Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY.-II.

DIVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM-VERTEBRATA-MOL

LUSCA-MOLLUSCOIDA-ANNULOSA-ANNULOIDA-CELEN

TERATA-PROTOZOA.

THE main divisions of the animal kingdom, called sub-kingdoms or branches, were first established on anything approaching a scientific basis by the great Baron von Cuvier. Previous classifiers had endeavoured to mark out these divisions by differences in some one organ or system of organs. The system which was generally made use of, as producing the most natural classification, was that of the organs of circulation of the blood, or the nutritive fluid which answered to the blood. The classification of animals according to the structure of their hearts, blood-vessels, etc., was perhaps as good as any founded on any one system of organs. At least, our great anatomist, Hunter, CL

[blocks in formation]

The three higher divisions remain very much as he constituted them. There could be no higher testimony to the value of these than this, that all the multitude of higher animals that have been discovered or examined since his time fall naturally under one or other of his divisions. Cuvier himself assigned some animals to the wrong branch, yet when the error was discovered it did not necessitate the formation of a new system, but merely a transferenc from one branch to another; and this proves conclusively that the classification was not an artificial system fitted on to his knowledge, which, though wide, was of course limited, but was a recognition of the fundamental plan of nature.

[graphic]

1. SKETCH OF HADDOCK, SHOWING ITS EXTERNAL FORM, AND ALSO THE ARRANGEMENT OF ITS INTERNAL ORGANS. II. TRANSVERSE SECTION OF HADDOCK AS EXHIBITED AT THE LINE a b. III. SKETCH OF LOBSTER, SHOWING ITS EXTERNAL FORM AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF ITS INTERNAL ORGANS. IV. TRANSVERSE SECTION OF LOBSTER, EXHIBITED AT THE LINE a b.

Refs, to Nos. in Figs. I., II., III., IV.-1, heart; 2, nervous system; 8, brain; 4. alimentary canal; 5, vertebral column; 6, sympathetic nervous system.

who had carefully examined all the systems of organs of animals in relation to their use in classifying, thought so. It now, how ever, seems to be laid down as a rule that it will not do to rely on any one character in classification. If a classification be made in dependence on the modifications of but one organ, it is sure to be an unnatural one. If, on the contrary, it can be stated that any group of animals is distinguished from the rest by peculiarities in two or more systems of organs, that group is sure to be a natural one. Cuvier was more successful than his predecessors, not so much because he had any better key by which to interpret the animal kingdom, as because he relied on no key, but trusting to his wide knowledge of the structure of animals, and to his sagacious perception of what similitudes or differences were fundamental and what were unimportant, he made a classification which recognised the plan of structure of each animal as a whole, that is, as made up of the sum of its organs. The difficulties attending such a method are far greater, the definitions of the branches thus formed are less simple and precise, than those of the former methods, but the results have the merit of being true to nature, and therefore stable.

VOL. II.

The lowest of these branches, designated Radiata, has not maintained its ground as the others have, for the following reasons. Many of the animals assigned to this branch are microscopic, and had been but little examined, and Cuvier founded his branch on the plan of structure exhibited by some of the more conspicuous animals, such as the star-fish, and he assumed that all the lower animals conformed to that plan of structure. This, however, has been found not to be the fact. Nor was the definition of this branch good as far as it went, since it was founded on one peculiarity alone, namely, the plan of structure. In fact, however derogatory the admission may be to the great anatomist, we are compelled to admit that his sub-kingdom Radiata stands in the same relation to the rest of his admirable system, as the untidy lumber-room-which generally exists in even a well-ordered house, and into which everything which has no definite place of its own is thrown-does to the rest of the establishment. Most of us who make natural history collections of any kind, have in our cabinets a spare drawer, into which specimens we have not had time to examine or to name, or whose place in the collection we are doubtful

32

about, are placed. The contents of such a drawer are the measure of our ignorance, and when we are particularly fresh or have much leisure, we open it with a confident on thas a patient study of its contents will lead us to a knowledge, and a truer and more complete arrangement. ich a drawer is Cuvier's branch Radiata, and men who have felt that Cuvier had forestalled all other anatomists in the arrangement of the higher animals into their main divisions, have been able to solace themselves by re-arranging the heterogeneous number of animals for which the star-fish and sea-urchin stood as the representatives in the mind of Cuvier.

