The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its own: digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate students, and independent scholars. The Age of Enlightenment profoundly enriched religious and philosophical understanding and continues to influence present-day thinking. Works collected here include masterpieces by David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as religious sermons and moral debates on the issues of the day, such as the slave trade. The Age of Reason saw conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism transformed into one between faith and logic -- a debate that continues in the twenty-first century. ++++ The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition identification: ++++ Bodleian Library (Oxford)
T166638
P. 144 misnumbered 244.
Edinburgh : printed by T. Lumisden & Company for William Gray junior, 1753. 244[i.e.144]p. ; 18°
Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο είναι ένα χαριτωμένο και εξαιρετικά παρωχημένο σύγγραμμα εκλαϊκευμένης επιστήμης γραμμένο στα 1686 από τον Γάλλο διαφωτιστή Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle. Μέσα σε έξι βραδιές ένας φιλόσοφος συζητά για τη δυνατότητα ύπαρξης ζωής σε άλλους πλανήτες συντροφιά με την ωραία Marquise de G***. Ο τίτλος του πρωτοτύπου είναι Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes. Ο Fontenelle ακολουθεί τις καρτεσιανές θεωρίες περί δινών για να περιγράψει τις κινήσεις των ουράνιων σωμάτων και δίνει μια απλή και κατανοητή εικόνα για όλα εκείνα που οι επιστήμονες της εποχής του θεωρούσαν που απαρτίζουν τα θεμέλια του κόσμου.
Η Ελληνική μετάφραση (Ομιλίαι περί πληθύος κόσμων) είναι του 1794 και ανήκει στον Παναγιώτη Κοδρικά, που εκείνη την εποχή ήταν γραμματέας του ηγεμόνα της Μολδοβλαχίας Μιχαήλ Σούτσου, και ο οποίος αργότερα εγκαταστάθηκε μόνιμα στο Παρίσι και εργάστηκε ως μεταφραστής και διερμηνέας στο Γαλλικό υπουργείο εξωτερικών. Ένας διπλωμάτης και διανοούμενος που διαφώνησε με τον Αδαμάντιο Κοραή πάνω σε θέματα που αφορούσαν το γλωσσικό ζήτημα, αν και κατά βάση έγραψαν και οι δύο σε μία γλώσσα που δεν διέφερε ιδιαίτερα.
Η μετάφραση του Κοδρικά είναι απλή, βατή, κατανοητή και πέρα από τις διάφορες γλωσσολογικές φανφάρες που παραθέτει στην εισαγωγή του - κατά βάθος πρόκειται για την απολύτως κατανοητή αγωνία του για τον προσδιορισμό της Ελληνικής ταυτότητας, τότε ακόμα ήμασταν ένας λαός που ήξερε περισσότερο τι δεν είναι παρά τι είναι - πέρα λοιπόν από την όποια ρητορική του, αυτό που επιθυμεί γράφοντας αυτήν την μετάφραση, είναι μια γλώσσα που να μπορεί να υποστηρίξει και να μεταφέρει αποτελεσματικά την επιστημονική ορολογία:
"Με μίαν τοιαύτην διεφθαρμένην Γλώσσαν όπου μόλις ευπορεί τας προς δήλωσιν των πλέον τετριμμένων ιδεών λέξεις, και εκείνας τας πλείω ξένας, και ούτε καν προσοικειωμένας, πώς ημπορεί τινάς να μεταφράση βιβλία επιστημονικά, και να εκφράση ιδέας ευγενικάς, ή να εκθέσει αρχάς συστηματικάς, δόξας πολιτικάς, ή θεωρίας, ηθικάς; ένα χάος πανταχόθεν τον περικαλύπτει. Ένα κενόν εις κάθε νόημα τον απεκδέχεται και η κάθε περίοδος είναι δι' αυτόν μία νέα απορία, και το όλον όλη αμηχανία".
Και το πετυχαίνει εξαίσια για τα δεδομένα της εποχής του. Το κείμενό του αποδίδει αποτελεσματικά το αντίστοιχο γαλλικό αλλά δεν σταματά εκεί. Στο τέλος κάθε κεφαλαίου παραθέτει αναλυτικότατα σχόλια όπου επικαιροποιεί όλες τις επιστημονικές θεωρίες που επικράτησαν έναν αιώνα μετά την συγγραφή του πρωτοτύπου. Κι αυτές φυσικά είναι πλέον σήμερα παρωχημένες αλλά μας δίνουν μια ξεκάθαρη εικόνα για τη μετάβαση από την Καρτεσιανή στη Νευτώνεια φυσική.
Το κείμενο του Κοδρικά γίνεται έτσι ένα πολύτιμο τεκμήριο τόσο για την ιστορία της επιστήμης όσο και για την ιστορία της Ελληνικής γλώσσας. Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τις διαφωνίες που εξέφρασε απέναντι στον Κοραή, βλέπε και την μελέτη του Επίκουρου καθηγητή του Τμήματος Αρχειονομίας και Βιβλιοθηκονομίας του Ιονίου Πανεπιστημίου, Γιάννη Κόκκωνα με τίτλο "Συγγραμματάκι παιγνηδιάρικον. Ιστορία ενός φυλλαδίου του Παναγιωτάκη Κοδρικά", Μνήμων 26 (2004) 9-62.
Το προσωπικό μου συμπέρασμα είναι περισσότερο ένα συναίσθημα βαθύτατης συμπάθειας και για τους δύο. Τόσο ο Κοραής όσο και ο Κοδρικάς προσπάθησαν με περισσό πάθος και ενθουσιασμό να βγάλουν από το γλωσσικό υλικό του τόπου μας όλα εκείνα τα πολύτιμα στοιχεία που στην πορεία διαμόρφωσαν αυτήν την υπέροχη γλώσσα στην οποία σήμερα μιλάμε και γράφουμε. Εν ολίγοις φτύσαμε αίμα, παίξαμε και ξύλο, αλλά τελικά τα καταφέραμε. Αυτό είναι που μετράει.
