1. From the variety of it at divers times; for 'tis commonly observed,
that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now
redder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of
this variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1]
and many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne,
that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an
alteration: So that thus I may argue.
[Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3._]
If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet
appeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest to
the earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in
her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any
enlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the
species and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our
adversaries, and they are the very words of noble _Tycho_,[1]
_Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique cum in umbra terrae esset,
illud non amitteret, sed eo evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in
tenebris, plus splendet cum alio majore fulgore non praepeditur._
If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in
the earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light
appeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a more
perspicuous brightnesse.
[Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. c. 10._]
But now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation doth
manifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearing
with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in her
Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she is
in her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her
owne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper
light of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her
inherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an
opinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in the
fore-cited place,
_Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia,
aut lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere,
sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opacum
corpus terrae._
Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that
it can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, but
it is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of the
interposition of the earths opacous body.
[Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164._]
2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be,
either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else
such a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body,
when shee is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of
these may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of
these, therefore she hath none of her owne.
1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can
wee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer parts
of the Moone?
You will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that greater light,
takes away that appearance.
I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars shine with his wonted
rednesse, when he is neere the Moone? or why cannot her greater
brightnesse make him appeare white as the other Planets? nor can there
be any reason given why that greater light should represent her body
under a false colour.
2. 'Tis not such a duskish leaden light, as we see in the darker part of
her body, when shee is about a sextile Aspect distant from the Sunne,
for then why does shee appeare red in the eclipses, since the more shade
cannot choose such variety, for 'tis the nature of darknesse by its
opposition, rather to make things appeare of a more white and cleare
brightnesse then they are in themselves, or if it be the shade, yet
those parts of the Moone are then in the shade of her body, and
therefore in reason should have the like rednesse. Since then neither of
these lights are hers, it followes that she hath none of her owne. Nor
is this a singular opinion, but it hath had many learned patrons, such
was _Macrobius_,[1] who being for this quoted of _Rhodiginus_, he calls
him _vir reconditissimae scientiae_,[2] a man who knew more than ordinary
Philosophers, thus commending the opinion in the credit of the Authour.
To him assents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath this
comparison.[3] As the Looking-glasse represents not any image within it
selfe, unlesse it receive some from without; so the Moone hath not any
light, but what is bestowed by the Sun. To these agreed _Albertus
Magnus_, _Scaliger_, _Maeslin_, and more especially _Mulapertius_,[4]
whose words are more pat to the purpose then others, and therefore I
shall set them downe as you may finde them in his Preface to his
Treatise concerning the _Austriaca sydera_;
_Luna, Venus, & Mercurius, terrestris & humidae sunt substantiae
ideoque de suo non lucere, sicut nec terra._
The Moone, _Venus_, and _Mercurie_ (saith he) are of an earthly and
moyst substance, and therefore have no more light of their owne, then
the earth hath. Nay, some there are who thinke that all the other
Starres doe receive that light, whereby they appeare visible to us from
the Sunne, so _Ptolomie_, _Isidore Hispalensis_, _Albertus Magnus_ and
_Bede_, much more then must the Moone shine with a borrowed light.[5]
[Sidenote 1: _Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 20._]
[Sidenote 2: _Lect. antiq. l. 1. c. 15._]
[Sidenote 3: _In lib. de natur. rerum._]
[Sidenote 4: _De 4r. Coaevis. Q. 4ª. Art. 21._
_Exercit. 62._
_1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]
[Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._
_De Coelo. l. 2._
_De ratione tempor. c. 4._]
But enough of this. I have now sufficiently shewed what at the first I
promised, that this light is not proper to the Moone. It remaines in the
next place, that I tell you the true reason of it. And here, I thinke
'tis probable that the light which appeares in the Moone at the eclipses
is nothing else but the second species of the Sunnes rayes which passe
through the shadow unto her body: and from a mixture of this second
light with the shadow, arises that rednesse which at such times appeares
unto us. I may call it _Lumen crepusculum_, the _Aurora_ of the Moone,
or such a kinde of blushing light, that the Sunne causes when he is
neere his rising, when he bestowes some small light upon the thicker
vapours. Thus wee see commonly the Sunne being in the Horizon, and the
reflexion growing weake, how his beames make the waters appeare very
red.
