Nov. 28, 1884.] 



KNOWLEDGE 



451 



that is his name." Other things put this matter out of our heads, 

 and we forgot all about it. However, one day during the summer 

 term following, my friend and I were seated in the verandah of the 

 cricket pavilion watching a match, and two men — who, of course, 

 wo know then — were talking in front of ns. As soon as they began 

 to converse I clutched hold of my friend and said ; " Xow, listen ! 

 You remember what I told you the first day last term ? " The 

 conversation we listened to was not .apropos of anything in par- 

 ticular, but it seemed all quite familiar to mo ; and the tall maa 

 addressed the man with curly red hair as " Stumpwich " — which, in 

 fact, was not his name, but his nickname. Now, I could not have 

 known anything of this before I dreamt it. There was no signifi- 

 cance attached to it ; but I have a witness now li\ing who can 

 prove that this prophetic dream was not an hallucination. — Yours 

 faithfully, H. B. L. 



NO MATTER! 



[1518] — Is the materialistic theory necessarily true ? Matter is 

 said to be composed of atoms — some say atoms of one kind only — 

 others, atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, &e. In any case, these atoms 

 uever alter. An atom of hydrogen in a glass of water to-day was 

 an atom of hydrogen in the primeval nebula. Combinations of 

 atoms form molecules. Groups of molecules form solid liquid or 

 gaseous matter, according to circumstances. Different arrange- 

 ments of atoms produce different kinds of matter, but the atom 

 never alters. Can an atom which never alters have any poten- 

 tiality':' There is no growth in the atom. No power of evolution 

 iu itself. To say all atoms are mutually attracted or mutually 

 repelled is not true. The power, therefore, which arranges the 

 atoms is outside them. That no two atoms touch one another may 

 be taken as an axiom. But the distance between them may be 

 great or small ; our senses cannot perceive it so long as it remains 

 relatively the same in all matter. At one time it may be many 

 miles, at another but a few inches. So with time. Time may be 

 composed of small periods. In fact, the only rational conception 

 of continuous time is a number of small periods following 

 cue another. So again with motion. How does an atom 

 get from one place to another ? We can only imagine 

 it in one place one moment and in another the next. 

 It is not, therefore, an irrational conclusion to come to 

 that the universe is carried on by a system of destructions and 

 creations of matter. If so, the periods between the destructions 

 and re-creations may vary in length without our senses being 

 aware of it, and the terms "cause and effect" would have to be 

 substituted by " antecedent and consequence." The cause would 

 be outside. What that cause is is a matter of speculation. It may 

 bo the will of a single Deity, or of several demons, or of gods, 

 demons, and human beings working harmoniously or otherwise. 

 All I ask is. Is not the theory as probable as the purely materialistic 

 one, which results in a continuous cycle of endless eras, exactly 

 alike ? During the last ten years scii'nfijic and mat€riali:<tic have 

 become too nearly convertible terms. It is to the advantage of 

 neither science nor materialism. Jos. W. Alexaxder. 



THE FAST OF TABERNACLES. 



[1519] — Apropos of your editorial note (Vol. V., p. 272) wherein 

 you express surprise that the Christian Church, though still cele- 

 brating the Passover, should " somehow have gotten rid of that 

 particular fast" (of Tabernacles), it may interest you to know 

 that we in Scotland srill (as I believe) retain its equivalent. 



Until within quite recent years the Church of Scotland cele- 

 brated the Holy Communion only twice a year, in spring and 

 autnmn; and in the great majority of parishes that is still the 

 case. Previous to the "Sacrament Sunday," a day was (and still 

 is) appointed to be "a day of solemn fasting, humiliation, and 

 prayer." There is reason to believe that these "Fast-days," as 

 they are termed, are much older than the Reformation. 



Can you account for their being fixed for " the Thursday (in 

 some parts Wednesday) before the last Friday" in April and 

 October, instead of in March and September. CuEiors. 



CHILDREN'S DRESS. 



[1520] — About two years ago you favoured me by inserting in 

 your valuable Knowledge a letter on children's dress. I veuture 

 again to call the attention of your readers to this subject, for I do 

 not think that the reform is gaining ground as quickly as it 

 should, notwithstanding lectures, dress associations, and exhi- 

 bitions. 



