A moral science which found no room for charity would develop character very much after the Roman type-hard, stern, and unbending-such as might exist with unflinching bravery and unyielding energy, but which effectually crushes the affectionate side of human nature. Moreover, it is necessary to guard against the great mistake that charity means, in some sort, weakness of character, for there is no such inspiration to acts of self-surrender, self-denial, and self-sacrifice, as is to be found in the influence of this virtue. In proportion to its power is the diminution of that selfishness which so often merges into cowardice, and cripples the exercise of the higher virtues. To be charitable is, for the most part, to have that consideration for others which makes us set aside the comfort or discomfort, the rest or unrest of our own lives. Charity is a virtue which needs careful culture; men are so apt to be disheartened by ingratitude and base treatment, that they tire in acts of beneficence, and sometimes they catch that cynical tone of mind which helps to make them not only indifferent to the wants of others, but misjudgers of the race. We should never form our opinions of the baseness of men from one or two specimens of wrong-doers we may meet with, or charity will receive no encouragement for its culture, and we ourselves shall lose the sweet sensation which comes from its exercise. Let it be remembered that, if we were to argue from the score, not only of utility to others, but utility to ourselves, we should commend charity, as it ministers largely to human happiness, to think well of, and to act kindly towards, those around us.

It often happens that, as nations increase in the luxuries of civilisation, they become more petrified by selfishness. There is a tendency in the eager race to be rich, or to be successful, to forget the wants and claims of others, and to become isolated from them: the fact that the poor are ever so charitable to the poor comes from this, namely, that they are not absorbed in successful ambitions for themselves.

Charity towards others in matters of opinion is much needed; the tendency of every age has been to institute some sort of inquisition or other, by which free thought may feel its penalties. Mankind have been far too ready to put gyves and shackles on the limbs of those whose opinions they disliked and scorned; and in no sphere has the exercise of charity been less experienced and more required than in the region of human judgment and opinion.

The exercise of charity towards others will prepare us for the enjoyment of it in return. There is a knowledge of ourselves which induces humility, and which, while it makes us conscious of our marvellous mistakes and errors, makes us deeply sensitive to the experiences of a charitable consideration. Most assuredly there is a punishment awaiting the uncharitable, as for the most part moral science teaches us that such vice is its own Nemesis, and that the stern and unforgiving in the end have meted out to them the same measure that they have meted out to others.

The virtue of charity is no foe to wisdom. Charity itself requires the exercise of judgment and forethought. Otherwise, charity is in no sense charity, so far as its outworking in acts of beneficence is concerned. Much as men may dislike the name of political economy, or political philosophy, it must be manifest that, were the practical workings of charity presided over by wisdom, as well as inspired by love, the blessedness of its results would be tenfold or twentyfold increased.

We have, however, kept in mind in this essay the fact that charity is a matter which affects our judgments, and criticisms of others, quite as much as our actual beneficence; and no one can claim to have mastered the first elements of moral science in any practical way, much less to have graduated in the high attainments of character, until, as a regulating faculty of the affectionate nature, Charity takes its place side by side with Justice and Truth.

MECHANICS.-X.

THE PULLEY.

IN the machines we have so far considered, the essential parts were rigid. It was a beam, or a spoke, or a complete wheel, ar an axle we had to deal with; and if a rope was used, it was only with a view to connecting the power or resistance with these rigid parts. But it may have escaped your notice that, in using a rope for this purpose you had fallen on a veritable machine. Such is the case; a rope is a machine-a most convenient machine-which possesses the peculiar property of not only transmitting a force from one point to another in its original direction, but also sending it, very little impaired, round any number of corners, into a corresponding number of successive new directions. This

w

Fig. 67.

practical advantage everybody is familiar with; nobody more than the British sailor, whose daily work consists in no small degree in sending the muscular power of his arms round all manner of corners for the benefit of the good ship he navigates.

The Pulley, the third of the mechanical powers, is the instrument by which this object is gained in practice. In its simplest form it consists of a rope which passes round a small solid wheel which is itself mounted in a block. In theory, neither wheel

Fig. 68.

nor block are indispensable parts of the machine; the single essential is the rope, which is supposed to be perfectly flexible, and to turn round a mere point without experiencing any resistance from rubbing against it, that is, from friction.

