Aëtiana V: An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts, Part 2. Book 2 Text and Commentary, Book 3 Text and Commentary 9789004428355

Citation preview

PART 2

Aëtiana V Part 2

Philosophia Antiqua A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy

Editorial Board F.A.J. de Haas (Leiden) K.A. Algra (Utrecht) J. Mansfeld (Utrecht) C.J. Rowe (Durham) D.T. Runia (Melbourne) Ch. Wildberg (Princeton)

Previous Editors J.H. Waszink† W.J. Verdenius† J.C.M. Van Winden†

volume 153/2

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/pha

Aëtiana V An Edition of the Reconstructed Text of the Placita with a Commentary and a Collection of Related Texts part 2 Book 2 Text and Commentary Book 3 Text and Commentary

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld David T. Runia

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/96042463

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. ISSN 0079-1687 ISBN 978-90-04-42838-6 (hardback, set) ISBN 978-90-04-42840-9 (e-book) ISBN 978-90-04-42834-8 (hardback, part 1)

ISBN 978-90-04-42835-5 (hardback, part 2) ISBN 978-90-04-42836-2 (hardback, part 3) ISBN 978-90-04-42837-9 (hardback, part 4)

Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Part 1 Preface ix Sigla and Abbreviations General Introduction

xii 1

Book 1 The Principles of Nature: Text and Commentary

101

Part 2 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

719

Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary 727 Introduction to Book 2 729 Title and Index 739 Proœmium 743 1 On the Cosmos 746 2 On the Shape of the Cosmos 768 3 Whether the Cosmos Is Ensouled and Administered by Providence 780 4 Whether the Cosmos is Indestructible 794 5 Where the Cosmos Obtains Its Nourishment From 816 5a Where the Cosmos Has Its Regent Part 826 6 From What Kind of First Element the God Began to Make the Cosmos 833 7 On the Order of the Cosmos 845 8 What the Cause of the Cosmos Having Been Tilted Is 858 9 On What is Outside the Cosmos, Whether There Is a Void 864 10 What the Right Parts of the Cosmos Are and What the Left 876 11 On the Heaven, What Its Substance Is 883 12 On the Division of Heaven, into How Many Circles It Is Divided 896 13 What the Substance of the Heavenly Bodies Is, Both Planets and Fixed Stars 903

vi 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

contents

On the Shapes of the Stars 920 On the Ordering of the Heavenly Bodies 927 On the Conveyance and Movement of the Heavenly Bodies 938 From Where the Heavenly Bodies Obtain Their Illumination 949 On the Stars Called the Dioscuri 957 On Signs of the Seasons Produced by the Heavenly Bodies 962 On the Substance of the Sun 970 On the Size of the Sun 992 On the Shape of the Sun 1005 On the Turnings of the Sun 1012 On the Eclipse of the Sun 1024 On the Substance of the Moon 1034 On the Size of the Moon 1049 On the Shape of the Moon 1056 On the Illuminations of the Moon 1065 On the Eclipse of the Moon 1078 On Its Appearance and Why It Appears to Be Earthy 1090 On the Distances of the Moon 1103 On the Year, How Great the Time of the Revolution of Each of the Planets Is, and What the Great Year Is 1113

Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary 1129 Introduction to Book 3 1131 Title and Index 1140 Proœmium 1144 1 On the Circle of the Milky Way 1149 2 On Comets and Shooting Stars and Beams 1168 3 On Thunders, Lightnings, Thunderbolts, Firewinds and Typhoons 4 On Clouds, Mist, Rains, Dew, Snow, Hoar-Frost, Hail 1203 5 On the Rainbow 1214 5a (Formerly 18) On the Halo 1235 6 On Rods 1241 7 On Winds 1245 8 On Winter and Summer 1254 9 On the Earth, and What Its Substance Is and How Many There Are 1259 10 On the Shape of the Earth 1265 11 On the Location of the Earth 1272 12 On the Inclination of the Earth 1280 13 Whether the Earth Is at Rest or Moves 1283

1182

vii

contents

14 15 16 17

On the Division of the Earth, How Many Zones There Are 1292 On Earthquakes 1300 On the Sea, How It Came to Be and How Bitter It Is 1320 How Low and High Tides Occur 1330

Part 3 Sigla and Abbreviations

ix

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary

1347

Book 4 Psychology: Text and Commentary

1355

Book 5 Physiology: Text and Commentary

1739

Part 4 English Translation of the Placita 2059 User’s Guide to the English Translation 2061 Book 1 The Principles of Nature 2063 Book 2 Cosmology 2089 Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth 2108 Book 4 Psychology 2120 Book 5 Physiology 2137 Appendix: List of Chapter Headings in the Translation of Qusṭā ibn Lūqā 2153 Bibliography 2158 Index of Primary and Secondary Witnesses 2283 Index of Name-Labels and Other Names 2291 Index of Fragment Collections and Extant Sources 2296 Index of Ancient and Modern Names 2309

Sigla and Abbreviations 1

Abbreviations Relating to Aëtius and His Tradition

A Ach AD Ath C E G J L Nem Nic P Ps Q (or Qusṭā) S T

Aëtius Achilles Arius Didymus Athenagoras Cyril of Alexandria Eusebius ps.Galen ps.Justin Ioannes Lydus Nemesius Nicolaus, translator of ps.Galen ps.Plutarch, Placita philosophorum and his tradition (EGQ etc.) Psellus Qusṭā ibn Lūqā Ioannes Stobaeus Theodoret of Cyrrhus

2

Sigla Relating to the Apparatus Criticus of the Edition

a

Primary Witnesses

P PP PB

tradition of ps.Plutarch papyrus, edited by J.W. Barns and H. Zilliacus (1960–1967), The Antinoopolis Papyri Parts II & III, London Byzantine manuscripts Family Manuscript Date I Mosquensis 339 12th century II Marcianus 521 13th/14th century III (Planudean family) α Ambrosianus 859 shortly before 1296 Α Parisinus 1671 1296 γ Vaticanus 139 shortly after 1296 Ε Parisinus 1672 shortly after 1302 Laur. Laurentianus 31,37 14th century

x PB

PPh

PAth PE PG

PG(Nic) PJ

PJln PC PL PQ

PSch PPs

sigla and abbreviations Plutarchi Epitome, edited by H. Diels (1879 and unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 273–444; also edited by J. Mau (1971), Plutarchus Placita Philosophorum, Plutarchi Moralia Vol. 5.2.1, X oratorum vitae; Placita philosophorum, Leipzig (Bibliotheca Teubneriana); edited by G. Lachenaud (1993), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 12.2, Opinions des Philosophes, Paris (Collection Budé); (for earlier editions see below §4 Works frequently cited) Philo of Alexandria, edited by J.-B. Aucher (1822), Philonis Judaei sermones tres hactenus inediti, I. et II. De Providentia et III. De animalibus, ex Armena versione antiquissima ab ipso originali textu Graeco ad verbum stricte exequuta, nunc in Latium (sic!) fideliter translati, Venice; see also M. HadasLebel (1973), De Providentia I et II, Les œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 35, Paris Athenagoras, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin (abbr. Leg.) Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica, edited by K. Mras (1956), Eusebius Werke, Bd. VIII, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 1982–19832, Vol. 2, Berlin (abbr. PE) Ps.Galen Historia philosopha, edited by H. Diels (1879 and later unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin, 595–648 (abbr. HPh); partially edited by M. Jas (2018a), Nicolaus Rheginus als Übersetzer der pseudo-Galenischen Schrift De historia philosopha: ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Überlieferung des Corpus Galenicum, Wiesbaden text of PG based on 1341 Latin translation of Nicolaus of Rhegium Ps.Justinus Cohortatio ad Graecos, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), PseudoIustinus, Cohortatio ad Graecos, De monarchia, Oratio ad Graecos, Berlin; edited by C. Riedweg (1994), Ps.-Justin (Markell von Ankyra?) Ad Graecos de vera religione (bisher “Cohortatio ad Graecos”), 2 Vols., Basel Julianus Arianista, edited by D. Hagedorn (1973), Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian, Berlin Cyrillus Contra Julianum, edited by C. Riedweg (2015), Kyrill von Alexandrien I Gegen Julian, Berlin (abbr. Juln.) Ioannes Lydus De mensibus, edited by R. Wuensch (1898), Ioannis Laurentii Lydi Liber de mensibus, Leipzig (abbr. Mens.) Qusṭā ibn Lūqā Arabic translation of ps.Plutarch Placita philosophorum, edited by H. Daiber (1980), Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Wiesbaden Scholia Platonica, edited by G.C. Greene (1938), Haverford PA Michael Psellus De omnifaria doctrina, edited by L.G. Westerink (1948), Utrecht (abbr. Omn.Doctr.); other works: Michaelis Pselli Oratoria minora (abbr. Or.Min.), edited by A.R. Littlewood (1985), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Theologica, Vol. 1 (abbr. Op.Theol. 1), edited by P. Gautier (1989), Leipzig;

sigla and abbreviations

xi

Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, Vol. 1: Opuscula logica, physica, allegorica, alia, Leipzig (abbr. Phil.Min. 1), edited by J.M. Duffy (1992), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Philosophica minora, Vol. 2 Opuscula psychologica, theologica, daemonologica (abbr. Phil.Min. 2), edited by D.J. O’Meara (1989), Leipzig; Michaelis Pselli Theologica, Vol. 2 (abbr. Op.Theol. 2), edited by Westerink, L.G.–Duffy, J.M. (2002), Leipzig; Ἐπιλύσεις ποικίλων ἐρωτημάτων, Michael Psellus De operatione daemonum cum notis Gaulmini: accedunt inedita opuscula Pselli (abbr. Epi.), edited by J.F. Boissonade (1838), Nuremberg (repr. Amsterdam 1964) PSy Symeon Seth Conspectus rerum naturalium, edited by A. Delatte (1939), Anecdota Atheniensia et alia, T. 2: Textes relatifs à l’histoire des sciences, Liège (abbr. CRN) PTz Ioannes Tzetzes Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, edited by G. Hermann (1812) in Draconis Stratonicensis Liber de metris poeticis; Ioannis Tzetzes Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem, Leipzig; Ἐξήγησις Ἰωάννου Γραμματικοῦ τοῦ Τζέτζου εἰς τὴν Ὁμήρου Ἰλιάδα, edited by M. Papathomopoulos (2007), Athens PArs Arsenius Paroemiographus Apothegmata, edited by E.L. von Leutsch (1851), Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, Vol. 2, Göttingen (repr. Hildesheim 1958), 240–744 S Ioannes Stobaeus Eclogae, edited by C. Wachsmuth (1884 and unaltered reprints), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo priores qui inscribi solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae, 2 Vols., Berlin (abbr. Ecl.), with the following sigla: Manuscripts Date F Farnesinus III D 15 14th century P Parisinus 2129 15th century L Laurentianus 8.22 14th century Ioannes Stobaeus Florilegium, edited by O. Hense (1894–1916 and unaltered reprints), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo posteriores, 3 Vols., Berlin (abbr. Flor.) (for ch. 5.30) SL-ind index in ms. Laurentianus (where deviates from title in text), edited by C. Wachsmuth (1882), Studien zu den griechischen Florilegien, Berlin, pp. 5– 37 . . SP(m s ) manus secunda, where Wachsmuth has P2, e.g. at Ecl. 1.24.2d SPhot index of Photius, edited by R. Henry (1960 and unaltered reprints), Photius Bibliothèque, Vol. 2, Paris SCod.Vat. codex Vaticanus gr. 201 (according to Wachsmuth 1882, 71 derived from F) SCod.Mon. codex Monacensis gr. 396 (also named codex Augustinus, according to Wachsmuth 1882, 71 derived from F) T Theodoretus, edited by J. Raeder (1904), Theodoreti Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Leipzig (abbr. CAG)

xii

sigla and abbreviations

In principle the manuscripts of all witnesses except PB and S are not cited; significant variation between manuscript readings is expressed through numbers, e.g. PG1, PG2 etc. b Ach

Secondary Witnesses

Achilles, edited by G. Di Maria (1996), Achillis quae feruntur astronomica et in Aratum opuscula: De universo, De Arati vita, De Phaenomenorum interpretatione, Palermo Aratus/Aratea Commentaria in Aratum, edited by E. Maass (1898), Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, Berlin. Anonymus I, pp. 87–98 (abbr. Anon. I); Anonymus II 1, pp. 102–133 (abbr. Anon. II); Ath Athenagoras Legatio, edited by M. Marcovich (1990), Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin (abbr. Leg.); (2000) Athenagorae qui fertur De resurrectione mortuorum, Leiden (abbr. de Res.) Epiphanius Epiphanius Ancoratus und Panarion, edited by K. Holl–H. Lietzmann (1915–1933), 3 Vols., Leipzig (citing 3rd ed. 1985–2013) Hermias Hermias Satire des philosophes païens, edited by R.P.C. Hanson (1993), SC 388, Paris Isidore of Pelusium Isidore de Péluse Lettres (nos. 1214–1700), edited by P. Évieux (1997–2000), SC 422, 454, Paris; MPG Vol. 78, edited by F. Morel (1638) Nem Nemesius, edited by M. Morani (1987), Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis, Leipzig (abbr. NH) Ps.Justinus see above (a) Primary witnesses Scholia in Aratum Scholia in Aratum vetera, edited by J. Martin, Stuttgart 1974; Prolegomena (in Parisino Suppl.Gr. 607A servata), pp. 23–31 (abbr. Proleg.); Scholia in Aratum, pp. 37–527 Scholia in Basilium Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron I, edited by G. Pasquali (1910) ‘Doxographica aus Basiliosscholien’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-hist.Kl. (1910) 194–228 (reprinted in Scritti Filologici, Vol. 1 (Florence 1986) 539–574); Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron II, edited by Th. Poljakov (1982–1983), ‘The unpublished doxographical scholia on St. Basil’s Hexaemeron’, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 12–13: 1982–1983, pp. 367–369

sigla and abbreviations

3

Latin Abbreviations in the Apparatus Criticus (and Elsewhere)

⟨⟩ {} x] y ][ ̣ (sub lineam) *** ~ ♦

abiud. add. ad fin. adn. al. ap. app. append. Byz. c., cc. cf. confirm. coni. conl. contam. corr. c.q. crit. crucif. dub. duce ed. edd. emend. exh. fort. fr. gloss. hab. i.q.

litterae additae litterae deletae x lectio omnium testium sola y excepta (app. crit.) litterae qui non extant (papyri) litterae dubiae (papyri) lacuna approximat, aequivalet lemma per hypothesin abiudicavit addidit ad finem adnotatio aliter apud apparatus appendix Byzantinum caput, capita confer confirmat coniecit conlato contaminatus correxit/corrector casu quo criticus crucifixit dubitanter, dubitat primus editor, editio editores emendavit exhibet, exhibuit fortasse fragmentum, fragmenta glossa, glossema habet, habent idem quod

xiii

xiv ind. init. inv. l., ll. lac. leg. mal. marg. ms., mss. n., nn. om. p., pp. pap. paraphr. per litt. prob. proœm. prop. put. recc. reiec. rest. ret. schol. sc. scr. sec. secl. seqq. sim. s.l. subst. suppl. susp. s.v. t. t.a.q. tit. t.p.q. transcr.

sigla and abbreviations indicavit initium invertit linea, lineae lacuna legit, legunt maluit margo, in margine manuscriptum, manuscripta nota, notae omittit, omisit pagina, paginae papyrus paraphrasit per litteras probat, probavit proœmium proposuit putat, putavit recentiores reiecit restituit retinuit scholion scilicet scripsit secundum seclusit et sequentia simile, similia supra lineam substituit supplevit suspicit sub voce tomus terminus ante quem titulus terminus post quem transcribit

sigla and abbreviations transp. verb. verisim. vert. ut vid. vid. v.l. Voss.

4

xv

transposuit verbum, verba verisimiliter vertit ut videtur vide varia lectio mss. Vossii in bibliotheca Lugd.Bat.

Works Frequently Cited

This section lists authors and works that are cited by name of the author in the apparatus criticus. (Full details on editions and collections of fragments cited in the first apparatus below the Greek text are to be found in the Bibliography in Part four.) Beck Bollack Canter Corsinus Coxon

Daiber Diels DG Diels PPF Diels VS DK, Vors. Gemelli Marciano

C.D. Beck (1787), Plutarchi De Physicis philosophorum decretis libri quinque, Leipzig J. Bollack (1969), Empédocle. Vol. II: Les Origines. Édition et traduction des fragments et des témoignages, Paris W. Canter (1575), Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum libri duo, Antwerp E. Corsinus (1750), Plutarchi De placitis philosophorum libri V, Florence A.H. Coxon, (1986), The Fragments of Parmenides. A Critical Text with Introduction and Translation, the Ancient Testimonia and a Commentary, Assen (revised and expanded edition with new translation by R. McKirahan, and new preface by M. Schofield, Las Vegas, 2009) H. Daiber (1980), Aetius Arabus. Die Vorsokratiker in arabischer Überlieferung, Wiesbaden H. Diels (1879 and unaltered reprints), Doxographi Graeci, Berlin H. Diels (1901a), Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta, Berlin H. Diels (1903), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1st edition, Berlin H. Diels and W. Kranz (1951–1952 and unaltered reprints), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edition, Berlin M.L. Gemelli Marciano (2007–2010), Die Vorsokratiker Bd. 1, Thales Anaximander Anaximenes Pythagoras und die Pythagoreer Xenophanes Heraklit; Bd. 2, Parmenides Zenon Empedokles; Bd.

xvi

sigla and abbreviations

3, Anaxagoras Melissos Diogenes von Apollonia Die antiken Atomisten: Leukipp und Demokrit. Griechisch-lateinisch-deutsch, Düsseldorf Graham D.W. Graham (2010), The Texts of Early Greek Philosophy. The Complete Fragments and Selected Testimonies of the Major Presocratics, 2 Vols., Cambridge Heeren A.H.L. Heeren (1792–1801), Ioannis Stobaei Eclogarum Physicarum et Ethicarum libri duo, 2 Vols., Göttingen Jas M. Jas (2018a), Nicolaus Rheginus als Übersetzer der pseudo-Galenischen Schrift De historia philosopha: ein Beitrag zur lateinischen Überlieferung des Corpus Galenicum, Wiesbaden Lachenaud G. Lachenaud (1993), Plutarque Œuvres morales T. 12.2, Opinions des Philosophes, Paris Laks–Most A. Laks–G.W. Most (2016), Early Greek Philosophy, 9 Vols., Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA; Les débuts de la philosophie, Paris Mansfeld R1 J. Mansfeld (1983–1986), Die Vorsokratiker Griechisch / Deutsch, 2 Vols., Stuttgart Mansfeld R2, Primavesi R2 J. Mansfeld and O. Primavesi (2011), Die Vorsokratiker Griechisch / Deutsch, Stuttgart Mau J. Mau (1971), Plutarchus Placita Philosophorum, Leipzig M–R J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (1997–2018), Aëtiana, 4 Vols. M–R 1 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (1997), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 1: The Sources, Leiden M–R 2 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (2009), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 2: The Compendium, Part I: Macrostructure and Microcontext, Part II: Aëtius Book II: Specimen Reconstructionis, Leiden M–R 3 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia (2010), Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Vol. 3, Studies in the Doxographical Traditions of Greek Philosophy, Leiden M–R 4 J. Mansfeld–D.T. Runia eds. (2018), Aëtiana IV: Papers of the Melbourne Colloquium on Ancient Doxography, Leiden Mras K. Mras (1982–1983), Eusebius Die Praeparatio Evangelica, 2nd ed., 2 Vols., Berlin Meineke A. Meineke (1855–1857), Ioannis Stobaei Florilegium, 4 Vols., Leipzig Primavesi see above under Mansfeld R2 Raeder J. Raeder (1904), Theodoreti Graecarum Affectionum Curatio, Leipzig

sigla and abbreviations Reiske

Vítek Vors. Wachsmuth Westerink Wyttenbach Xylander

5

xvii

J. Reiske (1778), Plutarchi Quae supersunt omnia, Graece et Latine; principibus ex editionibus castigavit, virorumque doctorum suisque annotationibus, Vol. 9, Leipzig T. Vítek (2006), Empedoklés. II Zlomky, Prague see above DK C. Wachsmuth (1884), Ioannis Stobaei Anthologii libri duo priores qui inscribi solent Eclogae physicae et ethicae, 2 Vols., Berlin L.G. Westerink (1948), Michael Psellus De omnifaria doctrina, Utrecht D. Wyttenbach (1797), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Scripta Moralia, Vol. 4, Oxford G. Xylander (Holzmann) (1574), Plutarchi Chaeronensis Moralia, Vol. 2, Basel

Further Abbreviations

Names of authors and their works are generally abbreviated in accordance with LSJ, OLD and PGL (see below). The works of Galen are abbreviated in accordance with the list of R.J. Hankinson ed. (2008), The Cambridge Companion to Galen, Cambridge, pp. 391–397. The works of Plutarch are abbreviated in accordance with the listing in F. Montanari ed. (2015), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden, pp. xlvi–xlvii. BAGD W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed., Chicago CErc Cronache Ercolanesi CMG Corpus Medicorum Graecorum CPF Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini CPG M. Geerard (1974–1987), Clavis Patrum Graecarum, Turnhout DPhA R. Goulet (1989–2018), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, 7 Vols. and Suppl. Vol., Paris FDS K.-H. Hülser ed. (1987–1988), Die Fragmente zur Dialektik der Stoiker, 4 Vols., Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt FGrH F. Jacoby & alii (1923–), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, Berlin & Leiden (later repr. Leiden; also Brill online) GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller LCL Loeb Classical Library, ed. by J. Henderson LLT Latin Library of Texts (Brepols)

xviii LSJ MPG MPL OLD PGL RE SC SVF TLG

sigla and abbreviations H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones eds. (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon with a Revised Supplement, 9th edition, Oxford Migne Patrologia Graeca Migne Patrologia Latina P.G.W. Glare ed. (1982), Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford G.W.H. Lampe ed. (1961), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa and K. Ziegler (1894–1980) Sources Chrétiennes J. ab Arnim (1903–1924), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 Vols., Leipzig (repr. Stuttgart 1964) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature, University of California at Irvine

User’s Guide to the Edition and Commentary 1

Introduction

The aim of this user’s guide is to assist the reader in making use of the present Edition and Commentary on the Placita. It is a pared down version of section 6 of the General Introduction. For references to further discussion of details see the notes to the General Introduction in Volume One.

2

The Division into Four Parts

The sequence of the Edition and Commentary is based on the insight that ps.Plutarch’s Epitome of the original no longer extant work by and large preserves the structure of Aëtius’ compendium. Part One contains the necessary preliminaries, including the General Introduction, followed by the Edition and Commentary on Book 1 on the principles of nature. Part Two comprises Book 2 on cosmology and the heavens and Book 3 on meteorology and the earth. Part Three treats Book 4 on the psychology of the human being and Book 5 on the physiology of the human being and other animals. For each of the five books, the edition of its chapters is preceded by a compact introduction giving an overview of its transmission, subject-matter, name-labels of philosophers and schools, method and sources. Part Four presents an English translation of the edited text of all five books, together with the bibliography and the indices. For all the 135 chapters of the entire work, the Edition and Commentary use an identical method and layout. Only the chapters on the pinakes and the four proœmia to Books 1–4 differ in a few respects. The essential features of this method and layout will now be explained in detail, commencing with the edition.

3

The Edition

Following the conventions of classical scholarship, the edition of the Greek text and all its accompanying apparatus are formulated in Latin. The many abbreviations and sigla that we use are set out at the beginning of Parts One to Three. For each chapter we begin with a list of the relevant testes (witnesses). First in this list are the passages from the testes primi (primary witnesses) and the name of the editor of the text edition used. These witnesses are: ps.Plutarch

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_037

720

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

(abbreviated P) and his tradition, Stobaeus (S) and Theodoret (T). Below them on the next line, passages from the testes secundi (secondary witnesses) are listed when available, again including their abbreviation and the name of the editor used. They are always introduced with the capitalised Latin abbreviation Cf. (abbreviation of confer, i.e. ‘compare’ or ‘see also’). The text of the chapter then follows. It begins with the titulus (chapter heading), followed by the numbered lemmata, each consisting of one or more name-labels (sometimes unspecified) plus a doxa. The lines of the text are continuously numbered, as indicated in the margin, beginning with the chapter heading. Following the heading and each lemma of the chapter the primary sources for its text are indicated by the sigla (P,S,T), or (P,S) when T is lacking, or (S,T) when P is lacking, or (P,T) when S is lacking, or only one of these when only one primary source is available. The numbers after the siglum in each case indicate the number of the doxa in the sequence of the text of the primary witness as indicated in the text used.1 This system gives the crucial information on the attestation of the lemmata at a single glance. Beneath the text we first list the references to the collections of fragments of Presocratics, Academics, Peripatetics, Stoics and others where individual lemmata can be located. In the case of the Presocratics we refer only to the sixth edition of Diels-Kranz (abbreviated DK), not to collections of individual authors. Similarly for the Stoics we use where possible Von Arnim’s collection (SVF). For other authors we use the most recent collections.2 In the case of authors whose original writings survive, we refer to passages from which the doxa is derived, whether directly or indirectly. Next we present the apparatus criticus to the text. Its aim is to give full and detailed insight into all the relevant variants of the primary and secondary witnesses. It is therefore not a negative but a positive apparatus.3 This is necessary because we are not editing a single text from manuscripts and indirect quotations, but rather are reconstructing our text from a multiplicity of witnesses both direct (primi) and indirect (secundi), each of which has its own relation to the lost original Placita as collected by Aëtius.4 Some of these, such as the frag-

1 These numbers are not found in the texts of Mau, Wachsmuth and Raeder. They have been supplied by us. 2 Rarely we list two collections when they are both current or complementary, e.g. for Strato (Wehrli, Sharples) and Posidonius (Edelstein-Kidd, Theiler). 3 Contrary to our previous practice in the specimen reconstructionis of Book 2 in M–R vol. 2.2; see General Introduction, section 2.8. 4 For detailed accounts of these witnesses and the editions used see General Introduction, section 4.2–4.

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

721

ments of ps.Plutarch in the Antinoopolis papyrus, the Arabic version of ps.Plutarch by Qusṭā ibn Lūqā translated into German by Hans Daiber, and the new critical edition of a large part of ps.Galen by Mareike Jas, have become available only quite recently. In addition we pay due attention to a variety of earlier editions and also note significant readings, conjectures and emendations when the texts of individual doxai are included in collections of fragments. In general, it is only in the case of the primary witnesses ps.Plutarch and Stobaeus (but not Theodoret) that we give the variants of the main manuscripts. For other texts we give the preferred reading of the relevant critical edition, only mentioning manuscript variants on rare occasions. The Arabic translation of Qusta is cited in Daiber’s German version. Based on these principles, the apparatus criticus not only strives to shed light on our choices, but also to inform the user about the peculiarities of the widespread tradition. Because this apparatus is necessarily often rather extensive, it proved impossible to allocate room for the translation next to the Greek text in a synoptic format without chopping up text, translation, and apparatus and creating a succession of blank spaces. For this reason the translations of the Greek text of all 135 chapters, forming a continuous English version of the treatise as a whole, have been printed in the final part, Aëtiana 5.4. Three more sections of the edition remain. First we print the texts of the testes primi (primary witnesses) for the reconstruction. In first place is always Theodoret when he has cited this text, followed—with its own sub-heading— by the traditio ps.Plutarchi, i.e. the bevy of representatives of the tradition of the Epitome available for the relevant chapter. First when available is the Antinoopolis papyrus. This is followed by the text of ps.Galen, the most important of the witnesses to this tradition. We also include texts from ps.Justin, Cyril, Lydus, Psellus, Symeon Seth and others, all of whom excerpted ps.Plutarch. For reasons of space the texts of ps.Plutarch and Stobaeus themselves (and also Eusebius’ verbatim excerpts) are not quoted separately. They can be readily found elsewhere. But it is important to note that our debts to and differences from Diels’ DG edition of Aëtius and to other editions of the primary witnesses are fully accounted for in the apparatus criticus to the Greek text, and often also further discussed in the Commentary. Next is a section setting out the testes secundi (secondary witnesses) who can also offer some assistance for the reconstruction and analysis of the text.5 They represent the doxographical traditions closest to Aëtius. Some of these, namely

5 For detailed accounts of these witnesses and the editions used see above General Introduction, section 4.5.

722

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

Athenagoras, Achilles, and Nemesius were included by Diels in his apparatus among the aliorum ex Aetio excerpta. Because, unlike in the case of Theodoret, it is not certain that these authors actually did excerpt Aëtius, we have preferred to group them together with other passages in the Aratea, Hermias, and Scholia to various authors, regarding them as a collection of writings that are closest to the Aëtian tradition without being part of it. They are closer than the texts that we have placed in the proximate tradition.6 It should be noted that the distinction is somewhat fuzzy. Texts very close to Aëtius such as in Varro, Philodemus, Cicero and Philo of Alexandria could have been included. The difference is that these texts antedate Aëtius, whereas the testes secundi are all later than he is and so could have used his work, whereas this was impossible for the writers just mentioned. The final sub-section of the edition is a collection of parallel passages quoted from the reconstructed text of other chapters of Aëtius, which we have given the title Loci Aetiani. These passages contain various kinds of similarities: to name-label(s) plus doxa, or to parts of doxai, or to particular formulations of doxai or name-labels. They thus provide detailed information about such uniformities as are present in the Placita as a whole. Parallels in chapter headings or in the quaestiones (questions or topics) being treated, are generally placed first, followed by those relating to particular lemmata.

4

The Commentary

The second main section of each chapter contains the Commentary. It too follows a fixed and identical schema of treatment, as indicated by alphabetically numbered sections, some of which are further divided into sub-sections and sometimes even further sub-divided. By consistently using this system of divisions, we aim to organise the mass of material involved with a maximum of clarity. Each of these sections and sub-sections will now be explained in turn. A: Witnesses. In this section we present the evidence as preserved in the primary and secondary witnesses and discuss issues that it might raise. We generally commence with (1) ps.Plutarch and his tradition, since the Epitome mostly preserves the general structure of the work and its lemmata best. Sad to say, in the case of Book 5 this tradition is virtually all that we still have. Thereafter follows an analysis of the evidence as presented in (2) Stobaeus and (3)

6 See the explanation of the distinction in the General Introduction, sections 4.1 and 5.1.

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

723

Theodoret. In this section we often engage in a first sifting of the evidence for the reconstruction of the chapter, followed by further details in section D(b) below. B: Proximate tradition and sources. This section gives an overview of the texts that can shed light on the subject and contents of the chapter. The first sub-section (1) discusses the proximate texts, i.e. the doxographical tradition which resembles the Placita in its focus on questions of the φυσικὸς λόγος, on philosophers and the answers they gave to those questions. These texts can be earlier than Aëtius and represent the anterior tradition from which he drew his material (though the evidence for the early period is rather thin). They can be contemporaneous with him or much later, even as late as Isidore of Seville and (rarely) authors writing in Arabic. The passages discussed may relate to the chapter as a whole or to individual lemmata within it. The second sub-section (2) turns the attention to the ultimate sources of the subject-matter of the chapter. For the doxai of some philosophers it is sometimes possible to pin down the exact texts on which the doxai are based, e.g. in the extant works of Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus. More often other comparative material will need to be brought to bear, again from Plato and Aristotle, but also from Hellenistic, early Imperial and late ancient texts. Here too, passages discussed may relate to the chapter as a whole or to individual lemmata within it. For both sub-sections it is the case that many or even most of the texts discussed will be printed in the third main section Further related texts below, to which we frequently cross-refer. Given the large quantity of texts involved, it is not possible to discuss all this material in great detail, but rather we will draw attention to the salient points to which it gives rise. C: Chapter heading. In this section we give detailed discussions of the type and significance of the chapter heading, including how it relates to the standard question-types that were developed on the basis of the Aristotelian example and were used throughout antiquity. We note, where applicable, the variant readings for the heading in the witnesses and motivate our choice for the chosen formulation. We also give an overview of parallel headings that are embedded in texts or book titles elsewhere. These too are cited below in the section Further related texts. D: Analysis. This section, which contains our interpretation of the contents of the chapter, consists of five sub-sections (though not all of these are always required for every chapter). D(a) context. Here we briefly discuss the place of the particular chapter within the group of chapters of which it is a member and the position of this

724

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

group in the context of the Book as a whole. We also note possible analogies with the way other books of the Placita are structured and point out particular links that a chapter might have with chapters elsewhere and sometimes also with ancient traditions such as the Peripatos and the Stoa. D(b) number–order of lemmata. In this sub-section we return to the witnesses for the contents of the chapter and determine where possible the number of doxai originally present and the order in which they were listed. For this we depend largely on the evidence of the witnesses themselves, as informed by the understanding that we have gained of their methods, but are sometimes assisted by the secondary witnesses and indeed also by texts in the proximate tradition and beyond. For determining the sequence of the doxai it is also important to understand the argumentative structure of the chapter, often revealed in its diaereses or diaphoniae (see also the following sub-section D(c)). Here we also note how our sequence compares with that established by Diels. Often the result is the same, but there are also many cases where we reach a substantially different result, which of course is fully explained and justified. D(c) rationale–structure of chapter. This sub-section contains the nucleus of our interpretation of a chapter. It is a distinctive feature of the Placita that its chapters have an argumentative structure which is determined by the contents and position of the individual lemmata but at the same time (at least to some extent) determines their selection. The task of this section is to elucidate that structure. It may involve a listing of doxai in order of decreasing or increasing similarity according to the method of diaeresis, or it may involve a contrasting of doxai or groups of doxai in order to emphasize the conflict between them. There is much variety among the 135 chapters. It should be emphasized that the examples used above will not apply at all to monolemmatic chapters and not necessarily to other chapters with a plurality of doxai. D(d) further comments. This sub-section is divided into General points, pertaining to the chapter as a whole (if pertinent), and individual points pertaining to individual lemmata. These latter, presented in order of the place of the doxa/doxai in the chapter, may relate to the constitution of the text, and/or may enter into detailed discussions of the interpretation of the philosophical or scientific view portrayed by the contents of the lemma concerned. It will be understood that, in the light of the astonishing breadth of topics and thinkers broached in the Placita, we have had to be necessarily selective in making such comments. References are frequently made to the secondary literature, but here too we have needed to be selective. D(e) other evidence. This final sub-section of the Commentary follows on from section B above. It embarks on more substantial discussions of evidence in the wider doxographical or anterior philosophical and scientific traditions,

user’s guide to the edition and commentary

725

including some of the secondary witnesses (especially Achilles). These can be either of a textual or of a content-related nature, depending on what is relevant for the interpretation of the chapter and/or some of its individual lemmata.

5

Further Related Texts

Our presentation of each chapter ends with a third and final section entitled E: Further Related Texts. It too is further sub-divided into two parts. E(a) Proximate tradition. Here, as the name indicates, we present an extensive collection of texts drawn from the proximate doxographical tradition, as outlined in the General Introduction, section 5.1. We print the texts in the original Greek and Latin (with occasionally some texts translated into German or English, for we have no Arabic). These texts link up with the discussion in the earlier section B(1) of the Commentary. The selection begins with General texts dealing with the subject in question and/or covering the views of a plurality of thinkers. The next section lists, where available, the texts that contain or illustrate the chapter headings or sometimes the quaestio posed by that heading. Thereafter texts are listed under the individual lemmata of the chapter. In order to facilitate the reader’s orientation, the name-labels of the relevant lemma are printed in bold italics. For all three listings the texts are most often printed in full and are presented in approximate chronological order. E(b) Sources and other parallel texts. In this sub-section we link up with the discussion in the earlier section B(2) of the Commentary and print a collection of texts relating to the wider tradition of ancient philosophical and scientific tradition, including those texts that shed light on the sources that the doxographers may have used to formulate the doxai collected in the Placita. These follow the same basic method as in the previous sub-section. They are usually printed in full in the original Latin and Greek, are divided into the same three groups in an approximately chronological sequence, and are highlighted in the same way. In the case of some texts, either very well-known or somewhat tangential to the matter at hand, we give references only. For further discussion of the texts collected in section E of the Commentary, including a justification of their extent and the method of citing them in the ancient languages only, see the General Introduction, section 6.5.

Aetius Placita Book 2 Cosmology: Text and Commentary

∵

Introduction to Book 2 1

Transmission

Book 2 is the best attested part of A’s compendium. P, whose abridged version best preserves the work’s original structure, has 32 chapters. It is almost certain that he coalesces two original chapters into a single chapter (2.5 and 2.5a), so there will have been 33 in all. S, using the different method of the anthologist, takes up most of the book in his cosmological chapters 21–27, although he also includes some material in the chapters on first principles (11–20, see A 2.7–8). T in his paraphrasing way uses material from 14 of the chapters (2.1–5, 13–14, 20–22, 26–27, 29, 31), most valuably confirming that there must be a common source behind the three witnesses. However, to our knowledge, he does not in this book bear witness to any doxai not preserved by P or S (with the exception of some stray doxai of which it is not wholly certain that they originally derived from A, see ch. 2.2 Appendix). The reason that this book is so well attested is that S is best preserved for the material of this book and he appears to have been very thorough in his excerpting. Of the 217 doxai in the book,1 as far as we can tell, he records all but 18 of them (= 91%), of which 5 are Platonic or Aristotelian doxai replaced by excerpts from AD and a further 6 are anonymous doxai that do not fit well into his schemes of coalescence. In contrast P retains 148 doxai (= 69%), while T draws on only 46 (= 21%). At this point we can add the conclusions drawn by Edward Jeremiah on the basis of his statistical analysis of the Placita. If all the chapters are taken individually (with the exceptions noted above), since they are all witnessed by both P and S, they would be ‘most likely complete’ (M–R 4.286, 373). However, if we aim to determine the maximum likelihood size for the work as a whole and the conclusion is reached that there are ‘in the order of 42 doxai missing from chapters where we have multiple witnesses’ (M–R 4.295), then it is likely that there may be a very small number of doxai that are missing entirely. It may be concluded, therefore, that the book is as good as complete and it was for this reason that in a previous volume we chose this book for our specimen reconstructionis in order to see whether a single-column edition of A was feasible and justifiable (M–R 2.295–654). The transmission of P is also excellent for this book. Aside from PB and Q, which are complete (except one chapter missing through haplography in Q, 2.27), there are many other partial witnesses. The oldest, the Antinoopolis

1 For these statistics see Appendix 3 to the General Introduction in Part One.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_038

730

introduction to book 2

papyrus, has only two snippets (2.23, 2.25), but E faithfully copies out 26 of the 32 chapters, while G is generous in his epitomisation, reducing P to 112 doxai which amount to 75% of the total (though some lemmata are reduced further). Evidence is also supplied by Cyril (chs. 1–4), Lydus (chs. 25, 28, 31) and a group of other witnesses (chs. 11, 12, 22, 24, 31). Finally, Psellus and Symeon Seth utilise the majority of the book’s chapter headings (23 and 22 respectively), but almost none of the contents of the doxai. The secondary witnesses—‘cousin writings’ that share the same narrower doxographical tradition—also provide valuable evidence. Chs. 4–23 of the manual of Ach cover exactly the same ground as Book 2 and provide comparative material for no less than 22 chapters. The doxai it contains are particularly valuable for chapters on the substance, shape and size of the various cosmic bodies, but also for other topics. On Achilles and the Placita see further M–R 2.126–134. The various Aratean prolegomena and scholia also contribute material, including an important diaphonia on the substance of the sun (ch. 2.20).

2

Subject Matter and Macrostructure

The subject matter of the book is indicated prospectively in its Preface (ch. 2.proœm.) and retrospectively in the Preface to Book 3 (ch. 3.proœm.). Moving from the principles and the elements (i.e. Book 1), it turns to the ‘products’ (ἀποτελέσματα), beginning with the most comprehensive, i.e. the cosmos. Looking back (ch. 3.proœm.), the compiler refers to the book as ‘the account of the things in the heavens’ (ὁ περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λόγος). The book thus focuses on cosmology as it relates to the cosmos as a whole and to its heavenly realm. In most Greek philosophical systems there is a strong connection between cosmology and cosmogony (and sometimes also cosmophthory), but there is surprisingly little evidence of this in our book. Cosmogony predominates in chs. 1.4, 2.4 and 2.6, but occurs elsewhere in this book only in order to explain the origin of certain cosmological phenomena (e.g. ch. 2.8 on how the cosmos came to be tilted). The structure of the book’s subject matter treated in its 33 chapters is straightforward and clear. Its contents are divided into five clusters of subjects, with a final chapter connecting some of the clusters at the end. The first cluster focuses on the cosmos as a totality (chs. 1–10), the second and briefest on the heaven (chs. 11–12), the remainder on parts of the heaven (chs. 13–19 on the heavenly bodies, chs. 20–24 on the sun, 25–31 on the moon) and a final chapter (ch. 32) on the lengths of time of the heavenly bodies’ movements.

introduction to book 2

731

This sequence moves from the whole to the parts, and from the outside of the cosmos to the inside, a process that is germane to the work as a whole (see M–R 2.1.40–41, 50–59 and passim), and will be continued in Book 3 (see its Introductory remarks). The clusters follow a recurrent pattern in the way they treat their subjects which is adapted to suit the particular features of each. The treatment involves answering topics relating to the question types of substance (chs. 1, 3, 11, 13, 20, 25) and of quality (chs. 2, 4, 14, 22, 27), and then further in the categories of quantity (chs. 1, 12, 21, 26, 31, 32), of relative position (chs. 7, 15, cf. 10), of place (ch. 9) and—relating to all the categories—on motion (chs. 16, 23, perhaps also a missing chapter on the cosmos, see the appendix to ch. 2). In addition, there are question-types on cause or origin (chs. 4, 6, 8, cf. 5, 17, 23, 28, 30), as well as a number of chapters linked to individual aspects of the subjects treated, such as the Dioscuri (ch. 18), heavenly signs (ch. 19) and eclipses (chs. 24, 29). The subjects treated are generally well indicated in the chapter headings. The vast majority of these follow the umbrella type Περί x (25 out of 33), which sometimes explicitly indicates the category involved (e.g. οὐσία, μέγεθος, σχῆμα, τάξις, κίνησις), but also can conceal it (e.g. περὶ τροπῶν, περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός). But other formulas are also used involving interrogatives (τίς, πόθεν), conjunctions (εἰ) and other prepositions (ἀπό), all of which follow the familiar patterns of the Placita.

3

Name-Labels

The vast majority of the name-labels, which are an intrinsic component of every doxa, refer to philosophers in the ancient sense of the term, in this context philosophers engaged in physics or natural philosophy. A number of other thinkers and writers are mentioned—scientists (Aristarchus ch. 2.24, Eratosthenes 2.31, Eudoxus 2.19, Seleucus 2.1), a scholar (Apollodorus of Athens ch. 2.16), a geographer (Seleucus ch. 2.1), a poet (Aratus ch. 2.19)—but their number is very restricted. No doctors are included (Alcmaeon is clearly regarded as a natural philosopher for the purposes of this book). Book 2 also has a number of interesting indefinite group names (the physicists ch. 2.6, the astronomers chs. 2.15, 2.16, 2.29, 2.31). There are also more wholly anonymous name-labels than in any other book (15 out of 37; see the listing at M–R 4.359). In Book 2 the name-labels extend from Thales in the sixth century to the late Hellenistic Stoic Posidonius who is the most recent philosopher to be referred to (died ca. 50 bce). An impressive range of 53 thinkers and groups are considered to have had opinions worth recording on cosmological subjects (see

732

introduction to book 2

Jeremiah’s table at M–R 4.307 and listing at 4.354–361). The philosophers most often cited are the κορυφαῖοι of the classical age, Plato and Aristotle, both with 18 doxai, together with the Presocratic Empedocles (also 18), closely followed by the Stoics (17 doxai, but 30 in total if we add all the individuals). For the top 15 philosophers see the table at M–R 4.327. However, a closer examination of the name-labels will show that there is a predominance of names from the early Presocratic period of Greek philosophy. This is a feature of the entire work, with the exception of Book 1, as can be seen in the graph at M–R 4.324. But it is especially pronounced in Book 2. The reason is hardly surprising: not only is the history of the earliest period of Greek philosophy dominated by natural philosophy, but there was also a strong diversity of opinions on cosmological subjects, a matter of considerable interest to our doxographer, who throughout Book 2 shows a marked penchant for unusual views. Interestingly, however, Jeremiah has shown that this book shows less diversity of name-labels in relation to its doxai than the others, for which he gives the credible explanation that the standard cosmological model developed in the fourth century superseded the variety of views explored by the Presocratics in the preceding centuries (M– R 4.309). A feature of Book 2 that strikes the eye is the prevalence of multiple namelabels. In actual fact, when all such name-labels are taken into account, it does not have proportionately more than other books, as shown in the table at M– R 4.329 (about 19% of the whole). But it has a disproportionate number of long strings of name-labels. Thus the very first doxa on the unicity or plurality of the cosmos illustrates the main diaphonia with strings of 11 and 9 namelabels respectively (2.1.2–3). Of the 14 doxai in the work with four name-labels or more, 7 are found in Book 2 (also 2.3.2, 2.4.7, 2.11.4, 2.28.6, 2.29.7). There are also 8 cases of triple name-labels, which too is more than elsewhere (13). On the other hand, we also find in Book 2 the practice of using representative name-labels, particularly in the case of the Stoics, who in chs. 2.2, 14, 22, 26–27 are selected to represent views on the size and shape of heavenly bodies that were generally accepted in Greek philosophy from Plato and Aristotle onwards. These features of the use of name-labels have to do with the method used by the doxographer.

4

Method and Micro-structure

The individual chapters of the book range from three very long chapters on the substance of the three main heavenly bodies (2.13 stars: 16 doxai; 2.20 sun: 15 doxai; 2.25 moon: 15 doxai) to a number of chapters with two lemmata only (2.8,

introduction to book 2

733

2.10, 2.12). The majority of chapter are between 4 and 8 lemmata in length, and there are no monolemmatic chapters. The basic order of the lemmata within chapters is seldom in dispute, with those doxai retained by P usually a sound guide. The fullest material, however, is found in S and his particular methods of anthologising sometimes make it difficult to be wholly certain of A’s original order (e.g. in chs. 2.4, 2.20, 2.25). But in the case of five chapters we are fortunate that S appears to simply write out a stretch of A’s original text (chs. 2.28–32). See further the discussion on his methods in the General Introduction, section 2.4. Speaking in general terms, the contents of all the chapters in Book 2 are systematically structured. This is achieved by the consistent use of the characteristic dialectical method of the Placita, involving extensive use of the techniques of diaphonia (two opposed views) and diaeresis (two views with often a compromise view in between, or an organised list of differing views). These basic structural schemes, which underlie the ordering of the lemmata, are analysed and set out in section D(c) of our Commentary on each chapter. On these strategies of presentation see further M–R 2.3–10. They are present in virtually every chapter, often intelligently and flexibly applied, though it is true that some chapters are less systematic and their rationale is not so easily discernible (e.g. chs. 2.24, 2.30). (In contrast to the analyses in our previous reconstruction of this book in M–R vol. 2 part 2, we have not tried to illustrate them with schematic diagrams, which may have had the danger of making the structures appear too rigid and sometimes a little forced.) But it would be wrong to conclude that the systematic nature of the presentation of doxai leaves no room for historiographical considerations. Our author has already made it quite clear in Book 1 that he is sensitive to chronology and to the importance of the key successions and sects of philosophers. At the outset of the book (ch. 2.1), he introduces Pythagoras as the one who first used the term κόσμος for that which contains all things, followed by two long lists of philosophers espousing the view of a single cosmos and multiple kosmoi respectively, the one starting with Thales and Pythagoras, archegetes of the Ionian and Italian successions respectively, opposed to another list commencing with Thales’ pupil Anaximander and containing a bevy of Eleatics and atomists. It is also no coincidence that the two lists end with the four founders of the Hellenistic schools (with the addition of Epicurus’ teacher Metrodorus). On 19 occasions, as can be seen at M–R 2.95, chapters display foundational name-labels (from the historical point of view) in their first lemmata. Moreover, key early figures are frequently associated with key doxai in the systematic structures mentioned above. In all three elaborate diaereses on the substance of the stars, sun and the moon, Thales represents the main view that they are ‘earthy’ (2.13.1, 2.20.9, 2.25.9). Examples could be multiplied. There

734

introduction to book 2

is indubitably a tension between the two approaches, systematic and historical. An important result of Jeremiah’s research is that, when all five books are compared, Book 2 is the most dialectical and the least historical in its ordering of the doxai. See his analyses at M–R 4.310–319. Not only does Book 2 have the most chapters (33) and lemmata (217) of any of the books. It is also marked by the brevity of many of its doxai, some of which are so short that they have single word predicates (e.g. A 2.2.2–3, 2.20.9, 2.25.9, 2.27.3–6). On average its doxai are the shortest of any of the five books (16.9 words, compared to the overall average of 25.8). There are only two long descriptive doxai in the book, both on the ordering of the cosmos, attributed to Parmenides (2.7.1) and Philolaus (2.7.6) respectively (cf. also 2.20.12–13). These two important passages give rise to many textual and interpretative problems. Contributing to the brevity of the doxai in Book 2 is a further feature of the Placita method. The compiler makes consistent and heavy use of ellipsis at the beginning of the lemmata, i.e. the suppression of verbs of saying or thinking, often together with the subject and the question being asked (which is assumed from the chapter heading). This practice poses difficulties for the reconstruction of the text, for quite often our witnesses (esp. S) reinsert such verbs and subjects in their excerpts. Research has shown that the first two books are most elliptical, but that Book 2 comes out on top in this regard. No less than 196 of the 214 labelled lemmata have initial elliptical predicates, i.e. 92 %. See further Jeremiah’s analyses at M–R 4.319–323. For a further conclusion that might be drawn from these analyses, see the next section below ad finem.

5

Sources: Proximate Tradition

There is a surfeit of evidence to show that the doxai which A has collected in this book stand for the most part in a long doxographical tradition which we have labelled ‘proximate’. Perhaps the most valuable witness to this tradition for Book 2 is a number of passages in Philo De somniis (and also the previous treatise De mutatione nominum). Though containing no name-labels, when describing the heavens they use many of the same diaereses and doxai that appear in A (esp. chs. 2.11, 2.13, 2.15, 2.21, 2.28). In preparing for the writing of these treatises Philo must have had at his disposal a doxographical handbook very similar to that of A. At least seven other authors reveal similar doxai on cosmological themes, also containing many of the name-labels that are common in Book 2: aside from Achilles and Arius Didymus, there are the brief doxographies on the Presocratics in Hippolytus Refutatio and ps.Plutarch Stromateis, important parallels in Cicero Lucullus and De natura deorum,

introduction to book 2

735

copious doxographical material in Diogenes Laertius, and some valuable evidence found in authors that have made use of source material from Varro (chs. 2.4, 2.32). In some cases the questions and the diaereses have been preserved, in others the doxai have been wrenched, it would appear, from their doxographical contexts and reassembled in order to make author-based rather than topic-based compilations. A striking example of how close this narrow proximate tradition can be is found in doxai on the substance of the moon. Both Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus attribute to Anaxagoras the view that the moon has an irregular surface, on each occasion using the same uncommon word φάραγγες (ravines) as A does in 2.25.10 (cf. also 2.30.3 ταπεινά). Moreover, Cicero Luc. 123 attributes lunar plains and mountains to Xenophanes, again in the same terms as we find in A. In Philo Somn. 1.22 there is talk of ἄγκεα καί νάπας (dells and vales) on the heavenly bodies, exactly the same words used of Democritus’ view in 2.30.4. It can hardly be doubted that these views all go back to a very specific common tradition. Other, mostly later authors also offer many further parallels to the doxai in this book, notably Plutarch (esp. in his work De facie), Sextus Empiricus, Censorinus, Macrobius and the Patristic authors Tertullian, Basil, Isidore of Pelusium, Augustine and Isidore of Seville. It shows that they utilise the same traditions, though not always at first hand. Of special interest are the texts in Galen and Seneca, showing how the quaestiones and diaeretic schemata fundamental to the Placita were widely known and utilised (see on chs. 2.1, 2.4, 2.13, 2.15). Further information on the background to A’s use of quaestiones or θέσεις is provided by texts in the rhetors Hermagoras, Theon, Quintilian and Marius Victorinus (see on chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.21, 2.27). These texts show that certain cosmological topics were not just of scientific interest, but had a wider dissemination, if only as illustrations. A special case is formed by the philosopher Epicurus (341–271), founder of one of the main Hellenistic schools of thought. Epicurus’ views are quite well represented in Book 2, with ten doxai to his credit. But what is particularly interesting in the present context is that he demonstrably has used collections of placita to illustrate possible views on questions that he regards as beyond scientific certainty. On five topics—the turnings of the sun (ch. 2.23), the eclipses of the sun and moon (chs. 2.24, 2.29), the illumination of the moon (ch. 2.28) and the face of the moon (ch. 2.30) he includes among his explanations doxai that are the same as or similar to what we find in A. Further convergences occur in his treatment of meteorological subjects set out in Book 3. In a detailed analysis (M–R 4.406–413) we have concluded (p. 413) that ‘Epicurus in drawing up his treatment of cosmology, and in particular his listings of multiple explanations, made use of doxographical material that was taken up into the tradition

736

introduction to book 2

of the Placita and three centuries later had found its way into the distillation of this tradition in Aëtius’ compendium’. His pupil Lucretius in the first cent. bce continues the practice of using doxographical material, which leads to deviations from the narrow example of the master (M–R 4.399). What, then, can be said about the nature and origin of this anterior proximate tradition as evidenced by the contents of Book 2? There is a uniformity of method and content which encouraged Diels, though unaware of the Philonic texts, to postulate a work called the Vetusta placita to be dated to the early first century bce which organised material going back to Theophrastus and the Peripatos. But the evidence for this kind of work goes back earlier, at least to the time of Chrysippus; see M–R 3.125–157. It is more likely that there were a plurality of doxographical works in circulation by A’s time (M– R 2.35). Two significant clues are found in Book 2 through rare references to the sources of A’s information. Both refer to Theophrastus, in the former case (2.20.4, Xenophanes on the sun’s οὐσία) to what he wrote ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς, in the latter case (2.29.8, Anaxagoras on lunar eclipses) without specific reference to a work. But we cannot even be sure which work is being referred to here. It is also possible, based on the contents of ch. 2.31, to consider Eudemus’ account of astronomical researches as a source for some of A’s material (cf. M–R 3.473). Jeremiah on the basis of his analyses of style and method concludes that in comparison with other books Book 2 has features—more diaereses, less historical ordering—which make it likely that ‘its contents underwent a greater degree of reorganisation and compression in the course of its transmission’ (M–R 4.316). We can be certain that much of the often bizarre cosmological material from early Greek philosophy found in Book 2 has been sluiced through the researches of Peripatos, and that the method of dealing with this material owes much to methods developed by Aristotle and his successors. But precise details on how these processes took place are simply not available. On the question of A’s sources see further the General Introduction, section 5.

6

Other Source Material

For the Presocratic lemmata, which form the bulk of the book’s material, we do not have access to any of the original texts. This includes the case for the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles, of which we have reasonably extensive remains—a clear indication that their doxai have been well worked over by intermediate sources (an exception is the reference to the δαίμων at 2.7.1 drawn from fr. 28B12 DK). The first philosopher for whom we can examine the original source is Plato. Given the book’s cosmological contents, the chief

introduction to book 2

737

source for his 18 doxai would be expected to be the Timaeus. But the doxai are clearly not taken from it directly. In almost all cases they have passed through an early Middle Platonist or Neopythagorean filter prevalent throughout the entire work (cf. M–R 2.51). This is most obvious in ch. 2.6, starting with its title ‘From what kind of first element did the god make the cosmos’ which hints at the Platonic demiurge, then using the non-Platonic term νοητὸς κόσμος in relation to the model, and ending with a comment that for the elemental shapes Plato is ‘Pythagorising’. Plato’s association with Pythagoras (also in 2.10.1, 2.23.8) is also a Middle Platonist trait. But also in most other Platonic doxai modifications and additions to the Timaeus are made, and in some cases there is no precedent for the view at all, e.g. on the five regions of the cosmos in 2.7.4 and the lunar eclipse in 2.29.7. Exceptionally a Stoic filter is visible in 2.5a.1, where the cosmological use of the term ἡγεμονικόν is neither Platonic nor Platonist (unless this expression had entered into the philosophical koine by A’s time). Middle Platonist handbook writers such as Alcinous and Apuleius offer insight into these adaptations, but by the time of the commentator Proclus in the fifth century the amount that we can learn about the doxographical tradition is restricted. Aristotle plays a significant role in Book 2, though less than in Books 3–5. The structure of his cosmology in De caelo exerts a general influence in chs. 1–17 (as does the Timaeus), but there is an important difference in that the Stagirite hardly pays any attention to the sun and the moon, in contrast to A who devotes 12 of his 33 chapters to them. Although the number of doxai attributed to Aristotle is large, they are almost all very short (only 2.3.4 is a little longer) and rather uninformative. There is some evidence of the use of works that are no longer extant (e.g. 2.5.1 on the cosmos’ (lack of) nourishment) or of later interpretations (e.g. 2.3.4 on restricted providence). But for some doxai there is no evidence at all (e.g. 2.26.3, 2.28.2, both on the moon). Later commentators such as Alexander and Simplicius offer many general parallels, but do not appear to make use of the Placita tradition themselves. In an important text in his commentary on the Posterior Analytics John Philoponus shows how the kinds of questions asked in the Placita relate to the categories (see on chs. 2.1–4, 2.9, 2.11), but he too does not make direct use of the doxographical tradition. For Epicurus we are fortunate to have more original writings, both complete and fragmentary, than for any other Hellenistic philosopher and the first two of his extant letters in Diogenes Laertius have substantial sections on cosmogony and cosmology. Summaries of doctrine such as these letters were attractive for doxographers when formulating their doxai. In one case, A 2.7.3 on the boundaries of kosmoi, it is possible that A has drawn directly on the Letter to Pythocles (M–R 4.395); in another case there is a strong convergence with a

738

introduction to book 2

scholion preserved by Diogenes (2.2.5). In three doxai A includes the key model term ἐνδέχεσθαι, which will certainly have been derived from Epicurus himself, either directly or indirectly (2.2.5, 2.13.15, 2.22.4, cf. 2.4.13). In other cases the doxai are closer to texts in later sources, notably Lucretius and Diogenes of Oenoanda (see 2.20.14 on the sun, M–R 4.398). There will be some filtering here that occurred via either scholastic or doxographical traditions in the Hellenistic period, about which we do not know a great deal (Philodemus is as good as silent on cosmology except in his doxography on theology, on which see ch. 1.7). The Stoa is the youngest school to be explicitly included in the Placita and it is heavily represented in Book 2. The subject-matter of the book is identified as part of the Stoic φυσικὸς λόγος as set out in the Stoic doxography at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133. As already noted, there are no less than 17 doxai with the school name-label, as well as five members mentioned by name (Zeno 2×, Cleanthes 7×, Diogenes 1×, Boethus 1×, Posidonius 2×, but not Chrysippus). These 30 doxai are uniformly very brief. The impression gained, also when comparing them with the extensive doxography in Diogenes Laertius, is that their contents are derived from earlier doxographies rather from original writings, but we have no way of checking. Later evidence on Stoic cosmological views, such as we find in Cicero, Seneca and Cleomedes, offers useful parallels, but is generally more discursive and presents the arguments that are missing in A. It would be gratifying to have access to source material which would allow us to explain how such odd views have been attributed to Cleanthes in A 2.14.2 and 2.27.4.

Liber 2 Titulus et index Τ: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 Raeder, cf. 2.95, 5.16 (titulus)—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 885E–886A; p. 268 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 139 Daiber (titulus), pinax in ms. Damascenus fol. 7v (ineditus)—PE: Eusebius PE 15.32.8, p. 406.6– 18 Mras—PC: Cyrillus. Juln. 2.14, p. 105.10–12 Riedweg—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN praef., p. 18.10–12 Delatte

Titulus ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΣΚΟΝΤΩΝ ΤΟ Βʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε· Index αʹ. Περὶ κόσμου βʹ. Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου γʹ. Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος δʹ. Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος εʹ. Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος ⟨ε+ʹ. Ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὁ κόσμος⟩ ϛʹ. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν ζʹ. Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου ηʹ. Tίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι θʹ. Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν ιʹ. Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά ιαʹ. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία ιβʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ιγʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἄστρων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν ιδʹ. Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων titulus : scripsimus, cf. T 4.31 et M–R 1.326 : Πλουτάρχου φιλοσόφου Περί τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων ἐπιτομῆς τὸ βʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(I) : Περί τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν ἐπιτομῆς βιβλίον βʹ PB(III:E) : βιβλίον δεύτερον PB(II): deest in PB(III: α) qui hab. pro titulo Περὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσματικῶν : ἐν … τάδε om. PB(III:E) : Die zweite Abhandlung aus dem Buch des Plutarchos Q index : indicem totum om. PB(III:α) : exstat in PQ ms. Ẓ sed hactenus ineditus (habemus versionem Daiberi; vid. append. infra t. 4) [5] Εἰ … διοικούμενος PB(I,II)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.3 : καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος om. PB(III) ‖ [7] πόθεν PB(I,III)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.4 : εἰ PB(II) ‖ [8] coniecimus; vid. c. 2.5a infra ‖ [9] Ἀπὸ … κοσμοποιεῖν tit. c. 2.6 : πρώτου om. PB(III) : ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν PB ‖ [10] τοῦ κόσμου PB(II–III)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.6 : τοῦ om. PB(I) ‖ [11] Τίς … ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(IIΙ)Q, cf. tit. c. 2.8 : Περὶ τοῦ ante τίς PB(I–II) : om. τοῦ PB(I–II) ‖ [12] Περὶ … κενόν PB, cf. tit. c. 2.9 : Gibt es ausserhalb ein Vakuum Q‖ [14] Περὶ … οὐσία PB, cf. tit. c. 2.11 : Über die Substanz des Himmels Q ‖ [15] Περὶ … διαιρεῖται PB, cf. tit. c. 2.12 : Über die Einteilung des Himmels Q ‖ [16] Τίς ἡ οὐσία … ἀπλανῶν tit. c. 2.13 : om. ἡ PB(I–II) : πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν om. PB(III) : post ἀπλανῶν add. καὶ πῶς συνέστη PB(I–II) : συνεστήκασι PB(III) : Was ist die Substanz der Sterne Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_039

5

10

15

740 ιεʹ. ιϛʹ. ιζʹ. ιηʹ. ιθʹ. κʹ. καʹ. κβʹ. κγʹ. κδʹ. κεʹ. κϛʹ. κζʹ. κηʹ. κθʹ. λʹ. λαʹ. λβʹ.

liber 2 titulus et index

Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης Περὶ ἐμφάσεως σελήνης καὶ διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων τῆς σελήνης Περὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ, πόσος ἑκάστου τῶν πλανητῶν χρόνος, καὶ τίς ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός

[19] Περὶ … κινήσεως PB, cf. tit. 2.16 : Über die Fortbewegung der Sterne Q ‖ [21] Περὶ … Διοσκούρων PB(I,II) : τῶν1 om. PB(III) ‖ [22] Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων tit. c. 2.19 et cf. Über die (Wetter-) Konstellationen der Jahreszeiten Q : καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος add. PB ‖ [23] Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου PB(III)Q : καὶ ὅτι δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσίν add. PB(I,II) ‖ [30] Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης PB, cf. tit. c. 2.27 : Über die Gestalt und die Erleuchtung des Mondes Q (conflat c. 27 et 28) ‖ [32] Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης PB(I,III), cf. tit. 2.29 : ἐγκλίσεως sive ἐγκλείψεως PB(II) ‖ [33] Περὶ … φαίνεται cf. tit. c. 2.30 : αὐτῆς pro σελήνης PB(I,II)Q : καὶ om. PB(III) ‖ [34] Περὶ … σελήνης tit. c. 2.31 : post σελήνης add. πόσον (ὃ PB(III)) ἀφέστηκε τοῦ ἡλίου PBQ ‖ [35–36] Περὶ … ἐνιαυτός PB(I,II), cf. tit. c. 2.32 : πλανητῶν PB(I,II) : πλανωμένων PB(III) : χρόνος καὶ τίς om. PB(III) : καὶ τίς ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός om. PQ

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Eusebius PE 15.32.8 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Cyrillus Juln. 2.14 vid. lib. 1. titulus et index Symeon Seth CRN Praef. p. 18.10–12 Delatte vid. lib. 1. titulus et index

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

20

25

30

35

liber 2 titulus et index

741

Commentary A Witnesses As discussed in the equivalent chapter of Book 1, for the title of the entire work and its individual books we must rely on the evidence of T, the only witness to cite the title of the original work and give the name of its author. The titles in P and those witnesses dependent on its tradition are expanded versions of the original title. For the title at the head of P’s Book 2 only the evidence in PB is available, supplemented by a reference to the book’s title in Cyril’s extracts from it. Q does not appear to have translated the title, but only indicated the number of the book and its author. On these titles see further Book 1.titulus et index Commentary C. For the index of chapters PB is the chief witness, though not all mss. contain it. One of the mss. of Q, Ẓāhirīya (Damascenus) 4871 contains a translation of the list and thus provides valuable additional evidence on the manuscript tradition. Daiber did not include it in his edition, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation (see Appendix in vol. 4). On this translation and its source see further the Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A. Eusebius provides us with two pieces of evidence. The chapters that he writes out from P Book 2 are all in Book 15 of his Praeparatio Evangelica. This book, following his usual practice, has itself a pinax which contains the headings of all the chapters he quotes. In addition, he gives a summary of some of the chapters he is going to quote at 15.32.8–10, including most of the chapter headings of chs. 2.1–11. It cannot be considered certain that this represents the pinax of his copy of P, since he might also have based it on the chapters he had written out. But there is likely to have been very little difference. Similarly Symeon Seth in his Preface gives a summary of the headings of many of the chapters in his compendium. This takes the place, as it were, of a pinax. Texts above under testes primi. C Book Title As emphasised in our discussion in Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A, the title for the entire work and each of its books must be based on the evidence of T. The titles in the tradition of P are secondary. P’s title in the ms. Mosquensis for Book 2 is very full and uniquely speaks of ἐπιτομή in the genitive, i.e. as if it was part of the title in the nominative (Books 3 and 5 have ἐν ἐπιτομῇ, which must qualify τῶν ἀρεσκόντων). On how this title relates to the title of the original work see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary C.

742

liber 2 titulus et index

D Analysis of the Index (1) For a discussion giving the reasons why we are convinced that A’s original compendium contained these indices at the beginning of each book, see M– R 2.196–204 and Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(6) and D(e). (2) For the methodology of the reconstruction of the index see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(3). We argue that priority must be given to the chapter headings in the text of the chapters themselves, since A will have based his index on these when he compiled the work. It is thus to be assumed that the list of chapter headings in the index accurately reflects the chapter headings in the text of the Book. In the index of this book the discrepancies between the pinax and the headings transmitted in within the book itself is greater than elsewhere, there being no less than five chapters where they diverge: chs. 2.5a (not in P), 2.6, 2.13, 2.19, 2.30. In the remaining cases the intra-textual chapter heading has differing degrees of support in the Index list in the manuscripts. The reader is advised to study the apparatus criticus both to the above list and to the headings of individual chapters. (3) For discussion of chapter headings in PB, who often opts for the longer variants, see the comments in our Commentary on individual chapters below (section C). It is interesting to note that in the case of eight chapters (9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 32) Q records a shorter chapter title compared with what is found in PB. He has also conflated the titles of chs. 27 and 28, caused by the omission of the contents of ch. 27 (but not its title) in the main body of the book. This may suggest that he derived his list from the contents of the book rather than translating the index in the ms. he was translating (which would make it less valuable from the textual point of view), but this cannot be considered certain. After all, the mistake may have been in the text on which he based his translation (and so also in its pinax). D(e) Other Evidence For further discussion on the use of pinakes (tables of contents) in ancient works see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(e). E Further Related Texts For an extensive list of parallel texts relating to the compilation and use of pinakes (tables of contents) or indices of chapter headings, see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary E.

Liber 2 ⟨Proœmium⟩ PB: Plutarchus 886B; p. 327a2–6 Diels—PQ: pp. 138–139 Daiber

τετελεκὼς τοίνυν τὸν περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ τῶν συνεδρευόντων αὐτοῖς λόγον τρέψομαι πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων, ἀπὸ τοῦ περιεκτικωτάτου πάντων ἐνστησάμενος. (P) proœmium non hab. S ‖ [2] ἐπὶ : περὶ coni. corrector ms. Vossiani, Diels

Loci Aetiani: A 1.2 tit. Τίνι διαφέρει ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα. A 1.2.2 τὰ μὲν γὰρ στοιχεῖά ἐστι σύνθετα, τὰς δ᾽ ἀρχάς φαμεν εἶναι οὔτε συνθέτους οὔτ᾽ ἀποτελέσματα. A 1.3 tit. Περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τί εἰσιν. A 1.5.4 ὅπου γὰρ ἀπέραντα τὰ αἴτια, ἐκεῖ καὶ τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. A 1.11.1 αἴτιόν ἐστι δι᾽ ὃ τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα κτλ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The brief introductory authorial statement preceding the chapters of Book 2 is only found in PB and the translation of the closely related PQ. This is also the case for the similar comments at the beginning of Books 1, 3, 4 and at 3.8.2. B Proximate Tradition and Sources The distinction between principles and effects goes back at least as far as Plato’s Timaeus (cf. 27a, 27d–29d, 47e), without using the same terminology as our text (cf. also the summary of early Pythagorean accounts of the derivation of the cosmos from higher principles at D.L. 8.25). Aristotle also clearly distinguishes between the two in his opening remarks in the De caelo and the Meteorology (texts below section E(a)). Here too there are no verbal similarities with A. The Stoic distinction between an eidetic and a generic list of topics in the φυσικὸς λόγος at D.L. 7.132 also shows some resemblances to the difference in contents between Books 1 and 2. Evidence for the specific distinction between principle/cause/element and resultant product first appears in Philo of Alexandria and Plutarch (texts below section E(a)). It occurs a number of times in G in the first part of the work

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_040

744

liber 2 ⟨proœmium⟩

not derived from A, where it is related to the thought of Plato and Aristotle. In the Middle Platonist tradition the transition from principles to the genesis of the cosmos occurs very clearly in paraphrases or summaries of the Timaeus at Tim.Locr. 7 and Alcinous Did. 8 (texts below), but the term ἀποτέλεσμα is not used. It would appear that the movement from principles to effects has a Platonic background, but that the terminology used is likely to have been derived from the Stoa. C Chapter Heading The introductory remarks have no title but are placed under the general title of the Book, as is the case for the other four passages noted above. D Analysis a Context and Rationale The sentence effectuates the transition from Book 1 on the principia to the remaining books on the realia of the cosmos and its contents. Further transitions are made at the beginning of Book 3, at 3.8.2 and at the beginning of Book 4. Although these passages are only found in P, it can be considered virtually certain that they were originally present in its source, A. The words περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων recall the prefatory chapter 1.2, Τίνι διαφέρει ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖα, most of which is taken up by S in his chapter 1.10 entitled Περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων τοῦ παντός. On the authorial comments in A see further M–R 2.43–59, on this passage 2.52. In chapter 1.2 which has as its purpose the distinguishing marks between principles and elements, ἀποτελέσματα are distinguished from ἀρχαί (A 1.2.2), but no explanation is given of how this is the case. b Further Comments General Points: (1) As noted in M–R 2.52, συνεδρευόντων can also be translated ‘what belongs to the same company as,’ ‘is attendant upon’. It implies a group of topics subordinate, or at least consequent upon the principles and elements, i.e. the topics treated in chs. 1.11 to 1.29. (2) In the phrase πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων Diels replaces ἐπί with πρός, taking over the emendation of the corrector of the Leiden ms. Vossianus Q 2 (a copy in the Planudean tradition, i.e. family III), but this move is unnecessary and has been rejected by subsequent editors. ἐπί here literally means ‘in the case of’; cf. Smyth (1956) §1689c. Its use is prompted by the wish to vary the expression used in the previous clause.

liber 2 ⟨proœmium⟩

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo Opif. 28 τάξις δ᾽ ἀκολουθία καὶ εἱρμός ἐστι προηγουμένων τινῶν καὶ ἑπομένων, εἰ καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἀποτελέσμασιν, ἀλλά τοι ταῖς τῶν τεκταινομένων ἐπινοίαις. Opif. 129 ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἐμφανῶς τὰς ἀσωμάτους καὶ νοητὰς ἰδέας παρίστησιν, ἃς τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀποτελεσμάτων σφραγῖδας εἶναι συμβέβηκε; Her. 209 καὶ τἄλλα δὲ ἐναντία προῦπτα, σώματα ἀσώματα, ἔμψυχα ἄψυχα, λογικὰ ἄλογα, θνητὰ ἀθάνατα, αἰσθητὰ νοητά, καταληπτὰ ἀκατάληπτα, στοιχεῖα ἀποτελέσματα … Fug. 133 ἰδοὺ τὸ δρῶν αἴτιον, τὸ πῦρ· ἰδοὺ καὶ τὸ πάσχον, ἡ ὕλη, τὰ ξύλα· ποῦ τὸ τρίτον, τὸ ἀποτέλεσμα; οἷον ἰδοὺ ὁ νοῦς, ἔνθερμον καὶ πεπυρωμένον πνεῦμα. ps.Galen HPh ch. 17, p. 610.3–6 Diels Πλάτων δὲ καὶ τὰς ἰδέας εἰσήγαγεν, αἷς ἴσα μὲν ἀπεργάσασθαι δύναται· εἰσάγουσι δὲ καὶ τὴν ἄποιον ὕλην, ὅσοι οὐκ ἂν ἴσα τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα συντελεῖσθαι διδόασιν, ἀλλὰ † ταύτης τε ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς τὰ ἀποτελέσματα γίγνεσθαι. HPh ch. 19, p. 611.5–7 ἀρχὴν δὲ καὶ αἰτίαν τινὲς μὲν ᾠήθησαν μηδὲν ἀλλήλων διαφέρειν, τινὲς δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν καθηγητικὴν πάντων εἶναι νομίζουσιν οὐκ αἰτίαν οὖσαν τοῦ παντὸς ἀποτελέσματος. Plutarch Anim.Procr. 1023C ὁ θεὸς τῆς μὲν ἰδέας ὡς παραδείγματος γέγονε μιμητής, τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ὥσπερ ἀποτελέσματος δημιουργός.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 1.1 268a1–6 ἡ περὶ φύσεως ἐπιστήμη σχεδὸν ἡ πλείστη φαίνεται περί τε σώματα καὶ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ τούτων οὖσα πάθη καὶ τὰς κινήσεις, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, ὅσαι τῆς τοιαύτης οὐσίας εἰσίν· τῶν γὰρ φύσει συνεστώτων τὰ μέν ἐστι σώματα καὶ μεγέθη, τὰ δ᾽ ἔχει σῶμα καὶ μέγεθος, τὰ δ’ ἀρχαὶ τῶν ἐχόντων εἰσίν. Mete. 1.1 338a20–25 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πρώτων αἰτίων τῆς φύσεως καὶ περὶ πάσης κινήσεως φυσικῆς, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄνω φορὰν διακεκοσμημένων ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῶν στοιχείων τῶν σωματικῶν … εἴρηται πρότερον. Stoics ap. D.L. 7.132 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν εἴς τε τὸν περὶ σωμάτων τόπον καὶ περὶ ἀρχῶν καὶ στοιχείων καὶ θεῶν καὶ περάτων καὶ τόπου καὶ κενοῦ. καὶ οὕτω μὲν εἰδικῶς, γενικῶς δ᾽ εἰς τρεῖς τόπους, τόν τε περὶ κόσμου καὶ τὸν περὶ τῶν στοιχείων καὶ τρίτον τὸν αἰτιολογικόν … Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.27.2 (attributed to Chrysippus, SVF 2.347) τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ ἄρα αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικὸν καὶ δι᾽ ὅ. καὶ εἰ μὲν τί ἐστιν αἴτιον καὶ ποιητικόν, τοῦτο πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ δι᾽ ὅ, εἰ δέ τι ἐστὶ δι᾽ ὅ, οὐ πάντως τοῦτο καὶ αἴτιον. πολλὰ γοῦν ἐφ᾽ ἓν ἀποτέλεσμα συντρέχει, δι᾽ ἃ γίνεται τὸ τέλος, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι πάντα αἴτια. Timaeus Locrus ch. 7 πρὶν ὦν ὠρανὸν λόγῳ γενέσθαι ἤστην ἰδέα τε καὶ ὕλα καὶ ὁ θεός … Alcinous Did. 8, p. p. 162.24–28 H. μετὰ δὲ τοῦτα ἑπομένως περὶ τῶν ἀρχῶν τε καὶ τῶν θεολογικῶν λέγωμεν θεωρημάτων, ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων ἀρχόμενοι καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν κατιόντες καὶ ἐπισκοποῦντες τὴν τοῦ κόσμου γένεσιν, τελευτῶντες δὲ εἰς ἀνθρώπων γένεσιν καὶ φύσιν. Simplicius in Phys. 285.5 Diels ἀλλὰ πῶς τὸ σύνθετον ἀρχὴ ἂν εἴη καὶ αἰτία ἀποτέλεσμα μόνον ὑπάρχον;

745

Liber 2 Caput 1 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 886B–C; pp. 327a7–328a11 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 44; p. 621.1–8 Diels; pp. 138–148 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 138–139 Daiber—PC: Cyrillus Juln. 2.14.10–22, p. 105, cf. 2.16, 5–6, p. 107 Riedweg— PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.27, p. 35.7–10 Delatte—PAth : Athenagoras Leg. 7.2.13–14 Marcovich (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.21, p. 181.16 (tit.) + 1.21.3ab, p. 182.17–183.1 + 6c, p. 186.15–16 + 1.22.3bcd, p. 199.10–22 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b5 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.15, p. 104.8–15; cf. 4.8, p. 102.14–17 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, pp. 15.10–13, 16.8–9; c. 8, cf. p. 17.21–22 Di Maria; Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, pp. 92.34–93.2 Maass; Hermias Irr. 18, p. 118.1–4 Hanson

Titulus αʹ. Περὶ κόσμου (P,S) §1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. (P1,S5) §2 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἔκφαντος Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος Ἡράκλειτος Ἀναξαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης Ζήνων ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. (P2,S6,T1) §3 Ἀναξίμανδρος Ἀναξιμένης Ἀρχέλαος Ξενοφάνης Διογένης Λεύκιππος Δημόκριτος, Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. (P3,S7,T2) §1 Pythagoras 14.21 DK; §2 Thales 11A13b DK; Pythagoras —; Empedocles —; Ecphantus 51.3 DK; Parmenides 28A36 DK; Melissus 30A9 DK; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; Anaxagoras 59A63 DK; Plato cf. Tim. 31a; Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.8; Zeno SVF 1.97; §3 Anaximander 12A17 DK; Anaximenes 13A10 DK; Archelaus 60A13 DK; Xenophanes 21A37 DK; Diogenes 64A10 DK; Leucippus —; Democritus fr. 352 Luria; Epicurus fr. 301 Usener; Metrodorus 70A7 DK titulus Περὶ κόσμου S vid. infra c. 2.2 §1 [2] post κόσμον add. Q Ihr Sinn ist in der Sprache der Griechen ‘Ordnung’ ‖ [2–3] ἐν αὐτῷ] ἐν αὐτῇ PB(III:Laur.31,37) §2 [4–5] Θαλῆς … Ζήνων S : Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PBCQ : Θαλῆς PG ‖ Θαλῆς μὲν καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων T §3 [7– 8] Ἀναξίμανδρος … Ἐπίκουρος S : Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Ἀρχέλαος καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Διογένης καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος T : Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος P ‖ [8] post Ἐπίκουρος add. PC Wyttenbach Diels καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος (cf. Ach. 5, 16.9 καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Μητρόδωρος) : ὁ τούτων μαθητής Μητρόδωρος PB Beck : ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος PQ : ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Λεύκιππος PG : om. ST, ut additamentum P ex 1.5.5 haustum secl. Diels ‖ [8–9] ἀπείρους κόσμους PBCGS : πολλοὺς εἶναι καὶ ἀπείρους T : daß die Welt ein Unendliches ist Q ‖ [9] κατὰ τὴν περίστασιν PBCQ : κατὰ τὴν περιαγωγήν S : om. PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_041

5

liber 2 caput 1

§4 §5 §6 §7 §8 §9

τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, (S8) Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα. (S9) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου περίδρομον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. (P4,S1) Σέλευκος ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς ἄπειρον τὸν κόσμον. (P5,S2) Διογένης καὶ Μέλισσος τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρον, τὸν δὲ κόσμον πεπεράνθαι. (P6,S3) οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· πᾶν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον· ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον. (P7,S4)

§4 Anaximander 12A17 DK; §5 Epicurus fr. 301a Usener; §6 Empedocles 31A50 DK; §7 Seleucus Babylonius test. 5 Russo; Heraclides fr. 112 Wehrli, fr. 74 Schütrumpf; §8 Diogenes 64A10 DK; Melissus —; §9 Stoici SVF 2.522 §§4–5 non hab. P, §§6–7 non hab. G §6 [13] τὸν … περίδρομον PB(I,II)Q(ut vid.)C : τὴν … περίδρομὴν PΒ(III) : δρόμον PG ‖ [13–14] τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου PQGCST Diels : τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ πέρατος αὐτοῦ PB(I,II) : τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦτο πέρας αὐτοῦ PB(III) §7 [15] Σέλευκος … Ποντικὸς S ‖ Σέλευκος PBCQ (add. δέ PB(II)) ‖ de additamentis Rhazis de Seleuco vid. comm. infra §8 [17] Διογένης καὶ Μέλισσος S : Διογένης PBCQ §9 [19] τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον PBGS, cf. Ach. c. 5 15.11 : τὸν κόσμον καὶ πρὸς τὸ ὅλον PC1, τὸ ὅλον καὶ πρὸς τὸν κόσμον PC2, emend. edd. : τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν PQ ‖ πᾶν (ἅπαν PC) μὲν γάρ PBQS : τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαν PG ‖ [19–20] τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ PCS Diels (τὸ om. S) : σὺν τῷ κενῷ ἀπείρῳ PG : τὸ σὺν κενῷ ἄπειρον PBQ ‖ [20] τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι PG (quod fort. lac. antecedit) ‖ [20–21] ὥστε … κόσμον PB(I,III)CQ : τὸ ὅλον (πόλον mss., emend. Diels Jas) καὶ κόσμον PG : om. PB(II)S, ut additamentum P secl. Diels ‖ [20] ὥστε PCQ Reiske Mau Lachenaud : ὥστε οὐ PB(I,III) Diels ‖ [21] τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον PB(I,III)C, die Welt und das Ganze (τὸ πᾶν) Q

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.15 4.15 (quaestio) οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐν τούτοις διαφωνίᾳ γε πλείστῃ, ἀλλὰ κἀν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐχρήσαντο. 4.15.1 (~ §2) καὶ γὰρ δὴ τὸν κόσμον Θαλῆς μὲν καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Μέλισσος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ζήνων ἕνα εἶναι ξυνωμολόγησαν· 4.15.2 (~ §3) Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Ἀρχέλαος καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Διογένης καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος πολλοὺς εἶναι καὶ ἀπείρους ἐδόξασαν. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Cyrillus Juln. 2.14 2.14 (quaestio) Πλούταρχος τοίνυν, ἀνὴρ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς οὐκ ἄσημος γεγονώς, ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς τῶν Φυσικῶν δογμάτων συναγωγῆς, οὕτω φησὶ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου·

747 10

15

20

748

liber 2 caput 1

2.14.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. 2.14.2 (~ P2) Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. 2.14.3 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτου καθηγητὴς Μητρόδωρος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. 2.14.4 (~ P4) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου περίδρομον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. 2.14.5 (~ P5) Σέλευκος ἄπειρον τὸν κόσμον· 2.14.6 (~ P6) Διογένης τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρον, τὸν δὲ κόσμον πεπεράνθαι. 2.14.7 (~ P7) οἱ Στωϊκοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· ἅπαν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τὸ σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον· ὥστε τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸν κόσμον. cf. 2.16 οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον, οἱ δὲ πολλούς (~ P2–3) ps.Galenus HPh c. 44 (~ tit.) Περὶ κόσμου (text Jas) 44.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. 44.2 (~ P2) Θαλῆς ἕνα τὸν κόσμον. 44.3 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὁ τούτων καθηγητὴς Λεύκιππος ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κενῷ. 44.4 (~ P4) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου δρόμον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. 44.5 (~ P7) οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἅπαν εἶναι σὺν τῷ κενῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ […] εἶναι τὸ ὅλον καὶ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον. Symeon Seth CRN 3.27 (Λόγος τρίτος. Περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων.) Περὶ κόσμου (~ tit.) 3.27 (~ P3) Τινὲς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν ἀπείρους εἶναι κόσμους … Testes secundi: Athenagoras Leg. 7.2.13–14 ἄλλος ἄλλως ἐδογμάτισεν αὐτῶν … καὶ περὶ κόσμου (~ tit.) Achilles Univ. c. 5 Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) 15.10–13 τὸ δὲ πᾶν κόσμον Πυθαγόρας ἐκάλεσεν ἐκ τῆς διακοσμήσεως, οὐδεὶς δὲ πρὸ αὐτοῦ (~ §1). τὸ δὲ πᾶν τοῦ ὅλου παρὰ τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς (SVF 2.523) διαφέρει· ὅλον μὲν γὰρ λέγουσι τὸν κόσμον, πᾶν δὲ ⟨τὸ⟩ μετὰ τοῦ κενοῦ (~ §9). 16.8–9 Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener) δὲ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑποτίθεται καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ Μητρόδωρος (~ §3). cf. c. 8 17.21–22 οἳ μὲν εἶναί τι ἐκτός φασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener), ὃς καὶ ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτίθεται ἐν ἀπείρῷ κενῷ (~ §3). Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, p. 92.34–93.2 Maass εἰ δὲ ἔστί τι κενὸν ἔξωθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐ περίεργος ἡμῖν ἡ ζήτησις (cf. A 2.9). πλὴν οἱ Στωικοὶ λέγουσιν εἶναι (ταύτῃ γὰρ διαφέρειν τὸ ὅλον τοῦ παντός (~ §9)), ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον, ὡς Ἑπίκουρος καὶ οἱ λοιποί (cf. §3).

liber 2 caput 1

749

Hermias Irr. 18, p. 118.1–4 ἀμφὶ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα μέχρι νῦν ἐσπούδακεν ἡ ψυχή μου τῶν ὅλων ἄρχειν. προκύψας δέ μοί φησιν Ἐπίκουρος· σὺ μὲν δὴ κόσμον ἕνα μεμέτρηκας (§2), ὦ φιλότης, εἰσὶ δὲ κόσμοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἄπειροι (§3). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.proœm. ζητεῖται εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, εἴ π⟨ῦ⟩ρ, ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται· ὁ τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν· οὐδὲ γάρ τι πλέον θεωρεῖται ἢ τὸ ὄν. ζητεῖται ὁμοίως εἰ ἄπειρος ὁ κόσμος ἐστὶ καὶ εἰ ἔξω τι τοῦ κόσμου ἔστι (~ A 2.9). A 1.5 Εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν §1 A 1.3.7 Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου Σάμιος, ὁ πρῶτος φιλοσοφίαν τούτῳ τῷ ῥήματι προσαγορεύσας … A 2.12.2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου … §2 A 1.5.1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς ἕνα κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο, ὃν δὴ καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἔφασαν εἶναι τὸ σωματικόν. A 1.5.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ κόσμον μὲν ἕνα, οὐ μέντοι τὸ πᾶν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ὀλίγον τι τοῦ παντὸς μέρος, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἀργὴν ὕλην. A 1.5.3 Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ἓν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν ἀ⟨ει⟩κίνητον καὶ πεπερασμένον. A 1.5.4 Πλάτων δὲ τεκμαίρεται τὸ δοκοῦν, ὅτι εἷς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἓν τὸ πᾶν … §3 A 1.3.2 (de Anaximandro) διὸ καὶ γεννᾶσθαι ἀπείρους κόσμους (cf. 1.7.3). A 1.5.5 Μητρόδωρος ὁ καθηγητὴς Ἐπικούρου φησιν ἄτοπον εἶναι ἐν μεγάλῳ πεδίῳ ἕνα στάχυν γεννηθῆναι καὶ ἕνα κόσμον ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. ὅτι δ᾽ ἄπειροι κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος, δῆλον … §6 A 2.23.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν σφαίρας κωλυομενον ἄχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων. A 2.23.8 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας αὐτὸν κινεῖσθαι τὴν ἕλικα οὐ περὶ σφαῖραν ποιοῦντα, περὶ δὲ κύλινδρον. §§8–9 vid. A 1.5.2, 1.5.4 ad §2 supra cit. 1.18.5 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξω δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον. A 2.9.2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἶναι κενόν, εἰς ὃ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἀναλύεται, ἄπειρον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses For the opening chapter of Book 2 all three major witnesses provide evidence. (1) P is well-attested, with four witnesses, PB, C, G and Q. E does not include this chapter or the next because has an agenda of his own that he announces at PE 15.22.68. He first highlights the views on those parts of the cosmos regarded by the ancients as ‘visible gods’ before moving on to more religiously neutral cosmological subjects. Thus P chs. 2.20–22, 25–28 and 13–14 are cited first, followed by chs. 1.4–5 and 2.3–11. In this scheme the first two chapters of book 2

750

liber 2 caput 1

(and the preceding prefatory remark) are regarded as superfluous. E’s absence is compensated for by Cyril, who quotes the entire chapter verbatim. PBCQ retain seven lemmata, but G drops two of these (§5 Seleucus, §6 Diogenes). The early witness Athenagoras refers only to the title, which he may have derived from either A or P (or indeed elsewhere). (2) All seven of P’s lemmata can be located in S, spread out over two chapters. His procedure here is somewhat curious. In S 1.21, which combines material from A 2.1–6, he first writes out the final four lemmata in P (3ab), followed later by the first lemma in a cluster of material relating to Pythagoras (6c). In the following chapter S 1.22, after writing out A 2.7 (which gives the chapter its title), he recalls that there was a chapter in Book 1 which is relevant to the theme of the cosmos, namely A 1.5 Εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν. It is only after he has written out this chapter (without the lemma on Plato) that he returns to P’s second and third lemma, which he supplies in a much fuller form with no less than 11 and 8 namelabels respectively (3b). Thereafter he adds (3c) two more lemmata not in P which, given the subject matter, must belong to the present chapter (although presented as one sentence we prefer to divide it up into two separate lemmata, each with a name-label, because of the clear antithesis involved). In sequence the lemmata are thus: S1 at S 1.21.3a, Empedocles (= P4); S2 at 1.21.3a2, Seleucus (= P5); S3 at 1.21.3a3, Diogenes (= P6); S4 at 1.21.3b1, Stoics (= P7); S5 at 1.21.6c2, Pythagoras (= P1); S6 at 1.22.3b1, Thales etc. (= P2); S7 at 1.22.3b2, Anaximander etc. (≈ P3); S8 at 1.22.3c1, infinitists–Anaximander (not in P); S9 at 1.22.3c2, Epicurus (not in P). (3) T records only the main antithesis in P2–3 = S 1.22.3b1–2. The information he gives, with the copious supply of name-labels for both lemmata, stands much closer to S and confirms that P has drastically shortened his source in these two lemmata. It confirms that the source used by P and S and by T and S was the same document; see Mansfeld (2018a) 185–186. However, the earlier remark at T 4.8 about Melissus, namely that he holds that the cosmos is ἄπειρος, contradicts the statement in §8 and is most likely drawn from another tradition; see M–R 1.274 and above, ch. 1.3 Commentary D(b). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Numerous texts in both rhetorical and philosophical authors reveal that this chapter focuses on one of most popular dialectical quaestiones in the φυσικὸς λόγος. See the lengthy list of texts cited below in section E(a). The most instructive texts are those in Philo (Abr. 162), Lucian (Icar. 8) and Galen (Loc.Aff. 3.5 8.159.5–6 Kühn, HVA 1.12), which show that A in this chapter is in fact combining two related but separate θέσεις, (a) whether there is a single cosmos or there are infinite kosmoi, and (b) whether the universe

751

liber 2 caput 1

encompassing the whole of physical reality is limited or infinite. The dialectical possibilities of the interaction of these two questions can be shown in at least two ways: cosmos single limited

infinite

unlimited

cosmos { } universe limited or unlimited

single or infinite single limited single unlimited

infinite unlimited

The left diagram shows the diaeretic structure that is used in the chapter; the right diagram with its grid shows how one of the theoretical possibilities (infinite kosmoi and limited universe) is not represented since it does not make sense. A further complication is the link to the question of the void, introduced in §§3 and 9, which can coexist with both a single cosmos and an infinite universe. This theme is also treated in chs. 1.18 and 2.9. Against this background the material on these questions preserved in the proximate tradition is extremely rich, with many of the doxai in this chapter (esp. in §§1–3) paralleled elsewhere. (2) Sources. The question of whether there is a single cosmos or infinite kosmoi is first explicitly stated in Plato’s Timaeus and further developed in Aristotle’s Physics and De caelo. But it is implicit in much Presocratic cosmology and can also be connected with the questions of unity and plurality (see the texts of Gorgias and Xenophon cited below in section E(b)) and also the more general question of whether the cosmos is the result of intelligent design or simply part of a larger universe that is subject to physical necessity; see the studies of Furley (1987), Graham (2006), and Sedley (2007). By the Hellenistic period the opposition between the closed cosmos and the open universe, represented by Plato–Aristotle–Stoa on the one side and atomists–Epicurus on the other becomes quite standard and is found in numerous doxographical summaries. It is then projected back to earlier Presocratic authors such as the Milesians and Pythagoreans (see below section D(d)§4). It should be noted that the systematic connections between the questions treated in this chapter were already convincingly set out by Aristotle in Cael. 1.8–9, to which in the following chapter he adds the question of the destructibility or indestructibility of the single cosmos. In a note at the end of 1.10 (280a23– 28) he adds that the answer would change if (successive) infinite kosmoi were admitted, a position against which he has already argued in preceding chapters.

752

liber 2 caput 1

This possibility is not taken into account in the present chapter. He does not refer to any predecessors by name in the discussions on unicity and infinity in 1.8–9. It is only when he starts to discuss the question of destructibility at 1.10 279b12 that names are mentioned. In the later tradition the questions of unicity/infinity and destructibility/indestructibility are often linked and names added. See the detailed doxographies of Philo and Alexander of Aphrodisias discussed in our analysis of ch. 2.4. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is of the most common umbrella type Περὶ x, already used in the earlier tradition by philosophers such as the Stoics Chrysippus and Posidonius (but not by Zeno who wrote a work Περὶ ὅλου) and ps.Aristotle (but not Aristotle, whose title is Περὶ οὐρανοῦ; as argued by Johnson (2019) 79 this should be taken to refer to the ‘heaven’, i.e. the universe, rather than to ‘the heavens’ as usually translated); on the history of this title see further Mansfeld (1992c). The question type ‘what is it’ in the category of substance is treated in §1 and §9, ‘how is it’ in §§2–8. The category of place is touched on in §§3–5. But the most prominent place is taken up in the chapter by the category of quantity, being referred to in §§2–3 with regard to number and in §§4–9 with regard to size (§§4–5 equal–unequal, §§6–7 limited–unlimited, §§8–9 unlimited–limited). We note that Philoponus, in outlining the questions related to the various categories, explicitly uses the pair unlimited vs. limited as applied to the cosmos to illustrate the category of quantity (τὸ ποσόν); text below in section E(a) General texts. There are no variants on the chapter heading as confirmed by PBGQS (but note περὶ τοῦ κόσμου in C’s introductory words). S gives the chapter’s heading as part of the longer heading of S 1.21 which combines the headings of chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5a and 2.5: Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. D Analysis a Context The chapter follows on from the authorial comment in the Preface to Book 2, where its subject matter is announced (περιοχήν in §1 picks up περιεκτικωτάτου in 2.proœm.). Much mention has been made of the cosmos in Book 1, particularly in the initial chapters chs. 3–5 and 7. Indeed, as S saw, the subject matter of this chapter overlaps considerably with ch. 1.5 Εἰ ἕν τὸ πᾶν. The doxai in A 1.5.1–2, discussing the extent of the cosmos in relation to the universe, are close to 2.1.9 in subject matter. For A 1.5.3 see 2.1.2 (but without mentioning that the single cosmos is finite). The final two lemmata A 1.5.4–5 introduce

liber 2 caput 1

753

argumentation that is wholly missing in ch. 2.1 and is typical of the opening chapters of the work. On these chapters and the overlap between Books 1 & 2 see above on ch. 1.5 and also M–R 2.1.22–24, 52–54. Only in Book 2 does A begin to treat the subject of the cosmos both as a whole and as having constituent parts. b Number–Order of Lemmata There are two tell-tale blocks where P and S correspond: P2–3 = S 1.22.3b1–2, P4–7 = S 1.21.3a1–3 & b1. The remaining lemma P1 is separated in the cluster of tenets attributed to Pythagoras at S1.21.6c2. It is natural to follow P and take it as the opening lemma, since it introduces and quasi-defines, by means of the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif, the chapter’s subject (cf. the definitions in chs. 1.9–12). On this motif see section D(d) §1 below. But the initial position cannot be confirmed from S. There remain the two lemmata found only in S, §§4–5. Diels’ reconstruction places them at the end of the chapter for reasons he does not explain. In S they follow on directly from the small block of two lemmata at S 1.22.3b1–2. This encourages the view that they followed on from these same lemmata in A. But the internal logic of the chapter must also be taken into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As the numerous doxographical and dialectical parallels demonstrate (see texts cited below), the simple chapter heading is deceptive. It was already noted in section B above that the chapter combines two fundamental questions relating to the cosmos (or universe) as a whole: (1) whether there is but a single cosmos or whether there are infinite kosmoi, and (2) whether the universe (whether to be identified with the cosmos or not) is limited or infinite in extent. It is important to note that the latter is given as a question of physics according to Aristotle and his school in 1.proœm. 3. The first lemma attributed to Pythagoras, as already remarked, serves to introduce the cosmos, presenting for the purpose a nominal definition. On this see further below section D(d) General points. Next §§2–3 give a diaeresis on whether the cosmos is single or infinite in number. For the former view S gives a long list of eleven name-labels, nine of which reappear in T (missing are Empedocles and Ecphantus; Anaxagoras has been placed third in the list, whereas in S he is eighth). T thus confirms that P has abridged his source with the common formula καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (also found in P 2.28.2, 3.9.1, 3.10.1, 4.16.4, as well as at S 1.17.1a, 1.18.1d1, where in both cases P preserves a different name-label; see the comment on A 1.17.1 at ch. 1.17 Commentary D(d)§1). G has abridged even further to the name-label Thales only. A occasionally uses such long lists

754

liber 2 caput 1

of name-labels to emphasise widely held points of view (cf. chs. 2.4.7, 2.11.4, 4.5a.1). For the infinitist point of view S gives eight name-labels beginning with the two Milesians Anaximander and Anaximenes (standing in contrast to their archegete Thales who heads the other list). Exactly the same list is found in T. P retains only two of these names, Democritus and Epicurus, but also adds Metrodorus (of Chius). On this name-label and whether it should be retained see section D(d) §3 below. In principle the expression ἄπειροι κόσμοι on its own is ambiguous, since it could refer unlimited successive worlds or unlimited coexisting worlds. The addition of the words ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν makes it quite clear that the second alternative is meant, i.e. the atomist position. See further comments at section D(d)§§3–4. It is noteworthy that with his diaeresis A has not taken into account a third possibility, namely that there are a finite number of multiple kosmoi. Plato toys with the possibility of five kosmoi at Tim. 55c–d and Plutarch records the view of a certain Petron of Himera that there are 183 arranged in a triangle (on this ‘curious doctrine’ see West (1992) and Zhmud (2015), who argues that the doctrine is Platonizing and its author probably fictional). The three theoretical possibilities are outlined by Philo and Dionysius of Alexandria (cf. also Hermias on Epicurus and Augustine). A then adds the obvious point that an infinite number of kosmoi entails an infinite amount of space in which they are located. The next two lemmata §§4–5 (found only in S), if placed here as proposed above, expand the second half of the diaeresis and introduce a further distinction among the infinitists, i.e. whether the infinite worlds are equidistant from each other or not. There are no parallels in A for a genitive plural phrase to pick up a previous position, so the initial words τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους may be an addition of S. But in the absence of further evidence they must be retained. Elsewhere A also shows interest in questions involving symmetry and stereometrical location, e.g. at 2.15.1–2. The information provided on Anaximander’s view is not found elsewhere. The next two lemmata §§6–7 also form an obvious pair. They introduce a further division between a limited and an unlimited single cosmos. The structure is thus chiastic, returning to the position of §2 after the treatment of the infinitists in §3 and §§4–5. The name-label Empedocles already occurred in the list in §2. Those of Seleucus (only here and at A 3.17.9 where he is called ὁ μαθηματικός) and Heraclides are new. P has abridged here too, deleting Seleucus’ epithet and the name of Heraclides. The doxa of Empedocles is surprising in that it has the revolution of the sun, and not the sphere of the fixed stars as the cosmos’ outer limit. A has a fondness for such exotic Presocratic views; cf. also 2.15.6 attributed to Anaximander–Metrodorus–Crates, where the sun is ἀνωτάτω πάντων τετάχθαι. See further section D(d)§6.

liber 2 caput 1

755

The final two lemmata import a new element of terminological precision by introducing the new terms τὸ πᾶν (the universe) and το ὅλον which have so far not occurred in the chapter (but the former is found in the earlier chapter 1.5). §8 follows on from §7 by splitting its two terms, taking ἄπειρος now with the universe, while κόσμος is regarded as limited, as implied in §2 and made explicit in §6. The distinction between πᾶν and ὅλον in §9 turns on the additional factor of the void, which was already briefly introduced as part of the infinitist position in §3. The void has already been introduced in ch. 1.18 and its cosmological role will be further explored in ch. 2.9. The structure of the chapter is complex not only because it combines two questions and does not treat just one (the same will occur in ch. 2.4), but also because it combines two ways of working with doxai. The three chiastically arranged diaereses (A–B, B1–B2, A1–2) clearly play a central role. The final two lemmata do not form a diaeresis, but add terminological precision to what has preceded. At the same time there are linkages between the doxai that move the chapter along: §1 §2 §3 §§4–5 §6 §7 §8 §9

sets the scene by introducing the concept of cosmos. develops this in terms of a single cosmos. introduces the alternative of infinite kosmoi. adds a further distinction in the views of the infinitists. by adding the aspect of limit qualifies the position in §2. gives the opposed alternative to §6. introduces the notion of the universe, which allows a fresh distinction. develops the previous view into a more sophisticated position.

The chapter thus has a progressive movement through its doxai that André Laks has aptly called ‘vectorisation’ (cf. M–R 2.317 n. 84 and also the arrows at Laks 1997a, 258). The final words which emphasise the cosmos as a whole also return the chapter to its beginning where it was described as the ‘container’ of all things. Leszl (2002) 176 (taken over by Bottler (2014) 280) argues on the basis of a comparison with Galenic texts that ‘even an ancient author would have recognized that the organisation of the material in the Epitomé is unsound on various points.’ This conclusion is quite erroneous. There is admittedly some overlap between chs. 1.5 and 2.1, but the contexts differ. The former chapter is part of the section introducing the φυσικὸς λόγος. The latter introduces the cosmos as the sum total of physical reality in our world, but allows for the possibility that there are more worlds than ours and that it can be surrounded by a void. The combination of questions goes back to Aristotle and is confirmed by texts such

756

liber 2 caput 1

as those of Philo and Alexander. Bottler (2014) 280 points to the summary of E at PE 15.32.8 from which she draws the drastic and wholly unjustified conclusion that E’s Vorlage here does not correspond to the version of the text in the mss. of P. In fact E shows that he understands the connection between chs. 1.5 and 2.1. E has altered the diaeresis from one vs. infinite to one vs. many, but this alteration is basically trivial, since it does not imply a second diaeresis between multiple and infinite kosmoi recognized by the authors cited above in our discussion of §§2–3. Similarly the phrase πολλοὺς … καὶ ἀπείρους at T 4.15 gives an expansion of A’s text rather than evidence of a different structure. It would not have been different if he had written ἤ instead of καί, since T is not a slavish copier of A’s text. It is worth noting that Ach on successive pages ascribes to Epicurus the view that many kosmoi and that infinitely many kosmoi exist (§5, p. 16.11; §8, p. 17.21 Di Maria). Strictly speaking only the latter is correct. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The book opens with the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif already used at A 1.3.7 (Pythagoras) and 1.3.17 (Ecphantus); see above on ch. 1.3 Commentary D(d)§7. It recurs in Book 2 at 2.12.2 (Pythagoras), 2.24.1, 2.28.5 (both Thales). A text at D.L. 8.48 (text below section E(a)) shows that the attribution was disputed, with Theophrastus giving the honour to Parmenides, but Zeno the Stoic to the poet Hesiod. Ach records the same tradition as A. See further A 2.12 Commentary B. This doxa gives a nominal definition of the term κόσμος, the purpose of which is to present a preliminary notion of the subject on which the chapter will focus. Such definitions occur regularly in Book 1. See further the discussion at the Commentary on ch. 1.9, D(d) General points. For περιοχή used in definitions of the cosmos see esp. Epicurus’ definition of κόσμος in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 (text below section E(a)§1), a text with a likely doxographical background (see further on ch. 2.2). The term later yields ground to σύστημα, but the phrase κατὰ περιοχήν or the verb περιέχω often still forms part of the definition; for examples in ps.Aristotle and Philo see section E(a)§1 below. On the various meanings of the terms κόσμος and οὐρανός see also the discussion above on §1[7–25] and §1[14–16] in our Commentary on ch. 1.6 D(d). Sprache der Griechen (app. crit.): Q explains the connotation of the Greek word κόσμος as indicating order (Ordnung), which he deems necessary because this connotation is not present in the Arabic term used to translate it. The same phrase is used for similar cases at chs. 3.7.2[6], 4.11.1[17], 4.12.1[9], and 4.19.3[7];

liber 2 caput 1

757

cf. also his adaptation of the chapter heading of 1.8 Über die hohen Kräfte, welche die Griechen ‘Daimones’ und ‘Heroes’ nennen. §3 P’s addition of the name-label Metrodorus, not found in S or T, gives rise to problems. All four witnesses have a different reading (see apparatus above): PB ‘and their (i.e. Democritus’ and Epicurus’) pupil Metrodorus (of Lampsacus)’ C ‘and his (i.e. Epicurus’) teacher Metrodorus (of Chius)’ Q ‘and their teacher Metrodorus’ B ‘and their teacher Leucippus’ Additionally Ach, who follows the same tradition here, supports C (using the word διδάσκαλος instead of καθηγητὴς). C’s reading must be the right one. PB appears to have confused the two homonymic philosophers. It is worth noting that in his recent edition of C Riedweg records that the lost ms. Capnioneus used by Oecolampadius in his 1528 Latin translation must have read μαθητής just like PB (did contamination occur from PB to C?), which may explain Diels’ reading in the apparatus of DG ad loc. The question remains: was this additional phrase originally present in A? There are arguments pro et contra. Arguments for its absence: (i) it is found in neither S nor T; (ii) P could have added it from A 1.5.4 (= S 1.22.3a3); (iii) it interrupts both the list of unadorned names and the chronological sequence. Arguments for its presence: (i) it is not to be expected that P as epitomator would leave it out at 1.5.4 only to insert it here (as suggested by Diels DG 62); (ii) it is, on the other hand, quite possible that S moved the phrase to the earlier passage in ch. 1.5 when he cites it in S 1.22.3a3, especially since the two texts are juxtaposed in 1.22.3ab; (iii) the similar phrase in Ach, who reflects the same tradition (and is not directly dependent on the tradition of P). The matter cannot be definitively resolved and it is safest to preserve P’s evidence. It is difficult to choose which of the readings should be followed for the final phrase. S’s alternative reading κατὰ πᾶσαν περιαγωγήν (‘throughout the entire revolution’) appears to make less sense cosmologically than P’s κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν (‘throughout the entire surrounding area’) since there is no general revolutionary movement in an infinite universe. But, as Alex Mourelatos has reminded us, the turning here could refer to the movement of the head, i.e. in whichever direction one turns one’s head. On T’s alternative reading πολλοὺς … καὶ ἀπείρους see the comment above under section C.

