Atoms and infinite worlds

Use in the book

The opening joins infinite worlds, an infinite void and a chance collision of atoms among the extraordinary opinions a reader might expect from the assumed name Democritus. Burton disclaims that expectation and names ancient and recent thinkers in a sweeping catalogue, not a historically uniform school. Much later, the particles in semen belong to competing explanations of erotic passion: Gordon’s account appears beside imagination and wind, and Ferrand’s beside the hot temperament of the testicles. Neither passage establishes modern atomic structure or turns every bodily spirit into an atom.

The smallest particles can measure desires too numerous to count. The Bernard-associated atomos comparison receives Burton’s own sun-mote gloss; the preceding distinction allows moderate appetites while condemning excess. The political scale is the opposite extreme: Alexander wants further worlds to conquer. Burton condemns the appetite and compares conquerors with destructive elements, but the editor shows that his Senecan rebuke combines separate anecdotes. The supposed desire for more worlds is not an observation of them. The inhabited moon also feeds the preface’s pun on people as lunatick if the earth is a moon. Later, the conditional prospect of infinite suns with inhabited planets makes human fame look vanishingly small.

The discussion of spirits already multiplies worlds. Some writers assign each world its own spirits, gods, angels and devils; Palingenius’s verse calls each star a world and the earth a dark star. Burton then jokes that ethereal spirits presumably have other worlds to rule if they ignore human affairs. He tentatively connects Saturnine and Jovial inhabitants with the preceding spirits, then endorses Zanchi’s rejection. The editor distinguishes Galileo’s and Kepler’s works and warns that their proposed residents are not thereby identified as spirits. These are reported supernatural arrangements and a skeptical aside. In the imaginary journey through earth and air, remoulding the globe becomes the conditional fancy of casting several worlds into one, or making several from one, if worlds are infinite. The figure is deliberately playful, not a physical procedure.

Before the sustained inference, Burton asks whether stars are dense parts of spheres or habitable worlds. The latter means capable of habitation, not already occupied. The later argument begins by granting the earth’s motion for argument and comparing its shine with that of other planets. From that likeness the text moves to inhabitants, then to the use of planetary companions. The Kepler-associated margins make residents probable or ask who benefits from Jupiter’s moons if nobody lives there. Those are analogical and purposive arguments. Burton’s separate first-person statement that he saw some companions of Jupiter through an eight-foot glass establishes only what he claims to have seen, not an observation of inhabitants. The editor further distinguishes Saturn’s unresolved rings from moons and Kepler’s speculation about Mars and Venus from Burton’s report of observation.

Worlds then become systems: fixed stars may be suns, each with subordinate planets. Nicholas Hill’s hopeful imagined travel through innumerable worlds belongs to the quoted speaker. The immense-distance argument makes the whole aggregate within Saturn’s sphere appear pointlike, and asks why similar systems may not exist elsewhere. Its alternative “infinite, or approaching infinity” must remain. Hill’s ensuing question argues that an infinite cause, God, could produce infinite effects and thus infinite habitable worlds. That theological-causal argument is distinct from an observed population. Kepler’s refusal of Bruno’s infinite worlds also remains: Burton distinguishes that refusal from his admission of possible planetary inhabitants and his doubts about the stars. Campanella’s reported confidence in habitation still leaves the kind of creatures unspecified.

Questions about inhabitants are questions about humanity’s place as well. Who would live there, would they be rational, would they require salvation, and would they occupy a better region? The body adds the salvation question to a related margin concerned with rank and purpose. Burton’s English “best place, best world” amplifies in præcipuo mundi sinu, literally the foremost recess of the world. The later claim that such inferences follow is still conditional, and the discussion proceeds through rival systems, theological satire and an admission of limited knowledge before returning to melancholy.

The family returns in two different arguments. The contented poor man does not inquire about a new world in the moon or infinite worlds; these are worries he escapes, not doctrines he settles. Later, “if” there are infinite planetary and stellar worlds, the text reasons that there might be infinite ruling spirits and therefore religions. This belongs to the discussion of religious diversity begun with Symmachus, not a settled astronomical finding. The continuation is essential: Burton criticizes opposing extremes and proposes a middle course that includes coercion. The conditional plurality argument should not be isolated as his final endorsement of unrestricted toleration.

