BUNGUS ON THE MYSTERY OF NUMBER.

Petri Bungi Bergomatis Numerorum mysteria. Bergomi [Bergamo], 1591, 4to. Second Edition.

The first edition is said to be of 1585;[62] the third, Paris, 1618. Bungus is not for my purpose on his own score, but those who gave the numbers their mysterious characters: he is but a collector. He quotes or uses 402 authors, as we are informed by his list; this just beats Warburton,[63]

whom some eulogist or satirist, I forget which, holds up as having used 400 authors in some one work. Bungus goes through 1, 2, 3, etc., and gives the account of everything remarkable in which each number occurs; his accounts not being always mysterious. The numbers which have nothing to say for themselves are omitted: thus there is a gap between 50 and 60. In treating 666, Bungus, a good Catholic, could not compliment the Pope with it, but he fixes it on Martin Luther with a little forcing. If from A to I represent 1-10, from K to S 10-90, and from T to Z 100-500, we see:

M A R T I N L U T E R A 30 1 80 100 9 40 20 200 100 5 80 1

which gives 666. Again, in Hebrew, _Lulter_ does the same:

[Hebrew: R T L W L]

200 400 30 6 30

And thus two can play at any game. The second is better than the first: to Latinize the surname and not the Christian {56} name is very unscholarlike.

The last number mentioned is a thousand millions; all greater numbers are dismissed in half a page. Then follows an accurate distinction between _number_ and _mult.i.tude_--a thing much wanted both in arithmetic and logic.

WHICH LEADS TO A STORY ABOUT THE ROYAL SOCIETY.

What may be the use of such a book as this? The last occasion on which it was used was the following. Fifteen or sixteen years ago the Royal Society determined to restrict the number of yearly admissions to fifteen men of science, and n.o.blemen _ad libitum_; the men of science being selected and recommended by the Council, with a power, since practically surrendered, to the Society to elect more. This plan appears to me to be directly against the spirit of their charter, the true intent of which is, that all who are fit should be allowed to promote natural knowledge in a.s.sociation, from and after the time at which they are both fit and willing. It is also working more absurdly from year to year; the tariff of fifteen per annum will soon amount to the practical exclusion of many who would be very useful. This begins to be felt already, I suspect. But, as appears above, the body of the Society has the remedy in its own hands. When the alteration was discussed by the Council, my friend the late Mr. Galloway,[64] then one of the body, opposed it strongly, and inquired particularly into the reason why _fifteen_, of all numbers, was the one to be selected. Was it because fifteen is seven and eight, typifying the Old Testament Sabbath, and the New Testament day of the resurrection following? Was it because Paul strove fifteen days against Peter, proving that he was a doctor both of the Old and New Testament? Was it because the prophet Hosea bought a lady {57} for fifteen pieces of silver? Was it because, according to Micah, seven shepherds and eight chiefs should waste the a.s.syrians? Was it because Ecclesiastes commands equal reverence to be given to both Testaments--such was the interpretation--in the words "Give a portion to seven, and also to eight"? Was it because the waters of the Deluge rose fifteen cubits above the mountains?--or because they lasted fifteen decades of days? Was it because Ezekiel's temple had fifteen steps? Was it because Jacob's ladder has been supposed to have had fifteen steps? Was it because fifteen years were added to the life of Hezekiah? Was it because the feast of unleavened bread was on the fifteenth day of the month? Was it because the scene of the Ascension was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem? Was it because the stone-masons and porters employed in Solomon's temple amounted to fifteen myriads? etc. The Council were amused and astounded by the volley of fifteens which was fired at them; they knowing nothing about Bungus, of which Mr. Galloway--who did not, as the French say, indicate his sources--possessed the copy now before me. In giving this anecdote I give a specimen of the book, which is exceedingly rare. Should another edition ever appear, which is not very probable, he would be but a bungling Bungus who should forget the _fifteen_ of the Royal Society.

AND ALSO TO A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE.

[I make a remark on the different colors which the same person gives to one story, according to the bias under which he tells it. My friend Galloway told me how he had quizzed the Council of the Royal Society, to my great amus.e.m.e.nt. Whenever I am struck by the words of any one, I carry away a vivid recollection of position, gestures, tones, etc. I do not know whether this be common or uncommon. I never recall this joke without seeing before me my friend, leaning against his bookcase, with Bungus open in his hand, and a certain half-depreciatory tone which he often used {58} when speaking of himself. Long after his death, an F.R.S. who was present at the discussion, told me the story. I did not say I had heard it, but I watched him, with Galloway at the bookcase before me. I wanted to see whether the two would agree as to the fact of an enormous budget of fifteens having been fired at the Council, and they did agree perfectly. But when the paragraph of the Budget appeared in the _Athenaeum_, my friend, who seemed rather to object to the _showing-up_, a.s.sured me that the thing was grossly exaggerated; there was indeed a fifteen or two, but nothing like the number I had given. I had, however, taken sharp note of the previous narration.

