Notes

"Whoe'er would search the starry sky,Its secrets to divine, sir,Should take his glass—I mean, should tryA glass or two of wine, sir!True virtue lies in golden mean,And man must wet his clay, sir;Join these two maxims, and 'tis seenHe should drink his bottle a day, sir!"Old Archimedes, reverend sage!By trump of fame renowned, sir,Deep problems solved in every page,And the sphere's curved surface found,[774]sir:Himself he would have far outshone,And borne a wider sway, sir,Had he our modern secret known,And drank a bottle a day, sir!"When Ptolemy,[775]now long ago,Believed the earth stood still, sir,He never would have blundered so,Had he but drunk his fill, sir:He'd then have felt[776]it circulate,And would have learnt to say, sir,The true way to investigateIs to drink your bottle a day, sir!"Copernicus,[777]that learned wight,The glory of his nation,With draughts of wine refreshed his sight,And saw the earth's rotation;Each planet then its orb described,The moon got under way, sir;These truths from nature he imbibedFor he drank his bottle a day, sir!"The noble[778]Tycho placed the stars,Each in its due location;He lost his nose[779]by spite of Mars,But that was no privation:Had he but lost his mouth, I grantHe would have felt dismay, sir,Bless you!heknew what he should wantTo drink his bottle a day, sir!"Cold water makes no lucky hits;On mysteries the head runs:Small drink let Kepler[780]time his witsOn the regular polyhedrons:He took to wine, and it changed the chime,His genius swept away, sir,Through area varying[781]as the timeAt the rate of a bottle a day, sir!"Poor Galileo,[782]forced to ratBefore the Inquisition,E pur si muove[783]was the patHe gave them in addition:He meant, whate'er you think you prove,The earth must go its way, sirs;Spite of your teeth I'll make it move,For I'll drink my bottle a day, sirs!"Great Newton, who was never beatWhatever fools may think, sir;Though sometimes he forgot to eat,He never forgot to drink, sir:Descartes[784]took nought but lemonade,To conquer him was play, sir;The first advance that Newton madeWas to drink his bottle a day, sir!"D'Alembert,[785]Euler,[786]and Clairaut,[787]Though they increased our store, sir,Much further had been seen to goHad they tippled a little more, sir!Lagrange[788]gets mellow with Laplace,[789]And both are wont to say, sir,Thephilosophewho's not an assWill drink his bottle a day, sir!"Astronomers! what can availThose who calumniate us;Experiment can never failWith such an apparatus:Let him who'd have his merits knownRemember what I say, sir;Fair science shines on him aloneWho drinks his bottle a day, sir!"How light we reck of those who mockBy this we'll make to appear, sir,We'll dine by the sidereal[790]clockFor one more bottle a year, sir:But choose which pendulum you will,You'll never make your way, sir,Unless you drink—and drink your fill,—At least a bottle a day, sir!"

"Whoe'er would search the starry sky,

Its secrets to divine, sir,

Should take his glass—I mean, should try

A glass or two of wine, sir!

True virtue lies in golden mean,

And man must wet his clay, sir;

Join these two maxims, and 'tis seen

He should drink his bottle a day, sir!

"Old Archimedes, reverend sage!By trump of fame renowned, sir,Deep problems solved in every page,And the sphere's curved surface found,[774]sir:Himself he would have far outshone,And borne a wider sway, sir,Had he our modern secret known,And drank a bottle a day, sir!

"Old Archimedes, reverend sage!

By trump of fame renowned, sir,

Deep problems solved in every page,

And the sphere's curved surface found,[774]sir:

Himself he would have far outshone,

And borne a wider sway, sir,

Had he our modern secret known,

And drank a bottle a day, sir!

"When Ptolemy,[775]now long ago,Believed the earth stood still, sir,He never would have blundered so,Had he but drunk his fill, sir:He'd then have felt[776]it circulate,And would have learnt to say, sir,The true way to investigateIs to drink your bottle a day, sir!

"When Ptolemy,[775]now long ago,

Believed the earth stood still, sir,

He never would have blundered so,

Had he but drunk his fill, sir:

He'd then have felt[776]it circulate,

And would have learnt to say, sir,

The true way to investigate

Is to drink your bottle a day, sir!

"Copernicus,[777]that learned wight,The glory of his nation,With draughts of wine refreshed his sight,And saw the earth's rotation;Each planet then its orb described,The moon got under way, sir;These truths from nature he imbibedFor he drank his bottle a day, sir!

"Copernicus,[777]that learned wight,

The glory of his nation,

With draughts of wine refreshed his sight,

And saw the earth's rotation;

Each planet then its orb described,

The moon got under way, sir;

These truths from nature he imbibed

For he drank his bottle a day, sir!

"The noble[778]Tycho placed the stars,Each in its due location;He lost his nose[779]by spite of Mars,But that was no privation:Had he but lost his mouth, I grantHe would have felt dismay, sir,Bless you!heknew what he should wantTo drink his bottle a day, sir!

"The noble[778]Tycho placed the stars,

Each in its due location;

He lost his nose[779]by spite of Mars,

But that was no privation:

Had he but lost his mouth, I grant

He would have felt dismay, sir,

Bless you!heknew what he should want

To drink his bottle a day, sir!

"Cold water makes no lucky hits;On mysteries the head runs:Small drink let Kepler[780]time his witsOn the regular polyhedrons:He took to wine, and it changed the chime,His genius swept away, sir,Through area varying[781]as the timeAt the rate of a bottle a day, sir!

"Cold water makes no lucky hits;

On mysteries the head runs:

Small drink let Kepler[780]time his wits

On the regular polyhedrons:

He took to wine, and it changed the chime,

His genius swept away, sir,

Through area varying[781]as the time

At the rate of a bottle a day, sir!

"Poor Galileo,[782]forced to ratBefore the Inquisition,E pur si muove[783]was the patHe gave them in addition:He meant, whate'er you think you prove,The earth must go its way, sirs;Spite of your teeth I'll make it move,For I'll drink my bottle a day, sirs!

"Poor Galileo,[782]forced to rat

Before the Inquisition,

E pur si muove[783]was the pat

He gave them in addition:

He meant, whate'er you think you prove,

The earth must go its way, sirs;

Spite of your teeth I'll make it move,

For I'll drink my bottle a day, sirs!

"Great Newton, who was never beatWhatever fools may think, sir;Though sometimes he forgot to eat,He never forgot to drink, sir:Descartes[784]took nought but lemonade,To conquer him was play, sir;The first advance that Newton madeWas to drink his bottle a day, sir!

"Great Newton, who was never beat

Whatever fools may think, sir;

Though sometimes he forgot to eat,

He never forgot to drink, sir:

Descartes[784]took nought but lemonade,

To conquer him was play, sir;

The first advance that Newton made

Was to drink his bottle a day, sir!

"D'Alembert,[785]Euler,[786]and Clairaut,[787]Though they increased our store, sir,Much further had been seen to goHad they tippled a little more, sir!Lagrange[788]gets mellow with Laplace,[789]And both are wont to say, sir,Thephilosophewho's not an assWill drink his bottle a day, sir!

"D'Alembert,[785]Euler,[786]and Clairaut,[787]

Though they increased our store, sir,

Much further had been seen to go

Had they tippled a little more, sir!

Lagrange[788]gets mellow with Laplace,[789]

And both are wont to say, sir,

Thephilosophewho's not an ass

Will drink his bottle a day, sir!

"Astronomers! what can availThose who calumniate us;Experiment can never failWith such an apparatus:Let him who'd have his merits knownRemember what I say, sir;Fair science shines on him aloneWho drinks his bottle a day, sir!

"Astronomers! what can avail

Those who calumniate us;

Experiment can never fail

With such an apparatus:

Let him who'd have his merits known

Remember what I say, sir;

Fair science shines on him alone

Who drinks his bottle a day, sir!

"How light we reck of those who mockBy this we'll make to appear, sir,We'll dine by the sidereal[790]clockFor one more bottle a year, sir:But choose which pendulum you will,You'll never make your way, sir,Unless you drink—and drink your fill,—At least a bottle a day, sir!"

"How light we reck of those who mock

By this we'll make to appear, sir,

We'll dine by the sidereal[790]clock

For one more bottle a year, sir:

But choose which pendulum you will,

You'll never make your way, sir,

Unless you drink—and drink your fill,—

At least a bottle a day, sir!"

Old times are changed, old manners gone!

