Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:04:34.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milton's Dialogue on Astronomy: The Principal Immediate Sources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Grant McColley
Grant McColley*
Affiliation:
Smith College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent series of studies I developed at some length the general background of cosmological thought which gave rise to and in large measure explains both the astronomy and the astronomical comment of Paradise Lost. The present essay continues this investigation of Milton's cosmological beliefs, but restricts discussion to the Raphael-Adam dialogue of Book VIII, interpreted in the light of its immediate sources. In brief, these sources consist of a number of related passages from three English books contemporary with Milton.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 1937 , pp. 728 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1937

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “The Theory of the Diurnal Rotation of the Earth,” Isis, xxvi (1937), 392–402, “The Seventeenth Century Doctrine of a Plurality of Worlds,” Annals of Science, i (1936), 385–430, and “The Astronomy of Paradise Lost,” SP, xxxiv (1937), 209–247. As summarized in section vii of the third and final member of the series, the conclusions which emerge from comparison of Milton's astronomical thought with conceptions active in the general background complement and support the conclusions presented passim in section ii of this essay. To one of Milton's nature and background there was, under the conditions discussed below in section ii, no fundamental inconsistency in manifesting a non-scientific interest in the major characteristics of specific theories, and at the same time condemning whole-heartedly the growing tendency of his age to devote appreciable time and thought to astronomical inquiry and speculation.

2 It is unnecessary to mention that the material employed in the dialogue was extremely commonplace during the early seventeenth century, and that Milton could have obtained it from a multiplicity of sources. One thesis of this essay is naturally that he did not elect to do so.

3 I am not unmindful of the conclusion of Professor Allan H. Gilbert, “Milton and Galileo,” SP, xix (1922), 152–185, that Milton was well versed in the Dialogo of Galileo, and that (p. 163), “The beginning of the Eighth Book of Paradise Lost is an untechnical summary of this work, by a master of compression who caught the spirit of that with which he dealt. Few will read Galileo's Dialogue, and indeed few need to, so long as we have Paradise Lost.” All students of Paradise Lost are deeply indebted to Professor Gilbert for his pioneer work in relating the poet to the cosmological controversies of his day, but as I point out in some detail, “The Astronomy of Paradise Lost,” loc. cit., note 97, Milton so frequently omits and differs with fundamental conclusions of Galileo's Dialogo that such a thesis must be questioned. The evidence of the present essay suggests further that the Dialogo cannot be considered as an immediate source of the Raphael-Adam dialogue which opens Book viii.

4 The first two editions of the Discovery were published in London in 1638; the third, revised, and enlarged by the addition of the fourteenth proposition, appeared in 1640.

5 London, 1640. The two books are separately paged.

6 London, 1646.—I wish to express my gratitude to Miss Katharine M. Hall, Reference Librarian, The University Libraries, University of Chicago, for her courtesy in permitting use of The New Planet through inter-library loan.

7 The New Planet no Planet is in part a defense by Ross of his earlier Commentum de terrae motu circulari: duobus libris refutatum (London, 1634), which Wilkins attacked in the Discourse. In a forthcoming study, “The Ross-Wilkins Controversy,” I discuss the three works in some detail, with particular emphasis upon their significance in the complete history of the quarrel between “Ancients and Moderns.”

8 Life of John Milton, iii, 447n.

9 The autograph poem entitled “On Mel Heliconium. Written by Mr. Rosse, Chaplain to his Matie.” and bearing the signature J. M., is classified in the British Museum Catalogue as an authentic work of Milton. Its claims for recognition as such a work, based primarily upon the nature of the handwriting, are advanced by Sir William Tite in his privately printed An Account of an Autograph Sonnet by John Milton, contained in a copy of Mel Heliconium, written by A. Rosse, 1642 (London, 1859), which I have not seen, are challenged in the article “Sonnet Supposed to be by Milton,” N & Q, 2nd s., viii (Oct. 29, 1859), 344–345, signed “D,” where one objection is that Ross is described as “powerful,” and mentioned not unfavourably by Foster Watson in “Alexander Ross: Pedant Schoolmaster of the Age of Cromwell,” Gentleman's Magazine, cclxxix (November, 1895), 464–465. In view of the generous employment of Ross in the Raphael-Adam dialogue of Paradise Lost, it may not be unadvisable for editors of the periodic “Complete Poems of John Milton” to consider inclusion of this “sonnet” either in the canon or among the suppositious works.

