Now, said I, my dear Apollonides, you mathematiciansThis is implied by the second person plural addressed to Apollonides, cf. 925 B s.v. and 920 F, 921 C supra. say that the sun is an immense distance from the upper circumference and that above the sun Venus and Mercury and the other planetsFor the order of the planets cf. Dreyer, , pp. 168-170, and Boyancè, , pp. 59-65; the order here given is not the one adopted by most of the astronomers of Plutarch’s time, by the later Stoics, or in all probability by Posidonius. revolve lower than the fixed stars and at great intervals from one another; but you think that in the cosmos there is provided no scope and extension for heavy and earthy objects. You see that it is ridiculous for us to deny that the moon is earth because she stands apart from the nether region and yet to call her a star although we see her removed so many thousands of miles from the upper circumference as if plunged [into] a pit. So far beneath the stars is she that the distance cannot be expressed, but you mathematicians in trying to calculate it run short of numbers; she practically grazes the earth and revolving close to it Whirls like a chariot’s axle-box about, Empedocles says,Empedocles, frag. B 46 (i, p. 331 [Diels-Kranz]).That skims [the post in passing].

Frequently she does not even surmount the earth’s shadow, though it extends but a little way because the illuminating body is very large; but she seems to revolve so close, almost within arm’s reach of the earth, as to be screened by it from the sun unless she rises above this shadowy, terrestrial, and nocturnal place which is earth’s estate. Therefore we must boldly declare, I think, that the moon is within the confines of [the] earth inasmuch as she is occulted by its extremities.

Dismiss the fixed stars and the other planets and consider the demonstrations of Aristarchus in his treatise, , that the distance of the sun is more than 18 times and less than 20 times the distance of the moon, that is its distance from us.This is Proposition 7 of Aristarchus’s treatise, the full title of which is . The treatise is edited and translated by Sir Thomas Heath in his , pp. 352 ff. According to the highest estimate, however, the moon’s distance from us is said to be 56 times the radius of the earth.This was not the highest estimate hitherto given, nor have I been able to identify its author. cf. on this matter and the subsequent calculations in this passage xlvi (1951), pp. 140-141. No attempt is made to give equivalents for stades in calculations, for it is uncertain what stade is meant in any one place. Schiaparelli assumes everywhere the Olympic stade of 185 metres (, i, p. 333, n. 3 and p. 342, n. 1); Heath argues that Eratosthenes used a stade of 157.5 metres and Ptolemy the royal stade of 210 metres (, pp. 339 and 346); and Raingeard (p. 83 on 925 D 6) assumes without argument that Plutarch used the Attic stade of 177.6 metres. Even according to the mean calculations this radius is 40,000 stades; and, if we reckon from this, the sun is more than 40,300,000 stades distant from the moon. She has migrated so far from the sun on account of her weight and has moved so close to the earth that, if propertiesThere is a play on the meaning of τὰs οὐσίας, substances, as property or estates and as the real nature of things. are to be determined by locations, the lot, I mean the position, of earth lays an action against the moon and she is legally assignable by right of propinquity and kinship to the chattels real and personal of earth. We do not err at all, I think, if granting such altitude and extension to the things called upper we leave what is down below also some room to move about in and so much latitude as there is from earth to moon. For as he is immoderate who calls only the outermost surface of the heaven up and all else down, so is he intolerable who restricts down to the earth or rather to the centre; but both there and here some extension must be granted since the magnitude of the universe permits it. The claim that everything away from the earth is ipso facto up and on high answered by a counter-claim that what is away from the circuit of the fixed stars is ipso facto down.

After all, in what sense is earth situated in the middle and in the middle of what? The sum of things is infinite; and the infinite, having neither beginning nor limit, cannot properly have a middle, for the middle is a kind of limit too but infinity is a negation of limits. He who asserts that the earth is in the middle not of the sum of things but of the cosmos is naive if he supposes that the cosmos itself is not also involved in the very same difficulties.cf., 424 D, where καθ’ ὅυς δ’ ἔστιν (scil, τὸ κενόν) refers to the Stoics (for whose distinction between the pa=n and the κόσμος see note c on 924 E supra), and , 1054 B - D, where as here Plutarch uses against the Stoics a weapon taken from their own arsenal. In fact, in the sum of things no middle has been left for the cosmos either, but it is without hearth and habitation,cf., ix. 5. 828 D: ἄοικοι καὶ ἀνίδρυτοι. moving in infinite void to nothing of its own; [or], if it has come to rest because it has found some other reason for abiding, not because of the nature of its location,cf. ii, pp. 174-175, frags. 552 and 553; , 1054 F 1055 B. similar inferences are permissible in the cases of both earth and moon, that the former is stationary here and the latter is in motion there by reason of a different soul or nature rather [than] a difference [of location]. Besides this, consider whether theyThe Stoics. have not overlooked an important point. If anything in any way at all off the centre of the earth is up, no part of the cosmos is down; but it turns out that the earth and the things on the earth and absolutely all body surrounding or enclosing the centre are up and only one thing is down, that incorporeal pointcf. ii, p. 169. 9-11, frag. 527: τῆς γῆς περὶ τὸ μέσον σημεῖον τoῦ κόσμου κειμένης, ὅ δὴ τοῦ παντός ἐστι κάτω, ἄνω δὲ τὸ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ κύκλῳ πάντῃ. which must be in opposition to the entire nature of the cosmos, if in fact down and up are natural opposites.cf. ii, p. 176, frag. 556: τὸ ἄνω καὶ τὸ κάτω οὐ κατὰ σχέσιν φύσει γὰρ διάφορα ταῦτα. This, moreover, does not exhaust the absurdity. The cause of the descent of heavy objects and of their motion to this region is also abolished, for there is no body that is down towards which they are in motion and it is neither likely nor in accordance with the intention of these men that the incorporeal should have so much influence as to attract all these objects and keep them together around itself.See note d on 924 B supra, and cf. , 424 E against Aristotle. On the contrary, it proves to be entirely unreasonable and inconsistent with the facts for the whole cosmos to be up and nothing but an incorporeal and unextended limit to be down; but that statement of ours is reasonable, that ample space and broad has been divided between up and down.

