those heavy rains, which wash away the bloom of the unfolding flower! "I once attended a funeral, in a remote village of Moravians. It was in the depth of summer. Every little garden put forth beauty, and every tree was heavy with fresh, cool verdure. "It was a Sabbath afternoon, when a dead infant was brought into the church. The children of the small congregation wished to sit near it, and fixed their eyes upon its placid brow, as on a fair piece of sculpture. The sermon of the clergyman was to them. It was a paternal address, humbling itself to their simplicity, yet lofty, through the deep, sonorous tones of their native German. Earnestly and tenderly they listened, as he told them how the baby went from its mother's arms, to those of the compassionate Redeemer. When the worship closed, and the procession was formed, the children, two and two, followed the mourners, leading each other by the hand,--the little girls clothed in white. "The place of slumber for the dead, was near the church, where they had heard of Jesus. It was a green, beautiful knoll, on which the sun, drawing towards the west, lingered, with a smile of blessing. The turf had the richness of velvet; not a weed, or a straw defaced it. Every swelling mound was planted with flowers, and a kind of aromatic thyme, thickly clustering, and almost shutting over the small, horizontal tomb stones, which recorded only the name and date of the deceased. In such a spot, so sweet, so lowly, so secluded, the clay might willingly wait its reunion with the spirit. "Before the corpse, walked the young men of the village, bearing instruments of music. They paused at the gate of the place of burial. Then a strain from voice and flute rose, subdued and tremulous, like the strings of the wind-harp. It seemed as if a timid, yet prevailing suppliant, sought admission to the ancient city of the dead. The gate unclosed. As they slowly wound around the gentle ascent, to the open grave, the pastor with solemn intonation repeated passages from the book of God. Thrilling, beyond expression, amid the silence of the living, and the slumber of the dead, were the blessed words of our Saviour, 'I am the resurrection and the life!' "He ceased, and all gathered round the brink of the pit. The little ones drew near, and looked downward into its depths, sadly, but without fear. Then, came a burst of music, swelling higher and higher, till it seemed no longer of earth. Methought, it was the welcome in Heaven, to the innocent spirit, the joy of angels over a new immortal, that had never sinned. Wrapped as it were in that glorious melody, the little body was let down to its narrow cell. And all grief, even the parent's grief, was swallowed up in that high triumph-strain. Devotion was there, giving back what it loved, to the God of love, not with tears, but with music. Faith was there, standing among flowers, and restoring a bud to the giver, that it might bloom in a garden which could never fade!" Beautiful! beautiful beyond praise! we shall give one more extract, and close the volume. Indeed the extract is itself the conclusion: "Once, when spring had begun to quicken the swelling buds, a fair form that was wont to linger among them, came not forth from her closely-curtained chamber. She was beautiful and young; but Death had come for her. His purple tinge was upon her brow. The lungs moved feebly, and with a gasping sound. It would seem that speech had forsaken her. The mother bent over her pillow. She was her only one. Earnestly she besought her for one word-only one more word, my beloved! It was in vain. "Yet again, the long fringes of her blue eyes opened, and what a bursting forth of glorious joy! They were raised upward: they expanded, as though the soul would spring from them in ecstasy. Then, there was a whispering of the pale lips. The mother knelt down, and covered her face. She knew that the darling whom she had brought into the world, was to be offered up. "But there was one, deep, sweet harp-like articula tion, praise! And all was over! Then, from that kneeling mother came the same tremulous wordpraise! Yet there was an ashy paleness on her brow, and they laid her, fainting, by the side of the breathless and beautiful. There she revived, and finished the sentence that the young seraph had begun, 'praise ye the Lord!' The emotions of that death-scene, were too sublimated for tears. "More surely might we hope thus to part with our dear ones, and thus to die in Jesus, did we, in our brief probation, live near him and for him! Friends, who have, with me, meditated on many duties, and on the event that terminates them,-dear friends, whom I shall never see in the flesh, may we meet in the vestments of immortality! With those, whom we have given birth, and nurtured, and borne upon our prayers, in the midnight watch, and at the morning dawn,may we stand, not one lost, a glorious company, where is neither shade of infirmity, or sigh of penitence, or fear of change, but where 'affection's cup hath lost the taste of tears!'" We have thus endeavored, by our extracts, to give the reader some idea of the merits of the volume before us. We have made them in almost a desultory manner, and, so far as the merits of the book are concerned, might as well have made them from any other portions of it. We believe they are sufficient, and of such a nature as will awaken