(1) c. 1, 920 B. The opening of the Dialogue is abrupt; compare that of ‘On the Instances of Delay in Divine Punishment’. Many of the Symposiacs open as abruptly, and there a former conversation is sometimes resumed by the same speakers. It seems not impossible that there had been a previous Dialogue on the Face in the Moon, and, again, that the pe?? ????? preceded the De Sera numinum Vindicta.

Wyttenbach reads t? ?? ?? for the MSS. t? ??? ??, but suggests t? pa?? ???, which seems better. Sylla is not the author, but the depository, of the myth.

For e? de? t? ... p??sa?a????sas?a? he reads e? d? t? ... p??sa?e????sas?e. The past indicative is required by the t? d? ??? ?????e? which follows, the reference being to the previous discussion (see Introduction). The combination e? d? or e? d? t? is a frequent one. If d? was altered to de?, the further alteration of the verb would follow. Sylla’s language is nautical, as in c. 26, ‘Did you really stop rowing, and back-water on to the received views?’

(2) c. 3. 921 A. For our sight. ???? is an old correction for ?t?? of the MSS., and is required by the context.

(3) c. 4. 921 C. Equal in breadth and length. Empedocles (Fr. 17, 20) has a line

This poetical quotation is introduced to indicate that the world is not a mere point, but has sensible dimensions. In literal truth, the habitable world was held to be twice as long as it was wide (i. e. N. to S.).

The words as to the earth occupying ‘a point central to the sphere (i. e. orbit) of the moon’ are quoted from the Second Hypothesis of Aristarchus (see Introduction). It has been proposed (by Dr. Max Adler) to substitute the name of Clearchus for that of Hipparchus. But the quarrel of Lamprias is not with philosophers but with astronomers and mathematicians, represented by Apollonides and Menelaus. The greatest of them is of absolute authority as to angles of reflexion, &c., not so when he propounds a physical theory of vision, which many find unsatisfactory. For the theory itself see the quasi-Plutarchean De Placitis, 4, 13.

For the words ?a?t?? ?e f??e p??a? (omitted in the translation), Turnebus proposed ?a?t?? ?e f??e ?ap??a, which is very attractive as to the letters, but impossible, unless the text be wholly reconstructed, because Lamprias is himself the speaker.

For discrepancies between the mathematically correct theory of reflexion and its physical application see chapters 17 and 23.

(4) c. 7, 924 B. That segments of beams.... The sense intended by the translation is this: A beam is sawn into two segments on the earth’s surface. The two segments, which at first are separated by a short interval, move simultaneously towards the earth’s centre, but in converging, not parallel, lines, and jam each other long before they reach it. (This is suggested by Aristotle, de Caelo, 2, 14, 296 b 18.)

For ?p????ptes?a? Dr. Purser suggests ?p????ptes?a?, which I have rendered; ?p???ptes?a? (Aristoph. Lysis. 1003), ‘to crouch aside’, seems possible.

(5) c. 9, 925 B. Perhaps the line of Empedocles may run ??at?? ?spe?a?e? (L. C. P.) ???? ?sseta?.

(6) c. 10, 925 E. The MSS. have ???? ?a? ????t??? ta?t? d??st?a t? d???, for which Madvig (Adv. Crit., vol. i, p. 665) makes the admirable correction: ???? ?a? ??e??? ?a? ta?t? d??st?a d?t???.

(7) c. 14, 927 F. The growth within. I read a???s??, which is sometimes confused with ????. Cp. Ar. Eth. N. 3, 14, 149 b 4.

(8) c. 19, 932 C. [the moon ... bodies also]. The words in brackets have been supplied from the substance of the passage of Aristotle mentioned in the footnote.

(9) c. 19, 932 C. Posidonius’ definition is introduced because it contains an admission that the moon casts a shadow, and is therefore an earthlike, not a starlike, body. It has been proposed to alter s???? into s???, and the construction with s???d?? could be justified by Platonic examples (see R. Kunze in Rhein. Mus. vol. 64, p. 635), but the assumed corruption is improbable. E appears^[375] to read ??? not ??; the clause introduced by the relative seems to contain a limitation of the phenomenon to ‘those who experience the obscuration’, i.e. those in the track of the shadow over the earth’s surface. In this case, the words may either have come from a marginal gloss on t?de t? p????, or should be transposed with those words, as suggested by Dr. Purser. This will be consistent with the account of a solar eclipse given by Cleomedes (2, 3, p. 172), doubtless after Posidonius; it is not a?t?? t?? ?e?? p???? ???? t?? ?et??a? ??e??, whereas an eclipse of the moon is a?t?? t?? ?e?? p????, irrespective of the place of the terrestrial observer.