All the same, let us assume, if you please, that the motions of earthy objects in the heaven are contrary to nature; and then let us calmly observe without any histrionics and quite dispassionately that this indicates not that the moon is not earth but that she is earth in an unnatural location. For the fire of Aetna too is below earth unnaturally, but it is fire; and the air confined in skins,cf. 928 B s.v.. Plutarch probably has in mind inflated skins used for floats; cf. Aristotle, , 217 A 2 - 3, 255 B 26, , 311 B 9 - 13. though by nature it is light and has an upward tendency, has been constrained to occupy an unnatural location. As to the soul herself, I said, by Zeus, is her confinement in the body not contrary to nature, swift as she is and fiery, as you say,cf. ii, p. 217, frag. 773: οἱ μὲν γὰρ Στωϊκοὶ πνεῦμα λέγουσιν αὐτὴν ἔνθερμον καὶ διάπυρον. and invisible in a sluggish, cold, and sensible vehicle? Shall we then on this account deny that there is soul in body or that mind, a divine thing, though it traverses instantaneously in its flight all heaven and earth and sea,For this commonplace of the flight of the mind through the universe cf. R. M. Jones, xxi (1926), pp. 97-113. has passed into flesh and wines and marrow under the influence of weight and density and countless qualities that attend liquefaction?This is a reference to the Stoic notion that the embodiment of soul was a process of condensation or liquefaction. cf. , 1053 B - C ( = ii, frag. 605) and for the qualities that would attend liquefaction ii, p. 155. 34: γῆς τε καὶ ὕδατος, παχνμερῶν καὶ βαρέων καὶ ἀτόνων ὅντων. This Zeus of yours too, is it not true that, while in his own nature he is single, a great and continuous fire, at present he is slackened and subdued and transformed, having become and continuing to become everything in the course of his mutations?= ii, p. 308, frag. 1045. Zeus in his own nature is the state of the universe in the ecpyrosis, while at present he is the universe in the state of diacosmesis; cf. , 881 F 882 A (= Aëtius, i. 7. 33 = ii, frag. 1027), Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 ( = ii, frag. 526), , 1052 C ( = ii, frags. 1068 and 604), 1075 A - C ( = ii, frag. 1049), and ii, frags. 1052, 1053, and 1056. So look out and reflect, good sir, lest in rearranging and removing each thing to its natural location you contrive a dissolution of the cosmos and bring upon things the Strife of Empedocles — or rather lest you arouse against nature the ancient Titans and GiantsThe Strife of Empedocles is connected with the mythical war of the Giants by Proclus, p. 849, 13-15 (ed. Cousin, Paris, 1864) = p. 659 (ed. Stallbaum). and long to look upon that legendary and dreadful disorder and discord [when you have separated] all that is heavy and [all] that is light. The suns bright aspect is not there descried, No, nor the shaggy might of earth, nor sea as Empedocles says.Empedocles, frag. B 27 (i, pp. 323. 11-324. 4 [DielsKranz]), where the ὠκέα γυῖα given by Simplicius is adopted instead of Plutarch’s ἀγλαὸν εἶδος. Bignone, however, who prints the lines given by Plutarch as frag. 26 a and those given by Simplicius as frag. 27, is probably right in taking this to be one of the lines which were repeated with a different ending in two different parts of the poem (, pp. 220 ff., 421, 599 ff.). Certainly Plutarch represents his quotation as describing the period when Strife has completely separated the four roots, whereas Simplicius says that his comes from the description of the Sphere, when all were thoroughly intermingled. Earth had no part in heat, water no part in air; there was not anything heavy above or anything light below; but the principles of all thingsi.e. the four roots, earth, air, fire, and water, for the separation of which by Strife cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 8-10 and B 26. 6-9 (i, p. 316. 2-4 and p. 323. 4-7 [DielsKranz]). were untempered and unamiableFrom this Mullach manufactured for Empedocles the verse that he numbered 174 ( i, p. 5). Stein took only ἄκρατοι καὶ ἄστοργοι to be a quotation. The word ἄστοργος appears nowhere in the fragments of Empedocles (though στοργή does in frag. B 109 [i, p. 351. 22, DielsKranz]), whereas Plutarch uses it several times in other connections (, 750 F, 917 D, , 970 B). and solitary, not accepting combination or association with one another, but avoiding and shunning one another and moving with their own peculiar and arbitrary motionscf. Clara Millerd, , p. 54, and Cherniss, , p. 175, n. 130. Plutarch’s circumstantial account of the motion of the four roots during the complete dominance of Strife is coloured by the passage of Plato to which he refers. they were in the state in which, according to Plato,, 53 B; cf., 430 D, and , 1016 F. everything is from which God is absent, that is to say in which bodies are when mind or soul is wanting. So they were until desire came over nature providentially, for Affection arose or Aphrodite or Eros, as Empedocles says and Parmenides and Hesiod,cf., 756 D - F, where Empedocles, frag. B 17. 20-21 (i, p. 317. 1-2 [Diels-Kranz]), and Parmenides, frag. B 13 (i, p. 243. 16 [Diels-Kranz]) are quoted, and Hesiod, , 120 is referred to; and cf. Aristotle, , 984 B 23 985 A 10. With Plutarchs εκ προνοιάς contrast Aristotles criticism of Empedocles (, 1000 B 1217) and cf. Empedocles, frags. B 17. 29 and B 30 (i, p. 317. 10 and p. 325. 10-12 [Diels-Kranz]). By εκ προνοιάς here Plutarch prepares the way for his use in the next paragraph of the Stoic doctrine of providence against the Stoic doctrine of natural place. in order that by changing position and interchanging functions and by being constrained some to motion and some to rest and compelled to give way and shift from the natural to the better [the bodies] might produce a universal concord and community.

