When all had applauded Lucius, I said: Congratulations upon having added to an elegant account an elegant proportion, for you must not be defrauded of what belongs to you, He smiled thereat and said: Well then proportion must be used a second time, in order that we may prove the moon to be like the earth not only because the effects of the same agent are the same on both but also because the effects of both on the same patient are the same. Now, grant me that nothing that happens to the sun is so like its setting as a solar eclipse. You will if you call to mind this conjunction recently which, beginning just after noonday, made many stars shine out from many parts of the skyConcerning this eclipse see the Introduction, § 3 supra on the date of the dialogue. and tempered the air in the manner of twilight.For λυκανγές see 941 D s.v. and Lucian, ii, 12. Prickard takes the κρᾶσις to refer to the degree of heat; Raingeard, like Amyot and Wyttenbach, takes it to refer to colour or light. Either is possible, but I think a reference to colour the more probable; for κρᾶσις used of colour cf. 647 c. If you do not recall it, Theon here will cite us Mimnermuscf., ed. Diehl², i. 1, pp. 50-57, and Edmonds, , i, pp. 82-103; Mimnermus is mentioned in the pseudo-Plutarchean , chap. 8, 1133 f. and Cydiascf. Plato, , 155 d; Edmonds, , iii, p. 68; Wilamowitz, , p. 40, n. 1. and Archilochuscf. Archilochus, frag. 74 (, ed. Diehl², i. 3, p. 33 = Edmonds, , ii, p. 134). and Stesichorus besides and Pindar,cf. Pliny, ii. 12, § 54: quo in metu fuisse Stesichori et Pindari vatum sublimia ora palam est deliquio solis. who during eclipses bewail the brightest star bereft = Pindar, Paean, ix. 2-3: ἄστρον ὑπέρτατον ἐν ἁμέρᾳ κλεπτόμενον. and at midday night falling Possibly Stesichorus, cf. Bergk, , iii, p. 229 (frag. 73), and Edmonds, , i, p. 102, n. 1. and say that the beam of the sun [is sped] the path of shade cf. Pindar, Paean, ix. 5: ἐτίσκοτον ἀτραπὸν ἐσσυμένα. For the genitive σκότους cf. , 36 E, and , 1130 B.; and to crown all he will cite Homer, who says the faces of men are covered with night and gloomAdapted from , xx. 351-352. and the sun has perished out of heaven, xx. 356-357. speaking with reference to the moon and [hinting that] this naturally occurs When waning month to waxing month gives say., xix. 307. For this interpretation of the Homeric lines cf., chap. 108 (vii, p. 388. 15 ff. [Bernardakis]), and Heraclitus, , § 75 (pp. 98. 20-99. 18 [Oelmann]). For the rest, I think that it has been reduced by the precision of mathematics to the [clear] and certain [formula] that night is the shadow of earthcf., 953 A and 1006 F, where on , 40 C Plutarch quotes Empedocles to this effect. Aristotle refers to the definition, , 146 B 28 and , 345 B 7-8. and the eclipse of the sun is the shadow of the mooncf. the lines of Empedocles quoted at 929 c-d supra. In , 890 F = Aëtius, ii. 24. 1 this explanation of solar eclipses is ascribed to Thales — quite unhistorically, as the subsequent entries show. whenever the visual ray encounters it. The fact is that in setting the sun is screened from our vision by the earth and in eclipse by the moon; both are cases of occultation, but the vespertine is occultation by the earth and the ecliptic by the moon with her shadow intercepting the visual ray.cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 94-95 (p. 172. 6-10 [Ziegler]) and ii. 4. 106 (p. 192. 16-24); Geminus, x (pp. 130. 11-132. 12 [Manitius]). What follows from this is easy to perceive. If the effect is similar, the agents are similar, for it must be the same agents that cause the same things to happen to the same subject. Nor should we marvel if the darkness of eclipses is not so deep or so oppressive of the air as night is. The reason is that the body which produces night and that which produces the eclipse while the same in substance are not equal in size. In fact the Egyptians, I think, say that the moon is one seventy-second part (of the earth),I know of no other reference to such an estimate. and Anaxagoras that it is the size of the PeloponnesusAccording to Hippolytus, i. 8. 6-10 ( = , p. 562 = Anaxagoras, frag. A 42 [ii, p. 16. 16-31, Diels-Kranz]), Anaxagoras said that the sun exceeds the Peloponnesus in size (cf. Aëtius, ii. 21. 