Chapter 4

2. 'Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part of her body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne, for then why does shee appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shade cannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of darknesse by its opposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and cleare brightnesse then they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet those parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, and therefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither of these lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Nor is this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such was _Macrobius_,[1] who being for this quoted of _Rhodiginus_, he calls him _vir reconditissimae scientiae_,[2] a man who knew more than ordinary Philosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Authour. To him assents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath this comparison.[3] As the Looking-glasse represents not any image within it selfe, unlesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not any light, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed _Albertus Magnus_, _Scaliger_, _Maeslin_, and more especially _Mulapertius_,[4] whose words are more pat to the purpose then others, and therefore I shall set them downe as you may finde them in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the _Austriaca sydera_;

_Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humidae sunt substantiae ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra._

The Moone, _Venus_, and _Mercurie_ (saith he) are of an earthly and moyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, then the earth hath. Nay, some there are who thinke that all the other Starres doe receive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us from the Sunne, so _Ptolomie_, _Isidore Hispalensis_, _Albertus Magnus_ and _Bede_, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light.[5]

[Sidenote 1: _Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20._]

[Sidenote 2: _Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15._]

[Sidenote 3: _In lib. de natur. rerum._]

[Sidenote 4: _De 4r. Coaevis. Q. 4ª. Art. 21._ _Exercit. 62._ _1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]

[Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._ _De Coelo. l. 2._ _De ratione tempor. c. 4._]

But enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first I promised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It remaines in the next place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke 'tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipses is nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passe through the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second light with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times appeares unto us. I may call it _Lumen crepusculum_, the _Aurora_ of the Moone, or such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he is neere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thicker vapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and the reflexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare very red.

The Moabites in _Iehorams_ time when they rose early in the morning, and beheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood.[1]

_Et causa hujus est, quia radius solaris in aurora contrahit quandam rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem terrae, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere locum aquarum, in quo est repercussio esse rubrum_,

saith _Tostatus_.[2] The reason is, because of his rayes, which being in the lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed light upon the waters. Thus the Moone being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beames which are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body, yet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, make her appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest, when shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge, of greatest distance from us, because then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refraction is made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must be represented under a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed, being in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she is involved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the refraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needes be weaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the reason may be of that light which we discerne in the darker part of the new Moone: I answer, 'tis reflected from our earth which returnes as great a brightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have occasion to prove afterward.

[Sidenote 1: 2 King. 3. 22.]

[Sidenote 2: _2ª. Quaest. in hoc cap._]

I have now done with these propositions which were set downe to cleare the passage, and confirme the suppositions implied in the opinion, I shall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chiefe matter in hand.

Proposition 6.

_That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may probably be deduced from the tenents of others._

Since this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall therefore first confirme it by sufficient authority of divers authours, both ancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the prejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an absolute errour. This is by some attributed to _Orpheus_, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, who speaking of the Moone, saies thus, +he poll' ourea echei, poll' astea, polla melathra+,[1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses in it. To him assented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and _Heraclitus_,[2] all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like to our earth,[3] containing in it many large fields, champion grounds, and divers inhabitants, unto these agreed _Pythagoras_, who thought that our earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne,[4] (as _Aristotle_ relates it of him) and the _Pythagoreans_ in generall did affirme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she was inhabited as this lower world. That those living creatures & plants which are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours: _viz._ by 15 times. This _Pythagoras_[5] was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, as appeares especially by his valuation amongst the _Romans_ who being comanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest _Grecian_, the Senate determined[6] _Pythagoras_ to be meant, preferring him in their judgements before the divine _Socrates_, whom their Gods pronounc'd the wisest. Some think him a _Iew_ by birth, but most agree that hee was much conversant amongst the learneder sort, & Priests of that Nation, by whom he was informed of many secrets, and perhaps, this opinion, which he vented afterwards in _Greece_, where he was much opposed by _Aristotle_ in some worded disputations, but never confuted by any solid reason.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13._]

[Sidenote 2: _Ibid. c. 25._]

[Sidenote 3: _Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9._]

[Sidenote 4: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13._]

[Sidenote 5: _Plut. ibid. cap. 30._]

[Sidenote 6: _Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6._]

To this opinion of _Pythagoras_ did _Plato_ also assent, when hee considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this, that it had no light of its owne, that it was so full of spots. And therefore wee may often reade in him and his followers,[1] of an _aetherea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an aethereall earth, and inhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with many ridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries implied in the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily bee a Trinity of worlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whose element of water is represented by the spheare of _Mercury_, the aire by _Uenus_, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe might the better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that _Mars_ shall be a spheare of the fire, _Iupiter_ of aire, _Saturne_ of water; and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant places appointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that either never were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any commerce with the body. _Scaliger_[2] speaking of this _Platonicke_ fancie, _quae in tres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit_, thinks 'tis confutation enough, to say, 'tis _Plato's_. However for the first part of this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of the grossnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called _quasi terra coelestis_, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those purer bodies, you may see this proved by _Plutarch_,[3] in that delightfull work which he properly made for the confirmition of this particular. With him agreed _Alcinous_[4] and _Plotinus_, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfect testimony of _Mahomet_, whose authority of grant can adde but little credit to this opinion, because hee was an ignorant imposter, but yet consider that originall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge, and then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probablity. He is commonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the Jewes in the secrets of their Philosophy,[5] and perhaps, learned this from those Rabbies, for in his _Alcaron_, hee talkes much of mountaines, pleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he was for the maine very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing so distinctly as he was informed.[6] The Cardinall _Cusanus_ and _Iornandus Bunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he saies, it is

_stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;

a "noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all the rest." Unto this _Nichol. Hill_, a country man of ours was inclined, when he said _Astrea terrae natura probabilis est_: "That 'tis probable the earth hath a starry nature."[7]

[Sidenote 1: _Plat. de conviviis._ _Macrob. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. ca. 11._]

[Sidenote 2: _Exercit. 62._]

[Sidenote 3: _De facie Lunae._]

[Sidenote 4: _Instit. ad discip._ Plat. _Cael. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4._]

[Sidenote 5: _Azoara. 57. & 65._]

[Sidenote 6: _Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2. cap. 12._]

[Sidenote 7: _Philos. epicur. part. 434._]

But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by _Maeslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilaeus_, each of them late writers, and famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.[1] As for those workes of _Maeslin_ and _Keplar_ wherein they doe more expresly treate of this opinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However their opinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and the testimony of others concerning them. But _Iulius Caesar_, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this opinion,[2] _viz._ _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_ affirmes that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this, and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then his pretended knowledge.

[Sidenote 1: _In Thesibus_ _dissertatio cum Nic. Hill._ _Nuncius Sydereus._]

[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. lunae. c. 4._]

'Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the maine scope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as any indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure _Campanella_ (a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as _Caesar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides 'tis very likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galilaeus_ would never have suffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge which hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confidence (I say not presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome's_ _Hypothesis_ he pronounces this verdict,

_Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet._

"The position of _Excentricks_ and _Epicycles_ is altogether impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to thinke it true."

I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any other Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematicks, as to deny that any good Authour held this. For I would faine know whether there were never any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there were such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplyed; if so, then _Caesar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are equally true, that _Galilaeus_ and _Keplar_ did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other.

[Sidenote 1: _Cap. 7._]

But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of _Galilaeus_, the inventour of that famous perspective, whereby we may discerne the heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others have formerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discovered beyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latter ages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated by posterity. 'Tis related of _Eudoxus_, that hee wished himselfe burnt with _Phaeton_, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its nature; had hee lived in these daies, he might have enjoyed his wish at an easie rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainely have discerned what hee so much desired. _Keplar_ considering those strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose but cry out in a +prosopopeia+ and rapture of admiration.

_O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?_

And _Johannes Fabricius_[1] an elegant writer, speaking of the same glasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, saies thus;

_Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronunciatu de missam representasse putantur nos non tantum innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi conditionem intueamur._

"So much are wee above the ancients, that whereas they were faine by their magical charms to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a more familiar view behold her condition."

And because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of those experiments, which I shal afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set downe the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beene accounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed _Caesar la Galla_,[2] whose words are these:

_Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum vero novum Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducaeo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas videt & admiratur._

Wise antiquity fabled _Mercury_ carrying a rodde in his hand to relate newes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hath beene the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire _Galilaeus_ the new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfold the nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient Philosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of this excellent invention.

[Sidenote 1: _De macula in sole obser._]

[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. c. 1._]

Now if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of such things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you,[1] when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all bee discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might plainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre with these eyes which _Galilaeus_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_ could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet doubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour may confirme you,[2] when hee saies they were shewed,

_Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed praecipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis & opticis praeceptis, optime instructis sedula ac diligenti inspectione_.

"Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well vers'd in Mathematickes and Opticks, and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent inspection."

And least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke the men who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addes that it was shewed,[3]

_vius qui ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant_.

"To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction."

Thus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken by this glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall borrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.

[Sidenote 1: _ibid. c. 5._]

[Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1._]

[Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5._]

I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others: such were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many other later writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_, _David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe _Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation in Opticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it.

[Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilaeo._]

Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them) then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?

Thus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceede farther, 'tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shall follow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World in the Moone.

The order by which I shall bee guided will be that which _Aristotle_[1] uses in his booke _De mundo_ (if that booke were his.)

[Sidenote 1: _a 1º. cap. ad 10m._]

First, +peri ton en aute+ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the elementary and aethereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong to the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, +peri auten pathon+, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.

Proposition 7.

_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea and Land in that other World._

For the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first reckon up and refute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of those spots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion, and how agreeable it is to that truth, which is most commonly received; as for the opinions of other concerning these, they have beene very many, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkeable.

Some there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any deformity of the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance discerne an equall light in that planet, but these do but onely say it, and shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others think[1] that there be some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping off the lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots which wee there discerne.

[Sidenote 1: So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._]

Others would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here below represented there as in a looking-glasse. But none of those fancies can bee true, because the spots are stil the same, & not varied according to the difference of places, and besides, _Cardan_ thinks it is impossible that any image should be conveyed so farre as there to be represented unto us at such a distance,[1] but tis commonly related of _Pythagoras_, that he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexio of the same species, would make those letters to appeare in the circle of the Moone, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that time be some miles distant from him.[2]* _Agrippa_ affirmes this to be possible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, with some others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like meanes performe those strange conclusions which hee professes in his _Nuncius inanimatus_, where hee pretends that hee can informe his friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant, _forte etiam, vel milliare millesimum_, they are his owne words, and, perhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minutes space, or little more, quicker than the Sunne can move.

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

[Sidenote 2*: _Occulta ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6._]

Now, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot conceive, unlesse it be carried with the light, then which wee know not any thing quicker; but of this onely by the way; however, whether those images can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are not such representations. Some thinke that when God had at first created too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow the rest, he placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkened it in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation, since it so much detracts from the divine power and wisedome.