If not a single one of the parts of the cosmos ever got into an unnatural condition but each one is naturally situated, requiring no transposition or rearrangement and having required none in the beginning either, I cannot make out what use there is of providenceOn the importance of providence in Stoic doctrine and its ubiquity in Stoic writings cf. , 1050 A - B ( = ii, frag. 937), 1051 E ( = ii, frag. 1115); , 1075 E ( = ii, frag. 1126), 1077 D - E ( = ii, frag. 1064); Cicero, , iii. 92 ( = ii, frag. 1107); Diogenes Laertius, vii. 138-139 ( = ii, frag. 634). or of what Zeus, the master-craftsmanPlutarch ascribes to Pindar this epithet of Zeus in 618 B, , 550 A, , 1065 E, and in , 807 C uses it of the statesman; cf. Pindar, frag. 48, Bowra = 57, Bergk and Schroeder = 66, Turyn. is maker and father-creator.This terminology is more Platonic than Stoic: cf. 720 B - C, , 1017 A; cf. , 28 C and contrast ii, frag. 323 a. In an army, certainly, tacticians are useless if each one of the soldiers should know of himself his post and position and the moment when he must take and keep them. Gardeners and builders are useless too if here water all of itself naturally moves to the things that require it and irrigates them with its stream, and there bricks and timbers and stones by following their natural inclinations and tendencies assume of themselves their appropriate position and arrangement. If, however, this notion eliminates providence forthwith and if the arrangement of existing things pertains to God and [the] distributing of them too,cf.Aristotle, , 1075 A 11-15, and Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 ( = ii, frag. 526): (θεός) δημιουργὸς ὣν τῆς διακοσμήσεως. what wonder is there that nature has been so marshalled and disposed that here in our region there is fire but the stars are yonder and again that earth is here but the moon is established on high, held fast by the bonds of reason which are firmer than the bonds of nature?Wyttenbach’s correction is assured by , 41 B 4-6, of which this is meant to be an echo. For, if all things really must follow their natural inclinations and move with their natural motions, you must order the sun not to revolve and Venus too and every other star as well, for light and fiery bodies move naturally upwards and not in a circle.The Stoics held that the heavenly bodies consist of fire, which, though they call it αἰθήρ, is not a fifth essence like Aristotle’s (cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 = ii, frag. 580; ii, frag. 682). In , 1053 E Plutarch quotes Chrysippus to the effect that τὸ πῦρ ἀβαρὲς ὂν ἀνωφερς εἶναι ( = ii, frag. 434). In accordance with this, he here argues, the Stoics are not justified in explaining the circular motion of the heavenly bodies as natural in the way that Aristotle did. If, however, nature includes such variation in accordance with location that fire, though it is seen to move upwards here, as soon as it has reached the heavens revolves along with their rotation, what wonder is there that the same thing has happened to heavy and earthy bodies that have got there and that they too have been reduced by the environment to a different kind of motion? For it certainly cannot be that heaven naturally deprives light objects of their upward motion but is unable to master objects that are heavy and have a downward inclination; on the contrary, by [whatever] influence it rearranged the former it rearranged the latter too and employed the nature of both of them for the better.

What is more, if we are finally to throw off the habits [and] opinions that have held our minds in thrall and fearlessly to say what really appears to be the case, no part of a whole all by itself seems to have any order, position, or motion of its own which could be called unconditionally natural. cf. Plutarch, frag. vii. 15 (Bernardakis, vol. vii, p. 31. 6 ff. = Olympiodorus, , p. 157. 22-25 [Norvin]). On the contrary, each and every such part, whenever its motion is usefully and properly accommodated to that for the sake of which the part has come to be and which is the purpose of its growth or production, and whenever it acts or is affected or disposed so that it contributes to the preservation or beauty or function of that thing, then, I believe, it has its natural position and motion and disposition. In man, at any rate, who is the result of natural process if any being is, the heavy and earthy parts are above, chiefly in the region of the head, and the hot and fiery parts are in the middle regions; some of the teeth grow from above and some from below, and neither set is contrary to nature; and it cannot be said that the fire which flashes in the eyes above is natural whereas that in the bowels and heart is contrary to nature, but each has been assigned its proper and useful station. Observe, as Empedocles says, The two lines here quoted and the line that preceded them are quoted together in support of the same contention in 618 B = Empedocles, frag. B 76 (i, p. 339. 9-11 [Diels-Kranz]). the nature of Tritons and tortoises with hides of stone and of all testaceans, Thoult see earth there established over flesh; and the stony matter does not oppress or crush the constitutionFor ἕξις = the bodily constitution cf. 625 A - B, 680 D, 681 E; , 764 C. on which it is superimposed, nor on the other hand does the heat by reason of lightness fly off to the upper region and escape, but they have been somehow intermingled and organically combined in accordance with the nature of each.

