Talk:The Man in the Moone

Simoson and the pursuit curve

Does the long footnote 'e' and the ref to Simoson's 'pursuit curve' paper really add anything worthwhile? Simoson's article was an exercise in mathematical overkill, apparently intended to give maths students something to get their teeth into, and written (as his reference to 'gravity' shows) with total disregard to the science of Godwin's day. Godwin wouldn't have understood either the astronomy or the maths, and it doesn't help us understand Godwin's book. Simoson's explanation may work in our universe, but it wouldn't necessarily work in Godwin's.

If you really feel the reference is vital, at least give Gonsales's own conclusion about his shorter homeward journey (homesick gansas or the earth's greater attraction) priority, with just a passing mention that 'A modern mathematician, Andrew Simoson, has concluded...'. (But I still think it's a bit like pointing out that Jules Verne's moon travellers, fired from a cannon, would have been crushed by the acceleration - and then spending a dozen pages of mathematical calculations to prove just how flat they would have been squashed.) - John O'London (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to such a tweak (a shuffling of sorts within the note). M? Drmies (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  I've no objection to giving priority to Gonsales's own explanation, but I see no reason why Godwin wouldn't have understood the maths. The point as far as I'm concerned is that Godwin was right, but for the wrong reason. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  ... and I've now switched the material around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, both. That looks better (tho' there's still a 'that' for 'than' in the first sentence of note 'e'). My view is that Simoson's mathematics is Newtonian, Godwin's universe was Copernican at best. John O'London (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that over such relatively small distances it makes much difference. The mathematics of pursuit were known even to the Ancient Greeks (although considered a paradox until calculus was invented), as in Zeno's arrow. The mathematics of Simonson's exposition is certainly Newtonian though, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand the maths! - John O'London (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Godwin and pursuit curves is actually not trivial at all. Look at Poole 2009 p. 32 note 2: there is no suggestion at all in his calculation of speed and distance that Poole realizes that those bodies are in motion. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Calendar

Another thing just above my paygrade: the chronology and the Gregorian/Julian calendar. Basically, Poole says that the mix-up in the dates is because toward the end Godwin realized that Gonsales ought to be on the Gregorian calendar, but never got to revise the whole thing. I've not seen other commentary on it, and Poole cites only one other scholar in that section, so I don't know if it's that important. "Rather, the fact that two consistent systems are at work in discrete portions of the text reveals a faultline, on one side of which the material is calendrically revised, and on the other, not. This in turn hints at the state of the MS from which the printed text was prepared." But no conclusions are drawn, certainly not about the manuscript. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ganza

No kidding: it's an entry in the OED: "One of the birds (called elsewhere ‘wild swans’) which drew Domingo Gonsales to the moon in the romance by Bp. F. Godwin." We could add "romance" to the genre section but that's a bit silly. Poole cites it as evidence of Godwin's influence--the OED entry cites usage by Wilkins, Joseph Hall (bishop), Butler (Hudibras), Henry More, James Hogg...: "There are scores of jokes in all genres of the period mocking people by coupling “Domingo” or his “Gansas” (myriad spellings—“Gonsos,” “Gansæs,” “Ganzæs,” etc.) with the suggestion that the target in question is merely a loony or a goose". Drmies (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• And Michael van Langren named a lunar crater Gansii--guess the name didn't stick. It's now Halley (lunar crater). Drmies (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've no doubt the Chinese ending is in reference to the first trickles of the stream of Oriental mysticism arriving in Godwin's time in the West by way of the Jesuits and Islamic literature too. "The Milk-Drinking Haṅsas of Sanskrit Poetry" Charles R. Lanman Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 19 (1898), pp. 151-158 Hansa being the Sanskrit name for goose or swan and associated with the oldest schools of Yoga. Our "gonzo"- as lunatic or looney- may indeed come from this tale. Klasovsky (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Editions

I don't have you guys' stamina - but I notice the para beginning 'McColley knew of only one remaining copy of the first edition, held at the British Museum...'. Poole (see his p 63) used a copy in the Bodleian Library (Ashm. 940(1)) collated with the British Library copy. Since Poole's edition is the one you're using, a reference to the fact that the Bodleian Library has a copy is needed (wonder how McColley missed it?).

