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.

There is this, however, I said, which seems to be a stronger objection to the alleged reflection from the moon. It happens that those who have placed themselves in the path of reflected rays see not only the object illuminated but also what illuminates it. For example, if when a ray of light rebounds from water to a wall the eye is situated in the place that is itself illuminated by the reflection, the eye discerns all three things, the reflected ray and the water that causes the reflection and the sun itself,i.e. the image of the sun in the water or the reflecting surface. the source of the light which has been reflected by impinging upon the water. On the basis of these admitted and apparent facts those who maintain that the moon illuminates the earth with reflected light are bidden (by their adversaries)i.e. by the Stoics; cf. e.g. the argument of Cleomedes (ii. 4. 101-102 [p. 184. 4 ff., Ziegler]) against the explanation of the moon’s light as reflection. The following argument in this passage is printed by von Arnim, ii, p. 199 as frag. 675 of Chrysippus. to point out in the moon at night an appearance of the sun such as there is in water by day whenever there is a reflection of the sun from it. Since there is no such appearance, (these adversaries) think that the illumination comes about in another way and not by reflection and that, if there is not reflection, neither is the moon an earth. What response must be made to them then? said Apollonides, for the characteristics of reflection seem to present us with a problem in common. For the idiom, κοινὸν καὶ πρός τινα εἶναι, cf. Lucullus, 44 (521 A) and 45 (522 B). Apollonides is a geometer (cf. 920 F and 925 A-B supra) who had expressed admiration for Clearchuss theory of reflection from the moon (cf. 921 B supra); by καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς here he means that the objection just raised to reflection from the moon constitutes a difficulty for the theory which he has espoused as well as for that of Lamprias and Lucius which he has just attacked. Lamprias in his reply, however, contends that the physical characteristics of the moon on his theory, the very characteristics to which Apollonides has just objected (935 D-E), will explain why the objection does not really make the difficulty for his theory that it would for that of Clearchus. In common in a way certainly, said I, but in another way not in common either. In the first place consider the matter of the image,i.e. the reflected image, not the simile, as Amyot and Prickard interpret it. how topsy-turvy and like rivers flowing uphillFor the proverbial expression cf. Hesychius, s. v. ἄνω ποταμῶν; Euripides, , 410; Lucian, , 6. 2. they conceive it. The fact is that the water is on earth and below, and the moon above the earth and on high; and hence the angles produced by the reflected rays are the converse of each other, the one having its apex above at the moon, the other below at the earth.As Kepler says in his note 64 ad loc., ratio nihil ad rem. So they must not demand that every kind of mirror or a mirror at every distance produce a similar reflection, since (in doing so) they are at variance with the manifest facts. Those, on the other hand, who declare that the moon is not a tenuous or a smooth body as water is but a heavy and earthy one,i.e. those who hold the view of the moon’s nature that Lamprias himself espouses. I do not understand why it is required of them that the sun be manifest to vision in her. For milk does not return such mirrorings either or produce reflections of the visual ray, and the reason is the irregularity and roughness of its particlescf. 696 A; and observe that the phrase, ἀνωμαλία καὶ τραχύτης, used here of milk is in 930 D supra and 937 A s.v. applied to the moon.; how in the world the is it possible for the moon to cast the visual ray back from herself in the way that the smoother mirrors do? Yet even these, of course, are occluded if a scratch or speck of dirt or roughness covers the point from which the visual ray is naturally reflected, and while the mirrors themselves are seen they do not return the customary reflection.For the phenomenon referred to cf. [Ptolemy], , vi = Hero Alexandrinus, , ii. 1, p. 330. 4-22 (Nix-Schmidt). For τυφλόω meaning to deaden, muffle, occlude cf. , 434 c, 721 B, , 995 f. One who demands that the moon either reflect our vision from herself to the sun as well or else not reflect the sun from herself to us either is naive, for he is demanding that the eye be a sun, the vision light, and the human being a heaven. Since the light of the sun because of its intensity and brilliance arrives at the moon with a shock, it is reasonable that its reflection should reach to us; but the visual ray, since it is weak and tenuous and many times slighter, what wonder if it does not have an impact that produces recoil or if in rebounding it does not maintain its continuity but is dispersed and exhausted, not having light enough to keep it from being scattered about the irregularities and corrugations (of the moon)? From water, to be sure, and from mirrors of other kinds it is not impossible for the reflection (of the visual ray) to rebound to the sun, since it is still strong because it is near to its point of originPlutarch has to explain how the image of the sun can be seen in water and mirrors though it is not seen in the moon, and he does so by stressing the proximity of the former to the point of origin. This point of origin can only be our eyes, so that he must be thinking of the visual ray as reflected from water and mirrors to the sun and as failing to be reflected from the moon to the sun. The reading of the mss., ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον, is necessary to the argument and all suggestions for altering it are wrong.; but from the moon, even if the visual rays do in some cases glance off, they will be weak and dim and prematurely exhausted because of the magnitude of the distance.i.e. the distance from the eye to the reflecting surface of the moon. What is more too, whereas mirrors that are concave make the ray of light more intense after reflection than it was before so as often even to send off flames,For the concave burning-glass cf. [Euclid], Prop. 30 (Euclid, , vii, pp. 340-342 [Heiberg]) 154. convex and spherical mirrorsNot two kinds of mirrors, as Raingeard says ad. loc., but one, convex, i.e. convex spherical, for (1) spherical mirrors that are concave are the burning-glasses in the preceding category, and (2) convex mirrors that are not spherical would not provide the obvious analogy with the moon that is wanted. by not exerting counterpressure upon it from all points [give it off] weak and faint. You observe, I presume, whenever two rainbows appear, as one cloud encloses another, that the encompassing rainbow produces colours that are faint and indistinct. The reason for this is that the outer cloud, being situated further off from the eye, returns a reflection that is not intense or strong.On the double rainbow and the reason why the outer bow is less distinct cf. Aristotle, , 375 A 30-b 15. Aristotle’s explanation, which Plutarch here adopts, is attacked by Kepler in a long note on the present passage (note 70). Nay, what need of further arguments? When the light of the sun by being reflected from the moon loses all its heatSee note a on 929 E supra. and of its brilliance there barely reaches us a slight and feeble remnant, is it really possible that of the visual ray travelling the same double-courseThe moon is thought of as the καμπτήρ or turning-post in the stadium. The sun’s rays travel from sun to moon to eye, and the visual ray would have to travel the same course in reverse. any fraction of a remnant should from the moon arrive at the sun? For my part, I think not; and do you too, I said, consider this. If the visual ray were affected in the same way by water and by the moon, the full moon ought to show such reflections of the earth and plants and human beings and stars as all other mirrors do; but, if there occur no reflections of the visual ray to these objects either because of the weakness of the ray or the ruggedness of the moon, let us not require that there be such reflection to the sun either.

