under the fortified walls of their city. In order to check the approach of the Egyptains, the enemy had crossed the river, whose stream, divided into a double fosse, surrounded the towered walls of their fortified city, and opposed their advance by a considerable body of chariots; while a large reserve of infantry, having crossed the bridge, was posted on the other bank, to cover their retreat, or second their advance; but, routed by the Egyptian invaders, they are forced to throw themselves back upon the town; and many, in re-crossing the river, are either carried away by the stream, or fall under the arrows of the advancing conqueror. Those who have succeeded in reaching the opposite bank are rescued by their friends, who, drawn up in their phalanxes, witness the defeat of their comrades, and the flight of the remainder of their chariots. Some carry to the sea the lifeless corpse of their chief, who was drowned in the river, and in vain endeavour to restore life by holding the head downwards to expel the water; and others implore the clemency of the victor, and acknowledge him their conqueror and lord.

"On the south wall of the great hall is a small but interesting battle, in which the use of the ladder and testudo throws considerable light on the mode of warfare at this early period. The town, secluded on a lofty rock, is obstinately defended; and many are hurled headlong from its walls by

the spears, arrows,

and stones of the besieged. They, however, on the nearer approach of the Egyptian king, are obliged to sue for peace, and send heralds, with presents, to deprecate his fury; while his infantry, commanded by his sons, are putting to the sword the routed enemy they have overtaken beneath the walls, where they had in vain looked for refuge, the gates being already beset by the Egyptian troops.

If this great conqueror subdued the land of Canaan and

great earnestness, he asked what made him look so attentively at them? The unhappy prince replied, "O king! the going round of the wheel puts me in mind of the vicissitudes of fortune; for as every part of the wheel is uppermost and lowermost by turns, so it is with men, who one day sit on a throne, and on the next are reduced to the vilest degree of slavery." This answer was like an arrow in the conscience, and brought the haughty conqueror to his senses. It is said that from that day he gave over the practice of yoking princes together, and ever after treated his captives with greater humanity. If we may believe tradition, this mighty monarch lost his sight, and afterwards put an end to his life by laying violent hands on himself.

Great as were the exploits and the victories of Sesostris, you must not suppose that Egypt was ever a conquering power, or the Egyptians a warlike people. Their conquests were never of a solid and permanent nature. As often as they un

Syria, as some say, how is it that we find no mention of him in the Sacred Book? In answer to this question, it has been very ingeniously said that the conquests of Sesostris took place while the Israelites were wandering in the desert, and that this providential arrangement was intended to render more easy and more certain the taking of the promised land. Whether he conquered the holy land or not, nothing detracts so much from the glory of his victories as the cruelty with which he treated the unhappy captives whom he had taken in war. His conduct was marked by the greatest barbarity aad hardheartedness. Even towards the conquered princes who waited on him with their tribute, he behaved with superlative insolence, and is said on certain occasions to have unharnessed his horses, and, yoking kings together, made them draw his chariot like so many beasts of burden. In connexion with this fact, we have the following little anecdote:-Having once observed one of the kings who drew his chariot look back upon the wheels with

furled the banner and took the field, 80 often were they doomed to experience the most vigorous resistance, and the very nations which they conquered did, in some instances, successfully carry their arms against them, and subject Egypt to their power.

If the Egyptians were not a warlike people, what, then, was the ruling element of the Egyptian mind? The intellectual eminence of that people lay in their love of science such a love

of science as penetrated or sought to penetrate by magie into all the depths and mysteries of nature, even into their most hidden recesses. In all the natural sciences-in mathematics, in astronomy, and even in medicine- they were the masters of all other nations. All their architecture had a hidden and interior meaning. The very manner in which they treated and preserved their dead had in it a deep and mysterious signification. Their

land was the birth-place of HIEROGLYPHICS, or the sacred engravings, which had in them, "besides the bare literal meaning, a high symbolical inspiration-like a soul of life-like the breathing of a high in-dwelling spirit-a deeply felt significancy a lofty and beautiful design, apparent through the dead character denoting any particular name or fact." There, too, was the chief seat of the MYSTERIES-those mysteries which exerted such an influence on public opinion, on science, and on the whole system of thinking, nay on life itself; for those who held them professed to dispose of all those great questions which relate to the soul, its capacity and original dignity, as well as to the hidden powers of nature and the whole invisible world. Brought up in the midst of these mysteries, not only do we find that Moses has introduced them into his writings, but that to his writings must we look for their true explanation. These secrets of nature, are, indeed, "to be found there, like

so many golden grains of science in full weight; but, scattered and dispersed, they serve at once to adorn and point out the path that leads to the holy ark of the covenant of divine mysteries and promises." Like a true philosopher, Moses made the mysteries of nature, whether hidden or revealed, subordinate to religion. He never separated nature from God, nor God from nature.

