Maryland, United States, and was examined by Professor Silliman, of New
Haven, Connecticut, gave the following results: Oxyd of iron, 24; oxyd of
nickel, 1.25; silica, with earthy matter, 3.46; sulphur, a trace - 28.71.
Dr. Mantell's 'Wonders of Geology', 1848, vol. i., p. 51.] -- 'Tr.'
Again, experiments with the pendulum, particularly those prosecuted with
such rare precision by Bessel, confirm the Newtonian axiom, that bodies the
most heterogeneous in their nature (as water, gold, quartz, granular
limestone, and different masses of aerolites) experience a perfectly similar
degree of acceleration from the attraction of the earth. To the experiments
of the pendulum may be added the proofs furnished by purely astronomical
observations. The almost perfect identity of the mass of Jupiter, deduced
from the influence exercised by this stupendous planet on its own
satellites, on Enck's comet of short period, and on the small planets Vesta,
Juno, Ceres, and Pallas, indicates with equal certainty that within the
limits of actual observation attraction is determined solely by the quantity
of matter.*
[footnote] *Poisson, 'Connaissances des Temps pour l'Anne' 1836, p. 64-66.
Bessel, Poggendorf's 'Annalen', bd. xxv., s. 417. Encke, 'Abhandlungen der
Berliner Academie' (Trans. of the Berlin Academy), 1826, s. 257.
Mitscherlich, 'Lehrbuch der Chemie' (Manual of Chemistry), 1837 bd. i. s.
352.
This absence of any perceptible difference in the nature of matter, alike
proved by direct observation and theoretical deductions, imparts a high
degree of simplicity to the mechanism of the heavens. The immeasurable
extent of the regions of space being subjected to laws of motion alone, the
sidereal portion of the science of the Cosmos is based on the pure and
abundant source of mathematical astronomy, as is the terrestrial portion on
physics, chemistry, and organic morphology; but the domain of these three
last-named sciences embraces
p 65
the consideration of phenomena which are so complicated and have, up to the
present time, been found so little susceptible of the application of
rigorous method, that the physical science of the earth can not boast of the
same certainty and simplicity in the exposition of facts and their mutual
connection which characterize the celestial portion of the Cosmos. It is
not improbable that the difference to which we allude may furnish an
explanation of the cause which, in the earliest ages of intellectual culture
among the Greeks, directed the natural philosophy of the Pythagoreans with
more ardor to the heavenly bodies and the regions of space than to the earth
and its productions, and how through Philolaus, and subsequently through the
analogous views of Aristarchus of Samos, and of Seleucus of Erythrea, this
science has been made more conducive to the attainment of a knowledge of the
true system of the world than the natural philosophy of the Ionian school
could ever be to the physical history of the earth. Giving but little
attention to the properties and specific differences of matter filling
space, the great Italian school, in its Doric gravity, turned by preference
toward all that relates to measure, to the form of bodies, and to the number
and distances of the planets,* while the Ionian physicists directed their
attention to the qualities of matter, its true or supposed metamorphoses,
and to relations of origin.
[footnote] *Compare Otfried Muller's 'Dorien', bd. i., s. 365.
It was reserved for the powerful genius of Aristotle, alike profoundly
speculative and practical to sound with equal success the depths of
abstraction and the inexhaustible resources of vital activity pervading the
material world.
Several highly distinguished treatises on physical geography are prefaced by
an introduction, whose purely astronomical sections are directed to the
consideration of the earth in its planetary dependence, and as constituting
a part of that great system which is animated by one central body, the sun.
This course is diametrically opposed to the one which I propose following.
In order adequately to estimate the dignity of the Cosmos, it is requisite
that the sidereal portion, termed by Kant the 'natural history of the
heavens', should not be made subordinate to the terrestrial. In the science
of the Cosmos, according to the expression of Aristarchus of Samos, the
pioneer of the Copernican system, the sun, with its satellites, was nothing
more than one of the innumerable stars by which space is occupied. The
physical history of the world must, therefore, begin with the description of
the heavenly bodies,
p 66
and with a geographical sketch of the universe, or, I would rather say, a
true 'map of th world', such as was traced by the bold hand of the elder
Herschel. If, notwithstanding the smallness of our planet, the most
considerable space and the most attentive consideration be here afforded to
that which exclusively concerns it, this arises solely from the
disproportion in the extent of our knowledge of that which is accessible and
of that which is closed to our observation. This subordination of the
celestial to the terrestrial portion is met with in the great work of
Bernard Varenius,* which appeared in the middle of the seventeenth century.
