[…] Ὁ μὲν οὖν Σύλλοις ταῦτʼ εἶπε τῷ γʼ ἐμῷ μύθῳ προσήκει κἀκεῖθέν ἐστι· ἀλλʼ εἰ δή τι πρὸς τὰς ἀνὰ χεῖρα ταύτας καὶ διὰ στόματος πᾶσι δόξας περὶ τοῦ προσώπου τῆς σελήνης προανεκρούσασθε, πρῶτον ἡδέως ἄν μοι δοκῶ πυθέσθαι. τί δʼ οὐκ· ἐμέλλομεν εἶπον ὑπὸ τῆς ἐν τούτοις ἀπορίας ἐπʼ ἐκείνους ἀπωσθέντες; ὡς γὰρ οἱ ἐν νοσήμασι χρονίοις πρὸς τὰ κοινὰ βοηθήματα καὶ τὰς συνήθεις διαίτας ἀπειπόντες ἐπὶ καθαρμοὺς καὶ περίαπτα καὶ ὀνείρους τρέπονται, οὕτως ἀναγκαῖον ἐν δυσθεωρήτοις καὶ ἀπόροις σκέψεσιν, ὅταν οἱ κοινοὶ καὶ ἔνδοξοι καὶ συνήθεις λόγοι μὴ πείθωσι, πειρᾶσθαι τῶν ἀτοπωτέρων καὶ μὴ καταφρονεῖν ἀλλʼ ἐπᾴδειν ἀτεχνῶς ἑαυτοῖς τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ διὰ πάντων τἀληθὲς ἐξελέγχειν.
These things then, said Sylla, agree with my story, and are taken thence. But I should first willingly ask, what need there is of making such a preamble against these opinions, which are at hand and in every man’s mouth, concerning the face that is seen within the orb of the moon. Why should we not, said I, being, by the difficulty there is in these discourses, forced upon those? For, as they who have long lain lingering under chronical diseases, after they have been worn out and tired with experimenting all ordinary remedies and the usual rules of living and diet, have at last recourse to lustrations and purifications, to charms and amulets fastened about the neck, and to the interpretation of dreams; so in such obscure and abstruse questions and speculations, when the common, apparent, and ordinary reasons are not satisfactory, there is a necessity of trying such as are more extravagant, and of not contemning but enchanting ourselves (as one may say) with the discourses of the ancients, and endeavoring always to find out the truth.
ὁρᾷς γὰρ εὐθὺς, ὡς ἄτοπος ὁ λέγων τὸ φαινόμενον εἶδος ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ πάθος εἶναι τῆς ὄψεως, ὑπεικούσης τῇ λαμπρότητι διʼ ἀσθένειαν, ὃ […] καλοῦμεν· οὐ συνορῶν ὅτι πρὸς τὸν ἣλιον ἔδει τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον, ὀξὺν ἀπαντῶντα καὶ πλήκτην ὥς που καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν ἑκατέρων ἀποδίδωσιν οὐκ ἀηδῶς διαφορὰν ἣλιος ὀξυβελὴς ἠδʼ ἱλάειρα σελήνη; τὸ ἐπαγωγὸν αὐτῆς καὶ ἱλαρὸν καὶ ἄλυπον οὕτω προσαγορεύσας· ἔπειτα λόγον ἀποδιδούς, καθʼ ὃν αἱ ἀμυδραὶ καὶ ἀσθενεῖς ὄψεις οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μορφῆς ἐνορῶσιν,, ἀλλὰ λεῖος αὐταῖς; ἀντιλάμπει καὶ περίπλεως αὐτῆς ὁ κύκλος, οἱ δʼ ὀξὺ καὶ σφοδρὸν ὁρῶντες ἐξακριβοῦσι μᾶλλον καὶ διαστέλλουσιν ἐκτυπούμενα τὰ εἴδη τοῦ προσώπου, καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἅπτονται σαφέστερον ἔδει γάρ, οἶμαι, τοὐναντίον, εἴπερ ἡττωμένου πάθος ὄμματος ἐποίει τὴν φαντασίαν· ὅπου τὸ πάσχον ἀσθενέστερον, σαφέστερον εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον. ἡ δʼ ἀνωμαλία καὶ παντάπασιν ἐλέγχει