JHA v (1974), 122-132

COSMOLOGICAL TEACHING IN THE

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SC01TISH UNIVERSITIES, PART 1

JOHN L. RUSSELL, Heythrop College, London

A comprehensive history of science must give an account not only of the dis-
coveries and theories of a given period but also of the processes by which the
new world view was communicated, how it came to be accepted, and the influ-
ence which it exerted. These processes are frequently obscure and have, on the
whole, been less carefully studied than the scientific discoveries themselves.
One obvious source of information is the teaching given in the universities.
How far did this reflect and communicate contemporary scientific knowledge?
The answer to this question will clearly vary greatly from one university to
another and from one time to another. For the Scottish universities there exists
an important source of information in the graduation theses which were pub-
lished annually (with occasional exceptions) throughout the seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries. Since these theses are little known and do not seem
to have been systematically studied, some preliminary remarks of a general
nature may be useful.
Scotland, during the period under review, had five universities. Two of these
were in Aberdeen: King's College and Marischal College; these were eventually
united into a single University of Aberdeen in 1859. The other three were in
Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews respectively. St Andrews had two
colleges in which the Arts course could be studied: St Salvator's and St Leonard's.
These published separate lists of theses but they were constituent colleges of the
one university.
The teaching system differed in several respects from that of the English uni-
versities. The Arts course lasted for four years only and led directly to the degree
of Master of Arts. The first year was devoted mainly to Greek and the last three
to logic, ethics and natural philosophy respectively. Shorter courses in other
philosophical subjects like metaphysics were sometimes included. In the fourth
year, courses in elementary mathematics and astronomy were also provided.
Teaching was almost entirely in the hands of the university lecturers who were
known as regents; there was no parallel tutorial system as at Oxford and
Cambridge. With certain exceptions noted below, the Scottish universities
followed a system of 'circulating regents'. Under this system, all the students
who entered the university in a given year would be under the same regent
throughout the whole four years of their studies and would go to him for all
lectures. Having seen them safely graduated at the end of the fourth year, he
would then start again with the next year's intake. There were thus four regents
in all, each, in any given year, at a different stage in the same four year cycle.
This system was not quite universal. Marischal College, up till about 1640,
had a system of specialised regents, each of whom taught one of the main sub-
jects to all students. By 1643, however, it had changed over to the alternative
system of circulating regents which it followed for the rest of the century. King's
College also had specialist regents for a limited period from 1616-38.
122

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 123
From 1626, Marischal College also had a Professor of Mathematics who
lectured to all fourth year students in that subject alone and who therefore stood
somewhat outside the normal system. Mathematics included the elements of
mathematical and descriptive astronomy but a good deal of what we should now
regard as astronomy continued to be treated in the school of natural philosophy.
St Andrews appointed its first Professor of Mathematics in 1669 and Edin-
burgh in 1674.1 Some other modifications were made towards the end of the
century. Substantially, however, the system of circulating regents remained in
force at Edinburgh until 1708 when the whole teaching system was radically
revised. It was abandoned also by the other universities at different dates during
the eighteenth century.
At the end of the four year course, and as a preliminary to the conferring of
the M.A. degree, the candidates were required to take part in a public disputation.
The regent who had taken them through their studies would prepare and publish
a list of theses which they would be called on to defend. The style of these theses
varied considerably from one year to another; a thesis might vary in length from
a single sentence enunciating some philosophical principle, to an elaborate
philosophical disquisition occupying a couple of pages or more. The total
number of theses on the list might vary from less than 20 to 200 or more. They
were selected from all parts of the syllabus and covered substantially the whole
course though not every topic which had been treated in the course would appear
as a thesis in any given year. The theses and disputations were always in Latin,
as were the University lectures."
During the degree ceremony each candidate would present himself in turn and
would be called upon to expound a thesis and to defend it against objections
proposed by members of the audience: regents, students or distinguished visitors.
The theses represented the regent's own views on the topics in dispute and the
student was bound to defend these views whether he agreed with them or not.
However, this requirement seems to have been progressively relaxed towards the
end of the seventeenth century; even in earlier years it was occasionally per-
mitted for the disputant to take either side on a doubtful question.
The earlier lists, up to about 1670, were divided into four or more sections, of
which three were always concerned with logic, ethics and natural philosophy
respectively. There was usually a section on astronomy. General philosophy,
metaphysics or geometry were sometimes included.
Towards the end of the century, the character of the disputations changed
considerably. The theses tended to become more specialised in scope, aiming to
treat a limited field of science or philosophy in depth, rather than covering the
whole course. In some cases, as will be pointed out later, they included topics
which, in all probability, had not been treated in the course. These, if they were
ever actually debated, may perhaps have been reserved for a few of the more
gifted students who would have prepared them specially for the occasion.
The great value of the thesis lists is that (with the qualifications just noted)
they give a comprehensive picture of the undergraduate syllabus at any given
period, the views of the different regents, and the way in which the contents of
the courses and the general intellectual atmosphere of the universities changed
as time went on.

