FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]Most fruitful among these were those given by Plato in theTimæus. See, also, Grote on Plato's doctrine of the rotundity of the earth. AlsoSir G. C. Lewis's Astronomy of the Ancients, London, 1862, chap. iii., sec. i. and note. Cicero's mention of the antipodes and reference to the passage in theTimæusare even more remarkable than the original, in that they much more clearly foreshadow the modern doctrine. SeeAcademic Questions, ii., xxxix. Also,Tusc. Quest., i., xxviii., and v., xxiv.[2]SeeEusebius,Præp. Ev., xv., 61.[3]SeeLactantius,Inst., 1., iii., chap. 3. Also, citations inWhewell,Hist. Induct. Sciences, Lond., 1857, vol. i., p. 194. To understand the embarrassment thus caused to scientific men at a later period, seeLetter of Agricola to Joachimus Vadianusin 1514. Agricola asks Vadianus to give his views regarding the antipodes, saying that he himself does not know what to do, between the Fathers on one side and learned men of modern times on the other. On the other hand, for the embarrassment caused to the Church by this mistaken zeal of the Fathers, see Kepler's references and Fromund's replies; alsoDe Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 58. Kepler appears to have taken great delight in throwing the views of Lactantius into the teeth of his adversaries.[4]Another germ idea, etc. SeePlato,Timæus, 62 C., Jowett's translation, N. Y. ed. AlsoPhædo, pp. 449,et seq.AlsoCicero,Academic Quest., andTusc. Disput.,ubi supra. For citations and summaries, seeWhewell,Hist. Induct. Sciences, vol. i., p. 189, andSt. Martin,Hist. de la Géog., Paris, 1873, p. 96. AlsoLeopardi,Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi, Firenze, 1851, chap. xii., p. 184,et seq.[5]For opinion of Basil, Ambrose, and others, seeLecky,Hist. of Rationalism in Europe, New York, 1872, vol. i., p. 279, note. Also,Letronne, inRevue des Deux Mondes, March, 1834.[6]For Lactantius, seeInstit., iii., 24, translation in the Ante-Nicene Library; also, citations inWhewell, i., 196, and inSt. Martin,Histoire de la Géographie, pp. 216, 217. For St. Augustine's opinion, see theCiv. D., xvi., 9, where this great Father of the Church shows that the existence of the antipodes "nulla ratione credendum est." Also, citations inBuckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii., p. 645. For a notice of the views of Cosmas in connection with those of Lactantius, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and others, seeSchoell,Histoire de la Littérature Grecque, vol. vii., pp. 37,et seq.[7]Isaiah xl. 22.[8]Job xxvi. 11.[9]Genesis i. 6.[10]Psalm cxlviii. 4.[11]Genesis vii. 11.[12]SeeMontfaucon,Collectio Nova Patrum, Paris, 1706, vol ii., p. 188; also pp. 298, 299. The text is illustrated with engravings showing walls and solid vault (firmament), with the whole apparatus of "fountains of the great deep," "windows of heaven," angels, and the mountain behind which the sun is drawn. For an imperfect reduction of one of them, see articleMapsinKnight's Dictionary of Mechanics, New York, 1875. For still another theory, very droll, and thought out on similar principles, see Mungo Park, cited inDe Morgan,Paradoxes, 309. For Cosmas's joyful summing up, seeMontfaucon,Collectio Nova Patrum, vol. ii., p. 255.[13]Virgil of Salzburg. SeeNeander's History of the Christian Church, Torrey's translation, vol. iii., p. 63. Since Bayle, there has been much loose writing about Virgil's case. SeeWhewell, p. 197; but for best choice of authorities and most careful winnowing out of conclusions, seeDe Morgan, pp. 24-26. For very full notes as to pagan and Christian advocates of doctrine of rotundity of the earth and of antipodes, and for extract from Zachary's letter, seeMigne,Patrologia, vol. vi., p. 426, and vol. xli., p. 487. For Peter of Abano, or Apono, as he is often called, seeTiraboschi; also,Ginguené, vol. ii., p. 293; alsoNaudé,Histoire des Grands hommes accusés de Magie. For Cecco d'Ascoli, seeMontucla,Histoire des Mathématiques, i., 528; also,Daunou,Études Historiques, vol. vi., p. 320. Concerning Orcagna's representation of Cecco in flames of hell, seeRenan,Averroès et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, p. 328.[14]For Columbus before the Junta of Salamanca, seeIrving's Columbus, Murray's edition, vol. ii., pp. 405-410.Figuier,Savants du Moyen Age, etc., vol. ii., p. 394,et seq.Also,Humboldt,Histoire de la Géographie du Nouveau Continent.[15]SeeDaunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 417.[16]For effect of Magalhaens's voyages, and the reluctance to yield to proof, seeHenri Martin,Histoire de France, vol. xiv., p. 395;St. Martin's Histoire de la Géog., p. 369;Peschel,Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, concluding chapters; and for an admirable summary,Draper,Hist. Int. Dev. of Europe, pp. 451-453.[17]For general statement as to supplementary proof by measurement of degrees, and by pendulum, seeSomerville,Phys. Geog., chapter i, § 6, note. AlsoHumboldt,Cosmos, vol. ii., p. 736, and v., pp. 16, 32. AlsoMontucla, iv., 138.[18]Respectability of Geocentric Theory,Plato's Authority for itetc., seeGrote's Plato, vol. iii., p. 257. Also,Sir G. C. Lewis,Astronomy of the Ancients, chap, iii., sec. i., for a very thoughtful statement of Plato's view, and differing from ancient statements. For plausible elaboration of it, seeFromundus,Anti-Aristarchus, Antwerp, 1631. AlsoMelanchthon,Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ.[19]For supposed agreement of Scripture with Ptolemaic theory, see Fromundus,passim, Melanchthon, and a host of other writers.[20]SeeSt. Thomas Aquinas,Liber de Cœlo et Mundo, sec. xx.[21]ForGerms of Heliocentric Theory planted long before, etc., seeSir G. C. Lewis; also,Draper,Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512; and for a succinct statement of the claims of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus, and Martianus Capella, seeHœfer,Hist. de l'Astronomie, 1873, p. 107,et seq.For germs among thinkers of India, seeWhewell, vol. i., p. 277. Also,Whitney,Oriental and Linguistic Studies, New York, 1874;Essay on the Lunar Zodiac, p. 345.[22]For general statement of De Cusa's work, seeDraper,Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512. For skillful use of De Cusa's view in order to mitigate censure upon the Church for its treatment of Copernicus's discovery, see an article in theCatholic Worldfor January, 1869. For a very exact statement, in a spirit of judicial fairness, seeWhewell,History of the Inductive Sciences, p. 275 and pp. 379, 380. In the latter, Whewell cites the exact words of De Cusa in theDe Docta Ignorantia, and sums up in these words: "This train of thought might be a preparation for the reception of the Copernican system; but it is very different from the doctrine that the sun is the centre of the planetary system." In the previous passage, Whewell says that De Cusa "propounded the doctrine of the motion of the earth, more, however, as a paradox than as a reality. We cannot consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and consistent view of the truth." For Aristotle's views and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas, see the treatiseDe Cœlo et Mundo. It is curious to see how even such a biographer of St. Thomas as Archbishop Vaughan slurs over the angelic doctor's errors. SeeVaughan's Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.[23]For improvement of mathematical processes, seeDraper,Intellectual Development of Europe, 513. In looking at this and other admirable summaries, one feels that Prof. Tyndall was not altogether right in lamenting, in his farewell address at New York, that Dr. Draper has devoted so much of his time to historical studies.[24]Kopernik's danger at Rome. TheCatholic Worldfor January, 1869, cites a recent speech of the Archbishop of Mechlin before the University of Louvain, to the effect that Copernicus defended his theory, at Rome, in 1500, before two thousand scholars; also, that another professor taught the system in 1528, and was made Apostolic Notary by Clement VIII. All this, even if the doctrines taught were identical with those of Copernicus, as finally developed, which idea Whewell seems utterly to disprove, avails nothing against the overwhelming testimony that Copernicus felt himself in danger—testimony which the after-history of the Copernican theory renders invincible. The very title of Fromundus's book, already cited, published within a few miles of the archbishop's own cathedral, and sanctioned expressly by the theological Faculty of that same University of Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the Church was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as follows:"Anti-Aristarchus | Sive | Orbis-Terræ | Immobilis | In quo decretum S. Congregationis S. R. E. | Cardinalium | IƆC. XVI adversus Pytha | gorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur | Antwerpiæ MDCXXXI."L'Epinois,Galilée, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widmanstadt, in 1533, and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV. and Clement VII., but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal policy afterward.Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this idea and received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X., at first inclined toward Luther and the others, in their "squabbles with the begging friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface, "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant."[25]For dangers at Wittenberg, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217.[26]Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had endeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying, "Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos contradicturos metuis." SeeApologia TychonisinKepleri Opera Omnia, Frisch's edition, vol. i., p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in hisFondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that Copernicus may have yielded "in pure condescension toward his disciple." But this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's own dedicatory letter to the pope, which follows the preface. For a good summary of the argument, seeFiguier,Savants de la Renaissance, pp. 378, 379. See, also, citation from Gassendi's life of Copernicus, inFlammarion,Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as he usually is, in his recentOutlines of Cosmic Philosophy, appears to have followed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface.[27]Figuier,Savants de la Renaissance, p. 380. Also,Flammarion,Vie de Copernic, p. 190.[28]The "proper authorities" in this case were the "Congregation of the Index," or cardinals having charge of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum." Recent desperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals seem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work is sanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be universally accepted by the Church. Three of four editions of the "Index" in my own possession declare on their title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the period, and each is prefaced by a special papal bull or letter. See, especially, Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII., and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's work was prohibited in the Index "donec corrigatur." Kepler said that it ought to be worded "donec explicetur." SeeBertrand,Fondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, p. 57.De Morgan, pp. 57-60, gives the corrections required by the Index of 1620. Their main aim seems to be to reduce Copernicus to the groveling level of Osiander, making of his discovery a mere hypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the whole Copernican doctrine, e. g., "correction" insisted upon for cap. 8, p. 6. For scholarly account of the relation of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes to each other, seeMendham,Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.