Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	use_v	young_a	youth_n	40	3	8.0775	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42823	A præfatory answer to Mr. Henry Stubbe, the doctor of Warwick wherein the malignity, hypocrisie, falshood of his temper, pretences, reports, and the impertinency of his arguings & quotations in his animadversions on Plus ultra are discovered / by Jos. Glanvill.	Glanvill, Joseph, 1636-1680.	1671 (1671)	Wing G821; ESTC R23393	87,889	234

History of Salt-Petre 'T is like he understands that Tree He experimented something more than ordinary of it at Oxford and perhaps if he had right done him he would have more experience of another Tree But I must not stay to remark here He gives out That he will make the Lord Bishop of CHESTER smart and writ to one as I am credibly told that he was making inquiries into his Lordships Learning parts and qualifications for a Bishop How fit is he to be a visitour of Bishops But to confine my self to what is printed He gives notice in the Preface of his Legends of several Books more that he hath coming in pursuance of the Projects of his former Particularly he threatens one against my LETTER concerning ARISTOTLE a Design suitable to the Grandeur of M. Stubbe's mind That short Discourse was first only a private Letter written when I was not 23 years of Age and printed six or seven years ago Let the mighty man in the glory of his conquests insult over an essay of a green youth and take six years time to write against two sheets of Paper which for ought he can tell the Author by this time disrellisheth himself But the truth is I do not know whether I have any reason to do so or not having not read it over since Whatever other faults there may be in the Composure I 'm sure there is no Lying as M. Stubbe chargeth it according to the usual way of his civility I reported no matter of Fact concerning Aristotle or his Philosophy but from some good and approved Author though perhaps I should find trouble now in the particular citations because I want the opportunity of those Books that I then used and I have lost the Notes that I took from them Whether it will be worth my Labour to answer what M. Stubbe shall write against that young exercise of my Pen. I cannot certainly foresee but I shrewdly guess Perhaps the sole consideration of my youth when I writ it will excuse more faulâ—s than M. Stubbe's wit and spight together can discover or as much as pretend to find there If he confutes that Letter with the like Ignorance and impertinence as he hath used in his Animadversions on Plus Ultra T will be answer enough to print it again The Lyes he pretends it guilty of will I may expect be disproved by some that are so indeed for his Authors must spâ—ak what he would have them say and he tells a gross one in the few words in which he mentions the design of confuting me when he saith that I have never as much as read over Diogenes Laertius which were impossible he should know though it were true I only take notice further concerning this that according to that little cunning which I mentioned before He would fain draw in the Royal Society to be concern'd in that Letter of mine That so his intended Triumph might be greater and the Virtuosi prejudiced by his pretended advantages against it The Letter forsooth is joined to the Edition of my Scâ—psis Scientifica which bears the Arms and is dedicated to the Royal Society Pref. to Leg. That Book was indeed Dedicated to the Society but I was not then a Member of it And are Patrons of Books responsible for their imperfections If so 't were very bad news for the modest Dr. Willis to whom the cleanly discourse of Chocolate is directed The Prefixing the Societies Arms to my Dedication was the Stationers conceit and the mention of it puts me in mind of a ridiculous offence that was once taken against another Book of mine The Printer had set a flourish at the beginning over the Dedication 'T was a Cut of Henry 8. lying by a Tree which some took for an emblem of Protestantism coming out of his Codpiece Just such Arguments M. Stubbe useth to prove that the Royal Society have a design to reduce us to Popery And I remember when the Theatre at Oxford was newly built he very sadly told me and made a deal of tragical talk about it That They had pictured God the Father in the midst of the Cieling in the shape of an old man when the figure he meant was but a Mythological picture what particularly I have forgot I wonder this was not insisted on to prove that the Society designs Popery no doubt it had been as good a one as any he hath produced But I am a little stept besides my design of presenting some Instances of his rare modesty and civility in his last Books I shall now do it briefly He calls the Royal Society Trojan Horse Pref. to Camp and an illiterate Company p. 21. The Members of it Great Impostors Pref. 10 C. Fopps Pref. to Leg. and poor Devils in his Letter to Sir N. N. viz. Sir Nicholas Nemo And p. 21. in his Postscript speaking of the overthrow of the Royal Society He expresseth himself thus which not