2. It is compact, and not a spungie and porous substance.[1] But this is denied by _Diogenes_, _Vitellio_, and _Reinoldus_, and some others, who held the Moone to bee of the same kind of nature as a Pumice-stone, and this, say they, is the reason why in the Suns eclipses there appeares within her a duskish ruddy colour, because the Sunne-beames being refracted in pa.s.sing through the pores of her body, must necessarily be represented under such a colour.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de pla. phil. l. 2. c. 13._ _Opt. l. 4._ _Com. Purbac. Theo. p. 164._]

But I reply, if this be the cause of her rednesse; then why doth she not appeare under the same forme when she is about a s.e.xtile aspect, and the darkned part of her body is discernable? for then also doe the same rayes pa.s.se through her, and therefore in all likelihood should produce the same effect, and notwithstanding those beames are then diverted from us, that they cannot enter into our eyes by a streight line, yet must the colour still remaine visible in her body,[1] and besides according to this opinion, the spots would not alwaies be the same, but divers, as the various distance of the Sunne requires. Againe, if the Sunne-beames did pa.s.se through her, why then hath she not a taile as the Comets? why doth she appeare in such an exact round? and not rather attended with a long flame, since it is meerely this penetration of the Sunne beames that is usually attributed to be the cause of beards in blazing starres.

[Sidenote 1: _Scaliger exercit. 80. -- 13._]

3. It is opacous, not transparent or diaphanous like Chrystall or gla.s.se,[1] as _Empedocles_ thought, who held the Moone to bee a globe of pure congealed aire, like haile inclosed in a spheare of fire, for then.

[Sidenote 1: _Plut. de fa. lunae._]

1. Why does shee not alwaies appeare in the full? since the light is dispersed through all her body?

2. How can the interposition of her body so darken the Sun, or cause such great eclipses as have turned day into night,[1] that have discovered the stars, and frighted the birds with such a sudden darknesse, that they fell downe upon the earth, as it is related in divers Histories? And therefore _Herodotus_ telling of an Eclipse which fell in _Xerxes_ time, describes it thus:[2] ? ????? ????p?? t?? ?? t??

???a??? ?d??? ?fa??? ??. The Sunne leaving his wonted seate in the heavens, vanished away: all which argues such a great darknesse, as could not have beene, if her body had beene perspicuous. Yet some there are who interpret all these relations to bee hyperbolicall expressions, and the n.o.ble _Tycho_ thinkes it naturally impossible, that any eclipse should cause such darknesse, because the body of the Moone can never totally cover the Sunne; however, in this he is singular, all other Astronomers (if I may believe _Keplar_) being on the contrary opinion, by reason the Diameter of the Moone does for the most part appeare bigger to us then the Diameter of the Sunne.

[Sidenote 1: _Thucid._ _Livii._ _Plut. de fa. Lunae._]

[Sidenote 2: _Herodot. l. 7 c. 37._]

But here _Julius Caesar_[1] once more, puts in to hinder our pa.s.sage. The Moone (saith he) is not altogether opacous, because 'tis still of the same nature with the Heavens, which are incapable of totall opacity: and his reason is, because perspicuity is an inseparable accident of those purer bodies, and this hee thinkes must necessarily bee granted, for hee stops there, and proves no further; but to this I shall deferre an answere, till hee hath made up his argument.

[Sidenote 1: _De phaenom. Lunae. c. 11._]

We may frequently see, that her body does so eclipse the Sunne, as our earth doth the Moone; since then the like interposition of them both, doth produce the like effect, they must necessarily be of the like natures, that is a like opacous, which is the thing to be shewed; and this was the reason (as the Interpreters guesse) why _Aristotle_ affirmed the Moone to be of the earths nature,[1] because of their agreement in opacity, whereas all the other elements save that, are in some measure perspicuous.

[Sidenote 1: _In lib. de animalib._]

But the greatest difference which may seeme to make our earth altogether unlike the Moone, is, because the one is a bright body, and hath light of its owne, and the other a grosse dark body which cannot shine at all.