The Moabites in _Iehorams_ time when they rose early in the morning, and
beheld the waters a farre off, mistooke them for blood.[1]
_Et causa hujus est, quia radius solaris in aurora contrahit quandam
rubedinem, propter vapores combustos manentes circa superficiem
terrae, per quos radii transeunt, & ideo cum repercutiantur in aqua
ad oculos nostros, trahunt secum eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere
locum aquarum, in quo est repercussio esse rubrum_,
saith _Tostatus_.[2] The reason is, because of his rayes, which being in
the lower vapours, those doe convey an imperfect mixed light upon the
waters. Thus the Moone being in the earths shadow, and the Sunne beames
which are round about it, not being able to come directly unto her body,
yet some second raies there are, which passing through the shadow, make
her appeare in that ruddy colour: So that she must appeare brightest,
when shee is eclipsed, being in her Apoge, of greatest distance from us,
because then the cone of the earths shadow is lesse, and the refraction
is made through a narrower medium. So on the contrary, she must be
represented under a more darke and obscure forme when she is eclipsed,
being in her Perige, or neerest to the earth, because then she is
involved in a greater shadow, or bigger part of the cone, and so the
refraction passing through a greater medium, the light must needes be
weaker which doth proceed from it. If you aske now what the reason may
be of that light which we discerne in the darker part of the new Moone:
I answer, 'tis reflected from our earth which returnes as great a
brightnesse to that Planet, as it receives from it. This I shall have
occasion to prove afterward.
[Sidenote 1: 2 King. 3. 22.]
[Sidenote 2: _2ª. Quaest. in hoc cap._]
I have now done with these propositions which were set downe to cleare
the passage, and confirme the suppositions implied in the opinion, I
shall in the next place proceed to a more direct treating of the chiefe
matter in hand.
Proposition 6.
_That there is a world in the Moone, hath beene the direct opinion of
many ancient, with some moderne Mathematicians, and may probably be
deduced from the tenents of others._
Since this opinion may be suspected of singularity, I shall therefore
first confirme it by sufficient authority of divers authours, both
ancient and moderne, that so I may the better cleare it from the
prejudice either of an upstart fancy, or an absolute errour. This is by
some attributed to _Orpheus_, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, who
speaking of the Moone, saies thus, +he poll' ourea echei, poll' astea,
polla melathra+,[1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses
in it. To him assented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and
_Heraclitus_,[2] all who thought it to have firme solid ground, like to
our earth,[3] containing in it many large fields, champion grounds, and
divers inhabitants, unto these agreed _Pythagoras_, who thought that our
earth was but one of the Planets which moved round about the Sunne,[4]
(as _Aristotle_ relates it of him) and the _Pythagoreans_ in generall
did affirme, that the Moone also was terrestriall, that she was
inhabited as this lower world. That those living creatures & plants
which are in her, exceed any of the like kind with us in the same
proportion, as their daies are longer than ours: _viz._ by 15 times.
This _Pythagoras_[5] was esteemed by all, of a most divine wit, as
appeares especially by his valuation amongst the _Romans_ who being
comanded by the Oracle to erect a statue to the wisest _Grecian_, the
Senate determined[6] _Pythagoras_ to be meant, preferring him in their
judgements before the divine _Socrates_, whom their Gods pronounc'd the
wisest. Some think him a _Iew_ by birth, but most agree that hee was
much conversant amongst the learneder sort, & Priests of that Nation,
by whom he was informed of many secrets, and perhaps, this opinion,
which he vented afterwards in _Greece_, where he was much opposed by
_Aristotle_ in some worded disputations, but never confuted by any solid
reason.
