The Doctrine of the Moon's Rotation, considered in a letter to the Astronomical Censor of the _Athenaeum_. By Jones L. MacElshender.[181]

Edinburgh, 1856, 8vo.

This is an appeal to those cultivated persons who will read it "to overrule the _dicta_ of judges who would sacrifice truth and justice to professional rule, or personal pique, pride, or prejudice"; meaning, the great ma.s.s of those who have studied the subject. But how? Suppose the "cultivated persons" were to side with the author, would those who have conclusions to draw and applications to make consent to be wrong because the "general body of intelligent men," who make no special study of the subject, are against them? They would do no such thing: they would request the general body of intelligent men to find their own astronomy, and welcome. But the truth is, that this intelligent body knows better: and no persons know better that they know better than the speculators themselves.

But suppose the general body were to combine, in opposition to those who have studied. Of course all my list must be admitted to their trial; and then arises the question whether both sides are to be heard. If so, the general body of the intelligent must hear all the established side have to say: that is, they must become just as much of students as the inculpated orthodox themselves. And will they not then get into _professional rule_, pique, pride, and prejudice, as the others did? But if, which I suspect, they are intended to judge as they are, they will be in a rare difficulty.

All the paradoxers are of like pretensions: they cannot, as a cla.s.s, be right, for each one contradicts a great many of the rest. There will be the puzzle which silenced the crew of the cutter in Marryat's novel of the Dog Fiend.[182] "A tog is a tog," said Jansen.--"Yes," replied another, "we all know a dog is a dog; but the question is--Is _this_ dog {88} a dog?" And this question would arise upon every dog of them all.

ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.

Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a globe. 1857 (Broadsheet).

Though only a traveling lecturer's advertis.e.m.e.nt, there are so many arguments and quotations that it is a little pamphlet. The lecturer gained great praise from provincial newspapers for his ingenuity in proving that the earth is a flat, surrounded by ice. Some of the journals rather incline to the view: but the _Leicester Advertiser_ thinks that the statements "would seem very seriously to invalidate some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy," while the _Norfolk Herald_ is clear that "there must be a great error on one side or the other." This broadsheet is printed at Aylesbury in 1857, and the lecturer calls himself _Parallax_: but at Trowbridge, in 1849, he was S. Goulden.[183] In this last advertis.e.m.e.nt is the following announcement: "A paper on the above subjects was read before the Council and Members of the Royal Astronomical Society, Somerset House, Strand, London (Sir John F. W. Herschel,[184] President), Friday, Dec. 8, 1848." No account of such a paper appears in the _Notice_ for that month: I suspect that the above is Mr. S. Goulden's way of representing the following occurrence: Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,--"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amus.e.m.e.nt": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer. The fact is worth noting that from 1849 to 1857, arguments on the roundness or flatness of the earth did itinerate. I have {89} no doubt they did much good: for very few persons have any distinct idea of the evidence for the rotundity of the earth. The _Blackburn Standard_ and _Preston Guardian_ (Dec. 12 and 16, 1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second lecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed at the end of his first lecture to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared before the sails. The persons present and waiting for the second lecture a.s.suaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer had slipped off the icy edge of his flat disk, and that he would not be seen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.

But, strange as it may appear, the opposer of the earth's roundness has more of a case--or less of a want of case--than the arithmetical squarer of the circle. The evidence that the earth is round is but c.u.mulative and circ.u.mstantial: scores of phenomena ask, separately and independently, what other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth. The evidence for the earth's figure is tremendously powerful of its kind; but the proof that the circ.u.mference is 3.14159265... times the diameter is of a higher kind, being absolute mathematical demonstration.

