been cold, it is clear that in the course of ages it must have become intensely heated. This atmosphere must act on the nucleus in the same way as the photosphere acts upon it; the nucleus must likewise become heated to the point of incandescence. It must therefore give off light and heat; for all bodies begin to glow at the same temperature. (Kirchhoff. Researches, &c., pp. 25, 26.)

Our author then proceeds to account for the phenomena of the solar spots by the supposition of two superimposed layers of clouds being formed in the solar atmosphere. One of these, being dense and near the sun's surface, does not allow the light of the underlying portion of the sun to pass, and forms the nucleus of the spot; whilst the other, being produced at a higher elevation, is less dense, and forms what we term the penumbra.

It is unfortunate for Kirchhoff's theory that the unanimous verdict of all who have examined these singular phenomena is in favour of their being funnel-shaped depressions. Preconceived notions have, however, so powerful an influence over the mind, and it is so difficult to obtain a truthful estimate of relative depression and elevation at such distances, that we are willing to believe that astronomers may possibly be mistaken in their views on this subject. There is, however, one method of observation which would seem qualified to settle the disputed question. If the astronomers' view of the construction of the spots is correct, the dark nucleus never can be seen beyond the penumbra, when the spot moves round towards the sun's limb. On Kirchhoff's view such a separation of the two clouds forming nucleus and penumbra is perfectly possible, and when they have nearly reached the edge of the sun's disc, we ought to see the dark cloud below, and separate from the upper one. Such a separation, however, has not been noticed, and on the other hand we may adduce the following observation of Sir William Herschel as leading to a directly opposite conclusion:

'Oct. 13, 1794.—The spot in the sun, I observed yesterday, is drawn so near the margin, that the elevated side of the following part of it hides all the black ground, and still leaves the cavity visible, so that the depression of the black spots and the elevation of the faculæ are equally evident.'

The more the question of the physical constitution of the sun is considered, the more does it appear that we have no right to make up our minds concerning it, either in one way or the other. Seeing how little is really known about the matter, with the true spirit of scientific inquirers, we hold ourselves open to conviction as soon as satisfactory evidence shall be brought forward. The singular observations first made by Mr. James

Nasmyth, a few months ago, concerning the physical condition of the sun's surface-observations so novel that astronomers were loth to receive them as facts until they were confirmed by other observers need only to be mentioned in order to show that we are not in a position to uphold any theory whatever of the physical constitution of our great luminary. Mr. Nasmyth asserts, and his assertion has been confirmed by the subsequent observations of more than one competent observer, that the wellknown mottled appearance which the surface of the sun exhibits is due to the presence of willow-leaf-shaped' luminous bodies, which, interlacing as it were, cover the whole surface of the These most singular forms can be well observed, according to Mr. Nasmyth, in the bridges' or streaks of light which cross the dark spots, and they are there seen to move with an astonishing velocity. Imagination itself fails to give us the slightest clue to the probable constitution of these most recent of astronomical novelties!

sun.

The beautiful red prominences seen projecting from the sun's disk during a total solar eclipse, and reaching to a height of 40,000 miles above the sun's visible surface, are likewise objects whose existence cannot be reconciled with any of the proposed theories of the sun's structure. Thanks to Mr. De la Rue, we have attained some knowledge concerning these wonderful flames, as, by the help of photography, this gentleman has succeeded in proving that the prominences really belong to the sun, and are not caused in any way by the light passing over the interposed surface of the moon, as was by some imagined. In considering the subject of solar chemistry, or indeed of any other novel branch of science, we cannot be too frequently reminded of the incompleteness of our knowledge. This is especially the case with reference to the subject to which we have now directed the attention of our readers. But although the results of these agencies are still very imperfect, and leave ample space for the labours of future investigators, yet the discovery of this new method of analysis is at once so original and so important, that we do not hesitate to rank it among the greatest achievements of science in this age, and we await with great curiosity its further application.

* Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester. 3rd Series, vol. i. p. 407.

ART. II.-1. Herculanensium Voluminum quæ supersunt. Vols. I.-XI. Fol. Neapoli: 1793-1855.

2. Herculanensium Voluminum P. I.-II. Sumptibus Typogr. Clarendon. lithographicé excudebat N. WHITTOCK. Oxonii: 1824-5.

3. Epicuri Fragmenta, Librorum II. et XI. in Voll. Papyraceis ex Herculano erutis reperta, probabiliter restituta, ex Tomo secundo Voll. Hercul. emendatius edidit J. C. ORELlius. 8vo. Lipsia: 1818.

4. Philodemi Пερì 'Рηтoρɩîs, ex Herculanensi Papyro restituit, Latinè vertit, et Dissertationibus auxit E. GROS. Parisiis: 1840.

5. Phædri Epicurei, vulgo Anonymi Herculanensis, De Natura Deorum. A CHRISTIANO PETERSEN. Hamburgi: 1833. 6. Philodemi de Vitiis Liber Decimus. Ad Vol. Hercul. exemplar Neapolitanum et Oxoniense distinxit, supplevit, illustravit, HERMANNUS SAUPPIUS. Lipsia: 1853. 7. Philodem's Abhandlungen über die Haushaltung und über den Hochmuth; und Theophrast's Haushaltung und Characterbilder. Griechish und Deutsch von J. A. HARtung. Leipzig: 1857.

