Letter to the Royal Astronomical Society in refutation of Mistaken
Notions held in common, by the Society, and by all the Newtonian
philosophers. By Capt. Forman,[642] R.N. Shepton-Mallet, 1833, 8vo.
Capt. Forman wrote against the whole system of gravitation, and got no
notice. He then wrote to Lord Brougham, Sir J. Herschel, and others I
suppose, desiring them to procure notice of his books in the reviews: this
not being acceded to, he wrote (in print) to Lord John Russell[643] to
complain of their "dishonest" conduct. He then sent a manuscript letter to
the Astronomical Society, inviting controversy: he was answered by a
recommendation to study {297} dynamics. The above pamphlet was the
consequence, in which, calling the Council of the Society "craven dunghill
cocks," he set them right about their doctrines. From all I can learn, the
life of a worthy man and a creditable officer was completely embittered by
his want of power to see that no person is bound in reason to enter into
controversy with every one who chooses to invite him to the field. This
mistake is not peculiar to philosophers, whether of orthodoxy or paradoxy;
a majority of educated persons imply, by their modes of proceeding, that no
one has a right to any opinion which he is not prepared to defend against
all comers.
David and Goliath, or an attempt to prove that the Newtonian system of
Astronomy is directly opposed to the Scriptures. By Wm. Lauder,[644]
Sen., Mere, Wilts. Mere, 1833, 12mo.
Newton is Goliath; Mr. Lauder is David. David took five pebbles; Mr. Lauder
takes five arguments. He expects opposition; for Paul and Jesus both met
with it.
Mr. Lauder, in his comparison, seems to put himself in the divinely
inspired class. This would not be a fair inference in every case; but we
know not what to think when we remember that a tolerable number of
cyclometers have attributed their knowledge to direct revelation. The works
of this class are very scarce; I can only mention one or two from
Montucla.[645] Alphonso Cano de Molina,[646] in the last century, upset all
Euclid, and squared the circle upon the ruins; he found a follower, Janson,
who translated him from Spanish into Latin. He declared that he believed in
Euclid, until God, who humbles the proud, taught him better. One Paul Yvon,
called from his estate de la Leu, a merchant at Rochelle, supported by his
book-keeper, M. Pujos, and a {298} Scotchman, John Dunbar, solved the
problem by divine grace, in a manner which was to convert all Jews,
Infidels, etc. There seem to have been editions of his work in 1619 and
1628, and a controversial "Examen" in 1630, by Robert Sara. There was a
noted discussion, in which Mydorge,[647] Hardy,[648] and others took part
against de la Leu. I cannot find this name either in Lipenius[649] or
Murhard,[650] and I should not have known the dates if it had not been for
one of the keenest bibliographers of any time, my friend Prince Balthasar
Boncompagni,[651] who is trying to find copies of the works, and has
managed to find copies of the titles. In 1750, Henry Sullamar, an
Englishman, squared the circle by the number of the Beast: he published a
pamphlet every two or three years; but I cannot find any mention of him in
English works.[652] In France, in 1753, M. de Causans,[653] of the Guards,
cut a circular piece of turf, squared it, and {299} deduced original sin
and the Trinity. He found out that the circle was equal to the square in
which it is inscribed; and he offered a reward for detection of any error,
and actually deposited 10,000 francs as earnest of 300,000. But the courts
would not allow any one to recover.