There is a new Mathematical Society,[791]and I am, at this present writing (1866), its first President. We are very high in the newest developments, and bid fair to take a place among the scientific establishments. Benjamin Gompertz, who was President of the old Society when it expired, was the link between the old and new body: he was a member ofoursat his death. But not a drop of liquor is seen at our meetings, except a decanter of water: all our heavy is a fermentation of symbols; and we do not draw it mild. There is no penny fine for reticence or occult science; and as to a song! not the ghost of a chance.

1826. The time may have come when the original documents connected with the discovery of Neptune may be worth revising. The following are extracts from theAthenæumof October 3 and October 17:

LE VERRIER'S[792]PLANET.

We have received, at the last moment before making up for press, the following letter from Sir John Herschel,[793]in reference to the matter referred to in the communication from Mr. Hind[794]given below:

"Collingwood, Oct. 1.

"In my address to the British Association assembled at Southampton, on the occasion of my resigning the chair to Sir R. Murchison,[795]I stated, among the remarkable astronomical events of the last twelvemonth, that it had added a new planet to our list,—adding, 'it has done more,—it has given us the probable prospect of the discovery of another. We see it as Columbus saw America from the shores of Spain. Its movements have been felt, trembling along the far-reaching line of our analysis, with a certainty hardly inferior to that of ocular demonstration.'—These expressions are not reported in any of the papers which profess to give an account of the proceedings, but I appeal to all present whether they were not used.

"Give me leave to state my reasons for this confidence; and, in so doing, to call attention to some facts which deserve to be put on record in the history of this noble discovery. On July 12, 1842, the late illustrious astronomer, Bessel,[796]honored me with a visit at my present residence. On the evening of that day, conversing on the great work of the planetary reductions undertaken by the Astronomer Royal[797]—then in progress, and since published,[798]—M. Bessel remarked that the motions of Uranus, as he had satisfiedhimself by careful examination of the recorded observations, could not be accounted for by the perturbations of the known planets; and that the deviations far exceeded any possible limits of error of observation. In reply to the question, Whether the deviations in question might not be due to the action of an unknown planet?—he stated that he considered it highly probable that such was the case,—being systematic, and such as might be produced by an exterior planet. I then inquired whether he had attempted, from the indications afforded by these perturbations, to discover the position of the unknown body,—in order that 'a hue and cry' might be raised for it. From his reply, the words of which I do not call to mind, I collected that he had not then gone into that inquiry; but proposed to do so, having now completed certain works which had occupied too much of his time. And, accordingly, in a letter which I received from him after his return to Königsberg, dated November 14, 1842, he says,—'In reference to our conversation at Collingwood, Iannounceto you (meldeich Ihnen) that Uranus is not forgotten.' Doubtless, therefore, among his papers will be found some researches on the subject.

"The remarkable calculations of M. Le Verrier—which have pointed out, as now appears, nearly the true situation of the new planet, by resolving the inverse problem of the perturbations—if uncorroborated by repetition of the numerical calculations by another hand, or by independent investigation from another quarter, would hardly justify so strong an assurance as that conveyed by my expressions above alluded to. But it was known to me, at that time, (I will take the liberty to cite the Astronomer Royal as my authority) that a similar investigation had been independently entered into, and a conclusion as to the situation of the new planet very nearly coincident with M. Le Verrier's arrived at (in entire ignorance of his conclusions), by a young Cambridge mathematician, Mr. Adams;[799]—who will, I hope,pardon this mention of his name (the matter being one of great historical moment),—and who will, doubtless, in his own good time and manner, place his calculations before the public.

"J. F. W. HERSCHEL."

Discovery of Le Verrier's Planet.

Mr. Hind announces to theTimesthat he has received a letter from Dr. Brünnow, of the Royal Observatory at Berlin, giving the very important information that Le Verrier's planet was found by M. Galle, on the night of September 23. "In announcing this grand discovery," he says, "I think it better to copy Dr. Brünnow's[800]letter."

"Berlin, Sept. 25.

"My dear Sir—M. Le Verrier's planet was discovered here the 23d of September, by M. Galle.[801]It is a star of the 8th magnitude, but with a diameter of two or three seconds. Here are its places:

The planet is now retrograde, its motion amounting daily to four seconds of time.

"Yours most respectfully,Brünnow."

