JHA v (1974), 145-154

COSMOLOGICAL TEAClllNG IN THE

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES, PART 2

JOHN L. RUSSELL, Heythrop College, London

(Continued from p, 130)

Aberdeen, Glasgow, St Andrews

It is impossible to trace the development of cosmological teaching in the other
Scottish universities in the same detail as for Edinburgh since fewer of the lists
have survived and they are particularly scarce for the period between 1640 and
1680, which marked the transition from Aristotelian to modern science. The
following data will illustrate this point. In each case, after the name of the uni-
versity (and college, for St Andrews) I give the earliest and latest years for which
theses are known; the number of known lists up to 1640; the years between 1641
and 1680 which have survived (last two digits only); and the number surviving
from 1681 onwards.

King's College, Aberdeen: 1622-1710; 13; '43, '60, '75, '80; 13.
Marischal College, Aberdeen: 1616-1732; 10; '43, '54, '56-'60, '69, '73; 20.
Glasgow: 1646-1708; none; '46, '59, '63, '71; 5. Also three individual lists
(l713-16).
St Andrews (St Leonard's): 1603-1703; 12; '48, '74-'76, '79; 3.
St Andrews (St Salvator's): 1603-1703; 11; '57, '68; 5.29

Both in Aberdeen and St Andrews the theses prior to 1650 were all thoroughly
Aristotelian in spirit. Cosmology, on the whole, did not figure prominently in
the lists during this period and one cannot be sure that no modern developments
were accepted, but the general tone of the theses makes it very unlikely that there
was any serious attempt at innovation. In particular, there is no indication of
any modernising movement contemporary with or influenced by the Edinburgh
movement of 1616-26.
Two regents, however, both at St Andrews, did shew some awareness of more
modern developments. John Ramsay (St Salvator's, 1629) pointed out that
various hypotheses, among them those of Ptolemy and Copernicus, could
account satisfactorily for the celestial phenomena. He concluded, as had James
Reid of Edinburgh in 1622, that we can have no true knowledge in astronomy."
George Wemyss (St Leonard's, 1635) referred to the nova of 1572 and suggested
that it was a genuine star "produced and subsequently abolished by divine power
in some extraordinary way"." He was clearly not prepared to abandon the
general principle of celestial immutability.
The only serious questioning of Aristotelian cosmology at this time was to be
found in Marischal College where, exceptionally, astronomical teaching was not
in the hands of the normal regents. In 1613 a prominent Scottish scholar,
Duncan Liddel, founded a Chair of Mathematics at this university, providing an
endowment for "ane learned professor of mathematickes weill versed in Euclide
145

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
146 Journal for the History of Astronomy

Ptolemye Copernik Archimede aliisque mathematicis gif possible he can be hade

within this countrie". At the same time he bequeathed to it a valuable collection
of scientific books which included works by Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and other
important astronomers.P Owing to financial difficultiesthe Chair was not filled
until 1626 when William Johnston became the first Professor of Mathematics at
the University. From this time it can be assumed that all the mathematical and
astronomical teaching was in his hands. Some cosmological questions were still
regarded, however, as falling within the scope of natural philosophy; these
include the nature of celestial bodies, the cause of their movement, their influence
on terrestial processes, and other such problems which depended more on
philosophical reasoning than on observation for their solution.
Johnston held the post from 1626 until his death in 1640. During his tenure,
astronomical theses were not included in the Marischal College disputations, so
we cannot obtain any information about his teaching from these. Fortunately,
however, an apparently complete copy of his dictated lectures for 1633-34 has
survived, written down by James Dounie, one of his pupils, and now preserved
in the Aberdeen University Library." This includes a treatise on planetary
theory" in which the theories of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Tycho were ex-
pounded, together with the semi-Copernican theory. The merits and difficulties
of each theory were carefully discussed. Johnston himself seemed to favour the
semi-Copernican theory on account of its astronomical simplicity, but his final
conclusion was completely agnostic: it is impossible to decide between the con-
flicting theories unless one were to receive a divine revelation on the subject.
Hence it seems preferable to choose the theory which corresponds most closely
to the evidence of our senses, namely the Ptolemaic. In so doing, we avoid the
inconvenience of having to maintain that although we see the heavens moving,
they do not really do so.
Johnston's agnosticism may have been partly assumed, out of deference to his
colleagues in the school of natural philosophy who would certainly have claimed
that it was their business to decide which of the conflicting theories was really
true. He himself admitted this claim. He compared the astronomer to a clock
maker. We do not require of the latter that his clocks should be driven by the
same causes as those which move the heavenly bodies, but only that its move-
ments should correspond with theirs. And the astronomer, similarly, can use
any theory he likes, so long as it accurately reproduces the celestial motions.
Johnston's hesitations, however, throw into relief a problem which troubled
many astronomers and philosophers at this time. For centuries it had been
accepted that the philosopher can prove certain basic principles of cosmology
with metaphysical certainty, e.g. the immobility of the Earth, the circularity
of planetary orbits and the immutability of celestial bodies. Now, however, it
seemed that at least four different theories were all consistent with the known
facts and there was no certain means of deciding between them. Cosmology had
to renounce its claim to be scientia (true knowledge) and become mere opinion.
For many people the process ofreadjustment was difficult and tended to generate
a sceptical attitude towards all theory. We have already seen that William King,
at Edinburgh, expressed similar doubts in his theses for 1624.
On one point Johnston was quite definite: we must abandon the solid plane-
tary spheres. He effectively deployed Tycho's arguments to shew that solid

