500 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LIII. No. 1378 



Long life to the moon for a dear noble cratui 

 Which serves for lamplight aU night in the dark, 

 While the sun only shines in the day which by 



natur 

 Wants no light at all as ye all may remark. 



was merely a " manufactured story " without 

 antecedent, it seems pertinent to remark that 

 this idea of the independence of daylight and 

 the sun is of great antiquity and somewhat 

 common in early civilization. 



For example, in the Hebrew story of crea- 

 tion we find: 



. . . God said, Let there be light: and there was 

 light. And God saw the light, that it was good; 

 and God divided the light from the darkness. 

 And God called the light day, and the darkness 

 he called night. And the evening and the morning 

 were the first day. (Genesis I., 3-5.) 



On the second day God created the land and 

 water and on the third day the flora. Ifot 

 until the fourth day did God createfthe sun 

 (Genesis I., 14^18) " to divide the day from 

 the night," " to be for a sign," " to rule the 

 day " and incidentally " to give light upon the 

 earth." Also, God set the " lesser light (the 

 moon) to rule the night." It also gave light 

 upon the earth. Evidently, the " Irishman's 

 astronomy " and that of the South American 

 Indians are in strict and complete accord with 

 the concepts of the author of Genesis. Quite 

 clearly, the day was light before the sun was 

 set to " rule " it, but the night was dark be- 

 fore the moon lighted it. It is not to be 

 presumed that we can attribute any Irish wit 

 to the author of Genesis, but it may be that 

 the Irishman was a good orthodox churchman 

 and, in common with many others, accepted 

 the scripture as his authority in science. 

 However, the Indians' concept must have been 

 of independent origin. 



Seriously, does it not appear that the an- 

 cients, even in a high degree of civilization, 

 had only very vague and confused ideas of the 

 relation between light and the sun? 



Simple as it may appear to us to regard a lu- 

 minous body as the source of some influence, which, 

 acting on the eye, excites the sense of eight, much 

 doubt appears to have existed among those who 



first investigated the subject as to whether ob- 

 jects become visible by means of something emitted 

 by them, or by means of something issuing from 

 the eye of the spectator.i 



Some of the Greeks conceived vision as due 

 to something (light?) projected from the eye. 



They all [some of the Greeks] had a confused 

 notion that as we may feel bodies at a distance by 

 means of a rod, so the eye may perceive them 

 by the intervention of light. It is very remark- 

 able that this strange hypothesis held ground for 

 many centuries, and Uttle or no progress was made 

 in the subject till it was established on the au- 

 thority of Alhazen ... in the eleventh century 

 A. D., that the cause of vision proceeds from the 

 object and not from the eye.2 



Aristotle maintained that light was not an 

 emission from any source, but a mere quality 

 of a medium.^ This concept appears to be in 

 substantial accord with the first light of the 

 author of Genesis. 



In spite of the existence of sun worship 

 among many savages, it appears that our 

 everyday commonplace concept of the sun as 

 the primary source of light is of very recent 

 origin among civilized peoples, and no aston- 

 ishment need be occasioned by finding savages 

 who have not grasped it. 



Irwin G. Priest 



Washington, D. C, 

 April 20, 1921 



A SECTION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION 

 ON THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 



To THE Editor op Science: As one of a 

 group interested in the formation of a section 

 on the history of science, I would venture to 

 suggest that the inclusive nature of the desig- 

 nation — History of Science — is well iUus- 

 trarted by the use of the word "science" by 

 the parent organization. Surely a section has 

 the same right to include historical, philo- 

 logical, and other sciences, which touch the 

 history of science under the designation — 

 History of Science — as the parent organiza- 

 tion has in i1;s use of the term. The history 

 of science touches diverse fields, and as this- 



1 Preston, Theory of Light, 3rd Ed., p. 2. 



2 Preston, p. 5. 



3 Preston, p. 4. 



