for and against are quite out of reach. Perhaps also all the worlds, both above and below us, are fac-similes of our own. If so, away goes free will for good and all; unless, indeed, we underpin our system with the hypothesis that all the fac-simile bodies of different sizes are actuated by a common soul. These acute supplementary notions of mine go far to get rid of the difficulty which some have found in the common theory that the soul inhabits the body: it has been stated that there is, somewhere or another, a world of souls which communicate with their bodies by wondrous filaments of a nature neither mental nor material, but of a tertium quid fit to be a go-between; as it were a corporispiritual copper encased in a spiritucorporeal gutta-percha. My theory is that every soul is everywhere in posse, as the schoolmen said, but not anywhere in actu, except where it finds one of its bodies. These a priori difficulties being thus removed, the system of particle-worlds is reduced to a dry question of fact, and remitted to the decision of the microscope. And a grand field may thus be opened, as optical science progresses! For the worlds are not fac-similes of ours in time: there is not a moment of our past, and not a moment of our future, but is the present of one or more of the particles. A will write the death of Cæsar, and B the building of the Pyramids, by actual observation of the processes with a power of a thousand millions; C will discover the commencement of the Millennium, and D the termination of Ersch and Gruber's Lexicon,^[336] as mere physical phenomena. Against this glorious future there is a sad omen: the initials of the forerunner of this discovery are—NO!

THE SUPERNATURAL.

The History of the Supernatural in all ages and nations, and in all Churches, Christian and Pagan: demonstrating a universal faith. By Wm. Howitt.^[337] London, 2 vols. 8vo. 1863.

Mr. Howitt is a preacher of spiritualism. He cements an enormous collection of alleged facts with a vivid outpouring of exhortation, and an unsparing flow of sarcasm against the scorners of all classes. He and the Rev. J. Smith^[338] (ante, 1854) are the most thoroughgoing universalists of all the writers I know on spiritualism. If either can insert the small end of the wedge, he will not let you off one fraction of the conclusion that all countries, in all ages, have been the theaters of one vast spiritual display. And I suspect that this consequence cannot be avoided, if any part of the system be of truly spiritual origin. Mr. Howitt treats the philosophers either as ignorant babies, or as conscious spirit-fearers: and seems much inclined to accuse the world at large of dreading, lest by the actual presence of the other world their Christianity should imbibe a spiritual element which would unfit it for the purposes of their lives.

FROM MATTER TO SPIRIT.

From Matter to Spirit. By C. D. With a preface by A. B.^[339] London, 1863, 8vo.

This is a work on Spiritual Manifestations. The author upholds the facts for spiritual phenomena: the prefator suspends his opinion as to the cause, though he upholds the facts. The work begins systematically with the lower class of phenomena, proceeds to the higher class, and offers a theory, suggested by the facts, of the connection of the present and future life. I agree in the main with A. B.; but can, of course, make none but horrescent reference to his treatment of the smaller philosophers. This is always the way with your paradoxers: they behave towards orthodoxy as the thresher fish behaves towards the whale. But if true, as is said, that the drubbing clears the great fish of parasites which he could not otherwise get rid of, he ought to bear no malice. This preface retorts a little of that contempt which the "philosophical world" has bestowed with heaped measure upon those who have believed their senses, and have drawn natural, even if hasty, inferences. There is philosophercraft as well as priestcraft, both from one source, both of one spirit. In English cities and towns, the minister of religion has been tamed: so many weapons are bared against him when he obtrudes his office in a dictatory manner, that, as a rule, there is no more quiet and modest member of society than the urban clergyman. Domination over religious belief is reserved for the exclusive use of those who admit the right: the rare exception to this mode of behavior is laughed at as a bigot, or shunned as a nuisance. But the overbearing minister of nature, who snaps you with unphilosophical as the clergyman once frightened you with infidel, is still a recognized member of society, wants taming, and will get it. He wears the priest's cast-off clothes, dyed to escape detection: the better sort of philosophers would gladly set him to square the circle.

The book just named appeared about the same time as this Budget began in the Athenæum. It was commonly attributed, the book to my wife, the preface to myself. Some time after, our names were actually announced by the publisher, who ought to know. It will be held to confirm this statement that I announce our having in our possession some twenty reviews of different lengths, and of all characters: who ever collects a number of reviews of a book, except the author?

A great many of these reviews settle the matter a priori. If there had been spirits in the matter, they would have done this, and they would not have done that. Jean Meslier^[340] said there could be no God over all, for, if there had been one, He would have established a universal religion. If J. M. knew that, J. M. was right: but if J. M. did not know that, then J. M. was on the "high priori road," and may be left to his course. The same to all who know what spirits would do and would not do.