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
124 Journal for the History of Astronomy

These lists are now extremely scarce. Many of them have disappeared alto-
gether and, of those that have survived, there are very few for which more than
one or two copies are known. They are most numerous for Edinburgh Univer-
sity, for which the lists for 68 different years are known, ranging from 1596 to
1705.3
In the first half of the seventeenth century the cosmological teaching was
officially Aristotelian and Ptolemaic, the prescribed text books being Aristotle's
Physica and De coelo, together with Joannes a Sacrobosco's De sphaera. As we
shall see, not all the regents conformed strictly to these but in principle they
provided the framework for the course. It may be useful, therefore, by way of
introduction, to summarise briefly the main points of Aristotle's cosmology.
These were:
(1) The planets and the fixed stars are embedded in a series of concentric hollow
spheres or orbs, one inside the other. Each sphere revolves with its own intrinsic
uniform motion and is, at the same time, carried around by the motion of the
sphere immediately surrounding it. The stars and the planets are carried around,
in their .orbits, by the spheres in which they are embedded. Aristotle, on the
basis of his physical theories, estimated that there were 55 such rigid spheres
altogether but many of his later followers tended to reduce this number con-
siderably.
(2) The Earth is situated at the centre of the whole system and is, of necessity,
immobile.
(3) The material of which the heavenly bodies-planets, stars and spheres-are
made is essentially different from that of terrestrial bodies, being ingenerable,
incorruptible and incapable of any intrinsic change whatsoever.
(4) The heavenly bodies exercise a profound influence on terrestrial processes,
especially those of generation and decay. Aristotle was not very specific about
the nature of this influence. His more extreme followers asserted that if the
celestial bodies ceased to move, all change of any sort on the Earth would cease
immediately. Others, however, attributed some power of independent motion to
terrestrial bodies, but under the general control of the heavens.
Sacrobosco simplified the Aristotelian scheme to the extent that he reduced
the number of celestial spheres to nine: one for each planet, one for the fixed
stars and one beyond this-the primum mobile-to account for the precession
of the equinoxes. Later astronomers added either one of two to account for the
supposed but actually non-existent phenomena of trepidation, making a total of
ten or eleven. Sacrobosco also accepted a simplified version of Ptolemy's
eccentrics and epicycles. He did not say whether the celestial spheres were rigid
bodies nor, if so, how a planet embedded in such a sphere could have an eccentric
or epicyclic motion. The De sphaera was an elementary treatise, not much
concerned with theory.
Many of the cosmological questions treated in the theses are of little interest
today. Among these were the problem whether celestial bodies are moved by
extrinsic intelligences or by their own intrinsic forms; the hylomorphic composi-
tion of these bodies from matter and form; and the precise number of the
spheres. Leaving these out of account, I shall confine myself to three key

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 125

questions, where the traditional system was most clearly in opposition to the
newer ideas of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. These were: (I) the existence of
rigid celestial spheres; (2) the immutability of celestial bodies; (3) the immobility
of the Earth. Since the material for Edinburgh is much more complete than for
any of the other universities I shall concentrate in the first place on this. After-
wards I shall discuss the others motte briefly.