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 147
spheres were incompatible with the observed paths of the planets and comets.
He concluded that the celestial bodies moved through a fluid aether and that the
fixed stars may be at widely differing distances from the Earth.
For the 1640sonly one set of theses has survived for each of the four universi-
ties. James Dalrymple at Glasgow (1646) decisively rejected the Copernican
system and maintained that there were eight solid spheres." The other three did
not raise the Copernican question but in all of them the cosmology was generally
Aristotelian.
The next decade is also poorly represented except for Marischal College where
five sets have survived. The most interesting of these are Andrew Cant's for
1654. These were the first since the ill-fated Edinburgh theses of 1626 to take
serious account of contemporary astronomical theories. Cant treated the Coper-
nican system with respect and did not regard the philosophical objections against
it as valid, although he did not accept it, presumably on theological grounds.
He definitely rejected the solid spheres, however, and followed Tycho in postulat-
ing that the heavenly bodies are corruptible and move through a fluid aether.
For these conclusions he appealed to novae and comets. He discussed sunspots
but regarded them as satellites circulating round the Sun rather than as modifica-
tions of its surface. He was aware that Galileo and others used the observed
paths of sunspots as arguments for the rotation of the Earth but rejected this
conclusion. He believed, or at least hoped, that the Ptolemaic apparatus of
epicycles and equants could be eliminated and that the path of each planet could
be described by a single eccentric circle. There were references to the work of
Galileo, Descartes, Kepler (but with no mention of ellipses) and many lesser
figures."
In his next set of theses (1658) Cant maintained a very similar position. His
rejection of Copernicus was rather more definite than in 1654 and he still based
his cosmology mainly on Tycho though he regarded his own theory of the
planetary orbits as a simplified form of Ptolemy's rather than as Tychonic. He
was also much influenced at this time by the writings of Athanasius Kircher to
which numerous references were made."
Robert Forbes (1656) was rather more conservative. He held that the heavens
are incorruptible; he left open the question whether they are solid or fluid and
rejected the Copernican system as contrary to Scripture, while admitting that it
was capable of accounting satisfactorily for the phenomena. He propounded
similar views in 1660but his opposition to the Copernican system had somewhat
hardened: it was omnino repudiandum. Apart from this, however, the theses are
significant for the number of questions on which the student could take either
side ad libitum; this undoubtedly reflects an increasing tendency to allow the
the students to think for themselves on questions which were not regarded as
being of critical importance, but the regent apparently still had to givepermission
before a question could be regarded as open."
George Meldrum's theses of 1659 were (probably) exceptional in that they
were chosen and formulated by the students themselves. In his introduction,
Meldrum assures us that they accurately represented his own views; this was
obviouslyregarded as essential. He disclaimed responsibility, however; for the
mathematical theses which were presumably approved by the Professor of
Mathematics. The theses themselves shewed no great originality: the heavens