AND TO ANOTHER QUESTION OF EVIDENCE.

I will give another instance. An Indian officer gave me an account of an elephant, as follows. A detachment was on the march, and one of the gun-carriages got a wheel off the track, so that it was also off the ground, and hanging over a precipice. If the bullocks had moved a step, carriages, bullocks, and all must have been precipitated. No one knew what could be done until some one proposed to bring up an elephant, and let him manage it his own way. The elephant took a moment's survey of the fix, put his trunk under the axle of the free wheel, and waited. The surrounders, who saw what he meant, moved the bullocks gently forward, the elephant followed, supporting the axle, until there was ground under the wheel, when he let it quietly down. From all I had heard of the elephant, this was not too much to believe. But when, years afterwards, I reminded my friend of his story, he a.s.sured me that I had misunderstood him, that the elephant was _directed_ to put his trunk under the wheel, and saw in a moment why.

This is reasonable sagacity, and very likely the correct account; but I am quite sure that, in the fit of elephant-worship under which the story was first told, it was told as I have first stated it.] {59}

GIORDANO BRUNO AND HIS PARADOXES.

[Jordani Bruni Nolani de Monade, Numero et Figura ... item de Innumerabilibus, Immenso, et Infigurabili ... Frankfort, 1591, 8vo.[65]

I cannot imagine how I came to omit a writer whom I have known so many years, unless the following story will explain it. The officer reproved the boatswain for perpetual swearing; the boatswain answered that he heard the officers swear. "Only in an emergency," said the officer. "That's just it,"

replied the other; "a boatswain's life is a life of 'mergency." Giordano Bruno was all paradox; and my mind was not alive to his paradoxes, just as my ears might have become dead to the boatswain's oaths. He was, as has been said, a vorticist before Descartes,[66] an optimist before Leibnitz, a Copernican before Galileo. It would be easy to collect a hundred strange opinions of his. He was born about 1550, and was roasted alive at Rome, February 17, 1600, for the maintenance and defence of the holy Church, and the rights and liberties of the same. These last words are from the writ of our own good James I, under which Leggatt[67] was roasted at Smithfield, in March 1612; and if I had a copy of the instrument under which Wightman[68]

was roasted at Lichfield, a month afterwards, I daresay I should {60} find something quite as edifying. I extract an account which I gave of Bruno in the _Comp. Alm._ for 1855:

"He was first a Dominican priest, then a Calvinist; and was roasted alive at Rome, in 1600, for as many heresies of opinion, religious and philosophical, as ever lit one fire. Some defenders of the papal cause have at least worded their accusations so to be understood as imputing to him villainous actions. But it is positively certain that his death was due to opinions alone, and that retractation, even after sentence, would have saved him. There exists a remarkable letter, written from Rome on the very day of the murder, by Scioppius[69] (the celebrated scholar, a waspish convert from Lutheranism, known by his hatred to Protestants and Jesuits) to Rittershusius,[70] a well-known Lutheran writer on civil and canon law, whose works are in the index of prohibited books. This letter has been reprinted by Libri (vol. iv. p. 407). The writer informs his friend (whom he wished to convince that even a Lutheran would have burnt Bruno) that all Rome would tell him that Bruno died for Lutheranism; but this is because the Italians do not know the difference between one heresy and another, in which simplicity (says the writer) may G.o.d preserve them. That is to say, they knew the difference between a live heretic and a roasted one by actual inspection, but had no idea of the difference between a Lutheran and a Calvinist. The countrymen of Boccaccio would have smiled at the idea which the German scholar entertained of them. They said Bruno was burnt for Lutheranism, a name under which they cla.s.sed all Protestants: and they are better witnesses than Schopp, or Scioppius. He then proceeds to describe to his Protestant friend (to whom he would certainly not have omitted any act which both their churches would have condemned) the ma.s.s of opinions with which Bruno was charged; as that there {61} are innumerable worlds, that souls migrate, that Moses was a magician, that the Scriptures are a dream, that only the Hebrews descended from Adam and Eve, that the devils would be saved, that Christ was a magician and deservedly put to death, etc. In fact, says he, Bruno has advanced all that was ever brought forward by all heathen philosophers, and by all heretics, ancient and modern. A time for retractation was given, both before sentence and after, which should be noted, as well for the wretched palliation which it may afford, as for the additional proof it gives that opinions, and opinions only, brought him to the stake. In this medley of charges the Scriptures are a dream, while Adam, Eve, devils, and salvation are truths, and the Saviour a deceiver. We have examined no work of Bruno except the _De Monade_, etc., mentioned in the text. A strong though strange _theism_ runs through the whole, and Moses, Christ, the Fathers, etc., are cited in a manner which excites no remark either way. Among the versions of the cause of Bruno's death is _atheism_: but this word was very often used to denote rejection of revelation, not merely in the common course of dispute, but by such writers, for instance, as Brucker[71] and Morhof.[72] Thus Morhof says of the _De Monade, etc._, that it exhibits no manifest signs of atheism. What he means by the word is clear enough, when he thus speaks of a work which acknowledges G.o.d in hundreds of places, and rejects opinions as blasphemous in several. The work of Bruno in which his astronomical opinions are contained is _De Monade, etc._ (Frankfort, 1591, 8vo). He is the most thorough-going Copernican possible, and throws out almost every opinion, true or false, which has ever been discussed by astronomers, from the theory of innumerable inhabited worlds and systems to that {62} of the planetary nature of comets. Libri (vol. iv)[73] has reprinted the most striking part of his expressions of Copernican opinion."