"This discovery," Mr. Hind says, "may be justly considered one of the greatest triumphs of theoretical astronomy;" and he adds, in a postscript, that the planet was observed at Mr. Bishop's[802]Observatory, in the Regent's Park,on Wednesday night, notwithstanding the moonlight and hazy sky. "It appears bright," he says, "and with a power of 320 I can see the disc. The following position is the result of instrumental comparisons with 33 Aquarii:

Sept. 30, at 8h. 16m. 21s. Greenwich mean time—

THE NEW PLANET.

"Cambridge Observatory, Oct. 15.

"The allusion made by Sir John Herschel, in his letter contained in theAthenæumof October 3, to the theoretical researches of Mr. Adams, respecting the newly-discovered planet, has induced me to request that you would make the following communication public. It is right that I should first say that I have Mr. Adams's permission to make the statements that follow, so far as they relate to his labors. I do not propose to enter into a detail of the steps by which Mr. Adams was led, by his spontaneous and independent researches, to a conclusion that a planet must exist more distant than Uranus. The matter is of too great historical moment not to receive a more formal record than it would be proper to give here. My immediate object is to show, while the attention of the scientific public is more particularly directed to the subject, that, with respect to this remarkable discovery, English astronomers may lay claim to some merit.

"Mr. Adams formed the resolution of trying, by calculation, to account for the anomalies in the motion of Uranus on the hypothesis of a more distant planet, when he was an undergraduate in this university, and when his exertions for the academical distinction, which he obtained in January 1843, left him no time for pursuing the research. In the course of that year, he arrived at an approximation to the position of the supposed planet; which, however, he did not consider to be worthy of confidence, on account of his nothaving employed a sufficient number of observations of Uranus. Accordingly, he requested my intervention to obtain for him the early Greenwich observations, then in course of reduction;—which the Astronomer Royal immediately supplied, in the kindest possible manner. This was in February, 1844. In September, 1845, Mr. Adams communicated to me values which he had obtained for the heliocentric longitude, excentricity of orbit, longitude of perihelion, and mass, of an assumed exterior planet,—deduced entirely from unaccounted-for perturbations of Uranus. The same results, somewhat corrected, he communicated, in October, to the Astronomer Royal. M. Le Verrier, in an investigation which was published in June of 1846, assigned very nearly the same heliocentric longitude for the probable position of the planet as Mr. Adams had arrived at, but gave no results respecting its mass and the form of its orbit. The coincidence as to position from two entirely independent investigations naturally inspired confidence; and the Astronomer Royal shortly after suggested the employing of the Northumberland telescope of this observatory in a systematic search after the hypothetical planet; recommending, at the same time, a definite plan of operations. I undertook to make the search,—and commenced observing on July 29. The observations were directed, in the first instance, to the part of the heavens which theory had pointed out as the most probable place of the planet; in selecting which I was guided by a paper drawn up for me by Mr. Adams. Not having hour xxi. of the Berlin star-maps—of the publication of which I was not aware—I had to proceed on the principle of comparison of observations made at intervals. On July 30, I went over a zone 9' broad, in such a manner as to include all stars to the eleventh magnitude. On August 4, I took a broader zone and recorded a place of the planet. My next observations were on August 12; when I met with a star of the eighth magnitude in the zone which I had gone over on July 30,—and which did not thencontain this star. Of course, this was the planet;—the place of which was, thus, recorded a second time in four days of observing. A comparison of the observations of July 30 and August 12 would, according to the principle of search which I employed, have shown me the planet. I did not make the comparison till after the detection of it at Berlin—partly because I had an impression that a much more extensive search was required to give any probability of discovery—and partly from the press of other occupation. The planet, however, wassecured, and two positions of it recorded six weeks earlier here than in any other observatory,—and in a systematic search expressly undertaken for that purpose. I give now the positions of the planet on August 4 and August 12.

"From these places compared with recent observations Mr. Adams has obtained the following results:

"The present distance from the sun is, therefore, thirty times the earth's mean distance;—which is somewhat less than the theory had indicated. The other elements of the orbit cannot be approximated to till the observations shall have been continued for a longer period.

"The part taken by Mr. Adams in the theoretical search after this planet will, perhaps, be considered to justify the suggesting of a name. With his consent, I mentionOceanusas one which may possibly receive the votes of astronomers.—Ihave authority to state that Mr. Adams's investigations will in a short time, be published in detail.

"J. Challis."[803]

ASTRONOMICAL POLICE REPORT.

