The Discovery of a World in the Moone/Chapter 4

by John Wilkins

Proposition 3.

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

IT hath beene often questioned amongst the ancient Fathers and Philosophers, what kind of matter that should be, of which the heavens are framed, whether or no of any fifth substance distinct from the foure elements, as Aristotle holds^[1] , and with him some of the late Schoolemen, whose subtill braines could not be content to attribute to those vast glorious bodies, but common materialls, and therefore they themselves had rather take paines to preferre them to some extraordinary nature, whereas notwithstanding, all the arguments they could invent, were not able to convince a necessity of any such matter, as is confest by their owne side^[2]. It were much to be desired, that these men had not in other cases, as well as this, multiplied things without necessity, and as if there had not beene enough to be knowne in the secrets of nature, have spun out new subjects from their owne braines to finde more worke for future ages, I shall not mention their arguments, since 'tis already confest, that they are none of them of any necessary consequence, and besides, you may see them set downe in any of the bookes de Cœlo. But is it the generall consent of the Fathers, and the opinion of Lombard, that the heavens consist of the same matter with these sublunary bodies. St. Anbrose is confident of it, that hee esteemes the contrary a heresie.^[3] True indeed, they differ much among themselves, some thinking them to be made of fire, others of water, but herein they generally agree, that they are all framed of some element or other. For a better confirmation of this, you may see Ludovicus Molina, Euseb. Nirembergius, with divers others.^[4] The venerable Bede thought the Planets to consist of all the foure elements, and 'tis likely that the other parts are of an aereous substance,^[5] as will be shewed afterward; however, I cannot now stand to recite the arguments for either, I have onely urged these Authorities to countervaile Aristotle, and the Schoolemen, and the better to make way for a proof of their corruptibility.

The next thing then to be enquired after, is, whether they be of a corruptible nature,^[6] not whether they can be destroyed by God, for this Scripture puts out of doubt.

Nor whether or no in a long time they would weare away and grow worse, for from any such feare they have beene lately priviledged.^[7] But whether they are capable of such changes and vicissitudes, as this inferiour world is liable unto.

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

Some of the Ancients have thought, that the heavenly bodies have stood in need of nourishment from the elements, by which they were continually fed, and so had divers alterations by reason of their food, this is fathered on Heraclitus,^[8] followed by that great Naturalist Pliny,^[9] and in generall attributed to all the Stoicks. You may see Seneca expressely to this purpose in these words, Ex illa alimenta omnibus animalibus, omnibus satis, omnibus stellis dividuntur, hinc profertur quo sustineantur tot Sydera tam exercitata, tam avida, per diem, noctemque, ut in opere, ita in pastu.^[10] Speaking of the earth, he saies, from thence it is, that nourishment is divided to all the living creatures, the Plants and the Starres, hence were sustained so many constellations, so laborious, so greedy both day and night, as well in their feeding as working. Thus also Lucan sings, Necnon Oceano pasci Phœbumque polumque credimus.

Unto these Ptolome^[11] also that learned Egyptian seemed to agree, when he affirmes that the body of the Moone is moister, and cooler than any of the other Planets, by reason of the earthly vapours that are exhaled unto it. You see these ancients thought the Heavens to be so farre from this imagined incorruptibility, that rather like the weakest bodies they stood in need of some continuall nourishment without which they could not subsist.

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 we could not, yet would it not hence follow^[13] that there were none, as hee himselfe in effect doth confesse in another place; for speaking concerning our knowledge of the Heavens, hee sayes ’tis very imperfect and difficult, by reason of the vaste distance of those bodies from us, and because the changes which may happen unto it, are not either bigge enough or frequent enough to fall within the apprehension and observation of our senses; no wonder then if hee himselfe bee deceived in his assertions concerning these particulars.

