Apollonides broke in and inquired what the opinion of Clearchus was. You are the last person, I said, who has any right not to know a theory of which geometry is, as it were, the very hearth and home. The man, you see, asserts that what is called the face consists of mirrored likenesses, that is images of the great ocean reflected in the moon,Similar theories are referred to by Aëtius, ii. 30. 1 (, p. 361 B 10-13) = Stobaeus, , i. 26. 4; Lucian, , § 20; Simplicius, , p. 457. 15-16. Such a theory is recorded and refuted by Ibn Al-Haitham, the Arabic astronomer of the tenth and eleventh centuries (cf, Schoy’s translation, pp. 1-2 and 5-6). Emperor Rudolph II believed the spots on the moon to be the reflection of Italy and the large Italian islands (cf. Kepler, , ii, p. 491 cited by Pixis, p. 102); and A. von Humboldt (, iii, p. 544 [Stuttgart, 1850]) tells of a Persian from Ispahan who assured him that what we see in the moon is the map of our earth (cf. Ebner, , p. 13, n. 3). for the visual ray when reflected naturally reaches from many points objects which are not directly visible and the full moon is itself in uniformity and lustrei.e. in the evenness and polish of its surface. the finest and clearest of all mirrors. Just as you think, then, that the reflection of the visual ray to the sun accounts for the appearance of the (rainbow) in a cloud where the moisture has become somewhat smooth and (condensed),For the rainbow as a reflection of the sun in the cloud cf. , 358 F, Amatorius, 765 E - F (where there is a strong verbal similarity to the present passage), , 894 C - F (= Aëtius, iii. 5, 3-10 and 11 [, pp. 372-373]). According to Aëtius, iii. 5. 11 ( = , 894 F) the theory was held by Anaxagoras (cf. frag. B 19 = ii, p. 41. 8-11 [Diels-Kranz]). It is developed by Aristotle in , iii. 4, 373 A 32 375 B 15 (cf. Areius Didymus’s , frag. 14 = , p. 455.14 ff., and Seneca, i. 3). Diogenes Laertius, vii. 152 cites Posidonius for the definition ἶριν δ’ εἶναι ὡς Ποσειδώνιός φησιν ἔμφασιν ἡλίου τμήματος ἣ ἐν νέφει δεδροσιμένῳ, κοίλῳ καὶ συνεχεῖ πρὸς φαντασίαν, ὡς ἐν κατόpτρῳ φανταζομένην κατὰ κύκλου περιφέρειαν (cf. Seneca, i. 5. 13); and Adler ( x, pp. 128-129) contends that Posidonius was Plutarch’s source for the formulation of the theory. Plutarch’s oἴεσθ’ ὑμεῖς, however, addressed to Apollonides must be intended to ascribe the theory generally to you mathematicians; and this is confirmed by the passage of cited above, which reads: καἰ καθάπερ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τὴν ἶριν λέγουσι On the difference between the theories of Aristotle and Posidonius cf. O. Gilbert, , pp. 614-616. so Clearchus thought that the outer ocean is seen in the moon, not in the place where it is but in the place whence the visual ray has been deflected to the ocean and the reflection of the ocean to us. So Agesianax again has somewhere said: Or swell of ocean surging opposite Be mirrored in a looking-glass of flame. Powell (, p. 9) prints these lines as fragment 2 of the of Hegesianax; see note a on p. 39 supra.