"An ill-looking kind of a body, who declined to give any name, was brought before the Academy of Sciences, charged with having assaulted a gentleman of the name of Uranus in the public highway. The prosecutor was a youngish looking person, wrapped up in two or three great coats; and looked chillier than anything imaginable, except the prisoner,—whose teeth absolutely shook, all the time.

Policeman Le Verrier[804]stated that he saw the prosecutor walking along the pavement,—and sometimes turning sideways, and sometimes running up to the railings and jerking about in a strange way. Calculated that somebody must be pulling his coat, or otherwise assaulting him. It was so dark that he could not see; but thought, if he watched the direction in which the next odd move was made, he might find out something. When the time came, he set Brünnow, a constable in another division of the same force, to watch where he told him; and Brünnow caught the prisoner lurking about in the very spot,—trying to look as if he was minding his own business. Had suspected for a long time that somebody was lurking about in the neighborhood. Brünnow was then called, and deposed to his catching the prisoner as described.

M. Arago.—Was the prosecutor sober?

Le Verrier.—Lord, yes, your worship; no man who had a drop in him ever looks so cold as he did.

M. Arago.—Did you see the assault?

Le Verrier.—I can't say I did; but I told Brünnow exactly how he'd be crouched down;—just as he was.

M. Arago (to Brünnow).—Didyousee the assault?

Brünnow.—No, your worship; but I caught the prisoner.

M. Arago.—How did you know there was any assault at all?

Le Verrier.—I reckoned it couldn't be otherwise, when I saw the prosecutor making those odd turns on the pavement.

M. Arago.—You reckon and you calculate! Why, you'll tell me, next, that you policemen may sit at home and find out all that's going on in the streets by arithmetic. Did you ever bring a case of this kind before me till now?

Le Verrier.—Why, you see, your worship, the police are growing cleverer and cleverer every day. We can't help it:—it grows upon us.

M. Arago.—You're getting too clever for me. What does the prosecutor know about the matter?

The prosecutor said, all he knew was that he was pulled behind by somebody several times. On being further examined, he said that he had seen the prisoner often, but did not know his name, nor how he got his living; but had understood he was called Neptune. He himself had paid rates and taxes a good many years now. Had a family of six,—two of whom got their own living.

The prisoner being called on for his defence, said that it was a quarrel. He had pushed the prosecutor—and the prosecutor had pushed him. They had known each other a long time, and were always quarreling;—he did not know why. It was their nature, he supposed. He further said, that the prosecutor had given a false account of himself;—that he went about under different names. Sometimes he was called Uranus, sometimes Herschel, and sometimes Georgium Sidus; and he had no character for regularity in the neighborhood. Indeed, he was sometimes not to be seen for a long time at once.

The prosecutor, on being asked, admitted, after a little hesitation, that he had pushed and pulled the prisoner too.In the altercation which followed, it was found very difficult to make out which began:—and the worthy magistrate seemed to think they must have begun together.

M. Arago.—Prisoner, have you any family?

The prisoner declined answering that question at present. He said he thought the police might as well reckon it out whether he had or not.

M. Aragosaid he didn't much differ from that opinion.—He then addressed both prosecutor and prisoner; and told them that if they couldn't settle their differences without quarreling in the streets, he should certainly commit them both next time. In the meantime, he called upon both to enter into their own recognizances; and directed the police to have an eye upon both,—observing that the prisoner would be likely to want it a long time, and the prosecutor would be not a hair the worse for it."

This quib was written by a person who was among the astronomers: and it illustrates the fact that Le Verrier had sole possession of the field until Mr. Challis's letter appeared. Sir John Herschel'spreviouscommunication should have paved the way: but the wonder of the discovery drove it out of many heads. There is an excellent account of the whole matter in Professor Grant's[805]History of Physical Astronomy. The squib scandalized some grave people, who wrote severe admonitions to the editor. There are formalists who spend much time in writing propriety to journals, to which they serve as foolometers. In a letter to theAthenæum, speaking of the way in which people hawk fine terms for common things, I said that these people ought to have a new translation of the Bible, which should contain the verse "gentleman and lady, created He them." The editor was handsomely fired and brimstoned!

A NEW THEORY OF TIDES.

A new theory of the tides: in which the errors of the usual theory are demonstrated; and proof shewn that the full moon is not the cause of a concomitant spring tide, but actually the cause of the neaps.... By Commr. Debenham,[806]R.N. London, 1846, 8vo.

