A Catechism of Familiar Things; Their History, and the Events Which Led to Their Discovery. With a Short Explanation of Some of the Principal Natural Phenomena. For the Use of Schools and Families. Enlarged and Revised Edition.

CHAPTER XVIII.

MU­SIC, PAINT­ING, PO­ET­RY, AS­TRON­OMY, ARTS AND SCI­ENCES, ART OF WRIT­ING, AND CHEM­ISTRY.

What are the ear­li­est ac­counts of Mu­si­cal In­stru­ments on record?

The ear­li­est ac­counts of mu­sic which we pos­sess are to be found in the Bible, in which the state of the world be­fore the flood is no­ticed. Jubal is said to have been “the fa­ther of them that play up­on the harp and or­gan;” but it is not to be sup­posed that these in­stru­ments at all re­sem­bled the harp and or­gan of mod­ern times. Mu­si­cal in­stru­ments, in the times of David and Solomon, were used in re­li­gious ser­vices; and mu­sic was cer­tain­ly em­ployed by the Jews on many oth­er oc­ca­sions, as at fu­ner­als and wed­dings, at har­vest home, and at fes­ti­vals of all kinds.

_Mod­ern_, op­posed to an­cient, per­tain­ing to the present time, or time not long past.

_Fes­ti­val_, a re­joic­ing, a feast, a sea­son ded­icat­ed to mirth.

What na­tion was par­tic­ular­ly cel­ebrat­ed for mu­si­cal tal­ents?

The an­cient Egyp­tians; who were so cel­ebrat­ed for their tal­ents in mu­sic, that the dis­tin­guished philoso­phers of Greece braved many dan­gers, in or­der to study the sci­ence in Egypt; and this, at a pe­ri­od when the Egyp­tians were far from be­ing in the same high state of civ­iliza­tion as their fore­fa­thers had been in ear­li­er times. The his­to­ry and mon­uments of an­cient Egypt have many ac­counts and rep­re­sen­ta­tions of mu­si­cal in­stru­ments, and re­mains of these have late­ly been dis­cov­ered, so that we have oc­ular demon­stra­tion both of their ex­is­tence and form.

_Civ­iliza­tion_, free­dom from bar­bar­ity, pol­ish, po­lite­ness, pos­ses­sion of knowl­edge and the arts of life.

_Oc­ular_, known or seen by the eye.

_Demon­stra­tion_, the act of prov­ing with cer­tain­ty.

In how many di­vi­sions may mu­si­cal in­stru­ments be ar­ranged?

There are three kinds, name­ly, _wind_ in­stru­ments, as the trum­pet, and the or­gan;--_stringed_ in­stru­ments, as the harp or lyre, vi­olin, &c.; and in­stru­ments of _con­cus­sion_, in which the sound is pro­duced by strik­ing a sonorous body, as for in­stance the drum, bells, &c.

Which of these three kinds was the first in­vent­ed?

It is im­pos­si­ble, at the present day, to de­cide which; but it is most prob­able that in­stru­ments with strings were the last in­vent­ed of the three kinds; and it is most like­ly, that of those in which sound is pro­duced by the ap­pli­ca­tion of wind, the trum­pet or horn was first used. This in­stru­ment, in its rud­est form, was ready fash­ioned to the hand of man; the horn of a ram or of an ox, or some of the larg­er kinds of sea-​shells, were soon dis­cov­ered to pos­sess the pow­er of pro­duc­ing sound, by be­ing blown in­to through a small hole at the point­ed end.

What im­prove­ment in this in­stru­ment would nat­ural­ly fol­low?

Mankind hav­ing dis­cov­ered the prop­er­ty pos­sessed by a hol­low tube of pro­duc­ing a cer­tain sound, soon found that the note var­ied ac­cord­ing to the length and ca­pac­ity of the tube. A much greater im­prove­ment soon af­ter took place; it was dis­cov­ered that one tube an­swered the pur­pose of many by bor­ing holes in the course of its length, and pro­duc­ing var­ious mu­si­cal sounds by stop­ping with the fin­gers cer­tain of these holes. Most of our mod­ern wind in­stru­ments are but im­prove­ments on the an­cient in­ven­tions.

_Tube_, a pipe; a long hol­low body.

Was not Vo­cal Mu­sic used be­fore the in­ven­tion of In­stru­men­tal?

_Vo­cal_ mu­sic, name­ly, that pro­duced by the hu­man voice, (so called to dis­tin­guish it from _in­stru­men­tal_, that pro­duced by in­stru­ments,) was un­doubt­ed­ly the first: for man had not on­ly the var­ious tones of his own voice to make his ob­ser­va­tions on, be­fore any art or in­stru­ment was found out; but the var­ious nat­ural strains of birds to give him a les­son in im­prov­ing it, and in mod­ulat­ing the sounds of which it is ca­pa­ble.

_Mod­ulat­ing_, form­ing sound to a cer­tain key.

To what cir­cum­stance did an an­cient po­et as­cribe the in­ven­tion of stringed in­stru­ments?

To the ob­ser­va­tion of the winds whistling in the hol­low reeds. As for oth­er kinds of in­stru­ments, there were so many oc­ca­sions for cords or strings, that men were not long in ob­serv­ing their var­ious sounds, which might give rise to stringed in­stru­ments. Those of con­cus­sion, as drums and cym­bals, might re­sult from the ob­ser­va­tion of the nat­ural­ly hol­low noise made by con­cave bod­ies when struck.

What are the most an­cient stringed in­stru­ments?

The most an­cient in­stru­ments of this kind, whose form is known, are those of the an­cient Egyp­tians; among these the harp stands pre-​em­inent. One of the most cel­ebrat­ed rep­re­sen­ta­tions of an Egyp­tian harp was drawn from a paint­ing dis­cov­ered in one of the cav­erns in the moun­tains of Egyp­tian Thebes, by some trav­ellers: it is called the The­ban harp, and has thir­teen strings; its form is ex­treme­ly el­egant. This harp is sup­posed to be one of the kind in use be­fore and at the time of Sesostris. Re­mains of Egyp­tian harps of a more sim­ple con­struc­tion, with on­ly four strings, have like­wise been dis­cov­ered. Among the mon­uments of an­cient Rome, there are rep­re­sen­ta­tions of stringed in­stru­ments re­sem­bling the harp, but not equal in beau­ty of form to the fa­mous Egyp­tian harp al­ready men­tioned.

_Pre-​em­inent_, sur­pass­ing oth­ers.

Who was Sesostris?

A King of Egypt, who is said to have reigned some ages be­fore the siege of Troy. He ap­pears to have been cel­ebrat­ed for his con­quests, and for the num­ber of ed­ifices he erect­ed to per­pet­uate his fame.

_Per­pet­uate_, to pre­serve from ex­tinc­tion; to con­tin­ue the mem­ory of a per­son or event.

Where was Troy?

Troy, an­cient­ly called Il­ium, was the cap­ital of Troas, in Asia. It be­came fa­mous for the ten years' siege it sus­tained against the Greeks; the his­to­ry of this event is com­mem­orat­ed in the po­ems of Homer and Vir­gil.

Is not the harp an in­stru­ment of high an­tiq­ui­ty in Great Britain?

Yes: it was a fa­vorite in­stru­ment with the an­cient Sax­ons in Great Britain. The cel­ebrat­ed Al­fred en­tered the Dan­ish camp dis­guised as a harp­er, be­cause the harpers passed through the midst of the en­emy un­mo­lest­ed on ac­count of their call­ing. The same de­cep­tion was like­wise prac­tised by sev­er­al Dan­ish chiefs, in the camp of Athel­stan, the Sax­on. The bards, or harpers of old, were the his­to­ri­ans of the time; they hand­ed down from gen­er­ation to gen­er­ation the his­to­ry of re­mark­able events, and of the deeds and lin­eage of their cel­ebrat­ed chiefs and princes. The harpers of Britain were for­mer­ly ad­mit­ted to the ban­quets of kings and no­bles: their em­ploy­ment was to sing or re­cite the achieve­ments of their pa­trons, ac­com­pa­ny­ing them­selves on the harp. No na­tions have been more fa­mous for their harps and harpers than the Welsh and Irish.