Such is probably the case with the cosmos too, if it really is a living beingIn , 1115 B Strato’s denial of this is cited as an example of his opposition to Plato; and in , 1014 C - D Plutarch, speaking of the creation of the world by the Platonic demiurge, says τὸ κάλλιστον ἀπεργασάμενος καὶ τελειότατον ζῳον, thereby referring to such passages as , 30 B - D, 32 C - D, 68 E, 69 B - C. Still, Platonic though it is, this assumption is one which his Stoic adversaries would grant (cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 139 and 142-143 [= ii, frags. 634 and 633]); and Plutarch believes that in granting it they are committed to the implication that the moon despite its location can consist of earth.: in many places it has earth and in many fire and water and breath as the result not of forcible expulsioncf.Aristotle, , 277 B 1-2: ουδὲ βίᾳ (scil. φέρεται αὐτῦν τὸ μὲν ἄνω τὸ δὲ κάτω) ὥσοερ τινές φασι τῇ ἐκθλίξει, and Cherniss, , p. 191, n. 196. but of rational arrangement. After all, the eye has its present position in the body not because it was extruded thither as a result of its lightness, and the heart is in the chest not because its heaviness has caused it to slip and fall thither but because it was better that each of them should be so located. Let us not then believe with regard to the parts of the cosmos either that earth is situated here because its weight has caused it to subside or that the sun, as Metrodorus of ChiosFor this Atomist, who is not to be confused with the Epicurean, Metrodorus of Lampsacus, or with the Anaxagorean, cf. Diels-Kranz, ii, pp. 231-234; the present passage should be added to that collection, from which it is missing. According to , 889 B ( = Aëtius, ii. 15. 6 [, p. 345 A 7-12]) Metrodorus considered the sun to be farthest from the earth, the moon below it, and lower than the moon the planets and fixed stars. For the explanation of the suns position here ascribed to Metrodorus see note a supra and cf. Simplicius, De Caelo, p. 712. 27-29. once thought, was extruded into the upper region like an inflated skin by reason of its lightness or that the other stars got into their present positions because they tipped the balance, as it were, at different weights. On the contrary, the rational principle is in control; and that is why the stars revolve fixed like radiant eyes In , 98 B the phrase is quoted as Plato’s; it comes from , 45 B (τῶν δὲ ὀργάνων πρῶτον μὲν φωσφόρα συνευεκτήναντο ὄμματα, τοιᾷδε ἐνδήσαντες αἰτίᾳ), and Plutarch’s τῷ προσὠποῳ τοῦ παντὸς ἐνδεδεμένοι was suggested by this in conjunction with the preceding lines (45 a: . . . ὑποθέντες αὐτ aυτόσε τὸ πρόσωπον, ὄργανα ἐνέδησαν τούτῳ), though Plato is there speaking of the human face and eyes. in the countenance of the universe, the sun in the hearts capacity transmits and disperses out of himself heat and light as it were blood and breath, and earth and sea naturally serve the cosmos to the ends that bowels and bladder do an animal. The moon, situate between sun and earth as the liver or another of the soft viscerai.e. the spleen. For the purpose of liver and spleen cf. Aristotle, 670 A 20-29, 670 B 4-17, 673 B 25-28; and for the close connection of liver and spleen 669 B 15 670 A 2. is between heart and bowels, transmits hither the warmth from above and sends upwards the exhalations from our region, refining them in herself by a kind of concoction and purification.Eustathius, , 695. 12 ff. says that according to the Stoics the golden rope of , viii. 19 is ὁ ἥλιος εἰς ὃν κάτωθεν ὥσττερ εἰς καρδίαν ἀποχεῖται ἀναδιομένη ἡ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμίασις. Starting from this K. Reinhardt (, pp. 332 ff.) argued that Posidonius was Plutarch’s source for the analogy between the parts of the cosmos and the organs of the body; but Reinhardt’s contention is refuted by R. M. Jones, xxvii (1932), pp. 121-128. Passages which equate sun and heart are fairly frequent, e.g. Theon of Smyrna, pp. 187. 13-188. 7 (Hiller); Proclus, , 171 C - D (ii, p. 104. 20-21 and 28-29, Diehl); Macrobius, i. 20. 6-7 (pp. 564-565, Eyssenhardt); Chalcidius, , § 100 (p. 170, Wrobel); Anon. Christ., , pp. 17.15-18.11 (Kroll-Viereck) with astrological ascriptions of different bodily organs to the seven planets. An entirely different analogy between the various human faculties and the seven planets is mentioned by Proclus, , 348 A - B (iii, p. 355. 7-18, Diehl), and Numenius in Macrobius, i. 12. 14-15 (p. 533, Eyssenhardt); and I know no parallel to Plutarch’s further analogy of earth and moon with bowels and liver or spleen. In the pseudo-Hippocratic the moon because of its central position in the cosmos appears to have been equated with the diaphragm (cf. Roscher, , p. 5. 