"One forms a very imperfect idea of Galileo, from considering the discoveries and inventions, numerous and splendid as they are, of which he was the undisputed author. It is by following his reasonings, and by pursuing the train of his thoughts, in his own elegant, though somewhat diffuse exposition of them, that we become acquainted with the fertility of his genius—with the sagacity, penetration, and comprehensiveness of his mind. The service which he rendered to real knowledge is to be estimated, not only from the truths which he discovered, but from the errors which he detected—not merely from the sound principles which he established, but from the pernicious idols which he overthrew. The dialogues on the system are written with such singular felicity, that one reads them at the present day, when the truths contained in them are known and admitted, with all the delight of novelty, and feels one's self carried back to the period when the telescope was first directed to the heavens, and when the earth's motion, with all its train of consequences, was proved for the first time."[94] The first Dialogue is opened by an attack upon the arguments by which Aristotle pretended to determine _à priori_ the necessary motions belonging to different parts of the world, and on his favourite principle that particular motions belong naturally to particular substances. Salviati (representing Galileo) then objects to the Aristotelian distinctions between the corruptible elements and incorruptible skies, instancing among other things the solar spots and newly appearing stars, as arguments that the other heavenly bodies may probably be subjected to changes similar to those which are continually occurring on the earth, and that it is the great distance alone which prevents their being observed. After a long discussion on this point, Sagredo exclaims, "I see into the heart of Simplicio, and perceive that he is much moved by the force of these too conclusive arguments; but methinks I hear him say—'Oh, to whom must we betake ourselves to settle our disputes if Aristotle be removed from the chair? What other author have we to follow in our schools, our studies, and academies? What philosopher has written on all the parts of Natural Philosophy, and so methodically as not to have overlooked a single conclusion? Must we then desolate this fabric, by which so many travellers have been sheltered? Must we destroy this asylum, this Prytaneum wherein so many students have found a convenient resting-place, where without being exposed to the injuries of the weather, one may acquire an intimate knowledge of nature, merely by turning over a few leaves? Shall we level this bulwark, behind which we are safe from every hostile attack?' I pity him no less than I do one who at great expense of time and treasure, and with the labour of hundreds, has built up a very noble palace; and then, because of insecure foundations, sees it ready to fall—unable to bear