(Oh, and should historic references to books in the 'British Museum' be annotated 'now British Library' as a matter of course?)

I looked on Gallica to see if the BnF copy of Godwin was available online - it doesn't seem to be (perhaps because it's not in French?). However, what is available is Baudoin's 1648 translation: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k82273v.r="L'homme dans la lune".langEN.swf

-- John O'London (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

PS - are you interested in a couple of Dutch editions (undated and 1718)? - see http://catalogue.bnf.fr/servlet/biblio?idNoeud=1&ID=30517976&SN1=0&SN2=0&host=catalogue and http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001358222 - John O'London (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...and the second of these is available as a Google book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=REbQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=De Man in de maen, ofte Een verhaal van&source=bl&ots=iEkrAjOZMV&sig=CXxypoe01UW5tzIoEFmpc20DpRc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kKtzUfWCKMn20gWCtYHoBg&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBQ - John O'London (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ha, that's great! The gansa are translated as geese in the online Dutch text. Thanks. MF, now we can revamp the EL section... Drmies (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Malleus, this is kind of fun. The Dutch translation is quite literal--in a quick comparison I found no differences. But there is a second part, which is not Godwin's (of course), a kind of continuation (as one could have expected). It begins with a kind of apology/explanation for the second volume, promising an account of even more exciting things; he's to have a farewell dinner with the Jesuits and then take ship, but is called before the Mandarin. There's lengthy descriptions of the size of China, the palace's opulence, etc., and then I got a bit bored and had other things to do. These details of course need not be included (though mention will be made of the existence of the translation), but I thought of you because, and you should see for yourself, that Dutch dude who wrote the second part (or translated it from somewhere) is more profligate with his commas than anyone I've ever seen--ever. It's quite funny. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The 1718 edition must be a version of the various Dutch printings (six before 1700) mentioned by Poole - p.49 footnote 5. Poole quotes a secondary source and probably never actually looked at the Dutch edition. The continuation - part 2 - I recall coming across references to a continuation, but I can't think where I read about it! - John O'London (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Malleus, I figured out that the Dutch translation was by Jacob van Brosterhuysen (an acquaintance of P. C. Hooft and other luminaries. The references are on a Dutch website that reproduces a number of biographical dictionaries, the Digital Library for Dutch Literature; they'd need to be cited as books--here's one and here's another. Is that (at least one book citation) too much material in the bibliography to verify a detail that's half a sentence long? Drmies (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Who can tell? I'd be inclined just to add a note. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, you mean a footnote (I've been playing with that efn template in another article)? Well, I just added it in the regular fashion; feel free to do what you think with it. BTW, I'm still not finished with Poole, but reference to a 1755 play, Don Domingo Gonzales of de Man in de maan, led me to write Maria de Wilde, and then her father, Jacob de Wilde, for good measure. Maria may not have written that play, but it's not a crazy suggestion: her known plays are all adaptations/translations. Pity I can't find an online copy of it. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing the relevance of the closing sentence: "A Dutch farce, Don Domingo Gonzales of de Man in de maan, published in 1755, was formerly considered authored by Maria de Wilde." Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, rephrase or cut. I can't find rock-solid citations that say it was based on our text, thought there can be no doubt that it was and that it evidences the influence of (the Dutch translation of) our text. There's no literature on that farce anyway. What little relevance there was rests on the (unproven) Godwinian lineage of the play and the now-established notability of Maria de Wilde, but there isn't that much. When that complete history of eighteenth-century popular fiction and drama is written it'll be a stronger statement. BTW, I'm a bit surprised to see you use that so-American present progressive. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  I've obviously been here too long and picked it up osmotically. Hopefully the same thing won't happen with commas. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, I suppose you didn't care for the gansa entry in the OED or the lunar crater? I stuck Godwin in the crater article anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I like both. We should include them somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• The gansa have flown in; please check formatting, phrasing, and location. I must admit, I'm growing quite fond of them and their bipedal father. The Dutch translation mentions them as chicks, "kiekens", which is just the cutest word; its vowel has changed--now "kuikens", but it's preserved in some dialects and in the word "kiekendief" (dief=thief). Drmies (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

J O'L here again. I dropped into the British Library to chase up Poole's footnote on the Dutch translations - he cites Cornelius W. Schoneveld Intertraffic of the Mind: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Anglo-Dutch Translation... Leiden: Brill/Universitaire Pers Leiden, 1983, pp 199-200

This reads:

269. [GODWIN, FRANCIS], Het rechte eerste deel van de man in de maan...; het rechte tweede deel.

