Plutarch, De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet, Harold Cherniss (Translator), William C. Helmbold (Translator), 4

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

[4] Apollonides was delighted. What an original and absolutely novel contrivance the hypothesis is, he said, the work of a man of daring and culture; but how did you proceed to bring your counterargument against it? In the first place, I said, in that, although the outer ocean is a single thing, a confluent and continuous sea,¹ the dark spots in the moon do not appear as one but as having something like isthmuses between them, the brilliance dividing and delimiting the shadow. Hence, since each part is separated and has its own boundary, the layers of light upon shadow,² assuming the semblance of height and depth, have produced a very close likeness of eyes and lips. Therefore, one must assume the existence of several outer oceans separated by isthmuses and mainlands, which is absurd and false; or, if the ocean is single, it is not plausible that its reflected image be thus discontinuous. Tell me whether for in your presence it is safer to put this as a question than as an assertion whether it is possible, though the inhabited world has length and breadth, that every visual ray when reflected from the moon should in like manner reach the ocean, even the visual rays of those who are sailing in the great ocean itself, yes and who dwell in it as the Britons do, and that too even though the earth, as you say,³ does not have the relation of centre to the orbit of the moon. Well, this, I said, it is your business to consider; but the reflection of vision either in respect to the moon or (in general) is beyond your province and that of Hipparchus too.⁴ Although Hipparchus was industrious, still many find him unsatisfactory in his explanation of the nature of vision itself, (which) is more likely to involve a sympathetic compound and fusion⁵ than any impacts and rebounds such as those of the atoms that Epicurus invented.⁶ Moreover, Clearchus, I think, would refuse to assume with us that the moon is a body of weight and solidity instead of an ethereal and luminiferous star as you say⁷; (and) such a moon ought to shatter and divert the visual ray so that reflection would be out of the question. But if anyone dismisses our objections, we shall ask how it is that the reflection of the ocean exists as a face only in the moon and is seen in none of all the many other stars, although reason requires that all or none of them should affect the visual ray in this fashion. But [let us have done with this; and do you]], I said with a glance at Lucius, recall to me what part of our position was stated first.

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.) — 4 focus

[4] ἡσθεὶς οὖν ὁ Ἀπολλωνίδης ὡς ἴδιον εἶπε καὶ καινὸν ὅλως τὸ σκευώρημα τῆς δόξης, τόλμαν 10 δέ τινα καὶ μοῦσαν ἔχοντος ἀνδρός· ἀλλὰ πῆ τὸν ἔλεγχον αὐτῷ προσῆγε; πρῶτον μέν εἶπον ᾗ μία φύσις τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης ἐστί, σύρρουν καὶ συνεχὲς πέλαγος, ἡ δʼ ἔμφασις οὐ μία τῶν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μελασμάτων, ἀλλʼ οἷον ἰσθμοὺς ἔχουσα, τοῦ λαμπροῦ 15 921c διαιροῦντος καὶ διορίζοντος τὸ, σκιερόν· ὅθεν ἑκάστου τόπου χωρισθέντος καὶ πέρας ἴδιον ἔχοντος, αἱ τῶν φωτεινῶν ἐπιβολαὶ τοῖς σκοτεινοῖς ὕψους εἰκόνα καὶ βάθους λαμβάνουσαι τὰς περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ χείλη εἰκόνας φαινομένας ὁμοιότατα διετύπωσαν 20 ὥστʼ ἢ πλείονας ἔξω θαλάσσας ὑποληπτέον ἰσθμοῖς τισι καὶ ἠπείροις ἀπολαμβανομένας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον καὶ ψεῦδος, ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης, οὐ πιθανὸν εἰκόνα διεσπασμένην οὕτως ἐμφαίνεσθαι. ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἐρωτᾶν ἀσφαλέστερόν ἐστιν ἢ ἀποφαίνεσθαι σοῦ παρόντος, εἰ, τῆς οἰκουμένης εὖρος ἴσης καὶ μῆκος, ἐνδέχεται πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης 921d ὄψιν ἀνακλωμένην ἐπιθιγγάνειν τῆς θαλάσσης 5 καὶ τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ μεγάλῃ θαλάττῃ πλέουσι νὴ Δία καὶ οἰκοῦσιν, ὥσπερ Βρεττανοῖς, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲ τῆς γῆς, ὥς φατε, πρὸς τὴν σφαῖραν τῆς σελήνης κέντρου λόγον ἐπεχούσης. τουτὶ μὲν οὖν ἔφην σὸν ἔργον ἐπισκοπεῖν· τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν σελήνην τῆς 10 ὄψεως κλάσιν οὐκέτι σὸν οὐδʼ Ἱππάρχου· καίτοι γε, φίλε πρίαμ ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς οὐκ ἀρέσκει φυσιολογῶν περὶ τῆς ὄψεως, αὐτὴν ὁμοπαθῆ κρᾶσιν ἴσχειν 921e καὶ σύμπηξιν εἰκός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ πληγάς τινας καὶ ἀποπηδήσεις, οἵας ἔπλαττε τῶν ἀτόμων Ἐπίκουρος. 15 οὐκ ἐθελήσει δέ, οἶμαι, τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στερεὸν ὑμῖν ὁ Κλέαρχος, ἀλλʼ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον, ὡς φατε· τοιαύτῃ δὲ τὴν ὄψιν θραύειν προσήκει καὶ ἀποστρέφειν, ὥστʼ οἴχεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. εἰ δὲ προσδεῖταί τις ἡμᾶς, ἐρησόμεθα πῶς μόνον πρόσωπόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔσοπτρον, ἄλλῳ δʼ οὐδενὶ τῶν τοσούτων ἀστέρων ἐνορᾶται · καίτοι τὸ γʼ εἰκὸς ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἢ πρὸς μηδένα τοῦτο πάσχειν 5 τὴν ὄψιν. ἀλλʼ πρὸς τὸν Λεύκιον ἔφην ἀποβλέψας,· 921f ὃ πρῶτον ἐλέχθη τῶν ἡμετέρων ὑπόμνησον.

