A.PKIL 24, 1885.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE • 



355 



cause, to make it necessarj- for us to do more than call attention to 

 this point, and we hope that after duo ventilation of the subject 

 some will come forward, take the matter in hand, and propose a 

 remedy. 



Simply from hearing bad language, yoiing people pick it up and 

 use it glibly. It sometimes makes one shudder to hear the words 

 that proceed from the mouth of a youngster of decent appearance 

 and tender ago, without the slightest suspicion on his part that ho 

 is wo'unding the susceptibilities of his auditory, or doing anything 

 that is not quit* manly and pleasant. X. 



April 13, 1SS5. 



AKE TEIPE AND ONIONS OBJECTIVE Oil SUBJECTIVE? 



[1681] — " J. S." (1664) enjoyed his " Friday night's supper of 

 cripe and onions," and is indignant that any doubt should bo cast 

 upon its " external existence." But can " J. S." certify any- 

 thing respecting this substantial repast excepting the existence 

 of a group of odours, tastes, and visual and tastual sensations, 

 collectively entitled " tripe and onions" ? Did not these sensations 

 exist witTktn his own mind, and is not the group the " thing felt and 

 thought"? However, if "J. S." wiU read my former letters 

 attentively he will find that I do not question the production of 

 sensations, A'c, by the interaction of consciousness with something 

 existing independently of consciousness. To do so would involve, 

 among other consequences, rejection of the results of geology and 

 astronomy, which would be even worse than the abolition of " tripe 

 and onions." I merely assert the truism that matter can be known 

 only by sensation and thought ; or, in other words, that sensations 

 and thoughts are all we know of matter. 



The editor lately recommended certain correspondents to study 

 Lewes's account of Berkeley. Perhaps, with reference to the 

 editorial note attached to the letter of " J. S.," I may quote part of 

 a passage from Berkeley's " Principles of Human Knowledge," with 

 a comment by Lewes, first premising that I am by no means a 

 Berkeleyan. 



"If the word su6i(ani-e be taken in the vulgar sense for a com- 

 bination of sensible qualities, such as extension, solidity, weight, &c., 

 this we cannot be accused of taking away. But if it bo taken in 

 the philosophic sense, for the support of accidents or qualities 

 without the mind, then. Indeed, I acknowledge that we take it 



avray Assert the evidence of sense as high as 



you please, we are willing to do the same. That what I see, hear, 

 and feel, doth exist — i.e., is perceived by mo — I no more doubt than 

 I do of my own being ; but I do not see how the testimony of sense 

 can be alleged as a proof of anything which is not perceived by 

 sense." 



Lewes inquires, " Where was philosophical acumen when a tribe 

 of writers could imagine they refuted Berkeley by an appeal to 

 common sense — when they contrasted the instinctive beliefs of 

 mankind with the speculative paradoxes of a philosopher, nho 

 expressly took his stand v:ith comvion sense o^aiTist philosophers .'"* 



C. N. 



[Montrond said that " Language was given to man to conceal his 

 thoughts ; " and certainly, accepting " C. N.'s " rendering of 

 Berkeley's theory, the Bishop of Cloyne affords an admirable illus- 

 tration of the truth of this aphorism. " It is," he says, " indeed 

 an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men that houses, moun- 

 tains, rivers, and, in a word, all sensible objects, have an existence, 

 natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the under- 

 standing I " At this rate the very perceptive brain itself is resolved 

 into the sum of a man's sensations, and we are left with nothing but 

 ilind (whatever that may be) in the Universe. AU this appears to 

 me the veriest logomachy. — Ed.] 



VIVISECTION. 



[1682] — I have read with great interest the letters that have 

 appeared in Knowledge with regard to the horrible practice of 

 vivisection. I cannot help thinking, however, that the anti-vivi- 

 sectionists are wanting in ardour, wanting in courage, and wanting 

 in knowledge, at least — not fully alive to the terrible realities that 

 are being enacted around us every day. Are they aware that the 

 University of London — a body altogether unlicensed for this pur- 

 pose — in defiance of the law, countenances — and, in fact, enjoins — 

 unlicensed vivisection within their walls ? There is not even the 

 wretched plea of research ; these are merely demonstration expe- 

 riments. Not only so, but not the slightest provision is made for 

 anaesthetics, and the experiments are entrusted to the unskilled 

 as well as unlicensed hands of the junior students. Surely such 

 open infringement of the law must, by some strange blindness, 

 have escaped the notice of the anti-vivisectionists, or they would 

 have been down on the University " like a thousand of bricks." 



With an ingenuity which it would tax even an anti-vivisoctionist 

 to excel, the University does not incur tlio penalty herself — and, 

 indeed, she enforces it on no one, leaving open only the alternatives 

 of becoming a mark for tho anti-vivisectionists or of failing in the 

 examination. With a refinement of cruelty boyond what was to be 

 expected even from tho most onlighleni'd of acioutific investigators, 

 she requires the operation to bo performed by tho expcrimontor on 

 himself. " Jlake a microscopic preparation of human blood!" 

 are tho cold-blooded directions of last year's Intermod. li. Sc. 

 paper on practical biology. 



For my part, I must confess to performing the indicated operation 

 much against my inclination, and with pain. Lest, however, 1 

 should render myself liable to prosecution from the Anti's, I must 

 beg you not to disclose my name, but to subscribe me 



A Victim of Vivisection. 



[As this " Victim of Vivisection," in pricking his own finger, 

 (as he jjresumably did to obtain tho blood) certainly did perforrii 

 upon a living animal an " experiment calculated to give jiain," 

 there can be no reasonable doubt that,, under 39 and -10 Vict., 

 c. 77, s. 2, ho rendered himHulf liable to a penalty of £50. — Eu.] 



KAINFALL. 



[1683] — I have on several occasions observed the phenomenon 

 you mention at foot of page 301 of your issue of April 10. So 

 far as my recollection serves, however, it does not " always" occur 

 when rain is falling heavily, but generally in warm weather, and 

 always in a thunder-shower, which last fact led mo to infer that it 

 was caused by electricity. And tho explanation of tho modus- 

 operandi (though it may be a totally erroneous one) I arrived at 

 was that the drops of the shower being, presumably, electrified 

 similarly, the dispersion of the particles was duo to repulsion. 

 Pray accept my sincere congratulations upon your success, and best 

 wishes for its continuance. U- H- 



TASTE. 



[1684] — Permit me to submit a few notes on certain matters of 

 taste. 1. It is preferable that two sides of a human face be sym- 

 metrical, and unlike Fig. 1. 



Fig. 1. 



Fig. 2. 



2. It is preferable that two volutes of an Ionic capital be sym- 

 metrical, and unlike Fig. 2. 



C,=F;'^=42^s^S^f*^i^^-^ 





Fig. 3. 



3. It is preferable that two sides of a picture-frame be sym- 

 metrical, and unlike Fig. 3. 



