when he said, astrea terræ natura probabilis est: "That "it is probable the earth hath a starry nature."

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. Keplar calls this world by the name of Levania, from the Hebrew word n which signifies the moon, and our earth by the name of volva, a volvendo; because it does by reason of its diurnal revolution appear unto them constantly to turn round; and therefore he 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 volve, because they are deprived of this privilege. But Julius Cæsar, whom I have above quoted, speaking of their testimony whom I cite for this opinion, viz. Keplar and Galilæus §, affirms that to his knowledge they did but jest in those things which they write concerning this; and as for any such world, he assuredly knows they never so much as dreamt of it. But I had rather believe their own words, than his pretended knowledge.

It is true indeed, in some things they do but trifle, but for the main scope of those discourses, it is as manifest they seriously meant it, as any indifferent reader may easily discern as for Galilæus, it is evident that he did set down his own judgment and opinion in these things; otherwise sure Campanella (a man as well acquainted with his opinion, and perhaps his person, as Cæsar was) would never have writ an apology for him. And besides, it is very likely if it had been but a jest, Galilæus would never have suffered so much for it, as report saith afterwards he did.

And as for Keplar, I will own words, as they are set fourth book of his Epitom;

*In Thesibus.

Nuncius Sydereus. Somn. Astr.

only refer the reader to his down in the preface to the where his purpose is to make

Dissertatio cum Nunc.
§ De phænom. Lunæ, c. 4.

an apology for the strangeness of those truths that he was there to deliver, amongst which there are divers things to this purpose concerning the nature of the moon. He professes that he did not publish them either out of a humour of contradiction, or a desire of vain-glory, or in a jesting way to make himself or others merry, but after a considerate and solemn manner for the discovery of the truth.

Now as for the knowledge which Cæsar pretends to the contrary, you may guess what it was by his strange confidence in other assertions, and his boldness in them may well derogate from his credit in this. For speaking of Ptolemy's Hypothesis *, he pronounces this verdict, Impossibile est excentricorum et epicyclorum positio, nec aliquis est ex mathematicis adeo stultus qui veram illam existimet. "The position of excentrics and epicycles is altogether im66 possible, nor is there any mathematician such a fool as "to think it true." I should guess he could not have knowledge enough to maintain any other hypothesis, who was so ignorant in mathematics as to deny that any good author held this. For I would fain know whether there were never any that thought the heavens to be solid bodies, and that there were such kinds of motion as is by those feigned orbs supplied; if so, Cæsar la Galla was much mistaken. I think his assertions are equally true, that Galilæus 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 Galilæus, the inventor of that famous perspective, whereby we may discern the heavens hard by us; whereby those things which others have formerly guessed at, are manifested to the eye, and plainly 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. It is related of Eudoxus, that he wished himself burnt with Phaeton, so he

* Cap. 7.

might stand over the sun to contemplate its nature; had he lived in these days, he might have enjoyed his wish at an easier rate; and scaling the heavens by this glass, might plainly have discerned what he so much desired. Keplar considering those strange discoveries which this perspective had made, could not choose but cry out in a @pocoñoTea and rapture of admiration, O multiscium et quovis sceptro pretiosius perspicillum! an qui te dextrá tenet, ille non dominus constituatur operum Dei? And Johannes Fabricius*, an elegant writer, speaking of the same glass, and for this invention preferring our age before those former times of greater ignorance, says thus: Adeo sumus superiores veteribus, ut quam illi carminis magici pronunciatu demissam representasse putantur, nos non tantum innocenter demittamus, sed etiam familiari quodam intuitu ejus quasi conditionem intueamur. "So much are we above the an "cients, that whereas they were fain by their magical "charms to represent the moon's approach, we cannot "only 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 down the testimony of an enemy; and such a witness hath always been accounted prevalent: you may see it in the above-named Cæsar la Galla †, whose words are these. Mercurium caduceum

gestantem, cælestia nunciare, et mortuorum animas ab inferis revocare sapiens finxit antiquitas. Galilæum vero novum Jovis interpretem telescopio caduceo instructum syderd aperire, et veterum philosophorum manes ad superos revocare solers nostra ætas videt et admiratur. "Wise antiquity fabled Mercury carrying a rod in his hand to re"late news from heaven, and call back the souls of the dead; but it hath been the happiness of our industrious age, to see and admire Galilæus (the new ambassador of "the gods), furnished with his perspective to unfold the

66

66

* De macula in sol. obser. + De phænom, cap. 1.

"nature of the stars, and awaken the ghosts of the ancient "philosophers." So worthily and highly did these men esteem of this excellent invention.

Now if you would know what might be done by this glass, in the sight of such things as were nearer at hand, the same author will tell you, when he says *, 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 sixteen Italian miles, and that as they were really in themselves, without any transposition or falsifying at all. So that what the ancient poets were fain to put in a fable, our more happy age hath found out in a truth; and we may discern as far 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 author may confirm you, when he says they were shewed, Non uni aut alteri, sed quamplurimis, neque gregariis hominibus, sed præcipuis atque disciplinis omnibus, necnon mathematicis et opticis præceptis optime instructis sedulà ac diligenti inspectione*. "Not to one or two, but "to very many, and those not ordinary men, but to those "who were well versed in mathematics and optics; and "that not with a mere glance, but with a sedulous and diligent inspection." And lest any scruple might remain unanswered, or you might think the men who beheld al this, though they might be skilful, yet they came with credulous minds, and so were more easy to be deluded: He adds that it was shewed, Viris qui ad experimenta hæc contradicendi animo accesserant †. "To such as were

66

come with a great deal of prejudice, and an intent of "contradiction." Thus you may see the certainty of those experiments which were taken by this glass. I have spoken the more concerning it, because I shall borrow many things in my further discourse, from those discoveries which were made by it.

* De phænom, c. 6.

+ Cap. 1.

+ Cap. 5.

VOL. I.

E

I have now cited such authors, both ancient and modern, who have directly maintained the same opinion. I told you likewise in the proposition, that it might probably be deduced from the tenets of others*: such were Aristarchus, Philolaus, and Copernicus, with many other later writers, who assented to their hypothesis; so Joach. Rhelicus, David Origanus Lansbergius, Guil. Gilbert; and, (if I may believe Campanella) innumeri alii Angli et Galli; very many others, both English and French, all who affirmed our earth to be one of the planets, and the sun to be the centre of all, about which the heavenly bodies did move. And how horrid soever this may seem at the first, yet it is likely enough to be true, nor is there any maxim or observation in optics (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, it is requisite that I inform the reader what method I shall follow in the proving of this assertion, That there is a world in the moon.

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, περὶ τῶν εν αυτή, of those chief parts which are in it; not the elementary and ethereal (as he doth there), since this does not belong to the present question, but of the sea and land, &c. Secondly, Tερ αUтиν Tawv, of those things which are extrinsical to it, as the seasons, meteors, and inhabitants.

* See the second book, 1 prop.

+ Apologia pro Galilæo.