3 and Diogenes Laertius, ii. 8). The statement here concerning the moon is missing from Diels-Kranz.; and Aristarchus demonstrates that the ratio of [the earth’s diameter to] the diameter of the moon is smaller than 60 to 19 and greater than 108 to 43.This is Proposition 17 of Aristarchus’s essay, On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon (cf. Heath’s edition and translation in his , pp. 351 ff.). Although Plutarch does not say that this contradicts Stoic doctrine, the older, orthodox Stoics held that the moon as well as the sun is larger than the earth (, 891 C = Aëtius, ii. 26. 1 = ii, frag. 666; cf. Pliny, ii. 11 [8]. 49). Consequently the earth because of its size removes the sun from sight entirely, for the obstruction is large and its duration is that of the night. Even if the moon, however, does sometimes cover the sun entirely, the eclipse does not have duration or extension; but a kind of light is visible about the rim which keeps the shadow from being profound and absolute.cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 105 (p. 190. 17-26). The ancient Aristotle gives this as a reason besides some others why the moon is observed in eclipse more frequently than the sun, saying that the sun is eclipsed by interposition of the moon but the moon [by that of the earth, which is much larger].= Aristotle, frag. 210 (Rose). The reference is not to , 293 B 20-25, for in that passage Aristotle gives not his own opinion but that of some Pythagoreans (cf. Cherniss, , pp. 198-199, and Aëtius, ii. 29. 4 cited there). For the terminology σελήνης or γῆς ἀντίφραξις cf. Aristotle, 90 a 15-18, and with the whole passage cf. Pseudo-Alexander, 2. 46 (quoted by Rose, , § 194, p. 222), and Philoponus, p. 15. 21-23. Posidonius gave this definition: The following condition is an eclipse of the sun, conjunction of the moon’s shadow with whatever [parts of the earth it may obscure], for there is an eclipse only for those whose visual ray the shadow of the moon intercepts and screens from the suncf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 94-95 (p. 172. 6-17 [Ziegler]) and 98 (p. 178. 13-24), ii. 4. 106 (p. 192. 14-20).; — since he concedes then that a shadow of the moon falls upon us, he has left himself nothing to say that I can see. Of a star there can be no shadow, for shadow means the unlighted and light does not produce shadow but naturally destroys it.Posidonius ranked the moon as a star; cf. Arius Didymus, , frag. 32 (, p. 466. 18-21), and Edelstein, lvii (1936), p. 297. For the theory that the light of the moon is a product of her own proper light and the solar light which produces an alteration in her cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4.101 (pp. 182. 20-184. 3 [Ziegler]) and 104 (p. 188. 5-27), the latter of which indicates how the present contention of Plutarch could have been answered from the point of view of Posidonius.

Well now, he said, which of the proofs came after this? And I replied, That the moon is subject to the same eclipse. Thank you, he said, for reminding me; but now shall I assume that you have been persuaded and do hold the moon to be eclipsed by being caught in the shadow and so turn straightway to my argument,The argument that the moon is earthy, which at the beginning of chap. 19 (931 D) Lucius stated in the form of a proportion. or do you prefer that I give you a lecture and demonstration in which each of the arguments is enumerated? By heaven, said Theon, do give these gentlemen a lecture. As for me, I want some persuasion as well, since I have only heard it put this way: when the three bodies, earth and sun and moon, get into a straight line, eclipses take place because the earth deprives the moon or the moon, on the other hand, deprives the earth of the sun, the sun being eclipsed when the moon and the moon when the earth takes the middle position of the three, the former of which cases occurs at conjunction and the latter at the middle of the month. cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 115 (p. 208. 9-12 [Ziegler]) for the eclipse of the moon and ii. 4. 106 (p. 192, 14-20) for the eclipse of the sun; cf. also Theon of Smyrna, p. 193. 23 ff, and p. 197. 22 ff. (Hiller); Geminus, viii. 14 (p. 104. 23 ff. [Manitius]). Whereupon Lucius said, Those are roughly the main points, though, of what is said on the subject. Add thereto first, if you will, the argument from the shape of the shadow. It is a cone, as is natural when a large fire or light that is spherical circumfuses a smaller but spherical mass.See notes a and b on 923 B supra. This is the reason why in eclipses of the moon the darkened parts are outlined against the bright in segments that are curved,cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 118 (p. 214. 