The Edinburgh Theses

The first three extant lists-1596, 1599 and 1600-are all traditional. John
Adamson in 1600 strongly criticised those who denied that each planet is carried
round in its own rigid sphere. He asserted the traditional (Sacroboscan) doctrine
of the ten spheres and added: "Is it not the height of temerity to hold that there
is only one celestial sphere and, on the basis of a worthless argument, to contra-
dict all the philosophers and theologians and to overthrow the foundations of
knowledge?".' This rebuke was probably aimed at one of his colleagues, James
Knox, who took the class immediately junior to Adamson's and who therefore
presided over the disputation in the following year, 1601. Knox, undeterred by
the accusation of temerity, firmly asserted that Aristotle was wrong; there is only
one sphere (that of the fixed stars); and the celestial bodies are not Immutable."
Public attacks by one regent on the views of another (with no names mentioned)
were not uncommon in these disputations. They must have added, on occasion,
to the liveliness of the debates. However, after this particular passage of arms,
the two regents must have decided to keep the peace. When their turns, came
round again, in 1604 and 1605, neither of them raised the controversial topic.
James Knox's criticism of Aristotle was, in fact, exceptional. None of the next
eight lists, extending over fourteen years, shewed any important deviation from
traditional doctrine. In 1616, however, William King made a new break. He
pointed out that the comet of 1577 had been proved to be beyond the sphere of
the Moon. This, with other comets and new stars, indicated that changes can
occur in celestial bodies." Eight years later, in 1624, King referred to the new
stars of 1600 and 1604 as further evidence for their mutability. He was not,
however, happy about this conclusion, and he finished by saying: "On this
question we neither wish, nor ought we to say anything more than what Hippo-
crates said ofthe art of medicine: Life is short, art is long; observations are un-
certain, conjectures are many, judgment is difficult. We must acknowledge the
limitations of the human mind which, in probing the secrets of nature, is often
deceived, sometimes indeed is completely blind. The wise man therefore will
accept with a good grace that there are some things which he does not know".'
King was followed by another innovating regent, Andrew Young, whose
theses for 1617, and more particularly for 1621, have some points of special
interest," His earliest theses had been published in 1607 and had been thoroughly
Aristotelian. In them he had propounded a rather elaborate system of solid
planetary spheres based upon Aristotle's scheme. However, from 1617 onwards
he was making astronomical observations. He carefully observed the comet of
1618, no doubt inspired by Tycho Brahe's work on earlier comets. He found
06'
that on 3 December 1618 at 01.00 hrs it was 1 from the higher ofthe two stars
in the girdle of Bootes; at 06.00 hrs it was 36' distant. The change was ade-

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
126 Journalfor the History of Astronomy

