CORRESPONDENCE. 277 



now willlugly withdraw any exj)ressions that his allusions to myself 

 gave rise to. 



It is scarcely necessary to add that I should not have taken any 

 notice of the corresi^ondence referred to, had it not aj)peared under the 

 distinct pati'onage of Dr. Pigott, in an important public journal. 



Dr. Woodward's Eeference to Mr. Brakey. 



To the Editor of the ' Moidhly Microscopical Journal.^ 



Kovember 6th, 1873. 

 Sib, — In the concluding part of Dr. Woodward's paper in your 

 present number there is a special reference to myself, on which I have 

 some observations to make. 



In a former letter I had called attention to the fact that he made 

 an oversight in supposing he had something new to tell on the 

 question he was discussing. I observed that the plan of getting a 

 wider aperture by the insertion of an extra hemisiihere between 

 objective and object lay outside the limits of the present controversy, 

 being on all sides acknowledged ; and that it was, moreover, already 

 old and well known, having been long since worked out in theory and 

 practice. The language in which I pointed this out was no doubt plain 

 language, inasmuch as such was necessary to keep the real issue from 

 confusion. That it was not without personal courtesy to the writer 

 will, I believe, be equally j)lain to anyone who may choose to refer 

 back to my letter (p. 98). 



To this Col. Woodward has replied in a style of language which I 

 was scarcely prepared for— from him. It seems I thoroughly mis- 

 conceive optical law ; and know as much about Greek as I know about 

 optics ; but he will teach me a lesson, &c,, &c. 



This is not exactly an example of the cold dry light of science — 

 that siccum lumen which Bacon always commends for investigating 

 truth. The meaning of it is, of course, that Dr. Woodward, proud 

 (and justly proud) of his reputation, did not like to find that he had 

 brought before the world, with ceremony of diagrams and array of 

 witnesses, news which was no news ; and in a not unnatural irritation 

 at having it told he forgot himself — a little. 



To come to the substance of his defence ; this needs but a short 

 answer. I had pointed out, as already said, that the structure now 

 brought forward for the purpose of this controversy was not in the 

 common acceptation of the term an object-glass, because it was an 

 object-glass and something more; having, that is, an added convex 

 lens in front of it. His reply is, that having used it without the 

 added lens, it " does not define very well." Possibly. I can only 

 say I am sorry for it, but it is not my affair. With the special 

 merits of this or any other individual glass I have nothing to do. 

 What I called attention to was the structure, not of one glass in par- 

 ticular, but of every combination put together on such a principle. 

 Now an objective, having a front of the ordinary kind, with the usual 

 posterior combinations, and which will show objects not only when 

 mounted in balsam or fluids, but also in air or in vacuo, is already 



Y 2 



