comprehensive view of its advantages to its possessors, and, after a lively introduction and complimentary of which he finds happy illustrations in the ascendancy of England and America, by their application of the sciences to the arts. To sustain his views of the importance of moral education, he presents us the opinions of some of the most distinguished philosophers-Locke, Kaimes, and Milton among the English, and the two brightest orna. ments of the present day in France, Cousin and Guizot. To this succeeds a historical view of the subject, showing that the most distinguished champions of science and literature since the christian era, were mostly the champions of christian truth. We have no disposition to dispute this point with the President; but it occurs to us, that a more prominent discussion of it would have been better. No rule or statement of this character is without exception; and the exceptions made by such men as Gibbon, Voltaire, Frederick the Great, Bolingbroke, and others, should be fully weighed and thoroughly examined. These exceptions, it is true, detract nothing from the position, p. 13, that "christianity fosters and diffuses sound learning;" but we think the most solid basis of argument in favor of that position, is found, p. 14-15, in the extract from Burke--the substance of which is, that from the connexion of scripture and the christian religion with the laws, languages, opinions, manners, sciences and histories of so many nations and periods, the student of the Bible must be a man of letters, and wherever the christian religion progresses there is "always" a progress of letters. Some weight is due to the coincidence in the revival of letters and the Reformation. Dependant as they were, however, on different causes, humanly speaking, we should confine our attention rather to the influence of the latter, or the progress of the former. Too much cannot be said on this momentous subject, and we rejoice to hear from such high places the sentiment expressed, that religion and learning should be united: what God has joined, let not man put asunder. allusion to the ladies, the speaker proceeds in a style of merited severity to discuss the opposition to the study of language which modern reformers have made. We are sorry that he made so broad a charge as, "dead languages they assuredly are, to those who raise this cry," because, judging others by ourselves, Mr. Grimke must share the denunciation--a man whose enthusiasm for biblical literature often carried him too far, but who, while disparaging the classics, was himself a most conspicuous example of their beneficial influence. Prof. S. is, however, mainly right; and his sentiments respecting the qualifications of cheap teachers, on page 9, deserve to be inscribed over every academy and schoolhouse in the land. When parents who, as he says, "are better judges of the worth of money than of literary qualifications," shall have learned that he is the cheapest teacher, who best understands his business, the profession as well as the pupils and the general cause of learning, will be infinitely gainers. We had marked several portions of this address peculiarly wor thy of notice-especially the discriminating views on what constitutes a classical education and what does not-but our limits forbid, and we have only space to echo the well said things, pp. 16-20, on the importance of the study of Hebrew in our colleges. While boys under seventeen or eighteen, across the water, can outstrip, in Hebrew literature, many even of that profession in this country, who of all others should understand the language, it becomes us to wait a little, ere we boast of being "the wise ones." We trust that in its youthful vigor and manliness, Davidson College will soon step ahead of our older institutions and vie with more favored spots in giving a thorough course in classical and sacred literature. This is no place for discussing this subject, though we hope the hints of Prof. S. will tell well on the cause. A word more and we have done: To show that these hints are not so utopian as some suppose, and that Hebrew study is in are procuring their elementary books to a great extent in our markets, and in a few years past five editions of one and two of another Hebrew grammar have been demanded, besides one each of some others, and three or four lexicons have appeared; the second edition of one, (a Manual,) having appeared in 1832. We learn from p. 16-17, that Davidson College, increasing among us, we may remark, that the English Mecklenburg Co. N. C., was so named in honor to General Davidson, who fell six miles from its location, in one of the battles of our Revolutionary struggle, Feb. 1, 1781. The institution, we learn from other sources, was first proposed about three years and a half since; but such has been the liberal zeal and activity of our fellow-citizens in Western Carolina, that there are now eighty-six students, a president, and professor, and tutor, occupying buildings erected for their accommodation. Efforts are making to extend their facilities, and among other things petitions were presented to the legislature of North Carolina, at its last session, to secure a charter. We have not space to notice some very sensible remarks on the manual labor system, with which this address closes. There has been a mania and wildfire about this, which we are glad to see is gradually subsiding. We never could have much faith in the doctrines generally broached on the subject, but have no doubt that the principle is a correct one, and feel persuaded it will be so applied in the present case, as to be productive of good only, and that continually. We have paid so much attention to this address, that a very brief notice of Professor Sparrow's must suffice. His subject, as might be supposed, is Classical Literature; THE