Inasmuch as we must dismiss this branch Radiata from our system, and shall not be able to recur to it again, as ve must to the other branches, it is, perhaps, as well that w. should explain the character on which it was founded. Cuvier observed that while some of the higher animals have their two sides alike, yet they could be split down the middle in one direction only, so as to leave two exactly similar halves. Thus, if one of us were divided from the crown of the head vertically downward, so that the division passed through the mid-line of the back and also of the breast, we should be divided into two like halves; but if the vertical division were made in any other direction, the two halves, though they might be equal, would certainly be not | alike. If, on the other hand, a star-fish be placed flat on a table, it may be bisected in more than one direction, and the halves would be alike. Indeed, if we wanted to divide it into like portions, we should naturally cut it into five or ten or more segments, beginning from the centre, and cutting outwards. The organs are not paired on each side of one plane, but arranged like the spokes of a wheel in diverging directions from a central axis. This plan of structure was therefore considered as the type of the branch Ladiata, a radius meaning a line drawn from the centre to the circumference of a circle. If this radial arrangement of organs had been universal throughout this subkingdom, and were found in no other, this would have formed a well-marked division, but it is not so. Some of the organs of higher animals have an apparent radial arrangement, as, for instance, the hooklets by which intestinal worms fix themselves. In so-called radiate animals there is generally a two-sided arrangement to be found. Thus, while the arms of the seaanemone are radial, stretching away on all sides, its mouth has two lips and two corners. The common purple-tipped seahedgehog (echinus) is in outward form a typical radiate, but its near ally, the heart-urchin, is almost as two-sided as ourselves. We therefore reject this sub-kingdom, and substitute others in its stead, as will be seen in the sequel.

Instead of at once enumerating the numbers of sub-kingdoms of the animal kingdom, and appending to each a dry catalogue of the characters upon which they are formed, it is, perhaps, better to induce the reader to exa nine two animals belonging to two different branches for himself, so that he may remark the essential differences in structure which they manifest. Suppose, then, he procure a prawn and a stickleback, or, if he aim at larger specimens, more easily examined, he can obtain, as we have done, a lobster and a haddock. If these be carefully observed, first as to their external character, and then as to their internal organs, there will be found some points of similarity, but a great many points of difference.

Both are elongated animals, and both can be divided by a mid-vortical section into two similar halves. The outer covering of the fish, though it is covered with small scales, is thin and flexible. It offers but little resistance to pressure, and no firm upport, or fixed point, from which muscles can play upon the limbs. It, moreover, manifests no tendency to division into seg. ments or rings. Turning to the lobster, we find it is enclosed in a hard, inflexible armour, which is divided into segments or rings, placed one behind the other. This division is well marked and complete in the hinder part of the body, where there are seven hard annular pieces united by softer membrane. They overlap one another above, but are separated below. The great shield which covers the head and fore part of the body also consists of fourteen segments, but they have all become united. This thick, hard outer covering is the only solid part of the animal, and therefore to this must be attached the muscles at both ends; that is, both at the fixed point of support from which they pull, and also at the part of the body or limbs which they are intended to move. This arrangement is carried out even to whose joints are likewise cased in separate hard

1

tubes, and which are wielded from within. Further, there is a manifest tendency for each segment of the body to have a pair of limbs. Thus, beginning from behind, we find on the last segment the limbs are not developed, but only indicated; but on the next they form the side lobes of the tail, and are the main instruments by which the lobster darts rapidly backward when alarmed. The next four segments have each paired limbs, consisting of two small fringed plates set at the end of a joint, and with them the lobster paddles quietly forward. Then comes a segment with a pair of limbs composed of two joints, used for other necessary purposes. Then under the great shield are the walking limbs, all many-jointed. Two pairs with one claw are preceded by two more terminated by small pincers; then come the formidable claws. Next come the foot-jaws and jawa, There are six pairs of these, placed closely one over the other, beneath the mouth; they cannot be seen in the engraving. Then come the pair of longer feelers, the shorter feclers, and finally the jointed eye-stalks. Thus each of the twenty-one seg ments of which the lobster's integument is supposed to consist has a pair of well-developed limbs, with the exception of the last.

