The Geographical Significance of Plutarch's Dialogue, concerning the Face Which Appears in

the Orb of the Moon

Author(s): Paul Coones
Source: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1983),
pp. 361-372
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of
British Geographers)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622050 .
Accessed: 24/01/2011 06:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
The geographical significance of Plutarch's
dialogue, Concerning the face which appears in
the orb of the moon
PAUL COONES
DepartmentalDemonstratorin Geography,Universityof Oxford

RevisedMS received3 February1983

ABSTRACT. Plutarch's remarkable dialogue, Concerningtheface which appears in the orb of the moon is a work familiar to classical
scholars and historians of science interested in the development of astronomy, cosmology, catoptrics, and the historical relationship
between philosophy and science. Its significance for the study of geographical thought is also considerable: in seeking to prove
that the moon is an earth, the dialogue presents and explores important ideas regarding the nature of the geographical environment,
the processes of environmental causation, and the adaptation of various forms of life to different natural conditions. The question
of the moon's habitation is used as a starting point for a wide ranging discussion concerning the position of man in the cosmos.
This lively and imaginative debate reveals that the main purpose of the dialogue is to review the concept of design in nature,
and the discussion is generously illustrated with diverse and intriguing examples. The result serves to emphasize the importance
of the design argument in stimulating enquiry into causal relationships within the geographical environment, while at the same
time foreshadowing modem critiques of the inherent deficiencies of teleological explanations in nature.

INTRODUCTION

In spite of his popularity as a prolific writer with remarkablydiverse interests, Plutarch is not
generally included in the catalogue of ancient scholars who assume a significance on account
of their contributions to the development of geography. The genial, anecdotal style embodied
in the famous Lives has rendered him a vital though tantalizing source for historians, but the
geographical content of his better known works has proved insufficient to attract the attention
of geographers. However, among the highly varied collection of antiquarian,literary, philosophi-
cal, and rhetorical works which comprise the Moralia is the extraordinary dialogue, De facie
quae in orbe lunae apparet (Concerning the face which appears in the orb of the moon).1 The
dramatic date of the dialogue is some time after A.D. 75,2 and the piece is a complex blend
of first century science and philosophy, combining intelligent speculation with an assessment
of earlier ideas, and culminating in a Platonic myth centred upon the fate of the soul after
death. The speakers review the available knowledge concerning the nature of the moon and
its relationship with the earth and other heavenly bodies. This in turn raises the question of
the possibility of life on the moon, and whether, in the absence of inhabitants, the moon can
be said to have a purpose. The discussion presents some fascinating thoughts on the fundamen-
tal issues of environmental causation (especially plant adaptation and the potentialities of
different environments for various forms of life), the mutual relations of man and nature, and
the structure and order of the cosmos. It has been widely acknowledged that the De facie is
of great interest for the history of astronomy, referring as it does to the theories of Aristarchus
and Hipparchus, and looking forward to the discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo. Kepler
described the dialogue as 'the most valuable discussion of the earth's satellite to come down
to us from antiquity'.3 It was considered by Dreyer in his History of Astronomyto represent
Trans.Inst.Br. Geogr.N.S. 8: 361-72 (1983) Printed in Great Britain
362 PAUL COONES
the peak of ancient lunar astronomy,4 and Sambursky suggested that the De facie might be
deemed to constitute the first work on astrophysics ever written.5 Its significance for the
evolution of physics, catoptrics, and cosmology has also been attested, while Duhem hailed it
in his
Systsme du monde as a work of genius.6 However, despite enthusiastic comments by
Humboldt,7 the dialogue has not received the attention from geographers which it merits;
indeed, some of the standard surveys of classical geography do not mention it.8

THE STRUCTURE OF THE DE FACIE

The structure of the dialogue is complicated, but three main sections may be identified.9
Lamprias, the leader and narrator of the whole work, tells first of a conversation concerned
with reporting an earlier discussion about the face which appears in the orb of the moon.10
This rresum, together with the interruptions and comments provoked by it in the telling,
constitute the first or
entscientific part of the dialogue. The participants include Lamprias himself,
represented as a vehement critic of Stoicism; Apollonides, a geometry expert (who it is probably
to be understood is interested in astronomy); Aristotle, who proposes the orthodox Peripatetic
theory ofheavenlyeatoic; the Pharnaces
bodies; (proarnaces Stoic; Lucius
the
Lucius (probably the pupil of Moderatus
the Pythagorean); Theon, the literary authority, and Menelaus the mathe matician, who does
not speak. The first speaker is Sulla the Carthaginian, and it transpires that he promised to
tell his 'myth' in return for a report of the above-mentioned discussion. After the 'scientific'
part of the dialogue, there follows a short bridge passage, in the form of a 'relaxation' in which
Theon raises the question of the habitability of the moon, to which Lamprias replies. After
this second part, the dialogue concludes with Sulla's myth, told in his own words. This third
section consists of two parts: an introduction, in which Sulla tells how an unnamed stranger
described a mysterious journey to the Isle of Cronus, and an eschatological myth, which the
stranger heard from the chamberlainsand servitors of Cronus. The myth furnishes the dialogue's
climax by describing the function of the moon as a habitation for souls after death, thereby
establishing the purpose of the moon in the cosmos.