758

liber 2 caput 1

Anaximander’s prominent position at the head of the list of ‘infinitists’ is likely to derive from Theophrastus’ report cited by Simplicius, fr. 12A9 DK and especially the phrase (not part of the famous quotation) ἐξ ἧς (sc. ἑτέρα τις φύσις as ἀρχή) ἅπαντας γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. Kahn (1960) 46–48 plausibly argues that the ascription of ‘infinite kosmoi’ to Anaximander may be the result of an assimilation of Milesian cosmology to the later cosmology of the atomists. This was already argued by Cornford (1934), whose argument against Burnet—though based on a now wholly outdated interpretation of the doxographical evidence—that this doctrine commenced with the atomists has been generally accepted. However, the latest examination of Theophrastus’ evidence is more cautious: Mansfeld (2011a, 25) ‘As to “all the worldsystems” I do not know how one is to decide between successive ones on the one hand and contemporaneous ones as well as successive ones on the other.’ The other non-atomists on the list are Anaximenes, Archelaus, Xenophanes and Diogenes. Anaximenes and Diogenes are reported by Simplicius as among those who regard the cosmos as subject to genesis and destruction, but in an eternalist sense in terms of successive worlds. Such a view may lie behind the attribution of the doctrine of κόσμοι ἄπειροι to Xenophanes and Diogenes in Diogenes Laertius 9.19 and 9.57 respectively; cf. on Diogenes Laks (2008) 200. On Simplicius’ text see further Section D(e) below. It is very unlikely that Archelaus has a rightful place in the list, given that he was a follower of Anaxagoras in his cosmogonical thought. It may be suggested that A or his source wished to balance out the two lists and so placed as many names as he could justify on whatever grounds to the second list. §4 It is possible that Cicero’s phrase longis intervallis in relation to Anaximander at ND 1.25 reflects the doxa on distance between kosmoi in §4 as suggested by Heath (1913) 29. §6 Couprie (2020) links this cryptic lemma up with information about the sun’s movement at A 2.23.4. In this doxa the sun at the solstices bumps into the crystalline heaven and can go no further. Thus its revolution is equivalent to the circumference of the heaven, and so is the same as that of the entire cosmos. See further ch. 2.23 Commentary D(c)(2). §7 On this lemma Russo (1995) 148 rightly notes that its doctrine is consistent with the heliocentric theory attributed to Seleucus by Plutarch at QPlat. 8.1 1006C and perhaps implied by the doxa at A 3.17.9. But consistent with the method of the Placita, the argument underlying the position is not given. Daiber ad loc. notes additional material on Seleucus furnished by Abū Bakr ar-Rāzī (Rhazes): ‘Er (sc. Plutarch who has just been cited with a quote from A 1.5.4) berichtet von Seleukos, er habe bei seiner Behauptung, diese Welt sei unendlich, damit argumentiert, daß er sagte: Wenn die Welt begrenzt ist, wird

liber 2 caput 1

759

sie dann durch etwas oder durch nichts begrenzt? Falls sie nun durch etwas begrenzt wird, entspricht das meiner Behauptung. Wenn sie aber durch nichts (begrenzt wird), ist es möglich, daß sie sich dem Nichts anpaßt und daß sie das Nichts berührt, ebenso wie sie durch Nichts begrenzt wird.’ The source of this material is unclear. The presentation of an argument is foreign to the rest of what we find in 2.1, so pace Bottler (2014) 288 it is not so likely to derive from a richer version of either A or P. §8 Here S reveals that P has removed the additional name-label of Melissus. Both here and in §2 Diogenes is most likely the Presocratic, not the Stoic. It is to be noted that Diogenes’ name occurs in §3 (infinitists), Melissus’ name in §2 (unicists). But κόσμος here refers only to ‘this cosmos in which we live’ (and so introduces a new distinction which is further developed in §9). Therefore there does not need to be a contradiction with §3 (and it is the doxa that counts). §9 S leaves out the final phrase for which there is ample evidence in P. The right reading without οὐ is preserved by C and Q. G has a lacuna at this point; the transmitted πόλον conceals the original τὸ ὅλον, as argued by Jas ad loc. e Other Evidence A special case in the proximate tradition is Achilles. Although his chapter on the being of the heaven (where οὐρανός is taken for the most part as equivalent to κόσμος) is in general quite different from A 2.1 (and also contains material parallel to chs. 2.5–6 and 2.11), it does include three brief sections which are closely parallel to §§1, 3 and 9. These sections must derive from a doxographical tradition much closer to A than in other parallel texts. We can speak of a traditio proxissima (on Ach as a cousin-text of A see M–R 1.305). Verbal equivalences are, however, limited. Quite recently Rashed (2011) 487 has published an important scholion (no. 539) from the lost Commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle’s Physics (text below section E(a) General texts). It comments on 250b18 and demonstrates that the well-known text in Simplicius’ Commentary 1121.5–1122.1 derives essentially from the earlier commentary. The doxographical schema set out in this text combines the question of the number of kosmoi, whether single or unlimited, and the question of its/their coming into being and destructibility. It thus combines the treatment of questions that A separates into chs. 2.1 and 2.4 and shows a clear resemblance to the schema in Philo Aet. 7–19, though including more complexity and more name-labels. The main discussion of this text must be reserved for the Commentary on 2.4. But at this point a comparison can be made with the name-labels listed by A in §§2–3. We can set out the differences as follows, making reference to the five groups into which the scholiast’s schema is divided:

760

liber 2 caput 1

(1) In group 1 the scholiast agrees with A §3 that Democritus, Anaximander and Epicurus (in that order!) posit infinite kosmoi; (2) The scholiast’s group 2, consisting of those who posit a single cosmos that undergoes cyclical generation and destruction, has five members; of these (a) Anaximenes and Diogenes are located among the infinitists in A §3, whereas (b) Empedocles, Heraclitus, and the Stoa have a place among the unicist group in §2 (but with the name-label Zeno instead of the Stoa). (3) But two of A’s infinitists are included by the scholiast among the unequivocal unicists; (a) Archelaus is placed with Anaxagoras in group 3, and (b) Xenophanes is placed in group 5. (4) Metrodorus in A is the atomist from Chios, whereas—as noted by Rashed (2011) 490, who corrects Diels 70A5 DK on this point—the one to whom the scholiast refers in group 3 as a unicist must be the follower of Anaxagoras from Lampsacus. This comparison shows that Alexander’s schema as preserved by the scholiast reaches a quite different result than A’s diaeresis in ch. 2.1. The reason for this is that its main focus is on the question of the coming into being and destruction of the cosmos/kosmoi, which A will treat in ch. 2.4, whereas A concentrates on the opposition between one and infinitely many. See further our discussion in the Commentary on that chapter, section D(e). The comparison also reinforces our suggestion above at section D(d)§3 that A wished to shift as many names to §3 in order to balance out the multiple listing of name-labels. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.45 Dorandi ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ κόσμοι ἄπειροί εἰσιν, οἵ θ᾽ ὅμοιοι τούτῳ καὶ ἀνόμοιοι. αἵ τε γὰρ ἄτομοι ἄπειροι οὖσαι, ὡς ἄρτι ἀπεδείχθη, φέρονται καὶ πορρωτάτω. οὐ γὰρ κατανήλωνται αἱ τοιαῦται ἄτομοι ἐξ ὧν ἂν γένοιτο κόσμος ἢ ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἂν ποιηθείη, oὔτ᾽ εἰς ἕνα (sc. κόσμον) οὔτ᾽ εἰς πεπερασμένους οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι τοιοῦτοι οὔθ᾽ ὅσοι διάφοροι τούτοις. ὥστε οὐδὲν τὸ ἐμποδοστατῆσόν ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀπειρίαν τῶν κόσμων. Ep.Pyth. 10.89 ὅτι δὲ καὶ τοιοῦτοι κόσμοι εἰσὶν ἄπειροι τὸ πλῆθος ἔστι καταλαβεῖν … Lucretius DRN 2.1048–1057 principio nobis in cunctas undique partis / et latere ex utroque supra subterque per omne / nulla est finis; uti docui, res ipsaque per se / vociferatur, et elucet natura profundi. / nullo iam pacto veri simile esse putandumst, / undique cum vorsum spatium vacet infinitum / seminaque innumero numero summaque profunda / multimodis volitent aeterno percita motu, / hunc unum terrarum orbem caelumque creatum, / nil agere illa foris tot corpora materiai. Cicero Ac. 2.12 cuique adsentiar deligam—quem potissimum? … et cum in uno mundo ornatus hic tam sit mirabilis, innumerabilis supra infra, dextra sinistra, ante post, alios dissimiles, alios eiusdem modi mundos esse? Div. 2.11, quae a dialecticis aut

liber 2 caput 1 a physicis tractantur, num quid eorum divinari potest? unusne mundus sit an plures … Ep. ad. fam. 9.26.3 te quaesiturum unum caelum esset an innumerabilia. Philo of Alexandria Abr. 162, ἡ δὲ (sc. διάνοια) … εἰς σκέψιν ἦλθε … καὶ πότερον ἄπειρα ἢ πεπερασμένα καὶ πότερον εἷς ἢ πλείονές εἰσι κόσμοι … (cf. also Spec. 3.189 ὁ δὲ (sc. νοῦς) λογισμὸν εἰκότα ἐλάμβανεν … ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ἄπειρα, πεπέρασται δὲ ἑνὸς κόσμου περιγραφῇ …). Ebr. 199 οἱ γὰρ ἄπειρον τὸ πᾶν εἰσηγούμενοι τοῖς πεπερασμένον εἶναι λέγουσιν. Opif. 171 τέταρτον δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος … εἰσὶ γὰρ οἱ πλείους ὑπολαμβάνοντες εἶναι κόσμους, οἱ δὲ καὶ ἀπείρους … Aet. 8 Δημόκριτος (fr. 351 Luria) μὲν οὖν καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 304 Usener) καὶ ὁ πολὺς ὅμιλος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλοσόφων γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἀπολείπουσι τοῦ κόσμου, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν … οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.620) κόσμον μὲν ἕνα … (see further on 2.4). Seneca Dial. 8.4.2, ut quaeramus … unum sit hoc, quod maria terrasque et mari ac terris inserta complectitur, an multa eiusmodi corpora deus sparserit. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 11.1–6 (table of contents) Libro II. continentur: an finitus sit mundus et an unus. de forma eius. de motu eius. cur mundus dicatur. Nat. 2.1, furor est … alios innumerabiles tradidisse mundos … aut, si una omnes incubaret, totidem tamen soles totidemque lunas … ps.Plutarch Hom. 2.103 Kindstrand ἐκ δὲ τῶν προειρημένων ἅμα καὶ τοῦτο ὑποδεικνὺς Ὅμηρος φαίνεται, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος καὶ πεπερασμένος. εἰ γὰρ ἄπειρος ἦν, οὐκ ἂν εἰς ἀριθμὸν πέρας ἔχοντα ⟨τὰ πάντα⟩ διῃρεῖτο. Quintilian Inst. 7.2.6 (on general questions) quaeritur per coniecturam et qualitatem circa modum speciem numerum: ‘an sol maior quam terra, luna globosa an plana an acuta, unus mundus an plures’. see also Inst. 7.4.1. Lucian Icar. 8 καὶ γὰρ αὖ καὶ αὕτη νεανικὴ αὐτοῖς ἡ μάχη, τοῖς μὲν τέλει τὸ πᾶν περιγράφουσιν, τοῖς δὲ ἀτελὲς τοῦτο εἶναι ὑπολαμβάνουσιν; οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ παμπόλλους τινὰς εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους ἀπεφαίνοντο καὶ τῶν ὡς περὶ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν διαλεγομένων κατεγίνωσκον. Par. 11 (on Epicurus), ὁ γὰρ ζητῶν περὶ σχήματος γῆς καὶ κόσμων ἀπειρίας καὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ πρώτων στοιχείων καὶ περὶ θεῶν, εἴτε εἰσὶν εἴτε οὐκ εἰσί … οὐ μόνον ἐν ἀνθρωπίναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν κοσμικαῖς ἐστιν ὀχλήσεσιν. Galen Loc.Aff. 3.5, p. 8.159.5–6 Kühn ἄπειρόν τε τὸ πᾶν ἢ πεπερασμένον, ἤ πολλοὺς εἶναι κόσμους ἢ ἀπεριλήπτους κατὰ τόν ἀριθμὸν ἢ ἕνα μόνον. HVA 1.12, p. 125.12 Helmreich οὔτ᾽ εἰ ἄπειρος οὔτ᾽ εἰ μόνος οὗτος εἷς ἐστιν οὔτ᾽ εἰ πλείους οὔτ᾽ πόσοι τὸν ἀριθμόν, εἴπερ πλείους, οὔτ᾽ εἰ πλῆθος ἀπερίληπτον ἢ ἄπειρον αὐτῶν. Aff.Dig. 3.4, p. 46.24 De Boer οὐδὲ εἰ πεπερασμένον ἢ ἄπειρον τὸ πᾶν. PHP 9.7.9 De Lacy καὶ εἰ ὁ κόσμος οὗτος ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχεται καὶ εἰ πλείους ἑνὸς καὶ εἰ πάμπολύ τι πλῆθος. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 171.15–16 ὁ δὲ περὶ τοῦ ἢ ἕνα ἢ πολλοὺς εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους διαλέγοιτο. In Phys. lib. 8 schol. 539 Rashed (on 250b18) ἀπείρους κόσμους γενητοὺς καὶ φθαρτούς· Δημόκριτος, Ἀναξίμανδρος, Ἐπίκουρος.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν ἄλλον καὶ ἄλλον· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, Ἀναξιμένης, Διογένης, Ἡράκλειτος, ἡ Στοά.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν (emend. Rashed ἄφθαρτον) ἐξ ἡσυχίας· Ἀναξαγόρας, Ἀρχέλαος, Μητρόδωρος.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν (emend. Rashed ἄφθαρτον) ἐξ ἀταξίας· Πλάτων ὡς δοκεῖ.—ἕνα κόσμον γενητόν (ἀγένητον Rashed) καὶ ἄφθαρτον (φθαρτόν Rashed; Laks 2018, 418–419 retains the original

761

762

liber 2 caput 1

reading and adds the conjecture ⟨Πλάτων καθ᾽ ἀλήθειαν⟩ or ⟨Πλάτων⟩).—ἕνα κόσμον ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον· Ξενοφάνης, Παρμενίδης. ps.Hermogenes Prog. 11.4.6 Patillon εἰ πολλοὶ κόσμοι (thesis). Aphthonius Prog. 13.1.2–9 Patillon τῶν δὲ θέσεων αἳ μέν εἰσι πολιτικαί, αἳ δὲ θεωρητικαί … θεωρητικαὶ δὲ αἱ μόνῳ τῷ νῷ θεωρούμεναι, οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός, εἰ κόσμοι πολλοί· ταῦτα γὰρ εἰς πεῖραν μὲν ἀνθρώποις οὐκ ἔρχεται, μόνῳ δὲ θεωρεῖται τῷ νῷ. Dionysius of Alexandria Περὶ φύσεως at Eus. PE 14.23.1 πότερον ἕν ἐστι συναφὲς τὸ πᾶν, ὡς ἡμῖν τε καὶ τοῖς σοφωτάτοις Ἑλλήνων Πλάτωνι καὶ Πυθαγόρᾳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς καὶ Ἡρακλείτῳ φαίνεται, ἢ δύο, ὡς ἴσως τις ὑπέλαβεν, ἢ καὶ πολλὰ καὶ ἄπειρα, ὥς τισιν ἄλλοις ἔδοξεν … Eusebius PE 15.32.8 τοιαύτη καὶ ἡ θαυμάσιος αὐτῶν κοσμογονία. συνῆπται ⟨δὲ⟩ τούτοις ἄλλη τις πλείστη λογομαχία, παντοίων πέρι προτάσεων ἀπορησάντων· εἰ χρὴ τὸ πᾶν ἓν ἢ πολλὰ ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ εἰ ἕνα τὸν κόσμον ἢ πλείους … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 3.3, p. 41.7–21 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg δεύτερόν ἐστιν ἐξετάσαι, εἰ ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ πεποιημένον οὐρανὸν τὸ στερέωμα τοῦτο, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐπεκλήθη οὐρανὸς, καὶ εἰ ὅλως οὐρανοὶ δύο· ὅπερ οἱ τὰ περὶ οὐρανοῦ φιλοσοφήσαντες ἕλοιντ᾽ ἂν μᾶλλον τὰς γλώσσας προέσθαι, ἢ ὡς ἀληθὲς παραδέξασθαι. ἕνα γὰρ ὑποτίθενται οὐρανὸν, καὶ οὐκ ἔχειν αὐτῷ φύσιν, δεύτερον, ἢ τρίτον, ἢ πολλοστὸν προσγενέσθαι, πάσης τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανίου σώματος εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἑνὸς σύστασιν ἀπαναλωθείσης, ὡς οἴονται. … ἡμεῖς δὲ ἀξιοῦμεν τοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων σοφοὺς, μὴ πρότερον ἡμᾶς καταχλευάζειν πρὶν τὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλους διάθωνται. εἰσὶ γὰρ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἳ ἀπείρους οὐρανοὺς καὶ κόσμους εἶναί φασιν … Ambrose of Milan Hexaem. 1.1.4 … quamvis de ipso mundo non mediocris inter eos quaestio sit. nam Pythagoras (—) unum mundum adserit, alii innumerabiles dicunt esse mundos, ut scribit Democritus (fr. 358 Luria), cui plurimum de physicis auctoriatis vetustas detulit; see also Hexaem. 2.2.5, De fide 4.4.43, Ep. 45.15. Augustine Acad. 3.23 Jolivet quomodo enim inter Democritum et superiores physicos de uno mundo et innumerabilibus item diiudicabimus. … tamen ego qui longe adhuc absum vel a vicinitate sapientis, in istis physicis nonnihil scio. certum enim habeo, aut unum esse mundum, aut non unum; et si non unum, aut finiti numeri, aut infiniti. C.D. 12.12 Dombart– Kalb alii vero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, sive non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur, sive solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum intervallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere … C.D. 18.41 pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos … Proclus in Tim. 1.437.25 περὶ δὲ τῆς λέξεως ἀμφισβητοῦσιν οἱ ἐξηγηταί· τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ δύο εἶναι τὰ διαιρούμενα νῦν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πλάτωνος (Tim. 31a), τό τε ἓν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος πᾶν, … τοῖς δὲ τρία εἶναι τὰ διαιρούμενα, καταφαίνεται τὸ ἓν τὸ πεπερασμένον πλῆθος καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον. John Philoponus in APo. 239.2 ὅταν δὲ ⟨πότερον⟩ ἄπειρος ἢ πεπερασμένος, τὸ ποσόν (ζητοῦμεν). Simplicius in Cael. 202.11–18 διὰ ταύτην γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἕνα κόσμον καὶ πεπερασμένον ἔλεγον, ὅσοι μὴ ἐδέχοντο τὸ ἄπειρον ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πλάτων, οἱ δὲ ἕνα ἄπειρον, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (—), ἀέρα ἄπειρον τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι λέγων, οἱ δὲ καὶ τῷ πλήθει ἀπείρους κόσμους, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος (—) μὲν ἄπειρον τῷ μεγέθει τὴν ἀρχὴν θέμενος ἀπείρους ἐξ αὐτοῦ τῷ πλήθει κόσμους ποιεῖν δοκεῖ, Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκρι-

liber 2 caput 1 τος (fr. 345 Luria) ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ἐν ἀπείρῳ τῷ κενῷ καὶ ἐξ ἀπείρων τῷ πλήθει τῶν ἀτόμων συνίστασθαί φησι … in Phys. 1121.5–15 (from Alexander of Aphrodisias) οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ἀναξίμανδρον (—) καὶ Λεύκιππον (—) καὶ Δημόκριτον (—) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 306 Usener) γινομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ φθειρομένους ὑπέθεντο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον ἄλλων μὲν ἀεὶ γινομένων ἄλλων δὲ φθειρομένων … τῶν δὲ ἕνα μόνον κόσμον λεγόντων … γενητὸν δὲ καὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν ἕνα κόσμον ποιοῦσιν, ὅσοι ἀεὶ μέν φασιν εἶναι κόσμον, οὐ μὴν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεί, ἀλλὰ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (13A11 DK) τε καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 269 Mouraviev) καὶ Διογένης (fr. 23c Laks) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.576). also in Phys. 331.18 (fr. 345 Luria), 701.30 (fr. 346 Luria), and see further on A 2.4. Isidore of Seville Nat. 13 utrum enim unum sit caelum an plures contentio est. Symeon Seth CRN 3.27 τινὲς τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐδόξασαν ἀπείρους εἶναι κόσμους καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ γῆν ὁμοίαν ταύτῃ καὶ ἀνθρώπους καὶ ζῷα. Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 νῦν δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἡ σκέψις περὶ κόσμου τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πρῶτον σημαινόμενον, ὃς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ζῴων συνέστηκε. §1 Pythagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.48 (on Pythagoras) ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πρῶτον ὀνομάσαι κόσμον καὶ τὴν γῆν στρογγύλην· ὡς δὲ Θεόφραστος (fr. 227E FHS&G), Παρμενίδην· ὡς δὲ Ζήνων (SVF 1.226), Ἡσίοδον. cf. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα … (see further on A 2.2). ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 391b9–10 κόσμος μὲν οὖν ἐστι σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 λέγεται τοίνυν ὁ κόσμος καθ᾽ ἓν μὲν {πρῶτον} σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων κατὰ περιοχὴν ⟨καὶ⟩ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν. §2 Pythagoras: Ambrose of Milan Hexaem. 1.1.4 see General texts above. Empedocles: ps.Aristotle MXG 2 976b23–27 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … λέγων (31B13 DK) ὡς ‘τοῦ παντός οὐδὲ κενεόν. πόθεν οὖν τί κ᾽ ἐπέλθοι’; ὅταν δὲ εἰς μίαν μορφὴν συγκριθῇ, ὡς ἓν εἶναι, οὐδέν φησι (31B14 DK) τό γε ‘κενεὸν πέλει οὐδὲ περισσόν’. Parmenides: Hippolytus Ref. 1.11.1 (28A23 DK) καὶ γὰρ καὶ Παρμενίδης ἓν μὲν τὸ πᾶν ὑποτίθεται ἀίδιόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον καὶ σφαιροειδές. Plato: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.71–72 κόσμον τε εἶναι ἕνα γεννητόν … ἕνα τε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρον κατεσκεύασθαι. Zeno (and the Stoa): Arius Didymus fr. 29 Diels at Eus. PE 15.15.1 (SVF 2.528) ὅλον δὲ τὸν κόσμον σὺν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μέρεσι προσαγορεύουσι θεόν· τοῦτον δὲ ἕνα μόνον εἶναί φασι καὶ πεπερασμένον καὶ ζῷον καὶ ἀΐδιον καὶ θεόν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 ἕνα τὸν κόσμον εἶναι καὶ τοῦτον πεπερασμένον … καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν εʹ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἀντίπατρον ἐν τοῖς περὶ κόσμου (Posidonius F 8 E.-K., 260 Theiler, SVF III Ant. 43). V.P. 7.143 ὅτι τε εἷς ἐστιν (sc. ὁ κόσμος) Ζήνων (SVF 1.97) φησὶν ἔνα τῷ περὶ τοῦ ὅλου. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.434 (on Chrysippus, SVF 3.657) εἰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ᾔδει τὸ ὅτι πάντα ἀγνοεῖ, πῶς περὶ πολλῶν δογματίζει, τιθεὶς τὸ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον (for continuation see on ch. 2.3).

763

764

liber 2 caput 1

§3 Anaximander: Cicero ND 1.25 Anaximandri (12A17 DK) autem opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orientis occidentisque, eosque innumerabilis esse mundos. ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (fr. 179 Sandbach) μεθ᾽ ὃν (sc. Thales) Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A10 DK) … τὸ ἄπειρον φάναι τὴν πᾶσαν αἰτίαν ἔχειν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς· ἐξ οὗ δή φησι τούς τε οὐρανοὺς ἀποκεκρίσθαι, καὶ καθόλου τοὺς ἅπαντας ἀπείρους ὄντας κόσμους. Irenaeus Haer. trans. Rufini 2.14.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau Anaximander autem hoc quod immensum est omnium initium subiecit, seminaliter habens in semetipso omnium genesim, ex quo immensos mundos constare ait … Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.1 Ἀναξίμανδρος Πραξιάδου Μιλήσιος (12A11 DK) οὗτος ἀρχὴν ἔφη τῶν ὄντων φύσιν τινὰ τοῦ ἀπείρου, ἐξ ἧς γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. ταύτην δὲ ἀίδιον εἶναι καὶ ἀγήρω, ἣν καὶ πάντας περιέχειν τοὺς κόσμους. Augustine C.D. 8.2 (12A17 DK) et innumerabiles mundo gignere et quaecumque in eis oriuntur. Anaximenes: see Simplicius in Cael. 202.13 cited above under General texts. Xenophanes: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.19 (21A1 DK) φησί … κόσμους δὲ ἀπείρους, οὐ παραλλακτοὺς δέ. Diogenes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 12 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Διογένης ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης (64A6 DK) ἀέρα ὑφίσταται στοιχεῖον· κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ πάντα ἀπείρους τ᾽ εἶναι τοὺς κόσμους. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.57 (64A1 DK) ἐδόκει δὲ αὐτῷ τάδε· στοιχεῖον εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, κόσμους ἀπείρους καὶ κενὸν ἄπειρον. Leucippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.30–31 (67A1 DK) ἤρεσκε δ᾽ αὐτῷ ἄπειρα εἶναι τὰ πάντα καὶ εἰς ἄλληλα μεταβάλλειν, τό τε πᾶν εἶναι κενὸν καὶ πλῆρες σωμάτων. τούς τε κόσμους γίνεσθαι σωμάτων εἰς τὸ κενὸν ἐμπιπτόντων καὶ ἀλλήλοις περιπλεκομένων … τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρόν φησίν, ὡς προείρηται· τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν πλῆρες εἶναι, τὸ δὲ κενόν, ⟨ἃ⟩ καὶ στοιχεῖά φησι. κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτων ἀπείρους εἶναι καὶ διαλύεσθαι εἰς ταῦτα. Democritus: Cicero Fin. 1.21 (fr. 350 Luria) innumerabiles mundi. Luc. 55 (fr. 350 Luria) et ais Democritum dicere innumerabiles esse mundo. Philo Aet. 8 (fr. 351 Luria) οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.44 (68A1 DK) δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ τάδε· … ἀπείρους τε εἶναι κόσμους καὶ γενητοὺς καὶ φθαρτούς. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.2 (Democritus fr. 349 Luria) ἀπείρους δὲ εἶναι κόσμους καὶ μεγέθει διαφέροντας. Epicurus: Philo of Alexandria (fr. 304 Usener) see above under Democritus. Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.45 and Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.89 cited above under General texts. Hermias Irr. 18 118.1–4 Hanson ἀμφὶ μὲν δὴ ταῦτα μέχρι νῦν ἐσπούδακεν ἡ ψυχή μου τῶν ὅλων ἄρχειν. προκύψας δέ μοί φησιν Ἐπίκουρος· σὺ μὲν δὴ κόσμον ἕνα μεμέτρηκας, ὦ φιλότης, εἰσὶ δὲ κόσμοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἄπειροι. Simplicius in Phys. 1121.5–15 cited above under General texts. §5 Epicurus: cf. Epicurus D.L. Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.89 (follows from text cited above under General texts) καὶ ὅτι καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος δύναται κόσμος γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ μετακοσμίῳ ὃ λέγομεν μεταξὺ κόσμων διάστημα, ἐν πολυκένῳ τόπῳ καὶ οὐκ ἐν μεγάλῳ εἰλικρινεῖ καὶ κενῷ καθάπερ τινές φασιν … §8 Melissus: Theodoret CAG 4.8 Μέλισσος δὲ ὁ Ἰθαγένους ὁ Μιλήσιος τούτου μὲν ἑταῖρος ἐγένετο, τὴν δὲ παραδοθεῖσαν διδασκαλίαν κήρατον οὐκ ἐτήρησεν· ἄπειρον γὰρ οὗτος ἔφη τὸν κόσμον, ἐκείνων φάντων πεπερασμένον (~ §8). §9 Stoics: Sextus Empiricus P. 1.332–334 καὶ δὴ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλόσοφοι (SVF 2.524) διαφέρειν ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν· ὅλον μὲν γὰρ εἶναι

liber 2 caput 1 λέγουσι τὸν κόσμον, πᾶν δὲ τὸ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ ἔξωθεν κενόν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ μὲν ὅλον πεπερασμένον εἶναι (πεπέρασται γὰρ ὁ κόσμος), τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἄπειρον (τοιοῦτον γὰρ τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου κενόν). ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος ἀδιαφόρως τήν τε τῶν σωμάτων καὶ τὴν τοῦ κενοῦ φύσιν ὅλον τε καὶ πᾶν προσαγορεύειν εἴωθεν· … οἱ δὲ φάμενοι μηδ᾽ ὅλως εἶναι κενόν, ὡς οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου, τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν τῶν σωμάτων μόνον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦ κενοῦ ἐπικατηγοροῦσιν. cf. Ocellus Lucanus ch. 13 ἐκτὸς γὰρ τοῦ παντὸς οὐδέν, τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα ἐν τῷ παντί, καὶ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν ὁ κόσμος.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Gorgias 82B3(73) DK καὶ ἄλλως, εἰ ἔστιν, ἤτοι ἕν ἐστιν ἢ πολλά· οὔτε δὲ ἕν ἐστιν οὔτε πολλά, ὡς παρασταθήσεται· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι τὸ ὄν. εἰ γὰρ ἕν ἐστιν, ἤτοι ποσόν ἐστιν ἢ συνεχές ἐστιν ἢ μέγεθός ἐστιν ἢ σῶμά ἐστιν. Plato Tim. 31a– b πότερον οὖν ὀρθῶς ἕνα οὐρανὸν προσειρήκαμεν, ἢ πολλοὺς καὶ ἀπείρους λέγειν ἦν ὀρθότερον; ἕνα, εἴπερ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα δεδημιουργημένος ἔσται. … ἵνα οὖν τόδε κατὰ τὴν μόνωσιν ὅμοιον ᾖ τῷ παντελεῖ ζῴῳ, διὰ ταῦτα οὔτε δύο οὔτ᾽ ἀπείρους ἐποίησεν ὁ ποιῶν κόσμους, ἀλλ᾽ εἷς ὅδε μονογενὴς οὐρανὸς γεγονὼς ἔστιν καὶ ἔτ᾽ ἔσται. 55c ἃ δή τις εἰ πάντα λογιζόμενος ἐμμελῶς ἀποροῖ πότερον ἀπείρους χρὴ κόσμους εἶναι λέγειν ἢ πέρας ἔχοντας, τὸ μὲν ἀπείρους ἡγήσαιτ᾽ ἂν ὄντως ἀπείρου τινὸς εἶναι δόγμα ὧν ἔμπειρον χρεὼν εἶναι, πότερον δὲ ἕνα ἢ πέντε αὐτοὺς ἀληθείᾳ πεφυκότας λέγειν ποτὲ προσήκει, μᾶλλον ἂν ταύτῃ στὰς εἰκότως διαπορήσαι. τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἕνα αὐτὸν κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα λόγον πεφυκότα μηνύει θεόν, ἄλλος δὲ εἰς ἄλλα πῃ βλέψας ἕτερα δοξάσει. 92c8–9 γέγονεν εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενηὴς ὢν. Xenophon Mem. 1.1.14 τῶν τε περὶ τῆς τῶν πάντων φύσεως μεριμνώντων τοῖς μὲν δοκεῖν ἓν μόνον τὸ ὂν εἶναι, τοῖς δ᾽ ἄπειρα τὸ πλῆθος. Aristotle Phys. 8.1 250b18– 23 ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὲν ἀπείρους τε κόσμους εἶναί φασιν, καὶ τοὺς μὲν γίγνεσθαι τοὺς δὲ φθείρεσθαι τῶν κόσμων, ἀεί φασιν εἶναι κίνησιν (ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τὰς φθορὰς εἶναι μετὰ κινήσεως αὐτῶν)· ὅσοι δ᾽ ἕνα ⟨ἀεὶ⟩ ἢ μὴ ἀεί καὶ περὶ τῆς κινήσεως ὑποτίθενται κατὰ λόγον (goes on in 250b23–252b7 to discuss Anaxagoras and Empedocles as by implication belonging to the second group). Cael. 1.1 268b11–13 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως, εἴτ᾽ ἄπειρός κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος εἴτε πεπέρανται τὸν σύνολον ὄγκον, ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον. Cael. 1.5 271b2–4 καὶ πρῶτον πότερον ἔστι τι σῶμα ἄπειρον, ὥσπερ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν ἀρχαίων φιλοσόφων ᾠήθησαν, ἢ τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων. Cael. 1.7 276a16–17 ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὐκ ἔστι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ παντὸς ἄπειρον, ἐκ τούτων φανερόν. Cael. 1.8 276a18–22 διότι δ᾽ οὐδὲ πλείους οἷόν τ᾽ οὐρανοὺς εἶναι, λέγωμεν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἔφαμεν ἐπισκεπτέον, εἴ τις μὴ νομίζει καθόλου δεδεῖχθαι περὶ τῶν σωμάτων ὅτι ἀδύνατον ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου τοῦδε ὁτιοῦν αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐπὶ τῶν ἀορίστως κειμένων εἰρῆσθαι τὸν λόγον. Cael. 1.9 277b27–29 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐ μόνον εἷς ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι πλείους, ἔτι δ᾽ ὡς ἀΐδιος ἄφθαρτος ὢν καὶ ἀγένητος, λέγωμεν, πρῶτον διαπορήσαντες περὶ αὐτοῦ. Cael. 1.9 278a21–23 ἐκ μὲν οὖν τούτων ὑπολάβοι τις ἂν καὶ εἶναι καὶ ἐνδέχεσθαι πλείους εἶναι οὐρανούς. σκεπτέον δὲ πάλιν τί τούτων λέγεται καλῶς καὶ τί οὐ καλῶς. Cael. 1.10 280a23–27 τὸ δ᾽ ὅλως γενόμενον φθαρῆναι καὶ μὴ ἀνακάμπτειν ὄντος μὲν ἑνὸς ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν· πρὶν γὰρ γενέσθαι ἀεὶ ὑπῆρχεν ἡ πρὸ αὐτοῦ σύστασις, ἣν μὴ γενομένην οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναί φαμεν μεταβάλλειν· ἀπείρων δ᾽ ὄντων

765

766

liber 2 caput 1

ἐνδέχεται μᾶλλον. Divisiones Aristoteleae ch. 42, p. 56.1 Mutschmann φυσικὸν (sc. πρόβλημα) δέ, οἷον εἷς κόσμος ἐστὶν ἢ πλείους … Plutarch Def.Or. 421E– 423D τοῦ δ᾽ Ἡρακλέωνος πυθομένου πῆ ταῦτα προσήκει Πλάτωνι καὶ πῶς ἐκεῖνος τὸ ἐνδόσιμον τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ παρέσχεν, ὁ Κλεόμβροτος ‘εὖ μνημονεύεις’ εἶπεν ‘ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀπειρίαν αὐτόθεν ἀπέγνω τῶν κόσμων, περὶ δὲ (422A) πλήθους ὡρισμένου διηπόρησε, καὶ μέχρι τῶν πέντε τοῖς ὑποτιθεμένοις κατὰ στοιχεῖον ἕνα κόσμον ἐπιχωρήσας τὸ εἰκὸς αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς ἐτήρησεν. καὶ δοκεῖ τοῦτο Πλάτωνος ἴδιον εἶναι, τῶν ἄλλων σφόδρα φοβηθέντων τὸ πλῆθος, ὡς τοὺς ἑνὶ τὴν ὕλην μὴ ὁρίσαντας ἀλλ᾽ ἐκβάντας εὐθὺς ἀορίστου καὶ χαλεπῆς ἀπειρίας ὑπολαμβανούσης’. ‘ὁ δὲ ξένος’ ἔφην ἐγώ ‘περὶ πλήθους κόσμων ὥριζεν ᾗ Πλάτων ἤ, ὅτε συνεγένου τῷ ἀνδρὶ τούτῳ, οὐδὲ διεπειράθης;’ ‘ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔμελλον’ εἶπεν ὁ Κλεόμβροτος ‘εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο, τῶν περὶ ταῦτα λιπαρὴς εἶναι καὶ πρόθυμος ἀκροατὴς ἐνδιδόντος ἑαυτὸν ἵλεων καὶ παρέχοντος; ἔλεγε δὲ μήτ᾽ ἀπείρους μήθ᾽ ἕνα μήτε πέντε κόσμους, ἀλλὰ τρεῖς καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ ἑκατὸν εἶναι συντεταγμένους κατὰ σχῆμα τριγωνοειδές, οὗ πλευρὰν ἑκάστην ἑξήκοντα κόσμους ἔχειν· τριῶν δὲ τῶν λοιπῶν ἕκαστον ἱδρῦσθαι κατὰ γωνίαν, ἅπτεσθαι δὲ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς ἀλλήλων ἀτρέμα περιιόντας ὥσπερ ἐν χορείᾳ· …’ (423A) … καὶ ὁ Δημήτριος ‘Ὅμηρον’ ἔφη ‘τί κινοῦμεν ἐν τῷ παρόντι; μύθων γὰρ ἅλις. Πλάτων δὲ πολλοῦ δεῖ τὰς πέντε τοῦ κόσμου διαφορὰς πέντε κόσμους προσαγορεύειν, ἐν οἷς τε μάχεται τοῖς ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτιθεμένοις, αὐτὸς ἤδη φησὶ δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν, ἐκ τοῦ σωματοειδοῦς παντὸς ὅλον καὶ τέλειον καὶ αὐτάρκη γεγενημένον. ὅθεν ἄν τις καὶ θαυμάσειεν, ὅτι τἀληθὲς εἰπὼν αὐτὸς ἑτέροις ἀπιθάνου καὶ λόγον οὐκ ἐχούσης ἀρχὴν παρέσχε διανομῆς. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἕνα μὴ φυλάξαι κόσμον εἶχεν ἁμωσγέπως ὑπόθεσιν τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀπειρίαν, τὸ δ᾽ ἀφωρισμένως ποιῆσαι τοσούτους καὶ μήτε πλείους τῶν πέντε μήτ᾽ ἐλάττους κομιδῇ παράλογον καὶ πάσης πιθανότητος ἀπηρτημένον …’ Chapter heading: ps.Aristotle Περὶ κόσμου. Chrysippus at Alex.Aphr. in APr. 180.31 Wallies ὡς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ κόσμου Χρύσιππος (SVF 1.624) λέγει (see also Stob. Ecl. 1.5.15, p. 79.3, very likely from Arius Didymus). Antipater of Tyre at D.L. 7.139 ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ κόσμου (also D.L. 7.142). Posidonius at D.L. 7.142 ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ κόσμου. Sphaerus at D.L. 7.177 Περὶ κόσμου δύο. but cf. Plato Tim. 27c4 περὶ τοῦ παντός, Aristotle Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, Zeno Περὶ ὅλου (D.L. 7.142). §2 Empedocles: Empedocles fr. B26.8–12 (= B17.9–13) DK cited at Arist. Phys. 8.1 250b27–251a3 ἢ ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν μέρει κινεῖσθαι καὶ πάλιν ἠρεμεῖν, κινεῖσθαι μὲν ὅταν ἡ φιλία ἐκ πολλῶν ποιῇ τὸ ἓν ἢ τὸ νεῖκος πολλὰ ἐξ ἑνός, ἠρεμεῖν δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μεταξὺ χρόνοις, λέγων οὕτως, ‘ᾗ μὲν ἓν ἐκ πλεόνων μεμάθηκε φύεσθαι, / ἠδὲ πάλιν διαφύντος ἑνὸς πλέον’ ἐκτελέθουσιν, / τῇ μὲν γίγνονταί τε καὶ οὔ σφισιν ἔμπεδος αἰών· / ᾗ δὲ τάδ᾽ ἀλλάσσοντα διαμπερὲς οὐδαμὰ λήγει, ταύτῃ δ᾽ αἰὲν ἔασιν ἀκίνητοι κατὰ κύκλον’. Plato: Tim. 32a2–b3, 55d4–5, 92c8 see above under General texts. Aristotle: Cael. 1.7 276a18–19, 1.9 277b27–28 see above under General texts. §3 Anaximander: Simplicius in Phys. 24.13–18 = Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 2 Diels (226A FHS&G, 12A9 DK) λέγει δ᾽ αὐτὴν μήτε ὕδωρ μήτε ἄλλο τι τῶν καλουμένων εἶναι στοιχείων, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν τινὰ φύσιν ἄπειρον, ἐξ ἧς ἅπαντας γίνεσθαι τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς κόσμους. Xenophanes: Simplicius in Phys.

liber 2 caput 1 22.26 = Theophrastus Phys.op. fr. 5 Diels, fr. 224 FHS&G (different view, 21A31 DK) μίαν δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἤτοι ἓν τὸ ὂν καὶ πᾶν καὶ οὔτε πεπερασμένον οὔτε ἄπειρον οὔτε κινούμενον οὔτε ἠρεμοῦν Ξενοφάνην τὸν Κολοφώνιον τὸν Παρμενίδου διδάσκαλον ὑποτίθεσθαί φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ὁμολογῶν ἑτέρας εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίας τὴν μνήμην τῆς τούτου δόξης· …

767

Liber 2 Caput 2 PB : Plutarchus 886C–D; p. 329a1–8 Diels—PG : ps.Galenus HPh c. 45; p. 621.9–11 Diels;—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140–141 Daiber—PC : Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.1–5, pp. 105–106 Riedweg—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.28, p. 36.1–2 Delatte S : Stobaeus Eclogae 1.15.6b, pp. 146.22–147.2 Wachsmuth; cf. 1.15, p. 1.144.16 (~ tit.) T : Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.16–17 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 6, p. 16.10–16 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium I 23, p. 200.19–20 Pasquali

Titulus βʹ. Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου (P,cf.S) §1 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, (P1,S1,T1) §2 ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ, (P2,cf.T2) §3 οἱ δ᾽ ᾠοειδῆ. (P3,cf.T2) §4 Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, (S2,T2) §5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. (P4) §1 Stoici SVF 2.547; §§2–3 anonymi —; §4 Leucippus–Democritus 67A22 DK, fr. 385 Luria; §5 Epicurus fr. 302 Usener titulus Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου PBQ, cf. PC : Περὶ σχήματος PG : Περὶ σχήματος οὐρανοῦ PSy : add. in marg. PB(III:α) εἰ σφαιροειδεὶς ὁ κόσμος ἢ κυμβοειδείς (sic) : cf. Περὶ σχήματων S (c. 1.15) §1 [2] οἱ μὲν P : μὲν om. S ‖ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον inv. PG ‖ post κόσμον add. S ἀπεφήναντο §2 lemma non hab. S ‖ [3] ἄλλοι δὲ PBCQ : δὲ om. PG §3 lemma non hab. S ‖ [4] οἱ δ᾽ ᾠοειδῆ PB(II,III)CQ, cf. Ach ᾠοειδές : οἱ δ᾽ ὠνοειδῆ PB(I) : ἄλλοι κυκλοειδῆ PG §5 [6–7] Ἐπίκουρος … κεχρῆσθαι] al. PG Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τούτων ἕκαστον (δὲ post Ἐπίκουρος Jas per litt. ex Nicolao) ‖ [7] σχήμασι PB : σχηματισμοῖς PC

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1, §4) καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, 4.16.2 (~ §§2–3) οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Cyrillus Juln. 2.15 2.15 (quaestio) εἶτα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τοῦ κόσμου ὧδε πάλιν φησίν· 2.15.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν στωϊκοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, 2.15.2 (~ P2) ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ, 2.15.3 (~ P3) οἱ δὲ ᾠοειδῆ· 2.15.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος δὲ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχηματισμοῖς κεχρῆσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_042

5

liber 2 caput 2

769

ps.Galenus HPh c. 45 (~ tit.) Περὶ σχήματος (text Diels) 45.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ τὸν κόσμον σφαιροειδῆ, 45.2 (~ P2) ἄλλοι κωνοειδῆ, 45.3 (~ P3) ἄλλοι κυκλοειδῆ. 45.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τούτων ἕκαστον. Symeon Seth CRN 3.28 Περὶ σχήματος οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) 3.28 (~ P1) ὁ δὲ οὐρανός ἐστι σφαιροειδής … Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 6, p. 16.10 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου (tit.) p. 16.11–16 σχῆμα δὲ κόσμου οἳ μὲν κωνοειδές (§2), οἳ δὲ σφαιροειδές (§1), οἳ δὲ ᾠοειδές (§3), ἧς δόξης ἔχονται οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες. ἄμεινον δὲ σφαίρας ἐκδέχεσθαι σχῆμα ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, ὃς ἔφη οὕτως· ‘σφαῖρος κυκλοτερής, μονίηι περιηγέι χαίρων’. Scholia in Basilium I 26 σχῆμα οὐρανοῦ· οἳ μὲν σφαιροειδές (§1), οἳ δὲ κωνοειδές (§2), ⟨οἳ δὲ ᾠοειδές⟩ (§3), ἧς ἔχονται δόξης οἱ Ὀρφικοί. Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 1.14 Περὶ σχήματων; Α 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων; Α 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου; Α 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης; A 3.10 Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 Α 1.4 [1] ὁ τοίνυν κόσμος συνέστη περικεκλασμένῳ σχήματι ἐσχηματισμένος τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον. A 1.6 [10] σφαιροειδὴς γὰρ ὁ κόσμος, ὃ πάντων σχημάτων πρωτεύει. A 2.14.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. A 2.22.3 οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. A 2.27.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι ὡς τὸν ἥλιον. A 3.10.1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν. §3 A 2.31.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ὕψους τοῦ ἀπὸ τὴς γὴς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀνάτασις, πλείονα εἶναι τὴν κατὰ τὸ πλάτος διάστασιν, κατὰ τοῦτο τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μᾶλλον ἀναπεπταμένου διὰ τὸ ᾠῷ παραπλησίως τὸν κόσμον κείσθαι. §4 A 1.7.7 Δημόκριτος νοῦν τὸν θεὸν ἐν πυρὶ σφαιροειδεῖ. §5 A 2.22.4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. cf. 2.13.15

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses All three major witnesses testify to this chapter. (1) P has the same four witnesses as in ch. 2.1, PB, C, G and Q, with E again omitting the chapter. All four preserve the same four lemmata, with G mak-

770

liber 2 caput 2

ing various abridgements (including the chapter heading) and alterations. On a possible fleeting reference to P’s text of this chapter in Julian the Arian see A 2.12 Commentary A. (2) S does not include material from this chapter in his cosmological chapters (1.21–26), but had earlier added it to his chapter 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων, which is part of the section of his work dealing with principles and foundational physical concepts (1.10–20). P’s first lemma is located at 1.15.6b1, followed by another identical view but with the name-labels Leucippus–Democritus. The anonymous lemmata in P are left out. More surprisingly S also omits the Epicurean lemma in P, perhaps because it spoils the transition to the subject of the cosmos’ inclination (see M–R 1.219, 234). There is no more material in S’s chapter that can attributed to this chapter with any certainty (the brief introductory lemma on Plato at 1.15.4 is best regarded as S’s own addition). Thus S adds only one lemma to P, making five in total. (3) T reduces the chapter to a single diaeresis between two views, the former corresponding to P’s first lemma and the two in S, the other summarizing the remaining lemmata in P. Each view is represented by a single adjectival term, σφαιροειδής and ἑτεροειδής respectively. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. By the time that A compiled his work in the first cent. ce the standard cosmological model was completely dominant and the question of the shape of the cosmos (and the heaven) was regarded as proven; see for example Strabo 2.5.2 (cited below Section E(b) General texts). However, the question of the cosmos’ shape was retained as a standard quaestio infinita in the area of natural philosophy, as numerous dialectical and rhetorical texts listed below testify. Cicero develops the opposition as part of his argument between Epicurean and Stoic cosmo-theology in De natura deorum Books 1 and 2. In Patristic authors (including T) a sceptical position is adopted, since the Bible is not concerned with such matters. Views are recorded on this question for the atomists and Stoics, but not for other early Greek philosophers. For this chapter too the evidence in Ach forms a special case. He (and the paraphrase based on him in the Scholia in Basilium) records the same list of three options as in §§1–3 and must go back to a closely related Placita tradition. Of particular interest is his identification of the second lemma with the view of the Orphics. See further D(d) and (e) below. (2) Sources. The antithesis between the standard cosmological model, in which there is a single spherical cosmos, and the atomist model with an infinite diversity of kosmoi as was developed in the period up to the fourth century bce also forms the main background for this chapter. In the latter model a dis-

liber 2 caput 2

771

tinction is made between our cosmos and other kosmoi. Our cosmos, with its heavenly bodies apparently moving in circles, is regarded as basically spherical in shape; see the key text at Diogenes Laertius 9.31 cited below Section E(a)§4. The atomist description of the origin of the cosmos in ch. 1.4 also assumes sphericity, although it is not made explicit. Why this should be the case, given the atomist vortex model, is quite a puzzle (Furley (1987) 143). The earth is not regarded as spherical; cf. A 3.10.4–5. Other kosmoi can of course have all manner of possible shapes. But what are the sources for the alternative shapes of the cosmos given in §§2–3? Interestingly these are found in various texts which explore alternative shapes for the cosmos in order to demonstrate by a reductio ad absurdum that the shape of the cosmos must be spherical. This commences with Aristotle, who uses as alternatives the shapes ᾠοειδής and φακοειδής, while in Euclid we find κωνοειδής and κυλινδροειδής (also references to conic shape in Adrastus and the astronomers cited by Simplicius); for all these texts see below Section B(b) General texts. For Epicurus, however, these shapes are not just theoretical, but are actually likely to occur somewhere in the infinite space of the universe (see D.L. 10.74; he too suggests ‘egg-like’ kosmoi). We note here that A’s predilection for adjectives ending in -ειδής builds on terminology developed in these earlier texts. To express this terminology we have translated such terms literally in the translation above, including ‘like a ball’ for the key term σφαιροειδής (the Dutch term ‘balvormig’ is even better, but has no equivalent in English, cf. also ‘ballförmig’ in German). C Chapter Heading The heading of the standard umbrella type Περὶ x, as found in the majority of texts in the P tradition (and the index at the beginning of the Book), corresponds to parallel headings elsewhere in the work (see the list under loci Aetiani above). The quaestio involved belongs to the category of quality, as clearly formulated by Philoponus at in APo. 239.1, ὅταν δὲ πότερον σφαιροειδής (ὁ κόσμος) ἐστιν ἢ ποῖον ἕτερον ἔχει σχῆμα, τὸ ποιόν (ζητοῦμεν); cf. also Ambrose Hexaem. 1.6.21 de qualitate caeli. S alludes to the heading with his more general Περὶ σχήματων at Ecl. 1.15, where he combines doxai from this chapter with those from A 1.14. The abridged heading in PG reflects his occasional practice elsewhere, leaving the precise contents of the chapter unclear (cf. §§54, 57, 68). It certainly does not represent P’s original title. An interesting alternative heading is given in a marginal gloss in PB Ambrosianus C 126, εἰ σφαιροειδεὶς (sic) ὁ κόσμος ἢ κυμβοειδείς (sic). The second adjective (‘cup-shaped’) is likely a scribal error (it is not otherwise found in extant ancient Greek literature according to the TLG).

772

liber 2 caput 2

It may be a corruption of κυβοειδής (‘like a cube’), which is sometimes used of the earth, e.g. at Cleomedes 1.5.15 & 98, but suggested for the cosmos at Marius Victorinus in Rhet. 1.8, p. 31.20–24 Riesenweber (on Cic. Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma?) ‘quae sit mundi facies’ … multi quadrata. This shape is not, however, used of the earth in A 3.10. Titles commencing with εἰ are quite common in A (cf. chs. 1.5, 2.3–4, 4.4–5 etc.), taking over the typical formulation of a θέσις (see, for example, Alex. Aphr. in Top. 40.19–23). But there are no examples containing alternative views in the actual title of a chapter. D Analysis a Context After introducing the cosmos and discussing its numerical and spatial aspects in ch. 2.1, the views on its shape are now presented. The same sequence is found at 2.13–14 on the stars, but not at 2.20–22 on the sun and 2.25–27 on the moon, where a chapter on size is interposed. The Aristotelian categories of essence and quality can be recognized. On this background see further M–R 2.1.10–14. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above, there are five lemmata in all. S has one lemma in addition to the four in P, so the question must be answered as to where it should be placed. As well seen by Diels, the only logical place is after the first three lemmata in P and preceding the Epicurean lemma at the chapter’s end. The particle δ(έ) in the final lemma thus forms an antithesis with the lemma that P omitted. It is to be noted that §4 is the only lemma without a connecting particle, but one may have been omitted by S (e.g. μέν). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first three lemmata explore the shape of a single cosmos by means of a diaeresis in the form of a list with three alternatives. The Stoics represent the spherical option. Interestingly they play the same role in subsequent chapters on the shape of various cosmic bodies, i.e. 2.14, 2.27 and 3.10 (but not 2.22). On the third option, an ‘egg-like’ shape, see further below (d). It may seem odd that §4 appears to repeat the same doxa as §1. The only plausible reason that can be given for this move is that it must be linked with the basic division between unicists and infinitists in 2.1. The Stoics represent the former, the two atomists Leucippus and Democritus the latter. Since the doxa speaks of the cosmos in the singular, they must be speaking about the cosmos we inhabit. In contrast to their view is the doxa attributed to Epicurus, which speaks of κόσμοι in the plural and emphasizes the possibility of other shapes. In total, therefore, the

liber 2 caput 2

773

chapter is structured through no less than four diaereses (see the diagram at M–R 2.327). We note that the final diaeresis introduces an additional element into the chapter which is not anticipated in its heading. The antithesis which it records is rather artificial or even unsatisfactory, since there is no evidence to suggest that the thought of Leucippus and Democritus on this matter differed from their later fellow-Atomist Epicurus. It cannot be agreed with Luria (2007) 1127 that Epicurus is polemicizing with his predecessors; it is the doxographer who establishes the contrast. It must be observed, however, that in the final doxa A indicates the possibility of multiple kosmoi with differing shapes with the term ἐνδέχεσθαι, used here for the first time in the work. In three other texts it is used of Epicurus (2.13.15, 2.22.4, 3.15.11), all in the final position as here; it is also attributed to Plato in 3.15.10 (not in final position) and to Diocles in 5.14.3. There can be no doubt that for A it is a vox Epicurea, taken by the doxographical tradition from texts such as Epicurus’Letters, where it is used very frequently to convey the doctrine of multiple explanations and/or causes. (The term is not recorded in the surviving fragments of Democritus or in reports of his doctrines.) The direct source of the doxa could be Ep.Pyth. 88, but it would then have to be an extrapolation since this text speaks of our cosmos and gives various shapes which are possible because there is no direct perception of its outer boundary. Earlier in the letter at §74 he speaks about multiple shapes of kosmoi, giving ball-like, egglike and ‘other-shaped’ as examples, but here the term ἐνδέχεσθαι is not used as it is in the subsequent text. Epicurus in fact occupies a special and almost unique place in the history of the Placita. His views are frequently recorded throughout the five books, often in combination with other members of the atomist tradition but also no less often on their own. However, a close study of his extant writings—especially the Letters—shows that he also made use of early literature related to the Placita in order to find examples of multiple explanations and/or causes as attributed to earlier philosophers and scientists. (The only other philosopher who occurs in the Placita but also made use of Placita material is Chrysippus; see below at ch. 4.5 Commentary D(e).) On Epicurus’ presence in the Placita and his use of the Placita tradition see further Introduction to Book 2 section 5, and also the detailed analysis in Runia (2018). On the connection between multiple explanations and doxography see ibid. 400–403, and also Bakker (2016) 58–62. d

Further Comments Individual Points §3 The additional comment given by Ach is of great interest: ἧς δόξης ἔχονται οἱ τὰ Ὀρφικὰ μυστήρια τελοῦντες. It could be the work of Ach himself. But the

774

liber 2 caput 2

Orphics are also mentioned at A 2.13.14, so the information here was probably present in the Placita tradition, but was left out by A. The reading of PG, κυκλοειδῆ, is best explained as a Verschlimmbesserung, the result of regarding the reading ᾠοειδῆ as implausible (he would thus be unaware of the tradition attributing this view to the Orphics). It is possible, however, that the doxa may implicitly refer to Empedocles, since at A 2.31.4 the cosmos is portrayed as lying on its side like an egg. On the translation of ὠοειδής see the comment ad loc., Commentary D(d)§4. §5 It is possibly that Cyril’s σχηματισμοῖς preserves an authentic reading since the term σχηματισμός is in general much rarer than the corresponding σχῆμα, but is used by A on four occasions (1.4.1[23], 1.15.6, 3.2.6, 5.13.1). e Other Evidence After citing the comment on the Orphics Ach continues as follows (§6, p. 16.12– 15): σαφηνείας δὲ ἕνεκα πιθανῆς παρελήφθη τοῦ ᾠοῦ ἡ εἰκών. ἄμεινον δὲ σφαίρας ἐκδέχεσθαι σχῆμα ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα, ὃς ἔφη οὕτως: ‘σφαῖρος κυκλοτερὴς μονίῃ περιηγέι χαίρων’. The adjudication between doxai is unusual in the Placita (but see ch. 1.2.2, 1.3.1–2). The same verse of Empedocles (31B27.4, 28.2) is cited in S at 1.15.2b. Both S and Ach read χαίρων for the last word as against γαίων in the quote from Simplicius preferred by Diels VS (Wachsmuth wrongly emends). It is just possible that S derived the verse from A and that Ach reflects the same tradition. This would mean that the quote was given to illustrate the first doxa, a method also used in 1.18.2 (Empedocles again). Could the reading of PG in §3, κυκλοειδῆ, be a remnant of this verse? But such an inserted verse does not fit in well with the μέν … δέ construction in §§1– 3. The possibility is far too uncertain to warrant inclusion in the reconstruction of the text. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Hermagoras fr. 6a Matthes, T 14 Woerther at Cic. Inv. 1.6.8 quaestionem eam appellat quae habet in se controversiam in dicendo positam sine certarum personarum interpositione, ad hunc modum: ‘ecquid sit bonum praeter honestatem?’ ‘verine sint sensus?’ ‘quae sit mundi forma?’ ‘quae sit solis magnitudo?’ Cicero ND 2.48 (Balbus the Stoic) nec enim hunc ipsum mundum pro certo rotundum esse dicitis, nam posse fieri ut sit alia figura, innumerabilesque mundos alios aliarum esse formarum. cf. ND 1.24 (Velleius the Epicurean) at mihi vel cylindri vel quadrati vel coni vel puramidis videtur esse formosior (sc. forma conlata Platonis sphaera). ps.Hermogenes Prog. 11.4.5 Patillon (thesis) οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ κόσμος. Sceptics at D.L. 9.104 οὐ γὰρ εἰσιν (sc. αἱ φωναί) ὅμοιαι τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. Demonax at Stob. Ecl.

liber 2 caput 2 2.1.11, p. 5.10–13 ἐξεταζόντων τινῶν, εἰ ὁ κόσμος ἔμψυχος, καὶ αὖθις εἰ σφαιροειδής, ὑμεῖς, ἔφη, περὶ μὲν τοῦ κόσμου πολυπραγμονεῖτε, περὶ δὲ τῆς αὑτῶν ἀκοσμησίας οὐ φροντίζετε. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 40.19–23 τῆς γὰρ ἀντιφάσεως ἂν μὲν τὸ ‘πότερον’ προτάξωμεν οἷον ‘πότερον ὁ κόσμος σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ οὔ;’, ἂν δὲ τὸ ‘ἆρα’, πρότασις, οἷον ‘ἆρά γε ὁ κόσμος σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ οὔ’; 76.10–15 (on dialectics), οἷον ὅτι ἀίδιος ὁ κόσμος ἢ ὅτι σφαιροειδής. ἐπιχειρήσαι γὰρ ἄν τις διαλεκτικῶς εἰς τοῦτο ὅτι τῷ τελειοτάτῳ τῶν σωμάτων οἰκεῖον τὸ τελειότατον σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ κόσμος τελειότατον τῶν σωμάτων· πάντα γὰρ τὰ ἄλλα ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχει· τῷ κόσμῳ ἄρα τὸ τελειότατον τῶν σχημάτων οἰκεῖον· ἀλλὰ μὴν τελειότατον ἡ σφαῖρα τῶν σχημάτων· οὔτε γὰρ προσθήκην οὔτε ἀφαίρεσιν δέχεται· οἰκεῖον ἄρα τὸ σφαιρικὸν σχῆμα τῷ κόσμῳ; cf. 171.15, 294.12 etc.; also at Simp. in Cael. 409.32–410.15. Tertullian ad Nat. 2.4.13–14 sed quid ego cum argumentationibus physiologicis? sursum mens ascendere debuit de statu mundi, non in incerta descendere. rotunda mundo Platonica forma; quadratum eum angulatumque commentum ab aliis, credo, circino rotundo ita collegit, quod sine capite solum credi laborat. Marius Victorinus in Rhet. 1.8, p. 31.20–24 Riesenweber (on Cic. Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma?) ‘quae sit mundi facies’: multi dicunt mundum in modum sphaerae esse collectum, multi oblonga rotunditate esse formatum, multi plana facie, multi quadrata, multi in camerae modum (cf. Is. 40:22), scilicet ut sub terra non sit similis, ac supra caput est, mundi facies. Aphthonius Prog. 13.1.6–7 Patillon οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός (see further on ch. 2.1 Section E(a) General texts). Sopater Schol. ad Hermogenis Status 5.3.10–11 Walz φιλόσοφον οὖν τὸ ζήτημα, ζητοῦμεν γὰρ, εἰ κύκλος ὁ κόσμος … Proclus in Tim. 2.76.3 εἰ γὰρ μὴ σφαιροειδὴς ἦν ὁ οὐρανός, ἀλλὰ κύλινδρος ἤ τι ἄλλο σχῆμα τοιοῦτον … Nicolaus the Sophist Prog. 76.18–20 Felten τῶν δὲ θέσεων αἳ μέν εἰσι φυσικαί, οἷον εἰ σφαιροειδὴς ὁ οὐρανός, ἢ εἴ τις ἑτέρα τοιαύτη θειοτέραν ἔχουσα ζήτησιν, αἳ δὲ πολιτικαί. John Philoponus in APo. 239.1 (on the cosmos) ὅταν δὲ πότερον σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἢ ποῖον ἕτερον ἔχει σχῆμα, τὸ ποιόν (ζητοῦμεν). Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1, p. 11 (table of contents) see on ch. 2.1. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.23 Amand de Mendieta-Rudberg καὶ περὶ τοῦ σχήματος δὲ ἱκανὰ ἡμῖν τὰ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, εἰπόντος ἐν δοξολογίᾳ θεοῦ· ‘ὁ στήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσει καμάραν’ (Is. 40:22), translated by Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.6.21, p. 17.15 Schenkl as de qualitate … et substantia caeli. §1 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.547) σχῆμα ἔχοντα (sc. τὸν κόσμον) σφαιροειδές … καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν εʹ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἀντίπατρον ἐν τοῖς περὶ κόσμου (Posidonius F 8 E.-K., Theiler 260, SVF III Ant. 43). Cicero ND 2.45–48. §4 Leucippus Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.31 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) ἰσορρόπων δὲ διὰ τὸ πλῆθος μηκέτι δυναμένων περιφέρεσθαι, τὰ μὲν λεπτὰ χωρεῖν εἰς τὸ ἔξω κενόν, ὥσπερ διαττώμενα· τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ συμμένειν καὶ περιπλεκόμενα συγκατατρέχειν ἀλλήλοις καὶ ποιεῖν πρῶτόν τι σύστημα σφαιροειδές. cf. Lucretius DRN 5.510 magnus caeli … orbis. §5 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (and scholion) (fr. 82 Usener) ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοῦς κόσμους οὔτε ἐξ ἀνάγκης δεῖ νομίζειν ἕνα σχηματισμὸν ἔχοντας ⟨

775

776

liber 2 caput 2

… ⟩ (†ἀλλὰ καὶ διαφόρους αὐτοὺς ἐν τῇ ιβʹ Περὶ αὐτοῦ φησιν· οὓς μὲν γὰρ σφαιροειδεῖς, καὶ ᾠοειδεῖς ἄλλους, καὶ ἀλλοιοσχήμονας ἑτέρους· οὐ μέντοι πᾶν σχῆμα ἔχειν …). also at Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 (on a single cosmos) κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα, οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται, ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου καὶ καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ καὶ οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται—καὶ λήγουσαν ἢ ἐν περιαγομένῳ ἢ ἐν στάσιν ἔχοντι καὶ στρογγύλην ἢ τρίγωνον ἢ οἵαν δήποτε ἔχουσα περιγραφήν· πανταχῶς γὰρ ἐνδέχεται· τῶν γὰρ φαινομένων οὐδὲν ἀντιμαρτυρεῖ ⟨ἐν⟩ τῷδε τῷ κόσμῳ, ἐν ᾧ λῆγον οὐκ ἔστι καταλαβεῖν. Lucretius DRN 2.1052–1057, cited on ch. 2.1 under Section E(a) General texts.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b26–30 εἰ γὰρ τοῦ φυσικοῦ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη εἰδέναι, τῶν δὲ συμβεβηκότων καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μηδέν, ἄτοπον, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι φαίνονται λέγοντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως καὶ περὶ σχήματος σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου, καὶ δὴ καὶ πότερον σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἢ οὔ. Cael. 2.4 286b10–12 σχῆμα δ᾽ ἀνάγκη σφαιροειδὲς ἔχειν τὸν οὐρανόν· τοῦτο γὰρ οἰκειότατόν τε τῇ οὐσίᾳ καὶ τῇ φύσει πρῶτον. εἴπωμεν δὲ καθόλου περὶ τῶν σχημάτων, τὸ ποῖόν ἐστι πρῶτον … Cael. 287a11–22 ἔτι δὲ ἐπεὶ φαίνεται καὶ ὑπόκειται κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι τὸ πᾶν, δέδεικται δ᾽ ὅτι τῆς ἐσχάτης περιφορᾶς οὔτε κενόν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν οὔτε τόπος, ἀνάγκη καὶ διὰ ταῦτα σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι αὐτόν. εἰ γὰρ ἔσται εὐθύγραμμος … ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν εἴ τι ἄλλο σχῆμα γένοιτο μὴ ἴσας ἔχον τὰς ἐκ τοῦ μέσου γραμμάς, οἷον φακοειδὲς ἢ ᾠοειδές· ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ συμβήσεται καὶ τόπον ἔξω καὶ κενὸν εἶναι τῆς φορᾶς, διὰ τὸ μὴ τὴν αὐτὴν χώραν κατέχειν τὸ ὅλον. Euclid Phaen. pr. 50–51 διὰ δὴ τὰ προειρημένα πάντα ὁ κόσμος ὑποκείσθω σφαιροειδής· εἴτε γὰρ ἦν κυλινδροειδὴς ἢ κωνοειδής … Strabo 2.5.2 τὰ μὲν οὖν παρὰ τῶν φυσικῶν δεικνύμενα τοιαῦτά ἐστι· σφαιροειδὴς μὲν ὁ κόσμος καὶ ὁ οὐρανός … Adrastus in Theon Expos. 120.10–15, 23–27 ὅτι γὰρ σφαιρικὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἡ γῆ σφαιρική … δῆλον … κωνικὸν γὰρ ἢ κυλινδρικὸν ἢ πυραμοειδὲς ἤ τι ἕτερον στερεὸν σχῆμα παρὰ τὸ σφαιρικὸν τοῦ παντὸς ἔχοντος, κατὰ τῆς γῆς οὐκ ἂν ταῦτα ἀπήντα … cf. Astronomers at Simp. in Cael. 410.25– 29 οἱ δὲ ἀστρονόμοι συγχωροῦντές τισι τῶν σχημάτων, οἷον κυλίνδρῳ καὶ κώνῳ καὶ τῷ φακοειδεῖ καὶ ᾠοειδεῖ καὶ τῷ ῥομβοειδεῖ καλουμένῳ στερεῷ, οὕτως ἔχειν τοὺς πόλους, ὡς ἀεὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατέχειν τόπον, ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων δεικνύουσι μηδὲν ἄλλο σχῆμα τὸν οὐρανὸν ἔχειν δυνάμενον πλὴν τοῦ σφαιρικοῦ. Theophilus of Antioch ad Aut. 2.32 ταῦτα δὲ μὴ ἐπιστάμενοι οἱ συγγράφεις βούλονται τὸν κόσμον σφαιροειδῆ λέγειν καὶ ὡσπερεὶ κύβῳ συγκρίνειν αὐτόν. Chapter heading: — §1 Stoics: Plato Tim. 33b σχῆμα δὲ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ τὸ πρέπον καὶ τὸ συγγενές. τῷ δὲ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὑτῷ ζῷα περιέχειν μέλλοντι ζῴῳ πρέπον ἂν εἴη σχῆμα τὸ περιειληφὸς ἐν αὑτῷ πάντα ὁπόσα σχήματα· διὸ καὶ σφαιροειδές, ἐκ μέσου πάντῃ πρὸς τὰς τελευτὰς ἴσον ἀπέχον, κυκλοτερὲς αὐτὸ ἐτορνεύσατο, πάντων τελεώτατον ὁμοιότατόν τε αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ σχημάτων … Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.56 Aucher figura autem muni, sicut et mundus ipse … per providentiam globi in formam facta fuit. primum, quia omnia figura velocius mobilis est … occurrunt autem in Timaeo

liber 2 caput 2

777

Platonis (33b), qui mirifice laudent figuram perfecte sphaericam cum sua utilitate, atque commendent, ita ut nullo praeterea indigeat laudis additamento. Cleomedes Cael. 1.5.6–9 Todd ἂν τοίνυν ἐπιδείξωμεν ὅτι τὸ στερεώτατον αὐτοῦ (sc. ὁ κόσμος) καὶ πυκνότατον μέρος, ἡ γῆ, σφαιρικῷ κέχρηται τῷ σχήματι, ῥᾳδίως ἂν ἀπὸ τούτου ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ μετιόντες καταμάθοιμεν ὅτι πάντα σφαιρικά ἐστι καὶ οὕτως καὶ ὁ σύμπας τοιοῦτον ἔχει τὸ σχῆμα.

Appendix: A Missing Chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου? At CAG 4.16 a section of T’s summary of A’s chapters on the cosmos reads (p. 104.15–20 Raeder): καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ· καὶ οἱ μὲν μυλοειδῶς, οἱ δὲ τροχοῦ δίκην περιδινεῖσθαι· καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν, οἱ δὲ παντάπασιν ἄψυχον· καὶ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν γενητόν, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον, οἱ δὲ ἀγένητον παντελῶς καὶ ἀναίτιον· καὶ οὗτοι μὲν φθαρτόν, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἄφθαρτον. The summaries of A 2.2 and A 2.3–4 can immediately be recognised. But in between them are the words in italics which have no equivalent in the remains of A found in P or S. Undoubtedly what we have here is what we have called an Aëtian ‘enclave’ (see General Introduction, section 2.4–5). This was already recognized by Diels, who regarded them as derived from A and placed them (DG 329) beneath the text of 2.2, numbering them as 2.2.4. Four additional considerations point to the fact that Diels was on the right track. (1) It is apparent that in his chapters on the cosmos, the stars, the sun, the moon and the earth A follows a fixed sequence of topics, which we have argued go back to question-types first formulated by Aristotle and loosely based on his theory of the categories: cf. Mansfeld (1990a) 3193–3208; (1992a) 93; M– R 2.5–6, 112. For example for the earth we have in ch. 3.9–13 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι (substance and quantity), Περὶ σχήματος γῆς (quality), Περὶ θέσεως γῆς and Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς (place), Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς (motion relating to all the categories). A chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου would fit in very well in a parallel sequence of chapters on the cosmos. Similar chapters on other heavenly bodies are ch. 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως, 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου, 2.24 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου, 2.27 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης, and 2.28 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης. In addition there is a chapter on motion in Book 1, 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως, which precedes a chapter on generation and destruction, 1.24 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. A similar sequence would occur in Book 2 on the cosmos, if a chapter Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου preceded 2.4 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος.

778

liber 2 caput 2

We may also compare the sequence in Book 4 on the soul: 4.6 Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς, 4.7 Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. (2) The early chapters on the cosmos in Ach, a ‘cousin-writing’ of A, show a similar sequence: §5 Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (= κόσμου), §6 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου, §7 Περὶ περιφορᾶς. Since Ach and A share common earlier doxographical traditions, it is likely that A would have dealt with the subject of the cosmos’ revolution as well. (3) There is a fine parallel for alternative views on the motion of the cosmos in Epicurus Ep.Pyth at D.L. 10.88 (text above, section E(a)§5)), where the outer edge of the cosmos is described as either ‘in revolution or in rest’. It is very likely that Epicurus here made use of a very early doxographical tradition; cf. Runia (1997), Bakker (2016), Runia (2018) 406. (4) There is a striking linguistic parallel between T’s text which speaks of a whirling movement τροχοῦ δίκην and the description of the earth’s movement at A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς, τροχοῦ δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. Exactly the same phrase is used, which suggests that T will have derived it from A, but from another text than 3.13.3. The layout presented by Diels in the DG suggests that these doxai should be added to the present chapter. In our view, however, it is more likely that they point to the possibility of an additional chapter in A with the heading Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου that was passed over by P in the process of epitomisation and not utilised by S. If this is correct, it will be one of the very few chapters not included by P (see the discussion at M–R 1.186). S may have passed over the diaeresis because it is anonymous and he often leaves out such lemmata which are difficult to include in his coalesced clusters. Diels suggested that the two alternative kinds of motion—like a millstone and like a cartwheel—might go back to the thought of the Milesians Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively, his inspiration being the description of Anaximander’s view on the motion of the sun in terms of a cartwheel (referred to A 2.20.1, cf. 2.25.1 on the moon). He included the former in VS (3A12 = 13A12 DK), but not the latter. See now Anaximander fr. 135, Anaximenes fr. 112 Wöhrle. It is very difficult, however, to determine how the contrast between the two kinds of motion might be explained. For some suggestions see the discussion at M–R 2.334. Couprie (2018) 123 rightly notes that in this text it is the cosmos that is moving, not the heavenly bodies as in the reports on the Milesians. In a private communication he also points out that in the archaic period the millstone was not horizontal as it became later, but stood vertically. This makes the contrast between horizontal and vertical movement suggested at M–R 2.334 less persuasive.

liber 2 caput 2

779

Another fragment that might possibly be assigned to this missing chapter is found at S 1.21.3b. It is the second of a cluster of three Stoic doxai (p. 183.1– 2 Wachsmuth): μήτε αὔξεσθαι δὲ μήτε μειοῦσθαι κόσμον, τοῖς δὲ μέρεσιν ὁτὲ μὲν παρεκτείνεσθαι πρὸς πλείονα τόπον, ὁτὲ δὲ συστέλλεσθαι. Diels placed this as part of 2.4, but no reason can be given why it should be placed in a chapter on the cosmos’ genesis and destruction. On the other hand, increase and diminution are types of motion in the Aristotelian scheme (mentioned as such at S 1.19.1, almost certainly from AD). We think it possible that it derived from the chapter on the cosmos’ motion. On the Stoic doctrine involved (expansion and contraction, but no increase or diminution because the amount of matter remains the same) see Hahm (1977) 32 and n. 16. In our Specimen reconstructionis we included this postulated missing chapter with its three doxai as part of our reconstruction, naming it ch. 2.2a: see M–R 2.331–336. The matter remains speculative, however, and we have decided not to include hypothetical chapters of this kind in the present edition. See further General Introduction, section 2.8 and n. 83.

Liber 2 Caput 3 PB: ps.Plutarchus 886D–E; pp. 329a9–330a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.34, p. 408.14–20 Mras, cf. 7.11.13, pp. 385.24–386.3; 15.32.8, p. 406.8–9—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 46; p. 621.13–19 Diels; pp. 148–155 Jas—PC : Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.6–15, p. 106, cf. 2.16. 8–12 p. 107 Riedweg—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140– 141 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 156, p. 80 Westerink (titulus solus)— PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.29, pp. 36.11–37.1 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.21, p. 181.16–17 (tit.) + 1.21.3c, p. 183.6–11 + 6ab, p. 186.1–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b5–6 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.17–18 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.3–6 Di Maria

Titulus γʹ. Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (P,S) §1 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος οὐδέτερα τούτων, φύσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστῶτα. (P2,S2,T2) §3 Ἔκφαντος ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον, διοικεῖσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ προνοίας. (S3) §4 Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου, οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν, σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως μετέχειν. (P3,S4) §1 anonymi —; §2 Leucippus 67A22 DK; §2 Democritus fr. 23, 589 Luria; §2 Epicurus fr. 382 Usener; §3 Ecphantus 51.4 DK; §4 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.3 285a29, 286a9–12, AD fr. 9 Diels titulus Εἰ … διοικούμενος PB(I,II)EQSy : καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος om. PB(III)GPs, cf. PC 2.15 εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή : cf. S qui conflat tit. Περὶ κόσμου (2.1) καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (2.3) καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (2.5a) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (2.5) §1 non hab. PE ‖ [2] post ἔμψυχον hab. τε PG ‖ καὶ ] om. S ins. Wachsmuth §2 [4] Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἐπίκουρος S : Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος PBGC (δὲ om. PE, cf. Q) ‖ [4–5] οὐδέτερα … συνεστῶτα S : καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενὸν οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικεῖσθαι PBE1CQ (φύσει … ἀλόγῳ om. PE2) : al. PG ὅσοι τὸ αὐτόματον εἰσάγουσιν, οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ διοικεῖσθαι §3 [7] ὑπὸ S corr. cod. Aug. Diels Wachsmuth : ἀπὸ SFP §4 [8] δι᾽ ὅλου PGS Diels : δι᾽ ὅλων PBEC ‖ post ἔμψυχον hab. εἶναι PG ‖ [8–9] οὔτε2 … νοερὸν PB : οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν om. PECS : οὔτε λογικὸν om. PQ ‖ οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν] ⟨οὔτε⟩ αἰσθητὸν PG (ins. οὔτε Diels) ‖ [10] κοινωνεῖν PBECSP2 : κοινωνεῖ SFP1 Diels Wachsmuth : μετέχειν PG ‖ [10–11] ζωτικάς PBCEGSP2 : ζωτικά SFP1 ‖ [11] αὐτῶν] τούτων μετειληφέναι PG ‖ [11–12] τῆς … μετέχειν] al. PG μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_043

5

10

liber 2 caput 3 Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν, 4.16.2 (~ §2) οἱ δὲ παντάπασιν ἄψυχον. cf. 1.63 καὶ οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχον εἶναι τὸ πᾶν (~ §1), οἱ δὲ ἄψυχον (~ §2). Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) … καὶ τῶν μὲν μὴ προνοίᾳ θεοῦ διοικεῖσθαι τὸν κόσμον, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ, τῶν δὲ τὰ μὲν οὐράνια μόνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ διοικεῖσθαι, οὐ μὴν καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς, καὶ πάλιν ἀγένητον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ μήθ᾽ ὅλως ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενέσθαι, αὐτομάτως δὲ καὶ συντυχικῶς ὑφεστάναι, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἀτόμων καὶ λεπτῶν σωμάτων ἀψύχων τινῶν καὶ ἀλόγων τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σύστασιν γεγονέναι; ps.Galenus HPh c. 46 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος (text Jas) 46.1 (~ P1) Οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχόν τε τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. 46.2 (~ P2) Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὅσοι τὸ αὐτόματον εἰσάγουσιν, οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ διοικεῖσθαι. 46.3 (~ P3) Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτε ἔμψυχον εἶναι ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου ⟨οὔτε⟩ αἰσθητὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον. τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτ(ων) πάντ(ων) μετέχειν. σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς τούτων μετειληφέναι μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός. Cyrillus Juln. 2.15–16 2.15 (quaestio) ἔφη δὲ πάλιν τὰς τῶν παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι φιλοσόφων δόξας εἰς ἐξήγησιν προτιθεὶς εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή, οὕτως· 2.15.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες ἔμψυχον τὸν κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον εἶπον· 2.15.2 (~ P2) Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενόν, οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικεῖσθαι, φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ· 2.15.3 (~ P3) Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλων οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν· σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δὲ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκός, οὐ προηγουμένως, μετέχειν. cf. 2.16 καὶ οἱ μὲν προνοίᾳ Θεοῦ διοικούμενον (P1), οἱ δὲ καὶ προνοίας δίχα καὶ τὴν τῶν στοιχείων εὔτακτον κίνησιν αὐτοματισμοῖς καὶ συμβεβηκόσιν ἐκνενεμήκασι (P2)· καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐψυχῶσθαί φασιν αὐτόν (P1), οἱ δὲ οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε νοερόν (P2). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 156 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.29 Εἰ ἔμψυχος ὁ κόσμος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (~ tit.) οἱ μὲν Ἕλληνες τάς τε σφαίρας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐμψύχους ἐδόξαζον, πρὸς δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας, λέγοντες εἰ τὰ ἐνταῦθα γεώδη σώματα ψυχῆς οὐκ ἠμοίρησε, πόσῳ γε μᾶλλον τὰ οὐράνια. ἡμεῖς δὲ λέγομεν ὡς ἡ κίνησις τούτων φυσική ἐστι καὶ οὐ ψυχική … (cf. c. 2.16)

781

782

liber 2 caput 3

Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.3–6 ζῷον δέ φασιν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον (§1)· τὸ γὰρ αὐτοκίνητον εἶναι αὐτὸν καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ τὴν περιφορὰν ἀεὶ ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν σημείων ἐπὶ τὰ αὐτὰ περιδινεῖσθαι νοῦν ἔχοντός ἐστι, φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὡς ζῷον ζῳογονεῖ. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 1.25 Περὶ ἀνάγκης (de necessitate et providentia). §1 A 1.7.2 Θαλῆς νοῦν τοῦ κόσμου τὸν θεόν, τὸ δὲ πᾶν ἔμψυχον ἅμα καὶ δαιμόνων πλῆρες. A 1.25.4 Πλάτων τὰ μὲν εἰς πρόνοιαν ἀνάγει, τὰ δ᾽ εἰς ἀνάγκην. A 1.26.4 Χρύσιππος δύναμιν πνευματικὴν τάξει τοῦ παντὸς διοικητικήν· καὶ πάλιν ἐν τοῖς Ὅροις ‘εἱμαρμένη ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ κόσμου λόγος· ἢ λόγος τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ προνοίᾳ διοικουμένων. A 1.27.5 (de fato) Ζήνων ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν τῷ Περὶ φύσεως δύναμιν κινητικὴν τῆς ὕλης κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως, ἥντινα μὴ διαφέρειν πρόνοιαν καὶ φύσιν καλεῖν’. §2 A 1.25.3–4 Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην, τὴν αὐτὴν δ᾽ εἶναι εἱμαρμένην καὶ δαίμονα καὶ Δίκην καὶ πρόνοιαν καὶ κοσμοποιόν. Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ᾽ αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην· λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· ‘οὐδὲν χρῆμα μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης’. §3 A 1.3.17 Ἔκφαντος Συρακούσιος, εἷς τῶν Πυθαγορείων, πάντων τὰ ἀδιαίρετα σώματα καὶ τὸ κενόν. τὰς γὰρ Πυθαγορικὰς μονάδας οὗτος πρῶτος ἀπεφήνατο σωματικάς. §4 A 2.4.10 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ περίγεια κηραίνεται. A 4.6.2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀκίνητον τὴν ψυχὴν πάσης κινήσεως προηγουμένην, τῆς δὲ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς μετέχειν, καθάπερ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ πέρατα καὶ καθάπαξ τὰ περὶ τοῖς σώμασιν εἴδη.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P is well attested, with seven witnesses in all. PBQC preserve three lemmata, with only minor differences. Oddly, E omits the first lemma, perhaps because of its similarity to the title (but he had referred to it earlier in Book 7 when in contrasting Hebrew and Greek theology he anticipated the contents of this chapter, as well as chs. 1.7, 2.4). G retains all three lemmata but introduces significant alterations (τὸ αὐτόματον instead of τὰ ἄτομα, μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμβεβηκός instead of κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως). Ps retains only the title in the shorter form. Sy writes it out in full but in the chapter itself he

liber 2 caput 3

783

immediately turns to the question of whether the heavenly spheres are ensouled, which is not explictly broached in A or P; but see further on ch. 2.16. (2) S provides four lemmata that must be assigned to this chapter. They are all found in 1.21, the title of which alludes to the Aëtian source (see section C below). In 3c the first two lemmata in P are written out. The name-label of Leucippus added to the second and the wording of this doxa differs significantly from P. P’s third lemma is found at 6b. It is preceded by the Ecphantus lemma in 6a, which given its contents and wording must come from 2.3. (3) T paraphrases with extreme concision, so is of no value for the text. But he does retain the chapter’s main distinction, which he formulates with the terms ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ἔμπνουν and παντάπασιν ἄψυχον, and thus makes more explicit than does A. He gives an even briefer formulation of the same distinction at 1.63, οἱ μὲν ἔμψυχον …, οἱ δὲ ἄψυχον. For the evidence of Ach in the tradition close to A see section D(e) below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The subject of this chapter, with its antithesis between a teleological view of the cosmos’ formation and/or structure and the nonteleological view that it is the result of forces to be attributed to necessity or chance is very common in the anterior and later doxographical traditions, with numerous texts in Lucretius, Cicero, Philo, Plutarch, Galen, Plotinus, Augustine and others; see the texts cited below in Section B(a). A number of rhetorical texts show that the themes of the chapter are also used as illustrations of quaestiones generales or θέσεις. A text in Quintilian Inst. 5.7.35 is particularly revealing, formulating the quaestio in the form of the classic antithesis ‘whether the world is brought about through a coming together of atoms or is ruled by providence,’ reversing the order that we find in A. Sopater gives as a quaestio (ζήτημα) the other theme of the chapter, ‘whether the cosmos is living’. The same quaestio in the form found in A’s title is mentioned in a Stobaean excerpt from the Imperial Cynic philosopher Demonax when he is upbraiding certain people for inquiring about cosmological themes while ignoring their own indecorous behaviour (the subject of A 2.2 is also mentioned). The link with the theme of providence is made in numerous texts, nowhere more succinctly than in Marcus Aurelius 4.3.2 ἤτοι πρόνοια ἢ ἄτομοι. Many of these, however, have an explicit theological formulation wholly missing in A. A very full example is found at Epictetus 1.12.1–2, with five positions (denial of God’s existence, denial of providence tout court, providence only of the heavens (cf. §4 in our chapter), providence of earthly regions too, providence of individuals). On these doxographies see Runia (1996) 564 = M–R 3.362. In contrast A’s approach in this chapter is cosmological and not theological. The ques-

784

liber 2 caput 3

tion of providence is scarcely noted in the chapter on theology 1.7 (only briefly at A 1.7.1[35–41]); cf. also 1.25.5 (on Plato). There is no separate chapter Περὶ προνοίας. The theological formulation, as given for example in Theon rhetor, εἰ προνοοῦσι θεοὶ τοῦ κόσμου, was more common than the cosmological one found in Quintilian and discussed above. The formulation προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος in the chapter heading is plainly indebted to Stoic philosophy, in which it is a common phrase, attributed to Chrysippus for example by Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels and Sextus Empiricus M. 7.432 (the latter text plainly influenced by doxographical texts). (2) Sources. The view that the cosmos is animate and ensouled is by no means foreign to early Greek thought but not explicitly formulated (it is anachronistically attributed to Thales and Pythagoras in doxographies preserved in Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.27 and 8.25). Implicit is the macrocosm–microcosm relation first formulated by Democritus (68B34 DK, cf. also Arist. Phys. 8.2 254b24–28). But for the later tradition it is first placed on the map through Plato’s emphatic presentation of the cosmos as a ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε which comes into being διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ … πρόνοιαν (Tim. 30b8–c1). This cosmobiology is taken over and developed further by the Stoa; see Hahm (1977) 57–90. In the important formulation of the topics of physics in D.L. 7.132–133 the subject of whether the cosmos is ensouled or not and whether it is administered by providence are joined together with the question of its destructibility (cf. ch. 2.4). The contrast of this teleological approach to the cosmos’ development with the non-teleological view of the atomist tradition was already emphasised by Plato in Book 10 of the Laws (esp. 889b–c; text below Section B(b) General texts). A special position is taken by Strato, who is not an atomist but is linked with them in denying that the cosmos is animate (Plu. Adv.Col. 1115B = fr. 35 Wehrli, 20 Sharples; cf. Lact. De ira Dei 10.1 = fr. 19C Sharples). He attributes the cosmos’ rational structure to the unconscious workings of nature. This subtlety is not picked up by A. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is composite, combining the two subjects dealt with in the chapter. It departs from the standard umbrella type used so far in the book and denotes the two quaestiones explicitly by commencing with the conjunction εἰ. The only previous instance has been at ch. 1.5 εἰ ἓν τὸ πᾶν, one of the three ‘cosmological’ chapters at 1.4–6. As noted above, these two quaestiones are common in rhetorical texts. They fall under the categories of substance and quality. Most witnesses agree on the longer heading, which combines the two subjects dealt with in the chapter. The exceptions are G, Ps and the Planudean

liber 2 caput 3

785

mss. of PB, who omit the second half. The longer title is also attested by S, who includes it in his composite heading for Ecl. 1.21, which combines the headings of chs. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5a and 2.5: Περί κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. It must certainly be retained. D Analysis a Context The continuity of the themes relating to the cosmos is better preserved if indeed there was a chapter on the cosmos’ motion has fallen out or epitomised away after ch. 2.2 (see the Appendix to ch. 2.2 above). Implicit is the further question: how is that motion caused? The topic is approached through the question of whether the cosmos is ensouled, i.e. is it a living being or not. The question of its providential administration is linked in as a related theme. The connection derives from the implications of its having a soul, which given the cosmos’ regular movement and teleological structure, must be rational. The answers will have important implications for the following chs. 2.4–8. b Number–Order of Lemmata The witnesses yield four lemmata in total. There is no reason to conclude that the chapter is not complete. The order of the doxai in P and S correspond, with the doxa of Ecphantus added between the second and the third in P. It may be assumed that S preserves the original order, into which he has inserted additional material in his 1.21.4–5. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As the title indicates, the chapter combines two separate subjects on the cosmos: A whether the cosmos is ensouled (A1) or not ensouled (A2); and B whether it is administered by providence (B1) or is constituted by a nonrational natural force (B2). In theory these can be combined to yield four doxai. The method is reminiscent of ch. 2.1, where two subjects are also combined. The first two doxai plainly form a strong diaphonia, giving opposed views on the two subjects of the chapter, i.e. A1–B1 and A2–B2. Both oppositions are well-attested in the doxographical, philosophical and rhetorical traditions (see above section B). The formula οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι πάντες … Λεύκιππος δέ κτλ indicates a majority–minority division of opinion (a similar method is found in ch. 1.14 Περὶ κενοῦ). The final two views are best seen as compromise views, rather than mechanically filling out the two remaining views of the grid (i.e. A1–B2 and A2–B1). Ecphantus is an atomist, just like the proponents of the second doxa, but he believes in the cosmic role of providence. It is to be noted that the doxa attrib-

786

liber 2 caput 3

uted to him does not explicitly state that the cosmos is not ensouled. The parallel text in Hippolytus (see below under Section E(a)§3) confirms that his atomic bodies ‘are moved by a divine force which he also calls intellect and soul’. The final doxa attributed to Aristotle is also a kind of compromise view. The heavens are ensouled and providentially administered (i.e. A1–A2), the earthly regions are not (A2–B2). This view is consistent with a doxographic tradition in which for Aristotle divine providence is exercised directly in the heavenly realm and only indirectly in the regions below the moon; see the collection of texts in listed in Moraux (1984) 571 n. 33 (who thinks the doctrine is a doxographical invention), Runia (1989) 27, and a selection below Section E(a)§4. The Aristotelian doxography in Diogenes Laertius is a good parallel, but with a more theological emphasis. It uses the Stoic (and nonAristotelian) term συμπάθεια to explain the rule of order on earth, for which A uses the more Aristotelian expression κατὰ συμβεβηκός. See also the related view in the next chapter, A 2.4.12. It differs from the classic Aristotelian position expounded in Met. Λ 7. Alexander Quaest. 2.21 argues that providence is not accidental (κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς) according to Aristotle, claiming at the end of the discussion that the subject is not easy and that none of his predecessors have developed an adequate analysis of it within the context of Aristotle’s doctrine. He also promises to argue against the Platonists, but his positive arguments are not preserved. On his likely views see Sharples (1994) 121 n. 119; on the controversy between Aristotelians and Platonists, Boys-Stones (2018) 325–326, 333. The structure of the chapter is thus a strong diaphonia followed by two compromise views, both closer to the first alternative than the second, but qualifying it in different ways. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 The texts in P and S cannot be reduced to each other. S adds the name-label of Leucippus, but does not read after the name-label Epicurus the words in P καὶ ὅσοι τὰ ἄτομα εἰσηγοῦνται καὶ τὸ κενὸν. Laks (forthcoming) suggests that this formula might have been introduced by P to cover up his shortening the list of name-labels and that it might also include the name of Ecphantus, who, as will be revealed in the next doxa, is an atomist (and then would have been left out by S in his list of names to avoid repetition). The difficulty with this suggestion is that it obscures the clear diaeretic structure, in which Ecphantus represents a compromise view between the two views in the diaphonia of §§1–2. A further difficulty occurs in the final phrase of §2. P’s words φύσει δέ τινι ἀλόγῳ must be in apposition to προνοίᾳ, but the retention of the verb διοικεῖσθαι is

liber 2 caput 3

787

then rather awkward. So there is something to be said for S’s version φύσει δὲ ἀλόγῳ ἐκ τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστῶτα, which describes the composition of the atomist cosmos rather than its administration. But then it might seem otiose that in the next doxa S repeats the phrase ἐκ μὲν τῶν ἀτόμων συνεστάναι. However, A might have done this on purpose to emphasise the partial agreement with the previous position. All in all we now agree with Laks that it is more likely that S preserves the original text in A. There is indeed very little reason why he should have changed it when inserting the material in his anthology. Our text therefore deviates from what we published in our specimen reconstructionis at M–R 2.344. We do not, however, agree with Laks’ suggestion that Ecphantus might have been included in the list of names in §2. A further point is that the words οὐδέτερα τούτων in S are very similar to G’s paraphrase οὐδέτερον τούτων συγχωροῦσι, but this must be a coincidence; cf. M–R 2.344, with which Jas (2018a) 149 is in agreement. See further Runia (2020). §3 On Ecphantus and the diaeresis with Epicurus see above A 1.3.16–17, where their views are also juxtaposed, and our Commentary ad loc. at section D(d)§§16–17. §4 The doxa begins with five phrases connected with οὔτε. Only PB has all five. E, C and S do not have οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν (G has αἰσθητόν), Q leaves out οὔτε λογικὸν. Diels DG 16 argued that the former deleted phrase was interpolated. However, the (near) convergence of PB, G and Q invalidate this conclusion. As Jas (2018a) 154 convincingly argues, the differing texts are the result of haplography caused by the sequence of multiple instances of οὔτε and adjectives ending in -ον. Moreover it is more likely that they were deleted by some sources than that they were added later. For the view that the cosmos as a whole is an οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική see the Stoic doxography at D.L. 7.143. The Homeric verse Il. 3.277 (= Od. 11.109, 12.323) is cited in Arist. fr. 903 Gigon (= Procl. cited by Olymp. in Phd. 4.8–9, 85.1–20 Westerink) to show that the heavens have sight and hearing only (the same verse in Ach §5, p. 14.11 and ps.Plut. Vit.Hom. 105 is used of the sun). This view is too subtle for the doxographer. The final phrase of the doxa uses the appropriate Peripatetic (though not Aristotelian) terminology for this question, as is apparent from a text in the Quaestiones of Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) (2.21, cited below Section E(b)§4). Alexander argues that according to Aristotle divine providence does occur in relation to mortal beings, but it does so neither κατὰ συμβεβηκός nor προηγουμένως. This position is more subtle than that taken in A, who states that being providentially administered applies to the heavenly bodies, but not to the earthly realm that obtains its ordered state contingently rather than as a primary and direct result of (divine) providential activity. G may have been influenced by such a text when he writes μήτε προηγουμένως μήτε κατὰ συμ-

788

liber 2 caput 3

βεβηκός, but this reading contradicts the earlier part of the doxa and does not make good sense, especially when the phrase τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας is omitted. e Other Evidence The ‘cousin-writing’ Ach very briefly states that the cosmos is a living being as part of his chapter on the substance of the heaven. He gives a Platonic doxa that differs from A. It draws attention to the self-moved nature of the cosmos (i.e. explicating that it is ἔμψυχος, though the term νοῦς is used rather than ψυχή). Of course it is possible that a similar doxa was originally present in A if there was a missing chapter on the cosmos’ motion; see the Appendix to ch. 2.2. But Ach returns to the narrower tradition when he discusses whether the cosmos requires food a few lines further (see on ch. 2.5). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero ND 1.18 (Velleius the Epicurean) audite … non futtilis commenticiasque sententias …, nec anum fatidicam Stoicorum Pronoeam, quam Latine licet Providentiam dicere, neque vero mundum ipsum animo et sensibus praeditum … ND 1.23 qui vero mundum ipsum animantem sapientemque esse dixerunt, nullo modo viderunt animi natura intellegentis in quam figuram cadere posset. ND 2.45 (Balbus the Stoic) hunc ipsum mundum … animantem esse et deum. Ac. 2.119–121 quamcumque vero sententiam probaverit eam sic animo comprensam habebit ut ea quae sensibus … quoniam Stoicus est, hunc mundum esse sapientem … Philo of Alexandria Prov. 1.22 Aucher nec tamen ut alii quidam sapientum, animal esse mundus censendus est. QG 4.188 itidem universum caelum et mundus, quoniam animal est et rationale et animans virtute praeditus et natura philosophus … Ebr. 199, οἱ χωρὶς ἐπιστάτου καὶ ἡγεμόνος ἀλόγου καὶ ἀπαυτοματιζούσης ἐξάψαντες φορᾶς τοῖς ὑπολαμβάνουσι πρόνοιαν καὶ ἐπιμέλειαν ὅλου καὶ τῶν μερῶν θαυμαστήν τιν᾽ εἶναι ἡνιοχοῦντος καὶ κυβερνῶντος ἀπταίστως καὶ σωτηρίως θεοῦ πῶς ἂν δύναιντο τὰς αὐτὰς καταλήψεις τῶν ὑποκειμένων ποιεῖσθαι πραγμάτων; Plutarch Isid. 369A οὔτε γὰρ ἐν ἀψύχοις σώμασι τὰς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὰς θετέον, ὡς Δημόκριτος (—) καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—), οὔτ᾽ ἀποίου δημιουργὸν ὕλης ἕνα λόγον καὶ μίαν πρόνοιαν, ὡς οἱ Στωικοί (SVF 2.1108), περιγινομένην ἁπάντων καὶ κρατοῦσαν· ἀδύνατον γὰρ ἢ φλαῦρον ὁτιοῦν, ὅπου πάντων, ἢ χρηστόν, ὅπου μηδενὸς ὁ θεὸς αἴτιος, ἐγγενέσθαι. Galen Inst. log. 2.1, p. 5.1 Kalbfleisch ⟨τῶν δὲ προτάσεων⟩ ἔνιαι μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπλῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀποφαίνονται, καθάπερ ὁπόταν εἴπῃς ‘πρόνοια ἔστιν· ἱπποκένταυρος οὐκ ἔστιν’. Inst.Log. 14.1, p. 32.6 Kalbfleisch ὃ δ᾽ ἐστὶ μέγιστόν τε καὶ πρῶτον ἐφ᾽ ἑκάστου τῶν μὴ φαινομένων αἰσθήσει, τὸ κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἤτοι οὐσίαν † γίγνεται μὴ εἶναι ζήτημ᾽ ἐστίν, ἐν ᾧ γε τὰ τοιαῦτα προβάλλεται· … ἆρά γε πρόνοια ἔστιν. Med.Exp. 19.2–3 Walzer ‘The theory which holds it to be inacceptable that the substance should be dissolved and the separation of its parts brought about holds also that those who say that composite bodies are conjoined with each other by being placed

liber 2 caput 3 in juxtaposition must not be regarded as reliable. For the exponents of the former view assert that whoever says this must inevitably be led to deny the existence of God and His providence for His creation.’ ps.Galen An.Ut. 1.3–10 Wagner cited below on ch. 5.15 Section E(a) General texts (on whether cosmos is a living being or not); also An.Ut. 2.17–3.9 (SVF 2.638) ἴδωμεν οὖν εἰ ζῷόν ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος καὶ εἴτε τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐγένετο εἴτ᾽ αὖ πάλιν τὴν ὁλόκληρον ἐπέσχε φύσιν. κόσμος τοίνυν ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ φύσεων καὶ ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος, καὶ τὸ διῆκον ⟨ἔχον⟩ διὰ πάντων αὐτῶν ἀρχηγὸν καὶ πρωτόγονον πνεῦμα, ὅπερ καλοῦσι παῖδες φιλοσόφων ἢ ψυχὴν ἢ μονάδα ἢ ἄτομον ἢ πῦρ ἢ (3) ὁμωνύμως τῷ γένει πνεῦμα πρῶτον. … ἐξ ὅλων οὖν ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἥρμοσται καὶ ἐκ τελείων τέλειος καὶ ἐξ αὐτοτελῶν ἀνενδεής, καὶ ἦν καὶ ἔσται κινούμενον ζῷον. Lucian Icar. 9 εἶτα καὶ προνοεῖν τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς πραγμάτων οὐ πᾶσιν ἐδόκουν οἱ θεοί, ἀλλ᾽ ἦσάν τινες οἱ τῆς συμπάσης ἐπιμελείας αὐτοὺς ἀφιέντες … . ἔνιοι δὲ ταῦτα πάντα ὑπερβάντες οὐδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι θεούς τινας ἐπίστευον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀδέσποτον καὶ ἀνηγεμόνευτον φέρεσθαι τὸν κόσμον ἀπελίμπανον; cf. Zeus trag. 17, 35. Aelius Theon Prog. 121.7–9 ἐπεὶ δὲ τῶν θέσεων αἱ μέν εἰσι θεωρητικαί, ὅσα θεωρίας ἕνεκα καὶ γνώσεως μόνον ζητοῦνται, οἷον εἰ θεοὶ προνοοῦνται τοῦ κόσμου … Prog. 126.3– 4 ἔστω δ᾽ οὖν ἡμᾶς ζητεῖν, εἰ προνοοῦσι θεοὶ τοῦ κόσμου—followed by a long list of arguments pro and contra, including the following two pro, 126.16–20 ὅτι καὶ τοῖς σοφοῖς δοκεῖ, οἷον Πλάτωνι Ἀριστοτέλει Ζήνωνι (—), εἶθ᾽ ὅτι τοῖς νομοθέταις· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀσεβείας ἦσαν γραφαί. εἶθ᾽ ὅτι ἔνδοξοί εἰσι μάλιστα οἱ ἡγούμενοι προνοεῖν ἡμῶν τοὺς θεούς. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.151 δογματικὰς δὲ ὑπολήψεις ἀλλήλαις ἀντιτίθεμεν, ὅταν λέγωμεν … τοὺς μὲν προνοίᾳ θεῶν διοικεῖσθαι τὰ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, τοὺς δὲ ἀπρονοήτως; cf. 1.32, 222. P. 3.9 ἔτι καὶ τοῦτο λεκτέον. ὁ λέγων εἶναι θεὸν ἤτοι προνοεῖν αὐτὸν τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ φησὶν ἢ οὐ προνοεῖν, καὶ εἰ μὲν προνοεῖν, ἤτοι πάντων ἤ τινων. Origen Cels. 1.21, p. 22.21–26 Marcovich ὡς εἴθε καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) καὶ ὁ ἔλαττων αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀσεβῶν Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ σῶμα εἰπόντες τὸν θεὸν Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.1053) τοῦ λόγου τούτου (sc. Moses) ἤκουσαν· ἵνα μὴ πληρωθῇ ὁ κόσμος λόγου ἀθετοῦντος πρόνοιαν ἢ διακόπτοντος αὐτὴν ἢ ἀρχὴν φθαρτὴν εἰσάγοντος τὴν σωματικήν, καθ᾽ ἣν καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῖς Στωϊκοῖς ἐστι σῶμα … Nemesius c. 43, pp. 125.19–127.19 (part of an extensive doxography) Περὶ τοῦ τίνων ἐστὶ πρόνοια. … ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔστι πρόνοια καὶ τί ἐστιν, εἴρηται· λείπεται δὲ εἰπεῖν, τίνων ἐστὶ πρόνοια, πότερον τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου ἢ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἢ καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα. Πλάτων μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ καθ᾽ ὅλου καὶ τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα πρόνοιαν διοικεῖν βούλεται, διαιρῶν τὸν τῆς προνοίας λόγον εἰς τρία κτλ. (126) … οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ φιλόσοφοι τὴν εἱμαρμένην καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν πρεσβεύοντες οὐδεμίαν χώραν τῇ προνοίᾳ καταλείπουσιν, ἀλλὰ ταῖς ἀληθείαις καὶ τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναιροῦσιν. (127) Δημόκριτος (68A66 DK) δὲ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (22A30 DK) καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (—) οὔτε τῶν καθ᾽ ὅλου οὔτε τῶν καθ᾽ ἕκαστα πρόνοιαν εἶναι βούλονται· οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ἀκολουθοῦσι ταῖς ἰδίαις ἀρχαῖς· ἐξ αὐτομάτου γὰρ ἡγούμενοι τὸ πᾶν τοῦτο συστῆναι, εἰκότως ἀπρονόητα φάσκουσιν εἶναι τὰ πάντα· ὧν γὰρ οὐδείς ἐστι δημιουργός, τούτων τίς ἂν εἴη προνοητής; δῆλον γὰρ ὡς αὐτομάτως ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν αὐτομάτως γινόμενα. καὶ γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως μόνης διοικεῖσθαι βούλεται τὰ κατὰ μέρος …· ταύτην γὰρ θείαν οὖσαν καὶ τοῖς γενητοῖς πᾶσιν

789

790

liber 2 caput 3

ἐνυπάρχουσαν ἑκάστῳ φυσικῶς ὑποτίθεσθαι τὴν τῶν συμφερόντων αἵρεσιν καὶ τὴν τῶν βλαπτόντων φυγήν. Sopater Schol. ad Hermogenis Status 5.3.10–12 Walz, φιλόσοφον οὖν τὸ ζήτημα, ζητοῦμεν γὰρ, εἰ κύκλος ὁ κόσμος, καὶ εἰ ὁ κόσμος ζῶν. Ambrose of Milan de Off. 1.13.47–48 Testard sed revertamur ad propositum … qua occurrimus opinioni eorum qui … putant vel nihil Deum curare de nobis, ut Epicurei dicunt, vel nescire actus hominum … (48) … proclive aestimo ut refellam cetera et primo eorum adsertionem, qui Deum putant curam mundi nequaquam habere, sicut Aristoteles adserit usque ad lunam eius descendere providentiam. cf. Lactantius Ir.D. 1.9–10 Ingremeau. Augustine Acad. 3.10.56–57 Green item scio mundum istum nostrum, aut natura corporum, aut aliqua providentia sic esse dispositum. C.D. 18.41.46 Dombart–Kalb alii (sc. mundum) mente divina, alii fortuito et casibus agi. Theodoret Prov. 1, PG 83.560B καὶ οἱ μέν, μηδὲ εἶναι παντελῶς τὸ θεῖον· οἱ δέ, εἶναι μέν, οὐδενὸς δὲ τῶν ὄντων ἐπιμελεῖσθαι· οἱ δέ, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι μὲν ἔφασαν, σμικρολόγως δὲ τοῦτο ποιεῖν, καὶ τῇ σελήνῃ περιορίζειν τὴν πρόνοιαν, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τοῦ κόσμου μέρος ὡς ἔτυχε φέρεσθαι, τῇ τῆς εἱμαρμένης ἀνάγκῃ δουλεύειν ἠναγκασμένον. cf. also CAG 6.6–7. Chapter heading: Quintilian Inst. 5.7.35 generalem alterum (sc. tractatum), in quo inter Stoicos (SVF 2.1195) et Epicuri (—) sectam secutos pugna perpetua est, regaturne providentia mundus. Inst. 2.2 ut in generalibus ‘an atomorum concursu mundus sit effectus, an providentia regatur …’ Demonax at Stob. Ecl. 2.1.11, p. 5.10–13 ἐξεταζόντων τινῶν, εἰ ὁ κόσμος ἔμψυχος … (see rest of text at A 2.2 Section E(a) General texts). Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ εἴτε ἔμψυχος οὗτος καὶ προνοίᾳ τυγχάνει θεοῦ διοικούμενος εἴτε καὶ τἀναντία. §1 Others: Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.21.5, p. 185.4–8 (SVF 2.527 on Chrysippus on the heavens) τὸ δὲ περιφερόμενον αὐτῷ ἐγκυκλίως αἰθέρα εἶναι, ἐν ᾧ τὰ ἄστρα καθίδρυται, τά τε ἀπλανῆ καὶ τὰ πλανώμενα, θεῖα τὴν φύσιν ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχα καὶ διοικούμενα κατὰ τὴν πρόνοιαν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.27 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) ἀρχὴν δὲ τῶν πάντων ὕδωρ ὑπεστήσατο, καὶ τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη. V.P. 3.71 (on Plato) κόσμον … ἔμψυχόν τε εἶναι διὰ τὸ κρεῖττον εἶναι τοῦ ἀψύχου τὸ ἔμψυχον. V.P. 7.139 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.634) οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν. V.P. 7.142–143 (SVF 2.633, 3 Boeth. 6) ὅτι δὲ καὶ ζῷον ὁ κόσμος καὶ λογικὸν καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ νοερὸν καὶ Χρύσιππος ἐν αʹ φησὶν Περὶ προνοίας (SVF 2.633) καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρός φησιν ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ (SVF 3 Apoll. 10) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 99A E.-K., 304 Theiler)· ζῷον μὲν οὕτως ὄντα, οὐσίαν ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικήν. τὸ γὰρ ζῷον τοῦ μὴ ζῴου κρεῖττον· οὐδὲν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου κρεῖττον· ζῷον ἄρα ὁ κόσμος. Βόηθος (SVF 3 Boethus 6) δέ φησι οὐκ εἶναι ζῷον τὸν κόσμον. V.P. 8.25 (on Pythagoras, 58B1 DK) καὶ γίνεσθαι ἐξ αὐτῶν (sc. στοιχείων) κόσμον ἔμψυχον, νοερόν. Philodemus Piet. (PHerc. 1428) col. iv.26–28 Henrichs (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.1076) τόν τε κόσμον | ἔμψ[υ]χον εἶναι καὶ | θεόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.434 (on Chrysippus, SVF 3.657) εἰ δ᾽ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ᾔδει τὸ ὅτι πάντα ἀγνοεῖ, πῶς περὶ πολλῶν δογματίζει, τιθεὶς τὸ ἕνα εἶναι κόσμον καὶ προνοίᾳ τοῦτον διοικεῖσθαι καὶ διόλου τρεπτὴν εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ ἄλλα παμπληθῆ; M. 9.104 (on Zeno, SVF 1.111) νοερὸς ἄρα καὶ ἔμψυχός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Lucretius DRN 5.144 (on the parts of the world) haud igitur constant divino praedita sensu, / quandoquidem neque-

liber 2 caput 3 unt vitaliter esse animata. Plutarch Adv.Col. 1115B Στράτων (fr. 35 Wehrli, 20 Sharples) οὔτ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλει κατὰ πολλὰ συμφέρεται καὶ Πλάτωνι τὰς ἐναντίας ἔσχηκε δόξας περὶ κινήσεως … καὶ τελευτῶν τὸν κόσμον αὐτὸν οὐ ζῷον εἶναί φησι, τὸ δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἕπεσθαι τῷ κατὰ τύχην … Josephus Ant. 10.277 (on the reader of the book Daniel) καὶ τοὺς Ἐπικουρείους (—) ἐκ τούτων εὑρίσκειν πεπλανημένους, οἳ τήν τε πρόνοιαν ἐκβάλλουσι τοῦ βίου καὶ θεὸν οὐκ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐπιτροπεύειν τῶν πραγμάτων, οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς μακαρίας καὶ ἀφθάρτου πρὸς διαμονὴν τῶν ὅλων οὐσίας κυβερνᾶσθαι τὰ σύμπαντα, ἄμοιρον δὲ ἡνιόχου καὶ ἀφρόντιστον τὸν κόσμον αὐτομάτως φέρεσθαι λέγουσιν. Eusebius PE 15.5.7 (from Atticus the Platonist) see below §4. §3 Ecphantus: Hippolytus Ref. 1.15 Diels (51.1 DK) τὰ μὲν πρῶτα ἀδιαίρετα εἶναι σώματα καὶ παραλλαγὰς αὐτῶν τρεῖς ὑπάρχειν, μέγεθος σχῆμα δύναμιν, ἐξ ὧν τὰ αἰσθητὰ γίνεσθαι· εἶναι δὲ τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν, ὡρισμένων κατὰ τοῦτο, ἄπειρον. κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ σώματα μήτε ὑπὸ βάρους μήτε πληγῆς, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως, ἣν νοῦν καὶ ψυχὴν προσαγορεύει. τούτου μὲν οὖν τὸν κόσμον εἶναι ἰδέαν, δι᾽ ὃ καὶ σφαιροειδῆ ὑπὸ θείας δυνάμεως γεγονέναι. τὴν δὲ γῆν μέσον κόσμου κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ αὑτῆς κέντρον ὡς πρὸς ἀνατολήν. §4 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c, latter part also cited at 1.23.2 (on Aristotle, AD fr. 9 Diels) περιέχεσθαι δὲ ταῦτα ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἔνθα τὰ θεῖα διανενεμημένα κατὰ σφαίρας ἵδρυται τῶν λεγομένων ἀπλανῶν τε καὶ πλανωμένων ἀστέρων. ὅσας δὲ εἶναι τὰς σφαίρας, τοσούτους ὑπάρχειν καὶ τοὺς κινοῦντας θεοὺς ταύτας, ὧν μέγιστον τὸν πάσας περιέχοντα, ζῷον ὄντα λογικὸν καὶ μακάριον, συνεκτικὸν καὶ προνοητικὸν τῶν οὐρανίων. συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον, οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε φθαρτόν, οὔτε αὐξόμενον οὔτε μειούμενον ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένειν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον πεπερασμένον καὶ σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἔμψυχον κινούμενον περὶ τὸ μέσον ἐγκυκλίως. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) διατείνειν δὲ αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ θεοῦ) τὴν πρόνοιαν μέχρι τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ εἶναι ἀκίνητον αὐτόν· τὰ δ᾽ ἐπίγεια κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ταῦτα συμπάθειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι. Athenagoras Leg. 25.18–20 Marcovich τοῦτο (i.e. the activities of demons) καὶ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη ἀπρονόητα εἰπεῖν τὰ κατωτέρω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐποίησεν, καίτοι τῆς ἀϊδίου ἐπ᾽ ἴσης ἡμῖν μενούσης προνοίας τοῦ θεοῦ. Origen Sel. in Psalmos MPG 12.1316A ἐντεῦθέν τινες ἀπατηθέντες τὰ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην ἀπρονόητα ἀπεφήναντο εἶναι· ὧν ἐστι καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης. Eusebius PE 15.5.1 πάλιν Μωσέως καὶ τῶν παρ᾽ Ἑβραίοις προφητῶν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ Πλάτωνος ἐν τούτοις συμφώνως τὸν περὶ τῆς τῶν ὅλων προνοίας λόγον εὐκρινῶς διατεθειμένων, ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης μέχρι σελήνης στήσας τὸ θεῖον τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ κόσμου μέρη περιγράφει τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ διοικήσεως. PE 15.5.7 (from Atticus, fr. 3 Des Places) τί οὖν, φήσαι τις ἄν, ἐν ταὐτῷ τάττεις Ἀριστοτέλην καὶ Ἐπίκουρον; … ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε τοῦτον οὔτε ἐκεῖνον δίκαιον ἐν προνοίας ἀριθμεῖσθαι λόγῳ. εἴπερ γὰρ καὶ κατ᾽ Ἐπίκουρον τὸ τῆς προνοίας οἴχεται, καίτοι τῶν θεῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὸν πᾶσαν κηδεμονίαν ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν οἰκείων ἀγαθῶν εἰσφερομένων, οὕτως ἂν οἴχοιτο καὶ κατ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλην τὸ τῆς προνοίας, εἰ καὶ τὰ κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἐν τάξει τινὶ καὶ κόσμῳ διοικεῖται. πρόνοιαν γὰρ ζητοῦμεν ἡμῖν διαφέρουσαν, ἧς οὐ μέτεστι τῷ μήτε δαίμονας μήτε ἥρωας μήτε ὅλως ἐπιδιαμένειν δύνασθαι τὰς ψυχὰς συγκεχωρηκότι. Ambrose of Milan de Off. 1.13.48 see under

791

792

liber 2 caput 3

General texts above. Epiphanius Pan. 3.508.2–7 Holl Ἀριστοτέλης ὁ Νικομάχου … ἔλεγε δὲ δύο ἀρχὰς εἶναι, θεὸν καὶ ὕλην καὶ τὰ μὲν ὑπεράνω τῆς σελήνης θείας προνοίας τυγχάνειν, τὰ δὲ κάτωθεν τῆς σελήνης ἀπρονόητα ὑπάρχειν καὶ φορᾷ τινι ἀλόγῳ φέρεσθαι ὡς ἔτυχεν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Leg. 10.889b–c πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα φύσει πάντα εἶναι καὶ τύχῃ φασίν, τέχνῃ δὲ οὐδὲν τούτων, καὶ τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα αὖ σώματα, γῆς τε καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἄστρων τε πέρι, διὰ τούτων γεγονέναι παντελῶς ὄντων ἀψύχων· τύχῃ δὲ φερόμενα τῇ τῆς δυνάμεως ἕκαστα ἑκάστων, ᾗ συμπέπτωκεν ἁρμόττοντα οἰκείως πως, θερμὰ ψυχροῖς ἢ ξηρὰ πρὸς ὑγρὰ καὶ μαλακὰ πρὸς σκληρά, καὶ πάντα ὁπόσα τῇ τῶν ἐναντίων κράσει κατὰ τύχην ἐξ ἀνάγκης συνεκεράσθη, ταύτῃ καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα οὕτως γεγεννηκέναι τόν τε οὐρανὸν ὅλον καὶ πάντα ὁπόσα κατ᾽ οὐρανόν, καὶ ζῷα αὖ καὶ φυτὰ σύμπαντα, ὡρῶν πασῶν ἐκ τούτων γενομένων, οὐ δὲ διὰ νοῦν, φασίν, οὐδὲ διά τινα θεὸν οὐδὲ διὰ τέχνην ἀλλά, ὃ λέγομεν, φύσει καὶ τύχῃ. Chapter heading: Stoics at D.L. 7.133 (not in SVF) ἑτέραν δ᾽ αὐτου (sc. κόσμου) σκέψιν εἶναι ἥτις μόνοις τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἐπιβάλλει, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητεῖται … καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος ἢ ἄψυχος … §1 Others: Plato Tim. 30b–c οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ γενέσθαι πρόνοιαν. Stoics (dialectics, SVF 2.221 at S.E. M. 8.244) ἀπὸ μὲν οὖν ἀληθοῦς ἀρχόμενον ἐπ᾽ ἀληθὲς λήγει τὸ ‘εἰ εἰσὶ θεοί, προνοίᾳ θεῶν διοικεῖται ὁ κόσμος’ Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.74 Aucher … ita movente providentia, quae, ut dicit Chrysippus (SVF 2.1150) et Cleanthes (SVF 1.548), nihil praetermisit pertinentium ad certiorem utilioremque dispensationem. Epictetus 1.12.1–2 περὶ θεῶν οἱ μέν τινές εἰσιν οἱ λέγοντες μηδ᾽ εἶναι τὸ θεῖον, οἱ δ᾽ εἶναι μέν, ἀργὸν δὲ καὶ ἀμελὲς καὶ μὴ προνοεῖν μηδενός, τρίτοι δ᾽ οἱ καὶ εἶναι καὶ προνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῶν μεγάλων καὶ οὐρανίων, τῶν δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς μηδενός· τέταρτοι δὲ οἱ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, εἰς κοινὸν δὲ μόνον καὶ οὐχὶ καὶ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ἑκάστου· πέμπτοι δ᾽, ὧν ἦν καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ Σωκράτης … Marcus Aurelius 4.3.2 ἀνανεωσάμενος τὸ διεζευγμένον τό· ἤτοι πρόνοια ἢ ἄτομοι. 6.10 ἤτοι κυκεὼν καὶ ἀντεμπλοκὴ καὶ σκεδασμὸς ἢ ἕνωσις καὶ τάξις καὶ πρόνοια. cf. 4.27, 9.28, 12.14. Plotinus Enn. 3.2[47].1.1–10 H.-S. τὸ μὲν τῷ αὐτομάτῳ καὶ τύχῃ διδόναι τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς τὴν οὐσίαν καὶ σύστασιν ὡς ἄλογον καὶ ἀνδρὸς οὔτε νοῦν οὔτε αἴσθησιν κεκτημένου, δῆλόν που καὶ πρὸ λόγου καὶ πολλοὶ καὶ ἱκανοὶ καταβέβληνται δεικνύντες τοῦτο λόγοι· τὸ δὲ τίς ὁ τρόπος τοῦ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι ἕκαστα καὶ πεποιῆσθαι, ἐξ ὧν καὶ ἐνίων ὡς οὐκ ὀρθῶς γινομένων ἀπορεῖν περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς προνοίας συμβαίνει, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ἐπῆλθε μηδὲ εἶναι εἰπεῖν, τοῖς δὲ ὡς ὑπὸ κακοῦ δημιουργοῦ ἐστι γεγενημένος, ἐπισκέψασθαι προσήκει ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὸν λόγον λαβόντας. §2 Leucippus Democritus Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.76 καὶ μὴν ἐν τοῖς μετεώροις φορὰν καὶ τροπὴν καὶ ἔκλειψιν καὶ ἀνατολὴν καὶ δύσιν καὶ τὰ σύστοιχα τούτοις μήτε λειτουργοῦντός τινος νομίζειν δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ διατάττοντος ἢ διατάξαντος καὶ ἅμα τὴν πᾶσαν μακαριότητα ἔχοντος μετὰ ἀφθαρσίας … Galen UP 11.8 ὃ δὲ δὴ πάντων μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις θαυμάσειε καὶ συγχωρήσας ἅπασαν

liber 2 caput 3 ταῖς τ᾽ Ἐπικουρείοις (fr. 382 Usener) ἀτόμοις καὶ τοῖς Ἀσκληπιαδείοις (cf. Vallance ANRW 2.37.1, p. 717) ὄγκοις τὴν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένην εὐτυχίαν τοῦτ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἔτι συγχωρήσειεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπιστήσειέ τε καί τινος ἐπιστάτου δικαίου μᾶλλον ἢ κινήσεως εὐτυχοῦς ἔργον εἶναι φήσειεν, ἡ τῶν ὀδόντων ἰσότης ἐστίν. Plotinus Enn. 2.9[33].15.8 ὁ Ἐπίκουρος τὴν πρόνοιαν ἀνελών. Lactantius Ir.D. 10.47 Ingremeau cum constet divina providentia mundum regi … nec ist quisquam, qui … Leucippi inane commentum, vel Democriti Epicurique levitatem praeferre audeat. §4 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 2.2 285a29–30 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἔμψυχος καὶ ἔχει κινήσεως ἀρχήν. Cael. 2.3 286a9–12 θεοῦ δ᾽ ἐνέργεια ἀθανασία· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ ζωὴ ἀΐδιος. ὥστ᾽ ἀνάγκη τῷ θεῷ κίνησιν ἀΐδιον ὑπάρχειν. ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοιοῦτος (σῶμα γάρ τι θεῖον), διὰ τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ ἐγκύκλιον σῶμα, ὃ φύσει κινεῖται κύκλῳ ἀεί. Alexander of Aphrodisias(?) Quaest. 2.21, p. 65.17–25 Ὅτι μὴ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἡ πρόνοια κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη (tit.). πρῴην ἡμῖν γινομένων πρὸς τοὺς ἑταίρους περὶ προνοίας λόγων, καὶ πειρωμένου μου δεικνύναι, ὅτι τέ ἐστι κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη ἀπὸ τῶν θείων τῶν θνητῶν ἐπιμέλειά τις καὶ πρόνοια, καὶ τίς, καὶ τίνα γινομένη τὸν τρόπον ὄντος ἑτοίμου λέγειν, εἶπέ τις τῶν παρόντων πρῶτον ἄξιον εἶναι μαθεῖν, πῶς ἀποκρίνασθαι δεῖ πρὸς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας, πότερα χρὴ προηγουμένως λέγειν τὰ θεῖα τῶνδε προνοεῖσθαι καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκός. οἱ γὰρ οὐ φάσκοντες εἶναι κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλη πρόνοιαν τὴν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν λεγομένην γίνεσθαι, πρόνοιαν κατὰ συμβεβηκός φασι γίνεσθαι λέγεσθαι. Quaest. 2.21, p. 68.12–22 κἀγὼ πρὸς αὐτόν· δῆλον τοίνυν, εἶπον, ἐκ τῶν ὡμολογημένων, ὅτι καθ᾽ ὃν ἄν τις τῶν ὕστερον ῥηθέντων τρόπον τὴν πρόνοιαν γίνεσθαι λέγῃ, οὔτε προηγουμένως οὔτε κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἂν αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι λέγοι. … τούτου δήλου γεγονότος δῆλον, ὡς … οὔθ᾽ ὁ κατά τινα τούτων τῶν τρόπων τὴν πρόνοιαν γίνεσθαι λέγων ἀναιρεῖ τὴν πρόνοιαν, ὡς δοκεῖ ποιεῖν ὁ κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι λέγων. τὸ γὰρ ἀφεμένους τούτων τινὶ τῶν τρόπων ἀνατιθέναι τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων τῶν ἐν γενέσει τε καὶ θνητῶν πρόνοιαν τοὺς θεοὺς λέγειν διὰ τὴν τῶν θνητῶν σωτηρίαν τὰς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας ἐνεργεῖν παντελῶς ἀλλότριον θεῶν. Quaest. 2.21, p. 70.24–71.2 ἔστι μέν, εἶπον, οὐ ῥᾴδιος ὁ περὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγος, καὶ μάλιστ᾽ ἐπεὶ μὴ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἔργον τις ἐποιήσατο τοῦτο δεῖξαι· οὐδεὶς γοῦν δόξει, ὅσα κἀμὲ εἰδέναι μὴ προηγουμένως, τῶν προαγόντων τὸν Ἀριστοτέλους λόγον περὶ τούτου τοῦ προβλήματος διειληφέναι, ὡς δεῖξαι τοῖς ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ λεγομένοις συνᾴδοντα ⟨τὰ⟩ ὑπ᾽ Ἀριστοτέλους εἰρημένα. … πειράσομαι δ᾽ ὁμοῦ τῷ περὶ τούτων λόγῳ καὶ τοὺς τὰ Πλάτωνος μὲν ὑπισχνουμένους, σφόδρα δὲ πεπεικότας ἑαυτοὺς ὡς μηδὲν Ἀριστοτέλους περὶ προνοίας εἰρηκότος, δεικνύναι ὅτι μηδὲν μετ᾽ ἐπιστάσεώς τε καὶ φροντίδος λέγουσιν.