How utterly different is the locomotive apparatus of the fish! The necessary hard parts upon which the muscles must play are nowhere to be found on the outside. They are situated internally. Running through the centre of the body from snout to tail is a bony column or axis. This axis consists of pieces which are so closely united end to end that they support one another, but are capable of a slight motion on one another, so that the back-bone which they form can be bent and slightly twisted. This back-bone, ending forward in the base of the skull, is the main part of the hard skeleton which affords attachment to the muscles which move the limbs. In this case the tendency of each segment of the internal skeleton to produce limbs is so little marked, that there are not more than two pairs of paired limbs in all; and throughout this large subkingdom, which includes brutes, birds, reptiles, and fish, there are never more than this number found, though sometimes there is but one pair, and sometimes none at all. These limbs are not jointed hard tubes, pulled and moved by muscles running up the inside of them, but they are supported by bony levers, while the muscles act on them externally.

Passing on to the other systems of internal organs, we find a marked difference in the arrangement of the nervous, alimentary (food), and blood circulatory systems, in relation to one other.

In the lobster the nervous system consists of a double series of rounded masses called ganglions, which commence with two lying side by side (though partially united together) above the mouth, and in connection with the eyes, antennæ (feelers), etc. From these two cords stretch back, one running on each side the mouth or throat, to another double ganglion, and from this cords pass back which unite the remaining nervous masses together, all of which lie in a series along the floor of the tubular cavity of the body enclosed by the rings. Each ring has a double ganglion of its own, but these are sometimes united together, as in the lobster. The food canal runs from end to end through the centre of the body, and at its front extremity passes through the nervous tract (as we have seen), and opens on the under side of the body. The heart is situated above the food canal, and just under the hard covering of the back. We have, therefore, the main blood system situated above the food canal in the centre, and the nervous system below it; these two latter, how ever, crossing one another and exchanging places just at the front of the animal. All these structures are contained within one tube, which is the hard covering of the animal.

Contrasted with this arrangement is that of the fish. In this animal the food canal occupies the same central position, but the heart, instead of lying above it, lies on the under side. The nervous system does not consist of a series of knots, but of s continuous column, and it is contained not in the tube which lodges the other viscera, but in another tube, formed of bony arches springing from the back-bone, and which is super-imposed on the other tube. The relative arrangement is best understood by a reference to the illustration, where transverse sections are given, supposed to be taken from the parts of the animals where the lines marked ab cross the lateral views of the lobster and haddock.

The fish and the lobster, then, present two types of structure which are utterly different in many fundamental points, and if

in the comparison we have seized on those points which are of greatest importance, we shall find that when we compare any other animals belonging to these branches, first to the one type and then to the other, in reference to these peculiarities, we shall have no difficulty in classifying them either in one division or the other.

A dog, for instance, though a very different animal from a fish, is like it in the points we have noted. It has a back-bone of jointed vertebrae, and a columnar nervous system. It has no segmented external skeleton. It has but four limbs, and its jaws are not paired limbs lying side by side, but are placed one above the other. A dragon-fly is very different from a lobster in less fundamental particulars, but in the essentials named it is like to it. It has a chain of double nerve masses on the floor of its tubular body, crossed by the food canal between the first and second masses; and so we might run on through the whole of the structure, and show that it was really built upon the same general plan as the lobster.

The sub-kingdom to which the fish belongs is called Vertebrata, a vertebra being the technical name given to one of the joints of the back-bone. This name vertebra was given because the fact that the back-bone was so sub-divided enabled its elements to turn one on another (verto being the Latin for to turn).

The lobster belongs to the invertebrato animals, but the invertebrates include more than one sub-kingdom, and that to which the lobster belongs was called by Cuvier Articulata, because they are jointed as to external skeleton of both body and limbs. Articulus is the Latin for a joint.