Apollonides was delighted. What an original and absolutely novel contrivance the hypothesis is, he said, the work of a man of daring and culture; but how did you proceed to bring your counterargument against it? In the first place, I said, in that, although the outer ocean is a single thing, a confluent and continuous sea,cf. Strabo, i. 1. 8 (i, p. 6. 4-7 [Meineke]). the dark spots in the moon do not appear as one but as having something like isthmuses between them, the brilliance dividing and delimiting the shadow. Hence, since each part is separated and has its own boundary, the layers of light upon shadow,The language is that of painting; cf. Lucian, , 5: τῶν χρωμάτων ἀκριβῆ τὴν κρᾶσιν καὶ εὔνκαφον τὴν ἐπιβολὴν ποιήσασθαι. assuming the semblance of height and depth, have produced a very close likeness of eyes and lips. Therefore, one must assume the existence of several outer oceans separated by isthmuses and mainlands, which is absurd and false; or, if the ocean is single, it is not plausible that its reflected image be thus discontinuous. Tell me whether for in your presence it is safer to put this as a question than as an assertion whether it is possible, though the inhabited world has length and breadth, that every visual ray when reflected from the moon should in like manner reach the ocean, even the visual rays of those who are sailing in the great ocean itself, yes and who dwell in it as the Britons do, and that too even though the earth, as you say,i.e. you mathematicians; see oἴεσθ’ ὑμεῖς in 921 A supra. The reference is to the eccentrics of Hipparchus’s theory of the motion of the moon. For defence of the text and a detailed interpretation of this sentence cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 137-138. does not have the relation of centre to the orbit of the moon. Well, this, I said, it is your business to consider; but the reflection of vision either in respect to the moon or (in general) is beyond your province and that of Hipparchus too.Because Hipparchus was a mathematician and not a physicist (φυσιολόγος); on the difference cf. Geminus in Simplicius, pp. 291. 23-292. 29, and the phrase, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐφωδιάσθαι ἀπὸ φυσιολογίας, which Theon of Smyrna (p. 188. 19-20) uses of Hipparchus. Although Hipparchus was industrious, still many find him unsatisfactory in his explanation of the nature of vision itself, (which) is more likely to involve a sympathetic compound and fusionPlato’s theory; cf. , 45 C and , 901 B- C = Aëtius, iv. 13. 11 (, p. 404). than any impacts and rebounds such as those of the atoms that Epicurus invented.cf., 1112 C and , 901 A - B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 1 (, p. 403. 2-4). The present passage seems to imply that Hipparchus’s explanation of vision resembled that of Epicurus. In , 901 B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 9 (, p. 404) a theory of vision is attributed to Hipparchus, however, which does not at all resemble that of the atomists; but the name Hipparchus there is probably a mistake, cf. xlvi (1951), p. 154, n. 6. Moreover, Clearchus, I think, would refuse to assume with us that the moon is a body of weight and solidity instead of an ethereal and luminiferous star as you sayLamprias addresses Apollonides and Aristotle, for that the moon is an ethereal and luminiferous star is the Peripatetic theory (cf. the statement of Aristotle at 928 E s.v. and the references in the note there) and that is why it is ascribed to Clearchus. Obviously then ὑμῖν of the MSS. must be an error and should be changed to ἡμῖν, for that the moon is a body with weight and solidity is the opinion of the Academy, i.e. of Lamprias, Lucius, and their circle (cf. 926 C, 928 C, 931 B - C s.v.).; (and) such a moon ought to shatter and divert the visual ray so that reflection would be out of the question. But if anyone dismisses our objections, we shall ask how it is that the reflection of the ocean exists as a face only in the moon and is seen in none of all the many other stars, although reason requires that all or none of them should affect the visual ray in this fashion. But [let us have done with this; and do you]], I said with a glance at Lucius, recall to me what part of our position was stated first.

Whereat Lucius said: Nay, lest we give the impression of flatly insulting Pharnaces by thus passing over the Stoic opinion unnoticed, do now by all means address some remark to the gentleman who, supposing the moon to be a mixture of air and gentle fire, then says that what appears to be a figure is the result of the blackening of the air as when in a calm water there runs a ripple under the surface. Von Arnim ( ii, p. 198) prints this and some of the subsequent sentences as frag. 673 among the Physical Fragments of Chrysippus. For the Stoic doctrine that the moon is a mixture of air and fire cf. , 891 B and 892 B ( = Aëtius, ii. 25. 5 [, p. 356] and ii. 30. 5 [, p. 361]), and ii, p. 136. 32. The gentle fire here mentioned is the πῦρ τεχνικόν as distinguished from destructive fire (cf. i, p. 34. 22-27 and ii, p. 200. 14-16). For the Stoic explanation of the face in the moon cf. ii, p. 199. 3-5 ( = Philo Judaeus, , i, § 145); and for the simile of the ripple cf. , vii. 63-64. You are [very] nice, Lucius, I said, to dress up the absurdity in respectable language. Not so our comradeSee 929 B and 929 F s.v.. This comrade was the leader of the earlier discussion, which is here being recapitulated, and is probably to be identified with Plutarch himself (so Hirzel, , ii, p. 184, n. 2, and Hartman, , p. 557); cf. , 122 F for a similar situation and Quaest. Conviv. 