[29]See Fromundus's book, cited above,passim, but especially the heading of chapter vi., and the argument in chaps, x. and xi. For interesting reference to one of Fromundus's arguments, showing by a mixture of mathematics and theology, that the earth is the centre of the universe, seeQuetelet,Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, Bruxelles, 1864, p. 170.[30]SeeLuther's Tischreden,Irmischer's Ausgabe. Also,Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ. This treatise is cited under a mistaken title by theCatholic World, September, 1870. The correct title is as given above. It will be found in theCorpus Reformatorum, ed.Bretschneider, Halle, 1846. (For the above passage, see vol. xiii., pp. 216, 217.) Also,Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217. Also,Prowe,Ueber die Abhängigkeit des Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4. Also, note, pp. 5 and 6, where text is given in full.[31]For treatment of Copernican ideas by the people, seeCatholic World, as above.[32]See title-page of Fromundus's work cited in note at bottom of p. 392; also, Melanchthon,ubi supra.[33]SeeBartholmess,Vie de Jordano Bruno, Paris, 1846, vol. i., pp. 121 and 212,et seq.AlsoBerti,Vita di Giordano Bruno, Firenze, 1868, chapter xvi. AlsoWhewell, i., 294, 295. That Whewell is somewhat hasty in attributing Bruno's punishment entirely to theSpaccio della Bestia Trionfantewill be evident, in spite of Montucla, to any one who reads the account of the persecution in Bartholmess or Berti; and, even if Whewell be right, theSpacciowould never have been written, but for Bruno's indignation at ecclesiastical oppression. SeeTiraboschi, vol. xi., p. 435.[34]Delambre,Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, discours préliminaire, p. xiv. AlsoLaplace,Système du Monde, vol. i., p. 326, and for more careful statement,Kepleri Opera Omnia, edit. Frisch, tom. ii., p. 464.[35]Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 473.[36]A very curious example of this sham science is seen in the argument, frequently used at the time, that, if the earth really moved, a stone falling from a height would fall back of the point immediately below its point of starting. This is used by Fromundus with great effect. It appears never to have occurred to him to test the matter by dropping a stone from the topmast of a ship. But the most beautiful thing of all is that Benzenburg has experimentally demonstrated just such an aberration in falling bodies as is mathematically required by the diurnal motion of the earth. SeeJevons,Principles of Science, vol. i., p. 453, and ii., pp. 310, 311.[37]See Delambre as to the discovery of the satellites of Jupiter being the turning-point with the heliocentric doctrine. As to its effects on Bacon, seeJevons,Principles of Science, vol. ii., p. 298.[38]For argument drawn from the candlestick and seven churches, see Delambre.[39]Libri, vol. iv., p. 211.De Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 26, for account of Father Clavius. It is interesting to know that Clavius, in his last years, acknowledged that "the whole system of the heavens is broken down, and must be mended."[40]Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 478.[41]For Caccini's attack, seeDelambre,Hist. de l'Astron., disc. prélim., p. xxii.; also,Libri,Hist. des Sciences Math., vol. iv., p. 232; also,Martin,Galilée, pp. 43, 44.[42]For Bellarmin's view, seeQuinet,Jesuits, vol. ii., p. 189. For other objectors and objections, seeLibri,Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques en Italie, vol. iv., pp. 233, 234; also,Martin,Vie de Galilée.[43]See Trouessart, cited inFlammarion,Mondes Imaginaires et Réels, sixième édition, pp. 315, 316.[44]Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ, pp. 220, 221.[45]SeeTicknor,Hist. of Span. Literature, vol. iii.[46]SeeTh. Martin,Galilée, pp. 34, 208, and 266.[47]SeeMartin,Galilée, pp. 34 and 208; also a curious note in the earlier English editions,Lyell,Principles of Geology, Introduction.[48]For curious exemplification of the way in which these weapons have been hurled, see lists of persons charged with "infidelity" and "atheism," inLe Dictionnaire des Athées, Paris, An. viii. Also,Lecky,History of Rationalism, vol. ii., p. 50. For case of Descartes, seeSaisset,Descartes et ses précurseurs, pp. 103, 110.[49]See the original documents inEpinois, pp. 34-36. Martin's translation does not seem exactly correct.[50]See full official text inEpinois.[51]See proofs of this inMartin. The reader should be reminded that the archives exposed within the past few years have made the statements of early writers untrustworthy on very many of the nicer points.[52]SeeInchofer's Tractatus Syllepticus, cited in Galileo's letter to Deodati, July 28, 1634.[53]It is not probable that torture in the ordinary sense was administered to Galileo, though it was threatened. SeeTh. Martin,Vie de Galilée, for a fair summing up of the case. For text of the abjuration, seeEpinois; also,Private Life of Galileo, Appendix.[54]Martin, p. 227.[55]Martin, p. 243.[56]For the persecution of Galileo's memory, seeTh. Martin, chaps. ix and x. For documentary proofs, seede l'Epinois. For a collection of the slanderous theories invented against Galileo, seeMartin, final chapters and appendix. Both these authors are devoted to the Church, but, unlike Monsignor Marini, are too upright to resort to the pious fraud of suppressing documents or interpolating pretended facts.[57]SeeMartin, pp. 401, 402.[58]Seede l'Epinois, p. 35, where the document is given in its original Latin.[59]See translation of the abjuration in appendix toPrivate Life of Galileo, London, 1870.[60]SeeMarini, who manipulated the original documents to prove this. Even Whewell appears to have been somewhat misled by him; but Whewell wrote before de l'Epinois had shown all the documents, and under the supposition that Marini was an honest man.[61]SeeMarini.[62]SeeEpinoisandTh. Martin,passim.[63]See pages 136, 144, and elsewhere inMartin, who, much against his will, is forced to allow this.[64]Martin, pp. 146, 147.[65]See Martin, p. 145.[66]See note on condemnation of Kopernik.[67]For the attempt to make the crime of Galileo a breach of etiquette, seeDublin Review, as above.Whewell, vol. i., 393. Citation fromMarini: "Galileo was punished for trifling with the authorities to which he refused to submit, and was punished for obstinate contumacy, not heresy." The sufficient answer to all this is, that the words of the inflexible sentence designating the condemned books are: "Libri omnes qui affirmant telluris motum." SeeBertrand, p. 59. As to the idea that "Galileo was punished not for his opinion, but for basing it on Scripture," the answer may be found in the Roman Index of 1704, in which are noted for condemnation "Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ et inmobilitatem solis." For the way in which, when it was found convenient in argument, Church apologists insisted that itwas"the Supreme Chief of the Church, by a pontifical decree, and not certain cardinals," who condemned Galileo and his doctrine, see Father Lecazre's letter to Gassendi inFlammarion,Pluralité des Mondes, p. 427, and Urban VIII.'s own declarations as given by Martin. For the way in which, when necessary, Church apologists asserted the very contrary of this, declaring that "it was issued in a doctrinal decree of the Congregation of the Index, andnotas the Holy Father's teaching," seeDublin Review, September, 1865. And for the most astounding attempt of all, to take the blame off the shoulders of both pope and cardinals, and place it upon the Almighty, see the article above cited, in theDublin Review, September, 1865, p. 419. For a good summary of the various attempts, and for replies to them in a spirit of judicial fairness, seeTh. Martin,Vie de Galilée, though there is some special pleading to save the infallibility of pope and Church. The bibliography at the close is very valuable.[68]For Baronius's remark, seeDe Morgan, p. 26. Also,Whewell, vol. i., p. 394.[69]For an exceedingly striking statement, by a Roman Catholic historian of genius, as to popular demand for persecution, and the pressure of the lower strata, in ecclesiastical organizations, for cruel measures, seeBalmès,Le Protestantisme comparé au Catholicisme, etc., 4th ed., Paris, 1855, vol. ii. Archbishop Spaulding has something of the same sort in his Miscellanies.L'Epinois,Galilée, pp. 22,et seq., stretches this as far as possible, to save the reputation of the Church in the Galileo matter.[70]Humboldt,Cosmos, London, 1851, vol. iii., p. 21. Also,Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 222, where the letters of Descartes are given, showing his despair, and the giving up of his best thoughts and works to preserve peace with the Church. Also,Saisset,Descartes et ses précurseurs, pp. 100,et seq.Also,Jolly,Hist, du Mouvement Intellectuel au XVIeSiècle, vol. i., p. 390[71]Libri, pp. 149,et seq.[72]Fromundus, speaking of Kepler's explanation, says: "Vix teneo ebullientem risum." It is almost equal to theNew York Church Journal, speaking of John Stuart Mill as "that small sciolist," and of the preface to Dr. Draper's recent work as "chippering." How a journal generally so fair in its treatment of such subjects can condescend to use such weapons, is one of the wonders of modern journalism. For Protestant persecution of Kepler, see vol. i., p. 392. Among other things, Kepler's mother was declared a witch, and this was followed by a reminder of the Scriptural injunction, "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live."[73]For Cassini's position, seeHenri Martin,Hist. de France, vol. xiii., p. 175.[74]Daunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 439.[75]Bossuet, seeBertrand, p. 41.[76]For Hutchinson, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, Introduction.[77]Boscovich. This was in 1746, but in 1785 Boscovich seemed to feel his position in view of history, and apologized abjectly.Bertrand, pp. 60, 61. See also Whewell's notice of Le Sueur and Jacquier's introduction to their edition ofNewton's Principia. For a clear statement of Bradley's exquisite demonstration of the Copernican theory by reasonings upon the rapidity of light, etc., and Foucault's exhibition of the rotation of the earth by the pendulum experiment, seeHoefer,Hist. de l'Astronomie, pp. 492,et seq.For the most recent proofs of the Copernican theory, by discoveries of Bunsen, Bischoff, Benzenburg, and others, seeJevons,Principles of Science.[78]See note in introduction toLyell's Principles of Geology; also,Buckle, Hist. of Civ. in England, vol. i., chap. i.[79]Bertrand,Fondateurs de l'Astron. Mod., p. 61.Flammarion,Vie de Copernic, chap. ix. As to the time when the decree of condemnation was repealed, various authorities differ. Artaud, p. 307, cited in an apologetic article inDublin Review, September, 1865, says that Galileo's famous dialogue was published in 1744, at Padua, entire, and with the usual approbations. The same article also declares that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees were repealed by Pius VII., in full Consistory. Whewell says that Galileo's writings, after some opposition, were expunged from theIndex Expurgatoriusin 1818. Cantu, an authority rather favorable to the Church, says that Copernicus's work remained on theIndexas late as 1835.Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 483; and with this Th. Martin, not less favorable to the Church, but exceedingly careful as to the facts, agrees.[80]SeeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. ii., p. 56, for the facts and the admirable letter of Priestley upon this rejection.[81]BruhnsandLassell,Life of Humboldt, London, 1873, vol. ii., p. 411.[82]For the very amusing details of the English attempt, and of the way in which it was met, seeDe Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 42. For Pastor Knak and his associates, seeRevue des Deux Mondes, 1868.[83]For a striking account, gathered from eye-witnesses of this frightful scene at the execution of Bruno, see letter of Scioppius in appendix to vol. iv. ofLibri,Hist. des Mathématiques.[84]As a pendant to this ejaculation of Kepler may be cited those wondrous words of Linnæus: "Deum omnipotentem a tergo transeuntem vidi et obstupui."[85]For papal bull representing the earth as a flat disk, seeDaunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 421.[86]For Bruno's conjecture (in 1591), seeJevons, vol. ii., p. 299. For Kant's part in the nebular hypothesis, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 266. For value of Plateau's beautiful experiment very cautiously estimated, seeW. Stanley Jevons,Principles of Science, London, 1874, vol. ii., p. 36. Also,Elisée Réclus,The Earth, translated by Woodward, vol. i., pp. 14-18, for an estimate still more careful. For a general account of discoveries of nature of nebulæ by spectroscope, seeDraper,Conflict between Religion and Science. For a careful discussion regarding the spectra of solid, liquid, and gaseous bodies, seeSchellen,Spectrum Analysis, pp. 100,et seq.For a very thorough discussion of the bearings of discoveries made by spectrum analysis upon the nebular hypothesis, ibid., pp. 532-537. For a presentation of the difficulties yet unsolved, see article by Plummer, in LondonPopular Science Reviewfor January, 1875. For excellent short summary of recent observations and thought on this subject, seeT. Sterry Hunt,Address at the Priestley Centennial, pp. 7, 8. For an interesting modification of this hypothesis, see Proctor's recent writings.[87]For a very careful discussion of Albert's strength in investigation and weakness in yielding to scholastic authority, seeKopp,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie von Geber bis Stahl,Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 64,et seq.For a very extended and enthusiastic biographical sketch, seePouchet. For comparison of his work with that of Thomas Aquinas, seeMilman,History of Latin Christians, vol. vi., 461.Il était aussi très-habile dans les arts mécaniques, ce que le fit soupçonner d'être sorcier.Sprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, vol. ii., p. 389.[88]For the charge of magic against scholars and others, seeNaudé,Apologie pour les grands hommes accusés de Magie,passim. Also,Maury,Hist. de la Magie, troisième édit., pp. 214, 215. Also,Cuvier,Hist. des Sciences Naturelles, vol. i., p. 396.[89]SeeÉtudes sur Vincent de Beauvais par l'Abbé Bourgeat, chaps. xii., xiii., xiv. Also,Pouchet,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles au Moyen Age, Paris, 1853, pp. 470,et seq.[90]For work of Aquinas, seeSt. Thomas Aquinas,Liber de Cœlo et Mundo, section xx. Also,Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin, byArchbishop Vaughan, pp. 459,et seq.For his labors in natural science, seeHoefer,Histoire de la Chimie, Paris, 1843, vol. i., p. 381. For theological views of science in middle ages, and rejoicing thereat, seePouchet,Hist. des Sci. Nat. au Moyen Age,ubi supra. Pouchet says: "En général au milieu du moyen âge les sciences sont essentiellement chrétiennes, leur but est tout-à-fait religieux, et elles semblent beaucoup moins s'inquiéter de l'avancement intellectuel de l'homme que de son salut eternel." Pouchet calls this "conciliation" into a "harmonieux ensemble" "la plus glorieuse des conquêtes intellectuelles du moyen âge." Pouchet belongs to Rouen, and the shadow of the Rouen Cathedral seems thrown over all his history. See, also,L'Abbé Rohrbacher,Hist. de l'Église Catholique, Paris, 1858, vol. xviii., pp. 421,et seq.The abbé dilates upon the fact that "the Church organizes the agreement of all the sciences by the labors of St. Thomas of Aquin and his contemporaries." For the theological character of science in middle ages, recognized by a Protestant philosophic historian, see the well-known passage inGuizot,History of Civilization in Europe; and by a noted Protestant ecclesiastic, seeBishop Hampden's Life of Thomas Aquinas, chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii. See, also,Hallam,Middle Ages, chap. ix. For dealings of Pope John XXII., and kings of France and England, and republic of Venice, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, pp. 140, 141, where, in a note, the text of the bullSpondent Pariteris given.[91]TheNovum Organon, translated by the Rev. G. W. Kitchin, Oxford, 1855, chap. lxv.[92]Novum Organon, chap. lxxxix.[93]Novum Organon, chap. xciii.[94]Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, edited by W. Aldis Wright, London, 1873, pp. 47, 48.[95]For a very contemptuous statement of Lord Bacon's claim to his position as a philosopher, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, Leipsic, 1874, vol. i., p. 219. For a more just statement, seeBrewster,Life of Sir Isaac Newton. See, also,Jevons,Principles of Science, London, 1874, vol. ii., p. 298.[96]Kopp, in hisAnsichten, pushes criticism even to some skepticism as to Roger Bacon being thediscovererof many of the things generally attributed to him; but, after all deductions are carefully made, enough remains to make Bacon the greatest benefactor to humanity during the middle ages.[97]For an account of Bacon's treatise,De Nullitate Magiæ, seeHoefer.[98]Kopp,Geschichte der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1843, vol. i., p. 63; and for a somewhat reactionary discussion of Bacon's relation to the progress of chemistry, see a recent work by the same author,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1874, pp. 85,et seq.Also, for an excellent summary, seeHoefer,Hist. de la Chimie, vol. i., pp. 368,et seq.For summaries of his work in other fields, seeWhewell, vol. i., pp. 367, 368.Draper, p. 438.Saisset,Descartes et ses Précurseurs, deuxième édition, pp. 397,et seq.Nourrisson,Progrès de la pensée humaine, pp. 271, 272.Sprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, Paris, 1865, vol. ii., p. 397.Cuvier,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. i., p. 417. As to Bacon's orthodoxy, seeSaisset, pp. 53, 55. For special examination of causes of Bacon's condemnation, seeWaddington, cited by Saisset, p. 14. On Bacon as a sorcerer, see Featherstonaugh's article inNorth American Review. For a good example of the danger of denying full power of Satan, even in much more recent times, and in a Protestant country, see account of treatment ofBekker's Monde Enchantéby the theologians of Holland, inNisard,Histoire des Livres Populaires, vol. i., pp. 172, 173.[99]Henri Martin,Hist. de France, vol. iv., p. 283.[100]On Bacon as a "Mahometan," seeSaisset, p. 17.[101]For proofs that the world is steadily working toward great discoveries as to the cause and prevention of zymotic diseases and of their propagation, seeBeale's Disease Germs,Baldwin Latham's Sanitary Engineering,Michel Lévy,Traité d'Hygiène Publique et Privée, Paris, 1869. And for very thorough summaries, see President Barnard's paper read before Sanitary Congress in New York, 1874, andDr. J. C. Dalton's Anniversary Discourse on the Origin and Propagation of Disease, New York, 1874.[102]Antonio de Dominis, seeMontucla,Hist. des Mathématiques, vol. i., p. 705.Humboldt,Cosmos.Libri, vol. iv., pp. 145,et seq.[103]For Porta, seeHoefer,Hist. de la Chemie, vol. ii., pp. 102-106. Also,Kopp. Also,Sprengel,Hist. de la Médecine, iii., p. 239. Also,Musset-Parthay.[104]Henri Martin,Histoire de France, vol. xii., pp. 14, 15.[105]Napier,Florentine History, vol. v., p. 485.Tiraboschi,Storia della Literatura.Henri Martin,Histoire de France.Jevons Principles of Science, vol. ii., pp. 36-40. For value attached to Borelli's investigations by Newton and Huyghens, seeBrewster'sLife of Sir Isaac Newton, London, 1875, pp. 128, 129. Libri, in hisEssai sur Galilée, p. 37, says that Oliva was summoned to Rome, and so tortured by the Inquisition that, to escape further cruelty, he ended his life by throwing himself from a window.[106]For this syllogism, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, pp. 106, 107. For careful appreciation of Becher's position in the history of chemistry, seeKopp,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie, etc.,von Geber bis Stahl, Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 201,et seq.[107]For Tertullian's views, see theDe Anima, chap. x. For views of St. Augustine, see theDe Civ. Dei, book xxii., chap. 24.[108]For Boniface VIII. and his interdiction of dissections, seeBuckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii., p. 567. For injurious effects of this ecclesiastical hostility to anatomy upon the development of art, seeWoltman,Holbein and His Time, pp. 266, 267. For an excellent statement of the true relation of the medical profession to religious questions, seeProf. Acland,General Relations of Medicine in Modern Times, Oxford, 1868. For thoughtful and witty remarks on the struggle at a recent period, seeMaury,L'Ancienne Académie des Sciences, Paris, 1864, p. 148. Maury says: "La faculté n'aimait pas à avoir affaire aux théologiens qui procèdent par anathèmes beaucoup plus que par analyses."[109]For uncritical praise of Arnold de Villa Nova, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, 3ème edit. For undue blame, seeHoefer,Histoire de la Chimie, Paris, 1842, vol. i., p. 386. For a more broad and fair judgment, seeKopp,Geschichte der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1843, vol. i., p. 66, and vol. ii., p. 185. Also,Pouchet,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles au Moyen Age, Paris, 1853, pp. 52,et seq.Also,Draper,Int. Dev. of Europe, p. 421.Whewell,Hist. of the Induct. Sciences, vol. i., p. 235; vol. viii., p. 36.Frédault,Hist. de la Médecine, vol. i., p. 204.[110]Renan,Averroès et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, pp. 327, 333, 335. For a perfectly just statement of the only circumstances which can justify the charge of "atheism," see Dr. Deems's article inPopular Science Monthly, February, 1876.[111]Whewell, vol. iii., p. 328, says, rather loosely, that Mundinus "dissected at Bologna in 1315." How different his idea of dissection was from that introduced by Vesalius, may be seen by Cuvier's careful statement that the entire number of dissections by Mundinus was three. The usual statement is that it was two. SeeCuvier,Hist. des Sci. Nat., tome iii., p. 7; also,Sprengel,Frédault, andHallam; also,Littré,Médecine et Médecins, chap. on anatomy. For a very full statement of the agency of Mundinus in the progress of anatomy, seePortal,Hist. de l'Anatomie et de la Chirurgérie, vol. i., pp. 209-216.[112]For a similar charge against anatomical investigations at a much earlier period, seeLittré,Médecine et Médecins, chapter on anatomy.[113]The original painting of Vesalius at work in his cell, by Hamann, is now at Cornell University.