duced by Newton, as one of the consequences of the general law with which all nature is pervaded, but with which there is no reason to believe that Galileo had any acquaintance; indeed the idea is fully negatived by other passages in this same letter. This is one of the many instances from which we may learn to be cautious how we invest detached passages of the earlier mathematicians with a meaning which in many cases their authors did not contemplate. The progressive development of these ideas in the hands of Wallis, Huyghens, Hook, Wren, and Newton, would lead us too far from our principal subject. There is another passage in the third dialogue connected with this subject, which it may be as well to notice in this place. "The parts of the earth have such a propensity to its centre, that when it changes its place, although they may be very distant from the globe at the time of the change, yet must they follow. An example similar to this is the perpetual sequence of the Medicean stars, although always separated from Jupiter. The same may be said of the moon, obliged to follow the earth. And this may serve for those simple ones who have difficulty in comprehending how these two globes, not being chained together, nor strung upon a pole, mutually follow each other, so that on the acceleration or retardation of the one, the other also moves quicker or slower."

The second Dialogue is appropriated chiefly to the discussion of the diurnal motion of the earth; and the principal arguments urged by Aristotle, Ptolemy, and others, are successively brought forward and confuted. The opposers of the earth's diurnal motion maintained, that if it were turning round, a stone dropped from the top of a tower would not fall at its foot; but, by the rotation of the earth to the eastward carrying away the tower with it, would be left at a great distance to the westward; it was common to compare this effect to a stone dropped from the mast-head of a ship, and without any regard to truth it was boldly asserted that this would fall considerably nearer the stern than the foot of the mast, if the ship were in rapid motion. The same argument was presented in a variety of forms,-such as that a cannon-ball shot perpendicularly upwards would not fall at the same spot; that if fired to the eastward it would fly farther than to the westward;

that a mark to the east or west would never be hit, because of the rising or sinking of the horizon during the flight of the ball; that ladies ringlets would all stand out to the westward,* with other conceits of the like nature: to which the general reply is given, that in all these cases the stone, or ball, or other body, participates equally in the motion of the earth, which, therefore, so far as regards the relative motion of its parts, may be disregarded. The manner in which this is illustrated, appears in the following extract from the dialogue :-Sagredo. If the nib of a writing pen which was in the ship during my voyage direct from Venice to Alexandria, had had the power of leaving a visible mark of all its path, what trace, what mark, what line would it have left?" Simplicio. It would have left a line stretched out thither from Venice not perfectly straight, or to speak more correctly, not perfectly extended in an exact circular arc, but here and there more and less curved accordingly as the vessel had pitched more or less; but this variation in some places of one or two yards to the right or left, or up or down in a length of many hundred miles, would have occasioned but slight alteration in the whole course of the line, so that it would have been hardly sensible, and without any great error we may speak of it as a perfectly circular arc.— Sagred. So that the true and most exact motion of the point of the pen would also have been a perfect arc of a circle if the motion of the vessel, abstracting from the fluctuations of the waves, had been steady and gentle; and if I had held this pen constantly in my hand, and had merely moved it an inch or two one way or the other, what alteration would that have made in the true and principal motion?-Simpl. than that which would be occasioned in a line a thousand yards long, by varying here and there from perfect straightness by the quantity of a flea's eye.-Sagred. If then a painter on our quitting the port had begun to draw with this pen on paper, and had continued his drawing till we got to Alexandria, he would have been able by its motion, to produce an accurate representation of many objects perfectly shadowed, and filled up on all sides with landscapes, buildings, and animals, although all the true, real, and essential motion of the point of his pen would have been no other but a very

⚫_Riccioli.

Less

long and very simple line; and as to the peculiar work of the painter, he would have drawn it exactly the same if the ship had stood still. Therefore, of the very protracted motion of the pen, there remain no other traces than those marks drawn upon the paper, the reason of this being that the great motion from Venice to Alexandria was common to the paper, the pen, and everything that was in the ship; but the trifling motion forwards and backwards, to the right and left, communicated by the painter's fingers to the pen, and not to the paper, from being peculiar to the pen, left its mark upon the paper, which as to this motion was immoveable. Thus it is likewise true that in the supposition of the earth's rotation, the motion of a falling stone is really a long track of many hundreds and thousands of yards; and if it could have delineated its course in the calm air, or on any other surface, it would have left behind it a very long transversal line; but that part of all this motion which is common to the stone, the tower, and ourselves, is imperceptible by us and the same as if not existing, and only that part remains to be observed of which neither we nor the tower partake, which in short is the fall of the stone along the tower."

