Chapter 6

I shall next produce the eye-witnesse of _Galilaeus_,[1] on which I most of all depend for the proofe of this Proposition, when he beheld the new Moone through his perspective, it appeared to him under a rugged and spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightned parts divided by a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance from the other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily perceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are commonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what I deliver, I will set downe the Figure as I find it in _Galilaeus_:

[Sidenote 1: _Nuncius Sydereus._]

Suppose ABCD to represent the appearance of the Moones body being in a sextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distance from the other, which can bee nothing else but a reflexion of the Sunne-beames upon some parts that are higher then the rest, and those obscure gibbosities which stand out towards the enlightened parts must bee such hollow and deepe places whereto the rayes cannot reach, but when the Moone is got further off from the Sunne, and come to that fulnesse, as this line BD doth represent her under, then doe these parts also receive an equall light, excepting onely that difference which doth appeare betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consider how any rugged body would appeare, being enlightned, you would easily conceive that it must necessarily seeme under some such gibbous unequall forme, as the Moone is here represented. Now for the infallibility of these appearances, I shall referre the reader to that which hath beene said in the 6th Proposition.

But _Caesar la Galla_ affirmes, that all these appearances may consist with a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to be some of them, _Diaphanous_, and some opacous; and if you object that the light which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficies must be by a continued line, whereas here there appeare many brighter parts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this he answers, it may arise from some secret conveyances and channels within her body, that doe consist of a more diaphanous matter which being covered over with an opacious superficies, the light passing through them may breake out a great way off, whereas the other parts betwixt may still remaine darke. Just as the River _Arethusa_ in _Sicile_ which runnes under ground for a great way, and afterwards breakes out againe. But because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby hee thinkes hee hath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore set downe his answere in his owne words, lest the Reader might suspect more in them then I have expressed.[1]

_Non est impossibile coecos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opaca superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c._

But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two enlightened parts remaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwaies be darke, and the Sunne could not make it partake of light more then it could of perspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in _Galilaeus_, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes nearer to his opposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightned as well as either. Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse, for he confesses himselfe that he saw this by the glasse. He had said before that he came to see those strange sights discovered by _Galilaeus_ his glasse with an intent of contradiction, and you may reade that confirmed in the weakenesse of this answere, which rather bewrayes an obstinate then a perswaded will, for otherwise sure hee would never have undertooke to have destroyed such certaine proofes with so groundlesse a fancy.

[Sidenote 1: _Cap. 11._]

But it may bee objected, that 'tis almost impossible, and altogether unlikely that in the Moone thete should be any mountaines so high as those observations make them, for doe but suppose according to the common principles, that the Moones diameter unto the Earths is very neere to the proportion of 2. to 7, suppose withall that the Earths diameter containes about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moones 2000 (as is commonly granted) now _Galiaeus_ hath observed that some parts have been enlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant from the common terme of illumination, so that hence it must necessarily follow that there may bee some Mountaines in the Moone so high, that they are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that sounds like a prodigie or a fiction; wherefore 'tis likely that either those appearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountaines, or else those are fallible observations, from whence may follow such improbable inconceiveable consequences.

But to this I answere:

1. You must consider the height of the Mountaines is but very little, if you compare them to the length of their shadowes. Sr. _Walter Rawleigh_[1] observes that the Mount _Athos_ now called _Lacas_ casts its shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount is none of the highest, nay _Solinus_[2] (whom I should rather believe in this kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his shadow quite over the Sea, from _Macedon_ to the Ile of _Lemnos_ which is 700 furlongs or 84 miles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4 miles upwards, in its perpendicular height.

[Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. Sec. 11._]

[Sidenote 2: _Poly. histor. c. 21._]

2. I affirme that there are very high Mountaines in the Moone. _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_ thinke that they are higher than any which are upon our earth. But I am not of their opinion in this, because I suppose they goe upon a false ground whilst they conceive that the highest mountaine upon the earth is not above a mile perpendicular.

Whereas 'tis the common opinion and found true enough by observation, that _Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_, with many others are much above this height. _Tenariffa_ in the Canary Ilands is proved by computation to bee above 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height is the mount _Perjacaca_ in _America_. Sr. _Walter Rawleigh_ seemes to thinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles upright: nay _Aristotle_[1] speaking of _Caucasus_ in _Asia_, affirmes it to bee visible for 560 miles, as some interpreters finde by computation, from which it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicularly high, as you may see confirmed by _Jacobus Mazonius_,[2] and out of him in _Blancanus_ the Jesuite.[3] But this deviates from the truth more in excesse then the other doth in defect. However though these in the moone are not so high as some amongst us, yet certaine it is they are of a great height, and some of them at the least foure miles perpendicular. This I shall prove from the observation of _Galilaeus_, whose glasse can shew this truth to the senses, a proofe beyond exception and certaine that man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not believe his owne eye.

