64*6 Mr. Halliwell 07 i 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 ow'ne 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 onely say there is no double 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 finde we not theorickes uppon 
that grounde to produce effects as true and certain as these 
of Copernicus? Why cast we not away those Circulos 
JEquantes, 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 Astrolahium JJranicum 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 wTiter, 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 