THE 'SCIENTIFIC CONTENT OF THE DE FACIE

Despite its eclectic mixture of rational inquiry and deliberate fantasy, the De fadciepossesses
an intrinsic unity which is essential to the evolution and presentation of its scientific and
philosophical conclusions. Its geographical interest ultimately derives from the synthesis of these
conclusions, but all three parts of the dialogue contain rich detail and fertile ideas pertinent
to geography. The central thesis of the first part is that the moon is an earth, with a solid,
earth-like constitution; it is not, as the Stoics and Aristotle believed, a mixture of smouldering
fire and murky air, an ethereal or luminiferous star composed of a special substance superior
to the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air." This thesis is a startling one in view of
its heterodoxy: it had hardly been mentioned for several centuries past and was not to be
proposed again for many more. An impressive array of evidence is presented in its support.
The 'figure' in the moon is neither an affection of vision, nor a reflection, as in a mirror, of
our earth and the great ocean.12 The markings of the moon are not a blackening of the air
over the smoking, charred, and blemished surface of the Stoics' fiery mass. There is no 'fifth
element' which obliges the moon to have a 'naturalplace' (up) or a 'natural motion' (in a circle):
Aristotle's theory of 'natural places' is held to constitute an impediment in the way of truth,
particularly with respect to its fundamental but unproven assumption that the earth lies in the
centre of the cosmos. Infinity has no centre, and the concept of the infinite universe cannot
be reconciled with the geocentric hypothesis; it is interesting that Plutarch casually mentions
 Theface in the moon 363
Aristarchus' idea that the earth, revolving on its own axis, actually goes around the sun. With
respect to the 'natural' place of the moon, why should it not be independent, its place and
motion left to Providence? There is no fear of it crashing to earth, because it is kept from falling
by its motion in the same way asa missile is kept in a sling by being whirled in a circle.13
As an earth the moon is beautiful, august, and elegant; if it were a star it would be feeble,
faint, and sluggish, as well as being mis-shapen and a disgrace to the title. The moon's solidity
is demonstrated by its reflection of the sun's light in the manner of the phases, and by its ability
to hide the light of the sun during a solar eclipse. The colour which the moon displays in a
lunar eclipse is not its own, because it changes with the progress of the eclipse.14 (The causes
of both solar and lunar eclipses are clearly explained.) The smouldering colour is 'rather an
admixture or remnant of the light shining round about through the shadow', a result of reflec-
tions occasioned by the flood of shade, similar to the colours encountered around a terrestrial
lake.15 (This explanation is a very advanced one for the time, and is well on the way to the
truth. The 'blood-red, black, and other gloomy colours'16 which were so terrifying to the
superstitious resulted from the refraction of a certain amount of sunlight through the various
layers of the earth's atmosphere,17but until the sixteenth century, and even later, this luminosity
was taken as evidence that the moon was possessed of its own light.18) The curved shadow
of the earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse demonstrates the sphericity of the earth,
although the moon is smaller than the earth, being about a third of its size. The moon's surface
is interrupted by gulfs and chasms, which do not have to be so very large in order to cast long
shadows and send a discontinuous reflection to earth; it is clear that most of the sunlight which
the moon receives is scattered, and its light and heat lost.19 Thus the reflection occasioned
by the pattern of lunar relief is the true explanation of the 'face' which appears in the moon.
This concludes the 'scientific' part of the dialogue, which concentrates on the reported
discussion. The range of ideas which it presents is extraordinary, particularly as it was not
intended to be a technical treatise.20 Nevertheless, Plutarch's genuinely scientific originality is
exemplified by this part of the De facie, ably supporting his contention that astronomy is one
of the greatest pleasures given to man.21 In the dialogue, astronomical matters are closely
related to geographical questions as a consequence of the emphasis placed upon mutual relations
between the earth and the heavens. The dialogue illustrates the great stimulus given to the
early development of geography by the accumulation of astronomical knowledge, which
established the basic facts concerning the position and nature of the earth. Sir Halford
Mackinder, in a lecture designed to explore the consequences for geography of the 'astronomical
revolution', proposed that causal relations within the geographical environment could only be
studied properly once the astronomical revolution had brought home to mankind the reality
of the revolving, spherical earth, a planet which did not constitute the centre of the universe;
further, it was not until this had been accomplished that astronomy turned exclusively to the
study of the heavens and left the earth to geography.22 It is significant that as soon as it is
established in the Defacie that the moon is an earth, like our own, the question of its habitation
is raised, which in turn provokes a number of fundamental geographical questions concerning
environment and life.

TELEOLOGYAND ENVIRONMENTALTHEORY
Theon opens the second part of the dialogue by proposing the possibility of life on the moon
as a teleological acid test of the theory that the moon is an earth:

If [habitation of the moon] is not possible, the assertion that the moon is an earth is itself
364 PAUL COONES