10 Loc. cit., p. 465.

11 As quoted by Foster Watson, ibid., p. 473.

12 Ed. cit., Dedication, To the Reader, Preface, and pp. 28, 59, 61, 69, 88, etc. Ross informs the “Good Reader” that “there is a namelesse man come down from the Moone, who brings us strange newes of a late discoverie; to wit, of a world found there; This man of the Moone goeth about to perswade us, in a booke which he hath set out, . . . that the world, ever since Adam, hath been in a dreame, in thinking that the heavens move, and the earth rests.” On p. 88 the schoolmaster says to Wilkins, “You cannot certainly tell us, Whether these spots may not be clouds or evaporations . . . But I would know what use is there for clouds there; except it be to shadow now and then, and to refresh with raine your world in the moon.”

13 For the convenience of those who may not find the London, 1640, editions of the Discovery and Discourse available, citations of these books include chapter [proposition] as well as page. A similar plan is followed with regard to The New Planet.

A. Paradise Lost, viii, 15 ff.

Discourse, ed. cit.

vi, p. 111. Our Earth . . . And alas, what is this unto the vaste frame of the whole Vniverse? but punctulum, such an insensible point, which do's not beare so great a proportion to the whole, as a small sand do's unto the Earth.

ix, pp. 189–190. If we suppose the Earth to be the cause of this motion, then will those vast and glorious Bodies of the Heavens be freed from that inconceivable, unnaturall swiftnes . . . For if the diurnall revolution be in the Heavens, … [p. 190] . .. every star in the Equator, must move 42398437½ miles in an houre.

ix, pp. 192–194. A man may more easily conceive the possibilitie of any Fable or Fiction how Beasts and Trees might talke together, than how any materiall Body should bee moved with such a swiftnesse … [p. 193] … It would bee more consonant to the Principles of Nature, that the Earth, which is of a lesser quantitie, should be [p. 194] appointed to such a motion as is somewhat proportionable to it's bignes, than that the Heavens that are of such a vast magnitude, should bee whirled about with such an incredible swiftnes, which do's as farre exceed the proportion of their bignesse, as their bignesse do's exceed this Earth, that is but as a point or centre to them. ‘Tis not likely that nature in these constant and great workes, should so much deviate from that usual harmony and proportion which she observes in lesser matters . . . But now that the Heavens themselves, of such strange bignesse, with so many Starres, which do so farre exceed the magnitude of our Earth, should bee able to turne about with the same celeritie: Oh ‘tis altogerher [sic] beyond the fancy of a Poet or a mad man.

ix, pp. 202–205. Another Argument to this purpose may be taken from the chiefe end of the Diurnall and Annuall motions, which is to distinguish betwixt Night and Day,

Winter and Summer; and so consequently, to serve for the commodities and seasons of the habitable World. Wherfore it may seeme more agreeable to the Wisedome of Providence, for to make the Earth as well the efficient, as the finall cause of this motion: Especially since nature in her other operations do's never use any tedious difficult means to performe that which may as well bee accomplished by shorter and easier wayes. But now, the appearances would be the same, in respect of us, if only this little point of Earth were made the subject of these motions, as if [p. 203] the vast Frame of the World, with all those Stars of such number and bignes were moved about it. ‘Tis a common Maxime, Nature do's nothing in vaine, but in all her courses do's take the most compendious way. ‘Tis not therefore (I say) likely, that the whole Fabricke of the Heavens, which do so much exceed our Earth in magnitude and perfection, should bee put to undergoe so great and constant a worke in the service of our Earth, which might more easily save all that labour by the circumvolution of it's owne Body; especially, since the Heavens doe not by this motion attaine any farther perfection for themselves, but are made thus serviceable to this little Ball of Earth … [p. 204] . .. Wee allow every Watch-maker so much wisdome as not to put any motion in his Instrument, which is superfluous, or may bee supplied an easier way: and shall wee not thinke that Nature ha's as much providence as every ordinary Mechanicke? Or can wee imagine that She should appoint those numerous and vast Bodies, the Stars, to compasse us with such a swift and restlesse motion,. . . when as all this might as well be done by the revolution of this little Ball of Earth? . . . [p. 205] There is one eminent qualification, wherin the Earth do's agree with the Planets; . .. and that is Light, which all the Planets and so too the Earth, are fain to borrow elswhere … To this it may be added, that the Sun and Stars seem to be of a more excellent Nature than the other parts of the World; and therfore should in reason be indowed with the best qualifications. But now motion is not so noble a condition as rest.