quately accounted for by its own proper motion; there was no detectable parallax
effect. He therefore abandoned the solid spheres and adopted Tycho's view that
all the stars and planets move freely, by virtue of their own intrinsic power, in a
completely permeable fluid aether,"
Young made a number of other observations which, considering his circum-
stances, were remarkably accurate. They include determinations of the latitude
of Edinburgh, the inclination of the ecliptic, and the time of the vernal equinox
of 1617.10 Young died in 1623 and there is no evidence of any further practical
astronomy at the University until James Gregory was appointed Professor of
Mathematics in 1674.
A third "modernising" regent who was active during this period was James
Reid. He was originally a firm supporter of the Ptolemaic system which in his
theses for 1618 he boldly defended at one of its most vulnerable points: the
apparent size of the Moon in its orbit. He says:
The maximum distance of the Moon from the Earth is considered to be
32-A- Earth diameters; the minimum 16! diameters. Therefore (1) the ratio of
the maximum distance to the minimum is 2. (2) Since the Moon does not
appear to be twice as large at perigee as at apogee it follows that the argu-
ment of Copernicus is fallacious, by which he concludes that a body which
is twice as near will appear twice as large. (3) Ptolemy's distances can be
correct, even though the apparent diameter of the Moon does not vary
greatly. (4) Therefore the science of optics lays it down that if two bodies of
equal sizes are observed at different distances, the ratio of their apparent
sizes will be less than that of their distances."
Reid was evidently not altogether satisfied with his refutation of Copernicus
since, four years later in 1622, he merely remarked:
True knowledge consists in knowing what is the cause of a thing and in
shewing that by virtue of this cause, it could not have been otherwise than
it IS. Since therefore the astronomers such as Copernicus, Ptolemy and
others, have been able to explain the planetary paths by so many different
principles and hypotheses, it follows that we can have no true knowledge in
Astronomy."
In 1626 Reid had moved still further in the direction of Copernicus. Very
cautiously he suggested that we may hold, at least as a supposition, that the
Earth rotates on its axis while remaining at the centre of the universe. He main-
tained that there were no conclusive objections to this hypothesis, either from
natural philosophy or astronomy or Scripture."
I have dealt with this period from 1616 to 1626 in some detail because it shews
the cosmological teaching of the University slowly and cautiously modernising
itself-becoming more and more conscious of the scientific advances of Coper-
nicus and Tycho. We might have expected this process to continue, or at least to
have stabilised itself in some form of semi-Copernican theory (with the Earth
spinning daily but not in orbit about the Sun) such as was accepted by many
English and Continental scientists of the time.

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 127

Unfortunately, this promising movement was abruptly terminated. The story

of its collapse is told by Thomas Craufurd who in 1626, held a junior post in the
University and later (in 1640) became a regent. It seems that shortly before the
disputation of 1626 one of the ministers of the Kirk in Edinburgh had publicly
made a very disparaging reference to philosophy, calling it "the dishclout of
theology". Reid, in one of his theses, referred to this criticism and rejected it as
being "too salty and rigid" (salsam et rigidam nimis). Philosophy, he asserted
was "an honorary handmaid of theology". According to Craufurd: "This
contradiction highly offended Mr William Struthers, having some grudge at him
before. He drew the whole ministers of the Citie, and diverse ofthe most eminent
of the presbytery to joyne with him, and accused Mr James [Reid] before the
City Council, immediately after the laureation. Mr James was very well beloved
in the Council, and in good respect of the whole Citie and countrie." The City
Council was unwilling to move against him but increasing pressure was brought
on them to dismiss him until, in July 1627, they gave way and prevailed on him
to resign. It is clear that they did not themselves regard his conduct as discredit-
able since they awarded him the generous sum of £1000 in compensation.v'
The ostensible reason for this storm seems trivial enough. However, Craufurd
makes it clear, both in the quotation given above and elsewhere, that the
ministers had ulterior motives for seeking Reid's dismissal. He does not say
what these were, but it seems a reasonable presumption that they were alarmed
at the direction in which the University philosophers were moving and were
deliberately seeking an excuse to crush their modernistic tendencies. If this is so,
they were wholly successful. In 1627 and for many years afterwards, there was
no further reference to the ideas of Copernicus or Tycho. The cosmological
theses, almost without exception, were traditionally Aristotelian. William King,
who in 1624 had rather hesitatingly admitted the mutability of the heavens,
reverted in 1628 to the doctrine of immutability. None of the other regents from
1627 through 1632 shewed any signs of departing from traditional teaching
except that Robert Ranken (1632) referred to telescopic observations on the
Milky Way as shewing that the number of stars in the sky was much greater than
had previously been supposed.
No theses have survived for the next eight years from 1633 through 1640.
The following decade is well represented by Duncan Forrester (1641, '45, '49),
Thomas Craufurd (1642, '46, '50) and James Wysman (1643, '47). In none of
these does the cosmological teaching shew any significant progress. Forrester
and Wysman both accepted a multiplicity of real celestial spheres. Craufurd's
attitude to this question was not quite so clear but he seems to have accepted at
least one real sphere (for the fixed stars) and he certainly regarded the celestial
bodies as incorruptible." There was nowhere any mention of the Copernican
system; it seems most unlikely that any regent could have been supporting it
during this decade.
From 1651 to 1658 there is another gap with no known theses. During the
next eleven years, 1659-69, however, the new astronomy again began to be
noticed for the first time since 1626. It was not yet acceptable to any great
extent but at least it was discussed. The first reference to the Copernican system
after 1626 was by James Pillans who, in 1660, referred to it contemptuously as