[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13._]
[Sidenote 2: _Ibid. c. 25._]
[Sidenote 3: _Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9._]
[Sidenote 4: _De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13._]
[Sidenote 5: _Plut. ibid. cap. 30._]
[Sidenote 6: _Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6._]
To this opinion of _Pythagoras_ did _Plato_ also assent, when hee
considered that there was the like eclipse made by the earth, and this,
that it had no light of its owne, that it was so full of spots. And
therefore wee may often reade in him and his followers,[1] of an
_aetherea terra_, and _lunares populi_, an aethereall earth, and
inhabiters in the Moone; but afterwards this was mixed with many
ridiculous fancies: for some of them considering the mysteries implied
in the number 3. concluded that there must necessarily bee a Trinity of
worlds, whereof the first is this of ours, the second in the Moone whose
element of water is represented by the spheare of _Mercury_, the aire by
_Uenus_, and the fire by the Sunne. And that the whole Universe might
the better end in earth as it began, they have contrived it, that _Mars_
shall be a spheare of the fire, _Iupiter_ of aire, _Saturne_ of water;
and above all these, the Elysian fields, spacious and pleasant places
appointed for the habitation of those unspotted soules, that either
never were imprisoned in, or else now have freed themselves from any
commerce with the body. _Scaliger_[2] speaking of this _Platonicke_
fancie, _quae in tres trientes mundum quasi assem divisit_, thinks 'tis
confutation enough, to say, 'tis _Plato's_. However for the first part
of this assertion, it was assented unto by many others, and by reason of
the grossnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called
_quasi terra coelestis_, as being esteemed the sediment and more
imperfect part of those purer bodies, you may see this proved by
_Plutarch_,[3] in that delightfull work which he properly made for the
confirmition of this particular. With him agreed _Alcinous_[4] and
_Plotinus_, later Writers. Unto these I might also adde the imperfect
testimony of _Mahomet_, whose authority of grant can adde but little
credit to this opinion, because hee was an ignorant imposter, but yet
consider that originall, from whence hee derived most of his knowledge,
and then, perhaps, his witnesse may carry with it some probablity. He is
commonly thought by birth to be an Ismaelite, being instructed by the
Jewes in the secrets of their Philosophy,[5] and perhaps, learned this
from those Rabbies, for in his _Alcaron_, hee talkes much of mountaines,
pleasant fields, and cleare rivers in the heavens, but because he was
for the maine very unlearned, he was not able to deliver any thing so
distinctly as he was informed.[6] The Cardinall _Cusanus_ and _Iornandus
Bunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of
them defining our earth, he saies, it is
_stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet
aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;
a "noble starre having a distinct light, heat and influence from all the
rest." Unto this _Nichol. Hill_, a country man of ours was inclined,
when he said _Astrea terrae natura probabilis est_: "That 'tis probable
the earth hath a starry nature."[7]
[Sidenote 1: _Plat. de conviviis._
_Macrob. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. ca. 11._]
[Sidenote 2: _Exercit. 62._]
[Sidenote 3: _De facie Lunae._]
[Sidenote 4: _Instit. ad discip._ Plat. _Cael. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4._]
[Sidenote 5: _Azoara. 57. & 65._]
[Sidenote 6: _Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2. cap. 12._]
[Sidenote 7: _Philos. epicur. part. 434._]
But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by
_Maeslin_, _Keplar_, and _Galilaeus_, each of them late writers, and
famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.[1] As for those workes
of _Maeslin_ and _Keplar_ wherein they doe more expresly treate of this
opinion, I have not yet had the happinesse to see them. However their
opinions appeare plaine enough from their owne writings, and the
testimony of others concerning them. But _Iulius Caesar_, whom I have
above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this
opinion,[2] _viz._ _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_ affirmes that to his
knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning
this, and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much
as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their owne words, then his
pretended knowledge.