Related entries

Vacuum; Earth’s motion; Spheres and firmament; Hypothesis and supposition; Probability and conjecture; Paradox; Accident; Cause; Spirits; Seed; Glass; Epicure.

Places to read

1. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 1–4The opening atomist catalogue and its disclaimer.
2. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 5–9Alexander’s worlds to conquer, composite anecdote and moral criticism.
3. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 13–15Countless motes as a satirical comparison.
4. Democritus Junior to the Reader · paragraphs 34–38The inhabited moon and the preface’s lunatick pun.
5. Subsection 2 A Digression on the Nature of Spirits Evil Angels or Devils and How They Cause Melancholy · paragraphs 30–44Spirit-populated worlds, Palingenius’s orbes and Burton’s skeptical aside.
6. Subsection 11. The Concupiscible Appetite: Desires and Ambition as Causes · paragraphs 15–18Atoms and sun motes as a measure of desires.
7. Subsection 14 Self-Love, Vainglory, Praise, Honour, Excessive Applause, Pride, Too Much Joy, and So on, as Causes · paragraphs 39–43Conditional inhabited star systems diminishing human fame.
8. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 9–14The conditional remaking of worlds.
9. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 2–6Habitable worlds as a questioned alternative to dense spheres.
10. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 15–19; notes 5524–5529Inhabitants, planetary companions and the limits of observed evidence; the accompanying note.
11. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 20–27; notes 5532, 5538; note 5542Infinite or innumerable worlds, systems, rival positions and questions about inhabitants; the accompanying note, the accompanying note and the accompanying note.
12. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 28–38, 1–18Continuing qualifications, rival systems and the digression’s ending.
13. Member 3 Against Poverty and Want and Other Such Adversities · paragraphs 46–51Cosmological questions the contented man escapes.
14. Member 2. Subsection 1. Causes of Heroic Love: Bodily Temperament, Plentiful Diet, Idleness, Place, Climate, and So Forth · paragraphs 10–20Atomi in reported physiological accounts of desire.
15. Subsection 5 The Cure of Religious Melancholy · paragraphs 14–24World plurality and religions, followed by Burton’s coercive middle course.
16. M · paragraph 31The inhabited-moon Table pointer, distinct from moon in love.
17. P · paragraph 93The inhabited-planets Table pointer.

In this edition

The modern column renders the Latin particles as atoms, but the original English gloss is motes. Ex fortuita atomorum collisione means from the chance collision of atoms; atomorum alone supplies of atoms. In the physiological passages, seed becomes semen while atomi supplies atoms or minute particles. The unrelated “Motes” in the bad-water passage means moats, not dust or atoms.

Resident forms keep their grammar: incolis follows de, incolas belongs to an indirect statement, and accolæ names dwellers in the conditional Jupiter question. Burton’s non tam is translated “not so much”; the editor’s comparison with Kepler gives non tantum, “not only,” without replacing Burton’s wording. Infinito vacuo and infinito æthere remain different settings, void and aether. Likewise, infinitum and infinito proximum are not collapsed, and the literal foremost-recess phrase remains distinguishable from Burton’s expansive best-world gloss.

ex fortuita atomorum collisione

From the chance collision of atoms, the alleged origin of worlds in the opening atomist catalogue.

Grammar: Latin prepositional construction: ex with ablative collisione, modified by fortuita; atomorum genitive plural.

Original text: “ex fortuita atomorum collisione”. In the modern column: “arising from the chance collision of atoms”. Atoms are the minute constituents whose chance encounter is supposed to form worlds. Burton lists an expectation raised by Democritus’s name, then disclaims that expectation. An accompanying note warns that his named thinkers are not all shown to share every listed doctrine. Ex supplies from, rendered arising from to make the causal relation clear; fortuita chance, atomorum of atoms, collisione collision. The whole phrase is not the meaning of atomorum alone.

Motes in the Sun

Minute specks made visible in sunlight; used as an image of particles or uncountably many particulars.

Grammar: English plural noun with locative construction, also printed lower-case motes.

Original text: “Motes in the Sun”. In the modern column: “specks like those visible in a sunbeam”. Burton’s English gloss pictures the atoms in the reported world-forming collision. The comparison makes the doctrine intelligible; it does not prove that visible dust specks are indivisible atoms. The modern expands the sun location into visibility in a sunbeam and adds like those to expose the analogy.

