« AnteriorContinuar »
man. We shall find that the physical can be beautiful only on the condition that it be subservient to moral beauty . . . . . it is not the outline of matter, in regard to pure surface and form, that receives the impress of sublimity ; it is matter vivid, alive, that is, expressive matter, matter exhibiting mind throwing aside its enshrouding veil.”
For the value of the contrast between the expression of two of the high arts in relation to the same ideal, we quote Byron's lines on the Apollo
“ Or view the lord of the unerring bow,
The god of life, and poesy, and light;
Developing, in that one glance, the deity.
Shaped by some solitary nymph, whose breast
Childe Harold, canto iv. For the same contrast in relation to painting and poetry, take Mrs. Sigourney's noble description of Leonardo da Vinci's “Last Supper."
Again, compare with the famous statue of “The Dying Gladiator," Byron's picture of the same incident, as drawn in the following “wondrous words of simple English :"
“I see before me the gladiator lie:
He leans upon his hand-his manly brow
Were with his heart, and that was far away ;
Childe Harold, canto iv.
To this quotation we would gladly append, if space allowed, Professor Reed's analysis. It is to be found in the 9th chapter of his “ English Literature from Chaucer to Tennyson ;” a chapter to which we would entreat the attention of every reader of Byron.*
The criticism of genius upon genius presents a legitimate and fruitful field for the cultivation of the taste. The critical faculty is carried forward and refined, if, at the same time, it sufficiently asserts its own independence. A growing fondness for art, along with a discrimination of the true value of criticisms upon works of art, is a symptom of strength in taste. A dogmatic tone in relation to art may be symptomatic either of extreme enthusiasm or of narrowness of mind. It is unfavourable to the growth of taste. After all, we must, in some degree, defer to the venerable canon,
“De gustibus non disputandum est.” Let every criticism be well tested by comparison with the object of such criticism, before the sentence be accepted as just. It is a misfortune to us to read a critique upon works of art, before seeing them for ourselves. It insensibly warps our judgment; and if its tone be satirical, the result is painful, as well as hurtful to our freedom of thought. Read after such view, critiques are most valuable. Our journals now abound in clever analyses of art, and in criticism which, if not always fair, at least affords matter for careful discrimination. We are presented with an incidental statement of principles, which could hardly under any other circumstances be educed. We have the opportunity of learning and comparing the impressions of others with our own; and comparison is an important element in intellectual growth, as well as in the cultivation of taste.
We had purposed to speak further of sacred art, and to discuss some further points of importance in relation to the influence of art-studies ; but want of space brings our paper abruptly to an end. We must therefore be satisfied with having offered some imperfect suggestions upon a subject of deep interest. We beg to state, in conclusion, that this article brings the series entitled “Disciplina Rediviva” to a close. The whole of the papers are now in process of revision, and will shortly be published in a separate volume. It is hoped that in that form, and with the additional matter with which they will be interspersed, they may prove a useful body of suggestions to youths leaving school, for a course of private study.
J. S. G.
* See also “Jeffrey's Essays” (collected out of the Edinburgh Review), pp. 414– 416, on “the unhappy tendency of his writings,” and “the peculiarity of their corrupting influence."
+ Mr. Ruskin's commentary (in the Times) on certain pictures by Hunt, a year or two ago, was most interesting, and, perhaps, more instructive than some of his subsequent strictures. These are justly complained of as arbitrary in their character, and as needlessly severe in tone.
ROYAL AND OTHERS.
“ We should always distinguish facts from assumptions. The experience of past ages is sufficient to show us the wisdom of such a course, and considering the constant tendency of the mind to rest on an assumption, and forget that it is an assumption, in such cases it becomes a prejudice, and inevitably interferes more or less with a clear-sighted judgment.”-FARADAY.
PART 1. M HE discussion respecting the Moon's movement has largely inter
ested the public. It has also placed established opinions on the laws of motion in conflict with some stereotyped astronomical theories. On these grounds alone, I should feel called upon, as the unconscious author of this huge debate, to give the public what I honestly intend to be a plain, and at the same time a full abstract of the whole argument. I was induced, in the first instance, to write a short letter to the Times, stating simply my reasons for questioning the orthodox postulate as to the Moon's double motion, by finding two very highlyeducated Cambridge men entirely at issue on the subject. I felt, moreover, and have long felt, how seriously education is damaged by the still prevailing habit of cramming learners of all ages, with definitions and dogmas of all kinds, and on nearly all subjects, which are neither adapted to the comprehension of, nor understood by, the great body of the people.
