The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-05-11

lake his contemptuous criticism of my
remark about this seventh decade of the
nineteenth century," and his assumption
that L had placed it at 1877, and you
have fair specimen of the animus of
this reviewer. Had he "wasted time"
enough to think twice he could readily
have imagined that the treatise on Sound
was written prior to 1870, which is the
fact.
He quotes Lucretius to prove that my
hypothesis of the substantial nature of
sound was 1000 years old. He may un-
derstand Latin, but had he a0asted enough
OF his time on my treatise to comprehend
the views of sound therein taught he
would have seen at glance that Lucre-
thus teaches nothing of the kind, and does
not even touch my position. hold that
sound, like heat, light, magnetism. grayi
tation, and electricity, is an ancorporeaz
substance, passing off from the sounding
body In pulses. corresponding with the
vlbratlonal number of such body, and
that, not being coaporeal or material sub
stance, it does not reduce in the slightest
degree the material of which the sound
ing body is constituted, though the ply
steal vibration, necessary to produce
sound, may wear and thus deteriorate
the sounding body. For example, mag
netic currents may pour off from the
poles of steel magnet for centuries, with
force sufficient to lift piece of iron at
considerable distance, yet the magnet will
not be reduced in weight in the least
Why? Because the one substance (steeD
is corporeal and the other (magnetism) is
incorporeal. Our ancorporeol but sub
stontidt soul, when it leaves the body at
death, does not take with it the thousand
millionth of grain of the physical body,
because one is material and the other i'm
material, while both are substantial.
Now notice that Lucretius, according
to the translation of my reviewer, has no
such conception of sound-not even, as I
will show, that it is a substance of any
kind. If he really meant substantial
co'puscIes, by the term "body" or "bod-
lily" then he taught that sound was a
physical or corporal substance, the very
reverse of my hypothesis, since it reduced
" portion of mans body by much speak
ing. If this loss of mans physical or
ganism by the wear and tear of much
speaking" is the sound that we hear, it
is then clear that sound, according to
Lucretius, is material, and as Just stated
the opposite of my view. But this is not
his view. He teaches Just as Prof. Tyn-
dali could teach, as the quotation itself
proves =" Sound and voice IS heard the
grammar Is the translator's when they
have made their way into the ears and
have struck with their body of air-wavesl
the the sense of hearing" So could Prof.
Iyndall or any one else truthfully teach
that voices and words consist of bodilv
first beginnings and that any vibrating
body, like the vocal organs, or the first
beginnings" of "voice, and words" will
wear themselves away "by much speak
ing without believing that sound is the
material substance thus worn away. The
doctrine of Lucretius evidently is, that
as physical wear of the body occurs in
"mnch speaking some physical s:body"
ar waves-must pass into the ear to
produce the sensation of sound-exactly
what the wave-theory inculcates accord
ing to Tyndall, Helmholtz, and MAYER.
So much for this abortive attempt to
prove that my view ofssound was not new.
My reviewer only gives demonotrative
proof of his inability to grasp philosophi-
cal distinctions in what follows. He saws:
The object of the ancient Luoretius was
to show that life aOas material, and so
must perish with the body; the object of
the modern Wilford1 if I understand
him, is to show that hte is material, and
SO must survive the bodyl" The excla-
nation point is his, and is well put as a.
mark of wonder or surprise at his own
astounding blindness as to my teaching;
for if one principle, more than any other,
is reiterated in my book, almost to monot-
ony, it is that the life or soul is an inan,o-
ter7at substance, the exact counterpart of
the physical organism. Yet nv critic
has not wasted time" enough in the stu
dy Of my book to see even this Such
criticism cannot hurt the book in the es-
timation of any one who has read it.
He objects to my statement that a
magnet attracts nothing but tron and
then adds, with triumphant sheer
" And yet scientists are expected to reply
to such assertions as thisi'' I have no
doubt this critic thinks steel is not IRON :
When / used the term "iron" meant of
course to include steel, load -stone, or any
other substance having the nature and
properties of iron, in contrast with such
metals or substances as gold, silver, wood.
glass, &C., which had no influence on the
magnet The criticism is very small.
lake another of the same character. He