and distances of the planets,* while the Ionian physicists directed their attention to the qualities of matter, its true or supposed metamorphoses, and to relations of origin. [footnote] *Compare Otfried Muller's 'Dorien', bd. i., s. 365. It was reserved for the powerful genius of Aristotle, alike profoundly speculative and practical to sound with equal success the depths of abstraction and the inexhaustible resources of vital activity pervading the material world. Several highly distinguished treatises on physical geography are prefaced by an introduction, whose purely astronomical sections are directed to the consideration of the earth in its planetary dependence, and as constituting a part of that great system which is animated by one central body, the sun. This course is diametrically opposed to the one which I propose following. In order adequately to estimate the dignity of the Cosmos, it is requisite that the sidereal portion, termed by Kant the 'natural history of the heavens', should not be made subordinate to the terrestrial. In the science of the Cosmos, according to the expression of Aristarchus of Samos, the pioneer of the Copernican system, the sun, with its satellites, was nothing more than one of the innumerable stars by which space is occupied. The physical history of the world must, therefore, begin with the description of the heavenly bodies, p 66 and with a geographical sketch of the universe, or, I would rather say, a true 'map of th world', such as was traced by the bold hand of the elder Herschel. If, notwithstanding the smallness of our planet, the most considerable space and the most attentive consideration be here afforded to that which exclusively concerns it, this arises solely from the disproportion in the extent of our knowledge of that which is accessible and of that which is closed to our observation. This subordination of the celestial to the terrestrial portion is met with in the great work of Bernard Varenius,* which appeared in the middle of the seventeenth century.