Πίσω στον φιλόσοφο του Fontenelle και στην Ωραία Μαρκησία του, την οποία φλερτάρει και διαφωτίζει κάτω από τον έναστρο ουράνιο θόλο, τη Μαρκέζα, όπως την αποκαλεί ο Κοδρικάς, έχουμε ένα άλλο είδος αγωνίας. Την αγωνία του επιστήμονα που θέλει να συνθλίψει το κατεστημένο γεωκεντρικό μοντέλο και να δει τον κόσμο όπως αυτός αποκαλύπτεται μέσα από τους φακούς των τηλεσκοπίων:
"...ότι η Γη ημπορεί να είναι Πλανήτης, καθώς και όλοι οι Πλανήται ημπορούν να είναι ωσάν την γην, και ακολούθως όλα τα Άστρα να είναι τόσοι Ήλιοι όπου φωτίζουν τόσους κόσμους".
Για τον Καρτεσιανό φιλόσοφο η φύση είναι ένα θέατρο όπου κρατάει κρυμμένους από τους θεατές του, τους μηχανισμούς που την θέτουν σε κίνηση. Όλα μπορούν να παρασταθούν σαν ένα καλοκουρδισμένο ρολόι και "η φιλοσοφία έγινε κατά πάντα μηχανική". Όλα μπορούν να υπολογιστούν, να μετρηθούν και να γίνουν κατανοητά μέσα από λογικές διεργασίες και η φύση έπαψε πλέον να είναι ένα μυστήριο "ένα είδος μαγείας ακατανόητον".
Μέσα σε όλα αυτά προκύπτει και το ενδεχόμενο ζωής σε άλλους πλανήτες. Ο φιλόσοφος αρχικά πυροδοτεί την φαντασία της Μαρκέζας με την υπόθεσή του, κι όταν έπειτα προσπαθεί να μετριάσει τις εντυπώσεις με μια δόση Καρτεσιανής αμφιβολίας συναντά τις χαριτωμένες διαμαρτυρίες της αλλά και το μένος του Κοδρικά που σχολιάζει με οργίλο ύφος: "Άξιος απορίας είναι ο τρόπος όπου ο Φοντενέλ παίζων διαλεκτικώς μεταχειρίζεται".
Ο φιλόσοφος υποχωρεί κι αρχίζει διάφορες υποθέσεις εργασίας, πρώτα για τους υποθετικούς κατοίκους της Σελήνης που μπορεί να αναπνέουν έναν αέρα διαφορετικής σύστασης από τον δικό μας, να βλέπουν διαφορετικά χρώματα από εμάς, ίσως να χτίζουν τις πολιτείες τους μέσα στα βάθη των σεληνιακών κρατήρων και να αναρωτιούνται για εμάς με τον ίδιο τρόπο που κι εμείς αναρωτιόμαστε για την δική τους ύπαρξη. "Enfin , tout est vivant , tout est animé" (Τα πάντα είναι ζώντα, τα πάντα εμψυχωμένα) καταλήγει ο φιλόσοφος, καθώς δεν μπορεί παρά να παραδεχτεί πως αφού υπάρχει ένας πλήθος ζωής στη Γη πρέπει κατ' αναλογία να υπάρχει και στους άλλους πλανήτες.
χάρτης της Σελήνης από τον Jean-Dominique Cassini (1625 – 1712)
Προχωρώντας το αστρικό τους ταξίδι, βλέπουν στην Αφροδίτη κατοίκους που μοιάζουν με τους Αιθίοπες και που αγαπούν τα ερωτόλογα, τους στίχους και τη μουσική, ενώ ο Ερμής είναι το "τρελοκομείο του κόσμου", γεμάτος από ποταμούς που ρέει λιωμένο ασήμι και σίδηρος, και οι κάτοικοί του θα θεωρούσαν το γήινο φως της ημέρας ίδιο με το δικό μας σκοτάδι, συνηθισμένοι από το εκτυφλωτικό φως του δικού τους πλανήτη και ίσως να πάγωναν με τους αφρικανικούς καύσωνες, καθώς εκεί που ζουν επικρατούν πολύ υψηλότερες θερμοκρασίες. Για τον Ήλιο, αναφέρει πως είναι αδύνατο να έχει ζωή αλλά κι αν είχε θα επρόκειτο για "κατοικία τυφλών".
Ο Fontenelle προσπερνάει τον Άρη ως μικρό κι ασήμαντο αν και ο Κοδρικάς εκφράζει τις διαφωνίες του στα σχόλιά του και τονίζει το ιδιαίτερο κόκκινο χρώμα του, καθώς "είναι περικυκλωμένος από μιαν ατμόσφαιραν πυκνήν, και συνεφιασμένην". Αντιθέτως ο Δίας με τους τέσσερις δορυφόρους του είναι πιο εντυπωσιακός. Ίσως να υπάρχουν αποικίες σε εκείνους τους δορυφόρους και επάνω στο Δία, ο οποίος είναι κατά πολύ μεγαλύτερος από τη Γη, ίσως επίσης να υπάρχουν θαλασσοπόροι που σαν τον δικό μας Χριστόφορο Κολόμβο να ανακαλύπτουν διαρκώς νέους λαούς και πολιτισμούς. Ίσως μάλιστα κάποιος επιστήμονάς τους να ανακάλυψε τη Γη μέσα από το τηλεσκόπιό του και οι υπόλοιποι κάτοικοι του πλανήτη του να τον κοροϊδεύουν και να τον θεωρούν τρελό. Ο Κρόνος έχει πέντε δορυφόρους, έναν δακτύλιο που αντανακλά το φως και ίσως το σκοτάδι του να φωτίζεται επίσης από σώματα που φωσφορίζουν. Το νερό του Κρόνου είναι στερεό, ένα πέτρωμα σαν το δικό μας μάρμαρο, και εξαιτίας του πολικού ψύχους οι κάτοικοί του είναι επίσης ψυχροί και ολιγόλογοι.
