Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 31.djvu/484

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
468
THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.

Fromundus, at the University of Louvain, the oracle of his age, who had demonstrated the futility of the Copernican theory, now tends toward the inevitable attempt at compromise, and declares that devils, though often, are not always, or even "for the most part," the causes of thunder.[1] And the learned Jesuit, Caspar Schott, whose "Physica Curiosa" was one of the most popular books of the seventeenth century, ventures only the same mild statement.[2] But even such a concession by so great champions of orthodoxy did not prevent frantic efforts in various quarters to bring the world back under the old dogma, and, as late as 1743, we find a manual by Father Vincent of Berg,[3] in which the superstition is taught to its fullest extent, issued for the use of priests, under the express sanction of the theological professors of the University of Cologne.

It was hardly out of press, when there came a death-blow to the whole theory. In 1752 Franklin made his experiments with the kite on the banks of the Schuylkill; and, at the moment when he drew the electric spark from the cloud, the whole tremendous fabric of theological meteorology reared by the Fathers, the Popes, the mediæval Doctors, and the long line of great theologians, Catholic and Protestant, collapsed; the "Prince of the power of the air" tumbled from his seat; the great doctrine which had so long afflicted the earth was prostrated forever.

The experiment of Franklin was repeated in various parts of Europe, but, at first, the Church seemed careful to take no notice of it. The old church formulas against the powers of the air were still used, but the theological theory, especially in the Protestant Church, began to grow milder. Four years after Franklin's discovery Pastor Karl Koken, member of the Consistory and official preacher to the City Council of Hildesheim, was moved by a great hailstorm to preach and publish a sermon on "The Revelation of God in Weather."[4] Of "the prince of the power of the air" he says nothing—the whole theory of diabolical agency is thrown overboard altogether; his whole attempt is to save the older and more harmless theory, that the storm is the voice of God. He insists that, since Christ told Nicodemus that men "know not whence the wind cometh," it can not be of mere natural origin, but is sent directly by God himself, as David intimates in the Psalm, "out of His secret places." As to the hailstorm, he lays great stress upon the plague of hail sent by the Almighty upon Egypt, and

  1. See Fromundus's "Meteorologica" (London, 1656) lib. iii, c. 9, and lib. ii, c. 3.
  2. See Schott's "Physica Curiosa" (edition of Wiirzburg, 1667), p. 1249.
  3. His "Enchiridium quadripartitum" (Cologne, 1743). Besides benedictions and exorcisms for all emergencies, it contains full directions for the manufacture of the Agnus Dei, and of another sacred panacea called "Heiligthum," not less effective against evil powers, gives formulæ to be worn for protection against the devil, suggests a list of signs by which diabolical possession may be infallibly recognized, and prescribes the questions to be asked by priests in the examination of witches.
  4. "Die Offenbarung Gottes in Wetter" (Hildesheim, 1756).