absurd, for she would then appear to have come into existence vainly and to no purpose,
neither bringing forth fruit nor providing for men of some kind an origin, an abode, and
a means of life, the purposes for which this earth of ours came into being, as we say
with Plato, 'our nurse, strict guardian and artificer of day and night'.23
Theon continues by listing the environmental obstacles which would serve to preclude the
existence of life on the moon. How did people come to exist on the moon in the first place,
let alone remain there? Why are they not whirled off by the moon's complex motion, or burned
to a cinder by the twelve summers which they have to endure every year?The heat and tenuous-
ness of the atmosphere render impossible the presence of winds and the formation of clouds
and rain, so that no plants can grow.
Theon's speech is intended to be merely a sort of divertissement,but it has raised some
crucial metaphysical and environmental questions. Lamprias delivers a detailed reply; he denies
that the moon lacks a purpose if men cannot live there; after all, many parts of our earth are
uninhabitable:
if the moon is not inhabited by men, it is not necessary that she have come to be in vain
and to no purpose, for we see that this earth of ours is not productive and inhabited
throughout its whole extent either but only a small part of it is fruitful of animals and
plants on the peaks, as it were, and peninsulas rising out of the deep, while of the rest
some parts are desert and fruitless with winter-storms and summer-droughts and the most
are sunk in the great sea ... Yet it is by no means for nothing that these parts have
come to be. The sea gives off gentle exhalations, and the most pleasant winds when
summer is at its height are released and dispersed from the uninhabited and frozen region
by the snows that are gradually melting there.24
In similar fashion, a moon barren of life can still perform many 'useful' functions, digesting
the exhalations from the earth and slackening the excessive torridity and harshness of the sun.
Moreover, Lamprias continues, nothing has yet been said that proves impossible the alleged
inhabitation of the moon. Its motion may be complex but it need not be irregularor disruptive:
on the contrary, astronomershave
demonstrated
marhavellous a order and harmonious progression.
A similar balance no doubt tempers the extremes of temperature, while the thetenuous and trans-
lucent atmosphere scatters and diffuses the sun's light. With respect to vegetation, there exist
on earth many plants which do not require rain, displaying successful adaptations to heat,
drought, and rarefied air. Drawing upon the botanical researches of Theophrastus,25 Plutarch
causes Lamprias to describe plants which are sensitively adjusted to extreme environments,
and to cite certain species which display different characteristics and possess varying natural
requirements depending on the climatic and edaphic conditions of the several locations in which
they are encountered.26 Plants called 'love-restorers' thrive when hung up,27 thyme delights
in drought,28 while dew blights some plants but nourishes others in the absence of rain;29in
the deeps of the oceans plants of great magnitude flourish.30Why should not similarly adapted
plants grow on the moon, particularly as the moon is not 'fiery or dry in temperament but soft
and humidifying'?31Her influence is one of moistness and femininity which softens, liquefies,
and cools the heat of the sun, turning the air to dew and influencing the growth of plants,32
the decay of meats,33 the souring and flattening of wine, the softening of timbers,34 the easy
birth of children,35 and the flood-tides of the ocean.36 In short,
they err then who believe the moon to be a fiery and glowing body; and those who demand
that living beings there be equipped just as those here are for generation, nourishment,
and livelihood seem blind to the diversities of nature, among which one can discover more
 Theface in the moon 365
and greater differences and dissimilarities between living beings than between them and
inanimate objects.37

The men on the moon may differ from us in requiring very little sustenance; equally, the lunar
environment may suit them very well, in the same way that the seemingly inhospitable ocean
supports life of all sorts. The men on the moon

would be much more amazed at the earth, when they look out at the sediments and dregs
of the universe, as it were, obscurely visible in moisture, mists, and clouds as a lightless,
low, and motionless spot, to think that it engenders and nourishes animate beings which
partake of motion, breath, and warmth.38

This warning to his audience not to adopt the pattern of life on earth as a norm by which
to assess or predict life in the cosmos as a whole, ends Lamprias' speech.
This comparatively short transition passage in the middle of the dialogue, although
commencing in the spirit of a 'relaxation', is in many respects the most interesting part of the
work, and assumes a status far greater than that of a mere literary device. It employs fascinating
material concerning environmental relationships as a means of assessing the central position
of man in the cosmos, ultimately posing the metaphysical problem of the final cause.39Lamprias
takes a positive joy in the totality and complexity of the earth, looking beyond the confines
of the ecumene and revelling in diversity as the stuff of life. His botanical descriptions combine
careful observation with an appreciation of the adaptability and resilience of plants, and his
suggestions regarding life on the moon are quite rational. Modern readers may be amused at
Lamprias' list of lunar influences upon terrestrial life, but given that it is not difficult to see
why the moon's temperament should be conceived as moist and liquefying in opposition to the
dry and fiery sun, the examples given are logical; a scientific basis has subsequently been
demonstrated for some of them, while others have not been disproved.40They are not inherently
absurd-Darwin interested himself in the coincidence between lunar cycles and menstruation-
and the use of deduction together with intuition and imagination in the study of the causal
connections between components of the geographical environment represented a mode of
thought which was later to assume a great significance for geography. Lamprias does not imply
that these causal influences necessarily operate directly; indeed, secondary effects are displayed
in the behaviour of the tides, the formation of dew, and the growth of plants. Furthermore,
the empirical techniques of modern physical science continue to leave a good deal undetected
and unexplained in the realm of causal relations. In these respects this part of the De facie
offers a refreshing antidote to cautious, clinical induction.4' It is well to remember the story
of Galileo, who went so far in order to maintain the standards and fulfil the requirements of
rational thought and avoid superstition that he rejected the possibility of lunar influences upon
tides!42 Yet Plutarch, unlike so many of his contemporaries, resisted the temptation to extend
his suggested influences into astrological realms: he ridiculed astrology and those who were
superstitious with regard to natural events like eclipses.43
Lamprias' appreciation of 'useless' regions of the earth demonstrates a refreshing breadth
of vision, and reveals Plutarch's respect for the wild regions of the earth and his sympathy
for animals and plants, sentiments which were closely related to his grasp of the wholeness
of nature.44 His plea that environments are deceptive and that a degree of imagination is
required in order to avoid the erroneous prejudgement of them which stems from a self-centred
and distorted outlook recalls the modern concern with perception studies. Although the Defacie
is at base an exploration and defence of the principle of design, the teleology at least leaves
366 PAUL COONES
the door open for proofs and considerations which are not wholly or directly anthropocentric:
there is life in the oceans and in the deserts which has a value to itself, although its importance
to man is remote.45 Lucretius, in his Epicurean refutation of teleology, had presented a range
of evidence to prove that even if there were a Creator, he did not create for man. The earth,
he maintained, is not perfect: large areas of it are withheld from man in the form of deserts,
frigid regions, and bogs, while it is undeniable that animals are much better adapted to nature
than humans.46 Plutarch faces the challenge directly by celebrating the fact that life is
encountered in unlikely places, and by concluding that the inhospitable parts of the earth are
essential to the whole, exerting beneficial influences upon the inhabited regions. By appreciating
the interrelationships within the geographical environment, he is able to reject habitation as
the proof of the 'usefulness' of a place (and as the ultimate test of whether or not the moon
is an earth); this distinguishes him from those who have abruptly dismissed oceans and
mountains as useless and horrid. In its defence of teleology the De facie provides an early
example of the constructive value to geography of the union of design with environmental
theory. It is also interesting to note that the question of teleology is still present today in certain
key modes of thought in the natural sciences, particularly the life sciences. Systems thinking
(especially ecosystems), as the post-Darwinian descendant of the functionalism stimulated by
the concepts of design and world harmony, inescapably raises the problems of function and
purpose in its complex and seemingly consciously directed organizations of interdependent
elements. It remains a matter for debate whether or not the teleology of a whole can be
reduced to the mechanically explicable behaviour of its parts, and whether purely mechanistic
explanation of phenomena is possible. Plutarch himself went to some trouble to emphasize that
causation and reason are not synonymous, and that to explain an event in terms of efficient
causes does not dispose of the need to comprehend its meaning