[114]For a curious example of weapons drawn from Galen and used against Vesalius, seeLewes,Life of Goethe, p. 343, note. For proofs that I have not over-estimated Vesalius, seePortal,ubi supra. Portal speaks of him as "le génie le plus droit qu'eut l'Europe;" and again, "Vesale me paraît un des plus grands hommes qui ait existé."[115]SeeSprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, vol. vi., pp. 39-80. For the opposition of the Paris Faculty of Theology to inoculation, see theJournal de Barbier, vol. vi., p. 294. For bitter denunciations of inoculation by the English clergy, and for the noble stand against them by Maddox, seeBaron,Life of Jenner, vol. i., pp. 231, 232, and vol. ii., pp. 39, 40. For the strenuous opposition of the same clergy, seeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. i., p. 464, note. Also, for the comical side of this matter, seeNichols's Literary Illustrations, vol. v., p. 800.[116]For the opposition of conscientious men in England to vaccination, seeDuns,Life of Sir James Y. Simpson, Bart., London, 1873, pp. 248, 249; also,Baron,Life of Jenner,ubi supra, and vol. ii., p. 43; also,Works of Sir J. Y. Simpson, vol. ii.[117]SeeDuns,Life of Sir J. Y. Simpson, pp. 215-222.[118]Ibid., pp. 256-259.[119]Ibid., p. 260; also,Works of Sir J. Y. Simpson,ubi supra.[120]Morley,Life of Palissy the Potter, vol. ii., pp. 315,et seq.[121]Audiat,Vie de Palissy, p. 412.Cantu,Hist. Universelle, vol. xv., p. 492.[122]For ancient beliefs regarding giants, seeLeopardi,Saggiosopra gli errori popolari, etc., chapter xv. For accounts of the views of Mazurier and Scheuchzer, seeBüchner,Man in Past, Present, and Future, English translation, pp. 235, 236. For Increase Mather's views, seePhilosophical Transactions, xxiv., 85. For similar fossils sent from New York to the Royal Society as remains of giants, seeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. i., p. 421. For Father Torrubia and hisGigantologia Española, seeD'Archiac,Introduction à l'Étude de la Paléontologie stratiographique, Paris, 1864, p. 202. For admirable summaries, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, London, 1867;D'Archiac,Géologie et Paléontologie, Paris, 1866;Pictet,Traité de Paléontologie, Paris, 1853;Vezian,Prodrome de la Géologie, Paris, 1863;Haeckel,History of Creation, New York, 1876, chapter iii.[123]SeeVoltaire,Dissertation sur les Changements arrivés dans notre Globe; also,Voltaire,Les Singularités de la Nature, chapter xii., near close of vol. v. of the Didot edition of 1843; also,Jevons,Principles of Science, vol. ii., p. 328.[124]For a candid summary of the proofs from geology, astronomy, and zoölogy, that the Noachian Deluge was not universally or widely extended, seeMcClintock and Strong,Cyclopædia of Biblical Theology and Ecclesiastical Literature, articleDeluge. For general history, seeLyell,D'Archiac, andVezian. For special cases showing bitterness of the conflict, see theRev. Mr. Davis's Life of Rev. Dr. Pye Smith,passim.[125]For comparison between conduct of Italian and English ecclesiastics, as regards geology, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, tenth English ed., vol i., p. 33. For a philosophical statement of reasons why the struggle was more bitter, and the attempt at deceptive compromises more absurd in England than elsewhere, seeMaury,L'Ancienne Académie des Sciences, second edition, p. 152.[126]For these citations, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, introduction.[127]SeePye Smith, D. D.,Geology and Scripture, pp. 156, 157, 168, 169.[128]Wiseman,Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, first American edition, New York, 1837.[129]SeeSilliman's Journal, vol. xxx., p. 114.[130]Prof. Goldwin Smith informs me that the papers of Sir Robert Peel, yet unpublished, contain very curious specimens of these epistles.[131]SeePersonal Recollections of Mary Somerville, Boston, 1874, pp. 139 and 375. Compare with any statement of his religious views that Dean Cockburn was able to make, the following from Mrs. Somerville: "Nothing has afforded me so convincing a proof of the Deity as these purely mental conceptions of numerical and mathematical science which have been, by slow degrees, vouchsafed to man—and are still granted in these latter times, by the differential calculus, now superseded by the higher algebra—all of which must have existed in that sublimely omniscient mind from eternity."—SeePersonal Recollections, pp. 140, 141.[132]For another great error of the Church in political economy, leading to injury to commerce, seeLindsay,History of Merchant-Shipping, London, 1874, vol. ii.[133]SeeMurray,History of Usury, Philadelphia, 1866, p. 25; also,Coquelin and Guillaumin,Dictionnaire de l'Économie Politique, articlesIntérêtandUsure; also,Lecky,History of Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii., chapter vi.; also,Jeremy Bentham's Defence of Usury, Letter X.; also,Mr. D. S. Dickinson's Speech in the Senate of New York, vol. i. of his collected writings. Of all the summaries, Lecky's is by far the best.[134]The texts cited most frequently were Leviticus xxv. 36, 37; Deuteronomy xxiii. 19; Psalms xv. 5; Ezekiel xviii. 8 and 17; St. Luke vi. 35. SeeLecky; also,Dickinson's Speech, as above.[135]SeeDictionnaire de l'Économie Politique, articlesIntérêtandUsurefor these citations. For some doubtful reservations made by St. Augustine, seeMurray.[136]See citation of the Latin text inLecky.[137]For this moral effect, seeMontesquieu,Esprit des Lois, lib. xxi., chap. xx.[138]See citation inLecky.[139]SeeCoquelin and Guillaumin, articleIntérêt.[140]SeeCraik's History of British Commerce, chapter vi. The statute cited is3 Henry VII., chapter vi.[141]SeeLecky.[142]See citation from theTischreden, inGuillaumin and Coquelin, articleIntérêt.[143]SeeCraik's History of British Commerce, chapter vi.[144]For citation, as above, seeLecky. For further account, seeŒuvres de Bossuet, edition of 1845, vol. xi., p. 330.[145]See citation fromConcinainLecky; also, acquiescence in this interpretation byMr. Dickinson, inSpeech in Senate of New York, above quoted.[146]SeeRéplique des douze Docteurs, etc., cited by Guillaumin and Coquelin.[147]Burton,History of Scotland, vol. viii., p. 511. See, also, Mause Headrigg's views in Scott'sOld Mortality, chapter vii. For the case of a person debarred from the communion for "raising the devil's wind" with a winnowing-machine, seeWorks of Sir J. Y. Simpson, vol. ii. Those doubting the authority or motives of Simpson may be reminded that he was, to the day of his death, one of the strictest adherents of Scotch orthodoxy.[148]SeeJournal of Sir I. Brunel, for May 20, 1827, inLife of I. K. Brunel, p. 30.[149]This scene will be recalled, easily, by many leading ethnologists in America, and especially by Mr. E. G. Squier, formerly minister of the United States to Central America.[150]The meteorological battle is hardly fought out yet. Many excellent men seem still to entertain views almost identical with those of over two thousand years ago, depicted inThe Cloudsof Aristophanes.[151]These texts are Ezekiel v. 5 and xxxviii. 12. The progress of geographical knowledge, evidently, caused them to be softened down somewhat in our King James's version; but the first of them reads, in the Vulgate, "Ista est Hierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in circuitu ejus terras;" and the second reads in the Vulgate "in medio terræ," and in the Septuagintἑπι τὁν ὁμφαλὁν τἡς γἡς. That the literal centre of the earth was meant, see proof in St. Jerome, Commentar. in Ezekiel, lib. ii., and for general proof, see Leopardi, "Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi," pp. 207, 208. For an idea of orthodox geography in the middle ages, seeWright's Essay on Archæology, vol. ii., chapter "On the Map of the World in Hereford Cathedral." For an example of the depth to which this idea of Jerusalem as the centre had entered into the thinking of the great poet of the middle ages, seeDante,Inferno,Canto xxxiv.:"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,Ch' è opposito a quel, che la gran seccaCoverchia, e sotto 'l cui colmo consuntoFu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca."[152]SeeMichaelis,Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1874, vol. ii., p. 3. The writer of the present article himself witnessed the reluctance of a very conscientious man to answer the questions of a census marshal, Mr. Lewis Hawley, of Syracuse, N. Y., and this reluctance was based upon the reasons assigned in II. Samuel chapter xxiv. 1, and I. Chronicles, chapter xxi. 1, for the numbering of the children of Israel.[153]SeeDe Morgan,Paradoxes, pp. 214-220.[154]ForDupanloup,Lettre à un Cardinal, see theRevue de Thérapeutique, 1868, p. 221.[155]For general account of the Vulpian and See matter, seeRevue des Deux Mondes, 31 Mai, 1868.Chronique de la Quinzaine, pp. 763-765. As to the result on popular thought, may be noted the following comment on the affair by theRevue, which is as free as possible from anything like rabid anti-ecclesiastical ideas: "Elle a été vraiment curieuse, instructive, assez triste et même un peu amusante." For Wurtz's statement, seeRevue de Thérapeutiquefor 1868, p. 303.[156]De Morgan,Paradoxes, pp. 421-428; also,Daubeny's Essays.[157]See the Berlin newspapers for the summer of 1868, especiallyKladderadatsch.[158]In theChurch Journal, New York, May 28, 1874, a reviewer, praising Rev. Dr. Hodge's book against Darwinism, says: "Darwinism—whether Darwin knows it or not; whether the clergy, who are half prepared to accept it in blind fright as 'science,' know it or not—is a denial of every article of the Christian faith. It is supreme folly to talk as some do about accommodating Christianity to Darwinism. Either those who so talk do not understand Christianity, or they do not understand Darwinism. If we have all, men and monkeys, women and baboons, oysters and eagles, all 'developed' from an original monad and germ, then St. Paul's grand deliverance—'All flesh is not the same flesh. There is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial'—may be still very grand in our funeral-service, but very untrue to fact." This is the same dangerous line of argument which Caccini indulged in in Galileo's time. Dangerous, for suppose "Darwinism"be proved true! For a soothing potion by a skillful hand, seeWhewellon the consistency of evolution doctrines with teleological ideas; also,Rev. Samuel Houghton, F. R. S.,Principles of Animal Mechanics, London, 1873, preface, and page 156, for some interesting ideas on teleological evolution.[159]For some excellent remarks on the futility of such attempts and outcries, see theRev. Dr. Deems, inPopular Science Monthlyfor February, 1876. To all who are inclined to draw scientific conclusions from Biblical texts, may be commended the advice of a good old German divine of the Reformation period: "Seeking the milk of the Word, do not press the teats of Holy Writ too hard."[160]In an eloquent sermon, preached in March, 1874, Bishop Cummins said, in substance: "The Church has no fear of Science; the persecution of Galileo was entirely unwarrantable; but Christians should resist to the last Darwinism; for that is evidently contrary to Scripture." The bishop forgets that Galileo's doctrine seemed to such colossal minds as Bellarmin, and Luther, and Bossuet, "evidently contrary to Scripture." Far more logical, modest, sagacious, and full of faith, is the attitude taken by his former associate, Dr. John Cotton Smith: "For geology, physiology, and historical criticism have threatened or destroyed only particular forms of religious opinion, while they have set the spirit of religion free to keep pace with the larger generalizations of modern knowledge."—Picton,The Mystery of Matter, London, 1873, p. 72.

