certain space in the atmosphere, leaving behind it a luminous train, which was visible for at least fifty seconds, it burst with an extra, ordinary noise and sparkling. In numbers 23 aud 24 of the Journal of useful Sciences, for 1790, you will find the description which was then given of this meteor by one of my fellow-countrymen; and also the reasonings of Bertholon, editor of the Journal, on the fall of stones, with which that of the meteor was said to be accompanied. Being in habits of correspondence with Bertholon, I transmitted to him my countryman's narrative, and mentioned the reports concerning the stones in question.

After we had amused ourselves for some time with what we con. cidered as a popular fable, I wished to indulge the frolic of giving public authenticity to such an absurdity, and actually requested the formality of a judicial examination into the evidence of the fall of these stones. Shortly afterward, to my no small surprise, I was favoured with the result of this examination: but in this account, I saw only a new proof of the credulity of the inhabitants of the country. I sent it to Bertholon, who, viewing it in the same light, published it in num. bers 23 and 24 of his Journal, for 1791. Thus this public instrument, signed by the mayor and procurator of the community, was treated as a false, or at least an illusory attestation; and a note which was transmitted to me with the declaration, and which included the testimony of three hundred persons, shared the same fate, because we regarded the attested fact as obviously false, and physically impossible.

Since that time, the whole proceeding had been effaced from my memory. I had forgotten the meteor, the stones, and the judicial declaration, when the reading of your letter recalled the phænomenon, which now appeared to me worthy of more serious attention. On perusing the description of the stones, which were reported to you to have fallen from the clouds, I recollected that they had sent me a specimen of those of which the fall was attested, together with the declaration; and I ran to my cabinet, in which I had accidentally preserved this specimen. What was my surprise, I may say my delight, when I recognized in this specimen a striking analogy with those which you describe. It is impossible not to be very much astonished at the coincidence of the burnt surface, granular fracture, and the metallic appearance of the inside of the mass.

This new observation of a fact which seems to conspire with many others to alter our received notions on this phænomenon, has appeared to me worthy of being communicated to you. If it produces not conviction in my mind, it at least appears to me very remarkable that all the stones, to which the same origin is ascribed in different countries, exhibit precisely the same characters; and I am perfectly convinced, that, notwithstanding the apparent physical absurdity of the alleged fact, we should suspend our judgment, and not precipitately set down the fact as impossible.

I am, &c.

SAINT-AMAND, Professor of Natural History in the Central School of Agen."

Nos. 15, 16, and 17. These articles relate to the Earl of Bristol's letter to Sir William Hamilton, to Mr. King's Tract on Fallen

Stones,

Stones, and to the phænomenon observed near Ville Franche; -on all of which we have already touched in vol. xxxix. p. 41., xxi. p. 425., and xlii. p. 407. of our New Series.

Nos. 18, 20, and 21. contain the observations of Chladni, Pallas, A. G. Duluc, Patrin, and others, on the mass of native iron in Siberia. As the fall of this mass rests on a doubtful tradition of the Tartars, we forbear to trouble our readers with the contending surmizes and conjectures of the learned.

19. Barthold's analysis of the Ensisheim stone is here detailed at full length. We hinted the result in our 39th vol. N. S. p. 41. In a historical point of view, it may be of consequence to remark that an old chronicle and concurring tradition fix its descent, with some degree of circumstantiality, in 1492.

22, and 23. Pictet's Letter on the papers of Messrs. Greville and Howard. We have already noticed the papers themselves in our 39th and 42d volumes, cited above.

24. An algebraical demonstration of the possibility of stoney substances being driven off from the moon into the earth's preyailing attraction. We can quote only the conclusions:

Hence we infer that, taking for granted the existence of a propelling cause at the moon's surface,- -a cause adequate to the projec tion of bodies in every direction beyond the sphere of her attraction,→ a great many of these bodies would revolve in space, as satellites to our planet, while scarcely any but those which were driven off at small angles would fall on the earth's surface.

To determine the motion of a body projected from the moon's surface, and submitted to the combined action of that satellite and the earth, is a problem of the same kind as to calculate the perturbations of a comet which happens to pass very near a planet. In the present state of analysis, the perfect solution of this problem would be im possible. For the sake of obtaining a first approximation, we have divided the curve described by the moving body, into two parts, viz. that which is included within the sphere of the moon's attraction, and that which is comprehended beyond that sphere. In the calcula. tion of the first part, we have overlooked the action of the earth on the moving body; and in the calculation of the second, we have over. looked that of the moon. In order, then, to rectify this first approximation, it would now be necessary to consider the earth's action in the first part of the curve, and that of the moon in the second part, as perturbing forces, whose perturbations may be calculated by means of known formulas. In this way, the motion of the projected body may be determined with sufficient accuracy: but ulterior approximagions would require very complex calculations, and that which we have given should satisfy inquirers into the present question.

From the whole of the preceding reasoning, we may conclude that a communication between the moon and the earth is physically possible; and it was from his conviction of this possibility, that M. de Laplace has prevailed with the French naturalists not to reject the

phænce

1

phænomenon as they had hitherto done, for want of being able to a sign its physical cause.'

25. Vauquelin's Memoir on stones fallen from the atmosphere, read to the National Institute. The most valuable part of this paper relates to the chemical analysis of the Yorkshire and Benares stones, and to the iron which is obtained from such bodies. This iron is dissolved easily, and with effervescence, by all the acids which act on it in its ordinary state: but, instead of yielding hydrogen gas in purity, it gives it out very sensibly sulphurated. This sulphurated hydrogen gas presents a phænomenon not hitherto observed in its combination with water, namely, a very rapid decomposition. When kept for some days in a flask, very closely corked, many white scales are observable at the bottom of the water. The latter is destitute of odour, and no longer precipitates the solu tions of lead. The iron, moreover, contains nickel combined with it, in the state of a triple salt. The presence of nickel and sulphur sufficiently explains why this iron is white, harder, and less ductile than ordinary.