only all Doctors but all good men oâ—ght to endeavour That the disasters of the late Dutch War the Plague and Fire of London were less inconveniences than their perpetuity That these calamities admitted some remedy hereafter but the evils they are likely to occasion us would never be corrected by any humane Providence and I doubted not whether God would support us by his Prudence when they had debauched the Nation from all piety and morality as well as civil wisdom This was he saith part of the purport of another Discourse of his about the errors and cheats of the Virtuosi I now begin to repent that I have troubled my self so much with this hot-headed Impertinent for I perceive that no one is so fit to answer him as the Keeper of Bedlam I begin to pity him and to wish that The Colledge of Physicians to requite him for that grandeur he saith he designs for them would prescribe somewhat for him For certainly there is much ground to think that the phansie of his supposed great exploits hath blown him up to a great distraction Let us hear how he swaggers on It is said that my Animadversions on M. Glanvill contain little of matter to which I answer That they contain enough to have made twenty Uirtuost famous and would hâ—ve acquired them a memorial of ingenious and noble experimentators They contain enough to shew the Ignorance of that person who had so insulted over all Vniversity-Learning and particularly over the Physicians They contain enough since they contain more then They All Knew and think I have done great service to the Learned in shewing that these Virtuosi are very great Impostors To the Reader in Camp Again in the Dedication of his Legends to the Vniversities thus I have stooped the Talbots their Supporters for them and if ever They hunt well hereafter this Age knows whom they are obliged to In a Letter to Dr. Merrett which is after inserted He rants thus If you will proceed with them you must be trampled on with Themâ— who are irrecoverably

May not I say that Columbus discover'd the new western World or that Fust or Gothenberg found out the Mystery of Printing or Flavius Goia the Compass except they had told me so themselves And if it be usual among the most unexceptionable Relaters to collect their Accounts from other Testifiers what can M. Stubb make of it if he could prove that I never saw most of the Authors I mention How much he himself is acquainted with the Books he quotes we shall anon find some things whereby to pass a Judgment Thus M. Stubb begins with a peremptory Assertion of a thing which is false in the Latitude of his Affirmation and which he could not possibly know whether in any more restrain'd sense it were true or not And his immediate next words contain another most gross and confident Falshood And all his Discourse about the Mathematicks and Mathematicians procured him no other Acknowledgments from a Learned and Reverend Prelate to whom he sent one of his Books than a Reprimand for intermedling with what he understood not ibid. I have heard from credible Persons that M. Ieanes the Polemick Writer who was well acquainted with M. Cross was wont to call any lusty by a name which for the sake of some worthy Persons I shall not mention on this occasion M. Stubb's Friend of ChuÃ¨ knows what I mean He may do well to advise him to take care of such broad unconscionable Falshoods though I confess a man of his Practices is the most improper Person in the World for such a Service The Period I last quoted from M. Stubb is a gross Vntruth I sent my Plus Vltra but to one Bishop besides that Reverend Father to whom it was dedicated and that learned and excellent Person was so far from sending me a Reprimand to use M. Stubb's word that he was pleased to write me a most obliging Letter of Thanks And my own venerable Diocesan accepted of that Book and the Direction of it to him with a great deal of Candour and Kindness and never signified the least Dislike to me of it So that I should have wondred much at this Clause and divers others of like kind If I had not heard a Character of M. Stubb at Oxford and did not know Him and his Familiarity with M. Cross but now I shall not be surprised though every Sentence were a Legend But 2. he offers something for proof of his first Saying viz. that I never saw the Authors I mention as it follows ib. p. 2. who ever heard of such men as Maximus Palanudes Achazen and Orentius And who ever heard of such things as Errata of the Press If I had a mind to play at this little Sport and would retort I might ask him who ever heard of such People as the Abbigenses spoken of in his Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 13. or of such a man as Iâ—lice mention'd p. 113. of this Book No doubt he 'l lay the fault at the Printers doors And why did he not see that the Names he quotes from me are like Errours Doth he not know there were such Persons as Maximus Planudes Alhazen and Orontius and there is not one of these that differs more then a Letter from the Names over which he so much insults The latter he charitably supposeth to be a Mistake