So we for our part, said I, have now reported as much of that conversationSee 921 f, 929 B, 929 F supra. as has not slipped our mind; and it is high time to summon Sulla or rather to demand his narrative as the agreed condition upon which he was admitted as a listener. So, if it is agreeable, let us stop our promenade and sit down upon the benches, that we may provide him with a settled audience. To this then they agreed; and, when we had sat down, Theon said: Though, as you know, Lamprias, I am as eager as any of you to hear what is going to be said, I should like before that to hear about the beings that are said to dwell on the moonIn , 892 A = Aëtius, ii. 30. 1 this notion is ascribed to the Pythagoreans (and in the version of Stobaeus specifically to Philolaüs). Diogenes Laertius, ii. 8 ascribes it to Anaxagoras — if on the basis of frag. B 4 (ii, p. 34. 5 ff. [Diels-Kranz]), wrongly; and Cicero’s ascription of it to Xenophanes ( II, xxxix. 123) is certainly an error (despite Lactantius, iii. 23. 12) but more probably due to confusion with Xenocrates than, as is usually said, a mistake for Anaxagoras (cf. J. S. Reid ad loc.; Diels-Kranz, , i, p. 125. 40; Diels, , p. 121, n. 1). The moon-dwellers became characters of scientific fiction at least as early as Herodorus of Heraclea (cf. Athenaeus, ii. 57 f). — not whether any really do inhabit it but whether habitation there is possible. If it is not possible, the assertion that the moon is an earth is itself absurd, for she would then appear to have come into existence vainly and to no purpose, neither bringing forth fruit nor providing for men of some kind an origin, an abode, and a means of life, the purposes for which this earth of ours came into being, as we say with Plato, our nurse, strict guardian and artificer of day and night. , 40 B-C. Though ἀτρεκῆ does not appear there, it is introduced into the passage by Plutarch at 938 E s.v. and at 1006 E, which indicates that he meant it as part of the quotation. Since there appears to be no other reference to the words τροφὸν ἡμετέραν in Plutarch’s extant works, one cannot be sure that τροφήν here is not his own misquotation rather than a scribal error. (The phrase, τροφαῖς ζῴων, in , 171 A is probably not part of the adaptation of the -passage there.) You see that there is much talk about these things both in jest and seriously. It is said that those who dwell under the moon have her suspended overhead like the stone of Tantaluscf. the sarcastic remarks of Lucius in 923 C supra. For the stone of Tantalus cf. , frag. x ( = Athenaeus, 281 B - C); Pindar, , i. 57-58 and , viii. 10-11: and i. 91 a, where reference is made to the interpretation that the stone which threatens Tantalus is the sun, this being his punishment for having declared that the sun is an incandescent mass (cf. also scholiast on Euripides, , 982-986). and on the other hand that those who dwell upon her, fast bound like so many IxionsFor the myth of Ixion on his wheel cf. Pindar, , ii. 21-48 and for Ixion used in a cosmological argument cf. Aristotle, , 284 A 34-35. by such great velocity, [are kept from falling by being whirled round in a circle]. Yet it is not with a single motion that she moves; but she is, as somewhere she is in fact called, the goddess of three ways,An epithet of Hecate (cf. Athenaeus, vii. 325 A) applied to the moon only after she had been identified with the moongoddess, after which her epithets had to be explained by reference to lunar phenomena. cf. e.g. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 111 (p. 202. 5-10 [Ziegler]) on τριπρόσωπος, and Cornutus, 34 (p. 72. 7-15 [Lang]) on τρίμορφος and τριοδῖτις. The etymology here put into Theons mouth had already been given by Varro in his , vii. 16. For the moon as Hecate cf. notes b on 942 D and g on 944 C s.v.. for she moves on the zodiac against the signs in longitude and latitude and in depth at the same time. Of these movements the mathematicians call the first revolution, the second spiral, and the third, I know not why, anomaly, although they see that she has no motion at all that is uniform and fixed by regular recurrences,For the text, terminology, and intention of these two sentences cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 146-147. There is reason to wonder then not that the velocity caused a lion to fall on the Peloponnesuscf. Epimenides, frag. B 2 (i, p. 32. 22 ff. [Diels-Kranz]); Anaxagoras, frag. A 77 (ii, p. 24. 25-26 and 28-30 [DielsKranz]). It may be that Anaxagoras referred to this legend in connection with his theory concerning the meteoric stone of Aegospotami, the fall of which he is said to have predicted (, 12 [439 D-F]; Diogenes Laertius, ii. 10; Pliny, ii. 58 [59], 149-150). Kepler (note 77) suggests that the story of the lion falling from the sky may have arisen from a confusion of λάων (gen. pl. of λᾶας) and λέων or, as Prickard puts it, between λᾶς and λίς. Diogenes Laertius (viii. 72) quotes Timaeus to the effect that Heraclides Ponticus spoke of the fall of a man from the moon, an incident which Voss after Hirzel refers to a dialogue of his that may have influenced Plutarch (Voss, , p. 61). but how it is that we are not forever seeing countless Men falling headlong and lives spurned away,Aeschylus, , 937; cf De Curiositate, 517 f, where also Plutarch gives βίων instead of Aeschylus’s βίου. tumbling off the moon, as it were, and turned head over heels. It is moreover ridiculous to raise the question how the inhabitants of the moon remain there, if they cannot come to be or exist. Now, when Egyptians and Troglodytes,i.e. Ethiopians: cf. Herodotus, iv. 183. 4; Strabo, ii. 5. 36 (c. 133). for whom the sun stands in the zenith one moment of one day at the solstice and then departs, are all but burnt to a cinder by the dryness of the atmosphere, is it really likely that the men on the moon endure twelve summers every year, the sun standing fixed vertically above them each month at the full moon? Yet winds and clouds and rains, without which plants can neither arise nor having arisen be preserved, because of the heat and tenuousness of the atmosphere cannot possibly be imagined as forming there, for not even here on earth do the lofty mountains admit fierce and contrary stormscf.Aristotle, , 340 B 36 341 A 4, 347 A 2935, and Alexander, p. 16. 6-15, where lines 10-11 guarantee and explain the ἐναντίους in Plutarch’s text. but the air, [being tenuous] already and having a rolling swellCf 939 E s.v. and 1005 E. as a result of its lightness, escapes this compaction and condensation. Otherwise, by Heaven, we shall have to say that, as Athena when Achilles was taking no food instilled into him some nectar and ambrosia,cf., xix. 340-356. so the moon, which is Athena in name and fact,See 922 A supra and note C there. nourishes her men by sending up ambrosia for them day by day, the food of [the] gods themselves as the ancient Pherecydes believes.= Pherecydes, frag. B 13 a (i, p. 51. 5-9 [Diels-Kranz]). For even the Indian root which according to Megasthenes the Mouthless Men, who [neither eat] nor drink, kindle and cause to smoulder and inhale for their nourishment,Megasthenes, frag. 34 ( ii, pp. 425-427 [Müller]); cf. Strabo, ii. 1. 9 (c. 70) and xv. 1. 57 (c. 711); Pliny, vii. 2. 25. Aristotle ( 445 A 16-17) mentions the belief of certain Pythagoreans that some animals are nourished by odours; cf. the story told of Democritus, frags. A 28 and 29 (ii, p. 89. 23 ff. [Diels-Kranz]), and Lucian on the Selenites ( i. 23), a passage which, however, looks like a parody of Herodotus, i. 202. 2. how could it be supposed to grow there if the moon is not moistened by rain ?

When Theon had so spoken, I said [Bravo], you have most excellently [smoothed our] brows by the sport of your speech, wherefore we have been inspired with boldness to reply, since we anticipate no very sharp or bitter scrutiny. It is, moreover, a fact that there really is [no] difference between those who in such matters are firm believers and those who are violently annoyed by them and firmly disbelieve and refuse to examine calmly what can be and what might be.Strictly, the potential and the contingent; but probably Plutarch meant his phrase here to imply only the possible in all its senses and intended no technical distinction between δυνατόν and ἐνδεχόμενο. Certainly one cannot ascribe to him the distinction drawn in the pseudo-Plutarchean , 570 E 571 E; n.b. that in , 1055 d-f he attacks the Chrysippean doctrine of δυνατόν. On δυνατόν and ἐνδεχόμενον as used by Aristotle cf. Ross, Aristotle’s , ii, p. 245 ad 1046 B 26, and Faust, , i, pp. 175 ff.; for the attitude of the Hellenistic philosophers, Faust, Op. cit. i, pp. 209 ff. So, for example, in the first place, if the moon is not inhabited by men, it is not necessary that she have come to be in vain and to no purpose, for we see that this earth of ours is not productive and inhabited throughout its whole extent either but only a small part of it is fruitful of animals and plants on the peaks, as it were, and peninsulas rising out of the deep, while of the rest some parts are desert and fruitless with winter-storms and summer-droughts and the most are sunk in the great sea. You, however, because of your constant fondness and admiration for Aristarchus, give no heed to the text that Crates read: Ocean, that is the universal source Of men and gods, spreads over most of earth.For the uninhabitability of the arctic and torrid zones cf. besides , 367 D Strabo, ii. 3. 1 (c. 96) and Cleomedes, i. 2. 12 (p. 22. 11-14 [Ziegler]); and for the connection of this theory with the notion that the greatest part of the outer ocean is in the torrid zone cf. Cleomedes, i. 6. 33 (p. 60. 21-24). This was not the opinion of Posidonius (Cleomedes, ibid, and i. 6. 31-32 [p. 58. 4-25]); it was the geography of Cleanthes, which Crates sought to impose upon Homer (cf. Geminus, xvi. 21 ff. [p. 172. 11 ff., Manitius]; Kroll, xi. 1637 s. v. Krates; Susemihl, , ii, pp. 5 ff.). Since the first line quoted by Plutarch is , xiv. 246 of our text of Homer (with ὠκεανοῦ instead of ὠκεανός) but the second line does not occur, the latter was probably an interpolation made by Crates to support his interpretation of Homer’s geography; for Crates textual alterations and for the controversy between him and Aristarchus cf. Susemihl, Op. cit. i, p. 457 and ii, p. 7, n. 33; Kroll, loc. cit. 1640; ChristSchmid-Stählin⁶, ii. 1, p. 210; Mette, pp. 60 ff. Yet it is by no means for nothing that these parts have come to be. The sea gives off gentle exhalations, and the most pleasant winds when summer is at its height are released and dispersed from the uninhabited and frozen region by the snows that are gradually melting there.cf. Theophrastus, , ii, § 11, and Aristotle, , 364 A 5-13. For ἡ ἀοίκητος without a noun = the uninhabited world cf. , 1115 a. A strict guardian and artificer of day and night has according to PlatoLamprias retorts upon Theon an adaptation of his own quotation of , 40 B - C; cf. 937 E supra and note c there. been stationed in the centre. Nothing then prevents the moon too, while destitute of living beings, from providing reflections for the light that is diffused about her and for the rays of the stars a point of confluence in herself and a blending whereby she digests the exhalations from the earth and at the same time slackens the excessive torridity and harshness of the sun.cf. 928 C supra. Moreover, conceding a point perhaps to ancient tradition also, we shall say that she was held to be Artemis on the ground that she is a virgin and sterile but is helpful and beneficial to other females.For moon = Artemis cf. 922 A supra and note b there; for the virgin goddess of childbirth cf. besides the references there Plato, , 149 B, and Cornutus, 34 (p. 73. 18 ff. [Lang]). In the second place, my dear Theon, nothing that has been said proves impossible the alleged inhabitation of the moon. As to the rotation, since it is very gentle and werene, it smooths the air and distributes it in settled order, so that there is no danger of falling and slipping off for those who stand there. And if it is not simple either,This refers to 937 F supra. For the use of ἁπλῆ simple in this context cf Cleomedes, i. 4. 19 (p. 34. 20 [Ziegler]) and Theon of Smyrna, p. 150. 