Original text: “as motes in the Sun”. In the modern column: “as motes in a sunbeam”. Ridiculous social inversions are compared in number to the specks. The satire’s many examples lead into Persius’s question about emptiness; the numerical image does not assert a cosmological system. In the Sun is clarified as in a sunbeam, retaining the comparison of abundance.

Original text: “reckon up the motes in the Sun”. In the modern column: “count the motes in a sunbeam”. Burton restates the difficulty of counting the mind’s continually changing desires. The preceding Latin is attributed to Bernard; the claim is a comparison of innumerability in moral psychology, not a particle-counting experiment. Reckon up becomes count, motes remains motes, and Sun becomes sunbeam. The object of the comparison is the desires.

atomos

Atoms or minute particles imagined as easier to count than the movements of the heart.

Grammar: Latin accusative plural of atomus, object of denumerare.

Original text: “facilius atomos denumerare possem”. In the modern column: “I could more easily count the atoms”. The particles furnish the smaller side of an exaggerated comparison with desires. Saith Bernard assigns the quotation; the following quam motus cordis means than the movements of the heart and fixes the comparative scope. An accompanying note leaves the exact attributed work unresolved. Atomos supplies atoms, denumerare count, facilius more easily and possem I could. Burton’s separate English paraphrase uses motes in sunlight.

atomi

Minute particles in semen, posited as agents of erotic passion in reported physiology.

Grammar: Latin nominative plural noun used within English syntax.

Original text: “atomi in the seed”. In the modern column: “atoms in the semen”. Minute generative particles are one proposed explanation of violent passions alongside imagination, wind and bodily spirits. Burton attributes competing causes to Valescus, Bodin and Gordon. The historical explanation is not a modern account of atomic or reproductive biology. Atomi becomes atoms; seed becomes semen. An accompanying note explains minute particles and distinguishes spirits as subtle bodily agents.

Original text: “certain atomi in the seed”. In the modern column: “certain atoms in the semen”. Ferrand is associated with particles in semen, contrasted with Guaineri’s hot temperament of the testicles. The paragraph shifts authorities and then invokes an Aristotelian conditional about discharge. Burton says when Ferrand’s book reached him; this is not a claim that he observed the particles. Certain and in the seed retain their respective roles; semen is the local meaning of seed, not the meaning of atomi.

worlds; infinite worlds; plurality of worlds

Multiple worlds, variously proposed as earth-like planets, star-centred systems or domains of inhabitants and spirits.

Grammar: English plural noun and quantifying constructions, including worlds as bodies, systems or domains.

Original text: “infinite Worlds”. In the modern column: “infinite worlds”. The number of worlds is unbounded in the doctrines named at the opening. The listed expectation is disclaimed; named thinkers’ positions are grouped broadly. Worlds is retained as worlds, with capitalization normalized. Infinite qualifies their number in the opening catalogue of doctrines; the surrounding expectation and disclaimer are outside this short noun phrase.

Original text: “infinite worlds”. In the modern column: “infinitely many worlds”. Each world is imagined to have its own governing and punishing spirits. Others will have attributes the doctrine and separates it from the preceding Paracelsian realm claim. Infinite worlds becomes infinitely many worlds, making the numerical quantification explicit. The selected noun phrase does not itself contain Others will have, the preceding attribution of the doctrine.

Original text: “those ætheriall spirits have other worlds to raigne in belike or businesse to follow”. In the modern column: “Presumably those ethereal spirits have other worlds to reign over or business to attend to”. Other domains provide a sarcastic explanation for spirits’ supposed neglect of human affairs. Martianus foolishly supposeth and belike mark Burton’s skeptical framing, not an astronomical observation. The original trailing belike is redistributed to sentence-opening Presumably. Other worlds to raigne in becomes other worlds to reign over; the skepticism governs the entire proposed explanation.

Original text: “if the worlds be infinite”. In the modern column: “if there are infinitely many worlds”. The hypothetical remoulding can join several worlds or divide one into several. If and as it shall seem to them best continue a playful imaginary journey, attributed in part to Bruno and Campanella without separate verification. If the worlds be infinite is recast as if there are infinitely many worlds. The modern supplies the existential there are and makes infinity a claim about number, while retaining if and the hypothetical frame.

