Produced by Louise Hope, Robert Shimmin and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





  [Transcriber’s Note:

  Spelling and punctuation are as in the original, including the
  consistently “modern” use of V and U. Italic capital V has two forms,
  used interchangeably. Since italic capital U does not occur, the
  rounded V-form has been transcribed as U.

  Latin quotations were given in italics; the translation was usually
  printed with marginal quotation marks. In this e-text, Latin passages
  are shown as block quotes (indented) _without_ quotation marks, while
  passages with marginal quotes are shown as block quotes _with_
  quotation marks.

  The six Sidenotes shown with an asterisk alongside their number were
  printed with an asterisk in the original text; all other notes were
  unmarked.

  References from the Sidenotes are identified at the end of the text,
  followed by a complete list of errata.]

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *


  [Illustration:
  Sun with six orbits, each with symbol:
    Mercurius, Venus, Ceres et Proserpina, Mars, Jupiter, Saturnus
  Sun utters: Ame omnes
  “Ceres and Proserpina” orbit continuing below sun shows earth with
    orbiting moon.
  Text on earth orbit: Sua fovent; Vniuersũ ornant.
  Text on moon’s orbit: Mutuo se illuminant]


                      THE
                   DISCOVERY
                      OF A
                     WORLD
                    IN THE
                     MOONE.


                      or,

                  A DISCOVRSE
                    Tending
                    TO PROVE

            that ’tis probable there
            may be another habitable
             World in that Planet.


    _Quid tibi inquis ista proderunt? Si nihil aliud,
        hoc certè, sciam omnia angusta esse._
        SENECA. Præf. ad 1. Lib. _N. Q._

                 [Decoration]

                   _LONDON_,

     Printed by _E. G._ for _Michael Sparl_
          and _Edward Forrest_, 1638.




  [Decoration]

  _Perlegi hæc παράδοξα & novitatis graciâ typis
     mandari permitto._

  Mart. 29. 1638.
    THO. WEEKES _R.P._
      _Episc. Lond. Cap._
        _Domest._

  [Decoration]




To the Reader.


_If amongst thy leisure houres thou canst spare any for the perusall of
this discourse, and dost looke to finde somewhat in it which may serve
for thy information and benefit: let me then advise thee to come unto
it with an equall minde, not swayed by prejudice, but indifferently
resolved to assent unto that truth which upon deliberation shall seeme
most probable unto thy reason, and then I doubt not, but either thou
wilt agree with mee in this assertion, or at least not thinke it to be
as farre from truth, as it is from common opinion._

_Two cautions there are which I would willingly admonish thee of in the
beginning._

1. _That thou shouldst not here looke to find any exact, accurate
   Treatise, since this discourse was but the fruit of some lighter
   studies, and those too hudled up in a short time, being first
   thought of and finished in the space of some few weekes, and
   therefore you cannot in reason expect, that it should be so
   polished, as perhaps, the subject would require, or the leisure
   of the Author might have done it._

2. _To remember that I promise onely probable arguments for the
   proofe of this opinion, and therefore you must not looke that every
   consequence should be of an undeniable dependance, or that the truth
   of each argument should be measured by its necessity. I grant that
   some Astronomicall appearances may possibly be solved otherwise then
   here they are. But the thing I aime at is this, that probably they
   may so be solved, as I have here set them downe: Which, if it be
   granted (as I thinke it must) then I doubt not, but the indifferent
   reader will find some satisfaction in the maine thing that is to be
   proved._

_Many ancient Philosophers of the better note, have formerly defended
this assertion, which I have here laid downe, and it were to be wished,
that some of us would more apply our endeavours unto the examination of
these old opinions, which though they have for a long time lien
neglected by others, yet in them may you finde many truths well worthy
your paines and observation. Tis a false conceit, for us to thinke, that
amongst the ancient variety and search of opinions, the best hath still
prevailed. Time (saith the learned _Verulam_) seemes to be of the nature
of a river or streame, which carrieth downe to us that which is light,
or blowne up, but sinketh that which is weighty and solid._

_It is my desire that by the occasion of this discourse, I may raise up
some more active spirit to a search after other hidden and unknowne
truthes. Since it must needes be a great impediment unto the growth of
sciences, for men still so to plod on upon beaten principles, as to be
afraid of entertaining any thing that may seeme to contradict them. An
unwillingnesse to take such things into examination, is one of those
errours of learning in these times observed by the judicious _Verulam_.
Questionlesse there are many secret truths, which the ancients have
passed over, that are yet left to make some of our age famous for their
discovery._

_If by this occasion I may provoke any reader to an attempt of this
nature, I shall then thinke my selfe happy, and this work successefull._

Farewell.




  [Decoration]


The First Proposition, by way of Preface.

_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it
  should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly
  esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common
  consent._


There is an earnestnesse and hungering after novelty, which doth still
adhere unto all our natures, and it is part of that primative image,
that wide extent and infinite capacity at first created in the heart of
man, for this since its depravation in _Adam_ perceiving it selfe
altogether emptied of any good doth now catch after every new thing,
conceiving that possibly it may finde satisfaction among some of its
fellow creatures. But our enemy the divell (who strives still to pervert
our gifts, and beate us with our owne weapons) hath so contriv’d it,
that any truth doth now seeme distastefull for that very reason, for
which errour is entertain’d--Novelty, for let but some upstart heresie
be set abroach, and presently there are some out of a curious humour;
others, as if they watched an occasion of singularity, will take it up
for canonicall, and make it part of their creede and profession; whereas
solitary truth cannot any where finde so ready entertainement; but the
same Novelty which is esteemed the commendation of errour and makes that
acceptable, is counted the fault of truth, and causes that to bee
rejected. How did the incredulous World gaze at _Columbus_ when hee
promised to discover another part of the earth, and he could not for a
long time by his confidence, or arguments, induce any of the Christian
Princes, either to assent unto his opinion, or goe to the charges of an
experiment. Now if he who had such good grounds for his assertion, could
finde no better entertainement among the wiser sort, and upper end of
the World; ’tis not likely then that this opinion which I now deliver,
shall receive any thing from the men of these daies, especially our
vulgar wits, but misbeliefe or derision. It hath alwaies beene the
unhappinesse of new truths in Philosophy, to be derided by those that
are ignorant of the causes of things, and reiected by others whose
perversenesse ties them to the contrary opinion, men whose envious pride
will not allow any new thing for truth which they themselves were not
the first inventors of. So that I may iustly expect to be accused of a
pragmaticall ignorance, and bold ostentation, especially since for this
opinion _Xenophanes_, a man whose authority was able to adde some credit
to his assertion could not escape the like censure from others. For
_Natales Comes_ speaking of that Philosopher,[1] and this his opinion,
saith thus,

  _Nonnulli ne nihil scisse videantur, aliqua nova monstra in
  Philosophiã introducunt, ut alicujus rei inventores fuisse appareant._

  “Some there are who least they might seeme to know nothing, will
  bring up monstrous absurdities in Philosophy, that so afterward they
  may bee famed for the invention of somewhat.”

The same author doth also in another place accuse _Anaxagoras_[2] of
folly for the same opinion,

  _Est enim non ignobilis gradus stultitiæ, vel si nescias quid dicas,
  tamen velle de rebus propositis hanc vel illam partem stabilire._

“’Tis none of the worst kindes of folly, boldly to affirme one side or
other, when a man knows not what to say.”

  [Sidenote 1: _Mytholog. lib. 3. c. 17._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Lib. 7. c. 1._]

If these men were thus censur’d, I may iustly then expect to be derided
by most, and to be believed by few or none; especially since this
opinion seemes to carry in it so much strangenesse, so much
contradiction to the generall consent of others. But how ever, I am
resolved that this shall not be any discouragement, since I know that it
is not the common opinion of others that can either adde or detract from
the truth. For,

1. Other truths have beene formerly esteemed altogether as ridiculous
   as this can be.

2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall opinion.

I shall give an instance of each, that so I may the better prepare the
Reader to consider things without a prejudice, when hee shall see that
the common opposition against this which I affirme cannot any way
derogate from its truth.

1. Other truths have beene formerly accounted as ridiculous as this, I
shall specifie that of the Antipodes, which have beene denied and laught
at by many wise men and great Schollers, such as were _Herodotus_, St.
_Austin_, _Lactantius_, the _Venerable Bede_, _Lucretius_ the Poet,
_Procopius_, and the voluminous _Abulensis_ with others. _Herodotus_
counted it so horrible an absurdity, that hee could not forbeare
laughing to thinke of it. Γελῶ δὲ ὁρῶν γῆς περιόδος γράψαντας,
πολλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐδένα νόον ἔχοντας ἐξηγησάμενον ὃι Ὠκεανόν τε
ῥεόντα γράφουσι, πέριξ τήν τε γὴν ἐοῦσαν κυκλοτερέα ὡς ἀπὸ τόρνου.

  [Greek: Gelô de horôn gês periodous grapsantas, pollous êdê kai
  oudena noon echontas exêgêsamenon hoi Ôkeanon te rheonta graphousi,
  perix tên te gên eousan kukloterea hôs apo tornou.]

  “I cannot choose but laugh, (saith he) to see so many men venture to
  describe the earths compasse, relating those things that are without
  all sense, as that the Sea flowes about the World, and that the earth
  it selfe is round as an Orbe.”

But this great ignorance is not so much to be admired in him, as in
those learneder men of later times, when all sciences began to flourish
in the World. Such was Saint _Austin_ who censures that relation of the
Antipodes to be an incredible fable,[1] and with him agrees the eloquent
_Lactantius_,[2]

  _quid illi qui esse contrarios vestigiis nostris Antipodes putant?
  num aliquid loquuntur? aut est quispiam tam ineptus, qui credat esse
  homines, quorum vestigia sunt superiora quàm capita? aut ibi quæ apud
  nos jacent inversa pendere? fruges & arbores deorsum versus crescere,
  pluvias & nives, & grandinem sursum versus cadere in terram? &
  miratur aliquis hortor pensiles inter septem mira narrari, quum
  Philosophi, & agros & maria, & urbes & montes pensiles faciunt? &c._

  “What (saith he) are they that thinke there are Antipodes, such as
  walke with their feet against ours? doe they speake any likelyhood?
  or is there any one so foolish as to believe that there are men whose
  heeles are higher than their heads? that things which with us doe lie
  on the ground doe hang there? that the Plants and Trees grow
  downewards, that the haile, and raine, and snow fall upwards to the
  earth? and doe wee admire the hanging Orchards amongst the seven
  wonders, whereas here the Philosophers have made the Field and Seas,
  the Cities and Mountaines hanging.”

What shall wee thinke (saith hee in _Plutarch_) that men doe clyng to
that place like wormes, or hang by their clawes as Cats, or if wee
suppose a man a little beyond the Center, to bee digging with a spade?
is it likely (as it must bee according to this opinion) that the earth
which hee loosened, should of it selfe ascend upwards? or else suppose
two men with their middles about the center, the feete of the one being
placed where the head of the other is, and so two other men crosse them,
yet all these men thus situated according to this opinion should stand
upright, and many other such grosse consequences would follow (saith
hee) which a false imagination is not able to fancy as possible. Upon
which considerations, _Bede_[3] also denies the being of any Antipodes,

  _Neque enim Antipodarum ullatenus est Fabulis accommodandus assensus_,

“Nor should wee any longer assent to the Fable of Antipodes.” So also
_Lucretius_ the Poet speaking of the same subject, sayes:

  _Sed vanus stolidis hæc omnia finxerit error._[4]

  [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. lib. 16. cap. 9._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Institut. l. 3. c. 24._]

  [Sidenote 3: _De ratione temporum, Cap. 32._]

  [Sidenote 4: _De nat. rerum, lib. 1._]

That some idle fancy faigned these for fooles to believe. Of this
opinion was _Procopius Gazæus_,[1] but he was perswaded to it by another
kinde of reason; for he thought that all the earth under us was sunke in
the water, according to the saying of the Psalmist,[2] Hee hath founded
the Earth upon the Seas, and therefore hee accounted it not inhabited by
any. Nay _Tostatus_ a man of later yeeres and generall learning doth
also confidently deny that there are any such Antipodes, though the
reason which hee urges for it bee not so absurde as the former, for the
Apostles, saith hee,[3] travelled through the whole habitable world, but
they never passed the Equinoctiall; and if you answer that they are said
to goe through all the earth, because they went through all the knowne
world, hee replies, that this is not sufficient, since Christ would have
all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of his truth,[4] and
therefore ’tis requisite that they should have travelled thither also,
if there had been any inhabitants, especially since he did expressely
command them to goe and teach all nations, and preach the Gospell
through the whole world,[5] and therefore he thinkes that as there are
no men, so neither are there seas, or rivers, or any other conveniency
for habitation: ’tis commonly related of one _Virgilius_, that he was
excommunicated and condemned for a Heretique by _Zachary_ Bishop of
_Rome_, because hee was not of the same opinion. But _Baronius_
saies,[6] it was because hee thought there was another habitable world
within ours. How ever, you may well enough discerne in these examples
how confident many of these great Schollars were in so grosse an errour,
how unlikely, what an incredible thing it seemed to them, that there
should be any Antipodes, and yet now this truth is as certaine and
plaine, as sense or demonstration can make it. This then which I now
deliver is not to be rejected; though it may seeme to contradict the
common opinion.

  [Sidenote 1: _Comment. in 1. Cap. Gen._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Psal. 24. 2._]

  [Sidenote 3: _Comment. in_ 1. Genes.]

  [Sidenote 4: 1 Tim. 2. 4.]