If, instead of a dog or a dragon-fly, we had taken a slug, we should have found that while the arrangement of the nervous, blood, vascular, and food systems to one another was quite different from the fish, and similar to the lobster, yet we should have found no hard jointed body, no chain of double ganglions on the floor of the body, and no limbs. This animal, therefore, belongs to neither of these types, though it is, of course, an invertebrate.

The student is now prepared for the enumeration of the subkingdoms and their characters. They are these:

[blocks in formation]

unsymmetrically through the body, their number and position being very various in the different divisions of the sub-kingdom. Organs of secretion, nutrition, and propagation more perfect than those of locomotion and animal life.

Molluscoida.--Animals having the general character of the Mollusca, but distinguished from them by having hearts of a simple saccular character without division, or none at all. With ciliated tentacles disposed in a circle or horse-shoe shape round the mouth.

Annulosa (from annulus, a ring).—Animals with a body composed of a longitudinal series of more or loss distinctly developed ring-like segments, which are more or less repetitions of one another, according to the lower or higher position of the species. The horny or leathery exteriors of these rings form an exoskeleton, to which the muscles are attached, and which forms a protective envelope to the body. Nervous system consisting of a double chain of ganglia. Every organ or system of organs bi-laterally symmetrical. Locomotive organs and organs of sense attain in this class a high development.

Annuloida.-Animals somewhat like the Annulosa, but the perfect form is developed within a ciliated larva.

Calenterata.-Animals whose alimentary canal freely communicates with their body cavity. Body consisting of two foundation membranes of definite cellular structure.

Protozoa.-Animals whose body consists of a sarcode substance, which has no definito cellular structure, but which is elastic, extensile, and albuminous in composition. They have no nervous system or organs of sense, but have structures called respectively nucleus and contractile vesicle.

If the student finds these descriptions hard to understand, he must wait for explanation till the following lessons are before him. It is now necessary to be concise, even at the risk of being obscure.

[blocks in formation]

qui, who;

cujus, whose;

D.

Ac.

cui, to whom; quem, whom; quo, by whom;

G.

D.

Ac.

qui, who; quorum, whose; quibus, to whom; quos, whom;

Ab.

quibus, by whom;

RELATIVE.

Singular.

F.

quæ, who; cujus, whose; cui, to whom; quam, whom; qua, by whom;

Plural. quæ, who; quarum, whose; quibus, to whom; quas, whom;

quibus, by whom.

N.

quod, which. cujus, of which. cui, to which. quod, which, quo, by which.

[blocks in formation]

N.

G.

Ab.

It should be noted that the form in which these are given has a meaning. That the Vertebrata stand at the top of the scale is admitted by all; the Protozoa are as unquestionably the lowest animals, and next above them come the Coelenterata. It is, however, impossible to determine whether the Mollusca or the Articulata are the higher animals. The Mollusca seem, in the higher members of their branch, to approach most nearly to the N. Vertebrates, but the higher members of the branch Articulata are of such beautiful and complicated structure that they certainly cannot be placed lower than the Mollusca. We are compelled, therefore, to range them side by side, at a like elevation. We proceed to give the characters of the sub-kingdoms:

[blocks in formation]

1. Vertebrata.-Animals, the main trunk of whose nervous system consists of ganglionic matter massed together in the form of N. a column. It is found on the dorsal (upper) aspect of the body, its axis lying in the median vertical plane which divides the G. animal into two symmetrical halves. This main nervous trunk D. consists anteriorly of the brain and posteriorly of the spinal cord. It is usually enclosed in a bony or cartilaginous cavity formed by the upper arches of the vertebra. The bodies of these vertebra form the essential portion of an internal bony or N. cartilaginous (gristly) skeleton. The column thus formed is G. placed immediately below the central nervous trunk, and sends upward processes to form a series of dorsal arches to defend the nervous axis, and downward a series of less perfect arches, in which lie the circulatory and alimentary organs. Appended to this column, which forms the axis of support and resistance whereon the rest of the skeleton hinges, are (normally) four limbs, two anterior and two posterior. The blood is red, and enclosed in vessels. Jaws playing vertically. Mollusca (from mollis, soft).- Animals with soft bodies enveloped in soft skin, which is constantly moist, which is itself muscular, and to it the muscles are attached. This skin as usually the power of secreting within or upon its tissues a calcareous extravascular secretion (the shell). The nervous masses are dispersed

Ab.

quibus ? The preposition cum is sometimes set after the pronoun; as, quocum, quacum, quibuscum, with whom, with which.