793

Liber 2 Caput 4 PB: ps.Plutarchus 886E–F; pp. 330a13–332a5 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.35, p. 409.1–8 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.9–10, cf. 7.11.13, p. 386.1–3—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 47; p. 621.20–26 Diels; pp. 156–161 Jas—PC: Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.16– 25, 2.16.6–8, pp. 106–107 Riedweg—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 140–141, 143 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 157, p. 8 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.30, p. 37.7 Delatte (titulus solus) S : Stobaeus Ecl. 1.20.1c, p. 170.10–12 + 1.20.f, pp. 171.9–172.4 + 1.21.6c, p. 186.14–15 + 1.21.6f, p. 187.9–13 Wachsmuth T : Theodoretus CAG 4.16, p. 104.18–20; cf. 1.63, p. 21.5–6 Raeder

Titulus δʹ. Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας Ἡράκλειτος γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον. (S10–11,T1) §2 οἱ Στωικοὶ ὑπὸ θεοῦ ⟨γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον⟩. (P1) §3 Ἐπίδικος ὑπὸ φύσεως γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον. (S12) §4 Ἀρχέλαος ὑπὸ θερμοῦ καὶ ἐμψυχίας συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον. (S13) §5 Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος ἀγένητον καὶ ἀίδιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον. (P3,S3,T2,4) §6 οἱ φάμενοι δὲ τὴν διακόσμησιν αἰώνιον ὑπάρχειν περιοδευτικοὺς εἶναί φασι χρόνους, καθ᾽ οὓς κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὡσαύτως γίγνεσθαι πάντα καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν διασῴζεσθαι τοῦ κόσμου διάταξίν τε καὶ διακόσμησιν. (S4) §1 Pythagoras —; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; §2 Stoici SVF 2.575; §3 Epidicus —; §4 Archelaus 60A14 DK; §5 Xenophanes 21A37 DK; Parmenides 28A36 DK; Melissus 30A9 DK; §6 anonymi cf. SVF 2.597 titulus εἰ … κόσμος PBEGQSy : εἰ γεννητὸς ὁ κόσμος ἢ ἀγένητος· εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος PB(III: α) in marg. : εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἄφθαρτος PPs : om. S, sed vid. tit. c. 1.21 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς §1 [2–3] Πυθαγόρας … χρόνον scripsimus, cf. S 1.21.6cf, T; vid. §2[4] et comm. infra ‖ [2] Ἡράκλειτος] Ἡρακλείδης dub. Usener §2 [4] οἱ Στωικοὶ ὑπὸ θεοῦ ⟨γεγενῆσθαι τὸν κόσμον⟩ coniecimus e P : Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον PBCQ (καί γεννητὸν leg. PC; post Πυθαγόρας coni. Diels DG Mau Lachenaud (et Riedweg in ed. Cyr.) καὶ Πλάτων ex E, cf. G) : Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον PE : al. PG τὸν Πυθαγόραν τε καὶ Πλάτωνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον {καὶ πάντας τοὺς διαδεδεγμένους τούτους} (del. Jas Nic secutus) ὑπολαμβάνειν εἰρήκασιν ‖ continuat P καὶ φθαρτὸν μὲν κτλ ex §9 §3 [5] Ἐπίδικος SF : Ἐπίδεκτος SP (et Ἐπιδίκτου in marg.) §4 [6] θεοῦ S, corr. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth, prob. Laks–Most ‖ ἐμψυχίας S, ἐμψυχρίας conj. Meineke, quem secuti Diels DG et Wachsmuth, reiecit VS, DK §5 non hab. PG ‖ [7] Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος S : Ξενοφάνης PBECQ ‖ ἀγένητον PBE1 : ἀγέννητον PE2CSP, δὲ γέννητον SF ‖ καὶ ἀίδιον P : εἶναι ἀίδιον SFP ‖ [8] τὸν κόσμον PBCS : τὸν om. PE §6 [9] ante οἱ habet καὶ S, secl. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [10] ταῦτα SFP, corr. Heeren ‖ [11] αὐτὴν : αὐτοῦ SFP, corr. Diels

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_044

5

10

liber 2 caput 4

§7 §8 §9

§10 §11 §12 §13

Ἀναξίμανδρος Ἀναξιμένης Ἀναξαγόρας Ἀρχέλαος Διογένης Λεύκιππος φθαρτὸν τὸν κόσμον. (S5,T3) καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν κόσμον, κατ᾽ ἐκπύρωσιν δέ. (S6,cf.P1) Πλάτων φθαρτὸν μὲν τόν κόσμον, ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει, αἰσθητὸν γὰρ εἶναι, διότι καὶ σωματικόν, οὐ μὴν φθαρησόμενόν γε προνοίᾳ καὶ συνοχῇ θεοῦ. (P1,S1) Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητικόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ περίγεια κηραίνεται. (P4,S2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ἀντεπικράτειαν τοῦ Νείκους καὶ τῆς Φιλίας. (S7) Δημόκριτος φθείρεσθαι τὸν κόσμον τοῦ μείζονος τὸν μικρότερον νικῶντος. (S8) Ἐπίκουρος πλείστοις τρόποις τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ ὡς ζῷον καὶ ὡς φυτὸν καὶ πολλαχῶς. (P2,S9)

§7 Anaximander 12A17 DK; Anaximenes fr. 121 Wöhrle; Anaxagoras 59A65 DK; Archelaus 60A14 DK; Diogenes 64A10 DK, T23d Laks; Leucippus 67A22 DK, fr. 353 Luria; §8 Stoici SVF 2.585; §9 Plato cf. Tim. 28b–c, 41a–b; §10 Aristoteles cf. ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392a32–35; §11 Empedocles 31A52 DK; §12 Democritus 68A84 DK; §13 Epicurus fr. 305 Usener §7 [12] post Λεύκιππος add. δὲ SF §8 [14] καὶ] secl. Diels §9 [15] Πλάτων ex PEGS : deest in PBCQ, vid. supra §§1[2], 2[4] ‖ ante nomen hab. PE καὶ ‖ φθαρτὸν … κόσμον] εἶναι μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει φθαρτόν PG ‖ εἶναι PBEC : ὑπάρχειν PG ‖ [16] διότι καὶ σωματικόν S Diels : διότι καὶ σωματικός PC : διότι σωματικόν PB(I)EQ (σωματικός PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : διὰ τοῦτο καὶ σωματικόν PB(II) : διὰ τὸ σωματικόν PB(III) : om. PG §10 [18] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ μέρος τοῦ κόσμου PCQ(ut vid.)S Diels : τοῦ κόσμου μέρος PBE : τοῦ κόσμου om. PG ‖ παθητικὸν S : παθητὸν PBEC : παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν PG ‖ [19] κηραίνεται PBES (κορέννυται PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : κεράννυται PQ (nisi mendum interpr.) : περαίνεται PC : om. PG §11 [20] ⟨γίνεσθαι καὶ⟩ φθείρεσθαι perperam coni. Sturz, secuti Diels DG (sed om. in VS, DK) Wachsmuth ‖ ἀντεπικράτειαν SF : ἐπικράτειαν SP §13 [24–25] Ἐπίκουρος … πολλαχῶς S (τοὺς κόσμους coni. Meineke) : Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτόν, ὅτι καὶ (om. PEQ) γενητόν (γεννητός PC), ὡς ζῷον ὡς φυτόν PBECQ : al. PG Ἐπίκουρος δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν νομίζουσιν εἶναι, ὅτι γενητόν

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.16 4.16.1 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν γενητόν, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον, 4.16.2 (~ §5) οἱ δὲ ἀγένητον παντελῶς καὶ ἀναίτιον· 4.16.3 (~ §7) καὶ οὗτοι μὲν φθαρτόν, 4.16.4 (~ §5) ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἄφθαρτον. cf. 1.63 καὶ τὰ ὁρώμενα οἱ μὲν ἀγένητα, οἱ δὲ γενητά. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) καὶ πάλιν ἀγένητον εἶναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ μήθ᾽ ὅλως ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενέσθαι, αὐτομάτως δὲ καὶ συντυχικῶς ὑφεστά-

795

15

20

25

796

liber 2 caput 4 ναι, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἀτόμων καὶ λεπτῶν σωμάτων ἀψύχων τινῶν καὶ ἀλόγων τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σύστασιν γεγονέναι.

ps.Galenus HPh c. 47 (~ tit.) Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (text Jas) 47.1 (~ P1) τὸν Πυθαγόραν τε καὶ Πλάτωνα ὑπὸ θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον {καὶ πάντας τοὺς διαδεδεγμένους τούτους} ὑπολαμβάνει εἰρήκασιν. καὶ εἶναι μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει φθαρτόν, αἰσθητὸν γὰρ ὑπάρχειν, οὐ μὴν φθαρησόμενον προνοίᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος. 47.2 (~ P2) Ἐπίκουρος δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ φθαρτὸν νομίζουσιν {εἶναι}, ὅτι γενητόν. 47.3 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ περίγεια. Cyrillus Juln. 2.15.16–25 2.15 (quaestio) ἐπειδὴ δὲ σκοπὸς ἦν αὐτοῖς βασανίσαι πάλιν τὸ πότερόν ποτε φθαρτὸς ἂν εἴη κατὰ φύσιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ μή, δεδοξάκασιν ὧδε καὶ περὶ τούτου· 2.15.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ καὶ γενητὸν ὑπὸ θεοῦ τὸν κόσμον, καὶ φθαρτὸν μὲν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ φύσει· αἰσθητὸν γὰρ εἶναι διότι καὶ σωματικός, οὐ μὴν δὴ φθαρησόμενόν γε, προνοίᾳ καὶ συνοχῇ θεοῦ· 2.15.2 (~ P2) Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτὸν ὅτι καὶ γεννητός, ὡς ζῷον, ὡς φυτόν· 2.15.3 (~ P3) Ξενοφάνης ἀγέννητον καὶ ἀΐδιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον· 2.15.4 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν σελήνην μέρος τοῦ κόσμου παθητόν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια κηραίνεται. cf. 2.16.6–8 ἕτεροι δὲ γενητόν, εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ τούτοις εἰσάπαν ἀνθεστηκότες καὶ διάφοροι τὰς γνώμας ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον εἶναι λέγουσιν αὐτόν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 157 Εἰ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἄφθαρτος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.30 Εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 5.19 Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα καὶ εἰ φθαρτά quaestio A 1.1.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· οἷον γῆ πῦρ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ φυτὰ ζῷα· ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ πρηστῆρες ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται· καὶ ταῦτα μέντοι, οἷον ζῷα φυτά, ἀρχὴν γενέσεως ἔχει. A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 1.24 Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. A 4.7 Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας ψυχῆς. §1 A 1.3.9 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἵππασος ὁ Μεταποντῖνος ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων τὸ πῦρ· ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. … πάλιν δὲ τὸν κόσμον καὶ πάντα τὰ σώματα ὑπὸ πυρὸς ἀναλοῦσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει. ἀρχὴ οὖν τὸ πῦρ, ὅτι ἐκ τούτου τὰ πάντα· τέλος δέ, ὅτι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἀναλύεται τὰ πάντα. A 1.22.8–

liber 2 caput 4

797

9 καὶ οἱ μὲν πλείους ἀγένητον τὸν χρόνον, Πλάτων δὲ γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν. A 1.23.3 Ἡράκλειτος … κίνησιν δ᾽ ἀίδιον μὲν τοῖς ἀιδίοις φθαρτὴν δὲ τοῖς φθαρτοῖς ἀπεδίδου. A 5.19.1 καθ᾽ οὓς μὲν γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος, γενητὰ τὰ ζῷα καὶ φθαρτά εἰσιν. §5 A 1.24.1 Παρμενίδης Μέλισσος Ζήνων ἀνῄρουν γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν διὰ τὸ νομίζειν τὸ πᾶν ἀκίνητον. §7 A 1.3.2 Ἀναξίμανδρος … φησι τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τὸ ἄπειρον· ἐκ γὰρ τούτου πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο πάντα φθείρεσθαι· διὸ καὶ γεννᾶσθαι ἀπείρους κόσμους, καὶ πάλιν φθείρεσθαι εἰς τὸ ἐξ οὗ γίνονται. A 1.3.4 (de Anaxagora) ἄρχεται δ᾽ οὕτως ‘ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα ἦν, νοῦς δ᾽ αὐτὰ διῄρε καὶ διεκόσμησε’. §9 cf. A 1.5.4 Πλάτων δὲ τεκμαίρεται τὸ δοκοῦν … ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ἔσεσθαι αὐτὸν ἄφθαρτον, ἐὰν ᾖ τι ἐξωτέρω αὐτοῦ. … ἄφθαρτος δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ δύναται εἶναι, γενητὸς ὤν. A 1.22.8–9 cit. supra ad §1. §10 A 2.3.4 Ἀριστοτέλης οὔτ᾽ ἔμψυχον (sc. τὸν κόσμον) ὅλον δι᾽ ὅλου, οὔτε μὴν αἰσθητικὸν οὔτε λογικὸν οὔτε νοερὸν οὔτε προνοίᾳ διοικούμενον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια τούτων πάντων κοινωνεῖν, σφαίρας γὰρ περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς, τὰ δὲ περίγεια μηδενὸς αὐτῶν, τῆς δ᾽ εὐταξίας κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς οὐ προηγουμένως μετέχειν. A 2.17.5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. §11 A 1.3.19 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Μέτωνος Ἀκραγαντῖνος τέσσαρα μὲν λέγει στοιχεῖα, πῦρ ἀέρα ὕδωρ γῆν, δύο δ᾽ ἀρχικὰς δυνάμεις, φιλίαν τε καὶ νεῖκος.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses This chapter is unusual in the considerable discrepancies between the two main witnesses P and S. Its reconstruction is therefore difficult and the resultant text more speculative than one would wish. (1) The tradition of P is well represented with five witnesses. All of them record four doxai except G who has reduced them to three in his usual freer adaptation. In the first doxa PE has three name-labels (Pythagoras–Plato– Stoics), but Plato is missing in PBCQ. G has Pythagoras and Plato, but combines the Stoics with Epicurus in his second doxa. The first doxa begins by relating that the cosmos is γενητὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ, which suggests that the subject of the chapter is broader than what the title suggests, i.e. dealing with both the createdness and the indestructibility of the cosmos. As it stands P’s chapter gives four coherent options on its subject, but comparison with S shows that the original in A has been reorganized and drastically reduced.

798

liber 2 caput 4

(2) S has divided the lemmata that relate to this subject between his chapters 1.20 and 1.21, combining them with material from A 1.24 and AD. They form four groups: (a) S1: 1.20.1c, name-label Plato = second half of lemma 1 in P, treating the cosmos’ destructibility only, not whether it is generated. (b) S2–9: 1.20.1f = a block of eight doxai including P’s lemmata 2–3–4 in places 1–2–8, mainly treating whether the cosmos is destructible or indestructible (but the question of its origin is brought in for the ‘eternalist’ view). (c) S10: 1.21.6c, name-label Pythagoras = first half of lemma 1 in P, describing the cosmos as γενητὸς κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, i.e. discussing whether it is generated. (d) S11–13: 1.21.6f = a block of three doxai, of which the first (name-label Heraclitus) is almost identical to the previous one (Pythagoras), i.e. continuing the discussion on whether it is generated. If these last-mentioned doxai of Pythagoras and Heraclitus are reduced to one, there are 12 doxai in all. As will emerge below, there are good grounds for thinking that one doxa originally present in A was not preserved by S. (3) T gives a very concise summary of the contents of the chapter through two sets of diaereses. In the first set the doxai of Pythagoras–Heraclitus in S can clearly be recognized in the first alternative, the doxa of Xenophanes in P (with more name-labels in S) less clearly in the second. In the second set the question of the cosmos’ destructibility or indestructibility is outlined. The order is thus: γενητός, ἀγένητος, φθαρτός, ἄφθαρτος. It is surprising that he does not mention the ‘mixed’ view of Plato (cf. P1 and S1). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The question of the cosmos’ generation and destructibility is frequently cited in both rhetorical and philosophical works as a quaestio generalis (e.g. Quintilian, Marius Victorinus) or key philosophical topic in the domain of physics (e.g. Philo, Galen, Tertullian). Standard doxographical schemata were developed on the basis of analyses of the question that go back to the Peripatetic tradition as will be discussed below. A fine example is found in the introductory section of Philo’s De aeternitate mundi (text below; on this text see the detailed analysis in Runia (1981), also (2008b) 35–37 = M–R 3.293– 296). It can be summarized as follows (cf. M–R 2.355): (1a) +A +B many kosmoi Democritus, Epicurus (1b) single cosmos Stoa (2) –A –B Aristotle, Ocellus (3) +A –B Plato, Hesiod, Moses where A = subject to γένεσις, B = subject to φθορά.

liber 2 caput 4

799

This is the same kind of schema that underlies the doxographies in chs. 2.1 and 2.3, where two questions are combined in a grid. Similar doxographies using this schema are found throughout antiquity, with early examples in Varro (preserved by Servius) and Cicero Luc. 118–119. Many of these texts must be regarded as proximate to the tradition of the Placita; see the listing in section E(a). On the rich continuation of the tradition in Christian texts see the overview by Pépin (1964) 79–100, taking the doxography in Ambrose’s Exameron as starting-point. Philo adds the distinction between pluralists and unicists (cf. ch. 2.1), which is already implicit in Aristotle and recurs in doxographies in Alexander, Augustine and Simplicius. He has also updated the name-labels so that Democritus is the only remaining Presocratic philosopher. This continues in most subsequent doxographies, unless they are commenting on earlier texts in Aristotle. On the highly interesting schema contained in the recently discovered scholion to Alexander’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics see further below at section D(e). (2) Sources. The question of the origin and ultimate destiny of the whole of the physical reality that we experience is one of the key questions of Greek philosophy and its discussion goes back to the very beginnings of the philosophical tradition, as famously stated by Aristotle in his overview in Met. A.2 982b12–17 (text below section E(b) General texts). The same author cites it twice as a key dialectical πρόβλημα in the domain of natural philosophy (Top. 1.11 104b8, 1.14 105a24) and presents key dialectical-doxographical passages in his Physics (8.1 250b11–251a8) and De caelo (1.10, 3.1 298b12–299a2) with numerous references to earlier thinkers. These include Plato (Cael. 1.10 280a29–32), whose account of the cosmos’ genesis in the Timaeus (explicit references to the question of whether the cosmos has come into being or not at 27c4–5 and 28b4–7) became a seminal text in the later tradition beginning already with Theophrastus; see the reference to his views in the discussion in the Platonist Taurus recorded by John Philoponus; text below in section E(a) General texts. Philo Aet. 117–149 also records four arguments of Theophrastus against those who posit that the cosmos has both a genesis and will perish, which could go back to his Φυσικαὶ δόξαι. This text has excited a vast amount of scholarly discussion; see Sharples (1998b) 131–136, (2008) 57–59; Sedley (1998a). It was also frequently discussed in atomistic sources as a key defining doctrine in their natural philosophy, as can be seen in the remains of Leucippus–Democritus and later Epicurus. See further our remarks above at ch. 2.1 Commentary B and the references to the studies of Furley (1987), Graham (2006) and Sedley (2007).

800

liber 2 caput 4

C Chapter Heading The heading reveals continuity with the previous chapter. It too has the form of the quaestio, commencing with the conjunction εἰ, and deals with the category of quality. Just as in ch. 2.3, the formulation of the quaestio invites a diaeresis giving a positive and a negative answer, with compromise positions always a possibility. §§2–4 also touch on the question of the cosmos’ cause or origin, which will be taken up again in §6. The heading represents the majority position in the tradition of P. (In S 1.20 it is subsumed under the more general heading taken from A 1.24, Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς. There is no reference to it in the heading of S 1.21.) A marginal note in a Planudean ms. of P (Ambr. 859) records: εἰ γεννητὸς ὁ κόσμος ἢ ἀγέννητος· εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος. The scribe has perceived that the title does not cover the chapter’s contents well (the same can be said for Ps who gives a less expanded version). The options he uncovers follow the same order as in T. A philosophical treatise by Philo of Alexandria is entitled Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου, but in the opening doxography he commences ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος (text below under section E(a) General texts), i.e. exactly the same formulation of the quaestio as in the heading of this chapter. The doxography in the chapter itself covers the questions related to both the cosmos’ generation and its destruction, but the treatise focuses mostly on the latter. In the absence of evidence from S, however, the title cannot be considered wholly certain. Like Philo, A may have chosen just one of the four options for his title. But it is possible that he may also have chosen two, e.g. Εἰ γενητὸς καὶ εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. One might compare the title of ch. 5.19 Περὶ ζῴων γενέσεως, πῶς ἐγένοντο ζῷα, καὶ εἰ φθαρτά. In the absence of further evidence, however, P’s title must be retained. We note that a similarly incomplete title is found in the chapter on the indestructibility of the soul at A 4.7. D Analysis a Context The next question to be asked of the cosmos is its origin and its destiny. The question can be asked in terms of time, is it generated and will it come to an end, and in terms of causation, by whom or out of what was it generated, and how or by what will it be destroyed. Both approaches will be taken in this chapter. The question was already raised in the introductory chapter 1.4, Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. There is also a clear link with ch. 1.24, Περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς, as de facto noted by S. As just noted above, there is also a parallel chapter for living beings as microcosms, ch. 5.19. This chapter refers explicitly to the views of philosophers (without name-labels) on the same questions relating to the cosmos.

liber 2 caput 4

801

b Number–Order of Lemmata The order of the lemmata in P and S does not correspond, as can be seen in the following table: P1 = S1 P2 = S9 P3 = S3 P4 = S2 Diels in his reconstruction gave priority to the order in P. However, it is very likely that S preserves the order in his two main blocks (see the examples given in M–R 1.226–231). Our reconstruction preserves the order of these two blocks with two exceptions: (i) the Aristotelian doxa at the beginning of the first block (S2, cf. P4) seems out of place; (ii) an explanation must be given for the namelabel of the Stoics in P1, which cannot be explained through its occurrence in S6 as part of the first block. It is important to recognize, as noted above in section B, that the subject of the chapter is exceedingly common in doxographical texts. Through his knowledge of this tradition P may have been encouraged to deviate from A in his abridgement. The attribution to the Stoics of a view on the cosmos’ destructibility that is patently Platonic gives rise to suspicions that P has joined together doxai that were originally separate. It is to be noted that G moves the namelabel of the Stoics to the next doxa of Epicurus, which, as the doxographies of Philo and Alexander show, is in fact more accurate (but incomplete since it does not take the difference between multiple kosmoi and a single cosmos into account). This too may have been an initiative of the epitomator based on knowledge of the doxographical tradition (there can no question of G deriving this insight from S). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The structure of the chapter can be understood as follows. (i) The first doxa presents the view that the cosmos is conceptually, not temporally generated (there does not appear to have been a doxa that it was generated in an unqualified sense). This doxa attributed to Heraclitus is the first of the three doxai in S’s second block. As we saw, it should be linked to the Pythagorean doxa cited just a little earlier. (ii) The next two doxai in S’s block move to the question of the cosmos’ causal origin. The two views are that it was caused by nature (attributed to the obscure Epidicus; see further under D(d)§3) and by heat and ensoulment (Archelaus). However, there is also a causal view in P’s first lemma that the cosmos is γενητὸς

802

liber 2 caput 4

ὑπὸ θεοῦ which is unaccounted for. We propose that it was linked to the namelabel of the Stoics preserved by P and represents a third view on the cosmos’ causal origin. It is logical to place it first as the overtly theological view, followed by two others that are more ‘physical’. P will have combined it with §1 and §9 in our reconstruction. S will have left it out because he thought the views of the Stoa had already been sufficiently accounted for at S 1.20.1e and 1.21.5 (both extracts from AD). (iii) A then turns to the view that the cosmos is everlasting a parte ante et post. S’s first block can be integrally taken over, except that its first lemma with the name-label Aristotle (last in P) does not appear to fit in well. It is better left to later in the chapter, where the cosmos’ passibility is discussed (S must have seen a link with the cosmic generation and decay taken from 1.24 and AD, and so brought it forward). The assignment of the view that the cosmos has no beginning or end to the Eleatic tradition goes back to Aristotle Cael. 3.1 (where only Melissus and Parmenides are mentioned, not Xenophanes), who accuses them of not speaking φυσικῶς (text below). In later tradition this view is associated with Aristotle himself; cf. Cic. Luc. 119 and Philo Aet. 10–11 (but the earlier view is still found at Prov. 2.48). The second view in §6 is not given a namelabel. The view of an eternal succession of kosmoi is outlined by Aristotle in Cael. 1.10 and 3.1 with reference to Empedocles and Heraclitus (texts below). But he does not specify the exact repetition of worlds, a doctrine which later comes to be associated with the Stoa (explicitly in Philo). Von Arnim includes this section as a Stoic fragment in his collection (SVF 2.597), but it is far from certain that A had the Stoics in mind, given their reappearance in §8. (iv) From the fourth doxa in S’s block onwards the subject of the cosmos’ destructibility is treated, beginning with the unqualified view. As in ch. 2.1, S reveals a lengthy list of Presocratic name-labels which are deleted by P and replaced by the name-label of Epicurus, which he takes over from the final doxa §13. Thereafter there are three views are given in which the destructibility of the cosmos is qualified: Stoics, Plato and then the Aristotelian doxa. The Stoic view is truncated because it does not mention the cyclical nature of the cosmos’ destruction (this also occurs in Cic. Luc. 119). The Platonic view is presented in the standard Middle Platonist formulation based ultimately on the Timaeus. See for example Philo Aet. 13, who cites Tim. 41a. This interpretation goes back to Aristotle. See further the texts cited in section E below. Aristotle is not given his usual role of defending the cosmos’ eternity (cf. Cic. Luc. 119, Philo Aet. 10– 11), but represents a third qualified view, admitting passibility for part of the cosmos (but presumably not the whole). (v) The last three doxai in S’s block treat the cosmos’ destruction from the causal viewpoint. Empedocles’ view is placed here, rather than with the eter-

liber 2 caput 4

803

nalists (as in Arist. Cael. 1.10). Democritus illustrates the atomist viewpoint (hence his name was left out in the list in §7). The final doxa with the namelabel Epicurus differs in that it emphasizes the various possibilities of cosmic destruction. On four other occasions Epicurus is placed last with a doxa emphasizing multiple possibilities (which we have called a ‘modal’ view, cf. M– R 2.326): see also chs. 2.2.5, 2.13.15, 2.22.4, 3.15.11. Unlike in these other texts, however, the key term ἐνδέχεσθαι is not used. For the divergence of the doxa attributed to Epicurus in P see below D(d)§13. If this reconstruction is accepted, it emerges that the chapter presents a symmetrical arrangement, as also suggested by T’s very brief summary. It can be summarised as follows (see also the diagram at M–R 2.362): A

B

C

cosmos γενητός 1 with regard to time a but not in time (= §1) 2 with regard to cause a by God (= §2) b by nature (= §3) c by heat/ensoulment (= §4) cosmos ἀίδιος 1 unconditionally (= §5) 2 conditionally, i.e. periodically (= §6) cosmos φθαρτός 1 unconditionally (= §7) 2 conditionally a in ἐκπύρωσις (= §8) b φθαρτόν/οὐ φθαρησόμενον (= §9) c partial γένεσις/φθορά (= §10) 3 with regard to cause a through νεῖκος/φιλία (= §11) b through collision (= §12) c through diverse ways (= §13)

The symmetry of the structure is very striking and must surely have been the result of deliberate planning. The result is that the chapter diverges quite markedly from other treatments of the subject. See further our remarks in B above and D(e) below.

804 d

liber 2 caput 4

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The two formulas at S 1.20.6c & 6f, γενητὸν κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν κόσμον, οὐ κατὰ χρόνον (Pythagoras) and οὐ κατὰ χρόνον εἶναι γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλὰ κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν (Heraclitus) amount to the same. Preference is to be given to the former on account of T’s evidence. The attribution of the view to Pythagoras can be understood through his connection to the later Platonic tradition, in which the interpretation of Plato’s presentation of the genesis of the cosmos was discussed from Aristotle onwards. See the discussion of this text in Burkert (1972) 71, Baltes (1976) 94–96. Both scholars see a significant role for the early Academy (Speusippus, Xenocrates) in this development. The phrase κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν occurs in various doxographical texts, including Stob. Ecl. 1.11.4, p. 132.10 (Arius Didymus on Aristotle), D.L. 7.135 (Posidonius), Alc. Did. 9.1 (Plato). It often introduces a contrast, the precise nature of which is determined by the context. Here the contrast is between ‘in thought’ and ‘in reality’ (cf. κατὰ ἀλήθειαν at Proclus in Tim. 1.290.7 cited below in section E(b)§1). In Tertullian Apol. 11.5 a contrast is made between Pythagoras for whom the cosmos is uncreated and Plato for whom it is created. The attribution to Heraclitus, on the other hand, is puzzling and runs counter to his usual place in the tradition, as indicated by texts commencing with Arist. Cael. 1.10 279b16. Usener’s suggestion that the name-label may have been Heraclides is thus understandable but far too risky to be taken over (it is considered plausible by Cherniss 1944, 423 n. 356). §2 The verb in the conjecture has to remain uncertain. From P the supplement ὑπὸ θεοῦ γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον is possible, but in the light of §§3–4 a verb is to be preferred above an adjective. §3 The name-label Epidicus is unknown from elsewhere and must be regarded as suspect. But it occurs in Photius’ list at Bibl. 167 155.35 Henry, so must have been present in his copy of S. This evidence confirms that the reading Ἐπίδικος in ms. F should be preferred above that of Ἐπέδεκτος in ms. P (and Ἐπιδίκτου in the margin). §4 The doxa has been theologized in the mss. of S. Our text follows Heeren in emending θεοῦ to θερμοῦ. But we do not make the further step of emending to ἐμψυχρίας, as conjectured by Meineke (and initially accepted by Diels and Wachsmuth) because this noun occurs nowhere in Greek literature. §5 The variants ἀγέννητον/γεννητόν in PC and S are not so likely in the light of §1. §7 Of the six name-labels here only one does not occur in the list of thinkers who subscribe to an infinite number of kosmoi in A 2.1.3. But no link is made with that question here. See the comment further below D(e).

liber 2 caput 4

805

It is not impossible that S preserves an additional name-label from this doxa at S 21.2, p. 172.9: Φιλόλαος ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. λέγει γοῦν οὕτως ἐν τῷ Περὶ ψυχῆς κτλ. For this to be the case he must have deleted it when writing out the doxa earlier because he knew he would be citing a text from Philolaus a little later. However, it seems more likely that he writes out Philolaus’ view in the standard terminology of this question as an introduction to the text he is about to cite. §9 We note that at the end of A 1.5.4 in a Platonic doxa on the unicity of the universe, A himself presents the counter argument that the cosmos cannot be ἄφθαρτος because it is γενητός. §10 This doxa can be linked to Aristotle’s doctrine that natural catastrophes only occur in the sublunary realm; cf. Mete. 1.14, Met. Λ. 8 1074a38–b14, De philosophia fr. 8 Ross. §11 Sturz’s conjecture ⟨γίνεσθαι καὶ⟩ φθείρεσθαι must be rejected because he has not taken the structure of the chapter into account. The doxai in this final part of the chapter treat the aspect of destruction only. For other considerations against the conjecture see O’Brien (2000). §13 There is a considerable divergence between the formulation of the doxa attributed to Epicurus as found in P and in S. In S’s block of eight lemmata the doxa follows neatly from the previous one (in fact the words τὸν κόσμον φθείρεσθαι may have been added by S). The text in P, Ἐπίκουρος φθαρτόν, ὅτι καὶ γενητόν, ὡς ζῷον ὡς φυτόν, shares only the name-label and the two illustrations. On the basis of its content, which is perfectly acceptable, it would have to be placed after §7. However, a choice has to be made between the two and it would seem much easier to explain how P might have altered the original then how S did it. Because P has drastically reduced this chapter he needed a representative for the destructionist view and the fact that Epicurus held this view was well known. As noted above in section B, this doxography was among the best known in the entire φυσικὸς λόγος. It must be agreed with Bottler (2014) 307, however, that if we are correct, this chapter is a (rare) case where P has not just shortened his original but considerably reworded and restructured it. e Other Evidence It would not be difficult in the least to devote an entire monograph to the variations and vicissitudes of this doxography alone, particularly if the links with the related doxographies on the first principles (ch. 1.3), theology (ch. 1.7) and the number and extent of the cosmos (ch. 2.1) are further explored. A’s doxography stands squarely within a broad and complex tradition, but also reveals various particular features of its own. We have already mentioned above the symmetrical structure of the chapter. Two further aspects deserve comment.

806

liber 2 caput 4

(1) Unlike Alexander and Simplicius (and to a lesser extent Philo), A does not link up his treatment with the aspect of single and multiple worlds discussed in ch. 2.1. Though not made explicit, the term κόσμος clearly refers to the world we experience. Only the final Epicurean doxa appears to deviate from this (unless the verb φθείρεσθαι in §§12–13 is taken in a future sense). (2) A striking aspect of the chapter as we have reconstructed it is the inclusion of the aspect of causation for both the cosmos’ genesis and its destruction, which looks back to the chapters on principles, cosmology and theology in chs. 1.3–7, but also anticipates the theme of demiurgic creation in 2.6. Brief texts in Quintilian and Galen PHP 9.7.9 demonstrate that this aspect was seen as intrinsic to the quaestio, as is the aspect of time in other formulations. The theme of causation is also prominent in the Philonic doxography, as we might expect from such a theologically preoccupied thinker. We note that it is also prominent in G’s untitled chapter 17, which is not drawn directly from the Placita tradition, but shares many themes with it. Here it is the renewed cosmos after the ecpyrosis that occurs ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (p. 609.20 Diels, text below section B(a) General texts). It is also to be observed that Achilles and the other Aratea do not contain any traces of this doxography, only discussing the ἀρχαί in chs. 1 and 3. This is because the commentator regards Aratus’ cosmos as a given and is not concerned with its genesis or possible subsequent fate. One might compare the De mundo, but this work does refer to the difference between the supra-lunary and the sub-lunary world (text below section E(b)§10) and clearly assumes the Aristotelian doctrine of the everlasting cosmos. Of particular interest is the recently discovered fragment from Alexander’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (fr. 539 Rashed) which we have already discussed in relation to A 2.1.2–3; see ch. 2.1 Commentary D(e). The text consists of six different tenets involving both generation and destruction in combination with multiple kosmoi and a single cosmos. It has been thoroughly studied first by its editor Rashed (2011) 488–491 and very recently by Laks (2018). As can be seen from the text cited below in section E(a) General texts, they disagree markedly on its interpretation. Rashed wishes to emend the text in the third, fourth and fifth tenet. Laks shows that these emendations are based on a faulty understanding of its systematics, and argues convincingly that the fourth and fifth belong together as a single view if a second reference to Plato was added. The overlap of Alexander’s schema with A’s chapter is limited, primarily because it exclusively deals with the combination of generation and destruction, whereas A with the exception of §5 treats them separately (it is closer to, though richer than, Philo’s in Aet. 7–19). The one Eleatic tenet that they hold in common is in the middle of A 2.4 but occurs at the end of the scholion while

liber 2 caput 4

807

the atomist view of multiple kosmoi begins the scholion’s list but in A brings up the rear. Of most interest is the Platonic doxa at §9 where the double formulation (μὲν … οὐ μήν) sheds light on the difference between the fourth and fifth tenet—or as Laks argues, tenets 4a and 4b—and is used to justify his conjecture; see (2018) 414, 419. The overlap of name-labels is much greater: only Metrodorus is missing in A, Leucippus and Melissus in Alexander. Ultimately both doxographies derive from Aristotle, but take differing paths. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Varro see the text of Servius cited below. Cicero Luc. 118– 119 princeps Thales (fr. 71 Wöhrle) … ex aqua dixit constare omnia. at hoc Anaximander (12A9 DK) populari et sodali suo non persuasit; is enim infinitatem naturae dixit esse e qua omnia gignerentur. post eius auditor Anaximenes (13A9 DK) … Anaxagoras (59A49 DK) … Xenophanes (21A4 DK) paulo etiam antiquior unum esse omnia, neque id esse mutabile, et id esse dei neque natum umquam et sempiternum conglobata figura … Melissus (30A9 DK) hoc quod esset infinitum et immutabile et fuisse semper et fore. Plato ex materia in se omnia recipiente mundum factum esse censet a deo sempiternum. Pythagorei (—) ex numeris et mathematicorum initiis proficisci volunt omnia. … (119) erit ei (sc. the Stoic) persuasum … fore tamen aliquando ut omnis hic mundus ardore deflagret. … cum enim tuus iste Stoicus Pythagorei (—) sapiens syllabatim tibi ista dixerit, veniet flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles (de Phil. fr. 20 Ross) qui illum desipere dicat; neque enim ortum esse umquam mundum quod nulla fuerit novo consilio inito tam praeclari operis inceptio, et ita esse eum undique aptum ut nulla vis tanto queat motus mutationemque moliri, nulla senectus diuturnitate temporum exsistere ut hic ornatus umquam dilapsus occidat. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 3–19 ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος … §7 τριτταὶ δὲ περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου γεγόνασι δόξαι, τῶν μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν κόσμον φαμένων, ἀγένητόν τε καὶ ἀνώλεθρον, τῶν δὲ ἐξ ἐναντίας γενητόν τε καὶ φθαρτόν· εἰσὶ δ᾽ οἳ παρ᾽ ἑκατέρων ἐκλαβόντες, τὸ μὲν γενητὸν παρὰ τῶν ὑστέρων παρὰ δὲ τῶν προτέρων τὸ ἄφθαρτον, μικτὴν δόξαν ἀπέλιπον, γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον οἰηθέντες αὐτὸν εἶναι. (8) Δημόκριτος (fr. 351 Luria) μὲν οὖν καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 304 Usener) καὶ ὁ πολὺς ὅμιλος τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς φιλοσόφων γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν ἀπολείπουσι τοῦ κόσμου, πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἱ μὲν γὰρ πολλοὺς κόσμους ὑπογράφουσιν, ὧν τὴν μὲν γένεσιν ἀλληλοτυπίαις καὶ ἐπιπλοκαῖς ἀτόμων ἀνατιθέασι, τὴν δὲ φθορὰν ἀντικοπαῖς καὶ προσράξεσι τῶν γεγονότων· οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.620) κόσμον μὲν ἕνα, γενέσεως δ᾽ αὐτοῦ θεὸν αἴτιον, φθορᾶς δὲ μηκέτι θεόν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι πυρὸς ἀκαμάτου δύναμιν χρόνων μακραῖς περιόδοις ἀναλύουσαν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἑαυτήν, ἐξ ἧς πάλιν ἀναγέννησιν κόσμου συνίστασθαι προμηθείᾳ τοῦ τεχνίτου. (9) δύναται δὲ κατὰ τούτους ὁ μέν τις κόσμος ἀίδιος, ὁ δέ τις φθαρτὸς λέγεσθαι, φθαρτὸς μὲν ὁ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν, ἀίδιος δὲ ὁ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν παλιγγενεσίαις καὶ περιόδοις

808

liber 2 caput 4

ἀθανατιζόμενος οὐδέποτε ληγούσαις. (10) Ἀριστοτέλης (de Phil. fr. 18 Ross) δὲ μήποτ᾽ εὐσεβῶς καὶ ὁσίως ἐνιστάμενος ἀγένητον καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἔφη τὸν κόσμον εἶναι … (12) ἔνιοι δ᾽ οὐκ Ἀριστοτέλην τῆς δόξης εὑρετὴν λέγουσιν ἀλλὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινάς … (13) γενητὸν δὲ καὶ ἄφθαρτόν φασιν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος ἐν Τιμαίῳ δηλοῦσθαι … (17) πατέρα δὲ τοῦ Πλατωνείου δόγματος ἔνιοι νομίζουσι τὸν ποιητὴν Ἡσίοδον, γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον οἰόμενοι τὸν κόσμον ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου λέγεσθαι … (19) μακροῖς δὲ χρόνοις πρότερον ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων νομοθέτης Μωϋσῆς γενητὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον ἔφη τὸν κόσμον ἐν ἱεραῖς βίβλοις. cf. Ebr. 199 οἱ τὸν κόσμον ἀγένητον τοῖς γενητὸν ἀποφαινομένοις. Her. 246 ὥσπερ οἱ ἀγένητον εἶναι λέγοντες τὸ πᾶν τοῖς γένεσιν εἰσηγουμένοις αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάλιν οἱ φθαρήσεσθαι τοῖς φθαρτὸν μὲν εἶναι φύσει, μηδέποτε δὲ φθαρησόμενον διὰ τὸ κραταιοτέρῳ δεσμῷ, τῇ τοῦ πεποιηκότος βουλήσει, συνέχεσθαι. Seneca De otio, Dial. 8.4.2 (quaeramus) … inmortalis sit mundus an inter caduca et ad tempus nata numerandus. Quintilian Inst. 7.2.2 ut in (sc. quaestionibus) generalibus ‘an atomorum concursu mundus sit effectus, an providentia regatur, an sit aliquando casurus’. Theophilus of Antioch ad Autol. 2.8 ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς κοσμογονίας ἀσύμφωνα ἀλλήλοις καὶ φαῦλα ἐξεῖπον. πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τινὲς ἀγένητον τὸν κόσμον ἀπεφήναντο, καθὼς καὶ ἔμπροσθεν ἐδηλώσαμεν, καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀγένητον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀΐδιον φύσιν φάσκοντες οὐκ ἀκόλουθα εἶπον τοῖς γενητὸν αὐτὸν δογματίσασιν. εἰκασμῷ γὰρ ταῦτα καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ ἐννοίᾳ ἐφθέγξαντο, καὶ οὐ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν. Galen Propr.Plac. 2, p. 172.31–32 Boudon-Millot πότερον ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ γεννητός … ⟨ἀγνοεῖν φημι⟩. Med.exper. 19.3 Walzer ‘Let us … reflect upon that which concerns the universe, and consider what may be said about it, whether it is originated or not originated.’ Loc.Aff. 3.5, p. 8.159.2–6 Kühn καὶ περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς ὁμοίως, ὥσπέρ γε καὶ περὶ … τοῦ γεννητὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, ἢ ἀγέννητον. Pecc.Dig. 3.4, p. 46.23 De Boer οὐ μὴν εἰ γέγονεν ἢ ἀγέννητος ὁ κόσμος ἐστί, δύναται τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ μαρτυρῆσαι. PHP 9.7.9 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἰ γεννητὸς ἢ ἀγέννητος ὅδε ὁ κόσμος, ὥσπερ γε καὶ εἰ γεγονότος αὐτοῦ θεός τις ἐγένετο δημιουργὸς ἢ θεὸς μὲν οὐδείς, αἰτία δέ τις ἄλογός τε καὶ ἄτεχνος εἰργάσατο κατὰ τύχην οὕτως καλὸν αὐτόν. Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.10–23 (on Aristotle, cf. 279b12) καὶ γὰρ περὶ μὲν τὸ γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον πάντας ὁμογνωμονεῖν φησι τούς τε θεολόγους καὶ τοὺς φυσικούς· τῶν δὲ γεγονέναι λεγόντων αὐτὸν οἱ μὲν ἀίδιον λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ Ὀρφεὺς καὶ Ἡσίοδος καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ Πλάτων, ὥς φησιν Ἀλέξανδρος· τινὲς δὲ τῶν γενητὸν λεγόντων φθαρτὸν λέγουσι, διχῶς δὲ τοῦτο· οἱ μὲν γὰρ οὕτως φθαρτόν, ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν συνισταμένων ἀτόμων, … οἱ δὲ ἐναλλὰξ γίνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ πάλιν γενόμενον πάλιν φθείρεσθαι λέγουσι, καὶ ἀίδιον εἶναι τὴν τοιαύτην διαδοχήν, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὴν Φιλίαν λέγων καὶ τὸ Νεῖκος παρὰ μέρος ἐπικρατοῦντα τὴν μὲν συνάγειν τὰ πάντα εἰς ἓν καὶ φθείρειν τὸν τοῦ Νείκους κόσμον καὶ ποιεῖν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸν σφαῖρον, τὸ δὲ Νεῖκος διακρίνειν πάλιν τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ ποιεῖν τὸν τοιοῦτον κόσμον. In Phys. lib. 8 scholion 539 Rashed (on 250b18), see text above on ch. 2.1 section E(a) General texts. Tertullian Apol. 47.8 Dekkers sic et de ipso mundo, natus innatusve sit, decessurus mansurusve sit, variant. Minucius Felix Oct. 34.1–4 Kytzler ceterum de incendio mundi aut

liber 2 caput 4 improvisum ignem cadere aut diffindi caelum non credere vulgaris erroris est. (2) quis enim sapientium dubitat, quis ignorat omnia, quae orta sunt, occidere, quae facta sunt, interire? caelum quoque cum omnibus quae caelo continentur, ita ut coepisse desinere fontium dulcis aqua maria nutrire, in vim ignis abiturum Stoicis (SVF 2.595) constans opinio est, quod consumpto umore mundus hic omnis ignescat; (3) et Epicureis (—) de elementorum conflagratione et mundi ruina eadem ipsa sententia est. (4) ⟨…⟩ loquitur Plato: partes orbis nunc inundare, dicit nunc alternis vicibus ardescere et, cum ipsum mundum perpetuum et insolubilem diceret esse fabricatum, addit tamen ipsi artifici deo soli et solubilem et esse mortalem. ita nihil mirum est, si ista moles ab eo, quo exstructa est, destruatur. ps.Galen HPh ch. 17, pp. 609.12–610.1 Diels τὸν κόσμον οἱ μὲν γενητὸν εἶναι νομίσαντες τὸν θεὸν ἔφασαν γενονέναι τούτου δημιουργόν. ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν γενητὸν εἶναι συγκεχωρηκότες οὐχ ὁμοίως περὶ τοῦ τέλους κεκρίκασιν. ἀλλὰ Πλάτων μὲν ἀνώλεθρον εἶναι νομίζει καὶ ἀθάνατον διὰ τὴν εὐτεχνίαν τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Στωικοὶ (—) δὲ φθορᾶς ἐπιδεκτικὸν εἶναι ⟨καὶ⟩ διὰ πυρὸς γίνεσθαι τούτου τὴν μεταβολὴν εἰς τὸ ἄπειρον χεομένου κατά τινα χρόνον τῆς ὕλης ἀναπαυομένης καὶ τῆς ἐνεργείας λῆξιν λαμβανούσης. αὖθις δὲ τῶν ὄντων ἀνανεουμένων ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ μεταβαλλόντων κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς εἰς τὴν τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων φύσιν καὶ πάλιν συγκρινομένων καὶ σωματοποιουμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πάντων ἐκ νέας κοσμοποιουμένων. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 220 Usener (on Phars. 7.1) potest secundum Platonem intellegi qui natum quidem tradit esse mundum, sed non interiturum. diverse Stoici (SVF 2.586) et Epicurei (fr. 304 Usener), qui et natum esse et periturum afirmant. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.56, p. 131.16–24 Marchesi mundum quidam ex sapientibus aestimant neque esse natum neque ullo esse in tempore periturum; immortalem nonnulli, quamvis eum conscribant esse gnatum et genitum; tertiis vero conlibitum dicere est, et esse natum et genitum et ordinaria necessitate periturum. et cum ex istis opinionibus trinis unam esse necesse sit veram, cunctis tamen argumenta non desunt quibus et sua decreta confirment et aliorum subripiant et labefaciant scita. Lactantius Inst. 2.10.17–25 Monat Aristoteles autem labore se ac molestia liberavit dicens semper fuisse mundum: itaque et humanum genus et cetera quae in eo sunt initium non habere, sed fuisse semper ac semper fore … (25) quae si vera sunt, non poterit defendere Aristoteles (?) quominus habuerit et mundus ipse principium. quod si Aristoteli Plato et Epicurus (fr. 304 Usener) extorquent, et Platoni et Aristoteli qui semper fore mundum putaverunt, licet sint eloquentes, ingratis tamen idem Epicurus eripiet quia sequitur ut habeat et finem. Inst. 7.1.7–10 Brandt nam Aristoteles (de Phil. fr. 20 Ross) … semper ait fuisse mundum ac semper futurum … (9) sed et omne quod sub visum oculorum venit, et corporale, ut ait Plato, et solubile sit necesse est. (10) unus igitur Epicurus (fr. 304 Usener) auctore Democrito veridicus in hac re fuit, qui ait et ortum aliquando et aliquando esse periturum. Marius Victorinus 1.46, p. 114.22–28 Riesenweber ergo … ex his, quae in opinione sunt posita, probabile colligitur argumentum, si dicas … mundum natum, mundum non esse natum. {istae opiniones δόγματα dicuntur; δοκῶ

809

810

liber 2 caput 4

enim Graece opinor et δόγμα opinio nuncupatur}[del. Orelli Riesenweber, perhaps wrongly]. adeo manifestum est omnia, quae in mundo aguntur, argumentis probabilibus persuaderi, quando etiam philosophorum professionibus ex opinione nomen inpositum est, ut δόγματα dicantur. Scholia in Basilium I 15 Pasquali Πυθαγορικοὶ Πλατωνικοὶ Ἀριστοτελικοὶ μάλιστα· οὗτοι γὰρ πάντες οὐ φθείρουσι κόσμον· οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—), φθείροντες ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει τὴν διακόσμησιν (καθάπερ πρότερον καὶ ὁ σκοτεινὸς Ἡράκλειτος (—)), οὐκ ἂν ἡμᾶς διασύροιεν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι (—)· καὶ γὰρ οὗτοι λύεσθαί φασι τὸν κόσμον, τῆς τῶν ἀτόμων ἀντεμπλοκῆς τῷ χρόνῳ διάστασιν δεχομένης. Anon. (Porphyry?) in Categorias, Archimedes-palimps. fol. 78v + 75r10–18 ἢ γὰρ γενητός ἐστι καὶ φθαρτὸς ὡς τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος (—) ἐδόκει, ἢ οὔτε γενητὸς οὔτε φθαρτὸς ὡς τῷ Ἀριστοτέλει ἔδοξεν, καὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι ὥς τινες οἴονται, ἢ γενητὸς μὲν ἄφθαρτος δέ, ὤς ἔνιοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων, καὶ Πλάτωνα δέ τινες οὕτω φέρερσθαι νομίζουσιν, ἢ ἀγένητος ἐστι φθαρτὸς δέ. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηδεὶς ταύτης προέστη τῆς αἱρέσεως, αλλ᾽ ἥ γε πρότασις ἔστιν, ὥστε εἶναι ἁπάσας τέσσαρας. Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.1.3–4 Schenkl ipsumque mundum semper fuisse et fore Aristoteles usurpat dicere: contra autem Plato non semper fuisse et semper fore praesumit adstruere, plurimi vero non fuisse semper nec semper fore scriptis suis testificantur. inter has dissensiones eorum quae potest veri esse aestimatio … Augustine Acad. 3.10.56– 58 Green, item scio mundum istum nostrum … aut semper fuisse et fore, aut coepisse esse minime desiturum; aut ortum ex tempore non habere, sed habiturum esse finem; aut et manere coepisse et non perpetuo esse mansurum. C.D. 12.12.1–4 Dombart–Kalb alii vero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, sive non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur, sive solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum intervallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere … cf. C.D. 18.41.42–46 pro sua quisque opinione certabant, … ipsum autem unum (sc. mundum) alii ortum esse, alii vero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum. Servius auctus in Georg. 2.336, p. 3.1.248 Thilo si crescit (sc. mundus), deficit: in quo videtur secutus Epicurum, qui ait: omnia, quae orta, occidunt et aucta senescunt. Varro autem in satura quae scribitur de salute (Sat.Menipp. fr. 84 Astbury) ait mundum haud natum esse neque mori. Plato autem non natum aut mori. Metrodorus (—) autem neque natum neque mori. Zenon (—) ex hoc mundo quamvis aliqua intereant, tamen ipsum perpetuo manere quia inhaereant ei elementa e quibus generantur materiae ut dixit crescere quidem sed ad interitum non pervenire manentibus elementis a quibus revalescant. John Philoponus in APo. 238.28 οἷον ὅταν μὲν ζητῶμεν, εἰ τύχοι, περὶ οὐρανοῦ … ὅταν δὲ πότερον ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ, τὸ ποτέ. Simplicius in Phys. 1121.2–1122.3 (on Phys. 8.1 250b18–23 doxography on motion and cosmology; from Alexander of Aphrodisias) πάλιν ὅτι ἀναγκαία ἡ περὶ τῆς ἀιδιότητος ζήτησις παραδείκνυσι λέγων, τίνες μὲν τῶν φυσικῶν ἀίδιον ὑπέθεντο τὴν κίνησιν, τίνες δὲ οὐκ ἀίδιον, πρὸς τὰς περὶ τῶν κόσμων ὑποθέσεις καὶ τὰ περὶ τῆς κινήσεως προσαρμόσαντες. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει τοὺς κόσμους ὑποθέμενοι, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A17 DK) καὶ Λεύκιππον (—) καὶ Δημόκριτον (fr. 300 Luria) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον (fr. 306 Usener) γινομένους αὐτοὺς καὶ φθειρομένους ὑπέθεντο ἐπ᾽ ἄπει-

liber 2 caput 4 ρον ἄλλων μὲν ἀεὶ γινομένων ἄλλων δὲ φθειρομένων, καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἀίδιον ἔλεγον· ἄνευ γὰρ κινήσεως οὐκ ἔστι γένεσις ἢ φθορά. τῶν δὲ ἕνα μόνον κόσμον λεγόντων οἱ μὲν ἀγένητόν τε ἀπὸ χρόνου καὶ ἄφθαρτον αὐτὸν λέγοντες ἀίδιον καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ὑπετίθεντο, ὥσπερ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· γενητὸν δὲ καὶ φθαρτὸν τὸν ἕνα κόσμον ποιοῦσιν, ὅσοι ἀεὶ μέν φασιν εἶναι κόσμον, οὐ μὴν τὸν αὐτὸν ἀεί, ἀλλὰ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ὡς Ἀναξιμένης (13A11 DK) τε καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (T 269 Mouraviev) καὶ Διογένης (fr. 23c Laks) καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.576). καὶ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ περὶ κινήσεως οὗτοι τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχουσι δόξαν· ὅτε γὰρ κόσμος ἦν, τότε κίνησιν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) δέ, εἰ μὲν κατὰ τὸ σχῆμά τις ἀκούοι τοῦ λόγου, ὡς ποτὲ μὲν σφαῖρον ποτὲ δὲ κόσμον λέγοντος, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἐν τῇ γενέσει τοῦ κόσμου θεωρῶν γινομένην καὶ φθειρομένην ὑπετίθετο ἀεί, εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸν σφαῖρον εἶναι βούλεται καὶ τὸν κόσμον ἀεί, καὶ κίνησιν ἐνόμιζεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ⟨ἀεί⟩ εἶναι. ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ χρόνου δοκοῦσι λέγειν γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον Ἀναξαγόρας (59A64 DK)) τε καὶ Ἀρχέλαος (—) καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος (70A5 DK)· οὗτοι δὲ καὶ τὴν κίνησιν ἄρξασθαί φασιν· ἠρεμούντων γὰρ τὸν πρὸ τοῦ χρόνον τῶν ὄντων κίνησιν ἐγγενέσθαι φασὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ νοῦ, ὑφ᾽ ἧς γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον. φαίνονται δὲ καὶ οὗτοι τάξεως ἕνεκα διδασκαλικῆς ἀρχὴν τῆς κοσμοποιίας ὑποθέμενοι. καὶ ὅ γε Ἀναξαγόρας σαφῶς ἀπὸ τῆς νοητῆς ἑνώσεως, ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἦν ‘ὁμοῦ πάντα χρήματα’, ὥς φησι, τὴν κοσμικὴν διάκρισιν ὑποστῆσαι τὸν νοῦν λέγει. ὁ μέντοι Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ τὸν Πλάτωνά φησιν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς χρόνου τὸν κόσμον ὑφιστάνειν, πλὴν ὅτι καὶ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως κίνησιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι πλημμελῆ καὶ ἄτακτον (1122) ἔλεγε. ‘παραλαβὼν γάρ, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν οὐχ ἡσυχίαν ἔχον, ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.’ see also the similar passage at in Cael. 293.11–295.29. Symeon Seth CRN 3.30, p. 37.8–9 ὁ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν κόσμον δοξάζει ἀγέννητόν τε καὶ ἄφθαρτον, ὁ δὲ Πλάτων γεννητὸν μέν, ἄφθαρτον δέ. ἡμεῖς δὲ λέγομεν … Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 3, ἄξιον οὖν τοὺς ζητοῦντας εἰ ἄφθαρτος ὁ κόσμος. Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ εἰ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός. §1 Pythagoras Heraclitus: Tertullian Apol. 11.5 totum enim hoc mundi corpus sive innatum et infactum secundum Pythagoram, sive natum et factum secundum Platonem, semel utique in ipsa conceptione dispositum et instructum et ordinatum cum omnis rationis gubernaculo inventum est. On Heraclitus see below on §6. §2 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.142 (SVF 2.581) γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα … περὶ δὴ οὖν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς τοῦ κόσμου φησὶ Ζήνων (SVF 1.102) μὲν ἐν τῷ Περὶ ὅλου, Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.581) δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 13 E.-K., 304 Theiler) ἐν πρώτῳ Περὶ κόσμου καὶ Κλεάνθης (—) καὶ Ἀντίπατρος (SVF 3 Ant. 45) ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ Περὶ κόσμου. Παναίτιος (fr. 132 Alesse) δ᾽ ἄφθαρτον ἀπεφήνατο τὸν κόσμον. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.92.4 γενητὸν δὲ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.574) τίθενται τὸν κόσμον. see also on §8 below. §5 Xenophanes Parmenides Melissus: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.48 Aucher age, interim ponamus inter nos universum ingenitum ac sempiternum,

811

812

liber 2 caput 4

iuxta illud quod suggerit sermo celeberrimorum philosophantium, sicut conscribunt Parmenides (—), Empedocles (—), Zeno (—), Cleanthes (SVF 1.509) aliique divi homines, ac velut verus quidam proprieque sacer coetus. ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Ξενοφάνης (21A32 DK) … οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ ὅμοιον· εἰ γὰρ γίγνοιτο τοῦτο, φησίν, ἀναγκαῖον πρὸ τούτου μὴ εἶναι· τὸ μὴ ὂν δ᾽ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο οὐδ᾽ ἂν τὸ μὴ ὂν ποιῆσαί τι οὔτε ὑπὸ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γένοιτ᾽ ἄν τι. also Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.2 (21A33 DK); Cicero Luc. 118 (21A34 DK) cited above. ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 (fr. 179 Sandbach) Παρμενίδης (28A22 DK) … ἀίδιον μὲν γὰρ τὸ πᾶν καὶ ἀκίνητον ἀποφαίνεται. Hippolytus Ref. 11 καὶ γὰρ καὶ Παρμενίδης (28A23 DK) ἓν μὲν τὸ πᾶν ὑποτίθεται ἀίδιόν τε καὶ ἀγένητον. Cicero Luc. 118 (30A9 DK) cited above (on Melissus). §6 Anonymi: Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.18–23 cited above General texts. also 294.4–23 καὶ Ἡράκλειτος (22A10 DK) δὲ ποτὲ μὲν ἐκπυροῦσθαι λέγει τὸν κόσμον, ποτὲ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς συνίστασθαι πάλιν αὐτὸν κατά τινας χρόνων περιόδους, ἐν οἷς φησι· ‘μέτρα ἁπτόμενος καὶ μέτρα σβεννύμενος.’ ταύτης δὲ τῆς δόξης ὕστερον ἐγένοντο καὶ οἱ Στωικοί (SVF 2.617). ἀλλ᾽ οὗτοι μὲν ἐάσθωσαν· … πλὴν ὅτι ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος βουλόμενος τὸν Ἡράκλειτον (T 555 Mouraviev) γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν λέγειν τὸν κόσμον ἄλλως ἀκούει τοῦ κόσμου νῦν. ‘οὐ γὰρ μαχόμενα, φησί, λέγει ὡς ἄν τῳ δόξαι· κόσμον γάρ, φησίν, ἐνταῦθα οὐ τήνδε λέγει τὴν διακόσμησιν, ἀλλὰ καθόλου τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὴν τούτων διάταξιν, καθ᾽ ἣν εἰς ἑκάτερον ἐν μέρει ἡ μεταβολὴ τοῦ παντός, ποτὲ μὲν εἰς πῦρ, ποτὲ δὲ εἰς τὸν τοιόνδε κόσμον· ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη τούτων ἐν μέρει μεταβολὴ καὶ ὁ τοιοῦτος κόσμος οὐκ ἤρξατό ποτε, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεί.’ Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–105.1 σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (T 642 Mouraviev) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως (22B30 DK) … ὅτι δὲ καὶ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐδογμάτιζεν, μηνύει τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα (fr. 22B31 DK) … ὅπως δὲ πάλιν ἀναλαμβάνεται καὶ ἐκπυροῦται, σαφῶς διὰ τούτων δηλοῖ (ibid.) … ὁμοίως καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων τὰ αὐτά. παραπλήσια τούτῳ καὶ οἱ ἐλλογιμώτατοι τῶν Στωϊκῶν (SVF 2.590) δογματίζουσι περί τε ἐκπυρώσεως διαλαμβάνοντες καὶ κόσμου διοικήσεως … cf. also Philo of Alexandria Aet. 8–9 cited above under General texts. §7 Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes Leucippus: Simplicius in Phys. 1121.5–8 Diels (on Anaximander, Leucippus, 12A17 DK, cited above); 1121.14–15 (on Anaximenes, Diogenes, cited above). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.31 (on Leucippus = 67A1 DK) κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτων (sc. τὸ πλῆρες καὶ τὸ κενόν) ἀπείρους εἶναι καὶ διαλύεσθαι εἰς ταῦτα. §8 Stoics: Philo Aet. 8–9, Prov. 2.48 cited above General texts. Scholia in Basilii Hexaemeron I 15 cited above General texts. §9 Plato: Cicero ND 1.20 (on Plato) sed illa palmaris, quod, qui non modo natum mundum introduxerit sed etiam manu paene factu, is eum dixerit fore sempiternum. Philo Aet. 13 cited above General texts. Alexander of Aphro-

liber 2 caput 4 disias at Simp. in Cael. 293.13 cited above General texts. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.72 (on Plato) ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἄφθαρτον διαμένειν τὸν κόσμον διὰ τὸ μὴ διαλύεσθαι εἰς τὸν θεόν. Plutarch QPlat. 3 1002C (Platonic doctrine) διὸ καὶ φθαρτὸς ἡμῶν εἷς ἕκαστός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος οὐ φθαρησόμενος· ἡμῶν μὲν γὰρ ἑκάστου τὴν ζωτικὴν δύναμιν ἐντὸς περιέχει τὸ θνητοειδὲς καὶ διαλυτόν, ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τοὐναντίον ὑπὸ τῆς κυριωτέρας ἀρχῆς καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἐχούσης ἀεὶ σῴζεται τὸ σωματικὸν ἐν μέσῳ περιεχόμενον. Apuleius Plat. 1.8, p. 97.8–12 Moreschini et hunc quidem mundum nunc sine initio esse dicit, alias originem habere natumque esse: nullum autem eius exordium atque initium esse ideo quod semper fuerit; nativum vero videri, quod ex his rebus substantia eius et natura constet, quae nascendi sortitae sunt qualitatem. hinc et tangitur et videtur sensibusque corporeis est obvius. sed quod ei nascendi causam deus praestitit, ideo immortali perseverantia est semper futurus. Tertullian see above on §1. Contrast Epiphanius Haer. 3.2.22, p. 507.3 Holl Πλάτων Ἀθηναῖος … τὸν κόσμον δὲ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν ὑπάρχειν. §10 Aristotle: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) τὰ δ᾽ ἐπίγεια κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ταῦτα συμπάθειαν οἰκονομεῖσθαι. §11 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.48 cited above §5. Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 293.20–23 cited above. cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.103.6 οὐ παραπέμπομαι καὶ τὸν Ἐμπεδοκλέα (—), ὃς φυσικῶς οὕτως τῆς τῶν πάντων ἀναλήψεως μέμνηται, ὡς ἐσομένης ποτὲ εἰς τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς οὐσίαν μεταβολῆς (for continuation see above §6). §12 Democritus: Lucretius DRN 5.92–96 principio maria ac terras caelumque tuere: / quorum naturam triplicem, tria corpora, Memmi, / tris species tam dissimilis, tria talia texta, / una dies dabit exitio, multosque per annos / sustentata ruet moles et machina mundi. §13 Epicurus: Scholia in Epicurum Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (scholion) Dorandi δῆλον οὖν ὡς καὶ φθαρτούς φησι τοὺς κόσμους, μεταβαλλόντων τῶν μερῶν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Gorgias fr. 82B3(68) DK καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ τὸ ὂν ἔστιν. εἰ γὰρ τὸ ὂν ἔστιν, ἤτοι ἀίδιόν ἐστιν ἢ γενητὸν ἢ ἀίδιον ἅμα καὶ γενητόν· οὔτε δὲ ἀίδιόν ἐστιν οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε ἀμφότερα, ὡς δείξομεν … Plato Tim. 27c4–5 ἡμᾶς δὲ τοὺς περὶ τοῦ παντὸς λόγους ποιεῖσθαί πῇ μέλλοντας, εἰ γέγονεν ἢ καὶ ἀγενές ἐστιν. Tim. 28b4– 7 σκεπτέον δ᾽ οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ (sc. κόσμου) … πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος. Aristotle Met. A.2 982b12–17 διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον … περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. Top. 1.11 104b7–8 ἔνια (sc. τῶν προβλημάτων) δὲ πρὸς τὸ εἰδέναι μόνον, οἷον πότερον ὁ κόσμος ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ. Top. 1.14 105b24–25 φυσικαὶ (sc. προτάσεις) δὲ οἷον πότερον ὁ κόσμος ἀίδιος ἢ οὔ. Phys. 8.1 250b11–251a8 (dialectical overview on motion). Cael. 1.10 279b4–17 λέγωμεν … πότερον ἀγένητος ἢ γενητὸς καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός, διεξελθόντες πρότερον τὰς τῶν ἄλλων ὑπολήψεις … γενόμενον μὲν οὖν ἅπαντες

813

814

liber 2 caput 4

εἶναί φασιν, ἀλλὰ γενόμενον οἱ μὲν ἀίδιον, οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν φύσει συνισταμένων, οἱ δ᾽ ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δὲ ἄλλως ἔχειν φθειρόμενον, καὶ τοῦτο ἀεὶ διατελεῖν οὕτως, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὁ Ἀκραγαντῖνος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (22A10 DK). cf. Cael. 2.1 283b31–32, καὶ διὰ τῆς δόξης τῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλως λεγόντων καὶ γεννώντων αὐτόν. also Phys.1.10 280a23–27 cited above on ch. 2.1 section E(b) General texts. Theophrastus at Philoponus Aet. 6.8, p. 145.6–25 αὐτὰ τὰ τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ Ταύρου (fr. 22B Lakmann) παραθήσομαι ῥήματα· πλεῖστα γὰρ οὗτος ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ γενητοῦ ἐπινενόηκε σημαινόμενα· λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς εἰς τὸν Τίμαιον ὑπομνήμασιν ἐπὶ λέξεως ταῦτα ‘ζητουμένου δέ, εἰ κατὰ Πλάτωνα ἀγένητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος, διαφόρως περὶ τούτου οἱ φιλόσοφοι ἠνέχθησαν. Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν οὖν φησιν λέγειν τὸν Τίμαιον γενητὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, τοῦ Τιμαίου λέγοντος γεγονέναι· καὶ γὰρ φέρεται αὐτοῦ σύγγραμμα περὶ τοῦ παντὸς ὡς γενητοῦ. ἴσως δὲ τοιοῦτόν τι λέγων ὁ Πλάτωνος Τίμαιος γενητόν φησιν τὸν κόσμον. καὶ Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 11 Diels, 241A FHS&G) μέντοι ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν δοξῶν κατὰ Πλάτωνά φησιν γενητὸν τὸν κόσμον καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖται τὰς ἐνστάσεις, παρεμφαίνει δέ, ὅτι ἴσως σαφηνείας χάριν γενητὸν αὐτὸν ὑποτίθεται. καὶ ἄλλοι δέ τινες οὕτως ἠνέχθησαν, ὅτι κατὰ Πλάτωνα γενητός, οἱ δέ, ὅτι ἀγένητος …’ cf. Aet. 6.21, p. 188.9–13. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 117 Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 12 Diels, 184 FHS&G) μέντοι φησὶ τοὺς γένεσιν καὶ φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου κατηγοροῦντας ὑπὸ τεττάρων ἀπατηθῆναι τῶν μεγίστων, γῆς ἀνωμαλίας, θαλάττης ἀναχωρήσεως, ἑκάστου τῶν τοῦ ὅλου μερῶν διαλύσεως, χερσαίων φθορᾶς κατὰ γένη ζῴων (arguments presented and refuted in §§118–149). Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b4, λέγωμεν … πότερον ἀγένητος ἢ γενητὸς καὶ ἄφθαρτος ἢ φθαρτός. Stoics at D.L. 7.133, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητεῖται ἥ τ᾽ οὐσία αὐτοῦ (sc. κόσμου) … καὶ εἰ γενητὸς ἢ ἀγένητος … καὶ εἰ φθαρτὸς ἢ ἄφθαρτος … §1 Pythagoras Heraclitus: Proclus in Tim. 1.290.3–7 οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖναι (sc. ἐξηγήσεις) χώραν ἔχουσιν, ὅσαι λογικώτερον ἀποδίδονται, οἷον ὅτι κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν μόνην ἡ γένεσις ἐπὶ τοῦ κόσμου λέγεται—οὕτω γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὅτι δημιουργός ἐστι τοῦ παντὸς κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν συλλογισαίμεθα καὶ οὐ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν. but cf. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–3 σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (fr. 22B30 DK) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως· ‘κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.’ ὅτι δὲ καὶ γενητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐδογμάτιζεν, μηνύει τὰ ἐπιφερόμενα· (fr. 22B31 DK) ‘πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῆ, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ πρηστήρ’ … §5 Xenophanes Parmenides Melissus: Aristotle Cael. 3.1 298b14–18 (28A25 DK) οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ὅλως ἀνεῖλον γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν· οὐθὲν γὰρ οὔτε γίγνεσθαί φασιν οὔτε φθείρεσθαι τῶν ὄντων, ἀλλὰ μόνον δοκεῖν ἡμῖν, οἷον οἱ περὶ Μέλισσόν (—) τε καὶ Παρμενίδην (28A25 DK), οὕς, εἰ καὶ τἆλλα λέγουσι καλῶς, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ φυσικῶς γε δεῖ νομίσαι λέγειν.

liber 2 caput 4 §6 Anonymi: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b14–16 cited above General texts. Cael. 3.1 298b30–33 οἱ δὲ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα γίνεσθαί φασι καὶ ῥεῖν, εἶναι δὲ παγίως οὐθέν, ἓν δέ τι μόνον ὑπομένειν, ἐξ οὗ ταῦτα πάντα μετασχηματίζεσθαι πέφυκεν· ὅπερ ἐοίκασι βούλεσθαι λέγειν ἄλλοι τε πολλοὶ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (22A10 DK). §7 Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Archelaus Diogenes Leucippus: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 280a23–27 τὸ δ᾽ ὅλως γενόμενον φθαρῆναι καὶ μὴ ἀνακάμπτειν ὄντος μὲν ἑνὸς ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν· πρὶν γὰρ γενέσθαι ἀεὶ ὑπῆρχεν ἡ πρὸ αὐτοῦ σύστασις, ἣν μὴ γενομένην οὐχ οἷόν τ᾽ εἶναί φαμεν μεταβάλλειν· ἀπείρων δ᾽ ὄντων ἐνδέχεται μᾶλλον. §9 Plato: Plato Tim. 28b–d ὁ δὴ πᾶς οὐρανὸς—ἢ κόσμος ἢ καὶ ἄλλο ὅτι ποτὲ ὀνομαζόμενος μάλιστ᾽ ἂν δέχοιτο, τοῦθ᾽ ἡμῖν ὠνομάσθω—σκεπτέον δ᾽ οὖν περὶ αὐτοῦ πρῶτον, ὅπερ ὑπόκειται περὶ παντὸς ἐν ἀρχῇ δεῖν σκοπεῖν, πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος. γέγονεν· ὁρατὸς γὰρ ἁπτός τέ ἐστιν καὶ σῶμα ἔχων, πάντα δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα αἰσθητά, τὰ δ᾽ αἰσθητά, δόξῃ περιληπτὰ μετ᾽ αἰσθήσεως, γιγνόμενα καὶ γεννητὰ ἐφάνη. Tim. 41a–b θεοὶ θεῶν, ὧν ἐγὼ δημιουργὸς πατήρ τε ἔργων, δι᾽ ἐμοῦγενόμενα ἄλυτα ἐμοῦ γε μὴ ἐθέλοντος. τὸ μὲν οὖν δὴ δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν, τό γε μὴν καλῶς ἁρμοσθὲν καὶ ἔχον εὖ λύειν ἐθέλειν κακοῦ· δι᾽ ἃ καὶ ἐπείπερ γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστὲ οὐδ᾽ ἄλυτοι τὸ πάμπαν, οὔτι μὲν δὴ λυθήσεσθέ γε οὐδὲ τεύξεσθε θανάτου μοίρας, τῆς ἐμῆς βουλήσεως μείζονος ἔτι δεσμοῦ καὶ κυριωτέρου λαχόντες ἐκείνων οἷς ὅτ᾽ ἐγίγνεσθε συνεδεῖσθε. Aristotle Cael. 1.10 280a28–32 εἰσὶ γάρ τινες οἷς ἐνδέχεσθαι δοκεῖ καὶ ἀγένητόν τι ὂν φθαρῆναι καὶ γενόμενον ἄφθαρτον διατελεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ· ἐκεῖ γάρ φησι τὸν οὐρανὸν γενέσθαι μέν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλ᾽ ἔσεσθαί γε τὸν λοιπὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον. §10 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 1.2 339a19–21 ὁ δὴ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὅλος κόσμος ἐκ τούτων συνέστηκε τῶν σωμάτων· περὶ οὗ τὰ συμβαίνοντα πάθη φαμὲν εἶναι ληπτέον. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392a31–34 μετὰ δὲ τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ θείαν φύσιν, ἥντινα τεταγμένην ἀποφαίνομεν, ἔτι δὲ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀνετεροίωτον καὶ ἀπαθῆ, συνεχής ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὅλων παθητή τε καὶ τρεπτή, καί, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, φθαρτή τε καὶ ἐπίκηρος. §12 Democritus: Aristotle Cael. 1.10 279b13–14 οἱ δὲ φθαρτὸν ὥσπερ ὁτιοῦν ἄλλο τῶν φύσει συνισταμένων.

815

Liber 2 Caput 5 PB: Plutarch 886F–887A; pp. 332a6–333a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.36, p. 409.9–16 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.10—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 48; p. 622.1– 6 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 142–143 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 158, p. 81 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.31, p. 37.17 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.20.1g, p. 172.6–8 + 1.21.6b, p. 186.10–11 + 1.21.6d, p. 186.24– 26 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b7 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles c. 5, p. 14.13–15 Di Maria

Titulus εʹ. Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (P,S) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, καὶ φθαρήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιδεῖται τροφῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀίδιος. (P1,S2) §2 Πλάτων αὐτὸν αὑτῷ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι. (P2) §3 Φιλόλαος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν φθοράν, τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανίου πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀστέρος ἀποχυθέντος· καὶ τούτων εἶναι τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου. (P3,S1,3) §1 Aristoteles —; §2 Plato cf. Tim. 33c–d; §3 Philolaus 44A18 DK titulus πόθεν PB(I,III)EGQPsS : εἰ PB(II)PsSy ‖ κόσμος PBEQPs : οὐρανός PSy : cf. S qui ap. c. 1.21 conflat tit. Περὶ κόσμου (2.1) καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος (2.3) καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (2.5a) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (2.5) §1 [2] εἰ P : δέ S ‖ ὁ κόσμος] om. PG ‖ οὐδεμιᾶς PES Diels : add. τινός PB ‖ [2–3] καὶ … ἀίδιος] al. PG φθαρήσεσθαι νενόμικεν, οὐδέτερον δὲ τούτων τῷ κόσμῳ συμβεβηκέναι (καὶ ante φθαρήσεσθαι PG(O) sec. Jas per litt.) ‖ [3] ἐπιδεῖται PB : ἐπιδέεται PE : δεῖται S §2 lemma non hab. S ‖ [4] αὐτὸν … κόσμον] om. PG ‖ κατὰ μεταβολήν PBEG : om. PQ ‖ [4–5] τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι PBE : τρέφεσθαι τοῦτόν φησιν PG, cf. sich von dem ernährt Q §3 [6–8] lemma S insolenter bis scripsit : 1.20g = S1, 1.21d = S2 ‖ [6] Φιλόλαος] Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος PG ‖ post nomen add. S2 ἔφησε ‖ διττὴν … φθοράν om. S2 ‖ τὴν φθοράν PBE : τὴν τροφήν PG Reiske : τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου S1PQ(ut vid.) ‖ οὐρανίου coni. Corsinus : οὐρανοῦ PS2 edd. Laks–Most : ὑγροῦ S1 ‖ [6–7] τὸ μὲν … τὸ δὲ PGS2 Diels Wachsmuth Huffman Laks– Most : τότε μὲν … τότε δὲ PBEQS1 Mau Lachenaud ‖ [7] ἐξ ὕδατος] ἐξ del. Usener dub. Diels ‖ περιστροφῇ … ἀποχυθέντος] al. PG περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου ‖ ἀστέρος PB(II), cf. ἀστέρος ῥυέντος S1, infolge des Mondwechsels Q, prob. Burkert : ἀέρος PB(I,III)ES2 edd. ‖ [7–8] καὶ … κόσμου PBEQS2 (καὶ τούτων om. S2, τούτων om. PQ, τούτου coni. Capelle) : om. PGS1

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 48 (~ tit.) Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (text Diels) 48.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται, φθαρήσεσθαι νενόμικεν, οὐδέτερον δὲ τούτων τῷ κόσμῳ συμβεβηκέναι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_045

5

liber 2 caput 5

817

48.2 (~ P2) Πλάτων ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφεσθαι τοῦτόν φησιν. 48.2 (~ P3) Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν τροφὴν ὑπέλαβεν· τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 158 Εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.31 Εἰ τρέφεται ὁ οὐρανός (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 5, p. 14.13–15 τροφῇ δὲ χρῆται, ὡς μέν τινες, παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ (§2), ἄλλοι δὲ ἀναθυμιάσει τῇ περὶ αὐτόν, τινὲς δὲ τῇ τοῦ ὕδατος σφαίρᾳ (cf. §1). Ἀριστοτέλης (—) δὲ μὴ δεῖσθαι τροφῆς αὐτὸν λέγει (τὸ γὰρ δεόμενον φθαρτόν), ἀίδιος δέ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτόν (§1). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 5.27 Περὶ τροφῆς καὶ αὐξήσεως. titulus cf. A 5.16 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. cf. A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες. §1 A 2.17.5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. §2 A 2.17.6 Πλάτων κοινῶς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐξ αὑτῶν τρέφεσθαι. §3 A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. A 1.3.9[1–4] Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἵππασος ὁ Μεταποντῖνος ἀρχὴν τῶν πάντων τὸ πῦρ· ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος … A 2.17.4 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου ἀναθυμιάσεως. A 2.20.5 Ξενοφάνης, ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν, ἐκ πυριδίων τῶν συναθροιζομένων μὲν ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.23.6 οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διέρχεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ, ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P is attested by the four main witnesses, each recording the same three doxai. G as so often paraphrases, resulting in various alterations.

818

liber 2 caput 5

(2) As in ch. 2.4, S divides the material between his chapters 1.20 and 1.21. His treatment shows some unusual and interesting features. (a) The Aristotelian doxa is grouped with the doxa from ch. 2.3 in a small cluster at S 1.21.6c. (b) The Platonic doxa is not copied out, but replaced at S 1.21.1 by a brief summary of this doxa and two others from chs. 2.3 and 2.5a, followed by the quotation of Tim. 30a2–c1. Then immediately following at S 1.21.2 he cites the text on which A’s doxa in this chapter is based, Tim. 33c6–d1. (c) The Philolaus doxa is cited in both S 1.20 and 1.21, the only time that he copies out a doxa twice (see M–R 1.223, 2.2.369). The reason for this is because its contents relate to the subject-matter of both chapters. The two texts can be compared as follows:

S 1.20.1g, p. 172.6–8

S 1.21.6d, p. 186.24–26

Φιλόλαος διττὴν εἶναι τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου, τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀποχυθέντος.

Φιλόλαος ἔφησε τὸ μὲν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πυρὸς ῥυέντος, τὸ δὲ ἐξ ὕδατος σεληνιακοῦ περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος ἀποχυθέντος εἶναι τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις τροφὰς τοῦ κόσμου.

It is apparent that there is considerable divergence between the text of the two citations. Details will be discussed below in section D(d). (3) For the first time in his use of Book 2 in CAG Book 4, T does not use the material provided in this chapter. (4) The evidence in Ach is important for it clearly comes from the same doxographical tradition but is configured differently. He does not devote a separate chapter to this question, but includes it in a chapter entitled Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (i.e. κόσμου). There are four doxai, i.e. one more than in A: (1) the same as Plato in A but presented anonymously; (2) an anonymous view that the cosmos has an external source of nourishment (this option missing in A, but it recalls the Pythagorean doxa in A 1.18.6); (3) an example of internal nourishment that is reminiscent of the Philolaic doxa in A; (4) the Aristotelian doxa in A, again presented in the form of an argument. We discuss this evidence further below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The evidence of Ach demonstrates that the subject of this chapter belonged to the proximate tradition on which A depends. However, apart from A and Ach there is very little evidence to show that it was discussed

liber 2 caput 5

819

in a dialectical or doxographical context. We have found no texts in which it is presented as a quaestio in the realm of physics. (2) Sources. The absence in the doxographical tradition is surprising given that the question was certainly raised in earlier Greek sources. Plato’s emphatically mentions the theme when discussing the body of the cosmos in the Timaeus, to which Aristotle may have responded in one of his lost works (see below section D(d)§1). References to the doctrine of exhalations in earlier philosophers, e.g. the attribution to Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9, refer to the (feeding of the) stars and not the cosmos as a whole (on this subject in the context of the treatment of the heavenly bodies Heraclitus is aligned with the Stoa at A 2.17.4). In the background there is also the extensive debate on the Stoic theory of ἐκπύρωσις, in which exhalations play a key role. Plutarch accuses Chrysippus of contradiction in taking over Plato’s language of the self-sufficiency of the cosmos and still speaking of the cosmos’ growth (as occurs in the ἐκπὺρωσις); text below in section E(b)§2, and see also the polemical discussions in Philo Aet. 85–103. But the Stoics are conspicuously absent in this chapter. It is also worth noting that, unlike all the chapters in Book 2 so far, there is no reference to philosophers who have a non-teleological conception of the universe. But this is to be expected, since the whole idea of the cosmos feeding itself only makes sense in the teleological framework of the macrocosm–microcosm relation. C Chapter Heading This is the first heading in Book 2 that asks the question ‘whence’ (πόθεν, unde). The only previous example was a ch. 1.6. Others will follow at chs. 2.17 (where does light of the stars come from), 4.21, 5.11 and 5.28. On the question unde see the note at ch. 1.6 Commentary C. The quaestio at 2.17 on the light of the stars implictly involves nourishment, since light very often entails fire, which needs to be fed; cf. doxai at A 2.17.4–6 and our comments ad loc. The nourishment of the microcosm is dealt with in Book 5: chs. 5.16 (the embryo) and 5.27 (in general). The heading is almost wholly undisputed in the main P tradition (the variant in a ms. of PB is clearly drawn from the Aristotelian doxa that immediately follows and the same may have influenced Ps). The exception is Symeon Seth, who changes the title to refer to the heaven because he focusses his attention on the heavenly bodies and adopts the viewpoint that they are only subject to locomotive change and do not undergo the change involved in nourishment. S refers to the heading in an abridged form in the composite title he devises for his ch. 1.21, Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται.

820

liber 2 caput 5

D Analysis a Context The chapter’s theme follows on directly from the theme of ch. 2.3: if the cosmos is a living being, then it must need some kind of nourishment. But the subject discussed in ch. 2.4 adds complications. If it is subject to generation, one may assume nourishment and growth, followed by decline. But if it is everlasting, then nourishment must be combined with a homeostatic equilibrium. The stage is thus set for the answers given in the present chapter. There are parallels with the subject of the source of food for the heavenly bodies, ch. 2.17, and for the microcosm when it starts its life, ch. 5.17 Πῶς τρέφεται τὰ ἔμβρυα. b Number and Order of Lemmata There is evidence for only three doxai in the tradition of A and there is no reason to think that these were in a different sequence from that found in P. There may, however, have originally been more lemmata, such as the one preserved by Ach or the one that is obviously missing, on which see the following sub-section. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first doxa, which unusually takes the form of an argument in the form of a hypothetical syllogism rather than the usual bald assertion, represents the view that the cosmos needs no food at all. The argument is imperfectly expressed. It would be more persuasive to argue that because it is everlasting, it therefore needs no nourishment. But this leaves open the possibility that it does have nourishment, but this is internal to itself. This is the second option attributed to Plato and clearly based on Tim. 33c4–d1 (esp. c7, αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν φθίσιν παρέχον). The third doxa also focuses on internal sources, but this time it is specified as provided by a double source food supply provided through destruction (φθορά), one from heavenly fire, the other from lunar water. The chapter is thus structured by means of a diaphonia between no nourishment and nourishment, and the latter is divided into two kinds of internal nournishment based on decay, the one general, the other more specified. It is surprising that the possibility of external nourishment is not explored, as occurs in Ach (see below D(e)). If it was originally present in A, it must have not only been epitomized away by P, but also overlooked by S. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The form of the doxa, starting with the name-label followed by a separate sentence in oratio recta, is quite unusual. It is found elsewhere only at

liber 2 caput 5

821

A 1.25.1 (Thales) and 4.8.2 (Epicurus), if we exclude definitions such as at 1.23.1 (Pythagoras and Plato) and 5.3.1 (also Aristotle). It is also unusual to have a compact argument in the form of a syllogism. However, the argument should have been presented: if the cosmos obtains nourishment, it will also be destructible; but it is everlasting, therefore it does not obtain nourishment. Then it would have been logically valid. G impressively avoids the fallacy by paraphrasing the second part and stating that nothing of this kind happens to the cosmos. He thus leaves it to his reader to draw the conclusion that the cosmos does not undergo nourishment. No argument like this is found in Aristotle’s extant works. It is not present in the De Caelo, though it might be felt that the arguments against the cosmos’s generation and destruction in Cael. 1.10–11 prepare the ground for it. The present passage has been claimed for his lost De philosophia; see Effe (1970) 19. It is indeed similar to Peripatetic arguments in favour of the eternity of the cosmos in Philo Aet. 20–44, which have often been thought ultimately to derive from that work (= fr. 19 Ross). Effe also notes the analogous argument attributed to Critolaus at Philo Aet. 74 on the self-sufficiency of the cosmos: it is subject to neither κένωσις or πλήρωσις, both of which are intrinsic to the process of nourishment (despite the explicit attribution to Critolaus, the text is omitted in Wehrli’s edition, whose treatment of the entire section Aet. 55–75 is unsatisfactory; see further Mansfeld (1979) 186, Sharples (2008) 59–61). However, Effe himself goes far beyond the evidence when he claims: ‘Aetios und Kritolaus schöpfen aus dem Aristotelische dialog.’ Aristotle himself has a theory of exhalations in his extant works. It plays a key role in his Meteorology, see 1.4 341b6–12 and passim; Wilson (2013) 51–72. They are of two kinds and relate to the sub-lunary world only, so are not discussed in relation to the nourishment of the cosmos as a whole. He is highly critical of predecessors who extend the theory of exhalation to the heavens; see his excursus at Mete. 2.2 354b33–355a32. §2 The doxa’s formulation is clearly based on the wording of Tim. 33c7–8 αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον. But the phrase κατὰ μεταβολὴν is a Peripatetic addition; cf. AD at Stob. Ecl. 1.19.1, p. 163.1–2 (not A as printed by Diels DG 319 with reservations), where it represents qualitative change. §3 For this doxa there are three differing versions, P 2.5.3 & S1 at 1.20.1g and S2 in 1.21.6b. On the basis of the evidence it is not easy to determine exactly what stood in A. In determining our text we have benefited from the excellent discussion of Huffman (1993) 261–266. S has clearly adapted his two citations to their anthological context. In general the readings of P and S2 are to be preferred. We note the following problematical aspects of the text.

822

liber 2 caput 5

(a) The addition of τοῦ κόσμου at the beginning of S1 is caused by the anthological context, since he has decided to add the lemma to his citations from chs. 1.24 and 2.4 on genesis and destruction in general and of the cosmos. It is out of place in the present chapter, where φθορά is linked to φθίσις, i.e. as a kind of cosmic digestion. It might also be possible to take τὴν φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου as meaning ‘the perishing that takes place in the cosmos’. That S took it to mean this might be deduced from the fact that straight after this doxa he writes out another doxa of ‘Philolaus the Pythagorean’ purportedly taken from his work Περὶ ψυχᾶς (44A21 DK) which he precedes with the words Φιλόλαος ἄφθαρτον τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. He then quotes a text which ascribes eternity to the cosmos with the same argument found at Philo Aet. 20–24 (both Diels ad loc. and Huffman 1993, 343 regard this text as spurious). It is to be agreed with Huffman (1993) 262–265 that Philolaus is best taken to be referring to major cosmic cataclysms, but not to universal destruction such as in the later Stoic doctrine of ἐκπύρωσις, hence supporting the reading of P as against S1; see also Mansfeld 2020c (n. 27). (b) It is difficult to choose between τότε μέν … τότε δέ and τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ which are about equally represented in the tradition. In the doxographic context, however, an emphasis on classification is more likely than on temporality, so it is best to follow Diels and Huffman and opt for the readings τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ. (c) Stylistically it is preferable to have a similar grammatical construction in both the clauses introduced by τὸ μέν … τὸ δέ (contra Huffman). We therefore accept Corsinus’ conjecture ἐξ οὐρανίου πυρὸς. (d) The reading περιστροφῇ τοῦ ἀέρος is better attested in the mss. but, as pointed out by Burkert (1983) 242 n. 23, the variant ἀστέρος makes better sense, i.e. the destruction being caused by the revolution of the moon itself as heavenly body. Burkert also claims that the reading of G περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἀποχεομένου supports this preference for ἀστέρος, but this must be considered doubtful. He notes that the doxa appears to formulate in a naïve way the general assumption of early thinkers such as Anaximander, Heraclitus and Empedocles, namely that cosmic destruction occurs through both fire and water, but that there is also a process of self-renewal. (e) Capelle’s emendation of τούτων to τούτου (cf. Vors. 1.404.3) is motivated by the difficulty that fire rushing down from heaven can hardly be an exhalation. Huffman (1993) 265 suggests that, ‘the exhalations need not be directly from heavenly fire and lunar water, but more probably arise from the earth as a result of their destructive effect’, but the formulation remains odd.

liber 2 caput 5

823

e Other Evidence It is to be agreed with Huffman (1993) 265–266 that the attribution of a theory of exhalations to Philolaus is plausible. As he notes, other Presocratics had developed similar theories: Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9 (= 22A1, from the earth and the sea); Xenophanes at A 2.20.5 (formation of the sun); Hippocrates of Chios at Alex.Aphr. in Mete. 38.28–32 (42A6 DK, on the origin of the Milky Way). The doxa is also reminiscent of the theory of periodic natural disasters developed by Plato in Tim. 22c–d (note φθοραί at 22c1), who relates it to ancient myths. As already noted above on §1, the theory of dry and wet exhalations is further developed by Aristotle, but he confines it to the sublunary world and vigorously denies any interaction with the heavenly realm (as in Philolaus). For the connection of the moon with moisture Huffman cites Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940A–B, but it is doubtful whether the doxai on Xenophanes at A 2.25.3 and Empedocles A 2.25.6 (cf. also ps.Plu. Strom. 10 = 31A30 DK) can help us understand Philolaus’ view of the role of air. The additional doxa in Ach indicating the possible ingestion of nourishment by the cosmos through ‘the exhalation that surrounds it’ can be linked to the doxa at A 2.9.1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖ ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐξ οὗ (cf. also A 1.18.6). The analogy is with a living being who breathes and thus takes in air or πνεῦμα from the outside, which can be regarded as a kind of nourishment. It may have been omitted in A (if indeed it was) because there was already a Pythagorean view via Philolaus. But the omission remains surprising. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Aet. 74 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις φησὶ (sc. Critolaus, not in Wehrli) τριττὰς αἰτίας δίχα τῶν ἔξωθεν ὑποβεβλῆσθαι ζῴοις τελευτῆς, νόσον, γῆρας, ἔνδειαν, ὧν οὐδεμιᾷ τὸν κόσμον ἁλωτὸν εἶναι … αὐταρκέστατόν τε αὐτὸν αὑτῷ καὶ ἀνεπιδεᾶ παντὸς γεγονέναι, μηδενὸς τῶν εἰς διαμονὴν ὑστερίζοντα, τὰς κενώσεως καὶ πληρώσεως ἐν μέρει διαδοχὰς ἀπωσάμενον, αἷς διὰ τὴν ἄμουσον ἀπληστίαν τὰ ζῷα χρῆσθαι … cf. Aet. 85–103 (against the Stoics), esp. 85 ἐκεῖνο δ᾽ οὐκ ἀνάξιον διαπορῆσαι, τίνα τρόπον ἔσται παλιγγενεσία, πάντων εἰς πῦρ ἀναλυθέντων· ἐξαναλωθείσης γὰρ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπὸ πυρός, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸ πῦρ οὐκέτ᾽ ἔχον τροφὴν ἀποσβεσθῆναι. μένοντος μὲν οὖν, ὁ σπερματικὸς τῆς διακοσμήσεως ἐσῴζετ᾽ ⟨ἂν⟩ λόγος, ἀναιρεθέντος δὲ συνανῄρηται. τὸ δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἔκθεσμον καὶ ἀσέβημα ἤδη διπλοῦν, μὴ μόνον φθορὰν τοῦ κόσμου κατηγορεῖν ἀλλὰ καὶ παλιγγενεσίαν ἀναιρεῖν, ὥσπερ ἐν ἀκοσμίᾳ καὶ ἀπραξίᾳ καὶ τοῖς πλημμελέσι πᾶσι χαίροντος θεοῦ. Aet. 91 (against Chrysippus) ἀλλ᾽ εἴ γε φλὸξ γίνεται, τραπομένη πρὸς σβέσιν ἅπαξ οὐκ ἐκ μέρους ἀλλ᾽ ἀθρόα σβεσθήσεται· συνυπάρχει γὰρ τῇ τροφῇ· διὸ πολλῆς μὲν οὔσης ἐπιδίδωσι καὶ χεῖται, στελλομένης δὲ μειοῦται. τεκμηριώσαιτο δ᾽ ἄν τις ἀπὸ τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τὸ γινόμενον.

824

liber 2 caput 5

Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 (ὁ κόσμος) καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται. §1 Aristotle: see above under General texts. §3 Philolaus: cf. Heraclitus at D.L. 9.9 (22A1 DK) γίνεσθαι δ᾽ ἀναθυμιάσεις ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ θαλάττης, ἃς μὲν λαμπρὰς καὶ καθαράς, ἃς δὲ σκοτεινάς. αὔξεσθαι δὲ τὸ μὲν πῦρ ὑπὸ τῶν λαμπρῶν, τὸ δὲ ὑγρὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἑτέρων …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Cleomedes Cael. 1.8.79–82 Todd (Stoic doctrine = SVF 2.572, Posidonius fr. 289 Theiler) οὐ χρὴ δὲ ἀπορεῖν ἐνταῦθα, πῶς ἡ γῆ στιγμιαία οὖσα πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κόσμου ἀναπέμπει τροφὴν τῷ τε οὐρανῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐμπεριεχομένοις ἐν αὐτῷ ἄστροις, τοσούτοις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος οὖσι. Chapter heading: — §1 Aristotle: cf. Ocellus Lucanus ch. 1.10, p. 12.23–13.4 Harder, 127.17–24 Thesleff τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐμπεριεχόμενα τῷ κόσμῳ πρὸς τὸν κόσμον ἔχει τὴν συναρμογήν, ὁ δὲ κόσμος πρὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτόν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα πάντα τὴν φύσιν οὐκ αὐτοτελῆ ἔχοντα συνέστηκεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιδεῖται τῆς πρὸς τὰ {ἐκτὸς} ἐχόμενα συναρμογῆς, ζῷα μὲν πρὸς ἀναπνοήν, ὄψις δὲ πρὸς τὸ φῶς, αἱ δὲ ἄλλαι αἰσθήσεις πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον αἰσθητόν, τὰ δὲ φυτὰ πρὸς τὸ φύεσθαι, ἥλιος δὲ καὶ σελήνη καὶ οἱ πλάνητες καὶ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς κατὰ τὸ μέρος μὲν τῆς κοινῆς διακοσμήσεως· αὐτὸς δὲ πρὸς οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτόν. §2 Plato: Plato Tim. 33c–d οὐδ᾽ αὖ τινος ἐπιδεὲς ἦν ὀργάνου σχεῖν ᾧ τὴν μὲν εἰς ἑαυτὸ τροφὴν δέξοιτο, τὴν δὲ πρότερον ἐξικμασμένην ἀποπέμψοι πάλιν. ἀπῄει τε γὰρ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ προσῄειν αὐτῷ ποθεν—οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν—αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν· ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ συνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὂν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων. Plutarch SR 1052C–E (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.604) τίς ἂν οὖν ἐναντιώτερα λέγων ἑαυτῷ φανείη τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν νῦν μὲν αὔξεσθαι νῦν δὲ μὴ τρέφεσθαι λέγοντος; καὶ τοῦτ᾽ οὐ δεῖ συλλογίζεσθαι· σαφῶς γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γέγραφεν· ‘αὐτάρκης δ᾽ εἶναι λέγεται μόνος ὁ κόσμος διὰ τὸ μόνος ἐν αὑτῷ πάντ᾽ ἔχειν ὧν δεῖται, καὶ τρέφεται ἐξ αὑτοῦ καὶ αὔξεται, τῶν ἄλλων μορίων εἰς ἄλληλα καταλλαττομένων.’ οὐ μόνον οὖν ἐν ἐκείνοις τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἀποφαίνων τρεφομένους πλὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ Διός ἐν τούτοις δὲ καὶ τὸν κόσμον λέγων τρέφεσθαι μάχεται πρὸς αὑτόν ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ὅτι τὸν κόσμον αὔξεσθαί φησιν ἐξ αὑτοῦ τρεφόμενον. τοὐναντίον δ᾽ εἰκὸς ἦν τοῦτον μόνον μὴ αὔξεσθαι τὴν αὑτοῦ φθίσιν ἔχοντα τροφήν τοῖς δ᾽ ἄλλοις θεοῖς ἔξωθεν τρεφομένοις ἐπίδοσιν γίνεσθαι καὶ αὔξησιν καὶ μᾶλλον εἰς τούτους καταναλίσκεσθαι τὸν κόσμον, εἴ γ᾽ ἐκείνῳ μὲν ἐξ αὑτοῦ τούτοις δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου λαμβάνειν ἀεί τι καὶ τρέφεσθαι συμβέβηκε. Galen HNH 50.6 Mewaldt ⟨δῆλον οὖν ὅτι⟩ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου στοιχεῖα τὴν τροφὴν ἐξ ἀλλήλων ἔχοντά ἐστι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Πλάτων εἶπεν· ‘αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν.’ Epictetus fr. 13 Oldfather (= Stob. Ecl. 1.3.50), καὶ τίς, ὦ κακόδαιμον, αὐτὸς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τρέφεται ἄλλος γε ἢ ὁ κόσμος; Proclus in Tim. 2.87.17–23 Diehl (commenting on Tim. 33c–d) ὁ δὲ κόσμος οὐ δεῖται τροφῆς ἔξωθεν, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ παρέχεται τροφὴν καὶ αὔξων ἑαυτὸν καὶ φθίσιν ἑαυτῷ παρέχων· πρῶτον μέν, εἰ βού-

liber 2 caput 5 λει, κατὰ τὴν εἰς δύο διαίρεσιν, αὔξοντος μὲν πάντα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ μεταβάλλοντος, αὐξομένων δὲ καὶ φθινόντων τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην· ἡ γὰρ ἄλλου γένεσις ἄλλου φθορά ἐστιν, ἑκατέρας δέ ἐστι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κίνησις αἰτία. §3 Philolaus: Plato Tim. 55c–d πολλαὶ κατὰ πολλὰ φθοραὶ γεγόνασιν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἔσονται, πυρὶ μὲν καὶ ὕδατι μέγισται, μυρίοις δὲ ἄλλοις ἕτεραι βραχύτεραι. τὸ γὰρ οὖν καὶ παρ᾽ ὑμῖν λεγόμενον, ὥς ποτε Φαέθων Ἡλίου παῖς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἅρμα ζεύξας διὰ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸς εἶναι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ὁδὸν ἐλαύνειν τά τ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς συνέκαυσεν καὶ αὐτὸς κεραυνωθεὶς διεφθάρη, τοῦτο μύθου μὲν σχῆμα ἔχον λέγεται, τὸ δὲ ἀληθές ἐστι τῶν περὶ γῆν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἰόντων παράλλαξις καὶ διὰ μακρῶν χρόνων γιγνομένη τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς πυρὶ πολλῷ φθορά. … ὅταν δ᾽ αὖ θεοὶ τὴν γῆν ὕδασιν καθαίροντες κατακλύζωσιν … Aristotle Mete. 1.4 341b6–12 θερμαινομένης γὰρ τῆς γῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀναγκαῖον γίγνεσθαι μὴ ἁπλῆν, ὥς τινες οἴονται, ἀλλὰ διπλῆν, τὴν μὲν ἀτμιδωδεστέραν τὴν δὲ πνευματωδεστέραν, τὴν μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ γῇ ὑγροῦ ἀτμίδα, τὴν δ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς γῆς οὔσης ξηρᾶς καπνώδη· καὶ τούτων τὴν μὲν πνευματώδη ἐπιπολάζειν διὰ τὸ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ὑγροτέραν ὑφίστασθαι διὰ τὸ βάρος. Mete. 2.4 354b33–355a1 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔνιοί γέ φασιν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τροπὰς αὐτόν … Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940A–B κινδυνεύει γάρ … πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀντιπαθῆ φύσιν ἔχειν, εἴγε μὴ μόνον, ὅσα πυκνοῦν καὶ ξηραίνειν ἐκεῖνος, αὕτη μαλάσσειν καὶ διαχεῖν πέφυκεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου θερμότητα καθυγραίνειν καὶ καταψύχειν προσπίπτουσαν αὐτῇ καὶ συμμιγνυμένην. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 38.28–32 (on 1.8 345a11) τρίτην δέ φησι δόξαν (Hippocrates of Chios 42A6 DK) εἶναι περὶ τοῦ γάλακτος τὴν λέγουσαν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τὸ γάλα τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως ἀπό τινος ἀναθυμιάσεως, ἥ τις εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ γάλα, ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον, ἔνοπτρον γινόμενον τῇ ὄψει τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὁρωμένῳ φωτί, ὡς ἔλεγον οἱ περὶ Ἱπποκράτην καὶ τὸν κομήτην γίνεσθαι.

825

Liber 2 Caput 5a S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.21.1, p. 181.21–22 + 1.21. 6de, pp. 186.27–187.7 Wachsmuth; Diels DG 332b18–27; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b6 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ⟨ε+ʹ. Ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὁ κόσμος⟩ (S) §1 Πλάτων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ἐν οὐρανῷ. (S1) §2 Κλέανθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ. (S3) §3 Ἀρχέδημος ἐν γῇ. (S4) §4 Φιλόλαος ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προυπεβάλλετο τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός. (S2)

5

§1 Plato Tim. 36e–37c; §2 Cleanthes SVF 1.499; §3 Archedemus SVF fr. 15; §4 Philolaus 44A17 DK lemmata non hab. P titulum addidimus ex tit. Stob. c. 1.21 et ap. Phot. qui legunt καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν (vid. supra cc. 2.1, 2.3, 2.5) ‖ ὁ κόσμος add. Diels §1 [2] Πλάτων … οὐρανῷ coniecimus ex S §2 [3] Κλέανθης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐν ἡλίῳ scripsimus ex S : ἔφησεν εἶναι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου add. S §3 [4] Ἀρχέδημος ἐν γῇ scripsimus ex S : τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου ὑπάρχειν ἀπεφήνατο add. S §4 [5] post Φιλόλαος hab. τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν S ‖ [6] τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ Diels VS Huffman : τῆς τοῦ παντὸς S : τῇ τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρᾳ⟩ Heeren Diels DG Wachsmuth ‖ θεός om. SP

loci Aetiani: titulus A 4.5 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν. A 4.21 Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. quaestio A 4.21.5 (de Stoicis) αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ὥσπερ ἐν κόσμῳ ⟨ὁ θεὸς⟩ κατοικεῖ ἐν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ σφαιροειδεῖ κεφαλῇ. §4 A 1.7.23 … τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός … A 3.14.1 … τῇ τοῦ παντὸς {οὐρανοῦ} σφαίρᾳ … A 5.17.1–3 τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν τῇ γαστρί. οἱ Στωικοὶ ἅμα ὅλον γίνεσθαι. Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον τὴν ὀσφὺν ὡς τρόπιν νεώς. Ἀλκμαίων τὴν κεφαλήν, ἐν ᾗ ἔστι τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only witness for this chapter is S. Both in the heading of ch. 1.21 and in its contents he records material on the question of the cosmos’ ruling part which can come from nowhere else other than A. Diels DG 62 rightly observed that P

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_046

liber 2 caput 5a

827

in the process of epitomization must have skipped a chapter originally present in A. See further M–R 1.186. But he did not wish to introduce a separate chapter in his reconstruction, and so misleadingly placed the material at the end of ch. 2.4. This move was no doubt motivated by the placement of its heading in the title of S 1.21 (see next section). In his apparatus at 333b19, however, he recognizes that it comes after ch. 2.5. The three doxai at S 1.21.6de, in all of which the term τὸ ἡγεμονικόν occurs, clearly should be assigned to this chapter. We should note, however, that the term and the topic also occur at the beginning of S 1.21, when S gives a summary of Platonic doctrine. It is highly probable that this refers to another doxa in the original chapter, particularly since it covers an important option that is otherwise unrepresented. There is a parallel chapter for the ἡγεμονικόν of the microcosm and its location at ch. 4.5. Remarkably P also deleted a subsequent chapter on the νοῦς and where it comes from; see below ch. 4.7a. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The reports on the question of the cosmos’ ruling part in doxographical texts are more or less confined to reports of divergences in Stoic views: see Cicero ND 1.39, Luc. 126, Arius Didymus fr. 29 Diels at Eus. PE 15.15.7–8 and D.L. 7.139 (texts below section E(a) General texts). The question is then retrospectively applied to the cosmology of Plato’s Timaeus; see texts in Theon of Smyrna and Proclus cited below in section E(b§1). As in ch. 2.3, the question is not relevant for atomist cosmology. (2) Sources. The question dealt with in this chapter has a double origin. Firstly it follows on from the view that the cosmos is animate and ensouled (cf. ch. 2.3). This allows the analogy between macrocosm and microcosm, which is central to Plato’s cosmology in the Timaeus and finds its focus especially in the conception of the World Soul. (As we saw, this analogy is also the basis for the question posed in ch. 2.5.) The second step is when the Stoics develop a psychology in which the νοῦς is called τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, and this notion is then also applied to the cosmos; cf. Hahm (1977) 150. The precise location of this cosmic ‘ruling part’ then became a source of controversy. Not surprisingly there is no mention of the ‘ruling part’ in Presocratic texts (except the Philolaus text here, on which see below D(c) below). But the question is raised by Aristotle in a discussion on what is the ‘centre’ (τὸ μέσον) of the universe, which according to his report the Pythagoreans regarded as the dominant part (τὸ κυριώτατον, Cael. 2.13 293b3). This led them to posit their doctrine of a central fire, as outlined in A 2.7.6 (Philolaus). In his own cosmology the Unmoved mover may be regarded as having the role of the ‘ruling part’. It

828

liber 2 caput 5a

is mentioned A 1.7.23 as the ‘highest god’ and a ‘separate form’, which based on the account in Met. Λ.7, but there is no mention of it in Cael. and also not here. C Chapter Heading The chapter’s heading, missing of course in P’s pinax, can be derived from the heading S gives to 1.21, namely Περὶ κόσμου καὶ εἰ ἔμψυχος καὶ προνοίᾳ διοικούμενος καὶ ποῦ ἔχει τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ πόθεν τρέφεται (confirmed by Photius). In reconstructing the title Diels was right to add the words ὁ κόσμος, as the formulation of the headings in chs. 2.3–5 show. This is the only chapter heading to use the formula ποῦ ἔχει in asking the question of location. The parallel chapter for the microcosm is A 4.7 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν. On headings that use prepositions or phrases to ask questions see ch. 1.1. Commentary C. D Analysis a Context If the cosmos is a living being, as is assumed in the questions asked in chs. 2.3– 5 (even if the option that it is not is also taken into account in ch. 2.3), then it is logical to ask where the source of its rational motions is. The analogy between macrocosm and microcosm, which goes back to Plato’s Timaeus and even earlier in Greek philosophy, is crucial to the way the Placita are organized (cf. M–R 2.1.40). The same subject is examined in relation to the microcosm at A 4.5 Τί τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ ἐν τίνι ἐστίν and 4.21 Πόθεν αἰσθητικὴ γίνεται ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τί αὐτῆς τὸ ἡγεμονικόν. b Number–Order of Lemmata It is likely that the Platonic lemma, which gives the most general and commonly held view on the subject, would be presented first. It is equivalent to the view attributed to Chrysippus in the doxographies noted above, in which the ‘ruling part’ is the aether. The other three doxai do not necessarily have to follow the order found in S, because the first (Philolaus) has been clustered with an earlier doxa (A 2.5.3). As the most unusual doxa, it most likely came last. See the next section. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Of the four doxai the first two place the cosmos’ ruling part at the periphery of the cosmos, either in the heaven (aether) or more specifically in the sun. The second two place it in the centre, either in the earth or in the Pythagorean central fire. The chapter thus consists of a main diaeresis, with each of the options again divided into two. In addition there is a movement from the outer peri-

liber 2 caput 5a

829

meter to the very centre of the cosmos. In the Philolaic cosmology recorded in the final doxa the central fire is even more central than the earth. However, it is unlikely that the specific statement in terms of a ‘ruling part’ (as distinct from the cosmology that lies behind it) is derived from Philolaus himself. We agree with the conclusion of Huffman (1993) 401: ‘the whole testimonium is not so much a report of Philolaus’ views as a description of the role of the central fire in terms of later philosophical conceptions’. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As argued above, the Platonic doxa in the summary of doctrine at ch. 1.21.1 replaces the doxa in A. Its wording may be close to what stood in A, but there can be no certainty. We assume that the question asked in the chapter’s heading is understood in the first and subsequent doxai. Plato nowhere speaks of a cosmic ‘ruling part’, but its existence could be deduced from Tim. 36e–37c where the intellective powers of the World Soul are concentrated in the heavens and it is credited with both δόξαι καὶ πίστεις βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς and νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε (37b8–c2). By implication the location of the World Soul is stated to be the heaven in 36e5. An example of how the Stoics equated the soul of the cosmos and its ἡγεμονικόν is found in a quote from Chrysippus in Plu. SR 1053B (but it is corporeal in agreement with Stoic materialism); see Reydams-Schils (1999) 59, who argues that ‘as to corporeality, the Timaeus itself has given some impetus to the development of subsequent views on this question’. §2 It is probable that the verb of saying and the repetition of the chapter’s subject were added by S in accordance with his usual practice (cf. M–R 1.231). If these are removed, the resultant ‘bald’ style is similar to what is found in chapters such as 2.2, 2.22, 2.27, and also tellingly in the parallel chapter on the human ἡγεμονικόν, 4.5. §3 Here too the additional phraseology will have been added by S. It seems odd, given the assumptions on which the doctrine is based, that the ‘ruling part’ should be ‘in the earth’. But Archedemus may have pointed out that volcanic activity shows that there is fire inside the earth and so at the very centre of the universe. This minor Stoic is not mentioned anywhere else in the Placita. The view is reported anonymously by AD at Eus. PE 15.15.8, so it is definitely not just made up by A. §4 The phrase τῆς (or τῇ) τοῦ παντὸς needs a noun that is missing in the mss. Since it seems that the verb προϋποβάλλω can take either the genitive or the dative it is preferable to retain τῆς as transmitted and supply σφαίρας as the missing noun (with Huffman, contra M–R 2.2.379). Remarkably, as Diels DG 186 noted,

830

liber 2 caput 5a

the same image of the keel of a ship is found in Arist. Met. Δ.1 1013a5, where it is followed by the example of the human heart, i.e. the ἡγεμονικόν in later Hellenistic terminology. This will not be a coincidence. The image reappears in ch. 5.17, where the view is attributed to Aristotle that the loins are the first part of the embryo to be formed (5.17.2). See further our discussion there, Commentary B. e Other Evidence This brief chapter is an excellent example of how the Placita tradition underwent various phases. The general schema of macrocosm and microcosm goes back to early Greek philosophy and exerts an influence on Plato (and also on Aristotle, but more on the structure of his writings than his actual doctrine; see M–R 2.1.40). There is a Stoic overlay which imports some specific Stoic terminology, which is then retroactively applied to Plato and a Pythagorean thinker such as Philolaus. Finally, it is worth noting that the concept of the cosmos’ ἡγεμονικόν is absent in Achilles or the Aratea. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoics at D.L. 7.139 (SVF 2.644) οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον ζῷον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικόν, ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, καθά φησιν Ἀντὶπατρος ὁ Τύριος ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ κόσμου (—). Χρύσιππος δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ προνοίας καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ Περὶ θεῶν (F 39 E.-K., 347 Theiler) τὸν οὐρανόν φασι τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου, Κλεάνθης δὲ τὸν ἥλιον (SVF 1.499). ὁ μέντοι Χρύσιππος διαφορώτερον πάλιν τὸ καθαρώτερον τοῦ αἰθέρος ἐν ταὐτῷ, ὃ καὶ πρῶτον θεὸν λέγει … cf. Philodemus Piet. 545.27–28 Diels and ed. Schober CronErc 18 (1988) 118 ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.1076) … ἐν μὲν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ θεῶν … φησὶν … τόν τε κόσμον ἔμψυχον εἶναι καὶ θεὸν καὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ τὴν ὅλην ψυχήν. Cicero ND 1.39 (Velleius the Epicurean speaking) Chrysippus (SVF 2.1077) … ait … vim divinam in ratione esse positam et in universae naturae animo atque mente, ipsumque mundum deum dicit esse et eius animi fusionem universam, tum eius ipsius principatum qui in mente et ratione versetur … Luc. 126 an Stoicis ipsis inter se disceptare, cum iis non licebit? Zenoni (SVF 1.154) et reliquis fere Stoicis aether videtur summus deus, mente preaeditus qua omnia regantur, Cleanthes (SVF 1.499), qui quasi maiorum est gentium Stoicus, Zenonis auditor, solem dominari et rerum potiri putat; ita cogimur dissensione sapientium dominum nostrum ignorare, quippe qui nesciamus soli an aetheri serviamus. Arius Didymus at Eus. PE 15.15.7–8 (= Diels fr. 29) ἡγεμονικὸν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου Κλεάνθει (SVF 1.499) μὲν ἤρεσε τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι διὰ τὸ μέγιστον τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχειν … τισὶ δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως ἔδοξε γῆν τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου, Χρυσίππῳ (SVF 2.642) δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα τὸν καθαρώτατον καὶ εἰλικρινέστατον, ἅτε πάντων εὐκινητότατον ὄντα καὶ τὴν ὅλην περιάγοντα τοῦ κόσμου φοράν. Cornutus Comp. 20, pp. 29.17–30.2 Torres γενέσθαι (sc. Ἀθηνᾶ) δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς κεφαλῆς λέγεται,

liber 2 caput 5a τάχα μὲν τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑπολαβόντων τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν ἐνταῦθ᾽ εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἕτεροι τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα ἐδόξασαν, τάχα δ᾽ ἐπεὶ τοῦ μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἀνωτάτω μέρος τοῦ σώματος ἡ κεφαλή ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ κόσμου ὁ αἰθήρ, ὅπου τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν αὐτοῦ ἐστι καὶ ἡ τῆς φρονήσεως οὐσία (see also ch. 27, p. 41.11). Simplicius in Cael. 513.7–9 see below under §3. Chapter heading: — §2 Cleanthes: See the Stoic doxographies cited above under General texts. ps.Censorinus Epit.disc. 1.4, p. 61.13 Sallmann et constat quidem (sc. mundus) quattuor elementis terra aqua igne aere. cuius principalem solem quidam putant, ut Cleanthes (SVF 1.499), et Chrysippus (—) aethera. §3 Archedemus: See the text of Arius Didymus cited above under General texts. Simplicius in Cael. 512.28–513.9 καὶ γὰρ δυνατὸν πιθανῶς κατασκευάζειν, ὅτι τὸ πῦρ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡ γῆ· καὶ λοιπὸν ἐκτίθεται πιθανὸν λόγον ἀξίωμα προλαμβάνων, ὅτι τῷ τιμιωτάτῳ τῶν σωμάτων τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην ἡ τιμιωτάτη τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην προσήκει χώρα, καὶ συλλογιζόμενος ἐν πρώτῳ σχήματι οὕτω· τὸ πῦρ τῶν σωμάτων τιμιώτατον, τοῦ τιμιωτάτου τῶν σωμάτων οἰκεῖος ὁ τιμιώτατος τόπος·καὶ συμπέρασμα, ὅτι τοῦ πυρὸς οἰκεῖος τόπος ὁ τιμιώτατος· ἀλλὰ μὴν τιμιώτατος τῶν τόπων ὁ μέσος· τὸ γὰρ πέρας τιμιώτατον, ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ τὸ ἔσχατόν τε καὶ τὸ μέσον πέρατα· ὥστε καὶ τόπος ὑπὸ σελήνην ὁ μέσος τόπος· τοῦ πυρὸς ἄρα οἰκεῖος τόπος ὁ μέσος. ταύτης δὲ τῆς δόξης νεώτερος μὲν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους Ἀρχέδημος (SVF Arch. fr. 16) γέγονε, πρὸ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλους τίνες οὕτως ἐδόξασαν, ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας, φησὶν Ἀλέξανδρος, ζητητέον.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b1–11 ἔτι δ᾽ οἵ γε Πυθαγόρειοι (58B37 DK) καὶ διὰ τὸ μάλιστα προσήκειν φυλάττεσθαι τοῦ παντός, τὸ δὲ μέσον εἶναι τοιοῦτον, Διὸς φυλακὴν ὀνομάζουσι τὸ ταύτην ἔχον τὴν χώραν πῦρ, ὥσπερ τὸ μέσον ἁπλῶς λεγόμενον, καὶ τὸ τοῦ μεγέθους μέσον καὶ τοῦ πράγματος ὂν μέσον καὶ τῆς φύσεως. καίτοι καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις οὐ ταὐτὸν τοῦ ζῴου καὶ τοῦ σώματος μέσον, οὕτως ὑποληπτέον μᾶλλον καὶ περὶ τὸν ὅλον οὐρανόν. διὰ μὲν οὖν ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν οὐθὲν αὐτοὺς δεῖ θορυβεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ πᾶν, οὐδ᾽ εἰσάγειν φυλακὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κέντρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνο ζητεῖν τὸ μέσον, ποῖόν τι καὶ ποῦ πέφυκεν. Chrysippus at Plu. SR 1053B (SVF 2.605) λέγει δ᾽ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Προνοίας· ‘διόλου μὲν γὰρ ὢν ὁ κόσμος πυρώδης εὐθὺς καὶ ψυχή ἐστιν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἡγεμονικόν.’ Proclus in Tim. 2.104.23 Diehl (commenting on Tim. 34b3 τὸ μέσον) καὶ οἳ μὲν ἐν τῷ κέντρῳ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν ἀποτίθενται τοῦ παντός, οἳ δὲ ἐν σελήνῃ, οἳ δὲ ἐν ἡλίῳ, οἳ δὲ ἐν τῷ ἰσημερινῷ, οἳ δὲ ἐν τῷ ζῳδιακῷ. Chapter heading: — §1 Plato: Plato cf. Tim. 36e–37c καὶ τὸ μὲν δὴ σῶμα ὁρατὸν οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, αὐτὴ δὲ ἀόρατος μέν, λογισμοῦ δὲ μετέχουσα καὶ ἁρμονίας ψυχή, τῶν νοητῶν ἀεί τε ὄντων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρίστου ἀρίστη γενομένη τῶν γεννηθέντων. … λόγος δὲ ὁ κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀληθὴς γιγνόμενος περί τε θάτερον ὂν καὶ περὶ τὸ ταὐτόν, ἐν τῷ κινουμένῳ ὑφ᾽ αὑτοῦ φερόμενος ἄνευ φθόγγου καὶ ἠχῆς, ὅταν μὲν περὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν γίγνηται καὶ ὁ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλος ὀρθὸς ἰὼν εἰς πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν διαγγείλῃ, δόξαι

831

832

liber 2 caput 5a

καὶ πίστεις γίγνονται βέβαιοι καὶ ἀληθεῖς, ὅταν δὲ αὖ περὶ τὸ λογιστικὸν ᾖ καὶ ὁ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ κύκλος εὔτροχος ὢν αὐτὰ μηνύσῃ, νοῦς ἐπιστήμη τε ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀποτελεῖται. Theo of Smyrna Exp. pp. 187.20–188.7 Hiller ἄλλο γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἐμψύχοις τὸ μέσον τοῦ πράγματος, τουτέστι τοῦ ζῴου ᾗ ζῴου, καὶ ἄλλο τοῦ μεγέθους· οἷον, ὡς ἔφαμεν, ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἄλλο μέν, ὡς ἀνθρώπων καὶ ζῴων, τῆς ἐμψυχίας μέσον τὸ περὶ τὴν καρδίαν … τοῦ δὲ μεγέθους ἡμῶν ἕτερον μέσον, οἷον τὸ περὶ τὸν ὀμφαλόν. ὁμοίως δὴ καὶ τοῦ κόσμου παντός … τοῦ μεγέθους μέσον τὸ περὶ τὴν γῆν κατεψυγμένον καὶ ἀκίνητον· ὡς κόσμου δὲ καὶ ᾗ κόσμος καὶ ζῷον τῆς ἐμψυχίας μέσον τὸ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον, οἱονεὶ καρδίαν ὄντα τοῦ παντός … cf. 138.10–19 τὴν δὲ κατὰ τόπον τῶν σφαιρῶν ⟨ἢ⟩ κύκλων θέσιν τε καὶ τάξιν, ἐν οἷς κείμενα φέρεται τὰ πλανώμενα, τινὲς μὲν τῶν Πυθαγορείων τοιάνδε νομίζουσι· προσγειότατον μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῆς σελήνης κύκλον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον ⟨τὸν τοῦ⟩ Ἑρμοῦ, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ φωσφόρου, καὶ τέταρτον ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, εἶτα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τελευταῖον δὲ καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῖς ἀπλανέσι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου· μέσον εἶναι βουλόμενοι τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου τῶν πλανωμένων ὡς ἡγεμονικώτατον καὶ οἷον καρδίαν τοῦ παντός. μηνύει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Αἰτωλός. §4 Philolaus: On the Pythagoreans see Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b1–11, cited above under General texts.