21-23 (Hiller). even this complication and variation of the motion is not attributable to irregularity or confusion; but in them astronomers demonstrate a marvellous order and progression, making her revolve with circles that unroll about other circles, some assuming that she is herself motionless and others that she retrogresses smoothly and regularly with ever constant velocity,An example of the former hypothesis is Aristotle’s theory that each planet is fixed in a sphere revolving within counteracting spheres that cancel the special motions of the superior planet (cf. , 1073 B 38-1074 A 14 and , 289 B 30-290 A 7); an example of the latter is Plato’s theory of freely moving planets (cf. , 40 C-D, , 822 A-C; Cornford, , pp. 79-93). Theon of Smyrna (p. 175. 1-4 [Hiller]) observes that the difference between these two kinds of astronomical model is immaterial in saving the phenomena. On the whole passage cf. Eudemus in Theon of Smyrna, p. 200. 13 ff. (Hiller). for these superpositions of the circles and their rotations and relations to one another and to us combine most harmoniously to produce the apparent variations of her motion in altitude and the deviations in latitude at the same time as her revolutions in longitude.Norlind (, xxv [1927], pp. 275-277) argues from the terms used here and in 937 F supra that Plutarch has in mind the theory of epicycles which Hipparchus proposed for the moon and which is described by Ptolemy, , iv (i, pp. 265 ff. and especially pp. 301. 16-302, 11 [Heiberg]). The evidence of the terminology is not exact enough to make this thesis convincing (cf. xlvi [1951], pp. 146-147). As to the great heat and continual scorching of the sun, you will cease to fear it, if first of all you set the conjunctions over against the twelve summery full-moonscf. 938 A supra: twelve summers every year. and suppose that the continuousness of the change produces in the extremes, which do not last a long time, a suitable tempering and removes the excess from either. Between these then, as is likely, they have a season most nearly approaching spring. In the second place, upon us the sun sends, through air which is turbid and which exerts a concomitant pressure, heat that is nourished by the exhalations, whereas there the air being tenuous and translucent scatters and diffuses the sun’s light, which has no tinder or body to sustain it.For the pressure of the air and the ὑπέκκαυμα cf. Aristotle, , 341 B 6-25, and Alexander, p. 20. 11 ff. Praechter (, p. 109) refers to Seneca, iv b 10 in support of his thesis that the material in this chapter of the is from a Stoic source. The fruits of tree and field here in our region are nourished by rains; but elsewhere, as up in your homeLamprias is addressing Theon primarily; but Menelaus also was from Egypt, though we know only Alexandria as his residence. around Thebes and Syene, the land drinking water that springs from earth instead of rain-water and enjoying breezes and dewsTheophrastus ( viii. 6. 6) says that in Egypt, Babylon, and Bactria, where rain is absent or scarce, dews nourish the crops (cf. also iv. 3. 7). Plutarchs statement here that the water drunk by the land in Egypt is γηγενές may have been inspired by Platos remark in , 22 E 2-4; for the theory that the flood of Nile was caused by water springing from the earth cf. Oenopides, frag. 11 (i, p. 394. 39 ff. [Diels-Kranz]; cf. Seneca, iv a 2. 26) and the opinion mentioned without an author by Seneca, vi. 8. 3. Praechter (, p. 110) holds that Plutarch here reflects Posidonius’s theory as reconstructed by Oder (, Suppl. vii [1898], pp. 299 ff. and 312 f.). would refuse, I think, to adapt itselfFor this meaning of συμφέρεσθαί τινι cf. 79 A, , 461 A, , 960 E, , 15 (242 E), Wyttenbach’s (Leipzig, 1820), i, p. 461; the phrase cannot mean to be compared with, as it has been regularly translated here. to the fruitfulness that attends the most abundant rainfall, and that because of a certain excellence and temperament that it has. Plants of the same kind, which in our region if sharply nipped by winter bear good fruit in abundance, in Libya and in your home in Egypt are very sensitive to cold and afraid of winter.That the same species of plant varies with the nature of the soil, the atmosphere, and the cultivation is frequently stated by Theophrastus (cf. e.g. vi. 6. 3-5-8); cf. with ἐὰν σφόδρα τιεσθῇ χειμῶσιν in this passage Theophrastus, ii. 1. 2-4. And, while Gedrosia and Ethiopia which comes down to the ocean is barren and entirely treeless because of the aridity, in the adjacent and surrounding sea there grow and thrive down in the deep plants of great magnitude, some of which are called olives, some laurels, and some tresses of IsisOn these plants that grew in the sea cf. Theophrastus, iv. 7. 1 ff.; Eratosthenes in Strabo, xvi. 3. 6 (c. 766); Pliny, xiii. 25. 50-52 (140-142). In 911 F Plutarch refers to the plants that are said to grow in the Red Sea, but there he states that they are nurtured by the rivers which bring down mud and that these plants consequently grow only near to the shore.; and the plants here called love-restorers when lifted out of the earth and hung up not only live as long as you wish but sproutCf Pliny, xxiv. 17. 102 (167). [. . .]. Some plants are sown towards winter, and some at the height of summer as sesame and millet.cf. Theophrastus, viii. 1. 1 and 4; 2. 6; and 3. 2. Thyme or centaury, if sown in good, rich soil and wetted and watered, departs from its natural quality and loses its strength, whereas drought delights it and causes it to reach its proper staturecf. Theophrastus, iii. 1. 3-6.; and some plants, as they say, cannot stand even dew, as is true of the majority of Arabian plants, but are blighted and destroyed by being moistened.For the notion that dew injures some plants cf. possibly Theophrastus, vi. 18. 10; but he holds that desert vegetation is nourished by dew in default of rain ( iv. 3. 7 and viii. 6. 6). What wonder then if on the moon there grow roots and seeds and trees that have no need of rain nor yet of snow but are naturally adapted to a summery and rarefied air? And why is it unlikely that winds arise warmed by the moon and that breezes steadily accompany the rolling swell of her revolution and by scattering off and diffusing dews and light moisture suffice for the vegetation and that she herself is not fiery or dry in temperament but soft and humidifying? After all, no influence of dryness comes to us from her but much of moistness and femininityOf. , B, 202 (vii, p. 450. 14-20 [Bernardakis]); Aristotle, 582 A 34 b 3.: the growth of plants, the decay of meats, the souring and flattening of wine, the softening of timbers, the easy delivery of women.On the liquefying action of the moon and the passage in general cf. iii. 10 (657 F ff.); , 367 D; Cicero, , ii. 19. 50 (with Mayor’s note ad. loc.); Pliny, ii. 101 (223). On the growth of plants cf. also , 353 F and Athenaeus, iii. 74 C; on softening of timbers Theophrastus, v. 1. 3; on easy delivery ii, frag. 748. For further literature cf. Boll, (1926), pp. 122-125. Now that Pharnaces is quiet I am afraid of provoking and arousing him again if I cite, in the words of his own school, the flood-tides of Ocean and the swelling of the straits when they are increased and poured abroad by the liquefying action of the moon.= ii, frag. 679. cf. also Cicero, , ii. 34 (with Pease’s note ad loc.) and , ii. 7. 19; Seneca, i. 4; Cleomedes, ii. 1. 86 (p. 156. 15-16 [Ziegler]) and ii. 3. 98 (p. 178. 4-5); Strabo, iii. 5. 8 (cc. 173 f.) and i. 3. 11 (cc. 54-55). In , 897 B-C ( = Aëtius, iii. 17. 3 and 9) theories that the moon influences the tides are attributed to Pytheas and to Seleucus. Therefore I shall rather turn to you, my dear Theon, for when you expound these words of Alcman’s, [Such as] are nourished by Dew, daughter [of Zeus] and of [divine] Selene,Alcman, frag. 43 (Diehl) = 48 (Bergk⁴). In both 659 B and 918 A Plutarch quotes the line as an explanation of the origin of dew, cf. Macrobius, vii. 16. 31-32. you tell us that at this point he calls the air Zeus and says that it is liquefied by the moon and turns to dew-drops.cf.Vergil, , iii. 337; Roscher, , p. 50, n. 200. It is in fact probable, my friend, that the moon’s nature is contrary to that of the sun, if of herself she not only naturally softens and dissolves all that he condenses and dries but liquefies and cools even the heat that he casts upon her and imbues her with. They err then who believe the moon to be a fiery and glowing body; and those who demand that living beings there be equipped just as those here are for generation, nourishment, and livelihood seem blind to the diversities of nature, among which one can discover more and greater differences and dissimilarities between living beings than between them and inanimate objects.cf.Aristotle, 588 B 4 ff. and 681 A 12-15. Let there not be mouthless men nourished by odours who [Megasthenes] thinks [do exist]See 938 C supra and note d there. On the text and implication of this sentence cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 147-148.; yet the Hungerbane,For ἡ ἄλιμος cf. 157 D-F; [Plutarch], § 3 (vii, p. 51. 14 ff. [Bernardakis]); Pliny, xxii. 22 (73); Porphyry, § 34 and , iv. 20 (p. 266. 5 ff. [Nauck]); Plato, , 677 E (where the word ἄλιμος itself does not occur, however). the virtue of which he was himself trying to explain to us, Hesiod hinted at when he said Nor what great profit mallow has and squill, 41. and Epimenides made manifest in fact when he showed that with a very little fuel nature kindles and sustains the living creature, which needs no further nourishment if it gets as much as the size of an olive.cf. Epimenides, frag. A 5 (i, pp. 30-31 [Diels-Kranz]), where reference to this passage should be added. It is plausible that the men on the moon, if they do exist, are slight of body and capable of being nourished by whatever comes their way.cf.Aristotle, 761 B 21-23 for the suggestion that animate beings of a kind unknown to us may exist on the moon and [Philoponus], p. 160. 16-20 for a description of these creatures that do not eat or drink. After all, they say that the moon herself, like the sun which is an animate being of fire many times as large as the earth, is nourished by the moisture on the earth, as are the rest of the stars too, though they are countless; so light and frugal of requirements do they conceive the creatures to be that inhabit the upper region.= ii, frag. 677. cf. , 1053 A ( = ii, frag. 579); Aëtius, ii. 17. 4; Strabo, i. 1. 9 (c. 6); Cleomedes, i. 6. 33 (p. 60. 21-24 [Ziegler]). Plutarch, of course, uses Stoic doctrine here against the Stoics. We have no comprehension of these beings, however, nor of the fact that a different place and nature and temperature are suitable to them. Just as, assuming that we were unable to approach the sea or touch it but only had a view of it from afar and the information that it is bitter, unpotable, and salty water, if someone said that it supports in its depths many large animals of multifarious shapes and is full of beasts that use water for all the ends that we use air, his statements would seem to us like a tissue of myths and marvels, such appears to be our relation to the moon and our attitude towards her is apparently the same when we disbelieve that any men dwell there. Those men, I think, would be much more amazed at the earth, when they look out at the sediment and dregsZeno called earth ἰλύ and ὑποστάθμη ( i, frags. 104 and 105); but, since the end of this chapter appears to have been inspired by Plato’s , 109 B-D, the phrase here used was probably suggested to Plutarch by Plato’s use of ὑποστάθμη there (109 C 2). of the universe, as it were, obscurely visible in moisture, mists, and clouds as a lightless, low, and motionless spot, to think that it engenders and nourishes animate beings which partake of motion, breath, and warmth. If they should chance to hear somewhere these Homeric words, Dreadful and dank, which even gods abhor, xx. 65. and Deep under Hell as far as Earth from Heaven,, viii. 16. these they would say are simply a description of this place and Hell and Tartarus have been relegated hither while the moon alone is earth, since it is equally distant from those upper regions and these lower ones.