Όλος αυτός ο κόσμος κινείται σύμφωνα με το Καρτεσιανό σύστημα μέσα σε δίνες:
"Ως τόσον το λεγόμενον Δίνη είναι ένας σωρός ύλης, της οποίας τα μέρη όντα αραιωμένα και διαχωρισμένα το έν από το άλλο, κινούνται όλα καθ’ ένα και τον αυτόν λόγον [...] Όλος λοιπόν εκείνος ο μέγας σωρός της αιθερίας ύλης όπου είναι από τον Ήλιον μέχρι των Aπλανών Αστέρων γυρίζει σφαιροειδώς, και φέρωντας μαζή του όλους τους Πλανήτας τους κάμνει να κυκλοφορούν όλοι καθ' ένα και τον αυτόν λόγον περί τον Ήλιον όστις επέχει το κέντρον".
Με τη θεωρία των δινών εξηγεί ο φιλόσοφος του Fontenelle την ύπαρξη των κομητών τους οποίους χαρακτηρίζει ως πλανήτες που ταξιδεύουν περνώντας από τη μία δίνη στην άλλη και έτσι εισέρχονται στον κόσμο μας. Όσο για τον Ήλιο μας, αυτός κάποια στιγμή θα σβήσει. Αυτή η πληροφορία προξενεί ιδιαίτερη φρίκη στην Μαρκέζα, η οποία τώρα πλέον αρχίζει να καταλαβαίνει πως τίποτα στο σύμπαν δεν είναι αιώνιο. Το φαινόμενο αυτό προκύπτει γιατί οι ηλιακές κηλίδες κάποιων Αστεριών γίνονται "στάσιμοι και αμετάτρεπτοι" σε αντίθεση με εκείνες του δικού μας Ήλιου ο οποίος έχει "κηλίδας αστάτους και προσωρινάς."
Μέσα από το κείμενο του Fontenelle, ένα έργο του πρώιμου Διαφωτισμού ξετυλίγεται ένας κόσμος διαφορετικός από τον δικό μας. Μπορεί ο φιλόσοφος του Fontenelle να εξηγεί τον κόσμο με έναν τρόπο που πλέον στα μάτια μας φαίνεται λανθασμένος και φαιδρός. Ωστόσο πρόκειται για έναν κόσμο όπου επιτρέπεται η αμφιβολία, η κριτική, η αναίρεση και όπου τίποτα δεν αποτελεί θέσφατο, "ημπορήτε να μην πιστεύσετε τίποτες από τα όσα σας είπα, ευθύς όπου σάς έλθη τοιαύτη όρεξις", καταλήγει ο φιλόσοφος όταν, κατά το τέλος της πέμπτης βραδιάς, δίνει στην ωραία Μαρκέζα το χρίσμα του φιλοσόφου. Πλέον εκείνη έχει τις γνώσεις και τον τρόπο να εξελίσσει το πνεύμα της και να συνεχίσει να μαθαίνει. Ο παλιός ακίνητος κόσμος έχει οριστικά κλονισθεί και όλα μπορούν να αλλάξουν.
First read this in grad school, over a half century ago this week (Jan 20, '69) , while researching G Bruno's influence on the 17C moon-mappers Langrenus, Hevelius, and Riccioli--whose names we still use, like the Mare Tranquillitatis/ Sea of Tranquillity. Fontenelle was good then, and perhaps even better now. Editor A. Calame notes that in 1699, thirteen years after he published this, Fontenelle was made lifelong Secretary of L'Académie (royale) des Sciences, and brought out new editions, including one where he used Riccioli's selenographic names, like "la mer des Crises"(xxviii). Our author studied other sciences to write Entretiens, including chemistry and microbiology, the works of Leeuwenhoek. L found 8 to 10,000 "petits poissons," probably one-celled microbes, in a drop of water(91). Fontenelle remarks in his Preface his choice of material "de piquer la curiosité"(5), by diverting his reader with digressions as in Ovid's "L'Art d'aimer" (one of which John Donne translated wholesale in his "Indifferent"). He foresees objection from theologians, since the inhabitants of the Moom would not be descendents of Adam and Eve (8).
As the Marquise protagonist converses on her estate, she asks how we know there can be people on the Moon. Fontenelle responds, question for question, "What if there were no business between Paris and its suburb St Denis?" 'Un Bourgeois de Paris, qui ne sera jamais sorti de sa Ville, soit sur les Tours de Notre-Dame, et voye Saint-Denis de loin; on lui demandera s'il croit que Saint-Denis soit habite comme Paris. Il repondra hardiment que non.'" But the two places both have clock-towers, large buildings, and similar walls. Saint Denis is our Moon. The Marquise asks, "Well, what sort of inhabitants can they possibly be?" Bernard de F. confesses he doesn't know, but they couldn't possibly be any more bizarre than humans: "Pourrions-nous bien nous figurer quelque chose qui eut des passions si folles, et des reflexions si sages, une duree si courte, et des vues si longues..."(67*)
This insight occurs on the Second Soir of Sixième, as these conversations only happened evenings, not walking in the Autumn estate. As the Marquise comes to understand Mercury is very close to the Sun, she wishes abundant rain on that hapless planet. On the Quatrième Soir, she paraphrases Plato's dying gratitude, that he was born human, not animal, Greek, and not Barbarian; she's grateful for having been born on a temperate planet, and the most temperate place on that planet. Fontnelle says, Madame, you should be thankful you are young and not old, "jeune et belle, et non jeune et laide," young and beautiful Françoise, et non Italiene"(131).