  [Sidenote 5: Mat. 28. 19]

  [Sidenote 6: _Annal. Eccles. A.D. 748._]

2. Grosse absurdities have beene entertained by generall consent. I
might instance in many remarkeable examples, but I will onely speake of
the supposed labour of the Moone in her eclipses, because this is
neerest to the chiefe matter in hand, and was received as a common
opinion amongst many of the ancients, and therefore _Plutarch_ speaking
of a Lunary eclipse, relates, that at such times ’twas a custome amongst
the _Romanes_ (the most civill and learned people in the world) to sound
brasse Instruments, and hold great torches toward the heaven. Τῶν δὲ
Ρωμαίων (ὥσπερ ἐστω ἐνομισμένον) χαλκοῦ τε πατάγοις ἀνακαλουμένων
τὸ φῶς αὐτὸς καὶ πυρὰ πολλὰ δαλοῖς καὶ δασσὶν ἀνεχόντων πρὸς τὸν
οὐρανὸν,[1] for by this meanes they supposed the Moone was much eased
in her labours, and therfore _Ovid_ calls such loud Instruments the
auxiliaries or helpes of the Moone.[2]

  _Cum frustra resonant æra auxiliaria Lunæ._

and therefore the Satyrist too describing a loud scold, saies, she was
able to make noise enough to deliver the labouring Moone.[3]

  _Vna laboranti poterit succurrere Lunæ._

  [Sidenote 1: _In vita Paul. Æmil._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Metam. l. 4._]

  [Sidenote 3: _Iuven. Sat. 6_]

Now the reason of all this their ceremonie, was, because they feared the
world would fall asleepe, when one of its eyes began to winke, and
therefore they would doe what they could by loud sounds to rouse it from
its drowsinesse, and keepe it awake by bright torches, to bestow that
light upon it which it began to lose. Some of them thought hereby to
keepe the Moone in her orbe, whereas otherwise she would have fallen
downe upon the earth, and the world would have lost one of its lights,
for the credulous people believed, that Inchanters, and Witches could
bring the Moone downe, which made _Virgil_ say,

  _Cantus & è cœlo possunt deducere Lunam._

And those Wizards knowing the times of her eclipses, would then threaten
to shew their skill, by pulling her out of her orbe. So that when the
silly multitude saw that she began to looke red, they presently feared
they should lose the benefit of her light, and therefore made a great
noise that she might not heare the sound of those Charmes, which would
otherwise bring her downe, and this is rendered for a reason of this
custome by _Pliny_ and _Propertius_:

  _Cantus & è curru lunam deducere tentant,
  Et facerent, si non æra repulsa sonent._[1]

  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. hist. lib. 2. c. 12._]

_Plutarch_ gives another reason of it, and he sayes, ’tis because they
would hasten the Moone out of the darke shade wherein shee was involv’d,
that so she might bring away the soules of those Saints that inhabit
within her, which cry out by reason they are then deprived of their
wonted happinesse, and cannot heare the musicke of the Spheares, but are
forced to behold the torments, and wailing of those damned soules which
are represented to them as they are tortured in the region of the aire,
but whether this or what ever else was the meaning of this superstition,
yet certainly ’twas a very ridiculous custome, and bewrayed a great
ignorance of those ancient times, especially since it was not onely
received by the vulgar, such as were men of lesse note and learning, but
believed also, by the more famous and wiser sort, such as were those
great Poets, _Stesichorus_ and _Pindar_. And not onely amongst the more
sottish heathens, who might account that Planet to be one of their Gods,
but the primitive Christians also were in this kinde guilty; which made
S. _Ambrose_ so tartly to rebuke those of his time, when he said,

  _Tum turbatur carminibus Globus Lunæ, quando calicibus turbantur &
  oculi_.

“When your heads are troubled with cups, then you thinke the Moone to be
troubled with charmes.”

And for this reason also did _Maximus_ a Bishop,[1] write a Homily
against it, wherein hee shewed the absurditie of that foolish
superstition. I remember, that _Ludovicus Uives_ relates a more
ridiculous story of a people that imprisoned an Asse for drinking up the
Moone, whose image appearing in the water was covered with a cloud, as
the Asse was drinking, for which the poore beast was afterward brought
to the barre to receive a sentence according to his deserts, where the
grave Senate being set to examine the matter, one of the Counsell
(perhaps wiser than the rest) rises up, and out of his deepe judgement,
thinkes it not fit that their Towne should lose its Moone, but that
rather the Asse should be cut up, and that taken out of him, which
sentence being approved by the rest of those Politicians, as the
subtillest way for the conclusion of the matter was accordingly
performed. But whether this tale were true or no I will not question,
however there is absurdity enough in that former custome of the
ancients, that may confirme the truth to be proved, and plainly declare
the insufficiency of common opinion to adde true worth or estimation
unto any thing. So that from that which I have said may be gathered thus
much.

  [Sidenote 1: _Turinens. Episc._]

1. That a new truth may seeme absurd and impossible not onely to the
   vulgar, but to those also who are otherwise wise men, and excellent
   schollers; and hence it will follow, that every new thing which
   seemes to oppose common Principles is not presently to be rejected,
   but rather to be pry’d into with a diligent enquiry, since there
   are many things which are yet hid from us, and reserv’d for future
   discovery.

2. That it is not the commonnesse of an opinion that can priviledge it
   for a truth, the wrong way is sometime a well beaten path, whereas
   the right way (especially to hidden truths) may bee lesse trodden
   and more obscure.

True indeed, the strangeness of this opinion will detract much from its
credit; but yet we should know that nothing is in its selfe strange,
since every naturall effect has an equall dependance upon its cause, and
with the like necessity doth follow from it, so that ’tis our ignorance
which makes things appeare so, and hence it comes to passe that many
more evident truths seeme incredible to such who know not the causes of
things: you may as soone perswade some Country peasants that the Moone
is made of greene Cheese (as wee say) as that ’tis bigger than his
Cart-wheele, since both seeme equally to contradict his sight, and hee
has not reason enough to leade him farther than his senses. Nay, suppose
(saith _Plutarch_) a Philosopher should be educated in such a secret
place, where hee might not see either Sea or River, and afterwards
should be brought out where one might shew him the great Ocean telling
him the quality of that water, that it is blackish, salt, and not
potable, and yet there were many vast creatures of all formes living in
it, which make use of the water as wee doe of the aire, questionlesse he
would laugh at all this, as being monstrous lies & fables, without any
colour of truth. Just so will this truth which I now deliver appeare
unto others; because we never dreamt of any such matter as a world in
the Moone, because the state of that place hath as yet been vailed from
our knowledge, therefore wee can scarcely assent to any such matter.
Things are very hardly received which are altogether strange to our
thoughts and our senses. The soule may with lesse difficulty be brought
to believe any absurdity, when as it has formerly beene acquainted with
some colours and probabilities for it, but when a new, and an unheard of
truth shall come before it, though it have good grounds and reasons, yet
the understanding is afraid of it as a stranger, and dares not admit it
into its beliefe without a great deale of reluctancy and tryall. And
besides things that are not manifested to the senses, are not assented
unto without some labour of mind, some travaile and discourse of the
understanding, and many lazie soules had rather quietly repose
themselves in an easie errour, then take paines to search out the truth.
The strangenesse then of this opinion which I now deliver will be a
great hinderance to its beliefe, but this is not to be respected by
reason it cannot bee helped. I have stood the longer in the Preface,
because that prejudice which the meere title of the booke may beget
cannot easily be removed without a great deale of preparation, and I
could not tell otherwise how to rectifie the thoughts of the Reader for
an impartiall survey of the following discourse.

I must needs confesse, though I had often thought with my selfe that it
was possible there might be a world in the Moone, yet it seemed such an
uncouth opinion that I never durst discover it, for feare of being
counted singular and ridiculous, but afterward having read _Plutarch_,
_Galilæus_, _Keplar_, with some others, and finding many of mine owne
thoughts confirmed by such strong authority, I then concluded that it
was not onely possible there might bee, but probable that there was
another habitable world in that Planet. In the prosecuting of this
assertion, I shall first endeavour to cleare the way from such doubts as
may hinder the speed or ease of farther progresse; and because the
suppositions imply’d in this opinion may seeme to contradict the
principles of reason or faith, it will be requisite that I first remove
this scruple, shewing the conformity of them to both these, and proving
those truths that may make way for the rest, which I shall labour to
performe in the second, third, fourth, and fifth Chapters, and then
proceede to confirme such Propositions, which doe more directly belong
to the maine point in hand.




Proposition 2.

_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of
  reason or faith._


Tis reported of _Aristotle_ that when hee saw the bookes of _Moses_ he
commended them for such a majesticke stile as might become a God, but
withall hee censured that manner of writing to be very unfitting for a
Philosopher because there was nothing proved in them, but matters were
delivered as if they would rather command than perswade beliefe. And
’tis observed that hee sets downe nothing himselfe, but he confirmes it
by the strongest reasons that may be found, there being scarce an
argument of force for any subject in Philosophy which may not bee picked
out of his writings, and therefore ’tis likely if there were in reason a
necessity of one onely world, that hee would have found out some such
necessary proofe as might confirme it: Especially since hee labours for
it so much in two whole Chapters. But now all the arguments which he
himselfe urges in this subject,[1] are very weake and farre enough from
having in them any convincing power. Therefore ’tis likely that a
plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of reason.
However, I will set downe the two chiefe of his arguments from his owne
workes, and from them you may guesse the force of the other. The 1. is
this,[2] since every heavy body doth naturally tend downwards, and every
light body upwards, what a hudling and confusion must there bee if there
were two places for gravity and two places for lightnesse: for it is
probable that the Earth of that other World would fall downe to this
Center, and so mutually the aire and fire here ascend to those Regions
in the other, which must needes much derogate from the providence of
nature, and cause a great disorder in his workes. To this I answere,
that if you will consider the nature of gravity, you will plainely see
there is no ground to feare any such confusion, for heavinesse is
nothing else but such a quality as causes a propension in ’its subject
to tend downewards towards its owne Centre, so that for some of that
earth to come hither would not bee said a fall but an ascension, since
it moved from its owne place, and this would bee impossible (saith
_Ruvio_) because against nature,[3] and therefore no more to bee feared
than the falling of the Heavens.

  [Sidenote 1: _De Cœlo_ l. 1. c. 8. 9.]

  [Sidenote 2: _Ibid._]

  [Sidenote 3: _De Cœlo_ l. 1. c. 9. q. 1.]

Another Argument hee had from his master _Plato_,[1] that there is but
one World, because there is but one first mover, God.[2]

  [Sidenote 1: _Metaphys._ l. 12. c. 8.]

  [Sidenote 2: _Diog. Laert. lib._ 3.]

But here I may deny the consequence, since a plurality of worlds doth
not take away the unity of the first mover.

  _Vt enim forma substantialis, sic primum efficiens apparentem
  solummodo multiplicitatem induit per signatam materiam_

(saith a Countreyman of ours.)[1] As the substantiall forme, so the
efficient cause hath onely an appearing multiplicity from its particular
matter. You may see this point more largely handled, and these Arguments
more fully answered by _Plutarch_ in his Booke (why Oracles are silent)
and _Iacob Carpentarius_ in his comment on _Alcinous_.

  [Sidenote 1: _Nic. Hill. de Philosop. Epic. partic. 379._]

But our opposites the Interpreters themselves, (who too often doe
_jurare in verba magistri_) will grant that there is not any strength in
these consequences, and certainely their such weake arguments could not
convince that wise Philosopher, who in his other opinions was wont to
bee swayed by the strength and power of reason: wherefore I should
rather thinke that he had some by-respect, which made him first assent
to this opinion, and afterwards strive to prove it. Perhaps it was
because hee feared to displease his scholler _Alexander_, of whom ’tis
related[1] that he wept to heare a disputation of another world, since
he had not then attained the Monarchy of this, his restlesse wide heart
would have esteemed this Globe of Earth not big enough for him, if there
had beene another, which made the Satyrist say of him,

  _Æstuat infœlix angusto limite mundi._[2]

  “That he did vexe himselfe and sweate in his desires, as being pend
  up in a narrow roome, when hee was confin’d but to one world.”

Before he thought to seate himselfe next the Gods, but now when hee had
done his best, hee must be content with some equall, or perhaps
superiour Kings.

  [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de tranq. anim._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Iuvenal._]

It may be, that _Aristotle_ was moved to this opinion, that hee might
thereby take from _Alexander_ the occasion of this feare and discontent,
or else, perhaps, _Aristotle_ himselfe was as loth to hold the
possibility of a world which he could not discover, as _Alexander_ was
to heare of one which he could not conquer. Tis likely that some such
by-respect moved him to this opinion, since the arguments he urges for
it are confest by his zealous followers and commentators, to be very
sleight and frivolous, and they themselves grant, what I am now to
prove, that there is not any evidence in the light of naturall reason,
which can sufficiently manifest that there is but one world.

But however some may object, would it not be inconvenient and dangerous
to admit of such opinions that doe destroy those principles of
_Aristotle_, which all the world hath so long followed?

This question is much controverted by the _Romish_ Divines; _Campanella_
hath writ a Treatise[1] in defence of it, in whom you may see many
things worth the reading and notice.

  [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo._]

To it I answer, that this position in Philosophy, doth not bring any
inconvenience to the rest, since tis not _Aristotle_, but truth that
should be the rule of our opinions, and if they be not both found
together, wee may say to him, as hee said to his Master _Plato_,

  ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὄντοιν φίλοιν, ὅσιον προτιμᾶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν

  [Greek: amphoin gar ontoin philoin, hosion protiman tên alêtheian].[1]

  “Though _Plato_ were his friend, yet hee would rather adhere to
  truth than him.”

  [Sidenote 1: _Ethic. l. 1. c. 6._]

I must needs grant, that wee are all much beholden to the industry of
the ancient Philosophers, and more especially to _Aristotle_, for the
greater part of our learning, but yet tis not ingratitude to speake
against him, when hee opposeth truth; for then many of the Fathers would
be very guilty, especially _Iustin_, who hath writ a Treatise purposely
against him.

But suppose this opinion were false, yet ’tis not against the faith, and
so it may serve for the better confirmation of that which is true; the
sparkes of errour, being forc’d out by opposition, as the sparkes of
fire, by the striking of the flint and steele. But suppose too that it
were hereticall, and against the faith, yet may it be admitted with the
same priviledge as _Aristotle_, from whom many more dangerous opinions
have proceeded: as that the world is eternall, that God cannot have
while to looke after these inferiour things, that after death there is
no reward or punishment, and such like blasphemies, which strike
directly at the fundamentalls of our Religion.

So that it is justly to be wondred why some should be so superstitious
in these daies, as to sticke closer unto him, than unto Scripture, as if
his Philosophy were the onely foundation of all divine truths.

Upon these grounds both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_ _de firmo_ (as I
have seene them quoted) thinke that _Aristotle_ was the viol of Gods
wrath, which was powred out upon the waters of Wisedome by the third
Angel;[1] But for my part, I thinke the world is much beholden to
_Aristotle_ for all its sciences. But yet twere a shame for these later
ages to rest our selves meerely upon the labours of our Fore-fathers, as
if they had informed us of all things to be knowne, and when wee are set
upon their shoulders, not to see further then they themselves did.
’Twere a superstitious, a lazie opinion to thinke _Aristotles_ workes
the bounds and limits of all humane invention, beyond which there could
be no possibility of reaching. Certainly there are yet many things left
to discovery, and it cannot be any inconvenience for us, to maintaine a
new truth, or rectifie an ancient errour.

  [Sidenote 1: Rev. 16. 4.]

But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture, for

1. _Moses_ tells us but of one world, and his History of the creation
had beene very imperfect if God had made another.

2. Saint _John_ speaking of Gods workes, saies he made the world, in the
singular number, and therefore there is but one:[1] ’tis the argument of
_Aquinas_, and he thinks that none will oppose it, but such who with
_Democritus_ esteeme some blinde chance, and not any wise providence to
be the framer of all things.