Quis is repeated so as to form the compound pronoun quisquis, whosoever. In this case, both parts are declined thus: quisquis, m.; quæquæ, f.; quicquid, n. When the neuter is used as a substantive it is generally written quidquid. Take as instances: quoquo modo res habet, in whatever way the thing is; quicquid id est, whatever that is. In quicunque, whosoever. the qui is declined, and to its parts cunque is added, as cuj cunque, quodcunque, etc.

[blocks in formation]

2.

1. Rex qui civitatem gubernat, civium salutem curare debet. Regi cujus imperium mite et justum est, omnes cives libenter parent. 3. Regem cui leges sunt sanctæ, cives colunt. 4. Felix est rex quem omnes cives amant. 5. O rex qui civitatem nostram gubernas, tibi placet honorare bonos cives, terrere maleficos, succurrere miseris, exaudire probos.

EXERCISE 60.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

1. Kings who govern states must care for the safety of all the citiz.ns. 2. Good men willingly obey kings whose government is mild and just. 3. Kings whose laws are holy are willingly obeyed by good citizens. 4. The kings are happy who are dear to their citizens. 5. O kings who rule our states, ye ought to honour a good and great man. 6. O God, we worship thee who art pleased to succour the wretched. 7. The enemies with whom you contend lay waste your country.

[blocks in formation]

Cogito, 1, I think. Curro, 3, I run, pass away.

Excrucio, 1, I tor

ture (E. R. excruciate, from crux, a cross).

Falsus, -a, -um, false.

Habeo, 2, I have.

VOCABULARY.

Honestus,
-a, -um, | Opinio, -ōnis, f., an
honourable (E. R.
opinion.
honesty).
Peccatum, -i, n., a sin.
Indulgeo, I am lenient | Quæro, 3, I seek.
to (E. R. indulge). Repugno, 1, I fight
Ingratus, -a, -um, un- against (E. R. repug-
thankful (E. R. in- nance, pugilist).
gratitude).
Sententia, -æ, f., view,
Luscinia, æ, f., opinion.
nightingale.

Me habeo, I have my

a

self (that is, in a cer

Utilis, -e, useful (E. R.
utility).

Veritas, atis, f., truth
(E. R. verity).

tain condition), I am. EXERCISE 61.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Quis me vocat? 2. Quid agis, mi amice? 3. Quis scribit has literas? 4. Quid cogitas? 5. Quid ago? 6. Cur me excrucio? 7. Qua amicitia est inter ingratos? 8. Quod carmen legis? 9. Quis homo venit? 10. Quis poeta dulcior est quam Homerus? 11. Cujus Vox suavior est quam vox luscinia? 12. Quibus peccatis facillime indulgemus? 13. Quicquid est honestum, idem est utile. 14. Quicquid vides, currit cum tempore. 15. Quoquo modo res sese habet, ego sententiam meam defendo. 16. Quæcunque opinio veritati repugnat, falsa est.

EXERCISE 62.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

1. What dost thou say? 2. Who is that man? 3. Who is that

woman? 4. With whom does thy friend walk? 5. Whom seekest

thou? 6. What book dost thou read? 7. To whom dost thou write

this letter? 8. However the things are we praise your view.

INDEFINITE PRONOUNS.

In quivis, quævis, quidvis (quodvis), the termination vis, thou wilt, increases the indefiniteness, so that quivis is, who or what you will, cujusvis ; acc. quemvis, quamvis, etc. A similar import is found in quilibet (libet, it pleases), quælibet, quidlibet (quodlibet), who or what you please; so, gen. cujuslibet.