45 ff., pp. 10-11, p. 123). In the section of Porphyry’s Introduction to Ptolemys Apotelesmatica published by F. Cumont in , i, pp. 155-156, the source of which Cumont contends must have been Antiochus of Athens, the moon is said to have the spleen as its special province, while the heart is assigned to the sun; but there the liver is the province of Jupiter. It is not clear to us whether her earthiness and solidity have any use suitable to other ends also. Nevertheless, in everything the better has control of the necessary.cf. Plato, Timaeus, 48 A: noῦ δὲ ἀνάγκης ἄρχοντος τῷ πείθειν αὐτὴν τῶν γιγομένων τὰ πλεῖστα ἐπι τὸ βέλτιστον ἄγρειν κτλ. For the term τὸ κατηναγκασμένον cf. ii, frag. 916. Well, what probability can we thus conceive in the statements of the Stoics? They say that the luminous and tenuous part of the ether by reason of its subtility became sky and the part which was condensed or compressed became stars, and that of these the most sluggish and turbid is the moon.= ii, frag. 668; cf. Cleomedes, ii. 3. 99 (pp. 178. 26-180. 8, Ziegler) and contrast ii. 4. 100 (p. 182. 8-10). On the Stoic ether cf. Diogenes Laertius, vii. 137 (= ii, frag. 580) and note g on 922 B supra. Yet all the same anyone can see that the moon has not been separated from the ether but that there is still a large amount of it about her in which she moves and much of it beneath her in which [they themselves assert that the bearded stars] and comets whirl. So it is not the inclinations consequent upon weight and lightness that have circumscribed the precinctsThe lexica give weigh balance as the meaning of σεσήλωται, but the logic of the passage here shows that the word must be connected with σηκός, not with σήκωμα (cf. Hesychius: ἀποσηκώσας and σάκωσε). Amyot’s situez et colloquez and Keplers quasi obvallata sunt render the sense correctly. of each of the bodies, but their arrangement is the result of a different principle.

With these remarks I was about to yield the floor to Lucius,It was ostensibly in order to give Lucius time to collect his thoughts that Lamprias began the remarks which he has just concluded after ten paragraphs (see 923 F supra). since the proofs of our position were next in order; but Aristotle smiled and said: The company is my witness that you have directed your entire refutation against those who suppose that the moon is for her part semi-igneous and yet assert of all bodies in common that of themselves they incline either upwards or downwards. Whether there is anyone, however, who saysThis is Aristotle, of course: , 269 A 2-18, 270 A 12-35; cf. [Aristotle], , 392 A 5-9 and , 887 D = Aëtius, ii. 7. 5 (, p. 336). that the stars move naturally in a circle and are of a substance far superior to the four substances hereI have added this word in the translation in order to make it clear that the four are the four sublunar substances, earth, water, air, and fire. did not even accidentally come to your notice, so that I at any rate have been spared trouble. And Lucius [broke in and] said: good friend, probably one would not for the moment quarrel with you and your friends, despite the countless difficulties involved, when you ascribe to the other stars and the whole heaven a nature pure and undefiled and free from qualitative change and moving in a circle whereby [it is possible to have the nature] of endless revolution too; but let this doctrine descend and touch the moon, and in her it no longer preserves the impassivity and beauty of that body. Not to mention her other irregularities and divergencies, this very face which she displays is the result of some alteration of her substance or of the admixture somehow of another substance.cf. Aëtius, ii. 30. 6 (, p. 362 B 1-4): Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆs (scil. σελήνης) ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τoῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον. In fact in 761 B 22 Aristotle does say that the moon shares in the fourth body, i.e. fire. That which is subjected to mixture, however, is the subject of some affection too, for it loses its purity, since it is perforce infected by what is inferior to it. The moon’s sluggishness and slackness of speed and the feebleness and faintness of her heat [which], in the words of Ion, ripes not the grape to duskiness,At 658 C Plutarch quotes the whole line, Ion, frag. 57 (Nauck²). to what shall we ascribe them except to her weakness and alteration, [if] an eternal and celestialFor the epithet ὀλύμπιος used of the moon cf. 935 C s.v. and , 416 E: οἱ δ’ ὀλυμπίαν γῆν (scil. σελήνην) προσεῖπον, and for the meaning attached to it cf. the etymology in the pseudo-Plutarchian , B, 95 [vii, p. 380. 17-20, Bernardakis]; Pseudo-Plutarch in Stobaeus, , i. 22 (i, p. 198. 10 ff., Wachsmuth); [Aristotle], , 400 A 6-9; Eustathius, , 38. 38. body can have any part in [alteration]? The fact is in brief, my dear Aristotle, that regarded as earth the moon has the aspect of a very beautiful, august, and elegant object; but as a star or luminary or a divine and heavenly body she is, I am afraid, misshapen, ugly, and a disgrace to the noble title, if it is true that of all the host in heaven she alone goes about in need of alien light,At 1116 A Plutarch quotes Parmenides as having called the moon άλλότριον φῶς (= Parmenides, frag. B 14 [i, p. 243. 19, Diels-Kranz]); cf. Empedocles, frag. B 45 (i, p. 331. 