Concerning the Face which Appears in the Orb Of the Moon (2)

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[*] 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[*] 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[*]: 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[*] to be a point not without cogency against your Clearchus[*] also. For the man is yours, since he was an associate of the ancient Aristotle, although he did pervert many doctrines of the School.[*]