This magnetic assumption by which Gilbert sought to defend the theory of the universe propounded by Copernicus was a very vulnerable point in his astronomical armor which was promptly detected and fiercely assailed by a galaxy of continental writers; all of them churchmen, physicists and astronomers of note. They accepted Gilbert's electric and magnetic discoveries and warmed up to his experimental method; they did not discard his theory of terrestrial magnetism, but rejected and scoffed at the use which he made of it to justify the heliocentric theory. They poked fun at the English philosopher for his magnetic hypothesis of planetary rotation and revolution, and succeeded in discrediting the Copernican doctrine. Error prevailed for a time, but Newton's _Principia_, published in 1687, gave the Ptolemaic system the _coup de grâce_. Gilbert's hypothesis of the interaction of planetary magnetic fields gave way to universal gravitation, and Copernicanism was finally triumphant. Throughout the pages of Gilbert's treatise, he shows himself remarkably chary in bestowing praise, but surprisingly vigorous in denunciation. St. Thomas is an instance of the former, for it is said that he gets at the nature of the lodestone fairly well; and it is admitted that "with his godlike and perspicacious mind, he would have developed many a point had he been acquainted with magnetic experiments." Taisnier, the Belgian, is an example of the latter, whose plagiarism from Peregrinus wrings from our indignant author such withering words as "May the gods damn all such sham, pilfered, distorted works, which so muddle the minds of students!" Besides his treatise on the magnet, Gilbert is the author of an extensive work entitled, "De Mundo Nostro Sublunari," in which he defends the modern system of the universe propounded by Copernicus and gives his views on important cosmical problems. This work was published after the author's death, first at Stettin in 1628, and again at Amsterdam in 1651. Chancellor Bacon was well acquainted with this treatise of our philosopher; indeed he had in his collection the only two manuscript copies ever made, one in Latin and the other in English, a very singular and significant fact in view of the Chancellor's attitude toward Gilbert. Putting it crudely, one would like to know how he obtained possession of the manuscripts and what was his motive in keeping them hidden away from the philosophers of the day. "It is considered surprising," writes Prof. Silvanus P. Thompson, "that Bacon, who had the manuscripts in his possession and held them for years unpublished, should have written severe strictures upon their dead author and his methods, while at the very same time posing as the discoverer of the inductive method in science, a method which Gilberd (Gilbert) had practised for years before."[7]