GUITAR. Sing me that air he used to love so well: But softly, sister-let its tones come stealing, Ah! didst thou love and he were far away— A REVIEW OF TWO PIECES ENTITLED "NEW VIEWS OF THE And published in Vol. IV, Nos. VII and XII, of the Southern This my conjecture in respect to the competency of the author of "New Views" to decide upon the merit of mathematical questions, is so confirmed by every page of his communications, that I am willing to rest this controversy upon his ability to develope and explain any one mathematical process employed in the "Principia" or the "Mechanique Celeste." I hope my read To entertain what sentiments we please in respecters will not consider these remarks invidious. When to the constitution of the physical world around us, and to express those sentiments freely yet modestly, is a right we all enjoy, and which no person desires to infringe. That an individual disbelieves the Newtonian system of the universe-that he has chosen to say so in a literary journal-and that he has undertaken to exhibit the peculiar views he entertains upon the subject, is a matter of no consequence so far as the staOur author proposes to himself to show, "that our bility of that system is concerned. And had he done physical systems of astronomy are not true, either in the this with a becoming modesty, and with the true spirit distances of the planets from the sun-their velocities of an inquirer after truth, this review would not have in their paths-the kind of orbits they describe-the been penned. But when I hear a man Saying of him- forces by which they are impelled through the heaself, “I stand in relation to the Copernican system, as vens-the cause of their perturbations, and the entire Copernicus stood in relation to the system of the Egyp-insufficiency of that something called gravitation to tian astronomer,”—and of others who differ from him, produce the phenomena we observe." "that they are destitute of common sense:" when I see a man, who cannot perform accurately the division of one decimal number by another, (unless his printer mark he makes upon page 435, we see this distinction has done him injustice,)—and who is incapable of solv-clearly made between plane and physical astronomy. ing the simplest problems of uniforin motion, rising up Now plane astronomy treats of the appearances, motions, and impertinently and unlearnedly attacking the labors distances and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies, and of men, not one page of whose works is he capable of is founded entirely on observations, without having any comprehending, if it contains so much as a single mathe-regard to the causes of their motions. Physical astrono matical formula, I will not forbear to rebuke him, humiliating though the task be to notice such productions. In the sequel I shall abundantly prove what I have here asserted of our author's mathematical abilities; but as a present specimen of them let us take the following problem, viz: A travels 400 miles at the rate of 4 miles per hour, and B 300 miles at the rate of 10 miles per hour; required the comparative lengths of time they are travelling. one presumes to "revolutionize" the whole system of mechanical philosophy, and to put aside as useless lumber the labors of the most gifted and distinguished men the world ever produced, we have a right to inquire into the qualifications of our new guide, so far as they may be legitimately deduced from his own productions. As B's distance: A's distance :: B's time: A's time, that is, It is then against physical astronomy only, that our author Both in this extract and in a reprofesses to wage war. my treats of these causes, and traces these causes to their effects. Then our author is self-deceived in supposing that his attack is only against the theoretical parts of the science. Expunge every thing relating to motion, distance, magnitude, from our system of plane astronomy, and what have we left? It is then not to the theory of gravitation only, as developed in modern times, that our author objects, because the motions, distances and magnitudes of the heavenly bodies are independent of all speculation as to the nature of the force which produces these motions;-but it is to those 300: 400 :: 1: A's time; in which B's time is regarded as unity. elements of the system to which the Grecians, Arabians 400 Then A's time= = 1.3333. 300 That is B's time of travelling is to A's as 1 to 1.3333. Substitute in this problem, for A and B and their distances and rates, Venus and Mercury and their paths and rates; and we have the problem given by our astronomer on page 769; and such precisely is his manner of solving it. Now any tyro in arithmetic knows better than this: and will tell him that when the rates of two travellers are unequal, their times of travelling will be proportional to their distances divided by their rates respectively. Thus, if B travels 300 miles at the rate of 10 miles per hour, his time of travelling will be 30 hours; if A travels 400 miles at the rate of 4 miles per hour, his time will be 100 hours. Then and Egyptians made rude approximations, according to the construction and accuracy of the instruments they employed:-which were still more nearly obtained by Brahé and Kepler-and which last of all, have been accurately determined in modern times, by the great perfection of astronomical instruments. These measurements are in no respect different in principle, from those that occur in the determination of "heights and distances" by plane trigonometry. If our author knows any thing of mathematics, I ask him to show wherein the calculation of the distance of the Moon, or Mars, or Venus from the earth, is different from the calculation of our distance from a terrestial object by plane trigonometry. I expected our author to have commenced his attack in the only way which is rational, by showing first, that our instruments employed in astronomy are constructed on principles which lead to false results-and, secondly, that the application of trigonometry to those results has been made in an illeAnd this is the mathematician who is to pass con-gitimate manner. Upon these observations, and upon demnatory sentence upon the profound and elegant re- the relation subsisting between the sides and angles of searches of Newton and Lagrange and Laplace! a triangle as taught in geometry, plane astronomy is B's time: A's time :: 30: 100 :: 1 : 3.3333. That is, B's time of travelling is to A's as 1 to 3.3333; and not as 1 to 1.3333, as would be given by our author. VOL. V.