Plutarch, De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet, Harold Cherniss (Translator), William C. Helmbold (Translator), 12

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[12] All the same, let us assume, if you please, that the motions of earthy objects in the heaven are contrary to nature; and then let us calmly observe without any histrionics and quite dispassionately that this indicates not that the moon is not earth but that she is earth in an unnatural location. For the fire of Aetna too is below earth unnaturally, but it is fire; and the air confined in skins,¹ though by nature it is light and has an upward tendency, has been constrained to occupy an unnatural location. As to the soul herself, I said, by Zeus, is her confinement in the body not contrary to nature, swift as she is and fiery, as you say,² and invisible in a sluggish, cold, and sensible vehicle? Shall we then on this account deny that there is soul in body or that mind, a divine thing, though it traverses instantaneously in its flight all heaven and earth and sea,³ has passed into flesh and wines and marrow under the influence of weight and density and countless qualities that attend liquefaction?⁴ This Zeus of yours too, is it not true that, while in his own nature he is single, a great and continuous fire, at present he is slackened and subdued and transformed, having become and continuing to become everything in the course of his mutations?⁵ So look out and reflect, good sir, lest in rearranging and removing each thing to its natural location you contrive a dissolution of the cosmos and bring upon things the Strife of Empedocles — or rather lest you arouse against nature the ancient Titans and Giants⁶ and long to look upon that legendary and dreadful disorder and discord [when you have separated] all that is heavy and [all] that is light.

The suns bright aspect is not there descried, No, nor the shaggy might of earth, nor sea

as Empedocles says.⁷ Earth had no part in heat, water no part in air; there was not anything heavy above or anything light below; but the principles of all things⁸ were untempered and unamiable⁹ and solitary, not accepting combination or association with one another, but avoiding and shunning one another and moving with their own peculiar and arbitrary motions¹⁰ they were in the state in which, according to Plato,¹¹ everything is from which God is absent, that is to say in which bodies are when mind or soul is wanting. So they were until desire came over nature providentially, for Affection arose or Aphrodite or Eros, as Empedocles says and Parmenides and Hesiod,¹² in order that by changing position and interchanging functions and by being constrained some to motion and some to rest and compelled to give way and shift from the natural to the better [the bodies] might produce a universal concord and community.

De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet. Plutarch. Harold Cherniss (Translator), William C. Helmbold (Translator). Cambridge, MA. 1957.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The National Endowment for the Humanities.

Current edition Perseus

Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb Of the Moon (English) (Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. XII. Cherniss, Harold and William Clark Helmbold translators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1957 (printing).)

Editions (1)

Περὶ τοῦ ἐμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῳ τῆς σελήνης Perseus (Plutarch. Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, Vol. V. Vernardakēs, Grēgorios N., editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.) — 12 focus

[12] 926c οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ θέντες, εἰ βούλει, παρὰ φύσιν ἐν οὐρανῷ τοῖς γεώδεσι τὰς κινήσεις ὑπάρχειν, 20 ἀτρέμα, μὴ τραγικῶς, ἀλλὰ πράως σκοπῶμεν; ὅτι τοῦτο τὴν σελήνην οὐ δείκνυσι γῆν μὴ οὖσαν ἀλλὰ γῆν ὅπου μὴ πέφυκεν οὖσαν· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ πῦρ τὸ Αἰτναῖον ὑπὸ γῆν παρὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ πῦρ ἐστι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῖς ἀσκοῖς περιληφθὲν ἔστι 25 μὲν ἀνωφερὲς φύσει καὶ κοῦφον, ἣκει δʼ ὅπου μὴ πέφυκεν ὑπʼ ἀνάγκης. αὐτὴ δʼ ἡ ψυχή, πρὸς Διός εἶπον οὐ παρὰ φύσιν τῷ σώματι συνεῖρκται βραδεῖ ταχεῖα καὶ ψυχρῷ πυρώδης, ὥσπερ ὑμεῖς φατε, καὶ ἀόρατος αἰσθητῷ; διὰ τοῦτʼ οὖν σώματι ψυχὴν μὴ λέγωμεν εἶναι μηδὲ νοῦ χρῆμα θεῖον ὑπὸ βρίθους 926d ἢ πάχους, οὐρανόν τε πάντα καὶ γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν 5 ἐν ταὐτῷ περιπολοῦντα καὶ διιπτάμενον, εἰς σάρκας ἥκειν καὶ νεῦρα καὶ μυελοὺς καὶ παθέων μυρίων μεστὰς ὑγρότητας. ὁ δὲ Ζεὺς ὑμῖν οὗτος οὐ τῇ μὲν αὑτοῦ φύσει χρώμενος ἕν ἐστι μέγα πῦρ καὶ συνεχές, νυνὶ δʼ ὑφεῖται καὶ κέκαμπται καὶ 10 διεσχημάτισται, πᾶν χρῶμα γεγονὼς καὶ γιγνόμενος ἐν ταῖς μεταβολαῖς; ὥσθʼ ὅρα καὶ σκόπει, δαιμόνιε, μὴ μεθιστὰς καὶ ἀπάγων ἕκαστον, ὅπου πέφυκεν 926e εἶναι, διάλυσίν τινα. κόσμου φιλοσοφῇς καὶ τὸ νεῖκος ἐπάγῃς τὸ Ἐμπεδοκλέους τοῖς πράγμασι· μᾶλλον δὲ 15 τοὺς παλαιοὺς κινῇς Τιτᾶνας ἐπὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ Γίγαντας καὶ τὴν μυθικὴν ἐκείνην καὶ φοβερὰν ἀκοσμίαν καὶ πλημμέλειαν ἐπιδεῖν ποθῇς, χωρὶς τὸ βαρὺ πᾶν καὶ χωρὶς τιθεὶς τὸ κοῦφον