2 [Diels-Kranz]). as Parmenides says Fixing her glance forever on the sun.= Parmenides, frag. B 15 (i, p. 244. 3 [Diels-Kranz]), quoted also at 282 B. Our comrade in his discourseSee note a on p. 48 supra. won approval by his demonstration of this very proposition of Anaxagorass that the sun imparts to the moon her brilliance = Anaxagoras, frag. B 18 (ii, p. 41. 5-7 [Diels-Kranz]).; for my part, I shall not speak about these matters that I learned from you or in your company but shall gladly proceed to what remains. Well then, it is plausible that the moon is illuminated not by the suns irradiating and shining through her in the manner of glasscf. Aëtius, ii. 25. 11 (, p. 356 B 21) = Ion of Chios, frag. A 7 (i, p. 378. 33-34 [Diels-Kranz]). or iceSee note c on 922 C supra. nor again as the result of some sort of concentration of brilliance or aggregation of rays, the light increasing as in the case of torches.cf., 891 F = Aëtius, ii. 29. 4 (, p. 360 A 3-8 and b 5-11). Were that true, we should see the moon at the full on the first of the month no less than in the middle of the month, if she does not conceal and obstruct the sun but because of her subtility lets his light through or as a result of combining with it flashes forth and joins in kindling the light in herself.The latter was the theory of Posidonius as Plutarch indicates in 929 D s.v.; cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 101 (pp. 182. 20-184. 3 [Ziegler]) and ii. 4. 104-105 (pp. 188. 5-190. 16). Certainly her deviations or aversionsi.e. the various deflections of the moon in latitude and the varying portion of the lunar hemisphere turned away from the sun as the moon revolves in her orbit. For these two variations in the explanation of the lunar phases cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 100 (pp. 180. 26-182. 7 [Ziegler]), and Geminus, ix. 5-12 (p. 126. 5 ff. [Manitius]). cannot be alleged as the cause of her invisibility when she is in conjunction, as they are when she is at the half and gibbous or crescent; then, rather, standing in a straight line with her illuminant, says Democritus, she sustains and receives the sun, = Democritus, frag. A 89 a (ii, p. 105. 32-34 [DielsKranz]). For the meaning of κατὰ στάθμην cf. , 883 a, 884 C. The words ὑπολαμβάνει καὶ δέχεται have a sexual meaning here; cf. 944 E s.v., , 372 D, , 770 A, and Roscher, über Selene und Verwandtes, pp. 76 ff. so that it would be reasonable for her to be visible and to let him shine through. Far from doing this, however, she is at that time invisible herself and often has concealed and obliterated him. His beams she put to flight, as Empedocles says, From heaven above as far as to the earth, Whereof such breadth as had the bright-eyed moon She cast in shade,= Empedocles, frag. B 42 (i, p. 330. 11-13 [Diels-Kranz]). just as if the light had fallen into night and darkness and not upon an other star. As for the explanation of Posidonius that the profundity of the moon prevents the light of the sun from passing through her to us,See note h on 929 C supra. In Cleomedes, ii. 4. 105 (p. 190. 4-16 [Ziegler]) the refutation given by Plutarch here is answered or anticipated by the statement that the air does not have βάθος as the moon does, and from what follows it appears that by the βάθος of the moon Posidonius must have meant not mere spatial depth but a certain density as well. this is obviously refuted by the fact that the air, though it is boundless and has many times the profundity of the moon, is in its entirety illuminated and filled with sunshine by the rays. There remains then the theory of Empedocles that the moonlight which we see comes from the moons reflection of the sun. That is why there, is neither warmtha At 937 B s.v. and , 404 D it is said that in being reflected from the moon the sun’s rays lose their heat entirely (cf. Macrobius, i. 19. 12-13 [p. 560. 30 ff., Eyssenhardt]). Just above, however, at 929 A Plutarch ascribed to the moonlight a feeble heat, and so he does in 918 A (cf. Aristotle, 680 A 3334; [Aristotle], , 942 A 24-26; Theophrastus, iv. 14. 3). Kepler (, note 200) asserts that he had felt the heat from the rays of the full moon concentrated in a concave parabolic mirror; but the first real evidence of the moon’s heat was obtained by Melloni in 1846 by means of the newly invented thermopile. cf. R. Pixis, , p. 135; S. Günther, , p. 82, n. 3; Nasmyth-Carpenter, (London, 1885), p. 184. nor brilliance in it when it reaches us, as we should expect there to be if there had been a kindling or mixture of [the] lights [of sun and moon].I have added the words sun and moon in the translation to make explicit the meaning of [τῶν] φώτων. For the theory referred to see note h on 929 C supra. To the contrary, just as voices when they are reflected produce an echo which is fainter than the original sound and the impact of missiles after a ricochet is weaker, Thus, having struck the moon’s broad disk, the ray= Empedocles, frag. B 43 (i, p. 330. 20 [Diels-Kranz]). comes to us in a refluence weak and faint because the deflection slackens its force.