because he thought he could make the man ridiculous and disable him from signifying to my purpose but of that by and by If he could have found that the other two had been pitiful Fellows also as he pretends this was then Palanudes should have been corrected by Planudes and Achazen by Alhazen And 't is very strange that M. Stubb could not see that Achazen was a Mistake of the Press when as Alhazen stands within five Lines of him in my Book whar a blind thing is Malice when it hath no mind to see Well There were such men as Planudes Orontius and Alhazen and Vossius saith enough of the least considerable of them to justifie my transient mention of their Names Anno 870. eluxit Maximus Planudes qui Diaphanti Arithmeticen Commentariis illustravit Voss. de Scient Mathem p. 311. And even of Orontius he speaks thus celebre Nomen fuit Orontii Finei Delphatis qui Arithmeticae practicae publicavit Libros quatuor p. 316. But M. Stubb saith of him in Scorn He was so famous a Geometrician that when Sir H. Savil as I remember was to seek of an Instance of a pitiful Fellow this was the man he fixed on ib. p. 2. Would not any one from these Words and their Relation to those that go before conclude that I had reckoned Orontius among the Improvers of Geometry To what purpose else doth the Animadverter speak of him as a contemptible Geometrician But if he will look again into my Book he will see that I mention not Orontius under that head but name him and only so among the Authors in Arithmetick And have not I as much reason to say That M. Stubb never reads the Books he writes against as He to affirm that I never saw the Authors I mention But M. Stubb could not give his Studies so much Diversion as to consider what he said Well I name Orontius among the Arithmetical Writers and 't is an evident Argument I never saw him because he is a pitiful Fellow at Geometry Is this Logick old or new 'T is a sort M. Stubb useth often but I believe he can shew us nothing more pitiful in Orontius But if Vossius may be believ'd Orontius did not need so much of M. Stubb's Pity even in Geometry He tells us Anno 1525. ac 30 proximis claruit Orontius Fineus qui de GeometriÃ¢ scripsit Libros duos item Demonstrationes in sex Libros priores Euclidis Ad haec de QuadraturÃ¢ Circuli inventÃ¢ demonstratÃ¢ de Circuli MensurÃ¢ ratione Circumferentiae ad Diametrum de multangularum omnium regularium Figurarum Descriptione aliÃ¡que de Sc. Math. p. 65. And that his Performances in these were not altogether so contemptible as the Anti-Virtuoso would insinuate we may see a Reason to think from the Place he held among the Mathematicians of his time according to the same Author Primus hic Matheseos regius in Galliis Professor fuit ibid. But let Orontius be what he will in Geometry M. Stubb is impertinent in what he saith about him and I am not concerned For the other Author Achazen in one Line but Alhazen within five Lines before Confidence it self hath not the face to deny that there was such a man or that he was a great Author in Opticks for which I mention his Name there where M. Stubb found Achazen to make a Wonder of You see Sir what an Adversary I have that will not suffer the misprinting of a Letter to escape him excellent Corrector of the Press What pity 't is that M. Cross had not found out these three Errata that he might have had something to say

granted that two pair ordinarily hinder the Sight though in M. Stubb's old Gentlewoman and young the Case is different and if I had allowed the Consequence this had been enough to have carried M. Cross's Cause against the two Glasses in Telescopes Thus I must be ignorant because I was not impertinent But doth M. Stubb think that every one is unacquainted with Opticks who doth not know that double Spectacles mend the Sight in some whose Eyes are weak or dis-affected Must all be Ignoramus's that have not met with the old Gentlewoman his Acquaintance and the young Gentlewoman that he knows with Cataracts in her Eyes who use two pair of Spectacles or must he needs be ignorant that meeting two false Propositions in a Syllogism contents himself to deny one and that the denial of which most evidently tends to the nulling the Argument and rendring it ridiculous I propose not these Questions to justifie my own Knowledge but to represent and shame M. Stubb's childish trifling and malicious Impertinence 12. As to the large Discourse that follows concerning Telescopes I shall treat fully on the Subject and answer the Animadverter's Cavills in the Book where I particularly examine his Authorities and in that all other things which are worth an Answer shall be consider'd For the present I take notice that this whole Discourse is an elaborate Impertinence for he proves not that Telescopes are no late Invention nor yet that they are not Helps for Knowledge He pretends indeed to shew that their Reports are sometimes uncertain but yet will not be understood totally to discredit the use of Telescopes in celestial Discoveries as he cautions p. 47. And so what he sâ—ys is impertinent to the main Business though it may