B. Paradise Lost, viii, 86 ff.

Ross, The New Planet, ed. cit.

vi, p. 60. Nor is it uncertaine that the earth is of a baser matter then the Planets; the obscurity and dulnesse of the one; the beauty, light, and swiftnesse of the other, doe shew what oddes there is in the matter . . . That the center is the worst place, is not held by us; for though we say the earth to be the ignoblest and basest element, in respect of its matter, and therefore the lowest; yet as it is the center and habitation of the noblest creature, it is placed in the middle, as being the noblest place.

vii, p. 71. The Sun was made chiefly for the Earth's sake, and the inhabitants thereof; neither doe the stars so much need his light and heat as we, without which we can neither live, nor procreate:

ix, pp. 107–108. You [Wilkins] would have the earth to be both the efficient and finall cause of its motion:. . . God made the heavens not for the earth, but for man; … [p. 108] . . . I pray you, is not heaven fitter to undergoe a great and constant worke then the earth, so small, so dull, so heavy . . . The perfection of heaven consisteth in its motion, as the earths perfection in its rest; neither was heaven made to serve this ball, but to serve him who was made Lord of this ball.

vi, pp. 67–69 (68-69 mispaged 66–67). God himselfe asketh Job, Who is it that hath laid the measures of the earth, and who hath stretched the line upon it? . . . shewing what difference there is between Gods knowledge and mans: saith Saint Chrysostome on that place. For God (saith the same Father) will let Job see how much man is inferiour to him, in that not onely hee cannot doe the workes that God hath done, but also that he hath not the knowledge of them … [p. 68] … I wish you could tell us,. . . in how many yeares will the bodies of the Saints be in ascending to heaven; you must pardon us if we beleeve not what you say, such an infinite disproportion doe you make both betweene the bignesse and distance of our earth and the fixed stars . . . [Quoting Wilkins, somewhat inaccurately] And the like credit doe we give to that incredible celerity of the eighth spheare, of which Astronomers write … [p. 69] . .. Wee [Ross] grant with you, That it is presumption to conclude that to be superfluous, whose use wee understand not; but yet wee must needs say, That what is not usefull at all, is superfluous; as that immense and stupendious bignesse, and incredible distance of some starres, seeing they were made for the use of man onely; (for to what other end should they be made?) . . .

Wilkins, Discourse, ed. cit.

vi, pp. 121–122. ‘Tis a frequent speech of our adversaries, Tycho, Fromundus, and others, in excuse of that incredible swiftnesse which they imagine in their primum mobile. That ‘twas [p. 122] requisite the motion of the Heavens should have a kind of infinitie in it, the better to manifest the infinitenesse of the Creator. And why may not wee as well affirme this concerning the bignes of the Heavens? . . .

vi, pp. 129–131. ‘Tis too much presumption, to conclude that to bee superfluous, the usefulnesse of which we doe not understand. There be many se-[p. 130]cret ends in these great works of Providence, which humane wisedome cannot reach unto, and as Solomon speakes of those things that are under the Sunne, so may we also of those things that are above it, That no man can find out the works of God … [p. 131] … So that our disabilitie to comprehend all those ends which might be aimed at in the works of nature, can bee no sufficient Argument to proove their superfluitie. Though Scripture doe tell us that these things were made for our use, yet it do's not tell us, that this is their only end. ‘Tis not impossible, but that there may be elsewhere some other inhabitants, by whom these lesser Stars may be more plainly discerned. And (as was said before) why may not we affirm that of the bignesse, which our adversaries doe concerning the motion of the Heavens? That God, to shew his owne immensitie, did put a kinde of infinitie in the creature.

14 Milton's hospitable reception of Wilkins' belief that the vastness of heaven shows the Maker's high magnificence is a result not only of his own interpretation of God, but of his delight in the extended spaces of the post-Copernican and post-telescopic universe. As Professor Marjorie Nicolson has adequately shown, “Milton and the Telescope,” ELH, ii (April, 1935), 1–32, it is space which dominates Paradise Lost. Milton conceivably could have obtained his conception of the greatness of the cosmos either from the Copernican hypothesis or from the telescope, but his antiquated knowledge of the former strongly suggests, as Miss Nicolson concludes (p. 3) on the basis of other evidence, that “Milton's imagination . . . was stimulated less by books about the new astronomy than by the actual sense experience of celestial observation.”

15 Professor George Coffin Taylor, Milton's Use of Du Bartas (Cambridge, 1934), p. 82, suggests that among other similarities of idea, word, and form (as cited pp. 77, 82–83, 101–103), the astronomical dialogue of Book viii is indebted to Du Bartas for the description of heaven as the Book of God wherein man may read His works. As I mention below, Du Bartas also appears the most probable source for Milton's antiquated idea of the earth moving with a triple motion. We cannot ignore either the prevalence of the idea of Heaven as the book of God, or the closeness of the poet's description to that found in the opening lines of section 16, Part i, of Browne's Religio Medici, to which Professor Robert Withington has kindly called my attention. However, prevalence does not preclude immediate indebtedness, and Du Bartas merits careful consideration as a minor immediate source for the dialogue of Book viii.

A perhaps more fundamental problem associated with Milton's “Heaven is the Book of God” is that of the motive which occasioned its employment in Book viii. The poet introduced the commonplace idea, God hath left the world to the disputes of men, clearly for the purpose of rebuking Wilkins and others who had made of it a justification for cosmological speculation. One major source of Wilkins, the Apologia pro Galileo of Campanella (Francofurti, 1622, pp. 31, 33, 35 and passim), repeatedly supports current astronomical inquiry both by this commonplace and the related idea, also based upon Scripture, that God had set the book of Heaven before man. I suspect that Milton introduced the two related conceptions for the single purpose of refuting the argument that they presupposed Divine approval of astronomical speculation.

16 Milton's subsequent “if thou reckon right” may include more than reference to mathematical calculation.

17 The many colleagues who have been so kind as to co-operate in such a test have without exception thought for the moment that it is God whom Ross describes as laughing. A stumbling reader, such as Milton's eldest daughter is said to have been (Edward Phillips, Life, as reprinted by Helen Darbishire, Early Lives of Milton, 1932, p. 77), could easily have accentuated the confusion inherent in Ross's construction.

C. Paradise Lost, viii, 67 ff., 119 ff.

Wilkins, Discourse, ed. cit., ix, p. 203. The whole Fabricke of the Heavens . . .

ix, p. 216. Though wee may discerne diverse things in the World, which may argue the infinite Wisedome and Power of the Author; yet there will bee alwaies some particulars left for our dispute and enquiry . . . (ii, 29. The Holy Ghost. . . hath left this travell to . . . men to bee exercised therewith, Mundum reliquit disputationibus hominum.)

x, p. 217. It hath been already proved, that the Earth is capable of such a scituation and motion, as this opinion supposes … It remaines, that … we shew how agreeable this would bee unto those ordinary seasons of Dayes, Moneths, Yeres, and all other appearances … 'tis evident, That this may be caused as well by the revolution of the Earth . .. since the Heavenly Bodies must needs seeme after the same manner to rise and set.. . Ross, The New Planet, ed. cit., vi, p. 67. I will not condemne the good uses that may be made of Astronomy in calculation of times, observation of seasons . . . and such things . . .

x, p. 114. Neither your [Wilkins'] pictures, nor bare words, shall perswade us, that dayes, moneths, yeares, houres, weekes, &c. are or can be caused by the earths motion . . .

ii, pp. 13–14. You . . . desire that the holy Ghost should not be Judge of his owne assertions in naturall truths . . . Indeed this travell hath God left to the sonnes of men . . . [p. 14]. . . so that they who have spent their whole life in Astronomie . . . neglect that one thing . . . onely necessary.

vi, pp. 63–64. The earth is … in the midst of these circles which are corcentricall [sic] to the world … [p. 64] . . . which they could not well doe if the earth were eccentricall . . . You go about to conjure us with your figures, circles, and characters, and to hem us in with a circle made by your pen . . . You remove the earth from one center to another,

with . .. facility . . . you transferre the starres from one circle to another at your pleasure . . . Can the true spheare of heaven be divided equally … Or can the stars in both hemispheares appeare of the same bignesse . . . your imaginary spheare . . . the reall spheare of heaven . . .

vi, pp. 66–67. Conjecturall according to mens fancies . .. are the motions, and magnitudes, and number, and order of the spheares, and starres; about which Astronomers have so many digladiations and oppositions, which were tedious but to name. From their conjectures and uncertainties have proceeded such a number of conjuring words: as . .. Excentricities, concentricities, Epicyles, [sic] … so that… I may say of Astronomers, It is a wonder that they do not laugh at one another . . . They gaze and stare on the stars, and dispute, and assever with great boldnesse, that each star is of such and such a bignesse and altitude, and that they move thus and thus … [p. 67] … I will not condemne the good uses … of Astronomy . . . but. . . reprove . . . men, who . . . meddle with these heavenly bodies . . . Therefore, for their . . . presumptuous curiosity, God doth punish them with multitudes of contradictory opinions. Who can sufficiently laugh to heare their jars and dissentions, saith Theodoret? for their difference is … of the whole world.

x, p. 114. Wee will beleeve no more then you [Wilkins] can demonstrate by sense or reason; demonstrations are . . . not of dreames and imaginations: therefore neither your pictures, nor bare words, shall perswade us . . . You that cannot abide Eccentrickes and Epicycles in the heavens, are forced now to make use of them … so that you have not mended but marred the matter, rejecting Ptolomy because of Eccentrickes and Epicycles, and yet you admit Copernicus with his new devised Moone Eccentricks, and Earth Eccentrickes … of things that are uncertaine and beyond our reach, divers men will have divers conceits and conjectures.

18 Ed. cit., viii, 143. Wilkins says in part that the third movement “cannot properly be stiled a motion, but rather an immutabilitie.” A possible, and I believe the most probable, source for Milton's “three different motions . . . move” is Du Bartas (The Complete Works of Joshuah Sylvester, ed. Grosart, i, 53):

Copernicus … to salve better of the Stars th' appearance,

Unto the Earth a three-fold motion warrants,

Making the Sun the Center of this All.

The first of these lines, “to salve better . . .,” may also be compared with Milton's “contrive / To save appearances” of passage C above.—As a later reference from Du Bartas shows (ii, 87), the French poet follows the tradition which influenced Milton to treat the theory of the diurnal rotation of the earth as one hypothesis, and that of its triple motion as another. In this second passage, in keeping with Milton in iv, 592 ff., Du Bartas describes only the diurnal rotation of the earth.

19 “The Astronomy of Paradise Lost,” loc. cit., sections I, iii, and vii.

20 Milton's apparent misunderstanding, or inexact description, did not proceed from Ross, who denies (op. cit., x, p. 115) that “the Planets will appeare direct, stationary, retrograde” . . . because of “one motion of the earth.”

E. Paradise Lost, viii, 122 ff.

Wilkins, Discourse, ed. cit.

ix, p. 204. Amongst the severall parts of the World, there are six Planets which are generally granted to move. As for the Sun and the Earth … it is yet in question . . .

ix, pp. 214–215. Likewise is it with the Earth, which may bee turned about in it's diurnall revolution … by some motive Power of it's owne, that may be intrinsicall unto it. . . However, that opinion of Keplar is not very improbable, That all the Primary Planets are moved round by the Sunne . . . which Planets are therefore slower or swifter, according to their distances from him. If you aske by what means the Sunne can produce such a motion? He answers: By sending forth a kind of [p. 215] Magneticke Vertue in strait Lines, from each part of it's Body; of which there is alwaies a constant succession . ..

But how can any vertue hold out to such a distance?

He answers: First, as light and heate, together with those other secret influences, which work upon Minerals in the Bowels of the Earth: so likewise may the Sunne send forth a magneticke, motive vertue, whose power may bee continued to the farthest Planets.

x, p. 223. Amongst which parts, the diurnall Arches of those … are bigger than the Nocturnall. . .

x, p. 225. When the Earth is in either of the Equinoctialls . . . Day and Night must then bee equall in all places of the World. As the Earth is here represented … it turnes only the enlightened part towards us: as it is in V wee see it's nocturnall Hemisphere.

x, p. 229. As it hath been said of this Planet, [Jupiter] so likewise is it applyable to the other. [sic] Saturne, Mars, Venus, Mercury; all which are thus made to appeare direct, Stationarie, and retrograde, by the motion of our Earth, without the helpe of those Epicycles and Eccentricks, and such unnecessary wheele worke, wherewith Ptolomey hath filled the Heavens.

21 The multiplicity of these sources is shown by Professor Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Harvard University Press, 1936), Lecture IV, Professor Marjorie Nicolson, “A World in the Moon,” Smith College Studies, xvii (January, 1936), 2, and by the present writer, “The Seventeenth Century Doctrine of a Plurality of Worlds,” Annals of Science, I (1936), 385–430.