'Tis requisite therefore, that in the next place I cleare this doubt, and shew that the Moone hath no more light of her owne than our earth.

Proposition 5.

_That the Moone hath not any light of her owne._

Twas the fancy of some of the Jewes, and more especially of _Rabbi Simeon_, that the Moone was nothing else but a contracted Sunne,[1] and that both those planets at their first creation were equall both in light and quant.i.ty, for because G.o.d did then call them both great lights, therefore they inferred, that they must be both equall in bignesse. But a while after (as the tradition goes) the ambitious Moone put up her complaint to G.o.d against the Sunne, shewing, that it was not fit there should be two such great lights in the heavens, a Monarchy would best become the place of order and harmony. Upon this G.o.d commanded her to contract her selfe into a narrower compa.s.se, but she being much discontented hereat, replies, What! because I have spoken that which is reason and equity, must I therefore be diminished? This sentence could not chuse but much trouble her; and for this reason was shee in much distresse and griefe for a long s.p.a.ce, but that her sorrow might be some way pacified, G.o.d bid her be of good cheere, because her priviledges and charet should be greater then the Suns, he should appeare in the day timeonely, shee both in the day and night, but her melancholy being not satisfied with this, shee replyed againe, that that alas was no benefit, for in the day-time she should be either not seene, or not noted. Wherefore, G.o.d to comfort her up, promised, that his people the Israelites should celebrate all their feasts and holy daies by a computation of her moneths, but this being not able to content her, shee has looked very melancholy ever since; however shee hath still reserved much light of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _Tostatus in 1. Gen._ _Hieron. de 5. Hide._ _Hebraeonia l. 2. c. 4._]

Others there were, that did thinke the Moone to be a round globe, the one halfe of whole body was of a bright substance, the other halfe being darke, and the divers conversions of those sides towards our eyes, caused the variety of her appearances: of this opinion was _Berosus_, as he is cited by _Vitruvius_,[1] and St. _Austin_[2] thought it was probable enough, but this fancy is almost equally absurd with the former, and both of them sound rather like fables, then philosophicall truths. You may commonly see how this latter does contradict frequent and easie experience, for 'tis observed, that that spot which is perceived about her middle, when she is in the increase, may be discern'd in the same place when she is in the ful: whence it must follow, that the same part which was before darkened, is after inlightened, and that the one part is not alwaies darke, and the other light of it selfe, but enough of this, I would be loth to make an enemy, that I may afterwards overcome him, or bestow time in proving that which is already granted. I suppose now, that neither of them hath any patrons, and therefore need no confutation.

[Sidenote 1: _Lib. 9. Architecturae._]

[Sidenote 2: _in enarrat. Psalmorum._]

'Tis agreed upon by all sides, that this Planet receives most of her light from the Sunne, but the chiefe controversie is, whether or no she hath any of her owne? The greater mult.i.tude affirme this. _Cardan_ amongst the rest, is very confident of it, and he thinkes that if any of us were in the Moone at the time of her greatest eclipse,[1]

_Lunam aspiceremus non secus ac innumeris cereis splendidissimis accensis, atque in eas oculis defixis caecutiremus_;

"wee should perceive so great a brightnesse of her owne, that would blind us with the meere sight," and when shee is enlightened by the Sunne, then no eagles eye if there were any there, is able to looke upon her. This _Cardan_ saies, and hee doth but say it without bringing any proofe for its confirmation. However, I will set downe the arguments that are usually urged for this opinion, and they are taken either from Scripture or reason; from Scripture is urged that place, _1 Cor. 15._ where it is said, _There is one glory of the Sunne, and another glory of the Moone_. _Vlysses Albergettus_ urges, that in _Math. 24. 22._ ? se???? ?? d?se? t? f????? a?t??, _The Moone shall not give her light_: therefore (saies he) she hath some of her owne.

[Sidenote 1: _De Subtil. lib. 3._]

But to these wee may easily answer that the glory and light there spoken of, may be said to be hers, though it be derived, as you may see in many other instances.

The arguments from reason are taken either

1. From that light which is discerned in her, when there is a totall eclipse of her owne body, or of the Sunne.

2. For the light which is discerned in the darker part of her body, when she is but a little distant from the Sunne.

1. For when there are any totall eclipses, there appeares in her body a great rednesse, and many times light enough to cause a remarkeable shade, as common experience doth sufficiently manifest: but this cannot come from the Sunne, since at such times either the earth, or her owne body shades her from the Sun-beames, therefore it must proceede from her owne light.

2. Two or three daies after the new Moone, wee may perceive light in her whole body, whereas the rayes of the Sun reflect but upon a small part of that which is visible, therefore 'tis likely that there is some light of her owne.

In answering to these objections, I shall first shew, that this light cannot be her owne, and then declare that which is the true reason of it.

That it is not her own, appeares

1. From the variety of it at divers times; for 'tis commonly observed, that sometimes 'tis of a brighter, sometimes of a darker appearance, now redder, and at another time of a more duskish colour. The observation of this variety in divers eclipses, you may see set downe by _Keplar_[1]

and many others, but now this could not be if that light were her owne, that being constantly the same, and without any reason of such an alteration: So that thus I may argue.

[Sidenote 1: _Opt. Astron. c. 7. num. 3._]

If there were any light proper to the Moone, then would that Planet appeare brightest when she is eclipied in her Perige, being neerest to the earth, and so consequently more obscure and duskish when she is in her Apoge or farthest from it; the reason is, because the neerer any enlightened body comes to the sight, by so much the more strong are the species and the better perceived. This sequell is granted by some of our adversaries, and they are the very words of n.o.ble _Tycho_,[1]

_Si luna genuino gauderet lumine, utique c.u.m in umbra terrae esset, illud non amitteret, sed e evidentius exereret, omne enim lumen in tenebris, plus splendet c.u.m alio majore fulgore non praepeditur._

If the Moone had any light of her owne, then would she not lose it in the earths shadow, but rather shine more clearely, since every light appeares greater in the darke, when it is not hindered by a more perspicuous brightnesse.

[Sidenote 1: _De nova stella lib. 1. c. 10._]

But now the event falls out cleane contrary, (as observation doth manifest, and our opposites themselves doe grant)[1] the Moone appearing with a more reddish and cleare light when she is eclipsed being in her Apoge or farthest distance, and a more blackish yron colour when she is in her Perige or neerest to us, therefore shee hath not any light of her owne. Nor may we thinke that the earths shadow can cloud the proper light of the Moone from appearing, or take away any thing from her inherent brightnesse, for this were to thinke a shadow to be a body, an opinion altogether mis-becomming a Philosopher, as _Tycho_ grants in the fore-cited place,

_Nec umbra terrae corporeum quid est, aut densa aliqua substantia, aut lunae lumen obtenebrare possit, atque id visui nostro praeripere, sed est quaedam privatio luminis solaris, ob interpositum opac.u.m corpus terrae._

Nor is the earths shadow any corporall thing, or thicke substance, that it can cloud the Moones brightnesse, or take it away from our sight, but it is a meere privation of the Suns light, by reason of the interposition of the earths opacous body.

[Sidenote 1: Reinhold _comment. in Purb. Theor. pag. 164._]

2. If shee had any light of her owne then that would in it selfe be, either such a ruddy brightnesse as appeares in the eclipses, or else such a leaden duskish light as wee see in the darker parts of her body, when shee is a little past the conjunction. (That it must be one of these may follow from the opposite arguments) but it is neither of these, therefore she hath none of her owne.

1. 'Tis not such a ruddy light as appeares in eclipses, for then why can wee not see the like rednesse, when wee may discerne the obscurer parts of the Moone?

You will say, perhaps, that then the neerenesse of that greater light, takes away that appearance.