Sulla then broke in and said: No doubt this position has its plausible aspects; but what tells most strongly on the other side, did our comradeSee 929 B and note a on p. 48 supra. explain that away or did he fail to notice it? What’s that? said Lucius, or do you mean the difficulty with respect to the half-moon? Exactly, said Sulla, for there is some reason in the contention that, since all reflection occurs at equal angles,This expression is intended to have the same sense as πρὸς ἴσας γίγνεσθαι γωνίας ἀνάκλασιν πᾶσαν (930 A s.v.), and both of them mean (pace Raingeard, p. 100, and Kepler in note 28 to his translation) the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence. cf. [Euclid], aà (= Euclid, , vii, p. 286. 21-22 [Heiberg]) with Olympiodorus, p. 212. 7 = Hero Alexandrinus, , ii. 1, p. 368. 5 (Nix-Schmidt) and [Ptolemy], , ii = Hero Alexandrinus, , ii. 1, p. 320. 12-13 (Nix-Schmidt); and contrast the more precise formulation of Philoponus, p. 27. 34-35. whenever the moon at the half is in mid-heaven the light cannot move earthwards from her but must glance off beyond the earth. The ray that then touches the moon comes from the sun on the horizonKepler in note 19 to his translation points out that this is true only if μεσουρανῇ is in mid-heaven refers not to the meridian but to the great circle at right-angles to the ecliptic. and therefore, being reflected at equal angles, would be produced to the point on the opposite horizon and would not shed its light upon us, or else there would be great distortion and aberration of the angle, which is impossible. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (p. 186. 7-14 [Ziegler]) introduces as σχεδὸν γνώριμον his summary of this argument against the theory that moonlight is merely reflected sunlight. Yes, by Heaven, said Lucius, there was talk of this too; and, looking at Menelaus the mathematician as he spoke, he said: In your presence, my dear Menelaus, I am ashamed to confute a mathematical proposition, the foundation, as it were, on which rests the subject of catoptrics. Yet it must be said that the proposition, all reflection occurs at equal angles, See note e on 929 F supra. is neither self-evident nor an admitted fact.It has been suggested that οὔθ’ ὁμολογούμενον is a direct denial of ὡμολογηένον ἐστι παρὰ πᾶσιν at the beginning of Hero’s demonstration (Schmidt in Hero Alexandrinus, [ed. Nix-Schmidt], ii. 1, p. 314. However that may be, the law is assumed in Proposition XIX of Euclid’s , where it is said to have been stated in the (Euclid, , vii, p. 30. 1-3 [Heiberg]); and a demonstration of it is ascribed to Archimedes (, 7 = Euclid, , vii, p. 348. 17-22 [Heiberg]; cf. Lejeune, , xxxviii [1947], pp. 51 ff.). It is assumed by Aristotle in , iii. 3-5 and possibly also by Plato (cf. Cornford, Platos , pp. 154 f. on , 46 B); cf. also Lucretius, iv. 322-323 and [Aristotle], , 901 B 21-22 and 915 B 30-35. Proposition XIX of Euclids , referred to above, is supposed to be part of the Dioptrics of Euclid which Plutarch cites at , 1093 E (cf. Schmidt, Op. cit. p. 304). It is refuted in the case of convexi.e. cylindrical, not spherical, convex mirrors; cf. xlvi (1951), pp. 142-143 for the construction and meaning of this sentence. mirrors when the point of incidence of the visual ray produces images that are magnified in one respect; and it is refuted by folding mirrors,For such mirrors cf. [Ptolemy], , xii = Hero Alexandrinus, , ii. 1, p. 342. 7 ff. either plane of which, when they have been inclined to each other and have formed an inner angle, exhibits a double image, so that four likenesses of a single object are produced, two reversed on the outer surfaces and two dim ones not reversed in the depth of the mirrors. The reason for the production of these images Plato explains,Plutarch means , 46 B - C, where Plato, however, describes a concave, cylindrical mirror, not a folding plane mirror. Plutarch apparently mistook the words ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν ὕξη λαβoῦσα, by which Plato describes the horizontal curvature of the mirror, to mean that the two planes of a folding mirror were raised to form an angle at the hinge which joined them. for he has said that when the mirror is elevated on both sides the visual rays interchange their reflection because they shift from one side to the other. So, if of the visual rays (some) revert straight to us (from the plane surfaces) while others glance off to the opposite sides of the mirrors and thence return to us again, it is not possible that all reflections occur at equal angles.See note e on 929 F supra. Consequently (some people) take direct issue (with the mathematicians) and maintain that they confute the equality of the angles of incidence and reflection by the very streams of light that flow from the moon upon the earth, for they deem this fact to be much more credible than that theory. Nevertheless, suppose that thisi.e. the theory that the angle of reflection is always equal to the angle of incidence. must be conceded as a favour to geometry, the dearly beloveds3 In the first place, it is likely to occur only in mirrors that have been polished to exact smoothness; but the moon is very uneven and rugged, with the result that the rays from a large body striking against considerable heights which receive reflections and diffusions of light from one another are multifariously reflected and intertwined and the refulgence itself combines with itself, coming to us, as it were, from many mirrors. In the second place, even if we assume that the reflections on the surface of the moon occur at equal angles, it is not impossible that the rays as they travel through such a great interval get fractured and deflectedWith these words Plutarch means to refer to the effects of refraction; cf. , 894 C = Aëtius, iii. 5. 5 (, p. 372. 21-26); Cleomedes, ii. 6. 124-125 (p. 224. 8-28 [Ziegler]); Alexander, p. 143. 7-10. so as to be blurred and to bend their light. Some people even give a geometrical demonstration that the moon sheds many of her beams upon the earth along a line extended from the surface that is bent away from uscf. the argument given by Cleomedes, ii. 4. 103 (pp. 186. 14-188.7 [Ziegler]) and especially: ὅτι δ᾽ ἀπὸ παντὸς τοῦ κύκλου αὐτῆς φωτίζεται ἡ γῆ, γνώριμον. εὐθέως γὰρ ἅμα τῷ τὴν πρώτην ἴτυν ἀνασχεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος φωτίζει τὴν γῆν, τούτων τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς περικλινῶν ὄντων καὶ πρός τὸν οὐρανόν, ἀλλ᾽οὐχί, μὰ Δία, πρὸς τὴν γῆν ὁρώντων For ἡ ἐκκεκλιμένη cf. Hippocrates, 38 (iv, p. 168. 18 [Littrè]).; but I could not construct a geometrical diagram while talking, and talking to many people too.