The Zetetic system still lives in lectures and books; as it ought to do, for there is no way of teaching a truth comparable to opposition. The last I heard of it was in lectures at Plymouth, in October, 1864. Since this time a prospectus has been issued of a work ent.i.tled "The Earth not a Globe"; but whether it has been published I do not know. The contents are as follows:

"The Earth a Plane--How circ.u.mnavigated.--How time is lost or gained.--Why a ship's hull disappears (when outward bound) before the mast head.--Why the Polar Star sets when we proceed Southward, etc.--Why a pendulum vibrates with less velocity at the Equator than {90} at the Pole.--The allowance for rotundity _supposed_ to be made by surveyors, not made in practice.--Measurement of Arcs of the Meridian unsatisfactory.--Degrees of Longitude North and South of the Equator considered.--Eclipses and Earth's form considered.--The Earth no motion on axis or in orbit.--How the Sun moves above the Earth's surface concentric with the North Pole.--Cause of Day and Night, Winter and Summer; the long alternation of light and darkness at the Pole.--Cause of the Sun rising and setting.--Distance of the Sun from London, 4,028 miles--How measured.--_Challenge to Mathematicians._--Cause of Tides.--Moon self-luminous, NOT a reflector.--Cause of Solar and Lunar eclipses.--Stars _not worlds_; their distance.--Earth, the _only material_ world; its true position in the universe; its condition and ultimate destruction by fire (2 Peter iii.), etc."

I wish there were geoplatylogical lectures in every town; in England (_platylogical_, in composition, need not mean _babbling_). The late Mr.

Henry Archer[185] would, if alive, be very much obliged to me for recording his vehement denial of the roundness of the earth: he was excited if he heard any one call it a globe. I cannot produce his proof from the Pyramids, and from some caves in Arabia. He had other curious notions, of course: I should no more believe that a flat earth was a man's only paradox, than I should that Dutens,[186] the editor of Leibnitz, was eccentric only in supplying a tooth which he had lost by one which he found in an Italian tomb, and fully believed that it had once belonged to Scipio Africa.n.u.s, whose family vault was discovered, it is supposed, in 1780. Mr.

Archer is of note as {91} the suggester of the perforated border of the postage-stamps, and, I think, of the way of doing it; for this he got 4000l. reward. He was a civil engineer.

(_August 28, 1865._) The _Zetetic Astronomy_ has come into my hands. When, in 1851, I went to see the Great Exhibition, I heard an organ played by a performer who seemed very desirous to exhibit one particular stop. "What do you think of that stop?" I was asked.--"That depends on the name of it,"

said I.--"Oh! what can the name have to do with the sound? 'that which we call a rose,' etc."--"The name has everything to do with it: if it be a flute-stop, I think it very harsh; but if it be a railway-whistle-stop, I think it very sweet." So as to this book: if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish. The flat earth, floating tremulously on the sea; the sun moving always over the flat, giving day when near enough, and night when too far off; the self-luminous moon, with a semi-transparent invisible moon, created to give her an eclipse now and then; the new law of perspective, by which the vanishing of the hull before the masts, usually thought to prove the earth globular, really proves it flat;--all these and other things are well fitted to form exercises for a person who is learning the elements of astronomy. The manner in which the sun dips into the sea, especially in tropical climates, upsets the whole.

Mungo Park,[187] I think, gives an African hypothesis which explains phenomena better than this. The sun dips into the western ocean, and the people there cut him in pieces, fry him in a pan, and then join him together again, take him round the underway, and set him up in the east. I hope this book will be read, and that many will be puzzled by it: for there are many whose notions of astronomy deserve no better fate. There is no subject on which there is so little {92} accurate conception as that of the motions of the heavenly bodies. The author, though confident in the extreme, neither impeaches the honesty of those whose opinions he a.s.sails, nor allots them any future inconvenience: in these points he is worthy to live on a globe, and to revolve in twenty-four hours.

(_October, 1866._) A follower appears, in a work dedicated to the preceding author: it is _Theoretical Astronomy examined and exposed by Common Sense_.

The author has 128 well-stuffed octavo pages. I hope he will not be the last. He prints the newspaper accounts of his work: the _Church Times_ says--not seeing how the satire might be retorted--"We never began to despair of Scripture until we discovered that 'Common Sense' had taken up the cudgels in its defence." This paper considers our author as the type of a _Protestant_. The author himself, who gives a summary of his arguments in verse, has one couplet which is worth quoting:

"How is't that sailors, bound to sea, with _a 'globe'_ would never start, But in its place will always take _Mercator's_[188] LEVEL _chart_!"

