Calculus. He repeatedly makes this statement; tent with the reverence due to Newton's sagacity, and, amongst other places, in his correspondence to say that what he thought sufficiently guarded with the Abbé Conti, who was anxious to reconcile the angry disputants. It was precisely this charge against his honor, implied in the statement of Dr. Keill, of which Leibnitz most bitterly complains. 66 was sufficiently intelligible to an acute mind;" and that, while he flattered himself that he had rendered the matter sufficiently dark, he had, in the very way in which he proposed the enigma, contrived to solve it! calmly read the letters in question, who will maintain that this great man's sagacity was here at fault. If Leibnitz had really excogitated the differential calculus out of such materials as these letters, it would have been scarcely a less illustrious trophy of his genius than the discovery of the Calculus itself; while, if he had been able to make anything at all of the hieroglyphical ciphers, he must have had no less than the skill of that philosopher in Laputa, who, as Swift tells us, was employed in extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers. In case, however, any tyro in the mathematics should think that these ciphers may have afforded some more hopeful basis of discovery, we give them below.* There is one part of the statement just alluded We may be assured he was far more likely than to, and it is virtually justified in the well-known Keill to judge correctly as to what regarded his sereport of the committee of the Royal Society ap-cret; nor do we believe there is any one, who will pointed to investigate this affair, and which compiled the celebrated collection of papers entitled Commercium Epistolicum, which has always ap peared to us not only of little weight, as opposed to the solemn protestations above mentioned, but as palpably illogical. We are not aware that the peculiar infirmity in the argument to which we now refer, has ever been exposed, and it may therefore justify us in bestowing a few sentences upon it. As the charge of having possibly seen something explicit on the subject, in the papers, or in the communications of Newton's friends, was but vague, Keill proceeds to say, that the two well-known letters, which had certainly been communicated to Leibnitz through Mr. Oldenburg, contain "indications of the system of fluxions, sufficiently intelligible to an acute mind, from which Leibnitz derived, or at least might derive, the principles of his Calculus." The first was communicated in June, 1676, and the second in October, 1676. In the first, Newton gives an expression for the expansion in serieses of binomial powers; as also expressions for the sine in terms of the arc, for the arc in terms of the sine, &c., &c.; but the letter contains not a hint of his method of fluxions. In the second, elicited by a reply from Leibnitz, which clearly showed that the German mathematician was in the track of the same discoveries, Newton details the manner in which he first arrived at his method of Series-its application in 1665 to the quadrature of the hyperbola, and the construction of logarithms: and communicates 66 many other remarkable things," to use the words of Montucla. But still, results only are given; no hint is afforded of the methods by which they are attained. "The method of fluxions," says the late eminent Professor Playfair," is not communicated in these letters; nor are the principles of it in any way suggested." "Nous remarquons ici," says Montucla-in reply to the insinuation that the second letter might have given some light" qu'après avoir lu et relu cette lettre, nous y trouvons seulement cette méthode décrite quant à ses effets et ses avantages, mais non quant à ses principes." Those principles Newton conceals in a couple of anagrams, consisting of the transposed letters of the sentences which express them. In further confirmation of the claims of Leibnitz to the honor of independent discovery, it may be remarked, that though no candid man can deny the essential identity of the two methods, the very differences of terms and notation indicate that they were arrived at by distinct trains of thought, and that the subject was regarded from different points of view. The idea of the generation of magnitudes by the motion of a point, a line, or a surface, was the conception from which Newton worked; Leibnitz, from the idea of magnitudes, as consisting of infinitely small elements, and admitting increase or diminution by infinitely small increments or decrements. "Newton and Leibnitz," says a candid and competent judge, (Professor De Morgan,)“ had independently come to the consideration of quantity, and each made the new step of connecting his ideas with a specific notation." It may seem remarkable, that two different men should have made this sublime discovery at the same time, but we must remember, that the necessities of science were simultaneously turning the attention of all the mathematical genius of the age, and even of the preceding one, in the same direction; and that Newton and Leibnitz were both preeminently gifted with powers of invention and analysis. Indeed, so far had previous mathematicians paved the way for the solution of the great problem, that we may well say with Professor De Morgan, "It has, perhaps, not been sufficiently remarked, how nearly several of their predecessors approached the same ground; and it is a question worthy of discussion, whether either Newton or Leibnitz might not have found broader hints in writings accessible to both, than the latter was ever asserted to have received from the former."