• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

I mentioned, in my last, that the “Lady’s Companion” had been sold by Snowden to a club of young literati. This, I find, is not precisely the fact — nor am I, socially speaking, quite at liberty to say what is. The “Companion,” however, had better be dropped at once. Why, the very name of the thing is sufficient to damn it. Could any title possibly have been invented, more mawkish, more silly, more unmeaning, more flat? Who but a milliner’s apprentice would even let into the house such a thing as a “Lady’s Companion”?

The “Magazine for the Million” has been merged in the “Rover.”

P.

We observe, in one or two of our exchange papers, some comments expressive of surprise at an opinion broached in one of the letters of our New-York correspondent, touching the accuracy, or rather the inaccuracy of the details, in the celebrated ‘Moon-Hoax’ of Locke. We are aware that the general idea is in favor of the accuracy of the narrative — its philosophical accuracy, we mean. The success of the hoax is usually attributed to its correctness, and the consequent difficulty of detecting a flaw. But we rather think it attributable to the circumstance of this hoax being first in the field, or nearly so. It took the people by surprize, and there was no good reason (apart from internal evidence) for disbelief. It was therefore believed, although abounding in gross errors, which should have caused it to be discredited at once; while, on the other hand, the ‘Balloon-Story,’ which had no error, and which related nothing that might not really have happened, was discredited on account of the frequent previous deceptions, of similar character, perpetrated by the’sun.’

The ‘Moon-Hoax,’ we say, was full of philosophical blunders; and these were pointed out distinctly by Mr. POE , in the Southern Literary Messenger, at the time of the jeu d’esprit’s appearance. In the first place, Mr. Locke gives his lens a space-penetrating power of 42,000, and speaks of seeing, with it, small flowers, such as the Papaver Rheas, the eyes of birds, and other minute objects. Now if we wish to ascertain how near, apparently, a lens will bring any distant object, we have but to divide the distance by the magnifying power. The moon’s distance is, in round numbers, 240-000 [[240,000]] miles. Dividing this by 42,000, we get 5 miles and five-sevenths, as the apparent distance. But, at this distance, not even the largest animals could be seen at all.

Again; in speaking of a hairy veil, over the eyes of a species of bison, Mr. L. says: — It occurred to the acute mind of Dr. Herschell that this was a providential contrivance to protect the eyes of the animal from the great extremes of light and darkness to which all the inhabitants of our side of the moon, are subjected. But, unfortunately, these inhabitants have no darkness at all; in the sun’s absence, they have a light from the earth, equal to that of thirteen full moons.

Again; the points of the compass are in inextricable confusion — the hoaxer seeming to be ignorant that, on a lunar map, the east is to the left, &c., &c.

Again; Mr. L. speaks of seas and lakes in the moon; but it is positively demonstrated that no such bodies of water exist there. In examining the boundary between light and darkness, in a crescent or gibbous moon, where this boundary crosses any of the dark places (formerly supposed to be water) the line of division is found to be rough and jagged; but were these dark places water, or liquid the line would be, evidently, even.

Again; the description of the wings of the man-bats is a literal copy from ‘Peter Wilkins.’

Again; the hoaxer says: — ‘What a prodigious influence must our thirteen-times larger globe have exercised upon this satellite, when an embryo in the womb of time!’ Now here, the earth, in the sense intended, is not only thirteen, but forty-nine times larger than the moon.

And once again; (for we have not space to pursue these innumerable errors); Mr. Locke describes particularly the whole appearance of