I hold that any man who simplifies knowledge helps education; and that any one—especially if officially bound to further and facilitate it - who omits an opportunity of doing this is to some extent guilty of its hindrances. I have the authority of Dr. Lardner (an experienced lecturer) for my belief, that the established mode of defining the Moon's motion has rendered it exceedingly difficult to give a correct and popular idea of it. And yet this point stands on the threshold of the noble science of Astronomy, the next, in my humble notion, to religion itself, in elevating man's conceptions of the might and majesty of God ; the contemplation of which brings the creature nearer to the Creator than any other in the whole category of sciences !
Although I never for an instant contemplated the deluge of discussion which I was reopening on this subject, I cannot say that I lament having done it. It has provoked a great deal of wholesome mental exercise, and will, I have no doubt, end in the accomplishment of my only object—that of removing a serious blot from educational astronomical books. This attempt I thought within my province, and the effort to obtain further light on the subject not altogether unpardonable in one who bas devoted so much of his life to the practical service of education as I have humbly but earnestly done. The silly insults by which this effort was at first met, by a very few persons, have been sufficiently
rebuked by the kindness and marked courtesy of all really scientific men, who have since corresponded with me on the subject; and by none more so than the Astronomer Royal, whose letters, having obtained his consent, I feel it a duty to the public to lay before them.
The question at issue may be best stated, by citing first a few of the statements of the Moon's motion, by great authorities, to which I have ventured to demur (as many far more scientific men have done before me). LA PLACE.-" The Moon, in revolving about the Earth, keeps very nearly the
same face towards us; which proves that the mean rotatory motion is exactly equal to the motion of revolution, and that the axis of equation is
nearly perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptic."* WOODHOUSE." The same face of the Moon is always turned towards us. This
is a curious circumstance; and the immediate inference from it is, that the Moon must revolve round its axis with an angular velocity equal to that
with which it revolves round the Earth." PROFESSOR NICOL says,—“The Moon bas one very singular feature, apparently
belonging essentially to her as a satellite, since it distinguishes every other satellite with which we are sufficiently acquainted. She rotates on her axis in the same time in which she revolves in her orbit round the Earth,-in other words, the length of one day and night in that orb is precisely one of our months. The rotations of Jupiter's satellites also nicely correspond with the periods of their revolution around that planet ; and all we know or suspect of the attendants on Saturn is in obedience to the same law. Why this is so is unknown—it is one of those dark points that stir us to profounder inquiry concerning the scheme in which we are ; but it is not difficult to trace some of its effects. Owing to this arrangement, the Moon always turns the same
face towards the Earth." M. D. Poisson, in his Traité de Mécanique, 2de Edition, tome ii. p. 179–180,
uses these words :-“Le mouvement de translation peut être révolution autour d'un autre corps en repos, ou lui-même en mouvement. Il n'y a pas de rotation toutes les fois qu'une face ou une section déterminée du mobile reste constamment parallèle à elle-même; il y a, au contraire, rotation dans le même temps que la révolution, lorsque le mobile tourne constamment la même face vers le corps central. C'est ce second cas qui a lieu dans le mouvement des satellites autour de leurs planètes. La Lune tourne toujours la même face vers la Terre, et le rayon vecteur qui va du centre de la Terre au centre de la Lune rencontre toujours en un même point la surface du satellite ; d'où il résulte que la rotation de la Lune sur elle-même, et sa
révolution autour de la Terre s'achèvent dans un même temps." MR. J. R. HIND, in his edition of Keith Johnston's New Atlas of Astronomy, says
that the Moon“ revolves round our globe in a period of 27 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes, and to rotate upon her axis in precisely the same interval; whence it occurs that only one-half of the Moon can ever be seen from
the Earth." DR. LARDNER has adopted both sides of the dynamical question in the same
work,--The Museum of Science and Art.-In No. 28, on “ The Moon,” occurs the following passage :-" While the Moon moves around the Earth, we find, by observation of its appearance, that the same hemisphere is always turned towards us. ... Now, in order that a globe which revolves around a centre should turn continually the same hemisphere toward that centre, it is necessary that it should make one revolution upon its axis in the time it takes so to revolve, &c. .... As the same hemisphere is successively turned to all points of the compass in one revolution, it is evident that the globe itself must make one revolution on its axis in that time.”—(Para
* He also states that the lunar equation is inclined about 278' [2d. 30m.] to the plane of the Ecliptic, and that the descending node of the lunar Equator always coincides with the ascending node of the lunar orbit. .