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

3. I answer that there have been some alterations observed there; witnesse those comets which have beene seene above the Moone. So that though Aristotles consequence were sufficient, when hee proved that the heavens were not corruptible, because there have not any changes being observed in it, yet this by the same reason must bee as prevalent, that the Heavens are corruptible, because there have beene so many alterations observed there; but of these together with a farther confirmation of this proposition, I shall have occasion to speake afterwards; In the meane space, I will referre the Reader to that worke of Scheiner a late Jesuit which hee titles his Rosa Vrsina,^[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 immediately belong to the chiefe matter in hand, I shall therefore referre the Reader to their authors, and omit any large proofe of them my selfe, as 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 her, why any of the other? I rather thinke that they are all of a fluid (perhaps aereous) substance. Saint Ambrose, and Saint Basil did endeavour to prove this out of that place in Isay^[15], where they are compared to smoake, as they are both quoted by Rhodiginus^[16], Eusebius, Nierembergius^[17] doth likewise from that place confute the solidity and incorruptibility of the Heavens, and cites for the same interpretation the authority of Eustachius of Antioch; and Saint Austin,^[18] I am sure seemes to assent unto this opinion, though he does often in his other workes contradict it. The testimony of other Fathers to this purpose you may see in Sixtus Senensis. l. 5. Biblioth. annot. 14. but for your better satisfaction herein, I shall referre you to the above named Scheiner in his Rosa Ursina,^[19] in whom you may see both authorities and reason, and very largely and distinctly set downe for this opinion, for the better confirmation of which hee adjoynes also some authenticall Epistles of Fredericus Cæsius Lynceus a Noble Prince written to Bellarmine, containing divers reasons to the same purpose, you may also see the same truth set downe by Johannes Pena in his preface to Euclids Opticks, and Christoph. Rothmannus, both who thought the Firmament to bee onely aire: and though the noble Tycho^[20] doe dispute against them, yet he himselfe holds, Quod propius ad veritatis penetralia accedit hæc opinio, quam Aristotelica vulgariter approbata, quæ cœlum pluribus realibus atque imperviis orbibus citra rem replevit. "That this opinion comes neerer to the truth than that common one of Aristotle which hath to no purpose filled the heavens with such reall and impervious Orbes."

2. There is no element of fire, which must be held with this opinion here delivered; for if wee suppose a world in the Moone, then it will follow, that the spheare of fire, either is not there where 'tis usually placed in the concavity of his Orbe, or else that there is no such thing at all, which is most probable, since there are not any such solid Orbs, that by their swift motion might heare and enkindle the adjoyning aire, which is imagined to be the reason of that element. Concerning this see Cardan. Iohannes Pena that learned Frenchman, the noble Tycho, with divers others who have purposely handled this proposition.

3. I might adde a third, viz. that there is no Musicke of the spheares, for if they be not solid, how can their motion cause any such sound as is conceived? I doe the rather medle with this, because Plutarch speaks as if a man might very conveniently heare that harmony, if he were an inhabitant in the Moone. But I guesse that hee said this out of incogitancy, and did not well consider those necessary consequences which depended upon his opinion. However the world would have no great losse in being deprived of this Musicke, unlesse at some times we had the priviledge to heare it: Then indeede Philo the Jew^[21] thinkes it would save us the charges of diet, and we might live at an easie rate by feeding at the eare onely, and receiving no other nourishment; and for this very reason (saies he) was Moses enabled to tarry forty daies and forty nights in the Mount without eating any thing, because he there heard the melody of the Heavens,—Risum teneatis. I know this Musicke hath had great patrons both sacred and prophane authours, such as Ambrose, Bede, Boetius, Anselme, Plato, Cicero and others, but because it is not now, I thinke affirmed by any, I shall not therefore bestow either paines or time in arguing against it.

It may suffice that I have onely named these three last, and for the two more necessary, have referred the Reader to others for satisfaction. I shall in the next place proceede to the nature of the Moones body, to know whether that be capable of any such conditions, as may make it possible to be inhabited, and what those qualities are wherein it more neerely agrees with our earth.

---

1. De Cœlo., l. 1. cap. 2.
2. Colleg. Cannimb. De Cœlo. l. 1. c. 2. q. 6. art. 3.
3. In Hexam. lib. 4.
4. In opere 6. dierum. disput. 5.
5. In lib. de Mundi constit.
6. 2 Pet. 3. 12.
7. By Doctor Hackwell Apol.
8. Plutarch. de plac. philos. l. 2. c. 17.
9. Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 9.
10. Nat. Quæst. lib. 2. cap. 5.
11. Io. Apost.
12. De cœlo. l. 1. cap. 3.
13. De cœlo. l. 2. cap. 3.
14. lib. 4. p. 2. cy. 24, 35.
15. Isa. 51. 6.
16. Ant. lect. l. 1. c. 4.
17. Hist. nat. l. 2. c. 11. 13.
18. In lib. sup. Gen. ad lit.
19. lib. 4. p. 11, 2. c. 7. 26, 30.
20. De stella. 15. 72. l. 6. c. 9.
21. De somniis.