Vnto these Ptolomie also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree,¹¹ when hee 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.

But Aristotle and his followers were so farre from this,¹² 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.

1. Supposing wee could not, yet would it not hence follow that there were none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens,¹³ he sayes, ‘tis very imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vast distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto them, are not either bigge enough, or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observation of our senses; no wonder then if he himselfe be deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars. But yet, in this hee implies, that if a man were nearer to these heavenly bodies, hee would be a fitter Judge to decide this controversie than himselfe. Now its our advantage, that by the help of Galileus his glasse, wee are advanced nearer unto them, and the heavens are made more present to us than they were before. However, as it is with us where there be many vicissitudes and successions of things, though the earth abideth for ever: So likewise may it be amongst the planets, in which though there should be divers alterations, yet they themselves may still continue of the same quantity and light.

2. Though wee could not by our senses see such alterations, yet our reason might perhaps sufficiently convince us of them. Nor can wee well conceive how the Sunne should reflect against the Moone, and yet not produce some alteration of heat. Diogenes the Philosopher was hence perswaded, that those scorching heats had burnt the Moone into the forme of a Pumice-stone.

3. I answer, that there have beene some alterations observed there; witnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. As also those spots or clouds that encompasse the body of the Sun, amongst which, there is a frequent succession by a corruption of the old, and a generation of new. So that though Aristotles consequence were sufficient, when he proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes beene discovered in them; yet this by the same reason must be 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 speak afterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that work of Sheiner, a late Jesuite which he titles his Rosa Vrsina,¹⁴ where hee may see this point concerning the corruptibility of the Heavens largely handled, and sufficiently confirmed.

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 immediatly 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 desiring 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 hers, why any of the other. I rather think that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint Ambrose, (Isa. 51. 6) and Saint Basil did endeavour to prove this out of that place in I say,¹⁵ where they are compared to smoak, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus. Eusebius Nicembergius doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and incorruptibility of the Heavens,¹⁶ and cites for the same interpretation the authority of Eustachius of Antioch; and Saint Austin, I am sure, in one place seemes to assent unto this opinion,¹⁷ though hee does often in his other works contradict it.

If you esteeme the testimony of the ancient Fathers, to be of any great force or consequence in a Philosophicall dispute, you may see them to this purpose in Sixtus Senensis lib. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. The chiefe reasons, that are commonly urged for the confirmation of it, are briefly these three.

1 From the altitude of divers comets, which have beene observed to be above the planets, thorough whose Orbs (if they had beene solid) there would not have beene any passage. To these may be added those lesser planets lately discovered about Iupiter and Saturne, for which Astronomers have not yet framed any Orbs.

2 From that uncertainty of all Astronomicall observations, which will follow upon the supposition of such solid spheres. For then we should never discerne any Starre but by a multitude of refractions, and so consequently wee could not possibly finde their true situations either in respect of us, or in regard of one another: Since what ever the eye discernes by a refracted beame, it apprehends to be in some other place than wherein it is. But now this would be such an inconvenience, as would quite subvert the grounds & whole Art of Astronomy, and therefore is by no meanes to be admitted.

Vnto this it is commonly answered, that all those Orbs are equally diaphanous, though nor of a continued quantity. Wee reply, that supposing they were, yet this cannot hinder them from being the causes of refraction, which is produced as well by the diversity of superficies, as the different perspicuity of bodies. Two glasses put together, will cause a divers refraction from another single one that is but of equall thicknesse and perspicuity.

3 From the different height of the same planet at severall times. For if according to the usuall Hypothesis, there should be such distinct, solid Orbs, then it would be impossible that the planets should intrench upon one anothers Orbs, or that two of them at severall times should be above one another, which notwithstanding hath bin proved to be so by later experience. Tycho hath observed, that Venus is somtimes nearer to us than the Sunne or Mercury, and somtimes farther off than both; which appearances Regiomontanus himselfe does acknowledge, and withall, does confesse that they cannot be reconciled to the common Hypothesis.

But for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you to the above named Scheiner,¹⁸ in his Rosa Vrsina, in whom you may see both authorities and reason, very largely and distinctly set downe for this opinion. For the better confirmation of which hee adjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of Fredericus Caesius Lynceus, a Noble Prince, written to Bellarmine, containing divers reasons to the same purpose. You may also see the same truth set downe by Iohannes Pena, in his Preface to Euclids Opticks, and Christoph. Rothmannus, both who thought the Firmament to be onely ayre:¹⁹ and though the noble Tycho doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit haec opinio, quàm Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quae coelum 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 Orbs.

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 sphere 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 heat and enkindle the adjoyning ayre, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. The arguments that are commonly urged to this purpose, are these.

1 That which was before alledged concerning the refractions which will be caused by a different medium. For if the matter of the heavens be of one thicknesse, and the element of fire another, and the upper Region of ayre distinct from both these, and the lower Region severall from all the rest, there will then be such a multiplicity of refractions, as must necessarily destroy the certainty of all Astronomicall observations. All which inconveniences might be avoyded by supposing (as wee doe) that there is onely one Orbe of vaporous ayre which encompasses our earth, all the rest being Aethereall and of the same perspicuity.

2 The situation of this element does no way agree with Aristotles own principles, or that common providence of nature, which wee may discerne in ordinary matters. For if the heavens be without all elementary qualities, as is usually supposed, then it would be a very incongruous thing for the element of fire to be placed immediatly next unto it: Since the heat of this is the most powerfull and vigorous quality that is amongst all the rest; And Nature in her other works, does not joyne extreames, but by something of a middle disposition. So in the very frame of our bodies, the bones which are of a hard substance, and the flesh of a soft, are not joyned together but by the intercession of membranes and grissels, such as being of a middle nature may fitly come betwixt.

3 ‘Tis not conceiveable for what use or benefit there should be any such element in that place, and certaine it is that Nature does not doe any thing in vaine.

4 Betwixt two extreams there can be but one Medium, and therefore betweene those two opposite elements of earth and water, it may seeme more convenient to place onely the ayre, which shall partake of middle qualities different from both.

5 Fire does not seeme so properly and directly to be opposed to any thing as Ice, and if the one be not an element, why should the other?

If you object that the fire which we commonly use, does alwayes tend upwards. I answer, This cannot prove that there is a naturall place for such an element, since our adversaries themselves doe grant that culinary and elementary fire are of different kinds. The one does burne, shine, and corrupt its subject; the other disagrees from it in all these respects. And therefore from the ascent of the one, wee cannot properly inferre the being or situation of the other.

But for your farther satisfaction herein, you may peruse 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 Musick of the spheares; for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such sound as is conceived? I doe the rather meddle with this, because Plutarch speakes 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 Musick, unlesse at somtimes we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeed Philo the Jew thinks it would save us the charges of dyet,²⁰ and wee might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare only, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (sayes he) was Moses enabled to tarry forty dayes and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, because hee there heard the melody of the Heavens.—Risum teneatis. I know this Musick hath had great Patrons, both sacred & prophane Authors, such as Ambrose, Bede, Boetius, Anselme, Plato, Cicero, and others; but because it is not now, I think, affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in arguing against it.

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 proceed 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.²¹

---

← Book 1, Proposition 2. That a plurality of worlds doth not contradict any · Contents · Book 1, Proposition 4. That the Moone is a solid, compacted, opacous body →

Footnotes

1. De Coelo li. 1. cap. 2. ↩

2. Colleg. Connimb. de coeto. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3. ↩

3. In Hexam. lib. 4. ↩

4. Enarrat. in Genes. art. 10. ↩

5. In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5. ↩

6. In lib. de Mundi constit. ↩

7. By Doctor Hakewill. Ap. l. lib. 2. ↩

8. Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17. ↩

9. Nat Hist. l 2. c. 9. ↩

10. Nat. quaest. lib. 2. cap. 5 ↩

11. 1. Apostcl.
    ↩

12. De caelo. l. 1. c. 3. ↩

13. De coelo. l. 2 cap. 3. ↩

14. Lib. 4. par. 2 cap 24. 35. ↩

15. Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4. ↩

16. Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13. ↩

17. In lib sup. […]. Gen. ad lit. ↩

18. Lib. 4 p. 11. 2. cap 7. 26 30. ↩

19. De stella l. 15. 72. l. 1. c. 9. ↩

20. De somniis. ↩

21. LIB. 1. Cap. 4. ↩