Almost before I had finished, Sulla broke in. Hold on, Lamprias, he said, and put to the wicket of your discoursecf., 965 B. lest you unwittingly run the myth aground, as it were, and confound my drama, which has a different setting and a different disposition. Well, I am but the actor of the piece, but first I shall say that its author began for our sake — if there be no objection with a quotation from HomerOn the text of this sentence cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 148-149.: An isle, Ogygia, lies far out at sea,, vii. 244. On the geographical introduction to the myth see the Introduction, § 5, and especially Hamilton, xxviii (1934), pp. 15-26, who points out the parallel between Plutarch’s geographical scheme and Plato’s location of Atlantis in , 24 E 25 A. a run of five days off from Britain as you sail westward; and three other islands equally distant from it and from one another lie out from it in the general direction of the summer sunset. In one of these, according to the tale told by the natives, Cronus is confined by Zeus, and the antique [Briareus], holding watch and ward over those islands and the sea that they call the Cronian main, has been settled close beside him.cf., 420 A and on the text xlvi (1951), p. 149. For Briareus as a guard set by Zeus over Cronus and the Titans cf. Hesiod, , 729-735 and Apollodorus, i. 7 ( = i. 2. 1). The pillars of Heracles are said to have had the older name Βριάρεω στῆλαι (cf. Aelian, v. 3 = Aristotle, frag. 678) and before that Κρόνου στῆλαι (cf. Charax, frag. 16 = iii, p. 640); cf. also Clearchus, frag. 56 ( ii, p. 320) and Parthenius, frag. 21 (Diehl) = frag. 31 (Martin). The great mainland, by which the great ocean is encircled,cf. 24 E 5 25 A 5. while not so far from the other islands, is about five thousand stades from Ogygia, the voyage being made by oar, for the main is slow to traverse and muddy as a result of the multitude of streams.Plutarch’s language really implies that the way is so long — not just that it takes a long time — because the sea is hard to traverses3 The streams are discharged by the great land-mass and produce alluvial deposits, thus giving density and earthiness to the sea, which has been thought actually to be congealed.cf. Strabo, i. 4. 2 (c. 63): ἥν (i.e. Θούλνἠ φησι Πυθέας ἐγγὺς εἶναι τῆς πεπηγυίας θαλάττης, and Pliny, iv. 16 (104): a Tyle unius diei navigatione mare concretum a nonnullis Cronium appellatur (n. b. that for Apollonius Rhodius [iv. 327, 509, 546] the Adriatic is the Cronian sea); cf. Tacitus, , § 10 and , § 45. Plutarch denies that the sea is really congealed as it is reputed to be and explains its nature in imitation of Plato (, 25 d 3-6, , 108 E 6 109 A 2); but, since he cannot adduce as the cause of the muddy shallows the settling of the island, Atlantis, under the sea, he falls back upon alluvial deposits from the rivers on the great continent, a notion familiar from many sources (cf. , 602 D with Thucydides, ii. 102. 6; Aristotle, , 351 B 28-32; Herodotus, ii. 10; Strabo, i. 2. 29-30 [cc. 36-37]). For the congealed sea cf. further K. Müllenhoff, , i (1890), pp. 410-425; E. Janssens, (1946), pp. 20-22; J. O. Thomson, , pp. 148-149, 241, and 54-55 (on Avienus, , 117-129). On the coast of the mainland Greeks dwell about a gulf which is not smaller than the MaeotisThe Sea of Azov, the size of which Herodotus had greatly exaggerated (iv. 86); Strabo reduced its perimeter to 9000 stades (ii. 5. 23 [c. 125]). and the mouth of which lies roughly on the same parallel as the mouth of the Caspian sea.The Caspian was thought to be a gulf of the outer ocean from the time of Alexander until Ptolemy corrected the error (, chap. 44; Strabo, xi. 6. 1 [c. 507]), though Herodotus (i. 202-203) and Aristotle (, 354 A 3-4) had known that it was connected with no other sea. These people consider and call themselves continentals [and the] inhabitants of this land [islanders] because the sea flows around it on all sides; and they believe that with the peoples of Cronus there mingled at a later time those who arrived in the train of Heracles and were left behind by him and that these latter so to speak rekindled again to a strong, high flame the Hellenic spark there which was already being quenched and overcome by the tongue, the laws, and the manners of the barbarians. Therefore Heracles has the highest honours and Cronus the second. Now when at intervals of thirty years the star of Cronus, which we call Splendent Φαίνων as the name of the planet Saturn occurs in , 1029 B (acc.: Φαίνωνα); Aëtius, ii. 15. 4 (where mss. vary between Φαίνωνα and Φαίνοντα, cf. Diels, , p. 344 ad loc.); [Aristotle], , 392 A 23 (Φαίνοντος); cf. Cicero, , ii. 20. 52. There is a similar variation in the mss. as between Στίλβοντ and Στίλβωνα (cf. Diels, , p. 345 on Aëtius, ii. 15. 4), though at 925 A supra the mss. of agree on Στίλβοντα. but they, our author said, call Nightwatchman, enters the sign of the Bull,Taurus is the sign of the moon’s exaltation (cf. Ptolemy, , i. 20 [p. 44. 2, Boll-Boer]; Porphyry, . 18), and it is for this reason that the expedition begins when Saturn enters this sign. For the thirty years cf. Aëtius, ii. 32. 1 (, p. 363); Cleomedes, i. 3. 16-17 (p. 30. 18-21 [Ziegler]); Cicero, , ii. 20, 52. they, having spent a long time in preparation for the sacrifice and the [expedition], choose by lot and send forth [a sufficient number of envoys] in a correspondingly sufficient number of ships, putting aboard a large retinue and the provisions necessary for men who are going to cross so much sea by oar and live such a long time in a foreign land. Now when they have put to sea the several voyagers meet with various fortunes as one might expect; but those who survive the voyage first put in at the outlying islands, which are inhabited by Greeks,These islands lie out westward or north-westward from Ogygia, cf. 941 A supra. It has not previously been said that they are inhabited by Greeks; in fact, 941 B seems to imply that Greeks live only on the mainland. and see the sun pass out of sight for less than an hour over a period of thirty days,I have tried to preserve the ambiguity of Plutarch’s language, though he probably meant to say less than an hour each day for thirty days (so Kepler understood, who thought that the reference was to Greenland). For the length of summer-days in Britain and in Thule cf. Cleomedes, i. 7. 37-38 (pp. 68. 6-70. 22 [Ziegler]) and Pytheas and Crates in Geminus, vi. 9-21 (pp. 70-76 [Manitius]). Pliny, iv. 16 (104) says that in Thule at the summer solstice there is no night at all, i.e. while the sun is in Cancer; but he adds here, what he had before (ii. 75 [186-187]) ascribed to Pytheas, that some think that in Thule there is a continuous day of six months duration. — and this is night, though it has a darkness that is slight and twilight glimmering from the west. There they spend ninety days regarded with honour and friendliness as holy men and so addressed, and then winds carry them across to their appointed goal.cf. xlvi (1951), p. 149 and note 91. Nor do any others inhabit it but themselves and those who have been dispatched before them, for, while those who have served the god together for the stint of thirty years are allowed to sail off home, most of them usually choose to settle in the spot, some out of habit and others because without toil or trouble they have all things in abundance while they constantly employ their time in sacrifices and celebrations or with various discourse and philosophy, for the nature of the island is marvellous as is the softness of the circumambient air. Some when they intend to sail away are even hindered by the divinity which presents itself to them as to intimates and friends not in dreams only or by means of omens, but many also come upon the visions and the voices of spirits manifest. For Cronus himself sleeps confined in a deep cave of rock that shines like gold — the sleep that Zeus has contrived as a bond for him —, and birds flying in over the summit of the rock bring ambrosia to him, and all the island is suffused with fragrance scattered from the rock as from a fountain; and those spirits mentioned before tend and serve Cronus, having been his comrades what time he ruled as king over gods and men. Many things they do foretell of themselves, for they are oracular; but the prophecies that are greatest and of the greatest matters they come down and report as dreams of Cronus, for all that Zeus premeditates Cronus sees in his dreamsFor the sleep of Cronus as his bonds and for the spirits who are his servitors cf. , 420 A. For the sleeping Cronus cf. also Kern, , frags. 149 and 155; in these Orphic or Neo-Platonic passages, however, Cronus prophesies, furnishes Zeus with plans, or thinks the world order before Zeus is aware of it (cf. Damascius, 305 v-306 r [ii, pp. 136. 19-137. 8, Ruelle] and Proclus, , p. 53. 29 ff. [Pasquali]), which is the opposite of what Plutarch’s words imply. Because of Tertullian, , 46. 