The mechanical doctrines introduced into this second dialogue will be noticed on another occasion; we shall pass on to other extracts, illustrative of the general character of Galileo's reasoning: "Salviati. I did not say that the earth has no principle, either internal or external, of its motion of rotation, but I do say that I know not which of the two it has, and that my ignorance has no power to take its motion away; but if this author knows by what principle other mundane bodies, of the motion of which we are certain, are turned round, I say that what moves the Earth is something like that by which Mars and Jupiter, and, as he believes, the starry sphere, are moved round; and if he will satisfy me as to the cause of their motion, I bind myself to be able to tell him what moves the earth. Nay more; I undertake to do the same if he can teach me what it is which moves the parts of the earth downwards. Simpl. The cause of this effect is notorious, and every one knows that it is Gravity.-Salv. You are out, Master Simplicio; you should say that every one knows that it is called Gravity; but I do not ask you the name but the na

ture of the thing, of which nature you do not know one tittle more than you know of the nature of the moving cause of the rotation of the stars, except it be the name which has been given to the one, and made familiar and domestic, by the frequent experience we have of it many thousand times in a day; but of the principle or virtue by which a stone falls to the ground, we really know no more than we know of the principle which carries it upwards when thrown into the air, or which carries the moon round its orbit, except, as I have said, the name of gravity which we have peculiarly and exclusively assigned to it; whereas we speak of the other with a more generic term, and talk of the virtue impressed, and call it either an assisting or an informing intelligence, and are content to say that Nature is the cause of an infinite number of other motions."

Simplicio is made to quote a passage from Scheiner's book of Conclusions against Copernicus, to the following effect:-"If the whole earth and water were annihilated, no hail or rain would fall from the clouds, but would only be naturally carried round in a circle, nor would any fire or fiery thing ascend, since, according to the not improbable opinion of these others, there is no fire in the upper regions.'—Salv. The foresight of this philosopher is most admirable and praiseworthy, for he is not content with providing for things that might happen during the common course of nature, but persists in shewing his care for the consequences of what he very well knows will never come to pass. Nevertheless, for the sake of hearing some of his notable conceits, I will grant that if the earth and water were annihilated there would be no more hail or rain, nor would fiery matter ascend any more, but would continue a motion of revolution. What is to follow? What conclusion is the philosopher going to draw ?-Simpl. This objection is in the very next words

Which nevertheless (says he) is contrary to experience and reason.'-Salv. Now I must yield: since he has so great an advantage over me as experience, with which I am quite unprovided. For hitherto I have never happened to see the terrestial earth and water annihilated, so as to be able to observe what the hail and fire did in the confusion. But does he tell us for our information at least what they did?-Simp. No, he does not say any thing more.

Salv. I would give something to have a word or two with this person, to ask him whether, when this globe vanished, it also carried away the common centre of gravity, as I fancy it did, in which case I take it that the hail and water would remain stupid and confounded amongst the clouds, without knowing what to do with themselves. . . . And lastly, that I may give this philosopher a less equivocal answer, I tell him that I know as much of what would follow after the annihilation of the terrestrial globe, as he could have known what was about to happen in and about it, before it was created."

Great part of the third Dialogue is taken up with discussions on the parallax of the new stars of 1572 and 1604, in which Delambre notices that Galileo does not employ logarithms in his calculations, although their use had been known since Napier discovered them in 1616 the dialogue then turns to the annual motion" first taken from the Sun and conferred upon the Earth by Aristarchus Samius, and afterwards by Copernicus." Salviati speaks of his contemporary philosophers with great contempt- -"If you had ever been worn out as I have been many and many a time with hearing what sort of stuff is sufficient to make the obstinate vulgar unpersuadable, I do not say to agree with, but even to listen to these novelties, I believe your wonder at finding so few followers of these opinions would greatly fall off. But little regard in my judgment is to be had of those understandings who are convinced and immoveably persuaded of the fixedness of the earth, by seeing that they are not able to breakfast this morning at Constantinople, and sup in the evening in Japan, and who feel satisfied that the earth, so heavy as it is, cannot climb up above the sun, and then come tumbling in a breakneck fashion down again!" This remark serves to introduce several specious arguments against the annual motion of the earth, which are successively confuted, and it is shewn how readily the apparent stations and retrogradations of the planets are accounted for on this supposition.

66

The following is one of the frequently recurring passages in which Galileo, whilst arguing in favour of the enormous distances at which the theory of Copernicus necessarily placed the fixed stars, inveighs against the arrogance with which men pretend to judge of matters removed above their comprehension. Simpl. All this is very well, and it is not to be denied that the heavens may surpass in bigness the capacity of our imaginations, as also that God might have created it yet a thousand times larger than it really is, but we ought not to admit anything to be created in vain, and useless in the universe. Now whilst we see this beautiful arrangement of the planets, disposed round the earth at distances proportioned to the effects they are to produce on us for our benefit, to what purpose should a vast vacancy be afterwards interposed between the orbit of Saturn and the starry spheres, containing not a single star, and altogether useless and unprofitable? to what end? for whose use and advantage?-Salv. Methinks we arrogate too much to ourselves, Simplicio, when we I will have it that the care of us alone is the adequate and sufficient work and bound, beyond which the divine wisdom and power does and disposes of nothing. I feel confident that nothing is omitted by the Divine Providence of what concerns the government of human affairs; but that there may not be other things in the universe dependant upon His supreme wisdom, I cannot for myself, by what my reason holds out to me, bring myself to believe. So that when I am told of the uselessness of an immense space interposed between the orbits of the planets and the fixed stars, empty and valueless, I reply that there is temerity in attempting by feeble reason to judge the works of God, and in calling vain and superfluous every part of the universe which is of no use to us.-Sagr. Say rather, and I believe you would say better, that we have no means of knowing what is of use to us; and I hold it to be one of the greatest pieces of arrogance and folly that can be in this world to say, because I know not of what use Jupiter or Saturn are to me, that therefore these planets are superfluous; nay more, that there are no such things in nature. To understand what effect is worked upon us by this or that heavenly body (since you will have it that all their use must have a reference to us), it would be necessary to remove it for a

while, and then the effect which I find no longer produced in me, I may say that it depended upon that star. Besides, who will dare say that the space which they call too vast and useless between Saturn and the fixed stars is void of other bodies belonging to the universe. Must it be so because we do not see them: then I suppose the four Medicean planets, and the companions of Saturn, came into the heavens when we first began to see them, and not before! and, by the same rule, the other innumerable fixed stars did not exist before men saw them. The nebula were till lately only white flakes, till with the telescope we have made of them constellations of bright and beautiful stars. Oh presumptuous! rather, Oh rash ignorance of man!

After a discussion on Gilbert's Theory of Terrestrial Magnetism, introduced by the parallelism of the earth's axis, and of which Galileo praises very highly both the method and results, the dialogue proceeds as follows:-"Simpl. It appears to me that Sig. Salviati, with a fine circumlocution, has so clearly explained the cause of these effects, that any common understanding, even though unacquainted with science, may comprehend it: but we, confining ourselves to the terms of art, reduce the cause of these and other similar natural phenomena to sympathy, which is a certain agreement and mutual appetency arising between things which have the same qualities, just as, on the other hand, that disagreement and aversion, with which other things naturally repel and abhor each other, we style antipathy.-Sagr. And thus with these two words they are able to give a reason for the great number of effects and accidents which we see, not without admiration, to be produced in Nature. But it strikes me that this mode of philosophising has a great sympathy with the style in which one of my friends used to paint: on one part of the canvas he would write with chalk-there I will have a fountain, with Diana and her nymphs; here some harriers; in this corner I will have a huntsman, with a stag's head; the rest may be a landscape of wood and mountain; and what remains to be done may be put in by the colourman: and thus he flattered himself that he had painted the story of Actæon, having contributed nothing to it beyond the names."

The fourth Dialogue is devoted entirely to an examination of the tides, and

is a development and extension of the treatise already mentioned to have been sent to the Archduke Leopold, in 1618*. Galileo was uncommonly partial to his theory of the tides, from which he thought to derive a direct proof of the earth's motion in her orbit; and although his theory was erroneous, it required a farther advance in the science of motion than had been attained even at a much later period to point out the insufficiency of it. It is well known that the problem of explaining the cause of this alternate motion of the waters had been considered from the earliest ages one of the most difficult that could be proposed, and the solutions with which different inquirers were obliged to rest contented, shew that it long deserved the name given to it, of "the grave of human curiosity." Riccioli has enumerated several of the opinions which in turn had their favourers and supporters. One party supposed the rise of the waters to be occasioned by the influx of rivers into the sea; others compared the earth to a large animal, of which the tides indicated the respiration; a third theory supposed the existence of subterraneous fires, by which the sea was periodically made to boil; others attributed the cause of a similar change of temperature to the sun and moon.