The author replied to a criticism in theAthenæum, and I remember how, in a very few words, he showed that he had read nothing on the subject. The reviewer spoke of the forces of the planets (i.e., the Sun and Moon) on the ocean, on which the author remarks, "But N.B. the Sun is no planet, Mr. Critic." Had he read any of the actual investigations on the usual theory, he would have known that to this day the sun and moon continue to be calledplanets—though the phrase is disappearing—in speaking of the tides; the sense, of course, being the old one, wandering bodies.

A large class of the paradoxers, when they meet with something which taken in their sense is absurd, do not take the trouble to find out the intended meaning, but walk off with the words laden with their own first construction. Such men are hardly fit to walk the streets without an interpreter. I was startled for a moment, at the time when a recent happy—and more recently happier—marriage occupied the public thoughts, by seeing in a haberdasher's window, in staring large letters, an unpunctuated sentence which read itself to me as "Princess Alexandra! collar and cuff!" It immediately occurred to me that had I been any one of some scores of my paradoxers, I should, no doubt, have proceeded to raise the mob against the unscrupulous person who dared to hint to a young bride such maleficent—or at least immellificent—conduct towards her new lord. But, as it was, certain material contexts in the shop window suggested a lesssavage explanation. A paradoxer should not stop at reading the advertisements of Newton or Laplace; he should learn to look at the stock of goods.

I think I must have an eye for double readings, when presented: though I never guess riddles. On the day on which I first walked into thePanizzireading room[807]—as it ought to be called—at the Museum, I began my circuit of the wall-shelves at the ladies' end: and perfectly coincided in the propriety of the Bibles and theological works being placed there. But the very first book I looked on the back of had, in flaming gold letters, the following inscription—"Blast the Antinomians!"[808]If a line had been drawn below the first word, Dr. Blast's history of the Antinomians would not have been so fearfully misinterpreted. It seems that neither the binder nor the arranger of the room had caught my reading. The book was removed before the catalogue of books of reference was printed.

AN ASTRONOMICAL PARADOXER.

Two systems of astronomy: first, the Newtonian system, showing the rise and progress thereof, with a short historical account; the general theory with a variety of remarks thereon: second, the system in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, showing the rise and progress from Enoch, the seventh from Adam, the prophets, Moses, and others, in the first Testament; our Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles, in the new or second Testament; Reeve and Muggleton, in the third and last Testament; with a variety of remarks thereon. By Isaac Frost.[809]London, 1846, 4to.

A very handsomely printed volume, with beautiful plates. Many readers who have heard of Muggletonians have never had any distinct idea of Lodowick Muggleton,[810]the inspired tailor, (1608-1698) who about 1650 received his commission from heaven, wrote a Testament, founded a sect, and descended to posterity. Of Reeve[811]less is usually said; according to Mr. Frost, he and Muggleton are the two "witnesses." I shall content myself with one specimen of Mr. Frost's science:

"I was once invited to hear read over 'Guthrie[812]on Astronomy,' and when the reading was concluded I was asked my opinion thereon; when I said, 'Doctor, it appears to me that Sir I. Newton has only given two proofs in support of his theory of the earth revolving round the sun: all the rest is assertion without any proofs.'—'What are they?' inquired the Doctor.—'Well,' I said, 'they are, first, the power ofattraction to keep the earth to the sun; the second is the power of repulsion, by virtue of the centrifugal motion of the earth: all the rest appears to me assertion without proof.' The Doctor considered a short time and then said, 'It certainly did appear so.' I said, 'Sir Isaac has certainly obtained the credit of completing the system, but really he has only half done his work.'—'How is that,' inquired my friend the Doctor. My reply was this: 'You will observe his system shows the earth traverses round the sun on an inclined plane; the consequence is, there are four powers required to make his system complete:

1st. The power ofattraction.2ndly. The power ofrepulsion.3rdly. The power ofascendingthe inclined plane.4thly. The power ofdescendingthe inclined plane.

1st. The power ofattraction.

2ndly. The power ofrepulsion.

3rdly. The power ofascendingthe inclined plane.

4thly. The power ofdescendingthe inclined plane.

You will thus easily see thefourpowers required, and Newton has only accounted fortwo; the work is therefore only half done.' Upon due reflection the Doctor said, 'It certainly was necessary to have thesefourpoints cleared up before the system could be said to be complete.'"