10 (f. 156) J. H. Waszink (Tertullian, , p. 496) thinks it certain that the ultimate source of the story was one of Aristotle’s lost dialogues. Pohlenz ( xi. 2013. s.v. Kronos) supposes that Plutarchs source was Posidonius and that Posidonius was inspired by Nordic legends3 The feature of the birds that bring Cronus ambrosia appears to have been adapted from the story of Zeus’s nectar; cf. 156 F and , xii. 63-65. Besides J. H. Waszink (Tertullian, , p. 496) see the same author’s articles in , i (1947), pp. 137-149 (especially pp. 145-149) and in , ii (1950), pp. 639-653 (especially pp. 651-653). Waszink mistakenly believes that in Plutarch’s story special demons convey to Zeus [the thoughts that arise in Cronus’s dreams] who makes use of them for his government of the universe, and consequently he overlooks the important difference between Plutarch’s version and the Orphic passages that I have pointed out in this note. and the titanic affections and motions of his soul make him rigidly tense [until] sleep [restores] his repose once more and the royal and divine element is all by itself, pure and unalloyed.cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 149-150. Here then the strangerThis is the first mention of the stranger, unless he was referred to in the lost beginning of the dialogue. Hitherto he has merely been implied by the indirect discourse and τὸν ποιητήν in 941 A supra; cf. the reference in note c there. was conveyed, as he said, and while he served the god became at his leisure acquainted with astronomy, in which he made as much progress as one can by practising geometry, and with the rest of philosophy by dealing with so much of it as is possible for the natural philosopher.φιλοσοφίας χρώμενος is highly condensed; it must be construed: φιλοσοφίας δὲ πῆς ἄλλης ῾ἐμπειρίαν ἔσχἐ, χρώμενος ῾αὐτῇ ἐφ᾽ ὅσον̓ τῷ φυσικῷ ῾δυνατόν ἐστιν̓. For the distinction between ἀστρολογία and φυσική here referred to cf. Geminuss quotation of Posidonius in Simplicius, , pp. 291. 23-292. 9 (Diels). Since he had a strange desire and longing to observe the Great Island (for so, it seems, they call our part of the world), when the thirty years had elapsed, the relief-party having arrived from home, he saluted his friends and sailed away, lightly equipped for the rest but carrying a large viaticum in golden beakers. Well, all his experiences and all the men whom he visited, encountering sacred writings and being initiated in all rites — to recount all this as he reported it to us, relating it thoroughly and in detail, is not a task for a single day; but listen to so much as is pertinent to the present discussion. He spent a great deal of time in Carthage inasmuch as [Cronus] receives great [honour] in our country,For the special position of Cronus at Carthage cf. , 171 C, , 552 A; Diodorus, v. 66. 5. and he discovered certain sacred parchments that had been secretly spirited off to safety when the earlier city was being destroyed and had lain unnoticed in the ground for a long time.Nothing in the subsequent account supports the frequently expressed notion that the myth is supposed to have been discovered in these parchments, and 945 D s.v. expressly invalidates any such assumption. Among the visible godscf., 40 D (τὰ περὶ θεῶν ὁρατῶν), 41 A (ὅσοι περιπολοῦσιν φανερῶς θεοί); , 985 D (τοὺς ὄντως ἡμῖν φανεροὺς ὄντας θεούς). he said that one should especially honour the moon, and so he kept exhorting me to do, inasmuch as she is sovereign over life [and death], bordering as she does [upon the meads of Hades].

When I expressed surprise at this and asked for a clearer account, he saidHere Sulla begins to quote the stranger directly and continues his direct quotation to the end of the myth in 945 D.: Many assertions about the gods, Sulla, are current among the Greeks, but not all of them are right. So, for example, although they give the right names to Demeter and Cora, they are wrong in believing that both are together in the same region. The fact is that the former is in the region of earth and is sovereign over terrestrial things, and the latter is in the moon and mistress of lunar things. She has been called both Cora and Phersephone,For identification of Persephone and the moon cf. Epicharmus, frag. B 54 (i, p. 207. 9-11 [Diels-Kranz] = Ennius in Varro, , v. 68); Porphyry, 18; Iamblichus in John Laurentius Lydus, , iv. 149; Martianus Capella, ii. 161-162. Plutarch in , 372 D notices the identification of Isis and the moon and in 361 E that of Isis and Persephassa (cf. note c on 922 A supra for Athena). The Pythagoreans are said to have called the planets the hounds of Persephone (Porphyry, 41 = Aristotle, frag. 196; Clement, v. 50 [676 P, 244 S]); and Plutarch in , 416 E refers to some who call the moon χθονίας ὁμοῦ καὶ οὐρανίας κλῆρον Ἑκάτης (cf. , 368 E). cf. further, Roscher, , pp. 119 ff. the latter as being a bearer of lightcf. for the ancient etymologies of Φερσεφόνη Bräuninger, xix. 1. 946-947, and Roscher, , ii. 1288; there seems to be no ancient parallel to the one given here, to which Plutarch does not refer in , 377 D, where he mentions the etymology proposed by Cleanthes. In the to Persephone (xxix. 9 = , rec. E. Abel, p. 74. 9) the epithet, φαεσφόρος, is used of the goddess but not by way of etymology (cf. line 16); nor is she expressly identified with the moon, although she is called φαεσφόρος, ἀγλαόμορφε, εὐφεγγές, κερόεσσα. and Cora because that is what we call the part of the eye in which is reflected the likeness of him who looks into itcf.[Plato], , 133 A. The word κόρη means girl, maiden, for which reason it was used of such goddesses as Athena and Persephone, and also doll, whence like Latin pupilla it came to mean the pupil of the eye; cf. English the baby in the eye. as the light of the sun is seen in the moon. The tales told of the wandering and the quest of these goddesses contain the truth [spoken covertly],i.e. the wandering of Demeter in search of Persephone after the abduction of the latter by Hades: cf. e.g. the to Demeter and Apollodorus, , i. 5. In the myth, however, Demeter was the wanderer; but the earth, which she is here supposed to represent, is stationary. In the myth Persephone is in darkness when she is separated from her mother and with Hades, whereas Plutarch’s interpretation requires that Persephone, the moon, be in darkness and night when she is in the embrace of her mother, the earth. for they long for each other when they are apart and they often embrace in the shadow. The statement concerning Cora that now she is in the light of heaven and now in darkness and night is not false but has given rise to error in the computation of the time, for not throughout six months but every six months we see her being wrapped in shadow by the earth as it were by her mother, and infrequently we see this happen to her at intervals of five months,cf. 933 E supra and , 591 C: σελήνη φεύγει τὴν Στύγα μικρὸν ὑπερφέρουσα λαμβάνεται δ᾽ ἅπαξ ἐν μέτροις δευτέροις ἑκατὸν ἑβδομήκοντα ἑπτά (177 days = one-half of a lunar year, 6 synodic months). for she cannot abandon Hades since she is the boundary of Hades, as Homer too has rather well put it in veiled terms: But to Elysium’s plain, the bourne of earth. iv. 563 but with ἀλλά ς᾽ ἐς instead of ἀλλ᾽ εἰς. Where the range of the earth’s shadow ends, this he set as the term and boundary of the earth.cf.Stobaeus, , i. 49 (i, p. 448. 5-16 [Wachsmuth]) = frag. 146 β (vii, p. 176 [Bernardakis]), where , iv. 563-564 is taken to indicate that the region of the moon is the seat of righteous souls after death (cf. Eustathius, , 1509. 18). There Ἠλύσιον πεδίον is said to mean the surface of the moon lighted by the sun (cf. 944 C s.v.) and πείρατα γαίης the end of the earth’s shadow which often touches the moon; but there is no mention of Hades, Persephone, or Demeter. In the present passage Plutarch does not say why his interpretation of Homer’s line justifies him in calling the moon τοῦ Ἅιδου πέρας, but the rest of the myth makes it certain that Hades is the region between earth and moon (cf. 943 C s.v.). This agrees with the myth of , where (591 A-C) this region is the portion of Persephone and the earth’s shadow is Styx and the road to Hades and where (590 F) Hades and Earth are clearly identical (cf. Heinze, , p. 135; R. M. Jones, , p. 57 and n. 147). Probably then Plutarch here thought that, if Homer could be shown to have set the boundary of earth at the moon, it follows that he understood the moon to be the boundary of Hades. In , 591 B the moon is expressly made the boundary between the portion of Persephone, which is Hades, and the region which extends from moon to sun. Nevertheless, in 944 C s.v. the Elysian plain is said to be the part of the moon that is turned to heaven, i. e. away from the earth; and, though this does not explicitly contradict the present passage, it might still seem to suggest the notion ascribed to Iamblichus by John Laurentius Lydus (, iv. 149 [p. 167. 24 ff.]): τὸν ὑπὲρ σελήνης ἄχρις ἡλίου χῶρον τῷ Ἅιδῃ διδούς, παρ᾽ ᾧ φησὶ καὶ τὰς ἐκκεκαθαρμένας ἐστάναι ψυχάς, καὶ αὐτὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν Πλούτωνα, Περσεφόνην δὲ τὴν σελήνην. To this point rises no one who is evil or unclean, but the good are conveyed thither after death and there continue to lead a life most easy to be sureCf, , iv. 565: τῇ περ ῥηίστη βιοτὴ πέλει ἀνθρώποισιν. though not blessed or divine until their second death.In Quaest. Rom. 282 A Plutarch cites Castor (cf. 266 E) for the notion that after death souls dwell on the moon, for which cf. in general P. Capelle, (Halis Saxonum, 1917), pp. 1-18 and n. b. Iamblichus, 18. 82; Varro in Augustine, , vii. 6 (i, p. 282. 14-17 [Dombart]); ii, frag. 814.

