G'ifS Mr. Halliwell ow the History of the Inductive Sciences. 



Aristotle and others produced to maintaine the earthes sta- 

 bility, and also their solutions and insufficiency, wherein I 

 cannot a little commende the modestie of that grave philoso- 

 pher Aristotle, who seeing (no doubt) the insufficiency of 

 his owne reasons in seeking to confute the earthes motion, 

 useth these words : — De his explicatum est ea qua potuimus 

 facultate. Howbeit his disciples have not with like sobriety 

 maintayned the same. Thus much for my owne parte in this 

 case I will onelj^ say there is no doubte but of a true 

 grounde truer effects may be produced than of principles that 

 are false, and of true principles falshod or absurditie cannot 

 be inferred. If therefore the earth be situate immoveable in 

 the center of the worlde, why jfinde we not theorickes uppon 

 that grounde to produce effects as true and certain as these 

 of Copernicus ? Why cast we not away those Circulos 

 ^quajites, and motions irregulare, seinge our owne philo- 

 sopher Aristotle himselfe the light of our Universities hath 

 taught us, Simplicis corporis simplicem oportet esse motuml 

 But if contrary it be founde impossible (the earthes stability 

 being graunted) but that we must necessarily fall into these 

 absurdities, and cannot by any meane avoyde them, why shall 

 we so much dote in the apparance of our sences, which many 

 wayes may be abused, and not suffer ourselves to be directed 

 by the rule of Reason, which the great God hath given us as 

 a lampe to lighten the darcknes of our understandinge and 

 the perfit guide to leade us to the golden braunche of veritie 

 amidde the forrest of errours?" 



Robert Tanner, in his " Mirrour for Mathematiques," 

 published at London in the year 1587, makes no allusion to 

 the Copernican theory: at fol. 37, he computes the num- 

 ber of miles that the sun has traversed since the creation at 

 43,688,316,000 ! Dee, in his later works, does not allude to 

 his former opinion, and the next notice I find is in 1596, when 

 John Blagrave of Reading again revived the theory in its 

 full sway, in his Astrolabium Uranicum Generate. 



Professor Whewell does not mention one English author 

 of the sixteenth century as having adopted the heliocentric 

 theory. He evidently fixes the year 1600 as the earliest pe- 

 riod which received a glimpse of the new system, and gives 

 Giordano Bremo, a twaddling Italian writer, the merit of 

 having had " a considerable share in introducing the new 

 opinions into England." But however little effect the writings 

 of Recorde, Dee, or Feilde may have had, yet the extreme 

 popularity of Digges's work places the conjecture out of the 

 limits of probability. Moreover, there were doubtless several 