The theory of the pulley, thus based on the suppositions of perfect flexibility and absence of friction, may be under stood from the upper part of Fig. 67. Let A, B, C, D be any number (say four) of rings, representing so many points, through which a rope passes, enabling a force, P, at one end to balance a resistance, w, at the other. The flexibility being perfect, and no friction between rope and ring, P is transmitted unimpaired, and we have therefore the power equal to the resistance, whether the rings are all fixed in position, or some be movable.

Va

But in practice, the suppositions made do not hold good, neither is the rope perfectly flexible, nor the friction nothing. For the former reason each corner must be rounded off to relieve the rope from the sharp bends at A, B, C, D; and, for the latter, these rounded corners are made into small wheels, as at E, F, G, E, which move round with the rope, and prevent the power being diminished by the friction that would result, were the rope allowed to slide round them. Thus the theoretical pulley in the upper part of Fig. 67 becomes the practical one in the lower, where the rings are replaced by wheels; and though some friction remains, and default of flexibility to impair P in its transmission, we say practically, as we did before theoretically, that still the power is equal to the resistance.

W

Fig. 69.

The relations of the power and resistance in the various forms and combinations of pulley can now be easily determined. There is first the Single Pulley, which is of two kinds, fixed and movable; and of these in various combinations, the more com

Unanel'd is unoiled, not having received the oil of extreme unction; disappointed means not prepared. To housel is to minister the communion to one who is on his death-bed. Housel comes from the Saxon husel, the host, or sacrifice of "the sacrament of the Lord's Supper."

Un, from the Latin unus, one, is exemplified in unanimous (Latin, animus, mind), of one mind; in uniparous, bearing one at a birth; in unison (Latin, sonus, sound), one single sound; in univocal (Latin, vox, a voice), having one voice or meaning. Un, of Saxon origin, has in some measure yielded to in; thus, for the old form unperfect, we now say imperfect. Unpossible" is quite obsolete.

Under, of Saxon origin, is found in such words as undersell, underprop, undervalue, underwent. In the word understand,

the derivative or secondary meaning is very remote from its primitive; namely, to stand under. Undertaker and underwriter have, in process of time, come to have very special significations. Undertaker, originally one who took on himself a certain duty, is at present applied to persons who are entrusted with the management of funerals; and underwriters, properly signifying those who wrote (their names) under a legal document (in Latin, subscriptor), is a word limited to persons who render themselves liable in a policy of marine insurance.

Uni, of Latin origin (unus, one), occurs in unicorn (Latin, cornu, a horn), an animal with one horn; and uniform (Latin, forma, form), having one form.

Up, of Saxon origin, is found in uphill, uphold, uplift, upspring, upstart, etc.

A summary of these prefixes arranged according to the sources whence they are derived, is presented in the following tables 1.-PREFIXES FROM THE GREEK.

29. Ortho, straight. 30. Pan, all.

31. Para, by the side of. 32. Pent, five. 33. Peri, around. 34. Phil, fond of. 35. Phys, natural. 36. Pleos, full. 37. Poly, many. 38. Proto, first. 39. Pseudo, false. 40. Syn, with, 41. Tetr, four.

LATIN.

41. Quadr, four. 42. Quinque, fire. 43. Re, back.

44. Rect, right, straight.

45. Retro, backwards. 46. Se, apart. 47. Semi, demi.

48. Sept, seven. 49. Sex, six. 50. Soli, alone. 51. Sub, under. 52. Super, over. 53. Trans, across. 54. Tri, three. 55. Ultra, beyond. 56. Uni, one.

57. Vice, in place of. 58. Vivi, alive.

SAXON.

11. Out, not in.

12. Step, bereavement.
13. Un, not.

14. Under, beneath.
15. Up, upwards.

In this summary of prefixes in English, there are 41 prefixes of Greek origin, 58 of Latin origin, and 15 of Saxon origin, making in all 114 prefixes.

This statement presents some curious facts in the way of deductions. Out of 114 prefixes in English, only fifteen belong to the language of our nurseries. How largely indebted then must the English be to the Greek and the Latin; and how necessary to every student of English is some acquaintance with those languages. Let it be observed that it is not merely that in English there are ninety-nine prefixes derived from the Greek and the Latin; but these prefixes enter into combination, and form very many words, the exact meaning of which can be known by those only who are acquainted with their compound parts. Truly ours is a composite language. It is also a rich language, and has great flexibility, owing to the diverse sources whence its vocabulary comes. How poor comparatively would the language have been, but for the treasures it has derived from the classical tongues!