_Re­cite_, to re­peat or chant in a par­tic­ular tone or man­ner.

_Achieve­ment_, a great or hero­ic deed.

_Pa­tron_, bene­fac­tor, one who be­stows fa­vors.

What in­stru­ment was fa­mous among the an­cient Greeks?

The Lyre: the in­ven­tion, or rather dis­cov­ery, of this in­stru­ment is as­cribed by them to their most cel­ebrat­ed deities. It is sup­posed to have orig­inat­ed from the dis­cov­ery of a dead tor­toise, the flesh of which had dried and wast­ed, so that noth­ing was left with­in the shell but sinews and car­ti­lages: these, tight­ened and con­tract­ed, on ac­count of their dry­ness, were ren­dered sonorous. Some one, Mer­cury or Apol­lo, they af­firm, in walk­ing along, hap­pen­ing to strike his foot against the tor­toise, was great­ly pleased with the sound it pro­duced: thus was sug­gest­ed to him the first idea of a lyre, which he af­ter­wards con­struct­ed in the form of a tor­toise, and strung with the dried sinews of dead an­imals. The stringed in­stru­ments al­ready de­scribed were made to give out mu­si­cal sounds, by caus­ing a vi­bra­to­ry mo­tion in their strings by means of the fin­gers.

_Sinew_, a ten­don; that which unites a mus­cle to a bone.

_Car­ti­lage_, a gristly, smooth, sol­id sub­stance, soft­er than bone.

_Vi­bra­to­ry_, shak­ing.

Who was Mer­cury?

The hea­then god of elo­quence, let­ters, &c., and the mes­sen­ger of the oth­er gods.

Who was Apol­lo?

The god of mu­sic, po­et­ry, medicine, and the fine arts.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: PICK­ING COT­TON.]

[Il­lus­tra­tion: GATH­ER­ING TEA.]

What is a Tor­toise?

A well-​known an­imal, with a thick shelly cov­er­ing, be­long­ing to the or­der of rep­tiles; there are two species, the sea and the land tor­toise; the first named is called a tur­tle, and af­fords de­li­cious food; land tor­tois­es live to a very great age. It is on­ly one sort which fur­nish­es the beau­ti­ful shell so much prized. Tor­tois­es are found in many parts of the world. The tur­tles on the Brazil­ian shore are said to be so large as to be enough to dine fourscore men: and in the In­di­an sea, the shells serve the na­tives for boats.

Of what are the strings of the Lyre, &c., com­posed?

Some­times of ei­ther brass or sil­ver wire, &c., but most com­mon­ly of catgut.

What is Catgut?

The in­testines of sheep or lambs, dried or twist­ed, ei­ther singly or sev­er­al to­geth­er. Catgut is al­so used by watch-​mak­ers, cut­lers, and oth­er ar­ti­fi­cers, in their dif­fer­ent trades. Great quan­ti­ties are im­port­ed from France and Italy.

Are there no oth­er kind of In­stru­ments be­sides those al­ready de­scribed?

Yes, mu­sic and mu­si­cal in­stru­ments have pro­gres­sive­ly im­proved; and it would be a need­less task to enu­mer­ate the num­bers of in­stru­ments of each kind now in use; many, as for in­stance the or­gan, the pi­ano, mu­si­cal box­es, &c., are ex­ceed­ing­ly com­plex and in­ge­nious in their con­struc­tion, as well as re­mark­able for the sweet­ness of their var­ious sounds; some, as the two first-​named, are played with the fin­gers, and pro­duce any melody or com­bi­na­tion of sound at the will of the per­former; oth­ers, as the mu­si­cal-​box, bar­rel-​or­gan, &c., pro­duce a par­tic­ular melody, or a cer­tain num­ber of melodies, by means of ma­chin­ery. In the use of the last-​named the per­former is not at all in­debt­ed to his own mu­si­cal skill, as he has on­ly to turn the han­dle which sets the ma­chin­ery in mo­tion, and the mu­si­cal box, or bar­rel-​or­gan, will con­tin­ue play­ing till it has fin­ished the tunes to which it is set.

Up­on what prin­ci­ple do these last-​men­tioned in­stru­ments per­form?

The bar­rel-​or­gan and mu­si­cal box both play on near­ly the same prin­ci­ple, though the for­mer is turned by a han­dle, and the lat­ter on­ly re­quires a cer­tain spring to be touched, in or­der to set it off or to stop it. Their ma­chin­ery con­sists of a bar­rel pricked with brass pins; when the bar­rel re­volves, these ping lift a se­ries of steel springs of dif­fer­ent lengths and thick­ness­es, and the vi­bra­tion of these springs when re­leased, pro­duces the dif­fer­ent notes.

What is Paint­ing?

The art of rep­re­sent­ing ob­jects in na­ture, or scenes in hu­man life, with fi­deli­ty and ex­pres­sion, ei­ther in oil or wa­ter col­ors, &c.

_Fi­deli­ty_, truth, faith­ful­ness.

_Oil Col­ors_, those col­ors which are mixed up with oil, as the oth­ers are with wa­ter.

Is not this art of great an­tiq­ui­ty?

There is not the slight­est doubt of it; but to name the coun­try where it was first prac­tised, or the cir­cum­stances at­tend­ing its ori­gin, is be­yond the pow­er of the his­to­ri­an. About a cen­tu­ry af­ter the call of Abra­ham, Greek and Egyp­tian tra­di­tion tells us of a colony plant­ed at Sicy­on, by an Egyp­tian, who brought with him the knowl­edge of paint­ing and sculp­ture, and found­ed the ear­li­est and purest school of Greek art. The walls of Baby­lon were adorned with paint­ings of dif­fer­ent kinds of an­imals, hunt­ing ex­pe­di­tions, com­bats, &c. Al­lu­sions to this cus­tom of the Baby­lo­ni­ans, of dec­orat­ing their walls with paint­ings, are found in the Bible.

_Tra­di­tion_, a his­to­ry or ac­count de­liv­ered from mouth to mouth with­out writ­ten memo­ri­als; com­mu­ni­ca­tion from age to age.

_Al­lu­sion_, ref­er­ence.

_Dec­orat­ing_, or­na­ment­ing.

_Sicy­on_, a king­dom of Pelo­pon­nesus, in an­cient Greece.

Were the Egyp­tians ac­quaint­ed with this art?

It is now lit­tle doubt­ed that, al­though paint­ing and sculp­ture ex­ist­ed in Egypt, and were prob­ably at their high­est con­di­tion, eigh­teen cen­turies be­fore the Chris­tian era, yet, at a still ear­li­er pe­ri­od, these arts were known in the king­dom of Ethiopia; and it is con­sid­ered like­ly, that the course of civ­iliza­tion de­scend­ed from Ethiopia to Egypt. There is, how­ev­er, no record of any Egyp­tian painter in the an­nals of the art; and it does not ap­pear that it ev­er flour­ished in that coun­try, or that oth­er na­tions were much in­debt­ed to Egypt for their knowl­edge of it.

_Era_, age, pe­ri­od.

_Ethiopia_, the an­cient name of the king­doms of Nu­bia and Abyssinia, in Africa.

_An­nal_, record, his­to­ry.

_Ex­ploit_, ac­tion, achieve­ment, deed of val­or.