Liber 2 Caput 6 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887A–C; pp. 333a13–335a4 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.37, pp. 409.17–410.10 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.10–11—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 49; p. 622.7–19 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 142–145 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 18.1–5, p. 25 Westerink S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.21.3b, p. 183.3–5 + 1.21.6c, p. 186.16–21 + 1.22.1f, p. 197.12–15 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. cc. 6–7, p. 17.10–19 Di Maria

Titulus ϛʹ. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν (P) §1 οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρξασθαί φασι τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου· ἀρχὴ δὲ σφαίρας τὸ κέντρον. (P1,S1) §2 Πυθαγόρας ἀπὸ πυρὸς καὶ τοῦ πέμπτου στοιχείου. (P2,S2) §3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, πιληθῆναι δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τὰ περίγεια. (P3) §4 Πλάτων τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου· τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου προτέραν μὲν τὴν ψυχήν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην §1 physici —; Stoici SVF 2.581; §2 Pythagoras —; §3 Empedocles 31A49 DK; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 28a–b, 31b–32c, 34b–c titulus Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου PB(I,II)QPs, cf. SL-ind ex P : πρώτου om. PB(III:Laur.31,37)G, SL ex P : στοιχείου om. PE ‖ ἤρξατο] ἦρκται PG ‖ ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν PEG : κοσμοποιεῖν ὁ θεός PBSLind ex P : τὸν κόσμον ποιεῖν ὁ θεός PPs ‖ pro tit. hab. in marg. PB(III:α) πόθεν ἄρχεται ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐκ ποίων στοιχείων §1 [2] οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ scripsimus dubitanter : οἱ φυσικοὶ P Diels, οἱ Στωικοὶ S cf. Ach ‖ post ἀπὸ γῆς add. δὲ S ‖ ἄρξασθαί] ἦρχθαι PG ‖ φασι] om. S (λέγουσιν PG) ‖ [2–3] τὴν … κόσμου] αὐτὸν PG ‖ [3] ἀρχὴ … κέντρον] om. PG §2 [4] Πυθαγόρας] add. δὲ PG ‖ ante ἀπὸ habet S ἄρξασθαι δὲ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ κόσμου ‖ καὶ … στοιχείου om. PG §3 non hab. S ‖ [5] Ἐμπεδοκλῆς PBEQ : Διοκλῆς PG ‖ post διακριθῆναι add. PG φησί ‖ δὲ] om. PE ‖ [6] post γῆν hab. PG ἐξενηνέχθαι ‖ [6–7] ἐξ ἧς … τὸ ὕδωρ PB : ἄγαν, τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς om. PQ : ἐξ ἧς … ἀναβλύσαι om. PG qui add. εἶτα ‖ [6] περιφορᾶς PB : σφαίρας PE ‖ [7] ἀναθυμιαθῆναι PG prob. Reiske Diels Mau Lachenaud Laks–Most, leg. et PQ ut vid. (verdampft Q) : θυμιαθῆναι PB(I,III)E prob. Vítek : θυμιασθῆναι PB(II) : ἀναθυμιαθῆναι PG ‖ καὶ γενέσθαι] γενέσθαι δὲ PG ‖ [8] ἀιθέρος PBEG : ἀέρος PΒ(III:Laur.31,37)Q ‖ [8–9] πιληθῆναι … περίγεια om. PG ‖ [8] πιληθῆναι PΒQ : εἱληθῆναι PE §4 [10] Πλάτων] add. δὲ PG ‖ τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον PBS : ὁρατὸν τὸν κόσμον PEG Diels (γεγονέναι ante τὸν κόσμον pos. PG) ‖ ante πρὸς (om. S) add. PG ὃς γίγνεσθαι (v.l. γίγνεται sec. Jas per litt.) ‖ [11] κόσμου1] om. PG ‖ τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ PEGS Diels : post ὁρατοῦ add. κόσμου PBQ ‖ μὲν PEGQ(ut vid.)S Diels : μὲν εἶναι PB ‖ μετὰ δὲ ταύτην PBQ : μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα PE : μετ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_047

5

10

834

§5

§6

liber 2 caput 6

τὸ σωματοειδὲς τὸ ἐκ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. (P4,S4) Πυθαγόρας πέντε σχημάτων ὄντων στερεῶν, ἅπερ καλεῖται καὶ μαθηματικά, ἐκ μὲν τοῦ κύβου φησὶ γεγονέναι τὴν γῆν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς πυραμίδος τὸ πῦρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὀκταέδρου τὸν ἀέρα, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ εἰκοσαέδρου τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαέδρου τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν. (P5,S3) Πλάτων δὲ καὶ ἐν τούτοις πυθαγορίζει. (P6)

§5 Pythagoras 44A15 DK (= Philolaus); §6 Plato cf. Tim. 53e–55c [12] τὸ1 … πυρὸς] τοῦ σώματος τὸ εἶδος γεγονέναι ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς PG ‖ τὸ2] om. PE ‖ γῆς PB(I,II)EG : τῆς γῆς PB(III) ‖ [12–13] πρῶτον, δεύτερον PB(III)GQ : πρώτων, δευτέρων PΒ(I,II)E §5 [14] πέντε … στερεῶν PBES : στερεῶν om. PQ : σώματα τῶν στερεῶν ᾠήθη PG ‖ καλεῖται καὶ] καλεῖ PG ‖ post καλεῖται hab. σώματα PQ ‖ [15] τοῦ κύβου PB(II,III)EGQS : τοῦ κόσμου PB(I) : τοῦ κύκλου PΒ(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [16] inter ὀκταέδρου et τὸ hab. lac. PG ‖ [16–17] τὸ ὕδωρ … δωδεκαέδρου PBGQ : om. PES §6 non hab. S ‖ [18] post δὲ add. συμφέρεται PG ‖ πυθαγορίζει PBEQ(ut vid.) : τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 49 (~ tit.) Ἀπὸ ποίου στοιχείου ἦρκται ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν (text Diels) 49.1 (~ P1) οἱ φυσικοὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἦρχθαι λέγουσιν αὐτὸν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου. 49.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας δὲ ἀπὸ πυρός. 49.3 (~ P3) Διοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναί φησι, δεύτερον δὲ πῦρ, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γῆν ἐξενηνέχθαι, εἶτα ὕδωρ, ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα. γενέσθαι δὲ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τὸν δὲ ἥλίον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός. 49.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων δὲ ὁρατὸν γεγονέναι τὸν κόσμον, ὃς γίγνεσθαι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ. τοῦ δὲ ὁρατοῦ πρότεραν μὲν τὴν ψυχὴν, μετ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ τὸ σώματοειδὲς γεγονέναι ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. 49.5 (~ P5) Πυθαγόρας σώματα τῶν στερεῶν ᾠήθη, ἅπερ καλεῖ μαθηματικά. ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ κύβου γεγονέναι τὴν γῆν φησιν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς πυραμίδος τὸ πῦρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὀκταέδρου […] τὸ ὕδωρ, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ δωδεκαέδρου τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν. 49.6 (~ P6) Πλάτων δὲ συμφέρεται καὶ ἐν τούτοις τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 18.1–12 Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο τὸν κόσμον ποιεῖν ὁ θεός (~ tit.) Μωϋσῆς μὲν ὁ θεόπτης οὐρανῷ ἅμα καὶ γῇ τὰ πρεσβεῖα δίδωσι τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως. τῶν δὲ παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι σοφῶν ἄλλοι ἄλλως ᾠήθησαν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὴν γῆν πρῶτον παράγουσιν ὡς κέντρον τοῦ οὐρανίου κύκλου, ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου κύκλου τὸ κέντρον πρεσβύτερον (~ P1). ἕτεροι δὲ εἰς τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα καὶ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα τὸ αἰθέριον τὸν σύμπαντα διαιροῦντες κόσμον καὶ τὸ τετράστοιχον ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος διοικεῖσθαι νομίζοντες, τὸ κάλλιστον δὲ τοῦ αἰθέρος ὁ οὐρανός, πρῶτον τοῦτον γεγενῆσθαι φασίν (cf. P3). ὅσοι δὲ ἀγέννητον τὸν κόσμον σαφῶς ἀπεφή-

15

liber 2 caput 6

835

ναντο ὁμοῦ τὸ πᾶν εἶναι ἀκολούθως ἑαυτοῖς λέγουσι. δεῖ δὲ μᾶλλον οἴεσθαι τὸν οὐρανὸν πρῶτον γεγενῆσθαι, ὡς καὶ κρεῖττον σῶμα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων περιληπτικόν. Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 6 p. 17.10–13 οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι, ἐπεὶ πάντα ἐξ ἀριθμῶν καὶ γραμμῶν συνεστάναι θέλουσι, τὴν μὲν γῆν φασιν ἔχειν σχῆμα κυβικόν, τὸ δὲ πῦρ πυραμοειδές, τὸν δ᾽ ἀέρα ὀκτάεδρον, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ εἰκοσάεδρον, τὴν δὲ τῶν ὅλων σύστασιν δωδεκάεδρον (~ §5). c. 7, p. 17.14–19 οἱ Στωϊκοί φασιν ἐκ τῆς γῆς τὴν ἔξωθεν γίνεσθαι πρῶτον περιφοράν· ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ γῆ κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχει, ὅπωσπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου κύκλος γίνεται, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς εἰκὸς ἔξω περιφέρειαν γεγονέναι. οἳ δέ φασι τὸ πῦρ ⟨διὰ τὸ⟩ ἀνωφερὲς εἶναι καὶ τὴν κύκλῳ φορὰν εἰωθὸς ποιεῖσθαι τὴν σύστασιν τῆς τῶν ὅλων περιφορᾶς πεποιῆσθαι (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. A 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. quaestio A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. A 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. A 5.22 Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων. A 1.3.9 (de Heraclito et Hippaso) ἐκ πυρὸς γὰρ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ εἰς πῦρ πάντα τελευτᾶν λέγουσι· τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένου κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ τὸ παχυμερέστατον αὐτοῦ εἰς αὑτὸ συστελλόμενον γῆ γίγνεται, ἔπειτ᾽ ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσει ὕδωρ ἀποτελεῖσθαι, ἀναθυμιώμενον δ᾽ ἀέρα γίνεσθαι. A 1.7.6 Ἀναξαγόρας νοῦν κοσμοποιὸν τὸν θεόν. §1 A 2.7.6 (de Philolao) πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον. §3 A 2.7.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὡρισμένους τοὺς τόπους τῶν στοιχείων, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοὺς ἀλλήλων μεταλαμβάνειν. §4 A 1.7.22 (de Platone) τούτου δὲ πατρὸς καὶ ποιητοῦ τὰ ἄλλα θεῖα ἔγγονα νοητὰ μέν (ὅ τε νοητὸς λεγόμενος κόσμος), παραδείγματα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The evidence for this chapter is solid. (1) P is again attested by the four main witnesses PBEGQ, who all record the same six doxai. Ps takes over the title and briefly alludes to the first and third doxai. (2) S’s evidence is less straightforward. Despite its theological and Platonicsounding title, he seemingly does not find the subject important, not including its title in any of his chapter titles and scattering the doxai, of which he retains

836

liber 2 caput 6

only four, to various locations. The first doxa in P is included as part of a cluster of Stoic views (on the name-label see below section D(d)§1) in S 1.21. The two doxai with the name-label Pythagoras in P are included in another cluster in the same chapter. The first Platonic doxa is included in S 1.22 on the cosmos’ τάξις, where it is followed by a quote from Tim. 32c5–33a2. But the appended doxa at the end (P6) is left out. The Empedoclean doxa (P3) is also omitted, probably through an oversight. No other material in S is likely to have originated in this chapter. (3) Ach records differing versions of the first two doxai (the former with the name-label Stoics) and the fifth spread out over chapters on the cosmos’ shape and its revolution. For these passages the theme of cosmogenesis is lacking. His earlier chapter §4 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων contains similar doxographical material, which we shall discuss in relation to A 2.7. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The scattered material in Ach shows that A’s chapter had a predecessor in the earlier tradition. There is, however, no further evidence in the proximate tradition. The question is not formulated elsewhere as such and does not appear to have been prominent in the broader doxographical tradition as far as we can tell from the surviving evidence. The parallel texts that we have collected discuss the subject of this chapter, but do not treat it dialectically. (2) Sources. Given the large number of philosophers in the tradition who affirm that the cosmos had an origin (cf. ch. 2.4), it is an obvious question as to how that process of genesis took place. There are various texts in Aristotle (see section E(b) General texts) which refer to the views of earlier philosophers on this question. Implicit in his treatment is a distinction between those who begin the process at the physical level, whether from an earlier state of motion (Empedocles) or one of quietude (Anaxagoras), and those who begin it from higher principles of a non-physical kind (Pythagoreans). This opposition returns in our chapter. On a number of occasions he uses the key term κοσμοποιεῖν, which occurs in the title of A’s chapter. We return to this term below in section D(e). In Cael. 2.13 more specifically the genesis and place of the earth is discussed. The view that it appeared first returns as the first doxa in A’s chapter. C Chapter Heading For the heading we have only the tradition in P. (The heading preserved in SL and recorded at Diels DG 271 is drawn from P through contamination, as demonstrated by Elter (1880) 72; cf. Wachsmuth (1882) 74.) E leaves out the word στοιχείου, a not unintelligent move, since §§4–6 do not begin with any

liber 2 caput 6

837

of the elements. The alternative title written in the margin of Ambrosianus 859 is no doubt inspired by the observation that the chapter does not in fact make mention of any creating god. There are reasons for thinking that earlier in the tradition the title may originally have not contained a reference to God, e.g. Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα, but was altered— i.e. Platonised—by A (or perhaps P); see further section D(e) below. Such a title brings the heading much closer to a parallel chapter for the microcosm (relating to the embryonic living being) ch. 5.17 Τί πρῶτον τελεσιουργεῖται ἐν γαστρί. But for an even closer parallel see the alternative title found in table of contents of ms. L, as discussed below in ch. 5.17 Commentary C. See further below section D(e). D Analysis a Context The chapter’s subject follows on from ch. 2.4: if the cosmos had a genesis, how did this genesis take place? As in previous chapters, there is a rather precisely parallel chapter in relation to the microcosm, but without reference to a creating deity: 5.22 Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων; cf. also ch. 5.23 Πότε καὶ πῶς ἄρχεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς τελειότητος. The subject of how the cosmos came to be composed has already been discussed at the outset in ch. 1.4, Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος. The atomist position outlined there is not taken up in the present chapter, which is wholly devoted to teleological versions of cosmogony. b Number–Order of Lemmata As far as the evidence goes, P has transmitted the chapter in a complete form. There can be no grounds for altering the order of the doxai. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Five answers are given to the question posed in the title. (a) The first two form a deliberate contrast between genesis starting at the centre of the cosmos and at the periphery. This diaeresis continues a similar opposition in the previous chapter 2.5a. (b) The third lemma gives a variation on the previous one: instead of fire and the fifth element, the process begins with aether, followed by fire and the other elements. The description of the cosmogonic process here giving the view of Empedocles gives more information than is required by the question posed in the chapter’s title. It anticipates the long description of the cosmos’ structure ascribed to Parmenides in the following chapter, A 2.7.1. (c) The fourth Platonic doxa adds a new aspect by having the process begin with a non-physical entity, the noetic cosmos, followed by soul and body. It is rather

838

liber 2 caput 6

surprising that the demiurgic god of the chapter’s title is not mentioned here. (d) The fifth doxa develops the non-physical approach further by taking the incorporeal mathematical realm as starting-point, i.e. the five primary geometrical solids taken again from Plato’s Timaeus (53c–55c) but attributed in the first instance to Pythagoras. (e) The Platonic provenance is indicated in the final doxa, which is really an appendix to the previous one rather than a separate doxa in its own right. The first three and the last three doxai can also be seen as presenting a further diaeresis between a physical and a non-physical starting-point for corporeal reality. Such a division is implicit in Aristotle’s criticism of philosophers such as the Pythagoreans (and also Plato and his successors) who move from abstract principles to physical bodies in the generation of the cosmos; see for example Met. N.3 1091a13–22 (text below section E(b) General texts). We return to the disconnect between the chapter’s theologizing title and the contents of its doxai below in Commentary D(e). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The name-label for the first doxa is problematic. P unanimously records οἱ φυσικοί, but S, supported by Ach, places it in a cluster of Stoic doxai. The Stoic name-label is retained by Von Arnim SVF 2.582. This can be reconciled with other evidence because for the Stoics, although the process of world-formation does not begin with the earth, it is the first part of the cosmos to be formed (see the comment at M–R 2.123). However, it is also cavalier to dismiss P’s reading out of hand. Lachenaud in a note ad loc. observes that it could refer to early Presocratics: doxai such as 12A10 on Anaximander and 13A6 DK on Anaximenes bear the same interpretation, i.e. the earth as the first part of the cosmos to be formed. Moreover the diaphonia of the first two doxai becomes more significant if they represent the two main Diadochai of the early Greek philosophical tradition, as already introduced at A 1.3.1 & 8. Mau in his apparatus testimoniorum appears to suggest that P might have referred to the Stoics under this name-label or included them in it. So, were it not for the evidence of Ach, it would be tempting to opt for the reading in P and surmise that S added it to the other Stoic doxai because he recognised (perhaps through reading AD) that the doxa was compatible with Stoic doctrine. But the evidence of Ach makes this solution less likely. A third solution is to retain both in the form οἱ φυσικοὶ καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ. This is what we opted for in our earlier publication (M–R 2.123 n. 266, 2.385–386). At A 1.18.1 the name-label reads οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος, which G has altered to οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος (cf. also

liber 2 caput 6

839

οἱ φυσικοὶ in G §18 on the active cause, used to introduce a long list of doxai on a material ἀρχή). For a double name-label with the Stoics in second place joined by καί it is possible to adduce an example at A 5.23.1, Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ, but this name-label is of course not strictly parallel. In the present text we have with some hesitation retained this solution, which presumes that S could not easily use the first part in the context of his chapter and that P regarded the reference to the Stoics as sufficient for his purpose. Bottler (2014) 318 comments on this conundrum: ‘An dieser Stelle zeigt sich die methodische Schwäche der Aëtios-Rekonstruktion: Wenn Stobaios durch Achilles bestätigt wird, dann is die Ps.Plut. Version erklärungsbedürftig, da Ps.Plutarch lediglich als Epitomator gilt … Ps.Plutarch hatte entweder eine andere Version vor Augen oder wurde nachträglich bearbeitet.’ It would be more accurate and fairer to say that it demonstrates the difficulties inherent in the reconstruction of the original source of P and S. It is not correct to say that P is only a (mechanical) epitomator. Whenever he manipulates name-labels, as he does frequently, he is more or less creatively intervening in the tradition. The difficulty here is that we cannot obtain certainty about what stood in A, i.e. the texts are ‘irreconcilable’ in the terminology of Runia (2020). But this is only an extreme case of what textual critics face very frequently when they have to judge between divergent readings. §2 The attribution to Pythagoras of a ‘fifth element’ would appear to be quite anachronistic, since it is a distinctively Aristotelian concept. But here there is no mention of its circular motion and it may well stand for what in the next doxa is called αἰθήρ. On this text Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.272 denies that it is ‘wholly anachronistic’, because he argues for a gradual emergence of the doctrine in early Greek thought, in which Pythagoreanism may have played a role. In addition, from the ps.Platonic Epinomis onwards Academics and Platonists toyed with the idea when it suited them. See for example Dillon (1977) 33 (Xenocrates), 169 (Philo), 286 (Alcinous); for a comprehensive treatment of the doctrine’s reception see Moraux (1963), and also below on A 2.7.4–5 Commentary D(d), 2.11.5 Commentary D(d). §3 The name-label in G, Diocles, is a mistake, perhaps caused by the falling away of some letters, i.e. [Ἐμπε]δοκλῆς. We note that the doxa carefully distinguishes between elements which are separated out (διακριθῆναι) and cosmic regions which come into being (γενέσθαι). A different approach is shown at D.L. 7.142 on the Stoics: γͅίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα … §4 A neat and compact summary of cosmogenesis in the Timaeus as interpreted in Middle Platonism. The second half of the doxa is a very compact précis of Tim. 34c4 (note προτέραν) and 31b4–7 (note σωματοειδές) with 32b3–

840

liber 2 caput 6

4. The first half departs further from the Platonic text. The terms ὁρατὸς κόσμος and νοητὸς κόσμος are not found there and are the result of Middle Platonic systematization. Similar terminology is found in A 1.7.22[111–112] and our comments ad loc. at Commentary D(e)§22. These texts represent two of the very earliest instances of the term νοητὸς κόσμος; cf. also Philo Opif. 16 and discussion at Runia (1999) 158–160, and also Baltes (1972) 105–106 on Tim.Locr. 30. As we might expect, Philo’s account is strongly theologized, whereas in A the demiurge is conspicuous by his absence. A similar but much expanded summary of the Timaeus is given by Alcinous Did. 13–14. The summary at D.L. 3.71–73— part of what is likely to be quite an early doxographical account—mentions the model (called ὑπόδειγμα) and the four elements, but not the World Soul. §5 The doctrine attributed to Pythagoras here obviously goes back to Plato’s Timaeus, but the tradition connecting it to the Pythagorean tradition is ancient, already present in the Old Academy; see Burkert (1972) 70–71 with reference to ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 82.10–18 (text below section E(b)§5). Diels’ attribution of the report to Philolaus in VS and its retention at 44A15 DK is highly questionable; see Huffman (1993) 393. It should also be noted that fr. 44B12 of Philolaus speaks of five elements. If the proposal to read in its final phrase ⟨τ⟩ὸ τᾶς σφαίρας ὅλ{κ}ας is accepted (Mansfeld 2016b), then a reference to the Platonic theory of the five regular solids may be detected, as in A’s text, incidentally making it even more probable that the fragment is not authentic. e Other Evidence The striking term κοσμοποιεῖν in the chapter heading (but not used in the chapter itself) occurs elsewhere in the Placita six times: 1.3.9 (Heraclitus– Hippasus), 1.7.5 (Archelaus), 1.7.6 (Anaxagoras), 1.24.2 (Empedocles and other corporealists), 1.25.3 (Parmenides–Democritus), 2.13.14 (Orphic writings). We note that in the first of these texts it is said that ‘all things originate from fire and all things terminate in fire; and when it is quenched, all things are formed into the cosmos (κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα); first its densest part is concentrated and becomes earth; then the earth is loosened by fire and naturally produces water, which (in turn) evaporates and become air’. This is precisely the subject of our chapter and similar to the Stoic view discussed above in section D(d) §1. It should further be noted that the term itself goes back to Aristotle, who uses it on four occasions not of a deity or another efficient cause, but for philosophers who put forward cosmogonic theories; texts below at section E(b). In particular the words at Cael. 3.2 301a13, where it is said of Anaxagoras ἐξ ἀκινήτων γὰρ ἄρχεται κοσμοποιεῖν, are reminiscent of the heading of the present chapter. (On the importance of the term in Aristotle’s treatment of his cosmological predecessors see Johnson 2019, 74, 107.) Against this background, and

liber 2 caput 6

841

taking into account the fact that there is no reference to a creating deity in the body of the chapter, it might be surmised that in the earlier tradition the title was Ἀπὸ ποίου πρώτου στοιχείου ἤρξατο κοσμοποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. As noted above in section C, this would bring it closer to the parallel heading of ch. 5.17 and esp. the alternative title in SL. The current heading is exceptional because it goes against the grain of what we have called the ‘detheologizing tendency’ of the Placita; see Mansfeld (2013a) 330–331. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 Aucher (Alexander speaking) quam ob rem vasto in medio universorum conditam erexit terram, supra se habentem maria: et concedens terrae spatium secundum (?), aerem super aquas elevans, eum sursum delatum usque ad aetherem extendit? quod vero a nobis ( fortasse) audire vultis, praesto est responsum; necessitate videlicet quadam naturae leviora a gravioribus sursum pelli contigit … eodem modo et mundi partes affici videntur, ut dicit Empedocles (31A49 DK). discedentibus enim ab aether vento et igne atque volantibus, tum caelo latissime expanso ac desuper circumducto, ignis qui paulo inferior caelo manserat, ipse quoque in radios solis adauctus est: terra vero concurrens in unum spatium et necessario condensata apparens, in medio stat. porro circa eam undique, quoniam nimis levior erat, volvitur absque dimotione aether. quietis autem exinde ratio datur per Deum, non vero per sphaeras multas super se invicem positas … Prov. 2.62 (Philo replying) perpende, quod dicis, a gravioribus sursum agi leviora … fuit autem elementorum extensio per providentiam opus creatoris patrisque. et terra occupavit medium … ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) ἐκ πρώτης φησὶ τῆς τῶν στοιχείων κράσεως ἀποκριθέντα τὸν ἀέρα περιχυθῆναι κύκλῳ, μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα τὸ πῦρ ἐκδραμὸν καὶ οὐκ ἔχον ἑτέραν χώραν ἄνω ἐκτρέχειν ὑπὸ τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα πάγου. … τὴν δὲ ἀρχὴν τῆς κινήσεως συμβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ τετυχηκέναι κατὰ τὸν ἀθροισμὸν ἐπιβρίσαντος τοῦ πυρός. cf. §12 (on Diogenes of Apollonia, 64A6 DK) κοσμοποιεῖ δὲ οὕτως … Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 καὶ ἀπὸ ποίου ἤρξατο ὁ θεὸς κοσμοποιεῖν. §1 Physicists Stoics: Plutarch SR 1053A (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.579) λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Φύσεως· ‘ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ· οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται.’ Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.142 (SVF 2.581) γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὑγρότητα, εἶτα τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ, τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ. εἶτα κατὰ μίξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῷα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα γένη. §3 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 (on Empedocles) see above.

842

liber 2 caput 6

§4 Plato: Philo of Alexandria Opif. 16 προλαβὼν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἅτε θεὸς ὅτι μίμημα καλὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε γένοιτο δίχα καλοῦ παραδείγματος οὐδέ τι τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἀνυπαίτιον, ὃ μὴ πρὸς ἀρχέτυπον καὶ νοητὴν ἰδέαν ἀπεικονίσθη, βουληθεὶς τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον τουτονὶ δημιουργῆσαι προεξετύπου τὸν νοητόν … cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.71 (on the created cosmos) ἕνα τε αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρον κατεσκευάσθαι, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ὑπόδειγμα ἓν ἦν ἀφ᾽ οὗ αὐτὸν ἐδημιούργησε. V.P. 3.73 συνεστάναι δὲ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ πυρός, ὕδατος, ἀέρος, γῆς. ἐκ πυρὸς μέν, ὅπως ὁρατὸς ᾖ· ἐκ γῆς δέ, ὅπως στερεός· ἐξ ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος, ὅπως ἀνάλογος—αἱ γὰρ τῶν στερεῶν δυνάμεις δύο μεσότησιν ἀναλογοῦσιν ὡς ἓν γενέσθαι τὸ πᾶν—ἐξ ἁπάντων δέ, ἵνα τέλειος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ᾖ. Alcinous Did. 13, p. 168.8–16 H. ἐξ ὧν δὲ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, δύο ὑπαρχόντων, σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτόν, ἡ δὲ ἀόρατός τε καὶ ἀναφής, ἑκατέρου ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ σύστασις διάφορος οὖσα τυγχάνει. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ἐκ πυρὸς γέγονε καὶ γῆς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος· ταῦτα δὴ τὰ τέτταρα συλλαβὼν ὁ δημιουργὸς τοῦ κόσμου οὐ μὰ Δία στοιχείων τάξιν ἐπέχοντα διεσχημάτισε πυραμίδι καὶ κύβῳ καὶ ὀκταέδρῳ καὶ εἰκοσαέδρῳ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι δωδεκαέδρῳ … §5 Pythagoras: Sextus Empiricus M. 10.283 (on the Pythagoreans) πλὴν οὕτω μὲν ἀποτελεῖται τὰ στερεὰ σώματα ἡγουμένων τῶν ἀριθμῶν· ἀφ᾽ ὧν λοιπὸν καὶ τὰ αἰσθητὰ συνίσταται, γῆ τε καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ πῦρ, καὶ καθόλου ὁ κόσμος. cf. also Hermias Irr. 161.1–26 Hanson ἄλλοι τοίνυν ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς φυλῆς Πυθαγόρας καὶ οἱ τούτου συμφυλέται σεμνοὶ καὶ σιωπηλοὶ παραδιδόασιν ἄλλα μοι δόγματα ὥσπερ μυστήρια, καὶ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ μέγα καὶ ἀπόρρητον αὐτὸς ἔφα· ἀρχὴ τῶν πάντων ἡ μονάς. ἐκ δὲ τῶν σχημάτων αὐτῆς καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τὰ στοιχεῖα γίνεται. καὶ τούτων ἑκάστου τὸν ἀριθμὸν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ μέτρον οὕτω πως ἀποφαίνεται· τὸ μὲν πῦρ …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Leg. 10. 889b cited above ch. 2.3 section E(b) General texts. Aristotle Phys. 8.1 250b15–17 εἶναι μὲν οὖν κίνησιν πάντες φασὶν οἱ περὶ φύσεώς τι λέγοντες διὰ τὸ κοσμοποιεῖν καὶ περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς εἶναι τὴν θεωρίαν πᾶσαν αὐτοῖς … (cf. also Phys. 1.4 187a11–b6). Cael. 2.13 295a13–19 διὸ δὴ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συνελθεῖν φασίν· ὅτι δὲ μένει, ζητοῦσι τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὅτι τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς αἴτιον, οἱ δ᾽ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A67 DK), τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ φορὰν κύκλῳ περιθέουσαν καὶ θᾶττον φερομένην ἢ τὴν τῆς γῆς φορὰν κωλύειν, καθάπερ τὸ ἐν τοῖς κυάθοις ὕδωρ. Cael. 3.2 301a11–20, ἔοικε δὲ τοῦτό γε αὐτὸ καλῶς Ἀναξαγόρας λαβεῖν· ἐξ ἀκινήτων γὰρ ἄρχεται κοσμοποιεῖν. πειρῶνται δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι συγκρίνοντές πως πάλιν κινεῖν καὶ διακρίνειν. ἐκ διεστώτων δὲ καὶ κινουμένων οὐκ εὔλογον ποιεῖν τὴν γένεσιν. διὸ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A42 DK) παραλείπει τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς φιλότητος· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἠδύνατο συστῆσαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ κεχωρισμένων μὲν κατασκευάζων, σύγκρισιν δὲ ποιῶν διὰ τὴν φιλότητα· ἐκ διακεκριμένων γὰρ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος τῶν στοιχείων· ὥστ᾽ ἀναγκαῖον γίνεσθαι ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ συγκεκριμένου. Met. A.4 985a18–23 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A47 DK) τε γὰρ μηχανῇ χρῆται τῷ νῷ πρὸς τὴν κοσμοποιίαν, καὶ ὅταν ἀπορήσῃ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐστί, τότε παρέλκει αὐτόν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις πάντα μᾶλλον αἰτιᾶται τῶν γιγνομένων ἢ

liber 2 caput 6 νοῦν, καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A37 DK) ἐπὶ πλέον μὲν τούτου χρῆται τοῖς αἰτίοις, οὐ μὴν οὔθ᾽ ἱκανῶς, οὔτ᾽ ἐν τούτοις εὑρίσκει τὸ ὁμολογούμενον. Met. N.3 1091a13–22 οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι (58B26 DK) πότερον οὐ ποιοῦσιν ἢ ποιοῦσι γένεσιν οὐδὲν δεῖ διστάζειν· φανερῶς γὰρ λέγουσιν ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος, εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἐπιπέδων εἴτ᾽ ἐκ χροιᾶς εἴτ᾽ ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ὧν ἀποροῦσιν εἰπεῖν, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔγγιστα τοῦ ἀπείρου ὅτι εἵλκετο καὶ ἐπεραίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πέρατος. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ κοσμοποιοῦσι καὶ φυσικῶς βούλονται λέγειν, δίκαιον αὐτοὺς ἐξετάζειν τι περὶ φύσεως, ἐκ δὲ τῆς νῦν ἀφεῖναι μεθόδου· τὰς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ζητοῦμεν ἀρχάς, ὥστε καὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τῶν τοιούτων ἐπισκεπτέον τὴν γένεσιν. Nicomachus Intr.Arith. 2.18.4 τῇ δὲ ἄρα διχοστατεῖ καὶ διανενέμηται καὶ ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις φαίνεται τά τε τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ πάντα καὶ τὰ ἐν κόσμῳ πρὸς ταῦτα ἀποτελεσθέντα καὶ καλῶς οἱ παλαιοὶ φυσιολογεῖν ἀρχόμενοι τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν τῆς κοσμοποιίας ταύτῃ ποιοῦνται· Πλάτων μὲν τῆς ταυτοῦ φύσεως καὶ τῆς θατέρου ὀνομάζων καὶ πάλιν τῆς ἀμερίστου καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐχούσης οὐσίας τῆς τε αὖ μεριστῆς γινομένης, Φιλόλαος (cf. 44B2 DK) δὲ ἀναγκαῖον τὰ ἐόντα πάντα εἶμεν ἤτοι ἄπειρα ἢ περαίνοντα ἢ περαίνοντα ἅμα καὶ ἄπειρα, ὅπερ μᾶλλον συγκατατίθεται εἶναι, ἐκ περαινόντων ἅμα καὶ ἀπείρων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον, κατ᾽ εἰκόνα δηλονότι τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ … Poimandres (= Corpus Hermeticum 1) ch. 8, τὰ οὖν, ἐγώ φημι, στοιχεῖα τῆς φύσεως πόθεν ὑπέστη;—πάλιν ἐκεῖνος πρὸς ταῦτα, ἐκ βουλῆς θεοῦ, ἥτις λαβοῦσα τὸν Λόγον καὶ ἰδοῦσα τὸν καλὸν κόσμον ἐμιμήσατο, κοσμοποιηθεῖσα διὰ τῶν ἑαυτῆς στοιχείων καὶ γεννημάτων ψυχῶν. Simplicius in Ph. 1120.21 (commenting on Phys. 8.2 250b15) οὕτω γὰρ καὶ Δημόκριτος κοσμοποιεῖ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας, οἱ μὲν συγκρίνεσθαι καὶ διακρίνεσθαι τὰ ἄτομα σώματα καὶ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα λέγοντες, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ ἐκκρίνεσθαι τὰς ὁμοιομερείας ἀπὸ τοῦ μίγματος λέγων· καὶ ἡ σύγκρισις δὲ καὶ ἡ διάκρισις καὶ ἡ ἔκκρισις κινήσεις τινές εἰσι. καὶ περὶ γενέσεως δὲ καὶ φθορᾶς διαλέγονται πάντες … Chapter heading: — §4 Plato: Plato Tim. 28a–b ὅτου μὲν οὖν ἂν ὁ δημιουργὸς πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ἔχον βλέπων ἀεί, τοιούτῳ τινὶ προσχρώμενος παραδείγματι, τὴν ἰδέαν καὶ δύναμιν αὐτοῦ ἀπεργάζηται, καλὸν ἐξ ἀνάγκης οὕτως ἀποτελεῖσθαι πᾶν· οὗ δ᾽ ἂν εἰς γεγονός, γεννητῷ παραδείγματι προσχρώμενος, οὐ καλόν. Tim. 31b–32c σωματοειδὲς δὲ δὴ καὶ ὁρατὸν ἁπτόν τε δεῖ τὸ γενόμενον εἶναι, χωρισθὲν δὲ πυρὸς οὐδὲν ἄν ποτε ὁρατὸν γένοιτο, οὐδὲ ἁπτὸν ἄνευ τινὸς στερεοῦ, στερεὸν δὲ οὐκ ἄνευ γῆς· ὅθεν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γῆς τὸ τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχόμενος συνιστάναι σῶμα ὁ θεὸς ἐποίει. δύο δὲ μόνω καλῶς συνίστασθαι τρίτου χωρὶς οὐ δυνατόν· δεσμὸν γὰρ ἐν μέσῳ δεῖ τινα ἀμφοῖν συναγωγὸν γίγνεσθαι. … (32b) οὕτω δὴ πυρός τε καὶ γῆς ὕδωρ ἀέρα τε ὁ θεὸς ἐν μέσῳ θείς, καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα καθ᾽ ὅσον ἦν δυνατὸν ἀνὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον ἀπεργασάμενος, ὅτιπερ πῦρ πρὸς ἀέρα, τοῦτο ἀέρα πρὸς ὕδωρ, καὶ ὅτι ἀὴρ πρὸς ὕδωρ, ὕδωρ πρὸς γῆν, συνέδησεν καὶ συνεστήσατο οὐρανὸν ὁρατὸν καὶ ἁπτόν. … τῶν δὲ δὴ τεττάρων ἓν ὅλον ἕκαστον εἴληφεν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου σύστασις. ἐκ γὰρ πυρὸς παντὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς συνέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ συνιστάς … Tim. 34a–35a ψυχὴν δὲ εἰς τὸ μέσον αὐτοῦ θεὶς διὰ παντός τε ἔτεινεν καὶ ἔτι ἔξωθεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτῇ περιεκάλυψεν, καὶ κύκλῳ δὴ κύκλον στρεφόμενον οὐρανὸν ἕνα μόνον ἔρημον κατέστησεν, δι᾽ ἀρετὴν δὲ αὐτὸν αὑτῷ δυνάμενον συγγίγνεσθαι καὶ οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου προσδεόμενον, γνώριμον

843

844

liber 2 caput 6

δὲ καὶ φίλον ἱκανῶς αὐτὸν αὑτῷ. διὰ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα εὐδαίμονα θεὸν αὐτὸν ἐγεννήσατο. τὴν δὲ δὴ ψυχὴν οὐχ ὡς νῦν ὑστέραν ἐπιχειροῦμεν λέγειν, οὕτως ἐμηχανήσατο καὶ ὁ θεὸς νεωτέραν … ὁ δὲ καὶ γενέσει καὶ ἀρετῇ προτέραν καὶ πρεσβυτέραν ψυχὴν σώματος ὡς δεσπότιν καὶ ἄρξουσαν ἀρξομένου συνεστήσατο ἐκ τῶνδέ τε καὶ τοιῷδε τρόπῳ. §5 Pythagoras: Plato cf. Tim. 53e–c. Speusippus at ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 82.10–18 ὅτι καὶ Σπεύσιππος (fr. 4 Lang, 122 Isnardi Parente, F28 Tarán) ὁ Πωτώνης μὲν υἱὸς τῆς τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀδελφῆς, διάδοχος δὲ Ἀκαδημίας πρὸ Ξενοκράτου, ἐκ τῶν ἐξαιρέτως σπουδασθεισῶν ἀεὶ Πυθαγορικῶν ἀκροάσεων, μάλιστα δὲ τῶν Φιλολάου συγγραμμάτων, βιβλίδιόν τι συντάξας γλαφυρὸν ἐπέγραψε μὲν αὐτὸ Περὶ Πυθαγορικῶν ἀριθμῶν (44A13 DK), ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς δὲ μέχρι ἡμίσους περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς γραμμικῶν ἐμμελέστατα διεξελθὼν πολυγωνίων τε καὶ παντοίων τῶν ἐν ἀριθμοῖς ἐπιπέδων ἅμα καὶ στερεῶν περί τε τῶν πέντε σχημάτων, ἃ τοῖς κοσμικοῖς ἀποδίδοται στοιχείοις … Proclus in Eucl. 65.20 (on Pythagoras) καὶ τὴν τῶν κοσμικῶν σχημάτων σύστασιν ἀνεῦρεν.

Liber 2 Caput 7 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887C–F; pp. 335a5–336a23 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.38, pp. 410.11–411.4 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.11—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 50; p. 622.20–25 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 144–145 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 159, p. 81 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.32, p. 38.8 Delatte (titulus solus)— S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.22.1ab, pp. 195.2–196.2 + 1.22.1de, pp. 196.18–197.10 + 15.6d, p. 147.11–13 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b7 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles c. 4, pp. 12.6–19, 13.12–14 Di Maria

Titulus ζʹ. Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου (P,S) §1 Παρμενίδης στεφάνας εἶναι περιπεπλεγμένας ἐπαλλήλους, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ τὴν δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ, μικτὰς δ᾽ ἄλλας ἐκ φωτὸς καὶ σκότους μεταξὺ τούτων· καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ πάσας τείχους δίκην στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ πυρώδης στεφάνη· καὶ τὸ μεσαίτατον πασῶν περὶ ὃ πάλιν πυρώδης· τῶν δε συμμιγῶν τὴν μεσαιτάτην ἁπάσαις ⟨ἀρχήν⟩ τε καὶ ⟨αἰτίαν⟩ πάσης κινήσεως καὶ γενέσεως ὑπάρχειν, ἥντινα καὶ δαίμονα κυβερνῆτιν καὶ κλῃροῦχον ἐπονομάζει, δίκην τε καὶ ἀνάγκην. καὶ τῆς μὲν γῆς ἀπόκρισιν εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, διὰ τὴν βιαιοτέραν αὐτῆς ἐξατμισθέντα πίλησιν, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον· συμμιγῆ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, τοῦ τ᾽ ἀέρος καὶ τοῦ πυρός. περιστάντος δ᾽ ἀνωτάτω πάντων τοῦ αἰθέρος ὑπ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ πυρῶδες ὑποταγῆναι τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ κεκλήκαμεν οὐρανόν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ ἤδη τὰ περίγεια. (P1,S2) §1 Parmenides 28A37 DK, cf. 28B12.3, 28B1.14, 28B8.30 DK titulus τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου PB(III)EGQS Diels : om. τοῦ PB(I,II)PsSy Mau Lachenaud : τῆς τοῦ κόσμου τάξεως PB(III:Laur.31,37), cf. E 15.32.8 §1 [2] ἐπαλλήλους PB(I,III)S (-λας PB(II), -λαις PB(III: Laur.31,37)) : ἐπ᾽ ἀλλήλοις (et -λαις) PE : πρὸς ἀλλήλους PG ‖ [2–3] στεφάνας … πυκνοῦ] στεφάνους … πεπλεγμένους … τὸν μὲν … τὸν δὲ … PG ‖ [3–4] μικτὰς … τούτων] om. PG ‖ [3] ἐκ φωτὸς : ἐκ om. S ‖ [4–5] καὶ … ὑπάρχειν] al. PG καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ τὸ πᾶν στοιχεῖον δίκην στεφάνου στερεοῦ εἶναι ‖ [5–§4[19]] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ … Πλάτων om. PG (lacuna?) ‖ [5–14] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ … περίγεια om. P ‖ [5] post πασῶν conj. στερεόν DK ‖ περι ὃ corr. Boekh Wachsmuth : περὶ ὃν SF, περὶ ὧν SP ‖ [6–7] ⟨ἀρχήν⟩ τε καὶ ⟨αἰτίαν⟩ coni. Diels VS ex Simp. (⟨ἀρχήν τόκου⟩ τε καὶ Zeller), prob. DK, Mansfeld R2 : τε καὶ S : τοκέα coni. Davis Diels DG, αἰτίαν coni. Krische Wachsmuth, crucif. Laks–Most ‖ post δαίμονα add. καὶ SP ‖ [8] κληροῦχον S Mansfeld R2, Laks–Most : κλῃδοῦχον Fülleborn Diels Wachsmuth conl. 28B1.14 DK ‖ [13] ὑφ᾽ ᾧ Krische Diels Wachsmuth : ὑφ᾽ οὗ S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_048

5

10

846 §2 §3 §4 §5

§6

liber 2 caput 7

Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος χιτῶνα κύκλῳ καὶ ὑμένα περιτείνουσι τῷ κόσμῳ, διὰ τῶν ἀγκιστροειδῶν ἀτόμων συμπεπλεγμένον. (P2,S5) Ἐπίκουρος ἐνίων μὲν κόσμων ἀραιὸν τὸ πέρας ἐνίων δὲ πυκνόν, καὶ τούτων τὰ μέν τινα κινούμενα τὰ δ᾽ ἀκίνητα. (P3,S6) Πλάτων πῦρ πρῶτον εἶτ᾽ αἰθέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ὕδωρ, τελευταίαν δὲ γῆν· ἐνίοτε δὲ τὸν αἰθέρα τῷ πυρὶ συνάπτει. (P4) Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον μὲν αἰθέρα ἀπαθῆ, πέμπτον δή τι σῶμα· μεθ᾽ ὃν παθητὰ πῦρ ἀέρα ὕδωρ· τελευταίαν δὲ γῆν. τούτων δὲ τοῖς μὲν οὐρανίοις ἀποδεδόσθαι τὴν κυκλικὴν κίνησιν, τῶν δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα τεταγμένων τοῖς μὲν κούφοις τὴν ἄνω τοῖς δὲ βαρέσι τὴν κάτω. (P5,S3) Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον, ὅπερ ἑστίαν τοῦ παντὸς καλεῖ καὶ Διὸς οἶκον καὶ μητέρα θεῶν, βωμόν τε καὶ συνοχὴν καὶ μέτρον φύσεως· καὶ πάλιν πῦρ ἕτερον ἀνωτάτω, τὸ περιέχον. πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τοῦτο δέκα σώματα θεῖα χορεύειν, οὐρανόν, ⟨πέν⟩τε πλανήτας, μεθ᾽ οὓς ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ σελήνην, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, μεθ᾽ ἃ σύμπαντα τὸ πῦρ ἑστίας περὶ τὰ κέντρα τάξιν ἐπέχον. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀνωτάτω μέρος τοῦ περιέχοντος, ἐν ᾧ τὴν εἰλικρίνειαν εἶναι τῶν στοιχείων, Ὄλυμπον καλεῖ· τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ Ὀλύμπου φοράν, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς πέντε πλανήτας μεθ᾽ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης τετάχθαι, κόσμον. τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τούτοις ὑποσέληνόν τε καὶ περίγειον μέρος, ἐν ᾧ τὰ τῆς φιλομεταβόλου γενέσεως, Οὐρανόν. καὶ περὶ μὲν τὰ τεταγμένα τῶν μετεώρων γίνεσθαι τὴν σοφίαν, περὶ δὲ τῶν γινομένων τῆν ἀταξίαν τὴν ἀρετήν, τελείαν μὲν ἐκείνην, ἀτελῆ δὲ ταύτην. (S4)

§2 Leucippus–Democritus 67A23 DK, fr. 386 Luria; §3 Epicurus fr. 303 Usener; §4 Plato—; §5 cf. Aristoteles Cael. 1.3 270b22, ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392a5–b17392a5–b17; §6 Philolaus 44A16 DK §2 non hab. G ‖ [15] κύκλῳ PBEQSP2 : κύκλου SFP1 ‖ περιτείνουσι] περιζώννουσι PB(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [16] διὰ … συμπεπλεγμένον om. P §3 non hab. G ‖ [17] Ἐπίκουρος ἐνίων μὲν κόσμων om. PE ‖ κόσμων PB : κόσμον S ‖ ἐνίων δὲ PBQS : ἔνια δὲ πυκνά PE ‖ [18] τινα om. PB(III:Laur.31,37) §4 [19] πῦρ πρῶτον] πρῶτον πῦρ PG lemma Parmenidis continuans ‖ [20] ἐνίοτε … τῷ πυρὶ συνάπτει PB : ἐνίοτε … συνάπτει τῷ πυρί PE : al. PG εἶτα αἰθέρα, μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ὕδωρ §5 non hab. G ‖ [21] μὲν om. S ‖ αἰθέρα PEQ S : ἀέρα PB, sed add. τὸν αἰθέρα post ἀπαθῆ PB(III) ‖ δή τι corr. Duebner : δέ τι PB : δὲ PE : δή om. S ‖ μεθ᾽ ὃν PB(I)ES : μεθ᾽ ὃ PB(II,III) ‖ [22] ἀέρα ὕδωρ PBES : ὕδωρ ἀέρα PQ ‖ [22–24] τούτων … κάτω om. S ‖ [23] ἀποδεδόσθαι PB(I,II)E ἀποδιδόναι PB(III) ‖ ὑπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα PB(I,III)EQ : ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνα PB(II) §6 non hab. P ‖ [28–29] οὐρανόν, πέντε coniecimus, cf. Primavesi R2 166 : οὐρανόν τε S : τοὺς εʹ conj. Diels, quem sec. Wachsmuth, Laks–Most : τε om. Huffman ‖ [30] περὶ Meineke edd. : ἐπὶ S ‖ [36] τῶν γινομένων corr. Usener : τὰ γενόμενα S ‖ [37] τὴν ἀταξίαν SF : τῆς ἀταξίας SP

15

20

25

30

35

liber 2 caput 7

§7

Ἐμπεδοκλῆς μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας εἶναι μηδ᾽ ὡρισμένους τοὺς τόπους τῶν στοιχείων, ἀλλὰ πάντα τοὺς ἀλλήλων μεταλαμβάνειν. (P6,S1)

§7 Empedocles 31A35 DK §7 [38] post Ἐμπεδοκλῆς hab. δὲ PG ‖ ἑστῶτας PBEG : ἑστῶτα (sc. στοιχεῖα) PQ ‖ τοὺς] om. PG ‖ post στοιχείων add. PG ὑπείληφεν ‖ [39] πάντα … μεταλαμβάνειν (locus corruptus sec. edd., sed sanus, πάντα sc. τὰ στοιχεῖα cf. PG et Plato Prot. 329e3) : πάντα τούς PBQ (πάντη τοῦ PB(III:Laur.31,37)) : πάντα πως PE : πάντας τοὺς S : πανταχοῦ coni. Diels DG, πανταχῶς Wachsmuth : al. PG πάντα τῶν ἄλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 50 (~ tit.) Περὶ τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου (text Diels) 50.1 (~ P1,4) Παρμενίδης στεφάνους εἶναι πεπλεγμένους πρὸς ἀλλήλους τὸν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ, τὸν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ· καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ τὸ πᾶν στοιχεῖον δίκην στεφάνου στερεοῦ εἶναι, πρῶτον πῦρ, εἶτα αἰθέρα, μεθ᾽ ὃν ἀέρα μεθ᾽ ὃν ὕδωρ. 50.2 (~ P7) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ μὴ διὰ παντὸς ἑστῶτας μηδὲ ὡρισμένους τόπους τῶν στοιχείων ὑπείληφεν, ἀλλὰ πάντα τῶν ἄλλων ἀντιλαμβάνειν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 159 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.32 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 4, p. 10.18 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων (~ tit.) p. 12.6–19 τὴν δὲ τάξιν, ἣν δεδώκαμεν τῷ σφαιρώματι, οἱ Ὀρφικοὶ λέγουσι παραπλησίαν εἶναι τῇ ἐν τοῖς ᾠοῖς· ὃν γὰρ ἔχει λόγον τὸ λέπυρον ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ, τοῦτον ἐν τῷ παντὶ ὁ οὐρανός, καὶ ὡς ἐξήρτηται τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κυκλοτερῶς ὁ αἰθήρ, οὕτω τοῦ λεπύρου ὁ ὑμήν. κατὰ δέ τινας, ἐπειδὴ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ὁ αἰθὴρ εἷς ἐστι, μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον ὁ ἀήρ, ἔσται ἐν τοῖς ὠιοῖς ὁ ὑμὴν τοῦ ἀέρος τάξιν ἐπέχων. ἡ δὲ λευκὴ σὰρξ ἡ ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ ἐὰν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος τάξιν ἐπέχηι, ἔσται ἡ λέκιθος τοῦ ᾠοῦ τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος τάξιν ἐπέχουσα, τὸ δὲ ἐνδότατον καὶ μεσαίτατον τῆς λεκίθου τὴν τάξιν ἔχον τῆς γῆς. εἰ δὲ ὑμένα τὸν ἐν τῷ ᾠῷ ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰθέρος λάβωμεν, τὸ τῶν ὀρνίθων γάλα ἀντ᾽ ἀέρος ἔσται καὶ ἡ ἔξωθεν περιφορὰ τῆς λεκίθου ἀντὶ ὕδατος, τὸ δὲ ἐνδότατον καὶ μεσαίτατον ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς. καθόλου δέ, ἐὰν πέντε σφαίρας εἴπωμεν κατὰ τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην, τὸ ἐνδότατον τῆς λεκίθου ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς παραληφθήσεται, ἐὰν δὲ τέσσαρας κατὰ τοὺς ἄλλους, ὅλη ἡ λέκιθος ἀντὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται, οὐ κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν. p. 13.12–14 ὁ δὲ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς οὐ δίδωσι τοῖς στοιχείοις ὡρισμένους τόπους, ἀλλ᾽ ἀντιπαραχωρεῖν ἀλλήλοις φησίν, ὥστε καὶ τὴν γῆν μετέωρον φέρεσθαι καὶ τὸ πῦρ ταπεινότερον (~ §7). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων. quaestio A 2.1.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς

847

848

liber 2 caput 7

ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. A 3.proœm. τρέψομαι ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ πρὸς τὰ μετάρσια· ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου τῆς σελήνης καθήκοντα μέχρι πρὸς τὴν θέσιν τῆς γῆς, ἥντινα κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχειν τῇ περιοχῇ τῆς σφαίρας νενομίκασιν. §1 A 1.25.3 Παρμενίδης καὶ Δημόκριτος πάντα κατ᾽ ἀνάγκην· τὴν αὐτὴν δ᾽ εἶναι εἱμαρμένην καὶ δαίμονα καὶ δίκην καὶ πρόνοιαν καὶ κοσμοποιόν (cf. ll. 8–9). A 2.11.1 Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι. A 3.1.6 Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα. A 2.11.4 Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος Στράτων Ζήνων πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν. §2 A 1.4.1 ὁ τοίνυν κόσμος συνέστη περικεκλασμένῳ σχήματι ἐσχηματισμένος τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον κτλ. §3 A 2.1.3 … Ἐπίκουρος … ἀπείρους κόσμους ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ κατὰ πᾶσαν περίστασιν. A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. §4 A 2.6.4 Πλάτων τὸν ὁρατὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι πρὸς παράδειγμα τοῦ νοητοῦ κόσμου· τοῦ δ᾽ ὁρατοῦ κόσμου προτέραν μὲν τὴν ψυχήν, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τὸ σωματοειδὲς τὸ ἐκ πυρὸς μὲν καὶ γῆς πρῶτον, ὕδατος δὲ καὶ ἀέρος δεύτερον. §5 A 1.3.21 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ Νικομάχου Σταγειρίτης ἀρχὰς μὲν ἐντελέχειαν ἤτοι εἶδος ὕλην στέρησιν· στοιχεῖα δὲ τέσσαρα, πέμπτον δέ τι σῶμα αἰθέριον ἀμετάβλητον. A 1.12.3 Ἀριστοτέλης βαρύτατον μὲν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ἁπλῶς, κουφότατον δὲ τὸ πῦρ· ἀέρα δὲ καὶ ὕδωρ ἄλλοτ᾽ ἄλλως. μηδὲν δὲ πῦρ κυκλοτερῶς φύσει κινεῖσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα. A 2.11.5 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος et vid. text. cit. ad loc. §6 A 3.11.3 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον (τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς ἑστίαν), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, τρίτην δ᾽ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν γῆν … A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. §7 cf. A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι … A 2.11.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The P tradition is again represented by the four main witnesses. In PBEQ there are the same six doxai. G has radically shortened the chapter, preserving only two lemmata, of which the former as transmitted is a combination of the Parmenidean and Platonic doxai. This is clearly meant to represent the standard cosmology where elements have their fixed place, which is then followed by the final Empedoclean lemma in which the elements do not have a fixed

liber 2 caput 7

849

place. So in spite of his brevity G still uses the diaeresis which is the hallmark of the method of the Placita! (2) The chapter’s contents become more complex when the evidence of S is taken into account. Five of P’s six lemmata are found. The location of P6 = S1 (Empedocles) in S 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων is surprising: it seems that after quoting the first doxa of A 2.8 (Diogenes–Anaxagoras), before writing out the second, Empedoclean doxa in that chapter, the anthologist decided first to write out the previous final doxa (as we believe) in A 2.7. Presumably he marked his text, because he does not repeat this doxa when he writes out the others in S 1.22. The evidence in S 1.22 is complicated. It can be analysed as follows. (a) He uses A’s title for his chapter. (b) He then begins by presenting P1 = S2 (Parmenides) in a much longer version, which in all likelihood is the original prior to P’s excision of its latter part. (c) It is followed by S3 = P5 (Aristotle), whose mention of αἰθήρ links up well with the conclusion of the first doxa. But here he copies out on the first part of the doxa and replaces the rest with an extract from AD. The Platonic doxa P4 is thus left out (it is replaced by material from A 2.6). (d) He follows (= S4) with a long account of Philolaus’ cosmology missing in P, but certainly belonging to this chapter (note how it is linked up with the AD quote through the role of τὸ μέσον). (e) Finally he writes out the two atomist doxai P2–3 = S5–6, followed by the inserted Platonic material. (3) T again passes over this chapter, no doubt because it does not illustrate the diaphonia of the philosophers sufficiently clearly. (4) A small amount of parallel material is found in Ach in his §4 Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων. On Ach’s evidence see further below section D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Various parallels show that the chapter’s contents share common elements with earlier doxographic traditions. For the account of Parmenides’ cosmology there is a briefer parallel text in Cicero’s theological doxography at ND 1.28; we return to this text below at D(d)§1. The doxa of Leucippus and Democritus shares the interesting feature of a membrane holding together the contents of the cosmos with the atomist account of its origin in D.L. 9.32. In the case of Epicurus’ doxa it is possible that we have its direct source in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88; we return to this text too below at D(d)§3. The Philolaus doxa shares some features with Aristotle’s discussion of the early Pythagoreans in Cael. 2.13, but it is difficult to determine where much of its unparalleled content derives from (see the discussion at Huffman 1993, 395–400). In general, descriptions of the cosmos’ final structure are not a common feature in doxographies of individual philosophers in the proximate tradition such as we find Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus. The emphasis there is on the ele-

850

liber 2 caput 7

ments as principles (or derived from them) and on descriptions of the genesis of the cosmos. See for example ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 on Parmenides (text section E(a)§1 below). Another example is the very brief account of the cosmos in Hippolytus’ doxography on Plato (text section E(a)§4 below), which follows the reference to matter as one of the three principles. The four elements there follow the Timaeus and differ from the five elements in the present chapter. (2) Sources. The contents of the chapter, which record Presocratic views on the structure of the cosmos of varying length (§§1,2,6,7, i.e. two long and two short), is clearly based on original sources, as is evident in the Parmenides doxa with its reference to the δαίμων in fr. 28B12 DK. But it is not likely that it occurred at first hand. These summaries most likely go back to the Peripatos, possibly but by no means necessarily going back at least in part to the labours of Theophrastus. The brief summary of Plato’s cosmology is not directly based on the Timaeus and perhaps shows Academic features. The Aristotelian cosmology lacks the theology of A 1.7.23 and, though very brief, describes the sub-lunary elements. There is little verbal resemblance to the extended description of the Aristotelian universe in the De mundo. C Chapter Heading After a number of chapters with different kinds of headings, the heading here returns to the common umbrella type Περὶ x and is paralleled at ch. 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων. The quaestio is in the category of relative position (category of place, ποῦ). Ach has a chapter with a parallel heading, Περὶ τῆς συστάσεως τῶν ὅλων, where σύστασις means ‘composition’; cf. the regular use of σύστημα in definitions of the cosmos, e.g. at ps.Arist. Mu. 2 392b9 (Aristotle), D.L. 7.138 (Stoa). There is no parallel chapter for the microcosm. Ch. 5.22, with the heading Ἐκ ποίων συνίσταται στοιχείων ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν γενικῶν μορίων, asks a different question, i.e. quality rather than relative place. Two of the mss. of PB support the shorter version of the title, Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου, parallel to the titles of chs. 2.1–2 and 2.15. But the longer version with τοῦ κόσμου is found in E and G, and is also supported by S, so it must be retained. D Analysis a Context After the (limited) discussion of cosmogonic processes has been set out in ch. 2.6, attention now turns to the result of that process, i.e. the structure of the physical world as it now exists. The subject is parallel to that of ch. 2.15, Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων, which goes into further detail on the arrangement of the heavenly bodies. The similarity lies in the notion of the ordering of separate elements. As we just saw, the chapter thus falls under the Aristotelian category of

liber 2 caput 7

851

(relative) position (κεῖσθαι). Ch. 2.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς may be seen as another parallel, but there is no equivalent chapter for the microcosm or the animal realm. b Number–Order of Lemmata The evidence points to seven doxai, all but one at least partially present in P. Nothing in S contradicts the order found in P. But the doxa of Philolaus deleted by P must be given a place. Diels placed it at the end. This position is not persuasive, however, if the chapter’s structure is taken into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The final place of the Empedoclean doxa in the chapter should be preserved. As already observed on G’s abridgement of the chapter (see above section A(1)), the main diaeresis in the chapter is between the cosmologies in which the elements have a fixed location and the view attributed to Empedocles that they are not fixed. This final position is often taken by doxai of Epicurus in other chapters (e.g. chs. 2.2, 2.13 etc.) It is more difficult to determine the rationale for the remaining six doxai. The first doxa is very long by the standards of the Placita. Its first half gives a highly exotic Presocratic cosmology that bears little relation to the standard cosmological model that by A’s time was wholly dominant. The second half reads much more conventionally with references to the elements and various heavenly bodies. Each half has its own causative factors, the former formulated in theological terms, the latter emphasizing the role of condensation and exhalation. The next two lemmata P2–3 = S5–6 are much briefer and link up with Parmenides’ view of the solidity of the extreme limit of the cosmos. The atomists differ by having a thin membrane around the cosmos, while Epicurus represents a compromise view in which both possibilities are entertained. The Platonic and Aristotelian doxai P4–5 (= S3 only) more closely approximate the standard cosmological model and are clearly formulated in such a way as to form a contrasting pair, the key difference being the role of aether. It is possible that the Platonic doxa was originally longer, since we cannot draw on S to check what P did with it. There remains the doxa of Philolaus (= S4), who as in chs. 2.5 and 2.5a is seen as having a distinctive cosmological doctrine. The doxa is even longer than that of Parmenides and can also be divided in two parts. The first gives the distinctive cosmic order reported by Aristotle in Cael. 2.13 (see also A 3.11.3). The second divides the cosmos into three regions each with their own distinctive names. Both Burkert (1972) 243–246 and Huffman (1993) 395–400 regard this second part as inauthentic. The doxa will have to be placed either before the Plato–Aristotle pair or after it (not in the final place, as

852

liber 2 caput 7

done by Diels, for reasons given above). The cosmology of the first part, apart from the distinctive doctrines of the central fire and the counter-earth, is reasonably similar to the Platonic and Aristotelian views. So the doxa could come in between Epicurus and Plato as a transitional view. But it seems more probable that it follows the Platonic-Aristotelian pair, with the start of the doxa πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον placed in deliberate contrast to Plato’s view which starts with fire at the periphery. The contrast between centre and periphery recalls the similar diaeresis in ch. 2.6. It might further be argued that the three doxai stand as rational–teleological views in implicit contrast to the mechanistic– atomistic emphasis of the first three (in the case of Parmenides especially the second half). This antithesis has been recognized as fundamental to the development of early Greek cosmology; see Furley (1987), Sedley (2007), and also our comments above at chs. 2.1 Commentary B and 2.4 Commentary B. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This account is an important witness to Parmenides’ cosmology because it is presumably derived from his poem, but we do not possess the lines on which it is primarily based. There are two significant parallel texts which place more emphasis on the theological aspects of the cosmos’ genesis and structure than A does. Cicero ND 1.28 specifically mentions the role of ‘something resembling a crown which he gives the name στεφάνη, a continous circle of glowing lights’. The term στεφάνη occurs in lines 1 and 5 of A’s doxa. The earlier text of Philodemus Piet. col. 324 Vassallo (= fr. 13 Schober) is very fragmentary and appears to show less resemblance to A’s text; it is partly cited on ch. 1.7 section E(a)§17. For a detailed comparison of all three texts see now Vassallo (2016b). Further discussions of the cosmology latent in A’s text in Morrison (1955) 60–61; Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.61–63; Tarán (1965) 232–250; Finkelberg (1986). On Diels’ interpretation of the text as an excerpt from Theophrastus see Mansfeld (2011c), 395–396, who concludes (396): ‘The derivational hypothesis of the DG tends to confirm itself’. §1[6–7] The text here must remain uncertain. We print Diels’ text at VS 1.114 (also in DK), which takes its cue from conjectures by Krische and Wachsmuth. It retains the conjunction τε καί and so must find two nouns, which it draws from Simplicius in Phys. 34.14–16 καὶ ποιητικὸν αἴτιον ἐκεῖνος (sc. Παρμενίδης) μὲν ἓν κοινὸν τὴν ἐν μέσῳ πάντων ἱδρυμένην καὶ πάσης γενέσεως αἰτίαν δαίμονα τίθησιν (but note that there is no reference to ἀρχή in this passage). The other strategy is to emend τε καί, as Diels for example did in DG by taking over Davis’ conjecture τοκέα. For want of better, the commentators generally accept the text in DK (also Mansfeld-Primavesi fr. 14; but Laks–Most fr. D15 vol. 5 p. 58 obelize the original text).

liber 2 caput 7

853

§1[8] The emendation to κλῃδοῦχον accepted by most editors is based on the reference to Justice holding the ‘alternating keys (κληῖδας)’ in l. 14 of the Proœmium (28B1). But the text in S κληροῦχον, ‘holder of the lots’, also makes excellent sense, as observed by Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.62, who refers to the role of Lachesis in Plato’s myth of Er (Resp. 617e). It is retained by Mansfeld– Primavesi and Laks–Most in their recent editions. §3 As noted in section B above, we may have the source of this doxa in Epicurus’ Letter to Pythocles preserved at D.L. 10.88 (and also perhaps the mother work On nature on which it is based). The doxographer has simplified the text by deleting the reference to multiple possibility based on lack of sensory evidence. The mention of multiple kosmoi places the doxa outside the scope of the chapter in the strict sense, but allows the contrast with the previous view. The juxtaposition of the early Atomists and Epicurus is parallel to what we find in A 2.2.4–5. §§4–5 Both doxai have five elements, but in different configurations. There is no text in the Timaeus from which the former doxa can easily be derived. At Tim. 58d αἰθήρ is regarded as a form of air. In Epin. 984b aether follows fire. Xenocrates, however, in his life of Plato as cited by Simplicius relates αἰθήρ and the four elements to the five perfect geometrical figures of Tim. 53–55 and his view may be reflected in this doxa (text below section E(b)§4). Whether Plato espoused a four- or five-element cosmology was a matter of dispute in Middle Platonism, no doubt due to Aristotelian and Stoic influence; see the comments of Dillon (1977) 49. At Alcinous Did. 15.4 αἰθήρ seems to replace fire as the substance of the heavenly bodies rather than be placed next to it as in A. On the expression πέμπτον σῶμα see further A 2.11 Commentary D(d)§5. §6 As noted above in section D(c), Burkert and Huffman regard the first part as based on authentic material (particularly fr. 7 preserved by S at 1.21.8), but argue that the second part contains elements that are contradictory to the system described in the first half and so should not be regarded as genuine. The doxa is extraordinarily long for the Placita, no doubt reflecting an earlier more expansive phase of the tradition. The epistemological turn at the end is remarkable. §6[29] Huffman omits ⟨πέν⟩τε (or εʹ) in his text, presumably because he thinks two references to five planets in a single doxa is unlikely. The likelihood is increased if the doxa itself is composite. See further on the Democritus lemma at ch. 2.15.3. §7 The doxa appears to go back to a criticism that Aristotle brings against Empedocles that his elements do not move in fixed directions but change their direction of movement (and their location?) through chance: see Phys. 2.4 196a19–23, GC 2.6 334a1–5 (where the lines 31B53 & 54 DK are cited) and a brief discussion in O’Brien (1969) 147–148.

854

liber 2 caput 7

e Other Evidence The evidence in Ach is intriguing. The final doxa with the name-label Empedocles is parallel to the final doxa in A, though presented in a slightly longer and clearer form. He adds an illustration missing in A involving earth and fire (the same elements as in Aristotle GC 2.6 333b28 & 31). The doxa clearly comes from the same tradition as A. Other doxai differ, with different name-labels. The reference to the Aristotelian cosmos is only used to explicate the Orphic doctrine. This lengthy doxa compares the structure of the cosmos to an egg. Nevertheless its treatment of the parts of the cosmos is reminiscent of the content and method of this chapter. It may have come from the earlier doxographical tradition used by A; see ch. 2.2 Commentary D(e). There is no parallel in A for the doxa on Xenophanes with a quote from his poem. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoic doxography at D.L. V.P. 7.138 (on the cosmos) σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν 4εν τούτοις φύσεων. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 4 λέγεται τοίνυν ὁ κόσμος καθ᾽ ἓν μὲν [πρῶτον] σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων κατὰ περιοχὴν ⟨καὶ⟩ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν … Aet. 32 (= Arist. de Phil. fr. 19b Ross) ὁ δὲ κόσμος ἀμέτοχος τῆς ἐν τοῖς λεχθεῖσιν ἀταξίας ἐστίν. ἐπεί, φέρε, θεασώμεθα· φθειρομένου τὰ μέρη νυνὶ μὲν ἀνάγκη τετάχθαι τὴν παρὰ φύσιν ἕκαστα χώραν· τοῦτο δὲ ὑπονοεῖν οὐκ εὐαγές· ἀρίστην γὰρ θέσιν καὶ τάξιν ἐναρμόνιον τὰ τοῦ κόσμου μέρη πάντα εἴληχεν, ὡς ἕκαστον καθάπερ πατρίδι φιλοχωροῦν μὴ ζητεῖν ἀμείνω μεταβολήν. διὰ τοῦτο γῇ μὲν ὁ μεσαίτατος ἀπενεμήθη τόπος … Congr. 103– 104 ἔμαθον γὰρ τὸν ἔνατον ὑπερβαίνοντες αἰσθητὸν δοκήσει θεὸν τὸν δέκατον καὶ μόνον ὄντα ἀψευδῶς προσκυνεῖν. ἐννέα γὰρ ὁ κόσμος ἔλαχε μοίρας, ἐν οὐρανῷ μὲν ὀκτώ, τήν τε ἀπλανῆ καὶ ἑπτὰ τὰς πεπλανημένας ἐν τάξεσι φερομένας ταῖς αὐταῖς, ἐνάτην δὲ γῆν σὺν ὕδατι καὶ ἀέρι· τούτων γὰρ μία συγγένεια τροπὰς καὶ μεταβολὰς παντοίας δεχομένων … Pliny Nat. 2.4.10–12. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 περί τε τῆς τάξεως τοῦ κόσμου. §1 Parmenides: Cicero ND 1.28 nam Parmenides (28A37 DK) quidem commenticium quiddam: coronae similem efficit (στεφάνην appellat) continentem ardorum lucis orbem, qui cingit caelum, quem appellat deum; in quo neque figuram divinam neque sensum quisquam suspicari potest. multaque eiusdem monstra, quippe qui bellum qui discordiam qui cupiditatem ceteraque generis eiusdem ad deum revocet, quae vel morbo vel somno vel oblivione vel vetustate delentur; eademque de sideribus, quae reprehensa in alio iam in hoc omittantur. cf. Luc. 118 (on the principia rerum of which the universe consists) Parmenides (28A35 DK) ignem qui moveat terram quae ab eo formetur. ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 (fr. 179 Sandbach, 28A22 DK) λέγει δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος ἀέρος γεγονέναι. §2 Leucippus Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.32 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) τοῦτο δ᾽ οἷον ὑμένα ἀφίστασθαι, περιέχοντ᾽ ἐν ἑαυτῷ παντοῖα σώματα·

liber 2 caput 7 ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων λεπτὸν γενέσθαι τὸν πέριξ ὑμένα, συρρεόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ᾽ ἐπίψαυσιν τῆς δίνης. καὶ οὕτω γενέσθαι τὴν γῆν, συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.4 (on Democritus, 68A40 DK) τοῦ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κόσμου πρότερον τὴν γῆν τῶν ἄστρων γενέσθαι. εἶναι δὲ τὴν μὲν σελήνην κάτω, ἔπειτα τὸν ἥλιον, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας. §4 Plato: Hippolytus Ref. 1.19.1 (on Plato) ἀρχὰς εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς θεὸν καὶ ὕλην καὶ παράδειγμα· θεὸν μὲν τὸν ποιητὴν καὶ διακοσμήσαντα τόδε τὸ πᾶν καὶ προνοούμενον αὐτοῦ· ὕλην δὲ τὴν πᾶσιν ὑποκειμένην, ἣν καὶ δεξαμενὴν καὶ τιθήνην καλεῖ. ἐξ ἧς διακοσμηθείσης γενέσθαι τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, πυρὸς ἀέρος γῆς ὕδατος, ἐξ ὧν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα συγκρίματα καλούμενα, ζῷά τε καὶ φυτά, συνεστηκέναι. §5 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 9 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c, p. 196.5, 11–12 (Ἀριστοτέλους) περιέχεσθαι δὲ ταῦτα ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος … συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον … Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (on Aristotle) εἶναι δὲ παρὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα καὶ ἄλλο πέμπτον, ἐξ οὗ τὰ αἰθέρια συνεστάναι. §6 Philolaus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.85 δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ (Philolaus 44A1 DK) … καὶ τὴν γῆν κινεῖσθαι κατὰ κύκλον πρῶτον εἰπεῖν· οἱ δ᾽ Ἱκέταν ⟨τὸν⟩ Συρακόσιόν (cf. on 50.1 DK) φασιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.2 285b33–286a2 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαστάσεις τῶν μορίων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τόπον ὡρισμένων τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω. also Cael. 2.3 286a10–21 ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὁ οὐρανὸς τοιοῦτος (σῶμα γάρ τι θεῖον), διὰ τοῦτο ἔχει τὸ ἐγκύκλιον σῶμα, ὃ φύσει κινεῖται κύκλῳ ἀεί … ἀνάγκη τοίνυν γῆν εἶναι· τοῦτο γὰρ ἠρεμεῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου. Corpus Hippocraticum Sept. 1.2.1–2.1.1 West μίαν μὲν ⟨ἐν⟩ πᾶσι τάξιν τὴν τοῦ ἀκρίτου κόσμου ⟨δι⟩εξ⟨όδους⟩ ἔχοντος θέρεος καὶ χειμῶνος. δευτέρην δὲ [τάξιν] τὴν τῶν ἄστρων ἀνταυγείαν καὶ μάνωσιν [οὖσαν θερμοτάτην] καὶ ἀραιοτέρην τῆς φύσιος λαμπηδόνα. τρίτην ἡλίου δίοδον θερμασ⟨ίην⟩ ἔχοντ⟨ος⟩· τετάρτην σελήνης ἀνιούσης καὶ τελειούσης προσθέσει καὶ μειούσης ἀφαί⟨ρεσιν⟩. πέμπτη μοῖρα ἡ τοῦ ἠέρος σύστασις [καὶ] κόσμου, παρέχουσα ὑετοὺς καὶ ἀστραπὰς, β⟨ροντάς τε⟩ καὶ χίονας ⟨καὶ χαλάζας καὶ τἆλλα τοιαῦτα⟩· ἔκτον τὸ τῆς θαλάττης ὑγρὸν μέρος καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ κρηνέων καὶ πηγέων καὶ λιμνέων, ⟨καὶ τὸ ἄποτον καὶ τὸ πότιμον⟩, καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ἐν τούτοισι θερμὸν, ὃ ἀγωγὴ καὶ ἄρδευσίς ἐστι τῆς ἰκμάδος. ἕβδομον αὐτὴ ἡ γῆ, ἐφ᾽ ᾗ τά τε ζῶα καὶ τὰ ⟨φυ⟩όμενα ⟨…⟩ καὶ ἔστὶ πάντων τροφος, [ἐξ ὕδατος ἐοῦσα] ⟨διὰ τὸ περιέχειν αὐτὴν τὰ ὑγρά⟩. οὕτως οἱ τῶν ξυμπάντων κόσμοι ἑπταμερέα ἔχουσι τὴν τάξιν. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1, col. 7.5 Blass (not in Lasserre) Οὐρανίου κόσμου τάξις. κόσμος νοεῖται ἔκ τε γῆς καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου καὶ πέντε πλανητῶν ἀστέρων καὶ ἀπλανῶν καὶ τοῦ περιέχοντος τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἀέρος. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.1–15 Todd τοῦ κόσμου πολλαχῶς λεγομένου, ὁ νῦν ἡμῖν λόγος ἐνεστηκὼς περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησίν ἐστιν, ὃν ὁρίζονται οὕτως· κόσμος ἐστὶ σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεων. οὗτος δὲ πάντα μὲν τὰ σώματα ἐμπεριέχει … ὅτι δὲ φύσιν ἔχει τὴν διοικοῦσαν αὐτόν, γνώριμον πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ μερῶν, ἔπειτα ἐκ τῆς τῶν γινομένων τάξεως …

855

856

liber 2 caput 7

Chapter heading: cf. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1, col. 7.5 Blass, Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.11–12 both cited above. §1 Parmenides: Parmenides fr. 28B12 DK at Simp. in Phys. 39,12–19 μετ᾽ ὀλίγα δὲ πάλιν περὶ τῶν δυεῖν στοιχείων εἰπὼν ἐπάγει καὶ τὸ ποιητικὸν λέγων οὕτως ‘αἱ γὰρ στεινότεραι πλῆντο πυρὸς ἀκρήτοιο, / αἱ δ᾽ ἐπὶ ταῖς νυκτός, μετὰ δὲ φλογὸς ἵεται αἶσα. / ἐν δὲ μέσῳ τούτων δαίμων ἣ πάντα κυβερνᾷ. ταύτην καὶ θεῶν αἰτίαν εἶναί φησι λέγων ‘πρώτιστον μὲν Ἔρωτα θεῶν μητίσσατο πάντων’ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Aristotle Met. A.5 986b31–987a2 (on Parmenides, 28A24 DK) καὶ τὸ ἓν μὲν κατὰ τὸν λόγον πλείω δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν ὑπολαμβάνων εἶναι, δύο τὰς αἰτίας καὶ δύο τὰς ἀρχὰς πάλιν τίθησι, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων· τούτων δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὸ ὂν τὸ θερμὸν τάττει θάτερον δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν. GC 2.3 330b13–15 οἱ δ᾽ εὐθὺς δύο ποιοῦντες, ὥσπερ Παρμενίδης (28A35 DK) πῦρ καὶ γῆν, τὰ μεταξὺ μίγματα ποιοῦσι τούτων, οἷον ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ. also GC 2.9 336a3–6 (28A35 DK) ἐπειδὴ γὰρ πέφυκεν, ὥς φασι, τὸ μὲν θερμὸν διακρίνειν τὸ δὲ ψυχρὸν συνιστάναι, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν τὸ δὲ πάσχειν, ἐκ τούτων λέγουσι καὶ διὰ τούτων ἅπαντα τἆλλα γίνεσθαι καὶ φθείρεσθαι. §3 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα, ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπείρου καὶ καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ καὶ οὗ λυομένου πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ σύγχυσιν λήψεται—καὶ λήγουσαν ἢ ἐν περιαγομένῳ ἢ ἐν στάσιν ἔχοντι καὶ στρογγύλην ἢ τρίγωνον ἢ οἵαν δήποτε περιγραφήν. πανταχῶς γὰρ ἐνδέχεται. cf. Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (scholion) οὖν ὡς καὶ φθαρτούς φησι τοὺς κόσμους, μεταβαλλόντων τῶν μερῶν. καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τὴν γῆν τῷ ἀέρι ἐποχεῖσθαι. §4 Plato: Xenocrates (fr. 53 Heinze, fr. 183 Isnardi Parente2) at Simp. in Cael. 12.21–26 αὶ ὅτι καὶ Πλάτων πέντε εἶναι τὰ ἁπλᾶ σώματα νομίζει κατὰ τὰ πέντε σχήματα, ἀρκεῖ Ξενοκράτης ὁ γνησιώτατος αὐτοῦ τῶν ἀκροατῶν ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ Πλάτωνος βίου τάδε γράφων· ‘τὰ μὲν οὖν ζῷα οὕτω διῃρεῖτο εἰς ἰδέας τε καὶ μέρη πάντα τρόπον διαιρῶν, ἕως εἰς τὰ πέντε στοιχεῖα ἀφίκετο τῶν ζῴων, ἃ δὴ πέντε σχήματα καὶ σώματα ὠνόμαζεν, εἰς αἰθέρα καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν καὶ ἀέρα’. Same quote at ibid. 87.23 (fr. 53 Heinze, fr. 184 Isnardi Parente2). cf. Alcinous Did. 15, p. 171.34–37 H. ὁ δὲ αἰθὴρ ἐξωτάτω διῃρημένος εἴς τε τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαίραν καὶ εἰς τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων· μεθ᾽ ἃς ἡ τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπάρχει, καὶ ἐν μέσῳ ἡ γῆ σὺν τῷ ἑαυτῆς ὑγρῷ. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.3 270b20–24 διόπερ ὡς ἑτέρου τινὸς ὄντος τοῦ πρώτου σώματος παρὰ γῆν καὶ πῦρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ, αἰθέρα προσωνόμασαν τὸν ἀνωτάτω τόπον, ἀπὸ τοῦ θεῖν ἀεὶ τὸν ἀΐδιον χρόνον θέμενοι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν αὐτῷ. ps.Aristotle Μu. 2 391b9–16 κόσμος μὲν οὖν ἐστι σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἑτέρως κόσμος ἡ τῶν ὅλων τάξις τε καὶ διακόσμησις, ὑπὸ θεοῦ τε καὶ διὰ θεὸν φυλαττομένη. ταύτης δὲ τὸ μὲν μέσον, ἀκίνητόν τε καὶ ἑδραῖον ὄν, ἡ φερέσβιος εἴληχε γῆ, παντοδαπῶν ζῴων ἑστία τε οὖσα καὶ μήτηρ. τὸ δὲ ὕπερθεν αὐτῆς, πᾶν τε καὶ πάντῃ πεπερατωμένον εἰς τὸ ἀνωτάτω, θεῶν οἰκητήριον, οὐρανὸς ὠνόμασται. Mu. 2 392a5–9 οὐρανοῦ δὲ καὶ ἄστρων οὐσίαν μὲν αἰθέρα καλοῦμεν, οὐχ, ὥς τινες, διὰ τὸ πυρώδη οὖσαν αἴθεσθαι, πλημμελοῦντες περὶ τὴν πλεῖστον πυρὸς ἀπηλλαγμένην δύναμιν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ θεῖν

liber 2 caput 7 κυκλοφορουμένην, στοιχεῖον οὖσαν ἕτερον τῶν τεττάρων, ἀκήρατόν τε καὶ θεῖον. Mu. 2 392a31–b6 μετὰ δὲ τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ θείαν φύσιν, ἥντινα τεταγμένην ἀποφαίνομεν, ἔτι δὲ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀνετεροίωτον καὶ ἀπαθῆ, συνεχής ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὅλων παθητή τε καὶ τρεπτή, καί, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, φθαρτή τε καὶ ἐπίκηρος. ταύτης δὲ αὐτῆς πρώτη μέν ἐστιν ἡ λεπτομερὴς καὶ φλογώδης οὐσία … ἑξῆς δὲ ταύτης ὁ ἀὴρ ὑποκέχυται. Mu. 3 392b14–17 ἑξῆς δὲ τῆς ἀερίου φύσεως γῆ καὶ θάλασσα ἐρήρεισται, φυτοῖς βρύουσα καὶ ζῴοις πηγαῖς τε καὶ ποταμοῖς, τοῖς μὲν ἐν γῇ ἀναλισκομένοις, τοῖς δὲ ἀνερευγομένοις εἰς θάλασσαν … §6 Philolaus: Philolaus at Stob. Ecl. 1.21.8 (44B7 DK) τὸ πρᾶτον ἁρμοσθέν, τὸ ἕν, ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τᾶς σφαίρας ἑστία καλεῖται. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a17–27 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς θέσεως οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἅπαντες ἔχουσι δόξαν, ἀλλὰ τῶν πλείστων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαι λεγόντων, ὅσοι τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν πεπερασμένον εἶναί φασιν, ἐναντίως οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν· ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ μέσου πῦρ εἶναί φασι, τὴν δὲ γῆν, ἓν τῶν ἄστρων οὖσαν, κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν. ἔτι δ᾽ ἐναντίαν ἄλλην ταύτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν, ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὄνομα καλοῦσιν, οὐ πρὸς τὰ φαινόμενα τοὺς λόγους καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ζητοῦντες, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας λόγους καὶ δόξας αὑτῶν τὰ φαινόμενα προσέλκοντες καὶ πειρώμενοι συγκοσμεῖν. cf. Simplicius in Cael. 511.23–512.20. Simplicius in Phys. 1355.3–11 εἰ δὲ οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι (—) ἐν τῷ κέντρῳ λέγουσιν ἱδρῦσθαι, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τῇ ἀπλανεῖ σφαίρᾳ φησὶν εἶναι, ἐκεῖνοι μὲν τὸ κέντρον ἐπιτηδειότερον τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ παντὸς μερῶν νομίζουσι πρὸς μέθεξιν τῆς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ συνοχικῆς καὶ ἑδραστικῆς ἀγαθότητος, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης τὴν ἀπλανῆ πρώτως ἀπολαύειν τῆς δημιουργικῆς νομίζει κινήσεως. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι Ἑστίας τόπον καὶ Ζανὸς πύργον ἐκάλουν τὸ κέντρον, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης μέτρον τῶν ἄλλων κινήσεων τὴν τῆς ἀπλανοῦς ἔλεγεν ὡς πρώτην καὶ συνῃρημένην, καὶ τὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος ἀμερὲς διὰ τῆς ταχυτῆτος ἐνεικονιζομένην. §7 Empedocles: Aristotle Phys. 2.4 196a19–24 ἄτοπον οὖν εἴτε μὴ ὑπελάμβανον εἶναι εἴτε οἰόμενοι παρέλειπον, καὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐνίοτε χρώμενοι, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B53 DK) οὐκ ἀεὶ τὸν ἀέρα ἀνωτάτω ἀποκρίνεσθαί φησιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπως ἂν τύχῃ. λέγει γοῦν ἐν τῇ κοσμοποιίᾳ ὡς ‘οὕτω συνέκυρσε θέων τοτέ, πολλάκι δ᾽ ἄλλως’· καὶ τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων ἀπὸ τύχης γενέσθαι τὰ πλεῖστά φησιν. GC 2.6 334a1–5 (on Empedocles, 31B53–54 DK) διέκρινε μὲν γὰρ τὸ νεῖκος, ἠνέχθη δ᾽ ἄνω ὁ αἰθὴρ οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦ νείκους, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτὲ μέν φησιν ὥσπερ ἀπὸ τύχης (‘οὕτω γὰρ συνέκυρσε θέων τοτέ, πολλάκι δ᾽ ἄλλως’), ὁτὲ δέ φησι πεφυκέναι τὸ πῦρ ἄνω φέρεσθαι, ὁ δ᾽ αἰθήρ, φησί, ‘⟨δ᾽ αὖ⟩ μακρῇσι κατὰ χθόνα δύετο ῥίζαις’.

857

Liber 2 Caput 8 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887E–F; pp. 337a1–338a9 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.39, p. 411.5–12 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.11–12—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 51; p. 623.1– 7 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 144–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 160.1–6, p. 82 Westerink—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.33, p. 39.3 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Eclogae 1.15.6c, p. 147.4–9 + 1.15.6d, p. 141.14–17 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach.: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 Di Maria

Titulus ηʹ. Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι (P) §1 Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐγκλιθῆναί πως τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημηβρινὸν αὑτοῦ μέρος· ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας, ἵν᾽ ἃ μὲν ἀοίκητα γένηται ἃ δ᾽ οἰκητὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν. (P1,S1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ἀέρος εἴξαντος τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ὁρμῇ, ἐπικλιθῆναι τὰς ἄρκτους, καὶ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ὑψωθῆναι τὰ δὲ νότια ταπεινωθῆναι, καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον. (P2,S2) §1 Diogenes 64A11; Anaxagoras 59A67; §2 Empedocles 31A58 titulus Τίς ἡ αἰτία PB(I,III)EGQ, SL-ind ex P : Περὶ τοῦ τίς … PB(II), cf. index libri secundi : al. PSy Περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ἐγκλίσεως ‖ ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(I,II)E : ἐγκεκλίσθαι PB(III) : κλιθῆναι PG §1 [2] Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας PBE : Διογένης καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας PGS (ἔφησαν add. S) ‖ [2–3] καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν om. PQ ‖ [3] ἐξαγαγεῖν] συμφῦναι PG ‖ [4] αὑτοῦ corr. Meineke Diels : αὐτοῦ PBES : om. Q (αὑτοῦ μέρος om. PG) ‖ [4–5] ἃ μὲν … ἃ δ᾽ S : ἃ μέν τινα … ἃ δ᾽ PB (τινα secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud) : τὰ μὲν … τὰ δὲ PE : τινὰ μὲν … τινὰ δὲ PG ‖ [5] οἰκητὰ … ἀοίκητα ord. inv. PQ ‖ [5–6] κατὰ ψῦξιν … εὐκρασίαν PBQS : κατὰ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν καὶ ψῦξιν PE : κατὰ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ ψῦξιν PG §2 [7] ἀέρος PBEQ S : πυρὸς PG ‖ ἐπικλιθῆναι PB(II)ES Diels Wachsmuth Vítek : ἐγκλιθῆναι PB(I,III) Mau Lachenaud Laks-Most : ἐπικλῖναι PG ‖ [7–8] ἐπικλιθῆναι τὰς ἄρκτους om. PQ ‖ τὰς ἄρκτους PB(III)E S, τοὺς ἄρκτους PB(I) : τὸν κόσμον PB(II) ‖ [8] μέν] om. PE ‖ [8–9] καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον om. PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 51 (~ tit.) Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον κλιθῆναι (text Diels) 51.1 (~ P1) Διογένης καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς συμφῦναι, τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημβρινὸν κλιθῆναι ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας, ἵνα τινὰ μὲν ἀοίκητα γένηται, τινὰ δὲ οἰκητὰ κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν. 51.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ πυρὸς εἴξαντος τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ὁρμῇ ἐπικλῖναι τὰς ἄρκτους καὶ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ὑψωθῆναι, τὰ δὲ νότια ταπεινωθῆναι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_049

5

liber 2 caput 8

859

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 160.1–6 Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι (~ tit.) θαυμάζω τῶν φιλοσόφων ἐνίων μεταπεσεῖν τὸν κόσμον μετὰ τὴν πρώτην οἰομένων δημιουργίαν ὥσπερ ἐξολισθήσαντα τῆς οἰκείας τάξεως, καὶ τὸν μὲν βόρειον πόλον μετεωρισθῆναι, ὑπόγειον δὲ γενέσθαι τὸν νότιον, καὶ τὴν ἰσημερινὴν ζώνην ἐπὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν μετακλιθῆναι (~ P2). τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἠγνοήκασιν ὅτι … Symeon Seth CRN 3.33 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ἐγκλίσεως (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 κλίματα δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ τὴν γῆν μὴ εἶναι ὁμαλήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχειν οἷον ἐγκλίματά τινα ὑψηλοτέρων ὄντων καὶ ταπεινοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἄλλας ἀλλαχοῦ εἶναι (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς. quaestio cf. A 2.23 Περὶ τρόπων ἥλιου. A 2.12.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται. A 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι. A 3.12.1 Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων. A 3.12.2 Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ ἀσθενέστερον εἶναι τὸ μεσημβρινὸν τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐξομένην τὴν γῆν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐγκλιθῆναι· τὰ γὰρ βόρεια ἄκρατα τὰ δὲ μεσημβρινὰ κέκραται· ὅθεν κατὰ τοῦτο βεβάρηται, ὅπου περισσή ἐστι τοῖς καρποῖς καὶ τῇ αὔξῃ. §1 A 2.24.8 Ξενοφάνης πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ τὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας· κατά τινα δὲ καιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν. ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν προιέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν. A 3.14.1 Πυθαγόρας τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ διῃρῆσθαι εἰς πέντε ζώνας, ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν, ὧν ἡ μέση ⟨τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς⟩ τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς ὁρίζει, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη· ἡ δ᾽ οἰκητή ἐστιν ἡ {μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς} ⟨θερινή⟩, εὔκρατός τις οὖσα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the P tradition the chapter is again well-attested, with all four main witnesses retaining it and recording just the two doxai. G has paraphrased away

860

liber 2 caput 8

very little, though he leaves out the important final phrase of P2. Q leaves out a number of phrases. Ps remarkably includes this chapter’s title and uses it as an opportunity to express surprise at the wayward ideas of philosophers who do not understand the cosmos’ structure (he uses some words from the text to paraphrase their views). (2) Both lemmata are copied out by S close together in 1.15 Περὶ σχημάτων. The former (Diogenes–Anaxagoras = S1) follows doxai on the cosmos’ shape (see A 2.2); the latter (Empedocles = S2) is the second doxa in a cluster of three combining doxai from A 2.7, 8 & 10. This has the effect of separating the two doxai which are clearly meant as a contrasting pair. (3) There is no trace of this chapter in T or any other related doxographical texts. Ach has a chapter entitled Εἰ ἕστηκεν ὁ κόσμος (§9). But it discusses Stoic and Epicurean cosmology, in which the cosmos is surrounded by the void, and does not touch on Presocratic cosmogonic theories. On the mention of κλίματα in §19 see section D(e) below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are faint traces of the same topic in individual doxographies of Presocratic philosophers: cf. D.L. 2.9 (Anaxagoras), Hippolytus Ref. 1.9 (Archelaus); texts cited in section E(a) below. It is likely, therefore, that the subject was included in the earlier doxographical tradition. It is noteworthy that the opening scene of the ps.Platonic Erastai appears to allude to a dispute on this topic. The philosophers mentioned are Anaxagoras (as in this chapter and also at D.L. 2.9) and Oenopides (also mentioned on the zodiac inclination at A 2.12.2). If this work is to be dated to the early Hellenistic period (cf. Erler 2007, 297), it may reflect early doxographical summaries. Perhaps it is meant to reflect the preoccupations of an earlier time. (2) Sources. The evidence of our chapter shows that its subject was discussed in Presocratic texts. But it receives no attention in later sources such as Aristotle’s De caelo, no doubt because such speculations lost relevance when the vortex model fell out of favour and the standard cosmological model became dominant in the fourth cent. bce; on this controversy between two cosmological paradigms see Furley (1987) 160–161, 193. C Chapter Heading The quaestio posed by the chapter, like its predecessor, falls under the category of position (κεῖσθαι). However, the formulation of the heading clearly indicates that the chapter also poses the question of the cause. Though there are a number of chapter headings inquiring about the cause(s) of phenomena (cf. 5.9, 14, 18, all starting with Διὰ τί) and many starting with Πῶς (e.g. 1.4, 4.11, 5.6–

liber 2 caput 8

861

8 etc.), this is the only one using the formulation Τίς ἡ αἰτία. Some mss. of PB have a longer heading commencing with Περὶ τοῦ (also found in the index at the beginning of the Book), but the combined weight of PEGQ weighs against it. S does not refer to the chapter heading. Diels DG 337 erroneously thinks it formed part of his ch. 1.22 (and so prints it at 337.25). But the very long chapter heading drawn from the Laurentianus ms. (see Wachsmuth 1882, 32, 74) which he prints at DG 271 is patently contaminated from P; see above on ch. 2.6 Commentary C. and further M–R 1.267. D Analysis a Context The purported tilt of the cosmos is a sub-topic of the theme of the cosmos’ τάξις discussed in the previous chapter and is somewhat surprisingly appended to it as a separate chapter. But it is important to note that there is a chapter in Book 3 on the subject of the earth’s tilt, 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς. This parallelism will have appealed to our doxographer and may have even motivated its inclusion. In fact the focus on the earth’s tilt occurs in this chapter as well. Both chapters (as also chs. 2.7, 3.11) can be subsumed under the Aristotelian category of ‘being in a certain position’ (κεῖσθαι). We should note, however, that the explanations given relate to cosmogony (i.e. ch. 2.6) rather than cosmology (ch. 2.7). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence that points to the chapter having any more than the two doxai preserved by the two main witnesses. The extent of the doxai in these witnesses also coincides, so it seems likely that exceptionally P simply wrote out what he found in A in full. The order is also hardly in doubt, given that S confirms P on this aspect too. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The problem raised in this chapter is not raised by the standard Platonic– Aristotelian cosmological model that became dominant in antiquity from the fourth cent. bce onwards. In this model both the celestial and the earthly pole are on the same axis and neither the cosmos nor the earth are tilted. But not all ancient cosmologies posited a spherical earth and a spherical cosmos. Since the celestial North Pole does not appear directly overhead to an observer on earth, the question can be asked why the heaven is tilted in relation to the earth and the earth in relation to the heaven. The cosmologies in this chapter (and in its parallel ch. 3.12) antedate the standard model. Both appear to assume a flat or cylindrical earth (cf. the options in ch. 3.10). It would appear that the account assumes that both the earth and the cosmos are tilted (cf. also ch. 3.12 focused

862

liber 2 caput 8

on the earth). We shall not enter into the details of the cosmology involved. See the discussion at Couprie (2011) 69–78, (2018) 27–28, who argues that in recording both here and in ch. 3.12 a dip of the earth the doxographers misunderstood the original theories which posited only a tilting of the heavens to the north (and not the south). Since there are only two doxai (infrequent in the Placita when the evidence of S is available, but cf. chs. 1.20, 2.10, 2.12, 2.18, 4.7a, 4.17), they can either be a list of random views or form an antithesis. In the light of A’s general practice the latter is much more likely. The first doxa attributed to Diogenes of Apollonia and Anaxagoras in effect gives a cause that is no cause. The tilt happens ‘somehow of its own accord’ or spontaneously. The further comment ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας is best seen as an addition by the doxographer or his tradition under the influence of Stoic philosophy (cf. Laks 2008, 215). One might compare the discussion in Philo Prov. 2.60 between Alexander defending a mechanistic view of cosmology and Philo arguing that cosmic order is the result of divine providence; see text cited at A 2.6 section E(a) General texts. The suggestion introduces a teleological element into the explanation which can explain why some parts of the earth are habitable and others not. The Empedoclean doxa in contrast gives a specific cause—air yielding to the onrush of the sun—, which must be seen as a purely mechanical cause involving elemental movement (cf. A 2.7.7). The antithesis can thus be interpreted as a division between a second-order (or non-physical) cause (whether chance or providence) and a physical–mechanistic cause; cf. M–R 2.2.412. It cannot be agreed with Bottler (2014) 335 that the contents of the first doxa do not correspond to the search for a cause as indicated in the title, but (only) intend to explain the habitability of the world. The cause of spontaneous occurrence is given and then a teleological aspect is added. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Laks (2008) 216 points out that the term κόσμος in the phrase μέρη τοῦ κόσμου is not used loosely for the earth, but reflects the projection of the zones of the earth on the cosmos as a whole; see the doxa attributed to Pythagoras at A 3.14.1. §2 In the final clause the reading of PB, κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν, links up with ἀοίκητα (too cold or too hot) and οἰκητὰ (in between). E has reversed the last two nouns so that the sequence reflects the sequence on earth from north to south. The preference should be given to PB.

liber 2 caput 8

863

e Other Evidence Ach in his chapter on the sun (§19) in an aside explains that the term κλίματα (latitude, region) refers to high and low points of the earth’s surface resulting in differing habitations of nations. This explanation differs from what is found in the current chapter, but does bring to mind the odd doxa on the eclipses of sun and moon attributed to Xenophanes at A. 2.24.8. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι, ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. Hippolytus Ref. 1.9 (on Archelaus, 60A4 DK) ἐπικλιθῆναι δὲ τὸν οὐρανόν φησι καὶ οὕτως τὸν ἥλιον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ποιῆσαι φῶς, καὶ τόν τε ἀέρα ποιῆσαι διαφανῆ καὶ τὴν γῆν ξηράν. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 καὶ τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν κόσμον) ἐγκλιθῆναι. §1 Diogenes Anaxagoras: ps.Plato Erastai 132a4–b3 ἐτυγχανέτην οὖν δύο τῶν μειρακίων ἐρίζοντε, περὶ ὅτου δέ, οὐ σφόδρα κατήκουον. ἐφαινέσθην μέντοι ἢ περὶ Ἀναξαγόρου (—) ἢ περὶ Οἰνοπίδου (41.2 DK) ἐρίζειν· κύκλους γοῦν γράφειν ἐφαινέσθην καὶ ἐγκλίσεις τινὰς ἐμιμοῦντο τοῖν χεροῖν ἐπικλίνοντε καὶ μάλ᾽ ἐσπουδακότε. §2 Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.60 cited above on ch. 2.6 (citing Empedocles, 31A49 DK).

Liber 2 Caput 9 PB: ps.Plutarchus 887F–888A; p. 338a10–21 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.40, p. 411.13–18 Mras, cf. 15.32.8; PG: ps.Galenus HPh 52; p. 623.8–11 Diels; pp. 161– 167 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 120, p. 64 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.34, p. 39.10 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.18.4b, p. 160.9–14 + 1.18.4c, p. 160.19–20 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 8, pp. 17.20–18.7 Di Maria—Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, pp. 92.34–93.2 Maass

Titulus θʹ. Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν (P) §1 οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖ ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἐξ οὗ. (P1,S1) §2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἶναι κενόν, εἰς ὃ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ἀναλύεται, ἄπειρον. (P2,S2) §3 Ποσειδώνιος οὐκ ἄπειρον, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον αὔταρκες εἰς τὴν διάλυσιν. (P3,S3) §4 Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. (PEQ4,S4) §1 Pythagorei —; §2 Stoici SVF 2.609; §3 Posidonius F 84, 97 E.-K., 302 Theiler; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 33c, 58a; Aristoteles Cael. 1.9 278b23–24, 279a6–7 titulus Περὶ … κενόν PBQ1 (εἰ ἔστι κενὸν ante ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου PSy) : Περὶ … κόσμου PG1Q2 : Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός PEG2 : Εἰ ἔστι κενόν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου SL-ind ex P, PQ(ind.) (cf. Ach) : al. PPs Εἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ §1 [2] οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου PBEQ : οἱ Πυθαγόρου S, ⟨ἀπὸ⟩ add. Wachsmuth : verba desunt in PG ‖ post εἰς ὃ hab. τι PG §2 [4] δὲ om. S ‖ εἶναι κενόν S : om. PBEG : ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν PQ ut vid. ‖ κατὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν PBS : καὶ τῇ ἐκπυρώσει PE : om. PQ ‖ εἰς ὃ … ἄπειρον] al. PG εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν μόνον ‖ ἀναλύεται PBE : ἀναλύεται ὁ κόσμος S ‖ ἄπειρον PE : τὸ ἄπειρον PB : ἄπειρος ὤν S Diels, ἄπειρον ὄν Heeren Wachsmuth : ἄπειρον leg. PG(Nic), om. PG(mss.) §3 [6] οὐκ ἄπειρον PBE : ἔφησε τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ ἄπειρον S ‖ ἀλλ᾽ ὅσον PS : καθ᾽ ὅσον dub. Kidd E.-K. p. 393 ‖ διάλυσιν PBQS : διάβασιν PE §4 [7] Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης PEQ Diels Lachenaud : Πλάτων PG, cf. S : ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ κενοῦ Ἀριστοτέλης ἔλεγεν εἶναι κενὸν Πλάτων PB ‖ [7–8] μήτ᾽ … κενόν PB : μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου διάκενον εἶναι μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς PE : κενὸν δὲ μὴ εἶναι μήτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτε ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ S, cf. weder außerhalb noch innerhalb der Welt Q (sed fort. legit ἐντὸς pro ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ) : μηδὲν εἶναι om. PG ‖ [8] post κενόν hab. mss. PG ἐκτὸς δὲ μικρόν τι εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν, quae secl. Jas Nic. secuta

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 52 (~ tit.) Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός τοῦ κόσμου (text Jas) 52.1 (~ P1) […] ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου κενόν, εἰς ὃ τι ἀναπνεῖν τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἐξ οὗ. 52.2 (~ P2) οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν μόνον […] ἄπειρον.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_050

5

liber 2 caput 9 52.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων δὲ μήτε ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου μήτε ἐντὸς κενόν {ἐκτὸς δὲ μικρόν τι εἰς ὃ ἀναπνεῖν}. Symeon Seth CRN 3.34 Περὶ τοῦ εἰ ἔστι κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου (~ tit.) cf. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 120 Eἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 8, 17.20 Εἰ ἔστι τι ἐκτὸς κενόν (~ tit.) pp. 17.21–18.7 οἳ μὲν εἶναί τι ἐκτός φασιν, ὥσπερ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος (fr. 301 Usener) (ὃς καὶ ἀπείρους κόσμους ὑποτίθεται ἐν ἀπείρῷ τῷ κενῷ). οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ (SVF 2.610) ἐκπύρωσιν λέγοντες κόσμου κατά τινας ὡρισμένους χρόνους εἶναι κενὸν μέν, οὐ μὴν ἄπειρόν φασιν, ἀλλὰ τοσοῦτον ὅσον χωρῆσαι λυθὲν τὸ πᾶν (~ §2). οἱ δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι λέγοντες (~ §4) χρῶνται λόγῷ τοιούτῷ· τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σφαιρικῶς κινουμένου, εἰ ἔστι τι ἐκτὸς κενόν, συμβήσεται τὴν σφαῖραν παρεγκλίσεις τινὰς ὑπομένειν ἐξολισθαίνουσαν τῇδε κἀκεῖ· τοῦτο δὲ οὐ γίνεται· οὐκ ἄρα ἔστι κενόν· ἀεὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁρῶμεν τὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 3, p. 91.26 Maass (~ tit.) Εἰ ἕστηκεν ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται pp. 92.34–93.2 εἰ δὲ ἔστί τι κενὸν ἔξωθεν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐ περίεργος ἡμῖν ἡ ζήτησις. πλὴν οἱ Στωικοὶ λέγουσιν εἶναι (ταύτῃ γὰρ διαφέρειν τὸ ὅλον τοῦ παντός), ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον (~ §2), ὡς Ἑπίκουρος καὶ οἱ λοιποί. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ quaestio A 1 Praef. ζητεῖ τις εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν· οὐδὲ γάρ τι πλέον θεωρεῖται ἢ τὸ ὄν. ζητεῖται ὁμοίως εἰ ἄπειρος ὁ κόσμος ἐστὶ καὶ εἰ ἔξω τι τοῦ κόσμου ἔστι· ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα θεωρητικά. A 1.3.16 (de atomis Epicuri) ταῦτα μέντοι κινεῖσθαι ἐν τῷ κενῷ καὶ διὰ τοῦ κενοῦ· εἶναι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον καὶ τὰ σώματα ἄπειρα (et cf. A 1.7.25, 1.9.3, 2.3.2). §1 A 1.18.6 Ἀριστοτέλης τοσοῦτον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, ὥστ᾽ ἀναπνεῖν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνδοθεν γὰρ εἶναι τόπον πύρινον. §2 A 1.18.5 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐντὸς μὲν τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἔξω δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἄπειρον. A 1.20.1 Ζήνων καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ διαφέρειν κενόν, τόπον, χώραν· καὶ τὸ μὲν κενὸν εἶναι ἐρημίαν σώματος. A 2.1.9 οἱ Στωικοὶ διαφέρειν τὸ πᾶν καὶ τὸ ὅλον· πᾶν μὲν γὰρ εἶναι σὺν τῷ κενῷ τῷ ἀπείρῳ, ὅλον δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ κενοῦ τὸν κόσμον. A 4.19.4 οἱ δὲ Στωικοί φασι τὸν ἀέρα μὴ συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ θραυσμάτων, ἀλλὰ συνεχῆ δι᾽ ὅλου μηδὲν κενὸν ἔχοντα. §4 A 1.18.1 oἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω φυσικοὶ πάντες μέχρι Πλάτωνος τὸ κενὸν ὡς ὄντως κενὸν ἀπέγνωσαν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

865

866

liber 2 caput 9

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The attestation of the chapter in the P tradition is the same as in the previous three chapters, with all the four main witnesses available. For this chapter, however, the divergences between them are greater than usual. (a) The most straightforward text is presented by E with four doxai. (b) Q’s text appears to be rather similar, but with a slightly longer version of the fourth lemma as found in PE. (c) The transmitted text of G is extremely problematic and is of no use for reconstructing the text of A. There are three doxai, of which the first and third doxai correspond to the first and last in PE, but with—it seems—imperfectly preserved name-labels. The second links the Stoic doxa to the first with reference to cosmic ‘inbreathing’. Jas (2018a) 165 rightly follows Nicolaus in leaving out the final phrase of the third lemma present in all the Greek manuscripts. It has obviously been misplaced. (d) The mss. of PB deviate from E’s text by splitting up the fourth lemma with separate doxai for Aristotle and Plato. Instead of the name-label Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης as in PEQ the transmitted text reads ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ Περὶ κενοῦ Ἀριστοτέλης ἔλεγεν εἶναι κενὸν Πλάτων μήτ᾽ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου μήτ᾽ ἐντὸς μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν. There has been much discussion on this text. Should the reference to a work On the void go with the previous Posidonian doxa or is it a mistaken reference to Aristotle’s De caelo? The most elegant solution is to see the comment as a marginal gloss pointing out that in Book I of A (not Aristotle), i.e. 1.18.6, the epitomator (wrongly) credits Aristotle with this view; see further A 1.18 above and M–R 2.2.416–418 (we revise our earlier suggestion reported by Algra 1993, 480). Once these words are excised PB reduces to a text very similar to PEQ, though with some minor variations. Diels and Lachenaud sensibly emend the text in conformity with PE. Mau retains the separate doxai for Plato and Aristotle. This is a striking example of the methodological deficiencies of his edition. (2) S coalesces this chapter with A 1.18–20 in his chapter 18 Περὶ κενοῦ καὶ τόπου καὶ χώρας. He records the same four doxai as P, the first three in a block (= S1–3), the fourth (= S4) in a small cluster with A 1.19.1 followed by a quote from Tim. 32c–33c. In the process the Aristotelian name-label in P4 is dropped. (3) T does not exploit this chapter, having cited extensively from the parallel chapter 1.18 at CAG 4.14. (4) The two texts in Ach ch. 8 and Commentaria in Aratum I §3 share so many characteristics with A that they must belong to the same doxographical tradi-

liber 2 caput 9

867

tion. Both texts use the method of the diaeresis. Both refer to the atomist view of an infinite void populated by infinite kosmoi, which A must have left out (but did include in 1.18). In addition the Stoic view is prominent in both and there are overlaps in vocabulary. The texts are of limited use for the reconstruction of the text, but of great interest for its larger context. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There can be no doubt that the subject of this chapter was regarded as a standard quaestio in the domain of the φυσικὸς λόγος, for A himself gives it as an example in the preface to his compendium (text above Loci Aëtiani). A very similar formulation is found in Commentaria in Aratum I ch. 3 (note that ζήτησις corresponds to ζητεῖ and ζητεῖται in A). The quaestio is mentioned in numerous texts drawing on the proximate tradition (see the listings below in section E(a) General texts), some of which are of considerable interest. We note first Galen PHP 9.6.21–22, who gives it as an example of where philosophers disagree and provides the basic positions of the diaeresis without name-labels (a discussion of this text is given at M–R 3.69). Even more interesting perhaps is the version in the recently discovered Archimedes palimpsest already discussed at ch. 1.18. Here four logically possible positions are distinguished (κατὰ διαίρεσιν) as follows (text below section E(a) General texts): question: is there a void inside or outside the cosmos? position I there a void both inside and outside. position II there is neither a void inside nor outside. position III there is a void outside, but not inside. position IV there is a void inside, but no void outside. Representatives of each position appear to be given, although the text is defective and it must be surmised that the Stoics represented the third view. The method here is reminiscent of A’s approach in chs. 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. In each case a quaestio with two parts allows a matrix of four views. In this particular case all four positions can be represented and if we take chs. 1.18 and 2.9 together each of them occurs in A with very similar name-labels. See further discussion in Mansfeld (2014), and also below section D(e). In Pecc.Dig. 7.8–9 Galen probably has similar doxographical material in mind when he opposes and aligns together three different views (Academic, Stoic, Epicurean), concluding that none of them can be regarded as demonstratively proven. In the doxographies of the earlier philosophers, however, the question is seldom touched upon in a cosmological context.

868

liber 2 caput 9

(2) Sources. The subject of the void was raised in two different contexts, as appears in A’s two chapters devoted to it. In ch. 1.18 entitled Περὶ κενοῦ the discussion focuses on the void as a feature of physical reality. The source for this approach is Aristotle’s analysis in Phys. 4.6, where he gives a classic example of the use of the dialectical method. In this analysis, when discussing the views of Melissus and the Pythagoreans, he does briefly mention the cosmos, but the cosmological aspects of the question receive little emphasis. In the cosmological context of the De caelo it is only lightly touched on at 1.9 279a6–17. See the texts cited below in section E(b) General texts. The void is also prominent as one of the principles of the atomists, as amply indicated in ch. 1.7.13–16 as well as in ch. 1.8. It would appear that the cosmological aspects of the theme came into greater prominence through the contribution of the Stoics, whose theory of the conflagration opposed both the views of Plato and Aristotle and the atomist tradition and incidentally raised interesting philosophical questions in relation to the existence of an extra-cosmic void, which in turn may have drawn renewed attention to earlier Pythagorean views. Numerous texts discuss the Stoic position. In addition our chapter records disagreement within the Stoic school, a common occurrence in Book 2; cf. chs. 2.5a, 2.14, 25, 27. We note, finally, that from the third century ce onwards the question is raised less often because of the growing dominance of the Platonic–Aristotelian world view. Proclus does not ask εἰ οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἔξω, but rather πῶς οὐδὲν ἐστιν ἔξω (text below section E(b)§4). Consistent with this development is the fact that the question occurs on a number of occasions in Philo of Alexandria writing at the beginning of our era, but is seldom alluded to by later Christian authors. C Chapter Heading The long double heading Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν, combining an umbrella heading Περὶ x in the category of place with the question of existence already posed earlier in ch. 1, is found only in PB and one of the main mss. of PQ (K). PEG have the shorter title Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτός, as do the other two main mss. of PQ (P, Z) and also the index to Book 2. S does not use the chapter heading at Ecl. 1.18, where he cites material from this chapter. SL has a longer version that combines the two parts of the title in PB, Εἰ ἔστι κενόν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, but this is contaminated from PB; see text at Wachsmuth (1882) 32 and comments at ibid. 55; it is erroneously attributed to S by Diels DG 271. A somewhat similar variant is found in Ps Εἰ ἔστι τὶ ἐκτὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, no doubt due to the Byzantine scholar’s own intervention. The long heading should be retained. Many of A’s titles retain the formulation with εἰ, asking the question of existence which goes back to Aristotle’s

liber 2 caput 9

869

formulation of the primary questions of science in APo. 2.1 and plays an important role in the Placita; cf. chs. 1.5, 2.3–4, 4.3 etc. and M–R 2.1.171. A himself uses the formulation with εἰ when giving the topic of this chapter as an example of a physical quaestio in Book 1.proœm. For examples of double headings combining περί and εἰ see 4.23, 5.29 (but in these headings there are two subjects linked with καί). The shorter heading also obscures the important link to ch. 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ. D Analysis a Context Assuming a single cosmos as in the previous chapters 2.6–8, A now asks whether or not it is surrounded by empty space. The subject has already been touched on in chs. 1.5 and 2.1, but most significantly in ch. 1.18 Περὶ κενοῦ, which reveals a substantial overlap with the present chapter. b Number–Order of Lemmata The witnesses point to four doxai and there is no evidence to suggest that A’s chapter contained more. Since the tradition of P preserves all four, the order is also not in doubt. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Just as was the case in ch. 1.18, the chapter is organized along systematic lines. There is a main diaphonia between two opposed positions, (a) that there is an extra-cosmic void and (b) that there is not. The former view is represented by three successive doxai: (i) there is a void sufficient for cosmic-inbreathing attributed to the Pythagoreans (= P1–S1); (ii) there is a void which is infinite, allowing the cosmos to be dissolved in the conflagration, attributed to the Stoic school (= P2–S2); (iii) there is a void so that the cosmos can perish, but it is finite, attributed to the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (= P3–S3). The last two of these doxai also very clearly form an antithetical pair. The second position, that there is no extra-cosmic view, is represented by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle (= P4–S4). As already noted above, there is considerable overlap with the structure and contents of ch. 1.18. In that chapter the first group of three lemmata deals with the existence of the void in general. The second group of three then discusses the question of the void in relation to the cosmos. The two chapters can thus be compared as follows:

870

liber 2 caput 9

A 1.18

A 2.9

§§1–2 existence of void denied

§1 external void for respiration (~ 1.18.6) §2 unlimited external void for conflagration (~ 1.18.4) §3 limited external void for conflagration §4 no internal or external void (~ 1.18.1–2)

§3 unlimited void §4 internal but no external void §5 no internal but unlimited external void §6 limited external void for respiration

It can be seen that the two chapters complement each other, with neither possessing all the elements for a complete treatment of their subjects. We note the following. (1) Ch. 1.18 starts with the issue of the void’s existence, which is denied (same procedure in chs. 1.7 (gods), 1.23 (generation/destruction), 1.30 (nature)). Ch. 2.9 raises the question of existence in its chapter heading, but starts with a positive answer and ends with denial of its existence. (2) Ch. 1.18 includes the atomist position, which was a standard component of the doxography, but does not relate it to the cosmological position of multiple kosmoi separated by the (external) void. Ch. 2.9 omits this view entirely, even though it is very relevant to its topic. This view is more clearly articulated in Ach. (3) The mention of a void internal to the cosmos in the last doxa of ch. 2.9 does not cohere with its title. Moreover the view of Strato that there is internal but no external void (i.e. 1.18.4) is not included. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This doxa is clearly the same as the one attributed to Aristotle at A 1.18.6. See our comments there (Commentary D(d)§6), where we argue that the doxographer has presented the Stagirite as a kind of Pythagorean. §2 The reading of PE and S, ἄπειρον, is clearly to be preferred to that of PB, τὸ ἄπειρον, both because of the contrast with the next lemma, and because the Anaximandrean concept of the infinite (A 1.3.2) is not relevant here (in A it is found elsewhere only at 1.3.9, Epicurus). See also Algra (1993) 481–482, who suggests the article was inserted when ἄπειρον was wrongly taken to be the subject of the sentence. We note also Ach §8.2 18.1 οὐ μὴν ἄπειρόν φασιν and Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I, p. 93.1 Maass ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἄπειρον, both in Stoic doxai.

liber 2 caput 9

871

§3 This lemma has given rise to much discussion. All our sources with one exception state that the orthodox Stoic view was that the extra-cosmic void was infinite in extent (see texts below section E(a)§2). The one exception is Ach, but he appears to have mistakenly taken the exceptional view as the orthodox one. The doxa attributed to Posidonius thus records a deviation from orthodoxy. Many scholars, including Kidd (1988) 393, consider this position unlikely. In a full discussion, however, Algra argues that Posidonius may well have been dissatisfied with the Chrysippean argument for the existence of an infinite void, postulating (perhaps) that, just as place (τόπος) obtains its limit from the occupying body, so the void is limited by the maximum extent of its one-time occupant, i.e. the cosmos at the time of its conflagration. See Algra (1993) 495– 504 and for a different view Primavesi (2018) 116. §4 We have opted for the retention of the double name-label Plato–Aristotle as found in PEQ. It should be noted, however, that it is not supported by S who only ascribes the doxa to Plato in a coalesced cluster, but also not by G, who in his final doxa also has only the name-label Plato. Jas in an unpublished review of Bottler (2014) suggests that S and G may independently have the original reading, and that a gloss may have entered the tradition in two stages, first as the name-label in E and Q, and then later the longer description with the false reference in PB. In our view this hypothesis is not compelling. It is simpler to assume that S considered that the Aristotelian viewpoint was sufficiently covered at 1.18.1c (from 1.18.5 and AD). As for G, he could have easily dropped the name-label in his epitomising. There are no other examples of this particular double name-label in P, but for the triple name-label Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle see A 2.10.1, 4.29.1, 5.4.2. A generally connects two name-labels with καί, so we might perhaps conjecture Πλάτων ⟨καὶ⟩ Ἀριστοτέλης here. But there are exceptions, e.g. at A 1.11.3, 1.23.1, 2.8.1 etc., so it is not justified to alter the text. e Other Evidence The text in the recently discovered fragment of a Commentary on the Categories of Aristotle (perhaps to be attributed to Porphryry) is of great interest. As noted above in ch. 1.18 Commentary B(1), the text appears in a logical context and thus speaks of προτάσεις rather than δόξαι. But the method of division that it uses and the coupling of name-labels with philosophical positions is exactly the method so often used in the Placita. It would not surprise if the contents are traditional and that Porphyry (if indeed he is the author) took them over from an earlier commentary which had in turn made use of the doxographical tradition. The name-labels are exactly those of the tradition in which A stands, as the combined evidence of chs. 1.18 and 2.9 clearly shows.