F. Paradise Lost, viii, 138 ff.

Wilkins, Discovery, ed. cit.

xi, p. 144. That as their world is our Moone, so our world is their Moone.

xi, pp. 145–146. And if there be such a world in the Moone, 'tis requisite . . . that they should have . . . night and day as we have … [p. 146] . . . the generall length of their night is somewhat abated in the bignesse of their Moone which is our earth. For this returnes as great a light unto that Planet, as it receives from it.

xi, pp. 149–150. So Paulus Foscarinus . . . The earth is nothing else but another Moone or Starre … [p. 150] . . . Fromondus . . . sayes … “I believe that this globe of earth and water would appeare like some great Star to any one, who should looke upon it from the Moone.”

xi, p. 154. As shee doth most illuminate the earth when the Sunne-beames cannot, so the

gratefull earth returnes to her as great (nay greater) light when shee most wants it. . .

xi, pp. 160–161. Thus are there two about Saturne, foure about Jupiter, and thus likewise [p. 161] dos the Moone encompasse our earth. Now tis probable that these lesser, secondary Planets, are not so accommodated with all conveniences of habitation, as the others that are more principall.. . Cardinall de Cusa … is of opinion . .. “that if a man were beyond the region of fire, this earth would appeare through that, as a bright Starre.”

xi, p. 162. Keplar thinks that our earth receives that light whereby it shines, from the Sunne, but this (saith he) is not such an intended cleare brightnes as the Moon is capable of, and therefore he guesses, that the earth … is better able to reflect a stronger light . . . Consider its opacity . . . The rayes passe singly through a diaphanous matter, but in an opacous substance they are doubled in their returne . . .

xii, pp. 167–168. That tis probable there may be such Meteors [cf. meteorology] belonging to that world in the Moone, as there are with us. Plutarch . . . affirmes that it is not necessary there should be the same meanes of growth and fructifying in both these worlds . . . [p. 168] … he thinks it is probable that the Moone … by the swiftnesse of her motion there should breathe out a sweet and comfortable ayre, pleasant dewes, and gentle moisture, which might serve for refreshing and nourishment of the inhabitants and plants in that other world.

xii, pp. 179–180. If it be againe objected, that. . . each severall Planet will be a distinct world; I reply, wee have not like probabilitie concerning the rest; but yet, perhaps all of them are so, except the Sunne, though Cusanus and some others think there is one also; and later times have discovered some lesser clouds moving round about him. But as for Saturne, he hath two Moones on each side. Iupiter hath foure, that incircle him with their motion … [p. 180] … So that if you consider their quantity, their opacity, or these others [sic] discoveries, you shall finde it probable enough, that each of them may bee a severall world. Especially, since every one of them is allotted to a severall orbe . . .

xii, p. 181. Such fumes . . . may cause winds, and why not such also as may cause raine, since I have above shewed, that there is Sea and Land, as with us?

xii, p. 183. Maeslin . . . “there was a certaine blackish spot discerned in the Northerly part of the Moone . . . You might conjecture that it was some dilated cloud, being pregnant with showers.

xiii, pp. 187–188. We may guesse in the generall that there are some inha-[p. 188] bitants in that Planet: for why else did providence furnish that place with all such conveniences of habitation as have beene above declared? . . .

xiii, p. 192. [Cusanus] . . . “In some such manner likewise is it with the regions of the other starres [other than the planets]; for, we conjecture that none of them are without inhabitants, but [and?] that there are so many particular worlds and parts of this one universe, as there are starres.

21a Milton's conception of male and female light probably does not derive from Wilkins or from contemporary astronomy, but from ancient legend. A comparable idea is described by Ross in his Pansebeia, 3rd ed. (London, 1658), pp. 525–6, which, as I point out in “The Epic Catalogue of Paradise Lost,” forthcoming in ELH, was Milton's guide and partial source for the catalogue of devils in Book i.

G. Paradise Lost, viii, 160 ff.

Ross, The New Planet, ed. cit.

viii, p. 75. Tell us the cause why we cannot perceive the earth move . . . Are all mens eyes . . . till now so disturbed, or agitate with an insensible motion, that they cannot perceive the earth … to move, and yet doe perceive the sunne .. . though I should yeeld that the earth did move, yet that motion could not make me thinke that the sun did not move really . . .

viii, p. 77. When I see the sun and a cloud moving from East to West . . .

viii, p. 79. Though this circular motion of the earth were . . . never so equall and regular . . . the aire could never be quiet about us,.. . there would be a continuall and forcible motion . . . from East to West. . . you answer, That the aire is carried along with the same motion of the earth: . . . If the motion of the heaven (say you) which is a smooth body be able to carry . . .

viii, p. 80.1 said, That when the man or subject, the medium, and the object were all moved, the sight was hindered .. . You answer, That it's true where be severall motions, but when the subject, medium, and object, are all carried with the same equall motion . . .