the reader's desire, to secure the volume. And let no one infer from its title that it is ill adapted for his perusal. Though the "letters" are with propriety addressed to mothers, there are many of them of so general a character, and their subjects of such universal interest, as to merit the attentive perusal of all. No one would feel himself poorly rewarded for his attention to them-and from the study of some of them the statesman might go away instructed. In conclusion-we predict for the work a rapid and extensive sale. We hope that edition may follow edition, till in every family throughout our land the "Letters to Mothers" may not only be found a respected work, but revered by every one as a "family text book." SHOBAL VAIL CLEVENGER, THE SCULPTOR. The queen city of the west may indeed be proud of her arts, and her artists. Powers, Beard, Frankenstein, Powell, Clevenger, will give her a reputation, we believe, which will be honored wherever the arts are cultivated. Many of their productions already grace the halls of her citizens, where the travelling stranger, in partaking of their hospitality, often gazes in wender on their works, which he pronounces to exhibit a genius kindred to that which guided the pencil and the chisel of the masters of the olden time. Situated so beautifully by the "beautiful river," Cincinnati, as if conscious of her advantages, already displays an architectural elegance, which of Ohio, where he commenced business. Meeting with poor encouragement there, he returned to Cincinnati and worked as a journeyman for his former master, but shortly after entered into partnership with Mr. Basset, and they established themselves in a little shop on the corner of Seventh and Race streets. is not surpassed by any city in the Union. She Guiou, he married Miss Elizabeth Wright, of now numbers fifty thousand inhabitants; yet Cincinnati, and repaired to Xenia, an inland town there are many who well remember when the glancing river rolled on unshadowed by any thing that denoted civilization. In patronising her artists, her citizens will not only reward merit, but cultivate their taste, and thus, adding the graces of ornament to the beauties of situation, will crown the queen with an enduring magnificence. I propose, hastily, and I fear very imperfectly, It was this shop that Mr. E. S. Thomas, the to give your readers a slight sketch or two of editor of the Evening Post chanced to enter one some of our artists. As CLEVENGER is a "born day, attracted as he glanced in by the figure of a Buck-eye," I begin with him. Middletown, a cherub which Clevenger was carving. Mr. Thosmall village in the interior of Ohio, is the place mas, who has a fondness for such things, and who of his birth. He was born in 1812. His father has had an opportunity of seeing the best statuary is by trade a weaver, and Shobal is the third of Europe, was instantly impressed with the gechild of a family of ten. His parents are still nius of Clevenger and warmly told him that he living to rejoice in the rising reputation of their had great talents in the art. The next day Mr. son. A year after the birth of Shobal, his pa- Thomas noticed Clevenger in his paper and exrents moved to Ridgeville, and afterwards to pressed firmly his conviction that his genius was Indian Creek. At the age of fifteen, Shobal of the first order, and that if encouraged he would left his parents, and went with his brother be eminent. to Centerville, to learn, under his direction, the art of stone cutting, in which employment his brother was engaged on the canal. It was indeed fortunate for the future sculptor, that he thus early learned the use of the chisel, and it accounts for the accuracy and tact with which he handles it. On the canal, the future artist, at his humble occupation caught the ague and fever, and was compelled to return home. As soon as he recovered, he went to Louisville, from which, after being engaged for a short time, he came to Cincinnati and stipulated to remain with Mr. Guiou, a stone cutter, for the purpose of learning the trade. While he was with Mr. Guiou, an order among others came to the establishment, for a tombstone, which was to have a seraph's head chiselled upon it. Mr. Guiou undertook the task himself, and formed the figure, which Clevenger criticised. His master said satirically, "you shall do the next." This remark galled Clevenger and he determined to try. The next day was Sunday, and instead of enjoying its recreation, he repaired to the shop and busied himself all day in producing a seraph's head. On Monday when his fellow workmen saw it, they pronounced it better than Mr. Guiou's. This, as may be supposed, gave great pleasure to the youthful aspirant, and inflamed his ambition. He used to visit the grave-yard on the moonlight nights, and take casts from the tombstones, particularly from those sculptured by an English artist, which are thought to be very good. Mr. Guiou now gave Clevenger all the ornamental jobs to do, which sometimes provoked the ill humor of his fellows, as was to be expected, but the amiability of the artist and his acknowledged skill, soon reconciled them to the justice of the preference. Powers, the sculptor, who is now in Florence, pursuing his art, and who will shed fame on the queen city, was then in Washington, where he had modelled the heads of some of our leading statesmen, with