+ To conclude merely from the coincidence of their discoveries, that Leibnitz must have stolen from Newton, would be as little reasonable as to Now we affirm that it was in the highest degree unjust and inconsequential to say that Newton had afforded, in documents thus guarded, indications sufficiently intelligible to an acute mind, from which Leibnitz derived, or at least might derive, the principles of his Calculus." Newton, it is evident, did not think so. His very object was, whether wisely or unwisely, to keep the matter secret and it is clear that he thought his reserve and his ciphers would effectually secure that purpose. It 2.)-5 a cc de 10 e ffh 12 i 413 m 10n6oqqr7s is really a species of impertinence, scarcely, consis-11 t 10 v 3 x; 11ab3cdd 10 e cg 10 i114m7n60 ; * 1.)-6 a c c d e 13 e f f 7 i 319n4o4qrr4s9t 12 V X. 3 p3q6r5s 11 t 7 v x, 3 a co4egh6i414m 5n8 * Keill even goes further-"His indiciis atque his ad- oq 4 r3s 6 t 4 v, a addœeeeeeiiimmnnoopt jutum exemplis, ingenium vulgare methodum Newtonia- rr'sssssttuu. num penitus discerneret."-Commercium Epistolicum, No. 84. + Elementary Illustrations of the Differential and Integral Calculus. suppose that Laplace must have had access to was framed with little care as to whether it might some private sources of information, when, by a not be misunderstood. Indeed, so natural is the very difficult analysis, he proved some of the re-interpretation of Newton, and the English mathesults which De Moivre had attained, but which, in maticians, that Dr. Guhrauer himself adopts it; accordance with the contracted spirit of the age, declares that Leibnitz vainly strove to explain the the latter simply announced, carrying his methods sentence away; and that it is a proof" von Leibas a secret to the grave with him. nitzens wahrer eigenster Meinung und Gesinnung gegen Newton." "Defend me from my friends," Leibnitz might well say on this occasion; for if we adopt this interpretation as Leibnitz's true meaning, what are we to think of his shuffling exculpations? That Leibnitz was capable of making this discovery, is no such extravagant supposition as to render it necessary to resort to a charge of plagiarism. It is not, perhaps, too much to say, that his mathematical talents were equal to anything. The masterly manner in which he expounded the prin- Dr. Guhrauer is not a little indignant with Sir ciples of the differential calculus, and developed its David Brewster, for the supposed injustice which, applications, even if we were to suppose its first in his Life of Newton, he has done to Leibnitz, hints borrowed from Newton; his admirable labors and to which he frequently refers with much biton the integral calculus; the success with which terness. Never was a complaint more unreasonhe entered the lists in those intellectual jousts, as able. Our distinguished countryman does not they may be called, in which the great mathema-question Leibnitz's claim to be regarded as a true ticians of the day were wont to engage-the diffi- inventor of the Calculus; he merely asserts the cult problems he solved, and offered for solution; undoubted priority of Newton's discovery. He even his minor achievements-his calculating ma-expressly affirms, that there is no reason to believe chine his binary system of arithmetic-we may add, his juvenile essay De Arte Combinatoriû—all show the highly inventive character of his genius, and the subtlety and comprehensiveness of his analytical powers. are so different as to be considered "unlike things ;"-than which nothing can, in our judgment, be more uncandid. Leibnitz a plagiarist; but that if there were any necessity for believing either to be so, it must be Leibnitz, and not Newton, who is open to the charge. Dr. Guhrauer angrily replies, not simply by saying, (which is true,) that there is no sufIf anything could make us doubt the claims of ficient evidence of Leibnitz's having stolen NewLeibnitz, it would be a statement of Dr. Guhrauer ton's invention, but by denying the essential idenhimself-proving, as it would, if true, that Leib-tity of the two methods, and by affirming that they nitz was capable of trifling with truth. It is well known that, in 1704, a notice appeared, in the Acta Eruditorum, of Newton's Optics. That notice contained a paragraph, which seemed to imply that Newton had been a plagiarist from Leibnitz. The obnoxious sentence given in all accounts of the controversy was as follows:"Pro differentiis igitur Leibnitianis D. Newtonus adhibet, semperque adhibuit, fluxiones; quemadmodum et honoratus Fabrius, in suâ Synopsi Geometricâ motuum progressus Cavallerianæ methodo substituit." Newton felt highly indignant at this paragraph, as he well might even supposing that no charge of plagiarism was intended. Leibnitz constantly affirmed in reply, that it could be interpreted into a charge of plagiarism only by a false and malicious gloss a gloss which the compilers of the Commercium Epistolicum had not disdained to avail themselves of; that the very words " adhibet semperque adhibuit" were intended to imply the