[Sidenote 1: _Meteor. l. 1. c. 11._]

[Sidenote 2: _Comparatio Arist. cum Platone, Sect. 3. c. 5._]

[Sidenote 3: _Exposi. in loc. Math. Artis. loc. 148._]

By that perspective you may plainely discerne some enlightned parts (which are the mountaines) to be distant from the other about the twentieth part of the diameter. From whence it will follow, that those mountaines must necessarily be at the least foure Italian miles in height.

For let BDEF be the body of the moone, ABC will be a ray or beame of the Sunne, which enlightens a mountaine at A and _B_ is the point of contingency, the distance betwixt A and B must bee supposed to be the twentieth part of the diameter which is an 100 miles, for so far are some enlightened parts severed from the common terme of illumination. Now the aggregate of the quadrate from A _B_ a hundred, and _B_ _G_ a 1000 will bee 1010000, unto which the quadrate arising from A G must be equall according to the 47th proposition in the first booke of elements. Therefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104, and the distance betwixt H A must be above 4 miles, which was the thing to be proved.

But it may be againe objected, if there be such rugged parts, and so high mountaines, why then cannot wee discerne them at this distance, why doth the moone appeare unto us so exactly round, and not rather as a wheele with teeth?

I answere, by reason of too great a distance, for if the whole body appeare to our eye so little, then those parts which beare so small a proportion to the whole will not at all be sensible.

But it may be replied, if there were any such remarkeable hils, why does not the limbe of the moone appeare like a wheele with teeth to those who looke upon it through the great perspective on whose witnesse you so much depend? or what reason is there that she appeares as exactly round through it as shee doth to the bare eye? certainely then either there is no such thing as you imagine, or else the glasse failes much in this discovery.

To this I shall answere out of _Galilaeus_.

1. You must know that there is not meerely one ranke of mountaines about the edge of the moone, but divers orders, one mountaine behind another, and so there is somewhat to hinder those void spaces which otherwise, perhaps, might appeare.

Now where there be many hils, the ground seemes even to a man that can see the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves are lifted up, yet all may appeare plaine enough to one that stands at the shore. So where there are so many hils, the inequality will be lesse remarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.

2. Though there be mountains in that part which appeares unto us, to be the limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the bright vapours hide their appearance: for there is an orbe of thicke vaporous aire that doth immediatly compasse the body of the Moone, which though it have not so great opacity, as to terminate the sight, yet being once enlightened by the Sunne, it doth represent the body of the Moone under a greater forme, and hinders our sight from a distinct view of her true circumference. But of this in the next Chapter.

I have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moone, and hence it may seeme likely that there is also a world, for since providence hath some speciall end in all its workes, certainly then these mountaines were not produced in vaine, and what more probable meaning can wee conceive there should be, than to make that place convenient for habitation.

Proposition 10.

_That there is an Atmo-sphaera, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire, immediately encompassing the body of the Moone._

As that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thicker substance than the other, by reason tis alwaies mixed with some vapours, which are continually exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, that if there be a world in the Moone, that the aire about that should be alike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orbe of grosse aire, was first of all (for ought I can reade) observed by _Meslin_, afterwards assented unto by _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_,[1] and since by _Baptistae Cisatus_, _Sheiner_ with others, all of them confirming it by the same arguments which I shall onely cite, and then leave this Proposition.

[Sidenote 1: _Vide_ Euseb. Nierem. _de Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 11._]

1. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightened, is alwaies part of a bigger circle then that which is darker. Their frequent experience hath proved this, and an easie observation may quickely confirme it. But now this cannot proceede from any other cause so probable, as from this orbe of aire, especially when we consider how that planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not send forth any such rayes as may make her appearance bigger then her body.

2. 'Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a great trepidation about the body of the Moone, from which we may likewise argue an Atmo-sphaera, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a cause there should be of such an appearance as this,

_Quod radii Solares a vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint intercisi_,[1]

that the Sun beames were broken and refracted by the vapours that encompassed the Moone.