  [Sidenote 1: Part 1. Q. 47. Art. 3.]

3. The opinion of more worlds has in ancient time beene accounted a
heresie, and _Baronius_ affirmes that for this very reason, _Virgilius_
was cast out of his Bishopricke, and excommunicated from the Church.[1]

  [Sidenote 1: _Annal. Eccl. A.D. 748._]

4. A fourth argument there is urged by _Aquinas_, if there be more
worlds than one, then they must either be of the same, or of a diverse
nature, but they are not of the same kinde,[1] for this were needlesse,
and would argue an improvidence, since one would have no more perfection
than the other; not of divers kinds, for then one of them could not be
called the world or universe, since it did not containe universall
perfection, I have cited this argument, because it is so much stood upon
by _Iulius Cæsar la Galla_,[2] one that has purposely writ a Treatise
against this opinion which I now deliver, but the Dilemma is so blunt,
that it cannot cut on either side, and the consequences so weake, that I
dare trust them without an answer; And (by the way) you may see this
Author in that place, where he endeavours to prove a necessity of one
world, doth leave the chiefe matter in hand, and take much needlesse
paines to dispute against _Democritus_, who thought that the world was
made by the casuall concourse of _atoms_ in a great _vacuum_. It should
seeme, that either his cause, or his skill was weake, or else he would
have ventured upon a stronger adversary. These arguments which I have
set downe, are the chiefest which I have met with against this subject,
and yet the best of these hath not force enough to endanger the truth
that I have delivered.

  [Sidenote 1: _Ibid._]

  [Sidenote 2: _De Phænom. in orbe lunæ._]

Unto the two first it may be answered, that the negative authority of
Scripture is not prevalent in those things which are not the
fundamentalls of Religion.

But you’le reply, though it doe not necessarily conclude, yet ’tis
probable if there had beene another world, wee should have had some
notice of it in Scripture.

I answer, ’tis as probable that the Scripture should have informed us of
the Planets they being very remarkable parts of the Creation, and yet
neither _Moses_ nor _Job_, nor the _Psalmes_ (the places most frequent
in Astronomicall observations) mention any of them but the Sunne and
Moone, and moreover, you must know, that ’tis besides the scope of the
Holy Ghost either in the new Testament or in the old, to reveale any
thing unto us concerning the secrets of Philosophy; ’tis not his intent
in the new Testament, since we cannot conceive how it might any way
belong either to the Historicall exegeticall or propheticall parts of
it: nor is it his intent in the old Testament, as is well observed by
our Countrey-man Master WRIGHT.[1]

  _Non Mosis aut Prophetarum institutum fuisse videtur Mathematicas
  aliquas aut Physicas subtilitates promulgare, sed ad vulgi captum
  & loquendi morem quemadmodum nutrices infantulis solent sese
  accommodare._

  “’Tis not the endeavour of _Moses_ or the Prophets to discover any
  Mathematicall or Philosophicall subtilties, but rather to accõmodate
  themselves to vulgar capacities, and ordinary speech, as nurses are
  wont to use their infants.”

True indeede, _Moses_ is there to handle the history of the Creation,
but ’tis observed that he does not any where meddle with such matters as
were very hard to be apprehended, for being to informe the common people
as well as others, he does it after a vulgar way, as it is commonly
noted, declaring the originall chiefely of those things which were
obvious to the sense, and being silent of other things, which then could
not well be apprehended. And therefore _Aquinas_ observes,[2] that
_Moses_ writes nothing of the aire, because that being invisible, the
people knew not whether there were any such body or no. And for this
very reason Saint _Austin_ also thinkes that there is nothing exprest
concerning the creation of Angels which notwithstanding are as
remarkable parts of the creatures, and as fit to be knowne as another
world. And therefore the Holy Ghost too uses such vulgar expressions
which set things forth rather as they appeare, then as they are,[3] as
when he calls the Moone one of the greater lights המארת הגדלים whereas
’tis the least, but one that wee can see in the whole heavens. So
afterwards speaking of the great raine which drowned the world,[4] he
saies, the windowes of heaven were opened, because it seemed to come
with that violence, as if it were, poured out from windows in the
Firmament.[5] So that the phrases which the Holy Ghost uses concerning
these things are not to be understood in a literall sense; but rather as
vulgar expressions, and this rule is set downe by Saint _Austin_, where
speaking concerning that in the Psalme, _who stretched the earth upon
the waters_,[6] hee notes, that when the words of Scripture shall
seeme to contradict common sense or experience, there are they to be
understood in a qualified sense, and not according to the letter. And
’tis observed that for want of this rule, some of the ancients have
fastened strange absurdities upon the words of the Scripture. So Saint
_Ambrose_ esteemed it a heresie, to thinke, that the Sunne and starres
were not very hot, as being against the words of Scripture,[7] _Psalm._
19. 6. where the _Psalmist_ sayes that there is nothing that is hid from
the heate of the Sunne. So others there are that would prove the heavens
not to be round, out of that place, _Psal._ 104. 2. _Hee stretcheth out
the heavens like a curtaine._[8] So _Procopius_ also was of opinion,
that the earth was founded upon the waters, nay, he made it part of his
faith, proving it out of _Psal._ 24. 2. _Hee hath founded the earth upon
the seas, and established it upon the flouds._ These and such like
absurdities have followed, when men looke for the grounds of Philosophie
in the words of Scripture. So that from what hath beene said, I may
conclude that the silence of Scripture concerning any other world is not
sufficient argument to prove that there is none. Thus for the two first
arguments.

  [Sidenote 1: _In Epist. ad Gilbert._]

  [Sidenote 2: Part 1. Q. 68. Art. 3.]

  [Sidenote 3: Gen. 1. 16]

  [Sidenote 4: Gen. 11.]

  [Sidenote 5: Sr. _W. Rawly_ c. 7. §. 6.]

  [Sidenote 6: l. 2. in Gen. / Psal. 136. 6.]

  [Sidenote 7: Wisd. 2. 4. 17. 5. / Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.]

  [Sidenote 8: _Com. in c. 1. Gen._]

Unto the third, I may answer, that this very example is quoted by
others, to shew the ignorance of those primative times, who did
sometimes condemne what they did not understand, and have often censur’d
the lawfull & undoubted parts of Mathematiques for hereticall, because
they themselves could not perceive a reason of it, and therefore their
practise in this particular, is no sufficient testimony against us.

But lastly I answer to all the above named objections, that the terme
World, may be taken in a double sense, more generally for the whole
Universe, as it implies in it the elementary and æthereall bodies, the
starres and the earth. Secondly, more particularly for an inferiour
World consisting of elements. Now the maine drift of all these
arguments, is to confute a plurality of worlds in the first sense, and
if there were any such, it might, perhaps, seeme strange, that _Moses_,
or St. _John_ should either not know, or not mention its creation. And
_Virgilius_ was condemned for this opinion, because he held, _quòd sit
alius mundus sub terrâ, aliusque Sol & Luna_, (as _Baronius_) that
within our globe of earth, there was another world, another Sunne and
Moone, and so he might seeme to exclude this from the number of the
other creatures.

But now there is no such danger in this opinion, which is here
delivered, since this world said to be in the Moone, whose creation is
particularly exprest.

So that in the first sense I yeeld, that there is but one world, which
is all that the arguments do prove, but understand it in the second
sense, and so I affirme there may be more nor doe any of the above named
objections prove the cõtrary.

Neither can this opinion derogate from the divine Wisdome (as _Aquinas_
thinkes) but rather advance it, shewing a _compendium_ of providence,
that could make the same body a world, and a Moone; a world for
habitation, and a Moone for the use of others, and the ornament of the
whole frame of Nature. For as the members of the body serve not onely
for the preservation of themselves, but for the use and conveniency of
the whole, as the hand protects the head as well as saves it selfe,[1]
so is it in the parts of the Universe, where each one may serve, as well
for the conservation of that which is within it, as the helpe of others
without it.

  [Sidenote 1: _Cusanus de doct. ignor. l. 2. c. 12._]

I have now in some measure, shewed that a plurality of worlds does not
contradict any principle of reason or place of Scripture, and so cleared
the first part of that supposition which is applied in the opinion.

It may next be enquired; whether ’tis possible there may be a globe of
elements in that which we call the æthereall parts of the Universe; for
if this (as it is according to the common opinion) be priviledged from
any change or corruption, it will be in vaine then to imagine any
element there, and if we will have another world, we must then seeke out
some other place for its situation. The third Proposition therefore
shall be this.




Proposition 3.

_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can
  priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these
  inferiour bodies are liable unto._


It hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and
Philosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavens
are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure
elements, as _Aristotle_[1] holds, and with him some of the late
Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to
those vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore they
themselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary
nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent,
were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest
by their owne[2]* side. It were much to be desired, thst these men had
not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without
necessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the
secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to
finde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments,
since ’tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary
consequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of the
bookes _de Cœlo._

  [Sidenote 1: _De Cœlo., l. 1. cap. 2._]

  [Sidenote 2*: _Colleg. Cannimb. De Cœlo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3._]

But is it the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of
_Lombard_, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these
sublunary bodies. St. _Ambrose_ is confident of it, that hee esteemes
the contrary a heresie.[1] True indeed, they differ much among
themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but
herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or
other. For a better confirmation of this, you may see _Ludovicus
Molina_, _Euseb. Nirembergius_, with divers others.[2] The venerable
_Bede_ thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements, and
’tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance,[3] as will
be shewed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments
for either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile
_Aristotle_, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proof
of their corruptibility.

  [Sidenote 1: _In Hexam. lib. 4._]

  [Sidenote 2: _In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5._]

  [Sidenote 3: _In lib. de Mundi constit._]

The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a
corruptible nature, [1]not whether they can be destroyed by God, for
this Scripture puts out of doubt.

  [Sidenote 1: 2 Pet. 3. 12.]

Nor whether or no in a long time they would weare away and grow worse,
for from any such feare they have beene lately priviledged.[1] But
whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this
inferiour world is liable unto.

  [Sidenote 1: By Doctor _Hackwell_ _Apol._]

The two chiefe opinions concerning this, have both erred in some
extremity, the one side going so farre from the other, that they have
both gone beyond the right, whilest _Aristotle_ hath opposed the truth,
as well as the Stoicks.

Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood
in need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually
fed, and so had divers alterations by reason of their food, this is
fathered on _Heraclitus_,[1] followed by that great Naturalist
_Pliny_,[2] and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see
_Seneca_ expressely to this purpose in these words,

  _Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis
  dividuntur, hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sydera tam exercitata,
  tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu._[3]

Speaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment is
divided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hence
were sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day
and night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also _Lucan_ sings,

  _Necnon Oceano pasci Phœbumque polumque credimus._

  [Sidenote 1: _Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9._]

  [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Quæst. lib. 2. cap. 5._]

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 cœlo. 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 Cœlo. 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 Cæsius 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 hæc opinio, quam
  Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quæ cœlum 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_, _Cælius Rhodiginus_, _Iulius Cæsar_,
_&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 cœlo. l. 2. com. 49._
  _Ant. lection. l. 20. c. 4._
  _De phænom. lunæ. 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. § 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. lunæ._]

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] ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιπὼν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ
οὐρανοῦ ἕδρην ἀφανὴς ἦν. 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. Lunæ._]

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

But here _Julius Cæsar_[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 phænom. Lunæ. 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._
  _Hebræonia 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. Architecturæ._]

  [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 cæcutiremus_;

“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._
ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, _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 terræ esset,
illud non amitteret, sed eò evidentiùs exereret, omne enim lumen in
tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non præpeditur._

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 terræ corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia,
  aut lunæ lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro præripere,
  sed est quædam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum
  corpus terræ._

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.

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 reconditissimæ scientiæ_,[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_, _Mæslin_, 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 & humidæ sunt substantiæ
  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. Coævis. Q. 4ª. Art. 21._
  _Exercit. 62._
  _1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]

  [Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._
  _De Cœlo. 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
  terræ, 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. Quæst. 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, ἡ πολλ᾽ οὔρεα ἔχει, πολλ᾽ ἄστεα,
πολλὰ μέλαθρα,[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
cõmanded 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 Cœlo. 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
_ætherea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an æthereall 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, _quæ 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 cœlestis_, 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 quædam nobilis, quæ 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 terræ 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 Lunæ._]

  [Sidenote 4: _Instit. ad discip._ Plat. _Cæl. 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
_Mæslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilæus_, each of them late writers, and
famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.[1] As for those workes
of _Mæslin_ 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 Cæsar_, whom I have
above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this
opinion,[2] _viz._ _Keplar_ and _Galilæus_ 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 phænom. lunæ. 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
_Cæsar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides ’tis
very likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galilæus_ 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 _Cæsar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are
equally true, that _Galilæus_ 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
_Galilæus_, 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 προσωποπεία 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 representâsse 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 _Cæsar la
Galla_,[2] whose words are these:

  _Mercurium caduceum gestantem, cœlestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas
  ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilæum verò novum
  Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducæo instructum Sydera aperire, &
  veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra ætas
  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 _Galilæus_
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 phænom. 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 _Galilæus_ 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 præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis &
  opticis præceptis, optimè instructis sedulâ 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 hæc 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 Galilæo._]

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: _à 1º. cap. ad 10m._]

First, περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the
elementary and æthereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong
to the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly,
περὶ αὐτὴν παθῶν, 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 reflexiõ 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.

The *[1]Stoicks held that planet to be mixed of fire and aire, and in
their opinion, the variety of its composition, caused her spots:
_Anaxagoras_ thought all the starres to be of an earthly nature, mixed
with some fire, and as for the Sunne, hee affirmed it to be nothing else
but a fiery stone; for which later opinion, the _Athenians_ sentenc’d
him to death;[2] those zealous Idolaters counting it a great blasphemy,
to make their God a stone, whereas not withstanding, they were so
senslesse in their adoration of Idolls, as to make a stone their God,
this _Anaxagoras_ affirmed the Moone to be more terrestriall then the
other, but of a greater purity then any thing here below, and the spots
hee thought were nothing else, but some cloudy parts, intermingled with
the light which belonged to that Planet, but I have above destroyed the
supposition on which this fancy is grounded: _Pliny_[3] thinkes they
arise from some drossie stuffe, mixed with that moysture which the Moone
attracts unto her selfe, but hee was of their opinion, who thought the
starres were nourished by some earthly vapours, which you may commonly
see refuted in the _Commentators_ on the bookes, _de Cœlo_.