THIS LEADS TO THE CHURCH QUESTION.

The Satanic doctrine that a church may employ force in aid of its dogma is supposed to be obsolete in England, except as an individual paradox; but this is difficult to settle. Opinions are much divided as to what the Roman Church would do in England, if she could: any one who doubts that she claims the right does not deserve an answer. When the hopes of the Tractarian section of the High Church were in bloom, before the most conspicuous intellects among them had _transgressed_ their ministry, that they might go to their own place, I had the curiosity to see how far it could be ascertained whether they held the only doctrine which makes me the personal enemy of a sect. I found in one of their tracts the a.s.sumption of a right to persecute, modified by an a.s.serted conviction that force was not efficient. I cannot now say that this tract was one of the celebrated ninety; and on looking at the collection I find it so poorly furnished with contents, etc., that nothing but searching through three thick volumes would decide. In these volumes I find, augmenting as we go on, declarations about the character and power of "the Church" which have a suspicious appearance. The suspicion is increased by that curious piece of sophistry, No. 87, on religious reserve. The queer paradoxes of that tract leave us in doubt as to everything but this, that the church(man) is not bound to give his whole counsel in all things, and not bound to say what the things are in which he does not give it. It is likely enough that some of the "rights and liberties" are but scantily described. There is now no fear; but the time was when, if not fear, there might be a looking for of fear to come; n.o.body could then be so {63} sure as we now are that the lion was only asleep. There was every appearance of a harder fight at hand than was really found needful.

Among other exquisite quirks of interpretation in the No. 87 above mentioned is the following. G.o.d himself employs reserve; he is said to be decked with light as with a garment (the old or prayer-book version of Psalm civ. 2). To an ordinary apprehension this would be a strong image of display, manifestation, revelation; but there is something more. "Does not a garment veil in some measure that which it clothes? Is not that very light concealment?"

This No. 87, admitted into a series, fixes upon the managers of the series, who permitted its introduction, a strong presumption of that underhand intent with which they were charged. At the same time it is honorable to our liberty that this series could be published: though its promoters were greatly shocked when the Essayists and Bishop Colenso[74] took a swing on the other side. When No. 90 was under discussion, Dr. Maitland,[75] the librarian at Lambeth, asked Archbishop Howley[76] a question about No. 89.

"I did not so much as know there _was_ a No. 89," was the answer. I am almost sure I have seen this in print, and quite sure that Dr. Maitland told it to me. It is creditable that there was so much freedom; but No. 90 was _too bad_, and was stopped.

The Tractarian mania has now (October 1866) settled down into a chronic vestment disease, complicated with fits of transubstantiation, which has taken the name of {64} _Ritualism_. The common sense of our national character will not put up with a continuance of this grotesque folly; millinery in all its branches will at last be advertised only over the proper shops. I am told that the Ritualists give short and practical sermons; if so, they may do good in the end. The English Establishment has always contained those who want an excitement; the New Testament, in its plain meaning, can do little for them. Since the Revolution, Jacobitism, Wesleyanism, Evangelicism, Puseyism,[77] and Ritualism, have come on in turn, and have furnished hot water for those who could not wash without it.

If the Ritualists should succeed in subst.i.tuting short and practical teaching for the high-spiced lectures of the doctrinalists, they will be remembered with praise. John the Baptist would perhaps not have brought all Jerusalem out into the wilderness by his plain and good sermons: it was the camel's hair and the locusts which got him a congregation, and which, perhaps, added force to his precepts. When at school I heard a dialogue, between an usher and the man who cleaned the shoes, about Mr. ----, a minister, a very corporate body with due area of waistcoat. "He is a man of great erudition," said the first. "Ah, yes sir," said Joe; "any one can see that who looks at that silk waistcoat."]