[Sidenote 1: _Scheiner. Ros. Vrs. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27._]

3. I may adde the like argument taken from another observation which will be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, wee discerne the Moone as shee is in her owne naturall bignesse, but then she appeares somewhat lesse then when shee is in the full, though she be in the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle, and therefore _Tycho_ hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the divers new Moones. But now there is no reason so probable to salve this appearance, as to place an orbe of thicker aire, neere the body of that Planet, which may be enlightened by the reflected beames, and through which the direct raies may easily penetrate.

But some may object that this will not consist with that which was before delivered, where I said, that the thinnest parts had least light.

If this were true, how comes it to passe then, that this aire should be as bright as any of the other parts, when as tis the thinnest of all?

I answer, if the light be received by reflection, then the thickest body hath most because it is best able to beare backe the raies, but if the light be received by illumination[1] (especially if there be an opacous body behinde, which may double the beames by reflexion) as it is here, then I deny not but a thinne body may retaine much light, and perhaps, some of those appearances which wee take for fiery comets, are nothing else but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there may be such aire without the Moone, and hence it comes to passe, that the greater spots are onely visible towards her middle parts, and none neere the circumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts as else where, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of those brighter vapours which hide them.

[Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. Sec. 11._]

Proposition 11.

_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone._

I have already handled the first thing that I promised according to the Method which _Aristotle_ uses in his Booke _de Mundo_, and shew'd you the necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moone. In the next place 'tis requisite that I proceed to those things which are extrinsecall unto it, as the Seasons, the Meteors, and the Inhabitants.

1. Of the Seasons;

And if there be such a world in the Moone, 'tis requisite then that their seasons should be some way correspondent unto ours, that they should have Winter and Summer, night and day, as wee have.

Now that in this Planet there is some similitude of Winter and Summer is affirmed by _Aristotle_ [1] himselfe, since there is one hemispheare that hath alwaies heate and light, and the other that hath darknesse and cold. True indeed, their daies and yeeres are alwaies of one and the same length, but tis so with us also under the Poles, and therefore that great difference is not sufficient to make it altogether unlike ours, nor can we expect that every thing there should be in the same manner as it is here below, as if nature had no way but one to bring about her purposes. Wee may easily see what great differences there are amongst us, betwixt things of the same kinde. Some men (say they) [2] there are, who can live onely upon smells, without eating any thing, and the same Plant, saith _Besoldus_, hath sometimes contrary effects. _Mandragora_ which growes in _Syria_ inflames the lust, wheras _Mandragora_ which grows in other places doth coole the blood & quench lust.

[Sidenote 1: _De gen. animal. l. 4. 12._]

[Sidenote 2: _Plat. de fac._ _De natura populorum. c. 3._]

Now if with us there be such great difference betwixt things of the same kinde, we have no reason then to thinke it necessary that both these worlds should be altogether alike, but it may suffice if they bee correspondent in something onely, however it may be questioned whether it doth not seeme to be against the wisedome of providence, to make the night of so great a length, when they have such a long time unfit for worke? I answere no, since tis so, and more with us also under the poles; and besides, the generall length of their night is somewhat abated in the bignesse of their Moone which is our earth. For this returnes as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it. But for the better proofe of this, I shall first free the way from such opinions as might otherwise hinder the speede of a clearer progresse.

_Plutarch_[1] one of the chiefe patrons of this world in the Moone, doth directly contradict this proposition; affirming, that those who live there may discerne our world as the dregges and sediment of all other creatures, appearing to them through clouds and foggy mists, and that altogether devoid of light, being base and unmoveable, so that they might well imagine the darke place of damnation to be here situate, and that they onely were the inhabiters of the world, as being in the midst betwixt Heaven and Hell.

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

To this I may answere, 'tis probable that _Plutarch_ spake this inconsiderately, and without a reason, which makes him likewise fall into another absurditie, when he sayes our earth would appeare immoveable, whereas questionlesse though it did not, yet would it seeme to move, and theirs to stand still, as the Land doth to a man in a Shippe; according to that of the Poet:

_Provehimur portu, terraeque urbesque recedunt._

And I doubt not but that ingenuous Authour would easily have recanted if hee had beene but acquainted with those experiences which men of latter times have found out, for the confirmation of this truth.

2. Unto him assents _Macrobius_, whose words are these;

_Terra accepto solis lumine clarescit, tantummodo, non relucet._

"The earth is by the Sunne-beames made bright, but not able to enlighten any thing so farre."

And his reason is, because this being of a thicke and grosse matter, the light is terminated in its superficies, and cannot penetrate into the substance; whereas the moone doth therefore seeme so bright to us, because it receives the beames within it selfe. But the weaknesse of this assertion, may bee easily manifest by a common experience, for polished steele (whose opacity will not give any admittance to the rayes) reflects a stronger heate then glasse, and so consequently a greater light.