Alius, another; alter, the other, the second of a pair (the latter, corresponding to the former); ullus, any; nullus (non ullus), no one; uter, which (of the two); neuter (non uter), neither, neither the one nor the other, take the genitive singular in ius, and the dative in i, like unus. See the next lesson on numbers.

[blocks in formation]

future.
Græcia, f., Greece.
Idcirco, therefore.
Impendeo, 2, I hang
over (E. R. impend).

[blocks in formation]

EXERCISE 63.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Si mortem timemus semper aliquis terror nobis impendet. 2. Si cuipiam pecuniam fortuna adimit idcirco miser non est. 3. Græcia parvum quendam (quemdam) locum Europe tenet. 4. Inhæret in mentibus nostris quasi quoddam augurium futurorum sæculorum. 5. In unoquoque virorum bonorum habitat deus. 6. Justitia jus unicuique tribuit pro dignitate cujusque. 7. Cuique nostrum amor vitæ est insitus.

EXERCISE 64.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

1. Some terror always hangs over the bad. 2. What terror (quid terroris, literally, what of terror?) hangs over thee? 3. If thou takest fortune from any one thou art blamed. 4. They hold a certain small part of Greece. 5. In every bad man evil dwells. 6. Justice allots to every one his merits. 7. Certain ones have money.

[blocks in formation]

1

Relative Indefinite.

Relative. Qualis, of what kind? qualiscunque, of what kind soever. Quantus, of what size? quantuscunque, how great soever. Quot, of what number? quotcunque, quotquot, of whatever number. Quot, tot, aliquot; quot, quotcunque, and quotquot, are indeclinable, and are used only in the plural number; as, quot homines sunt? how many men are there? aliquot homines, some men; tot homines quot video, as many men as I see; quotcunque homines video omnes boni sunt, all the men I see are good. VOCABULARY.

Quis in a dependent form undergoes slight changes in declination: thus, quis, qua or quæ, quid; pl. qui, quæ, quæ. When it is used as an adjective pronoun, then quis may become qui, qua becomes quæ, and quid becomes quod. The same is the Aristides, is, m., the Imitator, -ōris, m., an | Prædico, 1, I speck case with aliquis, some one: thus, sub. aliquis, aliqua, aliquid; adj., aliquis, aliqua, aliquod. So alicujus, alicui, etc. In the plural, quis, etc., become qui, quæ, quæ, or qua, aliqui, aliquæ, aliqua.

Quis united with piam, becoming quispiam, acquires an indefinite import, any one soever; and runs thus: quispiam, quæpiam, quidpiam; adj. quodpiam.

Another form is quisquam (quis and quam), every one; which is declined: nom. quisquam, quicquam; gen. cujusquam; dat. cuiquam. Quidam, a certain one, stands thus: nom. quidam, quædam, quiddam; adj. quoddam; gen. cujusdam, and so on. Quisque answers to our each one: nom. quisque, quæque, quidque (quodque); gen. cujusque; dat. cuique; acc. quemque, etc. Unusquisque, every one, brings the idea of individuality into greater prominence, and is formed thus: unusquisque, unaquæque, unumquidque; adj. unumquodque; the pronoun is made up of que, and, quis, who or which, and unus, one.

name of a celebrated
Athenian.

Bonum, i, n., good,
the good.

Contemno, 3, I despise.

imitator.
Liberi, -orum, m., chil

before, declare (E. E.
preach).
dren (used in the Qued, conj., that.
plural only).

a

a

Oratio, -onis, f., speech.
Existo, 3, I stand out, Pastor, oris, n.,
become, exist.
shepherd (E. R.
Fragilis, -e, easily pastor).
broken, fragile (from
frango, I break).
Grex, gregis, m., a Permultus, -a, -um,
flock.
very much.

Pecco, I sin, fail,

err.

Respublica (res and

publica, both parts are declined; thus, rei publice, rem publicam), the state, the republic, the commonwealth. Soleo, 2, I am actustomed.

