drawn in order to show the path of the comet in 1681, whose period Sir Isaac had determined, and also the position of the solstitial colure mentioned by Hipparchus, and by means of which Sir Isaac had in his Chronology fixed the time of the Argonautic expedition. A figure of astronomy, as queen of the sciences, sits weeping on the globe, with a sceptre in her hand, and a star surmounts the summit of the pyramid.* Of all these figures only two can be fairly objected to as inappropriate or in questionable taste; we mean those of the two youths who are loaded with money newly coined. This allusion to the Mint had been better omitted; there was no need for it, and the ideas which it suggests are neither poetical nor sublime. The rest, however, are highly characteristic; they very happily portray to the intelligent observer what Newton has accomplished; and we may add, that if they leave anything obscure, the obscurity is entirely removed by the following epitaph inscribed on the monument, and of which we give a translation at the bottom of the page. "Hic situs est ISAACUS NEWTON, Eques Auratus, Radiorum Lucis dissimilitudines, Natus xxv. Decemb. MDCXLII. Obiit xx. Mar. MDCCXXVII.† To this we need only add a few remarks on the Newtonian philosophy, as the author himself has explained it in the third book of his Principia. His corner-stone is the power *Brewster, vol. ii., pp. 393-4. "Here lies Isaac Newton, Knight, who, with an energy of mind almost divine, guided by the light of mathematics purely his own, first demonstrated the motions and figures of the planets, the paths of comets, and the causes of the tides; who discovered, what before his time no one had even suspected, that rays of light are differently refrangible, and that this is the cause of colours; and who was a diligent, penetrating and faithful interpreter of nature, antiquity, and the sacred writings. In his philosophy, he maintained the majesty of the Supreme Being; in his manners he expressed the simplicity of the Gospel. Let mortals congratulate themselves that the world has seen so great and excellent a man, the glory of human nature." of gravity; from this he deduces the structure of the universe, the motions of the planets and comets, and the theory of the moon and tides. It is a great mistake, however, that Sir Isaac was the original discoverer of gravity; what he has done is not to discover that law, but to demonstrate that it exists; nor can the difference be regarded as detracting in the least from his glory. In our articles on Kepler, Leibnitz, Laplace, and Galileo in former numbers of this journal, we have shown incidentally that other philosophers had a clear conception of the principle of gravitation before Newton's time. Hence it is that we could accept the story of the apple only as one of those fables that are more or less current in regard to all who have rendered themselves illustrious. Even Brewster is forced to admit that it is not authenticated. "The anecdote of the falling apple," he says, "is not mentioned by Dr. Stukely, nor by Pemberton, who conversed with Newton about the origin of his discoveries, and mentions the anecdote of Newton sitting in a garden."* Bethune, upon the other hand, after showing how much Kepler had thought of the nature of gravity, asks: "Who, after perusing such passages in the works of an author which were in the hands of every student of astronomy, can believe that Newton awaited for the fall of an apple to set him thinking for the first time on the theory which has immortalized his name? An apple may have fallen, and Newton may have seen it, but such speculations as those which it is asserted to have been the cause of originating in him, had been long familiar to the thoughts of every one in Europe pretending to the name of natural philosopher." The biographer of Kepler might have added, that of all the great laws which govern the universe, there is not one that has been longer known than this; he might have told us that not only was it known to Copernicus, the illustrious reviver of the Pythagorean system, but that it was known to Pythagoras himself and to his disciples. Even Newton himself hardly speaks more plainly of the nature of gravity than Copernicus, where the latter calls it "a certain tendency with which the Divine Architect of the universe has crowned the particles of matter in order to render them capable of forming spheres." But we may go much farther back for ideas on the subject which are equally clear. Timeus the Locrian, the organ of the Platonists, recognised the action of two forces-one projection, the other weight (the same as gravity), and he adds that these two forces are combined according to mathematical proportions.* Diogenes Laertes assures us that Anaxagoras was acquainted with the same, for when he was asked what maintained the planets in their orbit he replied, that they were retained by the velocity of their motion. Still more unequivocal is the language of Plutarch, who compares the moon in its revolution round the earth to "a stone in a sling which is acted upon by two forces at once, the force of projection, which gives it a tendency to fly off at a tanget if it were not retained by the arm which agitates the sling, and thus represents the central force, which combined with the projectile force, causes it to describe a circle." In the same work he speaks of "that force inherent in the earth and other planets which attracts all bodies that are subordinate to them." Again, in another philosophical work of his, he says that "the distances of the celestial spheres and the velocities of their revolutions, are proportional among themselves and in relation to all.