Have we any no­tice of this art among the He­brews?

There is no al­lu­sion made to the ex­is­tence of paint­ing among this peo­ple, and no proof that it was cul­ti­vat­ed among them: it is sup­posed that the ne­glect of this art arose from their not be­ing per­mit­ted to rep­re­sent any ob­ject by paint­ing.

What progress did the gen­er­al­ity of the East­ern na­tions make in this art?

The art of paint­ing among the Pheni­cians, Per­sians, and oth­er East­ern na­tions, ad­vanced but slow­ly. The Chi­nese ap­pear, un­til a very re­cent pe­ri­od, to have con­tent­ed them­selves with on­ly so much knowl­edge of the art as might en­able them to dec­orate their beau­ti­ful porce­lain and oth­er wares; their taste is very pe­cu­liar, and though the pen­cilling of their birds and flow­ers is del­icate, yet their fig­ures of men and an­imals are dis­tort­ed, and out of pro­por­tion; and of per­spec­tive they seem to have but lit­tle idea. Lat­ter­ly, how­ev­er, a change has tak­en place in Chi­nese art, and proofs have been giv­en of an at­tempt to im­itate Eu­ro­pean skill. The Japanese fig­ures ap­proach more near­ly to beau­ty of style than Chi­nese pro­duc­tions of a sim­ilar kind.

_Dis­tort­ed_, hav­ing a bad fig­ure.

_Per­spec­tive_, the sci­ence by which things are rep­re­sent­ed in a pic­ture ac­cord­ing to their ap­pear­ance to the eye.

Who are the Japanese?

The in­hab­itants of Japan, an em­pire of East­ern Asia, com­posed of sev­er­al large is­lands. They are so sim­ilar in fea­ture, and in many of their cus­toms and cer­emonies, to the Chi­nese, as to be re­gard­ed by some, as the same race of men. The Japanese lan­guage is so very pe­cu­liar, that it is rarely un­der­stood by the peo­ple of oth­er na­tions. Their re­li­gion is idol­atrous; their gov­ern­ment a monar­chy, con­trolled by the priest­hood. The peo­ple are very in­ge­nious, and the arts and sci­ences are held in great es­teem by them. In all re­spects, Japan is an im­por­tant and in­ter­est­ing em­pire.

_Monar­chy_, a gov­ern­ment in which the pow­er is vest­ed in a king or em­per­or.

By what na­tions was the art of paint­ing prac­tised with great suc­cess?

By the Greeks and Ro­mans. Greece pro­duced many dis­tin­guished painters, among whom Apelles was one of the most cel­ebrat­ed; he was a na­tive of Cos, an is­land in the Archipela­go, rather north of Rhodes; he flour­ished in the time of Alexan­der the Great, and wit­nessed both the glo­ry and the de­cay of an­cient art: the lead­ing fea­tures of his style were beau­ty and grace. But paint­ing was not at any pe­ri­od so com­plete­ly na­tion­al in Greece, as sculp­ture, its sis­ter art; the names of one hun­dred and six­ty-​nine em­inent sculp­tors are record­ed, while on­ly fif­teen painters are men­tioned. Zeux­is, of Her­aclea, was an­oth­er fa­mous Greek painter, who flour­ished 400 years be­fore Christ. The Ro­mans were not with­out con­sid­er­able mas­ters in this art, in the lat­ter times of the re­pub­lic, and un­der the first em­per­ors.

What na­tion is sup­posed to have known and prac­tised this art even be­fore the foun­da­tion of Rome?

The Etr­uscans, in­hab­itants of Etruria, whose ac­quain­tance with the arts has ex­cit­ed great as­ton­ish­ment among those who have most deeply searched in­to their his­to­ry, and traced their progress by means of the beau­ti­ful spec­imens of their works still ex­tant. Their ear­ly works were not su­pe­ri­or to those of oth­er na­tions; but ei­ther from their in­ter­course with Greece, or the orig­inal ge­nius of the peo­ple, they had at­tained con­sid­er­able em­inence in the arts of paint­ing, sculp­ture, &c., be­fore Rome was found­ed. Pliny speaks of some beau­ti­ful pic­tures at Ardea and Lanu­vi­um, which were old­er than Rome: and an­oth­er au­thor al­so says that be­fore Rome was built, sculp­ture and paint­ing ex­ist­ed among them.

Where was Etruria sit­uat­ed?

In Italy, on the west of the Tiber, which sep­arat­ed it from the ter­ri­to­ry of an­cient Rome, to which it was af­ter­wards an­nexed by con­quest. Etruria was the an­cient name of Tus­cany.

_An­nexed_, unit­ed.

Was not the art great­ly ob­scured for some cen­turies?

The ir­rup­tion of Bar­bar­ians in­to Italy and South­ern Eu­rope, proved fa­tal to paint­ing, and al­most re­duced it to its prim­itive state; it was not un­til af­ter a long pe­ri­od that it was ful­ly re­stored. The first cer­tain signs of its re­vival took place about the year 1066, when Greek artists were sent for to adorn sev­er­al of the cities of Italy. Cimabue, a na­tive of Flo­rence, in the thir­teenth cen­tu­ry, caught the in­spi­ra­tion of the Greek artists, and soon equalled their works. He was both a painter and an ar­chi­tect.

_Ir­rup­tion_, in­road, in­va­sion.

To what did this rev­olu­tion in its his­to­ry give rise?

It caused it to be dis­tin­guished in­to an­cient and mod­ern. The an­cient paint­ing com­pre­hends the Greek and Ro­man: the mod­ern has formed sev­er­al schools, each of which has its pe­cu­liar char­ac­ter and mer­it. The first mas­ters who re­vived the art were great­ly sur­passed by their schol­ars, who car­ried it to the great­est state of per­fec­tion, and ad­vanced it not on­ly by their own no­ble works, but al­so by those of their pupils.

Who were the prin­ci­pal mas­ters of the Ital­ian school?

Raphael and the cel­ebrat­ed Michael An­ge­lo Buonarot­ti; the for­mer is re­gard­ed as the prince of mod­ern painters, and is of­ten styled “the di­vine Raphael;” he was born at Urbino, in 1483. Michael An­ge­lo was born at Flo­rence, in 1564, and unit­ed the pro­fes­sions of painter, sculp­tor, ar­chi­tect, po­et, and mu­si­cian. Be­sides these there were many oth­er il­lus­tri­ous Ital­ian painters, the prin­ci­pal of whom were Leonar­do da Vin­ci, Titian, Cor­reg­gio, the three Carac­ci, Gui­do, Parmegiano, Sal­va­tor Rosa, &c.

Was not Raphael al­so reck­oned as ex­cel­lent an ar­chi­tect as he was a painter?

He was not on­ly es­teemed the best painter in the world, but al­so the best ar­chi­tect; he was at least so ad­mired for skill and taste in ar­chi­tec­ture, that Leo the Tenth charged him with the build­ing of St. Pe­ter's Church at Rome.

Who was Leo the Tenth?

A great Pope, who was an ar­dent lover and pa­tron of learn­ing and the arts. He was born at Flo­rence, in 1475, and died in 1521.

Give me a list of some of the most cel­ebrat­ed painters be­sides those al­ready men­tioned.

The great painters of the _Ger­man_ school were Al­bert Dur­er, Hol­bein, Kneller and Mengs, with sev­er­al oth­ers.

Of the _Dutch_ school, were Rem­brandt, Ger­ard Dow, Mieris, Os­tade, Polem­berg, Berghem, and Wou­ver­mans.

Of the _Flem­ish_, Rubens, Te­niers, Jor­daens, and Vandy­ck.

The ad­mired painters of the _French_ school, were Claude, Poussin, Le Brun, and many oth­ers.