A. B. very distinctly said that he knew some of the asserted facts, believed others on testimony, but did not pretend to know whether they were caused by spirits, or had some unknown and unimagined origin. This he said as clearly as I could have said it myself. But a great many persons cannot understand such a frame of mind: their own apparatus is a kind of spirit-level, and their conclusion on any subject is the little bubble, which is always at one end or the other. Many of the reviewers declare that A. B. is a secret believer in the spirit-hypothesis: and one of them wishes that he had "endorsed his opinion more boldly." According to this reviewer, any one who writes "I boldly say I am unable to choose," contradicts himself. In truth, a person who does say it has a good deal of courage, for each side believes that he secretly favors the other; and both look upon him as a coward. In spite of all this, A. B. boldly repeats that he feels assured of many of the facts of spiritualism, and that he cannot pretend to affirm or deny anything about their cause.

The great bulk of the illogical part of the educated community—whether majority or minority I know not; perhaps six of one and half-a-dozen of the other—have not power to make a distinction, cannot be made to take a distinction, and of course, never attempt to shake a distinction. With them all such things are evasions, subterfuges, come-offs, loopholes, etc. They would hang a man for horse-stealing under a statute against sheep-stealing; and would laugh at you if you quibbled about the distinction between a horse and a sheep. I divide the illogical—I mean people who have not that amount of natural use of sound inference which is really not uncommon—into three classes:—First class, three varieties: the Niddy, the Noddy, and the Noodle. Second class, three varieties: the Niddy-Noddy, the Niddy-Noodle, and the Noddy-Noodle. Third class, undivided: the Niddy-Noddy-Noodle. No person has a right to be angry with me for more than one of these subdivisions.

The want of distinction was illustrated to me, when a boy, about 1820, by the report of a trial which I shall never forget: boys read newspapers more keenly than men. Every now and then a bench of country magistrates rather astonishes the town populations, accustomed to rub their brains^[341] against one another. Such a story as the following would, in our day, bring down grave remarks from above: but I write of the olden (or Eldon^[342]) time, when nothing but conviction in a court of record would displace a magistrate. In that day the third-class amalgamator of distinct things was often on the bench of quarter-sessions.

An attorney was charged with having been out at night poaching. A clear alibi was established; and perjury had certainly been committed. The whole gave reason to suspect that some ill-willers thought the bench disliked the attorney so much that any conviction was certain on any evidence. The bench did dislike the attorney: but not to the extent of thinking he could snare any partridges in the fields while he was asleep in bed, except the dream-partridges which are not always protected by the dream-laws. So the chairman said, "Mr. ——, you are discharged; but you should consider this one of the most fortunate days of your life." The attorney indignantly remonstrated, but the magistrate was right; for he said, "Mr. ——, you have frequently been employed to defend poachers: have you been careful to impress upon them the enormity of their practices?" It appeared in a wrangling conversation that the magistrates saw little moral difference between poaching and being a poacher's professional defender without lecturing him on his wickedness: but they admitted with reluctance, that there was a legal distinction; and the brain of N³ could no further go. This is nearly fifty years ago; and Westernism was not quite extinct. If the present lords of the hills and the valleys want to shine, let them publish a true history of their own order. I am just old enough to remember some of the last of the squires and parsons who protested against teaching the poor to read and write. They now write books for the working classes, give them lectures, and the like. There is now no class, as a class, more highly educated, broadly educated, and deeply educated, than those who were, in old times, best described as partridge-popping squireens. I have myself, when a boy, heard Old Booby speaking with pride of Young Booby as having too high a spirit to be confined to books: and I suspected that his dislike to teaching the poor arose in fact from a feeling that they would, if taught a little, pass his heir.

A. B. recommended the spirit-theory as an hypothesis on which to ground inquiry; that is, as the means of suggestion for the direction of inquiry. Every person who knows anything of the progress of physics understands what is meant; but not the reviewers I speak of. Many of them consider A. B. as adopting the spirit-hypothesis. The whole book was written, as both the authors point out, to suggest inquiry to those who are curious; C. D. firmly believing, A. B. as above. Neither C. D. nor A. B. make any other pretence. Both dwell upon the absence of authentications and the suppression of names as utterly preventive of anything like proof. And A. B. says that his reader "will give him credit, if not himself a goose, for seeing that the tender of an anonymous cheque would be of equal effect, whether drawn on the Bank of England or on Aldgate Pump." By this test a number of the reviewers are found to be geese: for they take the authors as offering proof, and insist, against the authors, on the very point on which the authors had themselves insisted beforehand.