an accuracy and talent that was winning universal commendation. Clevenger, still at his stone cutting, understood that Powers was about to return to Cincinnati, and bring with him his clay model of Chief Justice Marshall, from which he meant to take a bust in stone. On hearing this, the youthful aspirant said, to use his own expression, that he "would cut the first bust from stone in Cincinnati, if he could'nt cut the best!" He accordingly forthwith procured the material-the rough block of stone, and asked Mr. Thomas to sit to him. Mr. Thomas did so, and from the rude block, without moulding any model previously in clay, with the living form before him, and with chisel in hand, in his little shop, the young artist, went fearlessly to work, and, without having scen any thing of sculpture, but the memorials of the dead in a western grave-yard, casts from which he had taken by moonlight, unaided, by the inspirations solely of genius, he struck out a likeness that wants but the Promethean heat to make it in all respects the counterpart of the veteran editor. This bust was executed about three years ago. The press of the city spoke in just terms of praise of the performer. Patronage followed. Many of the wealthiest citizens had their busts taken, and the accuracy of each successive one, seemed to strike more and more. The artist's shop—now dignified with the name of studio-attracted the attention of all classes of the citizens. There the visitor might behold him eagerly at work, apparently unconscious of the attention he attracted; his fine Soon after Clevenger's time expired with Mr. clear eye lighting with a flash upon the face of the system. sitter, and then upon the stone, from which, with others would be left behind, and so lose their places in the consummate skill he would strike the incumberance which seemed to obscure from other eyes, (not his own,) the form which he saw existing in the marble. Clevenger is now in Boston, where he has moulded a bust of Mr. Webster, said universally to be the best likeness ever taken of the great lawyer. Among his best efforts are said to be his busts of Mr. Biddle, Clay, Van Buren and Poindexter. The visitor stands in his studio, and gazes at the casts, even of those he has not seen, with the conviction that they must be likenessesthere is ever something so lifelike about them. This spring Clevenger goes to Italy, for the purpose of studying the master pieces of his art, mid the scene where they were fashioned. We can sympathise with the deep devotion with which he will gaze on the glories of his craft, and call up the memories of the mighty masters of old upon the very spot where they bent, chisel in hand, over the marble, and almost realized, without the aid of the gods, the fable of Pygmalion. While he is over the waters in that classic land, we shall send glad greetings to our bold Buckeye and bid him not despair. Let him assist to make his land classic too—what man has done, man may do. T. The followers of Kepler proceeded upon the assumed fact that the sun is a stationary body, not occupying, however, the centre of the planetary orbits, and all moving with different ve locities, so as to crowd into their physical system Kepler's rule, and to show with what philosophy they could, how their orbits were brought into elliptical figures by that undefined force which they called gravitation. Now, if they had calculated the elements of such orbits as a progressive sun would necessarily geometrical and mathematical, were entirely useless, as the progression of the sun alone gave ellipticity to the planetary paths, as the progression of the earth gives ellipticity to the their mathematical turmoil. produce, they would have soon discovered that all their labors, path of the moon, and would have saved them from much of Let us suppose for a moment that the earth is a stationary body, and the moon moving round her at the distance of 240,000 miles; then, if we admit the truth of what the European mathe maticians call their central forces, and which my reviewer certainly understands, though he has said nothing about such forces in his review, she would keep at that distance all round her orbit; but put the earth in motion, and such an orbit would be changed into an ellipsis. They both move in the same direction, and the earth forces the moon out of her way from the opposition to the conjunction, and this brings them nearer together through the elasticity of their electro-magnetic spheres. Suppose the sun to move 10,000 miles per hour in his path, then from the wide range of Mercury's path he must have a greater motion than the sun, and I will say 15,000 miles, he partaking of the sun's motion 10,000 miles, which will be cominon to both, and the extra 5,000 miles per hour will constitute Mercury's re volutionary velocity. If Mercury had only the velocity of the sun, then Mercury's path would run parallel with that of the sun; but this extra-revolutionary velocity of Mercury carries him ahead of the sun, and he describes what I may call an elongated curve. It is well known that Mercury makes two periods and half of another, while Venus makes one; and if we give to Venus the same revolutionary velocity we give to Mercury, their periodical results harmonize; but if we give them different velocities these results cannot be made to harmonize as THE REVIEWER OF "NEW VIEWS OF THE SOLAR they really exist in the natural field of astronomy. Then the SYSTEM" REVIEWED. My reviewer thinks I am very ignorant indeed, as, according to him, I cannot divide one decimal number by another; and I have no doubt (and why should I doubt) that he believes it all; at least he would have no objection to his readers' believing it. But the mere scholastic mechanically educated man is not always the best qualified to judge of questions arising out of an untraminelled scientific pursuit. This probably will not be admitted by my reviewer; but it will be admitted by all who are not intellectually restricted to systems already existing, as my reviewer appears evidently to be. He says: "In the sequel he shall abundantly prove what he has asserted of our author's mathematical abilities, and 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." Now, I ask the reviewer, what in the name of common sense has the reviewed to do with such a question? I cannot view it otherwise than as a vain and intrusive exhibit. I presume, however, he intended it to have some relation to the planetary movements, perhaps of Mercury and Venus. sun has a motion which is common to Mercury and Venus, and these two planets have a revolutionary motion entirely distinct from the notion in common, and which is derived from distinct sources of impulse. Now the motion of the sun being common to all the planets, the revolutionary motion of the planets must also be equal and common to the whole of these bodies. Suppose the revolutionary motion of Mercury to be 5,000 miles per hour, and the revolutionary motion of Venus to be 3,000 miles only, then every hour Venus would fall behind Mercury 2,000 miles, and of course, would soon lose her place in the system and throw the mathematician with his figures and calculations into confusion. The mathematician, however, calculates right; but it is because he really calculates upon the equal revoiutionary motion of his planets, though he seems not to know it. If he will take the times of all the planets, and give them distances suited to their times, he will quickly find that Kepler s rule is a very useless appendage to the science. For Venus to keep her place in the system, her motion must be equal to that of Mercury. The motion which is common to the three bodies, and that motion which is revolutionary and belongs to the two planets, requires to be distinguished the one from the other, and the impulses which produce them distinctly developed. But this cannot be done without appropriate diagrams, showing the condition of their electro-magnetic spheres, by which they are kept in their places and regulated in their motions. My reviewer will now see that his A and B problem can be of no use to me; nor The true question to be settled is, whether these two planets move with the same velocity or with different velocities. It indicates more intellectual imbecility in my reviewer than I am wil-will it be of any use to him in combating my views. ling to impute to him, to suppose that he thinks such a question As to the distances of the planets from the sun, if the mathecan be settled either way by his A and B problem. I know that maticians can by any means ascertain the exact distance of the Kepler's rule gives different velocities-but what has nature to moon from the earth, and the exact diameter of the sun, then the do with either squares or cubes? Kepler's orbits were drawn true distances of all the planets from the sun, the velocity of the round a supposed stationary sun, and his followers adopted sun in his path, which is common to all the planets, and the rehis suggestions. But my reviewer admits that the sun is a pro- volutionary velocity of the planets, we, knowing the diameter of gressive body, and that he carries his planets with him; and ad- the earth, the distances and revolutionary velocity of the planets mitting this, he admits a state of the system which furnishes at and their satellites, can be settled upon the strictest principles of once the most ample proof that the motion of the planets in their dynamics. Will my reviewer pardon me if I say, that no one paths must be precisely equal, or some would run ahead, and | single dynamic principle has ever been brought to bear upon any of the phenomena realized in our physical systems of astronomy? | force which produces all the phenomena we observe in the plaIt is true our physical astronomers have talked and written anetary system or in the arts, whether we use muscular, water, good deal about dynamics, but all their views (physically) ex- or steam agents. In the planetary systems, however numerous, clude that science from any of their systems. the electro-magnetic material is the powerful agent. Then so to My reviewer says, "That our system has a motion of trans-arrange this material as will necessarily produce the phenomena lation, I hold to be highly probable. But in whatever way this question shall ultimately be determined, it will require no change to be made in a single diagram or demonstration of modern as tronomy, as a few considerations will show. Were our author to take a pair of dividers, and placing one of its legs upon a point, were he to sweep the other leg around, would he deny that he describes a circle about that point? And yet to be consistent, he must do so; for the leg, as it moves around the