  [Sidenote 1*: _Plut. de placit. phil. l. 2. c. 25._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Iosephus l. 2. con. App._
  _August. de civit. Dei. l. 18. c. 41._]

  [Sidenote 3: _Nat. Hist. lib. 2. c. 9._]

_Vitellio_ and _Reinoldus_[1] affirme the spots to be the thicker parts
of the Moone, into which the Sunne cannot infuse much light, and this
(say they) is the reason, why in the Sunnes eclipses, the spots and
brighter parts are still in some measure distinguished, because the
Sunne beames are not able so well to penetrate through those thicker, as
they may through the thinner parts of the Planet. Of this opinion also
was _Cæsar la Galla_, whose words are these,[2]

  “The Moone doth there appeare clearest, where shee is transpicuous,
  not onely through the superficies, but the substance also, and there
  she seemes spotted, where her body is most opacous.”

The ground of this his assertion was, because hee thought the Moone did
receive and bestow her light by illumination onely, and not at all by
reflexion, but this, together with the supposed penetration of the Sunne
beames, and the perspicuity of the Moones body I have above answered and
refuted.

  [Sidenote 1: _Opt. lib. 9._
  _Comment. in Purb. pag. 164._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Ex qua parte luna est transpicua non totum secundum
  superficiem, sed etiam secundum substantiam, eatenus clara, ex qua
  autem parte opaca est, eatenus obscura videtur._ _De Phænom.
  cap. 11._]

The more common and generall opinion[1] is, that the spots are the
thinner parts of the Moone, which are lesse able to reflect the beames
that they receive from the Sunne, and this is most agreeable to reason,
for if the starres are therefore brightest, because they are thicker and
more solid then their orbes, then it will follow, that those parts of
the Moone which have lesse light, have also lesse thickenesse. It was
the providence of nature (say some) that so contrived that planet to
have these spots within it, for since that is neerest to those lower
bodies which are so full of deformity, ’tis requisite that it should in
some measure agree with them, and as in this inferiour world the higher
bodies are the most compleat, so also in the heavens perfection is
ascended unto by degrees, and the Moone being the lowest, must be the
least pure, and therefore _Philo_ the Jew[2] interpreting _Iacobs_
dreame concerning the ladder, doth in an allegory shew, how that in the
fabricke of the world, all things grow perfecter as they grow higher,
and this is the reason (saith hee) why the Moone doth not consist of any
pure simple matter, but is mixed with aire, which shewes so darkely
within her body.

  [Sidenote 1: _Albert. mag. de coævis. Q. 4. Art. 21._
  _Colleg. Con._]

  [Sidenote 2: _De Somniis._]

But this cannot be a sufficient reason, for though it were true that
nature did frame every thing perfecter as it was higher, yet is it as
true, that nature frames every thing fully perfect for that office to
which shee intends it. Now, had she intended the Moone meerly to reflect
the Sunne beames and give light, the spots then had not so much argued
her providence, as her unskilfulnesse and imperfection,[1] as if in the
haste of her worke shee could not tell how to make that body exactly
fit, for that office to which she appointed it.

  [Sidenote 1: _Scalig. exercit. 62._]

Tis likely then that she had some other end which moved her to produce
this variety, and this in all probability was her intent to make it a
fit body for habitation with the same conveniencies of sea and land, as
this inferiour world doth partake of. For since the Moone is such a
vast, such a solid and opacous body like our earth (as was above proved)
why may it not be probable, that those thinner and thicker parts
appearing in her, doe shew the difference betwixt the sea and land in
that other world; and _Galilæus_ doubts not, but that if our earth were
visible at the same distance, there would be the like appearance of it.

As for the forme of those spots, some of the vulgar thinke they
represent a man, and the Poets guesse ’tis the boy _Endimion_, whose
company shee loves so well, that shee carries him with her, others will
have it onely to be the face of a man as the Moone is usually pictured,
but _Albertus_ thinkes rather, that it represents a Lyon with his taile
towards the East, and his head the West, and [1]*some others have
thought it to be very much like a Fox, & certainly ’tis as much like a
Lyon as that in the _Zodiake_, or as _Vrsa major_ is like a Beare.

  [Sidenote 1*: Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat. lib. 8. c. 15._]

I should guesse that it represents one of these as well as another, and
any thing else as well as any of these, since ’tis but a strong
imagination, which fancies such images as schoole-boyes usually doe in
the markes of a wall, whereas there is not any such similitude in the
spots themselves, which rather like our Sea, in respect of the land,
appeares under a rugged and confused figure, and doth not represent any
distinct image, so that both in respect of the matter and the forme it
may be probable enough, that those spots and brighter parts may shew the
distinction betwixt the Sea and Land in that other world.




Proposition 8.

_The spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land._


When I first compared the nature of our earth and water with those
appearances in the Moone; I concluded contrary to the proposition, that
the brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the land; of
this opinion likewise was _Keplar_ at the first; but my second thoughts,
and the reading of others,[1] have now convinced me (as after he was) of
the truth of that Proposition which I have now set downe. But before I
come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which at
first made mee doubt of the truth of this opinion.

  [Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9._
  _Dissert. cum nuncio Gal._]

1. It may be objected, ’tis probable, if there be any such sea and land
as ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but now
this Proposition takes away all likenesse betwixt them, for whereas the
superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in
the globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as _Scaliger_[1]
observes) yet here according to this opinion, the Sea should be lesse
then the Land, since there is not so much of the bespotted, as ther is
of the enlightened parts, wherefore ’tis probable, that either there is
no such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the Sea.

  [Sidenote 1: _Exercit. 38._]

2. The water, by reason of the smoothnesse of its superficies, seemes
better able to reflect the Sun beames then the earth, which in most
places is so full of ruggednesse of grasse and trees, and such like
impediments of reflection, and besides, cõmon experience shewes, that
the water shines with a greater and more glorious brightnesse then the
earth, therefore it should seeme that the spots are the earth, and the
brighter parts the water.

But to the first it may be answered.

1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because ’tis
so with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the Moone, for
since there is such a difference betwixt them in divers other respects,
they may not, perhaps, agree in this.

2. That assertion of _Scaliger_ is not by all granted for a truth.
_Fromondus_[1] with others, thinke, that the superficies of the Sea and
Land in so much of the world as is already discovered, is equall, and of
the same extension.

  [Sidenote 1: _De Meteoris l. 5. c. 1. Art. 1._]

3. The Orbe of thicke and vaporous aire which encompasses the Moone,
makes the brighter parts of that Planet appeare bigger then in
themselves they are; as I shall shew afterwards.

To the second it may be answered, that though the water be of a smooth
superficies, and so may seeme most fit to reverberate the light, yet
because ’tis of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beames must sinke
into it, and cannot so strongly and clearely be reflected. _Sicut in
speculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit_, (saith _Cardan_) as in
Looking-glasses where part of the lead is raized off, and nothing left
behind to reverberate the image, the species must there passe through
and not backe againe; so it is where the beames penetrate and sinke into
the substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strong
reflection as when they are beate backe from the superficies, and
therefore the Sunne causes a greater heate by farre upon the Land then
upon the water. Now as for that experiment, where ’tis said, that the
waters have a greater brightness then the Land: I answer, ’tis true
onely there where they represent the image of the Sunne or some bright
cloud, and not in other places, as is very plaine by common observation.

So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this Proposition may remaine
true, that the spots may be the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land. Of
this opinion was _Plutarch_: unto him assented _Keplar_ and _Galilæus_,
whose words are these,

  _Si quis veterum Pythagoræorum sententiam excuscitare velit, lunam
  scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam
  superficiem, obscurior verò aqueam magis congruè repræsentet. Mihi
  autem dubium fuit numquam terrestris globi à longè conspecti,
  atque a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem,
  obscuriorem verò aqueam sese in conspectum daturam._[1]

  “If any man have a minde to renew the opinion of the _Pythagoreans_,
  that the Moone is another earth, then her brighter parts may fitly
  represent the earths superficies, and the darker part the water:
  and for my part, I never doubted but that our earthly globe being
  shined upon by the Sunne, and beheld at a great distance, the Land
  would appeare brightest and the Sea more obscurely.”

  [Sidenote 1: _De facie lun._
  _Dissertatio._
  _Nunc. Syd._]

The reasons may be.

1. That which I urged about the foregoing Chapter, because the water is
the thinner part, and therefore must give the lesse light.

2. Because observation tels us, that the spotted parts are alwaies
smooth and equall, having every where an equality of light, when once
they are enlightened by the Sunne, whereas the brighter parts are full
of rugged gibbosities and mountaines having many shades in them, as I
shall shew more at large afterwards.

That in this Planet there must be Seas, _Campanella_[1] indeavours to
prove out of Scripture interpreting the _waters above the Firmament_
spoken of in _Genesis_ to be meant of the Sea in this world. For (saith
he) ’tis not likely that there are any such waters above the Orbes to
moderate that heate which they receive from their swift motion (as some
of the Fathers thinke) nor did _Moses_ meane the Angells which may be
called spirituall waters, as _Origen_ and _Austin_[2] would have it, for
both these are rejected by the generall consent: nor could he meane any
waters in the second region, as most Commentators interpret it. For
first there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwards
turned into water, yet while they remaine there, they are onely the
matter of that element, which may as well be fire or earth, or aire.
2. Those vapors are not above the _expansum_, but in it. So that hee
thinkes there is no other way to salve all, but by making the Planets
severall worlds with Sea & Land, with such Rivers and Springs, as wee
have here below: Especially since _Esdras_[3] speakes of the springs
above the Firmament, but I cannot agree with him in this, nor doe I
thinke that any such thing can be proved out of Scripture.

  [Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilæo._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Confession. l. 13. c. 32._]

  [Sidenote 3: 2 Esdr. 4. 7.]

Before I proceede to the next Position, I shall first answer some doubts
which might be made against the generality of this truth, whereby it may
seeme impossible that there should be either Sea or Land in the Moone;
for since she moves so swiftly as Astronomers observe, why then does
there nothing fall from her, or why doth shee not shake something out by
the celerity of her revolution? I answer, you must know that the
inclination of every heavie body, to its proper Center doth sufficiently
tie it unto its place, so that suppose any thing were separated, yet
must it necessarily returne againe, and there is no more danger of their
falling into our world then there is feare of our falling into the
Moone.

But yet there are many fabulous relations of such things as have dropped
thence. There is a tale of the Nemean Lyon that _Hercules_ slew, which
first rushing among the heards out of his unknowne den in the Mountaine
of _Cytheron_ in _Bœotia_, the credulous people thought he was sent from
their Goddesse the Moone. And if a whirle-winde did chance to snatch any
thing up, and afterwards raine it downe againe, the ignorant multitude
are apt to believe that it dropt from Heaven. Thus _Avicenna_ relates
the story of a Calfe which fell downe in a storme, the beholders
thinking it a Moone-calfe, and that it fell thence. So _Cardan_
travelling upon the Apennine Mountaines, a sudden blast tooke off his
hat, which if it had beene carryed farre, he thinkes the peasants who
had perceived it to fall, would have sworne it had rained hats. After
some such manner many of our prodigies come to passe, and the people are
willing to believe anything, which they may relate to others as a very
strange and wonderfull event. I doubt not but the Trojan _Palladium_,
the Romane _Minerva_, and our Ladies Church at _Loretto_, with many
sacred reliques preserved by the Papists might droppe from the Moone as
well as any of these.

But it may be againe objected, suppose there were a bullet shot up in
that world, would not the Moone runne away from it, before it could fall
downe, since the motion of her body (being every day round our earth) is
farre swifter than the other, and so the bullet must be left behinde,
and at length fall downe to us? To this I answer,

1. If a bullet could be shot so farre till it came to the circumference
of those things which belong to our center, then it would fall downe to
us.

2. Though there were some heavie body a great height in that ayer, yet
would the motion of its centre by an attractive vertue still hold it
within its convenient distance, so that whether their earth moved or
stood still, yet would the same violence cast a body from it equally
farre. That I may the plainer expresse my meaning, I will set downe this
Diagramme.

  [Illustration as described in text]

Suppose this earth were A, which was to move in the circle C, D. and let
the bullet be supposed at B. within its proper verge; I say, whether
this earth did stand stil or move swiftly towards D, yet the bullet
would still keepe at the same distance by reason of that Magneticke
vertue of the center (if I may so speake) whereby all things within its
spheare are attracted with it. So that the violence to the bullet, being
nothing else but that whereby ’tis removed from its center, therefore an
equall violence can carry a body from its proper place, but at an equall
distance whether or no the center stand still or move.

The impartiall Reader may finde sufficient satisfaction for this and
such other arguments as may be urged against the motion of that earth in
the writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers, unto whom for brevities
sake I will referre them.




Proposition 9.

_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plains
  in the body of the Moone._


Though there are some who thinke Mountaines to bee a deformity in the
earth, as if they were either beate up by the flood, or else cast up
like so many heaps of rubbish left at the creation, yet if well
considered, they will be found as much to conduce to the beauty and
conveniency of the universe as any of the other parts. Nature (saith
_Pliny_[1]) purposely framed them for many excellent uses: partly to
tame the violence of greater Rivers, to strengthen certaine joynts
within the veines and bowels of the earth, to breake the force of the
Seas inundation, and for the safety of the earths inhabitants, whether
beasts or men. That they make much for the protection of beasts the
Psalmist[2] testifies, _The highest hils are a refuge for the wilde
Goats, and the rockes for Conies_. The Kingly Prophet had learned the
safety of these by his owne experience, when he also was faine to make a
mountaine his refuge from the fury of his Master _Saul_, who persecuted
him in the wildernesse.

  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. hist. l. 36. c. 1._]

  [Sidenote 2: Psal. 104. v. 18.]

True indeed, such places as these keepe their neighbours poore, as
beeing most barren, but yet they preserve them safe, as being most
strong, witnesse our unconquered _Wales_ and _Scotland_, whose greatest
protection hath beene the naturall strength of their Countrey, so
fortified with Mountaines, that these have alwaies been unto them sure
retraites from the violence and oppression of others, wherefore a good
Authour doth rightly call them natures bulwarkes cast up at God
Almighties owne charges, the scornes and curbs of victorious armies,
which made the Barbarians in _Curtius_ so confident of their owne
safety, when they were once retired to an inaccessible mountaine, that
when _Alexanders_ Legate had brought them to a parley and perswading
them to yeeld, told them of his masters victories, what Seas and
Wildernesses hee had passed, they replyed that all that might be, but
could _Alexander_ fly too? Over the Seas he might have ships, and over
the land horses, but hee must have wings before he could get up thither.
Such safety did those barbarous nations conceive in the mountaines
whereunto they were retyred, certainely then such usefull parts were not
the effect of mans sinne, or produced by the Worlds curse the flood, but
rather at the first created by the goodnesse and providence of the
Almighty.