Leaving aside imperceptions of this kind, I proceed to notice a clerical and medical review. I have lived much in the middle ages, especially since the invention of printing; and from thence I have brought away a high respect for and grateful recollection of—the priest in everything but theology, and the physician in everything but medicine. The professional harness was unfavorable to all progress, except on a beaten road; the professional blinkers prevented all but the beaten road from being seen: the professional reins were pulled at the slightest attempt to quicken pace, even on the permitted path; and the professional whip was heavily laid on at the slightest attempt to diverge. But when the intelligent man of either class turned his attention out of his ordinary work, he had, in most cases, the freshness and vigor of a boy at play, and like the boy, he felt his freedom all the more from the contrast of school-restraint.

In the case of medicine, and physics generally, the learned were, in some essential points, more rational than many of their present impugners. They pass for having put a priori obstacles in the way of progress: they might rather be reproved for too much belief in progress obtained by a priori means. They would have shouted with laughter at a dunce who—in a review I read, but without making a note—declared that he would not believe his senses except when what they showed him was capable of explanation upon some known principle. I have seen such stuff as this attributed to the schoolmen; but only by those who knew nothing about them. The following, which I wrote some years ago, will give a notion of a distinction worth remembering. It is addressed to the authorities of the College of Physicians.

"The ignominy of the word empiric dates from the ages in which scholastic philosophy deduced physical consequences a priori;—the ages in which, because a lion is strong, rubbing with lion's fat would have been held an infallible tonic. In those happy days, if a physician had given decoction of a certain bark, only because in numberless instances that decoction had been found to strengthen the patient, he would have been a miserable empiric. Not that the colleges would have passed over his returns because they were empirical: they knew better. They were as skilful in finding causes for facts, as facts for causes. The president and the elects of that day would have walked out into the forest with a rope, and would have pulled heartily at the tree which yielded the bark: nor would they ever have left it until they had pulled out a legitimate reason. If the tree had resisted all their efforts, they would have said, 'Ah! no wonder now; the bark of a strong tree makes a strong man.' But if they had managed to serve the tree as you would like to serve homœopathy, then it would have been 'We might have guessed it; all the virtus roborativa has settled in the bark.' They admitted, as we know from Molière, the virtus dormitiva^[343] of opium, for no other reason than that opium facit dormire.^[344] Had the medicine not been previously known, they would, strange as it may seem to modern pharmacopœists, have accorded a virtus dormitiva to the new facit dormire. On this point they have been misapprehended. They were prone to infer facit from a virtus imagined a priori; and they were ready in supplying facit in favor of an orthodox virtus. They might have gone so far, for example, under pre-notional impressions, as the alliterative allopath, who, when maintenance of truth was busy opposing the progress of science called vaccination, declared that some of its patients coughed like cows, and bellowed like bulls; but they never refused to find virtus when facit came upon them, no matter whence. They would rather have accepted Tenterden steeple than have rejected the Goodwin Sands. They would have laughed their modern imitators to scorn: but as they are not here, we do it for them.

"The man of our day—the a priori philosopher—tries the question whether opium can cause sleep by finding out in the recesses of his own noddle whether the drug can have a dormitive power: Well! but did not the schoolman do the same? He did; but mark the distinction. The schoolman had recourse to first principles, when there was no opium to try it by: our man settles the point in the same way with a lump of opium before him. The schoolman shifted his principles with his facts: the man of our drawing-rooms will fight facts with his principles, just as an old physician would have done in actual practice, with the rod of his Church at his back.

"The story about Galileo—which seems to have been either a joke made against him, or by him—illustrates this. Nature abhors a vacuum was the explanation of the water rising in a pump: but they found that the water would not rise more than 32 feet. They asked for explanation: what does the satirist make the schoolmen say? That the stoppage is not a fact, because nature abhors a vacuum? No! but that the principle should be that nature abhors a vacuum as far as 32 feet. And this is what would have been done.

"There are still among us both priests and physicians who would have belonged, had they lived three or four centuries ago, to the glorious band of whom I have spoken, the majority of the intelligent, working well for mankind out of the professional pursuit. But we have a great many who have helped to abase their classes. Go where we may, we find specimens of the lower orders of the ministry of religion and the ministry of health showing themselves smaller than the small of other pursuits. And how is this? First, because each profession is entered upon a mere working smack of its knowledge, without any depth of education, general or professional. Not that this is the whole explanation, nor in itself objectionable: the great mass of the world must be tended, soul and body, by those who are neither Hookers^[345] nor Harveys^[346]: let such persons not venture ultra crepidam, and they are useful and respectable. But, secondly, there is a vast upheaving of thought from the depths of commonplace learning. I am a clergyman! Sir! I am a medical man! Sir! and forthwith the nature of things is picked to pieces, and there is a race, with the last the winner, between Philosophy mounted on Folly's donkey, and Folly mounted on Philosophy's donkey. How fortunate it is for Law that her battles are fought by politicians in the Houses of Parliament. Not that it is better done: but then politics bears the blame."