[Sidenote 1: _In Thesibus_
_dissertatio cum Nic. Hill._
_Nuncius Sydereus._]
[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. lunae. c. 4._]
'Tis true indeed, in many things they doe but trifle, but for the maine
scope of those discourses, 'tis as manifest they seriously meant it, as
any indifferent Reader may easily discerne; otherwise sure _Campanella_
(a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person as
_Caesar_ was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides 'tis
very likely if it had beene but a jest, _Galilaeus_ would never have
suffered so much for it as afterwards he did. But as for the knowledge
which hee pretends, you may guesse what it was by his confidence (I say
not presumption) in other assertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them may
well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome's_
_Hypothesis_ he pronounces this verdict,
_Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis
est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet._
"The position of _Excentricks_ and _Epicycles_ is altogether
impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to
thinke it true."
I should guesse hee could not have knowledge enough to maintaine any
other Hypothesis who was so ignorant in Mathematicks, as to deny that
any good Authour held this. For I would faine know whether there were
never any that thought the Heavens to be solid bodies, and that there
were such kindes of motion as is by those feined Orbes supplyed; if so,
then _Caesar la Galla_ was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are
equally true, that _Galilaeus_ and _Keplar_ did not hold this, and that
there were none which ever held that other.
[Sidenote 1: _Cap. 7._]
But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of
_Galilaeus_, the inventour of that famous perspective, whereby we may
discerne the heavens hard by us, whereby those things which others have
formerly guest at are manifested to the eye, and plainely discovered
beyond exception or doubt, of which admirable invention, these latter
ages of the world may justly boast, and for this expect to be celebrated
by posterity. 'Tis related of _Eudoxus_, that hee wished himselfe burnt
with _Phaeton_, so he might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its
nature; had hee lived in these daies, he might have enjoyed his wish at
an easie rate, and scaling the heavens by this glasse, might plainely
have discerned what hee so much desired. _Keplar_ considering those
strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose
but cry out in a +prosopopeia+ and rapture of admiration.
_O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te
dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?_
And _Johannes Fabricius_[1] an elegant writer, speaking of the same
glasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former
times of greater ignorance, saies thus;
_Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici
pronunciatu de missam representasse putantur nos non tantum
innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi
conditionem intueamur._
"So much are wee above the ancients, that whereas they were faine by
their magical charms to represent the Moones approach, wee cannot
onely bring her lower with a greater innocence, but may also with a
more familiar view behold her condition."
And because you shall have no occasion to question the truth of those
experiments, which I shal afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set
downe the testimony of an enemy, and such a witnesse hath alwaies beene
accounted prevalent: you may see it in the abovenamed _Caesar la
Galla_,[2] whose words are these:
_Mercurium caduceum gestantem, coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas
ab inferis revacare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum vero novum
Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducaeo instructum Sydera aperire, &
veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas
videt & admiratur._
Wise antiquity fabled _Mercury_ carrying a rodde in his hand to relate
newes from Heaven, and call backe the soules of the dead, but it hath
beene the happinesse of our industrious age to see and admire _Galilaeus_
the new Embassadour of the Gods furnished with his perspective to unfold
the nature of the Starres, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient
Philosophers. So worthily and highly did these men esteeme of this
excellent invention.
[Sidenote 1: _De macula in sole obser._]
[Sidenote 2: _De phaenom. c. 1._]
Now if you would know what might be done by this glasse, in the sight of
such things as were neerer at hand, the same Authour will tell you,[1]
when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce at all bee
discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a halfe, might
plainely and distinctly bee perceived for 16 Italian miles, and that as
they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying
at all. So that what the ancient Poets were faine to put in a fable, our
more happy age hath found out in a truth, and we may discerne as farre
with these eyes which _Galilaeus_ hath bestowed upon us, as _Lynceus_
could with those which the Poets attributed unto him. But if you yet
doubt whether all these observations were true, the same Authour may
confirme you,[2] when hee saies they were shewed,
_Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus,
sed praecipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis &
opticis praeceptis, optime instructis sedula ac diligenti inspectione_.
"Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men,
but to those who were well vers'd in Mathematickes and Opticks,
and that not with a meere glance but with a sedulous and diligent
inspection."