Original text: “infinite Worlds, and infinite earths or systemes”. In the modern column: “infinite worlds, infinite earths or systems”. Worlds can mean earth-like bodies or systems rather than every occurrence of the single terrestrial world. We may likewise infer continues the conditional excursion; the long ancient-author list is not a uniform historical doctrine. The two quantified noun phrases remain: infinite worlds and infinite earths or systems. Systemes is modernized to systems, the coordinating and is omitted after the comma, and or preserves the alternative description earths or systems; the phrase does not specify an infinite physical size for each world.

Original text: “a plurality of worlds”. In the modern column: “a plurality of worlds”. Several star-centred systems are proposed by analogy with our own. Why may we not suppose is a question dependent on the immense distances hypothesized in 075-21, not demonstrated habitation. A plurality of worlds is unchanged. Plurality means more than one world and does not by itself assert infinitely many; the surrounding Why may we not suppose presents this plurality as a proposed possibility.

Original text: “will by no means admit of Brunus infinite worlds”. In the modern column: “will by no means admit Bruno’s infinite worlds”. Kepler’s refusal of Bruno’s infinity is distinguished from speculation about planetary inhabitants. The negation by no means must remain. Burton calls Kepler’s writings partly jest and partly earnest, and separates stars from planets. Will by no means admit of becomes will by no means admit, retaining Kepler’s refusal. Brunus becomes possessive Bruno’s; infinite worlds remains the doctrine refused, not a position attributed here to Kepler as his own.

Original text: “that there are infinite worlds”. In the modern column: “that there are infinite worlds”. Burton attaches an infinite-worlds thesis to Campanella. He reports Campanella’s certainty about inhabitation but uncertainty about the creatures; the accompanying note does not independently confirm the doctrine in the cited editions. That there are infinite worlds is retained word for word. That introduces the content of the reported proposition and there are states existence; infinite qualifies the plural worlds within the claim attributed to Campanella.

Original text: “a new world in the Moon, or infinite worlds”. In the modern column: “a new world in the moon, or infinitely many worlds”. Alternative cosmological possibilities are things the contented man does not investigate. He enquires not governs the list; no doctrine is settled by this consolatory passage. The alternative remains between a new world in the moon and infinitely many worlds. Infinite becomes infinitely many to state the numerical sense explicitly, while or is retained; the governing He enquires not lies outside this selected phrase.

Original text: “if there be infinite planetary and firmamentals worlds”. In the modern column: “if there are infinitely many planetary and stellar worlds”. World plurality supplies a premise for an argument that each world could have its own spirits and religion. If and as some will preserve the supposition. The sequence develops reported religious-plurality arguments, then Burton rejects the extremes and prescribes his coercive middle course at 161-22–24. The modern recasts if there be as if there are and infinite as infinitely many. Planetary remains planetary, while firmamentals becomes stellar; if preserves the supposition rather than asserting the existence of either class of worlds.

no more worlds for him to conquer

Further realms imagined as objects of conquest, in the criticism of Alexander’s limitless ambition.

Grammar: English plural noun in a negated possessive-purpose construction.

Original text: “no more worlds for him to conquer”. In the modern column: “no more worlds for him to conquer”. Worlds extends the appetite for dominion beyond any satisfying limit. Burton juxtaposes some admirers with Seneca’s rebuke. An accompanying note shows that he combines different Alexander anecdotes, so the Senecan rebuke is not independently verified as a response to this no-more-worlds statement. The modern retains the construction and its negative no more; it is a moralized anecdote, not a count of observed universes.

orbes

Worlds: stars considered as self-contained realms in Palingenius’s quoted cosmology.

Grammar: Latin accusative plural orbes, predicative complement of passive dici in the accusative-and-infinitive construction under credunt; its referent is accusative plural sydera.

Original text: “Dici orbes”. In the modern column: “Be called a world”. Each star may be called a world; the earth is then called a dark star under the least of the gods. Nonnulli credunt attributes the belief to some. Burton breaks off partway through the verse; the accompanying note notes that the source continuation questions human certainty about divine arrangements. The plural orbes corresponds to a world under the modern distributive every star. Dici supplies be called; the phrase does not mean physical shells surrounding planets.

inhabitants; inhabited; habitable worlds

Living occupants of other worlds, or worlds proposed as occupied; habitable instead means capable or suitable for habitation.