difference between the case of Newton and that of Fabri, to whose practice alone the word substituit applied. There is only one statement which, as respects Leibnitz, Dr. Guhrauer could fairly find any fault with, in Sir David Brewster's work; and that is, that Keill had a "right to express his opinion" that the Letters of Newton, of 1676, gave indi*cations from which Leibnitz "derived, or might derive," the principles of his Calculus. For reasons already assigned, we do not think that any man had a right to say this; nor that any one could say it, without being of a different opinion from Newton himself, who undoubtedly must have. thought that he had not disclosed what he had designed to conceal. With no other statements of Sir David Brewster as regards Leibnitz, are we disposed to find fault. If he has shown any undue partiality in this matter at all, it is not by excessive severity towards Leibnitz, but by undeserved leniency towards Newton; for while he has expressed strong indignation at Leibnitz's atrocious charges of plagiarism against Newton, he has very gently touched the virulent reprisals into which Now, first, Dr. Guhrauer seems to have estab- Newton was betrayed; who even declared, at fished the fact, that Leibnitz himself was the last, that Leibnitz's method was but a plagiarism author of the obnoxious Review-a fact not much from Barrow-a charge upon which only the very to his credit; secondly, he affirms that Leibnitz blindness of polemical animosity could have ven"constantly denied any knowledge of the author- tured; for it would equally show whence his own ship." If this fact were true, we should hardly fluxions might have been derived. It exposed him know what to think of Leibnitz's regard for truth. at once to Leibnitz's quiet sarcasm, "that if any But, in reality, there nowhere appears, in as far could have been profited by Barrow's instructions, as we have been able to discover, any proof that it must have been Newton himself." "Si quelqu' Leibnitz either denied knowledge of the author- un a profité de M. Barrow, ce sera plutôt M. Newship, or disclaimed the paragraph. He constantly ton, qui a étudié sous lui, que moi; qui, autant defends the statement it contains, merely denying que je puis m'en souvenir, n'ai vu les livres that it conveyed or could be intended to convey a de M. Barrow qu'à mon second voyage d'Anglecharge of plagiarism. To the benefit of this in- terre." terpretation we would charitably admit him, since he wishes his words to be so taken; but it is impossible not to suspect that the equivocal sentence As both of these illustrious men could justly claim the honor of the disputed invention, so both, in the conduct of the controversy, and in the virulence of expression to which they were carried, in their reciprocal charges and accusations, exhibit pour rendre le raisonnement sensible à tout le monde, il suffisait d'expliquer ici l'infini par l'incomparable, c'est-à-dire, de concevoir des quantités incomparablement plus grandes ou plus petites que les nôtres; ce qui fournit autant qu'on veut de dégrés d'incomparables, puisque ce qui est inligne de compte à l'égard de celui qui est incomparablement plus grand que lui. C'est ainsi qu'une parcelle de matière magnétique, qui passe à traverse du verre, n'est pas comparable avec un grain de sable, ni ce grain avec le globe de la terre, ni ce globe avec le firmament." themselves in much the same sorry light as the philosopher in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who begins to lecture the rival masters of dancing and fencing out of Seneca, and ends by forgetting that he is a philosopher altogether. The controversy is indeed an instructive spectacle of human infirmity-showing how passion can cloud the comparablement plus petit, entre inutilement en serenest intellects, and inflame the most philosophic temperaments; that its thunder-storms may be found in the highest latitudes-disturbing the frigid poles as well as the burning tropics; that there is no domain of speculation, however remote, or purely abstract, into which it cannot intrude; and that the mathematician, as well as the theologian, can exhibit all the rancor of the most vulness of mind" implied in Newton's concealing his gar controvertists. There is probably nothing parallel in history, except the controversy between the nominalists and realists, who actually began to fight for and against their shadowy universals. Yet even they first added a religious to the purely speculative element, which they at last introduced to such an extent, that they charged each the other with having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost! Newton and Leibnitz had neither the excuse nor the guilt of this superadded provocation.