Place and publisher not traced, 1645 (Buisman, 712, note).

Amsterdam, J. Benjamin, 1651 (KB).

Amsterdam, M. de Groot, 1663 (UBL, under D. Gonzales).

Amsterdam, M. de Groot, 1670-71 (Beyers 12-72, 608).

Amsterdam, E. de Broeker, 1695 (UBA).

Amsterdam, P. Verbeck, 1700 (Buisman, 711).

Translator: [J. Brosterhuisen].

The abbreviations for the libraries, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Leiden and Amsterdam are pretty obvious, and Beyers is a sale catalogue, but I thought it might be worth checking the 'Buisman' reference - which turned out to be to:

M. Buisman Populaire Prozaschrijvers van 1600 tot 1815 Amsterdam: B. M. Israel, [1960] pp. 127-8

Buisman quotes the full title of the 1651 (second) edition:

[F. Godwin.] Het Rechte Eerste Deel van de Man in de Maen, ofte een Verhael van een Reyse derwaerts gedaen door den spoedigen Bode Domingo Gonzales. Den Tweeden Druck, Het Tweede Deel.van de Man in de Maen, ofte een Verhael van een Reyse derwaerts gedaen door den spoedigen Bode Domingo Gonzales.

Amsterdam. Jacob Benjamin, 1651.

He then lists the 1663, 1670-71, 1695 and 1700 editions, and adds the 1718 one we already know about.

In a note he admits 'Een exemplar van 1645 is echter nog nooit in mijn handen geweest.' For information on this first edition he relies on J. van Vloten: 'Volgende hem is het 1e deel der uitgave van 1651 en volgende herdrukt naar die van 1645.' The implication is that the 'second part' was not in the 1645 edition, but was added in 1651. Apparently neither Buisman nor Schoneveld saw the mysterious 1645 edition. Is it the undated edition in the BnF?:

De Man in de maen, ofte Een verhael van een reyse derwaerts gedaen door Domingo Gonzales...

Publication : 's Gravenhage : J. Verhoeven, [s. d.]

For the identity of the translator as J. Brosterhuisen, Buisman says only 'Het Nieuw Nederl. Biogr. Woordenboek noemt evenwel op J. Brosterhuysen een vertaling door deze van het eerste deel gemaakt.' --- John O'London (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's all double Dutch to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've ordered Thomas Burger's facsimile of the German 1659 translation, with bibliography and essays. And now I really have to get back to work. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not trying to write a PhD thesis here Drmies, at least I'm not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheeeit, for real, no Ph.D.? OK then... I'll tell you what I think of FA: it should be the best article available, period. That's in part because of the green children: that is the best article (well, encyclopedic article) available. There's only a few things as good as ours--Clark's essay, and Cohen's chapter (the latter specifically on the ethnics and racial politics of the accounts). Listen, I don't wish for this article to be comprehensive, listing every edition and translation.

