Some philosophical and literary testimonies from the Classical World on solid surfaces are reviewed, and their implications discussed in the light of Surface Science. While Plato (V-IV century BC) thought the surface to be a real, material entity, Aristotle (IV century BC) considered it but a merely conceptual abstraction having no existence of its own. Subsequently, the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (I century BC) regarded plane surface as existing both in thought and in reality, although the implications involved in his view were remarkably different from those of Plato's. While Aristotle's view enjoyed a virtually unanimous consensus in antiquity, some passages in book 34 of the Elder Pliny's Naturalis Historia (I century AD) make a notable exception, as they refer to the surface of metal objects as to a region whose nature and behavior are quite different from those of the bulk: in other words, this bears witness to what appears to be an "ante litteram" example of Surface Science. Indeed, Pliny records the peculiar and dramatic ways in which these surfaces are affected by physico-chemical agents from the environment, and he also describes the remedies which best mitigate the effects of such phenomena. Further analogies between "old" and "modern" Surface Science are considered: purely-geometrical Plato's surface is found to compare favorably to a single-crystal surface, whereas the "corporeal" surface involved in Posidonius' view is best likened to an air-oxidized, or otherwise ambient-modified surface. I shall finally argue that the long-standing dominance of Aristotle's view from antiquity onwards has greatly delayed theoretical speculation into solid surfaces.