Grammar: English resident nouns and participial adjective inhabited; habitable is an adjective of suitability or possibility, not actual occupation.

Original text: “the Moon is inhabited”. In the modern column: “the moon is inhabited”. The inhabitants claim enters the preface’s extension of cosmic motion into a joke about universal lunacy. Digges, Gilbert, Kepler and Origanus are grouped as defenders; if the earth is a moon leads to the lunatick pun, not observation of lunar people. The modern preserves inhabited and separately supplies maintain that to connect the clause with the named proponents.

Original text: “Saturnine and Jovial inhabitants”. In the modern column: “inhabitants of Saturn and Jupiter”. The body compares speculative planetary residents with the preceding arrangement of ethereal spirits. Belike is tentative; the continuation says Zanchi rightly rejects these ideas, with Peter Martyr. Editor the accompanying note distinguishes the two astronomical works and denies that the inhabitants are thereby shown to be spirits. Saturnine and Jovial are planetary adjectives here, rendered by of Saturn and Jupiter, not temperamental descriptions.

Original text: “all inhabited”. In the modern column: “all inhabited”. Populated planetary systems enlarge the scale against which human fame looks negligible. If those Stars be infinite and as some will qualify the scenario. The rhetorical question asks where human glory remains; it does not establish inhabited stars as fact. The quantified participial phrase remains unchanged. Its referent is planets around the suns in the surrounding comparison, not every named object independently.

Original text: “so many habitable Worlds”. In the modern column: “so many habitable worlds”. Stars are questioned as possible worlds suitable for habitation rather than dense portions of spheres. Whether frames alternatives attributed to Aristotle and Democritus; habitable does not assert that residents have been found. Habitable is retained, not replaced by inhabited. It states capability or suitability, not occupancy.

Original text: “the other Planetary inhabitants”. In the modern column: “the other planetary inhabitants”. The conditional argument imagines beings for whom the earth shines. The passage grants a motion premise and then reasons by analogy; the accompanying note explicitly distinguishes shining from proof of inhabitants. Planetary qualifies the location of inhabitants, not their observed existence.

Original text: “the rest of the Planets are inhabited”. In the modern column: “the rest of the planets are inhabited”. The text announces habitation as a consequence of the preceding analogy. Per consequens marks inference. Kepler and Galileo are grouped, but observations of companions do not observe their inhabitants. The passive adjective is preserved; the modern does not remove its position within a speculative inference.

Original text: “there are infinite habitable worlds”. In the modern column: “there are infinite habitable worlds”. The argument infers infinitely many worlds capable of habitation from vast distances and an infinite divine cause. The inference is attributed to the named proponents and Nicholas Hill; the following Kepler paragraph supplies disagreement and partial agreement. Cause infinite cause owns infinite cause. The modern retains habitable, distinct from inhabited. The adjacent Why should not question asks whether an infinite cause may have infinite effects; it is not the definition of habitable.

Original text: “if they be inhabited”. In the modern column: “if they are inhabited”. The passage reopens the uncertainty before asking who or what could live there. If governs rationality, salvation, rank and purpose questions; the body and the accompanying note are related but not identical, the margin omitting the salvation question. The conditional if is preserved; this does not mean those worlds are known to be inhabited.

Original Table: “Moon inhabited, 254.” In the modern column: “The moon inhabited, 254;” The Table directs readers to the inhabited-moon discussion. This is a compressed index subject and page pointer, not new evidence for lunar life. The modern supplies the article and retains the page pointer; the subsequent moon in love is a separate indexed topic.

Original Table: “Planets inhabited 253”. In the modern column: “The planets inhabited. 253”. The Table indexes the planetary habitation question. The unnumbered Table’s printed 253 is retained as a pointer, not substituted for the Table’s own source label. The modern supplies The and punctuation; the heading is not converted into a scientific assertion.

incolis; incolas; accolæ; accolas

Inhabitants or dwellers, named in speculative accounts of planetary residents and comparisons with ethereal spirits.

Grammar: Latin resident nouns: incolis ablative plural after de; incolas accusative plural in indirect statement; accolæ nominative plural with sint; accolas accusative plural modified by Saturninas and Joviales in the marginal phrase.

Access scope (non tantum): Kepler comparison supplied by the editor, not Burton’s printed non tam.