To which I answer:

Why, really Mr. Common Sense, you've never got so far As to think Mercator's planisphere shows countries as they are; It won't do to measure distances; it points out how to steer, But this distortion's not for you; another is, I fear.

The earth must be a cylinder, if seaman's charts be true, Or else the boundaries, right and left, are one as well as two; They contradict the notion that we dwell upon a plain, For straight away, without a turn, will bring you home again.

There are various plane projections; and each one has its use: I wish a milder word would rhyme--but really you're a goose!

The great wish of persons who expose themselves as above, is to be argued with, and to be treated as reputable {93} and refutable opponents. "Common Sense" reminds us that no amount of "blatant ridicule" will turn right into wrong. He is perfectly correct: but then no amount of bad argument will turn wrong into right. These two things balance; and we are just where we were: but you should answer our arguments, for whom, I ask? Would reason convince this kind of reasoner? The issue is a short and a clear one. If these parties be what I contend they are, then ridicule is made for them: if not, for what or for whom? If they be right, they are only pa.s.sing through the appointed trial of all good things. Appeal is made to the future: and my Budget is intended to show samples of the long line of heroes who have fallen without victory, each of whom had his day of confidence and his prophecy of success. Let the future decide: they say roundly that the earth is flat; I say flatly that it is round.

The paradoxers all want reason, and not ridicule: they are all accessible, and would yield to conviction. Well then, let them reason with one another!

They divide into squads, each with a subject, and as many different opinions as persons in each squad. If they be really what they say they are, the true man of each set can put down all the rest, and can come crowned with glory and girdled with scalps, to the attack on the orthodox misbelievers. But they know, to a man, that the rest are not fit to be reasoned with: they pay the regulars the compliment of believing that the only chance lies with them. They think in their hearts, each one for himself, that ridicule is of fit appliance to the rest.

Miranda. A book divided into three parts, ent.i.tled Souls, Numbers, Stars, on the Neo-Christian Religion ... Vol. i. London, 1858, 1859, 1860. 8vo.

The name of the author is Filopanti.[189] He announces himself as the 49th and last Emanuel: his immediate {94} predecessors were Emanuel Washington, Emanuel Newton, and Emanuel Galileo. He is to collect nations into one family. He knows the transmigrations of the whole human race. Thus Descartes became William III of England: Roger Bacon became Boccaccio. But Charles IX,[190] in retribution for the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew, was hanged in London under the name of Barthelemy for the murder of Collard: and many of the Protestants whom he killed as King of France were shouting at his death before the Old Bailey.

THE SABBATH--THE GREAT PYRAMID

A Letter to the members of the Anglo-Biblical Inst.i.tute, dated Sept. 7, 1858, and signed 'Herman Heinfetter.'[191] (Broadsheet.)

This gentleman is well known to the readers of the _Athenaeum_, in which, for nearly twenty years, he has inserted, as advertis.e.m.e.nts, long arguments in favor of Christians keeping the Jewish Sabbath, beginning on Friday Evening. The present letter maintains that, by the force of the definite article, the _days_ of creation may not be consecutive, but may have any time--millions of years--between them. This ingenious way of reconciling the author of Genesis and the indications of geology is worthy to be added to the list, already pretty numerous. Mr. Heinfetter has taken such pains to make himself a public agitator, that {95} I do not feel it to be any invasion of private life if I state that I have heard he is a large corn-dealer. No doubt he is a member of the congregation whose almanac has already been described.

The great Pyramid. Why was it built? And who built it? By John Taylor, 1859,[192] 12mo.