There is an unfounded legend, that Aristotle drowned himself in despair of being able to invent a plausible explanation of the extraordinary tides in the Euripus. His curiosity on the subject does not appear to have been so acute (judging from his writings) as this story would imply. In one of his books he merely mentions a rumour, that there are great elevations or swellings of the seas, which recur periodically, according to the course of the moon. Lalande, in the fourth volume of his Astronomy, has given an interesting account of the opinion of the connection of the tides with the moon's motion. Pytheas of Marseilles, a contemporary of Aristotle, was the first who has been recorded as observing, that the full tides occur at full moon, and the ebbs at new moont. This is not quite correctly stated; for the tide of new moon is known to be. still higher than the rise at the full, but it is likely enough, that the seeming inaccuracy should be attributed, not to

* See page 50. + Riccioli Almag. Nov. Plutarch, De placit. Philos. lib. iii. c. 17.

Pytheas, but to his biographer Plutarch, who, in many instances, appears to have viewed the opinions of the old philosophers through the mist of his own prejudices and imperfect information. The fact is, that, on the same day when the tide rises highest, it also ebbs lowest; and Pytheas, who, according to Pliny, had recorded a tide in Britain of eighty cubits, could not have been ignorant of this. Posidonius, as quoted by Strabo, maintained the existence of three periods of the tide, daily, monthly, and annual," in sympathy with the moon." Pliny, in his vast collection of natural observations, not unaptly styled the Encyclopædia of the Antients, has the following curious passages:"The flow and ebb of the tide is very wonderful; it happens in a variety of ways, but the cause is in the sun and moont." He then very accurately describes the course of the tide during a revolution of the moon, and adds: "The flow takes place every day at a different hour; being waited on by the star, which rises every day in a different place from that of the day before, and with greedy draught drags the seas with it." When the moon is in the north, and further removed from the earth, the tides are more gentle than when digressing to the south, she exerts her force with a closer efforts."

66

The College of Jesuits at Coimbra appears to deserve the credit of first clearly pointing out the true relation between the tides and the moon, which was also maintained a few years later by Antonio de Dominis and Kepler. In the Society's commentary on Aristotle's book on Meteors, after refuting the notion that the tides are caused by the light of the sun and moon, they say, "It appears more probable to us, without any rarefaction, of which there appears no need or indication, that the moon raises the waters by some inherent power of impulsion, in the same manner as a magnet moves iron; and according to its different aspects and approaches to the sea, and the obtuse or acute angles of its bearing, at one time to attract and raise the waters along the shore, and then again to leave them to sink down by their own weight, and

συμπαθέως τη σεληνη. Geographiæ, lib. iii. Historia Naturalis, lib. ii. c. 97.

Ut ancillante sidere, trahenteque secum avido haustu maria.

§ Eâdem Aquiloniâ, et à terris longius recedente, mitiores quam cum, in Austros digressâ, propiore nisu vim suam exercet.

to gather into a lower level." The theory of Universal Gravitation seems here within the grasp of these philosophers, but unfortunately it did not occur to them that possibly the same attraction might be exerted on the earth as well as the water, and that the tide was merely an effect of the diminution of force, owing to the increase of distance, with which the centre of the earth is attracted, as compared with that exerted on its surface. This idea, so happily seized afterwards by Newton, might at once have furnished them with a satisfactory explanation of the tide, which is observed on the opposite side of the earth as well as immediately under the moon. They might have

seen that in the latter case the centre of the earth is pulled away from the water, just as in the former the water is pulled away from the centre of the earth, the sensible effect to us being in both cases precisely the same. For want of this generalization, the inferior tide as it is called presented a formidable obstacle to this theory, and the most plausible explanation that was given was, that this magnetic virtue radiated out from the moon was reflected by the solid heavens, and concentrated again as in a focus on the opposite side of the earth. The majority of modern astronomers who did not admit the existence of any solid matter fit for producing the effect assigned to it, found a reasonable difficulty in acquiescing in this explanation. Galileo, who mentions the Archbishop of Spalatro's book, treated the theory of attraction by the moon as absurd. "This motion of the seas is local and sensible, made in an immense mass of water, and cannot be brought to obey light, and warmth, and predominancy of occult qualities, and such like vain fancies; all which are so far from being the cause of the tide, that on the contrary the tide is the cause of them, inasmuch as it gives rise to these ideas in brains which are more apt for talkativeness and ostentation, than for speculation and inquiry into the secrets of Nature; who, rather than see themselves driven to pronounce these wise, ingenuous, and modest words—I do not know,-will blurt out from their tongues and pens all sorts of extravagancies."

Galileo's own theory is introduced by the following illustration, which indeed