A Budget of Paradoxes, Volume II

It is commonly said that the last words of Laplace were, "Ce que nous connaissons est peu de chose; ce que nous ignorons est immense."[4] This looks like a parody on Newton's pebbles:[5] the following is the true account; it comes to me through one remove from Poisson.[6] After the publication (in 1825) of the fifth volume of the Mecanique Celeste, Laplace became gradually weaker, and with it musing and abstracted. He thought much on the great problems of existence, and often muttered to himself, _Qu'est ce que c'est que tout cela!_[7] After many alternations, he appeared at last so permanently prostrated that his family applied to his favorite pupil, M. Poisson, to try to get a word from him. Poisson paid a visit, and after a few words of salutation, said, "J'ai une bonne nouvelle a vous annoncer: on a recu au Bureau des Longitudes une lettre d'Allemagne annoncant que M. Bessel a verifie par l'observation vos decouvertes theoriques sur les satellites de Jupiter."[8] Laplace opened his eyes and answered with deep {3} gravity, "_L'homme ne poursuit que des chimeres_."[9] He never spoke again. His death took place March 5, 1827.

The language used by the two great geometers illustrates what I have said: a supreme and guiding intelligence--apart from a blind rule called _nature of things_--was an hypothesis. The absolute denial of such a ruling power was not in the plan of the higher philosophers: it was left for the smaller fry. A round assertion of the non-existence of anything which stands in the way is the refuge of a certain class of minds: but it succeeds only with things subjective; the objective offers resistance. A philosopher of the appropriative class tried it upon the constable who appropriated him: I deny your existence, said he; Come along all the same, said the unpsychological policeman.

Euler[10] was a believer in God, downright and straightforward. The following story is told by Thiebault,[11] in his Souvenirs de vingt ans de sejour a Berlin,[12] published in his old age, about 1804. This volume was fully received as trustworthy; and Marshall Mollendorff[13] told the Duc de Bassano[14] in 1807 that it was the most veracious of books written by the most honest of men. Thiebault says that he has no personal knowledge of the truth of the story, but {4} that it was believed throughout the whole of the north of Europe. Diderot[15] paid a visit to the Russian Court at the invitation of the Empress. He conversed very freely, and gave the younger members of the Court circle a good deal of lively atheism. The Empress was much amused, but some of her councillors suggested that it might be desirable to check these expositions of doctrine. The Empress did not like to put a direct muzzle on her guest's tongue, so the following plot was contrived. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician was in possession of an algebraical demonstration of the existence of God, and would give it him before all the Court, if he desired to hear it. Diderot gladly consented: though the name of the mathematician is not given, it was Euler. He advanced towards Diderot, and said gravely, and in a tone of perfect conviction: Monsieur, (a + b^{n}) / n = x, _donc Dieu existe; repondez!_[16] Diderot, to whom algebra was Hebrew, was embarrassed and disconcerted; while peals of laughter rose on all sides. He asked permission to return to France at once, which was granted.

ROTATION OF THE MOON.

An examination of the Astronomical doctrine of the Moon's rotation. By J. L.[17] Edinburgh, 1847, 8vo.

A systematic attack of the character afterwards made with less skill and more notice by Mr. Jellinger Symons.

July 1866, J. L. appears as Mr. James Laurie, with a new pamphlet "The Astronomical doctrines of the Moon's rotation ..." Edinburgh. Of all the works I have seen on the question, this is the most confident, and the sorest. {5} A writer on astronomy said of Mr. Jellinger Symons,[18] "Of course he convinced no one who knew anything of the subject." This "ungenerous slur" on the speculator's memory appears to have been keenly felt; but its truth is admitted. Those who knew anything of the subject are "the so-called men of science," whose three P's were assailed; prestige, pride, and prejudice: this the author tries to effect for himself with three Q's; quibble, quirk, and quiddity. He explains that the Scribes and Pharisees would not hear Jesus, and that the lordly bishop of Rome will not cast his tiara and keys at the feet of the "humble presbyter" who now plays the part of pope in Scotland. I do not know whom he means: but perhaps the friends of the presbyter-pope may consider this an ungenerous slur. The best proof of the astronomer is just such "as might have been expected from the merest of blockheads"; but as the giver is of course not a blockhead, this circumstance shows how deeply blinded by prejudice he must be.

Of course the paradoxers do not persuade any persons who know their subjects: and so these Scribes and Pharisees reject the Messiah. We must suppose that the makers of this comparison are Christians: for if they thought the Messiah an enthusiast or an impostor, they would be absurd in comparing those who reject what they take for truth with others who once rejected what they take for falsehood. And if Christians, they are both irreverent and blind to all analogy. The Messiah, with His Divine mission proved by miracles which all might see who chose to look, is degraded into a prototype of James Laurie, ingeniously astronomizing upon ignorant geometry and false logic, and comparing to blockheads those who expose his nonsense. Their comparison is as foolish as--supposing {6} them Christians--it is profane: but, like errors in general, its other end points to truth. There were Pseudochrists and Antichrists; and a Concordance would find the real forerunners of all the paradoxers. But they are not so clever as the old false prophets: there are none of whom we should be inclined to say that, if it were possible, they would deceive the very educated. Not an Egyptian among them all can make uproar enough to collect four thousand men that are murderers--of common sense--to lead out into the wilderness. Nothing, says the motto of this work, is so difficult to destroy as the errors and false facts propagated by illustrious men whose words have authority. I deny it altogether. There are things much more difficult to destroy: it is much more difficult to destroy the truths and real facts supported by such men. And again, it is much more difficult to prevent men of no authority from setting up false pretensions; and it is much more difficult to destroy assertions of fancy speculation. Many an error of thought and learning has fallen before a gradual growth of thoughtful and learned opposition. But such things as the quadrature of the circle, etc., are never put down. And why? Because thought can influence thought, but thought cannot influence self-conceit: learning can annihilate learning: but learning cannot annihilate ignorance. A sword may cut through an iron bar; and the severed ends will not reunite: let it go through the air, and the yielding substance is whole again in a moment.

Miracles versus Nature: being an application of certain propositions in the theory of chances to the Christian miracles. By Protimalethes.[19] Cambridge, 1847, 8vo.

The theory, as may be supposed, is carried further than most students of the subject would hold defensible.