8. Herculanensium Voluminum quæ supersunt. Collectio altera. Tomi I. Fasciculus I. Complectens Philodemi IIɛpì κakıŵv κακιῶν και αντικειμένων ἀρετῶν et Περὶ Οργής. Publicazione eseguita, con Approvazione del Ministero d'Istruzione Pubblica, dal Consiglio di Direzione del Museo Nazionale e degli Scavi di Antichità. Neapoli: 1861.

9. Herculanensium Voluminum quæ supersunt. Collectio altera. Tom. I. Fascic. II.-V. Neapoli: 1862.

I

F the value of a work could in any degree be estimated by the length of time occupied in its production, the Volumina Herculanensia' might lay claim to one of the very highest places in literature. More than a century has elapsed since it was first undertaken. It has descended as an heirloom through three or four generations of editors. It has maintained its feeble vitality through as many revolutions and counter-revolutions. Its successive volumes are separated from each other by intervals which might almost make up an ordinary literary life; and, if the work were to continue at the same rate of progress which has been heretofore maintained, the materials

still remaining to be explored might, to judge by their reported number, be expected to occupy at least three or four centuries in the process of publication.

And yet few works have ever been taken up with more passionate enthusiasm, or looked forward to with livelier anticipation. The Herculanean Papyri, when the practicability of their decipherment was first seriously suggested, were confidently regarded as a wholesale repertory of the lost literature of the ancients. The discovery occurred just at a time when the learned had become fully and finally satisfied as to the extent and the hopelessness of the losses which were deplored in every department of ancient learning. Most of the great libraries of the world had been submitted to a searching examination, stretching back from the Iter Italicum' of Montfaucon to the day when Enocho d'Ascolo set forth on his memorable tour of exploration, armed with the authority of Nicholas V., commanding all librarians and heads of religious houses, under the censure of the Church, to lay open their literary stores to his inspection. During this wide interval, four or five successive generations of gleaners had visited every spot which seemed to promise a chance of success. All the then known sources of classical literature had thus been drained to the utmost; nor had men yet begun to think of those which have since been so sedulously turned to account; of the precious hoards which remained mouldering in the unvisited monasteries of the Levant, or the still more unsuspected treasures which lay hidden under their very eyes, in the palimpsest manuscripts of the libraries of Europe. In one word, it was just in the crisis when, at the close of what seemed to have been a completely exhaustive search, the scholars of the eighteenth century had reluctantly resigned themselves to a loss which appeared utterly irreparable, that the discovery of the Papyri of Herculaneum renewed, in a most exaggerated form, the hopes which had lately seemed extinguished for ever. The news was hailed as a second revival of letters. It appeared impossible that, in a collection so extensive, comprising nearly two thousand manuscripts, there should not be found a considerable proportion of the still missing literature of Greece and Rome. The very site of the discovery seemed itself pregnant of promise. The city of Herculaneum, a Greek colony on Roman soil, appeared to unite in itself the advantages of both countries. A collection so considerable, and formed upon ground so apparently neutral, might reasonably be expected to contain specimens of the best authors of both literatures; and, although it was too much to hope that every gap would be satisfactorily

filled up, yet even the least sanguine might reckon upon a large contribution. Many works, no doubt, must still be found wanting; but it would be strange indeed if it should prove that the authors missing in the library of the Herculanean collector were precisely the same which had hitherto escaped the research of modern classical explorers in every other quarter. Where, more naturally than in the library of a scholar of this luxurious city, might it be hoped to recover the long-lost Menander, and the other masters of Greek comedy? Could anything seem more unlikely than that, among the many hundred volumes of such a collection, there should not turn up a few at least out of the many missing plays of the great tragedians, Euripides, Sophocles, and Eschylus-some contribution to our scanty store of Greek comedy-a few additional plays of the sadly mutilated Aristophanes, or some specimens of his utterly unknown fellow poets, Eupolis, Cratinus, Crates, or Teleclides? Surely, too, the historical student might calculate on the recovery of many important materials, wherewith to fill up the hiatus valde 'deflendus' in the series of Greek writers on Roman history, Polybius, Dion, Dionysius, and their continuators; and, if such were the anticipations as to the Greek writers, how much more confidently were the papyri looked forward to for the lost treasures of Latin literature-for the missing decades of Livy, the lost books of the Annals of Tacitus, the dramas of Plautus and other Latin imitators of Greek comedy, the philological treatises of Varro; and, above all, the long-regretted poems of Varius, the superior, as an epic poet, if we may believe Horace, even of Virgil himself

'forte epos acer

Ut nemo Varius ducit!'

The issue of all these high hopes is well known. Not only did the papyri prove to be in a state of mutilation far beyond what had been anticipated, but the character of the collection itself utterly disappointed the expectations which had been formed as to its extent, its variety, and its value. In general literature, whether Greek or Latin, it proved a complete blank. Not a single one of the longed-for authors appeared among its remains; hardly even a single fragment of their writings. It was found to be a class collection, in the narrowest sense of the phrase, its contents being exclusively philosophical, and, indeed, confined to one particular school of philosophy-the Epicurean; and the authors being for the most part entirely unknown, except as members of one of the least literary of the philosophical sects of antiquity.

This mortifying failure was, of course, followed by a reaction,