present, and to try to discover whether some ancient writer or other does not inform us in what point the ecliptic was divided by that colure in his time. Clement of Alexandria relates, that Chiron, who belonged to the expedition of the Argonauts, observed the constellations at the period of that celebrated expedition, and fixed the vernal equinox in the middle of the ram, the autumnal equinox in the middle of the scales, and the solstice of our summer in the middle of Capricorn.

Long after the expedition of the Argonauts, and one year before the Peloponnesian war, Meton observed, that the point of the summer solstice passed through the sixth degree of Cancer.

But every sign of the zodiac consists of thirty degrees. In Chiron's time the solstice was half-way in the sign, that is, at the fifteenth degree; a year before the Peloponnesian war, it was at the eighth; it had therefore retrograded seven degrees-(a degree is equivalent to seventy-two years); therefore, from the beginning of the Peloponnesian war to the expedition of the Argonauts, there were no more than seven times seventy-two years, which the Greeks state to have been in fact the case. Thus, comparing the state of the heavens at present with the state in which they were at that time, we perceive that the Argonautic expedition ought to be placed nine hundred years before Jesus Christ, and not about fourteen hundred; and that consequently the world is not so old as was imagined by about five hundred years. By this mode of computation all events are brought nearer to each other, and every historical fact took place at a later period than it was stated to do. This system appears to be correct; I am unable to state how far it will succeed, and whether men will be induced to reform the chronology of the world upon the principles here explained. Perhaps the learned might consider it too much to concede to one individual the glory of having perfected at once natural philosophy, geometry, and history; this would be admitting a species of universal monarchy, which self-love can scarcely allow without great reluctance. Accordingly, at the time that the

partizans of vortices' and tabular matter attacked the demonstrated doctrine of gravitation, the reverend fathers Souciet and Freret wrote against the chronology of Newton, even before it appeared from the press.

NUDITY.

WHY do we shut up a man or a woman whom we find naked in the streets? and why is no one offended at entirely naked statues, and with certain paintings of Jesus and of Magdalen which are to be seen in some of the churches?

It is very likely that human beings existed for a considerable time without clothing.

In more than one island and on the continent of America, people are still found who are ignorant of clothing.

The most civilized of them conceal the organs of generation by leaves, by interlaced rushes or mats, and by feathers.

Whence this latter modesty? Is it the instinct of nature to provoke desire by the concealment of that which we are inclined to discover?

Is it true that among nations somewhat more polished than the Jews and demi-Jews, there are entire sects who, when they worship God, deprive themselves of clothing. Such have been, it is said, the Adamites and the Abeliens. They assembled together, naked, to sing the praises of God. St. Epiphanius and St. Augustin say this, who, it is true, were not contemporaries, and who lived very distant from their country. But after all, this folly is possible, and is not more extraordinary or insane than a hundred other follies which have made the tour of the world, one after another.

We have seen, in the article EMBLEM, that the Mahometans still possess saints who are mad, and who go about naked as apes. It is very possible that crazy people have existed, who thought that it was more proper to present ourselves before the deity in the state in which he has formed us, than under any disguise of

our own invention. It is possible that these persons exposed themselves out of pure devotion. There are so few well-made people of either sex, that nudity may have inspired chastity, or rather disgust, instead of augmenting desire.

It is moreover asserted, that the Abeliens renounced marriage. If they abounded in youthful gallants and amorous maidens, they were the less comparable with St. Adhelm and the happy Robert D'Arbrisselle, who lay with the most beautiful women, only in order to prove the strength of their continence.

I confess however, that it must be pleasant to witness a hundred naked Helens and Parises singing anthems, giving one another the kiss of peace, and performing the ceremonies of the agapæ.

All this proves, that there is nothing so singular, so extravagant, or so superstitious, which has not been conceived by the head of man. Happy it is, when these follies do not trouble society, and make of it a scene of hate, of discord, and of fury. It is doubtless better to pray to God stark naked, than to soil his altars and the public places with human blood.

NUMBER.

WAS Euclid right in defining number to be a collection of unities of the same kind?

When Newton says, that number is an abstract relation of one quantity to another of the same kind, does he not understand by that the use of numbers in arithmetic and geometry?

Wolfe says, number is that which has the same relation with unity as one right line has with another. Is not this rather a property attributed to a number, than a definition?

If I dared, I would simply define numbers the idea of several unities.

I see white-I have a sensation, an idea of white. It signifies not whether these two things are or are not of the same species; I can reckon two ideas. I see four men and four horses-I have the idea of eight; in like

manner, three stones and six trees will give me the idea of nine.

That I add, multiply, subtract, and divide these, are operations of the faculty of thought which I have received from the master of nature; but they are not properties inherent to number. I can square three and cube it, but there is not certainly in nature any number which can be squared or cubed.

I very well conceive what an odd or even number is, but I can never conceive either a perfect or an imperfect

one.

What

Numbers can have nothing by themselves. properties, what virtue, can ten flints, ten trees, ten ideas, possess merely because they are ten? What superiority will one number divisible in three even parts have over another divisible in two?

Pythagoras was the first, it is said, who discovered divine virtues in numbers. I doubt whether he was the first; for he had travelled in Egypt, Babylon, and India, and must have related much of their arts and knowledge. The Indians particularly, the inventors of the combined and complicated game of chess, and of cyphers so convenient that the Arabs learned of them, through whom they have been communicated to us after so many ages, these same Indians, I say, joined strange chimeras to their sciences. The Chaldeans had still more, and the Egyptians more still. We know that selfdelusion is in our nature. Happy is he who can preserve himself from it! Happy is he who, after having some access of this fever of the mind can recover tolerable health.

Porphyrius, in the Life of Pythagoras, says that the number 2 is fatal. We might say, on the contrary, that it is the most favourable of all. Woe to him that is always single! Woe to nature, if the human species and that of animals were not often two and two!

If 2 was of bad augury, 3, by way of recompense, was admirable, and 4 was divine; but the Pythagoreans and their imitators forgot that this mysterious 4, so divine, was composed of twice that diabolical number 2! Six had its merit, because the first statuaries VOL. V.

M

divided their figures into six modules. We have seen that, according to the Chaldeans, God created the world in six gahambars; but 7 was the most marvellous number; for there were at first but seven planets, each planet had its heaven, and that made seven heavens, without any one knowing what was meant by the word 'heaven.' All Asia reckoned seven days for a week. We divide the life of man into seven ages. How many reasons have we in favour of this number!

The Jews in time collected some scraps of this philosophy. It passed among the first christians of Alexandria with the dogmas of Plato. It is principally displayed in the Apocalypse of Cerinthus, attributed to John the Apostle.

We see a striking example of it in the number of the beast:

"That no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred three score and six." +

We know what great pains all the great scholars have taken to divine the solution of this enigma. This number, composed of three times two at each figure, does it signify three times fatal to the third power? There were two beasts, and we know not yet of which the author would speak.

We have seen that Bossuet, less happy in arithmetic than in funeral orations, has demonstrated that Dioclesian is the beast, because we find the Roman figures 666 in the letters of his name, by cutting off those which would spoil this operation. But in making use of Roman figures, he does not remember that the Apocalypse was written in Greek. An eloquent man may fall into this mistake.

* Apocalypse, xiii. 17, 18.

This passage may serve to discover the time in which the Apocalypse was composed. It is probable that it was under the empire of the tyrant whose name is formed by letters answering to the numeral value of 666. From this we find that it was written in the reign of Caligula.