τὸν λόγον· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι συνεχοῦς σκιᾶς καὶ συγκεχυμένης ὄψις, ἀλλʼ οὐ φαύλως ὑπογράφων ὁ Ἀγησιάναξ εἴρηκε πᾶσα μὲν ἣδε πέριξ πυρὶ λάμπεται ἐν δʼ ἄρα μέσσῃ / γλαυκότερον κυάνοιο φαείνεται ἠύτε κούρης / ὄμμα καὶ ὑγρὰ μέτωπα· τὰ δὲ ῥέθει ἄντα ἔοικεν· / ὄντως γὰρ ὑποδύεται περιιόντα τοῖς λαμπροῖς τὰ σκιερὰ, καὶ πιέζει πάλιν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν καὶ ἀποκοπτόμενα, καὶ ὅλως πέπλεκται διʼ ἀλλήλων· ὥστε γραφικὴν τὴν διατύπωσιν εἶναι τοῦ σχήματος· τοῦτο δὲ καὶ πρὸς Κλέαρχον, ὦ Ἀριστότελες, οὐκ ἀπιθάνως ἐδόκει λέγεσθαι τὸν ὑμέτερον ὑμέτερος γὰρ ἁνήρ, Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦ παλαιοῦ γεγονὼς συνήθης, εἰ καὶ πολλὰ τοῦ Περιπάτου παρέτρεψεν.
For you see at the very first blush, how impertinent his opinion is who said, that the form appearing in the moon is an accident of our sight, by its weakness giving way to her brightness, which we call the dazzling of our eyes; for he perceives not that this should rather befall our looking against the sun, whose lustre is more resplendent, and whose rays are more quick and piercing; as Empedocles also in a certain passage of his has not unpleasantly noted the difference of these two planets, saying, The sharp-rayed sun, and gently shining moon. / For thus does he call her alluring, favorable, and harmless light. No less absurd appears the reason he afterwards gives why dull and weak eyes discern no difference of form in the moon, her orb appearing to them plain and smooth, whereas those whose sight is more acute and penetrating better descry the lineaments and more perfectly observe the impressions of a face, and more evidently distinguish its different parts. For it should, in my opinion, be quite contrary, if this were a fancy caused by the weakness of the vanquished sight; so that where the patient’s eye is weaker, the appearance would be more express and evident. Moreover, the inequality every way confutes this reason; for this face is not seen in a continuance and confused shadow, but the poet Agesianax not unelegantly describes it, saying, With shining fire it circled does appear, / And in the midst is seen the visage clear / Of a young maid, whose eyes more gray than blue, / Her brow and cheeks a blushing red do show. / For indeed dark and shady things, encompassed with others that are bright and shining, sink underneath and reciprocally rise again, being repelled by them; and in a word, they are so interlaced one within another, that they represent the figure of a face painted to the life; and there seems to have been great probability in that which was spoken against your Clearchus, my dear Aristotle. For he appears not inconveniently to be called yours, for he was intimately acquainted with the ancient Aristotle, although he perverted many of the Peripatetic doctrines.