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
148 Journal for the History of Astronomy
are incorruptible; Copernicus is rejected; the question of solid spheres is left
open but a fluid heaven is regarded as more probable."
Apart from Marischal College, only two sets of theses for the I 650s are known.
William Campbell (1657) at St Salvator's College was strongly anti-Copernican,
both on grounds of reason and of Scripture, though he conceded that an axial
rotation of the Earth was more defensible than an orbital motion. His cosmo-
logy, in general, was Tychonic.w Robert Areskine's Glasgow theses for 1659
contained little of cosmological interest although there are some indications that
he regarded the heavens as changeable."
The 1660s are also poorly represented at all universities except Edinburgh.
Robert Forbes (1660) at Marischal College has already been mentioned. At
King's' College Patrick Sandilands (1660) professed himself to be completely
agnostic about most of the traditional cosmological problems such as the in-
corruptibility of the heavens. The students could take which side they liked. He
departed from tradition to the extent of asserting that the Sun is made offire and
the Moon is inhabitable but he had no further references to modern cosmology."
One gets the impression that both Forbes and Sandi lands had come to recognise
the bankruptcy of the old natural philosophy but felt unable to put anything
constructive in its place.
A short and anonymous set of theses has survived from Glasgow (1663). It
rejected the old distinction between celestial and terrestrial bodies; apart from
this it contained no cosmology.P
There was a radical break with tradition at St Andrews in 1668, with Robert
Hamilton's theses at St Salvator's College. He completely rejected Aristotelian
and scholastic philosophy; based his theory of knowledge on Thomas Hobbes,
whose views on various other questions he also commended; and expressed warm
approval of the natural philosophy of Henry More, Robert Boyle, Robert
Moray, Thomas Willis and other contemporary British scientists. His cos-
mology was explicitly Cartesian: the Earth and the other planets move around a
stationary Sun in a system of vortices. He denied that this was contrary to
Scripture "which does not describe things according to their essential natures
but according to the way they appear to our senses". He thought the Moon and
planets were probably inhabited and discussed-not perhaps very seriously-
various possible ways of getting to the Moon, such as by solidifying the air
between the Earth and the Moon and then walking."
Hamilton's approval of Hobbes must have given extreme provocation to his
Scottish contemporaries who, without exception, regarded Hobbes as the villain
par excellence of philosophy and rarely missed an opportunity of attacking him.
It is on record that the University authorities discovered the content of the
theses shortly before the appointed time for the disputation and tried to make
him alter them but that he refused on the ground that it was now too late. It is
not known whether he was allowed to proceed with them or not. 45
The only other extant theses of the 1660s were those of Alexander Alexander
(Marischal College, 1669). These, like Hamilton's, broke completely with the
past, though in a much less provocative way. He strongly attacked Hobbes but
praised More and Boyle, both of whom he followed in many points. His cos-
mology was Cartesian and fully heliocentric. He claimed, however, that his
theory was neither Copernican nor Ptolemaic but intermediate. The Earth is