Right now, I think (but you need to judge this) that the "lunar speculation" section I just added needs to be placed in a Background section, divided into "Biographical" and "Sciency/Lunar" or some such thing. "Science" is of course both a theme and a background, and science as a theme requires a couple of sentences about what precisely Godwin has to say--magnetism, speed of travel, the medium (breathability, temperature, etc). I think the religious bit needs a tad more--the article I just added, by Cressy, is really interesting (it has, for instance, a different reading of the "Jesu Maria" slogan), and Poole has something as well. Your "Religion" section is good (and I'm glad you wrote it--thanks); it's mostly historically oriented, though, and doesn't say much about what Godwin's opinions might be inasmuch as the book suggests them. It needs just a bit more. And I think we're missing something of the utopian character of the book: some discussion of the Lunar beings, their organization, and their faith needs to be in there--the book is of course not satire but every utopia is a critique, and we should make (more) clear what that critique is. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't argue about the relative merits of PhDs and FAs, but can I suggest a change to the sentences about the Dutch translation? I'm happy to make the change myself, but I'd like to run it past you first. It avoids a proliferation of references, allows us include the 1718 printing that Poole doesn't mention, and clarifies the fact that the 'second part' that appears in the 1718 edition was already there in 1651. As follows: 'Johan van Brosterhuysen translated the book into Dutch, and it went through seven printings in the Netherlands between 1645 and 1718; the second edition of 1651 and the subsequent editions include a continuation of unknown origin with further adventures of Gonsales.[ref to Buisman 1960]' Should one keep the ref to Poole p. 49 out of politeness (he started the chain of footnotes that led to Buisman) and possibly (Drmies?) Frederiks & Branden, for confirmation of the translator's identity? Is it appropriate to add a link to the (free) Google book version of the 1718 edition? --John O'London (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that rephrasing is fine, if you add (ca. 1863-1650) after Brosterhuisen's name with a footnote to Frederiks; 1650 as a death date is interesting to include since he dies before the second edition appears and we don't have an article on him. Spelling his name with an "i" is fine with me. Maybe I will write him up. But do stick in "of unknown origin"--it makes the point explicit without belaboring it, and do keep Poole in there; that's not overciting, IMO. Thanks for your fine detective work; I should have found Schoneveld myself. Oh, the 1718 edition is already in the External links. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Kept the -huysen spelling. John O'London (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor point

Malleus, I see "{{notelist|notes]}} in the article. What's the "notes]" in there? Drmies (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A typo. It should be "{{notelist|notes=}} Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Scientific advancements and Lunar speculation

Wouldn't 'advances' be a more appropriate word than 'advancements'? (I'm not sure you can have plural advancements.) But for balance, 'speculations' plural. >> Scientific advances and Lunar speculations. John O'London (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about "advancements" (bear in mind that Drmies lives in the US, where remuneration is directly related to the length of words deployed apparently), but not about "speculations". Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK by me. (I'm beginning to guess where people live by the language they use and the hours when they are active, but I'm still finding the wiki community an extraordinary new world - something like Gonsales among the Lunarians. Just waiting to make my first BIG mistake that gets me banned - or transported to "a certaine high hill in the North of America" like the Lunarians' delinquent offspring.) -John O'London (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You've taken a very helpful interest in this article John, and so, with Drmies agreement, I'd like to include you on the list of nominators when he and I parade our creation at FAC for the approbation of the masses. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to lend a novice's support, for what it's worth, Malleus. -John O'London (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd like to tidy up Francis Godwin now, in the interests of consistency? It's got some very strange external links! - John O'London (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a bloody hard taskmaster John. I've promised to look at a couple of other articles today though, so it might be a little while before I get to Godwin. Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have signed and returned the paperwork for agreement with O'London's inclusion in the Parade of Fools. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Pseudonym of author and a character

Domingo Gonsales is the pseudonym of the author and also the a character. I'm not sure the article makes it super clear in the beginning that this is the case. On my first read through it was not apparent to me that Gonsales was used as the pseudonym and additionally was a fictional in the book until I read the flying machine bit. Could it be made clearer that Gonsales is a fictional character? I'm not great at writing, and don't think I would be the right person to propose what the change should be as far as the exact words. 69.58.248.1 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The article already makes that "super clear" in the lead. Eric Corbett 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Man in the Moone --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Higher quality image of iconic illustration

I've contributed a high quality image of the book's iconic illustration, from one of only seven known surviving first editions—far better (4,124 × 7,079) than the current image (400 × 343) from a 2nd edition. However, each time I have added it to this article, it has been removed, each time for a different reason. Please clarify why this image should not be included in the article, @J3Mrs: and @Eric Corbett:.