So that if I intend to prove that the Moone is such a habitable world as
this is, ’tis requisite that I shew it to have the same conveniences of
habitation as this hath, and here if some Rabbi or Chymicke were to
handle the point they would first prove it out of Scripture, from that
place in _Moses_ his blessing,[1] where hee speakes of the ancient
mountaines and lasting hils, _Deut._ 33 הררי קדם וגבעות עולם for having
immediately before mentioned those blessings which should happen unto
_Ioseph_ by the influence of the Moone, he does presently exegetically
iterate thẽ in blessing him with the chiefe things of the ancient
Mountaines and lasting hils; you may also see the same expression used
in _Iacobs_ blessing of _Ioseph_.[2]

  [Sidenote 1: Deut. 33. 15]

  [Sidenote 2: Gen. 49. 26]

But however we may deale _pro_ or _con_ in Philosophy, yet we must not
jest with divine truths, or bring Scripture to patronize any fancy of
our owne, though, perhaps, it be truth. For the better proofe of this
proposition, I might here cite the testimony of _Diodorus_, who thought
the Moone to bee full of rugged places, _vel ut terrestribus tumulis
superciliosam_, but he erred much in some circumstances of this opinion,
especially where he saies, there is an Iland amongst the _Hyperboreans_,
wherein those hils may to the eye bee plainely discovered, and for this
reason. [1]*_Cælius_ calls him a fabulous Writer, but you may see more
expresse authority for the proofe of this in the opinions of
_Anaxagoras_ and _Democritus_,[2] who held that this Planet was full of
champion grounds, mountains and vallies, and this seemed likewise
probable unto _Augustinus Nifus_, whose words are these:

  _Forsitan non est remotum dicere, lunæ partes esse diversas, veluti
  sunt partes terræ, quarum aliæ sunt vallosæ, aliæ montosæ, ex quarum
  differentia effici potest facies illa lunæ; nec est rationi dissonum,
  nam luna est corpus imperfectè Sphæricum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo
  cœlo elongatum, ut supra dixit Aristoteles._

  “Perhaps, it would not be amisse to say that the parts of the Moone
  were divers, as the parts of this earth, whereof some are vallies,
  and some mountaines, from the difference of which, some spots in the
  Moone may proceed, nor is this against reason, for that Planet cannot
  be perfectly sphericall, since ’tis so remote a body from the first
  orbe, as _Aristotle_ had said before.”

You may see this truth assented unto by _Blancanus_ the Jesuit,[3] and
by him confirmed with with divers reasons. _Keplar_ hath observed in the
Moones eclipses,[4] that the division of her enlightened part from the
shaded, was made by a crooked unequall line, of which there cannot be
any probable cause conceived, unlesse it did arise from the ruggednesse
of that planet, for it cannot at all be produc’d from the shade of any
mountains here upon earth, because these would be so lessned before they
could reach so high in a conicall shadow, that they would not be at all
sensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated) nor can it be
conceived what reason of this difference there should be in the Sunne.
Wherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to doe in
eclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a variety
of parts in the Moone it selfe, and what can there be but its
gibbosities? Now if you should aske a reason why there should be such a
similitude of these in that Planet, the same _Keplar_ shall jest you out
an answere, for supposing (saith he) those inhabitants are bigger than
any of us in the same proportion, as their daies are longer than ours,
viz. by fifteen times it may bee for want of stones to erect such vast
houses as were requisite for their bodies, they are faine to digge great
and round hollowes in the earth, where they may both procure water for
their thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those great
heats which otherwise they would be lyable unto; or if you will give
_Cæsar la Galla_ leave to guesse in the same manner, he would rather
think that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so great heaps of
earth in digging of their wine cellars, but this onely by the way.

  [Sidenote 1*: _Lect. aut l. 1. c. 15._
  _Plut. de plac. l. 2. c. 25._]

  [Sidenote 2: _De cœlo. l. 2. p. 49._]

  [Sidenote 3: _De Mundi fab. pars 3ª. c. 4._]

  [Sidenote 4: _Astron. Opt. c. 6. num 9._]

I shall next produce the eye-witnesse of _Galilæus_,[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 _Galilæus_:

  [Sidenote 1: _Nuncius Sydereus._]

  [Illustration: Crescent Moon]

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 _Cæsar 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 cœcos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis,
  sed opacâ 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
_Galilæus_, 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 _Galilæus_ 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 _Galiæus_ 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. § 11._]

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

2. I affirme that there are very high Mountaines in the Moone. _Keplar_
and _Galilæus_ 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 _Galilæus_, 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.

  [Illustration]

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 _Galilæus_.

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-sphæra, 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 _Galilæus_,[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-sphæra, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a
cause there should be of such an appearance as this,

  _Quod radii Solares à 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. § 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 naturâ 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. lunæ._]

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, terræque 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, tantummodò, 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 _Cælius_,[1]

  _Si concipias te in sublimi quopiam mundi loco, unde oculis
  subjiciatur terræ 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 hæc 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
  terræ & aquæ instar ingentis syderis à 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: _Præfat. 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]

  _Hæc experientia ita me aliquando fefellit, ut in hunc fulgorem
  casu ac repente incidens, existimarim novo quodam miraculo tempore
  adolescentis lunæ 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
_Cælius_,[1]

  _Quod si in disquisitionem evocet quia, an lunari syderi lucem
  fœnerent planetæ item alii, asseveranter astruendum non fœnerare_.

“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.

And as loving friends equally participate of the same joy and griefe, so
doe these mutually partake of the same light from the Sunne, and the
same darkenesse from the eclipses, being also severally helped by one
another in their greatest wants: For when the Moone is in conjunction
with the Sunne, and her upper part receives all the light, then her
lower Hemispheare (which would otherwise be altogether darke) is
enlightened by the reflexion of the Sunne beames from the earth. When
these two planets are in opposition, then that part of the earth which
could not receive any light from the Sunne beames, is most enlightened
by the Moone, being then in her full; and as she doth most illuminate
the earth when the Sunne beames cannot, so the gratefull earth returnes
to her as great, nay greater light when shee most wants it; so that
alwaies that visible part of the Moone which receives nothing from the
Sunne, is enlightened by the earth, as is proved by _Galilæus_, with
many more arguments, in that Treatise which he calls _Systema mundi_.
True indeed, when the Moone comes to a quartile, then you can neither
discerne this light, nor yet the darker part of her body, but the reason
is, because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts. _Quippe
illustratum medium speciem recipit valentiorem_,[1] the clearer
brightnesse involves the weaker, it being with the species of sight, as
it is with those of sound, and as the greater noise drownes the lesse,
so the brighter object hides that which is more obscure. But they doe
alwaies in their mutuall vicissitudes participate of one anothers light;
so also doe they partake of the same defects and darknings, for when our
Moone is eclipsed, then is their Sunne darkened, and when our Sunne is
eclipsed, then is their Moone deprived of its light, as you may see
affirmed by _Mæslin_.[2]

  _Quod si terram nobis ex alto liceret intueri, quemadmodum
  deficientem lunam ex longinquo spectare possumus, videremus tempore
  eclipsis solis terræ aliquam partem lumine solis deficere, eodem
  planè modo sicut ex opposito luna deficit_,

  “If wee might behold this globe of earth at the same distance as we
  doe the Moone in her defects, wee might discerne some part of it
  darkened in the Sunnes eclipses, just so as the Moone is in hers.”

For as our Moone is eclipsed by the interposition of our earth, so is
their Moone eclipsed by the interposition of theirs. The manner of this
mutuall illumination betwixt these two you may plainly discerne in this
Figure following.

  [Sidenote 1: _Scal. exerc. 62._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Epit. Astro. l. 4. part. 2._]

  [Illustration as described in text:
  sun, crescent moon and gibbous earth]

Where A represents the Sun, B the Earth, and C the Moone; Now suppose
the Moone C to be in a sextile of increase, when there is onely one
small part of her body enlightened, then the earth B will have such a
part of its visible Hemispheare darkened, as is proportionable to that
part of the Moone which is enlightened; and as for so much of the Moone,
as the Sun beames cannot reach unto, it receives light from a
proportionall part of the earth which shines upon it, as you may plainly
perceive by the Figure.

You see then that agreement and similitude which there is betwixt our
earth and the Moone. Now the greatest difference which makes them
unlike, is this, that the Moone enlightens our earth round about,
whereas our earth gives light onely to that Hemispheare of the Moone
which is visible unto us, as may be certainly gathered from the constant
appearance of the same spots, which could not thus come to passe, if the
Moone had such a diurnall motion about its own axis, as perhaps our
earth hath. And though some suppose her to move in an epicycle, yet this
doth not so turne her body round, that we may discerne both
Hemispheares, for according to that hypothesis, the motion of her
eccentrick, doth turne her face towards us, as much as the other doth
from us.

But now if any question what they doe for a Moone who live in the upper
part of her body? I answer, the solving of this is the most uncertaine
and difficult thing that I know of concerning this whole matter. But yet
I will give you two probable conjectures.

1. Perhaps, the upper Hemispheare of the Moone doth receive a sufficient
light from those planets about it, and amongst these _Venus_ (it may be)
bestowes a more especiall brightnesse, since _Galilæus_ hath plainly
discerned that she suffers the same increase and decreases, as the Moone
hath, and ’tis probable that this may be perceived there without the
help of a glasse, because they are farre neerer it than wee. When
_Venus_ (saith _Keplar_) lies downe in the Perige or lower part of her
supposed Epicycle, then is she in conjunction with her husband the
Sunne, from whom after she hath departed for the space of ten moneths,
shee gets _plenum uterum_, and is in the full.

But you’ll reply, though _Venus_ may bestow some light when she is over
the Moone, and in conjunction, yet being in opposition, she is not
visible to them, and what shall they then doe for light?

I answer, then they have none: nor doth this make so great a difference
betwixt those two Hemispheares as there is with us, betwixt the places
under the poles, and the line, but if this bee not sufficient, then I
say in the second place that

2. Perhaps there may be some other enlightened body above the Moone
which we cannot discerne, nor is this altogether improbable because
there is almost the like observed in Saturne, who appeares through this
glasse with two lesser bodies on each side, which may supply the office
of Moones, unto each hemispheare thus:

    o O o

So in this world also there may be some such body, though wee cannot
discerne it, because the Moone is alwaies in a streight line, betwixt
our eye and that. Nor is it altogether unlikely that there should bee
more moones to one Orbe, because _Jupiter_ also is observed to have
foure such bodies that move round about him.

But it may seeme a very difficult thing to conceive, how so grosse and
darke a body as our earth, should yeeld such cleare light as proceedes
from the Moone, and therefore the Cardinall _de Cusa_[1] (who thinkes
every Starre to be a severall world) is of opinion that the light of the
Sunne is not able to make them appeare so bright, but the reason of
their shining is, because wee behold them at a great distance through
their regions of fire which doe set a shining lustre upon those bodies
that of themselves are darke.

  _Vnde si quis esset extra regionem ignis, terra ista in
  circumferentia suæ regionis per medium ignis lucida stella
  appareret._

  “So that if man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would
  appear through that as a bright Starre.”

But if this were the onely reason then would the Moone bee freed from
such increases and decreases as shee is now lyable unto.

  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ig. l. 2. c. 12._]

_Keplar_ thinkes that our earth receives that light whereby it shines
from the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended cleare
brightnesse as the Moone is capable of, and therefore hee guesses, that
the earth there is of a more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_, and
so is better able to reflect a stronger light, whereas our earth must
supply this intention with the quantity of its body, but this I conceive
to be a needlesse conjecture, since our earth if all things were well
considered, will be found able enough to reflect as great a light. For

1. Consider its opacity, if you marke these sublunary things, you shall
perceive that amongst them, those that are most perspicuous, are not so
well able to reverberate the Sunne beames as the thicker bodies. The
rayes passe singly through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacous
substance they are doubled in their returne and multiplyed by reflexion.
Now if the moone and the other Planets can shine so clearely by beating
backe the Sunne beames, why may not the earth also shine as well, which
agrees with them in the cause of this brightnesse their opacity?

2. Consider what a cleare light wee may discerne reflected from the
earth in the middest of Summer, and withall conceive how much greater
that must bee which is under the line, where the rayes are more directly
and strongly reverberated.

3. Consider the great distance at which wee behold the Planets, for this
must needs adde much to their shining and therefore _Cusanus_ (in the
above cited place) thinkes that if a man were in the Sunne, that Planet
would not appeare so bright to him, as now it doth to us, because then
his eye could discerne but little, whereas here wee may comprehend the
beames as they are contracted in a narrow body. _Keplar_ beholding the
earth from a high mountaine when it was enlightned by the Sunne
confesses that it appeared unto him of an incredible brightnesse,
whereas then the reflected rayes entered into his sight obliquely; but
how much brighter would it have appeared if hee might in a direct line
behold the whole globe of earth and these rayes gathered together? So
that if wee consider that great light which the earth receives from the
Sunne in the Summer, and then suppose wee were in the Moone, where wee
might see the whole earth hanging in those vast spaces where there is
nothing to terminate the sight, but those beames which are there
contracted into a little compasse; I say, if wee doe well consider this,
wee may easily conceive, that our earth appeares as bright to those
other inhabitants in the Moone, as theirs doth to us.




Proposition 12.

_That tis probable there may bee such Meteors belonging to that world
  in the Moone, as there are with us._


_Plutarch_ discussing this point affirmes that it is not necessary there
should be the same meanes of growth and fructifying in both these
worlds, since nature might in her policy finde out more waies then one
how to bring about the same effect. But however he thinks its probable
that the Moone her selfe sendeth forth warme winds, and by the
swiftnesse of her motion there should breathe out a sweet and
comfortable ayer, pleasant dewes and gentle moysture, which might serve
for the refreshing and nourishment of the inhabitants and plants in that
other world.

But since they have all things alike with us, as sea and land, and
vaporous ayer encompassing both, I should rather therefore thinke that
nature there should use the same way of producing meteors as she doth
with us (and not by a motion as _Plutarch_ supposes) because shee doth
not love to vary from her usuall operations without some extraordinary
impediment, but still keepes her beaten path unlesse she be driven
thence.

One argument whereby I shall manifest this truth, may be taken from
those new Starres which have appeared in divers ages of the world, and
by their parallax have beene discerned to have been above the _M_oone,
such as was that in _Cassiopeia_, that in _Sagittarius_, with many
others betwixt the Planets. _Hipparchus_ in his time tooke especiall
notice of such as these,[1] and therefore fancied out such
constellations in which to place the Starres, shewing how many there
were in every asterisme, that so afterwards posterity might know,
whether there were any new Starre produced or any old one missing. Now
the nature of these Comets may probably manifest, that in this other
world there are other meteors also; for these in all likelihood are
nothing else but such evaporations caused by the Sunne, from the bodies
of the Planets. I shall prove this by shewing the improbabilities and
inconveniences of any other opinion.