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.) — 4 focus

[4] Apollonides therefore, being delighted with this, said. A singular opinion indeed is this of his, and (to speak in a word) strangely and newly invented by a man sufficiently presumptuous, but not void of learning and wit. But how, I pray, was it refuted?

First, said I, the superficies of the sea is all of a nature, the current of it being uniform and continuous; but the appearance of those black and dark spots which are seen in the face of the moon is not continued, but has certain isthmuses or partitions clear and bright, which divide and separate what is dark and shady. Whence every place being distinguished and having its own limits apart, the conjunctions of the clear with the obscure, taking a resemblance of high and low, express and represent the similitude of a figure seeming to have eyes and lips; so that we must of necessity suppose, either that there are main oceans and main seas, distinguished by isthmuses and continents of firm land, which is evidently absurd and false; or that if there is but one, it is not credible its image should appear so distracted and dissipated into pieces. And as for this, there is less danger in asking than in affirming in your presence, whether, since the habitable earth has both length and breadth, it is possible that the sight of all men, when it is reflected by the moon, should equally touch the ocean, even of those that sail and dwell in it, as do the Britons; especially since the earth, as you have maintained, has but the proportion of a point, if compared to the sphere of the moon. This therefore, said I, it is your business to observe, but the reflection of the sight against the moon belongs neither to you nor Hipparchus. And yet, my friend Lamprias, there are many naturalists, who approve not this doctrine of his touching the driving back of the sight, but affirm it to be more probable that it has a certain obedient and agreeing temperature and compactness of structure, than such beatings and repercussions as Epicurus feigned for his atoms.¹ Nor am I of opinion that Clearchus would have us suppose the moon to be a massy and weighty body, but a celestial and light-giving star, as you say it is, which must have the property of breaking and turning aside the sight; so that all this reflection would come to nothing. But if we are desired to receive and admit it, we shall ask why this face or image of the sea is to be seen only in the body of the moon; and not in any of the other stars? For the laws of probability require that the sight should suffer this equally in all, or else in none.

But pray, sir, said I, casting mine eyes upon Lucius, call a little to mind what was said at first by those of our party.

Notes on the current edition

Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb Of the Moon

1. cf. Strabo, i. 1. 8 (i, p. 6. 4-7 [Meineke]).

2. The language is that of painting; cf. Lucian, Zeuxis, 5: τῶν χρωμάτων ἀκριβῆ τὴν κρᾶσιν καὶ εὔνκαφον τὴν ἐπιβολὴν ποιήσασθαι.

3. i.e. you mathematicians; see oἴεσθ’ ὑμεῖς in 921 A supra. The reference is to the eccentrics of Hipparchus’s theory of the motion of the moon. For defence of the text and a detailed interpretation of this sentence cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), pp. 137-138.

4. Because Hipparchus was a mathematician and not a physicist ( φυσιολόγος); on the difference cf. Geminus in Simplicius, Phys. pp. 291. 23-292. 29, and the phrase, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐφωδιάσθαι ἀπὸ φυσιολογίας, which Theon of Smyrna (p. 188. 19-20) uses of Hipparchus.

5. Plato’s theory; cf. Timaeus, 45 C and Placitis, 901 B- C = Aëtius, iv. 13. 11 ( Dox. Graeci, p. 404).

6. cf. Adv. Coloten, 1112 C and Placitis, 901 A - B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 1 ( Dox. Graeci, p. 403. 2-4). The present passage seems to imply that Hipparchus’s explanation of vision resembled that of Epicurus. In Placitis, 901 B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 9 ( Dox. Graeci, p. 404) a theory of vision is attributed to Hipparchus, however, which does not at all resemble that of the atomists; but the name Hipparchus there is probably a mistake, cf. Class. Phil. xlvi (1951), p. 154, n. 6.

7. Lamprias addresses Apollonides and Aristotle, for that the moon is an ethereal and luminiferous star is the Peripatetic theory ( cf. the statement of Aristotle at 928 E s.v. and the references in the note there) and that is why it is ascribed to Clearchus. Obviously then ὑμῖν of the MSS. must be an error and should be changed to ἡμῖν, for that the moon is a body with weight and solidity is the opinion of the Academy, i.e. of Lamprias, Lucius, and their circle ( cf. 926 C, 928 C, 931 B - C s.v.).

Plutarch De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet 4

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

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

Current edition Perseus

Notes on the current edition

Stable identifiers