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 149
neither absolutely at rest nor is it, strictly speaking, in motion; it is at rest relative
to its vortex and hence is carried, motionless, around the Sun. No doubt
Alexander hoped to disarm theological criticism in this way, as did Descartes
before him. 46
The few examples of theses from the 1670s show the modernising process at
work to a greater or less extent at each university. William Blair's Glasgow
theses (1671) gave a very guarded approval to the Copernican system." Thomas
Gray (1673), at Marischal College, propounded a generally corpuscular theory
which, like that of Alexander in 1669, drew heavily upon the ideas of Descartes,
Boyle and Henry More. His rather brieflist, however, contained no cosmological
questions. At King's College, George Middleton's system (1675) was pre-
dominantly Cartesian. He accepted without qualification that the Earth is a
planet which rotates on its axis and is carried in a vortex round the Sun. At the
end, he appended a note in which he excused himself for not including a large
number of recent experiments and discoveries since he has confined himself to
topics which he has actually taught publicly to the students and which they are
able to defend." This implies that already at this time some regents were using
the opportunity to expound theories or recent scientific discoveries which had
not been taught in the ordinary course of studies.
It is at St Andrew's that the strongest evidence for a radical modernisation is
available. This is not surprising since James Gregory the elder was Professor of
Mathematics there from 1669until 1674,when he left to take up a similar post in
Edinburgh. He was one of the most competent astronomers of his day and was
apparently the first in any Scottish university to commit himself definitely to the
Copernican system.w
The only theses which have survived from the period of his professorship are
those of Williams Sanders (St Leonard's, 1674). These included a large number
of astronomical topics which must, almost certainly, have derived from Gregory
since they reveal a familiarity with contemporary astronomy and an accuracy of
exposition which are quite outstanding. Sanders accepted the heliocentric
system unequivocally and he was the first to include Kepler's laws of planetary
motion among his theses. The second law was enunciated in its (correct) area
form, in contrast to English astronomers who, from the 1650s onwards, had
almost invariably used some variant. Kepler's planetary harmonies were dis-
cussed in rather general terms with no precise formulation of the third law.
Among the more recent discoveries, Sanders quoted Cassini's determinations of
the periods of axial rotation of Jupiter and Mars, both published in 1666, and the
same author's data for the three known satellites of Saturn, published in 1673.
He gave a short and favourable exposition of Newton's theory of light fnd
colour, which had appeared two years previously in 1672. 50 In his general
philosophy, Sanders was whole-heartedly Cartesian, with an evident contempt
for the older scholastic methods of argument and exposition. Alexander
Cockburn (1675, '79) also at St Leonard's, accepted a Cartesian heliocentrism
but with the same qualification as Alexander (1669): the Earth is stationary with
respect to its vortex. 51
The scanty evidence of the 1670s suggests that a scientific, predominantly
Cartesian philosophy was well established at all the universities by 1680. The
only direct challenge to it, after this time, came from Robert Forbes (1680, '84)

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
150 Journal for the History of Astronomy
at King's College, who fought a vigorous rearguard action against the moderns.
While admitting that the Copernican system was scientifically possible, he re-
garded it as being absolutely against Scripture. He deplored the unbridled zeal
for novelty which had led so many to forsake the old methods of philosophy in
order to run after Descartes. Finally he tried to discredit the use of the telescope:

There are some [he remarks with evident approval] who consider the tele-
scope to be fallacious and untrustworthy in astronomy. For it makes large
bodies smaller and represents the small as larger. Those fixed stars which
are seen through the telescope although invisible to the naked eye, are not
really new stars but only the multiplied images of fixed stars; they are
merely illusions produced by the glass.62

Forbes could not stem the tide. All the other regents, with varying degrees of
enthusiasm, accepted the new mechanical philosophy. At Aberdeen, however,
there were still some reservations concerning the heliocentric system. William
Black (King's College) in 1690 agreed that it could be accepted as a hypothesis
"unless it should be contrary to Scripture". In 1705, however, he omitted this
qualification and regarded it as almost certain." At Marischal College Thomas
Burnet (1686) left the question of the Earth's annual motion open;" George
Peacock accepted it in 1689 and 1693 but in 1697 he also added the qualification:
"unless it should be repugnant to Holy Scripture". 65
Newton's cosmology was not taken up quite so quickly at Aberdeen as at
Edinburgh but it was fully accepted by William Smith (1704) at Marischal
College" and by James Urquhart (1710) at King's College.57 The delay was
partly due to pedagogical considerations. At King's College George Fraser
(1691) and Alexander Fraser (1693) both pointed out that Newton had shewn that
Descartes's vortex theory was untenable. George added, however, that since
Newton's theory was mathematically too difficult for beginners, his students
would, on this occasion, expound the vortex theory. Subsequently, both these
regents seem to have given up the attempt to teach Newton since in their later
lists (George: 1695, 1706; Alexander: 1697) vortices were still being affirmed and
Newton's disproof was no longer mentioned. 58 Alexander More at Marischal
College experienced a similar difficulty. In 1691, after expounding the Cartesian
theory with full approval, he remarked that Newton's hypothesis contradicted
Descartes's principles at certain.points. He left it to others to decide which was
right. In 1699 he was apparently still undecided. He propounded a mechanistic
and generally Cartesian physics which was definitelyheliocentric but avoided any
mention either of vortexes or of gravitation. The only reference to Newton was
in connexion with the spheroidal shape of the Earth.
St Andrews is poorly represented after 1680 but the few theses which remain
suggest a development very similar to that of Edinburgh. James Martin'" (1681)
and John Monr061 (1686) were heliocentric and strongly Cartesian; James
Gregory (1690), Alexander Scrymsour (1697) and John Craigie (1703) were
Newtonian. The most interesting theses were those of Gregory. These were
devoted almost entirely to the Newtonian system, to which they gave an en-
thusiastic welcome. Kepler's three laws, the law of gravitation, and the applica-
tion of these to planets, satellites and comets were discussed.w Scrymsour" and