ὑπολαβόντος δὲ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίδου τὸν λόγον καὶ τίς ἦν ἡ δόξα τοῦ Κλεάρχου διαπυθομένου, παντὶ μᾶλλον ἔφην ἀγνοεῖν ἢ σοὶ προσῆκόν ἐστι λόγον, ὥσπερ ἀφʼ ἑστίας τῆς γεωμετρίας ὁρμώμενον· λέγει γὰρ ἁνὴρ εἰκόνας ἐσοπτρικὰς εἶναι καὶ εἴδωλα τῆς μεγάλης θαλάσσης ἐμφαινόμενα τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον ἥ τε γὰρ ἴτυς ἀνακλωμένη πολλαχόθεν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν οὐ κατʼ εὐθυωρίαν ὁρωμένων πέφυκεν, ἥ τε πανσέληνος αὐτὴ πάντων ἐσόπτρων ὁμαλότητι καὶ στιλπνότητι κάλλιστόν ἐστι καὶ καθαρώτατον. ὥσπερ οὖν τὴν ἶριν οἴεσθʼ·θʼ ὑμεῖς ἀνακλωμένης ἐπὶ τὸν ἣλιον τῆς ὄψεως ἐνορᾶσθαι τῷ νέφει λαβόντι νοτερὰν ἡσυχῇ λειότητα καὶ σύντηξιν, οὕτως ἐκεῖνος ἐνορᾶσθαι τῇ σελήνῃ τὴν ἔξω θάλασσαν οὐκ ἐφʼ ἧς ἐστι χώρας, ἀλλʼ ὅθεν ἡ κλάσις ἐποίησε τῇ ὄψει τὴν ἐπαφὴν αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν· ὥς που πάλιν ὁ Ἀγησιάναξ εἴρηκεν ἢ πόντου μέγα κῦμα καταντία κυμαίνοντος / δείκελον ἰνδάλλοιτο πυριφλεγέθοντος ἐσόπτρου. /
Then Apollonides taking up the discourse, and asking what that opinion of Clearchus was; It would more, said I, beseem any man than you to be ignorant of this discourse, as being grounded on the very fundamental principles of geometry. For he affirms, that what we call a face, is the image and figure of the great ocean, represented in the moon as in a mirror. For the circumference of a circle, when it is reflected back, is wont in many places to touch objects which are not seen in a direct line. And the full moon is for evenness and lustre the most beautiful and purest of all mirrors. As then you hold, that the heavenly bow appears, when the ray of light is reflected back towards the sun, in a cloud which has got a little liquid smoothness and consistence; so, said he, there is seen in the moon the surface of the sea, not in the place where it is situated, but from whence the reflection gives a sight of it by its reverberated and reflexed light, as Agesianax again says in another passage, This flaming mirror offers to your eyes / The vast sea’s figure, as beneath it lies / Foaming with raging billows. /
ἡσθεὶς οὖν ὁ Ἀπολλωνίδης ὡς ἴδιον εἶπε καὶ καινὸν ὅλως τὸ σκευώρημα τῆς δόξης, τόλμαν δέ τινα καὶ μοῦσαν ἔχοντος ἀνδρός· ἀλλὰ πῆ τὸν ἔλεγχον αὐτῷ προσῆγε; πρῶτον μέν εἶπον ᾗ μία φύσις τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης ἐστί, σύρρουν καὶ συνεχὲς πέλαγος, ἡ δʼ ἔμφασις οὐ μία τῶν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ μελασμάτων, ἀλλʼ οἷον ἰσθμοὺς ἔχουσα, τοῦ λαμπροῦ διαιροῦντος καὶ διορίζοντος τὸ, σκιερόν· ὅθεν ἑκάστου τόπου χωρισθέντος καὶ πέρας ἴδιον ἔχοντος, αἱ τῶν φωτεινῶν ἐπιβολαὶ τοῖς σκοτεινοῖς ὕψους εἰκόνα καὶ βάθους λαμβάνουσαι τὰς περὶ τὰ ὄμματα καὶ τὰ χείλη εἰκόνας φαινομένας ὁμοιότατα διετύπωσαν ὥστʼ ἢ πλείονας ἔξω θαλάσσας ὑποληπτέον ἰσθμοῖς τισι καὶ ἠπείροις ἀπολαμβανομένας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἄτοπον καὶ ψεῦδος, ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης, οὐ πιθανὸν εἰκόνα διεσπασμένην οὕτως ἐμφαίνεσθαι. ἐκεῖνο μὲν γὰρ ἐρωτᾶν ἀσφαλέστερόν ἐστιν ἢ ἀποφαίνεσθαι σοῦ παρόντος, εἰ, τῆς οἰκουμένης εὖρος ἴσης καὶ μῆκος, ἐνδέχεται πᾶσιν ὡσαύτως ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης ὄψιν ἀνακλωμένην ἐπιθιγγάνειν τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τοῖς ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ μεγάλῃ θαλάττῃ πλέουσι νὴ Δία καὶ οἰκοῦσιν, ὥσπερ Βρεττανοῖς, καὶ ταῦτα μηδὲ τῆς γῆς, ὥς φατε, πρὸς τὴν σφαῖραν τῆς σελήνης κέντρου λόγον ἐπεχούσης. τουτὶ μὲν οὖν ἔφην σὸν ἔργον ἐπισκοπεῖν· τὴν δὲ πρὸς τὴν