I find all my Liberal friends most conservative in dress, and, 

 although my persona! demonstration of the good resulting from 



our reform convinces them that we are right, they will not (ex- 

 ceptions are so few) act upon their convictions. We may hope, 

 perhaps, that the introduction of Dr. Jaeger's sanitary system of 

 woollen clothing will do much to aid our cause. I am myself 

 deriving great benefit from the adoption of the all tvoollen materials, 

 even to sleeping in blankets, discarding linen and calico sheets 

 altogether ; and I do feel that if mothers would just read the 

 little book on " Health Culture" (by Dr. Jaeger), that they would, 

 for the comfort and well-being of their nursery inmates, at any 

 rate, adopt the principles of clothing therein advocated, and maybe 

 they would themselves become converts to what is rational, com- 

 fortable, and healthful in the fashion of dress. 



Fearing to trespass on your limited space, I abstain from 

 further remarks, hoping the above suggestion, as a flying thought, 

 may stimxilato some one to try the innovation. E. Phillips. 



THE SAMIAN TUNNEL. 



[1521] — In No. 157 you reprint from Iron the account of the 

 re-discovery of this ancient monument. (Reading Herodotus 

 straight through for the first time I came on his account of it just 

 after reading your extract.) It seems to me especially valuable as 

 a test of the correctness of our ideas of ancient measures. 

 (Herodotus (iii. 60) says its length was 7 stadia = 4,245 ft. Iron 

 says about 5,000. Height and breadth S ft. ; Iron, 5t x 6. Canal, 

 depth 20 cubits ; Iron, about 5 ft. Width, 3 ft. ; Iron, nearly 3 ft. 

 The Greek foot was one-eighth of an inch longer than ours. 



There were different kinds of cubits, but it is reasonable to 

 suppose that the Samian cubit is here meant. Now, it was 18i in. 

 — 20.'. =30 ft. 5 in. The other cubits were greater than the 

 Samian. How can this enormous discrepancy be explained ? la it 

 possible that only one-sixth of the canal has been dug out ? That 

 seems iuiprobable, because the pipes have been discovered in situ. 

 It seems more likely that Herodotus, generally so exact, misunder- 

 stood the figure. 



By the way, he says nothing to lead us to suppose it " a work of 

 the 10th centmy B.C." He mentions it after stories about 

 Cambyses, Polycrates, and Periander, all late in the 6th century 

 B.C. ; but there is no reason to suppose it was constructed then. 



Is not the " peaked arch " of bricks a hitherto unknown feature 

 in Greek architecture ? 



He says the mountain was 300 yards high, and mentions the pipes 

 without detail. Uallyakds. 



FOSSIL AND MODERN EYES. 



[1522] — Neither you nor any correspondent proposes a reason 

 for the contrast I remarked between the general size of eyes in the 

 elder fossil animals, from the Pala;ozoic strata up to the Oolite, and 

 the very reduced eyes of all later times ; and so I will, as promised, 

 suggest one. My notion is that the large-eyed creatures may 

 probably have flourished in the days before there was a sun. 



Yon must be well aware how essential a point it is of the Kantian 

 or Laplace cosmogony now in vogue that the sun has to be held 

 younger, by vast ages, than any of his planets. The smallest 

 bodies are assumed to have condensed the first ; and our earth, 

 however diminutive among them, is the biggest body that we have 

 yet, remember, any ground for supposing partly solidified. Very 

 much of her crust, and even of her ocean, she must have had for 

 long ages before cm- day-star became aught more than a diffuse 

 nebula, somewhat like that in Andromeda. Calculate the light 

 that the brightest such nebula would yield us, if subtending an 

 oval, say of 20° by 40° — which, at the sun's distance, would imply 

 it to occupy about 200,000 times his present bulk — and you will 

 find it but a small fraction of our present daylight ; though it may 

 have radiated far more heat. Now, in process of ages, a time came 

 that this great fire-mist shrank down into its present compactness, 

 within its enclosing bubble of metallic liquids, and with its bril- 

 liant photosphere. Then, for the first time, did the other planets, 

 previously invisible here, and our moon, visible only as a black 

 spot transiting by day, become lights at night. And then, I sup- 

 pose, the big eyes of ichthyosauri, &c., no longer being needed or 

 advantageous, those creatures were superseded by such as the 

 iguanodon, &c., with eyes on no bigger a scale than the animals of 

 to-day have. E. L. G.\J£BETT. 



Nov. 17, 1884. 



[I fear that, in popular parlance, Mr. Garbett's theory " will not 

 hold water." The eyes of the trilobites differ in no material 

 respect from those of the recent dragon-fly, while those of the 

 Silurian Crustacea generally, the fish of the old red sandstone, &c., 

 are certainly not abnormally large. Moreover, it is not easy to see 

 how the superabundant Carboniferous flora can have fionrished 

 without sunlight, dimmed as it may possibly have been by laige 