[Footnote] *'Geographia Generalis in qua affectiones generales telluris
explicantur.' The oldest Elzevir edition bears date 1650, the second 1672,
and the third 1681; these were published at Cambridge, under Newton's
supervision. This excellent work by Varenius is, in the true sense of the
words, a physical description of the earth. Since the work 'Historia
Natural de las Indias', 1590, in which the Jesuit Joseph de Acosta sketched
in so masterly a manner the delineation of the New Continent, questions
relating to the physical history of the earth have never been considered
with such admirable generality. Acosta is richer in original observations,
while Varenius embraces a wider circle of ideas, since his sojourn in
Holland, which was at that period the center of vast commercial relations,
had brought him in contact with a great number of well-iinformed travelers.
'Generalis sive Universalis Geographia dictur quae tellurem in genere
considerat atque affectiones explicat, non habita particularium regionum
ratione.' The general description of the earth by Varenius ('Pars
Absoluta', cap. i.-xxii.) may be considered as a treatise of comparative
geography, if we adopt the term used by the author himself ('Geographia
Comparativa', cap. xxxiii.-xl.), although this must be understood in a
limited acceptation. We may cite the following among the most remarkable
passages of this book: the enumeration of the systems of mountains; the
examination of the relations existing between their directions and the
general form of continents (p. 66, 76, ed. Cantab., 1681); a list of extinct
volcanoes, and such as were still in a state of activity; the discussion of
facts relative to the general distribution of islands and archipelagoes (p.
220); the depth of the ocean relatively to the height of neighboring coasts
(p. 103); the uniformity of level observed in all open seas (p. 97); the
dependence of currents on the prevailing winds; the unequal saltness of the
sea; the configuration of shores (p. 139); the direction of the winds as the
result of differences of temperature, etc. We may further instance the
remarkable considerations of Varenius regarding the equinoctial current from
east to west, to which he attributes the origin of the Gulf Stream,
beginning at Cape St. Augustin, and issuing forth between Cuba and Florida
(p. 140). Nothing can be more accurate than his description of the current
which skirts the western coast of Africa, between Cape Verde and the island
of Fernando Po in the Gulf of Guinea. Varenius explains the formation of
sporadic islands by supposing them to be "the raised bottom of the sea:"
'magna spirituum inclusorum vi, sicut aliquando montes e terra protusos esse
quidam scribunt' (p. 225). The edition published by Newton in 1681
('auctior et emendatior' unfortunately contains no additions from this great
authority; and there is not even mention made of the polar compression of
the globe, although the experiments on the pendulum by Richer had been made
nine years prior to the appearance of the Cambridge edition. Newton's
'Principia Mathematica Philosophie Naturalis' were not communicated in
manuscript to the Royal Society until April, 1686. Much uncertainty seems
to prevail regarding the birth-place of Varenius. Jaecher says it was
England, while, according to 'La Biographie Universelle' (b.xlvii., p. 495),
he is stated to have been born at Amsterdam; but it would appear, from the
dedicatory address to the burgomaster of that city (see his 'Geographia
Comparativa', that both suppositions are false. Varenius expressly says
that he had sought refuge in Amsterdam, "because his native city had been
burned and completely destroyed during a long war," words which appear to
apply to the north of Germany, and to the devastations of the Thirty Years'
War. In his dedication of another work, 'Descriptio regni Japoniae' (Amst.,
1649), to the Senate of Hamburgh, Varenius says that he prosecuted his
elementary mathematical studies in the gymnasium of that city. There is,
therefore, every reason to believe that this admirable geographer was a
native of Germany, and was probably born at Luneburg ('Witten. Mem. Theol.',
1685, p. 2142; Zedler, 'Universal Lexicon', vol. xlvi., 1745, p. 187).