The _Spaniards_ al­so have had their Muril­lo, Ve­lasquez, &c.

The _En­glish_, Hog­arth, Wright, Reynolds, Wil­son, North­cote, Gains­bor­ough, Mor­land, Bar­ry, and oth­ers.

The _Amer­icans_, Wash­ing­ton All­ston, Ben­jamin West, Gilbert Stu­art, John Sin­gle­ton Cop­ley, John Trum­bull, G. Stu­art New­ton, Thomas Cole, Hen­ry In­man, and a num­ber of oth­ers; be­sides many now liv­ing, or but re­cent­ly de­ceased.

Up­on what ma­te­ri­als did the an­cients paint their works?

Prin­ci­pal­ly up­on wood; the boards or ta­bles were pre­pared with a thin ground of chalk and size of some kind. Linen cloth or can­vas was al­so em­ployed, but there is no ev­idence of its use be­fore the reign of Nero. Parch­ment, ivory and plas­ter were the oth­er ma­te­ri­als.

_Ev­idence_, tes­ti­mo­ny, record.

Who was Nero?

One of the Ro­man Em­per­ors, a mon­ster of cru­el­ty, ex­trav­agance, and de­bauch­ery; he raised a dread­ful per­se­cu­tion against the Chris­tians, in which St. Paul was be­head­ed, and St. Pe­ter cru­ci­fied. At last, be­ing de­sert­ed by his army and the sen­ate, he de­stroyed him­self, af­ter a reign of four­teen years.

_De­bauch­ery_, wicked­ness.

What is Po­et­ry?

The glow­ing lan­guage of im­pas­sioned feel­ing, gen­er­al­ly found in mea­sured lines, and of­ten in rhyme. Most an­cient peo­ple had their po­ets.

_Glow­ing_, warm, en­er­get­ic.

_Im­pas­sioned_, full of pas­sion, an­imat­ed.

_Rhyme_, the cor­re­spon­dence of the last sound of one verse to the last sound or syl­la­ble of an­oth­er.

Name a few of the an­cient po­ets.

David was an in­spired po­et of the He­brews: Homer, one of the ear­li­est po­ets of the Greeks: Os­sian, an an­cient po­et of the Scots: Tal­iesen, an an­cient po­et of the Welsh: and Odin, an ear­ly po­et of the Scan­di­na­vians.

Who were the Scan­di­na­vians?

The in­hab­itants of Scan­di­navia, the an­cient name of Den­mark, Swe­den, and Nor­way.

What peo­ple are re­gard­ed as the Fa­thers of Po­et­ry?

The Greeks. Homer was the first and the prince of po­ets; he cel­ebrat­ed the siege of Troy in the Il­iad and Odyssey, two epic po­ems which have nev­er been sur­passed. In the same kind of com­po­si­tion he was fol­lowed, nine hun­dred years af­ter, by Vir­gil, in the Eneid; by Tas­so, af­ter an­oth­er fif­teen hun­dred years, in the 'Jerusalem De­liv­ered.' The Greeks al­so boast­ed of their Pin­dar and Anacre­on in lyric po­et­ry; and of Aristo­phanes, Eu­ripi­des, Sopho­cles, and Es­chy­lus, in dra­mat­ic po­et­ry.

Did the Ro­mans pos­sess any dis­tin­guished Po­ets?

Yes; among the epic po­ets were Ovid and Tibul­lus; among drama­tists, Plau­tus and Ter­ence; of di­dac­tic and philo­soph­ic po­ets, Lu­cretius, Vir­gil, Ho­race, and Sil­ius Itali­cus. All these were so many mir­acles of hu­man ge­nius; and their works af­ford the mod­els of their re­spec­tive species of com­po­si­tion. Most of the works of the an­cients have in sen­ti­ment, if not in spir­it, been trans­lat­ed in­to En­glish.

_Mir­acles_, won­ders.

_Ge­nius_, nat­ural tal­ent.

_Re­spec­tive_, par­tic­ular.

_Sen­ti­ment_, thought, mean­ing.

Did not the same rev­olu­tion which un­der­mined the Greek and Ro­man em­pires, and de­stroyed learn­ing, the arts and sci­ences, and the taste for el­egance and lux­ury, al­so prove fa­tal to Po­et­ry?

It did; the hordes of bar­bar­ians who over­ran Eu­rope wiped out civ­iliza­tion in their progress, and lit­er­ature, art, and sci­ence fled be­fore the wild con­querors to find a refuge in the monastery and the con­vent. Here knowl­edge was fos­tered with the love and ar­dor which re­li­gion alone can im­part. Fi­nal­ly, when the rude bar­bar­ians were con­vert­ed, it was to the re­li­gious Or­ders that the world turned for the es­tab­lish­ment of schools, and it is to the Church alone, in the per­son of her popes, her bish­ops, and her monks that we are in­debt­ed for the preser­va­tion of learn­ing, and its re­vival in the fif­teenth cen­tu­ry.

What cel­ebrat­ed Po­ets marked this re­vival?

In Italy, Dante, Ar­ios­to, Pe­trar­ch and Tas­so. These were fol­lowed, in France, by Racine, Corneille, Boileau, Voltaire, La Fontaine and Delille; in Eng­land, by Chaucer, Spenser, Shak­speare, Mil­ton, Dry­den, Pope, Thom­son, Young, Collins, Gray, By­ron, Co­leridge, &c; in Scot­land, by Sir Wal­ter Scott; in Ire­land, by Thomas Moore; in Ger­many, Klop­stock, Goethe and Schiller.

Name some of the dis­tin­guished po­ets of our own coun­try.

Hen­ry Wadsworth Longfel­low, William Cullen Bryant, James Rus­sell Low­ell, John G. Whit­ti­er, Fitz-​Greene Hal­leck, and many oth­ers whose mer­ito­ri­ous works will be im­par­tial­ly judged by a fu­ture age.

_Im­par­tial­ly_, just­ly, with­out prej­udice.

Name the dif­fer­ent kinds of Po­et­ry.

Epic, or his­tor­ical; dra­mat­ic, or rep­re­sen­ta­tive,--from dra­ma, the name of all com­po­si­tions adapt­ed to recita­tion on the stage--in which are dis­played, for in­struc­tion and amuse­ment, all the pas­sions, feel­ings, er­rors, and virtues of the hu­man race in re­al life; lyric po­et­ry, or that suit­ed to mu­sic, as songs, odes, &c; di­dac­tic, or in­struc­tive; ele­giac, or sen­ti­men­tal, and af­fect­ing; satir­ical, or cen­so­ri­ous; epi­gram­mat­ic, or wit­ty and lu­di­crous; and pas­toral, or de­scrip­tive of coun­try life.

_His­tor­ical_, re­lat­ing to his­to­ry.

_Lyric_, per­tain­ing to a lyre.

_Di­dac­tic_, doc­tri­nal; re­lat­ing to doc­trines or opin­ions.

_Ele­giac_, re­lat­ing to el­egy; mourn­ful, sor­row­ful.

_El­egy_, a mourn­ful song: a fu­ner­al com­po­si­tion; a short po­em with­out points or af­fect­ed el­egance.

_Satir­ical_, se­vere in lan­guage; re­lat­ing to satire.

_Satire_, a po­em in which wicked­ness or fol­ly is cen­sured.

_Epi­gram­mat­ic_, re­lat­ing to epi­gram,--a short po­em end­ing in a par­tic­ular point or mean­ing, un­der­stood but not ex­pressed.

_Pas­toral_, from _pas­tor_, a shep­herd; re­lat­ing to ru­ral em­ploy­ments and those be­long­ing to shep­herds.

What is As­tron­omy?