Typometer (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Because the image you want to insert is less informative than the existing one showing exactly the same thing. And we've already got two images of the flying machine. Eric Corbett 00:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

"Less informative"? Please explain. (7MB > 65KB.) Typometer (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because an image is of higher resolution doesn't necessarily make it "higher quality" in terms of illustrating this article. It is indeed larger but it looks oddly lopsided. The smaller image does convey more information and is aesthetically more pleasing when seen on the page. J3Mrs (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The original image is more informative in that it includes the revised title page of the second edition, with the attribution of authorship to "F.G. B.of H." - as the caption explains. Thus it conveys more information in less space. John O'London (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the purpose of the original image to depict the flying machine or to show that Godwin abandoned his pseudonymn for the second edition, something not even mentioned in the article? Half of the original image essentially duplicates (in far lower quality) the title page in the infobox, and the other half (I maintain) is far lower quality than the proposed replacement. Typometer (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you prefer this, @J3Mrs:, @Eric Corbett:, @John O'London:?

Typometer (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Eric Corbett 10:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Typometer (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already told you why not. Eric Corbett 12:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

My query about this proposed image is not whether it's more informative, but about the extent of the manipulation. The original image is a perfectly legitimate image of the opening spread of the second edition - presumably the copy in the Huntington Library since that's the one readily available on EEBO. The proposed replacement is cobbled together from two separate images - the title page of the first edition in the Folger Library, and the illustration of the gansa-craft NOT from the facing page, but from its repeated appearance opposite page 29 of the same edition (the image available on the Folger's own website). OK, it's a woodcut, so presumably much the same in both locations - but the composite image remains a fictional construct. Moreover, according to the description of File:Folger STC 11943.5 - The Man in the Moone, b&w composite.jpg, it's been "thresholded" - in this case, comparing the original image of the title page on the Folger website, thresholding has neatly whited-out the handwritten note that it was a gift to Ann Watkis(?) on 3rd March 1793, and various other annotations. Now this may be legitimate under the Creative Commons licence, but I'm not sure the Folger Library should approve of Wikipedia presenting one of the library's books in this tidied up version! It's misleading if nothing else. John O'London (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are valid points. (I'm having trouble parsing part of what you wrote; are you asserting that an image of the frontispiece is available from the Folger's own website?) I have nothing invested here beyond loving this illustration and wanting to make a higher quality one easily accessible to other readers. And to that end tried to make an image more in line with the existing image which you and other editors seem to like. I note however that different standards are being applied to that existing image. Its source is merely an obscure, broken URL, and we are happy to presume it is a perfectly legitimate faithful reproduction of the Huntington copy? Typometer (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally think the illustration is significant and interesting enough to be featured on its own in high quality in the article. And I don't mind if there is a second illustration to show that the Godwin abandoned his pseudonym for the second edition, or that the German edition had a different illustration. I personally think it is wonderful that the internet lets readers dive into a first edition of a rare book and see its paper grain and mold. But I also understand wanting a nice clean idealized reproduction of a woodcut, and I acknowledge the self-narrating power of a combined frontispiece-title-page image.

Typometer (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Typometer - I'm sorry if what I wrote was confusing. No, there isn't an image of the frontispiece on the Folger website, just of the second version of the same illustration as it was bound in facing page 29. I don't know how many copies of the book are intact - a copy of the first edition in the British Library, available on EEBO (Early English Books Online) is missing the frontispiece (and the title page is torn and stained). But it looks as if the 'standard' arrangement in both first and second editions was to use the image of Domingo Gonsales in flight twice, the first as frontispiece and a second copy bound into the text at a later point. I don't know why Folger chose to put the second copy from their book on-line - perhaps it's in better condition than the frontispiece.

You suggest I'm applying "different standards" to the present image and to your photoshopped version reconstructing the supposed Folger opening spread. I don't know anything about the broken URL, but no, I shouldn't be "happy to presume the original is a perfectly legitimate faithful reproduction of the Huntington copy", since no source is given. I've now checked the Huntington version on EEBO (a double page spread, as usual on EEBO), and to my eye the print etc looks identical - but it could be another copy with the same faults in the printing. However, and I must correct my earlier suggestion, EEBO itself doesn't seem to be the source of the image used on the Wiki page - the Wiki image is a "greyer" monochrome photograph and the EEBO illustration has a ruler placed on the left of the left-hand page. And EEBO texts are often produced by scanning microfilms - these aren't "idealised" but do exaggerate the black and white contrast of print and paper. Even if I'm wrong about Huntington, there is somewhere in existence a black and white photograph of the opening spread of the second edition from which the Wiki image comes! A useful task would be to track it down - is it in one of the modern editions or commentaries?