p 67
He was the first to distinguish between 'general and special geography', the
former of which he subdivides into an 'absolute', or, properly speaking,
'terrestrial' part, and a 'relative or planetary' portion, according to the
mode of considering our planet either with reference to its surface in its
different zones, or to its relations to the sun and moon. It redounds to
the glory of Varenius that his work on 'General and Comparative Geography'
should in so high a degree have arrested the attention of Newton. The
imperfect state of many of the auxiliary sciences from which this writer was
obliged to draw his materials prevented his work from corresponding to the
greatness of the design, and it was reserved for the present age, and for my
own country, to see the delineation of comparative geography, drawn in its
full extent, and in all its relations with the history of man, by the
skillful hand of Carl Ritter.*
[Footnote] *Carl Ritter's 'Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur und zur
Geschichte des Menschen, oder allgemeine vergleichende Geographie'
(Geography in relation to Nature and the History of Man, or general
Comparative Geography).
The enumeration of the most important results of the astronomical and
physical sciences which in the history of the Cosmos radiate toward one
common focus, may perhaps, to a certain degree, justify the designation I
have given to my work, and, considered within the circumscribed limits I
have proposed to myself, the undertaking may be esteemed less adventurous
than the title. The introduction of new terms, especially with reference to
the general results of a science which
p 68
ought to be accessible to all, has always been greatly in opposition to my
own practice; and whenever I have enlarged upon the established
nomenclature, it has only been in the specialities of descriptive botany and
zoology, where the introduction of hitherto unknown objects rendered new
names necessary. The denominations of physical descriptions of the
universe, or physical cosmography, which I use indiscriminantely, have been
modeled upon those of 'physical descriptions of the earth', that is to say,
'physical geography', terms that have long been in common use. Descartes,
whose genius was one of the most powerful manifested in any age, has left us
a few fragments of a great work, which he intended publishing under the
title of 'Monde', and for which he had prepared hiimself by special studies,
including even that of human anatomy. The uncommon, but definite expression
of the 'science of the Cosmos' recalls to the mind of the inhabitant of the
earth that we are treating of a more widely-extended horizon -- of the
assemblage of all things with which space is filled, from the remotest
nebulae to the climatic distribution of those delicate tissues of vegetable
matter which spread a variegated covering over the surface of our rocks.
The influence of narrow-minded views peculiar to the earlier ages of
civilization led in all languages to a confusion of ideas in the synonymic
use of the words 'earth' and 'world', while the common expressions 'voyages
round the world', 'map of the world', and 'new world', afford further
illustrations of the same confusion. The more noble and precisely-defined
expressions of 'system of the world', 'the planetary world', and 'creation
and age of the world', relate either to the totality of the substances by
which space is filled, or to the origin of the whole universe.
It was natural that, in the midst of the extreme variability of phenomena
presented by the surface of our globe, and the aerial ocean by which it is
surrounded, man should have been impressed by the aspect of the vault of
heaven, and the uniform and regular movements of the sun and planets. Thus
the word Cosmos, which primitively, in the Homeric ages, indicated an idea
of order and harmony, was subsequently adopted in scientific language, where
it was gradually applied to the order observed in the movements of the
heavenly bodies, to the whole universe, and then finally to the world in
which this harmony was reflected to us. According to the assertion of
Philolaus, whose fragmentary works have been so ably commented upon by
Böckh, and conformably to the general testimony
p 69
of antiquity, Pythagoras was the first who used the word Cosmos to designate
the order that reigns in the universe, or entire world.*
[footnote] *[Greek word], in the most ancient, and at the same time most
precise, definition of the word, signified 'ornament' (as an adornment for a
man, a woman, or a horse); taken figuratively for [Greek word], it implied
the order or adornment of a discourse. According to the testimony of all
the ancients, it was Pythagoras who first used the word to designate the
order in the universe, and the universe itself. Pythagoras left no
writings; but ancient attestation to the truth of this assertion is to be
found in several passages of the fragmentary works of Philolaus (Stob.,
'Eclog.', p. 360 and 460, Heeren), p. 62, 90, in Bockh's German edition. I
do not, according to the example of Nake, cite Timof Locris, since his
authenticity is doubtful. Plutarch ('De plac. Phil.', ii., I) says, in the
most express manner, that Pythatoras gave the name of Cosmos to the universe
on account of the order which reigned throughout it; so likewise does Galen
('Hist. Phil.', p. 429). This word, together with its novel signification,
passed from the schools of philosophy into the language of poets and prose
writers. Plato designates the heavenly bodies by the name of 'Uranos', but
the order pervading the regions of space he too terms the Cosmos, and in his
'Timus' (p. 30 a.) he says 'that the world is an animal endowed with a soul'
[Greek words]. Compare Anaxag. Claz., ed. Schaubach, p. III, and Plut.