Access scope (not only): Translation of editorial comparison non tantum; not a translation of Burton’s non tam.

Original margin: “Saturninas & Joviales accolas”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “Inhabitants of Saturn and Jupiter”. The Latin margin names the planetary inhabitants compared with the preceding ethereal spirits. Belike makes the body’s connection tentative, then Zanchi and Peter Martyr reject the ideas. An accompanying note distinguishes Galileo’s and Kepler’s works and warns that planetary occupants are not thereby identified as spirits. Accolas gives inhabitants; Saturninas and Joviales identify Saturn and Jupiter. The English reverses adjective placement into of-phrases.

Original margin: “de eorum incolis summâ probabilitate concludimus”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “we conclude with the greatest probability that they have inhabitants”. The margin presents inhabitants as a strongly probable inference from planetary analogies. An accompanying note identifies a combined, not verbatim continuous, Kepler quotation. Probability is not observed life. De eorum incolis supplies about their inhabitants, recast as that they have inhabitants; summâ probabilitate supplies the greatest probability, not the noun’s definition.

Original margin: “non tam in Lunâ, sed etiam in Iove, & reliquis Planetis incolas esse”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “there are inhabitants not so much on the moon as on Jupiter and the other planets”. Residents are proposed for Jupiter and the other planets in comparison with the moon. Burton prints non tam, not so much, whereas editorial comparison the accompanying note gives Kepler’s non tantum, not only. The original is not silently corrected. The whole indirect statement is selected in both versions. Incolas contributes inhabitants, esse there are, and the location phrases locate them; non tam supplies not so much, not not only.

Original margin: “Si non sint accolæ in Iovis globo”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “If there are no dwellers on Jupiter’s globe”. The rhetorical question asks for whose benefit Jupiter’s four companions circulate if nobody lives there. The question argues from supposed purpose; it does not report seeing residents. An accompanying note distinguishes the conflated excerpts and the extension to Saturn. Accolæ supplies dwellers, Si non sint If there are no, and in Iovis globo on Jupiter’s globe.

infinitum, aut infinito proximum

Infinite, or approaching infinity: alternatives that should not be flattened into one exact claim.

Grammar: Latin neuter singular forms infinitum and proximum describing the firmament within English syntax; substantivized dative singular infinito after proximum; aut preserves the alternative.

Original text: “infinitum, aut infinito proximum”. In the modern column: “infinite, or approaching infinity”. The proposed firmament may be strictly infinite or of an extent approaching that description. For if and as these Copernicall Giants will have it frame the assumption. The sentence continues through 075-22 into the supposition of many systems. Aut means or, not and. Proximum contributes approaching/near; it prevents indefinite vastness from being treated as identical to strict infinity.

in infinito æthere

In infinite aether, the proposed medium or expanse containing infinite worlds.

Grammar: Latin in with ablative singular adjective and noun.

Original text: “in infinito æthere”. In the modern column: “in infinite aether”. The phrase gives the setting of the reported worlds, earths or systems. This is the same conditional and attributed inference as the surrounding world plurality; it does not turn aether into the empty void of 001-03. In supplies in, infinito infinite and æthere aether. It is not identical with vacuo, void, although both serve cosmological setting phrases.

mundi; mundos; mundorum

Worlds, treated as other earth-like realms, possible future discoveries or objects of imagined travel.

Grammar: Latin inflections of mundus in speculative plurality constructions: nominative, accusative and genitive plural.

Original margin: “Infiniti alii mundi, vel ut Brunus, terræ huic nostræ similes”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “Infinite other worlds, or, as Bruno says, earths like this one of ours”. The marginal restatement compares additional worlds with our earth. This is Burton’s margin reporting Bruno, not independent verification of each thinker’s doctrine. Infiniti is Infinite, alii other, mundi worlds; the following alternative terræ supplies earths, not a separate meaning carried by mundi alone.

Original text: “sperabundus expecto innumerabilium mundorum in æternitate perambulationem”. In the modern column: “Full of hope, I look forward to wandering through innumerable worlds in eternity”. Nicholas Hill is represented anticipating a journey through innumerable worlds. The first person belongs to the quoted Hill-associated statement, not Burton’s personal promise. An accompanying note leaves the exact wording and title uncollated. Innumerabilium mundorum supplies of/through innumerable worlds with the travel noun; sperabundus expecto supplies hopeful anticipation, in æternitate in eternity and perambulationem wandering. The full sentence is retained as context, not a one-word gloss.