2-12 [Ziegler]); Aristotle, , 297 B 23-30. for whenever two round bodies come into contact the lines by which either intersects the other turn out to be circular since they have everywhere a uniform tendency.i.e. the intersecting lines are always arcs of a circle because the degree of curvature of each of the two surfaces is at every point similar. For this interpretation cf xlvi (1951), p. 144. Secondly, I think that you are aware that of the moon the eastward parts are first eclipsed and of the sun the westward parts and that, while the shadow of the earth moves from east to west, the sun and the moon move contrariwise towards the east.cf. xlvi (1951), p. 144; Cleomedes, ii. 6. 116 (p. 210. 6-19 [Ziegler]), 117 (p. 212. 1-12) on the lunar eclipse; ii. 5. 113-114 (p. 204. 27 ff.) on the solar eclipse; Geminus, xii. 5-13 (pp. 138-140 [Manitius]) on the eastward motion of sun and moon. This is made visible to sense-perception by the phenomena and needs no very lengthy explanations to be understood, and these phenomena confirm the cause of the eclipse. Since the sun is eclipsed by being overtaken and the moon by encountering that which produces the eclipse, it is reasonable or rather it is necessary that the sun be caught first from behind and the moon from the front, for the obstruction begins from that point which the intercepting body first assails. The sun is assailed from the west by the moon that is striving after him, and she is assailed from the east [by the earth’s shadow] that is sweeping down as it were in the opposite direction. Thirdly, moreover, consider the matter of the duration and the magnitude of lunar eclipses. If the moon is eclipsed when she is high and far from the earth, she is concealed for a little time; but, if this very thing happens to her when she is low and near the earth, she is strongly curbed and is slow to get out of the shadow, although when she is low her exertions of motion are greatest and when she is high they are least. The reason for the difference lies in the shadow, which being broadest at the base, as cones are, and gradually contracting terminates at the vertex in a sharp and fine tip. Consequently the moon, if she has met the shadow when she is low, is involved by it in its largest circlescf., 1080 B: αὐταὶ γάρ δήπουθεν αἱ τῶν κωνικῶν τμημάτων ἐπιφάνειαι. κύκλοι εἰσίν. and traverses its deep and darkest part; but above as it were in shallow water by reason of the fineness of the shadow she is just grazed and quickly gets clean away.cf. Cleomedes, ii. 6. 119 (pp. 214. 13-216. 8 [Ziegler]); for the observation that the planets appear to move most swiftly when they are nearest to the earth and most slowly when they are farthest away cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 112-114 (pp. 202. 26-206. 27), and Theon of Smyrna, p. 135. 6-11 and p. 157. 2-12 (Hiller). Plutarch’s language, however, implies that the moon makes a conscious exertion to accelerate her motion when she is near the earth, and in the myth at 944 A s.v. it is stated that she increases her speed in order to escape the shadow of the earth. Kepler in note 51 to his translation declares that, contrary to what Lucius here says, perigee eclipses even when central are briefer than apogee eclipses; and Prickard ( [1911], p. 11) says that ceteris paribus an eclipse of a distant moon should be longer by about one fifteenth. Prof. Neugebauer informs me that, using the Ptolemaic figures for the apparent diameter of the moon and of the earth’s shadowand the classical figures given by Geminus for the velocity, the maximum totality in apogee should be 4; 3, 23ʰʳ and in perigee 3; 20, 0ʰʳ. I pass over all that was said besides with particular reference to the phases and variations,Probably a reference to such matters as are discussed by Geminus, ix (pp, 124-130 [Manitius]), With τὰς φάσεις καὶ διαφορήσεις cf. species diversitatesque Lunae, Martianus Capella, viii. 871 (p. 459. 