  [Sidenote 1: _Plin. nat. hist. l. 2. c. 26._]

For the better pursuite of this ’tis in the first place requisite that I
deale with our chiefe adversary, _Cæsar la Galla_, who doth most
directly oppose that truth which is here to bee proved. Hee endeavouring
to confirme the incorruptibility of the Heavens, and being there to
satisfie the argument which is taken from these comets, He answers it
thus:

  _Aut argumentum desumptum ex paralaxi non est efficax, aut si est
  efficax, eorum instrumentorum usum decipere, vel ratione astri vel
  medii, vel distantiæ, aut ergo erat in suprema parte aeris, aut si
  in cœlo, tum forsan factum erat ex reflectione radiorum Saturni &
  Jovis, qui tunc in conjunctione fuerant._

  “Either the argument from the paralax is not efficacious, or if it
  be, yet the use of the instruments might deceive either in regard of
  the starre or the _medium_, or the distance, and so this comet might
  be in the upper regions of the aire, or if it were in the heavens,
  there it might be produced by the reflexion of the rayes from
  _Saturne_ and _Jupiter_, who were then in conjunction.”

You see what shifts hee is driven to, how he runnes up and downe to many
starting holes, that hee may find some shelter, and in stead of the
strength of reason, he answers with a multitude of words, thinking (as
the Proverbe is) that hee may use haile, when hee hath no thunder,
_Nihil turpius_ (saith [1]*_Seneca_)

  _dubio est incerto, pedem modo referente, modo producente._

  “What can there bee more unseemely in one that should be a faire
  disputant, then to be now here, now there, and so uncertaine, that
  one cannot tell where to find him.”

He thinkes that there are not Comets in the heavens, because there may
be many other reasons of such appearances, but what he knowes not,
perhaps (he saies) that argument from the parallax is not sufficient, or
if it be, then there may be some deceit in the observation. To this I
may safely say, that hee may justly be accounted a weake Mathematician
who mistrusts the strength of this argument, nor can hee know much in
Astronomy, who understands not the parallax, which is the foundation of
that Science, and I am sure that hee is a timorous man, who dares not
believe the frequent experience of his senses, or trust to a
demonstration.

  [Sidenote 1*: _Epist. 95._]

True indeed, I grant tis possible, that the eye, the _medium_, and the
distance may al deceive the beholder, but I would have him shew which of
all these was likely to cause an error in this observation? Meerely to
say they might be deceived is no sufficient answer, for by this I might
confute the positions of all Astronomers, and affirme the starres are
hard by us, because ’tis possible they may be deceived in their
observing that distance. But I forbeare any further reply; my opinion is
of that Treatise, that either it was set forth purposely to tempt a
confutation, that hee might see the opinion of _Galilæus_ confirmed by
others, or else it was invented with as much haste and negligence as it
was printed, there being in it almost as many faults as lines.

Others thinke that these are not any new Comets, but some ancient
starres that were there before, which now shine with that unusuall
brightnesse, by reason of the interposition of such vapors which doe
multiply their light, and so the alteration will be here onely, and not
in the heavens. Thus _Aristotle_ thought the appearance of the milkie
way was produced, for he held that there were many little starres, which
by their influence did constantly attract such a vapour towards that
place of heaven, so that it alwaies appeared white. Now by the same
reason may a brighter vapor be the cause of these appearances.

But how probable soever this opinion may seeme, yet if well considered,
you shall finde it to be altogether absurd and impossible: for,

1. These starres were never seene there before, and tis not likely that
a vapour being hard by us can so multiply that light which could not
before be at all discerned.

2. This supposed vapour cannot be either contracted into a narrow
compasse or dilated into a broad: 1. it could not be within a little
space, for then that starre would not appeare with the same multiplied
light to those in other climates: 2. it cannot be a dilated vapour, for
then other starres which were discerned through the same vapour would
seeme as bigg as that; this argument is the same in effect with that of
the paralax, as you may see in this Figure.

  [Illustration]

Suppose A B to be a Hemispheare of one earth, C D to be the upper part
of the highest region, in which there might be either a contracted
vapour, as G, or else a dilated one, as H I. Suppose E F likewise to
represent halfe the heavens, wherein was this appearing Comet at K. Now
I say, that a contracted vapour, as G, could not cause this appearance,
because an inhabitant at M could not discerne the same starre with this
brightnesse, but perhaps another at L, betwixt which the vapour is
directly interposed. Nor could it be caused by a dilated vapour, as H I,
because then all the starres that were discerned through it would be
perceived with the same brightnesse.

Tis necessary therefore that the cause of this appearance should be in
the heavens. And this is granted by the most and best Astronomers. But,
say some, this doth not argue any naturall alteration in those purer
bodies, since tis probable that the concourse of many little vagabond
starres by the union of their beames may cause so great a light. Of this
opinion were _Anaxagoras_ and _Zeno_ amongst the ancient, and _Baptista
Cisatus_, _Blancanus_, with others amongst our moderne Astronomers. For,
say they, when there happens to be a concourse of some few starres, then
doe many other flie unto them from all the parts of heaven like so many
Bees unto their King. But 1. tis not likely that amongst those which wee
count the fixed starres there should be any such uncertaine motions,
that they can wander from all parts of the heavens, as if Nature had
neglected them, or forgot to appoint them a determinate course. 2. If
there be such a conflux of these, as of Bees to their King, then what
reason is there that they doe not still tarry with it, that so the Comet
may not be dissolved? But enough of this. You may commonly see it
confuted by many other arguments. Others there are, who affirme these to
be some new created stars, produced by an extraordinary supernaturall
power. I answer, true indeed, tis possible they might be so, but however
tis not likely they were so, since such appearances may be salved some
other way, wherefore to fly unto a miracle for such things, were a great
injury to nature, and to derogate from her skill, an indignitie much
mis-becomming a man who professes himselfe to be a Philosopher,
_Miraculum_ (saith one) _est ignorantiæ Asylum_, a miracle often serves
for the receptacle of a lazy ignorance which any industrious Spirit
would be ashamed of, it being but an idle way to shift off the labour of
any further search. But here’s the misery of it, wee first tie our
selves unto _Aristotles_ Principles, and then conclude, that nothing
could contradict them but a miracle, whereas ’twould be much better for
the Common-wealth of learning, if we would ground our Principles rather
upon the frequent experiences of our owne, then the bare authority of
others.

Some there are, who thinke that these Comets are nothing else, but
exhalations from our earth, carried up into the higher parts of the
Heaven. So _Peno_, _Rothmannus_ & _Galilæus_,[1] but this is not
possible, since by computation ’tis found that one of them is above 300
times bigger than the whole Globe of Land and Water. Others therefore
have thought that they did proceed from the body of the Sun, and that
that Planet onely is

  _Cometarum officina, unde tanquam emissarii & exploratores
  emitterentur, brevi ad solem redituri_:

The shop or forge of Comets from whence they were sent, like so many
spies, that they might in some short space returne againe, but this
cannot be, since if so much matter had proceeded from him alone, it
would have made a sensible diminution in his body. The Noble _Tycho_
therefore thinkes that they consist of some such fluider parts of the
Heaven, as the milkie way is framed of, which being condenst together,
yet not attaining to the consistency of a Starre, is in some space of
time rarified againe into its wonted nature. But this is not likely, for
if there had beene so great a condensation as to make them shine so
bright, and last so long, they would then sensibly have moved downewards
towards some center of gravity, because whatsoever is condenst must
necessarily grow heavier, whereas these rather seemed to ascend higher,
as they lasted longer. But some may object, that a thing may be of the
same weight, when it is rarified, as it had while it was condenst: so
metalls, when they are melted, and when they are cold: so water also
when it is frozen, and when it is fluid, doth not differ in respect of
gravity. But to these I answer: First, Metalls are not rarified by
melting, but molified. Secondly, waters are not properly condensed, but
congealed into a harder substance, the parts being not contracted closer
together, but still possessing the same extension.

  [Sidenote 1: _Tycho Progym. l. 1. cap. 9._]

And beside, what likely cause can we conceive of this condensation,
unlesse there be such qualities there, as there are in our ayre, and
then why may not the Planets have the like qualities, as our earth? and
if so, then ’tis more probable that they are made by the ordinary way of
nature, as they are with us, and consist of exhalations from the bodies
of the Planets. Nor is this a singular opinion; but it seemed most
likely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_, _Fromondus_,[1] with
some others. But if you aske whither all these exhalations shall
returne, I answer, every one into his owne Planet: if it be againe
objected,[2] that then there will be so many centers of gravity, and
each severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, perhaps all of
them are so except the Sunne, though _Cusanus_ thinkes there is one
also, and later times have discovered some lesser Planets moving round
about him. But as for _Saturne_, he hath two Moones on each side.
_Jupiter_ hath foure, that incircle his body with their motion. _Venus_
is observed to increase and decrease as the Moone. _Mars_, and all the
rest, derive their light from the Sunne onely. Concerning _Mercury_,
there hath beene little or no observation, because for the most part,
he lies hid under the Sunne beames, and seldome appeares by himselfe.
So that if you consider their quantity, their opacity, or these other
discoveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them may
be a severall world. But this would be too much for to vent at the
first: the chiefe thing at which I now ayme in this discourse, is to
prove that there may be one in the Moone.

  [Sidenote 1: _De Comet. l. 5. c. 4._
  _Apolog._
  _Meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6._]

  [Sidenote 2: _Iohan. Fabr._
  _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc._
  _Scheiner. Rosa Vrsina._]

It hath beene before confirmed that there was a spheare of thicke
vaporous aire encompasing the Moone, as the first and second regions doe
this earth. I have now shewed, that thence such exhalations may proceede
as doe produce the Comets: now from hence it may probably follow, that
there may be wind also and raine, with such other Meteors as are common
amongst us. This consequence is so dependant, that _Fromondus_[1] dares
not deny it, though hee would (as hee confesses himselfe) for if the
Sunne be able to exhale from them such fumes as may cause Comets, why
not then such as may cause winds, and why not such also as cause raine,
since I have above shewed, that there is Sea and Land as with us. Now
raine seemes to be more especially requisite for them, since it may
allay the heate and scorchings of the Sunne, when he is over their
heads. And nature hath thus provided for those in _Peru_, with the other
inhabitants under the line.

  [Sidenote 1: _De meteor. l. 3. c. 2. Art. 6._]

But if there be such great, and frequent alterations in the Heavens, why
cannot wee discerne them?

I answer:

1. There may be such, and we not able to perceive them, because of the
weaknesse of our eye, and the distance of those places from us, they are
the words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above
cited place,

  _Possunt maximæ permutationes in cœlo fieri, etiamsi a nobis non
  conspiciantur, hoc visus nostri debilitas & immensa cœli distantia
  faciunt._

And unto him assents _Fromondus_ himselfe, when a little after hee
saies,

  _Si in sphæris planetarum degeremus, plurima forsan cœlestium
  nebularum vellere toto æthere passim dispersa videremus, quorum
  species jam evanescit nimia spatii intercapedine._

  “If we did live in the spheares of the Planets, wee might there,
  perhaps, discerne many great clouds dispersed through the whole
  Heavens, which are not now visible by reason of this great distance.”

2. _Mæslin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of these
alterations. The words of _Mæslin_ are these (as I finde them cited.)[1]

  _In eclipsi Lunari vespere Dominicæ Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore
  Lunæ versus Boream, nigricans quædam macula conspecta fuit, obscurior
  cætero toto corpore, quod candentis ferri figuram repræsentabat;
  dixisses nubila in multam regionem extensa pluviis & tempestuosis
  imbribus gravida, cujusmodi ab excelsorum montium jugis in humiliora
  convallium loca videre non rarò contingit._

  “In that lunary eclipse which happened in the even of Palme-sunday,
  in the yeere 1605, there was a certaine blackish spot discerned in
  the Northerly part of the Moone, being darker than any other part of
  her body, and representing the colour of red hot yron; you might
  conjecture that it was some dilated cloud, being pregnant with
  showers, for thus doe such lower clouds appeare from the tops of
  high mountaines.”

  [Sidenote 1: _Disser. 2. cum nunc. Galil._]

Unto this I may adde another testimony of _Bapt. Cisatus_, as he is
quoted by _Nierembergius_,[1] grounded upon an observation taken 23.
yeeres after this of _Mæslin_, and writ to this _Euseb. Nieremberg._ in
a letter by that diligent and judicious Astronomer. The words of it
runne thus:

  _Et quidem in eclipsi nupra solari quæ fuit ipso die natali Christi,
  observavi clarè in luna soli supposita, quidpiam quod valde probat
  id ipsum quod Cometæ quoque & maculæ solares urgent, nempe cœlum non
  esse à tenuitate & variationibus aeris exemptum, nam circa Lunam
  adverti esse sphæram seu orbem quendam vaporosum, non secus atque
  circum terram, adeoque sicut ex terra in aliquam usque sphæram
  vapores & exhalationes expirant, ita quoque ex luna._

  “In that late solary eclipse which happened on Christmas day, when
  the Moone was just under the Sunne, I plainly discerned that in her
  which may clearely confirme what the Comets and Sunne spots doe seeme
  to prove, _viz._ that the heavens are not solid, nor freed from those
  changes which our aire is liable unto, for about the Moone I perceived
  such an orbe of vaporous aire, as that is which doth encompasse our
  earth, and as vapours and exhalations, are raised from our earth into
  this aire, so are they also from the Moone.”

  [Sidenote 1: _Hist. Nat. l. 2. c. 11._]

You see what probable grounds and plaine testimonies have brought for
the confirmation of this Proposition: many other things in this behalfe
might be spoken, which for brevity sake I now omit, and passe unto the
next.




Proposition 13.

_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but
  of what kinde they are is uncertaine._


I have already handled the Seasons and Meteors belonging to this new
World: ’tis requisite that in the next place I should come unto the
third thing which I promised, and to say somewhat of the inhabitants,
concerning whom there might be many difficult questions raised, as
whether that place be more inconvenient for habitation then our World
(as _Keplar_ thinkes) whether they are the seed of _Adam_, whether they
are there in a blessed estate, or else what meanes there may be for
their salvation, with many other such uncertaine enquiries, which I
shall willingly omit, leaving it to their examination, who have more
leisure and learning for the search of such particulars.

Being for mine own part content only to set downe such notes belonging
unto these which have observed in other Writers.

  _Cum tota illa regio nobis ignota sit, remanent inhabitores illi
  ignoti penitus_,

(saith _Cusanus_)[1] since we know not the regions of that place, wee
must be altogether ignorant of the inhabitants. There hath not yet beene
any such discovery concerning these, upon which wee may build a
certainty, or good probability: well may wee guesse at them, and that
too very doubtfully, but we can know nothing, for if we doe hardly
guesse aright at things which be upon earth, if with labour wee doe
finde the things that are at hand, [2]how then can wee search out those
things that are in Heaven? What a little is that which wee know? in
respect of those many matters contained within this great Universe, this
whole globe of earth and water? though it seeme to us to be of a large
extent, yet it beares not so great a proportion unto the whole frame of
Nature, as a small sand doth unto it; and what can such little creatures
as wee discerne, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can they
in the Moone know of us? If wee understand any thing (saith _Esdras_[3])
’tis nothing but that which is upon the earth, and hee that dwelleth
above in the Heavens, may onely understand the things that are above in
the heighth of the heavens.

