Nov. 25. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



427 



discovered from the top of Etna objects wliich 

 would only be visible with the best telescope from 

 a height of sixteen miles ; and in this sense alone 

 could it substantiate the statement it is brought 

 forward to confirm. The misrepresentation of 

 M. Dutens will be best exposed by subjoining the 

 whole passage from Brydone's work — I cannot in 

 fairness abridge it, — which shows that all the ob- 

 jects described by him from the top of Etna are 

 undoubtedly within the limits of vision ; and that 

 the utmost which can be laid to his charge is, that 

 in making a rough calculation of what the extent 

 of the horizon ought to be, he has fallen into an 

 error, 



" The circumference," he writes, " of the visible horizon 

 on the top of Etna cannot be less than 2000 miles; at 

 Malta, which is near 200 miles distant, they perceive all 

 the eruptions from the second region ; and that island is 

 often discovered from about one half the elevation of the 

 mountain; so that at the whole elevation, the horizon 

 must extend to near double that distance, or 400 miles, 

 which makes 800 for the diameter of a circle, and 2400 

 for the circumference. But this is by much too vast for our 

 senaes, not intended to grasp so boundless a scene. I tind, 

 indeed, by several of the Sicilian authors, particularly 

 Mnssa, that the African coast, as well as that of Naples, 

 with many of its islands, have often been discovered from 

 the top of Etna. Of this however we cannot boast, though 

 we can very well believe it. Indeed, if we knew exactly 

 the height of the mountain, it would be easy to calculate 

 the extent of its visible horizon." — Tour, Letter X.' 



I am not about to deny the incorrectness of the 

 above calculation ; the mistake is obvious ; for the 

 extent of the horizon at the whole elevation will 

 not be nearly double its extent at half the eleva- 

 tion. But does this in the least affect the author's 

 veracity ? The whole thing is a matter of calcu- 

 lation, not of fact ; and though his mathematics 

 may be faulty, he is no more guilty of falsehood 

 than a boy who makes a mistake in his arithmetic. 

 I would point out, on the other hand, that the 

 above passage is quite opposed to the inference 

 Mr. Bates seeks to draw from it ; for our author 

 states that he failed to discover the coast of Africa 

 and Naples, which Avere said to be visible, but 

 which, as we now know, are below the horizon ; 

 showing plainly that his account of the scene is 

 given from actual observation, and not taken from 

 the descriptions of others. 



After criticising Brydone on his inaccuracy, the 

 extract given by Me. Bates finishes by relating 

 a circumstance in corroboration of the writer's 

 view, the absurdity of which has not struck jour 

 correspondent : 



" Lord Seaforth told me," says M. Dutens, " that as he 

 was bathing one afternoon in the sea, near the island of 

 IMalta, he saw the sun set behind Mount Etna, the top of 

 which only he was then able to perceive." 



How the sun could be seen setting nearly due 

 north, or, to he quite exact, a point and a half to 

 the east of north, which is the bearing of Mount 

 Etna from Malta, I leave others to explain, as the 



statement is made not by Brydone, but by his 

 criticiser. 



As to the last portion of Me. Bates' Note, I 

 have only to remark that it is quite beside the 

 question at issue. The time has passed by when 

 charges of heresy and infidelity were the common 

 weapons of controversy, and I should regret to 

 see the use of them revived. Suffice it therefore 

 to say, that the opinions which subjected Brydone 

 to this charge are now shared in by all men of 

 science, whether clerical or lay. 



In conclusion, let me suggest to your corre- 

 spondents, first, that before mentioning the truth 

 of any alleged statement of our author, it would 

 be well to ascertain whether he ever made it, the 

 omission of which precaution has filled your 

 volumes with much needless discussion. And, 

 secondly, that when authorities are quoted against 

 him, they should be something more reliable than 

 stories of the sun setting in the north. G. Elliot. 



bomax catholic divorces. 

 (Vol. X., p. 326.) 



The Querist D., who conversed " with a member 

 of the Romish communion upon the subject of 

 divorce," and was informed that in the case of 

 " the dissolution of the marriage contract by au- 

 thority of the pope, the parties are never allowed 

 to marry again," has been perplexed by the em- 

 ployment of terms either not correctly used, or 

 misunderstood. 



In the language of the Romish casuists, divorce 

 it but a separation of the parties by a judicial 

 sentence, and does not dissolve their marriage. 

 So Dens, No. 61., Tract, de Matrimonio: 



" Divortium est separatio conjugum, quoad thorum, 

 vel habitationem, manente matrimonii vinculo." 



The same authority declares it to be a consequence 

 of matrimony being a sacrament, that it is in- 

 dissoluble "jure divino, positivo, et naturali." 

 Dens proceeds, however, to except four cases. His 

 first is " matrimonium infldelium (seu non baptiza- 

 torum," No. 55.), respecting which he observes, 

 that if the separating party becomes a Christian, 

 the Church will allow him to marry unless " lapsus 

 sit in adulterium." The two next cases allow that 

 monastic vows, or a papal dispensation, may dissolve 

 a marriage, so long as it has not been consummated. 

 The remaining case is a grave concession, that a 

 marriage may be dissolved by the death of either 

 party, " ita ut si vir a mortuis resuscitaretur, vin- 

 culum matrimonii maneret dissolutum: casus hie 

 unicus est, quo matrimonium fidelium, ratum et 

 consummatum, dissolvitur." 



Lastly, as to any dissolution of the marriage 

 contract by authority of the pope, as understood 

 doubtless by the Querist, Dens says, " Certum est 