15-16 [Dick]). for these too, in so far as is possible,It is impossible to give an exhaustive and accurately scientific explanation of physical phenomena, for they are involved in the indeterminateness of matter. cf. Aristotle, 87 a 31-37 and , 995 A 14-17, 1078 A 9-13 (cf. Zeller, , ii. 2, p. 166, n. 3); and for Plato’s more extreme attitude cf. especially , 29 B - C, , 56 and 59. Plutarch appears to have , 56 C in mind at 744 e-f, where he makes astronomy attendant upon geometry, as he has , 66 a-b in mind at 720 C (cf. R. M. Jones, vii [1912], pp. 76 f.). For the notion of the necessary lack of accuracy of the physical sciences cf. further 1001 E ff. and 699 B. admit the cause alleged; and instead I revert to the argument before uscf. note a on 932 D supra. which has its basis in the evidence of the senses. We see that from a shadowy place fire glows and shines forth more intensely,cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 99 (p. 180. 11-13 [Ziegler]) and ii. 6. 120-121 (p. 218. 2-3). whether because the dark air being dense does not admit its effluences and diffusions but confines and concentrates the substance in a single place or because this is an affection of our senses that as hot things appear to be hotter in comparison with cold and pleasures more intense in comparison with pains so bright things appear conspicuous when compared with dark, their appearance being intensified by contrast to the different impressions.cf. 57 C, , 863 E. The former explanation seems to be the more plausible, for in sunlight fire of every kind not only loses its brilliance but by giving way becomes ineffective and less keen, the reason being that the heat of the sun disperses and dissipates its potency.cf. Aristotle, , 305 A 9-13; [Alexander], , p. 128. 2-7 (Bruns), and the explanation of the moon’s phases ascribed to Antiphon in , 891 D = Aëtius, ii. 28. 4 (, p. 358). If, then, as the Stoics themselves assert,See 928 D supra with note d there and 935 B s.v.. Reference to the present passage is omitted in the moon, being a rather turbid star, has a faint and feeble fire of her own, she ought to have none of the things happen to her that now obviously do but the very opposite; she ought to be revealed when she is hidden and hidden whenever she is now revealed, that is hidden all the rest of the time when she is bedimmed by the circumambient etherαἰθήρ is here used in the Stoic sense as in 922 B and 928 c-d supra. but shining forth and becoming brilliantly clear at intervals of six months or again at intervals of five when she sinks under the shadow of the earth, since of 465 ecliptic full moons 404 occur in cycles of six months and the rest in cycles of five months.For this period of 465 ecliptic full moons cf. xlvi (1951), p. 145. It ought to have been at such intervals of time then that the moon is revealed resplendent in the shadow, whereas in the shadow she is eclipsed and loses her light but regains it again as soon as she escapes the shadowFor this argument cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (p. 182. 10-16 [Ziegler]). and is revealed often even by day, which implies that she is anything but a fiery and star-like body.

When Lucius said this, almost while [he was speaking] Pharnaces and Apollonides sprang forth together. Then, Apollonides having yielded, Pharnaces said that this very point above all proves the moon to be a star or fire, since she is not entirely invisible in her eclipses but displays a colour smouldering and grim which is peculiar to her.= ii, frag. 672. cf. Pliny, ii. 9. 42. (deficiens et in defectu tamen conspicua); Olympiodorus, p. 67. 36-37; Philoponus, pp. 30. 37-31. 1 and p. 106. 9-13. The moon is seldom invisible to the naked eye even in total eclipses (cf. Dyson and Woolley, , p. 30; C. A. Young, M [1902], § 287; Boll, s.v. Finsternisse, R. E. vi. 2344); and the apparent colour of the moon in total eclipse was as late as the 16th century adduced as evidence that the moon had light of its own, a notion entertained as possible even by W. Herschel (cf. Pixis, , pp. 132-133). Apollonides raised an objection concerning the shadow on the ground that scientists always give this name to the region that is without light and the heaven does not admit shadow.For a Stoic this follows from the definition of οὐρανός as ἔσχατον αἰθέρος and πύρινον (cf. S. V.F. i, p. 33, frags. 115 and 116; ii, frag. 580 [p. 180. 