(10) c. 24, 937 F. A lion. Kepler suggests that there was an old confusion between ???, a lion, and ???, a stone.

(11) c. 24, 938 C. without mouths. The MSS. have e?st????, but ?st???? is an old correction adopted by W. Pliny, N. H. 7, 2, 25, quotes Megasthenes for a mouthless people living near the sources of the Ganges. See also MÜller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. 2, 427 (Adler). For the notion of living by smell cp. Heraclitus (Fr. 38).

(12) c. 26, 941 A. This interesting passage should be read by the side of De Defectu Oraculorum, c. 18, p. 19 F (p. 135 above), which has a close verbal resemblance, and is perhaps extracted from it (Adler). Briareus may have been named in the full text here, as the son of Cronus. In Hesiod, Theogon. 147, he is the son of Uranus, and so Eustathius on Hom. Il. 1, 403, but a little later on Eustathius mentions Cronus as his father on the authority of Arrian. pa?a??t? ?e?s?a? of the MSS. is difficult. Adler would read ?????e?? d? t?? ???? ?? ????ta f?????? t?? te ??s?? ??e???? ?a? t?? ?a??tt??, ?? ??????? p??a??? ???????s??, pa?a?at???s?a?. Dr. Purser points out that the Straits of Gibraltar were first called the Pillars of Cronus, afterwards the Pillars of Briareus, and lastly the Pillars of Hercules (Schol. ad Dionys. Perieg. 64 in MÜller’s Fragm. Hist. Gr. 3, 640).

I have followed the reading of Emperius p??a? ?at???s?a?, but without much confidence. Cronus could not well, as Dr. Purser points out, have been in one of the islands, and also beyond it.

(13) c. 26, 942 C. I venture to suggest that the text may have run something as follows:

??e?st?? ??? ?? ?a???d??? ?????? d??t???e? ?te d? pa?? ??? ?ta??a ????, ?? ?a? t??a?, ??? ? p??t??a p???? ?p????t?, ?t?.

The long sojourn of the stranger in Carthage would be explained if he owned mines there.

In the sequel fa??????? may perhaps stand for F????????? and ????a? for ???st???a e??a?.

408 F (p. 110, l. 19). p??? d? p?st?? ?p?sfa??? ?a? ?pe??????. If ?p?sfa??? stands, it should rather mean ‘liable to take good faith (like an infection)‘, a very common use of the adjective and its adverb in Plutarch. See e. g. 661 B, 631 C. This seems rather a forced oxymoron here. Wyttenbach doubted, and Madvig proposed ??ep?sfa???, a word said to be found in Themistius.

On the passage see J. H. W. Strijd in Class. Rev., xxviii, p. 219.

Supplemental Notes 1918

418 A (p. 132, above). ... p??????? (F???pp??) t?s?? ??t?a?t??e?? ?e??? ??eta? t??? ??ta???????????, ???t???, ?f?, t??? pe?? t? ???st?????, ??? ??t? t??? ??? ????? p??ta? ?????a? ? p???? ?at????????sa ???? ?ep?? ????a?e?.

I have followed Amyot, whose version is perhaps more intelligible than the Latin, but involves the change of ?e??? to ?e???? (Turnebus) and the transposition of Tempe and Thermopylae. If ?e??? can be retained, the reference will be to Dionysus and Apollo, the two gods connected with the sanctuary (pp. 67, 138, &c.) and the purgation of the latter at Tempe, commemorated by periodical rites. ?e???? appears to correspond more closely to ?e???? above.

926 C-D (pp. 271-2). d?? t??t? ??? s?at? ????? ? ????e? e??a? ?d??, ?? ???a ?e??? ?p? ?????? ? p?????, ???a??? te p??ta ?a? ??? ?a? ???assa? ?? ta?t? pe??p?????ta, ?a? d??st?e??? e?? s???a? ??e?? ?a? ?e??a, ?a? ?e????, ?a? pa???? ????? e?? ????t?t??. For d??st?e??? W. proposes d??pt?e???. I have, with great hesitation, followed Herwerden’s ?d? ???? (Emperius ?d? ??? ???a), as the substantive agrees with the participle, but the whole passage is difficult. ?p? ?????? ? p????? seems to be out of place (can ?p? stand for something equivalent to ??e? or to Madvig’s ????? ?p?)?

In the paper mentioned on p. 54 Dr. Max Adler adduces an interesting passage from Maximus Tyrius (diss. 22, 6) closely parallel to this, as proving that Plutarch was drawing upon Posidonius. The participle d??pta??? occurs.