('De plac. Phil.', in Aristotle ('De Caelo', I, 9), 'Cosmos' signifies "the
universe and the order pervading it," but it is likewise considered as
divided in space into two parts -- the sublunary world, and the world above
the moon. ('Meteor.', I., w, 1, and I., 3, 13, p. 339, 'a', and 340, 'b',
Bekk.) The definition of Cosmos, which I have already cited is taken from
Pseudo-Aristoteles 'de Mundo', cap. ii. (p. 391); the passage referred to is
as follows: [Greek words]. Most of the passages occurring in Greek writers
on the word 'Cosmos' may be found collected together in the controversy
between Richard Bentley and Charles Boyle ('Opuscula Philologica', 1781, p.
347, 445; 'Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris', 1817, p. 254); on
the historical existence of Zaleucus, legislator of Leucris, in Nake's
excellent work, 'Sched. Crit.', 1812, p. 9, 15; and, finally in Theophilus
Schmidt, 'ad Cleom. Cycl. Theor.', met. I., 1, p. ix., 1 and 99. Taken in a
more limited sense, the word Cosmos is also used in the plural (Plut., 1,
5), either to designate the stars (Stob., 1, p. 514; Plut., 11, 13) or the
innumerable systems scattered like islands through the immensity of space,
and each composed of a sun and a moon. (Anax. Claz., 'Fragm.', p. 89, 93,
120; Brandis, 'Gesch. der Griechisch-Römischen Philosophie', b. i., s. 252
(History of the Greco-Roman Philosophy). Each of these groups forming thus
a 'Cosmos', the universe, [Greek words], the word must be understood in a
wider sense (Plut., ii., 1). It was not until long after the time of the
Ptolemies that the word was applied to the earth. Bockh has made known
inscriptions in praise of Trajan and Adrian ('Corpus Inscr. Graec.', I, n.
334 and 1036), in which [Greek word] occurs for [Greek word] in the same
manner as we still use the term 'world' to signify the earth alone. We have
already mentioned the singular division of the regions of space
p 70 [Footnote continues]
into three parts, the 'Olympus, Cosmos' and 'Ouranos' (Stob., i., p. 488;
Philolaus, p. 95, 303); this division applies to the different regions
surrounding that mysterious focus of the universe, the [Greek words] of the
Pythagoreans. In the fragmentary passage in which this division is found,
the term [Greek word] designates the innermost region, situated between the
moon and earth; this is the domain of changing things. The middle region,
where the planets circulate in an invariable and harmonious order, is, in
accordance with the special conceptions entertained of the universe,
exclusively termed 'Cosmos', while the word 'Olympus' is used to express the
exterior or igneous region. Bopp, the profound philologist, has remarked
that we may deduce, as Pott has done, 'Etymol. Forschungen', th.i., s. 39
and 252 ('Etymol. Researches'), the word [Greek word] from the Sanscrit
root 'sud', 'purificari', by assuming two conditions; first that the Greek
letter 'kappa' in [Greek word] comes from the palatial 'epsilon', which Bopp
represents by 's' and Pott by 'ç' (in the same manner as [Greek word],
'decem, taihun' in Gothic, comes from the Indian word 'dasan'), and, next,
that the Indian 'd'' corresponds, as a general rule, with the Greek 'theta'
('Vergleichende Grammatik' 99 -- Comparative Grammar), which shows the
relation of [Greek word] (for [Greek word]) with the Sanscrit root 'sud',
whence is also derived [Greek word]. Another Indian term for the world is
'gagat' (pronounced 'dschagat'), which is, properly speaking the present
participle of the verb 'gagami' (I go), the root of which is 'ga.' In
restricting ourselves to the circle of Hellenic etymologies, we find
('Etymol. M.', p. 532, 12) that [Greek word] is intimately associated with
[Greek word] or rather with [Greek word], whence we have [Greek word] or
[Greek word] Welcker ('Eine Kretische Col in Theben', s. 23 -- A Cretan
Colony in Thebes) combines with this the name [Greek word] , as in Hesychius
