But it may be said, if this theory is true, and if 229 to 230 is the just relation of the axis, why did the mathematicians, sent to Lapland and Peru, agree to the relation of 174 to 175? From whence does this difference arise between theory and practice? And is it not more reasonable to give the preference to practice and measures, especially when we have been taken by the most able mathematicians of Europe[109:A], and with all necessary apparatus to establish the result. To this I answer, that I have paid attention to the observations made at the equator and near the polar circle; that I have no doubt of their being exact, and that the earth may possibly be elevated an 175th part more at the equator than at the poles. But, at the same time, I maintain my theory, and I see clearly how the two conclusions may be reconciled. This difference is about four leagues in the two axes, so that the parts at the equator are raised two leagues more than they ought to be, according to my theory; this height answers exactly to the greatest inequalities on the surface of the globe, produced by the motion of the sea, and the action of the fluids. I will explain; it appears that when the earth was formed, it must necessarily have taken, by virtue of the mutual attraction of its parts, and the action of the centrifugal force, a spheroidical figure, the axes of which differ a 230th part: the original earth must have had this figure, which it took when it was fluid, or rather liquified by the fire; but after its formation the vapours which were extended and rarefied, as in the atmosphere and tail of a comet, became condensed, and fell on the surface in form of air and water: and when these waters became agitated by the flux and reflux, the matters were, by degrees, carried from the poles towards the equatorial parts; so that the poles were lowered about a league, and those of the equator raised in the same proportion; this was not suddenly done, but by degrees in succession of time; the earth being also exposed to the action of the winds, air, and sun; all these irregular causes concurred with the flux and reflux to furrow its surface, hollow it into valleys, and raise it into mountains; and producing other inequalities and irregularities, of which, nevertheless, the greatest thickness does not exceed one league at the equator; this inequality of two leagues, is, perhaps, the greatest which can be on the surface of the earth, for the highest mountains are scarce above one league in height, and there is much probability of the sea's not being more at its greatest depth. The theory is therefore true, and practice may be so likewise; the earth at first could not be raised above 6-1/2 leagues more at the equator than the poles, but the changes which have happened to its surface might afterwards raise it still more. Natural History wonderfully confirms this opinion, for we have proved in the preceding discourse that the