The sci­ence which treats of the heav­en­ly bod­ies, their ar­range­ment, mag­ni­tudes, dis­tances and mo­tions. The term As­tron­omy is de­rived from two Greek words, sig­ni­fy­ing the _law_ of the _stars_; _as­tron_ be­ing the Greek for star.

What can you say of its ori­gin?

Its ori­gin has been as­cribed to sev­er­al per­sons, as well as to dif­fer­ent na­tions and ages. Belus, King of As­syr­ia; At­las, King of Mau­ri­ta­nia; and Uranus, King of the coun­tries sit­uat­ed on the shores of the At­lantic Ocean, are all record­ed as the per­sons to whom the world is in­debt­ed for this no­ble sci­ence. Its ori­gin is gen­er­al­ly fixed in Chaldea. Some choose, how­ev­er, to at­tribute it to the He­brews; oth­ers to the Egyp­tians,--from whom, they say, it passed to the Greeks.

What coun­try is meant by Mau­ri­ta­nia?

Mau­ri­ta­nia is the name for­mer­ly giv­en to a coun­try in the north­ern part of Africa. Chaldea is the an­cient name for Baby­lo­nia, now called Irak Ara­bi, a dis­trict of Asi­at­ic Turkey.

By whom were the heav­en­ly bod­ies first di­vid­ed in­to Con­stel­la­tions or groups?

By the an­cients. The phe­nom­ena of the heav­ens were stud­ied in very ear­ly ages by sev­er­al na­tions of the East. The Chaldeans, the In­di­ans, the Chi­nese and the Egyp­tians have all left ev­idence of the in­dus­try and in­ge­nu­ity with which their ob­ser­va­tions were con­duct­ed.

_Phe­nom­ena_, ap­pear­ances.

_In­ge­nu­ity_, skil­ful­ness.

What progress did they make in As­tron­omy?

They built ob­ser­va­to­ries,--in­vent­ed in­stru­ments for ob­serv­ing and mea­sur­ing with cor­rect­ness,--sep­arat­ed the stars in­to dif­fer­ent groups or con­stel­la­tions, for the more eas­ily find­ing any par­tic­ular star,--gave par­tic­ular names to most of the mov­ing stars or plan­ets, and not­ed the pe­ri­ods which each took to move through its ap­par­ent path in the heav­ens; and in many oth­er ways the an­cients helped to lay the foun­da­tions of that mass of as­tro­nom­ical knowl­edge which men of lat­er ages have brought to more ma­tu­ri­ty.

_Con­stel­la­tion_, a clus­ter of fixed stars; an as­sem­blage of stars.

_Ob­ser­va­to­ry_, a place so built as to com­mand a view of the heav­ens.

Who first taught the true sys­tem of the Uni­verse?

Pythago­ras, one of the most dis­tin­guished philoso­phers of an­tiq­ui­ty. He is thought to have been a na­tive of Samos, an is­land in the Archipela­go; he flour­ished about 500 years be­fore Christ, in the time of Tar­quin, the last King of Rome. Pythago­ras was the first among the Eu­ro­peans who taught that the Earth and Plan­ets turn round the Sun, which stands im­mov­able in the cen­tre;--that the di­ur­nal mo­tion of the Sun and Fixed Stars is not re­al, but ap­par­ent,--aris­ing from the Earth's mo­tion round its own ax­is, &c. Af­ter the time of Pythago­ras, As­tron­omy sunk in­to ne­glect.

_Philoso­pher_, one who stud­ies phi­los­ophy.

_Phi­los­ophy_, all knowl­edge, whether nat­ural or moral. The term is de­rived from the Greek, _phi­los_, lover, and _sophia_, wis­dom.

By whom was it re­vived?

By the fam­ily of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, who found­ed a school of as­tron­omy at Alexan­dria, which pro­duced sev­er­al em­inent as­tronomers, par­tic­ular­ly one named Hip­parchus. The Sara­cens, on their con­quest of Egypt, be­came pos­sessed of the knowl­edge of As­tron­omy, which they car­ried with them out of Africa in­to Spain; and thus, af­ter a long ex­ile, it was in­tro­duced afresh in­to Eu­rope.

Did not As­tron­omy from this time make great progress?

Yes; it made con­sid­er­able ad­vances, be­ing cul­ti­vat­ed by the great­est ge­nius­es, and pa­tron­ized by the great­est princes. The sys­tem of the Ptolemies, called the Ptole­ma­ic, had hith­er­to been used, with some slight al­ter­ations; but Coper­ni­cus, an em­inent as­tronomer, born at Thorn, in Pol­ish Prus­sia, in 1473, adopt­ed the sys­tem which had been taught by Pythago­ras in Greece, five or six hun­dred years be­fore the time of Ptole­my. About the same time with Coper­ni­cus flour­ished Ty­cho Bra­he, born in Den­mark, 1546.

_Ge­nius­es_, men gift­ed with su­pe­ri­or men­tal fac­ul­ties.

_Men­tal_, be­long­ing to the mind.

_Fac­ul­ties_, pow­ers of do­ing any­thing, whether me­nial or bod­ily; abil­ities; pow­ers of the mind.

What next great­ly for­ward­ed this in­ter­est­ing sci­ence?

The in­tro­duc­tion of tele­scopes by Galileo, who by their means dis­cov­ered the small stars or satel­lites which at­tend the plan­et Jupiter; the var­ious ap­pear­ances of Sat­urn; the moun­tains in the Moon; the spots on the Sun; and its rev­olu­tion on its ax­is.

_Satel­lites_, at­ten­dants.

What cel­ebrat­ed As­tronomer arose in Eng­land?

The im­mor­tal Sir Isaac New­ton, born in 1642, at Wool­sthor­pe, in Lin­colnshire, who has, per­haps, con­tribut­ed more to the ad­vance­ment of this sci­ence than any one who had be­fore ex­ist­ed. Dr. William Her­schel, a na­tive of Hanover, in Ger­many, born in 1738, like­wise made many use­ful dis­cov­er­ies in As­tron­omy: it was he who first dis­cov­ered the sev­enth pri­ma­ry plan­et, which he named, in hon­or of King George the Third, the Georgium Sidus. George the Third took him un­der his es­pe­cial pa­tron­age, and con­sti­tut­ed him his as­tronomer, with a hand­some pen­sion. He resid­ed at Slough, near Wind­sor, where he died, in 1822.

_Pa­tron­age_, sup­port, fa­vor.

_Con­sti­tut­ed_, ap­point­ed to any par­tic­ular of­fice or rank.

_Pen­sion_, year­ly al­lowance of mon­ey.

What oth­er cir­cum­stance con­tribut­ed to the ad­vance­ment of As­tron­omy?

The in­creas­ing per­fec­tion of our as­tro­nom­ical in­stru­ments,--by means of which, the most im­por­tant and in­ter­est­ing dis­cov­er­ies with re­gard to the heav­ens have been made. It is now sup­posed that the myr­iads of the heav­en­ly bod­ies are all dis­tinct worlds; it is cer­tain, from ob­ser­va­tions made by the aid of the tele­scope, that the moon has its moun­tains, val­leys, and cav­erns. One of the great­est as­tronomers of our day was the em­inent Fa­ther Sec­ci.

What are gen­er­al­ly meant by the Arts?

Sys­tems of rules de­signed to fa­cil­itate the per­for­mance of cer­tain ac­tions; in this sense, it stands op­posed to sci­ence. The terms _art_ and _sci­ence_ are of­ten in­cor­rect­ly used. Sci­ence re­lates to prin­ci­ples, and art to prac­tice. The word art is de­rived from a Greek word sig­ni­fy­ing util­ity, prof­it. Arts are di­vid­ed in­to lib­er­al and me­chan­ical.

What are the Lib­er­al Arts?