‡ But if we return to the immediate predecessors and contemporaries of Newton, we shall find that many others had as good reason to philosophize on the fall of an apple as he. Galileo, who, as we have already remarked, died the same day Newton was born, had not only supposed, but demonstrated, that falling bodies obey an accelerating force, and that the space passed over is as the square of the time occupied in their fall. This, it must be admitted, makes a pretty near approach to the law of Newton. Galileo did not measure the exact rate of velocity attained by falling bodies; but Huygens did. The latter showed how, with the aid of a pendulum, one could ascertain how far a body falls the first second in a given latitude. Nor were these the only data furnished to Newton by Huygens on the velocity of falling bodies. That philosopher had also discovered that the velocity diminished in proportion as the body fell near the equator, when it attained its minimum; and that, on the contrary, it increased as it approached the poles, where it has its maximum. But all these were understood only as isolated facts, which Timeus the Locrian, Estienne edition, pp. 95-6. De Facie in Orbe Lunæ.-Plut. De Animæ Procreatione. were so simple and obvious that it was hardly worth while to devote much attention to them. It remained for the great mind of Newton to reduce the chaos to a system, and from a series of particulars to deduce the universal law that" the force of attraction of a body is equal to the amount of matter contained in that body, divided by the square of the distance." Now that this is known, it seems simple and easy enough; but, as Laplace, Euler, Lagrange, and D'Alembert have abundantly proved since Newton's time, of all astronomical laws it is the most important. If the honor attaching to a discovery were to be estimated by its originality, Newton would be entitled to much more credit for his optics than for his law of gravitation, for his priority in the former is undisputed. So far as any one knows at the present day, he was the first who ever suspected that light is not homogeneous, but that it is composed of rays of unequal refrangibility; he was also the first who demonstrated that the cause of colors exists in the light itself and not in the media through which it passes. If, as in the case of gravity, we interrogate the ancients as to what they knew of the nature of light, we shall find very different results. Even the Stagirite had but a vague idea of it, for he defines it as the action of subtle, pure, and homogeneous matter.* The Pythagoreans, who made the nearest approach to the truth, regarded colors as a mixture of the elements of light.t Plato did not allow so interesting a subject to escape his observation, but it would seem that he had not sufficient time to investigate it. "Yes," he exclaims, "if any one hopes to give an account of this admirable mechanism (the production of light by the effect of its rays), he would show that he entirely ignored the difference between the power of man and the power of God. This fully justifies the highest praise bestowed on Newton, even in his epitaph, bearing testimony, as it does, in advance, to the energy of mind almost divine (vis animi prope divina), which is ascribed to him. What need is there, then, that we should deny his faults or his weaknesses? It should satisfy his most ardent admirers to remember that his genius was of the highest order, and that he will be honored by all ages as a benefactor of mankind. De Anima, ii., 7. + Plutarch de Placit. Philosophorum. Plato in Timeus. ART. V.-Annual Catalogues of Colleges, Seminaries, etc., 1865, 1866. THERE is no subject which we take up with more pleasure than that of education, especially when we feel we can say, as in the present instance, that the good cause is advancing in this country. Our readers will remember that we have paid more or less attention to most of our public institutions alternately. Even prisons and penitentiaries we have gone hundreds of miles to examine; we have taken similar pains with our lunatic asylums; and in each case we have pointed out abuses; we have criticised whenever criticism seemed deserved; but much more cheerfully have we awarded praise in those instances in which it was merited. During the past year we have visited several institutions of different kinds, which we had formerly criticised; and the conclusion to which we have come is that, although there are still one or two which have not made any progress, the majority exhibit a decided improvement in their most important features. But what affords us most gratification is the fact that no institutions whatever have improved so much as our colleges. This is the best evidence that our civilization is advancing. It is true that some are apt to take a different view of the case. They think that because they have not been at college themselves, and have not the means or the disposition to send their sons to it, they have no interest in the matter. But they forget that the good work done at college has an influence on the smallest and most elementary school. If the college system be defective and inefficient, the primary school system will be defective and inefficient in proportion. However unwilling some may be to assent to this, it is just as certain as that the citizens who have but a scantily supplied reservoir cannot expect to have an abundant supply of water at their residences. If the latter want to increase the supply of water they must enlarge their reservoir; at least, they must convey more water to it by some means. It is of importance that this should be fully understood, and it has been acted upon accordingly by the most enlightened nations. It is in accordance with this principle that the great universities of England, France, and Germany have been so richly endowed by men equally distinguished for |