10-12]). This, I said, is the objection of one who speaks captiously to the name rather than like a natural scientist and mathematician to the fact. If one refuses to call the region screened by the earth shadow and insists upon calling it lightless space, nevertheless when the moon gets into it she must [be obscured since she is deprived of the solar light]. Speaking generally too, it is silly, I said, to deny that the shadow of the earth reaches that point [from which on its part] the shadow of the moon by impinging upon the sight and [extending] to the earth produces an eclipse of the sun. Now I shall turn to you, Pharnaces. That smouldering and glowing colour of the moon which you say is peculiar to her is characteristic of a body that is compact and a solid, for no remnant or trace of flame will remain in tenuous things nor is incandescence possible unless there is a hard body that has been ignited through and through and sustains the ignition.cf. 922 A-B supra. With ἀνθρακογένεσις, incandescence, Raingeard compares ἀνθρακοποιΐα in Gregory of Nyssa, iii. 937 A. So Homer too has somewhere said: But when fire’s bloom had flown and flame had ceased He smoothed the embers. . ., ix. 212-213 in our texts read: αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ πῦρ ἐκάη καὶ φλὸξ ἐμαράνθη, ἀνθρακιὴν στορέσας ὀβελοὺς ἐφύπερθε τάνυσσε, but the first line as Plutarch gives it was known to Aristarchus, who rejected it (cf. Ludwich, , i, p. 302; Eustathius, , 748. 41; , ed. Dindorf, i, p. 312). The reason probably is that what is igneousPurser has pointed out (, xvi [1911], p. 316) that ἄνθραξ may mean all degrees of burning coal from complete incandescence to ashes and that fire’s need of solid matter to work upon was often used as an argument against the Stoic conflagration of the world: cf. Philo, , §§ 86-88 (vi, pp. 99. 14-100. 10 [Cohn-Reiter]). is not fire but body that has been ignited and subjected to the action of fire, which adheres to a solid and stable mass and continues to occupy itself with it, whereas flames are the kindling and flux of tenuous nourishment or matter which because of its feebleness is swiftly dissolved. Consequently there would be no other proof of the moons earthy and compact nature so manifest as the smouldering colour, if it really were her own. But it is not so, my dear Pharnaces, for as she is eclipsed she exhibits many changes of colour which scientists have distinguished as follows, delimiting them according to time or hour.cf., 17 (264 B), , 23 (538 E) and for a description and explanation of the phenomenon cf. Sir John Herschel, , §§ 421-424, and J. F. J. Schmidt, (Leipzig, 1836), p. 35. Astrology assigned special significance to the various colours of the moon in total eclipse: cf. , vii (Brussels, 1908), p. 131. 6 ff.; Ptolemy, , ii. 14. 4-5 (pp. 101-102 [Boll-Boer]) and ii. 10. 1-2 (pp. 91-92); and Boll in vi. 2350 assumes that by μαθηματικοί in the present passage Plutarch means astrologers (but see 937 F s.v.). Neither there nor in his article, Antike Beobachtungen farbiger Sterne, does Boll mention any classification of the colours according to the time of the eclipse, however, nor does Gundel, s.v. Mond in R. E. xvi. 1. 101-102. Geminuss calendar for the different phases of the moon (ix. 14-15 [pp. 128-130, Manitius]) has no connection with this matter and so is not, as Adler supposes ( x, p. 157), an indication that Plutarchs source in the present passage was Posidonius. If the eclipse occurs between eventide and half after the third hour, she appears terribly black; if at midnight, then she gives off this reddish and fiery colour; from half after the seventh hour a blush arisesThis, pace Prickard, must be the meaning of ἀνίσταται here; cf. ἀνιστάμενος in , 34 (637 D) and ἀναστάντος in Appian, i. 56 (ii, p. 61. 7 [Mendelssohn-Viereck]). on her face; and finally, if she is eclipsed when dawn is already near, she takes on a bluish or azureIn , 11 (411 D) χαροπότης is used of the eye-colour of the Teutons and Cimbrians, and in , 352 D the colour of the flax-flower is said to resemble τῇ περιεχούσῃ τὸν κόσμον αἰθερίῳ χαροπότητι. hue, from which especially it is that the poets and Empedocles give her the epithet bright-eyed. See 929 D supra and note b there; but Diels (, xv [1880], p. 176) because of ἀνακαλοῦνται thought that Plutarch must here have had in mind a verse of Empedocles that ended with the invocation, γλαυκῶπι, Σελήνη. cf. also Euripides, frag. 1009 (Nauck²). Now, when one sees the moon take on so many hues in the shadow, it is a mistake to settle upon the smouldering colour alone, the very one that might especially be called alien to her and rather an admixture or remnant of the light shining round about through the shadow, while the black or earthy colour should be called her own.Kepler remarks on this sentence (note 56): Ecce Plutarchum meae sententiae proxime accedentem, nisi quod non dicit, a quo lucente sit illud lumen, num ab aethere, an