EXERCISE 65.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Quot sunt homines, tot sunt sententiæ. 2. Tantum malum est principum existunt. 3. Quot genera orationum sunt, tot oratorum hoc, quod peccant principes, quantum illud quod permulti imitatores genera reperiuntur. 4. Quales sunt duces, tales sunt milites. 5. Qualis est rex, talis est grex. 6. Quales in republica sunt principes, tales

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

solent esse cives. 7. Vir bonus non contemnit homines miseros, qualescunque sunt. 8. Corporis et fortunæ bona, quantacunque sunt, sunt incerta et fragilia. 9. Quotquot homines sunt, omnes vitam amant. 10. Quotcunque sunt scriptores, omnes Aristidis justitiam prædicant.

EXERCISE 66.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

1. As many men so many minds (the minds are as numerous as the men). 2. As many boys so many girls. 3. As many fathers so many mothers. 4. As great as is thy grief so great is my joy. 5. Such as are parents such are children. 6. As is the shepherd so is the flock. 7. I do not despise the things, whatever they are. 8. Aristides is declared just by all writers, how many soever they are.

KEY TO EXERCISES IN LESSONS IN LATIN.-XIV. (Vol. II., p. 64.)

EXERCISE 53.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Every nature is preservative of itself. 2. A wonderful desire for the city, for my friends, and for thee holds (possesses) me. 3. Thy father is very much delighted by thy remembrance of him. 4. Anger has no power over itself. 5. A wise man has always power over himself. of

6. Care for you makes me uneasy. 7. All men are kind judges

themselves. 8. Thy recollection of us is exceedingly pleasant to me. 9. The friend is mindful of me and of thee. 10. (Our) father in his absence is held by a great longing after me, and after you, my brother, and after you, O sisters. 11. (Our) friends are mindful of us. Many of you please me. 13. Very many of us greatly love thee.

EXERCISE 54.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

12.

[blocks in formation]

false man.

EXERCISE 55.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Sallust is a very elegant writer. 2. His books I gladly read (I am glad to read). 3. I have a faithful friend. 4. I am very much attached to him. 5. The song of (thy) brother pleases me much, thou oughtest to read it. 6. Idleness makes the body grow heavy, labour strengthens (it). 7. Avoid that, seek this. 8. This letter moves me very much. 9. These songs are very sweet. 10. I do not believe that 11. The soldiers gladly obey that general. 12. All favour that man. 13. That precept of thine is excellent. 14. This opinion pleases me, that displeases me. 15. This war is very cruel. 16. This boy is industrious, that (one) sluggish. 17. I keep in memory that excellent precept. 18. That friend of thine is a very good man. 19. That authority of yours is very great. 20. I praise the diligence of that scholar, I blame the slowness of this (one). 21. To that (one) school is very pleasant, to this (one) very troublesome.

EXERCISE 56.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

5.

1. Sallustius est scriptor elegans, Livius elegantior, et Cicero elegantissimus. 2. Eorum libros libenter lego. 3. Ejus frater et amicus mihi sunt cari. 4. Fidum amicum habes et ei es addictissimus. Filii mei habent fidas uxores et eas valde amant. 6. Vehementer his literis moveor. 7. Mendaci mulieri non credas. 8. Hic puer mihi placet, ille displicet. 9. Hoc poema valde est elegans, illud elegantius. 10. Hic tuus miles fortis est. 11. Hujus discipuli diligentia a me præceptore laudatur. 12. In hac schola plures quam in vestra sunt industrii discipuli.

EXERCISE 57.-LATIN-ENGLISH.

1. Many men do not think the same on the same things (subjects) for the same day. 2. The fool now trusts, now distrusts the same opinion, 3. Seditious soldiers withstand the commander himself. 4. The mind moves itself. 5. Virtue is praiseworthy on its own account. 6. Often nothing is more hostile to a man than he is to himself. Every animal loves itself. 8. Our country ought to be dearer to us 7. than we ourselves. 9. That precept of the Delphic oracle is excellent -Know thyself.

EXERCISE 58.-ENGLISH-LATIN.

