The Discovery of a World in the Moone/Chapter 7

by John Wilkins

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 Orphesis, one of the most ancient Greeke Poets, who speaking of the Moone, saies thus, ἡ πολλ᾽ οὔρεα ἔχει, πολλ᾽ ἄστεα, πολλὰ μέλαθρα^[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, (as Aristotle^[4] 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 cõmanded 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.

To this opinion of Pythagoras did Plato also assent^[7], 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,^[8] of an ætherea terra, and lunares populi, an æthereall 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 Venus, 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, Jupiter 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^[9] speaking of this Platonicke fancie, quæ 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 cœlestis, as being esteemed the sediment and more imperfect part of those purer bodies,^[10] you may see this proved by Plutarch, in that delightfull work which he properly made for the confirmation of this particular. With him agreed Alcinous^[11] 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,^[12] 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. The Cardinall Cusanus^[13] and Iornandus Bunus, held a particular world in every Starre, and therefore one of them defining our earth, he saies, it is stella quædam nobilis, quæ 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 terræ natura probabilis est: "That 'tis probable the earth hath a starry nature."^[14]

But the opinion which I have here delivered was more directly proved by Mæslin, Keplar, and Galilæus, each of them late writers, and famous men for their singular skill in Astronomy.^{[15] [16]} As for those workes of Mæslin 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 Julius Cæsar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I now cite for this opinion,^[17] viz. Keplar and Galilæus 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.

'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 Cæsar was) would never have writ an apologie for him. And besides 'tis very likely if it had beene but a jest, Galilæus 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 in them may well derogate from his credit in this.^[18] 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 Cæsar la Galla was much mistaken. I thinke his assertions are equally true, that Galilæus and Keplar did not hold this, and that there were none which ever held that other.

But in my following discourse I shall most insist on the observation of Galilæus, 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 προσωποπεία and rapture of admiration. O multiscium & quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextra tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei? And Johannes Fabricius^[19] 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 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 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 Cæsar la Galla^[20], whose words are these: Mercurium caduceum gestantem, cœlestia nunciare, & mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilæum verò novum Iovis interpretem Telescopio caducæo instructum Sydera aperire, & veterum Philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra ætas 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 Galilæus 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.

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, when hee sayes, that by it those things which could scarce^[21] 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 Galilæus 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^[22] may confirme you, when hee saies they were shewed, Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon Mathematicis & opticis præceptis, 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 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,^[23] vius qui ad experimenta hæc 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.

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)^[24] 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.

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^[25] uses in his booke De mundo (if that booke were his.)

First, περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ of those chiefe parts which are in it; not the elementary and æthereall (as he doth there) since this doth not belong to the elementary controversie, but of the Sea and Land, &c. Secondly, περὶ αὐτὴν παθῶν, of those things which are extrinsecall to it, as the seasons, meteors and inhabitants.

---

1. Plut. de plas. phil. l. 2. c. 13.
2. Ibid. c. 25.
3. Diog. Laert. l. 2. & l. 9.
4. De Cœlo. l. 2. cap. 13.
5. Plut. ibid. cap. 30.
6. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 34. cap. 6.
7. Plat. de conviviis.
8. Macrob. Somn. Scip. lib. 1. ca. 11.
9. Exercit. 62.
10. De facie Lunæ.
11. Instit. ad discip. Plat. Cæl. Rhodig. l. 1. c. 4.
12. Azoara. 57. & 65.
13. Cusa. de doct. ign. l. 2. cap. 12.
14. Philos. epicur. part. 434.
15. In Thesibus dissertatio cum Nic. Hill.
16. Nuncius Sydereus.
17. De phænom. lunæ. c. 4.
18. Cap. 7.
19. De macula in sole obser.
20. De phænom. c. 1.
21. ibid. c. 5.
22. Cap. 1.
23. Cap. 5.
24. Apologia pro Galilæo.
25. à 1º. cap. ad 10^m