seem to confute some passages of mine concerning those Glasses But let M. Stubb urge all he can for the fâ—lliciousness of Telescopes a Sceptick will produce as much to prove the Deceitfulness of our Eyes and I 'll undertake my self to offer such Arguments against the Certainty of Sense as M. Stubb with all his Sagacity shall not be able to answer But how comes M. Stubb to say in the Entrance of this Discourse p. 29. That he was sure M. Boyle is in the same errour with M. Cross Let us see upon what ground he built his Confidence in this first Instance by which he impugns Telescopes Why M. Boyle complains that when he went about to examine those appearances in the Sun call'd Maculae Faculae solares he could not make the least Discovery of them in many Months which yet other Observators pretend to see every day yet doth M. Boyle profess that he neither wanted the conveniency of excellent Telescopes nor omitted any circumstance requisite to the Enquiry Thus the Animadverter and hence he is sure that M. B. is in the same errour with M. C. That Telescopes are fallacious Let this be an Instance how this Swaggerer quotes Authors and let the Reader look into the place cited from M. Boyle If he do so he will see That that Honourable Person saith nothing there that tends to the proving the Deceitfulness of Telescopes much less that he believes them fallacious I have not the Latin Translation of those Essays but in the second Edition of the Original English I find the Discourse to which M. Stubb referrs p. 103. where the excellent Author imputes it not to the Glasses that he could not for several Months see the Maculâ— and Faculae solares but seems a little to blame those Astronomers who have so written of the Spots and more shining parts as to make their Readers to presume that at least some of them are almost always to be seen there which he conjectures was occasion'd by their so often meeting such Phaenomena in the Sun ib. But these for many months our Learned Author could not discover by his Telescopes not because of their Fallaciousness but for that during many months they appeared so much seldomer than it seems they did before These are the words of that Honourable Gentleman ubi sup And now how doth it appear hence that M. Boyle is in the same errour about the Deceitfulness of Telescopes with M. Cross Is it sure that he thought those Glasses fallacious because he could not see the Maculae and Faculae in the Sun when they were not there what are we to expect from this man in reference to the other Authors he cites when he so grosly and impudently mis-reports so known a one of our own who is yet alive and sees how maliciously the Caviller perverts him I shall examine his carriage to other Writers in my next Book and in that shew that most of the Arguments he brings to argue the Fallaciousness of Telescopes prove only the Diversity and Changes of the Mediums and of the celestial Phaenomena not the Deceit of those Glasses But I am concluded to be altogether unacquainted with Telescopes as well as ignorant of Opticks p. 46. because I say That They alter the Objects in nothing but their Proportions by which I meant that they make no Alterations in the Figures of Bodies but represent them as they are only in larger proportions And I am ignorant in Telescopes for saying so For 1. Some Telescopes invert all Objects and 2. the Dioptrick Tubes represent the Light and Colours more dilute and remiss 3. Some represent some Objects greater 4. Some no bigger or rather less 5. Some Objects are magnified but not so much as others These are Arguments of my Ignorance or M. Stubb's Impertinence For my Ignorance I have told M. Stubb that I am ready to confess a great deal more than he can prove me guilty of And whether he hath shewn it here as he pretends let the Reader judg If some Telescopes invert all things that 's nothing to his purpose for I spoke of the ordinary Tubes Nor is there any change of the Figure of Objects when they are inverted Though in the largest Tubes the Light and Colours are more remiss yet that makes no alteration of the Object and I said the Glasses alter'd the Objects in nothing but their Proportions Though some Objects in some Tubes are represented no bigger or rather less than they otherwise seem yet that 's nothing against what I say For Telescopes ordinarily magnifie 'T is their remarkable property and that for which they are used and though some Objects are not magnified as much as others yet they are confess'd to be magnified and that 's sufficient or though some are not 't were nothing as I just now observ'd I note these obvious things as my eye runs over my Adversaries Book They are enough to justifie what I said and to shew M. Stubb's Impertinence I shall discover it further when I come to consider these things more deeply I represent the easiest matters now that all Readers may see what a pitiful Caviller this man is that boasts such mighty matters and counts all men ignorants and Fools but himself

Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Text snippets containing the quad