I now come to the medical review. After a quantity of remark which has been already disposed of, the writer shows Greek learning, a field in which the old physician would have had a little knowledge. A. B., for the joke's sake, had left untranslated, as being too deep, a remarkably easy sentence of Aristotle, to the effect that what has happened was possible, for if impossible it would not have happened. The reviewer, in "simple astonishment,"—it was simple—at the pretended incapacity—I was told by A. B. that the joke was intended to draw out a reviewer—translates:—He says that this sentence is A. B.'s summing up of the evidence of Spiritualism. Now, being a sort of alter ego^[347] of A. B., I do declare that he is not such a fool as to rest the evidence of Spiritualism—the spirit explanation—upon the occurrence of certain facts proving the possibility of those very facts. In truth, A. B. refuses to receive spiritualism, while he receives the facts: this is the gist of his whole preface, which simply admits spiritualism among the qualified candidates, and does not know what others there may be.

The reviewer speaks of Aristotle as "that clear thinker and concise writer." I strongly suspect that his knowledge of Aristotle was limited to the single sentence which he had translated or got translated. Aristotle is concise in phrase, not in book, and is powerful and profound in thought: but no one who knows that his writing, all we have of him, is the very opposite of clear, will pretend to decide that he thought clearly. As his writing, so probably was his thought; and his books are, if not anything but clear, at least anything good but clear. Nobody thinks them clear except a person who always clears difficulties: which I have no doubt was the reviewer's habit; that is, if he ever took the field at all. The gentleman who read Euclid, all except the As and Bs and the pictures of scratches and scrawls, is the type of a numerous class.

The reviewer finds that the word amosgepotically, used by A. B., is utterly mysterious and incomprehensible. He hopes his translation of the bit of Greek will shield him from imputation of ignorance: and thinks the word may be referred to the "obscure dialect" out of which sprung aneroid, kalos geusis sauce, and Anaxyridian trousers. To lump the first two phrases with the third smacks of ignorance in a Greek critic; for ἀναξυριδια, breeches, would have turned up in the lexicon; and kalos geusis, though absurd, is not obscure. And ἀμωσγεπως, somehow or other, is as easily found as ἀναξυριδια. The word aneroid, I admit, has puzzled better scholars than the critic: but never one who knows the unscholarlike way in which words ending in ειδης have been rendered. The aneroid barometer does not use a column of air in the same way as the old instrument. Now ἀεροειδης—properly like the atmosphere—is by scientific non-scholarship rendered having to do with the atmosphere; and ἀναεροειδης—say anaëroid—denies having to do with the atmosphere; a nice thing to say of an instrument which is to measure the weight of the atmosphere. One more absurdity, and we have aneroid, and there you are. The critic ends with a declaration that nothing in the book shakes his faith in a Quarterly reviewer who said that suspension of opinion, until further evidence arrives, is justifiable: a strange summing up for an article which insists upon utter rejection being unavoidable.^[348] The expressed aim of both A. B. and C. D. was to excite inquiry, and get further evidence: until this is done, neither asks for a verdict.

Oh where! and oh where! is old Medicine's learning gone! There was some in the days of yore, when Popery was on! And it's oh! for some Greek, just to find a word upon! The reviewer who, lexicon in hand, can neither make out anaxyridical, amosgepotical, kalos geusis, nor distinguish them from aneroid, cannot be trusted when he says he has translated a sentence of Aristotle. He may have done it; but, as he says of spiritualism, we must suspend our opinion until further evidence shall arrive.

We now come to the theological review. I have before alluded to the faults of logic which are Protestant necessities: but I never said that Protestant argument had nothing but paralogism. The writer before me attains this completeness: from beginning to end he is of that confusion and perversion which, as applied to interpretation of the New Testament, is so common as to pass unnoticed by sermon-hearers; but which, when applied out of church, is exposed with laughter in all subjects except theology. I shall take one instance, putting some words in italics.

A. B. My state of mind, which refers the whole either to unseen intelligence, or something which man has never had any conception of, proves me to be out of the pale of the Royal Society. Theological Critic. ... he proceeds to argue that he himself is outside its sacred pale because he refers all these strange phenomena to unseen spiritual intelligence.