viii, pp. 83–84. What if I should suppose the contrary, that the softest ground is in the lowest parts, as being farthest from the Sun which hardneth the earth; therefore they that dig deep in-[p. 84] to the bowells of the earth, finde it still softer and softer the deeper they goe . . . many . . . heavy bodies are hard and stonie without, but soft within .. .

viii, p. 97. You answer, That there is no reason why this motion should cause a sound, . .. there is a great deale of reason, for if any solid body . . . never so small,… an arrow, bullet, or wand, moving the air, cause a sound; will not the vast body of the earth turning the aire with that violence cause a hideous noise, which would make us all deafe? . . .

x, p. 117. But take heed you play not the Anatomist upon these celestiall bodies, (whose inward parts are hid from you) in the curious and needlesse search of them; you may well lose your selfe, but this way you shall never finde God . .. Let us not then spend that time in vaine and needlesse speculations, which we should imploy in knowing God, and in working out our salvation with feare and trembling … so small and meane is all humane knowledge compared to the Scripture . .. Wilkins, Discourse, ed. cit.

viii, pp. 148–149. The motion of the Earth is alwaies equall. . . not by starts and fits … [p. 149] . . . the aire also is carried along with the same motion of the Earth . . .

viii, p. 152. The Subject, and Medium, and Object… all carried with one . . . equall motion.

viii, p. 179. His [Ross'] boastings … if the Earth did move the Aire, it would cause . .. sound.

viii, p. 183. As the sound of this motion is not more heard than the Harmony of the Heavens: so neither is there any reason why this motion should cause a sound, more than the supposed motion of the Heavens . . .

x, pp. 239–240. These Coelestiall Bodies … a more accurate and diligent enquiry into their Natures, will raise our Vnderstandings unto a neerer Knowledge … of the Deitie … [p. 240] . . . this Knowledge may conduce to the proving of a God, and making Men religious; so likewise may it serve to confirme unto us the Truth of the Holy Scriptures .. .

H. Paradise Lost, viii, 167 ff.

Ross, The New Planet, ed. cit.

vi, pp. 67–68. I reprove . . . men, who cannot be content to know with sobriety things revealed, must needs . . . meddle with these heavenly bodies, in vaine and curious speculations

… what difference there is between Gods knowledge and mans … As it was Gods proper worke to make the earth, so it is proper to him alone [p. 68, mispaged 66] to know the measure of it: if then we know not the earths measure . . . what madnesse is it to measure the heavens, or to define the motions, scituations, altitude … or other accidents of them unknowne to us?

ix, p. 105. Your world in the Moone, your moving earth .. . your figures and characters, what are they else but pleasant dreames, and idle phansies .. . Wilkins, Discovery, ed. cit.

xiii, p. 185. That tis probable there may be inhabitants in this other World, but of what kinde they are, is uncertaine.

xiii, pp. 186–190. I should come unto the third thing which I promised, and say somewhat of the inhabitants; Concerning whom there might bee many difficult questions raised; as, whether that place bee more inconvenient for habitation than our World (as Keplar thinks); whether they are the seed of Adam; whether they are there in a blessed estate, or else what meanes there may be for their salvation? with many other such uncertaine enquiries, which I shall willingly omit… [p. 187] . . . what can such little creatures as we, discerne, who are tied to this point of earth? or what can they in the Moone know of us? If we understand any thing (saith Esdras) tis nothing but that which is upon the earth; and hee that dwelleth above in the heavens, may onely understand the things that are above in the height of the heavens . . . [p. 189] … To him assented Campanella; but he cannot determine whether they were men or rather some other kinde of creatures. If they were men, then he thinks they could not be infected with Adams sinne; yet perhaps, they had some of their owne, which might make them liable to the same misery with us, out of which, it may bee, they were delivered by the same means as we, the death of Christ… [p. 190] Campanella's second conjecture may be more probable, that the inhabitants of that world, are not men as we are, but some other kinde of creatures which beare some proportion, and likenesse to our natures. Or it may be, they are of a quite different nature from any thing here below .. . , or else such mixed natures as may bee composed from them. Now, there may be many other species of creatures … in the world; there is a great chasme betwixt the nature of men and Angels; It may bee the inhabitants of the Planets are of a middle nature between both these. Tis not improbable that God might create some of all kindes, that so he might more compleatly glorifie himselfe in the works of his Power and Wisedome.

