of Endymion with such ridiculous interpretations of these and the like fables, which any reasonable considering man cannot conceive to proceed from any but such as are distracted. No less fantastical in this kind are the Jewish Rabbies; amongst whom, is not any opinion, whether in nature or policy, whether true or false, but some of them, by a cabalistical interpretation can father it upon a dark place of scripture, or (if need be) upon a text that is clean contrary. There being not any absurdity so gross and incredible, for which these abusers of the text, will not find out an argument. Whereas, it is the more natural way, and should be observed in all controversies, to apply unto every thing the proper proofs of it; and when we deal with philosophical truths, to keep ourselves within the bounds of human reason and authority.

But this by the way. For the better proof of this proposition, I might here cite the testimony of Diodorus, who thought the moon to be full of rugged places, velut terrestribus tumulis superciliosam; but he erred much in some circumstances of this opinion, especially where he says, there is an island amongst the Hyperboreans, wherein those hills may to the eye be plainly discovered; and for this reason Calius* calls him a fabulous writer. But you may see more express authority for the proof of this in the opinions of Anaxagoras and Democritus †, who held that this planet was full of champion grounds, mountains and vallies. And this seemed likewise probable unto Augustinus Nisus ‡, whose words are these: Forsitan non est remotum dicere lunæ partes esse diversas, veluti sunt partes terræ, quarum aliæ sunt vallosa, aliæ montosa, ex quarum differentia effici potest facies illa luna, nec est rationi dissonum, nam luna est corpus imperfecte sphæricum, cum sit corpus ab ultimo cælo elongatum, ut supra dixit Aristoteles. Perhaps, it would not be amiss to say that the "parts of the moon were divers, as the parts of this

66

* Lect. aut. 1. 1. c. 15. De Colo. 1. 2. part. 49.

+ Plut. de plac. 1. 2. c. 25.

"earth, whereof some are vallies, and some mountains; "from the difference of which, some spots in the moon

may proceed; nor is this against reason; for that pla"net cannot be perfectly spherical, since it is so remote a "body from the first orb, as Aristotle had said before." You may see this truth assented unto by Blancanus the Jesuit, and by, him confirmed with divers reasons. Keplar hath observed in the moon's eclipses, that the division of her enlightened part from the shaded, was made by a crooked unequal line +, of which there cannot be any probable cause conceived, unless it did arise from the ruggedness of that planet; for it cannot at all be produced from the shade of any mountains here upon earth; because these would be so lessened before they could reach so high in a conical shadow, that they would not be at all sensible unto us (as might easily be demonstrated); nor can it be conceived what reason of this difference there should be in the sun. Wherefore there being no other body that hath any thing to do in eclipses, we must necessarily conclude, that it is caused by a variety of parts in the moon itself; and what can these be but its gibbosities? now if you should ask a reason why there should be such a multitude of these in that planet, the same Keplar shall jest you out an answer. Supposing (saith he) that those inhabitants are bigger than any of us, in the same proportion as their days are longer than ours, viz. by fifteen times; it may be, for want of stones to erect such vast houses as were requisite for their bodies, they are fain to dig great and round hollows in the earth ‡, where they may both procure water for their thirst, and turning about with the shade, may avoid those great heats which otherwise they would be liable unto. Or if you will give Cæsar la Galla leave to guess in the same manner, he would rather think that those thirsty nations cast up so many and so

* De Mundi fab. par. 3. c. 4. Kep. appen. Selenogra.

+ Astron. Opt. c. 6. num. 9.

great heaps of earth in digging of their wine cellars; but this only by the way.

I shall next produce the eye-witness of Galilæus *, on which I most of all depend for the proof of this proposisition; when he beheld the new moon through his perspective, it appeared to him under a rugged and spotted figure, seeming to have the darker and enlightened parts divided by a tortuous line, having some parcels of light at a good distance from the other; and this difference is so remarkable, that you may easily perceive it through one of those ordinary perspectives, which are commonly sold amongst us; but for your better apprehending of what I deliver, I will set down the figure as I find it in Galilæus.

Suppose B C B to represent the appearance of the Moon's body being in a sextile, you may see some brighter parts separated at a pretty distance from the other, which can be nothing else but a reflection of the sun-beams upon some parts that are higher than the rest; and those obscure gibbosities which stand out towards the enlightened parts,

* Nuncius Sydereus.

must be such hollow and deep places whereto the rays cannot reach. But when the moon is got farther off from the sun, and come to that fulness as this line B B doth represent her under; then do these parts also receive an equal light, excepting only that difference which doth appear betwixt their sea and land. And if you do consider how any rugged body would appear being enlightened, you would easily conceive that it must necessarily seem under some such gibbous unequal form, as the moon is here represented. Now for the infallibility of these appearances, I shall refer the reader to that which hath been said in the sixth proposition.

But Cæsar la Galla affirms, that all these appearances may consist with a plain superficies, if we suppose the parts of the body to be some of them diaphanous, and some opacous; and if you object that the light which is conveyed to any diaphanous part in a plain superficies, must be by a continued line; whereas here there appear many brighter parts among the obscure at some distance from the rest: to this he answers, it may rise from some secret conveyances and channels within her body, that do consist of a more diaphanous matter; which being covered over with an opacous superficies, the light passing through them may break out a great way off; whereas the other parts betwixt, may still remain dark. Just as the river Arethusa in Sicily, which runs under ground for a great way, and afterwards breaks out again. But, because this is one of the chiefest fancies, whereby he thinks he hath fully answered the argument of this opinion, I will therefore set down his answer in his own words, lest the reader might suspect more in them than I have expressed*. Non est impossibile cæcos ductus diaphani & perspicui corporis, sed opaca superficie protendi, usque in diaphanam aliquam ex profundo in superficiem emergentem partem, per quos ductus lumen longo postmodum interstitio erumpat, &c. But I reply, if the superficies betwixt these two

* Cap. 11.

two enlightened parts remain dark because of its opacity; then would it always be dark, and the sun could not make it partake of light more than it could of perspicuity. But this contradicts all experience, as you may see in Galilæus, who affirms that when the sun comes nearer to his opposition, then that which is betwixt them both, is enlightened as well as either. Nay, this opposes his own eye-witness; for he confesses himself that he saw this by the glass. He had said before, that he came to see those strange sights discovered by Galilæus his glass, with an intent of contradiction; and you may read that confirmed in the weakness of this answer, which rather bewrays an obstinate, than a persuaded will; for otherwise sure hẹ would never have undertook to have destroyed such certain proof with so groundless a fancy.

That instance of Galilæus*, would have been a better evasion, had this author been acquainted with it; whọ might then have compared the moon to that which we call mother of pearl, which though it be most exactly polished in the superficies of it, yet will seem unto the eye as if there were divers swellings and risings in its several parts. But yet, this neither would not well have shifted the experiment of the perspective. For these rugged parts do not only appear upon one side of the moon, but as the sun does turn about in divers places, so do they also cast their shadow. When the moon is in her increase, then do they cast their shadows to the east. When she is in the decrease, and the sun on the other side of her, then likewise may we discover these brighter parts casting their shadows westward. Whereas in the full moon there are none of all these to be seen.

But it may be objected, that it is almost impossible, and altogether unlikely, that in the moon there should be any mountains so high as those observations make them. For do but suppose, according to the common principles, that the moon's diameter unto the earth's, is very near to the

* Syst. mund. col. 1.