872

liber 2 caput 9

The texts in Ach and Aratea I also stand in this tradition and verbally are even closer to A. It is to be noted how the text in Ach refers to ‘unlimited kosmoi’ and the text in the Aratea to the distinction between ‘the whole’ and ‘the universe’. Both of these themes occur in ch. 2.1. There is in fact a strong degree of interconnection between all the chapters in chs. 2.1–10, both in A and in closely related sources. As noted above in section D(c), the presence of the atomist doxa in Ach is a strong indication that it was also originally present in earlier versions of this chapter in the anterior doxographical tradition. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: (For this chapter see also the texts cited on ch. 1.18.) Philo of Alexandria Plant. 7 ἀνάγκη τοίνυν ἐκτὸς ἢ κενὸν ἢ μηδὲν εἶναι. εἰ μὲν δὴ κενόν, πῶς τὸ πλῆρες καὶ ναστὸν καὶ τῶν ὄντων βαρύτατον οὐ βρίθει ταλαντεῦον στερεοῦ μηδενὸς ἀπερείδοντος; cf. Somn. 1.184 cited on A 1.20 section E(a) General texts. Galen PHP 9.6.21 De Lacy ἐν μὲν γὰρ φιλοσοφίᾳ μὴ πεπαῦσθαι τὰς πλείστας τῶν διαφωνιῶν οὐδὲν θαυμαστόν … ὥσπερ γε καὶ τινῶν μὲν οὐδὲν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ κόσμου) περιέχον εἶναι, τινῶν δὲ εἶναι λεγόντων καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν ἐνίων μὲν κενὸν ἀποφηναμένων εἶναι τοῦτο μηδεμίαν οὐσίαν ἔχον ἐν αὐτῷ, τινῶν δὲ κόσμους ἄλλους ἀριθμῷ ἀπεριλήπτους, ὡς εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκτετάσθαι πλῆθος. PHP 9.7.9 μόνοις οὖν ἐκείνοις τοῖς φιλοσόφοις καὶ τὸ μηδὲν εἰς ἦθός τε καὶ τὰς πολιτικὰς πράξεις χρήσιμον ζητεῖν ἀκόλουθόν ἐστιν, ὅσοι τὴν θεωρητικὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἵλοντο, καθάπερ γε καὶ εἰ μετὰ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον τοῦτόν ἐστί τι, καὶ εἰ ἔστιν, ὁποῖόν τι τοῦτο. HVA 1.12, p. 125.9 Helmreich τῆς μὲν τῶν φιλοσόφων διαφωνίας οὐδὲν ἔχομεν ἐμφανὲς τεκμήριον· οὔτε γὰρ εἰ γενητὸς ὁ κόσμος οὔτ᾽ εἰ φθαρτὸς οὔτ᾽εἰ μὴ κενόν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν οὐτ᾽ εἰ ἄπειρος οὔτ᾽ εἰ μόνος οὗτος εἷς ἐστιν … Pecc.Dig. 7.8–9, p. 67.7 De Boer καὶ πρῶτόν γε τοῦτο λέγω, μάλιστ᾽ ἐπειδὴ ⟨τῶνδε⟩ τῶν Περιπατητικῶν τις ἀφῖκται {τῶν} φιλοσόφων ἕνα τε τὸν κόσμον τοῦτον εἶναι πεπεισμένων ἔξωθέν τ᾽ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἔνδον. διαφέρει γε μήν, ἔφην, τῶνδε τῶν φιλοσόφων διττὴν διαφορὰν ἑκάτερος τούτων (ἐδείκνυον δὲ τόν τε Στωϊκὸν καὶ τὸν Ἐπικούρειον), ὁ μὲν γὰρ Στωϊκὸς (SVF 2.542) οὐκ ἔνδον εἶναί τι κενὸν ⟨λέγων⟩, ἔξωθεν δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ὑπάρχειν αὐτό. ταῦτα δ᾽ ἄμφω συγχωρῶν ὁ Ἐπικούρειος ἐν ἄλλῳ τινὶ διαφέρεται πρὸς αὐτούς· οὐ γὰρ ⟨ἕνα⟩ ὁμολογεῖ ⟨τὸν⟩ κόσμον εἶναι τόνδε, καθάπερ ὁ Στωϊκὸς οἴεται, κατά γε τοῦτο τοῖς Περιπατητικοῖς ὁμοδοξῶν, ἀλλ᾽, ὥσπερ γε καὶ τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον τῷ μεγέθει φησὶν ὑπάρχειν, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ κόσμους ἀπείρους τῷ πλήθει. ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἤκουσα μέν, ἃ λέγουσιν οἱ τρεῖς συναγορεύειν βουλόμενοι τοῖς ἰδίοις ὀνείροις, ἀκριβῶς δ᾽ οἶδα μηδένα λόγον ἀποδεικτικὸν ἔχοντας αὐτούς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐνδεχομένους τε καὶ εἰκότας … Propr.Plac. c. 2, p. 172.31–32 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli πότερον ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος ἢ γεννητός, εἴτε τι μετ᾽ αὐτὸ ἔξωθεν, εἴτε μηδέν ⟨ἀγνοεῖν φημι⟩. Sextus Empiricus M. 8.146 φύσει δὲ ἦν ἄδηλα τὰ δι᾽ αἰῶνος ἀποκεκρυμμένα καὶ μὴ δυνάμενα ὑπὸ τὴν ἡμετέραν πεσεῖν ἐνάργειαν, καθάπερ … τὸ ἀξιούμενον ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου τισὶ φυσικοῖς ἄπειρον κενόν. Anon. (Porphyry?) in Categorias, Archimedespalimps. fol. 78v + 75r20–28 τοῦ γὰρ κε|[νοῦ] δοκοῦντος εἶναι τόπος (our con-

liber 2 caput 9 jecture, codex appears to read τόπου) ἐστερημένος σώματος, | λάβοντες τὸ ἐντὸς καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου ὡς δύο, | [φήσομεν, τ]οῦ κενοῦ ἑνὸς κατὰ δυεῖν φερομένου, τέσ|[σα]ρας γενέσθαι κατὰ διαίρεσιν προτάσεις, ἢ | ἐκτὸς (καὶ) ἐντὸς τοῦ κόσμου εἷναι κενόν ὡς Δημο-|κρίτῳ τε καὶ Ἐπικοὺρῳ ἢρεσκεν, ἢ οὔτ᾽ ἐντὸς | οὔτε ἐκτὸς ὡς Ἀριστοτέλει καὶ Πλάτωνι, ἢ ἐκτὸς μὲν | ἐντὸς δὲ οὐ, ⟨καθάπερ τοῖς ἀπὸ Ζήνωνος, ἢ ἐντὸς μὲν ἐκτὸς δὲ οὐ⟩ καθάπερ Στράτωνι (fr. 26C Sharples) ἔδοξεν. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.3–5 Marchesi locus ipse ac spatium, in quo situs est (sc. mundus) ac volutatur, quid sit? infinitus, finitus inanis an solidus? Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8 περί τε τοῦ ἐκτὸς τῆς τοῦ κόσμου περιφερείας. §1 Pythagoreans: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.18c, p. 156.8–25 = Aristotle Phys. 4.6 213b22–27 + fr. 201 R3 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν τετάρτῳ Φυσικῆς γράφει· ‘εἶναι δέ φασιν οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) κενὸν καὶ ἐπεισιέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου πνεύματος ὡς ἀναπνέοντι.’ ἐν δὲ τῷ Περὶ τῆς Πυθαγόρου φιλοσοφίας γράφει τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν εἶναι ἕνα, ἐπεισάγεσθαι δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου χρόνον τε καὶ πνοὴν καὶ τὸ κενόν, ὃ διορίζει ἑκάστων τὰς χώρας ἀεί. §2 Stoics: Philo of Alexandria Her. 228 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανός … ἀπειρομεγέθης ἐστί. περιέχεται γὰρ ὑπ᾽ οὐδενὸς σώματος, οὔτε ἰσομεγέθους αὐτῷ οὔτε ἀπείρου, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὑπὸ κενοῦ κατὰ Μωυσῆν διὰ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει μυθευομένην τερατολογίαν. cf. also Aet. 101–103 (= SVF 2.619). Arius Didymus fr. 25 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.18.4d, p. 161.17–26 (SVF 2.503) (on Chrysippus) τὸ μὲν οὖν κενὸν ἄπειρον εἶναι λέγεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου τοιοῦτ᾽ εἶναι, τὸν δὲ τόπον πεπερασμένον διὰ τὸ μηδὲν σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι. καθάπερ δὲ τὸ σωματικὸν πεπερασμένον εἶναι, οὕτως τὸ ἀσώματον ἄπειρον, ὅ τε γὰρ χρόνος ἄπειρος καὶ τὸ κενόν. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ μηδὲν οὐδέν ἐστι πέρας, οὕτως οὐδὲ τοῦ μηδενός, οἷόν ἐστι τὸ κενόν. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν αὑτοῦ ὑπόστασιν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· περατοῦται δ᾽ αὖ τοῦτο ἐκπληρούμενον· τοῦ δὲ πληροῦντος ἀρθέντος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ νοῆσαι πέρας. fr. 26 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.8.42a, p. 106.11 (SVF 2.509) (on Chrysippus) τὸ κενὸν πᾶν ἄπειρον εἶναι πάντῃ. Plutarchus SR 1054B (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.539) ὅτι τοῦ κόσμου κενὸν ἐκτὸς ἄπειρόν ἐστι, τὸ δ᾽ ἄπειρον οὔτ᾽ ἀρχὴν οὔτε μέσον οὔτε τελευτὴν ἔχει, πολλάκις ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγεται. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.140 (on the Stoics, SVF 1.95, 2.543) ἔξωθεν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περικεχυμένον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, ὅπερ ἀσώματον εἶναι· ἀσώματον δὲ τὸ οἷόν τε κατέχεσθαι ὑπὸ σωμάτων οὐ κατεχόμενον· ἐν δὲ τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτόν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀναγκάζειν τὴν τῶν οὐρανίων πρὸς τὰ ἐπίγεια σύμπνοιαν καὶ συντονίαν. φησὶ δὲ περὶ τοῦ κενοῦ Χρύσιππος μὲν ἐν τῷ Περὶ κενοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Φυσικῶν τεχνῶν καὶ Ἀπολλοφάνης (SVF 1a. Apoll. 404) ἐν τῇ Φυσικῇ καὶ Ἀπολλόδωρος (SVF 3. Apoll. 5) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν δευτέρῳ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου (F 6 E.-K., 260 Theiler). Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 284.30 οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (SVF 2.535) ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κενὸν εἶναι βουλόμενοι διὰ τοιαύτης αὐτὸ κατασκευάζουσιν ὑποθέσεως. in Cael. 285.27–32 καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ δέ, φησὶν Ἀλέξανδρος, οὗ ὑποτίθενται κενοῦ, ἀναιροῦσι τὸ εἶναι κενόν. ἔστω γάρ, εἰ δυνατόν, ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου κενόν· τοῦτο δὴ ἤτοι πεπερασμένον ἐστὶν ἢ ἄπειρον. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν πεπερασμένον, ὑπό τινος περατοῦται, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κενοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς

873

874

liber 2 caput 9

ἐρωτηθήσεται λόγος, καὶ ἐκτενεῖ τις τὴν χεῖρα ἢ οὐκ ἐκτενεῖ· τί γὰρ φήσουσιν; εἰ δὲ ἄπειρον εἴη, ὥσπερ Χρυσίππῳ δοκεῖ … cf. at Simp. in Phys. 671.4–7 cited on A 1.18. §3 Posidonius: cf. D.L. 7.140 cited above on §2. Also texts cited above under Testes secundi. §4 Plato Aristotle: Sextus Empiricus M. 9.334 οἱ δὲ φάμενοι μηδ᾽ ὅλως εἶναι κενόν, ὡς οἱ ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου, τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν τῶν σωμάτων μόνον, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦ κενοῦ ἐπικατηγοροῦσιν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Phys. 3.6 206b23–24 ὥσπερ φασὶν οἱ φυσιολόγοι τὸ ἔξω σῶμα τοῦ κόσμου, οὗ ἡ οὐσία ἢ ἀὴρ ἢ ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον, ἄπειρον εἶναι. Phys. 4.6 213a12–b29, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ὑποληπτέον εἶναι τοῦ φυσικοῦ θεωρῆσαι καὶ περὶ κενοῦ, εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μή, καὶ πῶς ἔστι, καὶ τί ἐστιν … . ἄρξασθαι δὲ δεῖ τῆς σκέψεως λαβοῦσιν ἅ τε λέγουσιν οἱ φάσκοντες εἶναι καὶ πάλιν ἃ λέγουσιν οἱ μὴ φάσκοντες, καὶ τρίτον τὰς κοινὰς περὶ αὐτῶν δόξας. οἱ μὲν οὖν δεικνύναι πειρώμενοι ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐχ ὃ βούλονται λέγειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι κενόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐξελέγχουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ⟨ὃ⟩ ἁμαρτάνοντες λέγουσιν. ὥσπερ Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐλέγχοντες … οὔκουν τοῦτο δεῖ δεικνύναι, ὅτι ἐστί τι ὁ ἀήρ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι διάστημα ἕτερον τῶν σωμάτων, οὔτε χωριστὸν οὔτε ἐνεργείᾳ ὄν, ὃ διαλαμβάνει τὸ πᾶν σῶμα ὥστε εἶναι μὴ συνεχές, καθάπερ λέγουσιν Δημόκριτος καὶ Λεύκιππος καὶ (213) ἕτεροι πολλοὶ τῶν φυσιολόγων (67A19 DK), ἢ καὶ εἴ τι ἔξω τοῦ παντὸς σώματός ἐστιν ὄντος συνεχοῦς. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οὐ κατὰ θύρας πρὸς τὸ πρόβλημα ἀπαντῶσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ φάσκοντες εἶναι μᾶλλον. λέγουσιν δ᾽ ἓν μὲν … Μέλισσος (30A8 DK) μὲν οὖν καὶ δείκνυσιν ὅτι τὸ πᾶν ἀκίνητον ἐκ τούτων …· εἶναι δ᾽ ἔφασαν καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) κενόν, καὶ ἐπεισιέναι αὐτὸ τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπείρου πνεύματος ὡς ἀναπνέοντι καὶ τὸ κενόν … ἐξ ὧν μὲν οὖν οἱ μέν φασιν εἶναι οἱ δ᾽ οὔ φασι, σχεδὸν τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτά ἐστιν. Phys 4.7 213b30 πρὸς δὲ τὸ ποτέρως ἔχει δεῖ λαβεῖν τί σημαίνει τοὔνομα … Phys. 4.8 214b12 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν κενὸν οὕτω κεχωρισμένον, ὡς ἔνιοί φασι, λέγωμεν πάλιν … Seneca Dial. 5.5.6 scrutor quod ultra mundum iacet, utrumne profunda vastitas sit an et hoc ipsum terminis suis cludatur. Heron Mechanicus Pneum. 1 Pr. 17–23 πρὸ δὲ τῶν λέγεσθαι μελλόντων πρῶτον περὶ κενοῦ διαληπτέον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ τὸ καθόλου μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν ⟨διατείνονται⟩, οἱ δὲ ἄθρουν μὲν κατὰ φύσιν μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, παρεσπαρμένον δὲ κατὰ μικρὰ μόρια τῷ ἀέρι καὶ τῷ ὑγρῷ καὶ ⟨τῷ⟩ πυρὶ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σώμασιν. Themistius in Ph. 67.16 τὸ κενὸν δὲ οἱ φυσικοὶ νομίζουσι. σκεπτέον οὖν, εἴτε ὀρθῶς ὑπολαμβάνουσιν εἴτε μή. John Philoponus in APo 239.2 ὅταν δὲ πότερον πάντα τὰ ὄντα ἐντὸς αὑτοῦ περιέχει ἢ οὔ, τὸ πρός τι ⟨ζητοῦμεν⟩. in Ph. 610.23–25 (on 213a13) Πῶς μὲν ἔστι, πότερον ἔξω ἐστὶ τοῦ κόσμου αὐτὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἄπειρόν τι κενόν, ἢ ἐγκατέσπαρται τοῖς σώμασιν, ὥσπερ ἔλεγον οἱ τὰς ἀτόμους δοξάζοντες. Chapter heading: cf. John Philoponus in Ph. 610.23 cited above. §2 Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.43–48 Todd (SVF 2.537) εἰ δὲ καὶ εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύεται ἡ πᾶσα οὐσία, ὡς τοῖς χαριεστάτοις τῶν φυσικῶν δοκεῖ, ἀνάγκη πλέον ἢ μυριοπλασίονα τόπον αὐτὴν καταλαμβάνειν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ εἰς ἀτμὸν ἐκθυμιώμενα

liber 2 caput 9 τῶν στερεῶν σωμάτων. ὁ τοίνυν ἐν τῇ ἐκπυρώσει ὑπὸ τῆς οὐσίας ἐκχεομένης καταλαμβανόμενος τόπος νῦν κενός ἐστιν, οὐδενός γε σώματος αὐτὸν πεπληρωκότος … Cael. 1.1. 55 ὅθεν οἱ λέγοντες ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου μηδὲν εἶναι φλυαροῦσιν … Cael. 1.1.81 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως οὐδ᾽ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου κενὸν ἀπολείπουσι … Cael. 1.1.104, εὔηθες δὲ καὶ τὸ λὲγειν αὐτοὺς ὅτι, εἴπερ ἔξω τοῦ κόσμου κενόν ἐστι, τοῦτο ἄπειρον εἶναι δεήσει … §4 Plato Aristotle: Plato Tim. 32c6–8 ἐκ γὰρ πυρὸς παντὸς ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος καὶ γῆς συνέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ συνιστάς, μέρος οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς οὐδὲ δύναμιν ἔξωθεν ὑπολιπών. Tim. 33c3–4 πνεῦμά τε οὐκ ἦν περιεστὸς δεόμενον ἀναπνοῆς. Tim. 58a7, σφίγγει πάντα καὶ κενὴν χώραν οὐδεμίαν ἐᾷ λείπεσθαι. 59a1 τοῦ πυρός, ἅτε οὐκ εἰς κενὸν ἐξιόντος. Aristotle Cael. 1.9 278b21–24 τριχῶς δὴ λεγομένου τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τὸ ὅλον τὸ ὑπὸ τῆς ἐσχάτης περιεχόμενον περιφορᾶς ἐξ ἅπαντος ἀνάγκη συνεστάναι τοῦ φυσικοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ σώματος διὰ τὸ μήτ᾽ εἶναι μηδὲν ἔξω σῶμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μήτ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι γενέσθαι. Cael. 1.9 279a6–17 φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ἔξω οὔτ᾽ ἐγχωρεῖ γενέσθαι σώματος ὄγκον οὐθενός· … ἅμα δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ τόπος οὐδὲ κενὸν οὐδὲ χρόνος ἐστὶν ἔξω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. … ἔξω δὲ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δέδεικται ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἔστιν οὔτ᾽ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι σῶμα. φανερὸν ἄρα ὅτι οὔτε τόπος οὔτε κενὸν οὔτε χρόνος ἐστὶν ἔξω. Proclus in Tim. 2.65.14 αὐτὸ δὲ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ σκεπτέον, πῶς οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξω τοῦ παντός.

875

Liber 2 Caput 10 PB: Plutarch 888A–B; p. 339a1–10 Diels—PE: PE 15.41, p. 411.19–23 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 53; p. 623.12–16 Diels; pp. 167–169 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 162, p. 83 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.34, p. 40.4–6 Delatte S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.15.6de, pp. 147.17–148.3 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 28, p. 44.14–18; c. 35, pp. 54.25–55.6 Di Maria

Titulus ιʹ. Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά. {οὔθ᾽ ὕψος δέ φασιν οὔτε βάθος ἔχειν τὸν κόσμον, καθ᾽ ὃν λόγον ὕψος μὲν λέγεται τὸ κάτωθεν ἄνω διάστημα, βάθος δὲ τὸ ἄνωθεν κάτω. μηδὲν γὰρ εἶναι τῶν οὕτως διαστημάτων λεγομένων περὶ τὸν κόσμον διὰ τὸ περὶ τὸ ἑαυτοῦ μέσον αὐτὸν συνεστάναι, ἀφ᾽ οὗ πρὸς ἅπαν ἐστι καὶ πρὸς ὃ πανταχόθεν ταὐτό.} (P1,S2) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν χειμερινόν. (P2,S1) §1 Pythagoras —; Plato —; Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.2; §2 Empedocles 31A50 DK titulus τίνα … ἀριστερά PEQB, SL-ind ex P : τίνα2 om. PG sec. Jas (τοῦ κόσμου om. Nic, καὶ ἀριστερά om. mss.) §1 [2] post Πυθαγόρας et Πλάτων add. καὶ PG ‖ post Ἀριστοτέλης add. ἔφασαν PG ‖ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη] ἑῷα PG ‖ [3] ἡ ἀρχὴ] ἀρχὴν εἶναι PG ‖ post κινήσεως add. S διὰ τὰς ἀνατολάς, secl. ut glossema Heeren Diels ‖ δυτικά] ἑσπέρια PG ‖ post τὰ δυτικά iterant SFP verba Ζήνων ἔφασκε τὸ πῦρ κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κινεῖσθαι ex 146.21 Wachsmuth ‖ [3–8] de verbis a S additis οὔθ᾽ ὕψος … ταὐτό vid. comm. infra ‖ [7] ὃ] τὸ S, emend. Diels ‖ [8] ταὐτό] τοῦτο S, emend. Heeren §2 [9] post Ἐμπεδοκλῆς add. δὲ PG, ante nomen add. καὶ S ‖ post μὲν add. S αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ κόσμου) ‖ [9–10] τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν χειμερινόν PBEQS : τῶν θερινῶν τροπικῶν, τῶν χειμερινῶν PG

Testes prim: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 53 (~ tit.) Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἀριστερά (text Jas) 53.1 (~ P1) Πυθαγόρας καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου ἔφασαν εἶναι τὰ ἑῷα, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἀρχὴν εἶναι τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ ἑσπέρια. 53.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ δεξιὰ μὲν εἶναι τὰ κατὰ τῶν θερινῶν τροπικῶν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τῶν χειμερινῶν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 162 Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.35 Τίνα δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τίνα ἀριστερά (~ tit.)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_051

5

10

liber 2 caput 10

877

δεξιὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά (~ P1). Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 28, p. 44.14–18 οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ βόρεια, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ νότια καλοῦσιν. Ὅμηρος δεξιὰ μὲν καλεῖ τὰ ἀνατολικά, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικὰ διὰ τούτων (Il. 12.239–240)· ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ c. 35, pp. 54.25–55.6 τινὲς δὲ τῶν ἐξηγουμένων βούλονται ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τὰς Ἄρκτους, ὀπίσω δὲ τὸν νότον, δεξιὰ⟨ς⟩ δὲ τὰς ἀνατολάς, ἀριστερὰ⟨ν⟩ δὲ τὴν δύσιν ἔχειν, ἴσως ἀπὸ τῶν Ὁμηρικῶν ἐπῶν κινηθέντες (Il. 12.239–240) ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε / εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα’, οὐκ εἰδότες, ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς πρὸς τὴν τῶν τόπων ἐκείνων θέσιν δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικὰ εἶπεν. Loci Aetiani: cf. A 5.7.4–5 (de partu sexus virilis et muliebris) Ἀναξαγόρας Παρμενίδης τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῶν δεξιῶν καταβάλλεσθαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τῆς μήτρας, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἀριστερῶν εἰς τὰ ἀριστερά· εἰ δ᾽ ἐναλλαγείη τὰ τῆς καταβολῆς, γίνεσθαι θήλεα. Λεωφάνης, οὗ μέμνηται Ἀριστοτέλης, τὰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ δεξιοῦ διδύμου τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ. A 5.11.2 (de similitudine ad patrem aut matrem) Παρμενίδης, ὅταν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ μέρους τῆς μήτρας ὁ γόνος ἀποκριθῇ, τοῖς πατράσιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀριστεροῦ, ταῖς μητράσιν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the P tradition, as for chs. 2.6–9, the chapter is represented by the four main witnesses. There is very little variation between them. All have just the two doxai (P1, P2). G, clearly striving for variation, replaces τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη with τὰ ἑῷα and τὰ δυτικά with τὰ ἑσπέρια. The evidence of Nicolaus’ translation shows that the chapter heading in his Greek text referred to both the right and the left, but without mentioning the cosmos. In the Byzantine mss. it is the other way around, with mention of the cosmos but not the left parts. Jas rightly restores the longer title, though without a second τίνα. As at A 2.8. it is a surprise to see that Psellus retains the title, though not the contents. (2) Both P’s lemmata can be located in S’s chapter 15 Περὶ σχημάτων. He sees a link between the chapter’s subject and the mainstream view that the cosmos is spherical. The second Empedoclean doxa is written out first in a cluster of

878

liber 2 caput 10

three, in which it occurs last (= S1). It is immediately followed by the other doxa attributed to Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle (= S2). This lemma is much longer than the corresponding one in P (P1). (3) Predictably there is no trace of this chapter in T. (4) Two texts in the later chapters of Ach’s compendium briefly touch on the left and right sides of the cosmos, both with reference to the Pythagoreans (one anonymously) and the poet Homer. We discuss these texts in the following section. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Like ch. 2.8 this chapter asks a quite specific question about the cosmos. The texts in Philo and Ach with the tell-tale Homeric quotation lead to the surmisal that this question was present in the proximate tradition. The specific question, however, appears nowhere in writings belonging to this tradition. (2) Sources. The original source of the question posed in this chapter may well have been a discussion in Aristotle’s De caelo 2.2, where at the beginning of the chapter he notes that some people ask whether there is a left and a right (τι δέξιον καὶ ἀρίστερον) part of the heaven (note how a clear echo of Aristotle’s formulation survives in the heading of A’s chapter). He then mentions the Pythagoreans and criticizes them for only speaking of left and right, and not of above and below and back and front. He then gives his own view in which surprisingly the southern hemisphere is the upper part. Aristotle is also recorded as having discussed these matters in a separate treatise on the Pythagoreans (fr. 205 Rose, fr. 15 Ross). There are three further entwined traditions that have to be taken into account. (1) In his description of the World Soul at Tim. 36c Plato says that the movement of the Same revolves to the right by way of the side, that of the Different to the left by way of the diagonal. Various commentators (Calcidius, Proclus, Philoponus) claim that this is consistent either with Aristotle or Homer or both (see texts below section E). (2) In addition, Philo, Calcidius, Philoponus and Simplicius all join Ach in citing the Homeric verses at Il. 12.239–240 and deducing from them that for Homer, as for Plato and Aristotle, the eastern regions are on the right and the western regions on the left. (3) At the same time Ach records the view, which he attributes to the Pythagoreans, that the north is on the right and the south on the left. This is similar to the view of the Stoics in Cleomedes, which is based on the cosmos moving forward from east to west, and of course differs from the view attributed to Pythagoras in A.

liber 2 caput 10

879

C Chapter Heading The title is preserved only in the tradition of P. It is not referred to by S in his heading for Ecl. 1.15, which includes material from this chapter. It is found in the index in SL, but this is contaminated from PB; see above ch. 2.5 Commentary C. The chapter heading asks questions in the category of relative position (κεῖσθαι, cf. ch. 2.7). There is agreement on the heading in PBEQPsSy. As we have seen, G has abridged it only very slightly. The same title is found in SL, where it has been introduced from P. The only other chapter heading in Book 2 starting with the interrogative τίς is 2.13, but there are a number of examples elsewhere (κεῖσθαι e.g. chs. 1.1–2, 1.7, 2.13, 4.3, 4.5, 5.3, 5.17), mostly seeking to answer the quaestio of existence or essence, which is not the case here. As noted above, the formulation of the chapter heading goes back to Aristotle’s Cael. 2.2 284b6–7. D Analysis a Context This chapter is the final one asking questions of the cosmos as a whole. It follows on quite naturally from chapters on the cosmos’ motion, order and location, but is nevertheless somewhat of an oddity. There is an implicit analogy with a living being (one of the options laid out in ch. 2.3) such as a human being. See chs. 5.7 and 5.11 where aspects of human life are related to the right and left parts of the womb. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence that there are more than the two lemmata found in P and S. Since the epitomator P preserves the order of doxai much more faithfully than the anthologist S and S’s procedure can easily be reconstructed, P’s order should be retained. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In both Aristotelian (cf. Cael. 2.2) and Stoic (cf. Cleom. Cael. 1.1.150–157) cosmology it is assumed, since the cosmos is a living body with its own motion, that it is legitimate to ascribe directions to it. The first doxa is given the authoritative name-labels of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, and represents the majority view of the standard cosmological model. It assumes that the cosmos makes a daily rotation around a fixed north-south axis and takes the perspective of an observer in the northern hemisphere facing north. The second doxa is an earlier Presocratic view that, given the lack of explanation, is not easy to understand. It may presume a vortex model of the cosmos, but could also be based on the movement of the sun from north to south along the ecliptic in the northern

880

liber 2 caput 10

hemisphere (as suggested by Bollack 1965–1977, 3.277). In this case it would be closer to the Stoic view put forward in Cleomedes, in which the observer faces west. The two doxai naturally form a diaeresis, but what is the opposition between them? Perhaps it might be between east and west on the one hand and north and south on the other. It could also be between the standard orthodox view and a more exotic view belonging to the earlier history of cosmology. This would continue the opposition prominent in ch. 2.7. The multiple name-label of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle occurs elsewhere only on three occasions in the Placita: 2.23.8 (on the solar solstices, with Plato preceding Pythagoras), 4.20.1 (on whether the voice is incorporeal), and 5.4.2 (on whether semen is a body). The reason for Pythagoras’ presence can only be guessed at. It is possible that it happened because his followers are mentioned in the discussion in Aristotle, or he may stand for the Pythagorean tradition embodied in the Timaeus. At any rate, it would appear that an opportunity has been missed to contrast the mainstream view with the differing view of the Stoics. As for the chapter’s second doxa attributed to Empedocles, there are no parallels for it in the remains of his poems or the reports based upon them. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The text of the first doxa as found in S has three additions when compared with the P tradition. (1) The words διὰ τὰς ἀνατολάς are quite superfluous and should be regarded as a gloss, as seen by Heeren and followed by all subsequent editors. (2) A lemma with a doxa attributed to Zeno is repeated from S 1.14.6a and has no place here. It most likely derives from AD; see further on ch. 1.14 Commentary A.2(d). (3) The remaining part of the doxa not found in P is much more problematic. It is argued that there is no height or depth in the cosmos because it is uniformly centred on itself, the view expressed by Plato in Tim. 62c–d, but later rejected by Aristotle and the Stoa. Diels and Wachsmuth retain the passage, but the way it is connected to the remainder of the doxa with the vague verb φασί is unusual and suspicious. Stylistically the passage could derive from AD, but would then have to come from his treatment of Plato, almost none of which survives; cf. M–R 1.256, 3.322, 331. The topic is only marginally related to that of the rest of the chapter. We place the text in braces to indicate that its place in A must be considered uncertain (as we now think, pace M–R 2.2.432). Bottler (2014) 348 suggests it may be assigned to another chapter and that 1.12 Περὶ σωμάτων might be suitable. The application to the cosmos, however, speaks against this possibility.

liber 2 caput 10

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria QG 1.7 tr. Marcus (exegesis of Gen 2:8) ‘Why is He said to have planted Paradise in Eden towards the East? In the first place, because the movement of the world is from East to West; and that from which movement starts is first. Second, that which is in the region of the East is said to be the right side of the world, while that in the region of the West is the left. And so the poet (sc. Homer) testifies (Il. 12.239–240), calling the birds in the region of the East ‘right’, and those which are in the region of the West ‘on the left side’.’

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 36c (on the World Soul) τὴν μὲν οὖν ἔξω φορὰν ἐπεφήμισεν εἶναι τῆς ταὐτοῦ φύσεως, τὴν δ᾽ ἐντὸς τῆς θατέρου. τὴν μὲν δὴ ταὐτοῦ κατὰ πλευρὰν ἐπὶ δεξιὰ περιήγαγεν, τὴν δὲ θατέρου κατὰ διάμετρον ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά, κράτος δ᾽ ἔδωκεν τῇ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίου περιφορᾷ. Leg. 6.760d2 τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ γιγνέσθω τὸ πρὸς ἕω. Aristotle Cael. 2.2 284b6–10 ἐπειδὴ δέ τινές εἰσιν οἵ φασιν εἶναί τι δεξιὸν καὶ ἀριστερὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καθάπερ οἱ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι (58B30 DK) (ἐκείνων γὰρ οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐστίν), σκεπτέον πότερον τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον ὡς ἐκεῖνοι λέγουσιν, ἢ μᾶλλον ἑτέρως, εἴπερ δεῖ προσάπτειν τῷ τοῦ παντὸς σώματι ταύτας τὰς ἀρχάς. Cael. 2.2 285a25–31 διά τε δὴ τὸ παραλείπειν τὰς κυριωτέρας ἀρχὰς δίκαιον αὐτοῖς ἐπιτιμᾶν, καὶ διότι ταύτας ἐν ἅπασιν ὁμοίως ἐνόμιζον ὑπάρχειν. ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἐπεὶ διώρισται πρότερον ὅτι ἐν τοῖς ἔχουσιν ἀρχὴν κινήσεως αἱ τοιαῦται δυνάμεις ἐνυπάρχουσιν, ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἔμψυχος καὶ ἔχει κινήσεως ἀρχήν, δῆλον ὅτι ἔχει καὶ τὸ ἄνω καὶ τὸ κάτω καὶ τὸ δεξιὸν καὶ τὸ ἀριστερόν. Cael. 2.2 285b22–286a2 δῆλον τοίνυν ὅτι ὁ ἀφανὴς πόλος ἐστὶ τὸ ἄνω. καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκεῖ οἰκοῦντες ἐν τῷ ἄνω εἰσὶν ἡμισφαιρίῳ καὶ πρὸς τοῖς δεξιοῖς, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐν τῷ κάτω καὶ πρὸς τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς, ἐναντίως ἢ ὡς οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι λέγουσιν· ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἄνω ποιοῦσι καὶ ἐν τῷ δεξιῷ μέρει, τοὺς δ᾽ ἐκεῖ κάτω καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀριστερῷ. συμβαίνει δὲ τοὐναντίον. ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν δευτέρας περιφορᾶς, οἷον τῆς τῶν πλανήτων, ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἄνω καὶ ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς ἐσμεν, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐν τοῖς κάτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀριστεροῖς· ἀνάπαλιν γὰρ τούτοις ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεώς ἐστι διὰ τὸ ἐναντίας εἶναι τὰς φοράς, ὥστε συμβαίνειν ἡμᾶς μὲν εἶναι πρὸς τῇ ἀρχῇ, ἐκείνους δὲ πρὸς τῷ τέλει. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν κατὰ τὰς διαστάσεις τῶν μορίων καὶ τῶν κατὰ τόπον ὡρισμένων τοσαῦτα εἰρήσθω. De Pythagoreis fr. 205 Rose, fr. 15 Ross. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.155–158 Todd (SVF 2.557) ἐμπρόσθια μὲν οὖν τὰ πρὸς τῇ δύσει φασὶν εἶναι αὐτοῦ, ἐπειδὴ ὡς ἐπὶ δύσιν ἔχει τὴν ὁρμήν, ὀπίσθια δὲ τὰ πρὸς τῇ ἀνατολῇ· ἀπὸ τούτων γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν πρόεισιν. ὅθεν δεξιὰ μὲν αὐτοῦ τὰ πρὸς ἄρκτον, εὐώνυμα δὲ τὰ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν γενήσεται. Calcidius in Tim. c. 93 (on Tim. 36c4–7) quia tamen idem mundus animal est et animal intellegens, dextras partes habebit profecto eas in quibus est initium motus et ex qua parte perinde ut cetera animalia mouentur primitus. haec porro mundi pars in eois est proptereaque Homerum puto lapsum alitis augurantem dixisse (Il. 12.239) ‘dexter ad eoum uolitans solemque diemque’. John Philoponus Aet. 193.19–23 φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων, τὸν μὲν ἐκτὸς ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ ὁ θεὸς ἐκίνησε, τουτέστιν τὴν

881

882

liber 2 caput 10

ἀπλανῆ, τὸν δὲ ἐντὸς ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά, τὰς πλανωμένας δηλονότι, δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικὰ προσαγορεύων Ὁμηρικῶς, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά· φησὶ γοῦν κἀκεῖνος ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα’. in Phys. 454.9–15 καὶ ἐν τῷ παντὶ δὲ δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά, ὡς ἄρχοντα τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ ἐναντία. οὕτω καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς αὐτὰ καλεῖ· φησὶ γὰρ ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξί᾽ ἴωσι πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε, | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερά τοί γε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ ταῦτα μὲν οὖν δεξιὰ καὶ ἀριστερά, κατ᾽ ἀναλογίαν δὲ ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τὰ βόρεια, ὄπισθεν δὲ τὰ νότια. Simplicius in Cael. 392.5–8 (commenting on 2.2 285b8–27) ὅτι δὲ τὰ δεξιὰ τοῦ παντὸς τὰ ἀνατολικά ἐστι καὶ τὰ ἀριστερὰ τὰ δυτικά, καὶ Ὅμηρος ὁ σοφώτατος μαρτυρεῖ λέγων ‘εἴτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιά ἐστι πρὸς Ἠῶ τ᾽ Ἠέλιόν τε, | εἴτ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀριστερὰ τοίγε ποτὶ ζόφον ἠερόεντα.’ Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Cael. 2.2 284b6–7 cited above under General texts. §1 Pythagoras Plato Aristotle: Proclus in Tim. 2.258.27–259.1 (on Tim. 36c6–8) οἶδα μὲν οὖν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ δαιμόνιος Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὸν μὲν τὸ ἀνατολικόν, ἀριστερὸν δὲ καλεῖ τὸ δυτικόν, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ μὲν πρώτη κίνησις ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ μετὰ ταύτην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, ἀρχὴ δὲ κινήσεως ἐν πᾶσι ζῴοις τὸ δεξιόν. καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτό γε τοῦτο συμφωνεῖ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Πλάτωνος παράδοσιν.

Liber 2 Caput 11 PB : ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888B; pp. 339a11–340a5 Diels—PE : PE 15.42, p. 412.1–5 Mras, cf. 15.32.8, p. 406.13—PG : ps.Galenus HPh c. 54; p. 623.17–22 Diels— PQ : Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 146–147 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 121.1, 7–11, p. 65 Westerink—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.35, p. 41.1 Delatte (titulus solus)—ps.Aristoteles Erotoapokriseis ed. V. Rose Hermes 9 (1875) 119 n. 1 S: Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.23, p. 200.13 (tit.) + 1.23.1–2, p. 200.15–25 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 5, pp. 13.15–14.2 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium I 22, p. 200.13–17 Pasquali; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus ιαʹ. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία (P,S) §1 Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι. (P1,S1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα. (P2,S2) §3 Ἀναξίμανδρος ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος. (P3,S3) §4 Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος Στράτων Ζήνων πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν. (P3,S4) §5 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος. (P3,S5) §1 Anaximenes 13A13 DK, cf. Parmenides 28A38 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A51 DK; §3 Anaximander 12A17a DK; §4 Parmenides 28A38 DK; Heraclitus 22A10 DK; Strato fr. 84 Wehrli, fr. 42 Sharples; Zeno SVF 1.116; §5 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31 titulus Περὶ … οὐσία PB : Περὶ οὐρανοῦ PEG : περὶ τῆς (τοῦ add. PPs) οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας PQ(ut vid.)PsS : cf. τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ Ach, τίς ἡ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσία PSy §1 [2] Ἀναξιμένης καὶ Παρμενίδης S : Ἀναξιμένης P ‖ ἐξωτάτω γῆς εἶναι Diels DG : ἐξωτάτω τῆς γῆς εἶναι S Diels VS DK Laks–Most : ἐξωτάτω γηίνην PB, cf. Ach γήινον (mss. πτηνὸν, coni. Maass) : τῆς ἔξω ζωνῆς εἶναι PE : ἐξωτάτην γῆν εἶναι PG : al. Q daß die Substanz des Himmels dampfartig und die außerhalb von ihm (den Himmel) verlaufende Bewegung an seiner äußersten Grenze ist (ἔξω τούτου ἐξωτάτω εἶναι per dittographiam scripsisse videtur PQ) §2 [4] post nomen hab. PG δὲ ‖ εἶναι] ὑπάρχειν PG ‖ ἐξ ἀέρος] om. PQ ‖ συμπαγέντος PBE ps.Arist. : παγέντος PGS : συμπαγέντα (sc. τὸν οὐρανόν) PQ(ut vid.) ‖ τοῦ add. post ὑπὸ PE ‖ [5] κρυσταλλοειδῶς PB(I,III)EG1S ps.Arist. : κρυσταλλοειδοῦς PB(II)G2 ‖ post τὸ2 add. τε PG ‖ τὸ ἀερῶδες PGS : ἀερῶδες PBE ps.Arist. ‖ [5– 6] ἐν … περιέχοντα] ἑκάτερα τὰ ἡμισφαίρια περιέχειν PG §§3–5 non hab. PE ‖ text. S : PB non sanus, legit Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος πυρὸς ἢ ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος, cf. PQ, pro πυρὸς hab. PG πύρινον εἷναι, vid. comm. infra §4 [8] πύρινον SPG, fort. leg. PQ : πυρὸς PB §5 post lemma add. S λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως καὶ οὐρανοῦ λόγοις οὕτως; vid. comm. infra

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_052

5

10

884

liber 2 caput 11

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 54 (~ tit.) Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (text Diels) 54.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξιμένης τὴν περιφορὰν τὴν ἐξωτάτην γῆν εἶναι. 54.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ στερέμνιον ὑπάρχειν τὸν οὐρανὸν οἴεται ἐξ ἀέρος παγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τό τε πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἑκάτερα τὰ ἡμισφαίρια περιέχειν. 54.3 (~ P5) Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ συνεστῶτα. fragmentum ap. ps.Arist. Erotoapokrisis ed. Rose Τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους ἐρώτησις. Τί ἐστιν οὐρανός; ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος, πυρός ἢ ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος (~ P3). ἀπολογία. οὐρανός ἐστι στερέμνιος ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα (sic) (~ P2). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 121.1 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας (~ tit.) c. 121.7–11 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τὰ μὲν τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα κατ᾽ εὐθεῖαν κινεῖσθαι λαβών, τὸν δὲ οὐρανὸν κύκλῳ φέρεσθαι, ἀπὸ τῆς διαφόρου κινήσεως διάφορον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν πρὸς τὰ στοιχεῖα δίδωσι, καὶ τόν τε οὐρανὸν καὶ τοὺς ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀστέρας καὶ μέχρι σελήνης αἰθέρα καλεῖ καὶ πέμπτον σῶμα κατονομάζει (cf. P3). Symeon Seth CRN 3.36 Τίς ἡ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐσία (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles c. 5 p. 13.15. Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ (~ tit.) pp. 13.16–14.2 τὸν δὲ οὐρανὸν οἳ μὲν πυρώδη εἶναι καὶ στερέμνιον, ἐντὸς δὲ αὐτοῦ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὴν σφαῖραν ἐχομένην ὥσπερ δαλόν, διαφέρειν δὲ ταύτῃ, ᾗ ὁ μὲν δαλὸς ἀνωφερὲς ἔχει τὸ πῦρ, ὁ δὲ αἰθὴρ κατωφερές, καὶ τῷ τὸ μὲν θεῖον εἶναι καὶ καθαρὸν καὶ ἀμετάληπτον, τὸ δὲ φθαρτόν· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ (31Α51 DK) κρυσταλλώδη τοῦτον εἶναί φησιν ἐκ τοῦ παγετώδους συλλεγέντα, Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A17n. DK) δὲ πτηνὸν (γήινον coni. Maass) πυρὸς μετέχοντα, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ σῶμα ἐκ ψυχροῦ καὶ θερμοῦ. etiam p. 15.19–21 Ζήνων γοῦν ὁ Κιτιεὺς (SVF 1.115) οὕτως αὐτὸν ὡρίσατο· ‘οὐρανός ἐστιν αἰθέρος τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι πάντα ἐμφανῶς …’ Scholia in Basilium I 22, p. 200.13–17 τῶν οὐρανῶν οἱ μὲν πυρώδη τὴν οὐσίαν εἰπον· Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A51 DK) δὲ ὑδροπαγῆ τὸν οὐρανόν καὶ οἱονεὶ κρυσταλλῶδες πίλημα· ἄλλοι δὲ κρᾶμα ἐκ τῶν δʹ στοιχείων· ἕτεροι δὲ τοῦ εʹ στοιχείου· εἰκότως οὖν παραπέμπεται (sc. Basilius) τὴν περὶ οὐσίας σκέψιν ὡς διάφωνον καὶ ἄχρηστον. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· καὶ οὕτως βασανίσωμεν τὰ λεγόμενα. τὸ λέγειν ἢ σφαῖραν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν, ἢ ἡμισφαίριον· …

liber 2 caput 11

885

Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.13 Τίς οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων πλανητῶν τε καὶ ἀπλανῶν καὶ πῶς συνέστη; A 2.20 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου; A 2.25 Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης; A 3.9 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι; A 4.3 Εἰ σῶμα ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία αὐτῆς. §1 A 2.14.2 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. A 2.7.1 (de Parmenide) καὶ τὸ περιέχον δὲ πάσας τείχους δίκην στερεὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ πυρώδης στεφάνη. §2 A 2.13.2 & 11 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους … τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §3 A 2.20.15 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος, ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνοτέρου, ὅπερ ψυχρόν. §4 A 1.18.4 Ἀριστοτέλης τοσοῦτον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, ὥστ᾽ ἀναπνεῖν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνδοθεν γὰρ εἶναι τόπον πύρινον. A 2.13.2 vid. ad §2. A 2.13.3 Ἀναξαγόρας τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα πύρινον μὲν εἶναι κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν … A 2.13.9 Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων … A 2.20.3 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.25.2 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος πυρίνην. §5 A 1.3.21 Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ Νικομάχου Σταγειρίτης ἀρχὰς μὲν ἐντελέχειαν ἤτοι εἶδος ὕλην στέρησιν· στοιχεῖα δὲ τέσσαρα, πέμπτον δέ τι σῶμα αἰθέριον ἀμετάβλητον. A 1.7.23 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος χωριστόν, ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον. A 1.12.3 Ἀριστοτέλης μηδὲν δὲ πῦρ κυκλοτερῶς φύσει κινεῖσθαι, μόνον δὲ τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα. A 2.7.5 Ἀριστοτέλης πρῶτον μὲν αἰθέρα ἀπαθῆ, πέμπτον δή τι σῶμα. A 2.13.12 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. A 2.20.11 Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. A 2.25.8 Ἀριστοτέλης ⟨ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος⟩. A 2.30.7 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter is found in a direct transmission only in the family of P and in S. The former has three lemmata, representing the views of Anaximenes–Parmenides (P1), Empedocles (P2) and Aristotle (P3). In the Byzantine mss. this final lemma is garbled. It is slightly better preserved in G and Q, but still makes very little sense. The absence of the lemma in E is perhaps an indication that the end of the chapter was corrupted early. Most of the chapter as found in P is utilised by

886

liber 2 caput 11

a Byzantine school teacher in a document edited by Rose (1875). Unfortunately he only published excerpts and he erred when he surmised that the source was S. The situation in P is immediately clarified when S is adduced. He preserves a block of five lemmata, the first two of which correspond to the doxai in P (S1, S2; on the double name-label in S1 see D(d) below). The remaining three correspond to the defective version in PBG as follows: P3 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτου σώματος † πυρὸς ἢ † (G πύρινον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν, Q feurigen) ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος.

= S5 (Aristotle) cf. S4 πύρινον (Parmenides etc.) = S3 ἐκ θερμοῦ καὶ ψυχροῦ μίγματος, but with the name-label of Anaximander

We note the order of the three doxai in P is the reverse of what we find in S. How this might have occurred is discussed below in section D(c). For the further evidence in Ach and the Scholion on Basil see below section D(e). On a possible fleeting reference to P’s text of this chapter in Julian the Arian see ch. 2.12 Commentary A. The Aristotelian doxa in S is followed by another seven lines of text that are very unlikely to be derived from A. He first writes λέγει γοῦν ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τῆς φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως καὶ οὐρανοῦ (mss. αὐτοῦ, emend. Spengel) λόγοις οὕτως and then follows these words with a quote from AD (fr. 9 Diels) which speaks of both the stars and the heaven and had already been quoted earlier at 1.21.1c. The word οὕτως can look both forwards and backwards, but the former is much more likely than the latter, especially when a quote or excerpt follows: cf. 1.8.45, 1.18.4c, 1.20.6, 1.22.1f etc. Diels DG 216 persuasively argued that the words had been added by S and that he had amplified the Aëtian doxa ‘ex scholastica memoria’. As Mansfeld (2016a) 301 observes, ‘the formula γοῦν + title is regularly used to introduce S’s verbatim quotations from a Platonic dialogue’, though here he refers to a summary by AD of his doctrines in Phys. and Cael. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. For this chapter and a number of others in the remainder of the book a text at Philo Somn. 1.21, overlooked by Diels, is of great interest. It was discovered by Wendland, who concluded that it (and the longer section 21–32 which it commences) was dependent on Diels’ postulated Vetusta placita; see Wendland (1897) 1075. In illustrating the unknowability of both the heavens and the soul, Philo clearly draws on a doxographical compendium similar to that of A but anterior to him. On this and related texts in

liber 2 caput 11

887

Philo’s Allegorical Commentary see Runia (2008b) 24–29. On the doxai relating to the soul see further Mansfeld (1990a) 3117–3122 and below on ch. 4.2–7. Philo does not use any name-labels at all in his excerpts but doxai can easily be recognised. In the case of this chapter three of A’s doxai appear (Empedocles, Parmenides etc., Aristotle) in an order which agrees with S against P (the phrase μηδενὸς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων μετέχον may conceal a reference to the Platonic view utilised for the stars at 2.13.11). Further texts in Lactantius and Arnobius may also have distant links with the Placita tradition. The former preserves a reference to Empedocles’ ‘congealed air’. Texts in Basil and Gregory of Nyssa link the doxography to biblical material, with the same pronounced sceptical emphasis already present in Philo. Similarly Isidore of Pelusium raises the question of whether the heaven is a sphere or a hemi-sphere, perhaps a distant reflection of §2. All these parallels show that on this subject A stands in a broader doxographical tradition. In later philosophical texts (Alexander, Philoponus, Simplicius) the focus narrows to the difference between Platonic and Aristotelian views (we note that Philoponus uses the topic to illustrate a question of essence or substance, τό τί ἐστιν). In general, it must be noted that the quaestio of the heaven’s οὐσία is not often posed, as distinct from that of the heavenly bodies within it. An exception is Seneca who explicitly mentions the topic as part of the investigation of the caelestia and illustrates it with the interesting diaeresis between a solid and a tenuous substance (he favours the latter view as the polemic in Nat. 7.13–14 against a certain Artemidorus of Parium shows). This diaeresis is also found in an earlier text in Epicurus. Texts cited below in section E(a,b). As we shall see below, it is implicit in the structure of A’s chapter. (2) Sources. The material on this question as treated by Presocratic authors will have been derived from original works and later summaries (probably in the Peripatos). As the lack of parallels shows, none of this evidence appears to have been preserved outside the Placita tradition. For later authors (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics) there was sufficient material that could be adapted, but A refers only to Aristotle’s famed quintessence. One might have expected a Platonic view, but in the Timaeus Plato speaks only of the substance of the heavenly bodies in general (cf. ch. 2.13). An extrapolation could of course have been made, as occurs in the Scholion on Basil, on which see further below Commentary D(e). The only authors of which a work with the title Περὶ οὐρανοῦ has been recorded are Aristotle (extant) and his followers Theophrastus and Strato (for references see section E(a) Chapter heading). In Aristotle, as cogently argued by Johnson (2019), the term οὐρανός refers to the whole of physical reality, i.e. the universe, rather than to the heavens as part thereof; see further ch. 2.1 Commentary C.

888

liber 2 caput 11

C Chapter Heading The witnesses reveal a wide variety of headings for the chapter. They can be summarised as follows: short: Περὶ οὐρανοῦ—E and G longer: Περὶ τῆς (τοῦ) οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας—Q, Ps and S elaborate: Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία—PB, cf. Ach and Sy The short version simply gives a general umbrella heading of the Περὶ x type, comparable to the heading of ch. 2.1 Περὶ κόσμου. The longer one includes the specification that the chapter treats the category of substance, and this is emphasised even more in the elaborate version that actually poses the question of the substance. It is impossible to determine with certainty which heading originally stood in A. The oldest witness E has the short version, supported by G (they also contain a similar short title for the chapters on the sun, A 2.20, and the moon, A 2.25). A similar divergence between short titles without the term οὐσία and longer titles with the term is found in the case of other chapters which discuss the substance of various physical entities: 2.13 on the heavenly bodies: no short titles (but cf. Ach §10) 2.20 on the sun: short title EGPB (ms. Marc. 521), longer title PB (other mss.) QS 2.25 on the moon: short title EG, longer title PBQS 3.9 on the earth: short title EGQ, longer title PBS (but without οὐσία) 4.2–3 on the soul: 4.2 has shorter title, 4.3 longer title with οὐσία (on corporeal soul) 5.3 on semen: no short titles, longer title PBGQ The conclusion to be drawn from this astounding variety is that the tradition of chapter headings was fluid and that ‘the length and precise wording of the chapter headings were not a matter of rigorous discipline, but rather of convenience’ (M–R 2.197). It seems to us very likely that the original heading contained a reference to the subject of οὐσία, but whether we opt for the longer or the elaborate title is quite arbitrary. We have decided on the elaborate title, which has a fine early parallel in Ach. But certainty cannot be attained. D Analysis a Context Having completed his chapters on the cosmos as a whole (chs. 2.1–10) A now turns to its most eminent part, the heaven. The οὐρανός has already been extens-

liber 2 caput 11

889

ively mentioned in chs. 2.5–7 (and also in 1.4 and 1.6), but now it is the main subject. This chapter is the first of five devoted to the οὐσία of parts of the cosmos (cf. chs. 2.13, 2.20, 2.25, 3.9). In the case of the heaven only two chapters discuss its features, many fewer than in the case of the other phenomena (stars 7, sun 5, moon 7, earth 7). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no evidence to suggest that the chapter had more than the five lemmata preserved in S, all of which are also—even if sometimes imperfectly— witnessed by P. As already noted, however, the order of the final three lemmata is problematic. Normally P is a more reliable guide to lemmatic order than S. In addition, S has a reason for placing the Aristotelian doxa last, because he wishes to add a quote from AD (on which see further D(d) below). But we also need to take the overall structure of the chapter into account before making a decision. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The term οὐρανός can have various meanings in early Greek thought. As Aristotle sets out very clearly in Cael. 1.9 278b9–21, it has at least three: (1) the outer periphery of the world; (2) the region which contains the planets; and (3) the world as a whole (cf. Plato’s usage at Tim. 28b2; see further on κόσμος and οὐρανός the note at ch. 1.6 Commentary D(d) on §1[7–25] and §1[14–16]). The first lemma clearly indicates that the first meaning is meant, and the second follows on well from it. These two doxai regard the heaven’s nature as solid, whether of earth or congealed air. For the remaining three the meaning is less clear. Both the first and second meaning would appear to be relevant. Those views attributed to Parmenides etc. and to Aristotle also form a plausible pair. The doxa that the heaven is fiery is the most common, as is perhaps indicated by the multiple name-labels. Aristotle’s view is in contrast because his special element, though also called αἰθήρ, is not fiery. In chs. 2.13 and 2.25 (but not in 2.20) this view is contrasted with that of Plato, but as already noted no mention is made of the Platonic view, unlike in all the other chapters on the οὐσία of the cosmos’ parts. This leaves us with the remaining doxa of Anaximander. It would seem to be a Fremdkörper in the chapter. What does it mean that the heaven is ‘from the hot and cold mixture’? Does this mean that it consists of a mixture with these two qualities? This is not so easy to place, although it is possible that A saw a link with Empedocles’ view of air (cold) being congealed by fire (hot). However, a text in ps.Plutarch Stromateis may give us a clue (text cited below in section E(a)§2). It speaks of a ‘part of the everlasting (i.e. the ἄπειρον) that was generative of hot and cold separated off at the genesis of this cosmos’, i.e.

890

liber 2 caput 11

the hot and cold mixture was the source of the heaven, not what it consisted of (an earlier text in Aristotle speaks allusively of the same mixture; text ibid.). This is likely to have been the origin of A’s doxa, but that does not mean that he intends it to be understood in the same way. It was noted above (Commentary B) that two of the infrequent doxographical parallels cast the question of the heaven’s nature in terms of a diaeresis between a solid and a tenuous composition. It is possible to interpret the structure of A’s chapter in these terms. The first two doxai present the heaven as consisting of a dense compacted substance (i.e. earth or crystalline), the final two (in S) as of a light substance (i.e. fire or the quintessence). The remaining doxa of Anaximander remains difficult from the Aëtian perspective, but might be taken as a compromise view, if a similar text at A 2.20.15 is adduced. This doxa, attributed to Empedocles, states that ‘the sun and the moon have been separated off from the Milky circle, the former from the more rarefied mixture which is hot, the latter from the denser (mixture) which is cold,’ i.e. the hot is explicitly identified with the rare, the cold with the dense. In terms of Anaximander’s cosmology one might see a connection with the revolving circles of fire and mist. The structure of the chapter can thus be interpreted in terms of a main diaeresis between two positions, each with two doxai, and a compromise view in between. A’s love of symmetrical structures has been amply demonstrated: see the remarks at M–R 2.657. Another possibility might be to see the chapter as moving through the various elements—earth, crystallized air, mixture of hot and cold, fire, quintessence. But this must be considered less likely, especially in light of the doxographical parallels. In whichever way it is interpreted, it is plain that the order in S makes more sense than that in P. The Aristotelian doxa can be read as trailing the others because it an exceptional view (as in chs. 2.13 and 2.25). If this is right, it remains difficult to see how the reversal of the order occurred in the tradition of P, except through the fact that the text became defective. Further evidence is found in both Ach and the scholion to Basil, both of which corroborate the order in S rather than that in A. They both end with a reference to Aristotle, the former using the name-label (but with an erroneous doctrine), the latter with the reference to the fifth element (but anonymously). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 This brief doxa gives rise to numerous textual and interpretative issues. (1) The double name-label Anaximenes and Parmenides in S is dubious, since Parmenides recurs as the first name in §4. Although it often occurs in A that a name-label is repeated within a chapter (already pointed out in Runia

liber 2 caput 11

891

1992, 133, see also M–R 2.461, 523), this would be a particularly bold case. However, it is much easier for P to drop the name-label than for S to add it. At M–R 2.436 we suggested that the wrong name was written out or that the doxa was inspired by the description of the cosmos at A 2.7.1, and we deleted it from our reconstructed text. It is safest, we think now, to retain it. (2) The text is difficult, with each of the five witnesses offering a different version for its final words. The main question is whether the sentence states the nature of the periphery of the cosmos (with γῆς as a genitive of quality), as we have translated it above, or whether it merely offers a description of what the heaven is (somewhat like the nominal definitions in Book 1 and the opening definition on the cosmos in A 2.1.1). It has been understood in the latter sense by Wöhrle (2012) 267, who translates (accepting Diels’ emendation) ‘Anaximenes [sagt, dass der Himmel] der äußerste Umkreis der Erde sei.’ This is doubtless the way that S and E (but with a corrupt text) understood the doxa. PB, however, probably understood it as in our translation, altering the genitive to the adjective γηίνην (pace Jas, who thinks it is a corruption of γῆς εἶναι). The same is probably the case for G. The fact that §2 repeats the heaven as subject is an argument for it not being understood in §1. As noted in the textual apparatus, the variant translation in Q is best explained through dittography. The doxa that the outer edge of the cosmos is earthy is of course quite odd, but it seems the doxographer envisages a solid edge (but not crystalline, which is not earthy, cf. §2 and the scholion no. 22 in Pasquali’s collection). §4 It might be thought that the words εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν were added by S, since they are otiose in relation to the chapter’s title. But their inclusion by G militates against this view. §5 A uses the term πέμπτον σῶμα for the Aristotelian quintessence six times (seven if the conjecture at 2.25.8 is accepted), beginning at 1.3.21; see the loci Aëtiani above. As noted by Moraux (1963) 1226 in his magisterial article on the quinta essentia, although Aristotle himself calls the element the πρῶτον σῶμα, in the doxographical tradition there is a strong preference for terms involving the term ‘fifth’, which never occur in the corpus of Aristotle’s writings. The earliest use of the term used here appears to be at Philo Somn. 1.21, cited below in section E(a) General texts as evidence of the Placita tradition prior to A. Thereafter it is found in Taurus, Sextus Empiricus, ps.Justin etc. Plutarch speaks of a πέμπτη οὐσία at De E 390A (also at Philo QG 4.8 Petit). The validity of Aristotle’s doctrine was a hot topic in the first century bce and ce. The last philosopher to be mentioned in the Placita, the Peripatetic Xenarchus of Seleucia wrote a work Πρὸς τὴν πέμπτην οὐσίαν and argued against it; see Falcon (2011) 25–32. Psellus, who wrongly says that Aristotle names it a πέμπτον σῶμα, does not necessarily derive the term from P, for he uses it on a number of occasions elsewhere, e.g. in

892

liber 2 caput 11

his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 4.7. On the doctrine in the doxographical tradition see further Moraux (1963) 1226–1228. e Other Evidence Some further evidence is supplied by Achilles and a scholion to Basil. The former text, with the related title Τίς οὐσία οὐρανοῦ, plainly stands in the same tradition as A, but its transmitted state is quite confused. Three of the namelabels coincide, but only one of the accompanying doxai (Empedocles). Yet here too there is a significant difference: heaven’s solidity appears to be divided between the first anonymous doxa (it is—rather oddly—both fiery and στερέμνιος, the same term in A’s Empedocles doxa) and the second doxa attributed to Empedocles (heaven is crystalline and compacted). If Maass’ conjecture is accepted, then the doxa of Anaximander has an affinity with the one of Anaximenes in A, while the (obviously erroneous) final Aristotelian doxa is reminiscent of Anaximander in A. See further M–R 2.2.437. The doxography in the scholion to Basil is much clearer in the way it sets out four positions, three of which are parallel to what we find in A (but only one with a name-label, Empedocles again). Interestingly the scholion contains the (unattributed) Platonic view that heaven consists of a mixture of the four elements (actually the heavenly bodies) which is missing in A and Ach. As noted above, the order of the doxai supports the sequence in S over against that in P, with the Aristotelian view coming last in both texts. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.21, τούτων μὲν δὴ πάντων αἰσθανόμεθα, ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς ἀκατάληπτον ἔχει τὴν φύσιν, οὐδὲν ἑαυτοῦ σαφὲς γνώρισμα πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀποστείλας. τί γὰρ ἂν εἴποιμεν; ὅτι πεπηγώς ἐστι κρύσταλλος, ὡς ἠξίωσάν τινες; ἢ ὅτι πῦρ τὸ καθαρώτατον; ἢ ὅτι πέμπτον κυκλοφορικὸν σῶμα, μηδενὸς τῶν τεττάρων στοιχείων μετέχον; Her. 247 καὶ ἥλιος μέντοι καὶ σελήνη καὶ ὁ σύμπας οὐρανός, γῆ τε καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ ὕδωρ, τά τε ἐξ αὐτῶν σχεδὸν πάντα τοῖς σκεπτικοῖς ἔριδας καὶ φιλονεικίας παρεσχήκασιν, οὐσίας καὶ ποιότητας, μεταβολάς τε αὖ καὶ τροπὰς καὶ γενέσεις, ἔτι δὲ φθορὰς αὐτῶν ἀναζητοῦσιν· μεγέθους τε πέρι καὶ κινήσεως τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν οὐ πάρεργον ποιούμενοι τὴν ἔρευναν ἑτεροδοξοῦσιν οὐ συμφερόμενοι … Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 omnis de universo quaestio in caelestia, sublimia, terrena dividitur. prima pars naturam siderum scrutatur et magnitudinem et formam ignium, quibus mundus includitur, solidumne sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque materiae an ex subtili tenuique nexum … cf. Nat. 7.13.2 (on Artemidorus of Parium) nam si illi credimus, summa caeli ora solidissima est, in modum tecti durata et alti crassique corporis, quod atomi congestae coacervataeque fecerunt, huic proxima superficies ignea est, ita compacta ut solvi vitiarique non possit

liber 2 caput 11 … Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 3.17 Marchesi ut enim, si vitreus esse dicatur mundus, si argenteus, ferreus vel ex fragili conglobatus et fabricatus testa, non dubitemus falsum esse contendere, quamvis quae sit eius materia nesciamus, ita cum de specie agatur dei … Lactantius Op.D. 17.6 Perrin haec apertissime falsa sunt. neque enim tam obscuram nobis huiusmodi rerum dico esse rationem, ut ne hoc quidem intellegamus, quid verum esse non possit. an si mihi quispiam dixerit aeneum esse caelum aut vitreum aut, ut Empedocles (31A51 DK) ait, ‘aerem glaciatum’, statimne adsentiar, quia caelum ex qua materia sit ignorem? sicut enim hoc nescio, ita illud scio. Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.8, p. 409.13 Mras περί τε οὐρανοῦ. §2 Empedocles: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (Empedocles 31A1 DK) καὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιόν φησι πυρὸς ἄθροισμα μέγα καὶ τῆς σελήνης μείζω· τὴν δὲ σελήνην δισκοειδῆ, αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ. See also Lactantius cited above. §3 Anaximander: ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (fr. 179 Sandbach, Anaximander 12A10 DK) φησὶ δὲ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀιδίου γόνιμον θερμοῦ τε καὶ ψυχροῦ κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν τοῦδε τοῦ κόσμου ἀποκριθῆναι, καί τινα ἐκ τούτου φλογὸς σφαῖραν περιφυῆναι τῷ περὶ τὴν γῆν ἀέρι ὡς τῷ δένδρῳ φλοιόν, ἧς ἀπορραγείσης καὶ εἴς τινας ἀποκλεισθείσης κύκλους, ὑποστῆναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας. cf. Aristotle Phys. 1.4 187a20–23 οἱ δ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἐνούσας τὰς ἐναντιότητας ἐκκρίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ Ἀναξίμανδρός (12A9 DK) φησι, καὶ ὅσοι δ᾽ ἓν καὶ πολλά φασιν εἶναι, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A46 DK) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (—)· ἐκ τοῦ μίγματος γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι ἐκκρίνουσι τἆλλα. §4 Parmenides Heraclitus Strato Zeno: On Zeno see Achilles p. 15.19–21 cited above under Testes secundi. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 928D (on the Stoics, SVF 2.668) λέγουσι δὲ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸ μὲν αὐγοειδὲς καὶ λεπτὸν ὑπὸ μανότητος οὐρανὸν γεγονέναι, τὸ δὲ πυκνωθὲν καὶ συνειληθὲν ἄστρα· τούτων δὲ τὸ νωθρότατον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην καὶ θολερώτατον. §5 Aristotle: Philo see above General texts; cf. QG 4.8 Petit δεύτερον δὲ μέτρον, καθ᾽ ὃ ἐπάγη ὁ αἰσθητὸς οὐρανός, πέμπτην λαχὼν καὶ θειοτέραν οὐσίαν, ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀμετάβολον. Taurus fr. 25a Lakmann at Philop. Aet. 13.15, p. 481.13–17 Rabe Χρήσεις Ταύρου τοῦ Πλατωνικοῦ, Πορφυρίου, Πρόκλου, Πλωτίνου, ὅτι ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων καὶ μόνον στοιχείων συνεστάναι τὸν κόσμον βούλεται Πλάτων ἀγνοῶν τὸ παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλει πέμπτον καλούμενον σῶμα, ἐξ οὗ φησιν εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκεῖνος. fr. 25b Lakmann at Philop. Aet. 13.15, p. 520.18–21 Θεόφραστός (fr. 161A FSH&G) φησιν ‘εἰ τὸ ὁρατὸν καὶ τὸ ἁπτὸν ἐκ γῆς καὶ πυρός ἐστιν, τὰ ἄστρα καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἔσται ἐκ τούτων· οὐκ ἔστιν δέ.’ ταῦτα λέγει εἰσάγων τὸ πέμπτον σῶμα τὸ κυκλοφορητικόν. Sextus Empiricus M. 10.316 ἐκ πέντε δὲ Ὄκκελος ὁ Λευκανὸς καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης· συμπαρέλαβον γὰρ τοῖς τέσσαρσι στοιχείοις τὸ πέμπτον καὶ κυκλοφορητικὸν σῶμα, ἐξ οὗ λέγουσιν εἶναι τὰ οὐράνια. ps.Justin Coh.Gr. 5.2 Ἀριστοτέλης δέ, ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Μακεδόνα λόγῳ σύντομόν τινα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίας ἐκτιθέμενος ὅρον (Mu. 2 392a5–9), σαφῶς καὶ φανερῶς τὴν Πλάτωνος ἀναιρεῖ δόξαν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ πυρώδει οὐσίᾳ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι λέγων· ἀλλά, πέμπτον αἰθέριόν τι καὶ ἀμετάβλητον ἀναπλάττων σῶμα …

893

894 b

liber 2 caput 11

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler at Simp. in Phys. 291.24–292.9 τῆς μὲν φυσικῆς θεωρίας ἐστι τὸ σκοπεῖν περί τε οὐσίας οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἄστρων καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ ποιότητος γενέσεώς τε καὶ φθορᾶς καὶ νὴ Δία τούτων περὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος καὶ τάξεως ἀποδείκνυναι δύναται. ἡ δὲ ἀστρολογία περὶ τοιούτου μὲν οὐδενὸς ἐπιχειρεῖ λέγειν, ἀποδείκνυσι δὲ τὴν τάξιν τῶν οὐρανίων κόσμον ὄντως ἀποφήνασα τὸν οὐρανόν, περί τε σχημάτων λέγει καὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων γῆς τε καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ περὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ συνάψεων τῶν ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς φοραῖς αὐτῶν ποιότητος καὶ ποσότητος. ὅθεν ἐπειδὴ τῆς περὶ ποσὸν καὶ πηλίκον καὶ ποιὸν κατὰ σχῆμα (292) θεωρίας ἐφάπτεται, εἰκότως ἀριθμητικῆς τε καὶ γεωμετρίας ἐδεήθη ταύτῃ. καὶ περὶ τούτων, ὧν ὑπισχνεῖτο μόνων λόγον ἀποδώσειν, δι᾽ ἀριθμητικῆς τε καὶ γεωμετρίας συμβιβάζειν ἰσχύει. πολλαχοῦ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν κεφάλαιον ἀποδεῖξαι προθήσεται ὅ τε ἀστρολόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, οἷον ὅτι μέγας ὁ ἥλιος, ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς ὁδοὺς βαδιοῦνται. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ ἄμεινον οὕτως ἔχειν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς ἕκαστα ἀποδείξει, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν συμβεβηκότων τοῖς σχήμασιν ἢ μεγέθεσιν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ποσότητος τῆς κινήσεως καὶ τοῦ ἐφαρμόττοντος αὐτῇ χρόνου. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88 κόσμος ἐστὶ περιοχή τις οὐρανοῦ, ἄστρα τε καὶ γῆν καὶ πάντα τὰ φαινόμενα περιέχουσα … καταλήγουσα ἐν πέρατι ἢ ἀραιῷ ἢ πυκνῷ … Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 436.4–8 ἀπορεῖ δὲ καλῶς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, πῶς ἁπλῆς οὔσης τῆς πέμπτης λεγομένης οὐσίας τοῦ κυκλοφορητικοῦ σώματος τοσαύτη φαίνεται διαφορὰ τοῦ τῶν ἄστρων σώματος πρὸς τὸ οὐράνιον· εἰ δὲ διαφέρει ὅλως πυκνότησιν ἢ μανότησιν ἢ κατὰ χρώματα ἢ κατά τινα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα εἴδη, πῶς ἁπλᾶ λέγεται ἢ πῶς ἀπαθῆ … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.19–23 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀρκούμεθα τοῖς παρὰ τοῦ Ἠσαΐου εἰρημένοις· ὃς ἐν ἰδιωτικοῖς ῥήμασιν ἱκανὴν ἡμῖν τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν ἐνεποίησεν, εἰπών· ὁ στερεώσας τὸν οὐρανὸν ὡσεὶ καπνόν (Is. 51:6)· τουτέστι, λεπτὴν φύσιν καὶ οὐ στερεάν οὐδὲ παχεῖαν εἰς τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ σύστασιν οὐσιώσας. in Hexaem. 1.11, 18.12–19 τὰ αὐτὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ οὐρανοῦ εἴποιμεν, ὅτι πολυφωνότατοι πραγματεῖαι τοῖς σοφοῖς τοῦ κόσμου περὶ τῆς οὐρανίου φύσεως καταβέβληνται. καὶ οἱ μὲν σύνθετον αὐτὸν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων εἰρήκασιν, ὡς ἁπτὸν ὄντα καὶ ὁρατὸν, καὶ μετέχοντα γῆς μὲν διὰ τὴν ἀντιτυπίαν, πυρὸς δὲ, διὰ τὸ καθορᾶσθαι, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν, διὰ τὴν μίξιν. οἱ δὲ τοῦτον ὡς ἀπίθανον παρωσάμενοι τὸν λόγον, πέμπτην τινὰ σώματος φύσιν εἰς οὐρανοῦ σύστασιν οἴκοθεν καὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἀποσχεδιάσαντες ἐπεισήγαγον. καὶ ἔστι τι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τὸ αἰθέριον σῶμα … Gregory of Nyssa C.Eun. 1.1.435 Jaeger ζητείσθω δὲ καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν τούτων ἑνὸς ἡ οὐσία, καὶ ἔστω οὐρανὸς τῇ θεωρίᾳ τοῦ λόγου προκείμενος. ἀμφιβαλλομένης τοίνυν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῆς οὐσίας διὰ τὰς ποικίλας ἐπὶ τούτῳ δόξας τῶν διαφόρως κατὰ τὸ φανὲν ἑκάστῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ φυσιολογούντων. Chapter heading: cf. Aristotle Cael. Περὶ οὐρανοῦ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.50 (works of Theophrastus) Περὶ οὐρανοῦ αʹ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.59 (works of Strato) Περὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Posidonius see above under General texts. Flavius Philostratus Ep. 1.56.6–9 Kayser καὶ περὶ τὰ κάλλιστα ἐσπουδάκει φιλοσοφοῦσα (sc. ἡ ψυχή), καὶ ἦν αὐτῆς ὁ ἔρως τὰ οὐρανοῦ νῶτα ὁρᾶν καὶ περὶ τῆς κατὰ

liber 2 caput 11 ταῦτα οὔσης οὐσίας πολυπραγμονεῖν … Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 14.19 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ οὐρανοῦ … (see further above) John Philoponus in APo. 238.26 Wallies οἷον ὅταν μὲν ζητῶμεν, εἰ τύχοι, περὶ οὐρανοῦ, πότερον ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων συνέστηκεν ἢ ἑτέρας τινός ἐστιν οὐσίας, τό τί ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ζητοῦμεν. §1 Anaximenes Parmenides: Parmenides Παρμενίδης (28B11 DK at Simp. in Cael. 559.20–25) δὲ περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἄρξασθαί φησι λέγειν· ‘πῶς γαῖα καὶ ἥλιος ἠδὲ σελήνη / αἰθήρ τε ξυνὸς γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον καὶ ὄλυμπος / ἔσχατος ἠδ᾽ ἄστρων θερμὸν μένος ὡρμήθησαν / γίγνεσθαι’. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.2 269a30–32 ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι πέφυκέ τις οὐσία σώματος ἄλλη παρὰ τὰς ἐνταῦθα συστάσεις, θειοτέρα καὶ προτέρα τούτων ἁπάντων etc. cf. ps.Plato (Philip of Opus) Epin. 981c πέντε οὖν ὄντων τῶν σωμάτων, πῦρ χρὴ φάναι καὶ ὕδωρ εἶναι καὶ τρίτον ἀέρα, τέταρτον δὲ γῆν, πέμπτον δὲ αἰθέρα. Xenarchus at Simp. in Cael. 13.22–23 (perhaps from Alexander, cf. 23.22) ὄ δὲ Ξέναρχος πρὸς πολλὰ τῶν ἐνταῦθα λεγομένων ἀντειπὼν ἐν τοῖς πρὸς τὴν πέμπτην οὐσίαν αὐτῷ γεγραμμένοις ἀντεῖπε … John Philoponus in Phys. 219.19–21 (on Aristotle) αὐτὸς γοῦν ἐν τῇ Περὶ οὐρανοῦ οὐ μόνον περὶ τῆς οὐσίας τῶν οὐρανίων ἀπέδειξεν, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἑτέρας τινὸς παρὰ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα …

895

Liber 2 Caput 12 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888C–D; pp. 340a6–341a2 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 55; pp. 623.23–624.4 Diels; pp. 169–176 Jas—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job 37:37–38, pp. 273.18–274.13 Hagedorn (praesertim 274.7–11)— PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 148–149 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 122, p. 65 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.38, p. 42.8 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.23, p. 200.13 (tit.) + 1.23.3, p. 201.9–20 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 20, p. 29.4–7 Martin; Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 5, pp. 93.25, 94.6–8 Maass

Titulus ιβʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους πέντε, οὕστινας προσαγορεύουσι ζώνας· καλεῖται δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν ἀρκτικός τε καὶ ἀειφανής, ὁ δὲ θερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἰσημερινός, ὁ δὲ χειμερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἀνταρκτικός τε καὶ ἀφανής· λοξὸς δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσοις ὁ καλούμενος ζῳδιακὸς ὑποβέβληται, παρεπιψαύων τῶν μέσων τριῶν· πάντας δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ μεσημβρινὸς πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν τέμνει. (P1,S1) §2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται. (P2,S2) §1 Thales 11A13c DK; Pythagoras —; §2 Pythagoras —; Oenopides 41.7 DK titulus Περὶ … διαιρεῖται PB : Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ PGQ : S Περὶ τῆς οὐρανοῦ οὐσίας (2.10) καὶ διαιρέσεως (2.11) : al. PPs Εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ὁ οὐρανός, PSy Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ νοουμένων κύκλων §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας] om. PG ‖ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PB : καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ S, om. PG ‖ ante μεμερίσθαι hab. PG2 τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐ, sed absunt in PG1 et Nic., secl. Diels ‖ οὐρανοῦ] om. PG ‖ [3] πέντε, … προσαγορεύουσι] τινὰς προσαγορευομένας PG ‖ [3–6] al. PG καλεῖσθαι δὲ … ὑποβεβλῆσθαι (oratio obliqua, vid. text. infra, cf. PJln) ‖ [3–4] καλεῖται δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν PB(I,II)S : καλεῖται δὲ ὁ μὲν αὐτῶν PB(III) ‖ [4–5] ὁ δ᾽ ἰσημερινός … τροπικός om. PB(II), ὁ δ᾽ χειμερινὸς τροπικός om. PQ ‖ [5] post ἀφανής hab. ἀεί PJln ‖ [6–7] al. Q die schiefe, sogenannte “Himmelssphäre der Tierkreiszeichen” umschließt nun die drei mittleren Himmelssphären und trennt sich somit von der mittleren unter ihnen, um die anderen beiden zu berühren ‖ [6] post λοξὸς hab. δὲ S, del. Diels ‖ μέσοις PB(I,III)JlnS : μέσος PB(II) : μέσον PG ‖ ὁ καλούμενος ζῳδιακὸς PB(I,III)S : ὁ ζῳδιακὸς καλούμενος PB(II)Jln : τὸν καλουμένον ζῳδιακὸν PG ‖ ὑποβέβληται PBJln, cf. PG ὑποβεβλῆσθαι : ὑποκέκληται SFP, ὑπεκέκλιται coni. Heeren, ὑποβέβληται SL e P (?) et emend. Wachsmuth ‖ [7–8] παρεπιψαύων … τέμνει] om. PG ‖ [7] παρεπιψαύων PBJln : παραψαύων SFP, παραψαύαν SL ‖ [8] ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων] om. PB(III:E) ‖ ἀντίξουν PB Jln : ἀντικρὺ S : al. Q Süden §2 [9] Πυθαγόρας : δὲ add. PG ‖ πρῶτος] πρῶτον PG Jas (πρῶτος Diels) ‖ [10] ἥντινα PBS : ἥν PG ‖ ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν PB : ἐπίνοιαν ὡς ἰδίαν S, ὡς ἐπίνοιαν ἰδίαν PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_053

5

10

liber 2 caput 12 Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 55 (~ tit.) Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ (text Jas) 55.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς {τοῦ οὐρανοῦ οὐ} μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους τινὰς προσαγορευομένας ζώνας, καλεῖσθαι δὲ αὐτῶν τὸν μὲν ἀρκτικὸν καὶ ἀειφανῆ, τὸν δὲ τροπικὸν θερινόν, τὸν δὲ ἰσημερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν δὲ χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, τὸν δὲ ἀνταρκτικὸν καὶ ἀφανῆ. λοξὸν δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσον τὸν καλουμένον ζῳδιακὸν ὑποβεβλῆσθαι. 55.2 (~ P2) Πυθαγόρας δὲ πρῶτον ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἣν Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἐπίνοιαν ἰδίαν σφετερίζεται. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Iob 38.37–38 Hagedorn τίς δὲ ὁ ἀριθμῶν νέφη σοφίᾳ, οὐρανὸν δὲ εἰς γῆν ἔκλινεν; κέχυται γὰρ ὡς γῆς κονία, κεκόλληκα δὲ αὐτὸν ὥσπερ κύβον λίθοις. εἰ γὰρ ἀριθμηταὶ αὐτῷ σταγόνες ὑετοῦ, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ νέφη· ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμῶν πλήθη ἄστρων καὶ πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς ὀνόματα καλῶν, οὗτος καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξέτεινεν ὡς δέρριν (Septuaginta Ps 103:2) καὶ ἔπηξεν ὡς καμάραν (Is. 40:22), ἐν αὐτῷ ⟨…⟩ καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ γῆς τὴν οἰκουμένην κατεργασάμενος. ὥσπερ γῆς φησὶ κονία ἀντὶ τοῦ· λαμπρὸν καὶ κρυσταλλοειδῆ. διῄρηται δὲ ταῖς θέσεσιν ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ φύσει εἰς τὸ ἀρκτικὸν καὶ ἀειφανές, θερινόν τε τροπικόν, μεσημβρινόν τε καὶ ἰσημερινόν, πάλιν τε τροπικὸν χειμερινόν, ἀνταρκτικόν τε καὶ ἀφανῆ ἀεί· λοξὸς δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσοις ὁ ζῳδιακὸς καλούμενος ὑποβέβληται παρεπιψαύων τῶν μέσων τριῶν· πάντας δὲ αὐτοὺς ὁ μεσημβρινὸς πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν τέμνει (~ P1). ὥσπερ δὲ κύβον λίθῳ ἐπιτεθεῖσθαι ἔφη, ὅν τινες κωνοειδῆ ἔλεξαν οὐ μόνον Ἑλλήνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν τὰ λόγια ἑρμηνευσάντων. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 122 Εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται ὁ οὐρανός (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.37 Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ νοουμένων κύκλων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 20, p. 29.4 Martin πόσοι κύκλοι τῆς σφαίρας; (~ tit.) p. 29.5–7 ἡ σφαῖρα ἔχει κύκλους πέντε, ὧν ὁ μὲν ἀρκτικὸς βόρειος, βʹ θερινὸς τροπικός, γʹ ἰσημερινὸς τροπικός, δʹ χειμερινὸς τροπικός, εʹ ἀνταρκτικός κτλ. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 5, p. 93.25 Maass Περὶ κύκλων (~ tit.) p. 94.3–5 … εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι· ἀρκτικὸς θερινὸς τροπικὸς ἰσημερινὸς χειμερινὸς τροπικὸς ἀνταρκτικός. οὗτοι οἱ πέντε καλοῦνται παράλληλοι διὰ τὴν τάξιν τῆς θέσεως· κεῖνται γὰρ παραλλήλως ἐφεξῆς κτλ. cf. Achilles Univ. c. 22 Περὶ κύκλων καὶ ὄτι ιαʹ. c. 23 Πόσον τὸ πλάτος τοῦ ζωιδιακοῦ. c. 25 Περὶ τῶν πέντε παραλλήλων. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.14, Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς καὶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αὐτῆς ζῶναι. cf. A 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου.

897

898

liber 2 caput 12

§1 A 2.10.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δεξιὰ μὲν τὰ κατὰ τὸν θερινὸν τροπικόν, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν χειμερινόν. A 2.23.4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν (sc. τὸν ἤλιον) σφαίρας κωλυομενον ἄχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων. A 2.23.8 Πλάτων Πυθαγόρας Ἀριστοτέλης παρὰ τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, δι᾽ οὗ φέρεται λοξοπορῶν ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ κατὰ δορυφορίαν τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα καὶ ἡ σφαῖρα δείκνυσιν. A 3.14.1 Πυθαγόρας τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ διῃρῆσθαι εἰς πέντε ζώνας ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν … §2 A 1.3.7 Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου Σάμιος, ὁ πρῶτος φιλοσοφίαν τούτῳ τῷ ῥήματι προσαγορεύσας … A 2.1.1 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν κόσμον ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. cf. A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς, ὅμοιον ἁρματείῳ ⟨τροχῷ⟩ κοίλην ἔχοντι τὴν ἁψῖδα καὶ πυρὸς πλήρη, καθάπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, κείμενον λοξόν, ὡς κἀκεῖνον, ἔχοντα μίαν ἐκπνοήν, οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν· ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ. A 2.32.6 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα ἑνὸς δέουσιν, ἐν οἷς Οἰνοπίδης καὶ Πυθαγόρας· A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. A 3.14.2 Παρμενίδης πρῶτος ἀφώρισε τῆς γῆς τοὺς οἰκουμένους τόπους ὑπὸ ταῖς δυσὶ ζώναις ταῖς τροπικαῖς.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses P and S have almost identical texts, consisting of two lemmata only. G includes both, but abridges and lightly paraphrases in his usual manner. The uncontroversial nature of the subject makes it of no interest to E. Remarkably a section from the first lemma is copied out by a certain Julian in a Commentary on the Old Testament book of Job. The first part is reproduced in a paraphrase, the second is cited in a verbatim quote. The author has been identified as a follower of Arius writing most likely in the fourth century (CPG 2075). The references to Books 2 and 3 were identified by the editor Hagedorn (1973); see further General Introduction, section 4.2.5. There may be fleeting references to P at p. 274.6 (κρυσταλλοειδῆ, cf. A 2.11.2) and p. 274.12 (κωνοειδῆ, cf. A 2.2.2). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The first mention of the question regarding heavenly zones in a doxographical source is found in the Stoic doxography in Diogenes Laertius (text below section E(a) General texts). The main interest from a doxographical viewpoint appears to have been the identity of the person who first

liber 2 caput 12

899

discovered (or postulated) the heavenly circles and in particular the tilting of the zodiac, with various contenders being put forward for the two roles (see texts below section E(a) General texts). This interest is reflected in our chapter. In general such identifications seem to have begun early (see the citation of Theophrastus at D.L. 8.48 = fr. 227E FHS&G discussed above on ch. 2.1 Commentary D(d)§1)). We note too that the subject is exploited by the arithmological tradition in relation to the number 5. On the discovery of the zones see A 3.14.1 and further Burkert (1972) 306. (2) Sources. The division of the cosmos by means of five great circles corresponding to the five zones of the earth was an uncontroversial feature of the geocentric hypothesis. However, it is not described in any surviving author until the Hellenistic period (no mention in Aristotle and not even in the De mundo). C Chapter Heading The heading is of the common Περὶ x type, with the additional phrase containing the term πόσος making it quite clear that its subject is posed in the category of quantity. PB has the longer heading, which is paralleled (as we shall see) by the longer heading in ch. 3.14. The shorter heading is supported by the other witnesses G, Q and S (Ps and Sy are clearly dependent on PB). Here too we opt for the longer title for the reasons set out in ch. 2.11 Commentary C. The heading with its reference to division and circles rather than zones, is not found outside Α and his tradition. D Analysis a Context After ch. 2.11 this is the only chapter specifically dedicated to the heaven before moving on to the heavenly bodies that populate it. There is a parallel chapter for the earth at 3.14 Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς καὶ πόσαι εἰσὶν αὐτῆς ζῶναι. In addition chs. 2.11 + 2.12 are closely parallel to chs. 3.9 (Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι) + 3.14 (with πόσαι in 3.9 also recalling 2.1). b Number–Order of Lemmata The number and order of the lemmata are not in doubt and there is no reason to suspect that lemmata have been lost. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Most unusually, indeed uniquely in Book 2, this chapter does not record a plurality of doxai on the subject in question. The standard view on the heavenly zones is attributed to Thales, Pythagoras and their followers. Since the two are founders of the Ionian and Italian successions respectively, the name-labels

900

liber 2 caput 12

effectively cover the entire philosophical tradition. The second doxa is merely an additional comment on the discovery of the zodiac circle in the tradition of the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif (on which see above ch. 1.3, Commentary D(d)§7[54– 55]). The formulation of the doctrine shows strong resemblances to brief reports elsewhere, both doxographical (see esp. the Stoic report in D.L. with its terms ἀρκτικὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον and ἀνταρκτικὸν ἀφανῆ) and arithmological (Plutarch, Anatolius). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1[6] There can be little doubt that λοξὸς … ὑποβέβληται in P is the correct reading. S’s combination of καλούμενος and ὑποκέκληται is unconvincing. Heeren’s conjecture ὑπεκέκλιται is brilliant (and may have been what S wrote), but does not weigh up against the combined weight of the P tradition. For the final phrase of the lemma there is no difference in meaning between P’s ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν and S’s ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντικρύ. The preference should be given to the former as the lectio difficilior, his adjective being far rarer than S’s adverb by a ratio of about 25 to 1. §2 According to Theon of Smyrna (and also Diodorus Siculus, texts below section E(a) General texts), Eudemus in his account of Greek astronomy recounts that Oenopides was the discoverer of the obliquity of the zodiac. This directly contradicts the claim of plagiarism by A. Theon’s statement goes back to an eminent source who is explicitly named, whereas A gives no authority for his claim. One must suspect that the tradition has been reworked in favour of a venerable school founder and is one more example of the tendency of the Placita to upgrade the role of Pythagoras (note also A 2.32.6, where the name-label Pythagoras follows that of Oenopides without further comment). See further the discussion at Abel (1974) 998, part of an exhaustive account of the ancient astronomical and geographical use of the concept ‘zone’. e Other Evidence The Aratean tradition includes various texts (see above Testes secundi) on the circles of the heavens, but all of them are purely descriptive, without any reference to philosophers or scientists, i.e. parallel to what we find in handbooks such as Geminus and Cleomedes. See also ch. 3.14 Commentary D(e) on the parallel terrestrial zones.

liber 2 caput 12

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Stoics at D.L. 7.155 (SVF 2.651) ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν διακόσμησιν ὧδε ἔχειν· … κύκλους δ᾽ εἶναι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πέντε, ὧν πρῶτον ἀρκτικὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον, δεύτερον τροπικὸν θερινόν, τρίτον ἰσημερινόν, τέταρτον χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, πέμπτον ἀνταρκτικὸν ἀφανῆ. Diodorus Siculus 1.98.2–3 Πυθαγόραν (—) τε τὰ κατὰ τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον καὶ τὰ κατὰ γεωμετρίαν θεωρήματα … μαθεῖν παρ᾽ Αἰγυπτίων … τόν τε Οἰνοπίδην (41.7 DK) ὁμοίως συνδιατρίψαντα τοῖς ἱερεῦσι καὶ ἀστρολόγοις μαθεῖν ἄλλα τε καὶ μάλιστα τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον ὡς λοξὴν μὲν ἔχει τὴν πορείαν, ἐναντίαν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἄστροις τὴν φορὰν ποιεῖται. Philo of Alexandria Opif. 112 (arithmology) αὐτίκα τὸν οὐρανόν φασιν ἑπτὰ διεζῶσθαι κύκλοις, ὧν ὀνόματα εἶναι τάδε· ἀρκτικόν, ἀνταρκτικόν, θερινὸν τροπικόν, χειμερινὸν τροπικόν, ἰσημερινόν, ζῳδιακόν, καὶ προσέτι γαλαξίαν. Plutarch Def.Or. 429F ἐν δὲ τῷ παντὶ πέντε μὲν ζώναις ὁ περὶ γῆν τόπος, πέντε δὲ κύκλοις ὁ οὐρανὸς διώρισται, δυσὶν ἀρκτικοῖς καὶ δυσὶ τροπικοῖς καὶ μέσῳ τῷ ἰσημερινῷ. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 198.14–16 Hiller Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστορεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις, ὅτι Οἰνοπίδης (41.7 DK) εὗρε πρῶτος τὴν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ διάζωσιν [λόξωσιν conj. Zeller Diels] καὶ τὴν τοῦ μεγάλου ἐνιαυτοῦ περίστασιν. Anatolius de Dec. 9.16–17 HeibergTannery (arithmology) ἔτι οἱ γνώριμοι παράλληλοι κύκλοι ἐν τῇ σφαίρᾳ πέντε, ἰσημερινός, τροπικοὶ δύο, ἀρκτικὸς καὶ ἀνταρκτικός. ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. 32.20–33.4 De Falco (arithmology) πέντε δὲ καὶ οἱ παράλληλοι κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κύκλοι, ἰσημερινὸς καὶ οἱ παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα τούτου τροπικοί, θερινὸς καὶ χειμερινός. ἀλλήλοις μὲν ἴσοι, δεύτεροι δὲ τῇ τοῦ μεγέθους συμμετρίᾳ, καὶ οἱ τούτων ἐφ᾽ ἑκατέρωθεν τὸ ἔξαρμα καὶ τὸ ἀντέξαρμα ὁρίζοντες, ἀρκτικός τε καὶ ἀνταρκτικός, μικρότατοι μὲν τῷ μεγέθει, ἀλλήλοις μέντοι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἴσοι. Ambrose of Milan Exp.Psalm. 118, p. 15.20–21 Petschenig at illi, qui de rerum natura disputant, caeli scrutantur plagas. cf. Eustathius Comm.Il. (allegorical interpretation of Achilles’ shield, Il. 18.481) 4.220.7 Van der Valk τὰς δὲ πέντε πτύχας τοῦ σάκους τοὺς παραλλήλους κύκλους νοεῖ, εἰς οὓς διαιρεῖται ὁ κόσμος, ἤγουν τὸν ἀρκτικόν, ὃς τῷ βορείῳ πόλῳ ἐγγίζει, καὶ τὸν τῷ Νότῳ προσκυροῦντα ἀνταρκτικόν, καὶ τοὺς δύο τροπικοὺς, ἤγουν τὸν πρὸς τῷ Βορρᾷ θερινὸν καὶ τὸν πρὸς τῷ Νότῳ χειμερινόν, καὶ πέμπτον τὸν μέσον αὐτῶν ἰσημερινόν, εἰς ὃν ἥλιος ἐλθὼν ἰσάζει τὰς ἡμέρας ταῖς νυξίν. Chapter heading: — §2 Pythagoras: cf. Pliny Nat. 2.31 obliquitatem eius (sc. heaven) intellexisse, hoc est rerum fores aperuisse, Anaximander (12A5 DK) Milesius traditur primus Olympiade quinquagesima octava … Apuleius Flor. 18, p. 37.10–17 Helm Thales Milesius (11A19 DK) ex septem illis sapientiae memoratis viris facile praecipuus—enim geometriae penes Graios primus repertor et naturae rerum certissimus explorator et astrorum peritissimus contemplator—maximas res parvis lineis repperit: temporum ambitus, ventorum flatus, stellarum meatus, tonitruum sonora miracula, siderum obliqua curricula, solis annua reverticula, itidem lunae vel nascentis incrementa vel senescentis dispendia vel delinquentis obstacula. Leucippus at D.L. 9.33 (67A1 DK, conjecture Diels, not included in

901

902

liber 2 caput 12

text by Dorandi) ἐκλείπειν δ᾽ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην ⟨*** τὴν δὲ λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ γενέσθαι⟩ τῷ κεκλίσθαι τὴν γῆν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Geminus Elem. 5.1, p. 21 Aujac παράλληλοι μὲν οἱ τοὺς αὐτοὺς πόλους ἔχοντες τῷ κόσμῳ. εἰσὶ δὲ παράλληλοι κύκλοι ε· ἀρκτικός, θερινὸς τροπικός, ἰσημερινός, χειμερινὸς τροπικός, ἀνταρκτικός κτλ. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.193–198 Todd γράφονται δ᾽ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ κύκλοι παράλληλοι πέντε, εἷς μὲν ὁ εἰς δύο ἴσα τέμνων τὸν οὐρανόν, ὃν καλοῦμεν ἰσημερινόν, τούτου δ᾽ ἑκατέρωθεν δύο, αὐτοῦ μὲν μείονες, ἴσοι δ᾽ ἀλλήλοις· καλοῦνται δὲ τροπικοί, ἐπεὶ διὰ τῶν τροπικῶν τοῦ ἡλίου σημείων γράφομεν αὐτούς. καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τούτων πάλιν ἕτεροι γράφονται δύο, ὧν ὁ μὲν βόρειος καλεῖται ἀρκτικός, ὁ δὲ ἐναντίος αὐτῷ ἀνταρκτικός. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. 2.5.3 μετεωρίζεται γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν βορείων μερῶν ὁ τοῦ ἄξονος πόλος, περὶ ὃν ἡ τοῦ κόσμου στροφὴ γίνεται, καὶ τῶν πέντε κύκλων τῶν διεζωκότων τὴν σφαῖραν ὁ καλούμενος ἀρκτικὸς ἀεὶ τῇδε φανερός· ταπεινοῦται δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν νοτίων ὁ καλούμενος ἀνταρκτικὸς κύκλος ἀφανὴς κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος. Suda s.v. K 2654, p. 3.208.25–28 Adler Κύκλοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πέντε· Ἀρκτικός, ὁ ἀεὶ φαινόμενος, Χειμερινός, Τροπικὸς θερινός, Ἰσημερινός, Ἀνταρκτικὸς ἀφανής. λέγονται δὲ παράλληλοι, καθότι οὐ συννεύουσιν εἰς ἀλλήλους· γράφονται μέντοι περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κέντρον. Chapter heading: —

Liber 2 Caput 13 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 888D–889A; pp. 341a3–343a15 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.30, pp. 403.18–404.18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56; p. 624.5–19 Diels, pp. 176–187 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 148–151 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 131, p. 69 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.39, p. 43.5 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.23 (tit.) + 1.24.1ab, pp. 201.25–202.3 + 1.24.1c, p. 202.7– 10 + 1.24.1d, p. 202.13–14 + 1.24.1e, p. 202.20 + 1.24.1f, p. 202.23–24 + 1.24.1g, p. 202.25–26 + 1.24.1i, p. 203.8–9 + 1.24.1k, p. 203. 13–15 + 1.24.1l, p. 203. 21–21 + 1.24.1m, p. 204.6–7+ 1.24.1n, p. 204.14–17 + 1.24.10, pp. 204.21–205.2 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.17, pp. 104.21–105.15 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 11, pp. 19.22–20.10 Di Maria; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux

Titulus ιγʹ. Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἄστρων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς γεώδη μὲν, ἔμπυρα δὲ τὰ ἄστρα. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους, ὅπερ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχων ἐξανέθλιψε κατὰ τὴν πρώτην διάκρισιν. (P2,S2a) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα πύρινον μὲν εἶναι κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν, τῇ δ᾽ εὐτονίᾳ τῆς περιδινήσεως ἀναρπάσαντα πέτρους ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ καταφλέξαντα τούτους ἠστερικέναι. (P3,S3,T2) §1 Thales 11A17a DK; §2 Empedocles 31A53 DK; §3 Anaxagoras 59A71 DK titulus Τίς … ἀπλανῶν PB(I,II)E : πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν desunt PB(III:AE) : Τίς οὐσία τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν PG : add. καὶ πῶς συνέστη PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ), καὶ πῶς συνεστήκασι PΒ(ΙΙI) : Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων PQPs, cf. Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων Ach : Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων SFP, Περὶ ἄστρων οὐσίας SL-ind §1 [2] post Θαλῆς add. PG ὑπολαμβάνει ‖ γεώδη … ἄστρα PBEQS : γεώδη μὲν εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα, ἔμπυρα δέ PG §2 [3] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ πύρινα] add. μόνον PG (μόνα Diels) ‖ ἀήρ PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ)Q S : αἰθήρ PΒ(IIΙ) Sturz ‖ [3–4] ἐκ … διάκρισιν] om. PG ‖ [3] ἐν ἑαυτῷ περιέχων om. PQ ‖ [4] ante ἐξανέθλιψε hab. S ἐξανέλαμψεν ἤτοι, del. Diels Wachsmuth ut ex dittographiis §3 [5] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα PBS : τὸν περικείμενον ἀέρα PE : τὸ περικείμενον PQ(ut vid.) (das Umgebende Q) : τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα ἀέρα PG ‖ post πύρινον add. ᾠήθη PG ‖ [6] περιδινήσεως] παραλύσεως PG ‖ ἀναρπάσαντα PΒ(Ι,ΙΙ)G : ἀναρπάζοντα PΒ(IIΙ) ‖ [6–7] πέτρους … τούτους] πέτραν … ταύτην PG ‖ [6] ἀπὸ PEGS : ἐκ PB ‖ [7] καὶ PBG : om. SPE, rest. Heeren Mras ‖ [7] ἠστερικέναι P : ἠστερωκέναι S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_054

5

904 §4 §5 §6 §7 §8 §9 §10

§11 §12 §13

liber 2 caput 13

Διογένης κισηρώδη τὰ ἄστρα, διαπνοὰς δ᾽ αὐτὰ νομίζει τοῦ κόσμου· εἶναι δὲ διάπυρα. (P4a,S4a,T4) Δημόκριτος πέτρους. (S5,T3) Ἀρχέλαος μύδρους, διαπύρους δέ. (S6) Ἀναξίμανδρος πιλήματα ἀέρος τροχοειδῆ, πυρὸς ἔμπλεα, κατά τι μέρος ἀπὸ στομίων ἐκπνέοντα φλόγας. (S7,T5) Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος πιλήματα πυρός. (S8) Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων, περιέχειν δέ τινα καὶ γεώδη σώματα συμπεριφερόμενα τούτοις ἀόρατα. (S9) Διογένης δὲ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τοῖς φανεροῖς ἄστροις ἀφανεῖς λίθους καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτ᾽ ἀνωνύμους, πίπτοντας δὲ πολλάκις ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν σβέννυσθαι, καθάπερ τὸν ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς πυροειδῶς κατενεχθέντα ἀστέρα πέτρινον. (P4b,S4b,T6) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. (P5,S2b) Πλάτων ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πλείστου μέρους πυρίνους, μετέχοντας δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων κόλλης δίκην. (P6,S10,T7) Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. (S11,T8)

§4 Diogenes 64A12 DK; §5 Democritus 68A85 DK; §6 Archelaus 60A15 DK; §7 Anaximander 12A18 DK; §8 Parmenides 28A39 DK; Heraclitus 22A11 DK; §9 Anaximenes 13A14 DK; §10 Diogenes 64A12 DK; §11 Empedocles 31A54 DK; §12 Plato cf. Tim. 40a; §13 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31 §4 [8] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ κισηρώδη PB(Ι) : κισσηρώδη PΒ(ΙΙ–ΙΙΙ)E : κισηροειδῆ S, κισσηροειδῆ PG, cf. κισηροειδεῖς Τ1, κισηροειδεῖς T2 ‖ διαπνοὰς PBΤ : διαπνοίας PES, διαπνοίαν PG ‖ νομίζει] νοεῖται PG ‖ [9] εἶναι δὲ διάπυρα S : om. P §§5–9 om. P, qui duo Diogenis placita coniugit verbis πάλιν δ᾽ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀφανεῖς (ἀφανεῖς PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI) : λέγει PΒ(ΙΙ)) μὲν λίθους πίπτοντας … §5 [10] πέτρους SF: om. SP §6 [11] post Ἀρχέλαος μύδρους add. S modo solito ἔφησεν εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας §7 [12] πιλήματα … τροχοειδῆ S : al. T ξυστήματα ἄττα τοῦ ἀέρος … τροχοειδῶς πεπιλημένα §8 [14] post πιλήματα πυρός add. S ipse verisimiliter τὰ ἄστρα §9 [15] περιέχειν : παρέχειν SF(?)P, corr. Meineke §10 om. PG ‖ [17] post nomen add. δὲ S, ut additamentum susp. Diels, sed cf. T ‖ συμπεριφέρεσθαι … λίθους S : P vid. supra ad §§5–9 ‖ [18] πίπτοντας P : πίπτοντα S, corr. Diels ‖ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν P, cf. εἰς τὴν γῆν T : ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς S ‖ [19] σβέννυσθαι PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI)S : σβέννυναι PΒ(ΙΙ) §11 [22] πλανήτας PBS : πλανώντας PE, πλάνους ὄντας coni. Mras §12 [23] post nomen hab. δὲ PG ‖ Πλάτων ἐκ μὲν PΒ(Ι,ΙΙI)ES : Πλάτων εἶναι δὲ ἐκ PΒ(ΙΙ) (post πυρίνους hab. PG εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑπολαμβάνει) ‖ [24] στοιχείων PBGQS : om. PE ‖ κόλλης δίκην PBEQ(ut vid.) : κόλλης τρόπον PG : om. S §13 om. P ‖ [25] post σώματος add. γεγενῆσθαι τὰ ἄστρα S ipse verisimiliter, cf. T

10

15

20

25

liber 2 caput 13

§14 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. (P7,S12,T9) §15 Ἡρακλείδης καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον ὑπάρχειν, γῆν περιέχοντα ἀέρα τε καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δόγματα ἐν τοῖς Ὀρφικοῖς φέρεται· κοσμοποιοῦσι γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων. (P8,S13,T10) §16 Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογινώσκει τούτων, ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. (P9,S14) §14 Xenophanes 21A38 DK; §15 Heraclides fr. 113 Wehrli, fr. 75 Schütrumpf; Pythagorei cf. adn. 44A18 DK; Orphici fr. 30 F Bernabé; §16 Epicurus cf. adn. ad D.L. 10.90, p. 382.13 Usener §14 [26] Ξενοφάνης PBES : δὲ add. PGT ‖ μὲν PEST : om. PBG ‖ post πεπυρωμένων hab. PG συνεστάναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἡγεῖται (cf. Ach λέγει τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ νεφῶν συνεστάναι, T ξυνίστασθαι) ‖ [27] ἀναζωπυρεῖν] ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι PG ‖ [27–28] τὰς … σβέσεις : al. Q welche sich (sc. die Kohle) entzündet und verlöscht : om. T ‖ [28] τὰς] om. PG §15 [29] post nomen primum hab. δὲ PG ‖ Ἡρακλείδης] Ἡράκλειτος PQ ‖ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι] ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς T ‖ [29–30] ὑπάρχειν] εἶναι PG ‖ [30] γῆν … αἰθέρι PBQ : περιέχοντα αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ PE : γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αέρι (sic) PG : γῆν περιέχοντα ἀέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι S (⟨καὶ⟩ ante ἀέρα coni. Wachsmuth Diels secutus) : γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ ἀέρα T ‖ [31] τοῖς] ἐνίοις PG ‖ φέρεται· κοσμοποιοῦσι γὰρ PBS : ἐμφέρεται κοσμοποιοῦσιν (dat.) PE, cf. PG φέρεσθαι λέγουσι κοσμοποιοῦσι ‖ γὰρ PBQS : om. PEG ‖ [31–32] ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων PBES : τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον PG, cf. jeder unter den Sternen im ganzen Q §16 [33] ἀπογινώσκει] ἀπογινώσκειν PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.17–20 4.17.1 (~ §1) καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας δὲ Θαλῆς μὲν γεώδεις καὶ ἐμπύρους ὠνόμασεν· 4.17.2 (~ §3) ὁ δέ γε Ἀναξαγόρας ἐκ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς περιδινήσεως πέτρους εἶπεν ἀνασπασθῆναι, καὶ τούτους ἐκπυρωθέντας τε καὶ ἄνω παγέντας ἀστέρας ὀνομασθῆναι. 4.17.3 (~ §5) καὶ Δημόκριτος δὲ τοῦτον κρατύνει τὸν λόγον· 4.17.4 (~ §4) ὁ δὲ Διογένης κισηροειδεῖς λέγει εἶναι τούτους, διαπνοάς τινας ἔχοντας· 4.17.5 (~ §7) ὁ δὲ Ἀναξίμανδρος ξυστήματα ἄττα τοῦ ἀέρος ἔφη, τροχοειδῶς πεπιλημένα, πυρὸς ἔμπλεα εἶναι, ἀπό τινων στομίων ἀφιέντα τὰς φλόγας. 4.18.1 (~ §10) Διογένης δὲ καὶ ἐμπίπτειν εἰς τὴν γῆν τινας τούτων ἔφησε καὶ σβεννυμένους ἐλέγχεσθαι, ὅτι λίθων ἔχουσι φύσιν, καὶ μάρτυρι χρῆται τῷ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς πυροειδῶς κατενεχθέντι ποτέ. 4.18.2 (~ §12) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων ὡς ἐπίπαν μὲν τούτους ἐκ τοῦ πυρὸς ξυνεστάναι, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων φησίν. 4.18.3 (~ §13) ὁ δέ γε Ἀριστοτέλης τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος εἴρηκε ξυγγενεῖς. 4.19.1 (~ §14) Ξενοφάνης δὲ ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν λέγει πεπυρωμένων ξυνίστασθαι, σβεννυμένους δὲ μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν νύκτωρ πάλιν ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας. 4.20.1 (~ §15) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον ὑπάρχειν φασί, γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ ἀέρα.

