Gilbert in Mundane GarbGuilielmi Gilberti Colcestrensis, medici regii, De mundo nostro sublunari philosophia nova byWilliam GilbertReview by: John L. HeilbronIsis, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Summer, 1966), pp. 274-275Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/227970 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 10:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.176 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:38:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

Gilbert in Mundane Garb

[William Gilbert.] Guilielmi Gilberti Colcestrensis, medici regii, De mundo nostro sublunari philosophia nova. Facsimile of the first and only edition, pub- lished by Elzevier in Amsterdam in 1651. 336 pp. Amsterdam: Menno Hertz- berger, 1965. Sister Suzanne Kelly, O.S.B., The De mundo of William Gilbert. 142 pp., plts., app., index, notes. Amsterdam: Menno Hertzberger, 1965. $40.00 (both).

De mundo was put together from Gilbert's papers by his brother, who gave the finished manuscript to Henry, the young Prince of Wales, with the under- standing that Henry would either publish it or place it in his library. The prince chose the latter course. Francis Bacon apparently saw it there, and procured one or more copies of it. When two versions turned up among Bacon's papers, a literary heir once removed, Isaac Gruter, decided to prepare an edition for the press. The book appeared in 1651, well over half a century after it had been composed. It seems not to have been widely read, and in any case could not have been very influential. Its cosmology added only nuances to the ideas already expressed in Book 6 of De magnete, ideas well known in 1650; its indecision over the annual motion of the sun was by then uninteresting; and its anti- scholastic physics, though certainly not pedestrian, had not been very novel even in 1600.

This very lack of novelty, however, makes De mundo particularly interesting to students of early-seventeenth-century natural philosophy. Many treatments of Gilbert, ignoring De mundo, tend to overemphasize his distance from his con- temporaries. Now, thanks to Menno Hertzberger, anyone interested can estimate that distance for himself simply by comparing the splendid discoveries, novel method, and haughty tone of De magnete with the more traditional, sometimes plodding and no less supercilious De mundo.

Gruter divided De mundo into four books, the first two subtitled " Physiologia nova contra Aristotelem," the last two, "Meteorologia nova" directed against the same party. The "Physiologia" discusses the four elements (Gilbert held for one only, earth), the qualities, the motion of heavy objects, the disposition of the heavenly bodies, the earth and its magnetic properties, and light. Among other matters of interest here is a section titled "De attractione naturali," in which the principal authority cited is Averrois. The "Meteorologia" is con- cerned with comets, clouds, rain, wind, underground water, and tides.

Sister Kelly has prepared a moderately useful companion volume, which, in five short chapters, outlines the career of De mundo from manuscript to book, briefly recapitulates its contents, compares its cosmology to that of De magnete and to some contemporary views, and considers the relation between Gilbert and Bacon. Appendices give a chronological list of " pertinent " references published between 1570 and 1591, and a linear comparison of the respective chapters of De mundo and De magnete, entitled " Terram circulariter moveri." The whole is topped off by a bibliography of sixty-six items, not all pertinent, and by twelve

274

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.176 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:38:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS - ISIS, 572' 188 (1966) BOOK REVIEWS - ISIS, 572' 188 (1966)

figures reproducing selected pages from the British Museum copy of the manu- script.

With the exception of the last two chapters, Sister Kelly has largely realized her modest purpose: to discover and report the content of De mundo. But her method - synopsis - which is adequate for outlining chapters, fails when some- thing more is required. The chapter on Bacon and Gilbert, for example, merely presents texts in order to determine "what knowledge Bacon [had] of Gilbert's ideas and what use he [made] of this knowledge "; there is almost no discussion of why Bacon was so antagonistic to Gilbert's work. Again, the very short (10 pp.) comparison of Gilbert's cosmology with the views of some of his con- temporaries gives only a few isolated extracts, leaving the real work of comparison to the reader. Probably the main fault of Sister Kelly's work, one for which she is perhaps not responsible, is that it should not have been a book at all: only by including numerous quotations in both Latin and English; by repeating in every chapter, in full bibliographical citation, the long Latin titles of her sources (De mundo requires six lines and is repeated eight times); and by other bits of printing legerdemain (like calling the first page of text p. 9) is the volume made to occupy its 142, 8 x 6-inch pages. It could have been cut by more than half without affecting its value, and conveniently bound in as an introduction to the facsimile edition. The price of the two volumes is outrageous.

JOHN L. HEILBRON

University of Pennsylvania

figures reproducing selected pages from the British Museum copy of the manu- script.