The lib­er­al arts are those that are no­ble and in­ge­nious, or which are wor­thy of be­ing cul­ti­vat­ed with­out any im­me­di­ate re­gard to the pe­cu­niary prof­it aris­ing from them. They are Po­et­ry, Mu­sic, Paint­ing, Sculp­ture, Ar­chi­tec­ture, Gram­mar, Log­ic, Rhetoric, As­tron­omy, and Nav­iga­tion. The arts which re­late more es­pe­cial­ly to the sight and hear­ing are al­so called Fine Arts.

_Pe­cu­niary_, re­lat­ing to mon­ey.

_Mil­itary_, be­long­ing to sol­diers, or to arms.

What do the Fine Arts usu­al­ly in­clude?

All those which are more or less ad­dressed to the sen­ti­ment of taste, and whose ob­ject is plea­sure; these are more es­pe­cial­ly Mu­sic, Paint­ing, Sculp­ture, and Po­et­ry.

What are the Me­chan­ical Arts?

Those in which the hand and body are more con­cerned than the mind, and which are chiefly cul­ti­vat­ed for the sake of the prof­it at­tend­ing them. To this class be­long those which fur­nish us with the nec­es­saries of life, and which are com­mon­ly called trades, as car­pen­try, weav­ing, print­ing, &c. There are al­so many oth­er arts, as the art of writ­ing, &c.

When was the art of Writ­ing in­vent­ed?

It is sup­posed that the art was in­vent­ed be­fore the Del­uge: it was cer­tain­ly prac­tised long be­fore the time of Moses. There were, doubt­less, many steps tak­en in slow suc­ces­sion be­fore the in­ven­tion of al­pha­bet­ic writ­ing. Per­haps the ear­li­est method might have been that which is still em­ployed among the un­tu­tored tribes of North Amer­ican In­di­ans, who record events by pic­ture-​paint­ing of the rud­est de­scrip­tion. Pic­ture-​paint­ing was af­ter­wards grad­ual­ly con­vert­ed in­to the hi­ero­glyph­ical sys­tem, which is still the on­ly kind of writ­ing among the Chi­nese. It is not known who in­vent­ed the al­pha­bet­ic sys­tem of writ­ing.

_Del­uge_, a flood: the term used in par­tic­ular to de­note that mighty flood of wa­ter with which God swept away the first na­tions of the earth for their wicked­ness.

_Al­pha­bet­ic_, from al­pha­bet, the se­ries of writ­ten signs of lan­guage called let­ters. The word is formed from _al­pha_, _be­ta_, the names of the first two let­ters of the Greek al­pha­bet.

_Un­tu­tored_, ig­no­rant, un­learned.

Were not the Egyp­tians quite ear­ly ac­quaint­ed with this art?

Yes, they were ac­quaint­ed with two or three kinds of writ­ing, as well as the one in which sym­bol­ical char­ac­ters were em­ployed, which was not used for com­mon pur­pos­es. On the con­trary, such sym­bols had some­thing of a sa­cred char­ac­ter about them, be­ing un­known to the com­mon peo­ple, and on­ly to be de­ci­phered by the priests. Obelisks and pyra­mids were the great na­tion­al records; and on these the hi­ero­glyph­ics were con­stant­ly used, be­cause un­in­tel­li­gi­ble to the peo­ple, un­til ex­pound­ed by those who had the ex­clu­sive of­fice of ex­plain­ing them.

_Sym­bol­ical_, hav­ing the na­ture of signs or sym­bols--that is, rep­re­sen­ta­tions of dif­fer­ent things.

_De­ci­phered_, read, un­der­stood, made out.

_Un­in­tel­li­gi­ble_, that can­not be un­der­stood.

_Ex­pound­ed_, ex­plained, in­ter­pret­ed.

Were Hi­ero­glyph­ics em­ployed be­fore or af­ter Al­pha­bet­ic Writ­ing?

They were un­doubt­ed­ly em­ployed at first from ne­ces­si­ty, not from choice or re­fine­ment; and would nev­er have been thought of, if al­pha­bet­ical char­ac­ters had been known. This style of writ­ing must be reck­oned as a rude im­prove­ment up­on pic­ture-​writ­ing, which had pre­vi­ous­ly been used. Hi­ero­glyph­ics were em­ployed by the Egyp­tian priests in af­ter times, as a kind of sa­cred writ­ing, pe­cu­liar to them­selves, and serv­ing to give an air of mys­tery to their learn­ing and re­li­gion, though fall­en in­to dis­use for oth­er pur­pos­es.

What ma­te­ri­als were em­ployed by an­cient na­tions in Writ­ing?

The East­ern na­tions used ta­bles of stone, brass, and wood, so that the char­ac­ters were en­graved in­stead of be­ing writ­ten in the usu­al man­ner. The in­stru­ment used in writ­ing on wood, was made of met­al, and called a _style_. For stone, brass, &c., a chis­el was em­ployed. When the bark and leaves of trees, skins, and oth­er ma­te­ri­als of a more pli­ant na­ture, su­per­seded the above-​named ta­bles, the chis­el and the style, or sty­lus, gave way to the reed and cane, and af­ter­wards to the quill, the _hair_ pen­cil (as now used by the Chi­nese,) and the con­ve­nient lead pen­cil.

_En­graved_, in­scribed with the graver, a tool used in en­grav­ing on stone, &c.

_Pli­ant_, yield­ing, eas­ily bent.

Have not the var­ious na­tions among whom this use­ful art has been cul­ti­vat­ed, adopt­ed dif­fer­ent ways of ar­rang­ing their writ­ten char­ac­ters?

Yes. The He­brews, Chaldeans, Syr­ians, Ara­bi­ans, and Egyp­tians, be­gin each line on the right side, and write to­wards the left. The Greeks, Latins, and all Eu­ro­pean na­tions, write from left to right. The na­tives of Chi­na, Japan, Cochin Chi­na, Corea, &c., write from the top to the bot­tom of the page.

Where are Cochin Chi­na, and Corea?

Cochin Chi­na is a coun­try sit­uat­ed in East­ern Asia. Corea is a penin­su­la of Asia, sub­ject to Chi­na.

What is meant by Sci­ence?

A clear and cer­tain knowl­edge of any­thing found­ed on self-​ev­ident prin­ci­ples, or demon­stra­tion. The term is, how­ev­er, more par­tic­ular­ly ap­plied to a sys­tem­at­ic ar­range­ment of the prin­ci­ples re­lat­ing to any branch of knowl­edge, and is em­ployed in this sense in op­po­si­tion to art: thus the the­oret­ical knowl­edge of chem­istry is ranked as a sci­ence, but the prac­ti­cal part is called an art; thus it is some­times spo­ken of as a sci­ence, some­times as an art.

_Prac­ti­cal_, re­lat­ing to ac­tion, not mere­ly spec­ula­tive.

What is Chem­istry?

A sci­ence which en­ables us to dis­cov­er the pe­cu­liar prop­er­ties of nat­ural bod­ies, ei­ther in their sim­ple or com­pound state, and the el­emen­tary or first prin­ci­ples of which they are com­posed, by the pro­cess­es of anal­ysis and com­bi­na­tion. Chem­istry treats of those changes in nat­ural bod­ies which are not ac­com­pa­nied by _sen­si­ble_ mo­tions.

_Com­pound_, mixed.

_Anal­ysis_, a sep­ara­tion of a com­pound body in­to the sev­er­al parts of which it con­sists.

Is not the knowl­edge of Chem­istry very an­cient?

Chem­istry, as far as it re­gards the sep­arat­ing of met­als from for­eign mat­ters in the ore, smelt­ing and re­fin­ing them, is of the high­est an­tiq­ui­ty; it is even sup­posed to have been un­der­stood and prac­tised in the an­te­dilu­vian world.