* Dr. Guhrauer is very severe on the "narrow fluxions under ciphers, in his correspondence with Leibnitz; and contrasts it with the frank and manly conduct of the latter, when, in his reply to Newton's second letter, he communicated the principles of his Calculus to his rival. It ought at all events to reconcile Dr. Guhrauer to Newton's procedure, that it formed in fact the safeguard of Leibnitz's claims; for had Newton disclosed his secret, it would have been impossible to establish them. We must now conclude, though we could have wished to add a few observations on several other matters;-on Leibnitz's religious opinions, and theological controversies-especially with Clarke, Bossuet, and Pelisson-on his political and diplo matic life, in which, with its accustomed versatility, he seems to have been as much at his ease as in literature and sciencet-on the influence he exerted on literature as the centre of all the liter However paradoxical apparently may be the phraseology of Leibnitz, in his first expositions of the Differential Calculus, respecting his infinitesimal quantities, (as, that there are quantities infinitely less than quantities infinitely little, and that of two quantities infinitely great, one may be infinitely greater than the other,) it is plain, that he soon worked his own conceptions completely clear, and gave his abbreviated expressions their true in-ary commerce of the age-an influence which Mr. terpretation. The explanations of Leibnitz are in fact often so perspicuous, that they ought to have satisfied every objector; and to have prevented the elegant and ingenious nonsense which Bishop Berkeley ventured upon, in regard to them, more than thirty years after, in his Analyst. Thus, among many other places, in an explanatory letter to M. Varignon, in 1701, Leibnitz says:— "Je ne me souviens pas assez des expressions dont je puis m'être servi: mais mon dessein a été de marquer qu'on n'a pas besoin de faire dépendre l'analyse mathématique des controverses métaphysiques, ni d'assurer qu'il y a dans la nature des lignes infiniment petite à la rigeur, en comparaison des nôtres, ni par conséquent qu'il y a des lignes infiniment plus grandes que les nôtres. C'est pourquoi afin d'éviter ces subtilités j'ai crû que *One other unjust statement of Dr. Guhrauer's, we cannot pass unnoticed. The unhappy controversy on the Calculus commenced, it is well known, by some slight skirmishes in the year 1699, when Fatio insinuated, that the applause which Leibnitz was receiving for his Differential Calculus, (first given to the world by him in 1684,) would be more justly bestowed on Newton-its first inventor. Dr. Guhrauer is pleased to intimate that Newton was privy to Fatio's attack, and prompted it. This is most unjust, as it is in express contradiction to Newton's assertion, that he knew nothing of Fatio's intention, and was no party to it. In several other places Dr. G. insinuates, that it is easy to see that Newton was behind the curtain in the early attacks on Leibnitz, (vol. i., p. 303,) though he did not choose to appear in the controversy himself. Whether it was wise or not in Newton to stand so long aloof-whether it was in sullen pride or real magnanimity-from confidence in his claims, or dislike of controversy-certain it is, that during all the earlier stages of the dispute he remained silent; and being so, no man has a right to charge on him, without explicit evidence, the language of his adherents, whose Just pride in the reputation of their countryman is quite sufficient to account both for the rashness of their zeal, and the intemperance of their expressions. Stewart has so justly appreciated, and finely illustrated in his well-known Dissertation. But on all these topics our space compels us to be silent, while on others we gladly content ourselves with referring to the admirable criticisms of the last * Of Leibnitz's reputed adoption of the doctrines of Romanism, we have said nothing. It is certain that if he adopted he never avowed them, nor did he ever join the Romish communion. If the unfinished manuscript, called the Systema Theologicum, (not so entitled by him,) really expresses his views, it is, as Dr. Guhrauer observes, "in opposition to all his other writings, and to gin and purport may be found in vol. ii., pp. 32-34. He also treats the whole question of Leibnitz's opinions on this subject very ably in vol. i., pp. 340-358. It is at the same time certain, that Leibnitz's tolerant temper, the eclecticism of his philosophy, which always disposed him to find points of reconciliation in opposing systems, whether those of Aristotle and Des Cartes, or of Rome and Luther, his reverence for antiquity, cherished by his profound historical researches all predisposed him to regard the differences between Romanists and Protestants as far less important than they are. In the attempt to negotiate a reconciliation between them, he expended no small portion of his time and energies, and, in his controversy with Bossuet, he sometimes makes far too liberal concessions for that object.-It is not a little curious, and highly characteristic, that he always flattered himself that he was in possession of a metaphysical solution of the doctrine of transubstantiation. In this instance at least he verified a naïve assertion he was accustomed to make respecting himself "That to him, unlike the generality of people, all difficult things were easy, and all easy things difficult." his whole life also." Dr. Guhrauer's remarks on its ori + Of this, a proof rendered more especially remarkable by long subsequent events, is furnished in a memorial addressed by him to Louis XIV., proposing that memorable plan for keeping some of the chief nations of Europe_in_check, afterwards attempted to be consummated by Bonaparte; namely, the conquest and colonization of Egypt. Of this posthumous piece, an English translation was published in London, in 1803, but which seems now entirely forgotten. mentioned