  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12._]

  [Sidenote 2: Wisd. 9. 16.]

  [Sidenote 3: 2 Esd. 4. 22.]

So that ’twere a very needelesse thing for us, to search after any
particulars, however, wee may guesse in the generall, that there are
some inhabitans in that Planet: for why else did Providence furnish that
place with all such conveniences of habitation as have beene above
declared?

But you will say, perhaps, is there not too great and intollerable a
heate, since the Sunne is in their Zinith every moneth, and doth tarry
their so long before hee leaves it?

I answer, 1. This may, perhaps, be remedied (as it is under the line) by
the frequencie of mid-day showers, which may cloud their Sunne, and
coole their earth: 2. The equality of their nights doth much temper the
scorching of the day, and the extreme cold that comes from the one,
require some space before it can be dispelled by the other, so that the
heate spending a great while before it can have the victory, hath not
afterwards much time to rage in. Wherfore notwithstanding this, yet that
place may remaine habitable. And this was the opinion of the _Cardinal
de Cusa_, when speaking of this Planet, he saies,[1]

  _Hic locus Mundi est habitatio hominum & animalium atque
  vegetabilium_.

  “This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes.”

To him assented _Campanella_, but hee cannot determine whether there
were men, or rather some other kinde of creatures. If they were men,
then he thinkes they could not be infected with _Adams_ sinne; yet,
perhaps, they had some of their owne, which might make them liable to
the same misery with us, out of which, perhaps, they were delivered by
the same means as we, the death of Christ, and thus he thinkes that
place of the _Ephesians_ may be interpreted, where the Apostle saies,[2]
_God gathered all things together in Christ, both which are in earth,
and which are in the heavens_: So also that of the same Apostle to the
_Colossians_, where hee saies,[3] that _it pleased the Father to
reconcile all things unto himselfe by Christ, whether they be things in
earth, or things in heaven_.

  [Sidenote 1: _De doct. ign. l. 2. c. 12._]

  [Sidenote 2: Eph. 1. 10.]

  [Sidenote 3: Col. 1. 20.]

But I dare not jest with Divine truthes, or apply these places according
as fancy directs. As I thinke this opinion doth not any where contradict
Scripture, so I thinke likewise, that it cannot be proved from it,
wherefore _Campanella’s_ second conjecture may be more probable, that
the inhabitants of that world, are not men as wee are, but some other
kinde of creatures which beare some proportion and likenesse to our
natures, and _Cusanus_ too thinkes they differ from us in many respects;
I will set downe his words as they may bee found in the abovecited
place,

  _Suspicamus in regione solis magis esse solares, claros & illuminatos
  intellectuares habitatores, spiritu aliores etiam quam in lunâ, ubi
  magis lunatici, & in terra, magis materiales, & grossi, ut illi
  intellectualis naturæ solares sint multum in actu & parum in
  potentia; terreni vero magis in potentia, & parum in actu, lunares
  in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influentia ignili
  solis aquatica simul & aeria lunæ, & gravedine materiali terræ,
  & consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes, nullam
  habitatoribus carêre, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales
  omnius universi, quot sunt stellæ quarum non est numerus, nisi apud
  eum qui omnia in numero creavit._

  “Wee may conjecture (saith he) the inhabiters of the Sunne are
  like to the nature of that Planet, more cleare and bright, more
  intellectuall and spirituall than those in the Moone where they
  are neerer to the nature of that duller Planet, and those of the
  earth being more grosse and materiall than either, so that these
  intellectuall natures in the Sun, are more forme than matter, those
  in the earth more matter than forme, and those in the Moone betwixt
  both. This wee may guesse from the fiery influence of the Sunne, the
  watery and aereous influence of the Moone, as also the matereall
  heavinesse of the earth. In some such manner likewise is it with the
  regions of the other Starres, for wee conjecture that none of them
  are without inhabitants, but that there are so many particular
  worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are Stars which are
  innumerable, unlesse it bee to him who created all things in number.”

For he held that the stars were not all in one equall Orbe as we
commonly suppose, but that some were farre higher than others which made
them appeare lesse and that many others were so farre above any of
these, that they were altogether invisible unto us. An opinion (which as
I conceive) hath not any great probability for it, nor certainty against
it.

The Priest of _Saturne_ relating to _Plutarch_ (as he faignes it) the
nature of the Selenites, told him they were of divers dispositions, some
desiring to live in the lower parts of the Moone, where they might looke
downewards upon us, while others were more surely mounted aloft, all of
them shining like the rayes of the Sun, and as being victorious are
crowned with garlands made with the wings of _Eustathia_ or
_Constancie_.

It hath beene the opinion amongst some of the Ancients, that their
Heavens and Elysian fields were in the Moone where the aire is most
quiet and pure. Thus _Socrates_, thus _Plato_,[1] with his followers,
did esteeme this to bee the place where those purer soules inhabit, who
are freed from the Sepulchre, and contagion of the body. And by the
Fable of _Ceres_, continually wandring in search of her daughter
_Proserpina_, is meant nothing else but the longing desire of men, who
live upon _Ceres_ earth, to attaine a place in _Proserpina_, the Moone
or Heaven.

  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Com. lib. 3. c. 19._]

_Plutarch_ also seemes to assent unto this, but hee thinkes moreover,
that there are two places of happinesse answerable to those two parts
which hee fancies to remaine of a man when hee is dead, the soule and
the understanding; the soule he thinkes is made of the Moone, and as our
bodies doe so proceede from the dust of this earth, that they shall
returne to it hereafter, so our soules were generated out of that
Planet, and shall bee resolved into it againe, whereas the understanding
shall ascend unto the Sunne, out of which it was made where it shall
possesse an eternity of well being, and farre greater happinesse than
that which is enjoyed in the Moone. So that when a man dies, if his
soule bee much polluted, then must it wander up and downe in the middle
regions of the aire where hell is, and there suffer unspeakable torments
for those sinnes whereof it is guilty. Whereas the soules of better men,
when they have in some space of time beene purged from that impurity
which they did derive from the body, then doe they returne into the
Moone, where they are possest with such a joy, as those men feele who
professe holy misteries, from which place (saith he) some are sent downe
to have the superintendance of Oracles, being diligent either in the
preservation of the good, either from or in all perils, and the
prevention or punishment of all wicked actions, but if in these
imployments they mis-behave themselves, then are they againe to be
imprisoned in a body, otherwise they remaine in the Moone till their
body be resolved into it, & the understanding being cleared from all
impediments, ascends to the Sunne which is its proper place. But this
requires a diverse space of time according to the diverse affections of
the soule. As for those who have beene retired and honest, addicting
themselves to a studious and quiet life, these are quickly preferred to
a higher happinesse. But as for such who have busied themselves in many
broyles, or have beene vehement in the prosecution of any lust, as the
ambitious, the amorous, the wrathfull man, these still retaine the
glimpses and dreames of such things as they have performed in their
bodies, which makes them either altogether unfit to remaine there where
they are, or else keepes them long ere they can put off their soules.
Thus you see _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning the inhabitants and
neighbours of the Moone, which (according to the manner of the
Academickes) hee delivers in a third person; you see he makes that
Planet an inferiour kind of heaven, and though hee differ in many
circumstances, yet doth hee describe it to be some such place, as wee
suppose Paradise to be. You see likewise his opinion concerning the
place of damned spirits, that it is in the middle region of the aire,
and in neither of these is hee singular, but some more late and Orthodox
Writers have agreed with him. As for the place of hell, many thinke it
may be in the aire as well as any where else.

True indeed, Saint _Austin_ affirmes that this place cannot bee
discovered;[1] But others there are who can shew the situation of it out
of Scripture; Some holding it to bee in some other world without this,
because our Saviour calls it σκότος ἐξώτερον, outward darkenesse.[2] But
the most will have it placed towards the Center of our earth, because
’tis said,[3] Christ descended into the lower parts of the earth, and
some of these are so confident, that this is its situation, that they
can describe you its bignes also, and of what capacity it is. _Francis
Ribera_ in his Comment on the _Revelations_, speaking of those words,
where ’tis said,[4] that the blood went out of the Wine-presse, even
unto the horses bridles by the space of one thousand and sixe hundred
furlongs, interprets them to bee meant of Hell, and that that number
expresses the diameter of its concavity, which is 200 _Italian_ miles;
but _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome in
hell,[5] and therefore hee guesses that ’tis not so wide; for (saith
hee) the diameter of one league being cubically multiplied, will make a
spheare capable of 800000 millions of damned bodies, allowing to each
sixe foote in the square, whereas (saies hee) ’tis certaine that there
shall not be one hundred thousand millions in all that shall bee damned.
You see the bold _Iesuit_ was carefull that every one should have but
roome enough in hell, and by the strangenesse of the conjecture, you may
guesse that he had rather bee absurd, than seeme either uncharitable or
ignorant. I remember there is a relation in _Pliny_, how that
_Dionisiodorus_ a Mathematician, being dead, did send a letter from his
place to some of his friends upon earth, to certifie them what distance
there was betwixt the center and superficies: hee might have done well
to have prevented this controversie, and enformed them the utmost
capacity of that place. However, certaine it is, that that number cannot
bee knowne, and probable it is, that the place is not yet determined,
but that hell is there where there is any tormented soule, which may bee
in the regions of the aire as well as in the center; but of this onely
occasionally, and by reason of _Plutarchs_ opinion concerning those that
are round about the Moone; as for the Moone it selfe, hee esteemes it
to bee a lower kinde of Heaven, and therefore in another place hee cals
it a terrestriall starre,[6] and an Olympian or celestiall earth
answerable, as I conceive, to the paradise of the Schoolemen, and that
Paradise was either in or neere the Moone, is the opinion of some later
Writers, who derived it (in all likelihood) from the assertion of
_Plato_, and perhaps, this of _Plutarch_. _Tostatus_[7] laies this
opinion upon _Isioder. Hispalensis_, and the venerable _Bede_; and
_Pererius_[8] fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_ his Master.
Some would have it to bee situated in such a place as could not be
discovered, which causes the penman of _Esdras_ to make it a harder
matter to know the outgoings of Paradise, then to weigh the weight of
the fire, or measure the blasts of wind, or call againe a day that is
past.[9] But notwithstanding this, there bee some others who thinke that
it is on the top of some high mountaine under the line, and these
interpreted the torrid Zone to be the flaming Sword whereby Paradise
was guarded. ’Tis the consent of divers others, who agree in this, that
Paradise is situated in some high and eminent place.[10] So _Tostatus_:

  _Est etiam Paradisus situ altissima, supra omnem terræ altitudinem_,

  “Paradise is situated in some high place above the earth”:

and therefore in his Cõment upon the 49. of _Genesis_, hee understands
the blessing of _Iacob_ concerning the everlasting hills to bee meant of
Paradise, and the blessing it selfe to bee nothing else but a promise of
Christs comming, by whose passion the gates of Paradise should bee
opened. Unto him assented _Rupertus_, _Scotus_, and most of the other
Schoolemen, as I find them cited by _Pererius_,[11] and out of him in
Sr. _W. Rawleigh_. Their reason was this: because in probability this
place was not overflowed by the flood, since there were no sinners there
which might draw that curse upon it. Nay _Tostatus_ thinkes that the
body of _Enoch_ was kept there, and some of the Fathers, as _Tertullian_
and _Austin_ have affirmed, that the blessed soules were reserved in
that place till the day of judgement, and therefore ’tis likely that it
was not overflowed by the flood; and besides, since all men should have
went naked if _Adam_ had not fell, ’tis requisite therefore that it
should be situated in some such place where it might bee priviledged
from the extremities of heat and cold. But now this could not bee (they
thought) so conveniently in any lower, as it might in some higher aire.
For these and such like considerations have so many affirmed that
Paradise was in a high elevated place, which some have conceived could
bee no where but in the Moone: For it could not be in the top of any
mountaine, nor can we thinke of any other body separated from this earth
which can bee a more convenient place for habitation than this Planet,
therefore they concluded that it was there.

  [Sidenote 1: _De civit. Dei. lib. 22. ca. 16._]

  [Sidenote 2: Mat. 25. 30]

  [Sidenote 3: Eph. 4. 9.]

  [Sidenote 4: Rev. 14. 20.]

  [Sidenote 5: _De Morib. div. l. 13. c. 24._]

  [Sidenote 6: _Cur silent oracula._]

  [Sidenote 7: _S. W. Raw. lib. 1. cap. 3. § 7._]

  [Sidenote 8: _in Gen._]

  [Sidenote 9: 2 Esd. 4. 7.]

  [Sidenote 10: _In_ Genes.]

  [Sidenote 11: _Comment. in 2. Gen. v. 8. lib 1. cap. 3. § 6 7._]

It could not bee on the top of any mountaine.

1. Because wee have expresse Scripture, that the highest of them was
overflowed.[1]

  [Sidenote 1: Gen. 7. 19.]

2. Because it must bee of a greater extension, and not some small patch
of ground, since ’tis likely all men should have lived there, if _Adam_
had not fell. But for a satisfaction of these arguments, together with a
farther discourse of Paradise, I shall referre you to those who have
written purposely upon this subject. Being content for my owne part to
have spoken so much of it, as may conduce to shew the opinion of others
concerning the inhabitants of the Moone, I dare not my selfe affirme any
thing of these Selenites, because I know not any ground whereon to build
any probable opinion. But I thinke that future ages will discover more;
and our posterity, perhaps, may invent some meanes for our better
acquaintance with these inhabitants. ’Tis the method of providence not
presently to shew us all, but to lead us along from the knowledge of one
thing to another. ’Twas a great while ere the Planets were distinguished
from the fixed Stars, and sometime after that ere the morning and
evening starre were found to bee the same, and in greater space I doubt
not but this also, and farre greater mysteries will bee discovered. In
the first ages of the world the Islanders either thought themselves to
be the onely dwellers upon the earth, or else if there were any other,
yet they could not possibly conceive how they might have any commerce
with them, being severed by the deepe and broad Sea, but the after-times
found out the invention of ships, in which notwithstanding none but some
bold daring men durst venture, there being few so resolute as to commit
themselves unto the vaste Ocean, and yet now how easie a thing is this,
even to a timorous & cowardly nature? So, perhaps, there may be some
other meanes invented for a conveyance to the Moone, and though it may
seeme a terrible and impossible thing ever to passe through the vaste
spaces of the aire, yet no question there would bee some men who durst
venture this as well as the other. True indeed, I cannot conceive any
possible meanes for the like discovery of this conjecture, since there
can bee no sailing to the Moone, unlesse that were true which the Poets
doe but feigne, that shee made her bed in the Sea. We have not now any
_Drake_ or _Columbus_ to undertake this voyage, or any _Dædalus_ to
invent a conveyance through the aire. However, I doubt not but that time
who is still the father of new truths, and hath revealed unto us many
things which our Ancestours were ignorant of, will also manifest to our
posterity, that which wee now desire, but cannot know. _Veniet tempus_
(saith _Seneca_[1])

  _quo ista quæ nunc latent, in lucem, dies extrahet, & longioris ævi
  diligentia._

Time will come when the indeavours of after-ages shall bring such things
to light, as now lie hid in obscurity. Arts are not yet come to their
Solstice, but the industry of future times assisted with the labours of
their forefathers, may reach unto that height which wee could not
attaine to.