_An­te­dilu­vian_, be­fore the flood.

What na­tion ap­pears to have ex­celled in Chem­istry in ear­ly times?

The Egyp­tians were no mean pro­fi­cients in many chem­ical op­er­ations, es­pe­cial­ly in the arts of work­ing met­als, soft­en­ing ivory, vit­ri­fy­ing flints, and im­itat­ing pre­cious stones. Chem­istry, how­ev­er, ex­pe­ri­enced the com­mon fate of all the arts, at the de­cline of the East­ern em­pire.

_Pro­fi­cients_, those who have made great progress in any art or sci­ence.

By whom was it re­vived?

Af­ter hav­ing long lain buried, the fa­mous Roger Ba­con re­vived it; and from his time to the present day it has grad­ual­ly pro­gressed to a state of per­fec­tion. In for­mer times, the art of chem­istry con­sist­ed on­ly in the knowl­edge of work­ing met­als, &c.; but in lat­ter ages, its bounds have been great­ly en­larged. The knowl­edge of Chem­istry leads to many in­ter­est­ing and im­por­tant dis­cov­er­ies, and the arts and man­ufac­tures are great­ly in­debt­ed to its aid; in­deed, it is req­ui­site to be a good chemist, in or­der to at­tain to per­fec­tion in many of them.

_Req­ui­site_, nec­es­sary.

By what oth­er name has Chem­istry been known?

It was some­times called _Alche­my_; by which is prop­er­ly un­der­stood a re­fined and mys­te­ri­ous species of chem­istry, for­mer­ly much prac­tised.

What were its ob­jects?

The dis­cov­ery of the art of con­vert­ing met­als in­to gold, in­clud­ing the search af­ter the “Philoso­pher's Stone,” by which this change was to be ef­fect­ed; and the dis­cov­ery of a panacea or medicine for the cure of all dis­eases.

What was the Philoso­pher's Stone?

A sub­stance, for num­bers of years ea­ger­ly sought for, which was to con­vert met­als, such as lead, cop­per, &c. in­to gold. This un­known sub­stance was called the Philoso­pher's Stone, prob­ably on ac­count of the num­ber of learned men who en­gaged in the search af­ter it.

[Il­lus­tra­tion: UNIT­ED STATES SIG­NAL STA­TION, PIKE'S PEAK, COL­ORADO.]

Was this search suc­cess­ful?

No; but the delu­sion last­ed sev­er­al cen­turies, notwith­stand­ing the fail­ures, loss­es, and dis­ap­point­ments of those en­gaged in it. In­deed, so se­vere and ru­inous were these, in many in­stances, that laws were passed to for­bid the study. In Ger­many, many of the al­chemists who had the un­for­tu­nate rep­uta­tion of pos­sess­ing this won­der­ful stone were im­pris­oned and fur­nished with ap­pa­ra­tus till they should pur­chase their lib­er­ty by mak­ing an ounce of gold.

_Delu­sion_, an er­ror aris­ing from false views.

_Ap­pa­ra­tus_, a com­plete set of in­stru­ments or tools, by which any­thing is made, or any op­er­ation per­formed.

Was any gold ev­er pro­duced by this method?

Not a par­ti­cle; the sto­ry of a stone hav­ing the prop­er­ty of con­vert­ing the baser met­als in­to gold be­ing mere­ly an ab­surd fa­ble: yet, al­though the pur­suits of Alche­my were the most pre­pos­ter­ous that can be con­ceived, the ar­dor with which they were fol­lowed, and the amaz­ing num­ber of ex­per­iments made in con­se­quence, led to the dis­cov­ery of many facts to which Chem­istry is high­ly in­debt­ed.

_Pre­pos­ter­ous_, ab­surd, fool­ish; con­trary to na­ture or rea­son.

You in­form me that Chem­istry en­ables us to dis­cov­er the prop­er­ties of bod­ies by means of _anal­ysis_ and _com­bi­na­tion_: what do these terms im­ply?

If a chemist wish­es to ex­am­ine the prop­er­ties of a com­pound body, he pro­ceeds by anal­ysis--that is, by a sep­ara­tion of the sub­stance to be ex­am­ined in­to its con­stituent parts. The chem­ical ex­am­ina­tion of bod­ies is gen­er­al­ly ef­fect­ed by pro­duc­ing a change in the _na­ture_ or _state_ of the body un­der ex­am­ina­tion. This change is fre­quent­ly brought about by the ad­di­tion of some _oth­er_ sub­stance which forms a com­bi­na­tion with a part of the sub­stance ex­am­ined, and leaves the re­main­der in a de­tached state.

By what _means_ do Chemists ef­fect a change in the qual­ities or states of nat­ural bod­ies?

It is gen­er­al­ly ef­fect­ed by means of _heat_, which has a ten­den­cy to sep­arate the par­ti­cles of bod­ies from each oth­er; or by the _mix­ture_ or _com­bi­na­tion_ of some oth­er mat­ter with the mat­ter in­tend­ed to be ex­am­ined. The mix­ture of two or more com­pounds of­ten pro­duces a de­com­po­si­tion by means of chem­ical _affin­ity_, a prop­er­ty which dif­fer­ent species of mat­ter have to unite with each oth­er; and which is some­times called _elec­tive affin­ity_. Thus it may be ob­served, chemists have not on­ly the pow­er of de­com­pos­ing nat­ural bod­ies, but of pro­duc­ing by com­bi­na­tion var­ious oth­er sub­stances, such as are not found in the king­dom of na­ture.

What do you mean by _de­com­po­si­tion_?

In chem­ical lan­guage, it means the sep­ara­tion of a com­pound body in­to its sim­ple el­ements.

Give me an ex­am­ple.

Wa­ter may be de­com­posed, and re­duced in­to oxy­gen and hy­dro­gen,--both of them sim­ple sub­stances in­ca­pable of fur­ther de­com­po­si­tion.

Is not the work of de­com­po­si­tion per­pet­ual­ly go­ing for­ward?

Yes; and _com­bus­tion_ is one of the great agents in this work. By it an­imal and veg­etable sub­stances are con­vert­ed in­to wa­ter and car­bon­ic acid, by the union of their hy­dro­gen and car­bon with the oxy­gen of the air. These, in time, are again ab­sorbed by veg­eta­bles, and again de­com­posed to set the oxy­gen at lib­er­ty to pro­duce fresh com­bus­tions.

Of what use are the two re­main­ing sub­stances, Hy­dro­gen and Car­bon?

These are ap­pro­pri­at­ed by the veg­eta­tive or­gans to their growth and nour­ish­ment, while the oxy­gen with which the car­bon was com­bined is abun­dant­ly giv­en off to pu­ri­fy the air and ren­der it fit for the res­pi­ra­tion of an­imals.

Give me an idea of the mode in which Chemists as­cer­tain the _affin­ity_ of bod­ies, by re­lat­ing an ex­per­iment.

Dis­solve a tea-​spoon­ful of sug­ar of lead in wa­ter, and pour the clear so­lu­tion in­to a de­canter or large glass bot­tle. Then take a small piece of zinc, and twist round it some brass or cop­per wire, so as to let the ends of the wire de­pend from it in any agree­able form. Sus­pend the zinc and wire in the so­lu­tion which has been pre­pared; in a short time, metal­lic lead will de­posit it­self on the zinc and along the wire. This is a beau­ti­ful il­lus­tra­tion of chem­ical affin­ity; the acid, which con­sti­tutes a part of the sug­ar of lead, has a stronger affin­ity for the zinc than for the lead, and, con­se­quent­ly, will com­bine with the zinc, and form a com­pound which re­mains in so­lu­tion, while the lead is pre­cip­itat­ed on the zinc and wire in the form of a bril­liant tree of met­al.