1. Hostes urbem obsident et eam expugnare tentant. 2. Hujus magni hominis factum ab omnibus scriptoribus laudatur. 3. Cæsar et Pompeius præclari duces Romani sunt. 4. Illi fortuna amicior est quam huic. 5. Illius et hujus fortitudo mira est. 6. Rex ipse exer7. Non semper eadem de iisdem rebus sentis. 8. Pater et filius iisdem literis student. 9. Virtutes per se amabiles sunt. Omnes se ipsos diligunt. 11. Patria tibi carior esse debet quam tute tibi. 12. Noscite vos ipsos, juvenes. 13. Mendax sæpe sibi ipsi

citus est dux.

diffidit.

10.

HISTORIC SKETCHES.-XVI.

HOW IRELAND BECAME PART OF GREAT BRITAIN.-PART I.

A GLANCE at the map of the United Kingdom will serve to show that England being inhabited by a powerful people, numerically superior to the peoples both of Scotland and Ireland, those two countries must necessarily be in union with her. Neither of them could rest in security in the neighbourhood of so strong a state; both would in turn be liable to be objected to, as the lamb was by the wolf in the fable; and unless they could secure efficient foreign alliances, they must, sooner or later, fall a prey, as the lamb also did. For it would be manifestly intolerable for the strong state to have possible enemies so near, opening a way at any time into the very heart of her dominion, presenting a ready means of injury available by the first enemy which chose to bid for the friendship of either Scotland or Ireland; and it could not be but that the strong state should perpetually strive to remove, by some means or other, the possibility of harm from such a source. Union would seem therefore to be suggested by the best interests of all concerned. It was also, politically considered, a necessity.

In another paper (Historic Sketches, No. XIV.), it was shown how the necessity for union presented itself to the mind of him who has been called "the greatest of the Plantagenets," "the English Justinian," Edward I. There, too, was shown, especially in regard to Scotland, the manner in which the English king strove to supply his necessity: how, acting according to his instincts, he tried to dragoon the Scots into union; how he for a while succeeded, and how finally his efforts were frustrated, and he had nothing for his warlike labour under the His state policy was a sound one, but his means for carrying it out were unwisely chosen, and his proud spirit scorned to apply itsel to any other. He would be Cæsar or nothing, and in the course of his time he was both, as regarded the rulership of Scotland. How the union with Scotland was ultimately managed was also pointed out in the same paper. Let us now turn to the case of the sister island, and see how that came into the union.

sun.

To say that Ireland fell to England by conquest is neither wholly true nor wholly false. It is wholly false to say that it was conquered in the sense that Edward I. tried to conquer Scotland--conquered, that is, as a whole, the entire nation being united under one head for the purpose of resisting a common invader. It is not only doubtful whether, had the Irish been united, the Anglo-Normans who went over would ever have possessed more ground in the country than was needed to cover their bones, but it is almost certain that the subjugation of the island would never have taken place; assuredly it would not with the force which actually went over. Of course, after the precedent set at Hastings, where the fate of England was decided in one pitched battle, and in view of the fact that a mob, however numerous, can avail nothing against the attack of disciplined troops, it is perhaps presumptuous to say so much; but we have only to point to the case of Scotland for justification, and to see how there the whole strength of England failed to hold in bondage a united, freedom-loving people, irregular and undisciplined though they were, in comparison with the followers of the first soldier of his day. Ireland was not conquered as a whole, for it never resisted as a whole-never acknowledged for the purposes of the common weal one supreme head or "dictator whom all men should obey." It is not, therefore, absolutely true to say that it was conquered, neither is it absolutely false. It fell like the house that was built upon the sand, because it had no foundation and was divided against itself. Bit by bit it was subjugated by force of arms, and according to a system of warfare which aimed at preventing a which required the constant presence of a strong military force -a system repetition of resistance by means of extirpationin the conquered districts, and which provoked from time to time those outbursts of national and party anger which the system has periodically put down with bloodshed and violence. At no one period in her history has Ireland ever been united as Scotland was when she successfully resisted the invader; and certainly, at the time of the first attempt that was made upon her independence, Ireland was split up into rival factions as bitter and hostile to one another as the worst common enemy could desire.

The restless spirit that dwelt in the breast of every Norman

« ZurückWeiter »