THE DE FACIEAND NATURAL THEOLOGY

Plutarch's environmental arguments were taken up by the natural theologians of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. The concern with environment and life extended his influence beyond
those who simply maintained that 'nature makes naught in vain',47 or that all the features of
the cosmos were geared to man's affairs, either to his physical welfare, or his moral training.
An apposite example of the latter is that furnished by the twelfth century 'man of science',
Alexander Neckam, who held that the moon's spots had been created by God for human
edification, as a sign that man also retained spots in his nature contracted from the 'prevarication
of our first parents'.48 In the seventeenth century the focus was removed progressively from
man, and as a consequence the emphasis in studies of design was no longer placed simply
on utility, but was broadened to embrace the complexities of nature.49 The debate returned
to the questions raised by Plutarch in the De facie, and his themes were rehearsed once more,
with the study of environmental relations gradually superseding the anthropocentric concerns
of the philosophers who understood so little about nature that they were in no position to
pontificate about 'usefulness'.50 Plutarch's plea for the oceans was echoed by John Keill, who
condemned the belief that too much of the earth is taken up by sea as a display of ignorance
concerning natural philosophy: if the oceans were diminished, rainfall and rivers would suffer.5'
Mountains too were vital to the hydrological cycle, and as William Derham wrote, they did
not constitute a chaotic blunder, but 'a noble, useful, yea, a necessary Part of our Globe'.52
John Ray devoted a passage of his book, The wisdomof God manifestedin the worksof the Creation
(1691) to a defence of the moon as a useful object, and paraded a sequence of arguments
strikingly similar to those offered by Lamprias. Besides regulating the sea and thereby aiding
 Theface in the moon 367
navigation, the moon improves winter nights, and 'the great influence it is supposed to have
upon all moist Bodies' serves to stimulate plant growth, while eclipses can be used 'to rectifie
the Mistakes of Historiansthat writ many ages ago'. In short,

The Moon, a Body in all probability somewhat like the Earth we live upon, by its constant
and regular Motion helps us to divide our time, reflects the Sun beams to us, and
[illuminates] the Air ... Did this Luminary serve to no other ends and uses, as I am
perswaded it doth many, especially to maintain the Creatures which in all likelihood breed
and inhabit there, yet there were enough to evince it to be the Effect and Product of
Divine Wisdom and Power.53

The most interesting of these writings in the present context is a work by John Wilkins
(1614-72), which actually takes the Defacie as its text and discusses its ideas in detail. Wilkins
was an amateur scientist who enjoyed a busy life as a cleric, politician, and academic; in 1638
he published a book which ran to several editions under the title, A discoveryof a new world,
tendingto prove, that 'tis probabletheremay be anotherhabitableworld in the moon.
or, a discoursetending
Wilkins relied heavily on the first part of the De facie for his description of the physical
characteristics of the moon, and he refined and extended some of Plutarch's remarks, most
notably those concerning
the colours of the moon in eclipse.54 In the course of his discussion
he goes to considerable lengths to demonstrate the tof value inhospitable regions:

Though there are some, who think Mountains to be a Deformity to the Earth, as if they
were either Beat up by the Flood, or else Cast up like so many Heaps of Rubbish left
at the Creation; yet ifthey
well Considered, will be found as much to Conduce to the
Beauty and Conveniency of the Universe, as any of the other Parts. Nature (saith Pliny)
Purposely framed them for many Excellent Uses . . .55

Wilkins concluded that since 'these mountains were not produced in vain', it is highly likely
that the moon is inhabited, and he suggests reasons for supposing that life could exist there,
although he takes a step backwards in adopting a position reminiscent of Theon, that the
habitability of the moon is a necessary condition of its beauty and usefulness. However, when
it comes to the nature of the inhabitants to be found on the moon, Wilkins' speculation comes
to a sudden halt: he finds it impossible to answer such questions as

whether they are the Seed of Adam, whether they are there in a Blessed Estate, or else
what means there may be for their Salvation? with many other such Uncertain Enquiries,
which I shall willingly Omit, leaving it to their Examination who have more Leisure and
Learning, for the Search of such Particulars ... I dare not my self Affirm any thing of
these Selenites,because I know not any Ground whereon to Build any Probable Opinion.56

It is the same thorny problem of the lunar inhabitants which Lamprias comes to at the
end of his speech, and which in turn precipitates Sulla's interruption and the abrupt termination
of the second part of the De facie.