3. 'Tis the generall consent of Philosophers, that the reflection of the Sunne-beames from the earth doth not reach much above halfe a mile high, where they terminate the first region, so that to affirme they might ascend to the moone, were to say, there were but one region of aier, which contradicts the proved and received opinion.

Unto this it may be answered:

That it is indeed the common consent, that the reflexion of the Sunne-beames reach onely to the second region, but yet some there are, and those too Philosophers of good note, who thought otherwise. Thus _Plotinus_ is cited by _Caelius_,[1]

_Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis subjiciatur terrae moles aquis circumfusa, & solis syderumque radiis illustrata, non aliam profecto visam iri probabile est, quam qualis modo visatur lunaris globi species._

"If you did conceive your selfe to bee in some such high place, where you might discerne the whole Globe of the earth and water, when it was enlightned by the Sunnes rayes, 'tis probable it would then appeare to you in the same shape as the moone doth now unto us."

Thus also _Carolus Malapertius_, whose words are these,[2]

_Terra haec nostra si in luna constituti essemus, splendida prorsus quasi non ignobilis planeta, nobis appareret._

"If wee were placed in the moone, and from thence beheld this our earth, it would appeare unto us very bright, like one of the nobler Planets."

Unto these doth _Fromondus_ assent, when he sayes,[3]

_Credo equidem quod si oculus quispiam in orbe lunari foret, globum terrae & aquae instar ingentis syderis a sole illustrem conspiceret._

"I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like some great Starre to any one, who should looke upon it from the moone."

Now this could not be, nor could it shine so remarkably, unlesse the beames of light, were reflected from it. And therefore the same _Fromondus_ expresly holds, that the first region of ayre is there terminated, where the heate caused by reflexion begins to languish, whereas the beames themselves doe passe a great way further. The chiefe argument which doth most plainely manifest this truth, is taken from a common observation which may be easily tryed.

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

[Sidenote 2: _Praefat. ad Austrica syd._]

[Sidenote 3: _Meteor. l. 1. c. 2. Art. 2._]

If you behold the Moone a little before or after the conjunction, when she is in a sextile with the Sunne, you may discerne not onely the part which is enlightned, but the rest also to have in it a kind of a duskish light, but if you chuse out such a scituation, where some house or chimney (being some 70 or 80 paces distant from you) may hide from your eye the enlightned hornes, you may then discerne a greater and more remarkeable shining in those parts unto which the Sunne beames cannot reach; nay there is so great a light, that by the helpe of a good perspective you may discerne its spots. Inso much that _Blancanus_ the Jesuite speaking of it sayes[1]

_Haec experientia ita me aliquando fefellit, ut in hunc fulgorem casu ac repente incidens, existimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore adolescentis lunae factum esse plenilunium._

"This experiment did once so deceive mee, that happening upon the sight of this brightnesse upon a sudden, I thought that by some new miracle the Moone had beene got into her full a little after her change."

[Sidenote 1: _De mundi fab. p. 3ª. c. 3._]

But now this light is not proper to the Moone, it doth not proceed from the rayes of the Sunne which doth penetrate her body, nor is it caused by any other of the Planets and Starres. Therefore it must necessarily follow, that it comes from the earth. The two first of these I have already proved, and as for the last, it is confidently affirmed by _Caelius_,[1]

_Quod si in disquisitionem evocet quia, an lunari syderi lucem foenerent planetae item alii, asseveranter astruendum non foenerare_.

"If any should aske whether the other Planets lend any light to the Moone; I answer they doe not." True indeed, the noble _Tycho_[2] discussing the reason of this light attributes it to the Planet _Uenus_, and I grant that this may convey some light to the Moone; but that it is not the cause of this whereof wee now discourse, is of itselfe sufficiently plaine, because _Uenus_ is sometimes over the Moone, when as shee cannot convey any light to that part which is turned from her.

[Sidenote 1: _Progym. 1._]

[Sidenote 2: _l. 20. c. 5._]

It doth not proceede from the fixed starres, for then it would retaine the same light in eclipses, whereas the light at such times is more ruddy and dull. Then also the light of the Moone would not be greater or lesser, according to its distance from the edge of the earths shadow, since it did at all times equally participate this light of the starres.

Now because there is no other body in the whole Universe, save the earth, it remaines that this light must necessarily be caused by that which with a just gratitude repaies to the Moone, such illumination as it receives from her.