905

30

906

liber 2 caput 13

Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56 (~ tit.) Τίς οὐσία τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν (text Jas) 56.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς ὑπολαμβάνει γεώδη μὲν εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα, ἔμπυρα δέ. 56.2 (~ P2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ πύρινα μόνον. 56.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ τὸν περικείμενον αἰθέρα ἀέρα πύρινον ᾠήθη, τῇ δὲ εὐτονίᾳ τῆς παραλύσεως ἀναρπάσαντα πέτραν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ καταφλέξαντα ταύτην ἠστερικέναι. 56.4 (~ P4) Διογένης δὲ κισηροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα λέγει καὶ διάπνοιαν αὐτὰ νοεῖται κόσμου. 56.5 (~ P6) Πλάτων δὲ ἐκ μὲν τοῦ πλείστου μέρους πυρίνους εἶναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑπολαμβάνει, μετέχοντας δὲ τῶν ἄλλων στοιχείων κόλλης τρόπον. 56.6 (~ P7) Ξενοφάνης δὲ ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων συνεστάναι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἡγεῖται, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἡγεῖται ἀναζωπυρεῖσθαι νύκτωρ καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας. τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. 56.7 (~ P8) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον εἶναι νομίζουσι γῆν περιέχοντα καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ ἀέρι. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ δόγματα ἐν ἐνίοις Ὀρφικοῖς φέρεσθαι λέγουσι κοσμοποιοῦσι τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον. 56.8 (~ P9) Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογιγνώσκει τούτων ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 131 Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.39 Τίς ἡ τῶν ἀστέρων οὐσία (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 11, p. 19.22 Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων (~ tit.) pp. 19.23–20.10 Θαλῆς μὲν δὴ γηΐνην ἔμπυρον εἶπε τὴν τῶν ἀστέρων οὐσίαν (~ §1). Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ πυρίνους αὐτοὺς εἶπεν. τινὲς δὲ γεώδεις εἰπεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐτόλμησαν (~ §2), ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας· μετὰ γὰρ τὴν πρώτην φησὶ διάκρισιν τῶν στοιχείων τὸ πῦρ χωριζόμενον ἐπὶ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν ἀνασπάσαι καὶ διάπυρα ποιῆσαι καὶ τῆς γῆς μόριά τινα· ὅθεν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἔλεγεν εἶναι μύδρον (~ §3), ὡς ἑξῆς ἐροῦμεν. ἔνιοι δὲ κίσηριν πλαγίαν οὖσαν ὑπὸ τῆς θερμότητος τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀναπτομένην ὑπὸ τῶν τρυμαλιῶν τοὺς ἀστέρας φαίνειν (~ §4). Πλάτων δὲ ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων, πλείστου δὲ πυρός (~ §12). Ξενοφάνης δὲ λέγει τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ νεφῶν συνεστάναι ἐμπύρων καὶ σβέννυσθαι καὶ ἀνάπτεσθαι ὡσανεὶ ἄνθρακας, καί, ὅτε μὲν ἅπτονται, φαντασίαν ἡμᾶς ἔχειν ἀνατολῆς, ὅτε δὲ σβέννυνται, δύσεως (~ §14). οἱ Στωϊκοὶ δὲ ἐκ πυρὸς λέγουσιν αὐτούς, πυρὸς δὲ τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀιδίου καὶ οὐ παραπλησίου τῷ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν· τοῦτο γὰρ φθαρτικὸν καὶ οὐ παμφαές (—). Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux εἰ δὲ διὰ το εἰρῆσθαι· ‘τοῖς ἄστροις ἐνετειλάμην’, ζῶα λογικὰ αὐτὰ καὶ αὐτεξούσια ὁριοῦνταί τινες—οἶδα γάρ τινας οὐ μόνον τῶν ἔξω τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πεπιστευκότων τοῦτο δογματίσαντας—περιττὴν καὶ ἀνωφελῆ τὴν ζήτησιν ταὐτην εἶναι ἠγούμενος …, οὐτ᾽ ἐγκρίναιμι τοῦτο, οὔτ᾽ ἀποψηφίσαιμι … εἴτε οὖν λογικά ἐστι ζῶα, ὥς φασί τινες, εἴτε πύρινοι σφαῖραι, εἴτε δισκοειδῆ σώματα, ἐκ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἐξαφθέντα,

liber 2 caput 13

907

εἴτε σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις, εἴτε μύδροι—τινὲς γὰρ τῶν φιλοσόφων τοῦτ᾽ ἐδογμάτισαν—εἴτε ὀχήματα δεκτικὰ τοῦ ἀΰλου καὶ ὑπερκοσμίου φωτός, οὐ σφόδρα ἰσχυρισαίμην—οὐδὲν γὰρ τοῦτο πρὸς ἀρίστην πολιτείαν συντείνειν ἡγοῦμαι. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία; vide porro textus citatos ad 2.11. A 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων; A 2.15 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων; A 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως; A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες; A 2.18 Περὶ τῶν ἀστέρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων; A 2.19 Περὶ ἐπισημασίας τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος. §2 A 2.6.3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν μὲν αἰθέρα πρῶτον διακριθῆναι, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τὴν γῆν, ἐξ ἧς ἄγαν περισφιγγομένης τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς περιφορᾶς ἀναβλύσαι τὸ ὕδωρ· ἐξ οὗ ἀναθυμιαθῆναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ γενέσθαι τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, πιληθῆναι δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων τὰ περίγεια. 2.14.3 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. §4 cf. A 2.20.10 (de sole). 2.25.11 (de luna). §11 A 2.11.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς στερέμνιον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐξ ἀέρος συμπαγέντος ὑπὸ πυρὸς κρυσταλλοειδῶς, τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀερῶδες ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἡμισφαιρίων περιέχοντα. A 2.14.2 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. §12 cf. A 2.20.7 (de sole), 2.25.7 (de luna), 1.7.22 (de deis) αἰσθητὰ δὲ τοῦ πρώτου θεοῦ ἔγγονα ἥλιος, σελήνη, ἀστέρες, γῆ καὶ ὁ περιέχων πάντα κόσμος. §13 vid. textus citatos ad 2.11.5 (de caelo). §14 cf. A 2.20.2 (de sole), 2.25.3 (de luna). §16 cf. A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. A 2.22.4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. A 3.15.11 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν … ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) This chapter, one of the longest in the Placita, is extremely well attested. In the case of P the four major witnesses testify to it and reveal nine doxai (G deletes only one, the second Empedoclean doxa). (2) These nine are all found in S, who combines what corresponds to ch. 13– 17 in P into a single chapter, using ch. 13 as his base (24.1), to which he appends as many doxai as he can, then adding doxai relating to ch. 15–17 (24.2–3), followed by a single doxa relating to ch. 19 (24.4) and finishing with some doxai from AD (24.5). For a detailed analysis of S’s systematic procedure in this chapter see M– R 1.220–222. There are another five doxai not preserved in P, making a total of

908

liber 2 caput 13

14 doxai in S. On the possibility that S replaced a Stoic doxa with material from AD see below at section D(e). (3) T has ten doxai, all of which can be found in S, but he divides up the single Diogenes doxa as found in P and S. It is important to note that three of these doxai are not in P, confirming that T used A independently from P; see Mansfeld (2018a) 182. (4) In addition, six of the doxai are also found in Ach; see below section D(e). On the six doxai in a letter of Isidore of Pelusium see the following section (a) B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. An important witness to doxographical traditions on this subject prior to A is Philo, who continues his section on the obscure nature of the heavens at Somn. 1.22 (on which see on A 2.11 Commentary B) with a set of six doxai which form three contrasted pairs (see section E(a) General texts). Only the first pair are directly parallel to A’s chapter and illustrate, as we shall see, the main diaeresis. But Philo places most emphasis on the implicit contrast between lifeless clumps (ὄγκοι, μύδροι) or beings with life (ἁρμονία). If they have life, then they will be ensouled (ἔμψυχοι) and move of their own volition. This may indicate an earlier doxographical tradition with a chapter on εἰ ἔμψυχα τὰ ἄστρα (parallel to ch. 2.3) which A did not utilize. Another brief reference to the subject of this chapter and following chapters is found at Somn. 1.53. For a further Philonic reference to the Anaxagorean doctrine see section D(e) below. A similar diaeresis is given by Seneca on the natura of the stars and planets. In addition a further text is found in the early fifth cent. ce Egyptian monk Isidore of Pelusium, a contemporary of S, T and Nem. This text has six doxai on the nature of the stars which perhaps stand closer to Philo than to A, but reflect the same doxographical tradition; see further M–R 1.311. A different approach is found in Hippolytus’ summary of the doctrines of individual philosophers; doxai on the subject are located in the sections devoted to Anaximander, Anaximenes and Anaxagoras in the Ionian tradition; see section E(a) below. These certainly derive from the proximate doxographical tradition. Standing much closer to A, however, is the chapter on the οὐσία of the heavenly bodies in Achilles. Indeed the correspondence to the doxai of this chapter in P is quite remarkable. See below section D(e) for a detailed analysis of this evidence. (2) Sources. The subjects of this chapter and the three that follow it are very clearly marked out by Aristotle in his treatment of the heavenly bodies. He introduces it at the beginning of Cael. 2.7 and rounds off his discussion at the end of 2.12 (texts below at section E(b) General texts). The introductory passage includes three of the topics (that of order, cf. A 2.15, is missing), the

liber 2 caput 13

909

concluding passage refers to all four. In his recapitulation of his treatment of the subject of physics at the beginning of the Meteorology he mentions only the movement of the heavenly bodies (1.1 338a21, cited on ch. 2.16). Aristotle’s treatment has very clearly determined the structure of the subsequent doxographical tradition. If, however, we turn to the specific subject of the substance of the heavenly bodies in general (as distinct from the planets and esp. the sun and the moon), we find that it is not extensively discussed. Aristotle himself, in Cael. 2.7, does not specifically engage with any of the philosophers mentioned in A, only arguing against the view that the heavenly bodies are fiery in very general terms (289a17). The sources for the doxai in extant authors can be traced to a greater or lesser extent for Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus, but in each case the doxographical tradition has introduced interesting changes. See further discussion and texts below. C Chapter Heading The chapter asks a question in the category of substance. Differently from the parallel chs. 2.11, 2.20 and 2.25, however, the heading appears to be not of the umbrella Περὶ x type, but uses the interrogative pronoun τίς with the noun in the nominative, which occurs rather infrequently elsewhere (note esp. ch. 5.3, but also chs. 1.1, 1.7, 2.10, 4.5, 5.17; in 2.11 the two types are both used). But there is a great diversity of formulations, with each of the five major witnesses presenting a different version (excluding T, who generally yields little evidence for this aspect). See our earlier discussion at M–R 1.180–181 (to which can be added the evidence of Ps). Short titles referring only to the stars in general are found in S (using the Περὶ x formula as part of a combined heading covering all seven chapters on the heavenly bodies) and Ach, and also in two later representatives of P, Q and Ps. PB has the fullest title. Not only it is specified that by the term ἄστρα both the fixed stars and the planetary bodies are meant (though missing in some manuscripts), but the question of how they came into existence is also added. However, the subject of this final addition, which is parallel to ch. 2.4 (and ch. 2.6) on the cosmos, only plays a minor role in the chapter. It is not a second question that allows contrasts between the major divisions of opinion, as in ch. 2.3. The preference should be given, we believe, to the heading in E without the final addition. The final part of PB’s heading may well have been added on the basis of some of the doxai’s contents (esp. P2–3–4–7). The heading itself poses the question in the category of substance. See our discussion on A 2.11 Commentary C, where we list the parallel headings in Book 2 and elsewhere.

910

liber 2 caput 13

D Analysis a Context The chapter on the nature of the stars is the second of the five major οὐσία chapters spread throughout chs. 2.11–32 and Book 3; see further above on ch. 2.11. The section 2.13–19 covers questions relating to the heavenly bodies. It should be noted that A appears to use the terms ἄστρον and ἀστήρ interchangeably (the former in chs. 2.13 and 18, the latter in chs. 2.14–17 and 19; but note how confused the witnesses are on the title of the present chapter). In this he differs from Ach who devotes a chapter to distinguishing between the two (§14, τί μὲν ἀστήρ, τί δὲ ἄστρον). To avoid ambiguity we shall translate ‘heavenly bodies’ when both stars and planets are meant (in the present chapter even meteorites are included). On the possibility that there may have been a lost chapter on the subject of whether the heavenly bodies are alive or not, as suggested by a quaestio given as an example in Book 1.proœm. 3[15], see the Commentary ad loc. A(3). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is no material in P and T that is not found in the fullest source S. It is very likely therefore that the record of the chapter in S is complete. Given S’s method, using this chapter as his basis and adding material from the next six chapters, it is also probable that for the most part he accurately reflects the order of the lemmata in A. In attempting to determine the original form of the chapter, however, three problems arise. (1) For Empedocles P has two separate doxai (P2 and P5), which in S are kept together, joined by a simple καί (S2ab). As Bottler (2014) 368 rightly points out, the conjunction is an indicator of the process of coalescence. S more commonly uses the word δέ, but this was not possible here because of the μέν … δέ construction in the second doxa (another example of καί solving the same problem is found at in the same chapter at S 1.24.1e for the coalesced doxai of Democritus). It is of course not unusual in A to have two doxai with the same name-label in a single chapter (see the discussion at M–R 2.2.523). The second doxa in P admittedly does not have a close connection with the subject matter of the chapter. A more natural location would have been in ch. 2.15 on the ordering of the stars, but to move it there, given its presence in P 2.13, would be too radical a step. So, contrary to our view in M–R 2.460–461, we now believe that the separation of the two doxai, as set out in P, should be retained. As for the position of the second Empedocles doxa in the chapter, it is plausible to retain P’s order and so place it between Diogenes’ second doxa and Plato. We agree with Diels that, given the tight connection between Diogenes’ doxa and that of Anaximenes (both speak of invisible stones or bodies), it should be placed after the latter doxa, so immediately preceding the view of Plato.

liber 2 caput 13

911

(2) There is a small discrepancy in the order of the lemmata between S and T that needs to be resolved. The lemma recording the view of Democritus follows that of Diogenes in S, but in T the order is reversed. Here we do not follow Diels, who gives priority to T above S. It is true that both the previous lemma of Anaxagoras (§3) and that of Democritus speak of ‘rocks’. T recognises this link with his formula καὶ Δημόκριτος δὲ τοῦτον κρατύνει τὸν λόγον (A 4.17.3). But in our view it remains more likely that S followed his method consistently and so Diogenes would have preceded Democritus. There are other examples of T reversing the order of two doxai, e.g. at A 4.5.8–9. The difference between the two solutions. however, is not great. As we shall see, both doxai belong to the same group of thinkers on the question at issue. (3) In the case of Diogenes we also have two doxai connected to the same name-label. This time they are both joined together in S and P, but in T they are separate. The formula introducing the second doxa in P is striking. The words πάλιν δ᾽ ὁ αὐτός may be taken as an indication that the epitomator has linked up two originally separate lemmata (it is the only instance in P that this formula is used for a name-label; for πάλιν introducing an additional point cf. A 1.3.7[58]). Given S’s method in this chapter, it is likely that he too coalesces here. So we must conclude that in this case there were two Diogenes doxai in the chapter. But the location of the second still remains uncertain. From P and T we can deduce that it came after Anaximander and before Plato. Diels placed it after Parmenides–Heraclitus, but before Anaximenes. As will emerge below, it is more probable that it came after the Anaximenes doxa. As supporting evidence for the hypothesis that there were two Diogenes doxai in the chapter it should be noted that P skipped all the lemmata in A between the two. This was a very obvious and easy method of abridgement that was available to him. He simply linked up the two doxai, thereby leaving out the four or five lemmata in between. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Because of its length, the chapter’s structure is not as neat and clear-cut as that of many others. Nevertheless it is clear that its main contours are determined by a fundamental diaeresis between the view that the stars consist of a basically earthy, rock-like substance (which is enflamed so that they are mostly visible) and a purer fiery or ethereal substance. This division is not found in Aristotle in his discussion on the nature of the stars in Cael. 2.7, presumably because it was too far removed from his own view. But it is very clearly found as the basis of Seneca’s discussion of the subject in Nat. Book 7 (text below section E(a) General texts). The same diaeresis is also found in Philo, Achilles and Isidore of Pelusium (cf. section B above). The chapter also reveals a general movement

912

liber 2 caput 13

from the first to the second pole of the diaeresis. At the end, as often elsewhere, a number of additional themes are included. The chapter thus proceeds as follows. (1) The chapter begins with Thales, ἀρχηγέτης of the Italian succession, who represents the ‘earthy but inflamed’ view without further detail (§1). But he is immediately followed by Empedocles (§2), whose doxa belongs to the ‘fiery’ group (note that the verb ἐξαναθλίβω anticipates the πιλήματα introduced in §7). It may be surmised that A wishes to set out the basic antithesis at the outset (the same procedure, as we shall see below, in Ach). T prefers to retain continuity in his listing, and so passes over the Empedoclean lemma. (2) The next four doxai (§§3–6) revert to the ‘earthy’ view: the stars are lumps of red-hot rock or iron. In the case of Diogenes they are like sponges, not (presumably) because they are soft, but because they have openings that allow the fiery pneuma to circulate. (3) A continues with two doxai that regard the stars as ‘compressions’ of air and/of fire (§§7–8). (4) Diels now followed with the second Diogenean lemma, but the transition is needlessly harsh. If Anaximenes (§9) follows, as in S, then the sequence of fiery doxai is maintained. But an interesting addition is made: there are also invisible rocky bodies carried around with the heavenly bodies, i.e. meteorites. This view thus combines the two poles of the diaeresis. A then recalls that Diogenes also mentions such invisible bodies. This time, however, they are invisible when whirling in the heavens, but can be observed when they fall down to earth (§10). The double use of the verb συμπεριφέρω links up the two doxai, as Diels DG 67 saw, with a contrast between the two doxai introduced with δέ in the second part of the sentence. It is also to be agreed with Diels that the δέ after Diogenes’ name in S was probably introduced by the anthologist as often elsewhere; the same particle is found in T, but cannot tip the balance because he leaves out §§8–9. (5) There follows the second Empedocles lemma (§11) which distinguishes between the positioning of the fixed stars and the planets, the former having been fixed to the crystalline heaven, the latter free to move. As noted above, the view seems out of place here, but its position must be retained because of the location in P. (6) The next three views continue the ‘fiery’ group (§12–14). Plato’s view, based on Tim. 40a, is distinctive and by implication includes some earth in the stars’ composition. Aristotle’s theory of the quintessence is a reaction against it. Xenophanes’ fantastical theory comes last in the group, presumably because of its unusual nature.

liber 2 caput 13

913

(7) Two doxai remain. That of Heraclides and the Pythagoreans (§15) is also unusual and can be regarded as an additional ‘interesting’ view, but in a sense it continues the compromise between ‘earthy’ and ‘fiery’ views. The explicit reference to the Orphics is unique in the Placita, but see A 2.2 Commentary D(e) on additional material in Ach that is probably drawn from the Placita tradition. The final doxa (§16) is another affirmation of Epicurus’ ‘modal’ view, which rejects all diaereses in favour of τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον. The same view, terminology and final placement were found at 2.2.5; see further A 2.2 Commentary D(c). The term goes back to Epicurus himself (Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.88). At D.L. 10.90, however, he indicates that the heavenly bodies may be pneumatic or fiery or both, but does not emphasize the ἐνδεχόμενον. It seems more likely that here it refers to all the various views represented in the chapter, rather than qualifying just the previous doxa, as suggested by Lachenaud (1993) 112 n. 4. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 In this and the following doxa cosmogonic elements are added to the cosmological theme of the chapter. Some details of Empedocles’ view recall the description of the cosmogonic process attributed to him in A 2.6.3. The further details in §11 may also originally be derived from a cosmogonic account. §3 Confusion between the terms ἀήρ and αἰθήρ in the various grammatical cases is frequent in the manuscripts of the P tradition and also in S. For other examples see §14 below, A 2.6.3, 2.7.5 etc. Here there can be little doubt that αἰθήρ is meant. Other texts do not mention that the stony heavenly bodies are swept up from the earth, as maintained here. §§9–10 The doxai attributed to Anaximenes and Diogenes share similarities with that of Anaxagoras, who was famous for his prediction of the fall of the meteorite at Aegospotami in 467BCE. In the case of Anaximenes there has been much discussion on how the various reports on the origin and nature of the heavenly body can be harmonised; cf. Wöhrle (1993) 70–72. The evidence of Hippolytus, however, throws interesting light on A’s doxai. The correspondences between his doxa on Anaxagoras and A’s on Anaximenes seem to be too great to be coincidental, so that there is much to be said for the view of Kirk-Raven-Schofield that Anaximenes’ doxa here is a case of ‘the inaccuracy of doxographical attributions’ (1983, 156). Since this is the only case in the testimonia to Diogenes that there is mention of the fall of the meteorite, there may have been transference in the case of his doxa too. But of course he may well have referred to it in his discussion of the nature of the heavenly bodies. §10 Laks (2008) 206 argues that πίπτοντα in S may well be deliberate, referring to the term ἄστρα and indicating that meteorites too are heavenly bodies.

914

liber 2 caput 13

He retains, however, the reading πίπτοντας for P. We have to choose. The proximity to λίθους makes the latter reading much more probable. §11 The description of the outer heaven as ‘crystalline’ is consistent with the Empedocles doxa at A 2.11.2. On the attribution of the same view to Anaximenes with the additional image of studs at 2.14.3 see our note at ch. 2.14 Commentary D(d). §12 The Platonic doxa is ultimately derived from Tim. 40a2–3, τοῦ μὲν οὖν θείου τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἐκ πυρὸς ἀπηργάζετο, as is the case for the parallel doxai at A 2.20.7 and 2.25.7. Plato’s statement covers the entire γένος of heavenly beings. The doxographical tradition has applied it to the various individual cases. The doxography at D.L. 3.74 follows the Platonic source more closely. Interestingly A adds an explanatory metaphor: the additional inclusion of the other elements binds together the heavenly bodies (as we may assume) in the manner of glue. Plato himself does not use the metaphor in this context, reserving it for aspects of human physiology (Tim. 43a, 75d, 82d). Aristotle Mete. 4.4 382a1 notes the role of glue in Empedocles’ physics (cf. 31A34 DK), but applies it to sublunary compounds, not the heavenly bodies. We note that both S and T leave out this extra information, perhaps independently recognising its non-Platonic nature. It is theoretically possible that it was added by P, but it would go against his usual practice as epitomator. §13 Translation and interpretation of this lemma is based on Mourelatos’ careful analysis in (2008) 139–146. He argues that πεπυρωμένον means ‘incandescent’ and not ‘ignited, enflamed’, i.e. does not necessarily imply that the composition of the stars is itself fire. §15 There is much variation in the witnesses with regard to the composition of the mini-worlds of each heavenly body (i.e. planet), exacerbated by the similarity of the terms ἀήρ and αἰθήρ. Given the correspondence of S and T, we think it best to follow the suggestion of Diels DG 343 in the apparatus that their readings best reflect the original in A, regardless of all the variation shown in the tradition of P. Though Heraclides and the Pythagoreans are not associated with the group of infinitists in A 2.1.3 (Pythagoras is regarded as a unicist in 2.1.2), the doxographer may assume that an infinite expanse of aether is implied by Heraclides’ hypothesis that the earth turns around its axis while the heaven remains at rest (3.13.3). Gottschalk (1980) 82–83 argues that Heraclides espouses the view that the cosmos is infinite in extent with the moon and the stars each forming a complete world. More recently Keyser (2009) 212 concurs, but in the view of Todd–Bowen (2009) 179 it cannot be proven. Note that at A 3.13.3 Heraclides is associated with Ecphantus ὁ Πυθαγόρειος (though with the Pythagorean Hicetas at Cicero Luc. 123). T’s formulation ἄλλοι τῶν Πυθαγο-

liber 2 caput 13

915

ρείων τινὲς may imply that he regards Heraclides as a Pythagorean, but does not necessarily do so (cf. Smyth 1956, §1272). In their recent edition Schütrumpf et al. (2008) laboriously treat PBEG, S and T in five separate lemmata (fr. 75A–E). But our method constrains us to make a choice for a single text. e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter (§11) entitled Τίς οὐσία ἀστέρων forms a remarkably close parallel to our chapter. Indeed it was the closeness to P in this case that was a prime reason for Diels to postulate (erroneously) that Ach had excerpted P (see the discussion with a useful comparison in two columns at DG 24). The first six lemmata correspond to P1–2–3–4–6–7; only the seventh with the name-label Stoics is not found in P or A. The first two doxai preserve the basic diaeresis just as in A, emphasizing it even more with a μέν … δέ construction. The Anaxagorean doxa is introduced by the word τινές … ἐτόλμησαν, which can have a neutral connotation (i.e. ‘claimed’), but in this context perhaps hints at a contrast with the Stoic view in the final lemma that the stars consist of divine fire. Such theological concerns are mostly foreign to the method of the Placita (compare also Philo Aet. 47 cited below, where the attitude towards Anaxagoras is openly hostile). The phrase μετὰ τὴν πρώτην διάκρισιν is almost the same as in A, but there it is part of the Empedoclean doxa. The fourth doxa is presented anonymously, but clearly corresponds to the first part of the Diogenean lemma in A. Nothing in our witnesses to A corresponds to the Stoic lemma. It may have been part of an earlier Placita tradition, but then it would be surprising that A did not include it in some form or other. It is possible that Ach imported it from another source. Another possibility, however, is that it does reflect a Stoic doxa that was present in A, but was omitted by P and T and not copied out by S because he replaced it with material from AD fr. 32 Diels at 1.24.5 (Posidonius, Chrysippus and Apollodorus). However this may be, it is certainly is remarkable that the first six doxai all correspond to those in P, without any of the extra material preserved by S or T. Nevertheless, as Diels later saw (see Pasquali 1910, 221), they cannot be viewed as derived from P. They represent the shared tradition of the Placita. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.22 τί δ᾽; οἱ ἀστέρες πότερον γῆς εἰσιν ὄγκοι πυρὸς πλήρεις—ἄγκεα γὰρ καὶ νάπας καὶ μύδρους διαπύρους εἶπον αὐτοὺς εἶναί τινες, αὐτοὶ δεσμωτηρίου καὶ μύλωνος, ἐν οἷς τὰ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ τῶν ἀσεβῶν, ὄντες ἐπάξιοι—ἢ συνεχὴς καί, ὡς εἶπέ τις, πυκνὴ ἁρμονία, πιλήματα ἀδιάλυτα αἰθέρος; ἔμψυχοι δὲ καὶ νοεροὶ ἢ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀμέτοχοι; προαιρετικὰς δὲ

916

liber 2 caput 13

ἢ κατηναγκασμένας αὐτὸ μόνον κινήσεις ἔχοντες; Somn. 1.53, τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς ἢ συμπαθείας πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τἀπίγεια; Seneca Nat. 7.1.6–7 at mehercules non aliud quis aut magnificientius quaesierit aut didicerit utilius quam de stellarum siderumque natura, utrum flamma contracta, quod et visus noster affirmat et ipsum ab illis fluens lumen et calor inde descendens, an non sint flammei orbes, sed solida quaedam terrenaque corpora, quae per igneos tractus labentia inde splendorem trahant caloremque, non de suo clara. in qua opinione magni fuerunt viri, qui sidera crediderunt ex duro concreta et ignem alienum pascentia. ‘nam per se’ inquiunt ‘flamma diffugeret, nisi aliquid haberet quod teneret et a quo teneretur, conglobatamque nec stabili inditam corpori profecto iam mundus turbine suo dissipasset.’ cf. Dial. 8.5.5 unde ista sidera exierint. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.13– 18 Marchesi quid sit luna? quid stellae? cur una specie aut illa non maneat, aut per omne mundi corpus frustilla haec ignea convenerit atque oportuerit figi? cur alia ex his parva, ampliora et maiora sint alia, obtunsi haec luminis, acutioris illa et fulgidae claritatis? John Chrysostom Cat.Illum. 3.4.1 Wenger πυρώδης τῶν ἄστρων ἐκείνων ἡ φύσις, πυρώδης καὶ τούτων τῶν ἄστρων ἡ οὐσία. Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda, ἀλαζὼν λέγεται ὁ ἄλῃ καὶ πλάνῃ ζῶν καὶ βίῳ ἀστάτῳ, ὡς οἱ φιλόσοφοι περὶ ἡλίου, σελήνης, ἀστέρων τε τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς ψυχρομύθους λόγους πλατύνοντες ἐναντίους καὶ μαχομένους ἀλλήλοις καὶ αὐτοὺς ἑαυτοῖς, μεγέθη τε τούτων καὶ ἀπὸ γῆς ἀποστάσεις καὶ οὐσίας καὶ φύσεις καὶ θέσεις καὶ σχήματα καὶ ἄλλα μυρία λαλοῦντες. Chapter heading: Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. Pliny Nat. Index lib. II, p. 11.9–10 De siderum errantium natura. Cf. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 prima pars (sc. de universo quaestio) naturam siderum scrutatur … also Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58 quid (sc. sint) stellae? (cited above). §1 Thales: Hippolytus Ref. 1.1.4 (Thales fr. 210 Wöhrle) οὗτος περὶ τὸν τῶν ἄστρων λόγον καὶ τὴν ζήτησιν ἀσχοληθεὶς Ἕλλησι ταύτης τῆς μαθήσεως αἴτιος πρῶτος γίνεται. ὃς ἀποβλέπων πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὰ ἄνω ἐπιμελῶς κατανοεῖν λέγων, εἰς φρέαρ ἐνέπεσεν … §3 Anaxagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (59A1 DK) τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι, ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. 2.12 τὸν δὲ Ἀναξαγόραν εἰπεῖν ὡς ὅλος ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐκ λίθων συγκέοιτο· τῇ σφοδρᾷ δὲ περιδινήσει συνεστάναι καὶ ἀνεθέντα κατενεχθήσεσθαι. cf. Plutarch Lys. 12 (on Anaxagoras, 59A12 DK) οἱ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ λίθου πτῶσιν ἐπὶ τῷ πάθει τούτῳ σημεῖόν φασι γενέσθαι· κατηνέχθη γάρ, ὡς ἡ δόξα τῶν πολλῶν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ παμμεγέθης λίθος εἰς Αἰγὸς ποταμούς. …· λέγεται δὲ Ἀναξαγόραν προειπεῖν ὡς τῶν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐνδεδεμένων σωμάτων, γενομένου τινὸς ὀλισθήματος ἢ σάλου, ῥῖψις ἔσται καὶ πτῶσις ἑνὸς ἀπορραγέντος· εἶναι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄστρων ἕκαστον οὐκ ἐν ᾗ πέφυκε χώρᾳ· λιθώδη γὰρ ὄντα καὶ βαρέα λάμπειν μὲν ἀντερείσει καὶ περικλάσει τοῦ αἰθέρος, ἕλκεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ βίας σφιγγόμενα δίνῃ καὶ τόνῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς, ὥς που καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἐκρατήθη μὴ πεσεῖν δεῦρο τῶν ψυχρῶν καὶ βαρέων ἀποκρινομένων τοῦ παντός … Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.2 (59A42 DK) καὶ τὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κεκοσμῆσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου κινήσεως· τὸ μὲν

liber 2 caput 13 οὖν πυκνὸν καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ὑγρὸν καὶ τὸ σκοτεινὸν καὶ ⟨τὸ⟩ ψυχρὸν καὶ πάντα τὰ βαρέα συνελθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον, ἐξ ὧν παγέντων τὴν γῆν ὑποστῆναι· τὰ δ᾽ ἀντικείμενα τούτοις, ⟨τὸ ἀραιὸν καὶ⟩ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ τὸ κοῦφον, εἰς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ αἰθέρος ὁρμῆσαι. … Ref. 1.8.6 ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους, συμπεριληφθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ⟨τοῦ⟩ αἰθέρος περιφορᾶς. εἶναι δ᾽ ὑποκάτω τῶν ἄστρων ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ σώματά τινα συμπεριφερόμενα, ἡμῖν ἀόρατα. Origen Cels. 5.11 see on A 2.20.8. Achilles c. 13, p. 20.18–19 τοὺς ἀστέρας δὲ ζῷα εἶναι οὔτε Ἀναξαγόρᾳ (59A79 DK) οὔτε Δημοκρίτῳ (67B1 DK attributed to Leucippus, fr. 392 Luria) ἐν τῷ Μεγάλῳ διακόσμῳ δοκεῖ. §5 cf. on §3, Achilles. §7 Anaximander: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.4 (12A11 DK) τὰ δὲ ἄστρα γίνεσθαι κύκλον πυρός, ἀποκριθέντα ⟨ἐκ⟩ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον πυρός, περιληφθέντα δ᾽ ὑπὸ ἀέρος. ἐκπνοὰς δ᾽ ὑπάρξαι, πόρους τινὰς αὐλώδεις, καθ᾽ οὓς φαίνεσθαι τὰ ἄστρα· διὸ καὶ ἐπιφρασσομένων τῶν ἐκπνοῶν τὰς ἐκλείψεις γίνεσθαι. §8 Parmenides Heraclitus: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.9–10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) εἶναι μέντοι ἐν αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ περιέχοντι) σκάφας ἐπεστραμμένας κατὰ κοῖλον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐν αἷς ἀθροιζομένας τὰς λαμπρὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις ἀποτελεῖν φλόγας, ἃς εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα. λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα ἄστρα πλεῖον ἀπέχειν ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἧττον λάμπειν καὶ θάλπειν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην προσγειοτέραν οὖσαν μὴ διὰ τοῦ καθαροῦ φέρεσθαι τόπου. §9 Anaximenes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (Anaximenes 13A7 DK) ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα πάντα γὰρ πύρινα ὄντα ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι διὰ πλάτος. differently ps.Plutarch Strom. 3 (fr. 179 Sandbach, Anaximenes 13A6 DK) καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς γενέσεως ἐκ γῆς ἔχειν. §10 Empedocles: cf. Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok (general question) et stellae utrumne adhaereant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur. §11 Plato: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.74 (Plato doxography) θεοὺς μὲν οὖν ἔχειν τὸ πολὺ πυρίνους. §12 Aristotle: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.32 (Aristotle doxography) εἶναι δὲ παρὰ τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖα καὶ ἄλλο πέμπτον, ἐξ οὗ τὰ αἰθέρια συνεστάναι. ἀλλοίαν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὴν κίνησιν εἶναι· κυκλοφορητικὴν γάρ. §13 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, 21A32 DK) τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐκ τῶν νεφῶν γίγνεσθαι. cf. also ps.Plutarch Strom. 11 on Metrodorus cited on A 2.20.15.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–13 περὶ δὲ τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων ἑπόμενον ἄν εἴη λέγειν, ἐκ τίνων τε συνεστᾶσι καὶ ἐν ποίοις σχήμασι καὶ τίνες αἱ κινήσεις αὐτῶν (cited by ps.Justin Confut. 45, p. 152b Morel). Cael. 2.12 293a11– 14 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φερομένων κίνησιν ἄστρων εἴρηται ποῖ᾽ ἄττα κατά τε τὴν οὐσίαν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα, περί τε τῆς φορᾶς καὶ τῆς τάξεως αὐτῶν. Cicero Tusc. 5.69 quo tandem igitur gaudio adfici necesse est sapientis animum cum his habitantem pernoctantemque curis! ut, cum totius mundi motus con-

917

918

liber 2 caput 13

versionesque perspexerit sideraque viderit innumerabilia caelo inhaerentia cum eius ipsius motu congruere certis infixa sedibus, septem alia suos quaeque tenere cursus multum inter se aut altitudine aut humilitate distantia, quorum vagi motus rata tamen et certa sui cursus spatia definiant … Philo of Alexandria Aet. 47 ἔδει γὰρ ἢ μύδρους διαπύρους ἀποφήνασθαι, κάθαπερ ἔνιοι τῶν οἷα περὶ δεσμωτηρίου φλυαρούντων τοῦ σύμπαντος οὐρανοῦ, ἢ θείας ἢ δαιμονίας φύσεις νομίζοντας τὴν ἁρμόττουσαν θεοῖς ἀφθαρσίαν προσομολογῆσαι. Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 = fr. 33 Diels Ζήνων (SVF 1.120) τὸν ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὴν σελήνην καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων ἕκαστον εἶναι νοερὸν καὶ φρόνιμον, πύρινον ⟨δὲ⟩ πυρὸς τεχνικοῦ. δύο γὰρ γένη πυρός, τὸ μὲν ἄτεχνον καὶ μεταβάλλον εἰς ἑαυτὸ τὴν τροφήν, τὸ δὲ τεχνικὸν αὐξητικόν τε καὶ τηρητικόν, οἷον ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἐστι καὶ ζῴοις, ὃ δὴ φύσις ἐστὶ καὶ ψυχή· τοιούτου δὴ πυρὸς εἶναι τὴν τῶν ἄστρων οὐσίαν. Chapter heading: Proclus in Tim. 3.112.26–27 δεῖ γὰρ πρῶτον ἡμᾶς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ ἀπλανοῦς) διελθεῖν … Simplicius in Phys. 290.21–23 εἰ οὖν ὁ μὲν φυσικὸς καὶ περὶ οὐσίας τῶν ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτοῖς ἐπισκοπεῖ, ὁ δὲ ἀστρολόγος περὶ μόνων τῶν συμβεβηκότων … in Cael. 366.2–12 ἀρχὴν ἐποιήσατο τοῦ δευτέρου βιβλίου, ἐν ᾧ τὰ λοιπὰ περὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ προβλήματα διαρθροῖ· … καὶ ἕβδομον περὶ ἀστέρων οὐσίας τε αὐτῶν καὶ σχήματος καὶ τάξεως καὶ κινήσεως … in Cael. 452.9–14 (on 290a7) μετὰ τὴν ἐκ διαιρέσεως ἀπόδειξιν τὴν περὶ τῆς κινήσεως ἢ τῆς ἀκινησίας τῶν ἄστρων ἄλλον τρόπον ἀποδείξεως ἐπάγει περὶ τοῦ μὴ κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα ὑποθέμενος αὐτὰ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι καὶ νῦν μὲν τὸ πιθανὸν τῆς ὑποθέσεως πιστούμενος ἔκ τε τῆς τῶν ἄλλων δόξης οὕτως οἰομένων περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐκ τοῦ δεῖν τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὄντας αὐτοὺς τῷ οὐρανίῳ σώματι καὶ σχῆμα τὸ αὐτὸ ἔχειν … §2 Empedocles: cf. Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a16–19 ὥσπερ γὰρ οἱ πύρινα φάσκοντες εἶναι διὰ τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὸ ἄνω σῶμα πῦρ εἶναί φασιν, ὡς εὔλογον ὂν ἕκαστον συνεστάναι ἐκ τούτων ἐν οἷς ἕκαστόν ἐστιν, ὁμοίως καὶ ἡμεῖς λέγομεν. §3 Anaxagoras: Olympiodorus in Mete. 17.19–21 μόνα δὲ τὰ ἄστρα πυρώδη εἰσίν, ὡς καὶ τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν (59A19 DK) μύδρον καλέσαι τὸν ἥλιον διὰ τὸ ἄμετρον τῆς πυρώσεως· μύδρος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πεπυρακτωμένος σίδηρος. §8 Parmenides Heraclitus: see on A 2.11.1 (Parmenides). §12 Plato: Plato Tim. 40a τοῦ μὲν οὖν θείου τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἐκ πυρὸς ἀπηργάζετο (sc. ὁ θεός). cf. Alcinous Did. 14, p. 171.1–4 H. (planets only) ἑπτὰ σώματα ὁ θεὸς δημιουργήσας ὁρατὰ ἐκ πυρώδους τῆς πλείστης οὐσίας ἐφήρμοσε ταῖς σφαίραις ὑπαρχούσαις ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλου καὶ πλανωμένου. Apuleius Plat. 1.12, p. 71.6–9 Beaujeu iam ipsa animantium genera in quattuor species dividuntur, quarum una est ex natura ignis eiusmodi qualem solem ac lunam videmus ceterasque siderum stellas … Proclus in Tim. 3.112.23–113.17 πρῶτόν ἐστι τῶν μερικῶν ζῴων τὸ ἀπλανές, ὃ δὴ καὶ πρῶτον ὑφίστησιν ὁ δημιουργὸς ἐκ πυρὸς αὐτοῦ τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν ἀπεργαζόμενος· δεῖ γὰρ πρῶτον ἡμᾶς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ διελθεῖν, ἔπειτα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τρίτον περὶ τῆς θέσεως καὶ τέταρτον περὶ τῆς κινήσεως. ὁ δὲ περὶ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος πολλὴν ἐπεισκυκλεῖ τὴν τῶν ἐξηγητῶν διαφωνίαν· πῶς γὰρ ἐκ πυρὸς ἔχει τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν; πότερον οὕτως, ὥσπερ ἔνιοί φασιν, ὅτι συγκέκραται μὲν (113) ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν στοιχείων, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς πλείστου μετείλη-

liber 2 caput 13 χεν, ἢ ὅτι πᾶν μὲν τὸ οὐράνιον γένος ἐκ πάντων ἐστί, τὸ δὲ πλεῖστον αὐτοῦ πύριόν ἐστι; … ἆρα μὴ οὕτως, ὥσπερ ὁ τῶν πραγμάτων θεατὴς ὄντως ἐξηγήσατο τὴν πλείστην ἰδέαν τοῦ πυρός, ἀντὶ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος τὸ πῦρ ἀκουστέον πλείστην ἰδέαν ἔχον, ὡς πολλοὺς λόγους ὑποδεξάμενον, ὧν ἐστι πλῆρες ἕκαστον τῶν θείων σωμάτων; ἢ κατὰ τούτων μὲν οὐδένα τῶν τρόπων, ὡς δὲ ἔνιοι λέγουσιν, ὅτι τὰ θεῖα ζῷα συνέστηκε μὲν ἐκ πυρός, ἀλλὰ διαστατὴν ἔχει καὶ πεπληθυσμένην τὴν οὐσίαν (ἑνοειδὲς γὰρ τὸ νοητόν, πλεῖστον δὲ τὸ σωματικὸν ὡς μεριστόν, ὡς διαστατόν, ὡς ὄγκον ἔχον), ἤ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ πάντων ἀληθέστατον, εἰς πάσας ἀποβλέψομεν τὰς ἐπιβολὰς καὶ μίαν ἀπὸ πασῶν ἀλήθειαν θεωρήσομεν; … in Tim. 3.114.8 καὶ οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα τοὺς δεινοὺς τῶν διαλεκτικῶν (sc. Aristotle and the Peripatetics), οἳ σμικρόν τι μόριον τῆς φύσεως ἰδόντες οἴονται τὸν Πλάτωνα διασύρειν τὸ πῦρ ἀνωφερὲς λέγοντες, τὰ δὲ ἄστρα κυκλοφορητικά· ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἔχει χώραν ἐπὶ τοῦ οὐρανίου πυρός §13 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.2 269a30–32 ἔκ τε δὴ τούτων φανερὸν ὅτι πέφυκέ τις οὐσία σώματος ἄλλη παρὰ τὰς ἐνταῦθα συστάσεις, θειοτέρα καὶ προτέρα τούτων ἁπάντων … See also on A 2.11.5. §16 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.90 ἥλιός τε καὶ σελήνη καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα … εὐθὺς διεπλάττετο καὶ αὔξησιν ἐλάμβανεν κατὰ προσκρίσεις καὶ δινήσεις λεπτομερῶν τινων φύσεων, ἤτοι πνευματικῶν ἢ πυροειδῶν ἢ συναμφοτέρων …

919

Liber 2 Caput 14 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889A; pp. 343a16–344a7 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.31, pp. 404.19–405.3 Mras, cf. 7.11.13 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 56a; p. 624.20–24 Diels; pp. 183–185 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 150–151 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 133, p. 70.8 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.40, p. 44.3 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.21 (tit.) + 1.24.1k, p. 203.15–16 + 2d, p. 205.25–26 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theoderetus CAG 4.20, p. 105.15–16 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 12, p. 20.11–15; c. 15, p. 22.15–18 Di Maria

Titulus ιδʹ. Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην, (P1,S2,T1) §2 Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς. (P2,S3,T2) §3 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. (P3,S1) §4 ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα, ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα. (P4) §1 Stoici SVF 2.681; §2 Cleanthes SVF 1.508; §3 Anaximenes 13A14, B2a DK; §4 anonymi cf. 13A14 DK titulus σχημάτων PB(I–II)EQSyS (qui conflat tit. Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων (c. 2.13) καὶ σχημάτων (2.14), κινήσεώς (cf. 2.16) τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (2.19)), cf. PPs : σχήματος PB(III)E, cf. Ach : al. PPs Ποταπὰ τῶν ἀστέρων τὰ σχήματα §1 [2] οἱ Στωικοὶ P : οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι S (cf. οἱ μὲν T), οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι ⟨Στωικοὶ⟩ coni. Heeren prob. Wachsmuth ‖ τοὺς ἀστέρας P : τούς SFP, αὐτούς SP(m.s.) Diels Wachsmuth ‖ post κόσμον add. οἴονται PG ‖ [2–3] καθάπερ … σελήνην PBGQ : καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον PE (cf. Ach καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν περιέχοντα οὐρανόν) : om. S §2 [4] om. PE ‖ post nomen add. δὲ verisimiliter S (cf. T) §3 [5] καταπεπηγέναι PB(I,III)G S : καταπεπηγμένους PE emend. Mras (mss. –μένων) : PQ καταπεπηγμένων (daß sie die Stelle der Nägel einnehmen, die in der eisartigen Substanz festgenagelt und befestigt sind Q) : καταπεπληγέναι PB(II) ‖ post καταπεπηγέναι add. τὰ ἄστρα S (ret. Diels VS, DK), καὶ PG §4 [6] ἔνιοι δὲ PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ)EQ, cf. Ach τινὲς δὲ : δὲ om. PG : καθάπερ PB(II) ‖ εἶναι πύρινα PB : inv. PE : om. πύρινα PQ : al. PG πύρινα νομίζουσιν εἶναι ‖ ζῳγραφήματα PB(I,III)EG : ἐζῳγραφημένα PB(II) ‖ post ζῳγραφήματα add. τοὺς ἀστέρας PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.20 4.20.2 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδεῖς τούτους εἰρήκασι, 4.20.3 (~ §2) κωνοειδεῖς δὲ Κλεάνθης ὁ Στωϊκός. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia Graeca, cf. c. 1.7) τῶν δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας εἶναι (sc. θεοὺς) φασκόντων, οὓς καὶ μύδρους τυγχάνειν διαπύρους ἥλων καὶ πετάλων δίκην ἐμπεπηγότας τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. P3). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_055

5

liber 2 caput 14 ps.Galenus HPh c. 56a (titulus deest) (text Jas) 56a.1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον οἴονται καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. 56a.2 (~ P2) Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς. 56a.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι καὶ ⟨τῷ⟩ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. 56a.4 (~ P4) ἔνιοι πέταλα πύρινα νομίζουσιν εἶναι ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα τοὺς ἀστέρας. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 133 Ποταπὰ τῶν ἀστέρων τὰ σχήματα (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.40 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 12, p. 20.11 Περὶ σχήματος ἀστέρων (~ tit.) p. 20.12–15 Κλεάνθης αὐτοὺς κωνοειδὲς ἔχειν σχῆμά φησι (~§2), τινὲς δὲ πετάλοις ἐοικέναι ἐκπύροις βάθος οὐκ ἔχοντας (~§4), ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ γραφὰς εἶναι, τινὲς δὲ πυραμίδας. οἱ δὲ Στωϊκοὶ σφαιρικὸν ἔχειν σχῆμα λέγουσι, καθάπερ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν περιέχοντα οὐρανόν (§1). c. 15, p. 22.14. Περὶ πλανήτων (~ tit.) p. 22.15–19 ὁ Ἄρατος τῇ τῶν πολλῶν δόξῃ κατακολουθήσας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἐναρηρέναι (cf. §3) φησὶ (Phaen. 10) τῷ οὐρανῷ ‘αὐτὸς γὰρ τάδε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε’ παρὰ τὸ ‘ἐστήριξεν’ ἀστέρας αὐτοὺς παρετυμολογῶν. τὸν δὲ τῶν πλανήτων λόγον παρῃτήσατο ὁ Ἄρατος … Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 1.14 Περὶ σχήματων. A 2.2 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου; A 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου; A 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης; A 3.10. Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 cf. A 2.22.3 (de sole) οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. §2 A 1.14.5 (de figuris) Κλεάνθης μόνος τῶν Στωικῶν τὸ πῦρ ἀπεφήνατο κωνοειδές. A 2.2.1–2 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον, ἄλλοι δὲ κωνοειδῆ … A 2.27.4 (de luna) Κλεάνθης πιλοειδῆ. §3 A 2.22.1 Ἀναξιμένης Ἀλκμαίων πλατὺν ὡς πέταλον τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.13.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς … τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §4 A 2.13.2 (de stellis) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πύρινα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους; A 2.13.9 Ἀναξιμένης πυρίνην μὲν τὴν φύσιν τῶν ἄστρων.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

921

922

liber 2 caput 14

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P and his tradition (including G) have four lemmata (the second is passed over by Eusebius). G does not include the chapter heading, so it seems that his four lemmata become part of the previous chapter. Jas argues (2018a, 183) that this may have been his intention and does not include these doxai as a separate chapter. However, for the sake of clarity we have retained the numbering of Diels (ch. 56a). (2) In the grand process of coalescence carried out by S (see above on ch. 2.13), three doxai are included, but the last anonymous lemma recorded by P finds no place, as occurs more often in S (see M–R 1.235). (3) T retains only the first two doxai with their clear antithesis. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are remarkably few references to this question in the proximate tradition. Philo does not include it in his long list of questions on the heaven and the heavenly bodies. It is briefly included in Diogenes Laertius’ doxography of the Stoa, but it is not found in the fragments of Arius Didymus. Many centuries later Isidore of Pelusium, in his text on the nature of the stars (discussed on ch. 2.13), includes three doxai that mention their shape—πύρινοι σφαῖραι, δισκοειδῆ σώματα, σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις—, of which the second is not found in our chapter. Isidore must have had access to a doxographical tradition differing from but parallel to that utilised by A. Much closer to A, however, is the brief chapter in Achilles with the heading Περὶ σχήματος ἀστέρων, which will be analysed separately below in D(e). (2) Sources. In the Timaeus Plato does not mention the shape of the heavenly bodies, in contrast to the that of the universe as a whole. Aristotle, in his treatment of the stars in Cael. 2.8, states his view that they are σφαιροειδῆ (the usual term in A, cf. 2.2.1, 2.22.3 etc., but in this chapter the term used is σφαιρικός). He adds that this is also the view of others (text below section E(b) General texts). But, apart from this passage (and references to it in the commentators), the topic of the stars’ shape occurs but seldom. It not specifically mentioned in the cosmological treatise of the Stoic Cleomedes nor in Geminus’ handbook of astronomy. Clearly from the 4th century bce onwards the stars’ spherical shape was generally assumed, with as striking (and perhaps suspicious) exception Cleanthes. It might be expected that in the atomist tradition at least the possibility of different shapes would have been raised, but if so, we have not found any evidence of it.

liber 2 caput 14

923

C Chapter Heading The heading follows the predominant umbrella Περί x construction, reflecting a quaestio in the category of quality (well understood by Ps in using the unusual interrogative adjective ποταπός). The majority reading of the plural σχημάτων is to be preferred above the singular σχήματος in E and one ms. of PB (and Ach). The singular suits the cases of the cosmos (ch. 2.2), sun (2.22), moon (2.27) and earth (3.10) better, but the plural is clearly more suitable for the vast number of stars and planets. In his chapter 1.24 on the heavenly bodies S adroitly combines the headings of chs. 2.13, 2.14, 2.16 and 2.19. A consequence, however, is that he omits the headings of three chapters from which he does include excerpts, chs. 2.15 (on τάξις), 2.17 (on their illumination) and 2.18 (on the Dioscuri). D Analysis a Context The question of shape in the category of quality follows on from that of nature or essence, as in the case of the cosmos (ch. 2.2), sun (2.22), moon (2.27) and earth (3.10). A chooses not to pose the question of size in the case of the stars, in contrast to that of the sun (2.21) and moon (2.26). This would have been scarcely possible in the context of ancient astronomy. b Number–Order of Lemmata Among the witnesses for A there is no evidence for any more lemmata than are found in P, so the chapter may be regarded as complete (but see below D(e) on Ach). For the order of the doxai we can also rely on P, since the deviation in S is easily explained by the process of coalescence. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter as transmitted divides into two pairs of contrasting doxai, only the first of which is exploited by T. This first pair gives two different shapes. The Stoa is taken to represent the dominant view (implied in the comparison with other bodies; the same choice of name-label occurs in chs. 2.2, 2.27 and 3.10). The doxographer then points out a disagreement within the school itself (unlike in 2.2, where the cone-like option is kept anonymous, it is attributed here specifically to Cleanthes). The contrast involved in the second pair of doxai is less explicitly indicated. The stars are either stuck to the crystalline nature of the outer heaven (already ascribed to Empedocles, but here to the earlier Anaximenes) like studs (perhaps the image of a shield), or they are flat leaves like drawn or painted representation of living things (to draw out the full implication of the term ζωγράφημα). The parallel text in Ach suggests that the contrast

924

liber 2 caput 14

turns on the difference between two and three-dimensional shape, the studs having—we may surmise—a semi-circular shape. His second doxa states that ‘some thinkers say they (sc. the stars) resemble inflamed leaves having no depth but are like pictures’ (text Testes secundi above). A similar contrast is made at the beginning of the next ch. 2.15 on whether the stars are disposed on a flat surface or three-dimensionally with height or depth. The terminology of ‘being fixed to’ or ‘bound to’ the outer heaven used by A at §3 and previously 2.13.10 is found in numerous authors, examples of which are given below. In a much later text at Enn. 2.3.7.4 Plotinus uses the image of ‘pictures written in the heaven’ to describe the stars, but in this case he would not deny that the stars were spherical; they appear to be pictures in the form of the well-known constellations. d

Further Comments Individual Points §§1–2 There are divergences between P and ST in the first name-label and in the use of the μέν … δέ construction. The opposition between ‘the Stoics’ and Cleanthes (as in P) may seem strange, because Cleanthes is a Stoic himself (cf. the conjecture of Diels and Wachsmuth for the text in S, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι ⟨Στωικοί⟩). This may be the reason that both S and T dropped the reference to the Stoics. But we observe that the same kind of antithesis is made in ch. 2.9 (Stoics, Posidonius). And as noted above, the Stoics have the prime place in the equivalent chapters on shape at chs. 2.2, 2.27 and 3.10. The reading of P should be retained as the lectio difficilior. Similarly with regard to the use of the μέν … δέ construction we have chosen the more difficult reading. It is more likely that it was introduced by the paraphrasing activities of ST than that it was deleted by P. §2 Cleanthes’ idiosyncratic view that the stars have a cone-like shape will be linked to his view that it is the shape of the element fire (A 1.14.5), and may perhaps also be connected with the optical theory that the visual rays form a cone, attributed to Chrysippus at A 4.15.3. See further the discussion in the Commentary on ch. 1.14.5. Gilbert (1907) 691 cited by Lachenaud ad loc. surmises that the view is based on the fact that the appearance of fire in a flame is conical in shape. Von Arnim (1921) 565 appeals to his view of the moon’s hat-like shape in A 2.27.4 and suspects the influence of Heraclitus’ bowls (cf. the previous doxa in the same chapter 2.27.3, and also 2.28.7). §§3–4 There has been much speculation on this text, because elsewhere it is the second view that appears to correspond to Anaximenes’ view and not the first (note the reference to the sun as πέταλον at 2.22.1, which Diels VS 1.95 regarded as drawn from Anaximenes’ original text; Ach keeps the doxa

liber 2 caput 14

925

anonymous, so cannot help us). See discussions in Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.135, Lloyd (1966) 317, Kirk-Raven-Schofield (1983) 155; further references at Lachenaud (1993) 248. Brind’Amour (1969) somewhat naively suggests that the name-labels be reversed. Long ago Heath (1913) 41–43 proposed that ἔνιοι be emended to ἐνίους, so that the distinction would occur within the Anaximenean doxa (Guthrie’s grammatical objection to this only follows if the reading of S is preferred as in DK). Schwabl (1966), supported by Wöhrle (1993) 72, proposed that the words ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα be regarded as a comment on the planets that has found its way into the text on the fixed stars. Recently too, Bottler (2014) 375 and Couprie (2018) 50 n. 16 agree that the second lemma fits in better with Anaximenes. It is true that a mix-up of name-labels or views may quite easily have occurred, e.g. if the Anaximenes doxa originally belonged to Empedocles (cf. his doxa at A 2.13.2) and the other doxa to Anaximenes (suggested by Lloyd and Kirk–Raven–Schofield). But it would go too far to emend the text as transmitted in our witnesses. e Other Evidence Ach has a chapter with an identical title. The similarities to A cannot be coincidental and point to a shared tradition. He and A are ‘cousin writings’, cf. M– R 1.305. Three of A’s doxai can be easily recognized, but in a different order: Ach1 = §2, Ach2 = §4, Ach4 = §1. Anaximenes’ doxa is not found and an additional pyramidal shape is included (reminiscent of the studs in A’s §3, since a body with pyramidal shape can be stuck onto a virtually flat surface). As noted above in section D(c), Ach’s reference to two-dimensional shape may give the clue to the second diaeresis in A. Ach’s chapter has a different organization, seeming to work towards the final view as definitive (the contrast within the Stoic school is thus not exploited). Isidore of Pelusium in his passage on the heavenly bodies discussed above on ch. 2.13 also mixes in the question of shape, but his ‘like a disc’ alternative does not occur in A or Ach (it is found in A 2.27.5 on the moon and 3.10.5 on the earth). His text, in referring to τὰ ἄστρα, may of course be referring to planets as well as fixed stars. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 prima pars (sc. de universo quaestionis) naturam siderum scrutatur et magnitudinem et formam ignium, quibus mundus includitur, solidumne sit caelum ac firmae concretaeque materiae an ex subtili tenuique nexum … et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa. Scholia in Basilium I 14, p. 198.14–16 Pasquali ἐοίκασιν οὖν οὗτοι μόνοι μὴ ἐμπεπῆχθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ καθάπερ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς λεγόμενοι.

926

liber 2 caput 14

Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 1435.68–86 Évieux εἴτε οὖν λογικά ἐστι ζῶα (sc. τὰ ἄστρα), ὥς φασί τινες, εἴτε πύρινοι σφαῖραι, εἴτε δισκοειδῆ σώματα, … εἴτε σφαιροειδεῖς πυρὸς πιλήσεις. see further on A 2.13. Chapter heading: cf. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 (cited above) formam ignium. §1 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα (SVF 2.650). §3 Anaximenes: Seneca Nat. 2.1.1, agatur an agat (sc. caelum), et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa. Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok (general question) et stellae utrumne adhaereant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 290a7–8 ἔτι δ᾽ ἐπεὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα, καθάπερ οἵ τ᾽ ἄλλοι φασὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ὁμολογούμενον εἰπεῖν … Cael. 2.8 291a26–28 ὅτι μὲν οὖν σφαιροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ ὅτι οὐ κινεῖται δι᾽ αὑτῶν, εἴρηται. cf. John Philoponus in GC 3.14–16 (summarising Cael.) κατὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀστέρων ὅτι σφαιροειδές ἐστι καὶ τῆς κινήσεως τῆς τούτων ὅτι κυκλοφορητική. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–12, 2.12 293a12–14 cited on ch. 2.13. Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. John Philoponus in GC 3.14–16 see above. Simplicius in Cael. 366.11–12, p. 452.14 cited on ch. 2.13. §3 Anaximenes: cf. Cicero ND 2.54 nec habent (stellae) aetherios cursus neque caelo inhaerentes, ut plerique dicunt physicae rationis ignari … (see further on ch. 2.15). Further texts describing the stars as fixed to the heaven: Cicero Tusc 5.69 cum … viderit innumerabilia caelo inhaerentia cum eius ipsius motu congruere certis infixa sedibus. Resp. 6.17 (on the heaven) in quo sunt infixi illi qui volvuntur stellarum cursus sempiterni. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 544.15–16 οὐρανὸν λέγει (sc. Aristotle) τὸ κυκλοφορικὸν ἅπαν σῶμα, μόρια δὲ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ ἐμπεπηγμένους ἀστέρας etc. Athenaeus Deipn. 489D ἔχει γὰρ (sc. τὸ τοῦ Νέστορος ποτῆριον) καὶ ἀστέρας, οὓς ἥλοις ὁ ποιητὴς (Il. 11.633) ἀπεικάζει διὰ τὸ τοὺς ἀστέρας περιφερεῖς εἶναι τοῖς ἥλοις ὁμοίως καὶ ὡς ⟨ἥλους⟩ ἐμπεπηγέναι τῷ οὐρανῷ, καθὼς καὶ Ἄρατός φησιν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν (Phaen. 453)·‘οὐρανῷ αἰὲν ἄρηρεν ἀγάλματα νυκτὸς ἰούσης’. see also on ch. 2.15. §4 Anonymi: Plotinus Enn. 2.3[52].7.4 ἔστω (sc. τὰ ἄστρα) τοίνυν ὥσπερ γράμματα ἐν οὐρανῷ γραφόμενα ἀεὶ ἢ γεγραμμένα καὶ κινούμενα …

Liber 2 Caput 15 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889A–B; pp. 344a8–345a12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.46, p. 413.10–21 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 57; pp. 624.25–625.7 Diels— PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 150–153 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 134.1–9, p. 70 Westerink S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1e, p. 202.20–21 + 1.24.1gh, p. 203.1–6 + 1.24.1l, pp. 203.23– 204.1 + 1.24.2ab, p. 205.4–12 + 1.24.2e, pp. 205.28–206.3 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.6–17 Di Maria; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus ιεʹ. Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων (P) §1 Ξενοκράτης κατὰ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας οἴεται κεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P1,S5) §2 οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι Στωικοὶ πρὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐν ὕψει καὶ βάθει. (P2,S6) §3 Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον φωσφόρον σελήνην. (P3,S1) §4 Πλάτων μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν θέσιν πρῶτον φαίνωνα λεγόμενον τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου, δεύτερον φαέθοντα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τρίτον πυρόεντα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεος, τέταρτον ἑωσφόρον τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, πέμπτον στίλβοντα τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἕκτον ἥλιον, ἕβδομον σελήνην. (P4,S4) §5 τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινὲς μὲν ὡς Πλάτων, τινὲς δὲ μέσον πάντων τὸν ἥλιον. (P5,S7) §6 Ἀναξίμανδρος καὶ Μητρόδωρος ὁ Χῖος καὶ Κράτης ἀνωτάτω μὲν πάντων τὸν ἥλιον τετάχθαι, μετ᾽ αὐτὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, ὑπὸ δ᾽ αὐτοὺς τὰ ἀπλανῆ τῶν ἄστρων καὶ τοὺς πλανήτας. (P6,S2–3) §1 Xenocrates fr. 57 Heinze, F82 Isnardi-Parenti2; §2 Stoici SVF 2.689; §3 Democritus 68A86 DK; §4 Plato cf. Tim. 38c–d; §5 mathematici —; §6 Anaximander 12A18 DK; Metrodorus cf. 70A9 DK; Crates Mallotes fr. F5a Mette titulus Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων PBEQPs : Περὶ τάξεως PG (deest in S in tit. c. 1.24 ubi conflat tit. 2.13, 2.14, 2.16 et 2.19) §1 [2] Ξενοκράτης PBEQS : Ξενοφάνης PG ‖ κατὰ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας PBS : κατὰ μίαν ἐπιφανείαν PE : κατ᾽ ἐπιφανείαν PG ‖ κεῖσθαι S : κινεῖσθαι P §2 om. G ‖ [3] οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι Στωικοὶ PBSFP : δὲ om. PE : οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ SP(m.s.) ‖ πρὸ τῶν ἑτέρων τοὺς ἑτέρους om. PQ §3 [5] τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον P : πρῶτα μὲν τὰ ἀπλανῆ S ‖ μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα] εἶτα PB(III:Laur.31,37) ‖ [5–6] ἐφ᾽ οἷς … σελήνην PBEQ : ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην PG : om. S §4 [7] μετὰ … πρῶτον PB : πρῶτον om. PE : τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς πρῶτον PG : καὶ πρῶτον μετά γε τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν θέσιν S ‖ φαίνωνα PEQ(ut vid.)S Diels DG : φαίνοντα PB Mau Lachenaud : φαίνεσθαι PG ‖ λεγόμενον PB(I,III)EQ S : λέγει PB(II), PG (ante φαίνεσθαι) ‖ [9] ἑωσφόρον PBES : φωσφόρον PGQ ‖ στίλβοντα P : στίλβωνα S §5 [12] ἥλιον] μετὰ δ᾽ αὐτὸν σελήνην add. PG (ex §6) §6 [14] δὲ PBS : om. PEQ ‖ τὴν PB(I,III)EQ S : om. PB(II) ‖ [15] τὰ ἀπλανῆ … τοὺς πλανήτας : inv. ord. PQ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_056

5

10

15

928 §7

liber 2 caput 15

Παρμενίδης πρῶτον μὲν τάττει τὸν ἑῷον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ νομιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσπερον, ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι· μεθ᾽ ὃν τὸν ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ τοὺς ἐν τῷ πυρώδει ἀστέρας, ὅπερ οὐρανὸν καλεῖ. (S8)

§7 Parmenides 28A40 DK

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 57 (~ tit.) Περὶ τάξεως (text Diels) 57.1 (~ P1) Ξενοφάνης κατ᾽ ἐπιφάνειαν οἴεται κινεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. 57.2 (~ P3) Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. 57.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων ⟨μετὰ⟩ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς πρῶτον λέγει φαίνεσθαι ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ Κρόνου, δεύτερον φαέθοντα ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ Διός, τρίτον πυρόεντα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, τέταρτον φωσφόρον τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, πέμπτον στίλβοντα τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἕκτον ἥλιον, ἕβδομον σελήνην. 57.4 (~ P5–6) τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες μὲν ὡς Πλάτων, τινὲς δὲ μέσον πάντων τὸν ἥλιον, μετὰ δ᾽ αὐτὸν τὴν σελήνην. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 134.1–9 Περὶ τάξεως ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Εἰς δύο μέρη τῶν ἀστέρων διαιρουμένων, εἰς τὸ ἀπλανὲς καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον, οἱ μὲν ἀπλανεῖς τὴν ὑψηλοτέραν τάξιν τῶν πλανήτων ἔχουσιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τοῦ αἰθερίου σώματος κείμενοι καὶ φερόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὑψηλότεροι αὐτῶν εἰσίν, οἱ δὲ ταπεινότεροι (~ P1–3). οἱ δὲ ἑπτὰ πλανῆται μετὰ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς τετάχαται· ὧν πρῶτος ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου λεγόμενος ἀστήρ, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτον ὁ τοῦ Διός, καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος, εἶτα ἥλιος, μεθ᾽ ὃν Ἀφροδίτη, καὶ μετὰ ταύτην Ἑρμῆς, καὶ τελευταῖον ἡ σελήνη (~ §4) … Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.6 Τάξις τῶν ζʹ σφαιρῶν p. 23.7–17 Οἱ περὶ τὰ μετέωρα δεινοί φασι ζώνας τινὰς εἶναι ἑπτά, δι᾽ ὧν φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρας, καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ ὑψηλοτάτῃ φέρεσθαι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου, ἐν δὲ τῇ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν τὸν τοῦ Διός, καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεος, ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου, ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἕκτῃ τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τὸν τῆς σελήνης (~ §5). τινὲς δὲ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην λέγουσιν, ἐν τῇ πέμπτῃ δὲ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἕκτῃ τὸν ἥλιον (~ §4). ἄλλοι δὲ τέταρτον τὸν Ἑρμῆν, ἕκτην δὲ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην, μέσον δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. εἰσὶ δὲ οἳ πρῶτον τὸν ἥλιον λέγουσιν, δευτέραν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, τρίτον δὲ τὸν Κρόνον (~ §6). ἡ δὲ πλείων δόξα, καθ᾽ ἣν πρώτη ἡ σελήνη, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀπόσπασμα τοῦ ἡλίου λέγουσιν αὐτήν, ὡς καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (B135 DK) ‘κυκλοτερὲς περὶ γαῖαν ἑλίσσεται ἀλλότριον φῶς.’ Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· … καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν, … τῶν ἄστρων τὴν θέσιν· …

liber 2 caput 15

929

Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 2.7 Περὶ τάξεως κόσμου, A 3.11 Περὶ θέσεως γῆς. §§1–2 cf. A 2.13.2 τοὺς μὲν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας συνδεδέσθαι τῷ κρυστάλλῳ, τοὺς δὲ πλανήτας ἀνεῖσθαι. §§4–5 A 2.7.6 Φιλόλαος … τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ Ὀλύμπου φοράν, ἐν ᾧ τοὺς πέντε πλανήτας μεθ᾽ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης τετάχθαι … A 2.16.6 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτον πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ. cf. A 2.32.1 ἐνιαυτός ἐστι Κρόνου μὲν ἐνιαυτῶν περίοδος τριάκοντα, Διὸς δὲ δώδεκα, Ἄρεος δυεῖν, Ἡλίου δώδεκα μῆνες· οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης, ἰσόδρομοι γάρ· σελήνης ἡμέραι τριάκοντα· οὗτος γὰρ ὁ τέλειος μὴν ἀπὸ φάσεως εἰς σύνοδον. §7 A 2.16.7 Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ θεῶν Πυθαγορείαν εἶναι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φωσφόρον τε καὶ ἕσπερον δόξαν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) Six doxai are preserved in the Byzantine mss. of P. The same six are found in E and Q with some interesting textual variants to be discussed below. G leaves out the second and last lemma in his adaptation. Some formulations in Ps recall the contents of this chapter, but they are of no textual significance. (2) S has retained all six of the doxai in P, but his preferred method scatters them to five different locations in his ch. 1.24 on the heavenly bodies (on the method used in this chapter see further M–R 1.220–223). He begins by placing doxai attributed to Democritus and Anaximander (cf. P3 & 6) in clusters based on the order of the lemmata in 2.13. This method constrains him to split up the equivalent of P6 into separate doxai for Anaximander and Metrodorus (while Crates falls away entirely), resulting in an additional lemma (24.1h): Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως περὶ σχήματος τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεφήνατο. The reference to the shape of the stars is of course a mistake (it should be their order), while the final three words are clearly added to facilitate the splitting up of the original doxa. Diels at first missed this and wrongly printed the lemma as part of ch. 2.14, but later he noted his error in the Addenda (DG 853). The Platonic doxa (cf. P4) is also part of a cluster, but thereafter three other doxai are written out separately once the name-labels in ch. 2.13 have been exhausted (cf. P1–2–5). A final lemma that remains is S8 attributed to Parmenides. There can be little doubt that it originally belonged to ch. 2.15 and its placement by S strongly suggests that it came last in the chapter. (3) This chapter is not utilised by T.

930

liber 2 caput 15

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The question of whether the outer heaven with its fixed stars has depth or is just a surface is raised by Philo at Somn. 1.21 as part of the extended doxographical passage already discussed on ch. 2.11. The view of Chrysippus on the subject is also given by AD in his Stoic doxography; see the comment below in section D(d) on §2. In the case of Democritus (§3), Anaximander (§6) and Parmenides (§7) information close to what we found in A is given by the proximate sources Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)). The text on Anaximander at Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 even shows verbal parallels to A’s doxa (though the text is defective). This shows A’s dependence on the prior doxographical tradition, but its ultimate source cannot be determined. Many texts refer to the difference of opinion on the order of the planets below Mars, both in general treatments of physical astronomy and more specifically in comments on the Platonic texts. In a rare doxographical comment Ptolemy says that the matter remains unresolved (text below section E(a) General texts). In the proximate tradition the most important text is found in Ach, who gives more alternative orders than A. On this passage see below D(e). (2) Sources. Discussion of the ordering of the heavenly bodies, whether the fixed stars or the planets taken on their own, or all of them taken together, goes back to the earliest period of Greek philosophy. A few later texts refer to the question of how the fixed stars are placed in the outermost sphere of heaven, for example Cicero’s passage on the location of the ‘so-called fixed stars’ (stellae quae inerrantes vocantur) at ND 2.54–55 and some texts in the proximate tradition to be discussed below. However, from the time of Plato onwards most of the discussion focuses on the order of the seven planets. Plato in the Timaeus and more obliquely in the myth of Er in the Republic adopts the so-called Pythagorean order, but this loses favour from about 200 bce onwards (see the note on §§4–5 below). Aristotle in Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 mentions the question of the order of the heavenly bodies (i.e. planets) but does not treat it, stating that it can best be studied in writings on astronomy. In an important comment on Aristotle’s text Simplicius tells us that Eudemus in his work on astronomy—its title was probably Ἱστορία ἀστρολογική, best translated as Research on astronomy, see Mejer (2002) 245—stated that Anaximander was the first to make discoveries on the sizes and distances of the heavenly bodies (but no details given), but added that the Pythagoreans first established the order of their placement (text below section E(b) General texts). Views on the method used in this work differ: see Mejer cited above; Bowen (2002); Zhmud (2006) 228–276. In an examination of the evidence relating to cosmic distances, Mansfeld (2000b) 201 argues that the information in

liber 2 caput 15

931

the Placita may ultimately derive from Eudemus rather than Theophrastus, as postulated by Diels and since then followed by most scholars; see further on ch. 2.31 Commentary B. C Chapter Heading The chapter’s title is of the usual umbrella type Περὶ x, parallel to ch. 2.7 on the order (τάξις) of the cosmos and ch. 3.11 on the placement (θέσις) of the earth. As we shall see below, the text itself indicates that the subject falls under the Aristotelian category of relative position (κεῖσθαι). There can be no doubt that the heading of the Byzantine mss., supported by E and Q, is correct. G’s shorter heading is seemingly incomplete, the fact that the order concerned refers to the heavenly bodies only emerging from the context (the same occurs in §45 Περὶ σχήματος sc. κόσμου, and cf. also §54 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ sc. οὐσίας). It is possible that this rests on a mistake in transmission; cf. our remarks on the heading of G ch. 68 in the Commentary on ch. 2.27. S does not take up this heading in his chapter heading which combines the headings of chs. 2.13–19. The key term τάξις occurs in numerous texts from Aristotle onwards; see the texts cited below in section E(b). An alternative term indicating the question of position is θέσις, as in ps.Arist. De mundo and Theon of Smyrna cited below section E(b)§§4–5. D Analysis a Context The chapter occurs as third in the sequence of questions relating to the heavenly bodies, following on the chapter on their shapes. There are no chapters on their number or origin, i.e. parallel to chs. 2.1 and 2.6 on the cosmos, or on their size, i.e. parallel to chs. 2.21 on the sun and 2.26 on the moon. The first two might have been possible, the third was beyond the capability of ancient astronomy. Because of the heavenly bodies’ evident plurality, the way that they are ordered must be a question that has to be answered. b Number–Order of Lemmata Given the thoroughness of S’s excerpting in his ch. 1.24, there is no reason to think that the chapter as we have it with its seven doxai is not complete (S has eight because, as noted above, he splits one doxa into two). The order found in P can also be provisionally accepted, with the final doxa in S added at the end. But it has to be confirmed by an analysis of the chapter’s contents. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter very clearly falls into two distinct parts. In the first two doxai the disposition of the ἀστέρες is discussed. This subject follows on quite naturally

932

liber 2 caput 15

from ch. 2.13–14 and particularly from the distinctions already made in the Empedocles doxa at 2.13.10. The question is whether the fixed stars (this has to be meaning of ἀστέρες in the first doxa) are all situated in a single plane or whether they are situated in a three-dimensional array (a straightforward diaeresis). The extract from the Philonic doxography confirms this, even if it focuses on the outer sphere and not the stars in it (note the terms ἐπιφάνεια and βάθος). We may also compare the question raised by Seneca and Lactantius (texts below section E(a)§§1–2) in their set of quaestiones on the celestial realm as to whether the heavenly bodies were positioned below the outer sphere or fixed in it. There is also a more subtle link with the second diaeresis in A 2.14.3–4, where the studs need three planes but the pictures only two. But, it must be noted, in the first doxa there is a significant textual problem. Should the verb be κινεῖσθαι as in P or κεῖσθαι as in S? Preference must clearly be given to the latter. Movement is the subject of the following chapter 2.16, Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως. The present chapter discusses position or order. The verb κεῖσθαι points to one of the Aristotelian categories (in this case relative position), which are crucial for the way that A orders his material in this book. Interestingly exactly the same textual problem occurs in Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a30, where κεῖται is also to be preferred. Further support for this reading is the example of the order of the planets given by Alexander to illustrate the comparative question κατὰ τὸ κεῖσθαι (text below section E(b)§§4–5). The five remaining doxai that make up the rest of the chapter take as their starting point—clearly articulated in the third doxa—the distinction between fixed stars (τὰ ἀπλανῆ) and the planets (οἱ πλάνητες). The first three postulate that the fixed stars come first, i.e. placed on the outermost part of heaven, followed by the planets in three different sequences, with variations on the order of Venus and Mercury in relation to the sun. The second and third of these of course represent the two main views in ancient cosmology, with the first Democritean doxa as a strange variant (see below on §3). It is surprising that not more prominence is given to the so-called Chaldean order (on which see further the note below, section D(d)§§4–5) which by the time that A compiled his compendium was the majority view. It is presented as an alternative view of ‘some of the astronomers’. Finally, the last two doxai have some of the planets first, followed by the fixed stars and other planets. These two doxai, which can be taken to represent unusual or even ‘dissident’ views (cf. Laks 1997, 258), form an implicit diaeresis with the previous group.

liber 2 caput 15

d

933

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The name-label in G, Xenophanes, if not a mistake in transmission, is no doubt a Verschlimmbesserung, the epitomator having noticed that in this book A usually begins his chapters with one of the very ancient philosophers, e.g. Thales or Anaximander or Pythagoras. Xenophanes is placed first in chs. 2.18 and 2.28, second in ch. 2.20. His name-label occurs 12 times in Book 2, whereas that of Xenocrates occurs only here. The text at Geminus 1.23 may indicate that the question was still debated in the first cent. bce, although it remains controversial whether ἀστέρες refers to fixed stars or planets; see the note at Evans–Berggren (2006) 118. As Manitius (1898) ad loc. points out, the difference in height and depth is implied at Manilius 1.394 (but Goold 1977 ad loc. regards the view as foreign to the poet and, following Housman, rejects the line). §2 The phrase οἱ ἄλλοι Στωικοί does not have to imply that A thinks Xenocrates was a (proto-)Stoic (though it is implied at 1.7.21). As Mras notes at Eus. PE 15.46.2, it can be explained by the common Greek idiom used e.g. by Plato at Resp. 473d, εὐδαιμονιζόμενος ὑπὸ τῶν πολίτων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ξένων. The usage here, however, must be considered somewhat awkward when used for a contrastive rather than an appositive group (ἄλλοι in this idiom basically means ‘besides’; cf. Smyth 1956, §1272). The report on Chrysippus at AD fr. 31 states that the fixed stars (τὰ ἀπλανῆ) are all located on the same surface, in contrast to the planets (text below section E(a)§2). §3 Democritus’ view is oddly phrased. The impression is given that the sun, Venus and the moon are not planets. In addition the placement of Venus in between the sun and moon without Mercury hardly makes sense. Both S and G in different ways edit the text so that it presents a more conventional view. S simply omits the entire final phrase. G also adopts an easy solution by deleting the reference to Venus. Taking our cue from G we might indeed wonder whether the text originally read something like Δημόκριτος τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ πρῶτον, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς ⟨εʹ⟩ πλανήτας, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἥλιον {φωσφόρον} σελήνην (the phrase ‘the five planets’ is very common, cf. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1 col. 7.5 and our conjecture at A 2.7.6). It is, however, as Gerard Journée has reminded us, hard to imagine why anyone would introduce Venus into this list in between the sun and the moon. The reading of P (confirmed by the early witness E) is clearly the lectio difficilior. It should be noted that in the report of Alexander cited below the planets are listed as five in number in an order (if such is meant) that is also idiosyncratic (Saturn Jupiter Venus Mars Mercury). As in A, the sun and the moon are excluded from the list of planets, but Venus is included. §§4–5 These two doxai present the classic opposition between the Pythagorean–Platonic order of the planets (sun and moon second last and last) and

934

liber 2 caput 15

the Chaldean order (sun in the middle of the seven followed by Venus, Mercury and the moon). Plato’s view is given at Tim. 38d, but in less detail than we have here. Like other accounts in ps.Arist. De mundo, Geminus and Cleomedes, A is careful to give both the mythological and phenomenological names (the latter, i.e. Φαίνων, Φαέθων, Πυροείς and Στίλβων are post-Platonic). The μαθηματικοί (i.e. astronomers) are described as split between the two views. In fact from 200 bce the Chaldean view gradually takes over. The division of opinion is much more clearly presented by Macrobius and Proclus in their commentaries on Cicero and Plato (texts below, section E(b)§§4–5). The reading ἑωσφόρον for the planet Venus, which is found in PB, E and S, agrees with the Platonic text in Tim. 38d2 and must be preferred to the variant φωσφόρον in G and Q. It should be noted that the latter term was the more usual title and it has crept into the text of Middle Platonic writers such as Timaeus Locrus and Alcinous; see Dillon (1993) 131. §6 It is surprising to see Anaximander joined by two much later figures. Certainly in the case of Crates of Mallos, an important commentator on Homer (first half of second cent. BCE), it is likely that a report on Anaximander has been mistaken for his own view. e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter Τάξις τῶν ζʹ σφαιρῶν has a very different kind of title, but does show some similarities to A. The four doxai are presented anonymously and only consider the order of the planets, not the fixed stars. He appears to combine two sources, the first a straight handbook giving the generally accepted Chaldean order (for οἱ περὶ τὰ μετέωρα δεινοί cf. the μαθηματικοί in A). He then cites three doxai giving alternative views, with some resemblance to the doxai in A. After citing a famous Empedoclean verse on the moon not used by A, Ach links it to the subject of the planets’ motion, which A broaches in his next chapter 2.16. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo Somn. 1.21, τί δ᾽; ἡ ἀπλανὴς καὶ ἐξωτάτω σφαῖρα πρὸς τὸ ἄνω βάθος ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ μόνον ἐστὶν ἐπιφάνεια βάθους ἐρήμη, τοῖς ἐπιπέδοις σχήμασιν ἐοικυῖα; Chapter heading: — §§1–2 Xenocrates: Stoics Cicero ND 2.54–55 nec habent (sc. stellae) aetherios cursus neque caelo inhaerentes, ut plerique dicunt physicae rationis ignari; non est enim aetheris ea natura ut vi sua stellas conplexa contorqueat, nam tenuis ac perlucens et aequabili calore suffusus aether non satis aptus ad stellas continendas videtur; habent igitur suam sphaeram stellae inerrantes ab

liber 2 caput 15 aetheria coniunctione secretam et liberam. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 agatur an agat (sc. caelum), et infra sese sidera habeat an in contextu sui fixa (see above on A 2.11). Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok nam causas naturalium rerum disquirere aut scire velle … et stellae utrumne adhareant caelo an per aerem libero cursu ferantur … Macrobius in Somn. 1.17.16 reliquas omnes (sc. stellas) alii infixas caelo nec nisi cum caelo moveri, alii, quorum adsertio vero propior est, has quoque dixerunt suo motu praeter quod cum caeli conversione feruntur accedere … §1 Xenocrates: Clement of Alexandria Protr. 5 Ξενοκράτης (fr. 17 Heinze, 135 Isnardi Parente2) … ἑπτὰ μὲν θεοὺς τοὺς πλανήτας, ὄγδοον δὲ τὸν ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἀπλανῶν συνεστῶτα κόσμον αἰνίττεται. §2 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) τῶν δ᾽ ἄστρων τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τῷ ὅλῳ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα κατ᾽ ἰδίας κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις. τὸν δ᾽ἥλιον λοξὴν τὴν πορείαν ποιεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ ζωδιακοῦ κύκλου· ὁμοίως καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἑλικοειδῆ. Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.185.11–14 (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.527) τετάχθαι δὲ τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ ἐπὶ μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας, ὡς καὶ ὁρᾶται· τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα ἐπ᾽ ἄλλης καὶ ἄλλης σφαίρας· περιέχεσθαι δὲ πάσας τὰς τῶν πλανωμένων ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν σφαίρας. §3 Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.33 (Leucippus 67A1(33) DK) εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς σελήνης προσγειότατον, τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων ὄντων. Hippolytus Ref. 1.13.4 (on Democritus, 68A40 DK) τοῦ δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν κόσμου πρότερον τὴν γῆν τῶν ἄστρων γενέσθαι. εἶναι δὲ τὴν μὲν σελήνην κάτω, ἔπειτα τὸν ἥλιον, εἶτα τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας· τοὺς δὲ πλάνητας οὐδ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἴσον ὕψος. Seneca Nat. 7.3.2 Democritus (68A92 DK) quoque, subtilissimus antiquorum omnium, suspicari se ait plures stellas esse quae currant, sed nec numerum illarum posuit nec nomina, nondum comprehensis quinque siderum cursibus. §§4–5 Plato Astronomers: Cicero ND 2.52–53 see below on A 2.32.1. Philo of Alexandria Her. 224, τὴν δὲ τῶν πλανήτων τάξιν ἄνθρωποι παγίως μὴ κατειληφότες—τί δ᾽ ἄλλο τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ἴσχυσαν κατανοῆσαι βεβαίως;—εἰκοτολογοῦσι, ἄριστα δ᾽ ἐμοὶ στοχάζεσθαι δοκοῦσιν οἱ τὴν μέσην ἀπονενεμηκότες ἡλίῳ τάξιν, τρεῖς μὲν ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τοὺς ἴσους εἶναι λέγοντες, ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν μὲν φαίνοντα, φαέθοντα, πυρόεντα, εἶθ᾽ ἥλιον, μετ᾽αὐτὸν δὲ στίλβοντα, φωσφόρον, τὴν ἀέρος γείτονα σελήνην. Arius Didymus fr. 31 Diels (continues text cited on §2) τῶν δὲ πλανωμένων ὑψηλοτάτην εἶναι μετὰ τὴν ⟨τῶν⟩ ἀπλανῶν τὴν τοῦ Κρόνου, μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν τοῦ Διός, εἶτα τὴν τοῦ Ἄρεος, ἐφεξῆς δὲ τὴν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, εἶτα τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου, ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τὴν τῆς σελήνης, πλησιάζουσαν τῷ ἀέρι. §6 Anaximander Metrodorus of Chios Crates: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) καὶ ἀνωτάτω μὲν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, ⟨μετ᾽ αὐτὸν δὲ τὴν σελήνην (coni. Diels)⟩ κατωτάτω δὲ τοὺς τῶν ἀπλανῶν ⟨καὶ πλανήτων⟩ ἀστέρων κύκλους. §7 Parmenides: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.23 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) καὶ δοκεῖ πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβω-

935

936

liber 2 caput 15

ρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων (fr. 54 Amato)· οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν· Καλλίμαχος δέ (fr. 442 Pfeiffer) φησι μὴ εἶναι αὐτοῦ τὸ ποίημα. V.P. 8.14 (on Pythagoras) πρῶτόν τε Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον τὸν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὥς φησι Παρμενίδης (cf. 28A40 DK).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.2–9 (commenting on Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 = Eudemus fr. 146 Wehrli) καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ (sc. ἐν τῇ ἀστρολογίᾳ) περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου (12A19 DK) πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναφέρων. τὰ δὲ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἀποστήματα Ἡλίου καὶ Σελήνης μέχρι νῦν ἔγνωσται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκλείψεων τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῆς καταλήψεως λαβόντα, καὶ εἰκὸς ἦν ταῦτα καὶ τὸν Ἀναξίμανδρον εὑρηκέναι, καὶ Ἑρμοῦ δὲ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης ἀπὸ τῆς πρὸς τούτους μεταπαραβολῆς. Ptolemy Synt.math. 9.1 see below on §§4–5. Simplicius in Cael. 470.29–471.2 τῷ περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λέγοντι ἀναγκαῖον ἦν καὶ περὶ τῆς κατὰ τὴν θέσιν τάξεως τῶν τε σφαιρῶν καὶ τῶν ἀστέρων εἰπεῖν, τίνα μὲν πρότερα καὶ τῇ ἀπλανεῖ προσεχέστερα, τίνα δὲ ὕστερα καὶ περιγειότερα … Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda, see above on ch. 2.13. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 περὶ δὲ τάξεως αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν ἄστρων) ὃν μὲν τρόπον ἕκαστον κεῖται (v.l. κινεῖται) τῷ τὰ μὲν εἶναι πρότερα τὰ δ᾽ ὕστερα, καὶ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῖς ἀποστήμασιν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν θεωρείσθω· λέγεται γὰρ ἱκανῶς. Cael. 2.12 293a12–14 cited on ch. 2.13. Posidonius see above on ch. 2.11 section E(b) General texts. §§1–2 Xenocrates Stoics: Geminus Elem. 1.23, p. 6 Aujac οὐ πάντας δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας ὑποληπτέον ὑπὸ ἐπιφάνειαν κεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ οὓς μὲν μετεωροτέρους ὑπάρχειν, οὓς δὲ ταπεινοτέρους. Manilius 1.394 non quod clara minus sed quod magis alta recedant. §3 Democritus: Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 26.11–14 περὶ δὲ τῶν κομητῶν Ἀναξαγόρας (—) μὲν καὶ Δημόκριτος (68A92 DK) λέγουσι τὸν κομήτην λεγόμενον ἀστέρα σύμφασιν εἶναι τῶν πλανήτων ἀστέρων· οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν ὅ τε τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ ὁ τοῦ Διὸς καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ. §§4–5 Plato Astronomers: Plato Tim. 38c7–d6 σώματα δὲ αὐτῶν ἑκάστων ποιήσας ὁ θεὸς ἔθηκεν εἰς τὰς περιφορὰς ἃς ἡ θατέρου περίοδος ᾔειν, ἑπτὰ οὔσας ὄντα ἑπτά, σελήνην μὲν εἰς τὸν περὶ γῆν πρῶτον, ἥλιον δὲ εἰς τὸν δεύτερον ὑπὲρ γῆς, ἑωσφόρον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ λεγόμενον εἰς {τὸν} τάχει μὲν ἰσόδρομον ἡλίῳ κύκλον ἰόντας, τὴν δὲ ἐναντίαν εἰληχότας αὐτῷ δύναμιν· ὅθεν καταλαμβάνουσίν τε καὶ καταλαμβάνονται κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων ἥλιός τε καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ ἑωσφόρος. see also Resp. 616e–617b. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392a23–31 συνεχῆ δὲ ἔχει ἀεὶ τὴν θέσιν ταύτῃ ὁ τοῦ Φαίνοντος ἅμα καὶ Κρόνου καλούμενος κύκλος, ἐφεξῆς δὲ ὁ τοῦ Φαέθοντος καὶ Διὸς λεγόμενος, εἶθ᾽ ὁ Πυρόεις, Ἡρακλέους τε καὶ Ἄρεος προσαγορευόμενος, ἑξῆς δὲ ὁ Στίλβων, ὃν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καλοῦσιν ἔνιοι, τινὲς δὲ Ἀπόλλωνος· μεθ᾽ ὃν ὁ τοῦ Φωσφόρου, ὃν Ἀφροδίτης, οἱ δὲ Ἥρας προσαγορεύουσιν, εἶτα ὁ ἡλίου, καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ τῆς σελήνης, μέχρις ἧς ὁρίζεται ὁ αἰθήρ, τά τε

liber 2 caput 15 θεῖα ἐμπεριέχων σώματα καὶ τὴν τῆς κινήσεως τάξιν. Geminus Elem. 1.24–30 see below on A 2.32.1. Cleomedes 2.20–42 see below on A 2.32.1. Ptolemy Synt. 9.1, p. 1.2.206.14–207.7 Heiberg πρῶτον δὴ περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν σφαιρῶν αὐτῶν, αἵτινες καὶ αὐταὶ τὰς θέσεις ἔχουσιν ὡς περὶ τοὺς τοῦ λοξοῦ καὶ διὰ μέσων τῶν ζῳδίων κύκλου πόλους, τὸ μὲν πάσας τε περιγειοτέρας μὲν εἶναι τῆς τῶν ἀπλανῶν, ἀπογειοτέρας δὲ τῆς σεληνιακῆς, καὶ τὸ τὰς τρεῖς τήν τε τοῦ τοῦ Κρόνου μείζονα οὖσαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Διὸς ὡς ἐπὶ τὰ περιγειότερα δευτέραν καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Ἄρεως ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνην ἀπογειοτέρας εἶναι τῶν τε λοιπῶν καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου σχεδὸν παρὰ πᾶσι (207) τοῖς πρώτοις μαθηματικοῖς ὁρῶμεν συμπεφωνημένα, τὴν δὲ τοῦ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ τὴν τοῦ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ παρὰ μὲν τοῖς παλαιοτέροις ὑποκάτω τιθεμένας τῆς ἡλιακῆς, παρὰ δὲ ἐνίοις τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὰς ὑπερτιθεμένας ἕνεκεν τοῦ μηδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπεσκοτῆσθαί ποτε τὸν ἥλιον. ἡμῖν δ᾽ ἡ μὲν τοιαύτη κρίσις ἀβέβαιον ἔχειν δοκεῖ … Alcinous Did. 14, p. 171.4–13 H. σελήνην μὲν δὴ τῷ μετὰ γῆν ἐπέθηκε κύκλῳ τῷ πρώτῳ, ἥλιον δὲ εἰς τὸν δεύτερον ἔταξε, φωσφόρον δὲ καὶ τὸν ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ λεγόμενον ἀστέρα εἰς τὸν ἰσοταχῆ μὲν ἡλίῳ κύκλον ἰόντα, τούτου δὲ ἀφεστῶτα· ὕπερθεν δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους κατὰ σφαῖραν οἰκείαν, τὸν μὲν βραδύτατον αὐτῶν ὑπὸ τῇ τῶν ἀπλανῶν κείμενον σφαίρᾳ, ὃν Κρόνου τινὲς ἐπονομάζουσιν ἀστέρα, τὸν δὲ βραδυτῆτι δεύτερον μετὰ τοῦτον Διὸς ἐπώνυμον, ὑφ᾽ ὃν τὸν Ἄρεως· ὀγδόη δὲ πᾶσιν ἡ ἄνωθεν δύναμις περιβέβληται. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 138.9–142.10 Hiller τὴν δὲ κατὰ τόπον τῶν σφαιρῶν ⟨ἢ⟩ κύκλων θέσιν τε καὶ τάξιν, ἐν οἷς κείμενα φέρεται τὰ πλανώμενα, τινὲς μὲν τῶν Πυθαγορείων τοιάνδε νομίζουσι· προσγειότατον μὲν εἶναι τὸν τῆς σελήνης κύκλον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦτον ⟨τὸν τοῦ⟩ Ἑρμοῦ, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ φωσφόρου, καὶ τέταρτον ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, εἶτα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεως, ἔπειτα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τελευταῖον δὲ καὶ σύνεγγυς τοῖς ἀπλανέσι τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου· μέσον εἶναι βουλόμενοι τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου τῶν πλανωμένων ὡς ἡγεμονικώτατον καὶ οἷον καρδίαν τοῦ παντός. μηνύει δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Αἰτωλός, λέγων οὕτως· … (142) Ἐρατοσθένης (F. 13 Powell, pp. 116– 117 Geus) δὲ τὴν μὲν διὰ τῆς φορᾶς τῶν ἄστρων γινομένην ἁρμονίαν παραπλησίως ἐνδείκνυται, τὴν μέντοι τάξιν τῶν πλανωμένων οὐ τὴν αὐτήν, ἀλλὰ μετὰ σελήνην ὑπὲρ γῆς δεύτερόν φησι φέρεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 218.8–19.1 Wallies κατὰ δὲ τὸ κεῖσθαι, ὅταν ζητῆται πότερος προσγειότερος, ὁ ἥλιος ἢ ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀστήρ. Macrobius in Somn. 1.19.1, p. 73.12–19 his adsertis de sphaerarum ordine pauca dicenda sunt, in quo dissentire a Platone Cicero videri potest … Ciceroni Archimedes et Chaldaeorum ratio consentit, Plato Aegyptios omnium philosophiae disciplinarum parentes secutus est … Proclus in Tim. 3.62.2–10 Diehl ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἡ τῶν παλαιῶν φήμη ταύτην ἐδίδου τῷ ἡλίῳ τὴν τάξιν· καὶ γὰρ Ἀριστοτέλης οὕτως ᾤετο καὶ οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Εὔδοξον (D9 Lasserre). εἰ δέ τινες ταῖς τῶν μαθηματικῶν ὑποθέσεσι χαίροντες μέσον τῶν ἑπτὰ πλανήτων τάττειν ἀξιοῖεν τὸν ἥλιον, συνάγοντα καὶ συνδέοντα τὰς ἐφ᾽ ἑκάτερα αὐτοῦ τριάδας, ἴστωσαν μηδὲν ἐχυρὸν μηδὲ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων λέγοντας. See also in Resp. 2.218.17–221.26. §6 Anaximander Metrodorus of Chios Crates: see Simplicius in Cael. 471.2–9 cited above General texts.

937

Liber 2 Caput 16 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889C; pp. 345a13–346a6 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.47, p. 414.1–10 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 58; p. 625.8–13 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 152–153 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 132, p. 69 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.41, p. 45.9 Delatte (titulus), cf. 3.29 36.11–37.1 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.22 (~ tit.) + 1.24.1c, p. 202.10–11 + 1.24.1k, p. 203.17–18 + 1.24.2bc, p. 205.12–23 + 1.24.5, p. 207.8–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b8–9 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. I 6, p. 97.30–33 Maass

Titulus ιϛʹ. Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως (P,cf.S) §1 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Κλεάνθης ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀλκμαίων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς πλανήτας τοῖς ἀπλανέσιν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι. (P2,S4) §3 Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὸ τῶν σφαιρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστα συμβέβηκε, (S5) §4 Ἀναξίμανδρος ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ τῶν σφαιρῶν, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος βέβηκε, φέρεσθαι. (P3,S6) §5 Ἀναξιμένης οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν περὶ αὐτὴν δὲ στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. (P4,S2) §1 Anaxagoras 59A78 DK; Democritus fr. 387 Luria; Cleanthes SVF 1.507; §2 Alcmaeon 24A4 DK; mathematici —; §3 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.8 289b30–34, Met. Λ.8; §4 Anaximander 12A18 DK; §5 Anaximenes 13A14 DK titulus Περὶ … κινήσεως PB(I,III)GQPs : τῆς τῶν om. PB(II) : ἀστέρων] ἄστρων PE, cf. S qui in tit. c. 1.24 conflat tit. Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων (c. 2.13) καὶ σχημάτων (2.14), κινήσεώς (2.16) τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (2.19) : φορᾶς καὶ om. PG, cf. S : καὶ κινήσεως om. PSy §1 [2] Δημόκριτος Κλεάνθης om. S ‖ post Ἀναξαγόρας et Δημόκριτος add. PG bis καὶ ‖ post ἀνατολῶν add δὲ S ‖ ἐπὶ] εἰς PG ‖ [3] πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας] τοὺς ἀστέρας νομίζουσιν PG §2 [4] ante τοὺς πλανήτας hab. PG τοὺς ἀστέρας ‖ [4–5] τοὺς … ἀντιφέρεσθαι PES, cf. PQ : post τοῖς ἀπλανέσιν (non hab. PG) add. PB ἐναντίως (PB(III) ἐναντίους) et post ἀπὸ add. γὰρ, del. Diels (cf. PG), ret. Mau Lachenaud : daß die Bewegung der Planeten der Bewegung der Fixsterne entgegengestezt ist und ihre Bewegung von Westen nach Osten verlâuft Q ‖ [5] ἐπ᾽] εἰς PG ‖ ἀντιφέρεσθαι] ἀνταναφέρεσθαι mss. PG, qui add. τὸν ἥλιον πρῶτον (quae ut glossema del. Jas), coni. Diels ἀντιφέρεσθαι τῷ ἡλίῳ §3 [6] ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστα συμβέβηκε S : ἐφ᾽ ὧν scripsimus (cf. §4) : ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἕκαστος ἐμβέβηκε coni. Diels (sed non in textu pos.), prob. Wachsmuth §4 [7] ante nomen add. S καὶ §5 [9] οὐχ ὑπὸ … αὐτὴν δὲ PE Diels DG : δὲ ἀλλὰ post γῆν hab. S : ὁμοίως ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν PB : daß die Sterne sich oberhalb und unterhalb der Erde bewegen Q

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_057

5

10

liber 2 caput 16

§6

§7

Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτὸν πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ· καὶ τότε μὲν προανατέλλοντα ἑωσφόρον φαίνεσθαι, τότε δὲ ἐπικαταδυόμενον ἕσπερον καλεῖσθαι. (P5,S3) Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ Περὶ θεῶν Πυθαγορείαν εἶναι τὴν περὶ τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι φωσφόρον τε καὶ ἕσπερον δόξαν. (S7)

§6 Plato cf. Tim. 38c–d; mathematici—; §7 Apollodorus FGH 244 F91 Jacoby §6 [11] Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ PΒΕQ : cf. S τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες μὲν ὡς Πλάτων = PS 2.15.5 : Πλάτων om. mss. PG et Nic, rest. Diels Jas (per litt.) ‖ [11–12] ταὐτὸν … αὐτῷ S, qui post ταὐτὸν add. δὲ : ἰσοδρόμους εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον τὸν ἑωσφόρον (φωσφόρον PEG) τὸν στίλβοντα P ‖ [13–14] καὶ … καλεῖσθαι desunt in P §7 [15] τὴν SP(m.s.) : τὸ SFP

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 58 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων κινήσεως (text Diels) 58.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Κλεάνθης ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν εἰς δυσμὰς φέρεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας νομίζουσιν. 58.2 (~ P2) Ἀλκμαίων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς πλανήτας ἀπὸ δυσμῶν εἰς ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι τῷ ἡλίῳ. 58.3 (~ P6) Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ἰσοδρόμους εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, τὸν φωσφόρον, τὸν στίλβοντα. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 132 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.41 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς (~ tit.) cf. 3.29 supra citatum ad c. 2.3. Testes secundi: Commentaria in Aratum, Anonymus I, p. 97.30–33 Maass φέρεται δὲ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ τὰς δυσμάς, ὁ δὲ ἥλιος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ πλάνητες τὴν ἐναντίαν, τουτέστιν ἀπὸ τῶν δυσμῶν ἐπὶ τὰς ἀνατολάς, ὡς εἶναι διπλῆν κίνησιν αὐτῶν γε, τὴν μὲν ἐρχομένων, τὴν δὲ φερομένων … Loci Aetiani: titulus cf. A 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως. A 3.13 Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς. A 4.6 Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς. §§1–2 A 2.10.1 Πυθαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης δεξιὰ τοῦ κόσμου τὰ ἀνατολικὰ μέρη, ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως, ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ δυτικά. cf. A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς, τροχοῦ δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. §3 A 1.7.21 Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν μὲν ἀνωτάτω θεὸν εἶδος χωριστόν, ἐπιβεβηκότα τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰθέριον σῶμα, τὸ πέμπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καλούμενον.

939

15

940

liber 2 caput 16

διῃρημένου δὲ τούτου κατὰ σφαίρας, τῇ μὲν φύσει συναφεῖς τῷ λόγῳ δὲ κεχωρισμένας, ἑκάστην οἴεται τῶν σφαιρῶν ζῷον εἶναι σύνθετον ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς, ὧν τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστιν αἰθέριον κινούμενον κυκλοφορικῶς, ἡ ψυχὴ δὲ λόγος ἀκίνητος αἴτιος τῆς κινήσεως κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν. A 2.3.4 τὰ μὲν γὰρ οὐράνια … σφαίρας … περιέχειν ἐμψύχους καὶ ζωτικάς. §4 A 2.20.1 (de sole) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς … A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς … §7 cf. A 2.15.7 Παρμενίδης πρῶτον μὲν τάττει τὸν ἑῷον, τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ νομιζόμενον ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕσπερον, ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the Byzantine mss. of P we find five lemmata, of which the first four clearly constitute two linked pairs. G omits the second pair, and so has only three doxai. In the case of P2 and P4 important variants in E (partially supported by G and Q) represent a superior tradition. These will be discussed below. (2) In S the process of coalescing chs. 2.13–19, though systematically and competently carried out (see above on ch. 2.13), starts to get more and more difficult as he moves through the chapters. We note the following: (a) When at S 1.24.1c he adds the Anaxagorean doxa (= P1) to the one by the same philosopher in 2.13, the other two name-labels recorded by P fall away. (b) S noted that there are two references to the μαθηματικοί in the chapter (both retained by P). The latter of these is linked to the name-label Plato, just as occurs in the previous chapter. So he coalescences these two doxai in S 1.24.2b. He then adds the former, even though this one does not include the Platonic name-label. But he has an additional problem, because the former lemma also has the name-label of Alcmaeon, so he solves the problem by adding the words τούτῳ δὲ συνομολογεῖ καὶ Ἀλκμαίων (of course it is also theoretically possible that P is the one who coalesced and that S preserves the original, but given the methods of the two witnesses this is much less likely). (c) The doxa of Anaximander was not included in the coalesced grouping at S 1.24.1g. The most likely and interesting reason for this is that he wanted to preserve the contrast with the preceding Aristotelian doxa and so wrote it out separately. (d) The final doxa preserved at S 1.25.5 is difficult and will be further discussed in the detailed notes below. (3) T does not make use of this chapter.

liber 2 caput 16

941

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is little parallel material in the proximate doxographical tradition. Ach’s chapters on the stars (§10) and the planets (§15) are wholly descriptive and not parallel to A, except for a reference to the Pythagoreans, who are said to wish both the planets and the fixed stars to have their own movements (cf. §2 in the present chapter). The Aratean scholia give a more detailed version of §2, but without a name-label. Philo refers to the subject as relevant for the ‘investigators of nature’ in two texts that very likely show the influence of earlier literature linked somehow to the Placita; see above on ch. 2.11 and Runia (2008b) 26. See the texts cited above under Testes secundi and below in section E(a). (2) Sources. On Aristotle’s references to the topic of the movement of the heavenly bodies as part of his organisation of the treatment of the heavens see our comments on A 2.13. There can be little doubt that the macro-structure of this section of the Placita ultimately derives from Aristotle and the Peripatetic school. More specifically in relation to the present chapter in Cael. 2.8 he gives a brief dialectical discussion of the different theoretical possibilities in relation to the movement of the whole heaven and the heavenly bodies (τὰ ἄστρα … καὶ ὅλος ὁ οὐρανός), but he does not refer to any names of predecessors. In a different context there is a report at Mete. 2.1 354a30 about the movement of the sun (not the heavenly bodies in general) that is attributed to the ἀρχαῖοι μετεωρολόγοι. The language is so similar to what we read in §5 on Anaximenes that it is difficult not to conclude that there is some connection between the two texts, i.e. that the Placita may be utilising a source which goes back to a fuller text with names of philosophers drawn up in the Peripatetic school or compiled even earlier than Aristotle. In addition similar versions of this doxa occur in Diogenes Laertius’ and Hippolytus’ accounts of Anaximenes’ doctrine, including the comparison with a felt hat (πιλίον). As we note below in section D(c), even the language of the doxai shows a link to the earlier Aristotelian treatment. A little later Epicurus in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.92 gives a diaeresis of three positions on the movement of the heavenly bodies. As Mansfeld (1994b) notes, this suggests that he utilised a Peripatetic source (see discussion of this text at M– R 3.248–249). He may have even used inter alia a predecessor of the Placita, but it should be noted that he lists the various possible causes, which are not emphasized in A’s account. A similar diaeresis is given by Lucretius in DRN 5.509–533. The doctrine of §2 that the planets move from west to east along the zodiac circle (and by implication that the fixed stars move in the opposite direction

942

liber 2 caput 16

from east to west) becomes standard doctrine in astronomy from the fourth century bce onwards. It is much discussed by the astronomers, but not often referred to in philosophical texts. But see below in section E(b) General texts two texts in Alexander and ps.Alexander, the former of which asks for the cause of this phenomenon. C Chapter Heading The heading in the Byzantine mss. and Ps may be accepted. It uses the most common formula Περί x and in discussing the question of motion relates its contents to the categories in general (note that there is no separate Aristotelian category of movement; cf. ch. 1.23 Commentary C., where we cite Theophrastus fr. 153B FHS&G at Simp. in Phys. 413.5–7). The term φορά has been added to the standard κίνησις (cf. chs. 1.23, 3.13), most likely because of the prominence of the verb φέρεσθαι and its derivatives in the chapter. G removes φορά even though he retains two lemma containing φέρεσθαι and ἀντιφέρεσθαι respectively. E’s ἄστρων is the minority reading and should not be taken over (on A’s use of ἀστέρες and ἄστρα see above 2.13 Analysis (a)). In his chapter heading combining chs. 2.13–19 S retains only the noun κινήσεως, omitting the mention of φορά. He will have noted from chs. 1.23 and 3.13 (and perhaps from a chapter in Book 2 missing in P, cf. ch. 2.2 Appendix) that the former is the key term. D Analysis a Context The question of movement follows on naturally from the discussion of the heavenly bodies’ placement in ch. 2.15. Compare how ch. 3.13 on the movement of the earth follows ch. 3.11 on its nature (with a chapter on the earth’s inclination, cf. chs. 2.8, 2.23) in between. b Number–Order of Lemmata Although the methods of our two chief witnesses are very different, there is a good correspondence between their results in this chapter. All of P’s material can be found in S, while S has some additions that P has excerpted away. If we understand S’s method of coalescence (details discussed above under Witnesses, section A), we can see that P’s order can be retained, even though the order that S finishes up with is quite different. It is always possible that in the process of coalescence some unidentifiable material got lost (note what S did with the name-labels in P1), but it will not have been much.

liber 2 caput 16

943

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter appears to string together various subjects, using the doxographer’s usual diaeretical and antithetical approach, but in a not very tidy fashion. (i) The first two lemmata form a clear diaphonia, which in fact amounts to a division between the Presocratic vortex cosmology and the standard postPlatonic cosmology that uses concentric spheres. In the former both fixed stars and planets move in the same direction (but some slower than others), in the latter they have opposed motions. (ii) The next two doxai also clearly form a pair. As the text stands, the only difference between the two is that Aristotle’s heavenly bodies are carried along on the spheres to which they are attached, whereas those of Anaximander are also moved by their circles. This must be a reference to the celebrated circles of fire and their openings (cf. A 2.20.1). It has been claimed that the reference to spheres is out of place and that the doxa can be regarded as a repetition of the previous Aristotelian doxa; see Kahn (1960) 59, Guthrie (1962–1981) 1.93 n. 1. This is to ignore the method of the Placita and in any case, it would not have been difficult to envisage his system (anachronistically) in terms of spheres as well as circles; see for example the diagrams in Couprie (1995). (iii) The formulation οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν of the next Anaximenean doxa implies a correction of another view. This is best taken as a critical reference to his predecessor Anaximander. The same doxa is found in doxographical reports in Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)§5). The verb στρέφεσθαι implies the whirl of the Presocratic vortex, as introduced in §1 (though this view cannot be attributed to Anaximander). This means that the preposition περί cannot mean ‘around’ in the usual sense of the cosmic revolutions (or for Anaximander circles of fire), but rather ‘around’ more or less in a plane parallel to the flat earth, dipping below the horizon but not going all the way below the earth. See further below section D(d)§5. (iv) The view of Plato and the astronomers on the concurrent motion of Venus and Mercury with the sun is a further refinement of the ‘modern’ view introduced in §2. It is better to place this doxa towards the end of the chapter as in P than link it to the other Platonic–astronomers view as in S. The comment on the identity of the morning and the evening star is to be seen as an appended thought. (v) The final view adds a comment that ascribes this doxa to the earlier Presocratic Pythagoras. On this lemma see the comments below. A striking feature of this chapter is the way that it uses verbs and verbal phrases to link up and articulate the various positions:

944

liber 2 caput 16

§1 §2 §3 §4 §5 §6

φέρεσθαι ἀντιφέρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν σφαιρῶν φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν κύκλων καὶ τῶν σφαιρῶν φέρεσθαι στρέφεσθαι συμπεριφέρεσθαι

The method gives the chapter a forward momentum, in which there is a combination of antithesis (through the use of the diaeresis) and development (through the use of association). It is worth noting that the key verbs that A uses are all prominent in Aristotle’s diaeretic account of heavenly movements in the De caelo with the exception of συμπεριφέρεσθαι (but cf. περιφέρεται at 2.2 285b20). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The addition of the Stoic Cleanthes to the two Presocratics is unexpected and can be linked to other doxai where an unorthodox view is ascribed to Cleanthes (A 2.14.2, 2.27.4). §2 The shorter version of the text in E, G and S is to be preferred above PBQ. ἐναντίως could easily have been added later and the inserted γάρ is rather awkward. Couprie (2011) 171 claims that Alcmaeon as a Pythagorean will have subscribed to the hypothesis of a central fire with the earth and the other planets revolving around it. So the present report ‘is usually, and perhaps already by its author Aëtius, misunderstood as a description of the contrary movement of the planets along the zodiac as is appropriate in the geocentric system.’ This is quite well possible, but we do not know the details of Alcmaeon’s cosmology, and anyway our task is to interpret A. See further Burkert (1972) 333–335. §5 The various textual traditions read as follows: PB Ἀναξιμένης ὁμοίως ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. E Ἀναξιμένης οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν περὶ αὐτὴν δὲ στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. S —οὐχ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἀλλὰ δὲ περὶ αὐτὴν στρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας. There can be little doubt that E and S preserve the right reading, particularly since as noted above the same doxa is already anonymously reported in almost exactly the same formulation in Aristotle’s Meteorology, though he uses the verb φέρεσθαι rather than στρέφεσθαι. In the text we have opted for E. In DG and VS Diels followed E, but the text in DK is closer to S (but omitting δέ).

liber 2 caput 16

945

Our interpretation of the text differs from that put forward by Couprie (2018) 114–119. He argues that Diels’ ‘emendations’ of the text of P have had a malign influence and that the correct text is that of the manuscripts of P. The implication that the original reading in P has some kind of special authority is beside the point, since in fact the evidence in E and S is older than that of the Byzantine mss. of P. Couprie argues (p. 117) the contrast between the two Milesians here is ‘that Anaximander regards the heavenly bodies as fixed places of turning wheels, while Anaximenes has in mind fiery bodies (or leaves) floating on air’ (the last statement is based on A 2.14.4, which he claims (p. 50) is the true view of Anaximenes and not the one reported with his name-label in 2.14.3). See further Couprie’s entire ch. 7 (pp. 99–129) which goes into much more detail than can be discussed in the present context. §6 P has abridged A, as witnessed by S. The text in S would read better as ἰσοδραμεῖν τῷ ἡλίῳ τὸν ἑωσφόρον καὶ τὸν στίλβοντα καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ, as printed at M–R 2.493, but this degree of intervention in the text is not justifiable in the present edition. §7 The ascription of this doxa is difficult. Formally it differs from most Aëtian lemmata since it reports on a doxa rather than attributing it directly to the philosopher concerned. The only parallel is at A 1.3.20, where Socrates and Plato are parenthetically said to have the same views on every subject. Diels ascribed it to AD, as is clearly the case for the two preceding lemmata in S, presumably on stylistic grounds. But the doxa with its reference to a Presocratic philosopher is more easily located in the Placita than in an account of Hellenistic philosophy. Moreover, the Apollodorus in question, as author of the Περὶ θεῶν, is the Athenian (DPhA A244, born c. 180BCE) and not the Stoic person of that name (of Seleucia, DPhA A250). The style remains difficult to rhyme with A’s usual practice, though the absence of a verbum dicendi speaks in favour of A. The adjective Πυθαγορείαν referring to Pythagoras (not his followers) is not used elsewhere in this manner in A. The same doxa is found in the previous chapter attributed to Parmenides as πρῶτος εὑρετής (A 2.15.7), but the ascription to Pythagoras is given at D.L. 8.14. There is no other reference to Apollodorus in the Placita. All in all, the provenance must be considered uncertain, but it would be rash to leave it out of our edition. e Other Evidence On the material in Ach, which is of little value for the understanding of the present chapter see above section B.

946 E a

liber 2 caput 16

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Achilles 10, pp. 18.21–19.21 Di Maria Περὶ ἀστέρος. Ἀστήρ ἐστι κατὰ Διόδωρον σῶμα θεῖον οὐράνιον τῆς αὐτῆς μετειληφὸς οὐσίας τῷ ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τόπῳ, σῶμά τι λαμπρὸν καὶ οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ φερόμενον κυκλικῶς. ὡσαύτως δὲ ὡρίσατο καὶ Ποσειδώνιος πρὸ αὐτοῦ ὁ Στωϊκός (F 128 E.-K., F271b Theiler). τὸ δὲ ‘οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον’ ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν πλανήτων οὕτως εἰρῆσθαι δοκεῖ, πλὴν κἀπὶ τῶν ἀπλανῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὡς ἔτυχεν αἰτιωμένους οὐ καλῶς ἔχειν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐννοίας ἔχεται· οὐδέποτε γὰρ στάσιν ἔχουσι τῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ κόσμου περιάγεσθαι, κἂν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μένωσιν· τῶν γὰρ ἀστέρων οἱ μὲν ἐμπεπηγότες τῷ οὐρανῷ ἀπλανεῖς λέγονται, οἱ δὲ τὴν ἐναντίαν φερόμενοι πλάνητες. αὐτοὶ δὲ ἑπτὰ ὄντες κατωτέρω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἰθέρος περιδινούμενοι τὸν ἐναντίον τῆν τοῦ κόσμου στροφῇ δρόμον τρέχουσιν … οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι οὐ μόνον τοὺς πλάνητας ἀστέρας βούλονται ἰδίαν κίνησιν ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς, οὕτω μέντοι κινεῖσθαι καὶ περὶ τὸν ἴδιον κυκλεῖσθαι κύκλον, ὥσπερ τοῦ παντὸς μὴ μεταβαίνοντος ἑτέρωθι, ἀλλὰ περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον εἱλουμένου. Strabo 2.5.2 ὁ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς περιφέρεται περί τε αὐτὴν καὶ περὶ τὸν ἄξονα ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δύσιν (cf. ch. 2.10), σὺν αὐτῷ δὲ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρες ὁμοταχεῖς τῷ πόλῳ (cf. ch. 2.16). οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρες κατὰ παραλλήλων φέρονται κύκλων· παράλληλοι δ᾽ εἰσὶ γνωριμώτατοι ὅ τε ἰσημερινὸς καὶ οἱ τροπικοὶ δύο καὶ οἱ ἀρκτικοί (cf. ch. 2.16)· οἱ δὲ πλάνητες ἀστέρες καὶ ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη κατὰ λοξῶν τινων τῶν τεταγμένων ἐν τῷ ζωδιακῷ. Philo of Alexandria Her. 247 see on ch. 2.11. Arius Didymus fr. 32 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.24.5 ἄστρον δὲ εἶναί φησιν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 127 E.-K., 271a Theiler) σῶμα θεῖον ἐξ αἰθέρος συνεστηκός, λαμπρὸν καὶ πυρῶδες, οὐδέποτε στάσιν ἔχον, ἀλλ᾽ αἰεὶ φερόμενον ἐγκυκλίως· ἰδίως δὲ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἄστρα λέγεσθαι· διαφέρειν δὲ ἀστέρα ἄστρου· εἰ μὲν γάρ τίς ἐστιν ἀστήρ, καὶ ἄστρον ὀνομασθήσεται δεόντως, οὐ μὴν ἀνάπαλιν. Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.273, PG 78.704A, 773 Évieux καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν … καὶ τῶν ἄστρων τὴν θέσιν … τί συμβάλλεται εἰς ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ συνορῶ. Chapter heading: cf. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς … Mut. 67 καὶ (sc. περὶ) τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων κινήσεως. §1 Anaxagoras Democritus Cleanthes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.6 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους, συμπεριληφθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ⟨τοῦ⟩ αἰθέρος περιφορᾶς. §3 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr.9 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c (on Aristotle) cited on A 2.3.4 §5 Anaximenes: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.3 (on Anaximenes, 13A1 DK) κινεῖσθαι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα οὐχ ὑπὸ γῆν, ἀλλὰ περὶ γῆν. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.6 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) οὐ κινεῖσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ γῆν τὰ ἄστρα λέγει, καθὼς ἕτεροι ὑπειλήφασιν, ἀλλὰ περὶ γῆν, ὡσπερεὶ περὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν κεφαλὴν στρέφεται τὸ πιλίον. §7 Apollodorus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.23 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) καὶ δοκεῖ πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβωρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων· οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν. cf. Diogenes Laertius

liber 2 caput 16 V.P. 8.14 (on Pythagoras) πρῶτόν τε Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον τὸν αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὥς φησι Παρμενίδης (28A40a DK)

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 289b1–4 ἐπεὶ δὲ φαίνεται καὶ τὰ ἄστρα μεθιστάμενα καὶ ὅλος ὁ οὐρανός, ἀναγκαῖον ἤτοι ἠρεμούντων ἀμφοτέρων γίγνεσθαι τὴν μεταβολήν, ἢ κινουμένων, ἢ τοῦ μὲν ἠρεμοῦντος τοῦ δὲ κινουμένου. cf. Met. Α.2 982b12–17 διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ἄστρα καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.92, τάς τε κινήσεις αὐτῶν (sc. ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἄστρων) οὐκ ἀδύνατον μὲν γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ὅλου οὐρανοῦ δίνην, ἢ τούτου μὲν στάσιν, αὐτῶν δὲ δίνην αὐτῶν δὲ δίνην κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐν τῇ γενέσει τοῦ κόσμου ἀνάγκην ἀπογεννηθεῖσαν ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῆς, ἤτοι τῇ ⟨ἐντὸς⟩ θερμασίᾳ κατά τινα ἐπινέμησιν τοῦ πυρὸς ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἑξῆς τόπους ἰόντος (as conjectured in M– R 3.249). cf. Lucretius DRN 5.509–532 motibus astrorum nunc quae sit causa canamus. / principio magnus caeli si vortitur orbis … (517) est etiam quoque uti possit caelum omne manere / in statione, tamen cum lucida signa ferantur … (526) nam quid in hoc mundo sit eorum ponere certum/ difficile est; sed quid possit fiatque per omne / in variis mundi varia ratione creatis, / id doceo, plurisque sequor disponere causas, / motibus astrorum quae possint esse per omne; / e quibus una tamen siet hic quoque causa necessest /quae vegeat motum signis. Stoics in D.L. 7.132 (—) καθ᾽ ἣν (sc. σκέψιν φιλοσοφίας) ζητοῦσι περί τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ τῶν πλανωμένων, οἷον … καὶ περὶ δινήσεως καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων τούτοις ζητημάτων. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) τῶν δ᾽ ἄστρων τὰ μὲν ἀπλανῆ συμπεριφέρεσθαι τῷ ὅλῳ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα κατ᾽ ἰδίας κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις. Cicero Tusc. 5.69 cited above at ch. 2.13 E(b) General texts. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 698.38 ἐπεὶ γὰρ δεῖ εἶναί τι ἀεί, ὡς δέδεικται, ἔδει τὴν αἰτίαν λέγειν δι᾽ ἣν ἡ μὲν ἀπλανὴς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἐπὶ δυσμὰς κινεῖται, αἱ δὲ πλανώμεναι ἀνάπαλιν. ps.Alexander Probl. lib. 3, p. 17.28 Usener ὡς δηλοῖ σελήνης τὰ φῶτα αὐξανόμενα καὶ μειούμενα καὶ ἡ σφαῖρα κινουμένη καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἐπὶ δυσμάς, οἱ δὲ ἑπτὰ ἀστέρες ἐναντίαν ὁδὸν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπὶ ἀνατολάς, ὡς δεικνῦσι τοῦτο πλέον τῇ ὄψει πάντων τῶν κινουμένων ἀστέρων. Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a11–12, 2.12 293a12–14 cited on A 2.13, also Mete. 1.1 338a21 ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄνω φορὰν διακεκοσμημένων ἄστρων. cf. Plato Symp. 188b4 ὧν ἐπιστήμη περὶ ἄστρων τε φορὰς καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν ὥρας ἀστρονομία καλεῖται. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.90.3 ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ περὶ ἀστρονομίας· αὕτη γάρ, μετὰ τὴν τῶν μεταρσίων ἱστορίαν περί τε σχήματος τοῦ παντὸς καὶ φορᾶς οὐρανοῦ τῆς τε τῶν ἄστρων κινήσεως πλησιαίτερον τῇ κτιζούσῃ δυνάμει προσάγουσα τὴν ψυχήν, εὐαισθήτως ἔχειν διδάσκει ὡρῶν ἐτείων, ἀέρων μεταβολῆς, ἐπιτολῶν ἄστρων. §3 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 289b30–34 ἐπεὶ τοίνυν οὔτ᾽ ἀμφότερα κινεῖσθαι εὔλογον οὔτε τὸ ἕτερον μόνον, λείπεται τοὺς μὲν κύκλους κινεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἄστρα

947

948

liber 2 caput 16

ἠρεμεῖν καὶ ἐνδεδεμένα τοῖς κύκλοις φέρεσθαι· μόνως γὰρ οὕτως οὐθὲν ἄλογον συμβαίνει. Met. Λ.8 1073b1–5 ὅτι μὲν οὖν εἰσὶν οὐσίαι, καὶ τούτων τις πρώτη καὶ δευτέρα κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν τάξιν ταῖς φοραῖς τῶν ἄστρων, φανερόν· τὸ δὲ πλῆθος ἤδη τῶν φορῶν ἐκ τῆς οἰκειοτάτης φιλοσοφίᾳ τῶν μαθηματικῶν ἐπιστημῶν δεῖ σκοπεῖν, ἐκ τῆς ἀστρολογίας. §5 Anaximenes: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.1 354a28–32 (on Anaximenes, 13A14 DK) περὶ δὲ τοῦ τὰ πρὸς ἄρκτον εἶναι τῆς γῆς ὑψηλὰ σημεῖόν τι καὶ τὸ πολλοὺς πεισθῆναι τῶν ἀρχαίων μετεωρολόγων τὸν ἥλιον μὴ φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ γῆν ἀλλὰ περὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ἀφανίζεσθαι δὲ καὶ ποιεῖν νύκτα διὰ τὸ ὑψηλὴν εἶναι πρὸς ἄρκτον τὴν γῆν. §6 Plato: Plato Tim. 38c–d cited above at ch. 2.15 section E(b)§§4–5.