Since so many of our prefixes are of foreign origin, our compound words must also be to a large extent of foreign origin. Consequently monosyllables may in general be regarded as Saxon.

I have given above the Greek, the Latin, and the Saxon, as the sources whence our prefixes are derived. The French might have been added; but the French is not an original source; words derived by us from the French may in general be traced back to the Latin as their parent.

A little attention may lead the student to suspect that there is some genealogical connection between the three sources of our prefixes. By comparing particles together, he might be led to trace a resemblance between dia and dis; hemi and demi; her and six; hept and seven; holo and whole; in and in; en and in; non and not, etc. In reality such a genealogical connection does exist. The Greek, the Latin, and the Saxon (or Teutonic) are sister languages, being branches from the one stem called by linguists the Indo-Germanic or Indo-European stem, which comprises the Sanscrit, or the old sacred tongue of Hindostan; the Celtic, or parent of the Gaelic; the Erse, the Latin, the Welsh, the native Irish; and the Teutonic, the parent of the Greek, the German, the Dutch, and the Saxon-English. This family of languages then extends, you see, with some exceptions, from the banks of the Ganges to the western shores of Ireland. It extends also from the North Cape to the Strait of Gibraltar. The epithet Indo-Germanic is in origin prior to the epithet Indo-European. Indo-Germanic was intended to include two classes of languages, namely, the Sanscrit (Indo) and the Germanic (Teutonic or Saxon); but when it had been ascertained that the Celtic was a kindred tongue, a more comprehensive epithet was required, and Indo-European was formed. Indo-European errs somewhat in excess, since some dialects spoken in Europe are not of Indian, Celtic, or Teutonic origin. That the English, as well as the Greek and Latin, is connected with the Sanscrit, may be seen by comparing together these numerals in the different tongues.

Sanscrit. Greek.

But

German. English. Latin. Erse. ein zwei two duo drei three tettar vier four funf · five

Welsh.

unus

aen da

un

dau

tres

tri

tri

quatuor

keathair pedwar

kuig

pump

hepta okto enneka deka

sechs six sieben seven acht eight

neun nine zehn 1 ten

6. shash 7. saptan

8. ashtan

9. navan 10. dasan

quinque

se

To you there may not seem the close resemblance among these words, severally, which is obvious to the student who is aware of the changes which letters undergo in allied tongues, from laws and influences peculiar to each separate language; but surely there is enough in the tabular view just given to illustrate what I state as a fact; namely, that the languages of which specimens appear above are kindred languages. Look, for instance, at the forms through which the numeral three passes, thus: tri, treis, drei, three, tres, tri, tri.

From these statements you will see that words which are found in the Sanscrit, the Greek, and the Latin, or in the Sanscrit, the Saxon, and the Erse, may be designated IndoEuropean, inasmuch as they exist in the three great branches of

Of these three-namely, the Sanscrit, the Celtic, and the Teutonic-the first may be considered as the most ancient tongue; the second stands next in age, and the third is the youngest.

You have been led to regard monosyllables as to a large extent of Saxon origin. But many words, commonly considered Saxon, are rather Indo-European, being found in Sanscrit, in Greek, and in Latin, or in one of these besides the modern English. Such words as know, lick, break, yoke, sit, are the common property of the Sanscrit, the Latin, the Greek, the German, and the English.

Had I space to exhibit the proofs of the relationship of these languages, I should dwell on the similarity which prevails in the modifications of number, person, case, tense, etc., which they severally undergo; but I can, in addition, do nothing more than set down in different tongues the variations of a few words of universal prevalence, which indicate a common origin.

