170 
theory from the time of Democritus. We are painfully con- 
scious all the time that we are only listening to Lange and 
Dr. Draper, and are in fact frequently reminded of it by the 
author. We are also aware, all the time, of the one-sided 
character of the sketch. Indeed any sketch of a single period 
of history, to say nothing of so long a space of time (from 
Christianity and before it till the present time) which regards 
it from only one point of view, must of necessity be exceed- 
ingly imperfect. We are asked to go over, at railway speed, 
the events included in the time which has elapsed since the 
breaking up of the old form of society under the Roman 
empire up to the present day, including the various disturbing 
elements affecting the political relations of the various Euro- 
pean states after the reconstruction of society ; the action of 
Christianity upon the barbarous nations composing it ; and 
finally the general awakening of intellectual activity in the 
centuries immediately preceding and following the Reforma- 
tion. We are asked to look at these mighty changes only 
in their relation to physical science, and with such illustra- 
tions as chiefly concern the atomic philosophy. 
Why is Giordano Bruno set so prominently before us, but 
because he revived the doctrine of atoms, though in a very 
confused way, and asserted pantheistic principles ; and be- 
cause he was a martyr to science, and thus a rare opportunity 
was given of showing the cruelty and obstructiveness of the 
Church ? Why even is so much space given in so short a 
sketch to a much greater man, Gassendi (the sketch as usual 
taken from Lange), but for similar reasons? 
For any purpose whatever, except in its relation to material- 
istic philosophy, the sketch is useless if not mischievous, and 
we need not be detained with it any longer. 
It was my purpose to have gone into some detail with the 
successive steps of the ancient atomic philosophy, and I 
have collected a considerable quantity of material ; but my 
time is nearly exhausted, and the subject, in connection with 
the modern theory, is scarcely worth the trouble. 
The theory itself of the construction of the Cosmos by the 
fortuitous motions and collisions of atoms is so grossly erro- 
neous as to be but a caricature of that with which we are now 
acquainted by means of the resources of modern science; but, 
at the same time, there are one or two points which cannot 
be passed without notice. The germ of truth was there, 
and the acute Greek intellect had not only speculated cor- 
rectly on the nature of matter as distinguished from its quali- 
ties or accidents, and of motion as of one of its most important 