The possibility of a yet unimagined cause is insisted on in several places. On this ground it is argued by A. B. that spiritualists are "incautious" for giving in at once to the spirit doctrine. But, it is said, they may be justified by the philosophers, who make the flint axes, as they call them, to be the works of men, because no one can see what else they can be. This kind of adoption, condemned as a conclusion, is approved as a provisional theory, suggestive of direction of inquiry: experience having shown that inquiry directed by a wrong theory has led to more good than inquiry without any theory at all. All this A. B. has fully set forth, in several pages. On it the reviewer remarks that "with infinite satisfaction he tries to justify his view of the case by urging that there is no other way of accounting for it; after the fashion of the philosophers of our own day, who conclude that certain flints found in the drift are the work of men, because the geologist does not see what else they can be." After this twist of meaning, the reviewer proceeds to say, and A. B. would certainly join him, "There is no need to combat any such mode of reasoning as this, because it would apply with equal force and justice to any theory whatever, however fantastic, profane, or silly." And so, having shown how the reviewer has hung himself, I leave him funipendulous.

One instance more, and I have done. A reviewer, not theological, speaking of the common argument that things which are derided are not therefore to be rejected, writes as follows:—"It might as well be said that they who laughed at Jenner^[349] and vaccination were, in a certain but very unsatisfactory way, witnesses to the possible excellence of the system of St. John Long."^[350] Of course it might: and of course it is said by all people of common sense. In introducing the word "possible," the reviewer has hit the point: I suspect that this word was introduced during revision, to put the sentence into fighting order; hurry preventing it being seen that the sentence was thus made to fight on the wrong side. Jenner, who was laughed at, was right; therefore, it is not impossible—that is, it is possible—that a derided system may be right. Mark the three gradations: in medio tutissimus ibis.^[351]

Reviewer.—If a system be derided, it is no ground of suspense that derided systems have turned out true: if it were, you would suspend your opinion about St. John Long on account of Jenner.—Ans. You ought to do so, as to possibility; and before examination; not with the notion that J. proves St. J. probable; only possible.

Common Sense.—The past emergence of truths out of derided systems proves that there is a practical certainty of like occurrence to come. But, inasmuch as a hundred speculative fooleries are started for one truth, the mind is permitted to approach the examination of any one given novelty with a bias against it of a hundred to one: and this permission is given because so it will be, leave or no leave. Every one has licence not to jump over the moon.

Paradoxer.—Great men have been derided, and I am derided: which proves that my system ought to be adopted. This is a summary of all the degrees in which paradoxers contend for the former derision of truths now established, giving their systems probability. I annex a paragraph which D [e &c.] inserted in the Athenæum of October 23, 1847.

"Discoverers and Discoveries.

"Aristotle once sent his servant to the cellar to fetch wine:—and the fellow brought him back small beer. The Stagirite (who knew the difference) called him a blockhead. 'Sir,' said the man, 'all I can say is, that I found it in the cellar.' The philosopher muttered to himself that an affirmative conclusion could not be proved in the second figure,—and Mrs. Aristotle, who was by, was not less effective in her remark, that small beer was not wine because it was in the same cellar. Both were right enough: and our philosophers might take a lesson from either—for they insinuate an affirmative conclusion in the second figure. Great discoverers have been little valued by established schools,—and they are little valued. The results of true science are strange at first,—and so are their's. Many great men have opposed existing notions,—and so do they. All great men were obscure at first,—and they are obscure. Thinking men doubt,—and they doubt. Their small beer, I grant, has come out of the same cellar as the wine; but this is not enough. If they had let it stand awhile in the old wine-casks, it might have imbibed a little of the flavor."

There are better reviews than I have noticed; which, though entirely dissenting, are unassailable on their own principles. What I have given represents five-sixths of the whole. But it must be confessed that the fraction of fairness and moderation and suspended opinion which the doctrine of Spirit Manifestations has met with—even in the lower reviews—is strikingly large compared to what would have been the case fifty years ago. It is to be hoped that our popular and periodical literatures are giving us one thinker created for twenty geese double-feathered: if this hope be realized, we shall do! Seeing all that I see, I am not prepared to go the length of a friend of mine who, after reading a good specimen of the lower reviewing, exclaimed—Oh! if all the fools in the world could be rolled up into one fool, what a reviewer he would make!

Calendrier Universel et Perpétuel; par le Commandeur P. J. Arson.^[352] Publié par ses Enfans (Œuvre posthume). Nice, 1863, 4to.