a Sole ipso, per refractionem ejus radiorum. Since here on earth places near lakes and rivers open to the sun take on the colour and brilliance of the purple and red awnings that shade them, by reason of the reflections giving off many various effulgences, what wonder if a great flood of shade debouching as it were into a heavenly sea of light, not calm or at rest but undergoing all sorts of combinations and alterations as it is churned about by countless stars, takes from the moon at different times the stain of different hues and presents them to our sight?cf. the similar but more elaborate description in , 590 C ff., where the stars are islands moving in a celestial sea, and also , 563 E-F. A star or fire could not in shadow shine out black or glaucous or bluish; but over mountains, plains, and sea flit many kinds of colours from the sun, and blended with the shadows and mists his brillianceFor λαμπρόν, brilliance, as a colour cf. Plato, , 68 A; Theophrastus calls it τὸ πυρῶδες λευκόν (, § 86 [, p. 525. 23]). induces such tints as brilliance does when blended with a painter’s pigments. Those of the sea Homer has endeavoured somehow or other to designate, using the terms violet e.g. , xi. 298. and wine-dark deep e.g. , i. 350. and again purple swell e.g. , i. 481-482. and elsewhere glaucous sea Only in , xvi. 34 (cf. , ed. Dindorf, ii, p. 92). and white calm , x. 94.; but he passed over as being an endless multitude the variations of the colours that appear differently at different times about the land. It is likely, however, that the moon has not a single plane surface like the sea but closely resembles in constitution the earth that the ancient Socrates made the subject of a myth,Plato, , 110 B ff. whether he really was speaking in riddles about this earth or was giving a description of some other.This one, tau/thn, means the earth, not the moon, as most translators since Wyttenbach have thought; some other, ἄλλην τινά, means some other earth, which is exactly what Lamprias believes the moon to be. So Lamprias means that what Socrates said must be considered as a riddle if he was really talking about our earth but can be taken as straightforward description if he was referring to some other earth, i.e. the moon. It is in fact not incredible or wonderful that the moon, if she has nothing corrupted or slimy [in] her but garners pure light from heaven and is filled with warmth, which is fire not glowing or raging but moistOr, if νοτεροῦ is a scribal error for νοεροῦ, intellectual; cf. xlvi (1951), p. 145. and harmless and in its natural state, has got open regions of marvellous beauty and mountains flaming bright and has zones of royal purple with gold and silver not scattered in her depths but bursting forth in abundance on the plains or openly visible on the smooth heights.The details of this description were suggested by , 110 C 111 C, to which Plutarch has referred above. If through the shadow there comes to us a glimpse of these, different at different times because of some variation and difference of the atmosphere, the honourable repute of the moon is surely not impaired nor is her divinity because she is held by men to be a [celestial and] holy earth rather than, as the Stoics say, a fire turbid and dreggish.See 928 D and 933 D supra. The present passage is not listed in Fire, to be sure, is given barbaric honours among the Medes and Assyrians, who from fear by way of propitiation worship the maleficent forces rather than the reverend; but to every Greek, of course, the name of earth is dear and honourable, and it is our ancestral tradition to revere her like any other god. As men we are far from thinking that the moon, because she is a celestialSee note c on 929 A supra. earth, is a body without soul and mind and without share in the firstfruits that it beseems us to offer to the gods, according to custom requiting them for the goods we have received and naturally revering what is better and more honourable in virtue and power. Consequently let us not think it an offence to suppose that she is earth and that for this which appears to be her face, just as our earth has certain great gulfs, so that earth yawns with great depths and clefts which contain water or murky air; the interior of these the light of the sun does not plumb or even touch, but it fails and the reflection which it sends back here is discontinuous. For this discontinuousness of the reflection cf. 921 C supra and especially 686 a-c.

