230 ■ correspondence. 



Mr. Wenham's Eeply. 



Having received a proof-sheet of the preceding delicate communi- 

 cation, in order to save the time that has been compLiined of in cross- 

 ing the Atlantic, I append the few words only that are required in 

 reply. 



To gi'atify Mr. Stodder by making up a defence against any 

 accusations he may choose to bring against me, especially when an 

 attack (like the preceding) consists of nothing else but personal 

 matters (including a choice moral), is quite a needless task for me. If 

 I did not condescend to " exj)lain " in my last brief note to the long 

 rambling epistle of Mr. Stodder, he must thank his own style and the 

 animus with which it was written ; for, with its screaming capitals,* 

 it appeared to me as the effusion of a man more frantic than rational. 

 My stand or fall in the controversy depends upon the aperture ques- 

 tion, and I can well bear to "take the consequences" and smile at 

 anything .that Mr. Stodder can urge, for, judging from his matter, 

 he appears neither qualified or capable of discussing the principle in 

 a scientific sense, and in any other it is useless to argue on an issue 

 that can never be settled by him. It is not therefore necessary for 

 me to take any further heed of his letters. 



F. H. Wbnham. 



Mr. Brakey's Eeply to Eusticus, jun. 



To the Editor of the 'Monthly Microscopical Journal.' 



Sir, — Your country correspondent has been carried away so fast 

 by his " dialectic " that he has forgotten to put his difficulty ; for the 

 " it " of his commentary is a little vague. I fear that in his case the 

 remedy he must look for is to be found, not, as he thinks, in more 

 dialectic, but in a more careful study of the laws of light. It appears, 

 as far as I can gather, that he takes loss of light to be the same thing 

 as loss of angle ; and so, because a certain writer is indeed right, 

 " self-evidently," as concerns the total reflexion in one pencil, he 

 imagines he must be counted right also as to the angular magnitude of 

 the other. This is not so. In the two pencils light is lost unequally, 

 one losing by common reflexion, while the other loses more by total 

 reflexion ; but the angles themselves remain equal. 



It would perhaps hardly be fair to ask any questions as to what 

 connection his first sentence has with his subject ; or any reasons he 

 may have for feeling pleased with such a very peculiar way of intro- 

 ducing it. Anyone who can read through the alias will see that 

 allowances must be made ; and if the opinion he has formed generally 

 of my writing is not a flattering one, as indeed it is not, still it was 

 scarcely to be expected he should praise it. 



Yours obediently, 



S. L. Brakey, 



* See p. 81 ' M. M. J.' for February. 



