In _Philosophical Transactions_, 82-27, is Herschel's report upon many luminous points, which he saw upon--or near?--the moon, during an eclipse. Why they should be luminous, whereas the moon itself was dark, would get us into a lot of trouble--except that later we shall, or we sha'n't, accept that many times have luminous objects been seen close to this earth--at night. But numerousness is a new factor, or new disturbance, to our explorations-- A new aspect of inter-planetary inhabitancy or occupancy-- Worlds in hordes--or beings--winged beings perhaps--wouldn't astonish me if we should end up by discovering angels--or beings in machines--argosies of celestial voyagers-- In 1783 and 1787, Herschel reported more lights on or near the moon, which he supposed were volcanic. The word of a Herschel has had no more weight, in divergences from the orthodox, than has had the word of a Lescarbault. These observations are of the disregarded. Bright spots seen on the moon, November, 1821 (_Proc. London Roy. Soc._, 2-167). For four other instances, see Loomis (_Treatise on Astronomy_, p. 174). A moving light is reported in _Phil. Trans._, 84-429. To the writer, it looked like a star passing over the moon--"which, on the next moment's consideration I knew to be impossible." "It was a fixed, steady light upon the dark part of the moon." I suppose "fixed" applies to luster. In the _Report of the Brit. Assoc._, 1847-18, there is an observation by Rankin, upon luminous points seen on the shaded part of the moon, during an eclipse. They seemed to this observer like reflections of stars. That's not very reasonable: however, we have, in the _Annual Register_, 1821-687, a light not referable to a star--because it moved with the moon: was seen three nights in succession; reported by Capt. Kater. See _Quart. Jour. Roy. Inst._, 12-133. _Phil. Trans._, 112-237: Report from the Cape Town Observatory: a whitish spot on the dark part of the moon's limb. Three smaller lights were seen. The call of positiveness, in its aspects of singleness, or homogeneity, or oneness, or completeness. In data now coming, I feel it myself. A Leverrier studies more than twenty observations. The inclination is irresistible to think that they all relate to one phenomenon. It is an expression of cosmic inclination. Most of the observations are so irreconcilable with any acceptance other than of orbitless, dirigible worlds that he shuts his eyes to more than two-thirds of them; he picks out six that can give him the illusion of completeness, or of all relating to one planet. Or let it be that we have data of many dark bodies--still do we incline almost irresistibly to think of one of them as the dark-body-in-chief. Dark bodies, floating, or navigating, in inter-planetary space--and I conceive of one that's the Prince of Dark Bodies: Melanicus. Vast dark thing with the wings of a super-bat, or jet-black super-construction; most likely one of the spores of the Evil One.