It does not appear that Sesostris used any means to keep in subjection the countries which he had once conquered; and, hence, no sooner had he withdrawn his arms from the field than his vast empire disappeared. Nor can we free our minds from the impression, that his successors must have sunk into all the sloth and apathy of an eastern life. Of these successors we know nothing. There is a mighty break in the history, which it is now impossible to fill up. Coming down to the time of the Trojan war, the reigning prince in Egypt was CETES, or, as he is named by the Greek writers, PROTEUS, of whom it is reported that he was a magician, and that he could assume any shape he pleased, even that of fire. Of this fabled personage we are left in total ignorance, as also of his successors, till we come to SESHOUK, or SESOUCHIS-the SHISHAK of Holy Scripture-who was the first monarch of the twenty-second dynasty. He flourished about nine hundred and seventy years before Christ. In the fifth year of Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon in the throne of Israel, this Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen, and people out of Egypt in numbers without number, besides Lybians and Ethiopians and Troglodlytes, or dwellers in caves. With this nighty army he advanced, took the fenced cities of Judah, and continued his progress to Jerusalem itself, made vassals of all the people, from the highest to the lowest, reduced them to comparative slavery, entered the temple, took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house-he took all. He carried away also the shields of gold which Solomon had made, and whose place Rehoboam supplied with those of brass.

Though Shishak thus extended his dominion beyond the bounds of Egypt, and included a large portion of southern and western Africa within his empire, that empire soon afterwards shrunk to its former limits, and in the following century the Egyptian monarchy rapidly declined, and the kingdom was conquered by an Ethiopian invader. The name of the conqueror was SABACO, who commenced his reign with the more than brutal act of committing to the flames the prince whom he had vanquished. It is thought that he did this cruel deed merely to establish himself more firmly on the throne; and that when he once found himself secure in the seat of supreme power, it is said that he changed his policy, and became distinguished for his wisdom and moderation and mercy. Tradition informs us that he was led to attempt the invasion of Egypt in consequence of a dream or vision, in which he was assured that he should hold the kingdom for fifty years. He succeeded in subduing the country, and in establishing his reign; but at the close of the fifty years he had another dream, in which the tutelar or presiding divinity of Thebes informed him that he could no longer hold the sceptre with safety and happiness, unless he put to death the whole body of the priesthood as he passed through them with his guard. Distressed and perplexed by the nature of the vision, and abhorring to hold the kingdom on such terms, he sent for the priests, and told them what he understood to be the will of the gods. The priests, however, concluded, more wisely, that it was the pleasure of the gods that Sabaco should remain no longer in Egypt, and, satisfied with their interpretation of the oracle, he immediately quitted the kingdom, and returned to Ethiopia. He is thought to have been the same with King So mentioned in Scripture, and who entered into a league with Hoshea, king of Israel, against Shalmaneser, king of Assyria.

successor

of

and in the year B.C. 713, arrived before Pelusium with a powerful force. Deserted by his soldiers, Sethos now appealed to them in vain. They refused to march beneath his banner. He had recourse to the gods. While in the temple of Vulcan, he fell into a deep sleep, in which, it is said, he saw that god standing at his side, exhorting him to take courage, and promising him a victory over the Assyrians. Animated by this assurance, he armed a body of artificers and labourers, and with this undisciplined body advanced to meet the enemy. He was saved an engagement; for a pestilence in the Assyrian camp gave him such an advantage, that he committed the most fearful havoc in their ranks. After his death, a statue was erected to his memory in the temple of Vulcan. The kingdom was then shared among twelve princes or chiefs of the nobility. But this new form of government did not last long. These chiefs began to quarrel as to the limits of their respective territories. This was followed by war; and one of their number, Psammeticus, prince of Sais, having been driven into exile, levied an army of Greek and Carian dependants and pirates, and having overcome all his rivals, once more, and only fifteen years after its division into twelve principalities, united all Egypt into a single monarchy, of which Memphis was the capital, though Sais was usually the seat of government.

QUESTIONS FOR EXAMINATION.

Who was the mightiest prince of Egypt; and whither did he carry his conquests?

On whose tomb are his exploits recorded?

What proof is there that the Egyptians were not a warlike people?

What gave them their high intellectual eminence?
What do you mean by hieroglyphics and mysteries?
Describe the character of the princes who succeeded Sesostris.
What victory did Sesouchis achieve; and in what did it consist?
With what king mentioned in Scripture does he agree?
What led Sabaco to attempt the invasion of Egypt?
To what country did he belong? and why did he leave Egypt?
Under what name is he mentioned in Scripture ?
Why was Sethos deserted by his nobles and his soldiers?
How did he supply their place?

What was the form of government after the death of Sethos ?
How was Egypt again united in one single monarchy ?

4. The demonstrative pronouns, celui, m. celle, f. this or that, are used to represent nouns, but are never joined with them like adjectives [§ 36, § 37, (1)].

J'ai mon parapluie et celui de votre frère. Vous avez ma robe et celle de ma

I have my umbrella and your brother's, i.e., that of your brother. You have my dress and my sister's, i.e., that of my sister.

sœur.

1. Votre frère a-t-il son encrier d'argent? 2. Il ne l'a plus, il a un encrier de plomb. 3. Avons nous la lettre de l'étranger? 4. Oui, Monsieur, nous avons celle de l'étranger [R. 4]. 5. Votre sœur n'a pas son ardoise, mais elle a son chapeau de satin. 6. Le menuisier a-t-il votre bois ou le sien? 7. Il n'a ni le mien ni le sien, il a celui du jardinier. 8. Avez vous mon bon parapluie de soie? 9. J'ai votre parapluie de soie et votre parasol de satin. 10. Avez vous ma bouteille? 11. Je n'ai pas votre bouteille, j'ai la malle de votre sœur. 12. Le domestique a-t-il cette salière? 13. Il n'a pas cette salière-ci, il a celle-la. 14. Avez vous le bon ou le mauvais poulet 15. Je n'ai ni celui-ci ni celui-là. 16. Quel poulet avez vous? 17. J'ai celui du cuisinier. 18. Le boulanger a-t-il de la volaille? [Sect. 4, R. 1.] 19. Le boulanger n'a pas de volaille, il a du lait [Sect. 5, R. 5]. 20. Avez vous votre fromage ou le mien? 21. Je n'ai ni le vôtre ni le mien, j'ai celui du matelot. 22. Quelqu'un a-t-il faim? 23. Personne n'a faim. 24. Avez vous quelque chose? 25. Non, Monsieur, je n'ai rien.

EXERCISE 18.

1. Has your brother that lady's umbrella? 2. My brother has that lady's umbrella? 3. Have you this parasol or that one? 4. I have neither this (one) nor that (one). 5. Have you the stranger's gold watch? 6. No, Sir, I have the baker's. 7. Who has my slate? 8. I have your slate and your brother's. 9. Has the cook a silver salt stand? 10. The cook has a silver salt stand, and a silver dish. 11. Has the cook this poultry or that 12. He has neither this nor that. 13. Has he this bread or that? 14. He has neither this nor that, he has the baker's good bread. 15. Have you my cotton parasol? 16. I have not your cotton parasol, I have your silk parasol. 17. Has the gardener a leather trunk? 18. The gardener has a leather trunk. 19. Who has my good cheese? 20. Nobody has your cheese, but some one has your brother's. 21. Have you mine or his? 22. I have neither yours nor his, I have the stranger's. 23. Has the cook this bottle or that broom? 24. He has this bottle? 25. Have you a lead inkstand? 26. No, Sir, I have a china inkstand. 27. Has the stranger poultry? 28. The stranger has no poultry, but he has money. 29. Your brother is hungry and thirsty, afraid and sleepy. 30. Is any one ashamed? 31. No, Sir, nobody is ashamed.

and yours is wrong. 34. Your sister has neither her satin hat nor her velvet hat.

4. 3rd EXCEPTION. The following nouns ending in ou, take z for the plural, bijou, jewel; caillou, pebble; chou, cabbage; genou, knee; hibou, owl; joujou, plaything.

Les bijoux, les eailloux, les choux. The jewels, the pebbles, the cabbages. Les hiboux, les genoux, les joujoux. The owls, the knees, the playthings.

5. 4th EXCEPTION. The following nouns ending in ail change that termination into aux for the plural: bail, lease; corail. coral; émail, enamel; soupirail, air-hole; sous-bail, under-iease; travail, labour.

généraux ont ils les chapeaux de soie de l'enfant ? 6, Ils ont les bijoux et les joujoux de l'enfant? 7. Les enfants ont ils les oiseaux de votre bois? 8. Ils n'ont pas les oiseaux de mon bois, mais ils ont les chevaux de mon géneral. 9. Le maréchal a-t-il une paire de bas de laine. 10. Le maréchal a deux paires de bas de laine. 11. Monsieur, n'avez vous pas froid? 12. Non, Monsieur, j'ai chaud. 13. Avez vous du café ou du chocolat? 14. Je n'ai ni café ni chocolat. 15. N'avez vous

pas les choux de mon grand jardin? 16. J'ai les légumes de votre petit jardin. 17. Votre fils, qu'a-t-il? 18. Mon fils n'a rien. 19. Avez vous deux morceaux de pain? 20. Le meunier a un morceau de pain et deux barils de farine. 21. L'épicier a-t-il du café, du thé, du chocolat, et du poivre? 22. Il a du thé et du café, et le chocolat et le poivre de votre marchand. 23. Qui a de l'argent? 24. Je n'ai pas d'argent, mais j'ai du papier. 25. Avez vous de bon papier? 26. J'ai de mauvais papier.

EXERCISE 20.

1. Have you my brother's horses? 2. I have not your brother's horses, I have your cousin's hats. 3. Have the blacksmiths good iron? 4. The blacksmith has two pieces of iron. 5. Have you two pairs of stockings? 6. I have one pair of stockings and two pairs of gloves. 7. Has your sister the gold jewels? 8. My sister has the gold jewels and the paper playthings. 9. Have you the cabbages in your garden? 10. We have two cabbages in our garden. 11. Have you the silk hats? 12. The generals have the silk hats. 13. Have you coffee or sugar? 14. We have neither coffee nor sugar. 15. Are your brothers ashamed? 16. My brothers are neither ashamed nor afraid. 17. Who has two barrels of flour? 18. The miller has two barrels of flour. 19. Have the birds bread? 20. The birds have no bread. 21. Has the merchant tea, chocolate, sugar, and pepper? 22. He has sugar and pepper, but he has neither tea nor chocolate. 23. What has your sister? 24. She has nothing. 25. What is the matter with your brother? 26. Nothing is the matter with him. 27. Is he not cold? 28. He is not cold, he is warm. 29. Is he wrong? 30. He is not wrong, he is right. 31. Have you two cloth coats? 32. I have only one cloth coat, but I have two satin waistcoats. 33. Who has my brother's letter? 34. Your sister has it. 35. Your sister has it not.

8. The demonstrative pronoun, celui, m. this, or that, makes ceux in the plural. The feminine form, celle, merely takes the s in the plural.

Mes chandeliers (m.) et ceux de vos My candlesticks and those of your Vos chandelles (f.) et celles de nos

frères.

voisins.

RESUME OF

Votre frère a-t-il mes chevaux ?
Il n'a ni les vôtres ni les siens.
A-t-il ceux de nos voisins?
Il ne les a pas?

Ma sœur a-t-elle vos plumes ou celles de ma cousine?

Elle n'a ni les miennes ni celles de
ma cousine, elle a les siennes.
Avons nous des marteaux?
Vous n'avez pas de marteaux.
Vous avez de jolis crayons.
Avez vous les habits des enfants?
Je n'ai pas les habits des enfants.
Vous avez les chapeaux des dames.
Avez vous ceux-ci ou ceux-là?

Acajou, mn. mahogany.
Aubergiste, m. inn-
keeper.
Blanc, he, white.
Chaise, f. chair.
Chandelier, m. candle-

stick.

brothers.

Your candles and those of our neigh-
bours.
EXAMPLES.

Has your brother my horses?
He has neither yours nor his.
Has he those of our neighbours ?
He has them not.

Has my sister your pens or my cous-
in's? f. (or those of my cousin).
She has neither mine nor my cousin's,

she has her own.
Have we hammers?
You have no hammers.
You have pretty pencils.

Have you the children's clothes?