writer, and his other illustrious coadju- | On all of these, and other slams, there would of tors, Sir James Mackintosh and Professor Play- course be sub-variations for various parties. For fair, in their associated Dissertations on the His- example, a servant's angry slam against a mistress tory of Metaphysical, Ethical, Mathematical, and who has been so unreasonable as point out a Physical Science. In each of these, Leibnitz is fault; a son's slam against his father on being remade, so to speak, to reënter; for while few other fused a horse; &c. When all the varieties of the names appear in more than one of them, he is of art are considered, we could not expect that, in sufficient importance to be subjected to a fresh ex- private tuition, slamming could be well taught in amination in all. So various, indeed, are the less than twelve lessons. phases of his character and genius, so numberless An important department would be that for his accomplishments, that we may apply to him teaching the various means of expressing derogathe well-known lines of Dryden, divested of the tory opinions of friends and acquaintance independsatire which was designed in their original appli-ently of words. The utility of the non-verbal cation "A man so various that he seemed to be Not one, but all mankind's epitome." From Chambers' Journal. UNSPOKEN LANGUAGE. language is here so great, that all must be sensible of it. Particular care would be necessary in the selection of teachers, particularly those who had to train young commercial men in the methods of indicating degrees of credit-worthiness; and those, again, of the female sex who gave instructions in the best modes of denoting the state of reputations. The nicest caution and delicacy being here necessary, it would be proper to engage only first-rate talent, and to pay it extremely well. We can imagine the class-rooms for this department presenting curious scenes. Nods, winks, elevations of the eyebrows, shrugs, affectedly-concerned looks, would be seen passing between teachers and pupils A master might be seen giving lessons in the laying of a finger significantly across the lips, for half an hour at a time. A spectator unacquainted with the object would be when, in reality, it was engaged in preparation for apt to suppose the class a congregation of lunatics, some of the most important duties of social life. the things to be taught in this department; nameThis allusion, by the way, reminds us of one of the various degrees of sanity enjoyed by one's ly, the proper way of referring without words to friends-from that movement of shoulders and to the pointings to, and touchings of, the forehead, eyebrows which expresses a sense of their oddity, by which we indicate their being hopelessly gone the knowledge and goodness which soar above the in madness, or what is thought the same thing, It is remarkable that, while the grammar of our spoken tongue is taught in untold thousands of academies, there is no institution of any kind for instruction in that equally useful language which is neither written nor spoken. There seems to be no good reason why this kind of language should not be taught in a systematic and-so to speak-in a surprising manner. grammatical manner; for, if it may be said that it comes natural to us all, so, it may be said, does the employment of our mother tongue; and yet, as everybody knows, we cannot use that correctly without training. I would therefore humbly suggest the introduction into our principal schools and Colleges of departments for the various leading branches of wordless speech, all of them under competent masters and mistresses, as the case might be. common world. An important department would be the various mears of expressing anger, indignation, contempt, and other strong passions in the wordless manner. It ought to comprise classes for individuals of various sexes and ages. For example, there might be one composed of young ladies, to teach them the proper methods of showing how much they One good end might be in a special manner are offended, from a sulky look for an unreasonable papa or mamma, to a contemptuous toss of dis-served by the proposed institutions, and one which dain for a swain who has made a non-reverential remark. It would be of particular consequence to train them to the art of cutting, for which purpose it might be necessary to set up a figure like the quintal of the tournament-ground, upon which to practise the desired art. Past this they would be paraded at a proper walking pace, and taught to look at it as if they did not see it, or know what it was. Cutting, we should think, might be taught to clever pupils in from four to six lessons. would, in fact, make up for the shortcomings of all other seminaries, and the obstructions to all other means of acquiring knowledge. It often happens, as every one knows, that people speak of thing which none but themselves understand. What are the rest to do?