[1]Most fruitful among these were those given by Plato in theTimæus. See, also, Grote on Plato's doctrine of the rotundity of the earth. AlsoSir G. C. Lewis's Astronomy of the Ancients, London, 1862, chap. iii., sec. i. and note. Cicero's mention of the antipodes and reference to the passage in theTimæusare even more remarkable than the original, in that they much more clearly foreshadow the modern doctrine. SeeAcademic Questions, ii., xxxix. Also,Tusc. Quest., i., xxviii., and v., xxiv.

[2]SeeEusebius,Præp. Ev., xv., 61.

[3]SeeLactantius,Inst., 1., iii., chap. 3. Also, citations inWhewell,Hist. Induct. Sciences, Lond., 1857, vol. i., p. 194. To understand the embarrassment thus caused to scientific men at a later period, seeLetter of Agricola to Joachimus Vadianusin 1514. Agricola asks Vadianus to give his views regarding the antipodes, saying that he himself does not know what to do, between the Fathers on one side and learned men of modern times on the other. On the other hand, for the embarrassment caused to the Church by this mistaken zeal of the Fathers, see Kepler's references and Fromund's replies; alsoDe Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 58. Kepler appears to have taken great delight in throwing the views of Lactantius into the teeth of his adversaries.

[4]Another germ idea, etc. SeePlato,Timæus, 62 C., Jowett's translation, N. Y. ed. AlsoPhædo, pp. 449,et seq.AlsoCicero,Academic Quest., andTusc. Disput.,ubi supra. For citations and summaries, seeWhewell,Hist. Induct. Sciences, vol. i., p. 189, andSt. Martin,Hist. de la Géog., Paris, 1873, p. 96. AlsoLeopardi,Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi, Firenze, 1851, chap. xii., p. 184,et seq.

[5]For opinion of Basil, Ambrose, and others, seeLecky,Hist. of Rationalism in Europe, New York, 1872, vol. i., p. 279, note. Also,Letronne, inRevue des Deux Mondes, March, 1834.

[6]For Lactantius, seeInstit., iii., 24, translation in the Ante-Nicene Library; also, citations inWhewell, i., 196, and inSt. Martin,Histoire de la Géographie, pp. 216, 217. For St. Augustine's opinion, see theCiv. D., xvi., 9, where this great Father of the Church shows that the existence of the antipodes "nulla ratione credendum est." Also, citations inBuckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii., p. 645. For a notice of the views of Cosmas in connection with those of Lactantius, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and others, seeSchoell,Histoire de la Littérature Grecque, vol. vii., pp. 37,et seq.

[7]Isaiah xl. 22.

[8]Job xxvi. 11.

[9]Genesis i. 6.

[10]Psalm cxlviii. 4.

[11]Genesis vii. 11.

[12]SeeMontfaucon,Collectio Nova Patrum, Paris, 1706, vol ii., p. 188; also pp. 298, 299. The text is illustrated with engravings showing walls and solid vault (firmament), with the whole apparatus of "fountains of the great deep," "windows of heaven," angels, and the mountain behind which the sun is drawn. For an imperfect reduction of one of them, see articleMapsinKnight's Dictionary of Mechanics, New York, 1875. For still another theory, very droll, and thought out on similar principles, see Mungo Park, cited inDe Morgan,Paradoxes, 309. For Cosmas's joyful summing up, seeMontfaucon,Collectio Nova Patrum, vol. ii., p. 255.

[13]Virgil of Salzburg. SeeNeander's History of the Christian Church, Torrey's translation, vol. iii., p. 63. Since Bayle, there has been much loose writing about Virgil's case. SeeWhewell, p. 197; but for best choice of authorities and most careful winnowing out of conclusions, seeDe Morgan, pp. 24-26. For very full notes as to pagan and Christian advocates of doctrine of rotundity of the earth and of antipodes, and for extract from Zachary's letter, seeMigne,Patrologia, vol. vi., p. 426, and vol. xli., p. 487. For Peter of Abano, or Apono, as he is often called, seeTiraboschi; also,Ginguené, vol. ii., p. 293; alsoNaudé,Histoire des Grands hommes accusés de Magie. For Cecco d'Ascoli, seeMontucla,Histoire des Mathématiques, i., 528; also,Daunou,Études Historiques, vol. vi., p. 320. Concerning Orcagna's representation of Cecco in flames of hell, seeRenan,Averroès et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, p. 328.

[14]For Columbus before the Junta of Salamanca, seeIrving's Columbus, Murray's edition, vol. ii., pp. 405-410.Figuier,Savants du Moyen Age, etc., vol. ii., p. 394,et seq.Also,Humboldt,Histoire de la Géographie du Nouveau Continent.

[15]SeeDaunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 417.

[16]For effect of Magalhaens's voyages, and the reluctance to yield to proof, seeHenri Martin,Histoire de France, vol. xiv., p. 395;St. Martin's Histoire de la Géog., p. 369;Peschel,Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen, concluding chapters; and for an admirable summary,Draper,Hist. Int. Dev. of Europe, pp. 451-453.

[17]For general statement as to supplementary proof by measurement of degrees, and by pendulum, seeSomerville,Phys. Geog., chapter i, § 6, note. AlsoHumboldt,Cosmos, vol. ii., p. 736, and v., pp. 16, 32. AlsoMontucla, iv., 138.

[18]Respectability of Geocentric Theory,Plato's Authority for itetc., seeGrote's Plato, vol. iii., p. 257. Also,Sir G. C. Lewis,Astronomy of the Ancients, chap, iii., sec. i., for a very thoughtful statement of Plato's view, and differing from ancient statements. For plausible elaboration of it, seeFromundus,Anti-Aristarchus, Antwerp, 1631. AlsoMelanchthon,Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ.

[19]For supposed agreement of Scripture with Ptolemaic theory, see Fromundus,passim, Melanchthon, and a host of other writers.

[20]SeeSt. Thomas Aquinas,Liber de Cœlo et Mundo, sec. xx.

[21]ForGerms of Heliocentric Theory planted long before, etc., seeSir G. C. Lewis; also,Draper,Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512; and for a succinct statement of the claims of Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus, and Martianus Capella, seeHœfer,Hist. de l'Astronomie, 1873, p. 107,et seq.For germs among thinkers of India, seeWhewell, vol. i., p. 277. Also,Whitney,Oriental and Linguistic Studies, New York, 1874;Essay on the Lunar Zodiac, p. 345.

[22]For general statement of De Cusa's work, seeDraper,Intellectual Development of Europe, p. 512. For skillful use of De Cusa's view in order to mitigate censure upon the Church for its treatment of Copernicus's discovery, see an article in theCatholic Worldfor January, 1869. For a very exact statement, in a spirit of judicial fairness, seeWhewell,History of the Inductive Sciences, p. 275 and pp. 379, 380. In the latter, Whewell cites the exact words of De Cusa in theDe Docta Ignorantia, and sums up in these words: "This train of thought might be a preparation for the reception of the Copernican system; but it is very different from the doctrine that the sun is the centre of the planetary system." In the previous passage, Whewell says that De Cusa "propounded the doctrine of the motion of the earth, more, however, as a paradox than as a reality. We cannot consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and consistent view of the truth." For Aristotle's views and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas, see the treatiseDe Cœlo et Mundo. It is curious to see how even such a biographer of St. Thomas as Archbishop Vaughan slurs over the angelic doctor's errors. SeeVaughan's Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.

[23]For improvement of mathematical processes, seeDraper,Intellectual Development of Europe, 513. In looking at this and other admirable summaries, one feels that Prof. Tyndall was not altogether right in lamenting, in his farewell address at New York, that Dr. Draper has devoted so much of his time to historical studies.

[24]Kopernik's danger at Rome. TheCatholic Worldfor January, 1869, cites a recent speech of the Archbishop of Mechlin before the University of Louvain, to the effect that Copernicus defended his theory, at Rome, in 1500, before two thousand scholars; also, that another professor taught the system in 1528, and was made Apostolic Notary by Clement VIII. All this, even if the doctrines taught were identical with those of Copernicus, as finally developed, which idea Whewell seems utterly to disprove, avails nothing against the overwhelming testimony that Copernicus felt himself in danger—testimony which the after-history of the Copernican theory renders invincible. The very title of Fromundus's book, already cited, published within a few miles of the archbishop's own cathedral, and sanctioned expressly by the theological Faculty of that same University of Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the Church was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as follows:"Anti-Aristarchus | Sive | Orbis-Terræ | Immobilis | In quo decretum S. Congregationis S. R. E. | Cardinalium | IƆC. XVI adversus Pytha | gorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur | Antwerpiæ MDCXXXI."L'Epinois,Galilée, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widmanstadt, in 1533, and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV. and Clement VII., but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal policy afterward.Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this idea and received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X., at first inclined toward Luther and the others, in their "squabbles with the begging friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface, "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant."

L'Epinois,Galilée, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of the doctrine by De Cusa, in 1435, and by Widmanstadt, in 1533, and their kind treatment by Eugenius IV. and Clement VII., but this is absolutely worthless in denying the papal policy afterward.Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa and Widmanstadt sustained this idea and received honors from their respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious consideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view unreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X., at first inclined toward Luther and the others, in their "squabbles with the begging friars," and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt the danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the preface, "Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant."

[25]For dangers at Wittenberg, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217.

[26]Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had endeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying, "Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos contradicturos metuis." SeeApologia TychonisinKepleri Opera Omnia, Frisch's edition, vol. i., p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely responsible for this preface. Bertrand, in hisFondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that Copernicus may have yielded "in pure condescension toward his disciple." But this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's own dedicatory letter to the pope, which follows the preface. For a good summary of the argument, seeFiguier,Savants de la Renaissance, pp. 378, 379. See, also, citation from Gassendi's life of Copernicus, inFlammarion,Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as he usually is, in his recentOutlines of Cosmic Philosophy, appears to have followed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that Copernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface.

[27]Figuier,Savants de la Renaissance, p. 380. Also,Flammarion,Vie de Copernic, p. 190.

[28]The "proper authorities" in this case were the "Congregation of the Index," or cardinals having charge of the "Index Librorum Prohibitorum." Recent desperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals seem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work is sanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be universally accepted by the Church. Three of four editions of the "Index" in my own possession declare on their title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the period, and each is prefaced by a special papal bull or letter. See, especially, Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII., and that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's work was prohibited in the Index "donec corrigatur." Kepler said that it ought to be worded "donec explicetur." SeeBertrand,Fondateurs de l'Astronomie Moderne, p. 57.De Morgan, pp. 57-60, gives the corrections required by the Index of 1620. Their main aim seems to be to reduce Copernicus to the groveling level of Osiander, making of his discovery a mere hypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the whole Copernican doctrine, e. g., "correction" insisted upon for cap. 8, p. 6. For scholarly account of the relation of the Prohibitory and Expurgatory Indexes to each other, seeMendham,Literary Policy of the Church of Rome.

[29]See Fromundus's book, cited above,passim, but especially the heading of chapter vi., and the argument in chaps, x. and xi. For interesting reference to one of Fromundus's arguments, showing by a mixture of mathematics and theology, that the earth is the centre of the universe, seeQuetelet,Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, Bruxelles, 1864, p. 170.

[30]SeeLuther's Tischreden,Irmischer's Ausgabe. Also,Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ. This treatise is cited under a mistaken title by theCatholic World, September, 1870. The correct title is as given above. It will be found in theCorpus Reformatorum, ed.Bretschneider, Halle, 1846. (For the above passage, see vol. xiii., pp. 216, 217.) Also,Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 217. Also,Prowe,Ueber die Abhängigkeit des Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4. Also, note, pp. 5 and 6, where text is given in full.

[31]For treatment of Copernican ideas by the people, seeCatholic World, as above.

[32]See title-page of Fromundus's work cited in note at bottom of p. 392; also, Melanchthon,ubi supra.

