The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-20

make the most of them, as if that affected
the theory itself. These unguarded ex-
pressions are usually such as result from
an authors relying upon the intelligence
and candor of his readers or hearers :;
and yet MILFORD" speaks of one of them
Up. l!2) as an "unmitigated philosophical
blunder," and on the same page he him
self commits with all elaboration a still
worse blunder in assuming first. that air
can escape sidewise from moving BODY
with perfect freedom" and secondly,
that scientists hold that air-waves are
" draOen off at velocity of 112O feet
second In advance of the prong of tun-
ing-fork." On page Is (Grst page of the
volume on sound) he says: II have
considered well the full import and con-
sequences of assuming in this seventh de-
cade of the nineteenth century to over
turn an established theory of science
especially theory like that of Sound
which has not only stood mistaken for
centuries, but has never been so much as
called in question or doubted by single
scientific writer for $500 years, or since
its orr gination in the time of Pythagoras. ="
Now In the first place, if he cannot think
1T out otherwise, / recommend that he
count on his fingers and see if 1877 (the
date of his writing) does not fall in the
eighth decade, and not the seventh. This
was one of those unguarded expressions,
but 1t Is In keeping with his arithmetical
powers as exhibited elsewhere in serious
computation (see below. But, in the
second place, observe closely the latter
part of the sentence quoted "Not so
much as doubted by single scientific
writer for $500 years. This betrays
such Ignorance of the history of science
that l had to read it repeatedly to be
sure that my eyes did not deceive me
and all hopes of misprint were cut off
by the allusion to Pythagoras. And vet
Lucretlus, little less than 1000 years
ago, sets forth, in his celebrated didactic
poem De- Reruna Natmra, the epicurean
doctrine of sound, as follows Nv, 500 f.):
" Princi pic auditus sonus ct vox omnis, in aurs
lnslnuata sue pepulere ubi corpore sensum.
CoTporedm v0cem quoque enim constare faten-
dumst
ct sonitttn quoniam possunt inpellere sensus
Praeterea radlt vox fauces saepe facitque
asperiOra fOras gradiens arteria clamor
Haud igitus dubiumst quin woes verbaaue con-
co1pore.s principals, ut laedere passint;
nee te fallit item quid corporis auferat ct quid
detrahat ex hominum nervis &C Viribus ipSis
perpetuus sermo, etc., etc.
Ergo corpoream vocem constare ne cessest,
multa lo9uens quoniam amsittt de coTpore par
tenn"
" In the first place all sound and voice
is heard when they have made their way
into the ears and have struck with their
body the sense of hearing. For voice too
and sound you must admit to be bodily.
since they are able to act upon the senses.
Again voice often abrades the throat, and
shouting In passing forth makes the wind
pipe more rough x. There is no
doubt then that voices and words consist
OF bodily first-begirnings, with the power
10 hurt; nor can you fail to know how
much of body is taken away and how
much is withdrawn from mems very sim
ews and strength by speech continued
etc. = x Voice therefore must be bod,
lly' since man by much speaking loses
portion from his body" Whereupon
ne discusses some special questions. Now
1T will be observed that Lucretius not
only teaches something different from the
wave theory, but advances the very the
DRY that "Wilford" fourishes as being
entirely original, except that the investi-
cations of scientists make it necessary for
the latter to assume that the sound-mat-
ter is thrown off in pulses. 1t is strik-
ing parallel too that MILFORD" first
wrote his book in verse: he seems to be
the modern Lucretius without knowing
1t. There is one important difference,
however, between them. The object of
the ancient Lucretius was to show that
life was material, and SO must perish
with the body; the object of the modern,
if | understand him, is to show that life
is material, and SO must survive the body
Into this [ cannot enter, but shall close |
by calling attention to one or two more
instances of ignorance.
On page 80, he says that "the mag
netic substance, whatever it is, passing
from the poles of the solid steel magnet,
a0aW not act IN the slightest degree on ami
other body except iron"i And again |
(same page: Scientists do not pretend
to explain why magnetic currents will
move piece Of iron and mothi1,o else. |
(All italics mine) And yet scientists
are expected to reply to such assertions
as this
On pages 1876 is the most stupendous
blunder [ have ever seen in book, and |
it is elaborated in manner which would |
r