I shall not give any account of this curious calendar, with all its changes and symbols. But there is one proposal, which, could we alter the general notions of time—a thing of very dubious possibility—would be convenient. The week is made to wax and wane, culminating on the Sunday, which comes in the middle. Thursday, Friday, Saturday, are ascending or waxing days; Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, are descending or waning days. Our six days, lumped together after the great distinguishing day, Sunday, are too many to be distinctly thought of together: a division of three preceding and three following the day of most note would be much more easily used. But all this comes too late. It may be, nevertheless, that some individuals may be able to adjust their affairs with advantage by referring Thursday, Friday, Saturday, to the following Sunday, and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, to the preceding Sunday. But M. Arson's proposal to alter the names of the days is no more necessary than it is practicable.

CYCLOMETRY.

I am not to enter anything I do not possess. The reader therefore will not learn from me the feats of many a man-at-arms in these subjects. He must be content, unless he will bestir himself for himself, not to know how Mr. Patrick Cody trisects the angle at Mullinavat, or Professor Recalcati squares the circle at Milan. But this last is to be done by subscription, at five francs a head: a banker is named who guarantees restitution if the solution be not perfectly rigorous; the banker himself, I suppose, is the judge. I have heard of a man of business who settled the circle in this way: if it can be reduced to a debtor and creditor account, it can certainly be done; if not, it is not worth doing. Montucla will give the accounts of the lawsuits which wagers on the problem have produced in France.

Neither will I enter at length upon the success of the new squarer who advertises (Nov. 1863) in a country paper that, having read that the circular ratio was undetermined, "I thought it very strange that so many great scholars in all ages should have failed in finding the true ratio, and have been determined to try myself.... I am about to secure the benefit of the discovery, so until then the public cannot know my new and true ratio." I have been informed that this trial makes the diameter to the circumference as 64 to 201, giving π = 3.140625 exactly. The result was obtained by the discoverer in three weeks after he first heard of the existence of the difficulty. This quadrator has since published a little slip, and entered it at Stationers' Hall. He says he has done it by actual measurement; and I hear from a private source that he uses a disk of 12 inches diameter, which he rolls upon a straight rail. Mr. James Smith did the same at one time; as did also his partisan at Bordeaux. We have, then, both 3.125 and 3.140625, by actual measurement. The second result is more than the first by about one part in 200. The second rolling is a very creditable one; it is about as much below the mark as Archimedes was above it. Its performer is a joiner, who evidently knows well what he is about when he measures; he is not wrong by 1 in 3,000.

The reader will smile at the quiet self-sufficiency with which "I have been determined to try myself" follows the information that "so many great scholars in all ages" have failed. It is an admirable spirit, when accompanied by common sense and uncommon self-knowledge. When I was an undergraduate there was a little attendant in the library who gave me the following,—"As to cleaning this library, Sir, if I have spoken to the Master once about it, I have spoken fifty times: but it is of no use; he will not employ littery men; and so I am obliged to look after it myself."

I do not think I have mentioned the bright form of quadrature in which a square is made equal to a circle by making each side equal to a quarter of the circumference. The last squarer of this kind whom I have seen figures in the last number of the Athenæum for 1855: he says the thing is no longer a problem, but an axiom. He does not know that the area of the circle is greater than that of any other figure of the same circuit. This any one might see without mathematics. How is it possible that the figure of greatest area should have any one length in its circuit unlike in form to any other part of the same length?

The feeling which tempts persons to this problem is that which, in romance, made it impossible for a knight to pass a castle which belonged to a giant or an enchanter. I once gave a lecture on the subject: a gentleman who was introduced to it by what I said remarked, loud enough to be heard by all around, "Only prove to me that it is impossible, and I will set about it this very evening."

This rinderpest of geometry cannot be cured, when once it has seated itself in the system: all that can be done is to apply what the learned call prophylactics to those who are yet sound. When once the virus gets into the brain, the victim goes round the flame like a moth; first one way and then the other, beginning where he ended, and ending where he begun: thus verifying the old line

Every mathematician knows that scores of methods, differing altogether from each other in process, all end in this mysterious 3.14159..., which insists on calling itself the circumference to a unit of diameter. A reader who is competent to follow processes of arithmetic may be easily satisfied that such methods do actually exist. I will give a sketch, carried out to a few figures, of three: the first two I never met with in my reading; the third is the old method of Vieta.^[354] [I find that both the first and second methods are contained in a theorem of Euler.]

What Mr. James Smith says of these methods is worth noting. He says I have given three "fancy proofs" of the value of π: he evidently takes me to be offering demonstration. He proceeds thus:—

"His first proof is traceable to the diameter of a circle of radius 1. His second, to the side of any inscribed equilateral triangle to a circle of radius 1. His third, to a radius of a circle of diameter 1. Now, it may be frankly admitted that we can arrive at the same result by many other modes of arithmetical calculation, all of which may be shown to have some sort of relation to a circle; but, after all, these results are mere exhibitions of the properties of numbers, and have no more to do with the ratio of diameter to circumference in a circle than the price of sugar with the mean height of spring tides. (Corr. Oct. 21, 1865)."

