Chapter 3

Unto these _Ptolome_[1] also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree, when he affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than any of the other Planets, by reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaled unto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so farre from this imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they stood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they could not subsist.

[Sidenote 1: _I{o} Apost._]

But _Aristotle_ and his followers were so farre from this,[1] that they thought those glorious bodies could not containe within them any such principles, as might make them lyable to the least change or corruption, and their chiefe reason was, because we could not in so long a space discerne any alteration amongst them; but unto this I answer.

[Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 1. cap. 3._]

1. Supposing we could not, yet would it not hence follow[1] that there were none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, hee sayes 'tis very imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vaste distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not either bigge enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe bee deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars.

[Sidenote 1: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 3._]

2. Though we could not by our senses see such alterations, yet our reason might perhaps sufficiently convince us of them. Nor can we well conceive how the Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet not produce some alteration of heate. _Diogenes_ the Philosopher was hence perswaded that those scorching heates had burnt the Moone into the forme of a Pumice-stone.

3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there; witnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. So that though _Aristotles_ consequence were sufficient, when hee proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes being observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent, that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so many alterations observed there; but of these together with a farther confirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speake afterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that worke of _Scheiner_ a late Jesuit which hee titles his _Rosa Vrsina_,[1] where hee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavens largely handled and sufficiently confirmed.

[Sidenote 1: _lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35._]

There are some other things, on which I might here take an occasion to enlarge my selfe, but because they are directly handled by many others, and doe not immediately belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shall therefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofe of them my selfe, as defining all possible brevity.

1. The first is this: That there are no solid Orbes. If there be a habitable World in the Moone (which I now affirme) it must follow, that her Orbe is not solid, as _Aristotle_ supposed; and if not her, why any of the other? I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint _Ambrose_, and Saint _Basil_[1] did endeavour to prove this out of that place in _Isay_,[2] where they are compared to smoake, as they are both quoted by _Rhodiginus_, _Eusebius_, _Nierembergius_[3] doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the same interpretation the authority of _Eustachius_ of _Antioch_; and Saint _Austin_,[4] I am sure seemes to assent unto this opinion, though he does often in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of other Fathers to this purpose you may see in _Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14._ but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you to the above named _Scheiner_ in his _Rosa Ursina_,[5] in whom you may see both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set downe for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which hee adjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of _Fredericus Caesius Lynceus_ a Noble Prince written to _Bellarmine_, containing divers reasons to the same purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by _Johannes Pena_ in his preface to _Euclids Opticks_, and _Christoph. Rothmannus_, both who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble _Tycho_[6] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds,

_Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quae coelum pluribus realibus atque imperviis orbibus citra rem replevit._

"That this opinion comes neerer to the truth than that common one of _Aristotle_ which hath to no purpose filled the heavens with such reall and impervious Orbes."

[Sidenote 1: _Isa. 51. 6._]

[Sidenote 2: _Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4._]

[Sidenote 3: _Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13._]

[Sidenote 4: _In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit._]

[Sidenote 5: _lib. 4. p. 11, 2. c. 7. 26, 30._]

[Sidenote 6: _De stella. 15. 72. l. 6. c. 9._]

2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will follow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually placed in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing at all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs, that by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see _Cardan_, _Iohannes Pena_ that learned _Frenchman_, the noble _Tycho_, with divers others who have purposely handled this proposition.

3. I might adde a third, _viz._ that there is no Musicke of the spheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such sound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because _Plutarch_ speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare that harmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary consequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would have no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at some times we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede _Philo_ the Jew[1] thinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was _Moses_ enabled to tarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens,--_Risum teneatis_. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred and prophane authours, such as _Ambrose_, _Bede_, _Boetius_, _Anselme_, _Plato_, _Cicero_ and others, but because it is not now, I thinke affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in arguing against it.

[Sidenote 1: _De somniis._]

It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two more necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I shall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, to know whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more neerely agrees with our earth.

Proposition 4.

_That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body._

I shall not need to stand long in the proofe of this proposition, since it is a truth already agreed on by the generall consent of the most and the best Philosophers.

1. It is solid in opposition to fluid, as is the ayre, for how otherwise could it beare backe the light which it receives from the Sunne?

But here it may be questioned, whether or no the Moone bestow her light upon us by the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the superficies of her body, or else by her owne illumination. Some there are who affirme this latter part. So _Averroes_, _Caelius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius Caesar_, _&c._ and their reason is because this light is discerned in many places,[1] whereas those bodies which give light by reflexion can there onely be perceived where the angle of reflexion is equall to the angle of incidence, and this is onely in one place, as in a looking-glasse those beames which are reflected from it cannot bee perceived in every place where you may see the glasse, but onely there where your eye is placed on the same line whereon the beames are reflected.