point, is carried rapidly on by the rotation of the earth on its axis, as well as by the motion of the earth about the sun, and does in fact describe in space a curve of a very complex character, and wholly different from a circle." observed, is the great object of my pursuit; and, really, if I de- With respect to Mars and Venus, some observers have thought that Venus revolved on her axis once in 24 days-some in 24 hours; but Herschel could not discover that she had any rotatory Here my reviewer is quite inconsistent with himself. He says I must, to be consistent, admit that the leg which is swept round describes a circle; then, for himself, he says, it" does not describe a circle, but a curve of a very complex character, and wholly different from a circle." Now the curve which any planet describes through space or the heavens, has no complexity about it; it is an elongated curve, very little different from the curve described by the sun himself. I very readily admit that my reviewer's notions about the circles and curves which the planets may or may not describe, are the results of complexities which education has produced; and he will no doubt" permit me to smile" at his confusion, and say "modestly" to him, that such confused notions about his "complex curves" show the neces-tain. sity of a new set of diagrams, showing the true nature of these curves as they are described by the sun and his planets. He says: "The diagrams of astronomy were never intended to represent the absolute paths of the planets in space, but their re-motion at all. Some have said she has a moon; others that she lative paths." What then becomes of their elliptical figures? Is my reviewer ready to abandon the supposed gravitation of the system, and all the refined analyses founded upon orbits returning into themselves round a stationary sun or centre? Will he cast away the fashionable and long used rule of Kepler, respect. ing the distances and velocities of the planets? His curves of "complex character" will effectually do this. Such "complex" curves with loops, and each planet passing or rather intersecting its own path each curve it describes, would throw much more of his mathematics out of his physical system than he seems to have thought of. My reviewer supposes there is one important point which I have 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, 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 her, why does not Mars, which has no moon, so rotate? Why does not Venus?" He puts another question: "If the moon was necessary to cause the earth to revolve on its axis, what caused the moon to revolve on its axis?" He then puts another question-Supposing that I admit that the moons of Jupiter do not revolve on their axis, he asks: "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 satellites of the latter?" When I said that Jupiter's moons have not rotatory motion, I intended nothing more than that they did not rate as their primary did. It is true, I wrote unreflectingly, supposing every reader would understand what kind of rotation I intended to deny to them. But my reviewer, perhaps, anticipating that I would introduce into his physical system of astronomy dynamical forces only, and fearing the consequences, seems to be catching at every straw which has been inadvertently dropped in his way by either the printer or myself. Now I contend, that there is no other force in creation but pressure; and however variously applied, all the phenomena, all the effects, however variant in appearance, pressure is the producing cause. The whole range of physical and dynamical science admits of but the one force, pressure-and this is the only has not. Thus they disagree. Mars may have a moon or some. thing equivalent, if he rotates on his axis. To give rotatory motion, the pressure must strike or press upon the rotative body unequally and obliquely, as the moon presses upon this earth. If the rotative body is not so pressed, there will be no rotation. That force which presses centrally or equally will not produce rotation, though it may produce progression. Then why has the moon rotation once during her period only? Why, plainly, because she is carried round by her electro-magnetic sphere, just as the hub of a coach wheel is carried round by its band or outer circumference. And so it is with all Jupiter's moonsand with Mars and Venus also, if they have no moons, or some. thing that will press upon them unequally and obliquely. But to show how these different effects are produced requires a full suit of diagrams. With respect to the distance of the earth from the sun, all that has been effected trigonometrically, is but an approximation--s0 say the mathematicians. To infer the distance from the magnitude of the sun, and the magnitude of the sun from the distance, is only adducing one uncertainty to prove another. Suppose the sun to have a real diameter of 780,000 miles, and at the distance of 95 or 96,000,000 of miles to be reduced, with such constructed eyes as we have, to thirty inches; what would be his apparent diameter at half that distance? 