[33]SeeBartholmess,Vie de Jordano Bruno, Paris, 1846, vol. i., pp. 121 and 212,et seq.AlsoBerti,Vita di Giordano Bruno, Firenze, 1868, chapter xvi. AlsoWhewell, i., 294, 295. That Whewell is somewhat hasty in attributing Bruno's punishment entirely to theSpaccio della Bestia Trionfantewill be evident, in spite of Montucla, to any one who reads the account of the persecution in Bartholmess or Berti; and, even if Whewell be right, theSpacciowould never have been written, but for Bruno's indignation at ecclesiastical oppression. SeeTiraboschi, vol. xi., p. 435.

[34]Delambre,Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, discours préliminaire, p. xiv. AlsoLaplace,Système du Monde, vol. i., p. 326, and for more careful statement,Kepleri Opera Omnia, edit. Frisch, tom. ii., p. 464.

[35]Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 473.

[36]A very curious example of this sham science is seen in the argument, frequently used at the time, that, if the earth really moved, a stone falling from a height would fall back of the point immediately below its point of starting. This is used by Fromundus with great effect. It appears never to have occurred to him to test the matter by dropping a stone from the topmast of a ship. But the most beautiful thing of all is that Benzenburg has experimentally demonstrated just such an aberration in falling bodies as is mathematically required by the diurnal motion of the earth. SeeJevons,Principles of Science, vol. i., p. 453, and ii., pp. 310, 311.

[37]See Delambre as to the discovery of the satellites of Jupiter being the turning-point with the heliocentric doctrine. As to its effects on Bacon, seeJevons,Principles of Science, vol. ii., p. 298.

[38]For argument drawn from the candlestick and seven churches, see Delambre.

[39]Libri, vol. iv., p. 211.De Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 26, for account of Father Clavius. It is interesting to know that Clavius, in his last years, acknowledged that "the whole system of the heavens is broken down, and must be mended."

[40]Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 478.

[41]For Caccini's attack, seeDelambre,Hist. de l'Astron., disc. prélim., p. xxii.; also,Libri,Hist. des Sciences Math., vol. iv., p. 232; also,Martin,Galilée, pp. 43, 44.

[42]For Bellarmin's view, seeQuinet,Jesuits, vol. ii., p. 189. For other objectors and objections, seeLibri,Histoire des Sciences Mathématiques en Italie, vol. iv., pp. 233, 234; also,Martin,Vie de Galilée.

[43]See Trouessart, cited inFlammarion,Mondes Imaginaires et Réels, sixième édition, pp. 315, 316.

[44]Initia Doctrinæ Physicæ, pp. 220, 221.

[45]SeeTicknor,Hist. of Span. Literature, vol. iii.

[46]SeeTh. Martin,Galilée, pp. 34, 208, and 266.

[47]SeeMartin,Galilée, pp. 34 and 208; also a curious note in the earlier English editions,Lyell,Principles of Geology, Introduction.

[48]For curious exemplification of the way in which these weapons have been hurled, see lists of persons charged with "infidelity" and "atheism," inLe Dictionnaire des Athées, Paris, An. viii. Also,Lecky,History of Rationalism, vol. ii., p. 50. For case of Descartes, seeSaisset,Descartes et ses précurseurs, pp. 103, 110.

[49]See the original documents inEpinois, pp. 34-36. Martin's translation does not seem exactly correct.

[50]See full official text inEpinois.

[51]See proofs of this inMartin. The reader should be reminded that the archives exposed within the past few years have made the statements of early writers untrustworthy on very many of the nicer points.

[52]SeeInchofer's Tractatus Syllepticus, cited in Galileo's letter to Deodati, July 28, 1634.

[53]It is not probable that torture in the ordinary sense was administered to Galileo, though it was threatened. SeeTh. Martin,Vie de Galilée, for a fair summing up of the case. For text of the abjuration, seeEpinois; also,Private Life of Galileo, Appendix.

[54]Martin, p. 227.

[55]Martin, p. 243.

[56]For the persecution of Galileo's memory, seeTh. Martin, chaps. ix and x. For documentary proofs, seede l'Epinois. For a collection of the slanderous theories invented against Galileo, seeMartin, final chapters and appendix. Both these authors are devoted to the Church, but, unlike Monsignor Marini, are too upright to resort to the pious fraud of suppressing documents or interpolating pretended facts.

[57]SeeMartin, pp. 401, 402.

[58]Seede l'Epinois, p. 35, where the document is given in its original Latin.

[59]See translation of the abjuration in appendix toPrivate Life of Galileo, London, 1870.

[60]SeeMarini, who manipulated the original documents to prove this. Even Whewell appears to have been somewhat misled by him; but Whewell wrote before de l'Epinois had shown all the documents, and under the supposition that Marini was an honest man.

[61]SeeMarini.

[62]SeeEpinoisandTh. Martin,passim.

[63]See pages 136, 144, and elsewhere inMartin, who, much against his will, is forced to allow this.

[64]Martin, pp. 146, 147.

[65]See Martin, p. 145.

[66]See note on condemnation of Kopernik.

[67]For the attempt to make the crime of Galileo a breach of etiquette, seeDublin Review, as above.Whewell, vol. i., 393. Citation fromMarini: "Galileo was punished for trifling with the authorities to which he refused to submit, and was punished for obstinate contumacy, not heresy." The sufficient answer to all this is, that the words of the inflexible sentence designating the condemned books are: "Libri omnes qui affirmant telluris motum." SeeBertrand, p. 59. As to the idea that "Galileo was punished not for his opinion, but for basing it on Scripture," the answer may be found in the Roman Index of 1704, in which are noted for condemnation "Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ et inmobilitatem solis." For the way in which, when it was found convenient in argument, Church apologists insisted that itwas"the Supreme Chief of the Church, by a pontifical decree, and not certain cardinals," who condemned Galileo and his doctrine, see Father Lecazre's letter to Gassendi inFlammarion,Pluralité des Mondes, p. 427, and Urban VIII.'s own declarations as given by Martin. For the way in which, when necessary, Church apologists asserted the very contrary of this, declaring that "it was issued in a doctrinal decree of the Congregation of the Index, andnotas the Holy Father's teaching," seeDublin Review, September, 1865. And for the most astounding attempt of all, to take the blame off the shoulders of both pope and cardinals, and place it upon the Almighty, see the article above cited, in theDublin Review, September, 1865, p. 419. For a good summary of the various attempts, and for replies to them in a spirit of judicial fairness, seeTh. Martin,Vie de Galilée, though there is some special pleading to save the infallibility of pope and Church. The bibliography at the close is very valuable.

[68]For Baronius's remark, seeDe Morgan, p. 26. Also,Whewell, vol. i., p. 394.

[69]For an exceedingly striking statement, by a Roman Catholic historian of genius, as to popular demand for persecution, and the pressure of the lower strata, in ecclesiastical organizations, for cruel measures, seeBalmès,Le Protestantisme comparé au Catholicisme, etc., 4th ed., Paris, 1855, vol. ii. Archbishop Spaulding has something of the same sort in his Miscellanies.L'Epinois,Galilée, pp. 22,et seq., stretches this as far as possible, to save the reputation of the Church in the Galileo matter.

[70]Humboldt,Cosmos, London, 1851, vol. iii., p. 21. Also,Lange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 222, where the letters of Descartes are given, showing his despair, and the giving up of his best thoughts and works to preserve peace with the Church. Also,Saisset,Descartes et ses précurseurs, pp. 100,et seq.Also,Jolly,Hist, du Mouvement Intellectuel au XVIeSiècle, vol. i., p. 390

[71]Libri, pp. 149,et seq.

[72]Fromundus, speaking of Kepler's explanation, says: "Vix teneo ebullientem risum." It is almost equal to theNew York Church Journal, speaking of John Stuart Mill as "that small sciolist," and of the preface to Dr. Draper's recent work as "chippering." How a journal generally so fair in its treatment of such subjects can condescend to use such weapons, is one of the wonders of modern journalism. For Protestant persecution of Kepler, see vol. i., p. 392. Among other things, Kepler's mother was declared a witch, and this was followed by a reminder of the Scriptural injunction, "Ye shall not suffer a witch to live."

[73]For Cassini's position, seeHenri Martin,Hist. de France, vol. xiii., p. 175.

[74]Daunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 439.

[75]Bossuet, seeBertrand, p. 41.

[76]For Hutchinson, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, Introduction.

[77]Boscovich. This was in 1746, but in 1785 Boscovich seemed to feel his position in view of history, and apologized abjectly.Bertrand, pp. 60, 61. See also Whewell's notice of Le Sueur and Jacquier's introduction to their edition ofNewton's Principia. For a clear statement of Bradley's exquisite demonstration of the Copernican theory by reasonings upon the rapidity of light, etc., and Foucault's exhibition of the rotation of the earth by the pendulum experiment, seeHoefer,Hist. de l'Astronomie, pp. 492,et seq.For the most recent proofs of the Copernican theory, by discoveries of Bunsen, Bischoff, Benzenburg, and others, seeJevons,Principles of Science.

[78]See note in introduction toLyell's Principles of Geology; also,Buckle, Hist. of Civ. in England, vol. i., chap. i.

[79]Bertrand,Fondateurs de l'Astron. Mod., p. 61.Flammarion,Vie de Copernic, chap. ix. As to the time when the decree of condemnation was repealed, various authorities differ. Artaud, p. 307, cited in an apologetic article inDublin Review, September, 1865, says that Galileo's famous dialogue was published in 1744, at Padua, entire, and with the usual approbations. The same article also declares that in 1818 the ecclesiastical decrees were repealed by Pius VII., in full Consistory. Whewell says that Galileo's writings, after some opposition, were expunged from theIndex Expurgatoriusin 1818. Cantu, an authority rather favorable to the Church, says that Copernicus's work remained on theIndexas late as 1835.Cantu,Histoire Universelle, vol. xv., p. 483; and with this Th. Martin, not less favorable to the Church, but exceedingly careful as to the facts, agrees.

[80]SeeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. ii., p. 56, for the facts and the admirable letter of Priestley upon this rejection.

[81]BruhnsandLassell,Life of Humboldt, London, 1873, vol. ii., p. 411.

[82]For the very amusing details of the English attempt, and of the way in which it was met, seeDe Morgan,Paradoxes, p. 42. For Pastor Knak and his associates, seeRevue des Deux Mondes, 1868.

[83]For a striking account, gathered from eye-witnesses of this frightful scene at the execution of Bruno, see letter of Scioppius in appendix to vol. iv. ofLibri,Hist. des Mathématiques.

[84]As a pendant to this ejaculation of Kepler may be cited those wondrous words of Linnæus: "Deum omnipotentem a tergo transeuntem vidi et obstupui."

[85]For papal bull representing the earth as a flat disk, seeDaunou,Études Historiques, vol. ii., p. 421.

