Reviews and Notices of Books. 



117 



From these two facts it follows that the area of a circle is pro- 

 portional to the square of its radius, and that the proportion is 

 IT : 1. These form the starting-point of Mr Smith's work. 



Now, if we merely compare one circle with another, as to area 

 or circumference, we shall have continual verifications of the fore- 

 going facts, whether we assume to be 3^, as Mr Smith does, or 

 20,000,000,000,000, which we would advise him to try. All 

 the numerical work, (with a slight exception) in Mr Smith's 

 pamphlet, consists of deductions of one of the above facts from 

 the other two, and would be equally successful whatever number 

 we assume for i:. 



Mr Smith, of course, breaks down when he comes to apply his 

 supposed value to compare the circumference of a circle with that 

 of an inscribed polygon (which we cannot but suppose he will 

 allow to be shorter). But if cr be 3 J, the circumference of a circle 

 whose radius is 1 is 6 2 5, and that of the inscribed polygon of 

 twenty equal sides (which can be constructed by pure geometry, 

 and is therefore not liable to suspicion, as results of logarithmic 

 tables are supposed to be by squarers of the circle) is 6 '2573... 

 as Mr Smith may easily assure himself by calculation. How does 

 he get over this 1 But we need not inquire, nothing is impossible 

 to a squarer of the circle. 



Mr Reddie's former difficulty lay in his not being able to con- 

 ceive the idea of mass or inertia as distinct from, and capable of 

 existence without, weight. In this he was, of course, entirely 

 wrong and unutterably silly. 



He has now discovered that the only motions we are cognisant 

 of are relative, and here he is indisputably right, though a little 

 late in the field. But when he asserts, as a consequence, that 

 Newton's view of the solar system, or rather that of Copernicus 

 and Kepler, falls to the ground, he has completely ignored the 

 fact that Newton deals with relative motion only. He will find 

 his main argument (that the moon's path is throughout concave 

 towards the sun) in most good treatises on astronomy ; and will 

 find, if he would inquire into what has been done before proceeding 

 to act for himself, that all this is perfectly consistent with Kepler, 

 gravitation, laws of motion, &c., &c. So much for his latest per- 

 formance ; where on earth or in heaven will he next break ground % 



But a word with him before we close. We have done no more 

 than hold up to deserved, but kindly, ridicule his preposterous 

 ideas, which, since he not only published them, but sent them to 

 us for review, were public property, so far as our honest but dis- 

 cerning criticism was concerned. He retorts upon us as "a shabby 

 hack" (p, 36). We were " mean enough deliberately to make a 

 mis-statement, finding nothing we dared gainsay" (p. 52). We 

 are " a mendacious and impertinent writer" (p. 62). We have 