THE CONCLUDING MYTH: THE PLACEOF MAN IN THE COSMOS

It transpires that Theon had jumped in at the end of the first part of the dialogue, preventing
Sulla from beginning his myth as arranged, but in answering Theon, Lamprias has unwittingly
368 PAUL COONES

posed the very question-that concerning the inhabitants of the moon-which Sulla's myth
seeks to answer by fantastically portraying the purpose of the moon in the cosmos. Sulla
therefore silences Lamprias and begins his myth. He explains that he had it told to him by
a stranger, who heard it upon the Isle of Cronus, one of several which lie to the west of Britain.
Beyond the islands lies a great continent whose rivers silt the Atlantic, and from which envoys
are sent to the Isle every thirty years. (This passage has attracted a disproportionate amount
of interest on the grounds that the 'great continent' is in fact America; despite geographical
convolution and a considerable degree of imagination on the part of several scholars,57 the
majority have followed Humboldt and remain convinced that the geographical frame is entirely
mythical, being an imitation of the myth in Plato's Timaeus.58) The second section of the myth,
the eschatological fantasy, proposes that the moon is peopled by souls that have relinquished
their bodies after death on earth, or have not yet been incorporated by birth into terrestrial
bodies. Following death on this planet, the souls wander in the region between the earth and
the moon (Hades); the purer souls reach the moon, but although the impure ones strive to
join them when the moon is in eclipse and they can approach through the earth's shadow, they
are frightened off by the din raised by people beating brasses and 'also by the so-called face
when they get near it, for it has a grim and horrible aspect'.59 Some of the pure souls return
to earth on account of misdeeds committed upon the moon, while the better spirits undergo
a second death during which they pass to the side of the moon which faces heaven (the Elysian
fields). Death on earth separates the soul from the body, while death on the moon detaches
the mind from the soul, out of love of the image of the divine, fair, and blessed as manifested
in the sun.
A great deal of the scholarly controversy surrounding the myth has been concerned with
the question of Plutarch's sources, and the significance of his demonology and eschatology for
the development of Neo-Platonism.60 However, despite its apparent total lack of scientific
interest, the myth is an intrinsic part of the dialogue and serves to highlight the importance
of Theon's speech and Lamprias' reply. On one level it provides a vehicle for an exposition
of Platonic beliefs concerning the fate of the soul, but it also attempts to furnish a metaphysical
answer to the philosophical question raised by the second part of the Defacie.61 The problem
of the final cause, viewed in relation to man's position in the cosmos, is resolved by outlining
the purpose of the moon in the cosmos, in the first part, and its purpose for the human soul
in the third, the two forms of teleology being reconciled by means of the central transition
passage.62 The result is an intricate blend of fact and fiction, but it must be remembered that
not only was a purely physical explanation of the moon's nature unavailable, it would also have
proved incomplete and inadequate to a Platonist. The answer to the question concerning the
moon's purpose-whether or not it needs to be habitable if it is to be considered an earth-had
to be provided by transcendent metaphysics as well as by astronomy and geography. The aim
of the whole work therefore, is to establish the fact that the moon is an earth; as Wilkins wrote,
'you may see this Proved by Plutarch, in that Delightful work which he Properly made for
the Confirmation of this Particular'.63The latent ability of science to advance mechanistic
explanation at the expense of teleology, and the complex array of philosopical, theological, and
empirical problems which the design argument was later to encounter, are foreshadowed in
Sulla's agitated interruption of Lamprias' speech:

Almost before I had finished, Sulla broke in. 'Hold on, Lamprias', he said, 'and put to
the wicket of your discourse lest you unwittingly run the myth aground, as it were, and
confound my drama, which has a different setting and a different disposition.'64
The modern reader may feel frustrated that Sulla thus succeeds in terminating such an
 Theface in the moon 369

FIGURE 1. The junction of heaven and earth. This woodcut, of uncertain origin, purports to represent the medieval conception
of the universe. It shows the firmament with the stars, sun, and moon (with face), separating the terrestrial landscape from a
heavencompletewith celestialmachinery.(Reproducedby permissionof MaryEvansPictureLibrary)

interesting and fertile presentation of ideas, and fervently wish that the myth had indeed been
well and truly sabotaged. To disregard the myth however, would be to violate the integrity
of the ancient vision as well as to tend towards the unwarrantedassumption that the subsequent
progress of science has successfully answered or rendered superfluous the type of question raised
by Theon. Despite the accumulation of knowledge concerning the material universe, mankind
is still preoccupied with the quest for meaning in the cosmos, striving in the manner of the
intrepid medieval pilgrim for a glimpse of heaven (Figure 1). Wilkins, writing sixteen centuries
after Plutarch, was forced into exactly the same kind of speculation with regard to the inhabitants
of the moon as were the participants of the Defacie, and he readily grasped at Sulla's eschatology
as a non-scientific solution to his presentation of the very same teleological quandary.65The
value of the De facie lies in its precocious demonstration both of the potentials and the self-
imposed limitations of teleology with respect to the study of nature and man's place in it. The
dialogue offers an exploration of the causal interrelationships within the geographical environ-
ment and a celebration of the richness, diversity, and adaptabilityof its life-forms, which render
370 PAUL COONES

it of lasting interest to those who seek to comprehend the geographical synthesis, while the
metaphysical problem provides food for thought as long as geography is concerned to search
for the closer approximation of science to human values.