I. Paradise Lost, viii, 191 ff.

Ross, The New Planet, ed. cit.

vi, pp. 66–67. Astronomers . .. gaze and stare on the stars, and dispute . . . and so expert they are, and quick-sighted in these things that are so remote, and yet cannot perceive the things that be hard at hand: therefore Anaximines . . . was checked by his maid for his curiosity in things beyond his reach, and neglecting that which most concerned him. [p. 67] . . . Even in the opinion of Socrates, it's to be mad, to inquire curiously into these celestiall things, which are not to be found out by us; . . . they are furious and mad men, &c. saith Lactantius . . . These heavenly bodies . . . the knowledge whereof in this life is denyed us, as being a part of Adams punishment for his affected knowledge, and being a meanes for us to have recourse to Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge.

22 “Milton's Technique of Source Adaptation,” forthcoming in SP (scheduled for January, 1938).— I include in this discussion analyses of Milton's use of Spenser's Garden of Adonis, with some addition to the evidence presented by Edwin Greenlaw, his adaptation of two of the passages from Du Bartas which Professor Taylor discusses, op. cit., and his utilization of Ross's Pansebeia, as pointed out by the present writer in “The Epic Catalogue of Paradise Lost,” loc. cit.

23 A Milton Handbook (New York, 1926), pp. 162–163.

24 Masson, The Life of John Milton (London, 1880), vi, 535, and (Introduction to) The Poetical Works of John Milton (New York, 1892), pp. 25 ff.; Verity, Paradise Lost (Cambridge, 1895), Books vii and viii, p. 66; Pattison, Milton (New York, 1887), p. 176; Moody, The Complete Poetical Works of John Milton (New York, 1924), pp. 96–98; Gilbert, “Milton and Galileo,” loc. cit., xix, 163, and others.

25 The expression “obvious to dispute” is variously interpreted: open to question; open to dispute; inviting dispute. The first interpretation causes the poet to state: “what if . . . be” is open to question, that is, this questionable proposition is open to question. The second interpretation puts the poet in the position of saying on the one hand that the question of the sun as centre is open to dispute, and on the other, “Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid.” I am not certain what exact meaning is implied in “inviting dispute.” The interpretation which is in complete harmony with the tenor of the dialogue, and which puts the least strain upon the expression as written is that followed above: “is obviously to dispute.”

26 vii, 95–97; viii, 72–75.

27 It has been pointed out by Professor Lovejoy, “Optimism and Romanticism,” PMLA, xlii (1927), 928–931, that the theology of Milton draws from a tradition opposed to that which normally gave support to the doctrines of an infinite universe and a plurality of worlds.

28 Ed. cit., pp. 234 ff.

29 Ibid., “To the Reader.”

30 Ibid., pp. 1–2.

31 Ibid., pp. 10, 13.

32 xii, 265 ff.; vii, 242 ff.; Discourse, ii, pp. 38–39, and as cited, infra.

33 Ibid., v, p. 99; iv, pp. 80–81. Wilkins frequently speaks through other writers.

34 Ibid., iv, pp. 86–87; iii, p. 63; v, p. 94; iii, pp. 51 ff., 54.

35 Cf. Martha Ornstein, Rôle of Scientific Societies in the Seventeenth Century, 1928; Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal Society (1667); C. R. Weld, History of the Royal Society (1848); Harcourt Brown, Scientific Organizations in Seventeenth Century France, 1620–1680 (1934), and Sir John Sandys, The Academies of Florence, Naples, and Rome, Harvard Lectures on the Revival of Learning.

36 Sprat, op. cit., 3rd ed. (London, 1722), especially pp. 345 ff. (iii, xiv): “I will now proceed to the weightiest, and most solemn Part of my whole Undertaking; to make Defence of the Royal Society, and this new Experimental Learning, in Respect of the Christian Faith.

37 I discuss this movement in some detail in the forthcoming “The Ross-Wilkins Controversy.”

38 vii, 31 ff.; also 25 ff.; 42 ff.

39 Ed. cit., pp. 117–118; subtitle, p. 113.—Throughout the writing of this paper it has been a constant temptation to find the influence as well as the ideas and words of Ross in the dialogue of Book viii, a temptation not lessened by the subtitle or argument quoted above. I am inclined to believe that Ross did to some extent “excite” in the person of Milton some one “whose abilities exceed[ed]” his, but how great or how small this influence was, I do not feel competent to say.

40 The New Planet, ed. cit., viii, pp. 74 ff., “two distinct motions,” 78 ff., p. 102, “two distinct motions”; x, p. 115, “That one motion”; Discourse, vii, p. 142, “the Diurnall, and Annuall”; ix, pp. 202 ff., “the Diurnall and Annuall motions”; x, pp. 221 ff., “the Annuall Motion … his Annuall Motion.”