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
128 Journal for the History of Astronomy

"an ancient madness"." John Wishart (1661)was equally scathing: the followers
of Copernicus are mad or weak in the head.F These two regents continued to
teach for another 20 years, their last appearances being in 1680and 1681 respec-
tively. As late as 1677Pillans was still teaching the geostatic system. Wishart did
not mention the subject again but he remained conservative up to the end and it
is unlikely that he changed his views on the question.
However, there was some progress in the 1660s. The solid spheres were com-
pletely abandoned and the Tychonic system was replacing the Ptolemaic,
though Tycho's name was not explicitly mentioned. Wishart (1661) asserted that
"the stars probably move in spiral paths through a fluid heaven-as evidenced
by the powerful spear of Mars"." This is a clear reference to Tycho's proof that
if the spheres of Mars and the Sun really existed, they would have to com-
penetrate with each other. William Tweedy was the only other regent of this
period whose theses have survived (1659and 1663). His cosmology was geostatic
but anti-Ptolemaic; it is therefore likely that he too followed Tycho."
The first major break with tradition was made by John Wood (Joannes
Sylvius) in 1670. He rejected the whole Aristotelian physics completely and
taught instead a mechanistic philosophy evidently based on Descartes. He
rejected a priori demonstrations in natural philosophy, praised experimental
science and, for the first time, gave his students the option of accepting whatever
cosmological system they wished: Ptolemaic, Copernican, Tychonic, Cartesian
or any other. He himself expressed no opinion on their respective merits. His
only other extant theses (1674) were similar in content and again left the cos-
mological question open."
William Paterson in 1671, and again in 1675, accepted some of Descartes's
ideas rather more cautiously and was well disposed to the new natural science.
He referred to Boyle's experiments with the air pump and to the views of Francis
Bacon, Joseph Glanvill and others on scientific method. He vigorously rejected
the authority of Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers. His rather dis-
paraging references to the Copernican system in 1675 suggest, however, that he
was not yet prepared to accept it. 21
The 1670s were a period of transition in the academic life of the University.
Wood and Paterson were giving a cautious and somewhat qualified welcome to
the new mechanical philosophy of Descartes and Boyle. Pillans was fighting a
vigorous rearguard action in favour of Aristotle and shewed little interest in
contemporary movements. Wishart was strongly critical of much of the modern
philosophy but was by no means blindly traditional. During this decade he
came under the influence of the Cambridge Platonists, Henry More and Ralph
Cudworth, whom he referred to in terms of warm approval in his theses for 1672
and 1680.
The final break with the past occurred in 1682. After 1681 the four regents of
the l670s were replaced by a completely new team who swept away the last
vestiges of Aristotelianism. All were committed whole-heartedly to the new
mechanical and scientific philosophy. They followed Descartes's method of
doubt, based their general philosophy on his principle Cogito ergo sum and sub-
stantially accepted his philosophy of nature which, however, they were always
ready to correct in the light oflater scientific discoveries. Until it was superseded