We have now given a summary of Dr. IZARN's first section. The conclusions which he draws from it are ;

1. That very considerable masses have sometimes fallen to the surface of the earth. 2. That these masses, penetrated by fire, roll in the atmosphere, like burning globes, which diffuse light and heat to great distances. 3. That they seem to have received a motion parrallel to the horizon, though they really describe a curve. That they become soft, or are fused into a paste-like consistency, as is proved by their varnished surface, and the impressions formed on that surface by the bodies which they encounter, 5. That they have fallen in England, Germany, Italy, France, and the East Indies. 6. That all these stones resemble one another in their physical characters and chemical composition."

A more remarkable instance of the fall of stones than any which the author has recorded, and which, if we rightly recol lect, occurred about the time that his work issued from the press, has been related with artless simplicity by M. Marais, an inhabitant of L'Aigle, in Normandy; and, in more scientific language, by M. Biot, member of the Institute, who was commissioned by government to investigate the fact. This gentleman observes, in his truly wonderful report, that the district in which the stones were precipitated forms an elliptical extent of nearly two leagues and a half in length, and of about one in breadth; the greater dimension being in a direction from south-east to north-west, with a declination of about twenty-two degrees, thus curiously coinciding with the magnetic meridian. The largest stone which fell weighed about

り

about seventeen pounds and a half, and the smallest which the reporter collected, about one thousandth part of that weight. The whole number of stones exceeded two or three thousand. For other particulars relative to this extraordinary phænomenon, we must refer to the Journal de Physique, for Prairial, year xi. and the Journal des Debats, 14 Thermidor, of the

same year.

The second section is intitled, A critical examination of the opinions which have been hitherto advanced, both with respect to the reality of the fall of stones from the atmosphere, and with respect to their origin and formation; exhibiting the progress of the human mind relative to that phænomenon.'

In reviewing the early documents which have been transmitted to us on this subject, the author justly remarks that the incident, without being sufficiently rare to remain wholly unknown, was so extraordinary as to be reckoned supernatural. Hence the truth was exaggerated or distorted; and hence such a singular event was uniformly connected with ideas of superstition. The craft of the statesman likewise contributed to associate it, in the minds of the vulgar, with the passing train of political occurrences. They who subsisted on the credulity of the public, assigned it a place among auguries and presages; till, at last, it was involved in the common proscription of pagan prodigies.

From Lemery's explanation of thunder-stones, published in 1700, M. IZARN dates the origin of the common error which confounds the fall of meteoric stones with real lightning; a solution of the difficulty which, as he shews, in treating of some of the subsequent reports, is inadmissible.

In regard to M. Geoffrais' account of the showers of fire at Quesnoy, the author insinuates that something should have been said about a residuum. Yet it is extremely probable that, had such existed, it would have been remarked by some of the spectators; and it is not necessary that every fire-ball, which explodes, should leave a deposition behind it: on the contrary, we know that the reverse often takes place.

To M. Freret, the author ascribes much judgment in the arrangement of his materials; and much credit for sturdily asserting that showers of stones and fiery meteors are true and real, and that it would be gross injustice to insult the good faith of the antients who mention them in their writings: but he successfully combats Freret's hypothesis, and that of Gassendi, which attribute their appearance to the explosive force of volcanos.

The opinions of M. M. de Jussieu and Mahudel, which resolve thunder-stones into instruments and weapons used in the

rude

rude stages of society, are not more respected. As they trench not materially, however, on the main subject of the present treatise, they are scarcely intitled either to insertion or refutation.

Muschembroek is praised for his belief in the fall of stones from the clouds: but he is censured for his assertion that their formation cannot take place in the atmosphere. Several passages, here quoted from his writings, seem to imply the contrary.

The report of the Academy, on the stone presented by M. Bachelay, is represented as grounded on the prejudice of its. being supposed a thunder-stone; and as involving a formal denial of the simple matters of fact which accompanied its pre

sentation.

J

From the author's comments on No. 14. we extract the ensuing paragraph:

The letter from M. Darcet's brother contains a very important observation, viz. the soft state of most of these stones in falling, and the coating of straws which was found on the under-sides of some of them: circumstances which seem to prove that their softness was not owing to a great degree of heat, since the straws were not consumed. In the case of the shower which occurred in Ireland, the matter became hard and compact after it fell. This precious observation of M. Darcet explains the ova! and flattened form of most of the stones produced by this meteor. The same will be observed in the description given by M. Goyon d'Arzas; whereas the stoney products of many other meteors of this kind are described as round or triangular. The rest of the description is perfectly analogous to all those which have been given of the other stones; and the substances which the latter have yielded by analysis are not different, as has been seen in M. Vauquelin's memoir.'

The Sienna stones are pertinently quoted as an example of the different manner in which we are disposed to contemplate an extraordinary appearance when insulated, and the same appearance when connected with others of a similar description. With the exception of Professor Soldani, the Tuscan naturalists immediately concluded that the stones proceeded. from some electrical or volcanic explosion, because they fell after a very violent storm, and on the day subsequent to one of the most terrible eruptions of Vesuvius. As for us, on the contrary, who now view this fact in conjunction with so many others, and who know that the stones which fell at Sienna betray the same physical and chemical characters with all the others which have fallen during a perfect calm, under a cloudless sky, during the brightest moon-shine, &c.-we cannot help viewing it in a quite different light, and especially as independent of every volcanic eruption, and of every idea of a tempest.-To Mr. King's hypothesis, which assigns the ashes

of