I quote this because it is one of the few cases—other than absolute assumption of the conclusion—in which Mr. Smith's conclusions would be true if his premise were true. Had I given what follows as proof, it would have been properly remarked, that I had only exhibited properties of numbers. But I took care to tell my reader that I was only going to show him methods which end in 3.14159.... The proofs that these methods establish the value of π are for those who will read and can understand.

200000000314153799

66666667 2817

26666667 1363

11428571 661

5079365 321

2308802 156

1065601 76

497281 37

234014 18

110849 9

52785 5

25245 2

12118 1

5834

————— —————

314153799314159265

1. Take any diameter, double it, take 1-3d of that double, 2-5ths of the last, 3-7ths of the last, 4-9ths of the last, 5-11ths of the last, and so on. The sum of all is the circumference of that diameter. The preceding is the process when the diameter is a hundred millions: the errors arising from rejection of fractions being lessened by proceeding on a thousand millions, and striking off one figure. Here 200 etc. is double of the diameter; 666 etc. is 1-3rd of 200 etc.; 266 etc. is 2-5ths of 666 etc.; 114 etc. is 3-7ths of 266 etc.; 507 etc. is 4-9ths of 114 etc.; and so on.

2. To the square root of 3 add its half. Take half the third part of this; half 2-5ths of the last; half 3-7ths of the last; and so on. The sum is the circumference to a unit of diameter.

Square root of 3....1.73205081

.86602540

—————

2.59807621

.43301270

.08660254

1855768

412393

93726

21629

5047

1188

281

67

16

4

1

—————

3.14159265

3. Take the square root of ½; the square root of half of one more than this; the square root of half of one more than the last; and so on, until we come as near to unity as the number of figures chosen will permit. Multiply all the results together, and divide 2 by the product: the quotient is an approximation to the circumference when the diameter is unity. Taking aim at four figures, that is, working to five figures to secure accuracy in the fourth, we have .70712 for the square root of ½; .92390 for the square root of half one more than .70712; and so on, through .98080, .99520, .99880, .99970, .99992, .99998. The product of the eight results is .63667; divide 2 by this, and the quotient is 3.1413..., of which four figures are correct. Had the product been .636363... instead of .63667..., the famous result of Archimedes, 22-7ths, would have been accurately true. It is singular that no cyclometer maintains that Archimedes hit it exactly.

A literary journal could hardly admit as much as the preceding, if it stood alone. But in my present undertaking it passes as the halfpennyworth of bread to many gallons of sack. Many more methods might be given, all ending in the same result, let that result mean what it may.

Now since dozens of methods, to which dozens more might be added at pleasure, concur in giving one and the same result; and since these methods are declared by all who have shown knowledge of mathematics to be demonstrated: it is not asking too much of a person who has just a little knowledge of the first elements that he should learn more, and put his hand upon the error, before he intrudes his assertion of the existence of error upon those who have given more time and attention to it than himself, and who are in possession, over and above many demonstrations, of many consequences verifying each other, of which he can know nothing. This is all that is required. Let any one square the circle, and persuade his friends, if he and they please: let him print, and let all read who choose. But let him abstain from intruding himself upon those who have been satisfied by existing demonstration, until he is prepared to lay his finger on the point in which existing demonstration is wrong. Let him also say what this mysterious 3.14159... really is, which comes in at every door and window, and down every chimney, calling itself the circumference to a unit of diameter. This most impudent and successful impostor holds false title-deeds in his hands, and invites examination: surely those who can find out the rightful owner are equally able to detect the forgery. All the quadrators are agreed that, be the right what it may, 3.14159... is wrong. It would be well if they would put their heads together, and say what this wrong result really means. The mathematicians of all ages have tried all manner of processes, with one object in view, and by methods which are admitted to yield demonstration in countless cases. They have all arrived at one result. A large number of opponents unite in declaring this result wrong, and all agree in two points: first, in differing among themselves; secondly, in declining to point out what that curious result really is which the mathematical methods all agree in giving.

