Page:On the Difficulty of Correct Description of Books - De Morgan (1902).djvu/19

 doubt the work of Copernicus would have given the signal for that sort of opposition which was reserved for Galileo. All this would lead us to suppose that the remarks of Maurolycus were suggested by the special publication of Rheticus, and not by any knowledge, on the part of Maurolycus, of a diffused disposition to think about the actual question (7) of the earth's motion.

But now comes a difficulty. A preface, dated in February 1540, of a work published in 1543, gives some presumption, not a very great one, of a previous edition in 1540 or 1541; rather too much (8) to neglect, though far from enough to pronounce upon. Lalande, relying again upon Weidler, affirms that this work of Maurolycus was first printed in 1540; and Weidler makes the statement both [10] in his History and in his Bibliography. And, what is more, Riccioli (in 1651) makes the same assertion. It matters little or nothing that the work of 1543 is not called a second edition, for it not unfrequently happens that a reprint shows no sign of that character. And though neither the Abbé Scina, in the life of Maurolycus, nor the compiler of the list of works presently mentioned, notes any edition earlier than 1543, yet neither seems to have made much search, and both, to judge by their modes of description, would rest content with the earliest edition they happened to have seen. Thus, though inclined (9) to believe that the edition of 1543 is really the first, and therefore that the remarks we have quoted are especially directed against Rheticus, we should not be at all surprised if an edition of 1540 or 1541 were to turn up.

It is known that there were among the ancients some who maintained the diurnal motion of the earth, and some who maintained the annual, at least as possible; Ptolemy alludes to them, and gives his reasons against them. Down to the time of Copernicus, we are not told of any (except Cardinal Cusa, (10)