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 129

by Newton's cosmology they all seem to have accepted the vortex theory of
planetary motion with its corollary that the Earth is a planet moving around the
Sun. They appeared not to be troubled by any theological doubts on this
question. .
The new movement must have been greatly strengthened by the appointment,
in 1683, of David Gregory to the recently founded Chair of Mathematics at the
University.s- He held the post until 1691 when he was succeeded by his brother,
James Gregory the Younger, who remained until his death in 1725. It can be
assumed, therefore, that the astronomical theses from 1684onwards were largely
the work of one or other of these two brothers, although their names do not
appear on the lists. However, in view of the fact that they were issued under the
name of the presiding regent and were presumably approved by him, I shall
assume that they represent his views.
The first of this new generation was Gilbert Mac Murdo (1682) who, for the
first time, asserted the truth of the Copernican system without qualification.
He also gave data on the planets derived from the works of Schyrlaeus de
Rheita, Huygens and Cassini. His philosophy of nature was generally Cartesian
although he accepted Newton's theory of colour in preference to that of Des-
cartes. The other regents of this decade-Andrew Massey (1683, '87), Alexander
Cockburn (1684, '88), Robert Lidderdale (1685), Herbert Kennedy (1686, '90,
'94) were equally committed to a thoroughly modern scientific approach to the
physical world. Cockburn (1684) protested strongly against the older scholastic
approach to philosophy, which sought to impose a particular system on the
students.
Newton's Principia mathematica, published in 1687,was taken up with remark-
able alacrity in Edinburgh. As early as 1688 Cockburn referred to Perrault's
(Cartesian) theory of gravitation and remarked that it would be acceptable
except that it is incompatible with Kepler's third law "as has recently been
demonstrated by Newton".23 Kennedy in 1690 enunciated Newton's three laws
of motion (without mentioning his name) and stated that all laws of motion are
deducible from these. He did not, however, mention the law of gravitation. In
1694 he went further and asserted that Newton's method of philosophising is the
only true one since he avoids hypotheses and establishes laws. Newton has
taught us to be silent concerning physical causes and to investigate phenomena.
Kennedy on this occasion gave a qualitative statement of the principle of uni-
versal gravitation but did not enunciate the inverse square law.24 The only other
extant theses of the 1690s are those of Alexander Cunninghame (1690) and
William Scot (1699), neither of which were concerned with cosmology.
The first extant eighteenth-century theses are those of Charles Areskine
(1704), which were completely Newtonian. The inverse square law was ex-
pounded and the relation between it and Kepler's three laws was indicated.
The Earth was stated to be an oblate spheroid: this was first deduced by Newton
and has since been confirmed by pendulum experiments in different parts of the
world. Areskine included several optical theses based upon Newton's Opticks
which had been published only a few months previously." This is further evi-
dence of the speed with which Newton's theories were assimilated in Scotland
but it also reinforces the point made earlier, that some of the theses at this time

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 130 Journal for the History of Astronomy