-to acknowledge ignorance, and profess to be willing to learn? This were such a degradation, as none possessed of a fair share of self-respect could submit to. The alternative, of course, is to listen with that appearance of intelli The most expressive methods of slamming doors gence usually called a "knowing look." But this would form the business of a general class; for is called for in many various forms. For example, this is a form of silent, though not noiseless rhet- if a friend quotes from a Latin or French author, there is required an aspect which seems to sayoric, for which almost all have occasion. Doors "Right: you have it-the thing is undeniable." may be slammed in a great variety of ways, each having its own peculiar signification. For instance, Suppose, again, you are at an exhibition of pthere is the sulky slam-a heavy dull mode, yet tures, and join a pair of friends who are talking learnedly of keeping-light and shade-coloringnecessary for its own particular shade of feeling. tone-aerial perspective-scrumbling-old womar There is also the pert, contemptuous slam-a sharp snappish sound, which seems to say, "I in the red cloak to give effect to the foliage-about despise you." "Then there is the thundering slam, all of which matters you feel like a child unborn, as far as the feelings of such a member of society for towering passions only, and which generally shakes the whole tenement from garret to cellar. may be guessed at-then you will require to light up your countenance with a different kind of imef nal lantern. A much graver, more solemn light it must be; consisting of a decided earnestness o *Prefixed to the Seventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. SUNLIGHT UPON THE WATERS. SUNLIGHT upon the waters-or when, hushed, ! When, with the cataract, it leaps and dashes A gorgeous arch, connecting holier spheres ; Spangling in dewdrops o'er the bladed grass; Th' exhilarating rays in which they swim; Showers liquid brilliants o'er her plumage-ruffled back. eye, a primness of lips; a few firm, shrewd, sidelong glances; two nods judiciously interspersed and, finally, a toss up of the chin as you stalk away, without a single word, to the next picture, apparently determined on criticizing and judging for yourself. Looks for non-understood papers at scientific societies are not less needful; for at present many grown gentlemen hardly know how to conduct themselves on those occasions. Such looks would require to be duly graduated to the character of the various papers-from a trivial, half-attentive look for speculations in geology and other such readily-apprehensible matters, to one fixed, penetrating, and determined, when the black board was getting covered over with algebraic calculations. In this department it would be well to have private hours for the more special in-Lo! on a lesser scale, 't is still the themestruction of presidents, councillors, and other officials, as it becomes particularly absurd to see the gentlemen at the green table looking as if they had not the faintest idea of what the matter is all about. There would be a large miscellaneous department, absorbing many odds and ends. Here one might be duly trained to the silent methods of maintaining an appearance of consequence-making people keep their distance, and so forth. A stare in reply to an over-familiar remark is a piece of art which would require a good deal of practice Or when, to take her bath, th' imperial swan for most persons, as, to do human nature justice, Flutters, for glee, the surface in her track, we do not naturally feel jealous about dignity-Stoops her arched neck, down diving, and, anon, witness the proceedings of children-and only acquire the sentiment in our intercourse with society. Connected with such lessons are those required for recognitions in streets and other public places-Trebly, the theme!-when, viewed from some the cool nod for a friend who borrows, the impressé bow for the lady who gives nice parties, the mixture of nonchalance and perfect politeness to be conveyed to one whom you suppose to be an enemy or rival, so as to leave him nothing of which either to boast or complain. To chill down and battle off bores by mere mute dodging-to turn the cold shoulder in an unchallengeable manner to persons "not proper"-would also call for much study. All of these are utterances of a most refined nature, compared to which word-language is a piece of the grossest materiality. Decayed members of the upper ciasses would probably be found the only persons competent to teach such niceties. Here, also, the various feelings expressible by a turn or cast of the eyes, by a look, a smile, a pursing-up or a turning down of the mouth, and many other little gesticulations, would be subject of exercise. We would not willingly see instructions given in those mysterious applications of the thumb to the nose, which have of late years been so common, as an expression of incredulity, seeing that this practice is essentially a degradation of the human countenance divine. A polite skepticism is doubtless expressible by gestures or looks against which no such objection can be urged; and to discover and teach these, would be the business of some of the higher officials of the establishment. Such is a general outline of the kind of semina- | ries proposed-liable of course to revision in point of detail, and with regard to their constitution and management. We throw it out to the world only as a hint, leaving it to others to make it a reality. great height, At morn, it radiates skyward from the main; The billows blaze along the wat❜ry plain : Freshen and revel in the pervious beams;- A HOME-SONNET. THE world is with me, and its many cares- But no-a laugh of innocence and joy Hood's Poems. |