De Facie Quae in orbe Lunae Apparet

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, Zeuxis, 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. Class. Phil. 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, Phys. 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 fusion[*](Plato’s theory; cf. Timaeus, 45 C and Placitis, 901 B- C = Aëtius, iv. 13. 11 (Dox. Graeci, p. 404).) than any impacts and rebounds such as those of the atoms that Epicurus invented.[*](cf.Adv. Coloten, 1112 C and Placitis, 901 A - B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 1 (Dox. Graeci, p. 403. 2-4). The present passage seems to imply that Hipparchus’s explanation of vision resembled that of Epicurus. In Placitis, 901 B = Aëtius, iv. 13. 9 (Dox. Graeci, 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. Class. Phil. 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 say[*](Lamprias 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.