Book 1, 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 (part 2)

← Back to the beginning of Book 1, 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

Thus Lucian also in his discourse of a journey to the Moon, where though hee does speake many things out of mirth & in a jesting manner: yet in the beginning of it he does intimate that it did contain some serious truths concerning the real frame of the Vniverse.

The Cardinall Cusanus and Iornandus Brunus,¹³ held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he sayes, it is stella quaedam nobilis, quae lunam & calorem & influentiam habet aliam, & diversam ab omnibus aliis stellis; A noble Starre having a distinct light, heat, & influence from all the rest. Vnto this Nichol. Hill, a Country man of ours, was enclined,¹⁴ when he said Astrea terrae natura probabilis est: That ‘tis probable the earth hath a starry nature.

But the opinion which I have here delivered, was more directly proved by¹⁵ Maeslin,¹⁶ Keplar, and¹⁷ Galilaeus, each of them late Writers, and famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy. Keplar calls this World by the name of Levania from the Hebrew word […] which signifies the Moon,¹⁸ and our earth by the name of Volva à volvendo, because it does by reason of its diurnall revolution appeare unto them constantly to turne round, and therefore hee stiles those who live in that Hemisphere which is towards us, by the title of Subvolvani, because they enjoy the sight of this earth; and the others Privolvani, quia sunt privati conspectu volvae, because they are deprived of this priviledge. But Iulius Caesar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I cite for this opinion, viz. Keplar and Galilaeus, affirmes that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this,¹⁹ and as for any such world, he assuredly knowes they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather beleeve their owne words, than his pretended knowledge.

‘Tis true indeed, in some 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; As for Galilaeus, ‘tis evident that hee did set downe his owne judgement and opinion in these things; 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 report saith afterwards he did.

And as for Keplar, I will onely referre the Reader to his owne words as they are set downe in the Preface to the fourth book of his Epitome, where his purpose is to make an Apologie for the strangenesse of those truths that he was there to deliver, amongst which there are divers things to this purpose concerning the nature of the Moone. Hee professes that he did not publish them either out of a humor of contradiction, or a desire of vaineglory, or in a jesting way, to make himselfe or others merry, but after a considerate and solemne manner for the discovery of the truth.

Now as for the knowledge which Caesar pretends to the contrary, you may guesse what it was by his strange confidence in other assertions, (Cap. 7) and his boldnesse in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of Ptolome’s Hypothesis, hee pronounces this verdict, Impossibile est excentricorum & epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis est ex Mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet. The position of Excentrickes and Epicycles is altogether impossible, nor is there any Mathematician such a foole as to think 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 Author 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 fained Orbs supplied; if so, Caesar la Galla was much mistaken. I think his assertions are equally true, that Galilaeus and Keplar did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other. Thus much for the testimony of those who were directly of this opinion.

But, in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of Galilaeus, the inventor of that famous Perspective, whereby we may discern 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 hee might stand over the Sunne to contemplate its nature; had hee lived in these dayes, he might have enjoyed his wish at an easier 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 […] and rapture of admiration, O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextrâ tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei?²⁰ And Iohannes Fabricius an elegant Writer, speaking of the same glasse, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, sayes thus; Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronunciatu demissam representâsse putantur, nos non tantum innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi conditionem intueamur. So much are wee above the Ancients, that whereas they were faine by their Magicall charmes to represent the Moones approach, we 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 shall afterwards urge from it; I will therefore set downe the testimony of an enemie, and such a witnesse hath alwayes beene accounted prevalent: you may see it in the above-named Caesar la Galla, whose words are these: Mercurium caduceum gestantem,²¹ coelestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilaeum verò novum Iovis interpretem Telescopio caduceo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra aetas videt & admiratur. Wise antiquity fabled Mercury carrying a rod in his hand to relate newes from Heaven, and call back 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 & highly did these men esteeme of this excellent invention.

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 Author will tell you, when he sayes,²² that by it those things which could scarce at all be discerned by the eye at the distance of a mile and a half, might plainly and distinctly be perceived for 16 Italian miles, & 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 wee 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 Author may confirme you, when hee sayes they were shewed Non uni aut alteri, (Cap. 1) sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed praecipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis & Opticis praeceptis optimè instructis sedulâ ac diligenti inspectione. Not to one or two, but to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those who were well vers’d in Mathematicks 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 think 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: Hee adds that it was shewed Viris qui ad experimenta haec contradicendi animo accesserant. (Cap. 5) To such as were come with a great deale of prejudice, and an intent of contradiction. Thus you may see the certainty 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 thsoe discoveries which were made by it.

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 tenents of others: such were Aristarchus,²³ Philolaeus, and Copernicus, with many other later Writers who assented to their hypothesis; so Ioach. Rhelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert, and (if I may beleeve Campanella) Innumeri alij Angli & Galli,²⁴ Very many others, both English and French, all who affirmed our Earth to be one of the Planets, and the Sunne to be the Center 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.

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 proceed farther, ‘tis requisite that I enforme 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 be guided, will be that which Aristotle uses in his book De mundo (if that book were his.)

First, […] of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the elementary and aethereall (as hee doth there) since this doth not belong to the present question, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, […], of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors, and inhabitants.

← Book 1, Proposition 5. That the Moone hath not any light of her owne · Contents · Book 1, Proposition 7. That those spots and brighter parts which by our sight →

Plut. de plac. phil. l. 2. c. 13. ↩
Ibid. c. 25. ↩
Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9. ↩
Divin Inst. lib. 3. c. 23. ↩
De Coelo. l. 2. cap. 13. ↩
Plut. ibid. cap. 30. ↩
Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6. ↩
Plat. de conviviis. ↩
Somn. Scip. lib. 1. c. 11. ↩
Exercit. 62. ↩
De facie Lunae. ↩
Iustit. ad discip. Plat. Coel. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4. ↩
Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2 cap. 12. ↩
Philos. Epicur. part. 434. ↩
In Thesibus. ↩
Dissertatio cum Nunc. ↩
Nuncius Sydereus. ↩
Somn. Astr. ↩
Dephaenom. lunae. c. 4. ↩
De macula in sole obser. ↩
De phaenom. cap. 1. ↩
Ibid. c. 6. ↩
See the second book. 1. Prop. ↩
Apologia pro Galilaeo. ↩

Footnotes