NOTES
1. The standard edition, with translation, commentary, and notes, is that in the Loeb Classical Library, by CHERNISS,H. (1957)
MoraliaVol. 12 (Londonand Cambridge,Mass.) pp. 1-223
in Plutarch's
2. Ibid. p. 12; SANDBACH, F. H. (1929) 'The date of the eclipse in Plutarch's De facie', Class. Q 23: 15-16. The dramatic
date and the date of compositionmay not coincide
3. KEPLER, J. (1634) Somnium,seu opusposthumum de astronomia lunari,divulgatumd M. LudovicoKepplero filio (Zagan, Silesia,
and Frankfurt)note 2; inspiredby the myth fromthe Defacie, Kepler'sSomnium(Dream)blendedscience with demonology
to offera popularaccountof the heliocentricuniversein the guiseof a lunarfantasy.See also 'PlutarchiPhilosophiChaeronen-
sis: Libellusde facie, quae in orbe lunae apparet',in FRISCH, C. (ed.) (1870) JoannisKepleriastronomi operaomniaVol. 8(1)
(Frankfurt-am-Main) pp. 76-123; see also SCHMERTOSCH, R. (1897) 'Kepplerzu PlutarchsSchrift"VomGesichtim Monde"',
in Philologisch-historische
BeitrageCurtWachsmuth zumsechzigsten Geburtstag (Leipzig)pp. 52-5; Plxis, R. (1899) Kepler
iiberreicht
als Geograph, einehistorisch-geographische
Abhandlung(Munich); CASPAR, M. (1959) Kepler,trans. HELLMAN, C. D. (London
and New York)pp. 351-3
4. DREYER, J. L. E. (1953) A historyof astronomy from Thalesto Kepler(New York)p. 189 (firstpublished1906)
5. SAMBURSKY, S. (1956) Thephysicalworldof the Greeks,trans. DAGUT, M. (London)p. 205
6. DUHEM,P. (1914) Le systemedu monde:histoiredesdoctrines cosmologiquesdePlatond Copernic Vol. 2 (Paris)p. 360
7. HUMBOLDT, A. VON (1852) Cosmos:a sketchof physicaldescription of the universeVol. 4, trans. OTTE,E. C. and PAUL,
B. H. (London)p. 488
8. BUNBURY, E. H. (1883) A historyof ancientgeographyamongthe Greeksand Romansfrom the earliestages till thefall of the
Romanempire2 vols (London); TOZER,H. F. (1897) A historyof ancientgeography(Cambridge).The exceptionis EBNER,
E. (1906) Geographische HinweiseundAnkldngein PlutarchsSchrift:Defacie in orbelunae(Munich)
9. The clearestdescriptionof the structureis given by CHERNISS (1957) op. cit. (note 1) pp. 2-33
10. The beginningof the dialogue is lost; it has been suggested that there are two earlierdiscussions:a lecture and a debate
precipitatedby it, but separatefrom it, and that the recapitulationis of the latterevent; MARTIN, H. (1974) 'Plutarch'sDe
facie: the recapitulationsand the lost beginning',Greek,Rom.Byz. Stud. 15: 73-88
11. De facie 921E, 922A, 925B-C. One of the few workswhich concentrateon the scientificpartof the dialogueis the detailed
and penetratingsurveyby G6RGEMANNS, H. (1970) Untersuchungen zu Plutarchs DialogDefacie in orbelunae(Heidelberg)
12. De facie 920C-921F; see also CHERNISS (1957) op. cit. p. 40 (note 1); Humboldtrecordedhis astonishmentat hearinga
'very well educated Persian'maintainthat the moon's markingswere a reflectionof the earth: HUMBOLDT (1852) op. cit.
p. 490 (note 7)
13. De facie 924D-926C, 928F, 923A-D; a concise summaryof this part of the dialogueis given in THOMSON, J. 0. (1948)
Historyof ancientgeography (Cambridge)p. 330
14. De facie 929A-931 B, 932D-E, 934C; see also O'BRIEN, D. (1968) 'Derived light and eclipses in the fifth century', J. HIell.
Stud. 88: 114-27
15. Defacie 934D-E; 935A-B
16. Dio CASsIUs64 11; see also PLUTARCH Nicias23; SENECANaturalesquestiones
7.27.1
17. HERSCHEL, J. F. W. (1858) Outlinesof astronomy(London)pp. 275-8; HUMBOLDT (1852) op. cit. pp. 484-5 (note 7)
18. The idea was even entertainedby WilliamHerschel(1738-1822): PIxIS(1899) op. cit. p. 133 (note 3)
19. Defacie 932B, 932F, 935C-937C
20. See CHERNISS (1957) op. cit. pp. 19-20 (note 1), who draws attention to the treatise by the Arab astronomer Ibn Al-Haitham
(A.D. 965-1039); see also EBNER(1906) op. cit. p. 21 if. (note 8); PRICKARD, A. 0. (1911) Plutarchon thefacewhichappears
on theorbof themoon(Winchesterand London)pp. 9-16
21. PLUTARCH F. E. (1977) In
Non possesuavitervivi secundumEpicurum(Moralia1086C-1107C), 1093D-E; see also BRENK,
mistapparelled: Moraliaand Lives(Leiden) pp. 38, 136 (note 28)
religiousthemesin Plutarch's
22. MACKINDER, H. J. (1938) 'The music of the spheres',Proc,R. phil. Soc. Glasg.63: 170-81
23. Defacie 937D-E (Loeb translation);the quotationfrom Platois from the Timaeus40B-C
24. De facie 938C-E; breezes from the frozen and torrid zones are mentioned by ARISTOTLE Meteorologica 364a. 5-13 and
De ventis11
THEOPHRASTUS
