cokrespondence. 117 



Mb. Brooke's Eeply to Mr. Pillischer. 



To the Editor of the ' Monthly Microscopical Journal.'' 



16, FiTZRoy Squai^e, W., July 8, 1874. 



Sir, — I should have treated Mr. Pillischer's last letter with the 

 silent contempt that its " schoolboy " tone justly merits, but that my 

 silence might have been taken as an admission of its misstatements. 



" Mr. Brooke's argument that native British optical goods were 

 wholly uni'epresented at the Vienna Exhibition," is not Mr. Brooke's 

 argument at all, but a pure and simple development of Mr. P.'s 

 inner consciousness. Mr. Brooke's argument was (see May number 

 of Journal, p. 231), that native British ojitical talent was unrepre- 

 sented ; and I think the proverbial " schoolboy " will tell Mr. P. that 

 " goods " and " talent " are by no means synonymous terms. 



It is very likely I might have said to Mr. P., " I do not care for 

 your high powers," and the reason of my saying so is obvious ; but 

 my recollections of what passed between us are utterly at variance 

 with his. After all, the question is not what A said to B, or B to A, 

 twelve months since, but whether Mr. Pillischer exhibited at Vienna as 

 his own manufacture objectives that were not so. We know very well 

 when, where, and by whom his j objectives were made ; but if he will 

 satisfy any trustworthy third person (for example yourself, or one of 

 our Secretaries) when, where, and by whose hands he has ever manu- 

 factured any power deeper than a ^, I shall be happy to apologise to 

 him for having entertained any doubt on the subject. 



I remain, yoiu's faithfully, 



Chas. Beooke. 



A Eeply to Mr. Stodder. 



To the Editor of the ' Montldy Microscopical Journal.'' 



Sir, — The purpose of my paper on Immersion is not to establish 

 the superiority of the method, but to determine the cause of it assumed 

 as already established. I am sorry to find it has been taken up at the 

 wrong end, and by the wrong class of persons. As in making my 

 assumption I go chiefly on the testimony of others allowed to be 

 authorities, from myself asserting only a desire to be cautious of over- 

 stating, I should have thought that in this there was nothing in which 

 the most diligent seeker could find a pretext for controversy. That 

 whatever its degree the difference is real and to be relied on is all I 

 asked to be granted ; an assumption, indeed, necessarily involved, and 

 without which my work would have no meaning. But I cannot go 

 into controversies about v/hat is not my subject. My paper is on a 

 question of Theory, and was meant for those who are competent to 

 follow investigations of that kind. 



Mr. Stodder, I observe, has written to charge me with having 