I didn't want to get into a discussion about information values, but it seems to me that the existing two images contain three elements of information. 1: First edition title page 1638, including attribution to fictitious author Domingo Gonsales. 2: Second edition title page 1657, including attribution to "F.G. B.of H." and inclusion of "Nuncius Inanimatus" (I am happy that an illustration and its caption should carry such additional information). 3: The first portrayal of Domingo Gonsales and his gansa-powered flying machine (and yes, I agree this is "iconic", and a good comparison to the German version further down the page). Of course these could be done as three separate images. But the use of the image of Gonsales in flight as the frontispiece implies perhaps that the publisher thought this scene encapsulated the story so well it should be used twice, at the front as well as within the text! The last point gives good reason why, either from the first edition or the second, the Wikipedia article should have a (non-photoshopped) image of the opening spread, frontispiece plus title page - unfortunately there seems to be no high-quality version of this spread available on line. Of course, if we were writing a real book - or a real encyclopedia - we'd simply order a photograph from one of the libraries and pay the appropriate copyright/reproduction fee. John O'London (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the Commons description so as to include an achived copy of the now dead link from which the image was captured. Eric Corbett 13:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric Corbett. The Wayback Machine link itself is not very helpful - but the address ---/images/cressy_fig01b.jpg gives the clue "Cressy" which suggests it's from David Cressy "Early Modern Space Travel and the English Man in the Moon" in American Historical Review 111 (2006): 961-82 (referenced in the Wikipedia article). Fig 1 in that article is indeed the source image, and captioned "[Francis Godwin] The Man in the Moone; or, A Discourse of a Voyage Thither; by F.G., B. of H.; to which is added Nuncius inanimatus, written in Latin by the same author, and now Englished by a person of worth (London, 1657), frontispiece and title page. Huntington Library rare book 145245. Reproduced with permission." Thus it is from the Huntington copy, and reproduced with permission - though whether that permission extends to reuse by Wikipedia is another matter! (I've discovered it's possible to save an apparently rather higher definition copy of the published image, from pdf via bmp to jpg (1590 x 1372 pixels, 72 dpi) but I'm obviously not going to upload it since its copyright status is so questionable!) John O'London (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A nice piece of research. All I was trying to do was to update the image on Commons to better reflect where it was captured from. Eric Corbett 18:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Actually, the Cressy image is embedded in the OUP pdf as an 8-bit 1600 x 1373 png – significantly lower quality than what I'm advocating, but far higher than what the article currently includes. I believe this png could be added to the commons, since it is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork in the public domain – assuming the title page can be regarded as an artwork. If not then, if I understand correctly, the current image should also not be on the commons. Typometer (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that it is fine as it is. J3Mrs (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never been convinced by the "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork in the public domain" argument. It makes sense when a Wiki contributor themself takes a photograph of or scans a piece of artwork or image that is "in the public domain" and which they have legitimate access to, and uploads it to Wiki commons. I've done it myself - once for an image in a 19th-century book that I own (well, actually it belongs to my sister, but it's on my bookshelves), once from an early print that I bought for the purpose. But "capturing" an image secondhand from a website is another matter. Libraries, museums and archives depend for some of their income on selling images of items in their collections and licensing their use. In this case the Huntington Library presumably charged the author of the article, David Cressy, a fee to supply him with a photograph of the opening spread of their copy of the second edition of The Man in the Moone, plus a fee for its use in the publication. If they'd wanted to make it free for general use they'd have presumably put it on their own website with some sort of Creative Commons licence. American Historical Review is available on JSTOR and is "free" to read online - but if you want to download a copy of the article it will cost you $42. John O'London (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Then you believe that the image currently used in the article should be removed from the Commons? (Just because the image appeared on a 3rd party website, does not alter OUP's or the Huntington's rights.) Typometer (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)