Most of the quadrators are not aware that it has been fully demonstrated that no two numbers whatsoever can represent the ratio of the diameter to the circumference with perfect accuracy. When therefore we are told that either 8 to 25 or 64 to 201 is the true ratio, we know that it is no such thing, without the necessity of examination. The point that is left open, as not fully demonstrated to be impossible, is the geometrical quadrature, the determination of the circumference by the straight line and circle, used as in Euclid. The general run of circle-squarers, hearing that the quadrature is not pronounced to be demonstratively impossible, imagine that the arithmetical quadrature is open to their ingenuity. Before attempting the arithmetical problem, they ought to acquire knowledge enough to read Lambert's^[355] demonstration (last given in Brewster's^[356] translation of Legendre's^[357] Geometry) and, if they can, to refute it. [It will be given in an Appendix.] Probably some have begun this way, and have caught a Tartar who has refused to let them go: I have never heard of any one who, in producing his own demonstration, has laid his finger on the faulty part of Lambert's investigation. This is the answer to those who think that the mathematicians treat the arithmetical squarers too lightly, and that as some person may succeed at last, all attempts should be examined. Those who have so thought, not knowing that there is demonstration on the point, will probably admit that a person who contradicts a theorem of which the demonstration has been acknowledged for a century by all who have alluded to it as read by themselves, may reasonably be required to point out the error before he demands attention to his own result.

Apopempsis of the Tutelaries.—Again and again I am told that I spend too much time and trouble upon my two tutelaries: but when I come to my summing-up I shall make it appear that I have a purpose. Some say I am too hard upon them: but this is quite a mistake. Both of them beat little Oliver himself in the art and science of asking for more; but without Oliver's excuse, for I had given good allowance. Both began with me, not I with them: and both knew what they had to expect when they applied for a second helping.

On July 31, the Monday after the publication of my remarks on my 666 correspondent, I found three notes in separate envelopes, addressed to me at "7A, University College." When I saw the three new digits I was taken rhythmopoetic, as follows—

To understand this fully the reader must know that the greater part of Apocalyptic interpretation has long been condensed, in my mind, into the Turkish street-cry—In the name of the Prophet! figs! I make a few extracts. The reader will observe that Dr. Thorn grumbles at his private letters being publicly ridiculed. A man was summoned for a glutolactic assault; he complained of the publication of his proceeding: I kicked etc. in confidence, he said.

"After reading your last, which tries in every way to hold me up to public ridicule for daring to write you privately ['that you would be d——d,' omitted by accident] one would say, Why have anything to do with such a testy person? [Wrong word; no testy person can manage cool and consecutive ridicule. Quære, what is this word? Is it anything but a corruption of the obsolete word tetchy of the same meaning? Some think touchy is our modern form of tetchy, which I greatly doubt]. My answer is, the poor man is lamentably ignorant; he is not only so, but 'out of the way' [quite true; my readers know me by this time for an out-of-the-way person. What other could tackle my squad of paradoxers? What other would undertake the job?] Can he be brought back and form one of those who in Ezekiel 37 ch. have the Spirit breathed into them and live.... Have I any other feeling towards you except that of peace and goodwill? [Not to your distinct knowledge; but in all those who send people to 'the other place' for contempt of their interpretations, there is a lurking wish which is father to the thought; 'you will be d——d' and 'you be d—d' are Siamese twins]. Of course your sneer at 666 brought plain words; but when men meddle with what they do not understand (not having the double Vahu) they must be dealt with faithfully by those who do.... [They must; which justifies the Budget of Paradoxes: but no occasion to send them anywhere; no preachee and floggee too, as the negro said]. Many will find the text Prov. i. 26 fully realized. [All this contains distinct assumption of a right 'of course' to declare accursed those who do not respect the writer's vagary].... If I could but get the א, the Ox-head, which in Old Hebrew was just the Latin Digamma, F, out of your name, and could then Thau you with the Thau of Ezekiel ix, 4, the χ, then you would bear the number of a man! But this is too hard for me, although not so for the Lord! Jer. xxxii. 17.... And now a word: is ridicule the right thing in so solemn a matter as the discussion of Holy Writ? [Is food for ridicule the right thing? Did I discuss Holy Writ? I did not: I concussed profane scribble. Even the Doctor did not discuss; he only enunciated and denunciated out of the mass of inferences which a mystical head has found premises for in the Bible]."

M40

O70

R100

G6

N50

——

266

ת=χ 400

[That ill opinions are near relations of ill wishes, will be detected by those who are on the look out. The following was taken down in a Scotch Church by Mr. Cobden,^[358] who handed it to a Roman friend of mine, for his delectation (in 1855): "Lord, we thank thee that thou hast brought the Pope into trouble; and we pray that thou wouldst be mercifully pleased to increase the same."]

Here is a martyr who quarrels with his crown; a missionary who reviles his persecutor: send him to New Zealand, and he would disagree with the Maoris who ate him. Man of unilateral reciprocity! have you, who write to a stranger with hints that that stranger and his wife are children of perdition, the bad taste to complain of a facer in return? As James Smith^[359]—the Attorney-wit, not the Dock-cyclometer—said, or nearly said,