And least any scruple might remaine unanswered, or you might thinke the
men who beheld all this though they might be skilfull, yet they came
with credulous minds, and so were more easie to be deluded. He addes
that it was shewed,[3]
_vius qui ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant_.
"To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent
of contradiction."
Thus you may see the certainety of those experiments which were taken by
this glasse. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall
borrow many things in my farther discourse, from those discoveries which
were made by it.
[Sidenote 1: _ibid. c. 5._]
[Sidenote 2: _Cap. 1._]
[Sidenote 3: _Cap. 5._]
I have now cited such Authors both ancient and moderne, who have
directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the
proposition that it might probably be deduced from the tenent of others:
such were _Aristarchus_, _Philolaus_ and _Copernicus_, with many other
later writers who assented to their hypothesis, so _Ioach. Rlelicus_,
_David Origanus_, _Lansbergius_, _Guil. Gilbert_, and (if I may believe
_Campanella_[1]) _Innumeri alii Angli & Galli_. Very many others both
English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets,
and the Sunne to bee the Centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies
did move, and how horrid soever this may seeme at the first, yet is it
likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxime or observation in
Opticks (saith _Pena_) that can disprove it.
[Sidenote 1: _Apologia pro Galilaeo._]
Now if our earth were one of the Planets (as it is according to them)
then why may not another of the Planets be an earth?
Thus have I shewed you the truth of this proposition: Before I proceede
farther, 'tis requisite that I informe the Reader, what method I shall
follow in the proving of this chiefe assertion, that there is a World in
the Moone.
The order by which I shall bee guided will be that which _Aristotle_[1]
uses in his booke _De mundo_ (if that booke were his.)
[Sidenote 1: _a 1º. cap. ad 10m._]
First, +peri ton en aute+ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the
elementary and aethereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong
to the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly,
+peri auten pathon+, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as
the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.
Proposition 7.
_That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight may be
distinguished in the Moone, doe shew the difference betwixt the Sea
and Land in that other World._
For the cleare proofe of this proposition, I shall first reckon up and
refute the opinions of others concerning the matter and forme of those
spots, and then shew the greater probability of this present assertion,
and how agreeable it is to that truth, which is most commonly received;
as for the opinions of other concerning these, they have beene very
many, I will only reckon up those which are common and remarkeable.
Some there are that thinke those spots doe not arise from any deformity
of the parts, but a deceit of the eye, which cannot at such a distance
discerne an equall light in that planet, but these do but onely say it,
and shew not any reason for the proofe of their opinion: Others think[1]
that there be some bodies betwixt the Sunne and Moone, which keeping off
the lights in some parts, doe by their shadow produce these spots which
wee there discerne.
[Sidenote 1: So _Bede_ in _d. de Mund. constit._]
Others would have them to be the figure of the mountaines here below
represented there as in a looking-glasse. But none of those fancies can
bee true, because the spots are stil the same, & not varied according to
the difference of places, and besides, _Cardan_ thinks it is impossible
that any image should be conveyed so farre as there to be represented
unto us at such a distance,[1] but tis commonly related of _Pythagoras_,
that he by writing, what he pleased in a glasse, by the reflexio of the
same species, would make those letters to appeare in the circle of the
Moone, where they should be legible by any other, who might at that time
be some miles distant from him.[2]* _Agrippa_ affirmes this to be
possible, and the way of performing it not unknowne to himselfe, with
some others in his time. It may be that our Bishop did by the like
meanes performe those strange conclusions which hee professes in his
_Nuncius inanimatus_, where hee pretends that hee can informe his
friends of what he pleases, though they be an hundred miles distant,
_forte etiam, vel milliare millesimum_, they are his owne words, and,
perhaps, a thousand, and all this in a minutes space, or little more,
quicker than the Sunne can move.