And what is this, Sulla? Do not ask about these things, for I am going to give a full explanation myself. Most people rightly hold man to be composite but wrongly hold him to be composed of only two parts. The reason is that they suppose mind to be somehow part of soul, thus erring no less than those who believe soul to be part of body, for in the same degree as soul is superior to body so is mind better and more divine than soul. The result of soul [and body commingled is the irrational or the affective factor, whereas of mind and soul] the conjunction produces reason; and of these the former is source of pleasure and pain, the latter of virtue and vice.cf., 441 D 442 A, , 591 D-E. The ultimate source of Plutarch’s conception of the relation of mind, soul, and body is such passages of Plato as , 30 B, 41-42, 90 A; Laws, 961 D-E, , 247 C (cf. ThÈvenaz, , pp. 70-73). Plutarch himself ascribes the twofold division, soul and body, to οἱ πολλοί and so cannot intend a reference to any philosophical school; by those who make soul a μόριον τοῦ σώματος he might mean Stoics (cf. , 1052 F ff., , 1083 C ff.) but might equally well mean Epicureans or materialists generally. Against Adler’s argument ( x, pp. 171-172) that the first of the two notions rejected is Platonic and the second Stoic, so that Plutarch’s source must have been Posidonius, cf. Pohlenz, xxxii (1912), p. 653, and R. M. Jones, , p. 55. In the composition of these three factors earth furnishes the body, the moon the soul, and the sun furnishes mind [to man] for the purpose of his generationcf., 591 B, where motion and generation are linked by Mind in the sun and generation and destruction by Nature in the moon. even as it furnishes light to the moon herself. As to the death we die, one death reduces man from three factors to two and another reduces him from two to oneFor a mortal soul or mortal part of the soul cf. Plato, , 42 D, 61 C, 69 C-D.; and the former takes place in the [earth] that belongs to Demeter [[wherefore to make an end is called] to render [one’s life] to her and Athenians used in olden times to call the dead Demetrians],cf. xlvi (1951), p. 151. [the latter] in the moon that belongs to Phersephone, and associated with the former is Hermes the terrestrial, with the latter Hermes the celestial.cf., 367 D-E. Hermes appears in the myth of Persephone as early as , 377 ff. and is connected with Hecate in the fragment of Theopompus in Porphyry, , ii. 16. cf. also 296 F and Halliday’s note ad. loc. While the goddess herei.e. on earth, Demeter, which is why Plutarch refers to her with αὕτη, though she is the former of the two mentioned. dissociates the soul from the body swiftly and violently, Phersephone gently and by slow degrees detaches the mind from the soul and has therefore been called single-born because the best part of man is born single when separated off [by] her.μονογενής, which appears as an epithet of Hecate and Persephone (cf.Hesiod, , 426; , xxix. 1-2 [Abel]; Apollonius Rhodius, iii. 847), means unique: cf., 31 B and 92 C, to which Plutarch refers in , 423 A and C, where he interprets the word to mean only born. Here, however, he probably takes the final element in an active sense such as it has in Καλλιγένεια, an epithet of Demeter, the moon, and the earth. Each of the two separations naturally occurs in this fashion: All soul, whether without mind or with it,This may mean only whether the soul has been obedient to reason in life or has not but ὅλη κατέδυ εἰς σῶμα, as , 591 D-E puts it; but at 945 B s.v. Plutarch speaks of souls which ἄνευ νοῦ assume bodies and live on earth, and by avow here he may intend to refer to the separation of such souls from their bodies. He cannot mean, as Raingeard supposes, souls whose minds have immediately passed to the sun, for he has just said that the separation of mind from soul takes place at the second death on the moon and neither here nor in 944 F s.v. does he allow for any exception in the sense of the doctrine of the , x. 16, where νοῦς is separated from ψυχή at the moment when the soul leaves the body (cf. Scott, , ii, p. 265). In , 591 D 592 D Plutarch makes νοῦς and φυχή not really two different substances as here in the but considers φυχή to be a degeneration of νοῦς. when it has issued from the bodycf., 563 E: ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἐξέπεσε τὸ φρονοῦν τοῦ σώματος . . . is destined to wander [in] the region between earth and moon but not for an equal time. Unjust and licentious souls pay penalties for their offences; but the good souls must in the gentlest part of the air, which they call the meads of Hades, For the location of Hades cf. , 382 E and the etymology in , 1130 A (cf. Plato, , 493 B and , 80 D); for the identification of Hades with the dark air cf. [Plutarch], , § 97; Philodemus, , c. 13 (, p. 547 b); Cornutus, c. 5 and c. 35; Heraclitus, , § 41. Reference to a mead (λειμών)) or meads in the underworld is common: cf. , xi. 539, 573 and xxiv. 13-14; Kern, , 32 f 6 and 222; Plato, 524 A, , 614 E and 616 B. The Neo-Platonists argued that the λειμών in these Platonic passages is meant to be located in the atmosphere under the moon: Proclus, , ii, pp. 132. 20-133. 15 (Kroll); Olympiodorus, , p. 237. 10-13 (Norvin); Hermias, , p. 161. 3-9 (Couvreur). pass a certain set time sufficient to purge and blow away [the] pollutions contracted from the body as from an evil odour.cf. §§ 11-12 (p. 64. 24-25 [Nauck]); Proclus, , iii, p. 331. 6-9 (Diehl); and in general on the pollution of the soul by association with the body Plato, , 81 B-C. Plutarch in a different context uses the words: ὅταν ἀτμοὶ πονηροί ταῖς τῆς φυχῆς ἀνακραθῶσι περιόδοις (, 129 C). [Then], as if brought home from banishment abroad, they savour joy most like that of initiates, which attended by glad expectation is mingled with confusion and excitement.For life on earth as the soul’s exile from its proper home cf. , 607 C-E; and for the comparison with initiates and what follows in this vein a few lines below cf. fragment VI (vii, p. 23. 4-17 [Bernardakis]). For many, even as they are in the act of clinging to the moon, she thrusts off and sweeps away; and some of those souls too that are on the moon they see turning upside down as if sinking again into the deep.cf., 591 C, and Plato’s , 248 A-B, especially αἱ δὲ δὴ ἄλλαι γλιχόμεναι μὲν ἅπασαι τοῦ ἄνω ἕπονται, ἀδυνατοῦσαι δέ, ὑποβρύχιαι συμπεριφέρονται κτλ. Those that have got up, however, and have found a firm footing first go about like victors crowned with wreaths of feathers called wreaths of steadfastness,For life as an athletic contest and the soul as athlete cf. , 561 A, , 593 D-E and 593 F 594 A. The conception is Platonic (cf. , 621 C-D, , 256 B); and it is irrelevant to cite oriental notions of life as a combat and immortality as a triumph as Soury does (, p. 189, n. 1) after Cumont. Soury follows Raingeard in misconstruing στεφάνοις λεγομένοις and supposing that πτερῶν εὐσταθείας is an expression mystique (Op. cit. pp. 189 and 191-192). εὐσταθείας does not depend upon πτερῶν or vice versa; and Plutarch has simply woven the feathers of the soul, which appear throughout the myth of the Phaedrus, into a wreath that is given to the souls of the good for their steadfastness, just as the Victorious souls in , 256 B become ὑπόπτεροι because in life they were ἐγκρατεῖς αὑτῶν καὶ κόσμιοι. because in life they had made the irrational or affective element of the soul orderly and tolerably tractable to reasoncf., 592 A, and Plato’s , 247 B (n.b. εὐήνια ὄντα ῥᾳδίως πορεύεται).; secondly, in appearance resembling a ray of light but in respect of their nature, which in the upper region is buoyant as it is here in ours, resembling the ether about the moon,αἰθήρ for Plato was simply the uppermost and purest air (cf. , 58 D, , 109 B and 111 B); but here the word is probably used under Stoic influence, for which see note d on 928 D and note g on 922 B supra and cf. [Plato], , 366 A (ἡ ψυχὴ συναλγούσα τὸν οὐράνιον ποθεῖ καὶ σύμφυλον αἰθέρα). These last sentences of chapter 28 show several definitely Stoic traits, especially the conception of tension, nourishment of the soul by the exhalations, and the use of the quotation from Heraclitus. It has long been customary to compare with this passage Cicero, i. 19, 43, and Sextus Empiricus, ix. 71-73 (cf. Heinze, , pp. 126-128; K. Reinhardt, , pp. 308-313 and p. 323; R. M. Jones, xxvii [1932], pp. 113 ff.). they get from it both tension and strength as edged instruments get a temper,For the Stoic doctrine of τόνος cf. , 1054 A-B, , 1085 C-D, and ii, frags. 447 and 448. The metaphor of tempering was also commonly used by the Stoics in connection with the soul: cf. ii, frags. 804-806. for what laxness and diffuseness they still have is strengthened and becomes firm and translucent. In consequence they are nourished by any exhalation that reaches them, and Heraclitus was right in saying: Souls employ the sense of smell in Hades. Frag. 98 (i, p. 173. 3 [Diels-Kranz]). For the nourishment of disembodied souls cf. the passages of Cicero and Sextus cited in note e, p. 203. Here the argument of Lamprias in 940 c-d supra is incorporated into the myth, which thereby appears to substantiate the argument.