OF THOMAS GEPHYRANDER SALICETUS.

[When I said at the outset that I had only taken books from my own store, I should have added that I did not make any search for information given as _part_ of a work. Had I looked _through_ all my books, I might have made some curious additions. For instance, in Schott's _Magia Naturalis_[78]

{65} (vol. iii. pp. 756-778) is an account of the quadrature of Gephyra_u_der, as he is misprinted in Montucla. He was Thomas Gephyrander Salicetus; and he published two editions, in 1608 and 1609.[79] I never even heard of a copy of either. His work is of the extreme of absurdity: he makes a distinction between geometrical and arithmetical fractions, and evolves theorems from it. More curious than his quadrature is his name; what are we to make of it? If a German, he is probably a German form of _Bridgeman_. and Salicetus refers him to _Weiden_. But _Thomas_ was hardly a German Christian name of his time; of 526 German philosophers, physicians, lawyers, and theologians who were biographed by Melchior Adam,[80] only two are of this name. Of these one is Thomas Erastus,[81]

the physician whose theological writings against the Church as a separate power have given the name of Erastians to those who follow his doctrine, whether they have heard of him or not. Erastus is little known; accordingly, some have supposed that he must be Erastus, the friend of St.

Paul and Timothy (Acts xix. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 20; Rom. xvi. 23), but what this gentleman did to earn the character is not hinted at. Few words would have done: Gaius (Rom. xvi. 23) has an immortality which many more noted men have missed, given by John Bunyan, out of seven words of St. Paul. I was once told that the Erastians got their name from _Blastus_, and I could not solve _bl = er_: at last I remembered that Blastus was a _chamberlain_[82]

as well as Erastus; hence the a.s.sociation which {66} caused the mistake.

The real heresiarch was a physician who died in 1583; his heresy was promulgated in a work, published immediately after his death by his widow, _De Excommunicatione Ecclesiastica_. He denied the power of excommunication on the principle above stated; and was answered by Besa.[83] The work was translated by Dr. R. Lee[84] (Edinb. 1844, 8vo). The other is Thomas Grynaeus,[85] a theologian, nephew of Simon, who first printed Euclid in Greek; of him Adam says that of works he published none, of learned sons four. If Gephyrander were a Frenchman, his name is not so easily guessed at; but he must have been of La Saussaye. The account given by Schott is taken from a certain Father Philip Colbinus, who wrote against him.

In some ma.n.u.scripts lately given to the Royal Society, David Gregory,[86]

who seems to have seen Gephyrander's work, calls him Salicetus _Westphalus_, which is probably on the t.i.tle-page. But the only Weiden I can find is in Bavaria. Murhard has both editions in his Catalogue, but had plainly never seen the books: he gives the author as Thomas Gep. Hyandrus, Salicettus Westphalus. Murhard is a very old referee of mine; but who the _non nominandus_ was to see Montucla's _Gephyrander_ in Murhard's _Gep.

Hyandrus_, both writers being usually accurate?]

NAPIER ON REVELATIONS.

A plain discoverie of the whole Revelation of St. John ... whereunto are annexed certain oracles of Sibylla.... Set Foorth by John Napeir L.

of Marchiston. London, 1611, 4to.[87]

{67}

The first edition was Edinburgh, 1593,[88] 4to. Napier[89] always believed that his great mission was to upset the Pope, and that logarithms, and such things, were merely episodes and relaxations. It is a pity that so many books have been written about this matter, while Napier, as good as any, is forgotten and unread. He is one of the first who gave us the six thousand years. "There is a sentence of the house of Elias reserved in all ages, bearing these words: The world shall stand six thousand years, and then it shall be consumed by fire: two thousand yeares voide or without lawe, two thousand yeares under the law, and two thousand yeares shall be the daies of the Messias...."

I give Napier's parting salute: it is a killing dilemma:

"In summar conclusion, if thou o _Rome_ aledges thyselfe reformed, and to beleeue true Christianisme, then beleeue Saint _John_ the Disciple, whome Christ loued, publikely here in this Reuelation proclaiming thy wracke, but if thou remain Ethnick in thy priuate thoghts, beleeuing[90] the old Oracles of the _Sibyls_ reuerently keeped somtime in thy _Capitol_: then doth here this _Sibyll_ proclame also thy wracke. Repent therefore alwayes, in this thy latter breath, as thou louest thine Eternall salvation.

_Amen_."

--Strange that Napier should not have seen that this appeal could not succeed, unless the prophecies of the Apocalypse were no true prophecies at all.

{68}