that of the author. Nevertheless, we have since seen in a careful sale catalogue, the description of the work of N. Detri: in which we believe, in spite of the existence of another work by N. Petri.
The second of our four instances is the Cosmographia of the celebrated Maurolycus, 4to. Venice, 1543, the year of publication of the great work of Copernicus. At the end it is stated that this work was finished in 1535, and the preface is dated 1540. It is in dialogue; and the teacher says (p. 12) that nothing more need be said about the earth, unless diversity of opinion and human fickleness should so far increase, that there should be ground to suspect some one of believing and maintaining that the earth turns on its axis. I should hardly think, says the pupil, that such a strange opinion would enter the head of any one. Why not, rejoins the teacher, many teach themselves greater absurdities; but be this as [9] it may, to remove all possibility of such opposition, I will demonstrate that the earth cannot move. If all this were first published in 1543, in spite of the date of the preface, we should reasonably presume that the intention of Copernicus had reached the ear of Maurolycus, and had given rise to the introduction, at the last moment, perhaps, of what precedes. For in 1540, Rheticus (5) published at Dantzig his account of the forthcoming work of Copernicus. In much less than two years, this might be circulated over Europe, for everything found (6) its way easily to and from Rome, and opinions travelled by epistolary description much more than now. But, if what precedes were written before 1540, it shows that, anterior to the publication of Rheticus, there was a feeling that discussion on the earth's motion was at hand. This would be worthy of note, for no one has hitherto shown that, in the case of the earth's motion, there was that previous expectation of change which has marked the approach of most other new doctrines. Had there been, no
8