First they behold the moon as she is in herselfPlutarch certainly wrote αὐτῆς σελήνης (or perhaps αὐτῆς τῆς σελήνης) under the influence of Plato’s true earth, αὐτὴ ἡ γῆ, in , 109 B 7, 110 B 6 (cf. 935 A supra and 944 B s.v.).: her magnitude and beauty and nature, which is not simple and unmixed but a blend as it were of star and earth. Just as the earth has become soft by having been mixed with breath and moist[ure] and as blood gives rise to sense-perception in the flesh with which it is commingled,cf.Aristotle, 656 B 19-21 and 25-26, 666 A 16-17; and Plato, , 77 E on the connection of the blood-vessels with τὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων πάθος. so the moon, they say,Not the demons who told the stranger the story, as Raingeard says, but the human authors of the theory mentioned in the next sentence; cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 151-152. because it has been permeated through and through by ether is at once animated and fertile and at the same time has the proportion of lightness to heaviness in equipoise. In fact it is in this way too, they say, that the universe itself has entirely escaped local motion, because it has been constructed out of the things that naturally move upwards and those that naturally move downwards.cf. ii, frag. 555 and xlvi (1951), p. 157, n. 105. This was also the conception of Xenocrates who, taking his start from Plato, seemsThe Greek does not imply, as Adler supposes, that Plutarch had any doubt about what Xenocrates had said (cf. E. M. Jones, , p. 55). to have reached it by a kind of superhuman reasoning. Plato is the one who declared that each of the stars as well was constructed of earth and fire bound together in a proportion by means of the [two] intermediate natures, for nothing, as he said, attains perceptibility that does not contain an admixture of earth and light, 40 A and 31 B 32 C; cf.[Plato], , 981 d-e; Plutarch, , 316 E-F. , 31 B strictly requires γῆς καὶ πυρός here; but according to , 45 B and 58 C φῶς is the species of fire that produces visibility.; but Xenocrates says that the stars and the sun are composed of fire and the first density, the moon of the second density and air that is proper to her, and the earth of water [and air] and the third kind of density and that in general neither density all by itself nor subtility is receptive of soul.Xenocrates, frag. 56 (Heinze); for text and implications cf. xlvi (1951), p. 152. So much for the moon’s substance. As to her breadth or magnitude, it is not what the geometers say but many times greater. She measures off the earth’s shadow with few of her own magnitudes not because it is small but she more ardently hastens her motion in order that she may quickly pass through the gloomy place bearing away [the souls] of the good which cry out and urge her on because when they are in the shadow they no longer catch the sound of the harmony of heaven.Plutarch here gives a mythical correction of the astronomical calculations in 923 A-B and 932 B supra (on the text and the paralogism of this correction cf. xlvi [1951], pp. 152-153) and also a mythical explanation of the acceleration of which he had spoken in 933 B supra. With this account of the effect of the lunar eclipse upon the disembodied souls cf. , 591 C and for the harmony in the heavens cf. 590 C-D there, 1147, Plato’s , 617 B, Aristotle’s , 290 B 12 291 A 28. At the same time too with wails [and] cries the souls of the chastised then approach through the shadow from below. That is why most people have the custom of beating brasses during eclipses and of raising a din and clatter against the souls,cf., 17 (264 B); Pliny, ii. 12. 9 (54); Tacitus, , i. 28; Juvenal, vi. 442-443. The purpose of the custom is here made to fit the myth; in , 591 C the moon herself flashes and bellows to frighten away the impure souls. which are frightened off also by the socalled face when they get near it, for it has a grim and horrible aspect.cf. Epigenes in Clement, v. 49 (= Kern, , frag. 33): Γοργόνιον τὴν σελήνην διὰ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ πρόσωπον. cf. the notion that the face in the moon is that of the Sibyl (, 398 C-D; , 566 D). It is no such thing, however; but just as our earth contains gulfs that are deep and extensive,cf.Plato, , 109 B. one here pouring in towards us through the Pillars of Heracles and outside the Caspian and the Red Sea with its gulfs,For the Caspian see note f on 941 C supra. By Red Sea Plutarch means what we call the Indian Ocean plus the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea; in 733 B he cites Agatharchidas who wrote an extensive work on the Red Sea (cf. Photius, , cod. 250 [pp. 441 ff., Bekker]). so those features are depths and hollows of the moon. The largest of them is calledcf. xlvi (1951), p. 151 on 943 E. Hecate’s Recess, For Hecate and the moon see notes c on 937 F and b on 942 D supra; cf. Sophocles, frag. 492 (Nauck²) and Kern, , frag. 204. For Hecate’s association with a cave cf. , 24-25, and Roscher, , pp. 46-48. Plutarch himself associates μυχός with the punishments in Hades (, 167 A). where the souls suffer and exact penalties for whatever they have endured or committed after having already become Spiritsa This has been called inconsistent with the preceding statement in chapter 28 that only pure or purified souls attain the moon. Even the pure souls that reach the moon, however, still have the affective soul as well as mind; and Plutarch has already said in chapter 28 (942 F) that the life which they lead on the moon is οὐ μακάριον οὐδὲ θεῖον.; and the two long ones are called the Gates,cf. xlvi (1951), p. 153. for through them pass the souls now to the side of the moon that faces heaven and now back to the side that faces earth.They pass to the outer side on their say to the second death (944 E ff. s.v.) and to the hither side on their way to rebirth in bodies (945 C s.v.). In , 766 B the place to which souls come to be reborn in the body is called οἱ Σελήνης καὶ Ἀφροδίτης λειμῶνες.. The side of the moon towards heaven is named Elysian plain, See 942 F supra and note d there. the hither side House of counter-terrestrial Phersephone. Plutarch uses ἀντίχθων in the usual Pythagorean sense in , 1028 B (cf. , 891 f, 895 C, 895 E = Aëtius, ii. 29. 4; iii. 9. 2; iii. 11. 3). Identification of the moon with the counter-earth is ascribed to certain Pythagoreans (but cf. Cherniss, , i, p. 562) by Simplicius, , p. 512. 17-20 (cf. Asclepius, p. 35. 24-27; , 505 A 1 [Brandis]).

Yet not forever do the Spirits tarry upon the moon; they descend hither to take charge of oracles, they attend and participate in the highest of the mystic rituals, they act as warders against misdeeds and chastisers of them, and they flash forth as saviours manifest in war and on the sea.cf., 417 A-B and , 591 C; R. M. Jones, , pp. 29, 59, and 55-56. Iamblichus, vi. 30 (p. 18. 4 Deubner]) says that some people considered Pythagoras to be such a Spirit from the moon. In the last clause of the sentence above Plutarch refers to the Dioscuri: cf. , 14 (439 C); , 426 C. For any act that they perform in these matters not fairly but inspired by wrath or for an unjust end or out of envy they are penalized, for they are cast out upon earth again confined in human bodies.cf. 926 C supra (ἡ ψυχή τῷ σώματι συνεῖρκται), , 1023 C (τῷ σώματι συνειργμένη scil. ἡ ψυχή); for the misbehaviour of Spirits cf. , 417 B, 417 E-F, , 361 A ff., where the punishment of these Spirits is mentioned in 361 C (cf. , 415 C). To the former class of better Spiritsi.e. not those who for misdeeds are cast out upon earth again. The attendants of Cronus are the δαίμονες of 942 A supra. cf. Porphyry’s account of good and evil spirits in , ii. 38-39. the attendants of Cronos said that they belong themselves as did aforetime the Idaean DactylsCf. , 15 (70 C-D); [Plutarch], , xiii. 3 (vii, p. 305. 4-12 [Bernardakis]); Strabo, x. 3. 22 (c. 473); Pausanias, v. 7. 6-10; Diodorus, v. 64. 3-7. in Crete and the Corybantscf. Schwenn, xi. 2 (1922), 1441-1446, and Lobeck, , pp. 1139-1155. in Phrygia as well as the Boeotian Trophoniads in UdoraThis place seems to be mentioned nowhere else; but, since Plutarch here refers to inactive oracles from which the Spirits have departed, the change to Λεβαδείᾳ cannot be right, for in , 411 E-F Lebadeia is said to be the only remaining active oracle in Boeotia where there are many others now silent or even deserted. and thousands of others in many parts of the world whose rites, honours, and titles persist but whose powers tended to another place as they achieved the ultimate alteration. They achieve it, some sooner and some later, once the mind has been separated from the soul.cf. 943 B supra. It is separated by love for the image in the sun through which shines forth manifest the desirable and fair and divine and blessed towards which all nature in one way or another yearns,Plato’s , 507-509 is Plutarch’s main inspiration. It is a passage which he echoes or cites many times (e.g. , 372 A, , 393 D, , 413 C and 433 D-E, 780 F and 781 F, Plat. 1006 F 1007 A); and his references to it show that the image in the sun, τῆς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκόνος, here means the visible likeness of the good which the sun manifests and not, as Kepler suggests, the reflection of the sun seen in the moon as in a mirror. The last part of the sentence with the notion that all nature strives towards the good and the term ἐφετόν itself are drawn from Aristotle (, 192 A 16-19 and the whole of A, 9 and A, 7); cf. . 