I have not the children's clothes.
You have the ladies' hats.
Have you these or those?
EXERCISE 21.
Chandelle, f. candle.
Cousine, f. cousin.
Crin, m. horse-hair.
Ebéniste, m. cabinet-
maker.

Fusil, m. yun.
Laine, f. wool.
Marbre, m. marble.
Matelas, m. mattress.
Meilleure, adj. f. better.
Ferblanc, m. tin. Ouvrier, m. workman.
Ferblantier, m. tinman. Voyageur, m. traveller.

1. Avez vous les marteaux des maréchaux? 2. Oui, Mon sieur, je les ai. 3. Ne les avez vous pas? 4. Non, Monsieur, nous ne les avons pas. 5. L'ouvrier les a. 6. L'aubergiste a-t-il vos chevaux? 7. L'aubergiste n'a ni mes chevaux ni les vôtres, il a les siens. 8. Le médecin a-t-il des livres? 9. Oui, Monsieur, il a de bons livres. 10. N'avez vous pas mes meilleures plumes? 11. Oui, Monsieur, j'ai vos meilleures plumes, les miennes, et celles de votre cousine. 12. Le voyageur a-t-il de bons fusils? 13. Il n'a pas de bons fusils, il a des fusils de fer. 14. Le matelot n'a-t-il pas mes matelas de crin? 15. Il ne les a pas. 16. Qu'a-t-il? 17. Il a les matelas de laine de l'ébéniste. 18. L'ébéniste a-t-il des tables d'acajou? 19. Oui, Madame, il a des tables d'acajou et des tables

21. Je n'ai ni les vôtres ni les miennes, j'ai celles de l'ébéniste. 22. N'avez vous pas sommeil? 23. Non, Monsieur, je n'ai ni sommeil ni faim. 24. Le ferblantier a-t-il vos chandeliers de fer? 25. Non, Monsieur, il a ceux du maréchal.

EXERCISE 22.

1. Have you my tables or yours! 2. I have neither yours nor mine, I have the innkeeper's. 3. Have you them? 4. No, Sir, I have them not. 5. Has your sister my horses?

Are you right or wrong? 8. I am right, I am not wrong. 9. Has the tinman my silver candlesticks or yours? 10. He has neither your silver candlesticks nor mine. 11. What has he? 12. He has the cabinet-maker's wooden tables. 13. Has he your mahogany chairs? 14. No, Sir, he has my white marble tables. 15. Have you these tables or those? 16. I have neither these nor those, I have the cabinet-maker's. 17. Have you good pencil-cases? 18. No, Sir, but I have good pencils. 19. Has the traveller iron guns? 20. Yes, Sir, he has mine, yours, and his. 21. Has he not your brother's? 22. He has

24. Yes, Sir, he has them. 25. Has my brother your pens or my cousin's? 26. He has mine and yours. 27. Have you the children's clothes? 28. Yes, Madam, I have them. 29. Have you your sister's hat? 30. I have my cousin's. f. 31. Is any32. He is cold and thing the matter with your brother? hungry. 33. Have you horses? 34. Yes, Sir, I have two horses. 35. I have two horse-hair mattresses and one wool mattress.

PROPOSED IN No. II.

1. If the first nine letters of any alphabet be made to represent the nine digits, or units, then the same letters marked with a single accent, thus 4, may be made to represent tens; the same letters marked with a double accent, to represent hundreds; the same letters with a triple accent, to represent thousands; and so on, to any extent. In order to prevent the accumulation of accents, the letters might be marked with figures or letters denoting the number of accents; thus the labour of marking the different ranks of numbers would be greatly abridged. These marks or indices would plainly denote the successive powers of the root or base 10, in our decimal system of notation; but the same marks might be employed to denote the successive powers of any other root or base in a different system; and this is, in fact, what is done in algebra, in the general theory of equations.

2. In such a system of notation as the preceding, it is evident that there would be no need for the cypher to preserve the figures or characters in their proper places, their respective values being clearly and distincly marked independently of position; so that they might be arranged in any order whatever without affecting their value.

3. Inasmuch as the number a hundred thousand, which is expressed by 1 followed by five ciphers, is greater than the next lower number which is denoted by five nines; it follows that whatever other figures be put in the place of the ciphers in the former, thereby increasing its value, much more must it be greater than the latter, whether we retain its nines, or replace them by other figures.

