Page:A budget of paradoxes (IA cu31924103990507).pdf/302

 and the grammar, or those who eat grain as it grows, like the cattle. Such men would reject all prological revelation; for there never was and probably never will be a revelation by voice and vision communicated in classical manner. It would be an invasion of the rights and prerogatives of Humanity, and as contrary to the Divine and the Established order of mundane government, as a field of quartern loaves or hot French rolls.'

Mr. Smith's book is spiritualism from beginning to end; and my anonymous gainsayer, honest of course, is either ignorant of the work he thinks he has read, or has a most remarkable development of the organ of imperception.]

I cut the following from a Sunday paper in 1849:—

Bryso was a mistaken man. Antipho had the disadvantage of being in advance of his age. He had the notion of which the modern geometry has made so much, that of a circle being the polygon of an infinitely great number of sides. He could make no use of it, but the notion itself made him a sophist in the eyes of Aristotle, Eutocius, &c. Geber, an Arab astronomer, and a reputed conjurer in Europe, seems to have given his name to unintelligible language in the word gibberish. At one time algebra was traced to him but very absurdly, though I have heard it suggested that algebra and gibberish must have had one inventor.

Any person who meddles with the circle may find himself the crane who was netted among the geese: as Antipho for one, and Olivier de Serres for another. This last gentleman ascertained, by weighing, that the area of the circle is very nearly that of the square on the side of the inscribed equilateral triangle: which it is, as near as 3.162… to 3.141…. He did not pretend to more than approximation; but Montucla and others misunderstood him, and, still worse, misunderstood their own misunderstanding, and made him say the circle was exactly