372 E-F and , 770 B. for it must be out of love for the sun that the moon herself goes her rounds and gets into conjunction with him in her yearning to receive from him what is most fructifying.The specific nature of this fertilization is described in 945 C s.v.; the conception of the sun as an image of god is connected with a reference to its fructifying force in , 393 d. For sexual language used of the moon and sun see the references in note a on 929 C supra. The substance of the soul is left upon the moon and retains certain vestiges and dreams of life as it were; it is this that you must properly take to be the subject of the statement Soul like a dream has taken wing and sped,, xi. 222. for it is not straightway nor once it has been released from the body that it reaches this state but later when, divorced from the mind, it is deserted and alone. Above all else that Homer said his words concerning those in Hades appear to have been divinely inspired Thereafter marked I mighty Heracles — His shade; but he is with the deathless gods, xi. 601-602. Similar interpretations of this passage are common among the Neo-Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists: cf. especially [Plutarch], , chap. 123; Plotinus, i. 1. 12; iv. 3. 27 and 32; vi. 4. 16; Proclus, , i, p. 120. 22 ff. and p. 172. 9 ff. (Kroll); Cumont, , xliv (1920), pp. 237-240, who contends that the doctrine itself arose in Alexandria where Aristarchus became acquainted with it. In fact the self of each of us is not anger or fear or desire just as it is not bits of flesh or fluids either but is that with which we reason and understandcf., 564 C and , 1119 A. For the νοῦς as the true self cf. Aristotle, 1166 A 16-17 and 22-23, 1168 B 35, 1169 A 2, 1178 A 2-7. Plato usually speaks of the ψυχή without further qualification as the true self (e.g. , 959 A, , 115 C [cf. the Pseudo-Platonic , 130 A-C and , 365 E]), although such passages as , 430 E 431 A, 588 C 589 B, 611 C-E can be taken to imply that he meant the rational soul only (cf. Plotinus’s use of the last passage in i. 1. 12). cf. also Cicero, , vi. 26 (mens cuiusque is est quisque) and Marcus Aurelius, ii. 2 with Farquharson’s note ad loc.; and the soul receives the impression of its shape through being moulded by the mind and moulding in turn and enfolding the body on all sides, so that, even if it be separated from either one for a long time, since it preserves the likeness and the imprint it is correctly called an image.cf., 564 A, where the souls are described as τύπον ἐχούσας ἀνθρωποειδῆ, and [Plutarch], , chap. 123 (εἴδωλον ὅπερ ἦν ἀποπεπλασμένον [?] τοῦ σώματος); Porphyry in Stobaeus, I. xlix. 55 ( = i, p. 429. 16-22 [Wachsmuth]). The notion that the soul after death retains the appearance of the body was common (cf Lucian, ii, 12), although Alexander Polyhistor in Diogenes Laertius, viii. 31 gave it as Pythagorean doctrine (but cf. Antisthenes, frag. 33 [Mullach]). With the special point of the present passage that the body is given its form by the imprint of the soul, which has itself been moulded by the mind, cf. Proclus, , ii, pp. 327. 21-328. 15 (Kroll); Plotinus, iv. 3. 9. 20-23 and i/ 10. 35-42; Macrobius, I. xiv. 8; Sextus, i. 85. In , 959 a-b Plato calls the body an attendant semblance of the self and uses the word εἴδωλα of corpses. The notion that soul encompasses body instead of being contained by it comes ultimately from Plato, , 34 B. Of these, as has been said,i.e. 943 A supra. the moon is the element, for they are resolved into itFor later Neo-Platonic opinions concerning the dissolution of the lower soul see Proclus, , iii, p. 234. 9 ff. (Diehl) and cf. Plotinus, iv. 7. 14 (ἀφειμένον δὲ τὸ χεῖρον οὐδὲ αὐτὸ ἀπολεῖσθαι ἕως ἂν ᾖ ὅθεν ἔχει τὴν ἀρχήν)). as the bodies of the dead are resolved into earth. This happens quickly to the temperate souls who had been fond of a leisurely, unmeddlesome, and philosophical life, for abandoned by the mind and no longer exercising the passions for anything they wither quietly away. Of the ambitious and the active, the irascible and those who are enamoured of the body, however, some pass their timeThe expression correlative to αἱ μέν is ἐπεὶ δ᾽ αὐτάς, and the contrast between ἐπεὶ δ᾽ αὐτὰς ἐξίστησι and the present clause requires that διαφέρονται mean pass their time rather than toss about, be distraught, the meaning that it has in , 591 D. as it were in sleep with the memories of their lives for dreams as did the soul of EndymionThere seems to be no other reference to Endymion’s dreams; but Plutarch may here have been influenced by the story that Endymion’s endless sleep was a punishment for his passion for Hera (cf. , iv. 57-58 [p. 265, Wendel]) and , iii. 49-51 b [p. 133, Wendel]).; but, when they are excited by restlessness and emotion and drawn away from the moon to another birth, she forbids them [to sink towards earth]cf., 565 D-E, 566 A; Plato, , 81 B-E, 108 A-B. and keeps conjuring them back and binding them with charms, for it is no slight, quiet, or harmonious business when with the affective faculty apart from reason they seize upon a body. Creatures like Tityuscf., xi. 576-581; Pindar, , iv. 90; Eustathius, , 1581. 54 ff. and Typhocf. especially , chaps. 27 and 30. and the PythonΠύθων and Τιτυός are named together by Plutarch in , 16 (286 C); cf. Strabo, ix. 3. 12 (cc. 422-423) and Apollodorus, , i. 4. 1. 3-5 (22-23). that with insolence and violence occupied Delphi and confounded the oracle belonged to this class of souls, void of reason and subject to the affective element gone astray through delusionFor the play on Τυφών - τῦφος cf. Plato, , 230 A, which is quoted by Plutarch in , 1119 B; and cf. also Marcus Aurelius, ii. 17 (τὰ δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄνειρος καὶ τῦφος . . .).; but even these in time the moon took back to herself and reduced to order. Then when the sun with his vital force has again sowed mind in her she receives it and produces newsouls, and earth in the third place furnishes body.cf. 943 A and 944 E-F supra. In the latter passage ὀρεγομένην ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ γονιμώτατον [δέχεσθαι] (cf. , 393 D [τὸ περὶ αὐτὴν γόνιμον]] and , 958 E [τοῦ πυρὸς οἷον τὸ ζωτικὸν ἐνεργαζομένου]) shows that τῷ ζωτικιῳ here is to be construed with the preceding words rather than with those that follow (so Reinhardt, , pp. 320, 329). On Reinhardt’s treatment of this passage in general and his attempt to derive it from Posidonius (Op. cit. pp. 329 ff.) cf. R. M. Jones, xxvii (1932), pp. 118-120, 129-131, 134-135; n.b. , 41-42 where the demiurge is said to have sowed (ἔσπειρεν) in the earth, the moon, and the other planets the souls that he had fashioned himself, i.e. the minds (cf. 41 E, 42 d), and the interpretation of Timaeus Locrus, 99 D-E, according to which this means that the souls are brought to earth from the various planets (cf. also R. M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, pp. 49-51, and especially Porphyry in Proclus, , i, p. 147. 6-13 [n.b. εἰς τὸ τῆς σελήνης σῶμα σπείρεσθαί φησιν ] and p. 165. 16-23 [Diehl]). In fact, the earth gives nothing [in giving back] after death all that she takes for generation, and the sun takes nothing but takes back the mind that he gives, whereas the moon both takes and gives and joins together and divides asunder in virtue of her different powers, of which the one that joins together is called Ilithyia and that which divides asunder Artemis.Cf 658 f: ὅθεν οἶμαι καὶ τὴν Ἄρτεμιν Λοχείαν καὶ Εἰλείθυιαν, οὐκ οὖσαν ἑτέραν ἢ τὴν σελήνην, ὠνομάσθαι. Here, however, Artemis and Ilithyia are supposed to be names for two contrary faculties of the moon. In 938 F supra the identification of the moon with Artemis because she is sterile but is helpful and beneficial to other females implies that Artemis is Ilithyia, as she is in Plato’s , 149 B (cf. Cornutus, p. 73, 7-18 [Lang]). Artemis was associated with easy, painless death, however (cf. , xi. 172-173; xviii. 202); and Plutarch probably connects this notion with the gentleness of the death on the moon (cf. 943 B supra). L. A. Post has suggested that he may also have intended ἀρταμεῖν as an etymology of Ἀρτεμις. Ilithyia and Artemis are sometimes sisters (cf. Diodorus Siculus, v. 72. 5), but then they have the same function. Of the three Fates too Atropos enthroned in the sun initiates generation, Clotho in motion on the moon mingles and binds together, and finally upon the earth Lachesis too puts her hand to the task, she who has the largest share in chance.In , 591 B Atropos is situated in the invisible, Clotho in the sun, and Lachesis in the moon. The order there is the same as it is here and different from that in the (568 E), where in interpretation of , 617 C Clotho is highest, Lachesis lowest, and Atropos intermediate. Both orders differ from that of Xenocrates (frag. 5 [Heinze]), which was Atropos (intelligible and supracelestial), Lachesis (opinable and celestial), Clotho (sensible and sublunar). The order of and is that of Plato’s , 960 C, where Lachesis, Clotho, and Atropos are named in ascending order as the epithet of Atropos, Τρίτη σώτειρα, shows; here in the it is the passage of the , however, that Plutarch has in mind, for his συνζφάπτεται is an echo of Plato’s ἐφαπτομένην and ἐφάπτεσθαιι there. cf. H. Dörrie, , lxxxii (1954), pp. 331-342 (especially pp. 337-339), who discusses the relation of these passages to the pre-history of the Neoplatonic doctrine of hypostases and argues that in writing them Plutarch was inspired by Xenocrates. For the inanimate is itself powerless and susceptible to alien agents, and the mind is impassible and sovereign; but the soul is a mixed and intermediate thing, even as the moon has been created by god a compound and blend of the things above and below and therefore stands to the sun in the relation of earth to moon.