390,000 miles I suppose. This seems to be in accordance with my reviewer's reckoning, he having demonstrated as he thinks, that if the sun was remov. ed to twice her distance from us, he would appear just one half less than he does at his supposed distance, 95,000,000 of miles. He must make a very rapid diminution of diameter the first 95,000,000 of miles, if he only accomplishes a diminution of fifteen inches the next 95,000,000. The inhabitants of Mercury, if they are provided with such eyes as we have, must see the sun with an apparent diameter of 400,000 miles. But my reviewer has mathematics for all these strange things. The first 95,000,000 of miles, the sun is reduced from 780,000 miles to thirty inches; but the next 95,000,000 he loses only one half of his thirty inches! All this, however, may be mathematically true; but it does not appear to be quite so, philosophically. Would it not be as well for my reviewer to bring his mathematics to bear upon the eyes of the Mercurians and Saturnians, they occupying very different distances.rom the sun, taking our own eyes as the basis of his calculations, instead of a sun having a diameter of 780,000 miles? If he will try, I have no doubt he can make out a set of figures, and so arrange them as to produce results which will be quite as satisfactory to himself at least, as are the results of his VOL V.-34 arrangement of figures reducing the magnitude of the sun. I can very readily conceive, that the Saturnian may have an eye which enables him to see the sun much larger than we do; and the Mercurian much less. But he seems to be limited in his range of thought, and cannot go beyond the lessons he has learned. In relation to the moon and Mercury, he says: "Thus, if the moon were removed to such a distance as was necessary to make her time equal to that of Mercury; if there be any truth in the Newtonian system, the orbit of Mercury should be much greater than that of the moon, because the force exerted by the sun is to the force exerted by the earth, at equal distances, as 354,936 to 1. And if the path of Mercury be greater than that of the moon, and these paths are described in the same time, it follows of necessity that the velocity of Mercury must be greater than that of the moon." an impulse differently circumstanced. Then, as there are two distinct sources of impulse, these sources must be sought for in the condition of the system itself. The revolutionary motion of all the planets is derived from the electro-magnetic sphere of the sun; and the revolutionary motion of the satellites is derived from the electro-magnetic spheres of their primaries. Here again diagrams are required. The condition of these electric spheres cannot be explained so as to be well understood without them. My reviewer has seen one magnet press off another, and keep it at its appropriate distance--the action and re-action of the magnetic spheres being equalized. He will not, I presume, contend that the bars of iron act and re-act without other agencies. These magnetic spheres are the agents acting and re-acting, and not the bars of iron. The planets do not act and re-act-it is their magnetic spheres which produce all the purturbations which the practical astronomer discovers among them. He will (my reviewer,) recollect Newton's inquiry. Newton considered this electric or magnetic fluid, as it has been called, as in a state of simple diffusion. I take it from this diffused condition, and give to it specific appropriations. My reviewer will admit its power. I now advise him to defend the Newtonian system as it is, and not attempt to mend it by introducing into it his "complex curves." He might as well introduce the loops and curves of the Alexandrian physical astronomer, as they would answer the purpose just as well. Now the truth is, my reviewer does as great violence to the scheme of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton as I do. If he gives any other description of orbit to the planets than they did, he breaks up the whole fabric, mathematical as well as geometrical, for which they have been so much applauded. He cannot defend their system of mathematics, if he changes the bases upon which that system was erected. He, as a teacher and reviewer, ought not to be "ignorant" of this fact. I, however, have seen learned men blunder sometimes from the want of knowledge, and at other times from the perversion of it. Which of the two is most applicable to my reviewer I shall not now undertake to determine. There is one remark of my reviewer which ought to have been noticed in another place; it can be done here. Speaking of the times of Mercury and the moon, he says: "In this exertion of a greater force by the sun, consists the error of comparing a body Here I must admit that my reviewer has displayed some ingenuity, by stating the question in a way to produce a result that certainly no one will question. The question to be settled is very different from the one he has stated; but I give him credit for his ingenuity, though I may question the motive which prompted it. In our physical systems, Mercury is placed 37,000,000 of miles from the sun, and is given 110,000 miles per hour in his path; he performing one period in eighty-seven days. The moon is pla ced 240,000 miles from the earth, and is given 70,000 miles per hour in her path, she performing her period in twenty-nine days. Now I say, if the distance and velocity of the moon are rightly given, then the distance and velocity of Mercury cannot be. Mercury cannot be 37,000,000 of miles from the sun; and this my reviewer well knows if there is any truth in mathematics, or he