[Sidenote 1: _De subtil. lib. 3._]
[Sidenote 2*: _Occulta ad Philos. l. 1. cap. 6._]
Now, what conveyance there should be for so speedy a passage, I cannot
conceive, unlesse it be carried with the light, then which wee know not
any thing quicker; but of this onely by the way; however, whether those
images can be represented so or not, yet certaine it is, those spots are
not such representations. Some thinke that when God had at first created
too much earth to make a perfect globe, not knowing well where to bestow
the rest, he placed it in the Moone, which ever since hath so darkened
it in some parts, but the impiety of this is sufficient confutation,
since it so much detracts from the divine power and wisedome.
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 Coelo_.
[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 _Caesar 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 Phaenom.
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 coaevis. 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 _Galilaeus_ 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, comon 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 _Galilaeus_,
whose words are these,
_Si quis veterum Pythagoraeorum sententiam excuscitare velit, lunam
scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram, ejus pars lucidior terrenam
superficiem, obscurior vero aqueam magis congrue repraesentet. Mihi
autem dubium fuit numquam terrestris globi a longe conspecti,
atque a radiis solaribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem,
obscuriorem vero 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 Galilaeo._]
[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 _Boeotia_, 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._ #Hareray kedem ugva'ot olam#
for having immediately before mentioned those blessings which should
happen unto _Ioseph_ by the influence of the Moone, he does presently
exegetically iterate them 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]*_Caelius_ 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, lunae partes esse diversas, veluti
sunt partes terrae, quarum aliae sunt vallosae, aliae montosae, ex quarum
differentia effici potest facies illa lunae; nec est rationi dissonum,
nam luna est corpus imperfecte Sphaericum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo
coelo 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
_Caesar 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 coelo. 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 _Galilaeus_,[1] on which I most
of all depend for the proofe of this Proposition, when he beheld the new
Moone through his perspective, it appeared to him under a rugged and
spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightned parts divided
by a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance from
the other, and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily
perceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are
commonly sold amongst us, but for your better apprehending of what I
deliver, I will set downe the Figure as I find it in _Galilaeus_:
[Sidenote 1: _Nuncius Sydereus._]
[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 _Caesar la Galla_ affirmes, that all these appearances may consist
with a plaine superficies, if wee suppose the parts of the body to be
some of them, _Diaphanous_, and some opacous; and if you object that the
light which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plaine superficies
must be by a continued line, whereas here there appeare many brighter
parts among the obscure at some distance from the rest. To this he
answers, it may arise from some secret conveyances and channels within
her body, that doe consist of a more diaphanous matter which being
covered over with an opacious superficies, the light passing through
them may breake out a great way off, whereas the other parts betwixt may
still remaine darke. Just as the River _Arethusa_ in _Sicile_ which
runnes under ground for a great way, and afterwards breakes out againe.
But because this is one of the chiefest fancies whereby hee thinkes hee
hath fully answered the arguments of this opinion, I will therefore set
downe his answere in his owne words, lest the Reader might suspect more
in them then I have expressed.[1]
_Non est impossibile coecos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis,
sed opaca superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo
in superficiem, emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo
postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c._
But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two enlightened parts
remaine darke because of its opacity, then would it alwaies be darke,
and the Sunne could not make it partake of light more then it could of
perspicuity: But this contradicts all experience as you may see in
_Galilaeus_, who affirmes that when the Sunne comes nearer to his
opposition, then that which is betwixt them, both is enlightned as well
as either. Nay this opposes his owne eye-witnesse, for he confesses
himselfe that he saw this by the glasse. He had said before that he came
to see those strange sights discovered by _Galilaeus_ his glasse with an
intent of contradiction, and you may reade that confirmed in the
weakenesse of this answere, which rather bewrayes an obstinate then a
perswaded will, for otherwise sure hee would never have undertooke to
have destroyed such certaine proofes with so groundlesse a fancy.