(c. 370 - c. 287 B.C.) was a pupil of Aristotle. He was responsible for some remarkable advances in botany,
25. THEOPHRASTUS
makingthe distinctionbetweenmonocotyledonsand dicotyledons;he studiedthe influencesof soil and climate upon plants,
differentiatedbetweenwild and cultivatedplants, and vergedupon a statementof plant regions.
26. CF.THEOPHRASTUS Historiaplantarum6. 6. 3
27. PLINYNaturalishistoria24. 102 (167): (Sedumanacampseros?)
28. THEOPHRASTUS De causisplantarum3. 1. 3-6
29. Ibid. 6. 18. 10; Historiaplantarum4. 3. 7, 8. 6. 6
30. Ibid. 4. 6-7; PLINYNaturalishistoria13. 50-2 (139-42)
 Theface in themoon 371
31. De facie 939F; this belief was widespread among the ancients: ARISTOTLE Historia animalium 582a. 34-b. 3; VIRGILGeorgics
3. 337; PLINYNaturalis historia 2. 102 (221-2); PLUTARCH De Iside et Osiride 376D; Quaestionesconvivales 659B; Quaestiones
naturales 918A; MACROBIUS Saturnalia 7. 16.25-32. For a thorough analysis see PREAUX,C. (1973) La lune dans la pensee
grecque (Brussels) pp. 7, 64-155, esp. pp. 128-35. It was also a persistent idea in later ages: BARTHOLOMAEUS ANGLICUS
rerum8. 17; see also ParadiseLost 5. 422-5, and Love'sL.L. 4. 3. 30-3; Rom.& Jul. 1. 4. 62; Mid. N.D.
De proprietatibus
2. 1. 104; see also SAINTYVES,P. (pseud.) (1937) L'Astrologie etudiee specialement
populaire dans les doctrines
et les traditions
a l'influence
relatives dansl'etudedufolkloredesopinionset descroyances
de la lune:essaisur la methode (Paris)
32. PLUTARCH De Iside et Osiride 353F, 367D; cf. CICERODe natura deorum 2. 50; ATHENAEUS Deipnosophistae3. 74C.
33. PLUTARCH Quaestionesconvivales 657F; PLINYNaturalis historia 2. 104 (223)
34. THEOPHRASTUS Historia plantarum 5. 1. 3
35. CICERODe natura deorum 2. 119
36. Ibid. 2. 19; De divinatione 2. 33-4 (STRABO54-5, 173 following Posidonius, who discussed the question of lunar influence
in general: THOMSON(1948) op. cit. pp. 205, 211-12 (note 13); GLACKEN,C. J. (1967) Traces on the Rhodian shore: nature
century(Berkeleyand Los Angeles)pp. 53-4
fromancienttimesto theendof theeighteenth
andculturein westernthought
37. Defacie 940B; cf. ARISTOTLEDe generation animalium 761b. 21-3
38. De facie 940E
P. (1934) Le iepi T 7oo npoac(07o)
39. CHERNISS(1957) op. cit. p. 17 (note 1); see also the otherwise unreliable RAINGEARD,
textecritiqueavectraduction
de Plutarque: (Chartres)p. 134
et commentaire
40. See EISLER,R. (1946) The royal art of astrology (London) pp. 138-45; KOLISKO,E. A. (1936) The moon and the growth of
plants, trans. PEASE,M. and MIRBT, C. A. (Bray-on-Thames); HUMBOLDT(1852) op. cit. pp. 499-502 (note 7), and
HUMBOLDT,A. VON (1849) 'The nocturnal life of animals in the primeval forest', in Aspects of nature, in different lands and
differentclimates;with scientificelucidations Vol. 1, trans. MRS. SABINE(London) pp. 257-75, esp. p. 270.
41. MEDAWAR, P. B. (1969) Inductionand intuition in scientificthought (Philadelphia and London)
42. SARTON,G. (1939) 'Lunar influences on living things', Isis 30: 495-507, p. 497
43. PLUTARCH Romulus 12, Nicias 23, Pericles 6, 35; BRENK(1977) op. cit. p. 41 ff. (note 21); THORNDIKE,L. (1923) A history
scienceduringthefirst thirteencenturiesof ourera Vol. 1 (New York)p. 203 ff.
of magicand experimental
De sollertia animalium esp. 965A-B; BARROW,R. H. (1967)
44. On Plutarch and animals see PLUTARCH Plutarch and his times
M. (1917) Untersuchungen
(London)pp. 113-4; SCHUSTER, DialogDe sollertiaanimaliummitbesonderer
zu Plutarchs Beriicksichti-
gung der LehrtdtigkeitPlutarchs (Augsburg). On wilderness see GLACKEN(1967) op. cit. (note 36); NICOLSON,M. H. (1959)
of theinfinite(Ithica,New York)
of theaesthetics
Mountaingloomand mountainglory:thedevelopment
45. Design and anthropocentric teleology are not necessarily synonymous: Christian thought has played a considerable role in
the identification of man as the raison d'etre of a designed world, exclusively relating such terms as 'useful' and 'useless' to
the human standpoint;see PALEY,W. (1802) Naturaltheology;or, evidencesof the existence of thedeity,collected
and attributes
from the appearancesof nature (London), also HICKS, L. E. (1883) A critique of design-arguments,a historical review and free
of themethodsof reasoningin naturaltheology(New York)
examination
46. LUCRETIUS De rerum natura 5. 195 if.; GLACKEN(1967) op. cit. p. 69 (note 36)