-14 based. Then it behooved our author to show that in rolls, a curve called the cycloid; the properties of both these respects the system is false. When he does which are wholly different from those of a circle': this, I, for one, will give it up as untenable; but until but are we to be charged with stupidity when we then, I must be permitted to smile at the conceit of assert that the nail revolves in a circle about the overturning a system, the foundations of which are as axle? Were a progressive motion given to an orery in stable as the demonstrations of Euclid. But let us ex-operation-for instance, were it placed upon the deck amine more particularly the nature of the objections of a smooth sailing vessel, would this progressive motion urged by our author. alter in any respect the relative motions of the machine? 1°. "It will be admitted by both the philosopher And as the relative motions of objects upon the surface of and the mathematician, that if the Sun is a progressive the Earth are unaffected by the motion they all have in body, then the planets cannot describe round him orbits common with the Earth; just so the relative motions of returning into themselves, as now taught by astrono-the bodies composing the solar system, would not be afmers. It will also be admitted that our systems of astronomy, as they now exist, had their foundation in the supposition that the Sun is a stationary body. It is now, I believe, generally admitted by astronomers in England, France, and Germany, that the Sun is not a stationary body. Then if we admit this fact, and the whole phenomena of the heavens tend to prove it, there is not a diagram in any of our systems of astronomy, which represents the solar system as it is. I have no hesitation in saying, that the progressive motion of the Sun proves clearly that the whole system as it now exists requires recasting." July No., page 433. (Compare pages 434, 769.) fected by any common progressive motion they might have in space. And, furthermore, as we must make abstraction of the rotatory and orbitual motion of the Earth, in order to investigate and understand to any useful purpose the motions of bodies around us; so also, we must make abstraction of any supposed orbitual motion of our system, in order to understand any thing about the phenomena of the heavens. The diagrams of astronomy, therefore, were never intended to repre sent the absolute paths of the planets in space; but their relative paths-the only ones essential in the The great majority of the "astronomers in England, study of the system. No astronomer ever asserted that France and Germany, admit that the Sun is not a sta- the path described in space by the first of Jupiter's sationary body." But do they at the same time reject tellites is a circle, or that in any revolution it passes any principle or result of the Newtonian system? If through the same points in space, it passed through in they do not, (and their writings show this,) and if the revolution just preceding; but they all assert that their opinion be worth appealing to at all, then it evi- its path in respect to Jupiter is a circle. Recur to the dently follows, that they do not regard the progressive │nail in the rim of the carriage wheel: in each revomotion of the Sun as incompatible with the system as lution of the wheel, the nail passes through very it is at present taught. If this doctrine of the orbitual different points in space from those it did in the motion of the Sun is believed by modern astronomers, revolution just preceding, yet in respect to the axle, as he says it is,—if it forms a part of the modern sys- the nail is revolving in a circle. And just as we tem, why war against it as such, and yet receive it call the circle, the path of the nail about the axle, so do we into his own system and hold it up as its contra-distin-call the circle the path or orbit of the first satellite about guishing feature? If it be false in the one, it cannot Jupiter. Once more: suppose a material circular ring be true in the other. to be attached to Jupiter as a centre, of a radius equal to the distance of the first satellite; and the satellite to slide around and around the ring, as the ring is carried That our system has a motion of translation, I hold to be highly probable. This opinion was maintained with ability by Mayer in 1760-by Lalande in 1776-along by the planet in its revolution about the Sun. and by Herschell in 1783. The arguments of the two first were wholly of an analogical character; the last named astronomer supposed that he had discovered a proof of translation in the widening of the stars about the region of the constellation Hercules. But any one may convince himself that we are not in a condition to decide upon this question, by referring to "Biot's Astronomie," vol. 3, chap. 3. Additions; or to Delambre's Astronomie, vol. 3, chap. 32. The satellite would always be found on some part of this ring; and in this sense we speak of an orbit returning into itself. When we say then, that the first satellite revolves in an orbit which returns into itself, we do not intend to imply, that in each