643 C, where Hagias addresses Plutarch as comrade. ; but he said what is true, that they blacken the Moon’s eye defiling her with blemishes and bruises, at one and the same time addressing her as Artemiscf. ii, p. 212. 38-39 (Chrysippus), iii, p. 217. 12-13 (Diogenes of Babylon); in general 658 F 659 A, and Roscher, , p. 116. and Athenacf. 938 B s.v.. In , 354 C Isis, who later is identified with the moon (372 D), is identified with Athena (cf. 376 A). cf. Roscher, Op. cit. pp. 123 f. (on the supposed fragment of Aristotle there cited see V. Rose, , pp. 616 [no. 4] and 617). and making her a mass compounded of murky air and smouldering fire neither kindling nor shining of herself, an indiscriminate kind of body, forever charred and smoking like the thunderbolts that are darkling and by the poets called lurid.cf., xxiii. 330 and xxiv. 539; Hesiod, , 515; Pindar, , x. 71; Aristotle, , 371 A 17-24. Yet a smouldering fire, such as they suppose that of the moon to be, cannot persist or subsist at all unless it get solid fuel that shelters and at the same time nourishes itSee 934 B - C s.v..; this some philosophers, I believe, see less clearly than do those who say in jest that Hephaestus is said to be lame because fire without wood, like the lame without a stick, makes no progress.cf. Cornutus, chap. 18 (p. 33. 18-22 Lang); , § 26 (p. 41. 2-6 Oelmann). If the moon really is fire, whence came so much air in it? For the region that we see revolving above us is the place not of air but of a superior substance, the nature of which is to rarefy all things and set them afire; and, if air did come to be there, why has it not been etherealized by the firecf. ii, p. 184. 2-5: ἑξαιθερoῦσθαι πάντα εἰς πῦρ αἰθερῶδες ἀναλυομένων πάντων. The ether here is Stoic ether, i.e. a kind of fire (cf. , 951 c-d and note d on 928 D s.v.), not Aristotle’s fifth essence, which does not enter into the process of the alteration of simple bodies. and in this transformation disappeared but instead has been preserved as a housemate of fire this long time, as if nails had fixed it forever to the same spots and riveted it together? Air is tenuous and without configuration, and so it naturally slips and does not stay in place; and it cannot have become solidified if it is commingled with fire and partakes neither of moisture nor of earth by which alone air can be solidified.cf., 951 D, 952 B, 953 D 954 A: but the Stoic opinion given in 949 B ( = ii, p. 142. 6-10) was that solidification (φῦξις) is a state produced in water by air, and Galen reports ( ii, p. 145. 8-11) that according to the Stoics the hardness and resistance of earth are caused by fire and air. Moreover, velocity ignites the air in stones and in cold lead, not to speak of the air enclosed in fire that is whirling about with such great speed.cf.Aristotle, , 289 A 19-32, , 341 A 17-19; Ideler, , i, pp. 359-360. Why, they are vexed by Empedocles because he represents the moon to be a hail-like congelation of air encompassed by the sphere of fireEmpedocles, A 60 (i, p. 294. 24-31 [Diels-Kranz]); cf. [Plutarch], § 10 = , p. 582. 12-15 = i, p. 288. 30-32 (Diels-Kranz); and C. E. Millard, , pp. 65-68.; but they themselves say that the moon is a sphere of fire containing air dispersed about it here and there, and a sphere moreover that has neither clefts nor depths and hollows, such as are allowed by those who make it an earthy body, but has the air evidently resting upon its convex surface. That it should so remain is both contrary to reason and impossible to square with what is observed when the moon is full. On that assumption there should have been no distinction of dark and shadowy air; but all the air should become dark when occulted, or when the moon is caught by the sun it should all shine out with an even light. For with us too, while the air in the depths and hollows of the earth, wherever the suns rays do not penetrate, remains shadowy and unlit, that which suffuses the earth outside takes on brilliance and a luminous colour. The reason is that air, because of its subtility, is delicately attuned to every quality and influence; and, especially if it touches light or, to use your phrase, merely is tangent to it, it is altered through and through and entirely illuminated.Chrysippus, frag. 570 ( ii, p. 178. 20-22), cf. , 952 F. With the words ὥς φατε Lamprias addresses Pharnaces as representative of the Stoics, for whose doctrine of the instantaneous alteration of air by light see 930 F s.v. and the references there; cf. especially κατὰ νύξιν ἣ ψαῦσιν there with ἂν ἐριψαύσῃ μόνον, ὥς φατε, here. Aristotle originated the doctrine that the transparent medium is altered instantaneously throughout its whole extent by the mere presence of light at any point (cf. , 446 B 27 447 A 10 and , 418 B 9 ff.). So this same point seems right handsomely to re-enforce those who pack the air on the moon into depths of some kind and chasms, even as it utterly refutes you who make her globe an unintelligible mixture or compound of air and fire for it is not possiblei.e. on the Stoic theory. that a shadow remain upon the surface when the sun casts his light upon all of the moon that is within the compass of our vision.