_Times_, April 6 or 7, 1856. The moon has no rotary motion.
A letter from Mr. Jellinger Symons,[174] inspector of schools, which
commenced a controversy of many letters and pamphlets. This dispute comes
on at intervals, and will continue to do so. It sometimes arises from
inability to understand the character of simple rotation, geometrically;
sometimes from not understanding the mechanical doctrine of rotation.
{85}
Lunar Motion. The whole argument stated, and illustrated by diagrams;
with letters from the Astronomer Royal. By Jellinger C. Symons. London,
1856, 8vo.
The Astronomer Royal endeavored to disentangle Mr. J. C. Symons, but
failed. Mr. Airy[175] can correct the error of a ship's compasses, because
he can put her head which way he pleases: but this he cannot do with a
speculator.
Mr. Symons, in this tract, insinuated that the rotation of the moon is one
of the silver shrines of the craftsmen. To see a thing so clearly as to be
satisfied that all who say they do not see it are telling wilful falsehood,
is the nature of man. Many of all sects find much comfort in it, when they
think of the others; many unbelievers solace themselves with it against
believers; priests of old time founded the right of persecution upon it,
and of our time, in some cases, the right of slander: many of the
paradoxers make it an argument against students of science. But I must say
for men of science, for the whole body, that they are fully persuaded of
the honesty of the paradoxers. The simple truth is, that all those I have
mentioned, believers, unbelievers, priests, paradoxers, are not so sure
they are right in their points of difference that they can safely allow
themselves to be persuaded of the honesty of opponents. Those who know
demonstration are differently situated. I suspect a train might be laid for
the formation of a better habit in this way. We know that Suvaroff[176]
taught his Russians at Ismail not to fear the Turks by accustoming them to
charge bundles of faggots dressed in turbans, etc.
At which your wise men sneered in phrases witty,
He made no answer--but he took the city!
Would it not be a good thing to exercise boys, in pairs, in the following
dialogue:--Sir, you are quite wrong!--Sir, {86} I am sure you honestly
think so! This was suggested by what used to take place at Cambridge in my
day. By statute, every B.A. was obliged to perform a certain number of
disputations, and the _father_ of the college had to affirm that it had
been done. Some were performed in earnest: the rest were huddled over as
follows. Two candidates occupied the places of the respondent and the
opponent: _Recte statuit Newtonus_, said the respondent: _Recte non statuit
Newtonus_,[177] said the opponent. This was repeated the requisite number
of times, and counted for as many _acts_ and _opponencies_. The parties
then changed places, and each unsaid what he had said on the other side of
the house: I remember thinking that it was capital drill for the House of
Commons, if any of us should ever get there. The process was repeated with
every pair of candidates.
The real disputations were very severe exercises. I was badgered for two
hours with arguments given and answered in Latin,--or what we called
Latin--against Newton's first section, Lagrange's[178] derived functions,
and Locke[179] on innate principles. And though I _took off_ everything,
and was pronounced by the moderator to have disputed _magno honore_,[180] I
never had such a strain of thought in my life. For the inferior opponents
were made as sharp as their betters by their tutors, who kept lists of
queer objections, drawn from all quarters. The opponents used to meet the
day before to compare their arguments, that the same might not come twice
over. But, after I left Cambridge, it became the fashion to invite the
respondent to be present, who therefore learnt all that was to be brought
against him. This made the whole thing a farce: and the disputations were
abolished.
{87}
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 mass 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 class, 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.