[Sidenote 1: _Cap. 11._]
But it may bee objected, that 'tis almost impossible, and altogether
unlikely that in the Moone thete should be any mountaines so high as
those observations make them, for doe but suppose according to the
common principles, that the Moones diameter unto the Earths is very
neere to the proportion of 2. to 7, suppose withall that the Earths
diameter containes about 7000 Italian miles, and the Moones 2000 (as is
commonly granted) now _Galiaeus_ hath observed that some parts have been
enlightened when they were the twentieth part of the diameter distant
from the common terme of illumination, so that hence it must necessarily
follow that there may bee some Mountaines in the Moone so high, that
they are able to cast a shadow a 100 miles off. An opinion that sounds
like a prodigie or a fiction; wherefore 'tis likely that either those
appearances are caused by somewhat else besides mountaines, or else
those are fallible observations, from whence may follow such improbable
inconceiveable consequences.
But to this I answere:
1. You must consider the height of the Mountaines is but very little, if
you compare them to the length of their shadowes. Sr. _Walter
Rawleigh_[1] observes that the Mount _Athos_ now called _Lacas_ casts
its shadow 300 furlongs, which is above 37 miles, and yet that Mount is
none of the highest, nay _Solinus_[2] (whom I should rather believe in
this kinde) affirmes that this Mountaine gives his shadow quite over the
Sea, from _Macedon_ to the Ile of _Lemnos_ which is 700 furlongs or 84
miles, and yet according to the common reckoning it doth scarce reach 4
miles upwards, in its perpendicular height.
[Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. Sec. 11._]
[Sidenote 2: _Poly. histor. c. 21._]
2. I affirme that there are very high Mountaines in the Moone. _Keplar_
and _Galilaeus_ thinke that they are higher than any which are upon our
earth. But I am not of their opinion in this, because I suppose they goe
upon a false ground whilst they conceive that the highest mountaine upon
the earth is not above a mile perpendicular.
Whereas 'tis the common opinion and found true enough by observation,
that _Olympus_, _Atlas_, _Taurus_ and _Enius_, with many others are much
above this height. _Tenariffa_ in the Canary Ilands is proved by
computation to bee above 8 miles perpendicular, and about this height is
the mount _Perjacaca_ in _America_. Sr. _Walter Rawleigh_ seemes to
thinke, that the highest of these is neere 30 miles upright: nay
_Aristotle_[1] speaking of _Caucasus_ in _Asia_, affirmes it to bee
visible for 560 miles, as some interpreters finde by computation, from
which it will follow, that it was 78 miles perpendicularly high, as you
may see confirmed by _Jacobus Mazonius_,[2] and out of him in
_Blancanus_ the Jesuite.[3] But this deviates from the truth more in
excesse then the other doth in defect. However though these in the moone
are not so high as some amongst us, yet certaine it is they are of a
great height, and some of them at the least foure miles perpendicular.
This I shall prove from the observation of _Galilaeus_, whose glasse can
shew this truth to the senses, a proofe beyond exception and certaine
that man must needs be of a most timerous faith who dares not believe
his owne eye.
[Sidenote 1: _Meteor. l. 1. c. 11._]
[Sidenote 2: _Comparatio Arist. cum Platone, Sect. 3. c. 5._]
[Sidenote 3: _Exposi. in loc. Math. Artis. loc. 148._]
By that perspective you may plainely discerne some enlightned parts
(which are the mountaines) to be distant from the other about the
twentieth part of the diameter. From whence it will follow, that those
mountaines must necessarily be at the least foure Italian miles in
height.
[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 _Galilaeus_.
1. You must know that there is not meerely one ranke of mountaines about
the edge of the moone, but divers orders, one mountaine behind another,
and so there is somewhat to hinder those void spaces which otherwise,
perhaps, might appeare.
Now where there be many hils, the ground seemes even to a man that can
see the tops of all. Thus when the sea rages, and many vast waves are
lifted up, yet all may appeare plaine enough to one that stands at the
shore. So where there are so many hils, the inequality will be lesse
remarkable, if it be discerned at a distance.
2. Though there be mountains in that part which appeares unto us, to be
the limbe of the Moone, as well as in any other place, yet the bright
vapours hide their appearance: for there is an orbe of thicke vaporous
aire that doth immediatly compasse the body of the Moone, which though
it have not so great opacity, as to terminate the sight, yet being once
enlightened by the Sunne, it doth represent the body of the Moone under
a greater forme, and hinders our sight from a distinct view of her true
circumference. But of this in the next Chapter.
