tion of atmospheric pressure arises from the attraction of the moon, it ought to be precisely the same at the new and full moon, and also at the first and last quarters. But according to the observations of Flaugergues, the difference of pressure attains nearly its maximum at the quarters, when, according to the theory, it ought entirely to disappear. We may remark, that this subject was examined many years ago by M. Bouvard, who satisfactorily demonstrated that the atmospheric tide, so far as it depends on the same cause which produces the tides of the ocean, and is governed by the same laws, is altogether inappreciable. The conclusion therefore is, that "the inequalities of pressure indicated by observation must be referred to some cause different from attraction; to some cause certainly depending on the moon, but of which the nature and mode of action still remain to be discovered."

M. Arago next proceeds to the examination of the popular opinion regarding the influence of the phases of the moon on the changes of the weather. From the observations computed by Toaldo, the ratio of the number of changes of weather to the number of no changes at the different phases of the moon, was found to be as follows: New moon, 6 to 1; Full moon, 5 to 1; First quarter, 2 to 1; Second quarter, 2 to 1; Perigee, 5 to 1; Apogee, 4 to 1; that is to say, of seven new moons, six were accompanied with a change of weather, and at one of them there was no change; of six full moons, five were attended with a change; and at the quarters, the changes were twice as frequent as the continuance of the previous weather.

These results would be decisive of the question, if their accuracy were beyond suspicion; but, independently of the arbitrary sense that may be attached to the term change of weather, it appears that Toaldo "does not content himself with attributing to the phases of the moon the changes which take place on the very day of the phase; he classes also, in the same category, the changes of the day that precedes and follows. In certain instances, he even extends the lunar action to the second day before and after the phase. In adopting such bases, is it to be wondered at, that the moon has appeared to be endowed with so powerful an influence?"

The result of Pilgram's observations at Vienna is entirely different. During a hundred lunations, the number of changes of weather on the days of the respective phases, were as follows:

It results from the simple inspection of this table that, with regard to the changes of weather, the new moon is the least active of all the phases. The contrary is proclaimed by popular opinion. The observations, nevertheless, from which the table is deduced, extend over 52 years; and as Pilgram was himself a believer in the lunar influence, it may be inferred, that if he committed errors, they would not have a tendency to militate against his own preconceived notions.

Among the ancients the opinion was universally entertained that the

different aspects of the moon furnish sure prognostics of the future state of the weather.

"If," says Aratus, "on the third day of the moon the horns of the crescent are sharp and well defined, the sky will continue serene during the whole of the month."

This is a notion which we believe to be very prevalent at the present day among the peasantry of our own country. The following is the commentary of Arago:

"In reality, when the moon in the evening begins to disengage herself from the sun's rays, she has always the form of a crescent, terminated by two very sharp horns; but if the atmosphere happens to be troubled, the horns appear enlarged. This enlargement, however, is a mere optical illusion, and is occasioned by strongly illuminated clouds, in apparent contact with the moon, and seeming to form a constituent part of her body. The fine extremities of the crescent are then lost as it were in the parasitical light which surrounds the moon, and become invisible to the naked eye. All this is rendered evident by employing a telescope, which destroys the illusion."

Many other aphorisms of the same nature might be quoted from Aratus, Theon, Theophrastus, Pliny, and other ancient writers on rural affairs. But they may be dismissed with the general remark that they had their origin in that ignorance which confounds signs with causes, and are now disregarded, excepting by the most illiterate and credulous. They are besides at total variance with the theory of the influence of the phases.

The agency of the moon has not been confined, in popular opinion, to the changes of weather; she has been allowed in all ages and countries to exercise a direct and important influence on organic life. Many of the opinions vulgarly entertained on this head are curious, and are founded on well established facts; the error lying, not in the observations, but in the theory which makes the moon the cause of phenomena of which she is only the silent and unconcerned spectator. We may mention one or two of the most remarkable.