[Sidenote 1: _De coelo. l. 2. com. 49._ _Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4._ _De phaenom. lunae. c. 11._]

But to this I answere, that the argument will not hold of such bodies, whose superficies is full of unequall parts and gibbosities as the Moone is. Wherefore it is as well the more probable as the more common opinion, that her light proceedes from both these causes, from reflexion and illumination; nor doth it herein differ from our earth, since that also hath some light by illumination: for how otherwise would the parts about us in a Sunne-shine day appeare so bright, when as all the rayes of reflexion cannot enter into our eye?

2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance.[1] But this is denied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, who held the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, and this, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeares within her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames being refracted in passing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be represented under such a colour.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13._ _Opt. l. 4._ _Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164._]

But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she not appeare under the same forme when she is about a sextile aspect, and the darkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same rayes passe through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce the same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must the colour still remaine visible in her body,[1] and besides according to this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, as the various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beames did passe through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.

[Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. Sec. 13._]

3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall or glasse,[1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe of pure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fa. lunae._]

1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is dispersed through all her body?

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or cause such great eclipses as have turned day into night,[1] that have discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden darknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related in divers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse which fell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] +ho helios eklipon ten ek tou ouranou hedren aphanes en+. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in the heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as could not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there are who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions, and the noble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipse should cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never totally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all other Astronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.

[Sidenote 1: _Thucid._ _Livii._ _Plut. de fa. Lunae._]

[Sidenote 2: _Herodot. l. 7 c. 37._]

But here _Julius Caesar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our passage. The Moone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the same nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and his reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those purer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for hee stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an answere, till hee hath made up his argument.

[Sidenote 1: _De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11._]

We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our earth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like natures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; and this was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_ affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature,[1] because of their agreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in some measure perspicuous.

[Sidenote 1: _In lib. de animalib._]

But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether unlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light of its owne, and the other a grosse dark body which cannot shine at all. 'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt, and shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.

Proposition 5.

_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._

Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _Rabbi Simeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne,[1] and that both those planets at their first creation were equall both in light and quantity, for because God did then call them both great lights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall in bignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone put up her complaint to God against the Sunne, shewing, that it was not fit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchy would best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this God commanded her to contract her selfe into a narrower compasse, but she being much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken that which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This sentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was shee in much distresse and griefe for a long space, but that her sorrow might be some way pacified, God bid her be of good cheere, because her priviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he should appeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but her melancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that that alas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, God to comfort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daies by a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath still reserved much light of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen._ _Hieron. de 5. Hide._ _Hebraeonia l. 2. c. 4._]

Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, the one halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being darke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, as he is cited by _Vitruvius_,[1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it was probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent and easie experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is perceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be discern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after inlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the other light of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy, that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that which is already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath any patrons, and therefore need no confutation.

[Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architecturae._]

[Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum._]

'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she hath any of her owne? The greater multitude affirme this. _Cardan_ amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any of us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse,[1]

_Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus_;

"wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would blind us with the meere sight," and when shee is enlightened by the Sunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon her. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any proofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the arguments that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from Scripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15._ where it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another glory of the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22._ +he selene ou dosei to phengos autes+, _The Moone shall not give her light_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. lib. 3._]

But to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken of, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in many other instances.

The arguments from reason are taken either

1. From that light which is discerned in her, when there is a totall eclipse of her owne body, or of the Sunne.

2. For the light which is discerned in the darker part of her body, when she is but a little distant from the Sunne.

1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body a great rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a remarkeable shade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannot come from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth, or her owne body shades her from the Sun-beames, therefore it must proceede from her owne light.

2. Two or three daies after the new Moone, wee may perceive light in her whole body, whereas the rayes of the Sun reflect but upon a small part of that which is visible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light of her owne.

In answering to these objections, I shall first shew, that this light cannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true reason of it.

That it is not her own, appeares

1. From the variety of it at divers times; for 'tis commonly observed, that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now redder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of this variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1] and many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an alteration: So that thus I may argue.

[Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3._]

If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet appeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest to the earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any enlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the species and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our adversaries, and they are the very words of noble _Tycho_,[1]

_Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terrae esset, illud non amitteret, sed eo evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepeditur._

If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in the earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light appeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a more perspicuous brightnesse.

[Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. c. 10._]

But now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation doth manifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearing with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she is in her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her owne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her inherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in the fore-cited place,

_Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia, aut lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere, sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum corpus terrae._

Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that it can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, but it is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of the interposition of the earths opacous body.

[Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164._]

2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be, either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else such a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body, when shee is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of these may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of these, therefore she hath none of her owne.

1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can wee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer parts of the Moone?

You will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that greater light, takes away that appearance.

I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wonted rednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater brightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? nor can there be any reason given why that greater light should represent her body under a false colour.