Liber 2 Caput 17 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889D; pp. 346a11–25 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.48, p. 414.11–17 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 59; p. 625.14–16 Diels; pp. 187– 191 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 152–153 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 135, p. 70 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.44, p. 48.6 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1i, p. 203.9–10 + 1.24.l, p. 203.22–23 + 1.24.1m, p. 204.7–8 + 1.24.3, p. 206.5–10 Wachsmuth

Titulus ιζʹ. Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (P) §1 Μητρόδωρος ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου προσλάμπεσθαι. (P1,S4) §2 Στράτων καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἄστρα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. (S5) §3 Διότιμος Τύριος ὁ Δημοκρίτειος τὴν αὐτὴν τούτοις εἰσηνέγκατο γνώμην. (S6) §4 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου ἀναθυμιάσεως. (P2,S1) §5 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ δεῖσθαι τὰ οὐράνια τροφῆς· οὐ γὰρ φθαρτὰ ἀλλ᾽ ἀίδια. (P3,S3) §6 Πλάτων κοινῶς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐξ αὑτῶν τρέφεσθαι. (P4,S2) §1 Metrodorus 70A9 DK; §2 Strato fr. 85 Wehrli, 43 Sharples; §3 Diotimus Tyrius 76.1 DK; §4 Heraclitus 22A11 DK; Stoici SVF 2.690; §5 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.3 270b1–5, Met. Λ.8 1073a34; §6 Plato cf. Tim. 33c–d titulus ante §1 coni. M–R 2.503 ⟨οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἴδιον αὐτοὺς ἔχειν φῶς⟩ et caput dividunt in dua capitula cum titulo secundi Πόθεν τρέφονται οἱ ἀστέρες : deest in S §1 [2] ἅπαντας … ἀστέρας PEQS : ἀστέρας om. PB : ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς PG ‖ [2–3] προσλάμπεσθαι PB(I,III)QGS : καταλάμπεσθαι PE : λάμπεσθαι PB(II) §§2–3 non hab. PBEQ §§2–6 non hab. PG §3 [5] Δημοκρίτειος coni. Diels DG sed non in textu pos., prob. Wachsmuth Diels VS, DK : διοκριτιὸς S, διακριτικὸς Heeren, Διοκρίτου vel Διοκράτου Meineke §4 [7] καὶ PB : om. PE ‖ ἐπιγείου P : ἀπὸ γῆς S §5 [9] post ἀίδια add. S εἶναι §6 [11] Πλάτων κοινῶς PES Diels : Πλάτων οἱ Στωικοὶ PB : post κοινῶς add. S δὲ : al. Platon glaubte, daß Q ‖ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον PBS : τὸν κόσμον ὅλον PE ‖ αὑτῶν PB(III) Mau Lachenaud : αὐτῶν PB(I,II) : αὐτοῦ PEQ(ut vid.)S, αὑτοῦ Diels DG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 59 (~ tit.) Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (text Jas) 59.1 (~ P1) Μητρόδωρος ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀστέρας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου προσλάμπεσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_058

5

10

950

liber 2 caput 17

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 135 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.44 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.5 Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, A 2.28 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. §§1–3 A 2.28.2–3 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως. Α 2.26.2 (de luna) Παρμενίδης ἴσην τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι. A 2.28.5–6 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως. A 3.2. §1 A 3.1.9 (de lacteo orbe) Μητρόδωρος διὰ τὴν πάροδον τοῦ ἡλίου· τοῦτον γὰρ εἶναι τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον. §3 Cf. A 3.1.8 (de lacteo orbe) Δημόκριτος πολλῶν καὶ μικρῶν καὶ συνεχῶν ἀστέρων συμφωτιζομένων ἀλλήλοις συναυγασμὸν διὰ τὴν πύκνωσιν. §4 A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. A 2.20.6 (de sole) Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. §5 A 2.5.1 Ἀριστοτέλης· εἰ τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος, καὶ φθαρήσεται· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδεμιᾶς ἐπιδεῖται τροφῆς· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀίδιος. cf. A 3.1.9 (de lacteo orbe) Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναθυμιάσεως ξηρᾶς ἔξαψιν πολλῆς τε καὶ συνεχοῦς· καὶ οὕτω κόμην πυρὸς ὑπὸ τὸν αἰθέρα κατωτέρω τῶν πλανητῶν. A 3.2.4 (de cometis). Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως διάπυρον σύστασιν. §6 A 2.5.2 Πλάτων αὐτὸν αὑτῷ τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ φθίνοντος κατὰ μεταβολὴν τὸ τρέφον παρέχεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) P has four lemmata only, preserved in E and the Byzantine mss. and translated by Q. Only the first is retained in G. The first doxa addresses the question posed in the chapter’s heading. The remaining three patently focus on another question, the source of the heavenly bodies’ nourishment if they are to be regarded as living beings (which is not explicitly stated). There is an obvious strong link between illumination and sustenance, but this is not made explicit in the doxai. (2) Six lemmata are preserved by S, of which the first four correspond to those in P, but in a different sequence. But in order to get his grand scheme of coalescence in ch. 1.24 to work he has made various changes when com-

liber 2 caput 17

951

pared with P. In 1.24.1i the doxa is placed under 2.13.8 which has the name-labels Parmenides–Heraclitus. From P it is clear that the original names were Heraclitus and the Stoics, which makes much better sense. The second lemma supports the reading of the single name-label Plato in E, and not the composite Plato–the Stoics in PB. The final cluster of three doxai in 1.24.3 is important because it adds two doxai to P’s first doxa which he must have epitomized away. But these additional doxai give rise to various textual problems to be considered below. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Since it was almost universally held that the stars produce their own light (see the main diaeresis in 2.13, where both alternatives assume that light is emitted), the specific topic of this chapter as indicated in its heading is seldom encountered. Symeon Seth tells us that there is much controversy on the subject, and indicates that the main division of opinion centres on whether the heavenly bodies are all illuminated by the sun or have their own light; text cited below under section E(a) General texts. The further details he gives show that he is probably thinking only of the planets, though the phrase περὶ πάντων τῶν ἀστέρων could refer to the stars as well. The question of the stars’ nourishment is also infrequently addressed. Ach’s chapter 13 asks the question εἰ ζῷα οἱ ἀστέρες and Philo in his list of doxographical questions on the stars asks whether they are ensouled (Somn. 1.22), but neither text reflects what their source of nourishment would be if they are living creatures. (2) Sources. Aristotle does not include the question of the source of the stars’ illumination in his outline of topics when beginning and ending his treatment of the heavenly bodies (Cael. 2.7 289a11, 2.12 293a12). But he briefly touches on the topic early in his discussion at 2.7 289a20–21, developing his strange theory that it is caused by friction with the underlying air (text below section E(b) General texts). The topic of the stars’ nourishment also does not arise in Aristotle’s De caelo, because his doctrine of the impassibility of the fifth element does not allow such a view (it is also not raised in Plato’s Timaeus, where the heavenly bodies consist mainly of fire). He does briefly refer at Mete. 2.2 355a18–20 to the view that the stars are nourished by the exhalations from the ocean as a reductio ad absurdum when arguing against the view of the sun being nourished in this way. The Stoics ignored this criticism and developed the view earlier attributed to Heraclitus that the heavenly bodies are nourished by moist exhalations from the earth. See various texts in Cicero, Cleomedes and Plutarch cited below in sections E(a) and (b). They have very limited doxographical elaboration. At Cicero ND 3.37 reference is made to Cleanthes (SVF 1.501), but in relation to

952

liber 2 caput 17

the sun only (cf. A 2.20.6), while in D.L. 7.144 the same doctrine is attributed to Posidonius in relation to the moon. The philosophers mentioned in a late text in Proclus are obscure and foreign to the doxographical tradition. The question of the source of the stars’ illumination is also relevant to the question on the nature of the Milky Way, e.g. the view of Democritus that its appearance is derived from the clustering of stars (A 3.1.8), but this is treated as part of meteorology; see Commentary on ch. 3.1. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is only preserved in the witnesses in the P tradition, where there is no variation. S does not include it in his heading for ch. 1.24, which combines topics from 2.13 to 2.19. There is no variation in any of the witnesses concerning the heading of this chapter. The verb φωτίζονται in the chapter heading corresponds to the noun in the chapter on the illuminations of the moon, 2.28 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. For headings asking the question πόθεν (from where)—six in number in A, i.e. also chs. 1.6, 2.5, 4.21, 5.11, 5.28—see above ch. 1.6 Commentary C and 2.5 Commentary C. This chapter’s heading is strictly parallel to that of ch. 2.5, except that the verb is φωτίζω (illuminate) rather than τρέφω (nourish). It indicates that the question is one of source or origin. As the contents of the chapter reveal, illumination is, or rather can be, the result of nourishment. D Analysis a Context In ch. 2.13 it was already indicated that the heavenly bodies are all in some way or another fiery and so must gleam or shine. The source of their illumination is now explicitly addressed. The second half of the chapter then focuses on a different though related question which is exactly parallel to that treated in 2.5, Πόθεν τρέφεται ὁ κόσμος. b Number–Order of Lemmata The six lemmata fall into two distinct groups. Only the first doxa in P and the cluster of three in S address the chapter’s theme as indicated in its heading. The remaining three doxai in P and S answer the question on the provenance of the heavenly bodies’ nourishment. The basic order as found in P can be preserved. The cluster in S is thus a block and indicates that P has excised the two following doxai. It will emerge when the sequence of doxai is more closely examined that it is most unlikely that the chapter is complete as we now have it.

liber 2 caput 17

953

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first three doxai all record essentially the same doctrine. The view that the luminosity of the stars was due not to their own inherent nature but to the sun, on an analogy with the majority view on the moon’s light, is of course rather odd and scarcely attested elsewhere in ancient thought (in Boll’s survey, (1909) 2411–2412, this is the only evidence for it). Given the usual method of the Placita, it must be strongly suspected that originally there was an opposition between the view that the stars have their own light (the majority view) and the view that they are illuminated by the sun (minority view). This is the diaeresis that controls the structure of the parallel chapter on the moon (2.28). No examples of such a diaeresis have been found in ancient sources. Nevertheless Mansfeld–Runia in their reconstruction (M–R 2.2.502) decided that it was justified to conjecture a first most likely anonymously attributed doxa presenting the majority position that the heavenly bodies have their own light, which both P and S overlooked or which—more likely—fell out early in the tradition. The formula used, οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἴδιον αὐτοὺς ἕχειν φῶς, was based on similar doxai in 5.12.1 and 2.28.1. In the present edition, however, it is not appropriate to introduce such a massive intervention in the text. The name-labels of these three doxai also give rise to problems which will be further discussed in the detailed comments below. The remaining three doxai are more straightforward. They are largely parallel to the doxai in the related chapter on the cosmos’ nourishment in ch. 2.5, but in the case of the Aristotelian and Platonic doxai are presented in a more compact form. The argument in the Aristotelian doxa is also reversed: A now argues from the everlasting nature of the stars to the conclusion that they do not need nourishment, whereas in the earlier chapter he is recorded (less happily) as arguing the reverse. The Platonic doxa here does not indicate that the source of the food is internal decay. The third position of Heraclitus–the Stoics is also simplified compared to that of Philolaus in A 2.5.3. Is it likely, therefore, that these two subjects were treated together in the single chapter, or did A originally have two chapters which—perhaps again early on—were joined together? Certainly the parallel in the treatment of the cosmos suggests there were originally two chapters. At M–R 2.2.501 we took the bold step of introducing an extra chapter heading in our reconstruction with the conjectured formulation Πόθεν τρέφονται οἱ ἀστέρες, but once again this would be a step too far for the present edition.

954 d

liber 2 caput 17

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Metrodorus of Chios, the pupil of Democritus, is cited no less than 6 times in Book 2 and particularly often in the chapters on the heavenly bodies (also 18.2, 20.8, 28.5). The last doxa is exactly parallel to this one, but more plausibly relates to the moon’s illumination. The emphatic mention of all (ἅπαντας) the heavenly bodies perhaps implies a contrast with the view that only some of them are illumined, e.g. the moon or the Milky Way, which may have been exploited in an earlier fuller tradition. §2 The text shifts from τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας for Metrodorus to τὰ ἄστρα for Strato, but as Sharples (2011) 107 notes, in both cases the reference is most likely to be to the stars and not the planets. The only other doxa attributed to Strato the Peripatetic in Book 2 is at 2.11.4, where he is reported to hold that the heaven is πύρινος, a view which—as Wehrli (1969) 64 notes—does not agree very well with the present view, although it is possible that he held that the stars both had their own light and reflected that of the sun. As in the case of the Cleanthes doxa at 2.16.1 it must be suspected that this doxa is mistaken. The phrase καὶ αὐτός used for Strato is rare in the Placita. It does not occur linked to a namelabel in P and is elsewhere only found at S 1.24.1h, i.e. in this same chapter, where it is plainly added for the doxa of Metrodorus to cover up a difficulty in the grand scheme of coalescence; see above ch. 2.15, Commentary A(2). The same process of splitting up an original doxa with multiple name-labels may have happened here (but note that there is no need for S to make the change here). §3 The same argument can be made for this doxa. It may be an expansion of a name that was part of a list of name-labels such as we saw for example in A 2.16.1. On Diotimus of Tyre see Dorandi DPhA 2.886. He was a disciple of Democritus, as indicated in Clem. Alex. Strom. 2.130.6 and S.E. M. 7.140. The scanty references to him are collected in DK 76. Dorandi accepts the brilliant conjecture that Diels makes here, even though he did not include it in his text of DG (but did do so when he published the first edition of the VS many years later). The name-label occurs only here in A. He is thus one of the 36 unique name-labels found in A’s compendium; see Jeremiah (2018) 302. §5 This argument is not found in the extant writings of Aristotle, though it follows on from the characteristics of the ‘first body’ (i.e. fifth element) as outlined in Cael. 1.3 270b1, where it is said to possess neither increase nor diminution. Effe (1970) 19 argues speculatively that it was put forward in the dialogue De philosophia as witnessed by Philo Aet. 21–24 and 74 (Critolaus); see our comments above on ch. 2.5, Commentary D(d)§1. §6 The doctrine attributed to Plato is clearly based, just like at A 2.5.2, on the text of Tim. 33c6–7 (cf. Philo Aet. 25–27 who cites this text). Here it is extra-

liber 2 caput 17

955

polated from the cosmos as a whole to the heavenly bodies. In their case the question may be asked why the stars, which primarily consist of fire (Tim. 40a2, cf. A 2.13.11), can burn everlastingly without consuming their fuel. On the Stoic view that this cannot be the case see the argument at Cicero ND 2.118 (SVF 1.593, text cited below section E(b)§4). On the sun’s sustenance from the sea see further on A 2.20.6. e Other Evidence On the evidence in Ach and Philo on whether stars are ensouled see above section B. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: cf. Achilles 13, p. 20.16 (title) εἰ ζῷα οἱ ἀστέρες. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.22 (on the heavenly bodies) ἔμψυχοι δὲ καὶ νοεροὶ ἢ νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἀμέτοχοι; Symeon Seth CRN 3.44 περὶ τούτου πολλὴ ἀμφιβολία τοῖς πάλαι σοφοῖς ἐγένετο. τινὲς γὰρ ὁρῶντες τὴν σελήνην παρὰ τοῦ ἡλίου δεχομένην τὸ φῶς ἀπεφήναντο καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν ἀστέρων, ὡς καὶ αὐτοὶ παρὰ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζονται. ἕτεροι δὲ ὁρῶντες τήν τε Ἀφροδίτην καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ὄντας καὶ μὴ πόρρωθεν αὐτοῦ ἀφισταμένους ὡς φωτίζεσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἐδόξασαν ἔχειν τούτους τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους οἰκεῖον φῶς. Chapter heading: see on ch. 2.28. §4 Heraclitus Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.144 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.650) τρέφεσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔμπυρα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα, τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης θαλάττης νοερὸν ὄντα ἄναμμα· τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποτίμων ὑδάτων …· τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. §5 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.22.1c (on Aristotle = fr. 9 Diels, cf. Cael. 1.3 270b1–3) συνεστάναι δὲ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος, τοῦτον δὲ οὔτε βαρὺν οὔτε κοῦφον οὔτε γενητὸν οὔτε φθαρτὸν οὔτε αὐξόμενον οὔτε μειούμενον ἐς ἀεὶ διαμένειν ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: §§1–3 Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a19–21 ἡ δὲ θερμότης ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων) καὶ τὸ φῶς γίνεται παρεκτριβομένου τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκείνων φορᾶς. Isidore of Seville Nat. 24 stellas non habere proprium lumen sed a sole inluminari dicunt nec eas umquam de caelo abscedere sed veniente sole celari. omnia enim sidera obscurantur sole oriente, non cadunt. nam dum sol ortus sui signa praemiserit, omnis stellarum ignis sub eius luminis fulgore evanescunt. Chapter heading: see on ch. 2.28. General texts: §§4–6 Aristotle Mete. 2.2 354b33–34, 355a18–21 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· … ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ μόνον φροντίσαι τοῦ ἡλίου, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων ἄστρων αὐτοὺς παριδεῖν

956

liber 2 caput 17

τὴν σωτηρίαν, τοσούτων καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ὄντων (and cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 73.9–13). Proclus in Tim. 2.87.23–88.13 οὐκ ἄρα δεῖ λέγειν τρέφεσθαι τὰ οὐράνια ἐκ τῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων, ὡς οἴονταί τινες· τὰ γὰρ δεόμενα τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπιρροῆς καὶ προσθήκην δεχόμενα καὶ ἀφαίρεσιν οὐκ ἀλύτους ἔχει τοὺς δεσμούς. ἄτρεπτα ἄρα μένει τὰ οὐράνια, ὥσπερ δὴ τῶν μὲν ἀρχαίων Πρόκλος τε ὁ Μαλλώτης καὶ Φιλωνίδης εἰρήκασι, τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων οἱ ἀπὸ Πλωτίνου πάντες Πλατωνικοί. §4 Heraclitus Stoics: Cicero ND 2.83 (on the earth, not in SVF) eiusdem exspirationibus et aër alitur et aether et omnia supera. ND 2.118 (SVF 2.593) sunt autem stellae natura flammeae, quocirca terrae maris aquarum⟨que reliquarum⟩ aluntur is qui a sole ex agris tepefactis et ex aquis excitantur; quibus vaporibus altae renovataeque stellae atque omnis aither refundunt eadem et rursum trahunt indidem, nihil ut fere intereat aut admodum paululum, quod astrorum ignis et aetheris flamma consumat. ND 3.37 quid enim, non eisdem vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo modo posse nisi alatur, ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus, alia marinis; eamque causam Cleanthes (SVF 1.501) adfert cur se sol referat nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat a cibo. Cleomedes Cael. 1.8.79–82 Todd οὐ χρὴ δὲ ἀπορεῖν ἐνταῦθα, πῶς ἡ γῆ στιγμιαία οὖσα πρὸς τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ κόσμου ἀναπέμπει τροφὴν τῷ τε οὐρανῷ καὶ τοῖς ἐμπεριεχομένοις ἐν αὐτῷ ἄστροις, τοσούτοις καὶ τὸ πλῆθος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος οὖσι. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 940C (SVF 2.677) καὶ γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν σελήνην, ὥσπερ τὸν ἥλιον ζῷον ὄντα πύρινον καὶ τῆς γῆς ὄντα πολλαπλάσιον, ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν φασι τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τρέφεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀστέρας ἀπείρους ὄντας. Stoic.Rep. 1053A (quoting Chrysippus, SVF 2.579) λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ Φύσεως· ‘ἡ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη· δι᾽ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ τρέπεται· κἀκ τούτου γῆς ὑφισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται· λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ· οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται’. Porphyry Antr. 11 διαβεβαιοῦνται δέ τινες καὶ τὰ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ οὐρανῷ ἀτμοῖς τρέφεσθαι ἐκ ναμάτων καὶ ποταμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναθυμιάσεων· τοῖς δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς ἥλιον μὲν τρέφεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναθυμιάσεως ἐδόκει, σελήνην δ᾽ ἐκ τῶν πηγαίων καὶ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα ἐκ τῆς ἀπὸ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄναμμα μὲν νοερὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ θαλάσσης, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποταμίων ὑδάτων, τοὺς δ᾽ ἀστέρας ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως τῆς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle Cael. 1.3 270b1–4 διότι μὲν οὖν ἀΐδιον καὶ οὔτ᾽ αὔξησιν ἔχον οὔτε φθίσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγήρατον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον καὶ ἀπαθές ἐστι τὸ πρῶτον τῶν σωμάτων, εἴ τις τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πιστεύει, φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐστίν. Met. Λ.8 1073a34 ἥ τε γὰρ τῶν ἄστρων φύσις ἀίδιος οὐσία τις οὖσα. cf. de Phil. fr. 19a Ross (= Philo of Alexandria Aet. 20–24). §6 Plato: Plato Tim. 33c–d ἀπῄει τε γὰρ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ προσῄειν αὐτῷ ποθεν— οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν—αὐτὸ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ τροφὴν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φθίσιν παρέχον καὶ πάντα ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ πάσχον καὶ δρῶν ἐκ τέχνης γέγονεν· ἡγήσατο γὰρ αὐτὸ ὁ συνθεὶς αὔταρκες ὂν ἄμεινον ἔσεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ προσδεὲς ἄλλων.

Liber 2 Caput 18 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889D; p. 347a1–9 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.49, p. 414 .18–22 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 60; p. 625.17–20 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–155 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 138, p. 72 Westerink (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24.1n, p. 204.17–20 Wachsmuth

Titulus ιηʹ. Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων (P) §1 Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους οἷον ἀστέρας νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν παραλάμποντα. (P1,S1) §2 Μητρόδωρος τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμῶν μετὰ δέους καὶ καταπλήξεως εἶναι στιλβηδόνας. (P2) §1 Xenophanes 21A39 DK; §2 Metrodorus 70A10 DK titulus Περί … Διοσκούρων PB(I)Q(ut vid.)Ps1 Mau Lachenaud : τῶν1 om. PB(II,III) : ἀστέρων PB(II,III)Ps2 : Περὶ τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων PE Diels : Περὶ τῶν Διοσκούρων PG §1 [2] τοὺς P : δὲ add. S ‖ ἀστέρας P : οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες add. S ‖ [3] παραλάμποντα PBQ(ut vid.)S : παραλάμποντας PEG2 (corr. Mras) : περιλάμποντα PG1 §2 non hab. S ‖ [5] δέους καὶ καταπλήξεως PBES : δέους PG : καταπλήξεως PQ

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus c. 60 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῶν Διοσκούρων (text Diels) 60.1 (~ P1) Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους οἷον ἀστέρας νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν περιλάμποντα. 60.2 (~ P2) Μητρόδωρος τῶν ὁρώντων ὀφθαλμῶν μετὰ δέους στιλβηδόνας εἶναι. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 138 Περὶ τῶν ἄστρων τῶν καλουμένων Διοσκούρων (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: quaestio cf. A 3.4 Περὶ νεφῶν κτλ. §1 A 2.13.13 (de astris) Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων. A 2.20.2 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.25.3 (de luna) Ξενοφάνης νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον. §2 A 4.9.1 Πυθαγόρας Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ξενοφάνης Παρμενίδης Ζήνων Μέλισσος Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Μητρόδωρος Πρωταγόρας Πλάτων ψευδεῖς εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_059

5

958

liber 2 caput 18

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In the tradition of P all four witnesses agree that it has two lemmata only. The main point of textual interest is the variation among the witnesses between longer and shorter titles. (2) S writes out only one of the two doxai in P, attaching the view of Xenophanes to an earlier doxa in 2.13. The words οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες have clearly been added in order to compensate for the fact that the heading of the chapter which refers to the Dioscuri was not included in the composite chapter heading of Ecl. 1.24. The omission of the Metrodoran doxa is puzzling because it goes against S’s usual practice and the lemma could have easily been added to other doxai of the same philosopher cited at 1.24.1h or 1.24.3. It may have been the result of oversight or S may have felt that the psychological explanation given fitted in less well with his collection of physical doxai. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (a) Proximate tradition. There are no doxographical parallels for this chapter apart from the tradition of A, including ‘cousin writings’ such as Ach. (b) Sources. The meteorological phenomenon is not discussed by Aristotle in his Meteorology. But a remark on the cause of lightning at Mete. 2.9 370a12– 22 shows some similarities, namely the view attributed to Cleidemus (fr. 62.1 DK) that lightning does not have an objective existence but is no more than an appearance and can be compared to the sea being struck (e.g. by an oar) at night, causing the water to flash (ἀποστίλβον 370a14). On the key role of the concept of reflection (τὰ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν) in Aristotle and its influence on the Placita see below section D(c). Other parallel texts are also scarce. The allegorical explanation of the Dioscuri in terms of the two hemispheres above and below the earth, which is found in Philo, Sextus and Lydus, is foreign to the method of the Placita. Seneca argues that it is a meteorological and not a theological phenomenon, and that if it gives hope (the Dioscuri were known as ‘saviours’, cf. Strabo 5.3.5), this occurs because it indicates that the storm is losing its force. Sextus also cites it in an argument as evidence for the existence of divinities in the air. Lydus records an arithmological doctrine attributed—no doubt spuriously—to Epimenides (one of the seven sages) and his followers. The chapter is an example of the kind of esoteric material that A likes to include.

liber 2 caput 18

959

C Chapter Heading The heading is of the usual Περὶ x type, moving from general questions on the heavenly bodies to a particular constellation. The tradition of P records four different headings. Given that all the other headings in chs. 2.13–19 contain either the term ἀστέρες or in one case (ch. 2.13) ἄστρα, it is prudent to retain the reference to the heavenly bodies. There is little to choose between the different readings of PB. Mau and Lachenaud against Diels opt for the longer heading in PB, Q and Ps, and we follow their lead. But should we read ἄστρων or ἀστέρων? We retain the former in the oldest ms. (and supported by the majority of the mss. of Ps), but the fact that the first lemma reads τοὺς ἀστέρας and its predominance in the headings of chs. 2.14–17 might induce one to choose the latter (it is found in the other mss. of PB and a minority of the mss. of Ps). D Analysis a Context So far in the section of Book 2 on the stars, all the chapters have treated themes for which there are analogous chapters elsewhere, e.g. on the cosmos or on the earth. This chapter and the next treat themes that are peculiar to the stars. One can compare the section on the moon (2.25–29) and the earth (3.9–17), which also end with chapters that discuss themes peculiar to these two bodies. The chapter deals with the phenomenon of St. Elmo’s fire. It could have easily found a place in Book 3 on meteorology. It may have been placed here perhaps because the mythical figures of the Dioscuri are also associated with the constellation of the Gemini (a late development, see below section D(e)). Since the phenomenon generally occurs at sea and was often taken as a portent, it is neatly placed between 2.17 (stars fed by the ocean) and 2.19 (stars as signs). b Number–Order of Lemmata There is every reason to think that the chapter in A originally only had the two lemmata preserved in P, particularly when we take the diaeretic structure into account. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter With its two doxai the chapter records the minimum brevity of presentation in the Placita, a single diaeresis with two opposed points of view (cf. chs. 2.8 and 2.10; 2.12 is an exception). The doxa of Xenophanes gives a physical explanation of the phenomenon in terms of his fiery cloud(let) theory, which occurs four times in Book 2 (also at A 2.13.13, 20.2, 25.3). The view of Metrodorus, in

960

liber 2 caput 18

contrast, presents a psychological or epistemological explanation, i.e. from the viewpoint of the observer. As noted above, this different kind of explanation may have been the reason why S omitted it. It is also possible to relate the diaeresis to the antithesis between reality (κατ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) and appearance (κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν) that is dominant in the meteorological chapters 3.1–6 and derives fairly directly from Aristotle’s Meteorologica. See further Introduction to Book 3, section 2, ch. 3.5 Commentary D(d) General points, and also Mansfeld (2005a). From this viewpoint the attribution of the doxa to Metrodorus is surprising because in his many other doxai recorded in Book 3 (A 3.1.3, 3.2.10, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 3.5.12, 3.7.3, 3.9.5, 3.15.6, 3.16.5) there is no evidence at all of non-substantial views. But, as Lachenaud notes ad loc., he is mentioned in A 4.9.1 as part of a long list of name-labels associated with the view that the senses are false. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As Mourelatos (2008) 134 points out, Xenophanes was almost certainly the first to offer a naturalistic explanation of this unusual meteorological phenomenon. He notes the parallel with fr. B32 DK ἥν τ᾽ Ἶριν καλέουσι, νέφος καὶ τοῦτο πέφυκε, / πορφύρεον καὶ φοινίκεον καὶ χλωρὸν ἰδέσθαι, but recognises that the phrase οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες may be an addition of the doxographer (or S, as we think). Diels DG 220 n. 2 was struck by the facts that the term νεφέλια is used to describe Xenophanes’ doctrine, which could not have occurred in his poem because it cannot fit the metre, and that this term for a cloudlet occurs on a number of occasions in Theophrastus (fr. 6.11, 20, 23, 43 Wimmer) and also at Aristotle Mete. 2.8 367b10. (He might have added that the fairly rare word στιλβηδών also occurs in Theophrastus at Hist.plant. 5.4.2.) The language betrays its source, he states. Such arguments are ingenious but attempt to prove more than is possible from the nature of the evidence. e Other Evidence No trace of this subject is found in Ach or the Aratea. As scholars have noted— see Bethe (1905) 1097, Kraus (1957) 1128–1129; Mourelatos (2008) 160 n. 16—the connection of the Dioscuri both with St. Elmo’s fire and with the constellation of the Gemini are late developments. No mention of the two brothers is made in the poems of Aratus and Manilius, but there is a reference to constellation in ps.Eratosthenes Cat. 10, to be dated to about the time of A. It should be noted that the connection with the Dioscuri in our chapter only occurs in the chapter heading, and not in its doxai. Allusions to St. Elmo’s fire and the assistance given

liber 2 caput 18

961

by the Dioscuri to sailors at sea are found a century later in Lucian Navig. 9, Charidemus 3. E b

Further Related Texts Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: ps.Eratosthenes Cat. 10, p. 31.1–6 Pàmias I Massana–Zucker Διδύμων. οὗτοι λέγονται Διόσκουροι εἶναι· ἐν δὲ τῇ Λακωνικῇ τραφέντες ἐπιφάνειαν ἔσχον· φιλαδελφίᾳ δὲ ὑερήνεγκαν πάντας· οὔτε γὰρ περὶ ἀρχῆς οὔτε περὶ ἄλλου τινὸς ἤρισαν· μνήμην δὲ αὐτῶν Ζεὺς θέσθαι βουλόμενος τῆς κοινότητος, Διδύμους ὀνομάσας εἰς τὸ αὐτὸἀμφοτέρους ἔστησεν ἐν τοῖς ἄστροις. Strabo 3.5.3 καὶ ἐν μὲν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Διοσκούρων ἱερὸν ἱδρυσαμένους τιμᾶν οὓς πάντες σωτῆρας ὀνομάζουσιν … Philo Decal. 56 τόν τε οὐρανὸν εἰς ἡμισφαίρια τῷ λόγῳ διχῇ διανείμαντες, τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ γῆς, τὸ δ᾽ ὑπὸ γῆς, Διοσκόρους ἐκάλεσαν. Seneca Nat. 1.1.9–13, illud enim stultissimum, existimare aut decidere stellas aut transilire … argumentum tempestatis nautae putant, cum multae trasvolant stellae. quod si ventorum signum est, ibi est unde venti sunt, id est in aere, qui medius inter lunam terrasque est. in magna tempestate apparere quasi stellae solent velo insidentes; adiuvari se tunc periclitantes aestimant Pollucis et Castoris numine. causa autem melioris spei est quod iam apparet frangi tempestatem et desinere ventos … Sextus Empiricus M. 9.37 τὰ γὰρ δύο ἡμισφαίρια, τό τε ὑπὲρ γῆν καὶ τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν, Διοσκούρους οἱ σοφοὶ τῶν τότε ἀνθρώπων ἔλεγον. M. 9.86 εἴπερ τε ἐν γῇ καὶ θαλάσσῃ πολλῆς οὔσης παχυμερείας ποικίλα συνίσταται ζῷα ψυχικῆς τε καὶ αἰσθητικῆς μετέχοντα δυνάμεως, πολλῷ πιθανώτερόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, πολὺ τὸ καθαρὸν καὶ εἰλικρινὲς ἔχοντι παρὰ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, ἔμψυχά τινα καὶ νοερὰ συνίστασθαι ζῷα. καὶ τούτῳ συμφωνεῖ τὸ τοὺς Διοσκούρους ἀγαθούς τινας εἶναι δαίμονας, σωτῆρας εὐσέλμων νεῶν. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.17 οἱ φιλόσοφοί φασι Διοσκόρους εἶναι τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν καὶ ὑπὲρ γῆν ἡμισφαίριον· τελευτῶσι δὲ ἀμοιβαδὸν μυθικῶς, οἱονεὶ ὑπὸ τοὺς ἀντίποδας ἐξ ἀμοιβῆς φερόμενοι. οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἐπιμενίδην (3B26 DK) ἄρρενα καὶ θήλειαν ἐμύθευσαν τοὺς Διοσκόρους, τὸν μὲν αἰῶνα, ὥσπερ μονάδα, τὴν δὲ φύσιν, ὡς δυάδα, καλέσαντες· ἐκ γὰρ μονάδος καὶ δυάδος ὁ πᾶς ζωογονικὸς καὶ ψυχογονικὸς ἐξεβλάστησεν ἀριθμός. Chapter heading: — §2 Metrodorus: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.9 370a10–19 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ τὴν ἀστραπήν, ὥσπερ καὶ Κλείδημος (62.1 DK), οὐκ εἶναί φασιν ἀλλὰ φαίνεσθαι, παρεικάζοντες ὡς τὸ πάθος ὅμοιον ὂν καὶ ὅταν τὴν θάλαττάν τις ῥάβδῳ τύπτῃ· φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποστίλβον τῆς νυκτός· οὕτως ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ ῥαπιζομένου τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὴν φάντασιν τῆς λαμπρότητος εἶναι τὴν ἀστραπήν. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν οὔπω συνήθεις ἦσαν ταῖς περὶ τῆς ἀνακλάσεως δόξαις, ὅπερ αἴτιον δοκεῖ τοῦ τοιούτου πάθους εἶναι· φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ στίλβειν τυπτόμενον ἀνακλωμένης ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τῆς ὄψεως πρός τι τῶν λαμπρῶν.

Liber 2 Caput 19 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889E–F; p. 347a10–28 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 61; p. 625.21–23 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–155 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 136, p. 71 Westerink (titulus solus)—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.45, p. 48.15 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.24, p. 201.23 + 1.24.1k p. 203.16–17 + 1.24.1l, p. 204.1–3 + 1.24.4, p. 206.12–17 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b9–10 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ιθʹ. Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων (P,S) §1 Πλάτων τὰς ἐπισημασίας τάς τε χειμερινὰς καὶ τὰς θερινὰς κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιτολάς τε καὶ δυσμὰς γίνεσθαι, ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν. (P1,S2) §2 Ἀναξιμένης δὲ διὰ μὲν ταῦτα μηδὲν τούτων, διὰ δὲ τὸν ἥλιον μόνον. (P2,S1) §3 Εὔδοξος Ἄρατος κοινῶς διὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀστέρας, ἐν οἷς φησιν· αὐτὸς γὰρ τά γε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξεν, ἄστρα διακρίνας· ἐσκέψατο δ᾽ εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν ἀστέρας, οἵ κε μάλιστα τετυγμένα σημαίνοιεν. (P3,S3) §1 Plato Tim. 40c–d; §2 Anaximenes 13A14 DK; §3 Eudoxus F 142 Lasserre; Aratus Phaen. 10–12. titulus Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων scripsimus, cf. Περὶ ἐπισημασίας PG, περὶ … ἀστέρων PB(I,III)Ps (τῶν ἀστέρων PB(II)) : καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος add. PBPs, cf. Über die (Wetter)Konstellationen der Jahreszeiten Q : al. PSy Πῶς γίνονται οἱ τέσσαρες καιροί : cf. S Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων … τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας (vid. app. ad 2.14) §1 [2] τάς τε χειμερινὰς … θερινὰς S (et PB(III:Laur.31.37)) PG (om. τε), cf. die winterlichen und sommerlichen Q : τάς τε θερινὰς καὶ τὰς χειμερινὰς PB ‖ post τάς1 add. δὲ S ‖ [3] ἀστέρων PBG, ἄστρων S ‖ τε καὶ δυσμὰς om. PG ‖ [3–4] ἡλίου … ἀπλανῶν PBQ : om. PGS et secl. Diels (πλανητῶν καὶ om. PQ) ‖ [4] πλανητῶν PB(I,III) : τε add. PB(II) ‖ καὶ PB(I,III) : τε καὶ PB(II) §§2–3 non hab. PG §2 [5] Ἀναξιμένης … μόνον PB : τὰς δὲ ἐπισημασίας γίγνεσθαι διὰ τὸν ἥλιον μόνον S ‖ δὲ PB(II), cf. S : om. PB(I,III) ‖ ταῦτα PB(II) : ταύτην (i.e. lunam?) PB(I,III) §3 [7] Εὔδοξος … φησιν PB : Εὔδοξος καὶ Ἄρατος τὰς ἐπισημασίας κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἄστρων ἐπιτολὰς γίνεσθαι. λέγει γοῦν Ἄρατος ἐν τοῖς Φαινομένοις οὕτως S ‖ [8] τά γε S Aratus : τάδε PB ‖ σήματ᾽ PBQSP : σώματ᾽ SF ‖ [10] οἵ κε PB Aratus : οἱ καὶ SP, οἳ SF, οἵ τε Meineke, οἵ κε prob. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ μάλιστα PB(I,III)S Aratus : μάλα PB(II) ‖ σημαίνοιεν PB Aratus : σημαίνουσιν S

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 61 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἐπισημασίας (text Diels) 61.1 (~ P1) Πλάτων τὰς ἐπισημασίας τὰς χειμερινὰς καὶ τὰς θερινὰς κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἀστέρων ἐπιτολὰς γίνεσθαι.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_060

5

10

liber 2 caput 19

963

Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 136 Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων, καὶ πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θέρος (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.45 Πῶς γίνονται οἱ τέσσαρες καιροί (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.8 Περὶ χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους. cf. S 1.25 (tit.) Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου καὶ μεγέθους σχήματός τε καὶ τροπῶν καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ σημείων καὶ κινήσεως. 1.26 (tit.) Περὶ σελήνης οὐσίας καὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος ⟨φωτισμῶν τε καὶ περὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως καὶ περὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ σημείων⟩ (suppl. e Phot.). §1 Cf. A 2.16.6 Πλάτων καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ταὐτον πεπονθέναι τῷ ἑωσφόρῳ τὸν στίλβωνα ἰσοδραμεῖν δὲ αὐτοὺς τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ συμπεριφέρεσθαι αὐτῷ· καὶ τότε μὲν προανατέλλοντα ἑωσφόρον φαίνεσθαι, τότε δὲ ἐπικαταδυόμενον ἕσπερον καλεῖσθαι. §2 Cf. A 3.4.4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν. §3 A 5.18.6 (de in septimo et octavo mense partibus) οἱ δὲ μαθηματικοὶ τοὺς ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἀσυνδέτους φασὶν εἶναι πάσης γενέσεως, τοὺς δ᾽ ἑπτὰ συνδετικούς· τὰ δ᾽ ἀσύνδετα ζῴδια ἐστιν, ἐὰν τῶν οἰκοδεσποτούντων ἀστέρων τυγχάνῃ· ἐὰν γάρ τις τούτων τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὸν βίον κληρώσηται, δυστυχεῖς καὶ ἀχρόνους σημαίνει …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) Three lemmata are preserved in the Byzantine mss. and in Q. G only has the title (in a shortened form) and an abridged version of the first doxa. E does not copy out this chapter, which hampers the determination of the text. (2) 2.19 is the final chapter that S absorbs into his grand scheme of coalescence in Ecl. 1.24. He writes out all three lemmata also found in P, making significant adaptations of the text in the first two. He also includes a reference to the chapter heading in his combined title for 1.24, Περὶ οὐσίας ἄστρων καὶ σχημάτων, κινήσεώς τε καὶ ἐπισημασίας. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There is no clear evidence of doxographical treatment of this theme in the proximate tradition comparable to what we find in this chapter. However, It is possible that Philo’s reference to the heavenly bodies’ συμπάθεια πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ ἐπίγεια at Somn. 1.53 is an allusion to the subject of our chapter. This text belongs to a cluster of Philonic texts dependent on

964

liber 2 caput 19

an earlier phase of the doxographical tradition; see further ch. 2.11 Commentary B, 2.13 Commentary B. We note also a scholion to the same lines from Aratus quoted by A, which gives a view on the subject that is formulated in a manner quite similar to that found in A (text below under section E(a)§3). The example of the Pleiades is the same as is found in the text in Pliny to be discussed below. (2) Sources. The general theme of the interaction between the movements of the heavenly bodies and the turning of the seasons goes back to Hesiod (Op. 414–419). The more specific theme of the signs of the seasons indicated by the heavenly bodies and in particular their risings and settings is perhaps alluded to by Plato in the Timaeus (hence the doxa in this chapter), but is absent in Aristotle. Theophrastus certainly wrote a book Περὶ σημείων. We know this from Diogenes’ lists and from a report in Proclus, who tells us that he discussed the Chaldeans in this work and made reference to their astrological doctrines (texts below under section E(b) General texts). See further Cronin (1992) 310, Sharples (1998b) 162. The surviving treatise under his name with that title is spurious (though Cronin 1992, 336 concludes that Theophrastus’ treatise may have been one of its sources). It prominently cites the theme in its opening section. Epicurus in his letter to Pythocles discusses the subject of weather signs and in fact uses the same term ἐπισημασία that we find in A, but in his listing of causes he makes no reference to the heavenly bodies. Later texts in Geminus, Vitruvius and Ptolemy make reference to astronomers or philosophers who have concerned themselves with seasonal signs, including Eudoxus and Aratus (and also Aristotle); see the texts cited below under section E(b) General texts and §3. The last-mentioned text belongs to the tradition of ‘Star calendars’ (παραπήγματα), to which Pliny refers at NH 18.213, giving as an instance of disagreement the different views on the morning setting of the Pleiades by Hesiod, Thales, Anaximander, Euctemon and Eudoxus. But this tradition differs from what we encounter in A. C Chapter Heading The heading in its fullest form combines the common Περὶ x formula with a question enquiring after the cause introduced as often by πῶς. All of the transmitted chapter headings, however, are problematic (the early evidence of E is sorely missed). PB supported by Ps has a double title. The first part covers the contents of the chapter well. The second part adds a subject that is not covered by the doxai themselves, which discuss not how winter and summer occur but what signs of their occurrence are given by the risings and settings of the heavenly bodies. It may, however, have been inspired by the first Platonic doxa which speaks of signs relating to winter and summer (note the same order of winter followed by summer in both heading and doxa). G’s heading is

liber 2 caput 19

965

greatly shortened. Since every other chapter heading in the section 2.13–19 has a reference to the heavenly bodies, it is not likely that it will be missing here. The heading preserved by Q appears to be based on the contents of the chapter rather than on the original Greek text (though the reference to the seasons may allude to the second half of the heading in P). The different heading in Sy is based on the second half in PB. A decision needs to be made between the shorter and longer versions of the heading. Given the evidence of G and the likelihood that the second part is a (superfluous) deduction from the first doxa, it is preferable to choose the shorter version, though of course including a reference to the heavenly bodies. This choice has the advantage of retaining consistency with the other chapter headings in 2.13–18. A similar dilemma occurs in the very next chapter 2.20 on the sun. The shorter version is also supported by S in his conflated heading of 2.13–19, but of course we need to take into account that he may have abridged a longer title present in his text of A. D Analysis a Context The final chapter on the heavenly bodies, just like the previous one, introduces a meteorological aspect, examining their role as purveyors of signs in relation to the seasons. It forms a good transition to the two groups of chapters on the sun and the moon, both of which have a more direct influence on the earth. b Number–Order of Lemmata It is very likely that our two main witnesses preserve all the doxai in this chapter. S reverses the sequence of the first two doxai, but this can be explained through the process of coalescence. There is thus no reason to suggest that the order differed from what is preserved in P. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The subject of the chapter is indicated by the relatively uncommon term ἐπισημασία in the chapter heading, which is repeated in the first and third doxa (in the second it has been added by S). The context makes clear that it refers to ‘indications of the (changes of the) seasons’. The theme itself goes back to Hesiod (cf. Op. 414–419, 546–548), but the poet scarcely makes an appearance in the Placita (he only occurs in 1.6, a chapter that to some extent differs from the usual method of the work). The first two doxai reveal a simple diaeresis: Plato regards the signs of seasonal change as occurring through the rising and setting of all the heavenly bodies, whereas Anaximenes attributes these signs to the sun only. The Platonic view is derived from Tim. 40c8–d2, where Plato says

966

liber 2 caput 19

that the movements of the heavenly bodies produce ‘fears and signs of events that will happen after these things to those who are unable to calculate’ (φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι). At some stage in the textual transmission of this sentence after Cicero the word οὐ fell away and so the pronouncement lost its negative force, as can be seen in the comments on the text by Proclus cited section E(b)§1 (on this text see further Taylor 1928, 244). The doxa is based on the occurrence of the term σημεῖα, but there is no specific reference to the seasons in the passage. The third lemma does not add a new view but amounts to an illustration of the Platonic view by means of a poetic quote. A similar technique is used in the case of Empedocles in Α 1.30.1 and for the anonymous doxa in Α 5.19.2. Both Eudoxus and Aratus wrote works with the title Φαινόμενα. Aratus is named only here, though his verses are also cited in ch. 1.6[20–24]. Eudoxus is credited with a view on the sources of the Nile at ch. 4.1.7. On the occurrence of poetic quotes in the Placita see M–R 2.1.207. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 We have not followed Diels in bracketing the words, ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν though they are missing in S and G (but not in Q). Though it is possible that they are a gloss, it is more likely that they were omitted from a fuller original than that they were added. The retention of the phrase heightens the antithesis with the next doxa. The adjectives χειμερινάς and θερινάς qualifying the noun ἐπισημασίας are unclear in their precise meaning: they could refer to signs relating to winter and summer or signs taking place during those seasons. The theme of the chapter makes the former meaning more likely. §2 The formulation is characteristically loose. τούτων must refer to σημεῖα, though the term has not been used so far in the chapter. ταῦτα (neuter) must refer to ἀστέρων (masculine), unless we read ἄστρων with S, and of course it does not include the sun. §3 Poetic quotations are rare in A, except in the opening chapters of Book 1 (there are eleven poetic quotes in chs. 1.1–7). This is the only example in Book 2. The text introducing the quote in S, which refers specifically to its author and location, is much clearer than in P, where it has to be deduced that Aratus is the author. The words λέγει οὖν, however, are a tell-tale sign of S’s intervention in the text; cf. M–R 1.233. For examples of poetic quotes introduced by the verb φησί see A 1.3.20, 1.6.1, 4.12.1 (in the last passage the subject is the character in the play, not the author). At A 1.25.4 a prose quote from Leucippus is introduced as λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ. In the absence of further evidence the formulation in P should be retained.

liber 2 caput 19

967

It is of interest to compare the quoted lines in A with the textual transmission of the Aratean text; see the edition of Kidd (1997) ad loc. There is some variation in the readings in the mss. of the witnesses (see the apparatus above). The temptation must be resisted to accommodate readings to the text transmitted in the Aratean tradition. Nevertheless in all cases the best reading is the same as found in the Aratean tradition. The only case where one might hesitate is in the first line, where P reads τάδε. Here S reads τά γε, which is the reading in the Aratean tradition. It is always possible that S might have introduced a correction, but in this case it is justified to print his text. The lines themselves were well-known and are cited twice by Ach in different contexts at ch. 1.7, p. 7.8–10 and in ch. 15 (first line only). e Other Evidence A very late text in the Arabic work Turba philosophorum (c. 900), later translated into Latin (no later than 13th cent.), preserves information on Anaximenes which shows how his ἀήρ doctrine could be adapted to explain the advent of the seasons. It is thus consistent with the doxa in A, but there is no contrast with other views. On this text see Rudolph (1990), Lacaze (2018) 52–57, 353–354, who argue that the doxographical source is to be identified with Hippolytus (cf. Ref. 1.7.3). It should be noted, however, that in that doxographical account there is no reference to the seasons. E a

Further related texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 τί δὲ περὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων φύσεως ἢ περιφορᾶς ἢ συμπαθείας πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τἀπίγεια; cf. Opif. 58 (on heavenly bodies) γεγόνασι καὶ ὅπως σημεῖα μελλόντων προφαίνωσιν· ἢ γὰρ ἀνατολαῖς αὐτῶν ἢ δύσεσιν ἢ ἐκλείψεσιν ἢ πάλιν ἐπιτολαῖς ἢ ἀποκρύψεσιν ἢ ταῖς ἄλλαις περὶ τὰς κινήσεις διαφοραῖς ἄνθρωποι τὰ ἀποβησόμενα στοχάζονται, … ὡρῶν τῶν ἐτησίων ὑπαλλαγὰς ἢ θέρους χειμαίνοντος ἢ χειμῶνος φλέγοντος ἢ ἔαρος μετοπωρίζοντος ἢ μετοπώρου ἐαρίζοντος (cf. also Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 6.4). Schol. Arat. 10, p. 54.5 Martin (on Aratus) αὐτὸς γὰρ τῶν ὡρῶν σημεῖα ἐποιήσατο τοὺς ἀστέρας. ἐθέλει δὲ τὰς ἀνατολὰς αὐτῶν καὶ τὰς δύσεις δηλῶσαι, οἷον Πληιάδων ἑῴαν ἐπιτολὴν ἀρχῇ θέρους γίνεσθαι, δύσιν δὲ ἑῴαν ἀρχῇ χειμῶνος. Chapter heading: — §3 Eudoxus Aratus: Achilles 15, p. 22.14–18 Di Maria ὁ Ἄρατος (Phaen. 10) τῇ τῶν πολλῶν δόξῃ κατακολουθήσας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἐναρηρέναι φησὶ τῶι οὐρανῷ ‘αὐτὸς γὰρ τάδε σήματ᾽ ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐστήριξε’ παρὰ τὸ ‘ἐστήριξεν’ ἀστέρας αὐτοὺς παρετυμολογῶν.

968 b

liber 2 caput 19

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: ps.Eudoxus Χειμῶνος προγνωστικά (title), p. 183.1 Boll. Theophrastus fr. 194 FHS&G at Proclus in Tim. 3.151.1–9 θαυμασιωτάτην δὲ εἶναί φησιν ὁ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς κατ᾽ αὐτὸν χρόνοις τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων περὶ ταῦτα θεωρίαν, τά τε ἄλλα προλέγουσαν καὶ τοὺς βίους ἑκάστων καὶ τοὺς θανάτους, καὶ οὐ τὰ κοινὰ μόνον, οἷον χειμῶνας καὶ εὐδίας, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ἀστέρα τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ χειμῶνος μὲν ἐκφανῆ γενόμενον ψύχη σημαίνειν, καύματα δὲ θέρους εἰς ἐκείνους ἀναπέμπει· πάντα δ᾽ οὖν αὐτοὺς καὶ τὰ ἴδια καὶ τὰ κοινὰ προγινώσκειν ἀπὸ τῶν οὐρανίων ἐν τῇ Περὶ Σημείων βίβλῳ φησὶν ἐκεῖνος. ps.Theophrastus Sign. 1 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄστροις δυομένοις καὶ ἀνατέλλουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἀστρονομικῶν δεῖ λαμβάνειν. Sign. 5– 6 ἄλλα δέ ἐστι σημεῖα ἃ λαμβάνεται ἀπό τε ζώων τῶν κατ᾽ οἰκίαν καὶ ἑτέρων τινῶν τόπων καὶ παθημάτων, μάλιστα δὲ κυριώτατα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης· ἡ γὰρ σελήνη νυκτὸς οἷον ἥλιός ἐστι· διὸ καὶ αἱ σύνοδοι τῶν μηνῶν χειμέριοί εἰσιν ὅτι ἀπολείπει τὸ φῶς τῆς σελήνης ἀπὸ τετράδος φθίνοντος μέχρι τετράδος ἱσταμένου. ὥσπερ οὖν ἡλίου ἀπόλειψις γίνεται κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον καὶ τῆς σελήνης ἔκλειψις. (6) δεῖ οὖν προσέχειν μάλιστα ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ταῖς τούτων καὶ ταῖς δύσεσιν ὁποίας ἂν ποιῶνται τὸν βουλόμενον προγινώσκειν. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.99 ἐπισημασίαι δύνανται γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ συγκυρήσεις καιρῶν, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς ἐμφανέσι παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ζῴοις, καὶ παρ᾽ ἑτεροιώσεις ἀέρος καὶ μεταβολάς. ἀμφότερα γὰρ ταῦτα οὐ μάχεται τοῖς φαινομένοις· ἐπὶ δὲ ποίοις παρὰ τοῦτο ἢ τοῦτο τὸ αἴτιον γίνεται οὐκ ἔστι συνιδεῖν. Corpus Hippocraticum Hebd. 2.2.1–5 West τὰ τοίνυν ἄστρα τὰ οὐράνια ἑπτὰ ἐόντα τάξιν ἔχει τῶν ὡρέων ἐκδοχῆς, μεμ⟨ρτισ⟩μενην· ᾧ⟨ν ἐπ⟩ μιῆς μὲν ὁ ἥλιος, ἡλίῳ δὲ σελήνη ⟨ἀκουλουθέει⟩· ἀκολουθέει δὲ Ἄρκτος τῷ Ἀρκτούρῳ ἀκολουθίην ἴ⟨σην⟩ ὥσπερ ἡλίῳ σελήνη· αἱ δὲ Πλειάδες τῇ⟨σιν Ὑάσιν⟩ ἀκολουθέουσιν· τῷ δὲ Ὠρίωνι ὁ Κύων. Pliny Nat. 18.213, occasum matutinum vergiliarum (i.e. Pleiades) Hesiodus … tradidit fieri cum aequinoctium autumni conficeretur, Thales (fr. 116 Wöhrle) XXV die ab aequinoctio, Anaximander (fr. 44 Wöhrle) XXX, Euctemon XLIV, Eudoxus (F 192b Lasserre) XLVIII. nos sequimur observationem Caesaris maxime … Ptolemy Phas. 66–67 Heiberg καὶ τούτων ἀνέγραψα τὰς ἐπισημασίας καὶ κατέταξα κατά τε Αἰγυπτίους καὶ Δοσίθεον, Φίλιππον, Κάλλιππον, Εὐκτήμονα, Μέτωνα, Κόνωνα, Μητρόδωρον, Εὔδοξον (F 143 Lasserre), Καίσαρα, Δημόκριτον (68B14.7 DK), Ἵππαρχον. Chapter heading: cf. Theophrastus Περὶ σημείων (title recorded at D.L. 5.45); also spurious treatise preserved in corpus of Theophrastean works Περὶ σημείων ὑδάτων καὶ πνευμάτων καὶ χειμώνων καὶ εὐδιῶν. cf. Bolus at Suda s.v. B 482, p. 1.490.1–3 Adler Βῶλος, Μενδήσιος, Πυθαγόρειος (68B300.1 DK) … Περὶ σημείων τῶν ἐξ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἄρκτου καὶ λύχνου καὶ ἴριδος. see also Ptolemy Phas. 66 cited above. §1 Plato: Plato Tim. 40c3–d2 χορείας δὲ τούτων αὐτῶν (sc. ἄστρων) καὶ παραβολὰς ἀλλήλων, καὶ {περὶ} τὰς τῶν κύκλων πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ἐπανακυκλήσεις καὶ προχωρήσεις, ἔν τε ταῖς συνάψεσιν ὁποῖοι τῶν θεῶν κατ᾽ ἀλλήλους γιγνόμενοι καὶ ὅσοι καταντικρύ, μεθ᾽ οὕστινάς τε ἐπίπροσθεν ἀλλήλοις ἡμῖν τε κατὰ χρόνους οὕστινας ἕκαστοι κατακαλύπτονται καὶ πάλιν ἀναφαινόμενοι φόβους καὶ σημεῖα τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα γενησομένων τοῖς οὐ δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι πέμπουσιν … Galen Di.Dec.

liber 2 caput 19 9.914.13 K. ἐν μὲν τοῖς ὀξέσι νοσήμασιν ἡ ἑβδομάς ἐστιν, ἐν δ᾽ αὖ τοῖς χρονίοις αἱ τῶν ἐπιφανεστάτων ἄστρων εἰσὶν ἐπισημασίαι, καθ᾽ ἃς ἔαρ καὶ θέρος καὶ χειμὼν καὶ φθινόπωρον ἀφορίζονται. Proclus in Tim. 3.149.16–20 (on Tim. 40c9–d1) τὰς δὲ ‘κατὰ χρόνους αὐτῶν κατακαλύψεις καὶ πάλιν ἐκφάνσεις’ οἰητέον τὰς κρύψεις τὰς ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὰς φάσεις, ἃς ἀμφοτέρας μεγάλων τινῶν εἶναι ποιητικὰς καὶ σημαντικὰς λέγουσιν οἱ ταῦτα δεινοί. in Tim. 3.150.28–151.1 ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰς κινήσεις τῶν οὐρανίων ‘φόβους’ εἶπε ‘καὶ σημεῖα τῶν γιγνομένων’ παρέχειν ‘τοῖς δυναμένοις λογίζεσθαι’, τοσοῦτον ἰστέον, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἐκεῖνα σημαίνειν οἰητέον, ἀλλὰ σημεῖα γεγονότων ὄντα σημαντικά τινων. διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς τῶν σημαντικῶν ἑαυτοῖς ἐνεργειῶν προηγουμένως ἐμνήσθη (there follows the reference to Theophrastus cited under General texts above). §2 Anaximenes: Turba philosophorum 6.1–7, pp. 352.11–354.8 Lacaze (Latin version, original Arabic text is lost) ait Eximedrus (= Anaximenes, fr. 232 Wöhrle): magnifico aera et honorifico, ut Eximedri roborum sermonem, eo quod per ipsum opus emendatur, et conspissatur et rarescit, (354) et calefit et frigescit. (2) eius autem spissitudo fit, quando disiungitur propter solis elongationem. (3) eius vero raritas fit, quando in caelo exaltato sole calescit aer et rarescit. (4) similiter vero fit in veris complexione, in temporis nec calidi nec frigidi distinctione. (5) nam secundum alterationem dispositionis constitutae ad distinctiones anni alterandas, hyems alteratur. (6) aer igitur spissatur, cum ab eo sol elongatur, et tunc hominibus frigus pervenit. (7) aere vero rarescente prope fit sol, quo propinquo et aere rarescente calor pervenit hominibus. §3 Eudoxus Aratus: Geminus Elem. 17.46–49, pp. 92–93 Aujac (on Aratus) ὅθεν βελτίοσιν ἄν τις σημείοις χρήσαιτο τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῖν διδομένοις, οἷς καὶ Ἄρατος κέχρηται. τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτολῶν καὶ δύσεων τῶν ἄστρων γινομένας μεταβολὰς τοῦ ἀέρος ὡς διεψευσμένας παρέλιπε, τὰς δὲ φυσικῶς γινομένας καὶ μετά τινος αἰτίας κατεχώρισεν ἐν τῇ τῶν Φαινομένων πραγματείᾳ ἐπὶ πᾶσι τῆς ὅλης συντάξεως. (47) λαμβάνει γὰρ τὰς προγνώσεις ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνατολῆς καὶ δύσεως, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τῆς σελήνης ἀνατολῶν καὶ δύσεων, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἅλω τῆς γινομένης περὶ τὴν σελήνην, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν διαϊσσόντων ἀστέρων, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων. (48) αἱ γὰρ ἀπὸ τούτων προγνώσεις μετά τινος φυσικῆς αἰτίας γινόμεναι κατηναγκασμένα ἔχουσι τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. ὅθεν καὶ Βόηθος ὁ φιλόσοφος (—) ἐν τῷ τετάρτῳ βιβλίῳ τῆς Ἀράτου ἐξηγήσεως φυσικὰς τὰς αἰτίας ἀποδέδωκε τῶν τε πνευμάτων καὶ ὄμβρων, ἐκ τῶν προειρημένων εἰδῶν τὰς προγνώσεις ἀποφαινόμενος. (49) τούτοις δὲ τοῖς σημείοις καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὁ φιλόσοφος (ps.Aristotle or Theophrastus Περὶ σημείων, Arist. fr. 249 Rose3) κέχρηται καὶ Εὔδοξος (F 139 Lasserre) καὶ ἕτεροι πλείονες τῶν ἀστρολόγων. Vitruvius 9.6.3 quorum (sc. the natural philosophers) inventa secuti siderum et occasus tempestatumque significatus Eudoxus (F 138 Lasserre), Eudemus (—), Callippus, Meto, Philippus, Hipparchus, Aratus ceterique ex astrologia parapegmatorum disciplinis invenerunt et eas posteris explicatas reliquerunt.

969

Liber 2 Caput 20 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 889F–890C; pp. 348a1–351a2 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.23, pp. 400.9–401.10, cf. 7.11.13, p. 385.21–22 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 62; DG pp. 625.24–626.12 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 154–157 Daiber— PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 126, p. 67 (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.13 (tit.) + 1.25.1a, p. 207.13–17 + 1.25.1bc, pp. 207.23– 208.8 + 1.25.1d, p. 208.15–16 + 1.25.1efg, pp. 208.20–209.6 + 1.25.3a, p. 209.22– 23 + 1.25.3b, p. 209.27 + 1.25.3c, p. 210.5–6 + 1.25.3de, pp. 210.9–211.1 + 1.25.3f, p. 211.4–6 + 1.25.3g, p. 211.9–14 + 1.25.3i, p. 211.18–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.21, p. 105.16–106.1 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.5–19; cf. c. 2, p. 9.5 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.18–20 Martin

Titulus κʹ. Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, ἁρματείῳ τροχῷ παραπλήσιον τὴν ἁψῖδα ἔχοντα κοίλην, πλήρη πυρός, κατά τι μέρος ἐκφαίνουσαν διὰ στομίου τὸ πῦρ ὥσπερ διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ· καὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. (P1,S3) §2 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. (S1,T1,cf.P2b) §3 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον. (S4+5) §1 Anaximander 12A21 DK; §2 Xenophanes 21A40 DK; §3 Anaximenes 13A15 DK; Parmenides 28A41 DK titulus Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου PB(I,III)QS, cf. Ach : Περὶ ἡλίου PB(II)EG ‖ καὶ ὅτι δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν add. PB(I,II) (καὶ ante δύο add. PB(II)), καὶ εἰ πολλοί εἰσιν ἥλιοι add. PPs : conflat S tit. cc. 2.20–24 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (2.20) καὶ μεγέθους (2.21) σχήματός (2.22) τε καὶ τροπῶν (2.23) καὶ ἐκλείψεως (2.24) καὶ σημείων (—) καὶ κινήσεως (—) §1 [2] κύκλον] τὸν κύκλον αὐτοῦ PG ‖ ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα PBEGS : ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλασίονα PQ(ut vid.) ‖ ἁρματείῳ PEGS : ἁρματίου PB ‖ [3] παραπλήσιον … κοίλην Diels Mau Lachenaud : παραπλήσιον post ἁψῖδα PBE (κοῖλον PE) : παραπλήσιον ἔχοντα κοίλην περιφέρειαν S : παραπλησίως ἔχοντα κοίλην (καὶ πλήρη πυρός) PG : cf. Ihre Rundung ist wie die Rundung des Himmelsphäre der Milchstraße. Sie is hohl … Q ‖ [3–4] κατά τι μέρος PE : ante κατά add. ἧς PB del. Diels Mau Lachenaud : κατὰ μέρος PGS : om. PQ ‖ [4] ἐκφαίνουσαν S : ἐκφαίνοντα PE1 Mras : ἐκφαίνουσης PBE2 corr. Diels ‖ στομίου] στενοῦ PG ‖ [4–5] ὥσπερ … ἥλιον PBE : αὐλοῦ … ἥλιον om. S : cf. wie die Blitze erscheinen. Das is bei der Form der Sonne (der Fall) Q : al. PG ὡς δι᾽ αὐλοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐκπέμπεσθαι §2 [6] εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον fort. add. S (sed cf. T) §3 [7] Ἀναξιμένης … ἥλιον ex S (vid. comm.) : ἀπεφήνατο add. S ipse verisimiliter

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_061

5

liber 2 caput 20

Ἀντιφῶν πῦρ ἐπινεμόμενον μὲν τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑγρὸν ἀέρα, ἀνατολὰς δὲ καὶ δύσεις ποιούμενον τῷ τὸν μὲν ἐπικαιόμενον αἰεὶ προλείπειν, τοῦ δ᾽ ὑπονοτιζομένου πάλιν ἀντέχεσθαι. (S6) §5 Ξενοφάνης, ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν, ἐκ πυριδίων τῶν συναθροιζομένων μὲν ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον. (P2,S2) §6 Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. (P3,S7 +16) §7 Πλάτων ἐκ πλείστου πυρός, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων. (P4,T6) §8 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος Μητρόδωρος μύδρον ἢ πέτρον διάπυρον. (P5, S8+15(+4),T2) §9 Θαλῆς γεώδη. (S9,T3) §10 Διογένης κισηροειδῆ τὸν ἥλιον, εἰς ὃν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος ἀκτῖνες ἐναποστηρίζονται. (S10,T4) §11 Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος. (P6,T5) §12 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε φῶς καὶ τὴν

971

§4

§4 Antiphon 87B26 DK, fr. F26 Pendrick; §5 Xenophanes 21A40 DK; Theophrastus fr. 232 FHS&G; §6 Heraclitus 22A12 DK; Hecataeus 73B9 DK; Cleanthes SVF 1.501; §7 Plato cf. Tim. 40a; §8 Anaxagoras 59A72 DK; Democritus 68A87 DK; Metrodorus 70A11 DK; §9 Thales 11A17a DK; §10 Diogenes 64A13 DK; §11 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31; §12 Philolaus 44A19 DK §4 [9–10] ἐπικαιόμενον, ὑπονοτιζομένου S : ἐπικειόμενον, ὑποτονιζομένου v.l. (not. Wachsmuth ad p. 208.23) §5 non hab. G ‖ [11] ⟨ὡς⟩ Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν S : ὡς addidimus (cf. Usener, qui in S ⟨ἢ ὡς⟩ coni. sine nomine Ξενοφάνης) : desunt in P ‖ post πυριδίων add. μὲν S, τῶν φαινομένων PE ‖ [12] μὲν ἐκ] om. S ‖ [13] post ἥλιον add. ex §2 ἢ νέφος πεπυρωμένον PB, ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων PE Diels, cf. entstehen die Sonne oder glühenden Wolken Q §6 [14] Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης scripsimus ex S, qui in duo lemmata dividit cum nominibus Ἡράκλειτος καὶ Ἑκαταῖος et Κλεάνθης : οἱ Στωικοὶ P ‖ ἄναμμα] ἄναλμα S bis, corr. Heeren ‖ ἐκ θαλάττης P : τὸ ἐκ θαλάττης εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον S bis (om. εἶναι secundo loco 211.18 Wachsmuth) §7 non hab. S ‖ [16] ἐκ πλείστου πυρός PBG : ἐκ om. PE : τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ πυρός T ‖ μετέχειν … σωμάτων T: deest in P §8 [18] Ἀναξαγόρας … Μητρόδωρος PBE : Ἀναξαγόρας (δὲ add. T) καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος PGT ‖ μύδρον … διάπυρον PBEGST : al. Q und Mydron (ex μύδρον!) glaubten, daß der Sonnenkörper wie ein glühenden Felsen ist (ἢ omissum susp. Daiber) §9 [20] γεώδη S : τὸν ἥλιον add. S verisimiliter §11 [23] post σώματος add. T ξυνεστῶσαν §12 [24] ὑαλοειδῆ PB(I,III)GST : δίσκον ὑαλοειδῆ PE : ὑελλοειδῆ PB(II) : add. τὸν ἥλιον S ‖ [25] πυρὸς PT : πρὸς S corr. Heeren ‖ ἀνταύγειαν (εὐαγίαν PG) διηθοῦντα PB(I,III)EGST : ἔλλαμψιν πέμποντα PB(II) ‖ [25–26] τό τε … ἀλέαν ST : τὸ φῶς P

10

15

20

25

972

liber 2 caput 20

ἀλέαν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές, εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐνόπτρου κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐγήν· καὶ γὰρ ταύτην προσονομάζομεν ἥλιον οἱονεὶ εἴδωλον εἰδώλου. (P7,S11,T7) §13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν ἐγγιγνομένην εἰς τὸν Ὄλυμπον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ, συμπεριελκομένην δὲ τῇ κινήσει τοῦ πυρίνου· ὡς δὲ βραχέως εἰρῆσθαι {συντεμόντα}, ἀνταύγειαν εἶναι τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν πυρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. (P8,S12) §14 Ἐπίκουρος γήινον πύκνωμα κισηροειδὲς καὶ σπογγοειδὲς ταῖς κατάτρήσεσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀνημμένον. (P9,S13) §15 Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς. (PG7) §13 Empedocles 31A56 DK; §14 Epicurus fr. 343 Usener; §15 Heraclitus T437, 595 Mouraviev [26–27] ὥστε … ἐσοπτροειδές S, cf. Ach : ὥστε προσεοικέναι ἡλίῳ τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες τό τε δὴ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσοπτροειδές PB (ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ⟨πυρῶδες⟩ Diels) : ὥστε προσεοικέναι ἡλίου τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες PE : al. PG ὥστε τρεῖς εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ διαφοράς· τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες, τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδές PG, cf. Daher gibt es drei Sonnen: die eine von ihnen, welche im Himmel ist; sie ist feurig. Die zweite (ist diejenige,) welche aus ihm (dem Himmel) in der Art des Spiegels entsteht Q ‖ [27–29] εἰ μή … αὐγήν S : καὶ τρίτον τὴν … αὐγήν PB : τῇ … διασπειρομένῃ … αὐγῇ PE : al. PG τρίτον τὴν ἀπὸ τούτου ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς : cf. Die dritte ist die Rückstrahlung, welche zu uns reflektiert wird, und das Licht, welches sich deswegen über uns ausbreitet Q ‖ [29–30] καὶ … εἰδώλου PBE, cf. PQT : desunt in PGS ‖ [29] προσονομάζομεν PB(I,II)E : προσαγοπεύομεν PB(III) §13 [31–33] τὸν … τὸν] τὸ … τὸ PE corr. Mras, PG ‖ [31] ἀρχέτυπον] ἄριστον PG ‖ [31–32] πῦρ … τὸ om. PG ‖ [31] πῦρ PBE : πῦρ ὂν S prob. Primavesi R2 ‖ [32] πεπληρωκὸς PB : πεπληρωκότος PES corr. Diels ‖ [32–33] ἀεὶ … τεταγμένον om. PG ‖ [33] τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ PBT : τῆς ἀνταυγείας PE ‖ [34–38] τῷ … ἥλιον om. PG ‖ [35] γῆς PBES : ⟨αὐ⟩γῆς Bernadakis Mau ‖ Ὄλυμπον Mansfeld R1 ex PQ prob. Primavesi R2, Laks–Most (cf. somit den Berg füllen, welcher “Olympos” genannt wird Q) : ἥλιον PBES Diels Mau Lachenaud Vítek ‖ [36] συμπεριελκομένην PB(II,III)S : συμπεριπλεκομένην PΒ(Ι), δὲ add. S Primavesi R2 ‖ [37] βραχέως PBS : διὰ βραχέος PE ‖ συντεμόντα PBES ret. Laks–Most (συντεμόντι coni. Meineke prob. Wachsmuth), dub. Diels DG, secl. VS, del. Primavesi R2 ‖ [37–38] ἀνταύγειαν … πυρὸς PBS : πῦρ εἶναι PE ‖ [37] γῆν] αὐγὴν PB(III:Laur.31,37) (cf. l. 35) §14 [39] πύκνωμα PBES : κύκλωμα PG ‖ post πύκνωμα add. S τὸν ἥλιόν φησιν εἶναι ‖ κισηροειδὲς καὶ σπογγοειδὲς PE : κισηροειδῶς καὶ σπογγοειδῶς S : κισηροειδῆ καὶ σπογγοειδῆ PG : κισηροειδῶς PB(I–II) : κισσηροειδὲς PB(III) ‖ [40] ὑπὸ … ἀνημμένον PBES : ἐνημμένον PG ‖ post hoc lemma hab. G Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς §15 hab. PG solus, damn. ut additamentum Diels ‖ [41] ἄναμμα Diels : mss. ἄναμα, ἀνάμματα ‖ ἔχοντα sc. τὸν ἥλιον de titulo, cf. §3

30

35

40

liber 2 caput 20

§16 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος, ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνοτέρου, ὅπερ ψυχρόν. (S14) §16 Parmenides 28A43 DK §16 [44] τὸν : τὸ SFP corr. Canter

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.21 4.21.1 (~ §2) καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ὁ Ξενοφάνης νέφη εἶναι πεπυρωμένα φησίν· 4.21.2 (~ §8) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος μύδρον ἢ πέτρον διάπυρον· 4.21.3 (~ §9) Θαλῆς δὲ γεώδη, 4.21.4 (~ §10) κισηροειδῆ δὲ Διογένης· 4.21.5 (~ §11) ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλης σφαῖραν εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος ξυνεστῶσαν· 4.21.6 (~ §7) ὁ δὲ Πλάτων τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ πυρός, μετέχειν δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σωμάτων· 4.21.7 (~ §12) Φιλόλαος δὲ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ, δεχόμενον μὲν τοῦ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ πυρὸς τὴν ἀνταύγειαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τό τε φῶς καὶ τὴν ἀλέαν, εἰδώλου τάξιν ἐπέχοντα· 4.21.8 καὶ ἕτεροι δὲ ἕτερα ἄττα περὶ τούτου ἐδόξασαν, ἃ περιττὸν οἶμαι λέγειν, ἵνα μὴ τῆς αὐτῆς μεταλάχω τερθρείας. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Eusebius PE 7.11.13 (de theologia graeca, cf. c. 1.7.1) τῶν δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας (sc. θεούς) εἶναι φασκόντων, οὓς καὶ μύδρους τυγχάνειν διαπύρους (~ P5) ἥλων καὶ πετάλων δίκην ἐμπεπηγότας τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. c. 2.14.4). ps.Galenus HPh c. 62 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἡλίου (text Diels) 62.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν κύκλον αὐτοῦ εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς ἁρματείῳ τροχῷ τὴν ἁψῖδα παραπλησίως ἔχοντα, κοίλην καὶ πλήρη πυρὸς κατὰ μέρος διὰ στενοῦ τὸ πῦρ ὡς δι᾽ αὐλοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐκπέμπεσθαι. 62.2 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάσσης. 62.3 (~ P4) Πλάτων ἐκ πλείστου πυρός. Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος καὶ Μητρόδωρος πέτρον ἢ μύδρον διάπυρον. 62.4 (~ P7) Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος ὑαλοειδῆ δεχόμενον τοῦ ἐκ κόσμου πυρὸς τὴν εὐαγίαν, διηθοῦντα δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς, ὥστε τρεῖς εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἡλίῳ διαφοράς· τὸ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες, τὸ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πυροειδές, τρίτον τὴν ἀπὸ τούτου ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς. 62.5 (~ P8) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸ μὲν ἄριστον ἡμισφαίριον, τὸ δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ.

973

45

974

liber 2 caput 20

62.6 (~ P9) Ἐπίκουρος γήινον κύκλωμα, κισηροειδῆ καὶ σπογγοειδῆ ταῖς κατατρήσεσιν ἐνημμένον. 62.7 (deest in P) Ἡράκλειτος ἄναμμα, ἐν μὲν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς τὴν ἔξαψιν ἔχοντα, τὴν δὲ σβέσιν ἐν ταῖς δυσμαῖς. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 126 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου (~ tit.), καὶ εἰ πολλοὶ εἰσὶν ἥλιοι Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.1 Περὶ ἡλίου (~ tit.) p. 27.5–19 τὴν δὲ οὐσίαν τοῦ ἡλίου Πλάτων περιέργως ἐκ πυρὸς εἶναί φησι (~ §7), τινὲς δὲ τῶν φυσικῶν ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως γῆς καὶ νεφῶν αὐτὸν εἶναι (~ §5, §2). Ἀναξαγόρας μύδρον αὐτὸν εἶπε (~ §8), Φιλόλαος δὲ τὸ πυρῶδες καὶ διαυγὲς λαμβάνοντα ἄνωθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς πρὸς ἡμᾶς πέμπειν τὴν αὐγὴν διά τινων ἀραιωμάτων, ὥστε κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τρισσὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον, τὸ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρός, τὸ δὲ ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου πεμπόμενον ἐπὶ τὸν ὑελοειδῆ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενον ἥλιον, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ τοιούτου ἡλίου πρὸς ἡμᾶς πεμπόμενον (~ §12). Ἐπίκουρος δὲ κισηροειδῆ αὐτὸν ἔφη ἐκ πυρὸς διὰ τρημάτων τινῶν τὸ φῶς ἐκπέμποντα (~ §14). τινὲς δέ, ὧν ἐστι καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος, φασὶ πέμπειν αὐτὸν τὸ φῶς σχῆμα ἔχοντα τροχοῦ· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ τροχῷ κοίλη ἐστὶν ἡ πλήμνη, ἔχει δὲ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ἀνατεταμένας τὰς κνημῖδας πρὸς τὴν ἔξωθεν τῆς ἁψῖδος περιφοράν, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ κοίλου τὸ φῶς ἐκπέμποντα τὴν ἀνάτασιν τῶν ἀκτίνων ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἔξωθεν αὐτὰς κύκλῷ φωτίζειν (~ §1). τινὲς δὲ ὡς ἀπὸ σάλπιγγος ἐκ κοίλου τόπου καὶ στενοῦ ἐκπέμπειν αὐτὸν τὸ φῶς ὥσπερ πρηστῆρας (~ §1). cf. §2 p. 9.2–8 Εὔδωρος ὁ φιλόσοφός φησι Διόδωρον τὸν Ἀλεξανδρέα μαθηματικὸν τούτῳ διαφέρειν εἰπεῖν τὴν μαθηματικὴν τῆς φυσιολογίας, ὅτι ἡ μὲν μαθηματικὴ τὰ παρεπόμενα τῇ οὐσίᾳ ζητεῖ, πόθεν καὶ πῶς ἐκλείψεις γίνονται, ἡ δὲ φυσιολογία περὶ τῆς οὐσίας, τίς ἡλίου φύσις, πότερον μύδρος ἐστὶ κατὰ Ἀναξαγόραν (~ §8) ἢ πῦρ κατὰ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς (~ §6) ἢ κατὰ Ἀριστοτέλην πέμπτη οὐσία μηδενὶ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων ἐπικοινωνοῦσα, ἀγέννητός τε καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ ἀμετάβολος (~ §11). Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.18–20 ιζʹ Ἥλιος. τὸν δὲ ἥλιον οἳ μὲν ὡρίσαντο {τὸ} πῦρ (~ §3), οἳ δὲ μύδρον αὐτὸν, ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας (~ §8), κυκλοτερῆ ὄντα ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον εἶναι τῆς γῆς. Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία; et vide textus citatos ad 2.11. A 2.21 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου. A 2.22 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου. A 2.23 Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου. A 2.24 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου. quaestio A 1.proœm. 3 ζητεῖται εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος, εἴ π⟨ῦ⟩ρ, ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται· ὁ τοῦτο δὲ ζητῶν θεωρητικός ἐστιν. §1 cf. A 2.25.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς κτλ. §2 cf. A 2.13.13 (de astris), 2.25.3 (de luna).

liber 2 caput 20

975

§3 Anaximenes cf. A 2.13.9 (de astris), 2.25.2 (de luna); Parmenides cf. A 2.11.4 (de caelo), 2.13.9 (de astris), 2.25.2 (de luna). §4 cf. A 2.28.4 Ἀντιφῶν ἰδιοφέγγῆ τὴν σελήνην, τὸ δ᾽ ἀποκρυπτόμενον περὶ αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῆς προσβολῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀμαυροῦσθαι, πεφυκότος τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου πυρὸς τὸ ἀσθενέστερον ἀμαυροῦν· ὃ δὴ συμβαίνειν καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα. §5 cf. A 2.29.8 (de luna) Ἀναξαγόρας, ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος κτλ. A 1.3.1 (de Thalete) ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τὸ τῶν ἄστρων ταῖς τῶν ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάσεσι τρέφεται καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κόσμος. §6 cf. A 2.25.11 (de luna) Διογένης κισηροειδὲς ἄναμμα. A 2.23.6 (Stoici) οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διέρχεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ, ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται. A 2.28.7 Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας, δεχομένους δὲ τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως αὐγὰς, φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν, λαμπρότερως μὲν τὸν ἥλιον, ἐν καθαρωτέρῳ γὰρ ἀέρι φέρεσθαι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐν θολωτέρῳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀμαυροτέραν φαίνεσθαι. cf. A 1.3.1 cit. ad §5 (de Thalete) §7 cf. A 2.13.11 (de astris), 2.25.7 (de luna), 1.7.22 (de deis, text. cit. ad 2.13.11). §8 cf. A 2.13.3, 5 (de astris), 2.25.10 (de luna). §9 cf. A 2.13.1 (de astris), 2.25.9 (de luna). §10 cf. A 2.13.10 (de astris), 2.25.11 (de luna). §11 vid. text. cit. ad 2.11.5 (de caelo). §12 cf. A 2.7.6 (de mundo). §13 A 2.21.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἴσον τῇ γῇ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. cf. A 2.11.2 (de mundo), A 2.13.2 (de astris). A 4.14.1 (de repercussu in speculis) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς κατ᾽ ἀπορροίας τὰς συνισταμένας μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κατόπτρου … A 5.26.4[2] … πρὶν τὸν ἥλιον περιαπλωθῆναι … §15 A 2.13.14 (de Xenophane de astris) Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις. A 3.3.9 (de ventis igneis) Ἡράκλειτος … πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις. §16 A 3.1.6 Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter is well-attested in all three witnesses. (1) In the P tradition the three witnesses PBEQ preserve nine lemmata, of which G retains six, with an extra lemma at the end (Heraclitus) not found in

976

liber 2 caput 20

the other witnesses. The various strands of the tradition show considerable textual variation. (2) S continues to use a very different method, coalescing A’s five chapters relating to the sun in a single massive exercise in coalescence (= 1.25), with a title that combines material from all five titles (Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου καὶ μεγέθους σχήματός τε καὶ τροπῶν καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ σημείων καὶ κινήσεως; the final two nouns do not correspond to anything in P). S clearly found this a challenging exercise and seven doxai present in the five chapters in P are not included (see M–R 1.233–236). 16 lemmata can be identified as derived from the present chapter. Of those in P all but P4 (Plato) and P6 (Aristotle) are found in S. The latter is replaced by AD. S no doubt intended to replace the former with either a quote from Plato himself (e.g. Tim. 40a) or another source, but he did not carry out his intention. (3) T starts somewhat confusingly by citing Xenophanes on the sun and the moon, but then gives six further lemmata on the substance of the sun only (he returns to the moon at 4.23), before indicating in a concluding statement that there are others which he passes over. The ones selected are mainly the shorter views, with the Philolaic doxa considerably compressed. T includes the doxai of Plato and Aristotle which S left out. His other five doxai are all found in S. (4) On the close parallels in Achilles and the Aratea see below sections B and D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Important parallels to the material in this chapter are located in the collections of doxai relating to individual Presocratic philosophers in Diogenes Laertius, Hippolytus and ps.Plutarch Stromateis. See below section E(a) on Xenophanes, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras and Empedocles. The doxai on Xenophanes in the other ps.Plutarch are particularly interesting because he records parallels to both the doxai found in this chapter (§§2, 5, cf. Ach). Our chapter indicates that the source for the latter view (also found in Hippolytus) was Theophrastus. It is clear that there is a shared background for these texts and the Placita. Diels’ conclusion at DG 217, however, that the reference to Theophrastus (augmented by another at 2.29.8) proves that the Peripatetic was the ultimate source for all the parallels in these texts and for most of the material on the Presocratics in the Placita, is unjustified. On this question see M–R 2.21–22, 133, 220–224. A safer conclusion is to say that the material of this chapter will for the most part have been drawn from a plurality of earlier doxographical traditions. It is not so clear how the doxa attributed to Epicurus relates to these traditions. In Lucretius three alternatives are given to explain how such a small

liber 2 caput 20

977

object can emit so much heat. One of these is found in Diogenes of Oenoanda (texts below under section E(b)§14). For the single view in A (also found in Ach) there is no parallel in Epicurus’ writings. It most resembles the view of Diogenes of Apollonia. Even closer parallels to our chapter are found in Ach and the Aratea. These are more fully discussed below in section D(e). These texts have incorporated material from sources very close to those drawn on by A. (2) Sources. Quotes preserved from the poems of Parmenides (B11) and Empedocles (B38, B44) are direct evidence—if such be required—that there was extensive discussion of the nature of the sun and how it produces its heat in Presocratic authors, starting already with Anaximander and his famous theory of the sun as a hoop or cartwheel of fire. The second cent. ce sophist Favorinus reports that Democritus discussed Anaxagoras’ views on the sun (and the moon) and disputed their originality (see below section B(b)§8). There is no separate treatment of the nature of sun in either Plato’s Timaeus or Aristotle’s De caelo. They both prefer to discuss it in conjunction with the other heavenly bodies. Plato refers to the view of Anaxagoras in his version of Socrates’ Apology (26d), as does Xenophon in the Memorabilia (4.7.7). It is noteworthy that theological aspects of views on the sun, which are prominent elsewhere—whether pro (e.g. Stoics in Cicero ND) or contra (e.g. Anaxagoras in Philo, Lucian, Origen etc.)—are wholly missing in A’s chapter and scarcely mentioned in the chapter on God, 1.7 (only a single reference in the lemma on Plato, 1.7.22). Aristotle in his Meteorology ridicules the earlier view (Heraclitus) that the sun feeds on earthly moisture, but this did not deter the Stoics from taking it over (text below section E(b)§6). C Chapter Heading As we have already seen in the parallel chs. 2.11 and 2.13 on the substance of the heaven and the stars respectively, the witnesses reveal considerable variation in their headings. The heading Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου of the usual umbrella type is witnessed by PQ and the Planudean tradition of PB, and is also presumed by S. It is almost certainly correct. The shorter title in PEG fails to mention the key term οὐσία that is found in all the headings in parallel chapters (2.11, 2.13, 2.25, 3.9). Two key manuscripts of PB have the addition καὶ ὅτι (καὶ) δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσίν, which is clearly based on the doxai of Empedocles and Philolaus and also has found its way into the index at the beginning of the Book. Most likely it will have been added at some stage in the long tradition, although as a parallel can be adduced 3.9 Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι. It thus adds a question in the category of quantity, but this is only a minor theme in the chapter.

978

liber 2 caput 20

Psellus converts this statement into a question (εἰ πολλοὶ εἰσὶν ἥλιοι) and in the body of his brief chapter discusses it. But the second and third sun that he postulates relate to a Platonist theory of divine creation and not the multiple suns attributed to Philolaus and Empedocles in P. As we have already seen, for his ch. 1.25 on the sun S puts together a very long heading, combining the titles of 2.20–24 as well as adding two more topics (signs and movement) not treated as such by A. The role of the sun in providing signs is mentioned in A 2.19, but S places the excerpts from that chapter in his 1.24, not here. D Analysis a Context This chapter and the next four (20–24) treat the most prominent of the heavenly bodies, the sun. The sequence of topics are, as so often in the Placita, reminiscent of the Aristotelian categories. The first chapter thus treats the οὐσία (substance) of sun, taken in a material sense. As is the case in the parallel chapters on the heavenly bodies (§13) and the moon (§25), this first of the five chapters is longer than the others and is one of the longest chapters in the Placita. In Book 1.proœm. 3 the quaestio εἰ ζῷον ἢ μὴ ζῷον ὁ ἥλιος is given as an example of a theoretical, as opposed to a practical, topic. This subject is not touched on in chs. 2.20–24 (and the sun is also not specfically mentioned in Ach §13). On the possibility that there may have been a lost chapter on the subject of whether the heavenly bodies are alive or not see the Commentary Book 1.proœm. A(3). b Number–Order of Lemmata The chapter is well-attested, with the three chief witnesses supplying nine, sixteen and seven lemmata respectively. There is thus every likelihood that it has been fully preserved. Yet not a single witness records every single lemma. The challenge is thus to reconstruct the exact number and the original order of the lemmata. Although the basic order is very similar in all three witnesses, there are various discrepancies which can only be explained if we take into account the different methods which they used. This Diels failed to do adequately, so that his reconstruction is quite unconvincing (on this see further M–R 2.520). The chapter can be reconstructed in nine steps, which will now be presented in outline (for a fuller analysis see ibid. 520–524). (1) Starting towards the end, we note that the sequence Philolaus–Empedocles–Epicurus is the same in P and S (P7–9, S11–13), that Philolaus occurs as last doxa in T (T7) and that Ach testifies to the sequence Philolaus–Epicurus.

liber 2 caput 20

979

(2) The following doxa in S (S14) on Parmenides is surprising because it speaks about the sun and the moon originating in the Milky Way. A parallel is found in ch. 28, where another doxa on the sun and the moon is certainly placed last in the chapter. A often places doxai that fit in less well or add additional material at the end of his chapters, and that is likely to have happened here. (3) A next significant correspondence between our witnesses occurs in the case of the sequence Anaxagoras–Thales–Diogenes in S8–10 and the sequence Anaxagoras + Democritus + Metrodorus–Thales–Diogenes in T2–4. That the triple name-label in T2 was already present in A is confirmed by P5. S repeats the doxa with Democritus’s name-label in S15 and coalesces with a doxa from ch. 2.23, but then omits the name-label of Metrodorus. It is misguided to conclude that T made direct use of P rather than A in this instance, as argued by Bottler (2014) 512 (he could have done so via E, but if he consulted E he did so only for A 1.7.1; see Mansfeld 2016e = M–R 4.176–184). S often splits up conjoined names in the process of coalescence: there are two other examples in this same chapter in the way he treats the multiple name-labels in §§3 and 6. On the mistake that S most likely made in relation to Metrodorus see (7) below. (4) In both P and T a doxa attributed to Aristotle follows the group just discussed. It is missing in S because it has been replaced by a long extract from AD (1.25.4 = fr. 10 Diels, cited below section E(a)§11). We note that AD’s formulation at the beginning of the account is equivalent to that of A, but differs in terminology (οὐσίας instead of σώματος). (5) It is clear from P and T that the chapter contains a Platonic lemma which S dropped, no doubt because he was going to replace it with an extract from the Timaeus. But this in fact does not take place (he may have later discovered that Plato does not speak explicitly of the nature of the sun). It is best to place it in the order found in P (P4). T will have first left it out and then decided to include it after the Aristotelian view (T6), perhaps because it moves from a single elemental substance to a combination. The formulation of the doxa itself is slightly more elaborate in T than in P. T may have added this extra information from his own knowledge, but it is safest to include it in our text. (6) Preceding the Platonic lemma in P is a doxa attributed to the Stoa (= P3), the sun as ‘an intelligent ignited mass from the sea’. Omitted by T, it corresponds to two doxai in S, S7 and S 16 (where the doxa apart from the name-label is almost identical). It is easy to reconstruct what has happened. S will have split up a single doxa to suit his separation into clusters of views of individual philosophers. P has recognized the doxa as basically Stoic and so has simplified the three names in S, Heraclitus–Hecataeus–Cleanthes, to the single label ‘the Stoics’.

980

liber 2 caput 20

(7) Next there are three lemmata in S which are not found in the other two witnesses, S4–6. It is striking that S4 and S5 have exactly the same content, and it might be suspected that originally they formed a single lemma with again three conjoined name-labels. However, S’s inclusion of the name-label Metrodorus and its coupling with Parmenides conflicts with the evidence of P and T, where his view is added to that of Anaxagoras and Democritus. This is almost certainly a mistake on S’s part (the coupling of Democritus and his pupil Metrodorus is anyway more likely than the latter with the Eleatic Parmenides). (8) The most difficult part of the chapter is its beginning. The evidence can be summarized as follows: P1 Anaximander P2 Xenophanes I + II

S1 Xenophanes (cf. P2b) S2 Theophrastus (cf. P2a) S3 Anaximander

T1 Xenophanes

The first problem concerns the name-labels. Does the second lemma in S introduce the view of Theophrastus, or is the Peripatetic reporting on Xenophanes’ doctrine, as is suggested by the joining up of the two views in P? Despite the views of some scholars (see esp. Steinmetz (1964) 334–351), we side with Usener and Diels in attributing both doxai to Xenophanes (see further the lengthy discussion in Runia (1992), and also M–R 2.523). But this does not necessarily mean that they were linked together in A. It is reasonably common in the Placita for more than one doxa to be ascribed to a particular philosopher in the same chapter (see for example Diogenes in ch. 2.13 and Xenophanes again in ch. 2.24), the reason being that the doxa is of greater importance for the doxographer than the name-label attached to it. The possibility must be entertained, therefore, that either P or S or both have coalesced these two doxai. In our view S’s procedure makes it very likely that they were originally separate. He would not have separated the two doxai on the sun’s οὐσία with a doxa on its eclipse if they had not been originally distinct. It should be noted too that both doxai are given quite separately in ps.Plu. Strom. 4 (see texts below section E(a)§2, §5). Moreover, given the strong link of the second Xenophanean doxa with the ‘Stoic’ view of Heraclitus–Hecataeus–Cleanthes, it is plausible that it preceded the latter, as indeed occurs in P (where the other Xenophanean view is appended). It also makes a smooth connection with the preceding view of Antiphon which also involves the moist air. The second problem is how the chapter starts. Does it commence with the view of Anaximander as in P, or does it start with Xenophanes as in S and T? Both views can be defended. In an early treatment we gave the preference to S (Runia 1992). But since then we have changed our mind (M–R 2.524), because

liber 2 caput 20

981

we recognized that in the long chapters on the οὐσία of the stars, sun and moon (2.13, 20, 25), a privileged position was given to the Milesian philosophers—no doubt connected with the role that the very early philosophers and the successions play in the Placita (on this see further M–R 2.73–96). The parallel with the chapter on the moon (2.25) is particularly impressive. Therefore, it is more likely that P has preserved the original beginning of the chapter. Why then did S commence with Xenophanes? A possible explanation is that he was attracted to the pithy expression of Xenophanes’ view, in contrast to Anaximander’s doxa with its idiosyncratic position that the sun is in fact a circular hoop. He then added the second Xenophanean doxa before writing out the longer doxa of Anaximander. (9) One final problem remains: the additional lemma in G recording the view of Heraclitus. Diels DG 16, noting that it doubles up on the earlier lemma P3 = §6, regarded it as an attractive addition, but in his own words ‘did not dare to add it to P in the absence of S’ and does not even mention it in the apparatus to the text of P. Revising our view in M–R 2.524 we now argue that there are good grounds for including it. (a) As noted above on §§2 and 5 there are other cases of name-labels being repeated in a single chapter. A may have wished to repeat it because the additional information was not attributable to the other two namelabels in §6. (b) There are cases where G contains additional information not found elsewhere in the tradition of P; see M–R 1.150 and examples at chs. 5.19 (where confirmed by Q) and 5.23. (c) As Diels noted, the extra information is likely to be authentic; cf. fr. 22B30 DK ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα, ch. 3.3.9 (on firewinds) and the scholion on Plato Resp. 498a; a similar doctrine for the sun is attributed to Metrodorus of Chios at ps.Plut. Strom. 11 = 70A4 DK and for the stars to Xenophanes at A 2.13.14. It is best placed towards the end of the chapter, as indeed suggested by its location in G. Like §16 it records additional information of an unusual nature. It may be concluded, therefore, that the chapter has sixteen lemmata and that its original order is well reflected in P, except that he has coalesced the two Xenophanean doxai that stood apart in A, and to a lesser extent also by S and T. The sequence of doxai in our reconstruction is plausible and, as we shall now see, is reinforced by the rationale that can be given for the chapter’s structure as a whole. It cannot, however, be considered certain in all respects. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The basic structure of the chapter is determined by the antithesis between the view that the sun consists of fire (§§1–3) and the view that it is basically an inflamed earthy rock (§§8–10). The antithesis, which is also dominant in the parallel chapters 2.13 and 2.25, fits in well with the evidence of doxographical-

982

liber 2 caput 20

dialectical parallels. The rhetor Hermogenes (?) gives as an example of a θέσις the subject εἰ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ. No alternative is given, but it is implied that one exists. In the traditio secunda there are two texts in the Aratean tradition which give prominence to this antithesis (texts above). In the example of a quaestio on the nature of the sun in Achilles §2 the view of Anaxagoras that it is a clump of rock (μύδρος) is opposed to the Stoic view that it is πῦρ, with the Aristotelian quintessence added as a third view. In the very brief chapter on the sun in the Isagoge the view that it is fire is placed first (as in A), with the view of Anaxagoras that it is a μύδρος opposed to it. In between the two basic positions there are four lemmata (§§4–7) which link the sun’s fiery substance to the intermediate elements air (§4), water (§§5– 6) or all three (§7). This group clearly has a bridging position. The final five views (§§11–15) form a less homogenous group of additional and exceptional views. It might be thought that the Aristotelian doxa (§11) would have been better placed after the fiery views. A has perhaps seen a (not very pertinent) link with the mention of the αἰθήρ in the previous Diogenes lemma. The next two lemmata, both involving multiple suns, clearly form a contrasted pair. The placement of the next lemma, §14 attributed to Epicurus, seems at first sight a puzzle. Its contents are little different to the view of Diogenes in §10 and seem based on it. In other chapters in Book 2 Epicurus’ views are often placed at the end (cf. chs. 2.2, 2.4, 2.13, 2.22, also 3.15) because of his espousal of the theory of multiple explanation, on which see ch. 2.2 Commentary D(c). Apart from the parallel doxa in Ach the only surviving evidence on Epicurus’ own view is the general account on the heavenly bodies in D.L. 10.90, in which the alternatives ‘pneumatic or fire-like or both’ are given. But other texts in the Epicurean tradition suggest that originally more specific alternatives were given on the nature and role of the sun; cf. Lucretius DRN 5.597–613; Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 13 Smith—note that it begins with the key term ἐνδέχεται; see the texts below under section E(b)§14. It is likely, therefore, that at an early point in the tradition—already witnessed by Ach—just one of the explanations offered by Epicurus became fixed as his (single) position, even though that was counter to his general view on our knowledge of the heavenly bodies. The second Heraclitean lemma §15 repeats the substance of the sun from §6 in a condensed form and, as argued above in section D(b)(9), adds material specific to this Presocratic philosopher. The final lemma §16 is unusual in two respects. It involves a comparison between the sun and the moon. The latter planet has so far not been mentioned in the chapter and will not become the focus of attention until ch. 2.25. There is also a cosmogonical reference, which harks back to chs. 6–7 and seldom occurs in chs. 11–32. It is logical that this doxa should be placed at the end of the chapter.

liber 2 caput 20

d

983

Further Comments Individual Points §1 It is surprising that S has left out the illustrative image ὥσπερ διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ, whereas he retains it in the parallel doxa on the moon (A 2.25.1). Since the final phrase in P is also not found in S, it may be suspected that a line of text has dropped out. The image in Ach is that of a trumpet, but the mention of a πρηστήρ is retained. We return to this image below. The other image of the chariot wheel recurs in the parallel doxa on the moon at A 2.25.1. There is also a possible reference to the cartwheel movement of the cosmos in a chapter on the cosmos’ motion that may have dropped out of P; see the Appendix to the Commentary on ch. 2.2. The interpretation of the phrase just cited (οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν at A 2.25.1) is difficult and the problems it raises are perhaps insoluble. Couprie (2011) 145–151 rightly points out that the meaning of πρηστήρ as a set of bellows as postulated by Diels DG 25–26 is not well attested. He argues that Q’s Arabic translation ‘wie die Blitze erscheinen’ points us in the right direction and that the phrase should be translated ‘like through a stream of lightning,’ πρηστήρ having something like its usual meaning of ‘fire-wind’ as in ch. 3.3 and in the passage in Ach. According to Couprie αὐλός here means a spurt or a jet; he is followed by Graham (2010) 59 who translates ‘jet of fire’. But this meaning too is rare. It seems better to adhere to the basic meaning of a ‘tube’ or ‘pipe’, or perhaps in this context a ‘vent’, with πρηστήρ retaining its usual meaning of ‘fire-wind’. A suitable translation, with reference to a modern equivalent, might be ‘like a blowtorch’, since this instrument also involves a pipe that channels a hot flame. One would expect a parallel with the phrase that the image is supposed to illustrate διὰ στομίου τὸ πῦρ, i.e. διὰ αὐλοῦ πρηστῆρας, as we find with modification in Ach, so there may be a problem with the text. Wöhrle (2012) 53 translated fairly literally ‘Glutwindröhre’; see further his list of translations at n. 6, to which can be added Mansfeld R2 ‘Lötrohr’. Couprie’s interpretation poses an interesting methodological problem. He suggests (p. 151) that the phrase in A 2.25.1 may be the original one and that ‘Aëtius no longer fully understood what Anaximander had meant with οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν’. But our task, as we have often stated, is to determine and interpret what A wrote and not what might have stood in the original source. §2 The formula used to describe the sun’s nature, ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων, is the same as that in 2.13.14, in contrast to the doxa on the nature of the moon, for which an identification as a νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον is given (on the text see below on A 2.25.3). Mourelatos (2008) 149 argues persuasively that the phrase ἐκ + genitive should be read constitutively rather than generatively (his terminology). His philological note at n. 33 is vitiated, however, by a

984

liber 2 caput 20

failure to take the evidence of S into account. His solution, based on Q, that the text read συναθροιζόντων δὲ ⟨ἢ⟩ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ νέφος πεπυρωμένον is not persuasive because it is most likely that P has coalesced two separate doxai. We follow him in translating πεπυρωμένον as ‘incandescent;’ see Mourelatos (2008) 148. §4 The Greek of this doxa is difficult. Differently from M–R 2.2.531, we now take the subject of the two infinitival clauses in the second part of the lemma to be the sun (as fire) and not the air. This is also the intepretation of Pendrick (2002) 147. The image is perhaps of a fire moving through a forest. The source of Antiphon’s view here may well have been Heraclitus, as argued by Pendrick ibid. 295, who points to A 2.29.6 where the name-labels are linked together. Five doxai are attributed to an Antiphon in the Placita, who certainly is Antiphon the Sophist: A 1.12.6 (on time); 2.20.4 (sun); 2.28.4 (moon); 2.29.6 (moon); 3.16.3 (sea). The last four on cosmological subjects are taken from Book 2 of Περὶ ἀληθείας; see further Pendrick (2002) 34–36. §5 There has been much debate about the reference ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς. Diels followed his teacher Usener in attributing it to Theophrastus’ Φυσικῶν δόξαι (as they called this work) and so placed it as fr. 16 in his collection of fragments with that title at DG 492. We firmly believe, however, that this work was called Φυσικαὶ δόξαι. On the title see M–R 2.1.160, with further references to the scholarly discussion, and also our discussion above in the General Introduction, section 5.2. Since there is no reason to question the accuracy of the reference, it most likely refers to a cosmological discussion in his Physics, as argued by Steinmetz (1964) 336 (but as we saw above, he errs in arguing that Theophrastus is presenting his own doctrine in this fragment). §6 The theory that the heavenly bodies are nourished by exhalations from the earth, and in particular its oceans, has already been attributed to Heraclitus and the Stoics at 2.17.4 (and in a different version for the entire cosmos to Philolaus at 2.5.3). The proponents of the view are regarded as ‘ridiculous’ by Aristotle at Mete. 2.2 353b33–34, but this did not stop the Stoics from turning his arguments on their head and using the theory as a critical component in their doctrine of the cosmic conflagration. For Zeno it is implicit in his argument preserved by Alexander of Lycopolis (not in SVF). It is specifically referred to by Cleanthes, as quoted in Cic. ND 2.40 and ascribed to the Stoics in general at ND 2.118. See the texts below and the discussion at Mansfeld (1978) 147–151, Hahm (1977) 151 (on Cleanthes). §7 On the formulation of the Platonic doxa see the note on ch. 2.13.11. §8 Amusingly the word μύδρον (clump) has become a name-label in the Arabic translation. §12 The doxa on Philolaus is difficult, both with regard to the text and its interpretation. There is a valuable treatment of the doxa in Huffman (1993)

liber 2 caput 20

985

266–270, but he does not address the differences between P and S in any detail and favours the alternative version in Ach for his interpretation. The lemma in its fullest form is found in P and consists of three parts: (a) a statement of the sun’s basic nature, i.e. ὑαλοειδής (glass-like, i.e. crystalline), followed by a description of its workings by means of two present participles; (b) a consecutive clause showing how the two elements of its operation resemble the sun, leading on to a third element that results from the first two; (c) a final brief summary indicating that what we call the sun is actually the third element. In S and Ach only the first two parts are found. In S there is almost no divergence from P in part (a), with only the mention of warmth (ἀλέα) added (the formulation in Ach is quite different). S’s formulation of (b) differs markedly from P and is also much clearer, because it immediately mentions the two ‘suns’. The formula introducing the third ‘sun’, however, is less clear (εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει) than in P. Ach also has a consecutive clause and states the complex doctrine even more clearly by immediately stating that the sun is ‘triple’ (τρισσόν). The text preserved in G and Q also suggest that the final clause in (b) began with a reference to the number of suns (they both mention three straight away). Neither S nor Ach have the brief final part (c), but its presence in A is confirmed by T. It may be concluded that all three reports show striking similarities and clearly derive from the same tradition. We adopt S’s text because of its greater clarity. We thus now agree with Huffman and DK (against our text in M– R 2.2.530 where we preferred P’s version), although they give no reasons for their preference. §13 Remarkably Q preserves the reading Ὄλυμπον, which has degenerated into ἥλιον in the other witnesses. As Daiber ad loc. notes, this must be the right reading because it corresponds to an authentic fragment (Pyth.Or. 400B = 31B44 DK) preserved by Plutarch (note also that ἀνταύγεια in A recalls the verb ἀνταυγεῖ in that fragment). Mansfeld was right in emending the text in his Reclam edition (1983–1986, 2.100), followed by Primavesi in the revised version (2011, 528) and now taken over by Laks–Most (Empedocles D156 = 2016, 5.476). The theory of the two suns, which is well-attested—in addition to the passage in Plutarch cited above, see also ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (texts below E(a)§13, (b)§13)—has challenged the ingenuity of the interpreters; see, for example, Guthrie (1962–1981) 2.193; Burkert (1972) 343. For a much more critical approach see, for example, Wright (1981) 201–202, who regards it as ‘absurd’ and dismisses it on the grounds inter alia that ‘confusions have often crept into the doxography by the time of Aetius and the Stromateis’. We note, finally, that Empedocles is prominent in A’s chapter which explains how reflections in mirrors occur; see A 4.14.1 and our Commentary ad loc., and also 3.5.1–6 on the rainbow (no name-label).