  _Ueniet tempus quo posteri nostri nos tam aperta nescisse mirentur._

As wee now wonder at the blindnesse of our Ancestors, who were not able
to discerne such things as seeme plaine and obvious unto us. So will our
posterity admire our ignorance in as perspicuous matters. _Keplar_
doubts not, but that as soone as the art of flying is found out, some of
their Nation will make one of the first colonies that shall inhabite
that other world. But I leave this and the like conjectures to the
fancie of the reader; Desiring now to finish this Discourse, wherein I
have in some measure proved what at the first I promised, a world in the
Moone. However, I am not so resolute in this, that I thinke tis
necessary there must be one, but my opinion is that ’tis possible there
may be, and tis probable there is another habitable world in that
Planet. And this was that I undertooke to prove. In the pursuit whereof,
if I have shewed much weaknesse or indiscretion; I shall willingly
submit my selfe to the reason and censure of the more judicious.

  [Sidenote 1: _Nat. Quæst. l. 7. c. 25._]




  [Decoration]

The Propositions that are proved in this Discourse.


Proposition 1.

_That the strangenesse of this opinion is no sufficient reason why it
  should be rejected, because other certaine truths have beene formerly
  esteemed ridiculous, and great absurdities entertayned by common
  consent._

By way of Preface.


Prop. 2.

_That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any principle of
  reason or faith._


Prop. 3.

_That the heavens doe not consist of any such pure matter which can
  priviledge them from the like change and corruption, as these
  inferiour bodies are liable unto._


Prop. 4.

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


Prop. 5.

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


Prop. 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._


Prop. 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._


Prop. 8.

_That the spots represent the Sea, and the brighter parts the Land._


Prop. 9.

_That there are high Mountaines, deepe vallies, and spacious plaines
  in the body of the Moone._


Prop. 10.

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


Prop. 11.

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


Prop. 12.

_That tis probable there may bee such Meteors belonging to that world
  in the Moone, as there are with us._


Prop. 13.

_That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but
  of what kinde they are is uncertaine._


FINIS.


       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *
       *       *       *       *       *

[Transcriber’s Additional Notes and Errata]

Works and Authors Cited in Sidenotes:

This is not intended to be a comprehensive list. A few sources could not
be identified; others are so well-known, they did not need to be marked.

The following spellings and name forms are used consistently:

  Austin = Augustine
  Blancanus the Jesuit(e) = Josephus Blancanus, Giuseppe Biancani
  Caelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus
  Tycho = Tycho Brahe
  Nicholas Hill “a country man of ours”. Hill the early atomist,
    not Hill (Montanus, van de Bergh) the printer.
  Keplar = Kepler (Johannes)
  Julius Caesar = Cæsar la Galla, Giulio Cesare La Galla, Lagalla
  Mæslin = Maestlin (Michael)
  Rawleigh, Rawly = Raleigh (Sir Walter)
  Verulam = Francis Bacon (1st Baron Verulam)

  Note also “sydera” for “sidera”.

Albertus Magnus: _De quattuor coaequaevis_
----: _De caelo et mundo_
Aristotle: _De Caelo_
Bede: _De ratione temporum_
Christopher Besoldus: _De Natura Populorum ejusque variatione, et de
    Linguarum ortu atque immutatione_ (1632)
Josephus Blancanus (Giuseppe Biancani): _Sphaera mundi_
    (Full Title: _Sphaera Mundi seu Cosmographia. Demonstrativa, ac
    facili Methodo tradita: In qua totius Mundi fabrica, una cum novis,
    Tychonis, Kepleri, Galilaei, aliorumque; Astronomorum adinventis
    continetur_)
----: _Aristotelis loca mathematica ex universes ipsius operibus
    collecta et explicata_
Tycho (Brahe): _Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata_
Th. (Tommaso) Campanella: _Apologia pro Galileo_ (1622)
Collegium Conimbricenses (Jesuits of Coimbra University): _Commentarii
    Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros
    physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo_ (1592)
Cardinal de Cusa, Cusanus (Nicholas of Cusa/Kues, Nicolaus Cryffts):
    _De Docta Ignorantia_
Johannes Fabricius: _De Maculis in Sole Observatis, et Apparente earum
    cum Sole Conversione Narratio_ (1611)
    Text not identified by name.
Libertus Fromondus (Libert Froidmont): _Meteorologicorum libri sex_
    (1627)
Galileo: _Nuncius Sidereus_
Camillus Gloriosus (Giovanni Camillo Glorioso): _De Cometis dissertatio
    astronomico-physica_ (1624)
Isidore: _Originum_
Johannes Kepler: _Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo_
    The name “Galileo” (or “Galilei”) is sometimes included in the
    title, as “Diss. cum Nunc. Syd. Galil.”
----: _Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae_
----: _Astronomiae Pars Optica_
Julius Caesar (Giulio Cesare La Galla): _De Phenomenis in Orbe Lunae_
     (1612)
Leonard Lessius: _De perfectionibus moribusque divinis_ (1620)
    This work is often cited as “De Moribus”; other early mentions are
    found in _Tristram Shandy_ and _The Anatomy of Melancholy_.
Mæslin (Michael Maestlin): _Epitome Astronomiae_ (1610)
Carolus Malapertus, Malapertius (Charles Malapert): _Austriaca sidera
    heliocyclia astronomicis hypothesibus illigata_ (1633)
Jacobus Mazonius (Jacopo Mazzoni): _In universam Platonis et Aristotelis
    philosophiam praeludia sive de Comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis_
Johannes Eusebius (Juan Eusebio) Nieremberg: _Historia Naturae_ (1635)
Augustinus Nifus (Niphus, Agostino Nifo)
    Quoted text not identified by name.
Benedictus Pererius (Benito Pereira): _Commentariorum et disputationum
    in Genesim tomi quattuor_ (1591-99)
Plutarch: _De facie in orbe lunae_
----: _De tranquillitate animi_
Erasmus Reinhold: Commentary (1542, 1553) on Georg Purbach’s _Theoricae
    novae planetarum_
Caelius = Lodovicus Caelius Rhodiginus (Lodovico / Luigi Ricchieri):
    _Lectionum antiquarum libri triginta_
Ruvio (Antonio Rubio): Commentary on Aristotle’s _De Caelo_
(Julius Caesar) Scaliger: _Exotericae exercitationes ad Hieronymum
    Cardanum_
Christoph Scheiner: _Rosa Ursina sive Sol ex Admirando Facularum
    & Macularum suarum Phoenomeno varius_
Tostatus (Alonso Tostado): _In Genesis_

       *       *       *       *       *

Errors and Anomalies:

All but one occurrence of -que is written with a ligature. They have
been expanded for this e-text.

though they have for a long time lien neglected
  _so in original: “lain”?_
πολλοὺς ἤδη καὶ οὐδένα νόον ἔχοντας
  _text reads πελλοὺς; last vowel in ἔχοντας unclear_
both St. _Uincentius_and _Senafinus_
  _“Senafinus” could not be identified, but cannot be Serafinus_
_Aristotle_ was the viol of Gods wrath
  _spelling “viol” as in original_
the world is much beholden to _Aristotle_ for all its sciences
  _text reads “it sciences”_
if there be more worlds than one
  _text reads “more words”_
[Sidenote] Ecclus. 43. 3. 4.
  _so in original: “Eccles.”?_
[Sidenote to “Ptolome”] _I{o} Apost._
  _reading unclear, text not identified: “I^o.”?_
[Sidenote to “Rosa Vrsina”] _lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35._
  _unclear: “ty.” or error for “cp.”?_
_Hebræonia l. 2. c. 4._
  _text unclear: “Hebraeoma”?_
and more especially _Malapertius_
  _text reads “Mulapertius”_
but never confuted by any solid reason
  _text reads “coufuted”_
[Sidenote] ... _dissertatio / cum Nic. Hill._ ...
  _so in original: error for “dissertatio cum Nunc[ius] Sid[ereus]”
  (by Kepler)?_
vius qui ad experimenta hæc contradicendi animo accesserant
  _so in original_
it might probably be deduced
  _text reads “de deduced”_
so _Ioach. Rlelicus_
  _so in original: “Rheticus”?_
Others think[1] that there be some bodies
  _text reads “that there some bodies”_
[Sidenote] So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._
  _single letter illegible: could be “fi” or “à”_
[Sidenote] Eusebius Nioremb. _Hist. Nat.
  _so in original: “Nieremberg”_
sententiam exsuscitare velit
  _text reads “excuscitare”_
that earth in the writings of _Capernicus_ and his followers
  _spelling as in original_
[Sidenote] _Lect. ant. l. 1. c. 15._
  _text reads “Lect. aut l. 1”_
Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse
  _text reads “owne-eye-witnesse”_
that in the Moone there should be any mountaines
  _text reads “thete”_
_Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_
  _text unclear; may be “Emus”: for Mt. Aenus?_
the 47th proposition in the first booke of elements.
Therefore the whole line _A_ _G_ is somewhat more than 104
  _“the 47th proposition” is better known as the Pythagorean theorem.
  “104” is presumably an error for “1004”; the correct figure is
  almost 1005_
[Sidenote] _Plat. de fac._
  _so in original: “Plut[arch]”?_
[Sidenote] _Præfat. ad Austrica syd._
  _so in original: “Austriaca”_
[Sidenote to Cælius] _Progym. 1._
[Sidenote to Tycho] _l. 20. c. 5._
  _notes may be reversed: Tycho Brahe wrote a “Progymnasmata”_
because of the exuperancy of the light in the other parts
  _so in original: “exsuperancy”_
because they are farre neerer it than wee
  _text unclear_
a more chokie soyle like the Ile of _Creete_
  _spelling as in original: “chalky”_
in his time tooke especiall notice
  _text reads “looke” but catchword has “tooke”_
such appearances may be salved some other way
  _so in original_
[Sidenote] _Carolus Malaptius de Heliocyc._
  _so in original: Malapert(i)us_
2. _Mæslin_ and _Keplar_ affirme, that they have seene some of these
    alterations. The words of _Mæslin_ are these (as I finde them
    cited.)
[Sidenote] _Disser. 2. cum nunc. Galil._
  _sidenote is attached to Mæslin quote, but work named is by Kepler_
there are some inhabitants in that Planet
  _text reads “inhabitans”_
The equality of their nights doth much temper the scorching of the day,
    and the extreme cold that comes from the one, require some space
  _wording as in original_
This part of the world is inhabited by men and beasts, and Plantes.
  _text reads “Planets”_
intellectuares habitatores
  _so in original: “intellectuales”?_
ex influentia ignili solis
  _adjective “ignilis” may have been invented by author cited_
but _Lessius_ thinkes that this opinion gives them too much roome
  _text reads “opi/on” at line break_
hee cals it a terrestriall starre
  _text reads “terrestraill”_
_Pererius_ fathers it upon _Strabus_ and _Rabanus_
  _text reads “fathers is”_

Punctuation:

the Cities and Mountaines hanging.” What shall wee thinke
  _marginal quotes continue through line beginning “shall wee”_
a propension in its subject
  _text reads “’its” with leading apostrophe_
But the position (say some) is directly against Scripture
  _opening parenthesis missing_
Scripturequæ cœlum pluribus realibus atque
  _“atque” written out (all other -que occurrences use ligature)_
more directly proved by _Mæslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilæus_
  _no comma after “Mæslin”_
it seemed most / likely to _Camillus Gloriosus_, _Th. Campanella_
  _text has period (full stop) for comma_
too much for to vent at the first: the chiefe thing
  _text reads “at the first. the”_
the words of _Fienus_, as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the above
    cited place, _Possunt maximæ ..._
  _text has “... cited place) _Possunt ...”_
  _could also be:_
    the words of _Fienus_ (as they are quoted by _Fromondus_ in the
    above cited place) _Possunt maximæ
vespere Dominicæ Palmarum Anni 1605, in corpore Lunæ
  _text reads “Anni 1605. in corpore”_
And this was the opinion of the _Cardinal de Cusa_
  _text reads “de cusa”_
but to lead us along from the knowledge of one thing to another
  _“a/long” printed at line break without hyphen_

Printer’s Errors:

Invisible letters or punctuation marks, supplied from context, are shown
in {braces}.

2{.} Grosse absurdities have beene entertained
[Sidenote] _Plutarch. de t{r}anq. anim._
[Sidenote] _Lib. 9. Architecturæ{.}_
[Sidenote] Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Th{e}or. pag. 164._
[Sidenote] _In lib. de natur. rerum{.}_
[Sidenote] _De 4r. Coævis.... Exercit{.} 62._
[Sidenote] _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13{.}_]
[Sidenote] _Ex qua parte luna est transpi{c}ua non totum secundum
    superfi{ci}em,
[Sidenote] _Albert. mag. de {c}oævis. Q. 4. Art. 21._
[Sidenote] _S{c}alig. exercit. 62._
some others have thought it to be ver{y} much like a Fox
Mihi autem dubium fuit nu{m}quam ... sese in conspectum da{t}uram
But it may be againe obj{e}cted
yet would the motion of i{t}s centre by an attractive vertue still hold
    it w{it}hin i{t}s convenient distance, so that whether their ear{t}h
    moved
  _“within”: “i” missing, “t” invisible_
You may see this truth assented unto by _Blancanus_ the J{e}suit
and if you obj{e}ct that the light which is conveyed
for he confesses himselfe that he saw this by the glasse{.}
our earth appeares a{s} brigh{t}

       *       *       *       *       *

Pagination:

_Pages 177-192 (printed as 175-190) are all one error: The eight pages
printed on one side of the sheet forming signature N were misnumbered
by -2._

118, 120 _read_ 18, 20
123 _reads_ 113
166 _reads_ 66
177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 192
  _read_ 175, 178, 179, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190
209 _reads_ 107
210, 211 _read_ 208, 209
212, 213, 214 _no printed number_
215 _reads_ 63