In 1849 Plateau published in the _Bulletin_ of the Royal Academy of Belgium further studies on revolving disks and the use of a shutter. This time he also treated the effects when colored, and vari-colored disks are used. The system was similar to the Anorthoscope. Sixteen images were mounted on the margin of a glass disk. Another disk with four slots was revolved four times as swiftly. A number of spectators could see the effect at the same time. The chief illusion was a devil blowing up a fire. Edison’s peep-show film machine of 1891 also had a revolving disk with four slots. The last time Plateau wrote for publication directly on the motion picture machine was in 1852, 20 years after his invention. Once more he had to lash back at critics, this time at those who said he stole not from another of his own time but from the ancient Romans. In the May 30, 1852 issue of _Cosmos_, a French weekly review of science, edited by Abbé Moigno, comments were made about an article written by one Dr. Sinsteden in the German science review, _Annalen der Physik und Chemie_, which asserted that Lucretius in the fourth book of _De Rerum Natura_ described the Fantascope or Phénakisticope invented by Plateau “with such exactitude that, if it were not for the long series of theoretical considerations and practical experiments that led the Belgian scientist to arrive at the construction of the apparatus one would suppose that he took the idea from the Roman philosopher.” To back up the position, the text from Lucretius was quoted in Latin and French and Abbé Moigno made another comment, “What is the effect of that but the Phénakisticope--could Lucretius have described it in terms more precise or more clear?” Plateau replied in the issue of July 25 of the same year and answered for all time the assertion that Lucretius had invented the first motion picture machine many hundreds of years before. Moigno realized his mistake and prefaced Plateau’s words with an apology, “We are always ready to retract the errors which we print. Our learned friend, Plateau, has written us today about a translation written from a preconceived idea. He has a hundred reasons for complaint.” Plateau’s few lines were devastating. He pointed out that the passage of Lucretius used by Dr. Sinsteden and picked up by Abbé Moigno had suppressed one line of the text and had mistranslated others. It was proved that Lucretius was describing not an optical instrument but dreams. Plateau concluded, “These few words suffice, I hope, to show the true relationship which exists between the passage of Lucretius and the Phénakisticope, and to remove from me all suspicion of having stolen the idea of my instrument from antiquity.”