ἔνθʼ οὔτʼ ἠελίοιο δεδίσκεται ἀγλαὸν εἶδος, 20

οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδʼ αἴης λάσιον γένος, οὐδὲ θάλασσα

ὥς φησιν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς· οὐ γῆ θερμότητος μετεῖχεν, 926f οὐχ ὕδωρ πνεύματος, οὐκ ἄνω τι τῶν βαρέων οὐ κάτω τι τῶν κούφων, ἀλλʼ ἄκρατοι καὶ ἄστοργοι καὶ μονάδες αἱ τῶν ὅλων ἀρχαί, μὴ προσιέμεναι σύγκρισιν ἑτέρου πρὸς ἕτερον μηδὲ κοινωνίαν, ἀλλὰ φεύγουσαι καὶ ἀποστρεφόμεναι καὶ φερόμεναι φορὰς 5 ἰδίας καὶ αὐθάδεις οὕτως εἶχον, ὡς ἔχει πᾶν οὗ θεὸς ἄπεστι, κατὰ Πλάτωνα, τουτέστιν, ὡς ἔχει τὰ σώματα, νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀπολιπούσης· ἄχρι οὗ τὸ ἱμερτὸν ἧκεν ἐπὶ τὴν φύσιν ἐκ προνοίας, φιλότητος 927a ἐγγενομένης καὶ Ἀφροδίτης καὶ Ἔρωτος, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς 10 λέγει καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἡσίδος, ἵνα καὶ τόπους ἀμείψαντα καὶ δυνάμεις ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων μεταλαβόντα καὶ τὰ μὲν κινήσεως τὰ δὲ μονῆς ἀνάγκαις ἐνδεθέντα καὶ καταβιασθέντα πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον, ἐξ οὗ πέφυκεν, ἐνδοῦναι καὶ μεταστῆναι ἁρμονίαν 15 καὶ κοινωνίαν ἀπεργάσηται τοῦ παντός.

Translations (1)

Of the Face Appearing Within the Orb Of the Moon Perseus (Plutarch. Plutarch's Morals, Vol. V. Goodwin, William W., editor; G., A., translator. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; Cambridge: Press of John Wilson and Son, 1874.) — 12 focus

[12] Nevertheless, supposing, if you please, that it is against Nature for earthly bodies to have any motions in heaven, let us consider leisurely and mildly-and not violently, as is done in tragedies—that this is no proof of the moon’s not being earth, but only that earth is in a place where by nature it should not be; for the fire of Mount Aetna is indeed against nature under ground, nevertheless it ceases not to be fire. And the wind contained within bottles is indeed of its own nature light and inclined to ascend, but is yet by force constrained to be there where naturally it should not be. And is not our very soul, I beseech you in the name of Jupiter, which, as yourselves say, is light, of a fiery substance, and imperceptible to sense, included within the body, which is heavy, cold, and palpable? Yet do we therefore say that the soul does not belong to the body; or that it is not a divine substance under a gross and heavy mass, or that it does not in a moment pass through heaven, earth, and sea, pierce into the flesh, nerves, and marrow, and into the humors which are the cause of a thousand passions? And even your Jupiter, such as you imagine him and depaint him to be, is he not of his own nature a great and perpetual fire? Yet now he submits, is pliable, and transformed into all things by several mutations. Take heed therefore, good sir, lest, by transferring and reducing every thing to the place assigned it by Nature, you so philosophize as to bring in a dissolution of the whole world, and put all things again into that state of enmity mentioned by Empedocles, or (to speak more properly) lest you raise up again those ancient Titans and Giants to put on arms against Nature, and endeavor to introduce again that fabulous disorder and confusion, where all that is heavy goes one way apart, and all that is light another;

Where neither sun’s bright face is seen,

Nor earth beheld, spread o’er with green,

Nor the salt sea,

as Empedocles has it. Then the earth felt no heat, nor the sea any wind; no heavy thing moved upwards, nor any light thing downwards; but the principles of all things were solitary, without any mutual love or dilection one to another, not admitting any society or mixture together; but shunning and avoiding all communication, moving separately by particular motions, as being disdainful, proud, and altogether carrying themselves in such manner as every thing does from which (as Plato says) God is absent; that is, as those bodies do in which there is neither soul nor understanding; till such time as, by Divine Providence, desire coming into Nature engendered mutual amity, Venus, and Love,—as Empedocles, Parmenides, and Hesiod have it,—to the end that changing their natural places, and reciprocally communicating their faculties, some being by necessity bound to motion, others to quiet and rest, and all tending to the better, every thing remitting a little of its power and yielding a little from its place, they might make at length a harmony, accord, and society together.