[86]For Bruno's conjecture (in 1591), seeJevons, vol. ii., p. 299. For Kant's part in the nebular hypothesis, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i., p. 266. For value of Plateau's beautiful experiment very cautiously estimated, seeW. Stanley Jevons,Principles of Science, London, 1874, vol. ii., p. 36. Also,Elisée Réclus,The Earth, translated by Woodward, vol. i., pp. 14-18, for an estimate still more careful. For a general account of discoveries of nature of nebulæ by spectroscope, seeDraper,Conflict between Religion and Science. For a careful discussion regarding the spectra of solid, liquid, and gaseous bodies, seeSchellen,Spectrum Analysis, pp. 100,et seq.For a very thorough discussion of the bearings of discoveries made by spectrum analysis upon the nebular hypothesis, ibid., pp. 532-537. For a presentation of the difficulties yet unsolved, see article by Plummer, in LondonPopular Science Reviewfor January, 1875. For excellent short summary of recent observations and thought on this subject, seeT. Sterry Hunt,Address at the Priestley Centennial, pp. 7, 8. For an interesting modification of this hypothesis, see Proctor's recent writings.

[87]For a very careful discussion of Albert's strength in investigation and weakness in yielding to scholastic authority, seeKopp,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie von Geber bis Stahl,Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 64,et seq.For a very extended and enthusiastic biographical sketch, seePouchet. For comparison of his work with that of Thomas Aquinas, seeMilman,History of Latin Christians, vol. vi., 461.Il était aussi très-habile dans les arts mécaniques, ce que le fit soupçonner d'être sorcier.Sprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, vol. ii., p. 389.

[88]For the charge of magic against scholars and others, seeNaudé,Apologie pour les grands hommes accusés de Magie,passim. Also,Maury,Hist. de la Magie, troisième édit., pp. 214, 215. Also,Cuvier,Hist. des Sciences Naturelles, vol. i., p. 396.

[89]SeeÉtudes sur Vincent de Beauvais par l'Abbé Bourgeat, chaps. xii., xiii., xiv. Also,Pouchet,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles au Moyen Age, Paris, 1853, pp. 470,et seq.

[90]For work of Aquinas, seeSt. Thomas Aquinas,Liber de Cœlo et Mundo, section xx. Also,Life and Labors of St. Thomas of Aquin, byArchbishop Vaughan, pp. 459,et seq.For his labors in natural science, seeHoefer,Histoire de la Chimie, Paris, 1843, vol. i., p. 381. For theological views of science in middle ages, and rejoicing thereat, seePouchet,Hist. des Sci. Nat. au Moyen Age,ubi supra. Pouchet says: "En général au milieu du moyen âge les sciences sont essentiellement chrétiennes, leur but est tout-à-fait religieux, et elles semblent beaucoup moins s'inquiéter de l'avancement intellectuel de l'homme que de son salut eternel." Pouchet calls this "conciliation" into a "harmonieux ensemble" "la plus glorieuse des conquêtes intellectuelles du moyen âge." Pouchet belongs to Rouen, and the shadow of the Rouen Cathedral seems thrown over all his history. See, also,L'Abbé Rohrbacher,Hist. de l'Église Catholique, Paris, 1858, vol. xviii., pp. 421,et seq.The abbé dilates upon the fact that "the Church organizes the agreement of all the sciences by the labors of St. Thomas of Aquin and his contemporaries." For the theological character of science in middle ages, recognized by a Protestant philosophic historian, see the well-known passage inGuizot,History of Civilization in Europe; and by a noted Protestant ecclesiastic, seeBishop Hampden's Life of Thomas Aquinas, chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii. See, also,Hallam,Middle Ages, chap. ix. For dealings of Pope John XXII., and kings of France and England, and republic of Venice, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, pp. 140, 141, where, in a note, the text of the bullSpondent Pariteris given.

[91]TheNovum Organon, translated by the Rev. G. W. Kitchin, Oxford, 1855, chap. lxv.

[92]Novum Organon, chap. lxxxix.

[93]Novum Organon, chap. xciii.

[94]Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, edited by W. Aldis Wright, London, 1873, pp. 47, 48.

[95]For a very contemptuous statement of Lord Bacon's claim to his position as a philosopher, seeLange,Geschichte des Materialismus, Leipsic, 1874, vol. i., p. 219. For a more just statement, seeBrewster,Life of Sir Isaac Newton. See, also,Jevons,Principles of Science, London, 1874, vol. ii., p. 298.

[96]Kopp, in hisAnsichten, pushes criticism even to some skepticism as to Roger Bacon being thediscovererof many of the things generally attributed to him; but, after all deductions are carefully made, enough remains to make Bacon the greatest benefactor to humanity during the middle ages.

[97]For an account of Bacon's treatise,De Nullitate Magiæ, seeHoefer.

[98]Kopp,Geschichte der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1843, vol. i., p. 63; and for a somewhat reactionary discussion of Bacon's relation to the progress of chemistry, see a recent work by the same author,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1874, pp. 85,et seq.Also, for an excellent summary, seeHoefer,Hist. de la Chimie, vol. i., pp. 368,et seq.For summaries of his work in other fields, seeWhewell, vol. i., pp. 367, 368.Draper, p. 438.Saisset,Descartes et ses Précurseurs, deuxième édition, pp. 397,et seq.Nourrisson,Progrès de la pensée humaine, pp. 271, 272.Sprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, Paris, 1865, vol. ii., p. 397.Cuvier,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. i., p. 417. As to Bacon's orthodoxy, seeSaisset, pp. 53, 55. For special examination of causes of Bacon's condemnation, seeWaddington, cited by Saisset, p. 14. On Bacon as a sorcerer, see Featherstonaugh's article inNorth American Review. For a good example of the danger of denying full power of Satan, even in much more recent times, and in a Protestant country, see account of treatment ofBekker's Monde Enchantéby the theologians of Holland, inNisard,Histoire des Livres Populaires, vol. i., pp. 172, 173.

[99]Henri Martin,Hist. de France, vol. iv., p. 283.

[100]On Bacon as a "Mahometan," seeSaisset, p. 17.

[101]For proofs that the world is steadily working toward great discoveries as to the cause and prevention of zymotic diseases and of their propagation, seeBeale's Disease Germs,Baldwin Latham's Sanitary Engineering,Michel Lévy,Traité d'Hygiène Publique et Privée, Paris, 1869. And for very thorough summaries, see President Barnard's paper read before Sanitary Congress in New York, 1874, andDr. J. C. Dalton's Anniversary Discourse on the Origin and Propagation of Disease, New York, 1874.

[102]Antonio de Dominis, seeMontucla,Hist. des Mathématiques, vol. i., p. 705.Humboldt,Cosmos.Libri, vol. iv., pp. 145,et seq.

[103]For Porta, seeHoefer,Hist. de la Chemie, vol. ii., pp. 102-106. Also,Kopp. Also,Sprengel,Hist. de la Médecine, iii., p. 239. Also,Musset-Parthay.

[104]Henri Martin,Histoire de France, vol. xii., pp. 14, 15.

[105]Napier,Florentine History, vol. v., p. 485.Tiraboschi,Storia della Literatura.Henri Martin,Histoire de France.Jevons Principles of Science, vol. ii., pp. 36-40. For value attached to Borelli's investigations by Newton and Huyghens, seeBrewster'sLife of Sir Isaac Newton, London, 1875, pp. 128, 129. Libri, in hisEssai sur Galilée, p. 37, says that Oliva was summoned to Rome, and so tortured by the Inquisition that, to escape further cruelty, he ended his life by throwing himself from a window.

[106]For this syllogism, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, pp. 106, 107. For careful appreciation of Becher's position in the history of chemistry, seeKopp,Ansichten über die Aufgabe der Chemie, etc.,von Geber bis Stahl, Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 201,et seq.

[107]For Tertullian's views, see theDe Anima, chap. x. For views of St. Augustine, see theDe Civ. Dei, book xxii., chap. 24.

[108]For Boniface VIII. and his interdiction of dissections, seeBuckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii., p. 567. For injurious effects of this ecclesiastical hostility to anatomy upon the development of art, seeWoltman,Holbein and His Time, pp. 266, 267. For an excellent statement of the true relation of the medical profession to religious questions, seeProf. Acland,General Relations of Medicine in Modern Times, Oxford, 1868. For thoughtful and witty remarks on the struggle at a recent period, seeMaury,L'Ancienne Académie des Sciences, Paris, 1864, p. 148. Maury says: "La faculté n'aimait pas à avoir affaire aux théologiens qui procèdent par anathèmes beaucoup plus que par analyses."

[109]For uncritical praise of Arnold de Villa Nova, seeFiguier,L'Alchimie et les Alchimistes, 3ème edit. For undue blame, seeHoefer,Histoire de la Chimie, Paris, 1842, vol. i., p. 386. For a more broad and fair judgment, seeKopp,Geschichte der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1843, vol. i., p. 66, and vol. ii., p. 185. Also,Pouchet,Histoire des Sciences Naturelles au Moyen Age, Paris, 1853, pp. 52,et seq.Also,Draper,Int. Dev. of Europe, p. 421.Whewell,Hist. of the Induct. Sciences, vol. i., p. 235; vol. viii., p. 36.Frédault,Hist. de la Médecine, vol. i., p. 204.

[110]Renan,Averroès et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, pp. 327, 333, 335. For a perfectly just statement of the only circumstances which can justify the charge of "atheism," see Dr. Deems's article inPopular Science Monthly, February, 1876.

[111]Whewell, vol. iii., p. 328, says, rather loosely, that Mundinus "dissected at Bologna in 1315." How different his idea of dissection was from that introduced by Vesalius, may be seen by Cuvier's careful statement that the entire number of dissections by Mundinus was three. The usual statement is that it was two. SeeCuvier,Hist. des Sci. Nat., tome iii., p. 7; also,Sprengel,Frédault, andHallam; also,Littré,Médecine et Médecins, chap. on anatomy. For a very full statement of the agency of Mundinus in the progress of anatomy, seePortal,Hist. de l'Anatomie et de la Chirurgérie, vol. i., pp. 209-216.

[112]For a similar charge against anatomical investigations at a much earlier period, seeLittré,Médecine et Médecins, chapter on anatomy.

[113]The original painting of Vesalius at work in his cell, by Hamann, is now at Cornell University.

[114]For a curious example of weapons drawn from Galen and used against Vesalius, seeLewes,Life of Goethe, p. 343, note. For proofs that I have not over-estimated Vesalius, seePortal,ubi supra. Portal speaks of him as "le génie le plus droit qu'eut l'Europe;" and again, "Vesale me paraît un des plus grands hommes qui ait existé."

[115]SeeSprengel,Histoire de la Médecine, vol. vi., pp. 39-80. For the opposition of the Paris Faculty of Theology to inoculation, see theJournal de Barbier, vol. vi., p. 294. For bitter denunciations of inoculation by the English clergy, and for the noble stand against them by Maddox, seeBaron,Life of Jenner, vol. i., pp. 231, 232, and vol. ii., pp. 39, 40. For the strenuous opposition of the same clergy, seeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. i., p. 464, note. Also, for the comical side of this matter, seeNichols's Literary Illustrations, vol. v., p. 800.