This work is very learned, and may be referred to for the history of previous speculations. It professes to connect the dimensions of the Pyramid with a system of metrology which is supposed to have left strong traces in the systems of modern times; showing the Egyptians to have had good approximate knowledge of the dimensions of the earth, and of the quadrature of the circle. These are points on which coincidence is hard to distinguish from intention. Sir John Herschel[193] noticed this work, and gave several coincidences, in the _Athenaeum_, Nos. 1696 and 1697, April 28 and May 5, 1860: and there are some remarks by Mr. Taylor in No. 1701, June 2, 1860.

Mr. Taylor's most recent publication is--

The battle of the Standards: the ancient, of four thousand years, against the modern, of the last fifty years--the less perfect of the two. London, 1864, 12mo.

This is intended as an appendix to the work on the Pyramid. Mr. Taylor distinctly attributes the original system to revelation, of which he says the Great Pyramid is the record. We are advancing, he remarks, towards the end of the Christian dispensation, and he adds that it is satisfactory to see that we retain the standards which were given by unwritten revelation 700 years before Moses. This is lighting the candle at both ends; for myself, I shall not undertake to deny or affirm either what is said about the dark past or what is hinted about the dark future.

{96}

My old friend Mr. Taylor is well known as the author of the argument which has convinced many, even most, that Sir Philip Francis[194] was Junius: pamphlet, 1813; supplement, 1817; second edition "The Ident.i.ty of Junius with a distinguished living character established," London, 1818, 8vo. He told me that Sir Philip Francis, in a short conversation with him, made only this remark, "You may depend upon it you are quite mistaken:" the phrase appears to me remarkable; it has an air of criticism on the book, free from all personal denial. He also mentioned that a hearer told him that Sir Philip said, speaking of writers on the question,--"Those fellows, for half-a-crown, would prove that Jesus Christ was Junius."

Mr. Taylor implies, I think, that he is the first who started the suggestion that Sir Philip Francis was Junius, which I have no means either of confirming or refuting. If it be so [and I now know that Mr. Taylor himself never heard of any predecessor], the circ.u.mstance is very remarkable: it is seldom indeed that the first proposer of any solution of a great and vexed question is the person who so nearly establishes his point in general opinion as Mr. Taylor has done.

As to the Junius question in general, there is a little bit of the philosophy of horse-racing which may be usefully applied. A man who is so confident of his horse that he places him far above any other, may nevertheless, and does, refuse to give odds against all in the field: for many small adverse chances united make a big chance for one or other of the opponents. I suspect Mr. Taylor has made it at least 20 to 1 for Francis against any one compet.i.tor who has been named: but what the odds may be against the {97} whole field is more difficult to settle. What if the real Junius should be some person not yet named?

Mr. Jopling, _Leisure Hour_, May 23, 1863, relies on the porphyry coffer of the Great Pyramid, in which he finds "the most ancient and accurate standard of measure in existence."

I am shocked at being obliged to place a thoughtful and learned writer, and an old friend, before such a successor as he here meets with. But chronological arrangement defies all other arrangement.

(I had hoped that the preceding account would have met Mr. Taylor's eye in print: but he died during the last summer. For a man of a very thoughtful and quiet temperament, he had a curious turn for vexed questions. But he reflected very long and very patiently before he published: and all his works are valuable for their accurate learning, whichever side the reader may take.)

MRS. ELIZABETH COTTLE.

1859. _The Cottle Church._--For more than twenty years printed papers have been sent about in the name of Elizabeth Cottle.[195] It is not so remarkable that such papers should be concocted as that they should circulate for such a length of time without attracting public attention.

Eighty years ago Mrs. Cottle might have rivalled Lieut. Brothers or Joanna Southcott.[196] Long hence, when the now current volumes of our journals are well-ransacked works of reference, those who look into them will be glad to see this {98} feature of our time: I therefore make a few extracts, faithfully copied as to type. The Italic is from the New Testament; the Roman is the requisite interpretation:

"Robert Cottle '_was numbered_ (5196) _with the transgressors_' at the back of the Church in Norwood Cemetery, May 12, 1858--Isa. liii. 12. The Rev.

J. G. Collinson, Minister of St. James's Church, Chapham, the then district church, before All Saints was built, read the funeral service _over the Sepulchre wherein never before man was laid_.