Speaking generally, he said, I marvel that they adduce against us the moon’s shining upon the earth at the half and at the gibbous and the crescent phases too.i.e. the moon at the half, gibbous, and crescent phases presents such a great difficulty for the Stoics themselves that it is strange for them to adduce these phenomena as refutation of the theory that the moon shines by reflected light. Wyttenbach’s conjecture, ἐκπίπτουσαν for ἐμπίπτουσαν, approved by Purser and apparently adopted by Prickard in his translation of 1918, betrays a misapprehension of the meaning of the text. After all, if the mass of the moon that is illuminated by the sun were ethereal or fiery, the sun would not leave herFor ἀπέλειπεν cf. 931 C s.v.. The dative with the verb is unobjectionable, cf. e.g. [] 178 D, 195 F. a hemisphere that to our perception is ever in shadow and unilluminated; on the contrary, if as he revolves he grazed her ever so slightly, she should be saturated in her entirety and altered through and through by the light proceeding easily in all directions. Since wine that just touches water at its surfaceFor κατὰ πέρας cf. , 1080 E ( = ii, frag, 487): ψαύειν κατὰ πέρας τὰ σώματα λέγουσι and ii, frag. 433 cited in note d on 930 F s.v.. The emendations of Emperius and Papabasileios are consequently ill-advised. or a drop of blood fallen into liquid at the moment [of contact] stains all the liquid red,cf., 1078 D - E ( = ii, frag. 480) and ii, frags. 473, 477, 479. and since they say that the air itself is filled with sunshine not by having any effluences or rays commingled with it but by an alteration and change that results from impact or contact of the light,cf. ii, frag. 433 (Galen, iv, vol. xvii, B, p. 161 [Kühn], especially: τοῖς ἄνω πέρασιν αὐτοῦ (scil. τοῦ ἀέρος) προσπιπτούσης τῆς ἡλιακῆς αὐγῆς ὅλος ἀλλοιοῦταί τε καὶ μεταβάλλεται συνεχὴς ὢν ἑαυτῷ). cf. also note a on 922 E supra. how do they imagine that a star can come in contact with a star or light with light and instead of blending and producing a thorough mixture and change merely illuminate those portions of the surface which it touches?cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 101 (p. 182. 20 ff. [Ziegler]) for the doctrine of Posidonius, which Plutarch here turns against him and the Stoics generally: τρίτη ἐστὶν αἵρεσις ἡ λέγουσα κιρνᾶσθαι αὐτῆς (scil. τῆς σελήνης) τὸ φῶς ἔκ τε τοῦ οἰκείου καὶ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τοιοῦτον γίνεσθαι οὐκ ἀπαθοῦς μενούσης αὐτῆς ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοιουμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ κατὰ τοιαύτην τὴν κρᾶσιν ἴδιον ἰσχούσης τὸ φῶς cf. ibid. 104 (p. 188. 4-7). In fact, the circle which the sun in its revolution describes and causes to turn about the moon now coinciding with the circle that divides her visible and invisible parts and now standing at right angles to it so as to intersect it and be intersected by it, by different inclinations and relations of the bright part to the dark producing in her the gibbous and crescent phases,cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 109-111 (pp. 196. 28-200. 23 [Ziegler]). conclusively demonstrates that her illumination is the result not of combination but of contact, not of a concentration of light within her but of light shining upon her from without. In that she is not only illuminated herself, however, but also transmits to us the semblance of her illumination, she gives us all the more confidence in our theory of her substance. There are no reflections from anything rarefied or tenuous in texture, and it is not easy even to imagine light rebounding from light or fire from fire; but whatever is to cause a repercussion or a reflection must be compact and solid,Here ἐμβριθές is used as the opposite of λεπτομερές (cf. Liddell and Scott, s.v. ἐμβρίθεια ii) as πυκνόν is of ἀραιόν. in order that it may stop a blow and repel it.cf. Cleomedes, ii. 4. 101-102 (p. 184. 9-18 [Ziegler]). Cleomedes, assuming that the moon is μανόν, uses this as an argument against reflection; Plutarch, having established the necessity of reflection, uses the argument to support the contention that the moon is earthy. At any rate, the same sunlight that the air lets pass without impediment or resistance is widely reflected and diffused from wood and stone and clothing exposed to its rays. The earth too we see illuminated by the sun in this fashion. It does not let the light penetrate its depths as water does or pervade it through and through as air does; but such as is the circle of the sun that moves around the moon and so great as is the part of her that it intercepts, just such a circle in turn moves around the earth, always illuminating just so much and leaving another part unilluminated,cf. Cleomedes, ii. 5. 108 (p. 194. 20 ff. [Ziegler]). for the illuminated portion of either body appears to be slightly greater than a hemisphere.Cleomedes, ii. 5. 109 (p. 198. 6-9 [Ziegler]). Give me leave then to put it in geometrical fashion in terms of a proportion. Given three things approached by the light from the sun: earth, moon, air; if we see that the moon is illuminated not as the air is rather than as the earth, the things upon which the same agent produces the same effects must be of a similar nature. I have tried to preserve the contorted form in which Plutarch expresses the point that the moon, since it is affected by sunlight as the earth is and not as air is, must have the consistency of earth and not of air.

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