The prediction of flight followed a discussion of sailing large Navires 'round the Monde. "L'art de voler ne fait encore que de naître, il se perfectionnera, et quelque jour on ira jusqu'a la Lune"(70). To the Moon! Giordano Bruno had described such a flight, in Latin, almost a century earlier.
When I spoke on Bruno at Harvard Center for Astrophysics, I asked Chairman Avi Loeb if I’d been right to say that NASA was spending $19B per year to prove G Bruno right. Prof Loeb responded, “Close enough.” See my talk there on my website link: www.habitableworlds.com
*Pagination from the edition on my shelf, Didier: Paris, 1966. First printed in 1686.
A charming mix of philosophy & the science of astronomy from 1686. Fontenelle playfully & joyfully explores known & theorized scientific facts of the time concerning the universe. At times, he is spookily prescient. How I wish he could be alive today to see & wonder at the scientific strides we humans have made into space exploration. I imagine he would be awed & thrilled at the known, while positing even more theories & questions as to what still lies unknown. It makes me smile to even imagine him witnessing a space shuttle expedition or the preparations of sending people to Mars.
Even though written centuries ago, it reawakens the joy, imagination, & intellect at viewing & trying to understand not only Earth but the entire universe. Kudos to our scientists & thinkers of the past, present, & future. A complete delight.
This book is so much fun. It's written in the wake of the astronomical discoveries of the scientific revolution by the likes of Galileo and Copernicus, and it builds on those ideas to ask many more philosophical questions about space. It asserts the idea of an infinite universe with each star representing a solar system of planets and even puts forward the idea of Aliens followed by theorizing on how each inhabitant of each planet will be. One would think a 17th century discussion of astronomical discussion would be difficult to get through and decipher, but it's framed as a casual conversation between two people and it's written in such a breezy way that it's not only easy to digest, but often fun and intriguing
A concoction of exaggerated Copernican scientific views on the cosmos, presented through a fictitious setting... A 17th look at astronomy... A rather interesting read for those thus inclined, I listened to an audio version with varied readers.
The tale is only some 70-odd pages long (it was revised countless times by the author thru the decades; this is the 1st printing from 1686). The Univ of Cal Press publication which I read is supplemented with both a lengthy Introduction and Translator's Preface which add even more interest. Apparently, the tome was very well received and influential.
"Conversations..." is fiction and it is about science. However, H. A. Hargreaves (the translator) cautions about classifying it as early science fiction. If not directly on the s.f evolutionary path, it certainly is kind of a "missing link".
I found it fascinating that - more or less - Fontenelle had handle on the solar system, stars as suns (even positing that they "expired" and reappeared), galaxies as collections of suns, etc. Oddly, when speculating about life on other planets, he dismisses Mars in favor of the others!
I was curious to read this after hearing it referred to as one of the first known popular science books (this must depend on how you define science as well as “popular” science). Written in 1686 (one year before Newton’s Principia was published) it beautifully lays out a Copernican view of the solar system and beyond through a dialogue with an aristocratic woman untrained in science. de Fontenelle takes the Copernican worldview one step further and argues that because the Earth is not a special place, every other planet and moon must be inhabited, and he successively speculates on what the world is like from the point of view of citizens of each planet. The sense of wonder and curiosity about other life gives this the flavor of an early form of science fiction. The book also gives an interesting glimpse of what astronomers and philosophers understood about universe at that time, as well as where they were mistaken (for example, de Fontanelle still believed in “vortices” carrying the planets along instead of forces, and didn’t realize that we are part of the Milky Way).
It is interesting to observe de Fontanelle’s caution in sidestepping theological issues to placate the censors. For instance, he takes a detour at the beginning to argue that the life on other planets is unlikely to be human, thus there is no conflict with man being descended from Adam and Eve.
The book also seems surprisingly feminist for the time. The protagonist is a woman and it is made clear that women are viewed as being capable of the reason necessary to understand science. In multiple places, the Marquise contradicts her teacher who acknowledges that she has made a compelling argument and he is wrong. On the other hand, the treatment of race is not so forward-thinking. It is shocking and eye-opening to see what blatantly racist ideas were mainstream at the time and how they were mixed into scientific arguments to make a certain point. And of course, the book is quite predictably Eurocentric, although the irony of writing an entire book arguing how our planet can’t be a special place in the universe yet ending with a declaration that Europe is the best place on the planet seems to have been lost on people of the time.
Lyhyt ja intensiivinen kertomus maailmankaikkeudesta — tai oikeammin siitä, miten maailmankaikkeus nähtiin 300 vuotta sitten. Upea ja hieno klassikko, joka on viimein suomennettu!
not sure what could be more difficult than to rate a book from the 1600s, but this series of conversations on the space and its concepts was delightful.
PROLOGUE BY DAVID GARNETT HAD I lived in the seventeenth century, I also might have known a countess and have been invited to spend a few days alone with her in a country house, but in nearly three hundred years we writers have become as common as sparrows, and we cannot expect fine ladies to pay attention to us any longer. We suffer, too, from what a poor fellow I knew in Grub Street was always complaining about, "the unfair competition of the dead. "Until we tax the old authors off the market," he used to say, "how can we hope to sell our books? We need an order under the Safeguarding Act forbidding reprints." But I must not complain further of the fallen condition of authors, and putting my dreams of the countess, whose pupil and not teacher I should have been, out of my mind, I must content myself with the company of the ghost of a philosopher.
"What is that book which you were reading when I arrived, and which you are still carrying under your arm as though you were only waiting to get back to it?" he asks, with the querulous coquetry of an old man who is looking out for a compliment. "It's called Possible Worlds," I answer. "I seem to have heard something very much like that title before," he says. "Now you are talking of a great book—the Plurality of Worlds," and I hasten to tell him that a new edition of his masterpiece is at this moment in the press. He pretends to be aston-ished, and slightly disgusted. "Why, that little squib was out of date fifty years before I died! Nothing is less lasting than popular philosophy. If I had been a good poet like my uncle, I might have stood some chance of immortality. I suppose his plays are still being acted? Mine were deservedly forgotten in my own lifetime, and if I am certain of anything it is that they have not yet been revived."