47. ARISTOTLE De Caelo 271a. 34, 291b. 14; PLATOTimaeus; CICERODe natura deorum;order has to be proven, not assumed-not
everything has clear ends: THEOPHRASTUS Metaphysica 27-34. See also SPITZER,L. (1944-5) 'Classical and Christian ideas
of world harmony: prolegomena to an interpretation of the word "Stimmung"', Traditio 2: 409-64, 3: 307-64
48. NECKAM,A. (c. 1180) De naturis rerum 1. 14; Neckam also records the popular belief that the 'man in the moon' is a rustic
with a bush of thorns upon his back, who was condemned to the moon for gathering sticks on the sabbath: see also Numbers
15. 32 ff.; PECOCK,R. (c. 1449) The repressorof over much blaming of the clergy 2. 4; HENRYSON,R. (?pre-1492) Testament
of Cresseid261-3; DEKKER,T. (1609) Lanthorneand candle-light;
or, the bell-man'ssecondnights-walke(London) 8; see also
Mid. N.D. 3. 1. 63-6, Temp.2. 2. 149-52
49. GLACKEN(1967) op. cit. p. 423 (note 36)
50. KEILL, J. (1698) An examination of Dr. Burnet's theory of the earth, togetherwith some remarks on MAr.Whiston's new theory of
the earth (Oxford); WOLLASTON, W. (1722) The religion of nature delineated (no place of pub.) p. 61
51. KEILL(1698) op. cit. pp. 92-3 (note 50); cf. PLUTARCH (spurious?) Aquane an ignis utilior 957A; see also GLACKEN(1967)
op. cit. p. 412 if. (note 36)
52. DERHAM, W. (1713) Physico-theology:or, a demonstrationof the being and attributesof God, from his works of creation (London)
p. 71; KEILL(1698) op. cit. pp. 55-8 (note 50)
53. RAY,J. (1691) Thewisdomof Godmanifested in theworksof the Creation(London)pp. 48-51
54. WILKINS, J. (1684) A discovery of a new world, or, a discourse tending to prove, that 'tis probablethere may be another habitable
world in the moone ... (London) pp. 46-7, 57-9 (First published 1638). It is probable that Wilkins drew inspiration from
GODWIN,F. (1638) Themanin themoone... (London)
55. WILKINS(1684) op. cit. p. 90 (note 54). One of the principal human uses of mountains, according to Wilkins, is as 'sure
Retreits from the Violence and Repression of others', ibid. p. 91
56. Ibid. pp. 142-3, 155. Wilkins looks forward to the time when men will travel to the moon, which is 179,712 miles from
the earth (p. 161)
57. The passage was used in Theatrumorbis terrarum... Abrahami Ortelii (Antwerp, 1594) p. 5, to demonstrate ancient knowledge
of America; KEPLER(ed. FRISCH,1870) op. cit. (note 3) agreed, also CHRIST, W. (1898) Geschichteder griechischenLitteratur
bis auf die Zeit Justinians (Munich) p. 662 note 1; MAIR, G. (1909) 'Pytheas' Tanais und die Insel des Kronos in Plutarchs
Schrift "Das Gesicht im Monde"', Jahresberichtdes K.K. Staats-Gymnasiums in Marburg A/D pp. 3-22; finally COLVIN,V.
(1970) Plutarch and the early travellers to the New World (London and Brighton) (printing of a lecture given in 1893), who
372 PAUL COONES
declaresthat these 'Elysianfields'wereclearlythe landsreservedby Providencefor the Americans,but warnsthat this glorious
countrywill be forgottenagain if its inhabitantslet sensuousindulgenceget the betterof them! (p. 23)
58. HUMBOLDT, A. DE (1836) Examen critiquede l'histoire de la geographie du nouveau continent ... Vol. 1 (Paris) pp. 191-206;
EBNER(1906) op. cit. p. 65 if. (note 8); HAMILTON,W. (1934) 'The myth in Plutarch's Defacie (940F-945D)', Class. Q.
28: 24-30; THOMSON(1948) op. cit. pp. 237-8 (note 13); VERNIERE, Y. (1977) Symboleset mythesdansle pensiede Plutarque,
essaid'interpretation et religieuse
philosophique desMoralia(Paris)pp. 95, 278
59. De facie 944B; cf. PLUTARCH De genioSocratis591C, where the moon herself flashesand bellows in orderto wardoff the
impuresouls.
60. It is generally agreed that Plato not Posidonius furnished Plutarch's inspiration: CHERNISS (1957) op. cit. p. 25 (note 1)
summarizesthe literature;see also BABUT,D. (1969) Plutarque et le Stoicism(Paris)pp. 120-32, 423-30
61. CHERNISS(1957) op. cit. p. 18 (note 1) points out in the course of his succinct analysisthat the metaphysicalansweris
in fact containedin the Theon-Lampriasexchange,the myth merelyofferinga 'poeticalembellishment'of it.
62. This is the thesis of GORGEMANNS (1970) op. cit. (note 11)
63. WILKINS (1684) op. cit. p. 63 (note 54)
64. De facie 940F
65. WILKINS (1684) op. cit. pp. 63, 148 ff. (note 54). See also KANT, I. (1797) 'Enthalt eine Bergleichung zwischen den
Einwohnernder Gestirne',in Allgemeine und TheoriedesHimmels.. . (Frankfurtand Leipzig) pp. 112-29 (First
Naturgeschichte
published1755)