[Greek word] signifies a Cretan suit of arms. When the scientific language
of Greece was introduced among the Romans, the word 'mundus', which at first
had only the primary meaning of [Greek word] (female ornament), was applied
to designate the entire universe. Ennius seems to have been the first who
ventured upon this innovation. In one of the fragments of this poet,
preserved by Macrobius, on the occasion of his quarrel with Virgil, we find
the word used in its novel mode of acceptation: "Mundus caeli vastus
constitit silentio" (Sat., vi., 2). Cicero also says, "Quem nos lucentem
mundum vocamus" (Timæus, 'S.de univer.', cap. x.) The Sanscrit root 'mand'
from which Pott derives the Latin 'mundus' ('Etym. Forsch.', th. i., s.
240), combines the double signification of shining and adorning. 'Loka'
designates in Sanscrit the world and people in general, in the same manner
as the French word 'monde', and is derived according to Bopp, from 'lok' (to
see and shine); it is the same with the Slavonic root 'swjet', which means
both 'light' and 'world.' (Grimm, 'Deutsche Gramm.', b. iii., s. 394 --
German Grammar.) The word 'welt', which the Germans make use of at the
present day, and which was 'weralt' in old German, 'worold' in old Saxon,
and 'weruld' in Anglo-Saxon, was, according to James Grimm's interpretation,
a period of time, an age ('saeculum') rather than a term used for the world
in space. The Etruscans figured to themselves 'mundus' as an inverted dome,
symmetrically opposed to the celestial vault (Otfried Muller's 'Etrusken',
th. ii., s. 96, etc.). Taken in a still more limited sense, the word
appears to have signified among the Goths the terrestrial surface girded by
seas ('marei, meri',) the 'merigard', literally, 'garden of seas.'
From the Italian school of philosophy, the expression passed, in this
signification, into the language of those early poets
p 71
of nature, Parmenides and Empedocles, and from thence into the works of
prose writers. We will not here enter into a discussion of the manner in
which, according to the Pythagorean views, Philolaus distinguishes between
Olympus, Uranus, or the heavens, and Cosmos, or how the same word, used in a
plural sense, could be applied to certain heavenly bodies (the planets)
revolving round one central focus of the world, or to groups of stars. In
this work I use the word Cosmos in conformity with the Hellenic usage of the
term subsequently to the time of Pythagorus, and in accordance with the
precise definition given of it in the treatise entitled 'De Mundo', which
was long erroneously attributed to Aristotle. It is the assemblage of all
things in heaven and earth, the universality of created things constituting
the perceptible world. If scientific terms had not long been diverted from
their true verbal signification, the present work ought rather to have borne
the title of 'Cosmography', divided into 'Uranography' and 'Geography.' The
Romans, in their feeble essays on philosophy, imitated the Greeks by
applying to the universe the term 'mundus', which, in its primary meaning,
indicated nothing more than ornament, and did not even imply order or
regularity in the disposition of parts. It is probable that the
introduction into the language of Latium of this technical term as an
equivalent for Cosmos, in its double signification, is due to Ennius,* who
was a follower of the Italian school, and the translator of the writings of
Epicharmus and some of his pupils on the Pythagorean philosophy.
[footnote] *See, on Ennius, the ingenious researches of Leopold Krahner, in
his 'Grundlinien zur Geschichte des Verfalls der Romischen Staats-Reigion',
1837, s. 41-45 (Outlines of the History of the Decay of the Established
Religion among the Romans). In all probability, Ennius did not quote from
writings of Epicharmus himself, but from poems composed in the name of that
philosopher, and in accordance with his views.