With the exception of the last two chapters, Sister Kelly has largely realized her modest purpose: to discover and report the content of De mundo. But her method - synopsis - which is adequate for outlining chapters, fails when some- thing more is required. The chapter on Bacon and Gilbert, for example, merely presents texts in order to determine "what knowledge Bacon [had] of Gilbert's ideas and what use he [made] of this knowledge "; there is almost no discussion of why Bacon was so antagonistic to Gilbert's work. Again, the very short (10 pp.) comparison of Gilbert's cosmology with the views of some of his con- temporaries gives only a few isolated extracts, leaving the real work of comparison to the reader. Probably the main fault of Sister Kelly's work, one for which she is perhaps not responsible, is that it should not have been a book at all: only by including numerous quotations in both Latin and English; by repeating in every chapter, in full bibliographical citation, the long Latin titles of her sources (De mundo requires six lines and is repeated eight times); and by other bits of printing legerdemain (like calling the first page of text p. 9) is the volume made to occupy its 142, 8 x 6-inch pages. It could have been cut by more than half without affecting its value, and conveniently bound in as an introduction to the facsimile edition. The price of the two volumes is outrageous.

JOHN L. HEILBRON

University of Pennsylvania

I HISTORY OF SCIENCE I HISTORY OF SCIENCE

William Gilman. Science: U.S.A. xii+ 499 pp. New York: Viking Press, 1965. $4.20.

My favorite line in this work is the comment on the Michelson-Morley ex- periment: "Though performed in a Cleveland basement, it was respectable enough." I suppose the author intends that as a witty understatement, but too much of the book, like that sentence, is written witli a too-conscious eye for effect and too little depth of under- standing. The historical treatment- one chapter is called "The Roots of Science" and has a ten-page section entitled "From Athens to Washing- ton "- is sometimes erroneous and usu- ally fragmentary and irrelevant. This book cannot be taken seriously as a his- torical source. It differs in this respect from its obvious model, the series of books of John Gunther, which rarely deal with science. Gilman's book also suffers in comparison with the writings of the better science journalists, such

William Gilman. Science: U.S.A. xii+ 499 pp. New York: Viking Press, 1965. $4.20.

My favorite line in this work is the comment on the Michelson-Morley ex- periment: "Though performed in a Cleveland basement, it was respectable enough." I suppose the author intends that as a witty understatement, but too much of the book, like that sentence, is written witli a too-conscious eye for effect and too little depth of under- standing. The historical treatment- one chapter is called "The Roots of Science" and has a ten-page section entitled "From Athens to Washing- ton "- is sometimes erroneous and usu- ally fragmentary and irrelevant. This book cannot be taken seriously as a his- torical source. It differs in this respect from its obvious model, the series of books of John Gunther, which rarely deal with science. Gilman's book also suffers in comparison with the writings of the better science journalists, such

as those on the staffs of Science and Fortune.

Science: U.S.A. is by no means unique; too much of science writing is well characterized by the French term for popularization - vulgarization. It is an overambitious attempt to describe the current state of science in America. Unfortunately, historians cannot disre- gard the genre for at least two reasons. Embedded in the gee-whiz colloquiality of the text are fragments of conversa- tions with scientists and observations of laboratories. No sane historian would rely on Gilman's word without confirmation from other sources. And yet, who can tell? Some of the frag- ments may prove a valuable clue. Pity the poor future historian faced with a text lacking both bibliography and footnotes.

The second problem raised by books of this nature is that they have conse- quences. For much of the general pub- lic, Science: U.S.A. and its peers will define what is the life of research. If we reflect that many of the young who later enter the scientific community re-

as those on the staffs of Science and Fortune.

Science: U.S.A. is by no means unique; too much of science writing is well characterized by the French term for popularization - vulgarization. It is an overambitious attempt to describe the current state of science in America. Unfortunately, historians cannot disre- gard the genre for at least two reasons. Embedded in the gee-whiz colloquiality of the text are fragments of conversa- tions with scientists and observations of laboratories. No sane historian would rely on Gilman's word without confirmation from other sources. And yet, who can tell? Some of the frag- ments may prove a valuable clue. Pity the poor future historian faced with a text lacking both bibliography and footnotes.

The second problem raised by books of this nature is that they have conse- quences. For much of the general pub- lic, Science: U.S.A. and its peers will define what is the life of research. If we reflect that many of the young who later enter the scientific community re-

275 275

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.176 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 10:38:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions