, 1870-05-24

| oo0e o1 OuI leaOtlb are, QQuDtteS9, 10
mi1iar with the theory Of one Dr.. slavon.
Ski, recently promulgated; and which has
given. rise, both here and abroad, to some
/ curious speculation. The learned Doctor
contends that nfl matter is indestructible
though It's atoms are continually changing
place in an everlasting circle, and that, u
process OF time, these particles, however
widely dtfused IN the meanwhile, will come
together again in former relations, repro
duclng their old conditions, and that here.
IN is the true theory Of immortality. Tc
mnny persons, the theory is by no means
comforting, as the idea that, million or &c
years hence, our corporate existence
is to reform itself, and that
we ahall have to do our fourscore
yeaEs, more or less, over again, under pre-
cisely the same circumstances, is not an
agreeable one. Probably there are very
few of Us who would not like to have the
thing happen, If it is going to happen at all,
little sooner and when We had not forgot
ten all about the former existence for the
very best Of Ms, no doubt, will Ike to cor
rect some of tie mistakes we had commit
ted on the first occasion, and take advan-
tage Of its dear-bought experience. But,
however that may be, everybody will vel
como any new light upon the subject
such as we find in letter to the Now York
H0Tla, from MIR. Alexis Snizitoff, who was
friend of the learned Dr. Slovonski. j He
says:
"S1n: do remember myself On resume OF the
theory Of my poor mottused friend Dr.. IvanSla-
yonski, which my regard Was taken to tn the issue
the lst d May preceding, and at which l have
since looked, asit Ha8 done mp As rechdu6s La n.
A1.ptrtons' journal BJ no means does that rehnsh
make Justice 70 my friends remembrance, whom
knew ior nearly many Yeara Of bis Life which pro-
coded his death, and Of his theory, which be with
nodes.J called hspothss W. Intimate f,n nl1a
noldness, and we exploded it With much Of graft
1cahon 70 ourselves. At frst, We 6elleved IN Il
fa hs eet ea Ana fof
TnJ7 Because, although atoms change In place
with vast continuity, yet some merely vbrate with
wards motion: md the doctrine which my 4ea1
friend held up says moreover, that nc iaW o.
sequence Of change, and 10 that they Would esch-
at one ume, be WIKI each Of the others whereas,
much truth Is sl5 e fax stansss ,s IKE &
an atom 81 carbon won't at all unite with
m atom Of chlorine, for example. 80
thus that he told me, when did speak
to him SO about the hypothesis, that he was afrald
his notion or conception was not tntu!uve SUM-
cient to hold water. He threw ht5 MS. into pas.
ket Of waste from which his dear lady took II and
did insert 1t with other but unc1ploded material.
and so now the sarans Of Ru6sla-if what they say
be tue enough-do listen to 1t with much grave
ness, and apptetons' journal does contradict, OF
rather docs nggle out Of or applaud this theory,
that as say, was exploded with much e1plosl-
ttop. The memory OF my friend Is too dear 70 be
so trampled upon, and for greater charity 8 sake
should be stated rs stated only in your paper
This do hopp will be. Your,
"NEw YORK, May 1d."
However lucid this letter is, Us to how
Dr.. slaronsh's hypothesis happened to be
saYed from the basket of waste, it by no
means settles the question as to the truth
of the theory itself. Mr.. Snizitof's own
objection certainly will not sSwont wash, :"
nor is it ssintuitivs sufficient to hold water. :"
For, If tan atom of carbon won't at all
unite with IN atom Of chlorine" why then
they never did unite, and it is not necessary
to The Wilderness Of the theory that they
should ever unite again. Evidently We are
Just IS badly OF as We were before we heard
from Mr. Sniz1toH.