can hardly have formed part of the normal undergraduate course of instruction.
William Law (1705) expounded the general principles of Newton's Opticks in
more detail and with complete approval. His astronomical theses were mainly
concerned with the possibility of other inhabited worlds. The Moon is probably
uninhabitable since it has no rivers, seas, clouds or atmosphere. The same may
be true of the other planets in our system though we cannot be sure. It may well
be the case, however, that each star is a sun with its own planetary system; we
can be reasonably sure, therefore, that there are other intelligent beings in the
universe. Newton's views on the nature of the Sun and of comets were also
briefly expounded."
Law's theses are the last communal graduation theses to have survived. From
1708 onwards a different system was introduced in which one or more of the
candidates in each year published, under his own name, a limited set of theses on
some particular subject, followed by a few 'corollaria' or 'annexa' drawn from
other branches of philosophy. I have seen two of these from the following
decade: Hugh Clark's (1711) and William Hepburn's (1714). In both cases the
main theses were on ethical topics but a subsidiary thesis asserted the Newtonian
principle of gravitation. It is reasonable to conclude that the Newtonian system
was being regularly taught at Edinburgh during this period.
The rapid acceptance of Newton must have been due in the first place to the
influence of the Gregory's who were whole-hearted supporters of his theories.
But it was also encouraged by the strong theological interests of many of the
regents. Cartesian mechanism, which had tended to dominate the philosophical
scene from the 1680s, was intellectually attractive but it was disliked by many
Christians because it seemed to be conducive to atheism. If all physical events
could be explained as necessary consequences of the random movements of inert
particles having no properties except shape, size, movement and impenetrability,
there seemed to be no room for God's activity. Newton's theory of gravitation
appeared to require the presence of God in the universe much more clearly. This
was expressed, for instance, by Areskine in 1704:

From the mutual attraction already described, upon which depend both
celestial and terrestrial phenomena, it follows of necessity that there exists
an omnipotent Being who is the supreme cause and governor of all things,
and that gravitation is the effect of his power, since the force and efficacy of
attraction far exceeds the power of matter. For matter is confined within
its own boundaries and cannot operate at a distance; furthermore it is, of
its very nature, inert and passive; hence it cannot attract other things nor, of
itself, is it able to tend towards them."

Hugh Clark (1711) quoted verbatim Newton's suggestion that God may inter-
vene from time to time in the universe in order to counteract disordering
tendencies arising from the mutual attractions of the heavenly bodies upon one
another."
(Part 2 of this article begins on p. 145 of our October issue.)

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 131
REFERENCES

I. Edinburgh, from 1620 onwards, was entitled to nominate the senior regent as Professor of
Mathematics but this seems primarily to have been a device to augment his rather meagre
salary. Only two regents actually received the title before 1674: Andrew Young (1620-23)
and Thomas Craufurd (1640-62). Both combined this post with their more arduous duties
as regent so the amount of specifically mathematical teaching they did may not have been
very large.
2. A bibliographical note on the surviving theses is given at the end of this paper.
3. The communal disputations were abandoned at Edinburgh in 1708 and at the other Scottish
universities at about the same time or somewhat later. For further information see J. F.
Kellas Johnstone, The lost Aberdeen theses (Aberdeen, 1916).
4. Estne igitur temeritatis unicum duntaxat, praeter Elementarem Regionem & Caelum Empy-
raeum, Caelum constituere, & levissimo argumento ductum omnibus Philosophis ac Theologis
contradicere, & scientiarum fundamenta evertere (T. P. Astron. 2). (For the method of
referring to theses, see the bibliographical note in Part 2 of this article).
5. T.P. Phys. 5.
6. T.P. Astron. 7.
7. Nil aliud hie profiteri libet, aut licet, quam quod in arte medica Hippocrates, vitam brevem,
artem longam, observationes incertas, conjecturam variam, iudicium difficile esse: easque
animi humani angustias agnoscere, ut in plurimis naturae arcanis halucinetur, in multis
etiam plane caecutiat; adeo ut humanae sapientiae pars maxima sit, quaedam aequo animo
nesciri velIe (T.P. Phys. 14).
8. 1617: T.P.; 1621: Theses Quaedam....
9. 1621: Astron. 16, 17.
10. I hope to publish elsewhere an account of Young's observations.
II. Lunae a terra distantia maxima putatur esse diametrorum terrae 321/12 : minima vero, tantum 16t.
I. Distantia Lunae maxima ad ejusdem minimam dupla est. 2. Cum Luna non videatur
duplo major in Perigaeo quam in Auge, argumentum Copernici paralogismum est, quo
concludit duplo majorem videri magnitudinem, quae duplo propinquior est. 3. Distantiae
Ptolemaei possunt esse verae, dum interim diametri in utroque intervallo .plurimum non
videantur differre. 4. Ac proinde Optica dictabit aequales magnitudines ab oculo inaequaliter
distantes, habere minorem rationem angulorum sub qui bus cernuntur, quam distantiarum:
nam anguli sensibiliter non differentes, distantiam valde sensibilem habere possunt (T.P.
Astron. 10).
12. Scientia est cognitio rei per causam, propter quam res est, & quod nequeat se aliter habere
propter talem causam ... I. Cum itaque ex tam variis principiis, ac hypothesi bus Astronomi
varii, ut Copernicus, Pto!omaeus, & alii, Phaenomenon coelestium rationes reddant, sequitur
nos rerum Astronomicarum, praesertim quae ex secundo motu dependent nullam scientiam
habere (T. P. Astron. 8).
13. T. P. Astron, 4.
14. T. Craufurd, History ofthe University ofEdinburgh from 1580 to 1646 (written c. 1655, published
Edinburgh, 1808), 107-9. Appointments to the University were at that time in the hands of
the Town Council. According to the records of the Council, Reid had in fact been dismissed
before he tendered his resignation (Extracts from the Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh
1626-1641 (Edinburgh, 1936), 15, 30).
15. Forrester (1645) Phys. 6 & 7, Astron. 5; Wysman (1647) Phys. 6, Astron. 5; Craufurd (1646)
Phys, 14; (1650) Phys, 8. From 1641 till the end of the century most of the Edinburgh lists
(including all those mentioned above) were in the form of broadsheets with no definite title.
16. Adeoque [terra] necessario erit in medio [Mundi]: contra Copernicum veteris delirii
interpolatorem (T. P. Astron. 2).
17. Commentum Copernici accersat patrocinium serium, vertiginosi vel delirantis cerebri (HIS.
Astron. 3).
18. Astra probabiliter motus conficiunt spira!es in ftuido coelo: Teste validissimo Martis telo (HIS.
Astron. I).
19. He explicitly rejected the principle of eccentrics and epicycles in 1659: B/S. Astron. 2.
20. 1670: Progymnasmata Quaedam ..., 1674: Epicheiremata Quaedam ..• ,
21. B/S. 5.