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 151
Craigie'" referred more briefly to Newton's principles which they clearly accepted.
At Glasgow no theses have survived from the 1680s. John Boyd in 1693
rejected the Copernican system on the grounds that there were no good reasons
for preferring it to Ptolemy. He did, however, accept that the planets are made
of the same sort of matter as the Earth and that the Sun and stars are made of
"some sort of fiery matter". The Earth is in the lowest part of the universe.
Space is filled with a fluid.65
John Law (1698) had no use for scientific theories which have no obvious
practical applications: "speculative [mathematics] which have no usefulness in
human life, bring more loss than profit to their practitioners who, for the most
part, are uselessly occupied doing nothing". We cannot explain physical phe-
nomena such as magnetism, gravity or the tides. The only reason we can give is
that God has ordained that things should behave in this way. Law did not
mention Newton by name but it is clear that the Principia would have been
classed as useless speculation. Nevertheless he did hold that the Earth is a
planet. Like many other regents, he reconciled this with Scripture by pointing
out that the Earth is motionless with respect to its vortex."
Gershom Carmichael (1699) accepted the heliocentric theory but remarked
that the popular view that the Sun goes round the Earth is equally true-
meaning, presumably, that this is a correct description of the appearances. He
rejected the vortex theory and tentatively admitted the idea of gravitation at
least as a postulate, but denied that it is an intrinsic property of matter. It
merely denotes the "general and uniform will of God". Eight years later (1707)
Carmichael accepted Newton's system more definitely, including his theory of
light." John Lowdoun's theses in 1708 contained no cosmology.
Soon after this, group disputations were abandoned in Glasgow, in favour of
individual theses. Those of Joseph Sager (1713), Alexander Johnston (1713) and
John Sherman (1716) are extant." In all of these, the Newtonian system was
fully accepted and defended. We may conclude that this system was being
regularly taught at the University in the early eighteenth century.

Before we attempt any general assessment of the evidence, it is necessary to

emphasise once more that the picture which emerges is by no means complete.
Apart from Edinburgh, which is well represented throughout most of the period
under review, the gaps are many and occur predominantly in the most interesting
period (1660-80) when big changes were taking place. It must be remembered
also that although the theses were, until the later part of the seventeenth century,
drawn from all parts of the philosophical course, they did not attempt to cover
all the topics which had been taught. Hence it is sometimes impossible to know
precisely what views a regent may have had on a particular point even when his
theses have survived, though this can often be deduced from the generally
conservative or progressive tone of his teaching as a whole.
It is possible that an occasional regent may have taught 'modern' doctrines in
the privacy of his classroom which he did not wish to expose in public, but there
is no evidence of this. There are stronger reasons, however, for thinking that
some regents, toward the end of the century, were including more advanced
theses in their lists which had not been taught as part of the regular syllabus.
The theses evidently represent the image of their own activities which the regents

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
152 Journal for the History of Astronomy

wished to project for the benefit of the outside world. This may not always have
corresponded exactly with their actual teaching but there is no reason to suppose
that the differences were very substantial.
Subject to these qualifications a tentative summary of the available data can
now be attempted. Apart from Edinburgh between 1616 and 1626, the cosmo-
logical teaching at all universities followed traditional Aristotelian-Ptolemaic
lines with relatively minor deviations, until the 1640s, the practical details being
derived mainly from Sacrobosco. The solid spheres were generally abandoned
soon after 1650. The immutability of the celestial bodies, however, was still
being widely taught up to 1660 or beyond, in spite of the fact that Tycho's views
were evidently being studied and partly accepted during the 1650s. The semi-
Copernican theory was tentatively approved in the disastrous Edinburgh theses
of 1626. After that, there was no mention of Copernican ideas for another 20
years. In the 1650s and early 1660s it was increasingly discussed but always
rejected.
The real watershed separating old and new cosmology occurred about 1670
with the sudden appearance of mechanistic scientific philosophy, based on
Descartes and Boyle, at St Andrews (1668), Marichal College (1669) and Edin-
burgh (1670). By 1682 Cartesian cosmology was completely dominant at Edin-
burgh and almost equally so at the other universities. The first positive accept-
ance of the heliocentric theory was by Robert Hamilton at St Andrews (1668);
thereafter it made rapid progress against some opposition. By 1680it was almost
universally accepted, although some regents were still having reservations about
its compatibility with Scripture until about 1700, while others felt it necessary to
point out that according to the Cartesian theory the Earth can be regarded as
stationary with respect to its vortex.
Newton's cosmology was taken up with alacrity at both Edinburgh and St
Andrews very soon after the publication of Principia mathematica, and was
evidently being taught at all universities by about 1710. Besides its clear scien-
tific superiority it also had a strong theological appeal to those who were not
happy with Cartesian mechanism. This no doubt helped to allay any remaining
theological doubts concerning the heliocentric system.
The Scottish universities were undoubtedly slow to start assimilating the fruits
ofthe seventeenth century scientific revolution but when they did begin to do so,
about the year 1670, they carried the process through with exemplary speed and
thoroughness. By the beginning of the eighteenth century their scientific teach-
ing was thoroughly up to date and probably as good as was to be found any-
where in Europe.

Bibliographical Note
All the known thesis lists up to and including 1700, with two exceptions, have
been recorded in the revised edition of Aldis." The exceptions are:

(1) John Law, ... Theses Philosophicae ..., Glasgow, Robert Sanders, 1698.
(Broadsheet, copy in Glasgow University Library.)
(2) Gerschom Carmichael, Theses Philosophicae ..., Glasgow, Robert Sanders,
1699. 11 pp,4°. (Copy in National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh.)

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
 Cosmology in Scottish Universities 153
The theses recorded in Aldis may be readily identified by consulting the index
(and supplementary index) under the respective universities. Two sets, however,
which appear in the body of the work, have been omitted from the index. These
are: Robert Barron, Positiones et Disputationes (St Andrews, 1621; Aldis n.
567); and George Skene, Positiones aliquot Philosophicae (King's College,
1688; Aldis n. 2778).
The great majority of the thesis lists have titles beginning: Theses Philosophicae.
In referring to these I have shortened the title to T.P. followed by the section head-
ing if it is divided into sections, and the number of the thesis. Most of the lists
are in the form of quarto pamphlets but quite a large number are single broad-
sheets. Many of these latter have no definite title but start simply with a dedica-
tion. Where this is the case I refer to them simply as BjS. All Edinburgh and
Aberdeen theses were published at Edinburgh and Aberdeen respectively. St
Andrews theses were published at Edinburgh except for Robert Barron (1621)
published at St Andrews and William Sanders (1674) at Glasgow. Glasgow
theses were all published at Glasgow except for two sets of individual theses
published at Edinburgh in 1713.
Full bibliographical data on the Aberdeen theses are given by P. J. Anderson?"
and on the St Andrews theses by R. G. Cant." Unlike Aldis, these two surveys
include also the surviving eighteenth-century lists. The Edinburgh and Glasgow
theses have not, so far as I know, been examined and collated in the same detail.
Nearly all the surviving King's College theses are in the Aberdeen University
Library. Those for Marischal College are fairly evenly divided between Aber-
deen and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Edinburgh theses are mostly in the
Edinburgh University Library though the Bodleian also has a good collection of
the earlier theses up to 1632. Those of St Andrews are nearly all in Edinburgh,
either in the University Library or in the National Library of Scotland. Most of
the few extant Glasgow theses are in the Glasgow University Library. It is quite
possible that some of the many "lost" theses may still exist in private collections
or in Continental libraries. I would be grateful for information if any new ones
are discovered.
I would like to thank Mr C. P. Finlayson, Dr A. G. Molland and Dr P.
Swinbank for help in tracing the Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow theses
respectively; also the librarians of the respective University Libraries and of
the National Library of Scotland for supplying photocopies of material in their
possession.

REFERENCES

29. To complete the count, two individual sets of theses should be added, defended by Tobias
Mierbeck (St Andrews, 1600) and Samuel Decanus (King's College, 1643). These were both
foreign students who were permitted to follow the custom of their own countries in presenting
their theses.
30. Decermina Quaedam Philosophica, Astron. 2.1.
31. Theses Aliquot ..., Sphaer, 1.
32. W. P. D. Wightman, "Aberdeen University and the Royal Society", Notes and records of the
Royal Society, xi (1955), 145-8.
33. MS. M 181.
34. In Theoricas Planetarum Tractatus Universalis.
35. Theses Logicae ..., Math. 8, 11, 19.

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015
154 Journalfor the History of Astronomy
36. Theses et Problemata Philosophica, Phys, 7; Math. 14; Centuria Problematum 33.
37. T.P.27.
38. 1656: T.P. Phys, 10, 11; Math. 10. 1660: T.P. Phys. 26; Math. 21.
39. T.P. Phys. 31, 32, 35.
40. T.P. Phys. 12; Math. 10, 11.
41. T.P.4. These theses were reprinted by Lawson Whalley in The Edinburgh magazine and literary
miscellany, xv (1824), 188-90. No original copy has been located.
42. 8/S. Phys, 5, 6. The Copernican theory was not included among the open questions.
43. T.P. Phys. 13.
44. Schediasmata Libero-Philosophica, Phys. 5.
45. R. G. Cant, "The St Andrews University Theses 1579-1747", Edinburgh Bibliographical Society
transactions, ii (1938-45), 105-50,263-72, p. 112.
46. Philosophemata Libera, Math 2.
47. Systema Copernicanum utpote naturae, ordini & apparentiis satis congruum, contemnendum
non est (8/S. Math. 5).
48. T.P. 19, 23.
49. He did so in his Optica promota (London, 1663).
50. T.P. 20, 31-36 etc.
51. 1675: T.P. 33-35; 1679: T.P. 15.
52. Non desunt qui bus Teloscopium est fallax & non prorsus fidum in rebus Coelestibus. Corpora
namque magna facit minora, & parva repraesentat majora. Stellae quae videntur fixae per
tubum opticum, nudo oculo inconspicuae, stellae novae non sunt, sed tantum imagines
Fixarum multiplicatae, & nihil aliud quam lusus Chrystalli (T.P. 1684, 37).
53. 1690: Theoremata & Cogitata Philosophica, IV. 7. 1705: Cogitata Nonnulla Philosophica, 14.
54. T.P.l1.
55. 1689: T.P. 7; 1693: T.P. 4; 1697: T.P. 10.
56. T.P. 11.
57. Placita Nonnulla Philosophica, 8, 9.
58. George Fraser: Positiones Aliquot Philosophicae (1691),9. Alexander Fraser: Determinationes
Philosophicae (1693), 19. Their subsequent lists were all titled: Theses Philosophicae.
59. 1691: T.P. 18; 1699: T.P. 6-12.
60. Positiones Philosophicae, Phys. 6.
61. 8/S. I, 1 I.
62. 8/S. 3-23.
63. T.P. 19.
64. T.P. 16. Martin, Gregory and Scrymsour were at St Salvator's College, Craigie and Monro at
St Leonard's.
65. T.P. 17,20.
66. 8/S. 1, 12.
67. 1699: T.P. Corol. Phys. 1,4; 1707: T.P. Corol. Phys. 4-8.
68. All three were titled: Dissertatio Philosophica Inauguralis, The first two were published at
Edinburgh, the third at Glasgow.
69. H. G. Aldis, A list of books printed in Scotland before 1700 . . . Printed for the Edinburgh Biblio-
graphical Society MCMIV. Photographically reprinted with additions including books published
in 1700 (Edinburgh, 1970).
70. P. J. Anderson, "Collections towards a Bibliography of the Universities of Aberdeen", Publica-
tions of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, viii (1907).
71. See ref. 45 above.

Downloaded from jha.sagepub.com at MICHIGAN STATE UNIV LIBRARIES on June 11, 2015