LESSONS IN ARCHITECTURE.-III. CYCLOPEAN OR PELASGIC ARCHITECTURE-EARLY MONUMENTS. AFTER the brief sketch of the origin of architecture in our last lesson (Vol. I., page 369), we must notice in proper order that system of construction, the monuments of which cover a great part of the Old World. This system had its origin among the Shemitic tribes, which at the commencement of civilisation peopled the fairest part of the globe. This early system, noted for the rudeness of its form, its stability without mortar, and the great size and irregularity of its materials, is attributed to the Pelasgians, a people originally from Upper Asia, who, according to Herodotus, spread themselves over Phoenicia and Asia Minor, and colonised Greece and Italy. Examples of this style of architecture, called Pelasgic, are found extending from the borders of Persia and Armenia to the western limits of Asia. The term "Cyclopean" is also applied to this kind of architecture, because, in Greece, these buildings of huge rough blocks of stone were fabled to be the work of the Cyclopes-a race of giants with one eye in the middle of the forehead, who laboured at the forges of Vulcan, the fire-god of the Greeks, and patron of all who wrought in iron. Crossing the Mediterranean, it spread over Greece, where the most remarkable monuments described by ancient authors, from the age of Hesiod and Homer, are traced, according to tradition, as far back as eighteen centuries before our era. This was the style of construction used in the heroic times of ancient Greece; and at a later period it was employed on certain important occasions.

The migrations of the Pelasgi carried this system into Italy, and we meet with it at every step, particularly in the central countries. Examples are also to be seen in nearly all the western islands of the Mediterranean, in the Balearic Isles, and some even on the coasts of France and Spain. In fine, by a remarkable coincidence, travellers who have drawn and described the monuments of Palenqué and Papantla, cities of Mexico destroyed long ago, and grown over by forests, exhibit constructions similar to those of the Pelasgi. The gigantic remains of the Pelasgic monuments, to this day subjected to examination by travellers, bear traces of different modes of building. Those which seem to be the most ancient are composed of blocks of

in speaking of the walls of Tiryns, near Nauplia, in Greece, built thirty-six centuries ago, describes them thus :-"These walls are constructed of unhewn stones, and are all of such dimensions that a yoke of oxen could not shake the smallest of them. The interstices are filled up with smaller stones, which serve to unite the larger ones." These walls present the same appearance now which they did in the days of Homer and of Pausanias. They are about 25 feet thick, and about 43 feet in height. Two temples, close to each other, in the island of Gozo, near Malta, are analogous in their construction to the walls of Tiryns. They are built of immense blocks of stone, forming a sort of artificial hill, in which are placed the naves and arches of the temples; but some of the rocks bear traces of the mason's tools.

It has been proved, by careful examination, that these edifices were dedicated to the gods of Asia. To conclude: the walls of Tarragona, on the east coast of Spain, are constructed, like the preceding, of immense rocks in their natural state. The application of instruments to building, at a later period, caused the edifices of the Pelasgians to assume another form. The stones taken from quarries were cut into irregular polygons, and placed one upon another in such a manner as to make the different faces of the geometrical figures which they employed coincide, the salient angles filling up the re-entrant angles formed by two adjoining stones in a manner precisely similar to that used in the present day for building walls of Kentish ragstone or Devonshire limestone. This was the ordinary manner of building under this system of construction. It is met with from Lake Van, on the frontiers of Armenia, to the west of Italy, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles; and it is found in temples and in tombs, in public and private buildings, and in innumerable military constructions. At last, a third method presents itself in the walls of these early buildings-namely, that in which the stones are fashioned in the square form; and the buildings themselves, assuming the same form, exhibit a greater degree of civilisation, and the invention and application of more exact instruments. The walls of the ancient Mycena were built in this manner.

The continued and progressive order of these Pelasgic constructions is one of the most interesting facts in the history of the art of building-particularly when we refer them to an antiquity which goes back to the heroic time of Greece. Doubtless the gradual improvement which is to be seen in the walls constructed by this original people, does not reveal all the revolutions of this art in early antiquity; but it enables us to perceive the progress of the greater part of the civilised world, a progress which it must necessarily follow, because it is the nature of all human inventions to pass from early and rude attempts to successive periods of improvement and perfection. The Pelasgic monuments, sketched and studied at the present day, extend over a zone which, comprising the breadth of Western Asia, stretches over Greece and Central Italy; and this is not the whole of the ancient world, as we have already said, in which early monuments composed of rocks in their natural state have been seen by ancients and moderns; but they have been discovered in all the northern countries, and in Africa, from Egypt to the neighbourhood of Carthage; and we have reason to believe that in these countries, to the primitive constructions, a second period succeeded, more refined in its productions, and forming a step from the first attempts to the more perfect examples, of which we behold the numerous ruins in India, in Central Asia, in the valley of the Nile, and in the oases of the desert. These monuments of transition, so to speak, have disappeared under early and actual civilisation, and have even escaped the investigation of travellers.