"The Plurality of Times! What a charming title for a book. I should enjoy writing it, but alas, my day is over, and you must find some clever young philosopher to do that job. However, I am grateful to Mr. Einstein for his plurality of times, for I shall get some fun out of them when I get back into the Elysian fields—the next time Newton begins boring me with his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended!" There was the ghost of a smile; the smile of a ghost; nothing.
PREFACE MY Case is much like Cicero's, when be | undertook to write of Philosophy, in Latine; there being then no Books upon that Subject, but what were written in Greek: When some told Cicero, that he would take pains to no purpose, because such as studied Philosophy, would make use of Greek Authors, and not read Latine Books, which treated of it but at second hand; and others, who were no admirers of the Science, would never trouble their Heads, with either Greek or Latin, Cicero reply'd, they were much mistaken; for, said he, the great ease People will find in reading Latin Books, will tempt those to be Philosophers who are none; and they who already are Philosophers, by reading Greek Books,
Should I be told, (as Cicero was) that such a Discourse as this, would not please the Learned, because it can teach them nothing, nor the Illiterate, because they will have no mind to learn; I will not answer as he did. It may be endeavouring to please every Body, I have pleas'd no Body; to keep the middle betwixt two Extreams is difficult; and I believe I shall never desire to put myself a second time to the like trouble.
If this Book have the luck to be read, I declare to those who have any knowledge of natural Philosophy, that I do not pretend to instruct, but only to divert them, by presenting to their view, in a gay and pleasing Dress, that which they already know;
In these Discourses, I have introduc' d aWoman, to be instructed in things of which she never heard; and I have made use of this Fiction, to render the Book the more acceptable, and to give encouragement to Ladies, by the Example of one of their own Sex, who without any supernatural parts, or tincture of Learning, understands what is said to her; and without any confusion, rightly apprebends what Vortex's and other Worlds are: And why may not there be a Woman like this imaginary Countess? since her Conceptions are no other than such as she could not chuse but have? To penetrate into things either obscure in them-selves, or but darkly express'd, requires deep Meditation, & earnest Application of the Mind;
I shall desire no more of the four Ladies, than that they will read this System of Philosophy, with the same application that they do a Romance or a Novel.' Tis true, that the Ideas of this Book are less familiarto most Ladies, than those of Romances are, but they are not more obscure; for at most, twice or thrice thinking, will render 'em very perspicuous.
None of Adam's Posterity ever travel'd so far as the Moon, nor were any Colonies ever sent thither; the Men then that are in the Moon, are not the Sons of Adam:
None of Adam's Posterity ever travel'd so far as the Moon, nor were any Colonies ever sent thither; the Men then that are in the Moon, are not the Sons of Adam:
A PLURALITY OF WORLDS Is it a poring upon Books that makes a man of understanding? I know many that have done nothing else, and yet I fancy are not one tittle the Wiser.
We went one Evening after Supper, to walk in the Park, the Air was ex-treamly refreshing, because that day had been very hot; the Moon had been up about an hour, and as she shone between the Trees, made an agreeable mixture of Light & Darkness; the Stars were in all their Glory, and not a Cloud appear'd on the Azure Sky. I was musing on this awful Prospect, but who can think long of the Moon and Stars, in the Company of a Pretty Woman! I am much mistaken if that's a time for Contemplation; Well Madam, said I to the Countess, is not the Night as pleasant as the Day? The Day, said she, like a fair Beauty, is clear and dazling; but the Night, like a brown Beauty, more soft and moving. You are Generous, Madam, I reply'd, to prefer the Brown. You that have all the Charms that belong to the Fair: But is there any thing more Beautiful in Nature than the Day? The Heroines of Romances are generally fair, and that Beauty must be perfect, which hath all the advantages of imagination. Tell not me, said she, of perfect Beauty, nothing can be so that is not moving. But since you talk of Romances, why do Lovers in their Songs and Elegies address themselves to the Night? 'Tis the Night, Madam, said I, that crowns their Joys, and therefore deserves their thanks. But 'tis the Night, said she, that hears their Complaints, and how comes it to pass, the day is so little trusted with their secrets? I confess, Madam, said I, the night hath somewhat a more melancholly Air, than the day; we fancy the Stars march more silently than the Sun, and our thoughts wander with the more liberty, whilst we think all the world at rest but our selves: Besides, the day is more uniform, we see nothing but the Sun, and light in the Firmament; whilst the night gives us variety of Objects, and shews us ten thousand Stars, which inspire us with as many pleasant Ideas. What you say is true, said she, |13 I love the Stars, there is somewhat charming in them, and I could almost be angry with the Sun for effacing 'em. I can never pardon him, I cry'd, for keeping all those Worlds from my sight: What Worlds, said she, looking earnestly upon me, what Worlds do you mean? I beg your Pardon, Madam, said I, you have put me upon my folly, and I begin to rave: what Folly, said she, I discover none? Alas, said I, I am asham'd, I must own it, I have had a strong Fancy every Star is a World. I will not swear it is true, but must think so, because it is so pleasant to believe it; 'Tis a fancy come into my head, and is very diverting. If your folly be so diverting, said the Countess, Pray make me sensible of it; provided the Pleasure be so great, I will believe of the Stars all you would have me. It is, said I, a diversion, Ma-dam, I fear you will not relish, 'tis not like one of Moliere's Plays, 'tis a Pleasure rather of the fancy than of the Judgment. Ihope, reply'd she, you do not think me incapable of it; teach me your Stars, I will shew you the contrary. No, no, I reply'd, it shall never be said I was talking Philosophy at ten of the Clock at Night, to the most amiable Creature in the World,
Philosophers own themselves to be stark Fools, and confess ingenuously they know not how it comes to pass: No, no, they are not called Wise Men for nothing; tho, let me tell you, most of their Wisdom depends upon the ignorance of their Neighbours. Every man presently gives his Opinion, and how improbable so ever, there are Fools enough of all sorts to believe'em:
People generally admire what they do not compre-hend, they have a Veneration for Obscurity, and look upon Nature
I must stick to Astronomy, my Soul is not mercenary enough for Geometry, nor is it tender enough for Poetry;
but before I expound the first Systeme, I would have you observe, we are all naturally like that Madman at Athens, who fancy'd all the Ships were his that came into the Port Pyreus.
a certain King of Arragon, a great Mathematician, but not much troubled with Religion, said, That had God consulted him when he made the World, he would have told bim how to have fram'd it better.
