constantly striving to render his discoveries practically useful. Hardly had he discovered and named Jupiter's satellites, before he conceived the plan of employing their epochs in ascertaining terrestrial longitudes. The object of his inquiries was not to amaze, but to benefit his fellow-men. Probably to no other individual is science indebted for so many of its essential aids. The pendulum clock, the telescope, the microscope, and the thermometer (which, by the way, as he constructed it, was also a barometer) may all be traced to him as their inventor.

There is no point of view in which Galileo appears more truly great, than in his freedom from religious bigotry, and the boldness with which, amidst threats and anathemas, be perseveres in the pursuit of truth. The following extract from a letter addressed by him to Christina, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, gives his views as to the respective provinces of scripture and science, and is admirable not only as exhibiting principles far in advance of his own age, but as assuming all that the Christian philosopher of the present day would desire the bigot to concede.

"I am inclined to believe, that the intention of the sacred Scriptures is to give to mankind the information necessary for their salvation, and which, surpassing all human knowledge, can by no other means be accredited than by the mouth of the Holy Spirit. But I do not hold it necessary to believe, that the same God, who has endowed us with senses, with speech, and intellect, intended that we should neglect the use of these, and seek by other means for knowledge which they are sufficient to procure us; especially in a science like astronomy, of which so little notice is taken in the Scriptures, that none of the planets, except the sun and moon, and, once or twice only, Venus, under the name of Lucifer, are so much as named there. This therefore being granted, methinks that in the discussion of natural problems we ought not to begin at the authority of texts of Scripture, but at sensible experiments, and necessary demonstration; for, from the Divine Word, the sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed, and I conceive that, concerning natural effects, that which either sensible experience sets before our eyes, or necessary demonstrations do prove unto us, ought not upon any account to be called into question, much less condemned, upon the testimony of scriptural texts, which may under their words couch senses seemingly contrary thereto.

"Again, to command the very professors of astronomy that they of themselves see to the confuting of their own observations and demonstrations, is to enjoin a thing beyond all possibility of doing; for it is not only to command them not to see that which they do see, and not to understand that which they do understand, but it is to order them to seek for and to find the contrary of that which they happen to meet with. I would entreat these wise and prudent fathers, that they would with all diligence consider the difference that is between opinionative and demonstrative doctrines; to the end that well weighing in their minds with what force necessary inferences urge us, they might the better assure themselves that it is not in the power of the professors of demonstrative sciences to change their opinions at pleasure, and adopt first one side and then another; and that there is a great difference between commanding a mathematician or a philosopher, and the disposing of a lawyer or a merchant; and that the demonstrated conclusions touching the things of nature and of the heavens cannot be changed with the same facility as the opinions are touching what is lawful or not in a contract, bargain, or bill of exchange. Therefore, first let these men apply themselves to examine the arguments of Copernicus and others, and leave the condemning of them as erroneous and heretical to whom it belongeth; yet let them not hope to find such rash and precipitous determinations in the wary and holy fathers, or in the absolute wisdom of Him who cannot err, as those into which they suffer themselves to be hurried by some particular affection or interest of their own. In these and such other positions, which are not directly articles of faith, certainly no man doubts but His Holiness hath always an absolute power of admitting or condemning them, but it is not in the power of any creature to make them to be true or false, otherwise than of their own nature and in fact they are.' · pp. 143–145.

Galileo was indeed toward the close of his life induced to abjure the Copernican system of the universe as inconsistent with scripture. But there is too much reason to suppose that his recantation was extorted by the actual application of the torture. At any rate, in case he had refused obedience to the inquisitors, an ignominious death doubtless awaited him; and, though the title of martyr to science sounds well in poetry, in plain prose we would wish no one to seek the honor of martyrdom, unless in the cause of human liberty or of Christian truth. Whatever prompted this venerable philosopher to abjure his scientific creed, it is certain that his faith in it was never for a moment shaken.

"It is said that Galileo, as he rose from his knees, [after reading his abjuration of the earth's motion,] stamped on the ground, and whispered to one of his friends, E pur si muove, (It does move though.")-p. 190.

We close our notice of this memoir by recommending it to the perusal of any of our readers, who are interested in scientific history, or in the biography of truly great men. The highest praise that we can give the work, is to say, that it is worthy of its subject.

ART. III. A new literal Translation of Longinus on the Sublime; for the Use of Schools, Colleges, and Universities; Illustrated with Notes, original and selected. By a Graduate of Trinity College, Dublin. New York. Charles S. Francis. 12mo. pp. 86.

sense.

We have no inclination to discuss the intricate question of the authorship of the treatise usually attributed to Dionysius Longinus. A writer in a late number of the "Edinburgh Review" has examined it with acuteness, learning, and good Another question, and one of really greater importance, is that which involves the merit of the work itself. How far are the praises commonly lavished by enthusiastic scholars, on this treatise, fairly due to it? How much is to be deducted on the score of classical enthusiasm? How far are the principles involved in it, capable of present application, in the criticism of literary works?

Nothing is easier than to bestow epithets. The "golden little treatise" of Longinus, says Pearce, should be read and re-read. To this we have no objection, except that the epithet conveys no definite idea. Why golden? Is it so much superior to all other works? This kind of applause really amounts to nothing. It imposes on the mind of the reader the idea that something, he cannot tell exactly what, of unspeakable value lies hid, like gold in the mine, in this little treatise. It should be borne in mind, however, that the work has come down to us in an imperfect state, and we cannot therefore form a fair judgment of its general merits as a whole. It is an interesting work. It is the work of an amiable and accomplished man. Longinus had read with taste and enthusiasm, the great authors of Greece.

He felt their surpassing merits, and awarded them liberal praise. The genius of the poet, the power of the orator, found in him a soul capable of appreciating them, and ready to honor them. He bowed before the majesty of the "midday sun" in the Iliad, and of its setting glory in the Odyssey; and he listened reverently to the thunders of Demosthenes. No half-way admiration was his; what he felt with rapture, he rapturously expressed. No balancing of merits and demerits, no cautions and critical dissecting of literary claims, no vaunting of analytical acumen, are to be found in his work. All is noble, generous, enthusiastic. We cannot read without admiring and loving him. He is the critic of the heart, rather than the head, of the imagination, rather than the judgment.

From these general characteristics it might be inferred that Longinus has but little to do with principles. Such is in fact the case. He is rather a descriptive than an analytical critic. He writes more from the emotions excited in his own bosom, than from the general conclusions of a rigid philosophy. In this respect Aristotle is incomparably his superior. Indeed who has rivalled the inimitable clearness, and distinctness, the close reasoning, the subtle distinction, the logical inference, of that most masterly and philosophical critic? Longinus rarely attempts to ascend to the first principles of the poetic art, and when he does so, his success is not remarkable. But he loves to describe; to set forth the merits of the great authors of antiquity, with a spirit and fire, something akin to their own all-glorious genius. In doing this, he kindles in his reader a corresponding enthusiasm. You cannot read his beautiful tribute to Demosthenes in Section XVI. without longing to turn to the pages of the great orator himself. Hence the true value of Longinus. He is not didactic and philosophical, but interesting and poetical. He excites more ardor than Aristotle, and here lies the secret of his power. By reading his work, we are made to feel the genius of the poet; by reading Aristotle, we are made to see it; and readers will prefer the one or the other according as they prefer to feel or to see. The greater number, however, doubtless choose the former.

With all its merits, the treatise has some faults, and pretty obvious ones. The language is not always pure, at least as compared with the writers of the best age of Athenian literature. The style is not always clear, and this

would have been a capital defect, in the eye of an Athenian critic; it is deficient in perspicuity, first, from a want of deep and clear thinking, and, secondly, from a complicated and elaborate arrangement. His bursts of eloquence are sometimes ill-judged, and fall from the vyòs pretty near to the βαθός. His numerous parentheses, and his perpetually recurring ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις, and εἰ τύχοι, provoke our patience, and are often laughably out of place. He rises sometimes into that vague and turnid affectation of sublimity which surely indicates the decline of genius and taste. From the want of clear thinking arises the particular want of orderly distribution of the several parts of his subject. He takes up a topic, his imagination leads him far out of the track, and both author and reader find it pretty difficult to get back again. Such are some of this critic's defects, from which several deductions ought to be made by reason of the age in which he lived, and the mutilated state of his text. But he is hardly entitled to the homage which has been so lavishly bestowed on him. In the analysis of principles, the comprehension of human nature, on which all art is founded, the application of profound philosophy to criticism, the treatise of Longinus is by no means equal to the works of many modern writers, and particularly to the eloquent lectures of Schlegel. But it is an interesting and lively picture of the feelings of an accomplished man, on some of the most interesting literary topics. It is full of good thought, and sound morality; it is overflowing with kindliness and sympathy. We respect the author's character, admire his genius, and love his enthusiasm.

We would recommend the perusal of Longinus, either in the original, or in a translation, to every man of cultivated taste. Not that his precepts are capable of extended, or very useful application to literary criticism at the present day, for they are too vague and superficial to admit the possibility of such an application. But the spirit of the book cannot be sufficiently inculcated, for it is generous, sympathetic, and manly.

The present translation is faithful in a very remarkable degree to the original, and yet we doubt its power of raising much interest in any class of readers except those who can read the original. It has an appearance of baldness, which the original is entirely free from; it is sometimes hardly