De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet

Well, to begin with, you see that it is absurd to call the figure seen in the moon an affection of vision in its feebleness giving way to brilliance, a condition which we call [bedazzlement]. Anyone who asserts this[*](If Plutarch has a definite person in mind, I have not been able to identify him. Adler (Diss. Phil. Vind. x, p. 127) thinks that ὁ λέγων refers to a physicist whose name Plutarch himself probably did not know, and Raingeard that it refers to esprits cultivÈs in general.) does not observe that this phenomenon should rather have occurred in relation to the sun, since the sun lights upon us keen and violent (as Empedocles[*](Frag. 40 (i, p. 329. 11 [Diels-Kranz]).) too somewhere not infelicitously renders the difference of the two:

The sun keen-shafted and the gentle moon,

referring in this way to her allurement and cheerfulness and harmlessness), and moreover does [not] explain why dull and weak eyes discern no distinction of shape in the moon but her orb for them has an even and full light, whereas those of keen and robust vision make out more precisely and distinctly the pattern of facial features and more clearly perceive the variations. In fact the contrary, I think, should have been the case if the image resulted from an affection of the eye when it is overpowered: the weaker the subject affected, [the clearer] should be the appearance of the image. The unevenness also entirely refutes the hypothesis, for the shadow that one sees is not continuous and confused but is not badly depicted by the words of Agesianax[*](Schmid (Christ-Schmid-Stählin, Gesch. der griech. Litteratur⁶ , ii. 1, p. 164, n. 5) assumes that the verses here quoted are from the astronomical poem of Hegesianax; so also Susemihl (Gesch. der griech. Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii, p. 33, n. 19), Schaefer (R.E. i. 795), and Stähelin (R.E. vii. 2603. 59 ff.). Powell (Collectanea Alexandria, p. 8) prints the verses as fragment 1 of the Phaenomena of Hegesianax but observes that Cod. A Catalogi Interpretum Arati gives Ἀγησιάναξ.): She gleams with fire encircled, but within Bluer than lapis show a maiden’s eye And dainty brow, a visage manifest. In truth, the dark patches submerge beneath the bright ones which they encompass and confine them, being confined and curtailed by them in turn; and they are thoroughly intertwined with each other [so as to] make the [delineation] of the figure resemble a painting. [This], Aristotle, seemed[*](i.e. in the earlier discussion which Lamprias is now relating for Sulla’s benefit.) to be a point not without cogency against your Clearchus[*](Clearchus of Soli, pupil of Aristotle; Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, Heft III: Klearchos, frag. 97 (cf. A.J.P. lxx [1949], pp. 417-418).) also. For the man is yours, since he was an associate of the ancient Aristotle, although he did pervert many doctrines of the School.[*](For ὁ Περίπατος, the Promenade, used to designate the school of Aristotle, cf. Musica, 1131 F, and the Peripatetics in Adv. Coloten, 1115 A - B, and Sulla, xxvi (468 B).)