The Discovery of a World in the Moone Part 5

I reply, this cannot be, for then why does Mars s.h.i.+ne 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 s.e.xtile 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 a.s.sents the Venerable _Bede_, upon whom the glosse hath this comparison.[3] As the Looking-gla.s.se 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 s.h.i.+ne 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. 4. Art. 21._ _Exercit. 62._ _1. Epitome. Astron. lib. 4. p. 2._]

[Sidenote 5: _Originum l. 3. c. 60._ _De Clo. 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 pa.s.se 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 blus.h.i.+ng 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 c.u.m repercutiantur in aqua ad oculos nostros, trahunt sec.u.m eundem ruborem, & faciunt apparere loc.u.m 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 pa.s.sing 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 pa.s.sing 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: _2. Quaest. in hoc cap._]

I have now done with these propositions which were set downe to cleare the pa.s.sage, 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, ? p???? ???ea ??e?, p???? ?stea, p???? ??a??a,[1] That it hath many mountaines and cities, and houses in it. To him a.s.sented _Xenophanes_, _Anaxagoras_, _Democritus_, and _Herac.l.i.tus_,[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 cmanded 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 G.o.ds p.r.o.nounc'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 Clo. 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 a.s.sent, 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, s.p.a.cious 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 a.s.sem divisit_, thinks 'tis confutation enough, to say, 'tis _Plato's_. However for the first part of this a.s.sertion, it was a.s.sented unto by many others, and by reason of the grossnesse and inequality of this planet, 'twas frequently called _quasi terra clestis_, 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 _Cusa.n.u.s_ and _Iornandus Bunus_, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he saies, it is

_stella quaedam n.o.bilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis_;

a "n.o.ble 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: _Inst.i.t. 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 a.s.suredly 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 c.u.m 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 a.s.sertions, and his boldnesse[1] in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of _Ptolome's_ _Hypothesis_ he p.r.o.nounces 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 a.s.sertions 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 gla.s.se, 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 p??s?p?pe?a and rapture of admiration.

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

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