Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 20.djvu/570

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
554
THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.

while as to all numerals between two and ten the rule might apply thus: Shelesh, three; sheleshim, thirty; and in like manner to ten. With these corrections, referring to the ages of the patriarchs before the Noachian deluge, the article of M. De Solaville would show a wonderful uniformity in the age of man since the dawn of history.

From Adam to the flood the ages would read as in the table below, subject to a few uncertainties in the numbers below one hundred, as the numerals are sometimes pluralized for purposes of agreement, when they were not increased tenfold. These cases are not always certain; the table to the flood is substantially true.

The table is added, giving the ages of each at the time of his death:

1. Adam, 139 years and not 930 years.
2. Seth, 121 " " 912 "
3. Enos, 114 " " 905 "
4. Cainan, 119 " " 910 "
5. Mahalaleel, 122 " " 895 "
6. Jared, 117 " " 962 "
7. Enoch, 114 " " 365 "
8. Methuselah, 124 " " 969 "
9. Lamech, 117 " " 777 "
10. Noah, 139 " " 930 "
—— ——
Averages 120 + years " 858 years.

Should the editors of "The Popular Science Monthly" publish this note, it might be the means of calling the attention of the revisers of the Old Testament to the examination of cases of apparent errors in the reading of Hebrew numbers. The late Dean Stanley, for years before his death, insisted that the numbers in the Old Testament were, in many instances, entirely too high. The correction of these apparent errors, the Dean believed, would relieve the Bible of many objections now urged against this important record of ancient times.

Most truly yours,

Charles S. Bryant. 

 St. Paul, Minnesota, October 28, 1881.




THE COPYRIGHT OF IRVING'S WORKS.

Messrs. Editors.

{{sc|The  last issue of the "Monthly" contains in an article by Mr. B. V. Abbott on the "Progress of Copyright Law," a paragraph in regard to the copyright on Irving's works, which seems to us calculated to convey an erroneous impression.

Mr. Abbott, intending to paraphrase the decision of the judge in our suit to restrain the publication, under the title of "Irving's Works," of a volume containing only a portion of Irving's earlier and unrevised writings, says, "Now that any one may publish Irving's works," etc.

It is not the case that any one may at present publish Irving's works. His latest writings, including the crowning work of his life, "The Life of Washington," and including the only revised and authorized issues of his earlier volumes, are still protected by copyright.

The words of the judge had reference simply to the material comprised in the volume whose publication we sought to restrain. This contained only the earlier and unrevised writings (in some cases reprinted from their original issue as "magazine" articles), which were no longer protected by copyright.

Our application was based on the ground that it was an attempt to deceive the public to offer for sale as Irving's works something that was very different from the revised and complete works as known and published for many years, and that, so far as such volume, under such misleading title, was sold, it was an injury to the property of Irving's nieces, who are the owners of his copyright.

For the support of this claim, however, the court decided that the legal grounds were insufficient. Requesting the favor of the publication of this explanation, we are

Yours respectfully,

G. P. Putnams Sons. 

 New York, January 9, 1882.




EDITOR'S TABLE.

THE PRACTICAL STUDY OF MIND.

THE progress of knowledge and inquiry is every day bringing into clearer practical contrast the two methods of studying mind: that which regards it as an abstraction, known only in consciousness, or the metaphysical method; and that which regards it as the endowment of an organic structure by which mental phenomena are determined, or the physiological method. The former refuses to recognize the corporeal substratum of mental effects as essential to its inquiries; the latter holds it to be the foundation of mental science. Both resort to introspection, or the study of psychical processes in consciousness, as a legitimate source of knowledge; but, while the metaphysician will go no further, the scientific