PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OP THE UNIVEESE. 53 



Philolaus, and subsequently through the analogous views of 

 Aristarchus of Samos, and Seleucus of Erythrea, of far 

 greater avail towards the knowledge of the true system of 

 the universe, than the natural philosophy of the Ionic school 

 could ever become to the physical knowledge of the earth. 

 Giving less heed to the properties and specific differences of the 

 various kinds of matter, the great statical school, in its Doric 

 gravity, preferred to turn its regards towards all that relates 

 to measure, form, and number ( 24 ); while the Ionic school dwelt 

 on the qualities of matter, its real or supposed transforma- 

 tions, and its relations of origin. It was reserved to the 

 powerful genius, and to the at once profoundly philosophi- 

 cal and practical mind of Aristotle, to enter equally deeply 

 and successfully into the world of abstract ideas, and into 

 that of the rich diversity of material substances, of organised 

 beings, and animated existence. 



Several highly esteemed treatises on physical geography 

 have prefixed to them an introductory astronomical section, 

 in which the earth is first considered in its planetary depen- 

 dence, and in its relation to the solar system. This order of 

 proceeding is opposite to that which I propose to follow. 

 The dignity of the physical description of the universe re- 

 quires that the sidereal portion, which Kant has called the 

 natural history of the heavens, should not be made sub- 

 ordinate to the terrestrial portion. In the science of the 

 Cosmos, according to the expression of Aristarchus of Samos 

 that ancient herald of the Copernican doctrine the sun 

 (together with all his satellites) is viewed but as one of the 

 countless host of stars. It is then with these celestial 

 bodies with which space is peopled, that the physical descrip- 

 tion of the universe ought to begin. It should commence 