I have no doubt that Mr. Frost, and many others on my list, have really encountered doctors who could be puzzled by such stuff as this, or nearly as bad, among the votaries of existing systems, and have been encouraged thereby to print their objections. But justice requires me to say that from the words "power of repulsion by virtue of the centrifugal motion of the earth," Mr. Frost may be suspected of having something more like a notion of the much-mistaken term "centrifugal force" than many paradoxers of greater fame. The Muggletonian sect is not altogether friendless: over and above this handsome volume, the works of Reeve and Muggleton were printed, in 1832, in three quarto volumes. SeeNotes and Queries, 1st Series, v, 80; 3d Series, iii, 303.

[The system laid down by Mr. Frost, though intended to be substantially that of Lodowick Muggleton, is not so vagarious. It is worthy of note how very different have been the fates of two contemporary paradoxers, Muggleton and George Fox.[813]They were friends and associates,[814]and commenced their careers about the same time, 1647-1650. The followers of Fox have made their sect an institution, and deserve to be called the pioneers of philanthropy. But though there must still be Muggletonians, since expensive books are published by men who take the name, no sect of that name is known to the world. Nevertheless, Fox and Muggleton are men of one type, developed by the same circumstances: it is for those who investigate such men to point out why their teachings have had fates so different. Macaulay says it was because Fox found followers of more sense than himself. True enough: but why did Fox find such followers and not Muggleton? The two were equally crazy, to all appearance: and the difference required must be sought in the doctrines themselves.

Fox was not arationalman: but the success of his sect and doctrines entitles him to a letter of alteration of the phrase which I am surprised has not become current. When Conduitt,[815]the husband of Newton's half-niece, wrote a circular to Newton's friends, just after his death, inviting them to bear their parts in a proper biography, he said, "As Sir I. Newton was anationalman, I think every one ought to contribute to a work intended to do him justice." Here is the very phrase which is often wanted to signify thatcelebrity which puts its mark, good or bad, on the national history, in a manner which cannot be asserted of many notorious or famous historical characters. Thus George Fox and Newton are bothnationalmen. Dr. Roget's[816]Thesaurusgives more than fifty synonyms—colleagueswould be the better word—of "celebrated," any one of which might be applied, either in prose or poetry, to Newton or to his works, no one of which comes near to the meaning which Conduitt's adjective immediately suggests.

The truth is, that we are toomonarchicalto benational. We have the Queen's army, the Queen's navy, the Queen's highway, the Queen's English, etc.; nothing is national except thedebt. That this remark is not new is an addition to its force; it has hardly been repeated since it was first made. It is some excuse thatnationis not vernacular English: thecountryis our word, andcountry manis appropriated.]

Astronomical Aphorisms, or Theory of Nature; founded on the immutable basis of Meteoric Action. By P. Murphy,[817]Esq. London, 1847, 12mo.

This is by the framer of the Weather Almanac, who appeals to that work as corroborative of his theory of planetary temperature, years after all the world knew by experience that this meteorological theory was just as good as the others.

The conspiracy of the Bullionists as it affects the present system of the money laws. By Caleb Quotem. Birmingham, 1847, 8vo. (pp. 16).

This pamphlet is one of a class of which I know very little, in which the effects of the laws relating to this or that political bone of contention are imputed to deliberate conspiracy of one class to rob another of what the one knew ought to belong to the other. The success of such writers in believing what they have a bias to believe, would, if they knew themselves, make them think it equally likely that the inculpated classes might really believe what it istheirinterest to believe. The idea of aguiltyunderstanding existing among fundholders, or landholders, or any holders, all the country over, and never detected except by bouncing pamphleteers, is a theory which should have been left for Cobbett[818]to propose, and for Apella to believe.[819]

[August, 1866. A pamphlet shows how to pay the National Debt. Advance paper to railways, etc., receivable in payment of taxes. The railways pay interest and principal in money, with which you pay your national debt, and redeem your notes. Twenty-five years of interest redeems the notes, and then the principal pays the debt. Notes to be kept up to value by penalties.]

THEISM INDEPENDENT OF REVELATION.

The Reasoner. No. 45. Edited by G.J. Holyoake.[820]Price2d.Is there sufficient proof of the existence of God? 8vo. 1847.