'Tis very true, said I, Nature is a great Huswife, she always makes use of what costs least, let the difference be neverso inconsiderable; and yet this frugality is accompany'd with an extraordinary mag-nificence, which shines thro' all her works; that is, she is magnificent in the design, but frugal in the Execution; and what can be more praise worthy, than a great design accomp-lish'd with a little Expence? But in our Ideas we turn things topsy-turvy, we place our thrift in the design, and are at ten times more charge in Workmanship than it requires, which is very ridiculous.
All now turns round the sun
I understand you, said she, and I love the Moon
iconfess, said I, Madam, I believe a Fair Lady would be much more concern'd for her place at a Ball, than for her rank in the Universe;
I confess, said I, Madam, the footsteps of Lovers would better become this Place; that is, your Name and Cypher grav'd on the Trees by your Adorers. Tell not me, said she, of Lovers and Adorers, I am for my beloved |29 Sun and Planets.
Water it floats on? I will have nothing to do with that great Vessel, said she, and I begin to apprehend my self in some danger on such a whirlegigg as you have made of the Earth.
I fear then, said she, the Women of our Country are very ugly, in respect of those Fair Ladies, for the Husbands part with nothing here, but keep all to themselves. 'Tis because they make more use, I reply'd, of Hold your peace, said she, and no more of your Fooleries, I have a difficulty to clear, and you must be serious.
All Motions, said I, the more common and Natural they are, are the less perceptible, and this holds true even in Morality; the motion of self Love is so natural to us, that for the most part we are not sensible of it, and we believe we act by other Principles. You are Moralizing, said sbe, to a question of Natural Philosophy:
Very true, said I, wewould judge of all things, but still stand in the wrong place; we are too near to judge of our selves, and too far off to know others: So that the true way tosee things as they are, is to be between the Moon and the Earth, to be purely a Spectator of this World, and not an Inhabitant.
’Tis not I that turn, ’tis the Sun.
Fair Mistress, who for me to Heav'n shall fly, To bring again from thence my wandring wit? Which I still lose, since from that piercing eye The Dart came forth that first my Heart did bit: Nor of my loss at all complain would I, Might I but keep that which remaineth yet: But if it still decrease, within short space, I doubt I shall be in Orlando's case; - Yet, well I wot where to recover mine, Thơ not in Paradise, nor Cynthia's Sphere, Yet doubtless in a Place no less divine, In that sweet Face of yours, in that fair Hair, That ruby Lip, in those two starlike eyn, There is my wit, I know it wanders there, And with my Lips, if you would give me leave, I there would search, I thence would it receive. - Is not this very fine? To reason like Ariosto, the safest way of losing our wits, is to be in love; for you see they do not go far from us, we may recover 'em again at our Lips: but when we lose 'em by other means, as for Example, by Philosophizing, whip, they are gone into the Moon, and there is no coming at'em again when we would.
Stars of Gold on an Azure Firmament.
With a blue air she gives us a blue Firmament.
they tell you that the sharpness of Vin- / egar consists in the fierceness of the little Animals that bite you by the Tongue;
but a Man is ne'er the less a Philosopher for being a little obscure, if not unintelligible.
How gross is their Courtship? how mean their Raillery? without any distinction of time, place, or person; they make Love, (as they call it) but one way, and the form is the same, at a Farce, or Funeral. Be not so very severe, I replyd, if some of our Beaux speak plain Eng-lish, some of your Belles, like 'em ne're the worse for't: The art of Love is as much im-prov'd as the art of War, the Generals of this Age take a Town in two days, which in the last, held out as many years; and the Roses, Lillies, Pearls, and Rubies, (a whining Lovers train of Artillery) are grown as useless as Bows and Arrows: tho after all, I must own they have another Standard in the Planet Venus; there Clelia and Parthenissa, is below the language of Grooms & Chamber Maids; and every Porter and Car-Man a perfect Sir Courtly; but then consider the difference of Climats; Venus is much nearer than the Earth is to the Sun, from whence she receives a more vigorous and active influence. I find, says the Countess, it is easie enough to guess at the Inhabitants of Venus; they resemble what I have read of the Moors of Granada, who were a little black People, scorch'd with the Sun, witty, full of Fire, very Amorous, much inclin'd to Musick & Poetry, and ever inventing Masques & Turnaments in honour of their Mistresses.
but the Sun is a Body not like the Earth or any of the Planets, the Sun is the source or Fountain of Light, which thơ' it is sent from one Planet to an-other, and receives several alterations by the way, yet all originally proceeds from the Sun, he draws from himself that precious substance which he emits from all sides, and which reflects when it meets with a solid Body, and spreads from one Planet to another those long and vast trains of Light which cross, strike thro, and intermingle in a thousand different fashions, and make (if I may so say,) the Richest Tissu's in the World. The Sun likewise is placed in the Centre, from whence with most convenience, he may equally distribute & animate by his heat; it is then a particular Body, but what sort of Body has often puzled better heads than mine.