_Affin­ity_, in chem­istry, that at­trac­tion which takes place be­tween the el­ements of bod­ies, and forms com­pounds.

What does the word Na­ture sig­ni­fy?

In the above sense, the sys­tem of the uni­verse; the cre­ation, the works of God. By the king­dom of na­ture is meant the world and all things in it: na­ture is di­vid­ed in­to three king­doms, the an­imal, veg­etable, and min­er­al.

What are the dif­fer­ent states of nat­ural bod­ies?

All bod­ies are ei­ther sol­id, liq­uid, or aer­iform. By sol­id bod­ies are meant those whose parts unite so firm­ly as to re­sist the im­pres­sion or pen­etra­tion of oth­er bod­ies; by liq­uid, those sub­stances whose parts do not unite firm­ly, but have free mo­tion among them­selves; by aer­iform, flu­id sub­stances, hav­ing the form or na­ture of air. Liq­uid sub­stances are noth­ing more than solids con­vert­ed in­to liq­uids by heat, a cer­tain in­crease of which would con­vert the liq­uids in­to va­por.

What oth­er name is giv­en to Liq­uids?

They are like­wise called flu­ids: we call the air, al­so, a flu­id, be­cause it flows like a flu­id, and light sub­stances will float in it.

What is the cause of bod­ies float­ing on liq­uids?

It is an es­tab­lished law of na­ture, that all sub­stances which weigh less than an equal bulk of any liq­uid, will float on the sur­face of this liq­uid. Thus a cork will float on wa­ter, while a stone sinks to the bot­tom. The cork will not float in the air, though lighter than wa­ter; and the stone is not heav­ier than the _whole_ of the wa­ter, but more so than a por­tion of wa­ter of its _own bulk_,--and thus it sinks in it. Stones al­so dif­fer in their weight or grav­ity: for in­stance, some of the as­bestus kind are _lighter_ than wa­ter. Iron, brass, in­deed, near­ly all sub­stances, ex­cept gold and plati­na, will float up­on mer­cury, be­cause they are lighter than this liq­uid.

What is the cause of bod­ies be­ing ei­ther sol­id, liq­uid, or aer­iform?

When the prin­ci­ple of _at­trac­tion_ pre­vails, it caus­es them to be­come sol­id; when caloric pre­vails, they be­come aer­iform. Flu­id­ity is, ap­par­ent­ly, a medi­um be­tween the two.

How is the state of So­lid­ity in bod­ies ac­count­ed for?

The par­ti­cles of all bod­ies are sub­ject to two op­po­site pow­ers, _re­pul­sion_ and _at­trac­tion_; be­tween which they re­main in equi­lib­ri­um. While the _at­trac­tive_ force re­mains strongest, the body re­mains in a state of so­lid­ity; but if heat de­stroys this force, the par­ti­cles lose their co­he­sion, and the body ceas­es to be sol­id.

_Co­he­sion_, act of stick­ing to­geth­er, union of the con­stituent parts of a body.

Which is sup­posed to be the most nat­ural state of all bod­ies?

So­lid­ity; for by the _com­bi­na­tion_ of caloric with them we can re­duce most sub­stances to the flu­id state; while the great­est num­ber of _liq­uid_ sub­stances take a _sol­id_ form by the loss of caloric. Thus, wa­ter con­geals and forms ice; and even the gas­es show this dis­po­si­tion to be­come sol­id, when they lose their _elas­tic­ity_ by form­ing some _com­bi­na­tion_.

Ex­plain the terms _Re­pul­sion_ and _At­trac­tion_.

Re­pul­sion is a pe­cu­liar prop­er­ty in the par­ti­cles of mat­ter, which gives them a con­stant ten­den­cy to re­cede from each oth­er. At­trac­tion is an un­known force, which caus­es bod­ies or their par­ti­cles to ap­proach each oth­er. The par­ti­cles of all bod­ies pos­sess this prop­er­ty, which caus­es them to ad­here, and pre­serves the var­ious sub­stances around us from falling in pieces.

What dif­fer­ent kinds of At­trac­tion can you men­tion?

At­trac­tion may be dis­tin­guished in­to that which takes place be­tween bod­ies at sen­si­ble dis­tances, and that which man­ifests it­self be­tween the _par­ti­cles_ of mat­ter at in­sen­si­ble dis­tances.

Give an ex­am­ple of the first kind of at­trac­tion.

One of the most fa­mil­iar in­stances of at­trac­tion at sen­si­ble dis­tances is seen in the de­scent of heavy bod­ies to the ground. When a stone is lift­ed up in the hand, the earth's at­trac­tion, which pre­vi­ous­ly caused it to re­main at its sur­face, is over­come; but, as soon as the hand is with­drawn, the stone falls to the earth. The force which caus­es this is called the _at­trac­tion of grav­ita­tion_, or sim­ply _grav­ita­tion_.

How is the sec­ond kind of at­trac­tion, or that be­tween the par­ti­cles of bod­ies, sub­di­vid­ed?

In­to the _at­trac­tion of ag­gre­ga­tion_, or _co­he­sion_; and _chem­ical at­trac­tion_, or _affin­ity_. The for­mer takes place be­tween par­ti­cles which are _sim­ilar_, and the lat­ter be­tween those which are _dis­sim­ilar_. All the op­er­ations of chem­istry are found­ed up­on the force of affin­ity which Na­ture has es­tab­lished be­tween the par­ti­cles of dif­fer­ent kinds of mat­ter, and which en­ables the chemist to pro­duce _new_ com­pounds dif­fer­ing more or less from the sub­stances by whose union they were formed.

Is it, then, nec­es­sary for chemists to un­der­stand the rel­ative na­ture of all sub­stances?

Yes; be­cause the ba­sis of this sci­ence con­sists in an _an­alyt­ical_ ex­am­ina­tion of the works of Na­ture; an in­ves­ti­ga­tion of the prop­er­ties and us­es of all sub­stances we are ac­quaint­ed with; and the study of the ef­fects of _heat_ and _mix­ture_, in or­der that we may find out their gen­er­al and sub­or­di­nate laws.

_An­alyt­ical_, re­lat­ing to anal­ysis.

_In­ves­ti­ga­tion_, act of search­ing, or trac­ing out.

_Sub­or­di­nate_, in­fe­ri­or in na­ture, dig­ni­ty or pow­er.

Re­late a few more of the ad­van­tages ob­tained by a knowl­edge of Chem­istry.

Many of the won­der­ful op­er­ations of Na­ture, and the changes which take place in sub­stances around us, are, by its means, re­vealed to us. In ev­ery man­ufac­ture, art, or walk of life, the chemist pos­sess­es an ad­van­tage over his un­skilled neigh­bor. It is nec­es­sary to the farmer and gar­den­er, as it ex­plains the growth of plants, the use of ma­nures, and their prop­er ap­pli­ca­tion: and in­dis­pens­able to the physi­cian, that he may un­der­stand the an­imal econ­omy, and the _ef­fects_ which cer­tain _caus­es_ chem­ical­ly pro­duce; and the na­ture of an­imal, veg­etable, and min­er­al poi­sons. The study is, there­fore, an in­valu­able branch in the ed­uca­tion of youth: it is use­ful, not on­ly in the ac­tive, but the _moral_ life, by lay­ing the foun­da­tion of an ar­dent and in­quir­ing mind. Even an ev­ery­day walk in the fields can be pro­duc­tive of in­struc­tion, by a knowl­edge of it;--and let us al­ways re­mem­ber, that “Knowl­edge is Pow­er.”

_In­dis­pens­able_, nec­es­sary, not to be done with­out.