Here Apollonides broke in. Then by the moon herself, he said, do you people think it possible that any clefts and chasms cast shadows which from the moon reach our sight here; or do you not reckon the consequence, and shall I tell you what it is? Please listen then, though it is not anything unknown to you. The diameter of the moon measures twelve digits in apparent size at her mean distancecf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 95 (p. 172. 25-27 [Ziegler]); on this measurement of 12 digits cf. Heath, , p. 23, n. 1.; and each of the black and shadowy spots appears greater than half a digit and consequently would be greater than one twenty-fourth of her diameter. Well then, if we should suppose that the circumference of the moon is only thirty thousand stades and her diameter ten thousand each of the shadowy spots on her would in accordance with the assumption measure not less than five hundred stades.Apodonides exaggerates for the sake of his point, for 500 stades is 1/20 not 1/24 of 10,000: but he has guarded himself by saying that each of the spots is more than half a digit and so more than 1/24 of the diameter. On the other hand, he intends his estimate of the moon’s size to err, if at all, on the side of conservatism: cf. only thirty thousand stades. Such small figures, even as minima, are remarkable, however. Cleomedes (ii. 1. 80-81 [pp. 146. 25-148. 3, Ziegler]) gives 40,000 stades as the lunar diameter, basing this upon the assumption that the earth is twice as large as the moon and has a circumference of 250,000 stades according to the measurement of Eratosthenes and a diameter therefore of more than 80,000 stades. Plutarch adopted the same figure for the terrestrial diameter (see 925 D supra) but supposed this and the terrestrial circumference to be three times those of the moon (see 923 B supra and note d there), figures which should have given him more than 26,000 stades as the lunar diameter. According to Hultsch, however, Posidonius must have calculated the lunar diameter to be 12,000 stades (cf. , Phil.-Hist. Kl., N.F. i, No. 5, p. 38), which by the usual approximation would have given 36,000 stades for the lunar circumference; and Apollonides minimal estimate may have been based upon these figures. For the common rough approximation 3-1 as the relation of circumference to diameter cf. Archimedes, , ii. 3 (, ii, p. 234. 28-29 [Heiberg]). Consider now in the first place whether it is possible for the moon to have depths and corrugations so great as to cast such a large shadow; in the second place why, if they are of such great magnitude, we do not see them. Then I said to him with a smile: Congratulations for having discovered such a demonstration. Apollonides. It would enable you to prove that both you and I are taller than the famous sons of Aloeus,Otus and Ephialtes: cf. , 602 d; , v. 385-387; , xi. 305-320; Apollodorus, , i. 7. 4. 2-4. not at every time of day to be sure but early in the morning particularly and in late afternoon, if, when the sun makes our shadows enormous. you intend to supply sensation with this lovely reasoning that, if the shadow cast is large, what casts the shadow is immense. I am well aware that neither of us has been in Lemnos; we have both, however, often heard this line that is on everyone’s lips: Athos will veil the Lemnian heifer’s flank.The verse, which comes from an unidentified tragedy of Sophocles, is elsewhere quoted with καλύπτει or σκιάζει and with πλευρά or νῶτα (cf. Nauck, , p. 299, frag. 708). For the shadow of Athos cast upon Lemnos cf. Pliny, iv. 12 (23). 73; Apollonius Rhodius, i. 601-604; Proclus, , 56 B (i, p. 181. 12 ff. [Diehl]). The point of this apparently is that the shadow of the mountain, extending not less than seven hundred stades over the sea,Proclus (loc. cit.) says that this is the distance of Lemnos from Athos, Plutarch rather that it is the length of the shadow cast by the mountain. According to Eustathius (, 980. 45 ff.), Athos is 300 stades distant from Lemnos, according to Pliny (loc. cit.) 87 Roman miles (unless this is a scribal error for XXXXVII). The actual distance is said to be about 50 miles; and Athos, which is 6350 feet high, could cast a shadow for almost 100 miles over open sea. falls upon a little bronze heifer; [but it is not necessary, I presume,] that what casts the shadow be [seven hundred stades] high, for the reason that shadows are made many times the size of the objects that cast them by the remoteness of the light from the objects.In this Plutarch is guilty either of an error or of an intentional sophism; cf. xlvi (1951), p. 145. Come then, observe that, when the moon is at the full and because of the shadows depth exhibits most articulately the appearance of the face, the sun is at his maximum distance from her. The reason is that the remoteness of the light alone and not the magnitude of the irregularities on the surface of the moon has made the shadow large. Besides, even in the case of mountains the dazzling beams of the sun prevent their crags from being discerned in broad daylight, although their depths and hollows and shadowy parts are visible from afar. So it is not at all strange that in the case of the moon too it is not possible to discern accurately the reflection and illumination, whereas the juxtapositions of the shadowy and brilliant parts by reason of the contrast do not escape our sight.