It seems the Sun is a Liquid Matter, some think of melted Gold, which boils over (as it were) continually, and by the force of its motion casts the Scum or dross on its surface, where it is consumed, and others arise. Imagine then what strange Bodies these are, when some of 'em are as big as the Earth; What a vast quantity must there be of this melted Gold, and what must be the extent of this great Sea of Light and Fire which they call the Sun?
yet this great Man had an as unaccountable a fear, did a hare cross him, or were the first Person he met in a morning an old Woman, home presently went Ticho Brahe, he shut himself up for that day, and would not meddle with the least Business.
if they publish their discovery, most People know not what they mean, or laugh at 'em for Fools; nay, the Philosophers themselves will not believe 'em, for fear of destroying their own opin ions; yet some few may be a little curious;
Ah, Madam, said I, when you are a little more dip'd in Philosophy, you will find exceptions in the very best Systemes; there 109 are always some things that agree extream well, but then there are others that do not accord at all; those you must leave as you found 'em, if ever you intend to make an end:
They are People that know not what 'tis to laugh, they take a days time to answer the least question you can ask 'em; and are so very grave, that were Cato living among'em, they would think him a merry Andrew.
If nothing but exquisite pleasure will serve us, we must wait a long time, and be sure to pay too dear for it at last.
You have made the Universe so large, says she, that I know not where I am, or what will become of me;
You present me with a kind of Perspective of so vast a length, said the Countess, that no Eye can reach to the end of it: I plainly see the Inhabitants of the Earth, and you have
I will answer, Ah, did you but know what the fix'd Stars are! It was not fit, said I, that Alexander should know what they p117 were; for a certain Author who maintains that the Moon is inhabited, very gravely tells us, that Aristotle, (from whom no truth could be long conceal'd) must necessarily be of an opinion, back'd with so much reason; but yet he would never acquaint Alexander with the secret, fearing he might run mad with des-pair, when he knew there was another World, which he could not conquer; with much more reason then was this mystery of Vortex's & fix'd Stars kept secret in Alexander's time; for tho they had been known in those days, yet a Man would have been a great Fool, to have said any thing of 'em to Alex-ander; it had been but an ill way of making his court to that ambitious Prince;
I confess, I am guilty of so much weakness, as to be in love with what is beautiful;
This Love, reply'd the Countess, smiling, is a strange thing; let the World go how twill, 'tis never in danger; there is no System can do it any harm. But tell me freely, is your System true? Pray conceal nothing from me; I will keep your secret very faithfully;
Madam, said I, since we are in the humour of mingling amorous Follies with our most serious Discourses, I must tell you, that in Love and the Mathematicks People reason alike: Allow never so little to a Lover, yet presently after you must grant him more;
A New Sun, a New Sun
Oh, Madam, said I, there is a great deal of time required to ruine a World.
Well, says the Countess, I have now in my Head, the System of the Universe: How learned am I become? Indeed, Madam, said I, you are pretty knowing, and you are so with the advantage of believing, or not believing, any thing I have said: For all my pains, I only beg this favour, that when ever you see the Sun, the Heaven, or the Stars, you will think of me.
Imagine Neil DeGrasse Tyson, then go back 300 years in time. What you'll arrive at is Bernard de Fontenelle. In 1686 he published what is considered the first book of popular science, Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. He outlines the Copernian heliocentric solar system and the hitherto known "facts" about the planets, moons, sun and the stars, and speculates on the possibility of life outside of Earth and what aliens might be like. It is written as a fictionalised series of conversations between a young, flirtatious scientist and a curious young noblewoman. The book takes place during six nightly strolls through a garden, where the two watch the stars and talk of the universe.
Remarkably, this was just 50 years after Galilei's trouble with the Catholic church over his writings on the heliocentric model. It was written in French, and not in Greek or Latin, which meant it could be read by ordinary people, and it was one of the first works to actively encourage women to take part in science and philosophy.
While written in a very beautiful prose, the fictional elements do leave a friend of sci-fi rather underwhelmed. For all his talk on extraterrestrial life, Fontenelle is hopelessly vague and never quite lets his imagination run away with him. He does venture to say that life on other planets would be nothing like life on Earth, and discourages the lady of thinking of humans when she imagines aliens. However, he still falls back on human analogues and only offers the briefest of suggestions of what aliens might be like: creatures on Mercury must be energetic like the Africans, because the planet is so hot, while those on Saturn will be phlegmatic because of the cold. And with Fontenelle's habit of using the plurality of humans on Earth to underline the potential plurality of space, he unfortunately lays bare the horrendous racism of his time, which makes for occasionally cringe-worthy reading.
Additional description of the edition on the cover page: "WITH NOTES, and a critical account of the author's writings by Jerome de la Lande, Senior Director of the Observatory at Paris." "Translated from a late Paris Edition, by Miss Elizabeth Gunning." 1803 printing by J. Cundee, Ivy-Lane, London.
A fascinating glimpse into Enlightenment open-mindedness in which scientific discovery and philosophy fed off each other. This is a lighthearted presentation for the general public on the astronomical physics of the day (1683). It is post-Copernicus/Galileo and mid-Newton, just a couple years pre-gravitation (i.e., prior to Principae). Much of the discussion in this "dialogue", once the issues of viewing perspectives, astronomical distances and sizes are dealt with, concerns the possibilities of life on other planets and on planets around other stars. De la Lande supplies footnotes to bring De Fontenelle's 120-year-old astronomy up to date (1803) by, for example, correcting some distances and mentioning the new 7th planet which apparently lacked an official name, so he refers to it simply as "Herschel".
I read this in a few hours. It's actually charming for a scientific text. Written as a pleasant conversation about the Copernican system in the gardens of a moonlit palace, it is a great reminder that good scientific writing should clarify and teach. Fontenelle writes with clarity and makes the Copernican system understandable to all readers instead of trying to impress the "establishment" with his expertise.