Notes on the current edition

Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb Of the Moon

1. cf. 928 B s.v.. Plutarch probably has in mind inflated skins used for floats; cf. Aristotle, Physics, 217 A 2 - 3, 255 B 26, Caelo, 311 B 9 - 13.

2. cf. S. V. F. ii, p. 217, frag. 773: οἱ μὲν γὰρ Στωϊκοὶ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔνθερμον καὶ διάπυρον.

3. For this commonplace of the flight of the mind through the universe cf. R. M. Jones, Class. Phil. xxi (1926), pp. 97-113.

4. This is a reference to the Stoic notion that the embodiment of soul was a process of condensation or liquefaction. cf. Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1053 B - C ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 605) and for the qualities that would attend liquefaction S. V. F. ii, p. 155. 34: γῆς τε καὶ ὕδατος, παχνμερῶν καὶ βαρέων καὶ ἀτόνων ὅντων.

5. = S. V. F. ii, p. 308, frag. 1045. Zeus in his own nature is the state of the universe in the ecpyrosis, while at present he is the universe in the state of diacosmesis; cf. Placitis, 881 F 882 A (= Aëtius, i. 7. 33 = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1027), Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 526), Stoicorum Repugnantiis, 1052 C ( = S. V. F. ii, frags. 1068 and 604), Communibus Notitiis 1075 A - C ( = S. V. F. ii, frag. 1049), and S. V. F. ii, frags. 1052, 1053, and 1056.

6. The Strife of Empedocles is connected with the mythical war of the Giants by Proclus, In Platonis Parmenidem Comment. p. 849, 13-15 (ed. Cousin, Paris, 1864) = p. 659 (ed. Stallbaum).

7. Empedocles, frag. B 27 (i, pp. 323. 11-324. 4 [DielsKranz]), where the ὠκέα γυῖα given by Simplicius is adopted instead of Plutarch’s ἀγλαὸν εἶδος. Bignone, however, who prints the lines given by Plutarch as frag. 26 a and those given by Simplicius as frag. 27, is probably right in taking this to be one of the lines which were repeated with a different ending in two different parts of the poem ( Empedocle, studio critico, pp. 220 ff., 421, 599 ff.). Certainly Plutarch represents his quotation as describing the period when Strife has completely separated the four roots, whereas Simplicius says that his comes from the description of the Sphere, when all were thoroughly intermingled.

8. i.e. the four roots, earth, air, fire, and water, for the separation of which by Strife cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 8-10 and B 26. 6-9 (i, p. 316. 2-4 and p. 323. 4-7 [DielsKranz]).

9. From this Mullach manufactured for Empedocles the verse that he numbered 174 ( Frag. Phil. Graec. i, p. 5). Stein took only ἄκρατοι καὶ ἄστοργοι to be a quotation. The word ἄστοργος appears nowhere in the fragments of Empedocles (though στοργή does in frag. B 109 [i, p. 351. 22, DielsKranz]), whereas Plutarch uses it several times in other connections ( Amatorius, 750 F, Quaest. Nat. 917 D, Sollertia Animalium, 970 B).

10. cf. Clara Millerd, On the Interpretation of Empedocles, p. 54, and Cherniss, Aristotle’s Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, p. 175, n. 130. Plutarch’s circumstantial account of the motion of the four roots during the complete dominance of Strife is coloured by the passage of Plato to which he refers.

11. Timaeus, 53 B; cf. Defectu Oraculorum, 430 D, and An. Proc. in Timaeo, 1016 F.

12. cf. Amatorius, 756 D - F, where Empedocles, frag. B 17. 20-21 (i, p. 317. 1-2 [Diels-Kranz]), and Parmenides, frag. B 13 (i, p. 243. 16 [Diels-Kranz]) are quoted, and Hesiod, Theogony, 120 is referred to; and cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 984 B 23 985 A 10. With Plutarchs εκ προνοιάς contrast Aristotles criticism of Empedocles ( Metaphysics, 1000 B 1217) and cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 29 and B 30 (i, p. 317. 10 and p. 325. 10-12 [Diels-Kranz]). By εκ προνοιάς here Plutarch prepares the way for his use in the next paragraph of the Stoic doctrine of providence against the Stoic doctrine of natural place.

Plutarch De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet 12

Harold Cherniss (Translator), William C. Helmbold (Translator)

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers