PROP. VIII. The spots represent the sea, and the brighter parts the WH land. land. Of this But my second now convinced HEN I first compared the nature of our earth and water with those appearances in the moon, I concluded contrary to the proposition, that the brighter parts represented the water, and the spots the opinion likewise was Keplar at the first *. thoughts, and the reading of others, have me (as after he was) of the truth of that proposition which I have now set down. Before I come to the confirmation of it, I shall mention those scruples which at first made me doubt the truth of this opinion. 1. It may be objected, it is probable, if there be any such sea and land as ours, that it bears some proportion and similitude with ours: but now this proposition takes away all likeness betwixt them. For whereas the superficies of our earth is but the third part of the whole surface in the globe, two parts being overspread with the water (as Scaliger observes +), yet here, according to this opinion, the sea should be less than the land, since there is not so much of the bespotted as there is of the enlightened parts; wherefore it is probable that there is no such thing at all, or else that the brighter parts are the sea. 2. The water, by reason of the smoothness of its superficies, seems better able to reflect the sun-beams than the earth, which in most places is so full of ruggedness, of grass and trees, and such like impediments of reflection; and besides, common experience shews that the water shines with a greater and more glorious brightness than the earth; therefore it should seem that the spots are the earth, and * Opt. Astro. c. 6. num. 9. Dissert. cum nuncio Gal. the brighter parts the water. But to the first it may be answered. 1. There is no great probability in this consequence, that because it is so with us, therefore it must be so with the parts of the moon; for since there is such a difference betwixt them in divers other respects, they may not perhaps agree in this. 2. That assertion of Scaliger* is not by all granted for a truth. Fromondus with others think that the superficies of the sea and land, in so much of the world as is already discovered, is equal and of the same extension. 3. The orb of thick and vaporous air which encompasses the moon, makes the brighter parts of that planet appear bigger than in themselves they are; as I shall shew afterwards. To the second it may be answered, That though the water be of a smooth superficies, and so may seem most fit to reverberate the light, yet because it is of a perspicuous nature, therefore the beams must sink into it, and cannot so strongly and clearly be reflected. Sicut in speculo ubi plumbum abrasum fuerit (saith Cardan), as in lookingglasses, where part of the lead is razed off, and nothing left behind to reverberate the image, the species must there pass through, and not back again: so it is where the beams penetrate and sink into the substance of the body, there cannot be such an immediate and strong reflection, as when they are beat back from the superficies; and therefore the sun causes a greater heat by far upon the land, than upon the water. Now as for that experiment, where it is said, that the waters have a greater brightness than the land; I answer, It is true only there where they represent the image of the sun, or some bright cloud, and not in other places; especially if we look upon them at any great distance, as is very plain by common observation. And it is certain, that from any high mountain the land does appear a great deal brighter than any lake or river. * De Meteoris, I. 5. c. 1. Art. 1. This may yet be farther illustrated by the similitude of a looking-glass hanging upon a wall in the sun-shine; where, if the eye be not placed in the just line of reflection from the glass, it is manifest that the wall will be of a brighter appearance than the glass. True indeed, in the line of reflection, the light of the glass is equal almost unto that which comes immediately from the sun itself; but now this is only in one particular place, and so is not like that brightness which we discern in the moon; because this does appear equally in several situations, like that of the wall, which does seem bright as well from every place, as from any one. And therefore the roughness of the wall, or (as it is in the objection) the ruggedness of our earth, is so far from being an hindrance of such a reflection as there is from the moon, that it is rather required as a necessary condition unto it. We may conceive that in every rough body, there are, as it were, innumerable superficies, disposed unto an innumerable diversity of inclinations. Ita ut nullus sit locus, ad quem non pertingant plurimi radii reflexi a plurimis superficieculis, per omnem corporis scabri radiis luminosis percussi superficiem dispersis*. "So that "there is not any place unto which there are not some "beams reflected from these diverse superficies, in the "several parts of such a rugged body." But yet (as I said before) the earth does receive a great part of its light by illumination, as well as by reflection. So that notwithstanding those doubts, yet this proposition may remain true, That the spots may be the sea, and the brighter parts the land. Of this opinion was Plutarch+: unto him assented Keplar and Galilæus, whose words are these: Si quis veterum Pythagoreorum sententiam exsuscitare velit, lunam scilicet esse quasi tellurem alteram ejus pars lucidior terrenam superficiem, obscurior vero aqueam magis congruè repræsentet. Mihi autem dubium fuit nunquam terrestris globi à longe conspecti, atque a radiis sola *Galilæus System. Coll. 1. + De facie Lun. Dissertatio Nunc. Syd. ribus perfusi, terream superficiem clariorem, obscuriorem vero aqueam sese in conspectum daturam. "If any man "have a mind to renew the opinion of the Pythagoreans, "That the moon is another earth; then her brighter parts "may fitly represent the earth's superficies, and the darker 66 part the water and for my part, I never doubted but "that our earthly globe being shined upon by the sun, and "beheld at a great distance, the land would appear bright"est, and the sea more obscurely." The reasons may be, 1. That which I urged about the foregoing chapter; because the water is the thinner part, and therefore must give less light. Since the stars and planets, by reason of their brightness, are usually concluded to be the thicker parts of their orb. 2. Water is in itself of a blacker colour (saith Aristotle*), and therefore more remote from light than the earth. Any part of the ground being moistened with rain, does look much more darkly than when it is dry. 3. It is observed that the secondary light of the moon (which afterwards is proved to proceed from our earth) is sensibly brighter unto us, for two or three days before the conjunction, in the morning when she appears eastward, than about the same time after the conjunction, when she is seen in the west. The reason of which must be this, because that part of the earth which is opposite to the moon in the east, has more land in it than sea. Whereas on the contrary, the moon when she is in the west, is shined upon by that part of our earth where there is more sea than land; from whence it will follow with good probability, that the earth does cast a greater light than the water. 4. Because observation tells us, that the spotted parts are always smooth and equal, having everywhere an equality of light, when once they are enlightened by the sun; whereas the brighter parts are full of rugged gibbositics * In lib. de coloribus, and mountains, having many shades in them, as I shall shew more at large afterwards. That in this planet there must be seas, Campanella * endeavours to prove out of Scripture, interpreting the waters above the firmament, spoken in Genesis, to be meant of the sea in this world. For (saith he) it is not likely that there are any such waters above the orbs to moderate that heat which they receive from their swift motion (as some of the fathers think). Nor did Moses mean the angels, which may be called spiritual waters, as Origen and Austin+ would have it, for both these are rejected by the general consent: nor could he mean any waters in the second region, as most commentators interpret it. For first there is nothing but vapours, which though they are afterwards turned into water, yet while they remain there, they are only the matter of that element, which may as well be fire, or earth, or air. 2. Those vapours are not above the expansum, but in it. So that he thinks there is no other way to salve all, but by making the planets several worlds with sea and land, with such rivers and springs as we have here below: especially since Esdras speaks of the springs above the firmament +. But I cannot agree with him in this, nor do I think that any such thing can be proved out of scripture. Before I proceed to the next position, I shall first answer some doubts which might be made against the generality of this truth, whereby it may seem impossible that there should be either sea or land in the moon: for since she moves so swiftly as astronomers observe, why then does there nothing fall from her, or why doth she not shake something out by the celerity of her revolution? I answer, You must know that the inclination of every heavy body to its proper centre, doth sufficiently tie it unto its place; so that suppose any thing were separated, yet must it ne * Apologia pro Galilæo. + Vide leron. Epist. ad Pammachium. Retracted lib. 2. Retr. cap. 6. + 2 Esdr. iv. 7. Confession. 1. 13. c. 32. |