This acorn of the holy oak was forwarded to me with a manuscript note, signed by the editor, on the part of the"London Society of Theological Utilitarians," who say, "they trust you may be induced to give this momentous subject your consideration." The supposition that a middle-aged person, known as a student of thought on more subjects than one, had that particular subject yet to begin, is a specimen of what I will call theassumption-trickof controversy, a habit which pervades all sides of all subjects. The tract is a proof of the good policy of letting opinions find their level, without any assistance from the Court of Queen's Bench. Twenty years earlier the thesis would have been positive, "There is sufficient proof of the non-existence of God," and bitter in its tone. As it stands, we have a moderate and respectful treatment—wrong only in making the opponent argue absurdly, as usually happens when one side invents the other—of a question in which a great many Christians have agreed with the atheist: that question being—Can the existence of God be proved independently of revelation? Many very religious persons answer this question in the negative, as well as Mr. Holyoake. And, this point being settled, all who agree in the negative separate into those who can endure scepticism, and those who cannot: the second class find their way to Christianity. This very number ofThe Reasonerannounces the secession of one of its correspondents, and his adoption of the Christian faith. This would not have happened twenty years before: nor, had it happened, would it have been respectfully announced.

There are people who are very unfortunate in the expression of their meaning. Mr. Holyoake, in the name of the "London Society" etc., forwarded a pamphlet on the existence of God, and said that the Society trusted I "may be induced to give" the subject my "consideration." How could I know the Society was one person, who supposed I had arrived at a conclusion and wanted a "guiding word"? But so it seems it was: Mr. Holyoake, in theEnglishLeaderof October 15, 1864, and in a private letter to me, writes as follows:

"The gentleman who was the author of the argument, and who asked me to send it to Mr. De Morgan, never assumed that that gentleman had 'that particular subject to begin'—on the contrary, he supposed that one whom we all knew to be eminent as a thinkerhadcome to a conclusion upon it, and would perhaps vouchsafe a guiding word to one who was, as yet, seeking the solution of the Great Problem of Theology. I told my friend that 'Mr. De Morgan was doubtless preoccupied, and that he must be content to wait. On some day of courtesy and leisure he might have the kindness to write.' Nor was I wrong—the answer appears in your pages at the lapse of seventeen years."

I suppose Mr. Holyoake's way of putting his request was thestylus curiæof the Society. A worthy Quaker who was sued for debt in the King's Bench was horrified to find himself charged in the declaration with detaining his creditor's money by force and arms, contrary to the peace of our Lord the King, etc. It's only thestylus curiæ, said a friend: I don't knowcuriæ, said the Quaker, but he shouldn't style us peace-breakers.

The notion that thenon-existence of God can beproved, has died out under the light of discussion: had the only lights shone from the pulpit and the prison, so great a step would never have been made. The question now is as above. The dictum that Christianity is "part and parcel of the law of the land" is also abrogated: at the same time, and the coincidence is not an accident, it is becoming somewhat nearer the truth that the law of the land is part and parcel of Christianity. It must also be noticed thatChristianitywas part and parcel of the articles ofwar; and so wasduelling. Any officer speaking against religion was to be cashiered; and any officer receiving an affront without, in the last resort, attempting to kill his opponent, was also to be cashiered. Though somewhat of a book-hunter, Ihave never been able to ascertain the date of the collected remonstrances of the prelates in the House of Lords against this overt inculcation of murder, under the soft name ofsatisfaction: it is neither in Watt,[821]nor in Lowndes,[822]nor in any edition of Brunet;[823]and there is no copy in the British Museum. Was the collected edition really published?

[The publication of the above in theAthenæumhas not produced reference to a single copy. The collected edition seems to be doubted. I have even met one or two persons who doubt the fact of the Bishops having remonstrated at all: but their doubt was founded on an absurd supposition, namely, that it wasno business of theirs; that it was not the business of the prelates of the church in union with the state to remonstrate against the Crown commanding murder! Some say that the edition was published, but under an irrelevant title, which prevented people from knowing what it was about. Such things have happened: for example, arranged extracts from Wellington's general orders, which would have attracted attention, fell dead under the title of "Principles of War." It is surmised that the book I am looking for also contains the protests of the Reverend bench against other things besides the Thou-shalt-do-murder of the Articles (of war), and is called "First Elements of Religion" or some similar title. Time clears up all things.]

Back to Index Next