Original margin: “plures alios mundos detegendos”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “many other worlds will be discovered”. The marginal question allows many more worlds, then adds Democritus’s infinite alternative. Quid impedit quin credamus asks what prevents belief; this is not a confirmed discovery. The main body simultaneously distinguishes Kepler’s rejection of Bruno’s infinity. Plures alios is many other, mundos worlds, detegendos will be discovered in the supplied indirect construction.

totum aggregatum

The complete system within Saturn’s sphere, hypothetically viewed at stellar distance.

Grammar: Latin neuter nominative singular totum aggregatum, subject of evehatur in the quoted conditional construction.

Original text: “totum aggregatum”. In the modern column: “the entire aggregate”. The whole solar arrangement then under discussion would appear only as a point at the assumed distance. The Fromondus-associated argument is conditional; the accompanying note notes the awkward Latin tense and delayed except-as-a-point qualification. It is not a statement that the system literally becomes a point. Totum supplies entire and aggregatum aggregate; the referent is given by the preceding whole sphere of Saturn and its contents.

in præcipuo mundi sinu

In the foremost recess or region of the world, followed by Burton’s amplifying best-world explanation.

Grammar: Latin in with ablative sinu, adjective præcipuo and genitive singular mundi.

Access scope (best place): Burton’s following English amplification, not the literal meaning of the Latin component.

Access scope (best world): Burton’s following English amplification, not the literal meaning of the Latin component.

Access scope (in the best place, best world): Burton’s following English amplification, not the literal meaning of the Latin component.

Access scope (in the best place, the best world): Burton’s following English amplification, not the literal meaning of the Latin component.

Original text: “in præcipuo mundi sinu”. In the modern column: “in the foremost recess of the world”. The reported argument assigns humans a privileged position near the sun. Burton says this alone Kepler proves after acknowledging that the inhabitant questions are hard to determine. His ensuing best place, best world is his broader English explanation, not the literal force of every Latin component. In means in, præcipuo foremost, mundi of the world and sinu recess. The modern does not silently replace the literal phrase with the whole subsequent English amplification.

plures globi, similes nostræ telluris

Several globes resembling our earth, posed as a supposition about the rank of their occupants.

Grammar: Latin nominative plural plures globi with sint; similes nominative plural agreeing with globi and nostræ telluris genitive singular in the comparison.

Original margin: “si sint in cælo plures globi, similes nostræ telluris”. Supplied note translation or expansion: “if there are several globes in heaven like our earth”. The supposition leads to questions about better regions and the relative rank of rational creatures. The Kepler-associated margin asks conditional questions; it does not contain the body’s added question about souls needing salvation. Plures is several, globi globes, similes like, nostræ telluris our earth; si sint supplies if there are and in cælo in heaven.

Earlier explanation: accidental

Earlier explanation: accidental

For accidental, see Accident.

Reference scope: Accident retains the earlier chance adjective at the same opening occurrence.

Earlier explanation: consentaneum

Earlier explanation: consentaneus · consentaneum · local use 2

For consentaneum, see Consent and essence.

Reference scope: Consent and essence keeps the adjective in the Kepler-associated marginal inference.

Earlier explanation: spermatick

Earlier explanation: Spermatick

For spermatick, see Seed.

Reference scope: Seed keeps the established generative adjective; atomi here is not made a synonym for semen.

For summâ probabilitate, see Probability and conjecture.

Reference scope: Probability and conjecture owns the degree of confidence in the inhabitant inference.

For firmamentals worlds, see Spheres and firmament.

Reference scope: Spheres and firmament retains the stellar adjective; this article explains the conditional argument for plural worlds and religions.

For in infinito vacuo, see Vacuum.

Reference scope: Vacuum owns the void setting, distinguished from aether here.

Earlier explanation: infinite cause

Earlier explanation: infinite cause

For infinite cause, see Cause.

Context passages: the passage, the passage, the passage. These are reading contexts, not additional occurrences of the cited form.

Reference scope: God as an infinite cause belongs to the earlier Cause record; retain Hill’s argument and Kepler’s following qualification without recounting that phrase.