As a person interested in astronomy, this was such a entertaining and educating book of the history of astronomy. How many things scientists in the 17th century supposed correctly but also how many things they didn't suppose right at all. It's hard to imagine how people lived and discovered science almost 400 years ago. Did they sleep better at night for not knowing as much as we do or completely conversely? The bit of sarcasm this book included was also great.
Hargreaves' 1994 translation is more modern, informative, and facile than this 1688 translation. Still, a book this good is beautiful in all its flavors.
Ce livre est absolument délicieux. L'auteur, féru de sciences et admirateur de Descartes, se donne un mal fou pour ne pas paraître pédant et rester un bon exemple de "l'honnête homme" du XVIIe siècle, c'est-à-dire un homme cultivé et rompu à l'art si français de la conversation. On ne peut pas trouver, à mon sens, un meilleur exemple de ce qu'était l'esprit français : une saine curiosité qui ne se prend pas trop au sérieux qui a valu à la France quelques beaux savants, pas mal de philosophes et beaucoup d'écrivains. Les erreurs grossières que contient ce livre au regard de l'astronomie, et que l'on pardonnera à ce monde pré-newtonnien, sont en réalité touchantes, et pleines de poésie. La marquise qui donne la réplique à l'auteur est férocement intelligente, version féminine de cet esprit français des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles qui a passé, comme les Soleils pleurés par la marquise à la fin du cinquième soir. Lecture nécessaire, que je regrette de n'avoir faite qu'à 53 ans. Le sixième soir, écrit plus tard, n'apporte rien de plus et a beaucoup perdu en charme comme en clarté. Il se termine en outre sur une remarque condescendante envers la marquise qui, rétrospectivement, souligne malencontreusement les remarques sexistes, même si toujours galantes, de l'ensemble de l'œuvre. Rajout à s'épargner donc.
je l'ai écouté en raison de sa signification que j'ai apprise lors de mon cours d'histoire le semestre d'hiver passé. Bien que l'utilisation du passé simple rendait l'écouté difficile, j'ai quand même compris les messages à grands-traits et c'était surprenant à quel point les idées de 1686 de certains philosophes naturelles étaient justes. Bien sûr il hypothésait que le soleil était habité par des êtres 17 milles fois plus grands que les humains (je ne me rappele pas le chiffre exact), mais on ne peut pas s'attendre à ce que toutes les affirmations du livre soit exactes et en plus, l'idée de la pluralité des mondes était tellement perturbateur que c'est mieux qu'il l'incluait, car ça prenait un certain courage de le faire. Le livre audio que j'ai écouté a duré seulement une heure et c'était les premiers six soirs des entretiens, mais j'ai vu en ligne que les livres comptent soit 130 ou 200 pages. Donc je ne sais pas si j'ai lu l'édition intégrale, mais je sais aussi qu'il a publié une deuxième édition quelques ans plus tard. Donc, je crois avoir lu la première édition.
Un essai intéressant qui mêle plusieurs traditions ; le dialogue philosophique, la vulgarisation scientifique, l’utopie mais aussi le badinage précieux. Cela reste malgré tout un peu ardu par moment et je regrette l’aspect parfois un peu artificiel de l’échange - la marquise ne me parait pas si intelligente que le prétend Fontenelle - au profit d’une démonstration scientifique qui nécessite parfois d’aller se renseigner d’avantage sur les théories énoncées à l’aide de schémas et autres aides visuelles. L’oeuvre est pour autant éclairante et novatrice pour son temps et permet un aperçu intéressant des modes du XVIIe siècle, le point de vue offert sur les autres mondes possibles déplace le regard et offre la possibilité d’entrevoir des théories bien plus tardives sur les mondes possibles, le multivers et de tendre vers la science fiction.
A fiction book from 1658 which became a best-seller in its day. Fontenelle writes of six nights of conversation between a couple whereby the scientific discoveries of the day are discussed - that the Earth rotates the Sun and not vice versa; and there are more stars in the heavens than those visible to the naked eye - such that the reader is informed about the unfolding new field of scientific knowledge. Reading this book gives an interesting insight into the beliefs of the seventeenth century when people were scared of eclipse, and believed it likely people lived on the moon and planets and comets in our solar system.
A translation of (the first edition of) a 1600s dialogue by Fontenelle. Groundbreaking because of its remarkable foresight and "steady vote of confidence" (Nina Rattner Gelbart's words) in the intellectual ability of women. The translation and its front matter are the highlights this edition, illuminating the fascinating historical and literary context in an accessible way that avoids being dry or overly ponderous. Did you know that the first astrobiologist (forgive the exaggeration), Giordano Bruno, was burnt at the stake for the very suggestion of the plurality of worlds? I didn't.
Wonderful lighthearted conversations about philosophy and astronomy, mixed with a bit of 15th century flirting.
“Nature has held back nothing to produce it; she’s made a profusion of riches altogether worthy of her. Nothing is so beautiful to visualize as this prodigious number of vortices, each with a sun at its center naming planets rotate around it.”
Wow! What an interesting book, especially when it’s historical context is considered. The introduction did a nice job providing that context. I also liked the format, that of a conversation between two people, one a bright woman; again, very progressive for the time.
Zajímavá ukázka náhledu na vesmír ve Francii sedmnáctého století. Spojení výkladu tehdejších objevů, popis heliocentrického systému, snaha o upoutání pozornosti a záživný styl ve formě rozhovoru... Text je krátký a přístupný. Jsem rád, že jsem se k němu konečně dostal.
This book was written in 1686 and is translated from French. I had to read it for my History elective class in college. I found it to be an extremely interesting read because it explores imagination and ideas about science at the current time in 1686 through the conversations of a physicists and an aristocrat lady. The language is eloquent and beautiful. The conversation is very deep and thoughtful. Definitely a good exploration into the past nouveau. I really hope I can get my hands on the full French version to read.
This book was published before the world even knew Isaac Newton. Still, it is an interesting reading about how people used to think of the Universe and imagine other worlds.