FIRST REGULAR CONSTRUCTIONS, PYRAMIDS, ETC. The Pelasgi, proceeding from the Asiatic plateaus, or tablelands, directed their steps towards the west; other Shemitic tribes marched towards the south and east, and peopled India, Persia, Assyria, and Arabia, as well as Ethiopia and Egypt. The art of these tribes, like that of the western branch, passed through a rude and primitive state, as we have shown-through the BETH-EL style, or constructions in unhewn stones. cannot be supposed that these tribes were more privileged than others, and were able, without previous attempts, to hew stones regularly, to mould and cement bricks, and to give to the union

It

of these materials architectural forms, without going through that initiatory process which characterises the origin of all human inventions. Yet the plains of Chaldea soon exhibited constructions which had a great influence over primitive art in the East, and formed the basis of a system which extended its branches even to the West. The want of stones in Mesopotamia soon taught the inhabitants to mould bricks, and their most ancient temple mentioned in the Bible, called the Tower of Babel, was an immense pyramid built of bricks piled on one another, and forming, according to report, eight storeys or rows, gradually receding from each other. At the top of this building they sacrificed to Baal; at a later period the Chaldean kings placed his statue there, when their artists had made some progress in the art of sculpture. It is probable that this pyramidal-formed temple owed its origin to their remembrance of the practices of those Caucasian countries whence the Shemitic tribes derived

is evident that these first regular constructions were thus generally established; and the greater part of the primitive world adopted them, with the exception of those countries where great political events interrupted the first movements of civilisation, and suspended the march of the arts; with the exception also of those whose inhabitants, less endowed by nature, necessarily remained in the rear of civilisation, and only received a movement of this kind from their neighbours, or from an invasion of some people more advanced in civilisation. The first builders worthy of the name from their ability to mould bricks, and hew stones to raise their gigantic monuments, were compelled to follow the road in which they were placed. The want of expe rience, the absence of instruments and machines, prevented them from raising, at first, great edifices with vertical façades or fronts, such as they were enabled to construct at a later period. To form large foundations, and to raise above them

their origin. Herodotus gave a glimpse of the truth, when he said that the Scythians made their temples or altars with a great quantity of wood heaped in the form of a pyramid. However the case may be, this very simple form, which appears to have come naturally to the minds of those men who were the first to raise large, constructions, spread itself over all Asia; the ancient pagodas of India are built in this form; the most ancient monuments of Lower Egypt and Ethiopia, where the Shemitic tribes settled in Africa, are all of them pyramids. In Asia whole cities-Ecbatana, for example-presented numerous concentric enclosures rising one above another in such a way as to exhibit the pyramidal form. The celebrated Hanging Gardens of Babylon, formed of numerous terraces, one above another, had also the same configuration. In short, this must be considered as the progress of architecture, when we see that the most ancient religious edifices of the Mexicans are immense pyramidal buildings, simple at first like those of Chaldea, and of Lower and Upper Egypt; but at a later period ornamented with sculpture like the pagodas of India. Ancient public buildings were also found in Mexico of a pyramidal form. It

materials with gradual and numerous recesses such as would prevent the fall of the upper parts of the building, was the first law of construction and of statics to which they were obliged to submit. This is so true that, after having made their great steps in the art of building, and become able builders, the Indians, the Chaldeans, the Ethiopians, and the Egyptians, still continued in the path of which the pyramid was the startingpoint, by raising their edifices in such a manner as to give to their façades a great inclination in order to obtain greater sta bility; a wise system, which was adopted by the Etruscans when they left Asia, where these principles were long established. They were also spread over a part of Italy, and traces of them are found at Norchia. The same ideas exerted their influence over the early edifices of the Greeks, and they are found in a modified form among the finest specimens of their later architecture. They are recognised, for instance, in the remains of the Parthenon, or Temple of Minerva at Athens, where the inclination of the jambs of the doors and windows still exists. Mexico also bears witness to this, as may be seen in our remarka on the first regular constructions of that country.