would not have varied the question so as to produce a result suitable to his own wishes, not his judgment. Besides, he ought | not, either directly or indirectly, to say, "if there is any truth in the Newtonian system," because it seemed to imply a doubt. If Mercury moves 110,000 miles an hour, and the moon only 70,000, of course the orbit of Mercury will take a wider range than the orbit of the moon, without any force from the sun being exerted upon him or his orbit. By this force does my reviewer mean attraction, gravitation, or projection? I presume not; as he seeins to be a little shy of such imaginary forces; and he certainly knows, or he ought to know, that such forces are not within the widest range of dynamics. He ought not abandon the centripetal and centrifugal forces-projection in a direct line, and the attrac-moving round the sun with a body moving round the earth.” tion of the sun drawing off the planets from that line, and compelling them all to describe an ellipse round him. As dynamics furnishes no other moving power than pressure, how are the planets deflected from the projectile straight line? Is it by the sun drawing them off from that line? Then it is this power which the sun exerts upon Mercury, I suppose, and so expands his orbit. Now, what has dynamics to do with the sun's attraction? Or, what can attraction do with my reviewer's "complex curves?" The force which drives the earth 68,000 miles an hour, (and our mathematicians say this is a mathematical truth) must strike the planet equally and centrally, and if her rotatory motion depended upon this force, she would necessarily rotate once every hour, as such a force could not be applied so as to unequalize the two motions. As it is, the earth rotates once in twenty-four hours only. Then, as my reviewer agrees that the "sun may have a translation in space," that translation must equally influence the whole planetary system, as they can have no motion which might, directly or indirectly, interrupt the equal translation or progress of the whole. Then, as I have before intimated, this motion is equal and common to the sun and planets; but the revolutionary motion of the planets, and which is common to them all, is the motion my reviewer and myself have to settle; and, therefore, to settle it scientifically, the forces to be applied must be sought for either in the Newtonian system, or in the system of dynamics. I will then admit that the sun moves 68,000 miles an hour in his path, and that the earth partakes of that motion. But the revolutionary motion of the earth being distinct and independent of the motion which is common to the sun and earth, from whence then are the forces derived which gives to the earth this revolutionary movement? This revolutionary motion of the earth will be communicated to the moon, and will be common to them both, but the moon also has a revolutionary motion, which is distinct and independent of the motion which is common to the earth and moon-and from what source is this motion of the moon derived? The impulse which gives motion to the sun, gives a common motion to all the planets; but their revolutionary motion requires Then, if the sun exerts no power over Mercury, the comparison must be considered as having been made upon correct principles. To show that the sun exerts no such power over Mercury, I have only to adduce the forces which were employed by Newton, to sustain me as to the correctness of the comparison I have made. Is it the sun that projects Mercury in a direct line? Is it the sun that gives gravity or weight to Mercury? Here then we have Newton's projection and gravitation; and which of the two powers does the sun exert? Why neither the one nor the other. Gravity or weight is the property of Mercury, and exists independently of the sun; gravity or weight is also the property of the moon, and exists independent of the earth. Then the sun does not give the projection to Mercury; nor does he give the gravity which Mercury has. Neither does the earth give either projection or gravity to the moon. My reviewer requests me to turn my attention to dynamics or nechanics. Why, these are the very sciences upon which I base all my views Icould with much more propriety request him to do so. Mercury presses upon the sun, and the moon upon the earth; and here we have a mechanical force-a dynamical force. Does my reviewer employ such a force for the production of any one phenomenon in the planetary system?-did Sir Isaac Newton? The forces employed by him are either not understood by my reviewer, or he finds them too defective to be attended to. Mercury acts upon the sun, and not the sun upon Mercury; and the moon acts upon the earth, not the earth upon the moon. The tides give us the true nature of the moon's action upon the earth, and which is mechanical altogether. My reviewer had better say less about dynamical forces-they do not belong to the system he defends. He thinks I "place no reliance in the laws of mechanics, as at present developed and taught." It is true, I place no reliance in that description of mechanics which has been introduced into our physical systems of astronomy. There is but one force to be found in the entire range of mechanics, and that is pressure. Will my reviewer be able to point out a single phenomenon which has been ascribed to this force in the Newtonian system? |