4. This number not being properly expressed in words according to the decimal scale of notation, will be found, except to the initiated, difficult to express by ngures; in fact, if we adhere rigidly to the words, impossible. It was, therefore, proposed merely as a puzzle. The way to solve the difficulty is simply to put down each part of the number by itself in proper order; then to arrange them as we do numbers that are to be added, and perform the addition; the sum will give the right answer. Thus :

In the first of the above examples, from the first line, we have 4+7=11, which gives 2 above 9; then, 2+1+6-9; and 8 remains; proceeding in the same manner, with the second line, we have 1 remaining. Then casting out the nines from the remainder or difference, we have 2+8=10, which gives 1 above 9; 1+5+410, which gives 1 above 9; and 1+1+5=7; this result rgreeing with the difference of the results of the other two lines, or 8-1-7, shows that the answer is correct, unless there is a balance of errors. But in the 2nd and 4th examples, where, after casting out the nines, the figure in the second line

subtraction), this method of proof, as might be expected, requires the borrowing of nine.-I am, Sir, your's, &c., JOSH. WEBSTER. Bramley, April 10th, 1852.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

R. CRANE.-We are disposed to put our negative on his supposition. We have felt, by experience, that in learning a language without a master, it was necessary to pronounce the words audibly, even to ourselves, and especially if we had to consult a dictionary; and since this is the state of the case, it is better to try to obtain the right pronounciation, even from rules, than to fall into the habit of pronouncing wrong. F. G. (of Paris.—We feel obliged to him for his kind offer, and we should be glad to notice the work he speaks of, but it has not

reached us.

J. W. Many thanks for his exertions on behalf of our journal. His suggestions will be attended to at the proper time.

P. Q-A Series of Lessons on Practical Science will be given in the POPULAR EDUCATOR, with illustrations similar to those which have appeared in the New Series of the Illustrated Exhibitor, on the subjects of Kinematics, Hydrodynamics, Steam-engine, &c.

A. B.-The difference between a geometrical solid, and a physical or natural solid is this: the former is a mere idea or representation of the space which a body occupies, whether it be solid, liquid, or gaseous; the latter is the body itself, when the first of these three terms is properly applied to it. The geometrical solid possesses only three properties, length, breadth, and thickness, and no other; hence, it can exist only in idea; the physical solid has three properties, and others besides, without which it could not exist, namely, the usual properties which belong to matter of the kind of which it consists.

J. K. The language spoken in Paradise, was most probably the ancient Hebrew; for this language, like others, has passed through various forms; but still it is one of the simplest of those which have come down to us, without being rude and inelegant like those of the South Sea islanders.

W. C. A.-As our pages are intended to convey useful information of all kinds, we must not omit Navigation; but we cannot do everything at once; it will come in its turn.

A. Y.-For English words, Richardson's; for technical words, Crabbe's or Craig's: the work of the latter is we believe the latest.

J. A. C.—THETA.—P. M. B.—We do intend to give lessons in all the modern languages, including Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, &c., in the order of demand.

M A.-A communication with real name and address will be attended to.

A. B. C.-We are greatly obliged by his suggestions. SPEIGELBERG. The German will be commenced very soon, and in preference to any other modern language.

W. F.-E.-The distinction between long and short syllables belongs strictly to Latin poetry. The Dr. speaks only of our mode of pronouncing Latin; we know not how the Romans pronounced it. In English, accented syllables are necessarily long, because it takes time to give the proper accent; of course, unaccented are short.

J. L. has fairly puzzled us about the letter h. We would recommend to him Lord Byron's conundrum: "'Twas whispered in heaven, 'twas muttered in hell," &c.

H. R. We shall keep his suggestion before us.

2. In concurrence, there is a mental running together, and that often produces corporeal. In discourse the tongue often runs too fast, and too far from the point.

J. V. The answers to the arithmetical queries are given in this number.

J. V. (St. James's-street.)-Will be attended to.

TYRO.-The solutions of the geometrical questions will be given by ourselves, as soon as possible.

A NOVICE. His suggestions will be attended to. A cover will be given with each monthly part.

Several correspondents have suggested the propriety of giving explanations of all the hard words or technical terms used in the POPULAR EDUCATOR; others earnestly request us to do so. In obedience to these repeated suggestions and solicitations, we shall adopt a systematic mode of giving these explanations in our next number. Printed and Published by JOHN CASSELL, 335, Strand, and Ludgate-hil; London.-April 24, 1852.