σελήνην τῆς ὄψεως κλάσιν οὐκέτι σὸν οὐδʼ Ἱππάρχου· καίτοι γε, φίλε πρίαμ […] ἀλλὰ πολλοῖς οὐκ ἀρέσκει φυσιολογῶν περὶ τῆς ὄψεως, αὐτὴν ὁμοπαθῆ κρᾶσιν ἴσχειν καὶ σύμπηξιν εἰκός ἐστι μᾶλλον ἢ πληγάς τινας καὶ ἀποπηδήσεις, οἵας ἔπλαττε τῶν ἀτόμων Ἐπίκουρος. οὐκ ἐθελήσει δέ, οἶμαι, τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στερεὸν ὑμῖν ὁ Κλέαρχος, ἀλλʼ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον, ὡς φατε· τοιαύτῃ δὲ τὴν ὄψιν θραύειν προσήκει καὶ ἀποστρέφειν, ὥστʼ οἴχεσθαι τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. εἰ δὲ προσδεῖταί τις ἡμᾶς, ἐρησόμεθα πῶς μόνον πρόσωπόν ἐστιν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἔσοπτρον, ἄλλῳ δʼ οὐδενὶ τῶν τοσούτων ἀστέρων ἐνορᾶται · καίτοι τὸ γʼ εἰκὸς ἀπαιτεῖ πρὸς ἅπαντας ἢ πρὸς μηδένα τοῦτο πάσχειν τὴν ὄψιν. ἀλλʼ […] πρὸς τὸν Λεύκιον ἔφην ἀποβλέψας,· ὃ πρῶτον ἐλέχθη τῶν ἡμετέρων ὑπόμνησον.
Apollonides therefore, being delighted with this, said. A singular opinion indeed is this of his, and (to speak in a word) strangely and newly invented by a man sufficiently presumptuous, but not void of learning and wit. But how, I pray, was it refuted?
First, said I, the superficies of the sea is all of a nature, the current of it being uniform and continuous; but the appearance of those black and dark spots which are seen in the face of the moon is not continued, but has certain isthmuses or partitions clear and bright, which divide and separate what is dark and shady. Whence every place being distinguished and having its own limits apart, the conjunctions of the clear with the obscure, taking a resemblance of high and low, express and represent the similitude of a figure seeming to have eyes and lips; so that we must of necessity suppose, either that there are main oceans and main seas, distinguished by isthmuses and continents of firm land, which is evidently absurd and false; or that if there is but one, it is not credible its image should appear so distracted and dissipated into pieces. And as for this, there is less danger in asking than in affirming in your presence, whether, since the habitable earth has both length and breadth, it is possible that the sight of all men, when it is reflected by the moon, should equally touch the ocean, even of those that sail and dwell in it, as do the Britons; especially since the earth, as you have maintained, has but the proportion of a point, if compared to the sphere of the moon. This therefore, said I, it is your business to observe, but the reflection of the sight against the moon belongs neither to you nor Hipparchus. And yet, my friend Lamprias, there are many naturalists, who approve not this doctrine of his touching the driving back of the sight, but affirm it to be more probable that it has a certain obedient and agreeing temperature and compactness of structure, than such beatings and repercussions as Epicurus feigned for his atoms. Nor am I of opinion that Clearchus would have us suppose the moon to be a massy and weighty body, but a celestial and light-giving star, as you say it is, which must have the property of breaking and turning aside the sight; so that all this reflection would come to nothing. But if we are desired to receive and admit it, we shall ask why this face or image of the sea is to be seen only in the body of the moon; and not in any of the other stars? For the laws of probability require that the sight should suffer this equally in all, or else in none.
But pray, sir, said I, casting mine eyes upon Lucius, call a little to mind what was said at first by those of our party.
Cite This Text