"It is generally believed, especially in the neighbourhood of Paris, that the moon, in certain months, has a great influence on the phenomena of vegetation. The gardeners give the name of red moon (lune rousse) to the moon which, beginning in April, becomes full either about the end of that month, or more usually in the course of May. In the months of April and May the moon, according to them, exercises a pernicious influence on the young shoots of plants. They maintain that they have observed during the night, when the sky is clear, the leaves and buds exposed to this light to become red, that is to say, to be frozen, although the thermometer, in the free atmosphere, stood several degrees above the freezing point. They also assert, that if the rays of the moon are intercepted by clouds, and thereby prevented from reaching the plants, the same effects do not take place, under circumstances perfectly similar in other respects with regard to temperature. These phenomena seem to indicate that the light of our satellite is endowed with a certain frigorific influence; yet, on directing the most powerful burning glasses or the largest reflectors towards the moon, and placing the most delicate thermometers in their foci, no effect has ever been observed which could justify so singular a conclusion. Hence with philosophers the effects of the April moon are now referred to the class of vulgar prejudices, while the gardeners remain convinced

of the accuracy of their observations. A beautiful discovery, made some years ago by Dr. Wells, will enable us, I think, to reconcile two opinions in appearance so contradictory.

"No one had supposed, before Dr. Wells, that terrestrial substances, excepting in the case of a very rapid evaporation, may acquire, during the night, a different temperature from that of the surrounding air. This important fact is now well ascertained. On placing little masses of cotton, down, &c. in the open air, it is frequently observed that they acquire a temperature of six, seven, or even eight centigrade degrees below that of the surrounding atmosphere. The same is the case with vegetables. We cannot therefore judge of the degree of cold with which a plant is affected during the night by the indications of a thermometer suspended in the free atmosphere: the plant may be strongly frozen, although the air remains constantly several degrees above the freezing point. These differences of temperature between solid bodies and the atmosphere only rise to six, seven, or eight degrees of the centesimal thermometer, when the sky is perfectly clear. If the sky is clouded, they become insensible.

"Is it now necessary to point out the connexion between these phenomena and the opinions of the country people regarding the April moon?

"In the nights of April and May the temperature of the atmosphere is frequently only four, five, or six centigrade degrees above zero. When this happens, plants exposed to the light of the moon-that is to say, to a clear sky-may be frozen, notwithstanding the indications of the thermometer. If the moon, on the contrary, does not shine-in short, if the sky is cloudy, the temperature of the plants does not fall below that of the atmosphere; and they will consequently not be frozen, unless the thermometer indicates zero. It is therefore quite true, as the gardeners pretend, that under thermometrical circumstances precisely alike, a plant may be frozen or not, according as the moon may be visible or concealed behind clouds. If they are deceived, it is only in their conclusion, in attributing the effect to the light of the moon. The moon's light is, in this case, only the index of a clear atmosphere; it is only in consequence of the clearness of the sky that the nocturnal congelation of plants takes place; the moon contributes to the effect in no way whatever; although she were hid under the horizon, the effect would not be different."

The explanation here given is perfectly satisfactory, and may be extended to some other notions that have prevailed respecting the lunar influence. For example, it is said by Pliny and Plutarch, and is at the present day generally believed in the West Indies, that "the moon sheds a copious humidity on bodies exposed to her rays, and that her light hastens the putrefaction of animal substances." This opinion is, to a certain extent, countenanced by facts:

"A body exposed to the light of the moon-that is to say, to a clear sky, becomes, in consequence of its radiation, colder than the surrounding air. Under these circumstances the air deposits a portion of its humidity on the cold surface of the body, which is neither more or less than the phenomenon of dew, as analyzed by Dr. Wells. Now, animal substances become much sooner putrid when moist than when dry. The observation of Pliny and Plutarch is therefore correct in all its details. It was only necessary to reform the theory, and acquit the moon of the mischief ascribed to her."

Again, it is a commonly received opinion that the light of the moon darkens the complexion. If such an effect is produced by exposure to the moon's rays, its explanation must be sought for elsewhere than in the action of the lunar light, as is demonstrated by the following fact.

"Of all known substances, the chloride of silver is that of which the colour

suffers the greatest and most rapid change on exposure to light. But a plate of this chemical compound, exposed for a long time to the light of the moon condensed in the focus of a powerful burning glass, is observed to lose nothing of its primitive whiteness."

Nevertheless, the popular opinion is perhaps not altogether destitute of foundation. The skin exposed to the light of the moon-that is, to a clear sky-probably acquires, like dead substances placed in the same circumstances, a temperature several degrees below that of the surrounding air. It is true that the animal heat is incessantly repairing the deficit occasioned by radiation; yet, "who would affirm that the physical conditions under which an intense local cold places the epidermis may not alter its texture and modify its shade?"

We shall conclude our extracts, with the following striking passage, from which it might almost be inferred that M. Arago himself is inclined to allow the moon to retain a portion at least of that influence she has been so long supposed to possess in the affairs of the terrestrial world.

Hippocrates had so lively a faith in the influence of the stars on animated beings, and on their maladies, that he very expressly recommends not to trust physicians who are ignorant of astronomy. The moon, however, according to him, only acted a secondary part; the preponderating stars were the Pleiades, Arcturus and Procyon.

"Galen shewed himself, in this respect, a zealous disciple of Hippocrates; but it was the moon to which he assigned the chief influence. Thus the famous critical days in diseases-that is to say, the 7th, the 14th, and the 21st, were connected with the duration of the principal phases of our satellite, and the lunar influx became the principal pivot of the system of crises."

"With regard to the theory of lunar influence on disease, it still counts a goodly number of partisans. In truth, I know not if the circumstance ought to astonish us. Is it not something to have on one's side the authority of the two greatest physicians of antiquity; and among the moderns, that of Mead, Hoffman, and Sauvage? Authorities, I admit, are of little weight in matters of science, in the face of positive facts; but it is necessary that these facts exist, that they have been subjected to severe examination, that they have been skilfully grouped, with a view to extract from them the truths they conceal. Now, has this procedure been adopted with regard to the lunar influences? Where do we find them refuted by such arguments as science would acknowledge? He who ventures to treat, à priori, a fact as absurd, wants prudence. He has not reflected on the numerous errors he would have committed with regard to modern discoveries. I ask, for example, if there can be any thing in the world more bizarre, more incredible, more inadmissible, than the discovery of Jenner? Well! the bizarre, the incredible, the inadmissible, is found to be true; and the preservative against the small-pox is, by unanimous consent, to be sought for in the little pustule that appears in the udder of the cow. I address these short reflections to those who may think that in this article I have taken an unnecessary trouble."

ART. XII.-Quadro della Storia Letteraria di Armenia, estesa da Mons Placido Lukias Somal, Arcivescovo di Liunia, ed Abate-Générale della Congregazione dei Monaci Armeni Mechitaristi di San Lazzaro.(A Sketch of the History of Armenian Literature, by Placido Lukias Somal, Archbishop of Liunia, and Abbot-General of the Congregation of Armenian Mechitarist Monks of St. Lazarus.) Venice. 1829. We have no intention of betraying the incautious reader into the investigation of a study which he may judge so unprofitable as the language and literature of Armenia; nor in fact did we cherish the wish insidiously to perpetrate such a literary guet-a-pens, would the volume now before us offer a decent pretext for accomplishing the meditated purpose, although unexceptionably adapted to that which we actually have in view. This Quadro supplies not a fragment of Armenian composition, in prose or rhyme, to translate. It is simply an historical sketch, written in Italian, of Armenian literature, recording the epochs of its glory, its decay, and its revival, and enumerating its principal authors, together with their works. Could we ask a happier occasion of doing three things we avow our desire to do?-namely, satisfying the interest which we conceive Lord Byron's faucy for these Armenian Monks must have awakened in the minds of his admirers, touching that apparent anomaly, an Armenian monastery in Italy; directing the attention of the studious to a line of research hitherto, we apprehend, little more than a dead letter, save to an exceedingly limited number; and informing the great mass of general readers, who probably have no other idea of Armenians than as vagabond pedlars in outlandish garb, of some few curious facts respecting the language and literature of a little known and much despised race.

We shall speak, first, of the Mechitarist Monastery of San Lazzaro, over which the learned prelate, the author of the book before us, now presides, and its origin.

Most of our readers are, we presume, aware that the larger portion of Armenia forms part of Turkey in Asia, as also, probably, that the industrious natives, who, in pursuit of gain, traverse every province of the Turkish dominions, abound at Constantinople, where they are indulged with several religious establishments. But not so many may be equally aware that the Armenian Church is divided by a great schism; somewhere about one half, both of clergy and laity, having attached themselves to the Roman Catholic creed, who are condemned as heretics by the adherents to the old Oriental Church, and in their turn reprobate as heterodox those of their brethren who persevere in the faith of their forefathers. At Constantinople, these last predominate, or did so at least in the year 1700, when Mechitar Pedrosian, a Catholic Armenian, founded a new monastery in the Moslem capital, of which he was himself appointed abbot. Being persecuted by the adverse sect, he fled with his monks to the Morea, then subject to Venice, and established his monastery, to which he attached an academy, at Modon. Here both flourished, but not permanently. The Morea reverted to the Ottoman sceptre, and in 1717 the worthy abbot transferred his monastery and academy to Venice, where upon the island of San Lazzaro, one of the more detached of the