Page:The Natural History of Pliny.djvu/67

Chap. 6.] ACCOIJIfT or THE WOELD. 33 sume On this account she appears with an unequal light, because being full only when she is in opposition, on all the remaining days she shows only so much of herself to the earth as she receives light from the sun^. She is not seen in conjunction, because, at that time, she sends back the whole stream of light to the source whence she has derived it. That the stars generally are nourished by the terrestrial moisture is evident, because, when the moon is only half vi- sible she is sometimes seen spotted, her power of absorbing moisture not hadng been powerful enough ; for the spots are nothing else than the dregs of the earth drawTi up along with the moisture^. (10.) But her eclipses and those of the sun, the most wonderful of all the phsenomena of nature, and which are like prodigies, serve to indicate the magnitude of these bodies and the shadow"* which they cast. 1 It was a general opinion among the ancients, and one which was en- tertained until lately by many of the modems, that the moon possessed the power of evaporating the water of the ocean. This opinion appears to have been derived, at least in part, from the effect which the moon produces on the tides. 2 "quantum ex sole ipsa concipiat ;" from this passage, taken singly, it might be concluded, that the author supposed the quantity of light received by the moon to differ at different times ; but the succeeding sentence seems to prove that this is not the case ; see the remarks of Alex- andre in Lemaire, ii. 249. Marcus, however, takes a different view of the subject ; Ajasson, ii. 291, 292. He had previously pointed out Pliny's opinion respectmg the phases of the moon, as one of the chcumstances which indicate his ignorance of astronomy, ut supra, ii. 245, 246. ^ This doctrine is maintained by Seneca, Qua?st. Nat. hb. ii. § 5. p. 701, 702. From the allusion which is made to it by Anacreon, in liis 19th ode, we may presimae that it was the current opinion among the ancients. ^ I may remark, that Poinsinet, in tliis passage, substitutes " umbra " for " iunbrseque," contrary to the authority of all the MSS., merely be- cause it accords better with his ideas of correct reasoning. Although it may be of httle consequence in this particular sentence, yet, as such liber- ties are not unfrequently taken, I think it necessary to state my opinion, that this mode of proceeding is never to be admitted, and that it ha«  proved a source of serious injury to classical hterature. In this account of the astronomical phsenomena, as well as in all the other scientific dis- sertations that occur in our author, my aun has been to transfer into oiur language the exact sense of the original, without addition or correction. Our object in reading PUny is not to acquire a knowledge of natural phi-' losophy, which might be better learned from the commonest elementary work of the present day, but to ascertain what were the opinions of the learned on such subjects when Pliny wrote. I make tlua remark, becauna YOL. I. S>