I have now sufficiently proved, that there are hills in the Moone, and
hence it may seeme likely that there is also a world, for since
providence hath some speciall end in all its workes, certainly then
these mountaines were not produced in vaine, and what more probable
meaning can wee conceive there should be, than to make that place
convenient for habitation.
Proposition 10.
_That there is an Atmo-sphaera, or an orbe of grosse vaporous aire,
immediately encompassing the body of the Moone._
As that part of our aire which is neerest to the earth, is of a thicker
substance than the other, by reason tis alwaies mixed with some vapours,
which are continually exhaled into it. So is it equally requisite, that
if there be a world in the Moone, that the aire about that should be
alike qualified with ours. Now, that there is such an orbe of grosse
aire, was first of all (for ought I can reade) observed by _Meslin_,
afterwards assented unto by _Keplar_ and _Galilaeus_,[1] and since by
_Baptistae Cisatus_, _Sheiner_ with others, all of them confirming it by
the same arguments which I shall onely cite, and then leave this
Proposition.
[Sidenote 1: _Vide_ Euseb. Nierem. _de Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 11._]
1. 'Tis observed, that so much of the Moone as is enlightened, is
alwaies part of a bigger circle then that which is darker. Their
frequent experience hath proved this, and an easie observation may
quickely confirme it. But now this cannot proceede from any other cause
so probable, as from this orbe of aire, especially when we consider how
that planet shining with a borrowed light, doth not send forth any such
rayes as may make her appearance bigger then her body.
2. 'Tis observed in the Solary eclipses, that there is a great
trepidation about the body of the Moone, from which we may likewise
argue an Atmo-sphaera, since we cannot well conceive what so probable a
cause there should be of such an appearance as this,
_Quod radii Solares a vaporibus Lunam ambientibus fuerint
intercisi_,[1]
that the Sun beames were broken and refracted by the vapours that
encompassed the Moone.
[Sidenote 1: _Scheiner. Ros. Vrs. l. 4. pars 2. c. 27._]
3. I may adde the like argument taken from another observation which
will be easily tried and granted. When the Sunne is eclipsed, wee
discerne the Moone as shee is in her owne naturall bignesse, but then
she appeares somewhat lesse then when shee is in the full, though she be
in the same place of her supposed excentrick and epicycle, and therefore
_Tycho_ hath calculated a Table for the Diameter of the divers new
Moones. But now there is no reason so probable to salve this appearance,
as to place an orbe of thicker aire, neere the body of that Planet,
which may be enlightened by the reflected beames, and through which the
direct raies may easily penetrate.
But some may object that this will not consist with that which was
before delivered, where I said, that the thinnest parts had least light.
If this were true, how comes it to passe then, that this aire should be
as bright as any of the other parts, when as tis the thinnest of all?
I answer, if the light be received by reflection, then the thickest body
hath most because it is best able to beare backe the raies, but if the
light be received by illumination[1] (especially if there be an opacous
body behinde, which may double the beames by reflexion) as it is here,
then I deny not but a thinne body may retaine much light, and perhaps,
some of those appearances which wee take for fiery comets, are nothing
else but a bright cloud enlightened, so that probable it is, there may
be such aire without the Moone, and hence it comes to passe, that the
greater spots are onely visible towards her middle parts, and none neere
the circumference, not but that there are some as well in those parts as
else where, but they are not there perceiveable, by reason of those
brighter vapours which hide them.
[Sidenote 1: _Hist. l. 1. c. 7. Sec. 11._]
Proposition 11.
_That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone._
I have already handled the first thing that I promised according to the
Method which _Aristotle_ uses in his Booke _de Mundo_, and shew'd you
the necessary parts that belong to this world in the Moone. In the next
place 'tis requisite that I proceed to those things which are
extrinsecall unto it, as the Seasons, the Meteors, and the Inhabitants.