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015
132 Journal for the History of Astronomy
22. The first Professor had been his uncle James Gregory who was appointed in 1674 but died shortly
afterwards in 1675. The Chair then remained vacant until David was elected eight years later.
23. Gravitatis autem Phaenomenon nobis optime explicuisse videretur Perrault, ni iis quae de
planetarum hujus vorticis ordine & motu observavit Keplerus & nuperrime demonstravit
Neutonus, minime conveniret ejus hypothesis; demonstravit autem Neutonus, ut observavit
Keplerus, tempora planetarum periodica invicem collata obtinere rationem distantiarum a sole
mediarum sesquiplicatam, h.e, quadrata temporum periodicarum esse in eadem ratione, cum
cubis distantiarum mediarum (D/S. 20).
24. 1690: D/S. 21, 22; 1694: D/S. I.
25. T.P. 8, 17, 18, 21ff.
26. T.P. 7-10, 14-19.
27. Ex mutua attractione supra exposita, unde tam coelestia quam terrestria pendent phoenomena,
necessario sequitur existere Ens potentissimum, Supremam omnium Causam, rerumque
habenas moderantem; ejusque potentiae & virtutis effectum esse hanc gravitationem; cum
attractionis vis & efficacia materiae vires longissime superet, Materia enim propriis circum-
scripta est limitibus, neque ad distantiam operari potest: praeterea sua natura est iners & mere
passiva; neque igitur res alias attrahere, neque ex se ad eas tendere valet (T.P. Corol. 1).
28. T.P. Annexa 4.. It is quoted from the Latin edition of 1706 (q. 23). In a somewhat modified form
this became q, 31 of the second English edition (London, 1717).

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on June 16, 2015