revolution, the satellite traverses the same points in space, but that in respect to its primary it is always found in a curve whose property it is to return into itself; for example in a circle or an ellipse, and not in a parabola, an hyperbola, or a spiral. But in whatever way this question shall ultimately be determined, it will require no change to be made in I have used in these illustrations, Jupiter's first satela single diagram or demonstration of modern astronomy; lite, because its path about its primary is sensibly circuas a few considerations will show. Were our author to lar, and therefore it was not improper to speak of its take a pair of dividers, and placing one of its legs upon orbit as a true circle. They are, however, equally a point, were he to sweep the other leg around, would he applicable to those orbits which are elliptic. For, supdeny that he describes a circle about that point? And pose Jupiter to be in the focus of a material elliptic ring, yet to be consistent he must do so; for the leg as it the dimensions and position of which suited the orbit moves around the point is carried rapidly on by the ro-assigned to the fourth satellite, and to accompany Jupitation of the Earth on its axis, as well as by the motion ter in its revolution about the Sun: the fourth satellite, of the Earth about the Sun; and does in fact describe if supposed to slide along this ring, would have the in space a curve of a very complex character, and same motions with those now observed; and who in wholly different from a circle. A nail, in the rim of a this case would deny that its orbit about Jupiter was carriage wheel rolling over a level surface, describes, elliptic and returned within itself. To use mathemati in a plane vertical to the one on which the wheel Ical language, which is after all, the plainest and most concise; we say that a planet revolves about the Sun in an ellipse, because its observed distances from the Sun bear the same relation among themselves, that subsists between the radii vectores of an ellipse whose major diameter is equal to the mean distance of the planet. tion, so that this would be making the cause, what just now was the effect. Each of the foregoing questions, if unsatisfactorily answered, points out a palpable absurdity in the quotations which stand at the head of this article. How admirably will his own language apply here-" every It is then evident that our author has never under- theory or system must be consistent with itself. If it is stood the meaning attached to some of the most com-not-if it involves inconsistencies, it cannot be accepted mon terms employed in astronomy. He has need to keep himself awhile longer at his horn books; and yet he assays to effect a new era in the science! 20. At page 433, in speaking of the purposes for which the Moon was created, he says; "the object of this creation was for a very different purpose from that usually supposed. We see that the Moon revolves on her axis once only during her revolution round the Earth. This would have been the case in relation to the Earth, if she had not been supplied with this agent; she would have revolved once only on her axis during her revolution round the Sun, as is the fact in relation to the Moon. To give quick successions of day and night, suited to the well-being of vegetable and animated nature on this Earth, the Moon was given. That this is the fact, the agency of the Moon, in raising the tides, abundantly proves. I will, however, now, only say, that the planets give rotatory motion to the Sun, and the moons to the planets." In this extract a very important point is conceded, to wit: that the Moon rotates about its axis, and also the Sun. If there be other evidence of these motions, than that derived from observations upon the spots of those bodies, our astronomer will state it. If this evidence be sufficiently strong to produce conviction upon his mind in respect to the Sun and Moon, (and it seems to have done so,) he cannot refuse to admit that Mars has a rotatory motion also, which is completed once in 24.66 hours; for the evidence in this case is just the same. Now if the Earth would have rotated but once during a revolution, had not a Moon been given it; why does not Mars, which has no moon, so rotate? Why does not Venus? Another question :-if the Moon was necessary to cause the Earth to revolve on its axis, what causes the Moon to revolve on its axis? At page 749, our astronomer expresses his opinion that the satellites of Jupiter do not revolve on their respective axes. I have then yet another question to propound, viz: what is the difference between the relation subsisting between the Earth and its moon, and that subsisting between Jupiter and its moons, or any one of them; which renders the cause, that is efficient in producing the rotation of the satellite of the former, inoperative in producing the rotation of the satellite of the latter? as true." 3o. "Astronomers have been long engaged in efforts to discover the magnitude of the Sun, of the planets, and their distances from one another; but with what success, a few of their supposed discoveries will show. of a body diminishes as the distance increases. Then, It is universally admitted, I believe, that the magnitude at the distance of the Sun from the Earth, whatever it may be, he presents an apparent diameter, I will say, of about thirty inches; but they have, in retracing the distance of the Sun from the Earth, brought up that suppose the Sun to be 95,000,000 of miles from the apparent diameter to a real one of 780,000 miles. Now Earth, with an apparent diameter of 30 inches, and then suppose him removed 95,000,000 of miles further off, what would be his apparent diameter at that distance? We might see him, perhaps, as we now see measurable apparent disk, and say that his nearest apthe light of some distant star. They give to Jupiter a proach to this Earth is about 390,000,000 of miles; but in tracing back that distance, more than four times the distance of the Sun, they give to him a real diameter of only 90,000,000 miles. Then taking into view the distances given the two bodies, the real diameter of Jupiter ought to be much greater than that of the Sun. Now what can be said in favor of a mathematical theory involving such discrepancies?"—July No. p. 433. I answer :-every thing in favor of the mathematical theory of Newton, but nothing in favor of our author's mathematics. To show that his calculations are altogether erroneous; and that the modern system of astronomy is, in respect to the distances and the real and apparent magnitudes of the Sun and Jupiter, entirely consistent with itself, as well as with the established principles of optics, I will here give a table of these ele ments as they are found in our standard treatises: Distance of the Earth from the Sun, considered as Sun's diameter, that of the Earth being = 1, Jupiter's greatest distance from the Earth, Jupiter's diameter, that of the Earth's being = 1, 1.000 112.024... 5.201.... 6.242... 4.075... 10.885... 0.36/ 0.46/ 0.30 32/.02/ Our author in the extract quoted above, obtained first the apparent diameter of the Sun as it would be, were it removed as far again from the Earth. This apparent diameter he makes nothing; for he says, we should see I have another question to ask just here: how does the it, "as we now see the light of some distant star :" and Moon, in going but once round the Earth, cause it to re-it is well known, that in our most powerful telescopes, a volve on its axis 29 times nearly? The matter supposed by our author to be gyrating about the Earth, cannot be imagined to possess intrinsically such a rotation and to impart it to the Earth; for this would be shifting the cause which just now was the Moon. Nor will it do to say, that though the Moon revolves around the Earth once in 29 days, it nevertheless apparently revolves about it for every rotation of the Earth; because this apparent revolution is caused by the rotation in ques star has no appreciable diameter, but appears as a mere point. Since the apparent diameter decreases as the distance increases, to find what the apparent diameter of the Sun would be at double its present distance, we have this proportion, viz: As twice the present distance, is to the present distance, so is the apparent diameter at the present distance, to the apparent diameter as it would be at double the present distance; that is, in figures: At the distance then supposed by our author, we should see the Sun with an apparent diameter of one half its present diameter; and it would, in respect to its apparent disk, be 480 times larger than the apparent disk of Jupiter when nearest to the Earth. I leave our profound mathematician to show, how he reduces, at the distance of 190 millions of miles, the apparent diameter of the Sun to a point, and makes him appear "like some distant star." No wonder that he should mistrust the mathematics, and sneer at its results, if it be after this fashion that he applies its principles. Having thus proved that the premises, in the foregoing extract, are wholly false, the conclusions are so of necessity; nevertheless, it may not be improper to show how perfectly consistent with themselves, are the magnitudes and distances of the Sun and Jupiter, as assign ed by modern astronomers. For this purpose, let us first inquire, what would be the apparent diameter of the Sun were it removed to the distance of Jupiter from the Earth. which is the value given by observation. 4.074 5.201: 36: the diam. req'd, in the same time, (87 days,) that Mercury performed mathematical astronomers have blundered most extra Distance. 110,000 7)0,000)79,200,00(0,000 Mercury's velocity. 110,000 1,131,428,4-7 miles. Now if the distance and velocity of the Moon are rightly given in our physical systems of astronomy, then the distance and velocity of Mercury cannot be. This discrepancy or inconsistency, would, however, very natu rally grow out of the discoveries of Galileo, and Copernicus. Copernicus assumed that the Sun was a stationary body, and he whirled the planets round him, in paths returning into themselves. This led his followers to suppose, from the times or periods of the planets, that they must have different velocities.”—July No. p. 434. I have shown in (10,) that the progressive motion of the system, if it exists, can in no manner affect the relative motions of the bodies which compose it. Differ ent velocities have been assigned to the planets, there fore, for reasons quite different from those stated in the above extract. Velocity, from its nature, must be meawhich is within 0.04 of a second of the result of observa-sured by the space passed over in a portion of time tion. And were we to test in a similar manner the assumed as the unit. If an hour be taken as the unit, magnitudes and distances assigned to the other heavenly then the velocity of a planet is measured by the portion bodies, they would all be found to be perfectly consistent of its path passed over in one hour; and the only means of ascertaining this velocity is to divide the whole length of its path by the number of hours it requires to describe its whole path. Then the accuracy of the velocities given to the several planets depends upon the accuracy of their estimated distances and the times of their revolution. If these with themselves. 40. "Our physical systems of astronomy teach us, that the Moon makes one revolution round the Earth in 29 days, at the distance of 240,000 miles from her primary. They also teach us, that Mercury makes one revolution round the Sun in 87 days. Then three revolutions of the Moon round the Earth, will be performed |