[116]For the opposition of conscientious men in England to vaccination, seeDuns,Life of Sir James Y. Simpson, Bart., London, 1873, pp. 248, 249; also,Baron,Life of Jenner,ubi supra, and vol. ii., p. 43; also,Works of Sir J. Y. Simpson, vol. ii.

[117]SeeDuns,Life of Sir J. Y. Simpson, pp. 215-222.

[118]Ibid., pp. 256-259.

[119]Ibid., p. 260; also,Works of Sir J. Y. Simpson,ubi supra.

[120]Morley,Life of Palissy the Potter, vol. ii., pp. 315,et seq.

[121]Audiat,Vie de Palissy, p. 412.Cantu,Hist. Universelle, vol. xv., p. 492.

[122]For ancient beliefs regarding giants, seeLeopardi,Saggiosopra gli errori popolari, etc., chapter xv. For accounts of the views of Mazurier and Scheuchzer, seeBüchner,Man in Past, Present, and Future, English translation, pp. 235, 236. For Increase Mather's views, seePhilosophical Transactions, xxiv., 85. For similar fossils sent from New York to the Royal Society as remains of giants, seeWeld,History of the Royal Society, vol. i., p. 421. For Father Torrubia and hisGigantologia Española, seeD'Archiac,Introduction à l'Étude de la Paléontologie stratiographique, Paris, 1864, p. 202. For admirable summaries, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, London, 1867;D'Archiac,Géologie et Paléontologie, Paris, 1866;Pictet,Traité de Paléontologie, Paris, 1853;Vezian,Prodrome de la Géologie, Paris, 1863;Haeckel,History of Creation, New York, 1876, chapter iii.

[123]SeeVoltaire,Dissertation sur les Changements arrivés dans notre Globe; also,Voltaire,Les Singularités de la Nature, chapter xii., near close of vol. v. of the Didot edition of 1843; also,Jevons,Principles of Science, vol. ii., p. 328.

[124]For a candid summary of the proofs from geology, astronomy, and zoölogy, that the Noachian Deluge was not universally or widely extended, seeMcClintock and Strong,Cyclopædia of Biblical Theology and Ecclesiastical Literature, articleDeluge. For general history, seeLyell,D'Archiac, andVezian. For special cases showing bitterness of the conflict, see theRev. Mr. Davis's Life of Rev. Dr. Pye Smith,passim.

[125]For comparison between conduct of Italian and English ecclesiastics, as regards geology, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, tenth English ed., vol i., p. 33. For a philosophical statement of reasons why the struggle was more bitter, and the attempt at deceptive compromises more absurd in England than elsewhere, seeMaury,L'Ancienne Académie des Sciences, second edition, p. 152.

[126]For these citations, seeLyell,Principles of Geology, introduction.

[127]SeePye Smith, D. D.,Geology and Scripture, pp. 156, 157, 168, 169.

[128]Wiseman,Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, first American edition, New York, 1837.

[129]SeeSilliman's Journal, vol. xxx., p. 114.

[130]Prof. Goldwin Smith informs me that the papers of Sir Robert Peel, yet unpublished, contain very curious specimens of these epistles.

[131]SeePersonal Recollections of Mary Somerville, Boston, 1874, pp. 139 and 375. Compare with any statement of his religious views that Dean Cockburn was able to make, the following from Mrs. Somerville: "Nothing has afforded me so convincing a proof of the Deity as these purely mental conceptions of numerical and mathematical science which have been, by slow degrees, vouchsafed to man—and are still granted in these latter times, by the differential calculus, now superseded by the higher algebra—all of which must have existed in that sublimely omniscient mind from eternity."—SeePersonal Recollections, pp. 140, 141.

[132]For another great error of the Church in political economy, leading to injury to commerce, seeLindsay,History of Merchant-Shipping, London, 1874, vol. ii.

[133]SeeMurray,History of Usury, Philadelphia, 1866, p. 25; also,Coquelin and Guillaumin,Dictionnaire de l'Économie Politique, articlesIntérêtandUsure; also,Lecky,History of Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii., chapter vi.; also,Jeremy Bentham's Defence of Usury, Letter X.; also,Mr. D. S. Dickinson's Speech in the Senate of New York, vol. i. of his collected writings. Of all the summaries, Lecky's is by far the best.

[134]The texts cited most frequently were Leviticus xxv. 36, 37; Deuteronomy xxiii. 19; Psalms xv. 5; Ezekiel xviii. 8 and 17; St. Luke vi. 35. SeeLecky; also,Dickinson's Speech, as above.

[135]SeeDictionnaire de l'Économie Politique, articlesIntérêtandUsurefor these citations. For some doubtful reservations made by St. Augustine, seeMurray.

[136]See citation of the Latin text inLecky.

[137]For this moral effect, seeMontesquieu,Esprit des Lois, lib. xxi., chap. xx.

[138]See citation inLecky.

[139]SeeCoquelin and Guillaumin, articleIntérêt.

[140]SeeCraik's History of British Commerce, chapter vi. The statute cited is3 Henry VII., chapter vi.

[141]SeeLecky.

[142]See citation from theTischreden, inGuillaumin and Coquelin, articleIntérêt.

[143]SeeCraik's History of British Commerce, chapter vi.

[144]For citation, as above, seeLecky. For further account, seeŒuvres de Bossuet, edition of 1845, vol. xi., p. 330.

[145]See citation fromConcinainLecky; also, acquiescence in this interpretation byMr. Dickinson, inSpeech in Senate of New York, above quoted.

[146]SeeRéplique des douze Docteurs, etc., cited by Guillaumin and Coquelin.

[147]Burton,History of Scotland, vol. viii., p. 511. See, also, Mause Headrigg's views in Scott'sOld Mortality, chapter vii. For the case of a person debarred from the communion for "raising the devil's wind" with a winnowing-machine, seeWorks of Sir J. Y. Simpson, vol. ii. Those doubting the authority or motives of Simpson may be reminded that he was, to the day of his death, one of the strictest adherents of Scotch orthodoxy.

[148]SeeJournal of Sir I. Brunel, for May 20, 1827, inLife of I. K. Brunel, p. 30.

[149]This scene will be recalled, easily, by many leading ethnologists in America, and especially by Mr. E. G. Squier, formerly minister of the United States to Central America.

[150]The meteorological battle is hardly fought out yet. Many excellent men seem still to entertain views almost identical with those of over two thousand years ago, depicted inThe Cloudsof Aristophanes.

[151]These texts are Ezekiel v. 5 and xxxviii. 12. The progress of geographical knowledge, evidently, caused them to be softened down somewhat in our King James's version; but the first of them reads, in the Vulgate, "Ista est Hierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in circuitu ejus terras;" and the second reads in the Vulgate "in medio terræ," and in the Septuagintἑπι τὁν ὁμφαλὁν τἡς γἡς. That the literal centre of the earth was meant, see proof in St. Jerome, Commentar. in Ezekiel, lib. ii., and for general proof, see Leopardi, "Saggio sopra gli errori popolari degli antichi," pp. 207, 208. For an idea of orthodox geography in the middle ages, seeWright's Essay on Archæology, vol. ii., chapter "On the Map of the World in Hereford Cathedral." For an example of the depth to which this idea of Jerusalem as the centre had entered into the thinking of the great poet of the middle ages, seeDante,Inferno,Canto xxxiv.:"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,Ch' è opposito a quel, che la gran seccaCoverchia, e sotto 'l cui colmo consuntoFu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca."

"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,Ch' è opposito a quel, che la gran seccaCoverchia, e sotto 'l cui colmo consuntoFu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca."

"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,

Ch' è opposito a quel, che la gran secca

Coverchia, e sotto 'l cui colmo consunto

Fu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca."

[152]SeeMichaelis,Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1874, vol. ii., p. 3. The writer of the present article himself witnessed the reluctance of a very conscientious man to answer the questions of a census marshal, Mr. Lewis Hawley, of Syracuse, N. Y., and this reluctance was based upon the reasons assigned in II. Samuel chapter xxiv. 1, and I. Chronicles, chapter xxi. 1, for the numbering of the children of Israel.

[153]SeeDe Morgan,Paradoxes, pp. 214-220.

[154]ForDupanloup,Lettre à un Cardinal, see theRevue de Thérapeutique, 1868, p. 221.

[155]For general account of the Vulpian and See matter, seeRevue des Deux Mondes, 31 Mai, 1868.Chronique de la Quinzaine, pp. 763-765. As to the result on popular thought, may be noted the following comment on the affair by theRevue, which is as free as possible from anything like rabid anti-ecclesiastical ideas: "Elle a été vraiment curieuse, instructive, assez triste et même un peu amusante." For Wurtz's statement, seeRevue de Thérapeutiquefor 1868, p. 303.

[156]De Morgan,Paradoxes, pp. 421-428; also,Daubeny's Essays.

[157]See the Berlin newspapers for the summer of 1868, especiallyKladderadatsch.

[158]In theChurch Journal, New York, May 28, 1874, a reviewer, praising Rev. Dr. Hodge's book against Darwinism, says: "Darwinism—whether Darwin knows it or not; whether the clergy, who are half prepared to accept it in blind fright as 'science,' know it or not—is a denial of every article of the Christian faith. It is supreme folly to talk as some do about accommodating Christianity to Darwinism. Either those who so talk do not understand Christianity, or they do not understand Darwinism. If we have all, men and monkeys, women and baboons, oysters and eagles, all 'developed' from an original monad and germ, then St. Paul's grand deliverance—'All flesh is not the same flesh. There is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial'—may be still very grand in our funeral-service, but very untrue to fact." This is the same dangerous line of argument which Caccini indulged in in Galileo's time. Dangerous, for suppose "Darwinism"be proved true! For a soothing potion by a skillful hand, seeWhewellon the consistency of evolution doctrines with teleological ideas; also,Rev. Samuel Houghton, F. R. S.,Principles of Animal Mechanics, London, 1873, preface, and page 156, for some interesting ideas on teleological evolution.

[159]For some excellent remarks on the futility of such attempts and outcries, see theRev. Dr. Deems, inPopular Science Monthlyfor February, 1876. To all who are inclined to draw scientific conclusions from Biblical texts, may be commended the advice of a good old German divine of the Reformation period: "Seeking the milk of the Word, do not press the teats of Holy Writ too hard."

[160]In an eloquent sermon, preached in March, 1874, Bishop Cummins said, in substance: "The Church has no fear of Science; the persecution of Galileo was entirely unwarrantable; but Christians should resist to the last Darwinism; for that is evidently contrary to Scripture." The bishop forgets that Galileo's doctrine seemed to such colossal minds as Bellarmin, and Luther, and Bossuet, "evidently contrary to Scripture." Far more logical, modest, sagacious, and full of faith, is the attitude taken by his former associate, Dr. John Cotton Smith: "For geology, physiology, and historical criticism have threatened or destroyed only particular forms of religious opinion, while they have set the spirit of religion free to keep pace with the larger generalizations of modern knowledge."—Picton,The Mystery of Matter, London, 1873, p. 72.

Back to Index Next