986

liber 2 caput 20

e Other Evidence Ach’s chapter 19 Περὶ ἡλίου has a substantial doxography on the substance of the sun. The term οὐσία is not included in the title, but it is placed prominently at the beginning when the author turns to the subject after some preliminary comments on Aratus and previous writers. The seven doxai reveal significant parallels to A. Plato is brought to the forefront in the first lemma. The next doxa on Xenophanes remarkably appears to combine in a very compact form both doxai in A, first parallel to §5, then parallel to §2. The doxa on Anaxagoras leaves out the adjective διάπυρος found in A and most parallels. The next two on Philolaus and Epicurus clearly derive from the same tradition as A, but are formulated quite differently, with only a limited resemblance in terminology. The last two showing similarities to the doxa of Anaximander in A, but again without precise verbal correspondences. There is also, in the earlier chapter on the difference between natural philosophy (φυσιολογία) and astronomical science (μαθηματική), a reference to the question of the sun’s φύσις which refers to a selection of three views. As noted above when discussing the rationale of A’s chapter in section D(c), these form a limited diaeresis of key views. A shorter version of the same doxography is found in another very brief introductory manual to the Aratea. On this text see further M–R 1.306. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Her. 247 see on ch. 2.11. Galen Inst.Log. 2.1 ⟨τῶν δὲ προτάσεων⟩ ἔνιαι μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπλῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀποφαίνονται, … , ἔνιαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς ποιότητος ‘ὁ ἥλιος ⟨φύσει θερμός ἐστιν· ὁ ἥλιος⟩ οὐκ ἔστι φύσει θερμός’, ἔνιαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ⟨πρός⟩ τι ‘μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης· ⟨οὐ μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης᾽⟩ … Ambrose of Milan Exam. 2.3.14, tantum autem inest illis impugnandae veritatis studium, ut solem ipsum negent calidae naturae esse; eo quod albus sit, non rubicundus, aut rutilus in speciem ignis. et ideo aiunt quod nec ignitus natura sit, et si quid habet caloris, ferunt ex nimio motu conversionis accidere. Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25.6–7, p. 1.214.4–11 Εὐριπίδης (fr. 772 Kannicht) πῦρ εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον—Ὅμηρος μὴ εἶναι πῦρ τὸν ἥλιον, ἀλλὰ φῶς καθαρώτατον … Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana. 5.596 De calore solis, cf. 5.621 Democriti de sole. Scholia Platonica Resp. 600a1–10 Greene (on Thales) καὶ περὶ ἡλίου μεγέθους καὶ φύσεως. §1 Anaximander: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.1 (on Anaximander, 12A1 DK) ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον … καὶ καθαρώτατον πῦρ. §2 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Xenophanes 21A32 DK) τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιόν φησι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα ἐκ τῶν νεφῶν γίγνεσθαι. §3 Anaximenes Parmenides: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) see on ch. 2.13.9. differently ps.Plutarch Strom. 3 (fr. 179 Sandbach) on

liber 2 caput 20 Anaximenes (13A6 DK) ἀποφαίνεται γοῦν τὸν ἥλιον γῆν, διὰ δὲ τὴν ὀξεῖαν κίνησιν καὶ μάλ᾽ ἱκανῶς θερμότητα κίνησιν λαβεῖν. §5 Xenophanes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Xenophanes, 21A32 DK) φησὶ δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ μικρῶν καὶ πλειόνων πυριδίων ἀθροίζεσθαι. Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.3 (21A33 DK) τὸν δὲ ἥλιον ἐκ μικρῶν πυριδίων ἀθροιζομένων γίνεσθαι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν. §6 Heraclitus Hecataeus Cleanthes: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην (see further on 2.13.8). Arius Didymus fr. 33 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.652) τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι τὸ ἀθροισθὲν ἔξαμμα νοερὸν ἐκ τοῦ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναθυμιάματος, σφαιροειδῆ δὲ εἶναι τῷ σχήματι. cf. fr. 21 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.10.16c (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.413) ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος πῦρ ἐστιν εἱλικρινές. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 (on Stoics, SVF 2.650) τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἐκ τῆς μεγάλης θαλάττης νοερὸν ὄντα ἄναμμα. cf. 7.144 εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ, καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ Περὶ μετεώρων (F 17 E.-K., 312 Theiler), continuation at ch. 2.21 section E(b) General texts, and see on A 2.22.3. Etymologicum Gudianum s.v. Ἣλιος p. 241.42 Sturz (on Zeno, SVF 1.121) ἔστι γὰρ κατὰ Ζήνωνα τὸν Στωϊκὸν ἄναμμαν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ θαλάσσης. Scholia in Dionysii Thracis Artem Grammaticam p. 121.12–13 Uhlig (Schol. Vaticana) ὥσπερ οἱ Στωικοὶ (SVF 2.656) ὁριζόμενοι τὸν ἥλιον λέγουσιν ὅτι ἥλιός ἐστιν ἄναμμα νοερὸν θαλασσίων ὑδάτων. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 8.4.3 φέρε οὖν προβεβλήσθω ὁ ἥλιος τοὔνομα. φασὶν οὖν οἱ Στωικοὶ τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλαττίων ὑδάτων. Anonymus Londiniensis col. xxx.19–22 Manetti (on the sun) οὗτος [γὰρ τῶι ἄναμ-] | μα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάσ[σης εἶναι ἀπὸ] | τοῦ νοστίμου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν θ[άλασσαν] | τρέ[φ]εται. Porphyry Antr. 11 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἄναμμα μὲν νοερὸν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ θαλάσσης. §7 Plato: See on ch. 2.13.11. §8 Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) οὗτος ἔλεγε τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον εἶναι διάπυρον. cf. 2.12 (59A1 DK) Σωτίων μὲν γάρ φησιν ἐν τῆι Διαδοχῆι τῶν φιλοσόφων ὑπὸ Κλέωνος αὐτὸν ἀσεβείας κριθῆναι, διότι τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον ἔλεγε διάπυρον. Harpocration Lexicon Α 119 s.v. Ἀναξαγόρας, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον εἰπὼν διάπυρον. cf. Scholia in Pindarum Ol. 1 91a.26–28 (59A20a DK) περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου οἱ φυσικοί φασιν ὡς λίθος καλεῖται ὁ ἥλιος· καὶ Ἀναξαγόρου δὲ γενόμενον τὸν Εὐριπίδην μαθητὴν πέτρον εἰρηκέναι τὸν ἥλιον … Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.6 (59A42 DK) ἥλιον δὲ καὶ σελήνην καὶ πάντα τὰ ἄστρα λίθους εἶναι ἐμπύρους. Favorinus of Arles fr. 44 Mensching at D.L. 9.34 Φαβωρῖνος δέ φησιν ἐν Παντοδαπῇ ἱστορίᾳ λέγειν Δημόκριτον (68A1 DK) περὶ Ἀναξαγόρου (59A5 DK) ὡς οὐκ εἴησαν αὐτοῦ αἱ δόξαι αἵ τε περὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης, ἀλλὰ ἀρχαῖαι, τὸν δ᾽ ὑφῃρῆσθαι. Philo of Alexandria Aet. 47 cited ch. 2.13 section E(b) General texts. Josephus Ap. 2.265 Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ Κλαζομένιος ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι νομιζόντων Ἀθηναίων τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι θεὸν ὅδ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔφη μύδρον εἶναι διάπυρον … Lucian Icar. 20, οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὰ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἃ περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρήκασι τοῦ ἡλίου, λίθον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ μύδρον διάπυρον. Origen CC 5.11, p. 328.14–16 Marcovich καὶ οὐκ ἀτιμάζοντές γε τὰ τηλικαῦτα

987

988

liber 2 caput 20

τοῦ θεοῦ δημιουργήματα οὐδ᾽ Ἀναξαγορείως μύδρον διάπυρον λέγοντες εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀστέρας τοιαῦτά φαμεν περὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ ἀστέρων. Augustine C.D. 18.41.33–34 Dombart–Kalb unde miror cur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem negans utique deum. ps.Plutarch Strom. 7 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Democritus, 68A39 DK) ἡλίου δὲ καὶ σελήνης γένεσίν φησι· κατ᾽ ἰδίαν φέρεσθαι ταῦτα μηδέπω τὸ παράπαν ἔχοντα θερμὴν φύσιν μηδὲ μὴν καθόλου λαμπρότητα, τοὐναντίον δ᾽ ἐξωμοιωμένην τῇ περὶ τὴν γῆν φύσει· γεγονέναι γὰρ ἑκάτερον τούτων πρότερον ἔτι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὑποβολήν τινα κόσμου, ὕστερον δέ, μεγεθοποιουμένου τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον κύκλου, ἐναποληφθῆναι ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ πῦρ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.33 (doxography on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) καὶ πάντα μὲν τὰ ἄστρα πυροῦσθαι διὰ τὸ τάχος τῆς φορᾶς, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀστέρων ἐκπυροῦσθαι. differently 9.44 (doxography on Democritus, 68A1 DK) τόν τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων λείων καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι. Scholia in Apollonium Rhodium 498b Wendel Ἀναξαγόρας (59A72 DK) δὲ μύδρον εἶναι τὸν ἥλιόν φησιν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι. διὸ καὶ Εὐριπίδης γνώριμος αὐτῷ γεγονώς φησι (Or. 983) χρυσέαν βῶλον τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι. Olympiodorus in Mete. 17.19 on Anaxagoras (DK59A19) cited on ch. 2.13.3. §9 Thales: Scholia Platonica Resp. 600a p. 272 Greene Θαλῆς (11A3 DK) … καὶ μικρὰν ἄρκτον αὐτὸς ἔγνω καὶ τὰς τροπὰς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων, καὶ περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ φύσεως. §11 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 10 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.4 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐκ πέμπτης οὐσίας τὸν ἥλιον. πυροῦσθαι δὲ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ σφόδρα γίνεσθαι θερμὸν ἀνίσχοντός τε τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ πλησιάζοντος ἡμῖν οὐ διὰ τὸ πύρινον εἶναι τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς κινήσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα παράτριψιν, ὑποβεβλημένον αὐτοῦ τῇ φορᾷ καὶ περικείμενον· οὔτε δὲ τὸν ἥλιον οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων ὁτιοῦν πῦρ εἶναι. ps.Plutarch Hom. 105 Kindstrand καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτὸν παρακαλεῖ ‘Ἡέλι᾽, ἦ τοι μὲν σὺ μετ᾽ ἀθανάτοισι φάεινε | καὶ θνητοῖσι βροτοῖσιν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν’ (Od. 12.385–386) ἐξ ὧν δηλοῖ ὅτι οὐ πῦρ ἐστιν ὁ ἥλιος ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέρα τις κρείσσων οὐσία· ὅπερ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπέλαβεν, εἴ γε τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἐστιν ἀνωφερὲς καὶ ἄψυχον καὶ εὐδιάλειπτον καὶ φθαρτόν, ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος κυκλοφορητικὸς καὶ ἔμψυχος καὶ ἀίδιος καὶ ἄφθαρτος. §13 Empedocles: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (31A1 DK) καὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιόν φησι πυρὸς ἄθροισμα μέγα. ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος τὴν φύσιν οὐκ ἔστι πῦρ ἀλλὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἀντανάκλασις ὁμοία τῇ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος γιγνομένῃ. §15 Heraclitus: ps.Plutarch Strom. 11 (fr. 179 Sandbach) on Metrodorus of Chios (70A4) χρόνῳ δὲ πυγνυσθαι τῷ ξηρῷ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ποιεῖν ἐκ τοῦ λαμπροῦ ὕδατος ἀστέρας, νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ἐκ τῆς σβέσεως καὶ ἐξάψεως, καὶ καθόλου τὰς ἐκλείψεις ἀποτελεῖν. Scholia Platonica on Resp. 498a Greene (fr. 58b3 Marcovich) Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος, φυσικὸς ὤν, ἔλεγεν ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος ἐν τῇ δυτικῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐλθὼν καὶ καταδὺς ἐν αὐτῇ σβέννυται, εἶτα διελθὼν τὸ ὑπὸ γῆν καὶ εἰς ἀνατολὴν φθάσας ἐξάπτει πάλιν, καὶ τοῦτο αἰεὶ γίγνεται.

liber 2 caput 20

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Apol. 26d–e (Socrates on Anaxagoras) ὦ θαυμάσιε Μέλητε, ἵνα τί ταῦτα λέγεις; οὐδὲ ἥλιον οὐδὲ σελήνην ἄρα νομίζω θεοὺς εἶναι, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄλλοι ἄνθρωποι; μὰ Δί᾽, ὦ ἄνδρες δικασταί, ἐπεὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον λίθον φησὶν εἶναι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην γῆν. Ἀναξαγόρου οἴει κατηγορεῖν, ὦ φίλε Μέλητε; καὶ οὕτω καταφρονεῖς τῶνδε καὶ οἴει αὐτοὺς ἀπείρους γραμμάτων εἶναι ὥστε οὐκ εἰδέναι ὅτι τὰ Ἀναξαγόρου βιβλία τοῦ Κλαζομενίου γέμει τούτων τῶν λόγων; καὶ δὴ καὶ οἱ νέοι ταῦτα παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ μανθάνουσιν, ἃ ἔξεστιν ἐνίοτε εἰ πάνυ πολλοῦ δραχμῆς ἐκ τῆς ὀρχήστρας πριαμένοις Σωκράτους καταγελᾶν, ἐὰν προσποιῆται ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι, ἄλλως τε καὶ οὕτως ἄτοπα ὄντα; Phd. 111c (on the blessed souls) καὶ τόν γε ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ ἄστρα ὁρᾶσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν οἷα τυγχάνει ὄντα. Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b26– 30 εἰ γὰρ τοῦ φυσικοῦ τὸ τί ἐστιν ἥλιος ἢ σελήνη εἰδέναι, τῶν δὲ συμβεβηκότων καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μηδέν, ἄτοπον, ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι φαίνονται λέγοντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως καὶ περὶ σχήματος σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου. Cael. 2.7 289a11 περὶ δὲ τῶν καλουμένων ἄστρων ἑπόμενον ἄν εἴη λέγειν, ἐκ τίνων τε συνεστᾶσι … Cael. 2.12 293a11–14 ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν τὴν ἐγκύκλιον φερομένων κίνησιν ἄστρων εἴρηται ποῖ’ ἄττα κατά τε τὴν οὐσίαν ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα, περί τε τῆς φορᾶς καὶ τῆς τάξεως αὐτῶν. Stoics at D.L. 7.144 (SVF 2.650) εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν ἥλιον εἰλικρινὲς πῦρ, καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ Περὶ μετεώρων (F 17 E.-K., F312 Theiler)· … πῦρ μὲν οὖν εἶναι, ὅτι τὰ πυρὸς πάντα ποιεῖ. Chapter heading: Aristotle see texts cited under General texts. Posidonius see on ch. 2.11. Hermogenes(?) Prog. 11, p. 25.8 Rabe εἰ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ (example of a θέσις). Isidore of Seville Nat. 15 de natura solis. Ioannes Tzetzes in Nubes 102 see on ch. 2.13. §6 Heraclitus Hecataeus Cleanthes: Aristotle Mete. 2.2 354b33–345a18 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ. καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔνιοί γέ φασιν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τροπὰς αὐτόν· οὐ γὰρ αἰεὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς δύνασθαι τόπους παρασκευάζειν αὐτῷ τὴν τροφήν· ἀναγκαῖον δ᾽ εἶναι τοῦτο συμβαίνειν περὶ αὐτὸν ἢ φθείρεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ τὸ φανερὸν πῦρ, ἕως ἂν ἔχῃ τροφήν, μέχρι τούτου ζῆν, τὸ δ᾽ ὑγρὸν τῷ πυρὶ τροφὴν εἶναι μόνον,—ὥσπερ ἀφικνούμενον μέχρι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον τὸ ἀναγόμενον τοῦ ὑγροῦ, ἢ τὴν ἄνοδον τοιαύτην οὖσαν οἵανπερ τῇ γιγνομένῃ φλογί, δι᾽ ἧς τὸ εἰκὸς λαβόντες οὕτω καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ὑπέλαβον. τὸ δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅμοιον· ἡ μὲν γὰρ φλὸξ διὰ συνεχοῦς ὑγροῦ καὶ ξηροῦ μεταβαλλόντων γίγνεται καὶ οὐ τρέφεται (οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ οὖσα διαμένει οὐδένα χρόνον ὡς εἰπεῖν), περὶ δὲ τὸν ἥλιον ἀδύνατον τοῦτο συμβαίνειν, ἐπεὶ τρεφομένου γε τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοί φασιν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἥλιος οὐ μόνον καθάπερ Ἡράκλειτός φησιν, νέος ἐφ᾽ ἡμέρῃ ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ νέος συνεχῶς. ἔτι δ᾽ ἡ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀναγωγὴ τοῦ ὑγροῦ ὁμοία τοῖς θερμαινομένοις ἐστὶν ὕδασιν ὑπὸ πυρός· εἰ οὖν μηδὲ τὸ ὑποκαόμενον τρέφεται πῦρ, οὐδὲ τὸν ἥλιον εἰκὸς ἦν ὑπολαβεῖν, οὐδ᾽ εἰ πᾶν θερμαίνων ἐξατμίσειεν τὸ ὕδωρ (continuation quoted on A 2.17.4–6) Cicero ND 2.40 (citing Cleanthes, SVF 2.504) ‘ergo’ inquit ‘cum sol igneus sit, Oceanique alatur umoribus’ (quia nullus ignis sine pastu aliquo posset permanere), ‘necesse est aut ei similis sit igni quem adhibemus ad usum atque victum, aut ei qui corporibus animantium continetur. atqui hic noster ignis, quem usus vitae requirit,

989

990

liber 2 caput 20

confector est et consumptor omnium idemque quocumque invasit cuncta disturbat ac dissipat; contra ille corporeus vitalis et salutaris omnia conservat alit auget sustinet sensuque adficit’. negat ergo esse dubium horum ignium sol utri similis sit, cum is quoque efficiat ut omnia floreant et in suo quaeque genere pubescant. quare cum solis ignis similis eorum ignium sit qui sunt in corporibus animantium, solem quoque animantem esse oportet, et quidem reliqua astra quae oriantur in ardore caelesti qui aether vel caelum nominatur. See further texts cited on A 2.17.4. Αlexander of Lycopolis c.Manich. 19.18–22 Brinkmann καλῶς γὰρ δὴ πρὸς τὸν Ζήνωνος (not in SVF) τοῦ Κιτιέως εἴρηται λόγον, ὃς ‘τὸ πᾶν ἐκπυρωθήσεται’ λέγων ‘πᾶν τὸ καῖον ἔχον καύσῃ ὅλον καύσει, καὶ ὁ ἥλιος πῦρ ἐστιν καὶ ὃ ἔχει οὐ καύσει;’ ἐξ οὗ συνήγετο, ὡς ᾤετο, τὸ πᾶν ἐκπυρωθήσεσθαι. §7 Plato: Plato Tim. 40a see on ch. 2.13.12. ps.Plato Def. 411a ἥλιος πῦρ οὐράνιον. §8 Anaxagoras Democritus Metrodorus: Xenophon Mem. 4.7.7 (Socrates on Anaxagoras, 59A73 DK) ἐκεῖνος γὰρ λέγων μὲν τὸ αὐτὸ εἶναι πῦρ τε καὶ ἥλιον ἠγνόει, … φάσκων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον λίθον διάπυρον εἶναι καὶ τοῦτο ἠγνόει … §11 Aristotle: see on ch. 2.13.13. §13 Empedocles: Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.48.3 ἄμεινον δὲ ἐκδέχεσθαι τὸν αἰθέρα πάντα συνέχοντα καὶ σφίγγοντα, καθὰ καὶ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησιν (31B38 DK, text Primavesi)· εἰ δ᾽ ἄγε τοι λέξω πρῶθ᾽ ἀρχήν Ἠελίοιο, / ἐξ ἧς δὴ⟨λ᾽⟩ ἐγένοντο τὰ νῦν ἐσορῶμεν πάντα, / γαῖά τε καὶ πόντος πολυκύμων ἠδ᾽ ὑγρὸς ἀὴρ | ἠδ᾽ αἰθὴρ Τιτὴν σφίγγων πέρι κύκλον ἅπαντα. Plutarch Pyth.Or. 400B ὑμεῖς δὲ τοῦ μὲν Ἐμπεδοκλέους (31B44 DK) καταγελᾶτε φάσκοντος τὸν ἥλιον περὶ γῆν ἀνακλάσει φωτὸς οὐρανίου γενόμενον αὖθις ‘ἀνταυγεῖν πρὸς ὄλυμπον ἀταρβήτοισι προσώποις’ … §14 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep. Pyth. at D.L. 10.90 see on A 2.13.15. Lucretius DRN 5.597–613 nam licet hinc mundi patefactum totius unum / largifluum fontem scatere atque erumpere lumen, / ex omni mundo quia sic elementa vaporis / undique convenient et sic coniectus eorum / confluit, ex uno capite hic ut profluat ardor. /… est etiam quoque uti non magno solis ab igni / aera percipiat calidis fervoribus ardor / … forsitan et rosea sol alta lampade lucens / possideat multum caecis fervoribus ignem / circum se … Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 13 III 13–IV 10 Smith ἐνδέχεται τοιγαροῦν τὸν ἥλιον ἀνθρακώδη τινὰ κύκλον [εἶναι καὶ] λεπτὸν ἄκρως, [ὑπό τε τῶν] πνευμάτων αἰω[ρούμενων] πηγῆς τε ἐπέχ[οντα τρό]πον, τοῦ μὲν ἀ[πορέοντος] ἐξ αὐτοῦ πυρὸ[ς, τοῦ δὲ εἰσ]ρέοντος ἐκ τοῦ [περιέχον]τος κατὰ μεικρ[ομερεῖς] συνκρίσεις διὰ [τὴν τούτου] πολυμιγ[είαν οὕτω δ᾽ ἐ]παρκεῖν αὐ[τομάτως πέφυ]κε τῷ κόσμῳ̣ [ἢ τοῦ περι]χοντος εὐε[μπρήστου] τυνχαν[οντος] (including some conjectures by Bailey 3.1414) §15 Heraclitus: cf. Heraclitus fr. 22B30 cited by Clement of Alexandria Strom. 5.104.1–2 (on the eternity of the cosmos, cf. A 2.4.1) σαφέστατα ⟨δ᾽⟩ Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος (fr. 22B30 DK) ταύτης ἐστὶ τῆς δόξης, τὸν μέν τινα κόσμον ἀίδιον εἶναι δοκιμάσας, τὸν δέ τινα φθειρόμενον, τὸν κατὰ τὴν διακόσμησιν εἰδὼς οὐχ ἕτερον ὄντα ἐκείνου πως ἔχοντος. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἀίδιον τὸν ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως

liber 2 caput 20 ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδει, φανερὸν ποιεῖ λέγων οὕτως· ‘κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθπώπων ἐποίησεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔστιν καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.’ same text cited at Plutarch An.Procr. 1014A. §16 Parmenides: see on A 2.11.1, 3.1.6 (fr. 11 28B11 DK).

991

Liber 2 Caput 21 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890C; pp. 351a3–352a3 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.24, p. 401.11–17 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 63; p. 626.13–17 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 156–157 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127, p. 67 (titulus solus)—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.46, p. 50.1 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.13 (tit.) + 1.25.1c, p. 208.8–11 + 1.25.1g, p. 209.9–10 + 1.25.3e, p. 211.1 + 1.25.3f, p. 211.6–7; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 1.97 p. 27.25–28.4; 4.22, p. 106.1, 4–7 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 20, p. 29.7–9 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.19–20 Martin

Titulus καʹ. Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (P,S,T) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ, τὸν δὲ κύκλον, ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὴν ἐκπνοὴν ἔχει καὶ ὑφ᾽ οὗ φέρεται, ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς. (P1,S1,T1) §2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἴσον τῇ γῇ τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν. (S1,Tb2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας πολλαπλασίονα Πελοποννήσου. (P2,Ta2b3) §4 Ἡράκλειτος εὖρος ποδὸς ἀνθρωπείου. (P3,S2,Ta3b4) §5 Ἐπίκουρος τηλικοῦτον ἡλίκος φαίνεται, ἢ μικρῷ τινι μείζω ἢ ἐλάττω. (P4,S4) §1 Anaximander 12A21 DK; §2 Empedocles 31A56 DK; §3 Anaxagoras 59A72 DK; §4 Heraclitus 22B3 DK; §5 Epicurus fr. 345 Usener titulus S vid. app. ad c. 2.20 §1 [2] Ἀναξίμανδρος PBEGQST (4.22) : Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης T (1.97) ‖ ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ PEGS : ἴσον τῇ γῇ εἶναι PB ‖ κύκλον] πόλον PG ‖ [2–3] ἀφ᾽ οὗ … καὶ deest in PQ, καὶ … φέρεται in PG ‖ [3] ἐκπνοὴν PBGS : πνοὴν PE ‖ ὑφ᾽ οὗ PES Diels Laks–Most : ἐφ᾽ οὗ PBQ ‖ φέρεται PBE : περιφέρεται S ‖ ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα PBE1QT(bis) : τοῦ προειρημένου μεγέθους S, i.e. ut in capite priori, sed illic ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα : ὀκτω και εἰκοσαπλασίω PE2 : ἑπτάκις καὶ εἰκοσαπλασίονα PG §2 non hab. P ‖ [5] τὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνταύγειαν S : om. T §3 non hab. S ‖ [6] πολλαπλασίονα PBEQG1S : πολυπλάσιον PG2 : μείζονα T(bis) ‖ Πελοποννήσου PBET(bis): γῆς PG, cf. von jener (Grösse der Erde) Q §4 non hab. PG ‖ [7] Ἡράκλειτος PBEST(bis) : al. Q Epikuros und Herakleitos §5 [8] post nomen hab. PBQ πάλιν (om. Q) φησὶν ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα ἢ, secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ τηλικοῦτον] τοιοῦτον PG ‖ ἡλίκος PBS : ἡλίκος καὶ ὁποῖος PE : οἷος PG ‖ ἢ] om. PB ‖ μικρῷ τινι S : μικρῷ τι PE : μικρῷ PB, ⟨τινι⟩ add. Diels Mau Lachenaud : μικρῷ PG ‖ μείζω ἢ ἐλάττω corr. edd. : μείζων ἢ ἐλάττων PBE1S, μείζον ἢ ἐλάττον PE2, μείζον᾽ ἢ ἐλάττω PG

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 1.97, 4.22 1.97.0 (cf. tit. c. 2.20) καὶ αὖ πάλιν περὶ ἡλίου λογομαχία παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις πολλή.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_062

5

liber 2 caput 21 1.97.1 (~ §1) Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀναξιμένης ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς τοῦτον ἔφασαν εἶναι, 1.97.2 (~ §3) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ Πελοποννήσου μείζονα, 1.97.3 (~ §4) Ἡράκλειτος δὲ ὁ Ἐφέσιος ποδιαῖον. 4.22 (tit.) καὶ μεγέθους δὲ πέρι καὶ σχήματος πολλὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς διαμάχη … (cf. c. 2.22) 4.22.4 (~ §1) καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίω τῆς γῆς τοῦτον ἔφησεν εἶναι, 4.22.5 (~ §2) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἶσον τῇ γῇ, 4.22.6 (~ §3) ὁ δὲ Ἀναξαγόρας Πελοποννήσου μείζονα 4.22.7 (~ §4), Ἡράκλειτος δὲ ποδιαῖον. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 63 (~ tit.) Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (text Diels) 63.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸν μὲν ἥλιον ἴσον εἶναι τῇ γῇ, τὸν δὲ πόλον ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὴν ἐκπνοὴν ἔχει ἑπτάκις καὶ εἰκοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς. 63.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξαγόρας πολυπλάσιον τῆς γῆς. 63.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος τοιοῦτον, οἷος φαίνεται, ἢ μικρῷ μείζον᾽ ἢ ἐλάττω. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.46 Περὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος ἡλίου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 20, p. 29.7 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου (~ tit.) p. 29.8–9 μέγεθος ἡλίου μεῖζον γῆς φασιν. καὶ οἳ μὲν ποδιαῖον (§4), οἳ δὲ ὀκταπλασίονα, οἳ δὲ ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, p. 27.19–20 Martin κυκλοτερῆ ὄντα ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον εἶναι τῆς γῆς. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.26 Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης §1 A 2.26.1 (de luna) οἱ Στωικοὶ μείζονα τῆς γῆς ἀποφαίνονται ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον. §2 cf. A 2.20.13 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους, τὸν μὲν ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου πεπληρωκὸς τὸ ἡμισφαίριον, ἀεὶ κατ᾽ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν δὲ φαινόμενον ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ … §5 A 1.proœm. §3 ζητεῖται … ὁ ἥλιος, … ⟨εἴ τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος⟩ ὁρᾶται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

993

994

liber 2 caput 21

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The four witnesses to the tradition of P all record four doxai, with the exception of G, who deletes the view of Heraclitus that comes third in the others. A significant variant is found in the final Epicurean doxa. PB and Q record a longer version consisting of two views joined by ἤ. E and G have shortened versions containing only the second alternative. In addition Q is alone in placing the name-label Epicurus in front of that of Heraclitus in the third doxa. (2) S includes A’s heading in the composite title for his chapter on the sun (1.25). When the coalesced doxai are disentangled, it emerges that he too records four doxai, those of Anaximander, Heraclitus, Empedocles (not in P) and Epicurus (in the shorter version). For the second of these doxai, the doxa on size is subsumed under the double name-label Heraclitus and Hecataeus, which is obviously taken over from A 2.20.6. Interestingly the doxa on size is placed last in the cluster, after doxai from ch. 22 and 24. Similarly in his collection of Empedoclean doxai too S does not preserve A’s order (chs. 20, 23, 21 and 24). The doxa of Anaxagoras is omitted at S 1.25.3a, no doubt because of an oversight. (3) Unusually (but cf. ch. 2.4) T utilizes this chapter twice. In both cases he explicitly mentions that its subject is the cause of much contention (1.97 λογομαχία, διαφωνία, 4.22 διαμαχή). In the former three doxai are cited, with the name-label of Anaximander in the first doxa expanded with that of Anaximenes. In the latter there are four doxai, with the Empedoclean doxa added to those in 1.97 (but the additional name-label Anaximenes is dropped). In both texts the doxai are considerably altered and in some cases compressed compared with P and S. It is noteworthy that T leaves the Epicurean doxa out of consideration in both texts. (4) On the close parallels in Achilles and the Aratea see below section B and D(e). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Many texts show that from the Hellenistic period onwards the subject of the sun’s size was a standard example of a θέσις or a quaestio infinita that could be discussed by rhetors and philosophers alike (Hermagoras in Cicero, Quintilian). Later, Galen, Alexander and Philoponus use it as an example in discussions of logical questions. An important text at Philo Somn. 1.53—no doubt from the same source as the texts discussed on chs. 2.11 and 2.13—shows that by the first cent. BCE the question had also become part of the doxographical tradition and was treated in a standard way involving

liber 2 caput 21

995

comparison with the earth. Interesting use of this tradition is made by Achilles and another Aratean text (see Testes secundi above). The evidence in these two texts differs from A in that numbers are used (8, 19 and 18 times the earth), and two of these numbers recur in texts in Cicero (Luc. 82, 18 times) and Macrobius (8 times); see the texts below section E(a) General texts. This will have been part of the doxographical tradition that A chose not to use (the differing numbers may relate to the inside and outside rings). It brings to mind the distinction put forward by Seneca in Ep. 88.27: the philosopher asserts that the sun is large, the astronomer how large it is. The numbers given in these texts may derive from earlier astronomical material, but they differ completely from the calculations found in the texts of the astronomers Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, Archimedes and Ptolemy (see for example the text of Archimedes with four different measurements in terms of a comparison with the diameter of the moon). The brief chapter is one of the most interesting in A’s compendium because there is such a large amount of comparative material. It allows us to see how the doxographical tradition relates to the philosophical tradition (not just physics, but also epistemology and even logic), and also to the scientific and rhetorical traditions. See the fine analysis of philosophical and astronomical aspects in Barnes (1989), but with very little on the doxographical tradition (mainly on p. 31). The epistemological problems raised by the Heraclitean and Epicurean view that its size equated to how it was perceived was a stock topic which occurs frequently in Cicero, but also in many other authors. For this material see Pease (1920–1923) on Cic. Div. 2.10–11; Pease (1958) on Cic. N.D. 2.92; and the treatment of Barnes (1989) with a focus on the text in PHerc. 1013. Heraclitus’ doxai on the sun have been extensively studied in the widest possible cultural and philosophical context in Schönbeck (1998), with an idiosyncratic edition of the present chapter and its various witnesses at 349–350. (2) Sources. The limited evidence indicates that the question of the sun’s size was discussed by philosophers in the Ionian tradition, beginning with Anaximander and continuing in the writings of Anaxagoras and Democritus. The earliest speculations will have been cosmological, comparison with the earth forming a very approximate standard of measurement. However, already in Heraclitus (fr. 22B3 DK) epistemological considerations may have entered the discussion: the sun is the size of a human foot, as it appears (this addition is attested in the words of Heraclitus himself at Pap. Derveni col. 4.6–7, see below section E(b)§4). Aristotle refers to the size of the sun as an astronomical question at Mete. 1.8 345b1 (note the comparison with the size of the earth), but the question is far removed from his interests in the De caelo. He does refer to the epistemological aspect three times in his psychological writings, each time alluding to the Heraclitean text with the signature term ποδιαῖος (texts

996

liber 2 caput 21

below in section E(b)§4). A similar emphasis is found in a text in the Epinomis of Philip of Opus. After Aristotle it remains a standard example of the difference between appearance and reality and recurs in the tropes of Aenesidemus as recorded in Diogenes Laertius. The Heraclitean doctrine is continued in Epicurus and it gives rise to a standard debate between Epicureans and Stoics which is treated at great length in Cleomedes. C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is of the usual umbrella type (Περὶ x) and denotes a topic in the category of quantity. There are no variations in relation to its formulation. It is clear from S’s composite title that he read the same heading in A. T’s introductory sentence at 4.22 also contains a reference to the heading. D Analysis a Context As in the case of the stars in chs. 2.13–19, after discussing the sun’s nature (οὐσία), A turns to other questions relating to the sun. The first of these is its size. This was discussed for the cosmos as a whole in terms of whether it was limited or unlimited (ch. 2.1) but not in the case of the stars. It will be treated for the moon (ch. 2.26), but it is surprisingly missing for the earth in Book 3 (in the light of the title preserved by S for his ch. 1.33 it is likely that a chapter may have been dropped by P in this case—in S’s absence he is our only witness; cf. Diels DG 62, M–R 2.1.198, and see further on ch. 3.9). As in his treatment of the cosmos, stars, moon and earth, A is following the sequence of the Aristotelian categories, in this case the category of quantity following that of substance. See further Introduction to Book 2, section 2. b Number–Order of Lemmata In total our witnesses yield five lemmata, with no single witness preserving all five. The order of the doxai in P and T is consistent with each other and so should be followed (S’s order is distorted because the exigencies of the process of coalescence). This means that the Empedoclean doxa occupied the second place, as shown by T in his second text. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter appears in the first instance to descend from large to small, using the earth as the main criterion for measurement. As often in the chapters on the heavenly bodies, A starts off with a venerable Ionian (cf. also chs. 2.11–13, 18, 20, 22–25, 28–29). Anaximander and Empedocles have the same measurement, but for the former the detail on the size of ring in which the sun is conveyed

liber 2 caput 21

997

is added. For Empedocles the sun in question is ‘the visible sun’ described in 2.20.13 (the term ἀνταύγεια is repeated from there). The views of Anaxagoras and Heraclitus posit a smaller size. Implicit in the Heraclitean doxa is perhaps a move to a size in terms of human perception. In the final Epicurean view the epistemological perspective is made explicit. Epicurus also occupies the final position in 2.2.5, 2.13.15 and 2.22.4, but in all those texts the emphasis is on possible views (ἐνδέχομενα), unlike in the present doxa (on the addition of the theme of possible views in P see the detailed comment in the next section). We note too that the term φαίνεται in §5 introduces by implication the antithesis between what is (Heraclitus) and what appears (Epicurus). If the evidence of the secondary and proximate traditions are adduced, it is apparent that comparison with the size of the earth involving a number of positions is a standard approach. In Philo the movement is in the opposite direction, ascending from small to large. What is very surprising is that A has not included the obvious view that the sun is larger than the earth. Philo has two positions expressing this view (larger and much larger). Both T and G appear to sense this omission. T converts the first doxa into this position, adaptating Anaximander’s doxa for that purpose and adding—it seems—the name-label of Anaximenes (see further below section D(d)§1). G has altered Anaxagoras’ view to compensate for the absence (it would seem) and so, because he omits the third doxa, his sequence goes from large to larger. Moreover, on the size of the moon A himself refers to this position in 2.26.1. So the oversight or omission remains a puzzle. The evidence of Ach can be added. He commences with the above-mentioned view that the sun is larger than the earth, then adds the Heraclitean position, followed by two measurements in terms of numbers (8 times, 19 times). These two measurements are also found in Macrobius (texts cited below). The latter number is also found in a doxography at Cicero Luc. 82, which moreover includes the doxai of Heraclitus (without name-label) and Epicurus. The parallel with A is so close that Cicero’s text must be regarded as evidence of a proximate tradition. It seems that measurement of the sun’s relative size by means of numbers was an option in the doxographical tradition that A chose not to utilize here (nor in ch. 2.26 on the size of the moon). Cicero attributes the view that the sun is 19 times the earth to the mathematici, i.e. the astronomers, whose views A cites six times in Book 2 (chs. 15.5, 16.2, 16.6, 29.7, 30.8, 31.2). As we have already noted in section B above, Seneca distinguishes between the method of the philosopher and the astronomer. The astronomer’s method of proceeding to which he refers brings to mind Cicero’s reference to Archimedes’ diagrams at Luc. 116 (and Aristarchus’ extant treatise Περὶ μεγέθων καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης). The views that A records are those of the

998

liber 2 caput 21

philosopher, but his method is not to demonstrate that the sun is large. Instead he presents an array of opinions by means of his customary diaeretic method, but it is certainly not done as effectively as might have been expected. Not only is the important view that the sun is greater than the earth not included, but the mixture of comparative views and those involving the epistemological and psychological factors relating to human perception lacks clarity (see the structural diagram at M–R 2.2.543). The treatment is kept very compact, though less so than in the parallel chapter on the moon (2.26) or those on the shape of the two heavenly bodies (2.22, 2.27). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 T in one of his two texts adds the name-label Anaximenes. It is theoretically possible that it was present in T’s copy of A, but had been left out by P in his abridgement and S in his process of coalescence. Other possibilities—also remote—are there was a separate doxa attributed to Anaximenes of which he preserved only the name, or that he has anticipated on the use of the namelabel in the following chapter 2.22. But, as argued above in section D(c), it is much more likely to reflect adaptation on T’s part, since the doxa of Anaximander is too specific to be shared with anyone else, even his pupil. In both texts T states that the sun is 27 times the size of the earth, whereas in the doxai preserved in P and S it is the sun’s ring that has that size and the sun itself is the same size as the earth. The adaptation is most likely deliberate, because it allows T to include the alternative view that the sun is larger than the earth which is perplexingly missing in A. For the polemicist T the importance of including this diaeretical option is greater than the accuracy of his report. In his second report he does not bother to mention that the sun of which Empedocles says that it is equal to the earth (in size) is the reflected sun. Here he engages in simplification, not falsification. §2 In a forthcoming article Couprie (2020) argues that Empedocles’ earth was flat and that he may not have realised the consequences: ‘If the text on the size of the sun [sc. in Aëtius] is not corrupt, we must assume that Empedocles did not fully understand that on a flat earth the sun cannot be the same size as the earth. Perhaps he did not realize that his various statements—the sun is twice as far from the moon as from the earth, the moon almost touches the earth, the sun is as big as the earth, the heaven is egg-shaped, the heaven has tilted—do not harmonize well together. Or perhaps he did not worry about such details.’ As noted in the previous section, the term ἀνταύγεια is repeated from the description of the two suns in A 2.20.13. On the scholarly controversies relating to that text, see our Commentary ad loc.

liber 2 caput 21

999

§3 Couprie (2009) defends the plausibility of Anaxagoras’ measurement based on the assumption of a flat earth and the use of a gnomon or a sighting tube. However, the calculation that he reaches, a diameter of either 54 or 78km is hardly ‘many times the size of the Peloponnese’ (which is more than 100km in width). §4 In other doxographical texts the Heraclitean doxa is usually indicated by the single word ποδιαῖον (sc. μέγεθος) or pedalis; cf. T (twice), Ach, Philo Somn. 1.53; already in Arist. de An. 3.3 428b3, Insomn. 1 458b28, 2 468b16, Cic. Acad. 2.82, Tert. Ad nat. 2.4.15 etc. Against this background it is unnecessary to postulate a possible contamination between P and S on the grounds that T (twice) and Ach agree on the single word formulation, as done by Bottler (2014) 423, 515. The phrase in A is taken by editors as a citation from Heraclitus’ original text; see 22B3 DK (placed in quotation marks), Mouraviev (1999–2003) IIA, T440, Marcovich (2001a) fr. 57, Graham (2010) 163. This intuition was confirmed by the citation using the same words in the Derveni papyrus; text below section E(b)§4. However, the papyrus changes the word order to ἀνθρωπηΐου εὖρος ποδός, which given its antiquity is likely to be authentic. The two texts demonstrate that the adjective ποδιαῖος which, as noted above, is standard in the doxographical tradition is the result of Aristotelian influence. It is curious that Q records an extra name-label ‘Epicurus and Heraclitus’. Bottler argues that the word πάλιν in the following lemma (§5) as preserved in P only makes sense if it refers back to Epicurus in the previous lemma (§4). But, as Jas has pointed out in an unpublished review of Bottler’s study, the word πάλιν, pace Daiber, does not occur in Q’s Arabic translation. Jas notes that the extra name-label may have already been present in Q’s Vorlage and suspects that a marginal gloss has entered the text. This is perhaps more likely than that it was added by Q. In any case the name-label must have been added in recognition of the fact that Epicurus defended the same view as Heraclitus (see next comment). §5 In the tradition Epicurus’ views on the size of the sun are frequently associated with the Heraclitean position given in §4, although there is no reference to it in the brief discussion in Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.91 (including a glossematic cross-reference to De natura Book 11); see Cic. Fin. 1.20, Acad. 2.82, 123, Cleomedes, 2.1.1–25, 339–345, Tert. Ad nat. 2.4.15–16 etc. A’s formulation is very close to Epicurus’ own words in Ep.Pyth. 10.91 or another text from which that summary derives (note also Cic. Fin. 1.20, abridged version at Cleom. 2.1.1–2; see texts in section E(b)§5). The addition of ὁποῖος to ἡλίκος in E is not convincing, since it does not cohere with the chapter’s positioning in the category of quantity (G is even more mistaken with οἷος). In the Byzantine mss. of P and Q two doxai are attributed to Epicurus joined by ἤ. Diels bracketed the former as interpolated from the following

1000

liber 2 caput 21

chapter 2.22.4. However, the word πάλιν can hardly point forwards. Possibly the phrase was imported from the later text and then πάλιν was added with reference to 2.2.5 and 2.13.15. For a spirited defence of Epicurus’ much maligned doctrine see Algra (2001). On Q’s brilliant but wayward Verschlimmbesserung at Book 1.proœm. 3 see above Commentary D(d) ad loc. e Other Evidence Ach has a separate and quite long chapter on the sun’s size with exactly the same title as A, but only the first two lines contain doxographical material. The remainder of the chapter discusses the sun’s movement (cf. A 2.23). Ach’s two chapters thus cover the same ground as A but in a different sequence as follows: Ach ch. 19 Περὶ ἡλίου on the sun’s substance, shape and eclipses: cf. A chs. 2.20, 22, 24; Ach ch. 20 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου on the sun’s size and movement: cf. A chs. 2.21, 23. It is clear that Ach has used a doxographical tradition similar to that found in A, but he also includes sizes larger than the earth and uses the two commonly used numbers to indicate them. Of the four doxai only one is found in A, the one on Heraclitus, but without the name-label. The basic method is the same, but in contrast to A there is an ascending sequence of size rather awkwardly interrupted by the Heraclitean doxa. The other text in the Aratean commentary tradition only contains a single number (18×). It is also recalls the doxographical tradition, but does not take the opportunity to present multiple doxai. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Hermagoras fr. 6a Matthes, T 14 Woerther at Cic. Inv. 1.6.8 quae sit solis magnitudo? (see further on ch. 2.2). Cicero Luc. 82 Plasberg quid potest sole maius, quem mathematici amplius duodeviginti partibus confirmant maiorem esse quam terram: quantulus nobis videtur; mihi quidem quasi pedalis; Epicurus autem posse putat etiam minorem esse eum quam videatur, sed non multo; ne maiorem quidem multo putat esse, vel tantum esse quantus videatur, ut oculi aut nihil mentiantur {tamen} aut non multum. Luc. 126 solis autem magnitudinem (ipse enim hic radiatus me intueri videtur admonens ut crebro faciam mentionem sui) vos (sc. Stoics, not in SVF) ergo huius magnitudinem quasi decempeda permensi refertis; ego me, quasi malis architectis, mensurae vestrae nego credere: dubium est uter nostrum sit, leviter ut dicam, verecundior? Luc. 128 non enim magis adsentiuntur nec adprobant lucere nunc quam

liber 2 caput 21 cum cornix cecinerit tum aliquid eam aut iubere aut vetare, nec magis adfirmabunt signum illud si erunt mensi sex pedum esse, quam solem, quem metiri non possunt, plus quam duodeviginti partibus maiorem esse quam terram. de Orat. 2.66 si enim est oratoris, quaecumque res infinite posita sit, de ea posse dicere, dicendum erit ei, quanta sit solis magnitudo, quae forma terrae. Div. 2.10 num censes eos qui divinare dicuntur posse respondere sol maiorne quam terra sit an tantus quantus videatur? Strabo 2.5.2 τούτοις (sc. heavenly bodies) δὲ πιστεύσαντες ἢ πᾶσιν ἢ τισὶν οἱ ἀστρονομικοὶ τὰ ἑξῆς πραγματεύονται, κινήσεις καὶ περιόδους (cf. ch. 2.16) καὶ ἐκλείψεις (cf. chs. 2.24, 2.29) καὶ μεγέθη (cf. chs. 2.21, 26) καὶ ἀποστάσεις (cf. ch. 2.31) καὶ ἄλλα μυρία. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 φησὶν οὖν ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος τῷ κατασκόπῳ τῶν τῆς φύσεως πραγμάτων· τί περὶ ἡλίου ζητεῖς, εἰ ποδιαῖός ἐστιν, εἰ τῆς γῆς μείζων ἁπάσης, εἰ πολλαπλάσιος αὐτῆς; Quintilian Inst. 2.17.38 et mensuras solis (full text at A 1.proœm. §3 Exempla physica) Inst. 7.2.6 quaeritur per coniecturam et qualitatem circa modum speciem numerum: an sol maior quam terra … Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.24 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) καὶ πρῶτος τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μέγεθος ⟨τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ κύκλου ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ τῆς σελήνης μέγεθος add. Diels prob. Dorandi⟩ τοῦ σεληναίου ἑπτακοσιοστὸν καὶ εἰκοστὸν μέρος ἀπεφήνατο κατά τινας (cf. Apuleius Flor. 18.32 = 11A19 DK). V.P. 7.144 καὶ μείζονα (sc. τὸν ἥλιον) τῆς γῆς, ὡς ὁ αὐτὸς (sc. Posidonius, fr. 9 Ε.Κ., 261a Theiler) ἐν τῷ ςʹ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου … μείζω τῆς γῆς τῷ πᾶσαν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν οὐρανόν. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.61, p. 137.5–9 Marchesi quid est inquit vobis investigare, conquirere, … orbe sit sol amplior an pedis unius latitudine metiatur. Macrobius in Somn. 1.20.32 ergo ex his dicendum est solem octies terra esse maiorem. haec de solis magnitudine breviter de multis excerpta libavimus. Symeon Seth CRN 3.46 50.2 Delatte τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μέγεθος ἄπιστόν τι δοκεῖ τοῖς γε ἀγεωμετρήτοις καὶ τοῖς τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀμυήτοις. πάντες μὲν οὖν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ἀπεφήναντο τοῦτον τῆς γῆς μείζονα, διεφώνησαν δὲ περὶ τοῦ ὁπόσον ἐστὶ μείζων καὶ πολυπλάσιος. ὁ δὲ σοφώτατος Πτολεμαῖος διὰ γεωμετρικῶν ἀπέδειξε μεθόδων ἑκατονεβδομηκονταπλασίονα τοῦτον τῆς γῆς εἶναι. Chapter heading: Philo of Alexandria Mut. 67 τί ἡλίου μέγεθος (for context see further on ch. 2.23); cf. also Her. 247 (cited on ch. 2.11). Scholia in Platonem Resp. 600a1–10 Greene (on Thales) καὶ περὶ ἡλίου μεγέθους καὶ φύσεως. §1 Anaximander: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.1 (on Anaximander 12A1 DK) ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον οὐκ ἐλάττονα τῆς γῆς. Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 (text Diels, see note at 12A11 DK) εἶναι δὲ τὸν κύκλον τοῦ ἡλίου ἑπτακαιεικοσαπλασίονα ⟨τῆς γῆς, ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα δὲ τὸν⟩ τῆς σελήνης. §2 Empedocles: cf. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (on Empedocles, 31A1 DK) καὶ τὸν μὲν ἥλιόν φησι πυρὸς ἄθροισμα μέγα καὶ τῆς σελήνης μείζω. §3 Anaxagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) οὗτος ἔλεγε τὸν ἥλιον μύδρον εἶναι διάπυρον καὶ μείζω τῆς Πελοποννήσου. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ὑπερέχειν δὲ τὸν ἥλιον μεγέθει τὴν Πελοπόννησον. §4 Heraclitus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.7 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) εἴρηκε δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ συνισταμένων πάντων παθῶν, ὅτι τε ὁ ἥλιός ἐστι τὸ μέγεθος οἷος φαίνεται. cf. also Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.53 cited above.

1001

1002

liber 2 caput 21

§5 Epicurus: Cicero Luc. 123 quid tu, Epicure? (—) loquere, putas solem esse tantulum? ego ne bis quidem tantum. Fin. 1.20 (—) sol Democrito (68A67 DK) magnus videtur, quippe homini erudito in geometriaque perfecto; huic (sc. Epicurus) pedalis fortasse: tantum enim esse censet quantus videtur, vel paulo aut maiorem aut minorem. Seneca Nat. 1.3.10 ad ipsum solem revertere. hunc, quem tot terrarum orbe maiorem probat ratio, acies nostra sic contraxit ut sapientes viri pedalem esse contenderent. Tertullian ad Nat. 2.4.15–16 Borleffs sed Epicurus (—) … cum et ipse caelum inspicere desiderat, solis orbem pedalem deprehendit. adhuc scilicet frugalitas et in caelis agebatur. denique ut ambitio profecit, etiam sol aciem suam extendit; ita illum orbe maiorem Peripatetici denotaverunt. cf. Philodemus Περὶ σημειώσεων 14.5–7 De Lacy τὸν ἥλιον ἀ]ξ[ιοῖ τοῦ φαινομένου πολὺ μ]είζον[α εἶναι δι]ὰ [τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡ]μ[ῶ]ν ἀπ[όστημα.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345b1–3 εἰ καθάπερ δείκνυται νῦν ἐν τοῖς περὶ ἀστρολογίαν θεωρήμασιν, τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μέγεθος μεῖζόν ἐστιν ἢ τὸ τῆς γῆς. ps.Plato (Philip of Opus) Epin. 983a, καὶ μὴν ὅτι γε δικαίως ἔμψυχα αὐτὰ λέγομεν, πρῶτον τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῶν διανοηθῶμεν. οὐ γάρ, ὡς σμικρὰ φαντάζεται, τηλικαῦτα ὄντως ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀμήχανον ἕκαστον αὐτῶν τὸν ὄγκον—πιστεῦσαι δ᾽ ἄξιον· ἀποδείξεσιν γὰρ ἱκαναῖς λαμβάνεται—τὸν γὰρ ἥλιον ὅλον τῆς γῆς ὅλης μείζω διανοηθῆναι δυνατὸν ὀρθῶς, καὶ πάντα δὴ τὰ φερόμενα ἄστρα θαυμαστόν τι μέγεθος ἔχει cf. list of writings in the Suda Φ 418 s.v. φιλόσοφος (i.e. Philip, fr. i Tarán, F 27 Lasserre) l. 8 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς αʹ. Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.2–9 (fr. 146 Wehrli) see ch. 2.15 section E(b) General texts. Aristarchus Περὶ μεγέθων καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης (whole treatise extant). Eratosthenes see Macrobius below. Archimedes Aren. 9 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰν διάμετρον τοῦ ἁλίου τᾶς διαμέτρου τᾶς σελήνας ὡς τριακονταπλασίαν εἶμεν καὶ μὴ μείζονα, καίπερ τῶν προτέρων ἀστρολόγων Εὐδόξου (D 13 Lasserre) μὲν ὡς ἐννεαπλασίονα ἀποφαινομένου, Φειδία δὲ τοῦ ἁμοῦ πατρὸς ὡς δὴ δωδεκαπλασίαν, Ἀριστάρχου δὲ πεπειραμένου δεικνύειν ὅτι ἐστὶν ἁ διάμετρος τοῦ ἁλίου τᾶς διαμέτρου τᾶς σελήνας μείζων μὲν ἢ ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλασίων, ἐλάττων δὲ ἢ εἰκοσαπλασίων· ἐγὼ δὲ ὑπερβαλλόμενος καὶ τοῦτον … (cf. Cicero Luc. 116 nec prius quam Archimedes … rationes omnes descripserit eas quibus efficitur multis partibus solem maiorem esse quam terram). Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler at Simp. in Phys. 292.2– 5 πολλαχοῦ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν κεφάλαιον ἀποδεῖξαι προθήσεται ὅ τε ἀστρολόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, οἷον ὅτι μέγας ὁ ἥλιος, ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς ὁδοὺς βαδιοῦνται. Seneca Ep. 88.27 magnum esse solem philosophus probabit, quantus sit mathematicus, qui usu quodam et exercitatione procedit. Quintilian Inst.Or. 3.6.42 his etiam ceteri status contineri dicuntur, quia et quantitas modo ad coniecturam referatur, ut: ‘maiorne sol quam terra’ (also 7.2.6 cited on A 2.1); 7.4.1 quantus sol. Galen Inst.Log. 2.1 Kalbfleisch ⟨τῶν δὲ προτάσεων⟩ ἔνιαι μὲν ὑπὲρ ἁπλῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀποφαίνονται, … ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ μεγέθους ‘ὁ ἥλιος ⟨ποδιαῖός ἐστιν· ὁ ἥλιος⟩ οὐκ ἔστι ποδιαῖος’, …, ἔνιαι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ⟨πρός⟩ τι ‘μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης· ⟨οὐ μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης’⟩ … Inst.Log.

liber 2 caput 21 12.3 Kalbfleisch, μέγεθος δὲ καὶ ἡλίου ⟨καὶ⟩ σελήνης καὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἀποστημάτων ἐζήτηται καὶ δέδεικται τοῖς ἀστρονόμοις. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 784.7 δύο τινῶν προσδιαλεγομένων οἷον φέρε εἰπεῖν περὶ τοῦ ἡλίου, τοῦ μὲν λέγοντος ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἥλιος τῆς γῆς, τοῦ δὲ ὅτι ἐλάττων … Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok nam causas naturalium rerum disquirere aut scire velle sol utrumne tantus quantus videtur an multis partibus maior sit quam omnis haec terra. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 6.1.20 Amand de Mandieta–Rudberg πολλὰ γὰρ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐστὶν ἐξευρεῖν τοῖς λογισμοῖς. Gregory of Nyssa An.Res. 32.11–16 MPG 46, p. 16.15–17.1 Spira εἰ γὰρ μὴ τοῦτο δοίη τις ἀληθὲς εἶναι, πῶς, εἰπὲ σὺ, πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον βλέπων, καθὼς ἐδιδάχθης παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου βλέπειν, οὐχ ὅσος φαίνεται τοῖς πολλοῖς, τοσοῦτον αὐτὸν φῂς εἶναι τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κύκλου, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπερβαλεῖν πολλαπλάσια τῷ μέτρῳ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν; Macrobius in Somn. 1.20.9 physici hoc maxime consequi in omni circa magnitudinem solis inquisitione voluerunt, quanto maior possit esse quam terra, et Eratosthenes (fr. I.41 Bernhardy) in libris dimensionum sic ait: ‘mensura terrae septies et vicies multiplicata mensuram solis efficiet’; Posidonius (F 116 E.-K., 261b Theiler) multo multoque saepius, et uterque lunaris defectus argumentum pro se advocat. John Philoponus in APr. 22.18 λήψεται γάρ … ὁ ἀποδεικτικὸς ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος μείζων τῆς γῆς ἐστι, καὶ εἰ πολλοῖς δοκεῖ ποδιαῖος εἶναι, οὐχ ὡς ὁ διαλεκτικὸς βουλόμενος ἀεὶ κρατεῖν τοῦ προσδιαλεγομένου ἐκ τῶν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὁμολογουμένων, ἄν τε ἀληθῆ εἴη ἄν τε ψευδῆ. Simplicius in Epict. 34, p. 68.29 Hadot αἱ δὲ ἴδιαι ἑκάστου ἔννοιαι, καὶ διαμαρτάνουσι πολλάκις· αἱ μὲν, ἐξ αἰσθήσεως λαμβανόμεναι ἀπατωμένης, ὡς, τὸ τὴν σελήνην ἴσην εἶναι τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ ἡλίου. Chapter heading: cf. ps.Plato (Philip of Opus) cited above under General texts. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.91, τὸ δὲ μέγεθος ἡλίου. Stoics at D.L. 7.132 μίᾳ γὰρ σκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ περὶ τὸν κόσμον λόγου) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητοῦσι περί τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ τῶν πλανωμένων, οἷον εἰ ὁ ἥλιός ἐστι τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος φαίνεται … Lucian Paras. 11 (on Epicurus) ὁ γὰρ ζητῶν περὶ σχήματος γῆς καὶ κόσμων ἀπειρίας καὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ πρώτων στοιχείων καὶ περὶ θεῶν, εἴτε εἰσὶν εἴτε οὐκ εἰσί … Aristarchus see above General texts. Ptolemy Synt. 5.17 περὶ μεγεθῶν ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς. Heron Mechanicus Geom. 1.1 Heiberg ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀστρονομία περὶ μεγεθῶν τε καὶ ἀριθμῶν καὶ ἀναλογιῶν διαλαμβάνει· τό τε γὰρ μέγεθος ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης πολυπραγμονεῖ. Macrobius in Somn. 1.20.9 see above under General texts. Isidore of Seville Nat. 16 de quantitate solis et lunae. Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda, see above on ch. 2.13. §1 Anaximander: Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.6–8 (commenting on Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 = Eudemus fr. 146 Wehrli, fuller text on ch. 2.15 section E(b) General texts) τὰ δὲ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἀποστήματα Ἡλίου καὶ Σελήνης μέχρι νῦν ἔγνωσται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκλείψεων τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῆς καταλήψεως λαβόντα, καὶ εἰκὸς ἦν ταῦτα καὶ τὸν Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A19 DK) εὑρηκέναι …. §3 Anaxagoras: see Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345b1 cited above under General texts.

1003

1004

liber 2 caput 21

§4 Heraclitus: Derveni papyrus IV 5–9 Laks–Most–Piano κατὰ [ταὐτ]ὰ Ἡράκλειτος μα[ρτυρόμενος] τὰ κοινὰ κατ[αστρέ]φει τὰ ἴδ[ι]α· ὅσπερ ἴκελα [ἱερῶι]λόγῳ λέγων [ἔφη·] ‘ἥλιο[ς’ …]μου κατὰ φύσιν ‘ἀνθρω[πηΐου] εὖρος ποδός [ἐστι’], τὸ μ[έγεθο]ς οὐχ ὑπερβάλλων. εἰ γα[τι οὔ]ρους ἑ[ωυτοῦ ὑπερβαλε]ῖ, ‘Ἐρινύε[ς] νιν ἐξευρήσου[σι.’ Aristotle de An. 3.3 428b3–4 οἷον φαίνεται μὲν ὁ ἥλιος ποδιαῖος, πιστεύεται δ᾽ εἶναι μείζων τῆς οἰκουμένης. cf. Somn. 1 458b28 καὶ ὑγιαίνουσι δὲ καὶ εἰδόσιν ὅμως ὁ ἥλιος ποδιαῖος εἶναι δοκεῖ. Somn. 2 460b18–20 τούτου δὲ σημεῖον ὅτι φαίνεται μὲν ὁ ἥλιος ποδιαῖος, ἀντίφησι δὲ πολλάκις ἕτερόν τι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν. ps.Heraclitus Ep. 9.3 Marcovich θεοῖς ξυνοικῶν δι᾽ ἀρετῆς οἶδα ἥλιον ὁπόσος ἐστί. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.85 (seventh trope of Aenesidemus) ὁ γοῦν ἥλιος παρὰ τὸ διάστημα †πόρρωθεν† φαίνεται (ποδιαῖος conj. Triller, ‘fort. recte’ Dorandi). §5 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.91 τὸ δὲ μέγεθος ἡλίου τε καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἄστρων κατὰ μὲν τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς τηλικοῦτόν ἐστιν ἡλίκον φαίνεται· … κατὰ δὲ τὸ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ ἤτοι μεῖζον τοῦ ὁρωμένου ἢ μικρῷ ἔλαττον ἢ τηλικοῦτον τυγχάνει. Stoics at D.L. 7.132 μιᾷ γὰρ σκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν αὐτοῦ (sc. the cosmos) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητοῦσι περί τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ τῶν πλανωμένων, οἷον εἰ ὁ ἥλιός ἐστι τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος φαίνεται. Lucretius DRN 5.564–565 nec nimio solis maior rota nec minor ardor / esse potest nostris quam sensibus esse videtur. DRN 585–591 postremo quoscumque vides hinc aetheris ignes / … scire licet perquam pauxillo posse minores / esse vel exigua maiores parte brevique. Cleomedes Cael. 2.1.1–6 Todd Ἐπίκουρος (—) δὲ καὶ οἱ πολλοὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τηλικοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον ἀπεφήναντο, ἡλίκος φαίνεται, αὐτῇ τῇ διὰ τῆς ὄψεως φαντασίᾳ ἀκολουθήσαντες καὶ ταύτην τοῦ μεγέθους αὐτοῦ κριτήριον ποιησάμενοι. πάρεστιν οὖν ὁρᾶν τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῇ ἀποφάσει αὐτῶν. εἰ γὰρ τηλικοῦτός ἐστιν, ἡλίκος φαίνεται, οὐκ ἄδηλον, ὡς πολλὰ ὁμοῦ μεγέθη περὶ αὐτὸν γενήσεται … Cael. 2.1 342–344, πῶς ἂν οὖν ποδιαῖος εἴη κατὰ πᾶσαν ἔφοδον σχεδὸν ἐμμεθόδως γινομένην ἀπειρομεγέθης εὑρισκόμενος;

Liber 2 Caput 22 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890D; p. 352a4–12 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.25, p. 402.1–5 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 64; p. 626.18–21 Diels; pp. 191–193 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 158–159 Daiber—PSch: Scholia Platonica ad Remp. 498a, pp. 240–241 Greene—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.46, p. 50.1 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.13 (tit.) + 1.25.1d, p. 208.17–18 + 1.25.1g, p. 209.6–7 + 1.25.1h p. 209.12 + 1.25.1, p. 209.14 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.22, p. 106.4–7 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.19–20 Di Maria

Titulus κβʹ. Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου (P,S,T) §1 Ἀναξιμένης Ἀλκμαίων πλατὺν ὡς πέταλον τὸν ἥλιον. (P1,S1,3) §2 Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ, ὑπόκυρτον. (P2,S2,T2) §3 οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ⟨καὶ⟩ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. (P3,S4,T1) §4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. (P4) §1 Anaximenes 13A15 DK; Alcmaeon 24A4 DK; §2 Heraclitus 22A12 DK; §3 Pythagorei —; Stoici SVF 2.654; §4 Epicurus fr. 344 Usener titulus S vid. app. ad c. 2.20 §1 [2] Ἀλκμαίων S : deest in PT ‖ post πλατὺν add. PG εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον οἴεται ‖ ὡς πέταλον PBE, cf. eine dünne Platte ist Q : δ᾽ εἶναι τῷ σχήματι S : ὥσπερ οἷον πέταλον PG ‖ τὸν ἥλιον PBQS : om. PE §2 [3] σκαφοειδῆ PBEQST, cf. PSch σκαφοειδὲς (Diels DG app. σφαιροειδὲς per errorem), daß ihre Gestalt wie diejenige eines Schiffes ist Q : φακοειδῆ PG: cf. δισκοειδές Ach ‖ post σκαφοειδῆ add. S δ᾽ εἶναι ‖ ὑπόκυρτον PB(I–III)EGQSch S : ἐπίκυρτον PB(III:Laur.31,37&80.30) §3 [4] οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι S : om. PT ‖ καὶ scripsimus, cf. 2.13.15 ‖ οἱ Στωικοὶ P : om. ST ‖ σφαιροειδῆ PBEQST : om. PG2 ‖ post σφαιροειδῆ add. S τὸν ἥλιον ‖ [4–5] ὡς (ὥσπερ PG) … ἄστρα P : om. S §4 lemma non hab. PB(III)S

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.22 4.22 (~ tit.) καὶ μεγέθους δὲ πέρι καὶ σχήματος πολλὴ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς διαμάχη· 4.22.1 (~ §3) οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν σφαιροειδῆ φασιν, 4.22.2 (~ §1) οἱ δὲ σκαφοειδῆ, 4.22.3 (cf. 2.20.1) οἱ δὲ ἁρματιαίῳ τροχῷ παραπλήσιον. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 64 (~ tit.) Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου (text Jas) 64.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξιμένης πλατὺν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον οἴεται ὥσπερ οἷον πέταλον. 64.2 (~ P2) Ἡράκλειτος φακοειδῆ ὑπόκυρτον.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_063

5

1006

liber 2 caput 22

64.3 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ ὥσπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. 64.4 (~ P4) Ἐπίκουρος ⟨ἐν⟩δέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα. Scholia Platonica ad Remp. 498a (de Heraclito) οὗτος τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἔλεγεν εἶναι σχῆμα σκαφοειδὲς καὶ ὑπόκυρτον (~ P2). Symeon Seth CRN 3.46 Περὶ μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος ἡλίου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 27.19–20 σχῆμα δὲ αὐτοῦ οἳ μὲν δισκοειδές (cf. §1), Ἡράκλειτος δὲ σκαφοειδές (§2), Στωϊκοὶ δὲ σφαιροειδὲς (§3) εἶναι λέγουσιν. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 1.14 Περὶ σχημάτων. A 2.2 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου. A 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων. A 2.27 Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης. A 3.10 Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 cf. A 2.14.3–4 Ἀναξιμένης ἥλων δίκην καταπεπηγέναι τῷ κρυσταλλοειδεῖ. ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα, ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα. §2 A 2.24.4 (de defectu solis) Ἡράκλειτος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφήν. A 2.27.3 (de luna) Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ. A 2.28.7 Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας … A 2.29.3 (de defectu lunae) Ἀλκμαίων Ἡράκλειτος Ἀντιφῶν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφὴν … §3 cf. A 2.2.1 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον. A 2.14.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. A 2.27.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι ὡς τὸν ἥλιον. A 3.10.1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν. §4 cf. A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν εἶναι σφαιροειδεῖς τοὺς κόσμους, ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ ἑτέροις σχήμασι κεχρῆσθαι. A 2.13.15 Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογινώσκει τούτων, ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. A 3.15.11 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν … ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The tradition of P is well-attested, with all four main witnesses preserving the same four brief doxai. The unusual doxa of Heraclitus gives rise to textual divergences to be discussed below in section D(d). The majority readings are supported by a scholion to Pl. Resp. 498a. The text was cited by Diels DG 352 (where his reading σφαιροειδὲς is erroneous, perhaps under the influence of the following doxa); see also Mouraviev IIA T442, 1181. On this witness see further on ch. 2.24.

liber 2 caput 22

1007

(2) Four lemmata in S record material from this chapter, but they represent only three of P’s four doxai. The doxai of Anaximenes and Alcmaeon are separated but identical, and doubtless go back to a double name-label in A (the latter was thus deleted by P). The description ὡς πέταλον in P is not recorded by S. In contrast, the doxa of Heraclitus follows on from the citation of A 2.20.6, where there are two name-labels, Heraclitus and Hecataeus. Clearly the second does not belong in this chapter. The doxa that the sun is spherical is abridged and has the name-label ‘the Pythagoreans’, as opposed to that of the Stoics in P. S has perhaps deleted the Stoic name-label because he quotes a view on the subject of the sun’s shape of Chrysippus from AD later in the chapter (1.25.5b). It may be surmised that A originally had a double name-label οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ, though this combination is not found elsewhere in the extant Placita (but for a double name-label with οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι see A 2.13.15). It is possible that P has substituted a general label for an individual Stoic, as he did in ch. 2.20, but we have no evidence for this. The final Epicurean doxa is not found in S unlike in his previous chapter 1.24 on the stars, where he did retain a very similar view on the stars’ shape. He may have left it out at S 1.25.3f because he felt that its mention of ‘all the above-mentioned (shapes)’ did not cohere well with the process of coalescence in this case. (3) T only refers to the subject of the sun’s shape in the second of the two passages discussed on ch. 2.21. In a chiastic construction he inverses the order of the doxai of the two chapters, giving those in ch. 22 before those in ch. 21. Two first two anonymous doxai can be identified as those of the Stoics and Heraclitus in P. T has reversed them, no doubt because the former represents the dominant opinion. The third doxa does not correspond to anything in P or S. It is possible that T records material from A that is not preserved by P or S here. It is much more likely, however, that he has extracted the extra material from A 2.20.1, where the exact phrase in question, ἁρματιαίῳ (v.l. ἁρματείῳ) τροχῷ παραπλήσιον, is used for the sun’s circle (also adapted in ch. 2.21). The comment in this chapter by Bottler (2014) 425 that ‘der Weg zu »Aëtios« ist bei dieser Textzeugenlage versperrt’ is greatly exaggerated. Ach does not belong to the direct tradition of A. T’s additional image can be very reasonably explained, as can the missing name-label in S. To be sure, the finalised text cannot be considered absolutely certain, but is solidly based on an understanding of the practices of the relevant witnesses. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The reference to the doxa of Anaximenes in Hippolytus is evidence that doxai of Presocratic views on the subject of the sun’s circular shape were taken up in the earlier doxographical tradition. Two texts in

1008

liber 2 caput 22

Stoic doxographies in Diogenes Laertius and AD record mentions of the subject by Chrysippus and Posidonius (or his circle). AD fr. 10 on Aristotle also records an argument that the heavenly bodies cannot be made of fire, since their shape is spherical and that of fire is not. This argument is not based on an extant Aristotelian text. The doxography in Ach is much closer to the Placita. See the discussion below in section D(e). (2) Sources. The subject of the sun’s circular shape is virtually never discussed outside the doxographical tradition, presumably because it was thought obvious and uncontested. The sun will have been included with the other heavenly bodies in Aristotle Cael. 2.8 (note esp. 290a7, which is stated to be the common opinion). Admittedly among the Aristotelian commentators Aspasius give it as an example of a ζήτησις, but more representative surely is Alexander’s use of it as an example of an opinion that cannot but be true (see texts below under section E(b) General texts). C Chapter Heading The chapter heading is of the usual umbrella type Περὶ x and, just like the parallels at chs. 2.2, 2.26 and 3.10, indicates a question in the category of quality. As in the previous chapter, it is identical in all the witnesses of the tradition of P and is incorporated in S’s composite title. It is also alluded to by T in his introductory words at 4.22. D Analysis a Context As he will do later in the case of the moon (chs. 2.26–27), A moves from size to shape, i.e. from the category of quantity to quality. This differs from the sequence of chapters on the cosmos as a whole (chs. 2.1–2), the stars (2.13–14) and the earth (3.9–10) where in each case he moves from nature or substance (οὐσία) to shape. b Number–Order of Lemmata It can be considered almost certain that the chapter had four lemmata, as preserved in P. Diels’ double-column method obscures the reconstruction and results in two doxai too many. There is also no reason to doubt the order of the lemmata in P, which here is corroborated by Ach. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Formally the chapter consists of a list of three shapes, followed by a fourth ‘modal’ view which stands in opposition to the others. There is a close resemblance to other chapters on the shape of cosmic bodies—the cosmos (2.2), the

liber 2 caput 22

1009

stars (2.14), the moon (2.27) and the earth (3.10)—, though each is subtly different. Here A does not commence with the mainstream view that the sun is spherical, but rather with two Presocratic views. As so often, a venerable Ionian commences the list (cf. M–R 2.95). The Pythagoreans in the third doxa form the transition to the dominant view, further represented by the Stoics (as also in chs. 2.2, 14, 27, and 3.10). Epicurus occupies the same place at the end as in A 2.2.5 and 2.13.15 (where the technical term ἐνδέχεσθαι is also used; see further on 2.2.5). Epicurus does not refer to the subject in the Ep.Pyth. If the sun is as it appears (see 2.21.5), then it can hardly be doubted that it is circular (cf. Lucr. DRN 5.564 rota). So perhaps Epicurus went on record as saying that the sun could have the various shapes consistent with its being circular, e.g. a (small) flat round disc, a round bowl or a sphere. It is also possible, however, that this doxa is simply a extrapolation on the part of the doxographer or an earlier source. The paucity of references to this topic indicate that it was not regarded as a serious problem by A’s time. However, for our doxographer the views of venerable Presocratics serve to demonstrate that even here a plurality of views exists. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 Although this appears to be the only text that gives us a Heraclitean doxa on the sun’s shape, it is consistent with other texts which record the theory that it is a like a bowl with fire inside, e.g. at D.L. 9.10. The unusual term σκαφοειδής is derived from σκάφη (to which σκάφος and σκαφίς are related), which has as its root σκάπτω (cf. Beekes 2010, 1342). It signifies something that is dug out, most often a winnow, bowl or trough, but also a ship (we correct M–R 2.2.547 here). It is generally assumed that Heraclitus meant something like a bowl, but Q interprets in terms of the meaning ‘ship’. Oddly G records φακοειδῆ, ‘lentil-like’. Aristotle uses the term as a possible shape of the cosmos at Cael. 2.4 287a20 and Plutarch uses it for the phenomenal appearance of the moon at Mor. 288B. Here, however, it must be wrong. For a plausible explanation of how the mistake occurred, see Jas (2018a) 189. But she rightly hesitates to emend the text. We note, finally, that the idiosyncratic Heraclitean shape is mentioned by A no less than five times, twice for the sun (also 2.24.4) and three times for the moon (2.27.3, 28.7, 29.3). It is surely authentic, yet recorded nowhere else for the Ephesian philosopher.

1010

liber 2 caput 22

e Other Evidence Ach does not have a separate chapter on this subject, but incorporates a brief doxography consisting of three doxai on the sun’s shape in his ch. 19. The second and third correspond exactly to P. The first is anonymous. The adjective δισκοειδής is used for the moon’s shape in A 2.27.4 (Empedocles) and for that of the earth in A 3.10.4 (Democritus). The doxa here may represent approximately the same view as that of Anaximenes in P and S, as suggested by Maass in his text, since a disk is flat and also would explain why the heavenly bodies float in the air. Ach’s brief doxography plainly goes back to a shared anterior tradition of the Placita. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Arius Didymus fr. 10 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.4, p. 212.19 (on Aristotle) οὔτε δὲ τὸν ἥλιον οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων ὁτιοῦν πῦρ εἶναι· σφαιροειδῆ μὲν γὰρ τούτων τὰ σχήματα, πυρὸς δὲ ἐκτός. Chapter heading: — §1 Anaximenes Alcmaeon: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (on Anaximenes, 12A7 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν πλατεῖαν εἶναι, ἐπ᾽ ἀέρος ὀχουμένην· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα πάντα {γὰρ} πύρινα ὄντα ἐποχεῖσθαι. §3 Pythagoreans Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 33 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5b Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.652) τὸν ἥλιον … σφαιροειδῆ δὲ εἶναι τῷ σχήματι. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.144 (on Posidonius, F 117 E.-K., 265 Theiler) τὸν μὲν ἥλιον … ἀλλὰ καὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς οἱ περὶ αὐτὸν τοῦτόν φασιν, ἀναλόγως τῷ κόσμῳ.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 290a7–8 ἔτι δ᾽ ἐπεὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὰ ἄστρα, καθάπερ οἵ τ᾽ ἄλλοι φασὶ καὶ ἡμῖν ὁμολογούμενον εἰπεῖν … Cael. 2.11 291b22–23 (on the heavenly bodies) ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ ἓν τοιοῦτον, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τἆλλα ἂν εἴη σφαιροειδῆ. ps.Aristotle Probl. 15.8 Διὰ τί ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη σφαιροειδῆ ὄντα ἐπίπεδα φαίνεται; Aspasius in EN. 73.30 ζητοῦμεν γὰρ καὶ περὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν, οἷον εἰ ἡ διάμετρος σύμμετρος, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἀιδίων, οἷον εἰ ὁ ἥλιος σφαῖρά ἐστι. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 598.35 ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν δοξάζω ὅτι ὁ ἥλιος σφαῖρά ἐστιν ἀεὶ ἀληθεύσω· οὐ γὰρ ἐνδέχεται χωρισθῆναι αὐτοῦ τοῦτο τὸ σχῆμα, ὥστε δοξάζων αὐτὸν σφαῖραν ψεύδεσθαι, ὥσπερ ἀπό σου χωρισθὲν τὸ καθῆσθαι ψεύδομαι δοξάζων σε καθῆσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεί ἐστιν ὁ ἥλιος σφαῖρα· ὥστε καὶ ἐγὼ ἀεὶ δοξάζων τοῦτο ἀεὶ ἀληθεύσω, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ποτὲ μὲν ποτὲ δ᾽ οὔ. ps.Justin Quaest.Resp. 172A–B, p. 274 Otto δῆλον ὅτι δύο ποιήσεις ἔχει ὁ ἥλιος, μίαν μὲν τῆς οὐσίας, ἑτέραν δὲ τῆς κινήσεως· οἷόν ἐστιν ὁ ἥλιος πίλημα, αἰθεροειδὴς τῇ οὐσίᾳ, λαμπρὸς τῷ εἴδει, σφαιροειδὴς τῷ σχήματι, ὧν οὐδὲν διὰ κινήσεως ἔχει ὁ ἥλιος. Synesius Calv. 8 τὸ δὲ ὁρώμενον ἅπαν ἀκριβεῖς εἰσι σφαῖραι· ἥλιος, σελήνη, πάντες ἀστέρες, ἀπλανεῖς τε καὶ πλάνητες μείους καὶ μείζους εἰσίν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοιοσχήμονες ἅπαντες. Asclepius in Met. 142.32 οὔτε γὰρ ποτὲ μέν ἐστι σφαιροειδὴς ὁ ἥλιος ποτὲ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν.

liber 2 caput 22 Chapter heading: Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b29 περὶ σχήματος σελήνης καὶ ἡλίου. Posidonius F 18 E.-K. see above on ch. 2.11 section E(b) General texts. Simplicius in Phys. 290.17 (commenting on the Phys. text) καὶ φαίνονται μέντοι οἱ περὶ φύσεως πραγματευσάμενοι καὶ περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης λέγοντες. §3 Pythagoreans Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 2.2.24 Todd ἐπεὶ τοίνυν σφαιρικὰ σώματά ἐστιν ὅ τε ἥλιος καὶ ἡ γῆ … §4 Epicurus: cf. Lucretius DRN 5.564–565 nec nimio solis maior rota nec minor ardor / esse potest nostris quam sensibus esse videtur.

1011

Liber 2 Caput 23 PP Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 1 verso, p. 75 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890D–E; pp. 352a14–353a17 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 65; pp. 626.22–627.3 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 158–159 Daiber (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.14 (tit.) + 1.25.1d, p. 208.16–17 + 1.25.3a, p. 209.23–25 + 1.25.3c, p. 210.6–7 + 1.25.3e, pp. 210.26–211.1 + 1.25.3h, p. 211.14–15 + 1.25.3i, p. 211.19–25 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b10–11 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus κγʹ. Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου (P,S) §1 Ἀναξιμένης ὑπὸ πεπυκνωμένου ἀέρος καὶ ἀντιτύπου ἐξωθεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνταπώσει τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ἀέρος, ὃν αὐτὸς συνωθῶν ἐκ τῆς πυκνώσεως ἰσχυροποιεῖ. (P2,S2) §3 Διογένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀντιπίπτοντος τῇ θερμότητι ψύχους σβέννυσθαι τὸν ἥλιον. (P4,S3) §4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν σφαίρας κωλυόμενον ἄχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων. (P3,S4) §5 Δημόκριτος ἐκ τῆς περιφερούσης αὐτὸν δινήσεως. (S5) §6 οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διέρχεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ, ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐπινέμεται· συγκαταφέρεσθαι δὲ τὸν ἥλιον κινοῦμενον ἕλικα ἐν τῇ σφαίρᾳ, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰσημερινοῦ ἐπί τε ἄρκτου καὶ νότου, ἅπερ ἐστὶ πέρατα τῆς ἕλικος. (P5,S6) §7 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας αὐτὸν κινεῖσθαι τὴν ἕλικα οὐ περὶ σφαῖραν ποιοῦντα, περὶ δὲ κύλινδρον. (S7) §1 Anaximenes 13A15 DK; §2 Anaxagoras 59A72 DK; §3 Diogenes 64A13 DK; §4 Empedocles 31A58 DK; §5 Democritus 68A89 DK; §6 Stoici SVF 1.508, 2.658; §7 anonymi — titulus titulum solum exhibet PQ : de titulo S vid. app. ad c. 2.20 §1 [2] post πεπυκνωμένου add. S δὲ ‖ [2–3] ἐξωθεῖσθαι … ἄστρα PBG : ἐξωθούμενα τὰ ἄστρα τὰς τροπὰς ποιεῖσθαι S §2 [4] ante ἀνταπώσει hab. S τροπὴν δὲ γίγνεσθαι ‖ ἀνταπώσει PB(III) : ἀνταπόσει PB(I) : ἀνταπτήσει PB(II) : ἀντασπάσει PB(Paris 2423) : ἀπὸ PG : ἀνταποδώσει SF, ἀνταποδόσει SP ‖ [5] ἰσχυροποιεῖ] ἰσχυρότερον ποιεῖ PG §3 [6] ψύχους PBG : ψυχροῦ S ‖ [6–7] τὸν ἥλιον PB : om. PGS §4 [8] περιεχούσης PB(I,III)GS : ἐμπεριεχούσης PB(II) ‖ ἄχρι PBS : μέχρι PG ‖ [9] post κύκλων add. εἰργόμενον PG §5 [10] non hab. P ‖ Δημόκριτος ἐκ restituimus ex S p. 211.14 : τροπὴν δὲ γίγνεσθαι ἐκ S §6 [11] οἱ Στωικοὶ PBG: περὶ τῶν τροπῶν φασι S ‖ [11–12] διέρχεσθαι (διιέναι PG) … ἥλιον PB : om. S. ‖ [15] ὠκεανὸς δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἢ γῆ PB(III) : ἢ om. PB(I,II) : ἢ γῆ deest in S, καὶ ἡ μεγάλη θάλασσα vel simile susp. Wachsmuth : al. PG ὠκεανὸν δὲ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν παρέχειν τῷ ἡλίῳ τροφὴν τὴν αὐτοῦ ὑγρότητα ἔχουσαν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν γεώδη ἀναθυμίασιν ‖ [12–14] συγκαταφέρεσθαι … ἕλικος non exhib. P §7 non hab. P

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_064

5

10

15

liber 2 caput 23

§8

Πλάτων Πυθαγόρας Ἀριστοτέλης παρὰ τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, δι᾽ οὗ φέρεται λοξοπορῶν ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ κατὰ δορυφορίαν τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων· ταῦτα δὲ πάντα καὶ ἡ σφαῖρα δείκνυσιν. (P6)

§8 Plato cf. Tim. 38e–39a; Pythagoras —; Aristoteles cf. AD fr. 32 Diels §8 lemma non hab. PGS ‖ [17] παρὰ PB(I) : περὶ PB(II,III)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis fr. 1 verso = P §§2–5 ̣ ̣ ̣[ ισχυρο] ποι[ει Εμπεδοκλης υπο της περιεχου] [σ]ης α[υτον σφαιρας κωλυομενον αχρι] παντ̣[ος ευθυπορειν και υπο των τροπι] 5 κων κ̣ [υκλων Διογενης υπο του αντιπιπ] τ̣[οντος τη θερμοτητι ψυχους σβεννυ] σ̣ [θαι τον ηλιον οι Στωικοι κατά τα διαστη] μ̣ [α ps.Galenus HPh c. 65 (~ tit.) Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου (text Diels) 65.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξιμένης ὑπὸ πεπυκνωμένου ἀέρος καὶ ἀντιτύπου ἐξωθεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα. 65.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξαγόρας ἀπὸ τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ἀέρος * * * τῆς πυκνώσεως ἰσχυρότερον ποιεῖ. 65.3 (~ P3) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν σφαίρας κωλυόμενον μέχρι παντὸς εὐθυπορεῖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν τροπικῶν κύκλων εἰργόμενον. 65.4 (~ P4) Διογένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀντιπίπτοντος τῇ θερμότητι ψύχους σβέννυσθαι. 65.5 (~ P5) οἱ Στωικοὶ κατὰ τὸ διάστημα τῆς ὑποκειμένης τροφῆς διιέναι τὸν ἥλιον· ὠκεανὸν δὲ καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν παρέχειν τῷ ἡλίῳ τροφὴν τὴν αὐτοῦ ὑγρότητα ἔχουσαν ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν γεώδη ἀναθυμίασιν. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio cf. capitulum Περὶ κινήσεως κόσμου (deest post A 2.2?). A 2.8 Περὶ τοῦ τίς ἡ αἰτία τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι. A 2.12 Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται. A 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως. A 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς. A 3.13 Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς. §2 A 2.8 Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐγκλιθῆναί πως τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημηβρινὸν αὑτοῦ μέρος … §§4,7 A 2.1.6 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου περίδρομον εἶναι περιγραφὴν τοῦ πέρατος τοῦ κόσμου. A 3.10.2 Ἀναξίμανδρος λίθῳ κίονι τὴν γῆν προσφερῆ … A 2.27.6 (de luna) ἄλλοι κυλινδροειδῆ. §6 A 2.20.6 (de sole) Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάτ-

1013

1014

liber 2 caput 23

της. A 2.17.4 Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ τρέφεσθαι τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῆς ἐπιγείου ἀναθυμιάσεως. §8 A 2.12.1 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους πέντε, οὕστινας προσαγορεύουσι ζώνας· … λοξὸς δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μέσοις ὁ καλούμενος ζῳδιακὸς ὑποβέβληται, παρεπιψαύων τῶν μέσων τριῶν· πάντας δ᾽ αὐτοὺς ὁ μεσημβρινὸς πρὸς ὀρθὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀντίξουν τέμνει. de orbe signifero obliquo cf. A 2.9 Περὶ τοῦ ἐκτὸς τοῦ κόσμου, εἰ ἔστι κενόν; A 2.12.2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The chapter is less-well attested than usual in the P tradition. In addition to the Byzantine mss. there is only G, who retains all of the six doxai in PB except the last. E does not include the chapter and Q records only the title (no doubt caused by haplography). In addition, this chapter is the first for which there is a tiny amount of evidence from a very early copy of P. On the remains of this third cent. codex from Antinoopolis see Barns–Zilliacus (1960–1967) 2.74–81, 3.181–182, M–R 1.126–130. The papyrus snippet contains residual letters from the second to the fifth doxa in PB, but they are of no significance for determining any textual matters. It demonstrates that the lemmata were written continuously without a break, as was standard practice. (2) In S the doxai of Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Diogenes and Empedocles are found joined up with doxai from other chapters on the sun under the corresponding name-label, requiring various small adaptations to the text (in the case of Diogenes S omits to do this, so that the reader would have had no idea of the subject of the doxa). A doxa on the subject attributed to Democritus has no equivalent in P (the words τροπὴν δὲ γίνεσθαι will have been added to the original in A). Because of the process of coalescence S cannot help us with the question of where this doxa was originally placed in A. There is no trace of the doxa attributed to Plato–Pythagoras–Aristotle that is present in P (also deleted by G). It has no doubt been replaced by the long excerpt from AD on Aristotelian doctrine at S 1.25.4. The greatest difficulty presented by S’s evidence is the material on the Stoics. The Stoic doxa in P is found in S under the name-label Cleanthes and follows the lemma taken from A 2.20.6. S commences with περὶ δὲ τῶν τροπῶν φασι,

liber 2 caput 23

1015

and the evidence from P strongly suggests that this phrase replaces the namelabel οἱ Στωικοί in P. However, S continues with another passage consisting of two lemmata which Diels left out of his reconstruction (only referring to it in the addenda at DG 853) and are also not included by Von Arnim in SVF. These lemmata are discussed further in the Analysis below at section D(c)(6). B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. References to the subject of the sun’s annual motion between the extremes of the two solstices and its causes in the doxographical tradition are scarce. In Hippolytus there is a record of Anaxagoras’ view which is parallel to, if a little less explicit, than what is found in A. There is no mention of any early non-standard theories on the sun’s movement in Achilles’ chapter on the sun, or in ch. 23 on the zodical circles and ch. 25 on the five parallel circles of the heavens. Philo at Mut. 67 refers to the subject of this chapter when summarising the subjects studied by the investigator of the heavens. This text can be linked to other passages that he wrote at about the same time (Somn. 1.21– 24, 1.53) which clearly show knowledge of an earlier version of the Placita (see further on chs. 2.11, 2.13 and 2.21). (2) Sources. There is ample evidence that the subject of the sun’s annual motion between the extremes of the two solstices and its causes was much discussed in Presocratic writings. Thales is credited with being the first to make discoveries on the subject and even to have written a treatise on it (see D.L. 1.23, text below). The τροπαί of the sun and other heavenly bodies were one of the subjects for which Socrates wanted to read the book of Anaxagoras (Phd. 98a, cf. Mansfeld 2000a, 12). The material included in this chapter will no doubt go back to these discussions. The reason why so little remains of the discussion is doubtless the dominance of the standard astronomical model once the movements of the sun and other planets had been convincingly explained. Aristotle refers obliquely to some of these discussions in his Meteorology when discussing the origins of the sea (see ch. 3.16), but sees no reason to take them seriously (texts below in section E(b) General texts). We have not yet mentioned, however, some significant evidence in Epicurus. In Ep.Pyth. 93 he gives four possible explanations of the τροπαί of the sun, all of which can be located in A’s chapter. These are discussed in more detail below in section D(e) below. It is inconceivable that A and the Epicurean account are entirely independent of each other. It is well possible that he made use of discussions in the works of Theophrastus, but there is no conclusive evidence for this hypothesis. See further Mansfeld (1994a) and Runia (2018) 404, 413. It should be noted that when Alexander comments on the Aristotelian

1016

liber 2 caput 23

passages mentioned above (Mete. 2.1 353b6–9), he states that the view mentioned there is attributed by Theophrastus to Anaximander and Diogenes. But this differs from the evidence in our chapter (Anaximander is not mentioned, a different view attributed to Diogenes in §3). A fuller account of Epicurus’ use of the Placita given in Runia (2018), where it is argued that Epicurus represents a particularly fascinating case because he is not only prominent in the Placita himself, but clearly in his exploition of earlier philosophical views he has made use of material that would subsequently be distilled into the tradition of Placita. An alternative hypothesis is that both Epicurus and the Placita independently of each other are dependent on work such as Theophrastus’ Φυσικαὶ δόξαι, but in our view the correspondences between the two in this chapter are too close, pace Sedley (1998b) 165–185, to make this alternative plausible. C Chapter Heading All three witnesses in the tradition of P have the same heading (it is all that Q preserves) and S alludes to it in his composite heading for his chapter on the sun. The heading as preserved follows the usual umbrella type Περὶ x and poses a question relating to the cause, in this case of the motion of a particular entity (cf. ch. 2.16). See further below in section D(c). D Analysis a Context The subject of the sun’s motion follows on logically from the previous chapters on its nature, size and shape. Unlike in the parallel sequences on the cosmos (if our conjecture is correct, see the appendix to ch. 2.2) and the stars, there is no chapter Περὶ κινήσεως ἡλίου. Instead the chapter focuses on the solstices, which in the geocentric model of the universe was the most striking feature of the sun’s motion. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above, the evidence in S adds three doxai to the six in P, making nine in all. It might, however, be questioned whether the final two lemmata following the Stoic doxa are in fact taken from A. The return to the accusative and infinitive construction after the intervening sentence in direct speech is certainly rather harsh. An alternative would be that they form an extract from AD that has been added to the Stoic material. But the final lemma appears to give a Presocratic view, and so is hardly likely to come from this source. It is of course always possible that S has added them from a third unknown location. We might compare the Stoic lemma at S 1.21.3b which was also difficult to

liber 2 caput 23

1017

place; see the above-mentioned Appendix to ch. 2.2. Since, however, it is beyond doubt that the lemmata could have been present in A, it is safest to include them in our reconstruction. Because, except for the group of three lemmata just discussed, S does not preserve any doxa from this chapter in blocks, we have only the evidence of P to help us determine the original order of the doxai. In general P preserves the order of A, though there are exceptions. In M–R 2.552–561 we attempted a rearrangement of the doxai in terms of a systematic diaeretical structure which involved deviating from the order of P. We now think that this attempt was too speculative and will offer an alternative which for the most part retains the order as found in P. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Firstly it should be noted that all the doxai in P and the additional Democritean doxa in S are formulated by means of prepositional phrases answering the question ‘why (διὰ τί) does the sun move between the two solstices’. This is obscured by the bland wording of the heading Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου. One wonders whether an earlier heading may have been διὰ τί ὁ ἥλιος τὰς τροπὰς ποιεῖται or even πῶς ὁ ἥλιος τὰς τροπὰς ποιεῖται. It must be admitted, however, questions of this type seldom occur in the cosmological Books 2 and 3, only occurring in the longer titles of chs. 2.19 and 2.30. Our reconstruction can proceed in the following steps: (1) The first four doxai in P and S all answer the question in terms of some kind of opposition which causes the sun to stop and turn. The first two involve the air, Anaximenes’ (older) view applying to the heavenly bodies in general. (cf. ch. 2.16), while Anaxagoras refers specifically to the sun. These two doxai clearly belong together, although they are not formulated in opposition to each other. The second can perhaps be regarded as a more developed version of the first. (2) The next view in P is that of Empedocles, which states that the turnings (τροπαί) occur ‘by the sphere that surrounds it’. It may be best to take this literally. For Empedocles the sun has its own straight movement (εὐθυπορεῖν), which causes it at some stage to bump up against the crystalline mass of the outermost heavenly sphere (cf. A 2.11.2, 2.13.11), causing it to turn. (We owe this explanation to D. Couprie; see further below at (5).) It is followed by the view of Diogenes, which also involves cold (cf. Anaxagoras), but surprisingly the air is not mentioned and the sun is said to be quenched. This does not, however, pace Diels DG 62 and Laks (2008) 207 have to refer to extinction of the sun (as will be the case for the lemma of Xenophanes on eclipses in ch. 2.24). It could also mean diminution of power. It would be more logical to have this view fol-

1018

liber 2 caput 23

low the view of Anaxagoras, as occurs in the sequence of S. We must bear in mind that in his process of coalescence the order is primarily determined by the doxai in ch. 2.20. We will return to this question in (5) below. (3) The next doxa is attributed to the Stoics, and is well known from other sources (see below section D(d)§7). The movement of the sun and its solstices is determined by the presence or absence of sustenance for the sun through the exhalations of ocean and land. It follows on from Diogenes’ view, both emphasising change of circumstances, though of quite a different nature. (4) The final view in P is the explanation in terms of the standard cosmological model attributed to the heavyweights Plato–Pythagoras–Aristotle. This is the first mention of the role of the ecliptic in the chapter (it was earlier mentioned in chs. 2.9 and 2.12). Here the sun travels its own course along the ecliptic until it reaches the tropics. The role of the latter, stated in terms of ‘guardianship’ recalls the doxa of Empedocles. For the doxa’s place in the chapter see (6) below. But now the difficult task of integrating the extra material in S awaits us. (5) It is not possible to determine with any certainly the position of the Democritean lemma, since S has separated it from other doxai in the chapter. A clue might be the parallelism of expression (so loved by A) between it and the Empedoclean lemma: ἐκ τῆς περιφερούσης αὐτὸν δινήσεως and ὑπὸ τῆς περιεχούσης αὐτὸν σφαίρας. This, when added to the link between the lemmata of Anaxagoras and Diogenes above, leads us to deviate from the order in P and place the latter before the view of Empedocles. This allows the two doxai of Empedocles and Democritus to be juxtaposed. For the latter the explanation given is only in terms of the whirling of the vortex. For Empedocles in contrast the movement is straight (εὐθυπορεῖν) until blocked (see (2) above). It would still have to be in a spiral in order to explain the movement up and down. How this spiral movement relates to the role of the vortex in Empedocles’ cosmogony and cosmology is not clear and cannot be broached here; see for example the discussion of the baffled Furley (1987) 91–94 (but he does not discuss this text). A further contrast between the two doxai is that Empedocles’ view involves the independent movement of the sun, and so anticipates later views in the chapter. (6) What remains in S is the additional material in 1.25.3i, which is tacked on to the views of the Stoics also found in P. As noted above in section A(2), this text is not found in Diels’ text in DG, but he noted in the Appendix that it should be added after the Stoic doxa. This does seem a logical move. (It is not likely that it derives from AD, given the extracts from that source (fr. 32– 33 Diels) later in the same chapter at 1.25.5. Though S’s text does not contain a verb of movement in the first part, διέρχεσθαι can safely be supplied

liber 2 caput 23

1019

from P’s text. The verb συγκαταφέρεσθαι then continues the explanation of movement. Without the dative the prefix συγ- suggests an additional movement (not concomitant movement as at Α 2.13.9–10). This would be the circular movement around the (spherical) earth, in additional to the up and down movement between the tropics, together making a spiral. There is nothing in this description that is not consistent with Stoic views assuming a spherical earth in a spherical cosmos (though, as already noted, the text is not included in SVF). The remaining sentence then contrasts another group (ἄλλοι δέ) who make this movement in a straight line, i.e. not around a sphere, but around a cylinder. The straight movement (ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας) recalls the description in the doxa of Empedocles (εὐθυπορεῖν). At M–R 2.557 we suggested the contrast here was between a vortex model and a centrifocal model. Couprie in a forthcoming article disagrees with this suggestion, but approves of the link with the earlier view of Empedocles (which he develops substantially further). He argues that unspecific reference to ‘others’ in fact has Empedocles in mind. However this may be, the contrast with the earlier, probably Stoic, view is clear. The final question is where this additional material should be placed in relation to the doxa of Plato–Pythagoras–Aristotle. It might be thought that the anonymous doxa should come last, as often occurs in A (examples in this book at chs. 2.14, 2.26–27, 2.32). The difficulty here is that it almost certainly follows on from the latter part of the Stoic doxa. But the first part of that doxa, as we saw, follows on well from the earlier Presocratic views in the first five doxai. Moreover, it precedes the doxa of Plato etc. in P. So it will be best to place the latter doxa last, as it occurs in P, even though it is not usual for A to reserve the final position for a really significant view. The reference to ‘the sphere’ preceded by the word καί (‘the sphere too’) might be thought to link up to the two references in the other Stoic and anonymous doxai, but here it is the sphere as teaching model that is meant (as illustrated on the famous Naples mosaic), not the shape of the earth or cosmos. The chapter’s structure, as best we can reconstruct it, is rather loose, moving from rather obscure and limited Presocratic views, via the Stoa with its surprising adoption of a view which also has these roots, to the more sophisticated and by A’s time generally accepted view of the standard model. d

Further Comments Individual Points §6 We have retained the text in P, which makes tolerable sense. But other Stoic texts explaining the source of the sun’s heat only mention the oceanic exhalation, not the earthly one (AD on Chrysippus at S 1.25.5b = SVF 2.652, Cleanthes

1020

liber 2 caput 23

at Cic. ND 2.40, 3.37 = SVF 1.504, 501). Indeed in the second text in Cicero it is implied that the reason for the solstices is that the sun turns back on running out of oceanic exhalations to feed on (cf. Hahm 1977, 151). The textual problems in S and the adaptation in G also imply that we do not have A’s original text. Wachsmuth’s conjecture ‘the ocean ⟨and the great sea⟩’ is attractive because it provides an alternative feminine antecedent for ἧς rather than the difficult γῆ. It is just possible that G’s mention of τὴν θάλασσαν preserves an earlier text. But if we read θάλασσα instead of γῆ, then there would have been no reference to the ἀναθυμίασις on land to which G also refers. It is more likely that G gives us a paraphrase of what he read in P. There is little alternative in our view but to print the text as recorded in P. The Stoic view on the sun’s nourishment had Presocratic antecedents, as recorded by Aristotle, who criticizes it sharply; cf. Mete. 2.2 353b6–9, 354b34– 355a1 (texts below section E(b) General texts). See our comments on A 2.17.4 and 2.20.6. He also mentions and criticizes the view that air causes the solstices (355a24), which brings to mind the views of Anaximander and Anaxagoras recorded in §§1–2. §7 A cylindrical shape (‘like a stone pillar’) is attributed to the earth as the doxa of Anaximander at ch. 3.10.2. This doxa would seem to refer to an early Presocratic view no longer preserved elsewhere. As noted above, Couprie links this doxa with §4 and suspects that the view can be ascribed to Empedocles, but there is no further evidence for this. §8 The weighty triple name-label Plato–Pythagoras–Aristotle is used for the view that represents the dominant standard model of ancient cosmology as developed from the fourth century BCE onwards. The same combination also occurs at A 2.10.1 on the right and left parts of the cosmos and elsewhere at A 4.20.1 and 5.4.2. In the other three cases A follows the chronological order Pythagoras–Plato–Aristotle. Plato perhaps comes first here because of the astronomy of the Timaeus; cf. 38e–39a, where the ecliptic and the spiral twist (ἕλιξ, cf. §6) are mentioned, but not the movement between the tropics. But of course Pythagoras is also associated with this work, e.g. at A 2.6.5. It is to be noted that AD includes a separate mention of the motions of the sun in his account of Aristotle’s doctrine of the sun at S 1.25.4 (fr. 10 Diels), even though there is no mention of this subject in the De caelo. e Other Evidence As noted above in section B, Epicurus in giving an account of the τροπαί of the sun at Ep.Pyth. 93 gives four possible explanations, all of which can be paralleled with doxai in the present chapter: (1) tilting, cf. Plato–Pythagoras– Aristotle; (2) the resistance of air, cf. Anaxagoras; (3) the presence or absence

liber 2 caput 23

1021

of combustible material, cf. the Stoa; (4) the vortex, cf. Democritus (and for the reference to the helix cf. the Stoa and the anonymous view). We note also similarities of vocabulary: κατὰ λόξωσιν (first recorded use of the term) cf. §8; κατὰ ἀέρος ἀντέξωσιν cf. §2; δίνην cf. §5; ἕλικα cf. §§6–7. Epicurus concludes by saying all these theories do not conflict with what is possible (ἐχόμενος τοῦ δυνατοῦ). A could have easily added here Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογινώσκει τούτων, ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου, i.e. a formulation parallel to A 2.13.15 on the stars’ substance. Lucretius follows his master at 5.614–649, but gives only two reasons: (1) the whirl explicitly attributed to Democritus (5.621–628, cf. §5); and (2) the pushing of air (5.637–642, cf. §2). Diogenes of Oenoanda mentions the sun’s oblique course (fr. 13 Smith). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Eudemus in D.L. 1.23 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) δοκεῖ δὲ κατά τινας πρῶτος ἀστρολογῆσαι καὶ ἡλιακὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος (fr. 144 Wehrli) ἐν τῇ Περὶ τῶν ἀστρολογουμένων ἱστορίᾳ. cf. Heron Mechanicus Def. 11 τίς τί εὗρεν ἐν μαθηματικοῖς; Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστορεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις ὅτι Οἰνοπίδης (41A7 DK) εὗρε πρῶτος … Θαλῆς (fr. 93 Wöhrle) δὲ ἡλίου ἔκλειψιν καὶ τὴν κατὰ τροπὰς αὐτοῦ πάροδον, ὡς οὐκ ἴση ἀεὶ συμβαίνει; also Theon of Smyrna Exp. 198.14–18 Hiller (see further on ch. 2.32). cf. Aelian V.H. 10.7 ὅτι Μέτων ὁ Λευκονοιεὺς ἀστρολόγος ἀνέστησε στήλας, καὶ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου τροπὰς κατεγράψατο, καὶ τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν ὡς ἔλεγεν εὗρε, καὶ ἔφατο αὐτὸν ἑνὸς δέοντα εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν. Philo of Alexandria Mut. 67 μετέωρον τοίνυν ἀλληγοροῦντές φαμεν τὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ἑαυτὸν εἰς ὕψος αἴροντα καὶ ἐπισκοποῦντα τὰ μετάρσια, μετεωροπόλον τε καὶ μετεωρολογικόν, ἐρευνῶντα τί ἡλίου μέγεθος, τίνες αὐτοῦ φοραί, πῶς τὰς ἐτησίους ὥρας διανέμει προσιὼν καὶ ἐξαναχωρῶν πάλιν ἰσοταχέσι ταῖς ἀνακυκλήσεσι. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 quemadmodum (sc. caelum) anni vices servet, solem retro flectat (for context see text quoted on ch. 2.11). Ambrose of Milan Exc.Fratr. 2.86, p. 296.1–2 Faller de solis cursu caelique ratione philosophi disputant et sunt qui putant his esse credendum, cum quid loquantur ignorent. Symeon Seth CRN 3.31 ἔδοξάν τινες τρέφεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἐκ τῶν ἀνερχομένων ἀτμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὡς διὰ τοῦτο ποιεῖται τὴν λόξωσιν ὁ ἥλιος, διὰ τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀτμῶν τρέφεσθαι. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.23 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) κατά τινας δὲ μόνα δύο συνέγραψε Περὶ τροπῆς καὶ Ἰσημερίας. Aelian cf. V.H. 10.7 cited above. Eusebius PE 10.14.10 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 265 Wöhrle) φυσικὸς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων γεγονὼς περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου … καὶ ἰσημερίας διελέχθη. §2 Anaxagoras: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τροπὰς δὲ ποιεῖσθαι καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην ἀπωθουμένους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος. §8 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.4 (on Aristotle, fr. 10 Diels) καὶ τοῦ μὲν ἑτέρου τῶν τροπικῶν ἐφαψάμενον (sc. τὸν ἥλιον) βραχυτάτην ποιεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν, μακροτάτην δὲ τὴν νύκτα· θατέρου δὲ ἀνάπαλιν.

1022 b

liber 2 caput 23

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Phd. 98a (on Socrates reading Anaxagoras) καὶ δὴ καὶ περὶ ἡλίου οὕτω παρεσκευάσμην ὡσαύτως πευσόμενος, καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων τάχους τε πέρι πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ τροπῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων παθημάτων. Aristotle Met. A.2 982b12–17 … εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ἄστρα … (for full text see on chs. 2.4, 2.16). Mete. 2.1 353b6–9 (on the origin of the sea, 12A27 DK) οἱ δὲ σοφώτεροι τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην σοφίαν ποιοῦσιν αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς θαλάττης) γένεσιν· εἶναι γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ὑγρὸν ἅπαντα τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν τόπον, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ξηραινόμενον τὸ μὲν διατμίσαν πνεύματα καὶ τροπὰς ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης φασὶ ποιεῖν. cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 67.3–12 οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ὑπόλειμμα λέγουσιν εἶναι τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς πρώτης ὑγρότητος. ὑγροῦ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν τόπου κἄπειτα τὸ μέν τι τῆς ὑγρότητος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐξατμίζεσθαι καὶ γίνεσθαι πνεύματά τε ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ τροπὰς ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης, ὡς διὰ τὰς ἀτμίδας ταύτας καὶ τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις κἀκείνων τὰς τροπὰς ποιουμένων, ἔνθα ἡ ταύτης αὐτοῖς χορηγία γίνεται, περὶ ταῦτα τρεπομένων· τὸ δέ τι αὐτῆς ὑπολειφθὲν ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις τῆς γῆς τόποις θάλασσαν εἶναι· διὸ καὶ ἐλάττω γίνεσθαι ξηραινομένην ἑκάστοτε ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τέλος ἔσεσθαί ποτε ξηράν. ταύτης τῆς δόξης ἐγένετο, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Θεόφραστος (fr. 221 FHS&G), Ἀναξίμανδρός (12A27 DK) τε καὶ Διογένης (64A17 DK). Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.93 τροπὰς ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐνδέχεται μὲν γίνεσθαι κατὰ λόξωσιν οὐρανοῦ οὕτω τοῖς χρόνοις κατηναγκασμένου· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ ἀέρος ἀντέξωσιν ἢ καὶ ὕλης ἀεὶ ἐπιτηδείας ἐχομένως ἐμπιπραμένης τῆς δ᾽ ἐκλειπούσης· ἢ καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοιαύτην δίνην κατειληθῆναι τοῖς ἄστροις τούτοις, ὥσθ᾽ οἷόν τιν᾽ ἕλικα κινεῖσθαι. πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ οὐθενὶ τῶν ἐναργημάτων διαφωνεῖ, ἐάν τις ἀεὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τοιούτων μερῶν, ἐχόμενος τοῦ δυνατοῦ, εἰς τὸ σύμφωνον τοῖς φαινομένοις ἕκαστον τούτων δύνηται ἐπάγειν, μὴ φοβούμενος τὰς ἀνδραποδώδεις ἀστρολόγων τεχνιτείας. Lucretius DRN 5.614–620 nec ratio solis simplex ⟨et⟩ recta patescit, / quo pacto aestivis e partibus aegocerotis / brumalis adeat flexus atque inde revertens / canceris ut vertat metas ad solstitialis / … / non, inquam, simplex his rebus reddita causast. Diogenes of Oenoanda fr. 13 col. 1 Smith οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν (sc. the heavenly bodies) ἀλλήλοις συναντῶσιν, οἱ δ᾽ οὔ· καὶ οἱ μὲν τὸν ὀρθὸν ἕως τινὸς περαιοῦσιν δρόμον, λοξὸν δ᾽ ἕτεροι, ὥσπερ ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη, οἱ δὲ̣ τὸν αὐτοῦ κύκλον στρέφονται, καθάπερ ἡ ἄρκτος· ἔτι δ᾽ οἱ μὲν ὑψηλὴν ζώνην φέρονται, οἱ δ᾽ αὖ ταπεινήν. Chapter heading: cf. Scholia in Hesiodum Op. 477bis Pertusi λεκτέον δὲ καὶ περὶ τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου τούτων τροπῶν. Astrologica Περὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ ζωνῶν 7, p. 360.6 Kunze Περὶ τῶν τεσσάρων τρόπων τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ ἀνατολῶν καὶ τῶν δύσεων. §§1–2 Anaximenes Anaxagoras: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.2 355a21–25 τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ τούτοις ἄλογον καὶ τοῖς φάσκουσι τὸ πρῶτον ὑγρᾶς οὔσης καὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου θερμαινομένου, ἀέρα γενέσθαι καὶ τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν αὐξηθῆναι, καὶ τοῦτον πνεύματά τε παρέχεσθαι καὶ τὰς τροπὰς αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν. §2 Anaxagoras: see Plato Phd. 98a above.

liber 2 caput 23 §5 Democritus: Lucretius DRN 5.621–628 (follows on from text above) nam fieri vel cum primis id posse videtur, / Democriti quod sancta viri sententia ponit, / quanto quaeque magis sint terram sidera propter, / tanto posse minus cum caeli turbine ferri; / evanescere enim rapidas illius et acris / imminui supter viris, ideoque relinqui / paulatim solem cum posterioribus signis, / inferior multo quod sit quam fervida signa. DRN 637–642 fit quoque ut e mundi transversis partibus aër / alternis certo fluere alter tempore possit, / qui queat aestivis solem detrudere signis brumalis usque ad flexus gelidumque rigorem, / et qui reiciat gelidis a frigoris umbris / aestiferas usque in partis et fervida signa. see also Epicurus cited above. §5 Plato: Plato Tim. 38e–39a κατὰ δὴ τὴν θατέρου φορὰν πλαγίαν οὖσαν, διὰ τῆς ταὐτοῦ φορᾶς ἰούσης τε καὶ κρατουμένης, τὸ μὲν μείζονα αὐτῶν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐλάττω κύκλον ἰόν, θᾶττον μὲν τὰ τὸν ἐλάττω, τὰ δὲ τὸν μείζω βραδύτερον περιῄειν. τῇ δὴ ταὐτοῦ φορᾷ τὰ τάχιστα περιιόντα ὑπὸ τῶν βραδύτερον ἰόντων ἐφαίνετο καταλαμβάνοντα καταλαμβάνεσθαι. §7 Stoics: cf. Aristotle Mete. 2.1 354b33–355a1 διὸ καὶ γελοῖοι πάντες ὅσοι τῶν πρότερον ὑπέλαβον τὸν ἥλιον τρέφεσθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· καὶ διὰ τοῦτ᾽ ἔνιοί γέ φασιν καὶ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς τροπὰς αὐτόν.

1023

Liber 2 Caput 24 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890F–891B; pp. 353a16–355a15 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.50, p. 415.1–18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 66; p. 627.4–10 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 158–161 Daiber—PSch: Scholia Platonica ad Remp. 498a p. 241 Greene—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 128, p. 68 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.49, p. 52.15 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.25, p. 207.14 (tit.) + 1.25.1a, p. 207.18–21 + 1.25.1c, p. 208.11–12 + 1.25.1g, p. 209.7–9 + 1.25.1i, p. 209.14–15 + 1.25.3b, pp. 209. 27–210.3 + 1.25.3e, p. 211.2 + 1.25.3k, p. 212.1–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b11 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.1–3 Di Maria

Titulus κδʹ. Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον τῆς σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑπερχομένης κατὰ κάθετον, οὔσης φύσει γεώδους· βλέπεσθαι δὲ τοῦτο κατοπτρικῶς ὑποτιθεμένῳ τῷ δίσκῳ. (P1,S5) §2 οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ⟨ὁμοίως⟩. (S4,6) §3 Ἀναξίμανδρος τοῦ στομίου τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς διεκπνοῆς ἀποκλειομένου. (P2,S2) §4 Ἡράκλειτος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφήν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν κοῖλον ἄνω γίνεσθαι τὸ δὲ κυρτὸν κάτω πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν ὄψιν. (P3,S3) §5 Ξενοφάνης κατὰ σβέσιν· ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν πρὸς ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς γίνεσθαι· παριστόρηκε δὲ καὶ ἔκλειψιν ἡλίου ἐφ᾽ ὅλον μῆνα καὶ πάλιν ἔκλειψιν ἐντελῆ, ὥστε τὴν ἡμέραν νύκτα φανῆναι. (P4,S1) §1 Thales 11A17a DK; §2 Pythagorei —; Empedocles 31A59 DK; §3 Anaximander 12A21 DK; §4 Heraclitus 22A12 DK; §5 Xenophanes 21A41 DK titulus Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου] add. τῆς τοῦ post Περὶ PPs : de titulo S vid. app. ad c. 2.20 §1 [2] πρῶτος PBEQ : πρῶτον PG : deest in S ‖ ἔφη (εἶπεν PG) … αὐτὸν P : ἐκλείπειν δὲ αὐτὸν τῆς σελήνης S ‖ [2–3] ὑπερχομένης PEGS : ὑποτρεχούσης PB, cf. durch den Gang des Mondes unter ihr Q ‖ [3] κατὰ κάθετον PBEGS : om. PQ ‖ βλέπεσθαι] κλέπεσθαι PB(I a.c.), cf. Q cit. infra ‖ [4] ὑποτιθεμένῳ τῷ δίσκῳ PB Mau : ὑποτιθεμένην (sc. τὴν σελήνην) τῷ δίσκῳ PE : ὑποτιθεμένον τῷ δίσκῳ S : om. PG : Daher verhüllt er, was über ihm ist, wie die Schale verhüllen (kann) Q : crucif. Diels Lachenaud Wöhrle, ὑποτιθεμένης (sc. τῆς σελήνης) τῷ δίσκῳ Torraca §2 non hab. P ‖ [5] ⟨ο῾μοίως⟩ coniecimus ex S, vid. comm. infra : σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑπερχομένης (sc. ἥλιον ἐκλείπειν) S Diels Wachsmuth Vítek §3 [6] τὸ ante τοῦ στομίου add. PB(III) ‖ στομίου] στόματος PG ‖ τῆς] om. PB(I) ‖ διεκπνοῆς P : ἐκπνοῆς S §4 non hab. PG ‖ [8] ante κατὰ add. S γίνεσθαι δὲ τὴν ἔκλειψιν ‖ τὴν] om. PB(II) §5 [10] ante κατὰ σβέσιν hab. S ἔκλειψιν δὲ γίνεσθαι, post hab. PG τὴν ἔκλειψιν γίνεσθαι, cf. jene tritt … ein Q ‖ πρὸς P : om. S ‖ ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν] καὶ πάλιν PSch ‖ γίνεσθαι] ἐξάπτεσθαι PG ‖ [11] παριστόρηκε] παρεισήγαγε PG ‖ ἐφ᾽ ὅλον μῆνα et πάλιν desunt in PG ‖ ante μῆνα add. τὸν PE ‖ [11–12] καὶ … ἐντελῆ PBES : om. PQ ‖ [12] ἐντελῆ PB(II,III)EG : εὐτελῆ PB(I) : ἐν τέλει S, corr. Diels Wachmuth ‖ νύκτα φανῆναι] ἀφανῆ εἶναι PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_065

5

10

liber 2 caput 24

§6 §7 §8

ἔνιοι πύκνωμα τῶν ἀοράτως ἐπερχομένων τῷ δίσκῳ νεφῶν. (P5) Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι. (P6,S7) Ξενοφάνης πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ τὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας· κατά τινα δὲ καιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν. ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν προιέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν. (P7,S8)

§6 anonymi —; §7 Aristarchus cf. Heath (1913) p. 305; §8 Xenophanes 21A41a DK §6 non hab. PGS ‖ [13] πύκνωμα PB(I,II)E : νεφῶν πύκνωσιν PB(III) ‖ ἀοράτως PB : ἀοράτων PE ‖ νεφῶν PB(I,II)E : del. PB(III) ‖ Einige Philosophen glaubten, daß jene durch eine Zusammenziehung und Vereinigung der einen Teile mit den anderen eintritt, sodaß Hervortreten (der Sonne) zum Erleuchten verhindert wird Q §7 lemma male locatum ex c. 2.23? ‖ [14–15] τὸν … καὶ om. PG ‖ [14] γῆν PBQS : σελήνην PE ‖ [15] κατὰ … ἐγκλίσεις] κατὰ τῆς γῆς PG ‖ τὰς ταύτης PB : ταύτας τὰς PE ‖ ἐγκλίσεις PS : ἐκκλείσεις coni. Usener Untersteiner ‖ post σκιάζεσθαι add. τὸν δίσκον P, ut glossema dub. Mau §8 non hab. PG ‖ [16] πολλοὺς εἶναι] inv. PE ‖ κατὰ τὰ κλίματα SPE1 : κατὰ κλίμα PB : κατὰ κλίματα PE2 ‖ [17] post τὸν δίσκον add. PG τοῦ ἡλίου ‖ [18] οἰκουμένην PB : οἰκουμένης PES, corr. edd. ‖ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν PBES : om. PQ(ut vid.) ‖ [19] ὑποφαίνειν PB(I)EQS : ὑπομένειν PB(II,III) ‖ [19–20] ὁ δ᾽ αὐτὸς … ἀπόστασιν om. PQ

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 66 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου (text Diels) 66.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς πρῶτον εἶπεν ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον τῆς σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑπερχομένης κατὰ κάθετον οὔσης φύσει γεώδους. 66.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξίμανδρος τοῦ στόματος τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς διεκπνοῆς ἀποκλειομένου. 66.3 (~ P4) Ξενοφάνης κατὰ σβέσιν τὴν ἔκλειψιν γίνεσθαι, ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν πρὸς ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ἐξάπτεσθαι. παρεισήγαγε δὲ καὶ ἔκλειψιν ἐντελῆ, ὥστε τὴν ἡμέραν ἀφανῆ εἶναι. 66.4 (~ P6) Ἀρίσταρχος κατὰ τῆς γῆς σκιάζεσθαι τὸν δίσκον τοῦ ἡλίου. Scholia Platonica ad Remp. 498a (de Heraclito) καὶ τὴν ἔκλειψιν αὐτοῦ συ⟨μ⟩βαίνειν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφήν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν κοῖλον ἄνω γίγνεσθαι, τὸ δὲ κυρτὸν κάτω πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν ὄψιν (~ P4). ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ξενοφάνη τὸν Κολοφώνιον κατὰ σβέσιν τὴν ἡλιακὴν ἔκλειψιν λέγειν γίγνεσθαι φασίν, καὶ πάλιν πρὸς ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς ἀνίσχειν αὐτόν (~ P5). Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 128 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 3.49 Περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείψεως (~ tit.)

1025

15

20

1026

liber 2 caput 24

Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.1–3 ἐκλείπει δέ, ὡς μέν τινές φασιν, ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ τῆς σελήνης κατὰ κάθετον αὐτοῦ γιγνομένης (~ §1), ὃ καὶ μᾶλλον πιθανόν· προσγειοτέρα γὰρ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ σελήνη καὶ κατωτέρα τοῦ ἡλίου· οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἄρατος … Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.29 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης passim, vid. §1 Anaximander, §3 Heraclitus, §4 Pythagorei, §6 Xenophanes, §7 Thales Plato Aristoteles §1 A 2.28.1 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. cf. 2.30.1 (de luna) τὸ γεωφανὲς, 2.30.4 διὰ τὸ ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες. §4 A 2.28.7 Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας, δεχομένους δὲ τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως αὐγὰς, φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν κτλ §7 A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς. A 3.17.9 Σέλευκος ὁ μαθηματικὸς ἀντιγεγραφὼς Κράτητι, κινῶν καὐτὸς τὴν γῆν … §8 A 2.13.14 Ξενοφάνης (sc. τὰ ἄστρα) ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων, σβεννυμένους δὲ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ, καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας· τὰς γὰρ ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ἐξάψεις εἶναι καὶ σβέσεις.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The tradition of P, fully represented in the Byzantine mss., E and Q but abridged in G, preserves seven doxai. Two doxai, P4 and P5, are copied out in the Platonic scholion, the former verbatim, the latter in a paraphrase. Noteworthy is that the scholiast adds Xenophanes’ place of origin (τὸν Κολοφώνιον) and by omitting the word ἕτερον misses the main point of the doxa. (2) All of P’s lemmata can be recovered among S’s various coalesced clusters of doxai except the anonymous P4, which he either overlooked or did not think was worth including. Two doxai are recorded which have no equivalent in P, attributed to the Pythagoreans and Empedocles respectively (1.25.1i, 3e). The formulation of the doxa is identical in both cases (ἔκλειψιν δὲ γίγνεσθαι σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑπερχομένης). This is the same doxa as that of Thales in P1 and at S 1.25.3b (without the additional words κατὰ κάθετον), which leads to the surmisal that a multiple name-label was present in A. We cannot, however, simply add the two names to Thales in the first doxa, since it is formulated in terms of the πρῶ-

liber 2 caput 24

1027

τος εὑρετής motif. But we can conjecture A’s original text on an analogy with S’s formulation at S 1.26.2 (= 2.28.5–6), Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας, Παρμενίδης, Ἐμπεδοκλῆς, Ἀναξαγόρας, Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως (note that the two name-labels in ch. 2.24 recur in this later chapter, except that Pythagoras replaces his followers). It should also be noted that the final two doxai in P are also the final lemmata in S’s extended scheme of coalescence. This strongly suggests that they were what was left over after he had joined together all the other doxai. He could of course have joined the final Xenophanean lemma to the two (or three) others with which he commenced the chapter (S 1.25.1ab), but he must have overlooked it then and made up for the omission later. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. On the subject of the sun’s eclipse the situation regarding sources for the doxographical tradition differs little from that on the sun’s movements. Numerous texts describe Thales’ knowledge of eclipses; see the listing in Wöhrle (2014) 28–31. The majority, starting with Herodotus 1.74, claim his ability to predict eclipses. Fewer texts mention his discovery of the cause. Other (non-standard) Presocratic views on the cause of eclipses are rare, but for each of the views in §1 and §§3–5 there is a single parallel in the collections of doxai in Diogenes Laertius or Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)). (2) Sources. The subject of solar eclipses is not discussed by Plato in the Timaeus or Aristotle in the De caelo and thereafter becomes wholly uncontroversial. Aristotle uses the solar eclipse as a standard example of seeking the cause in his theory of knowledge (APo 2.1 89b26, text below section E(b) General texts). As was the case in the previous chapter, the most interesting source material is located in the Epicurean tradition. In his Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.96 Epicurus combines explanations for the eclipses of both the sun and the moon. For the sun he only gives two alternatives. The former clearly recalls the first doxa of Xenophanes, using the same key phrase κατὰ σβέσιν. The second involves interposition (the technical term is used) but the text is not entirely clear. Epicurus appears to postulate the interposition of the earth, but also other heavenly bodies, which could imply bodies other than the moon. Similarities with the anonymous doxa in A are certainly present. In addition, a scholion in Diogenes’ text indicates that in the (presumably) fuller discussion in his Περὶ φύσεως Epicurus also listed the dominant view attributed to Thales in the Placita. These three views (quenching, interposition of moon or of another body) are repeated by Lucretius in his poem at 5.753–757. As in the case of ch. 2.23 some kind of link with the anterior tradition of the Placita must be assumed.

1028

liber 2 caput 24

See further the discussion in Runia (2018) 407–408. But in this chapter too A does not make any reference to Epicurean views. For the treatment of solar eclipses in Achilles see below section D(e). C Chapter Heading There is no essential variation in the witnesses regarding the heading of the chapter in the tradition of P and it is succinctly referred to in S’s composite title for his ch. 1.25. Like the previous chapter on solstices, it is a clear example of a question διὰ τί, i.e. seeking the cause. As noted above, in APo 2.1 89b26 Aristotle had explicitly given this question as an example of how, after we ask τὸ ὅτι, we then go on to ask τὸ διότι; see further above ch. 1.6 Commentary D(a). So A could have formulated the heading as διὰ τί ἐκλείπει ὁ ἥλιος. He chooses, however, to stick to the standard Περί x type, as he also does in ch. 2.29 on the moon’s eclipse. The question is posed in relation to a specific feature of this particular heavenly body (and also on the moon at ch. 2.29). D Analysis a Context The final chapter of the sequence on the sun turns to a subject that is specific to it (and the moon), the phenomenon of its eclipse and how it can be explained. b Number–Order of Lemmata Because this chapter is the last that S includes in his coalesced clusters, his presentation can tell us very little about the original order of the lemmata in A, except that the fact that he reserves the doxai of Aristarchus and Xenophanes for the last place before moving on to material from AD confirms that these were most likely the last two in the chapter (as corroborated by P). He could have linked the final Xenophanean doxa with the earlier one (= P5), but did not do so, either because he overlooked it or because it introduced the new subject of multiple suns and moons. It is very probable, therefore, that we have A’s chapter complete and that the order as set out by P, with some additions from S, is trustworthy. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter with its eight doxai is not highly structured. Unusually for A, there are no oppositions or obvious diaereses. He starts off this time with the dominant scientific view, represented by the first Ionian, who is also credited with the discovery as expressed in terms of the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif. This was long regarded as completely non-historical and explicable as an extrapolation from his famous prediction of the eclipse during the battle between the Lydians and

liber 2 caput 24

1029

the Persians as reported by Herodotus. Guthrie trenchantly states (1962–1981, 1.49) that ‘these achievements were quite impossible for Thales, and his ignorance becomes even clearer when we see the fantastic explanation of eclipses given by his associate Anaximander’. However, the discovery of a papyrus in which this attribution to Thales is claimed by none other than Aristarchus, i.e. two centuries earlier than the previous earliest text in Cicero, has led scholars to reexamine the issue and some are now less sceptical, e.g. Mouraviev in CPF 1.238, Lebedev (1990), Burkert (2013), but Zhmud (2006) 241 remains unconvinced. Of course Aristarchus’ claim could have been based on supposition (he must have known the story) rather than any written evidence. The next doxa in A is attributed to Anaximander, followed by two other Presocratic explanations involving the sun’s fiery nature. In the case of Xenophanes’ doxa in §5 there does seem to be confusion with an explanation of the daily appearance of the sun; see the parallel view on the heavenly bodies in 2.13.14 and the comment in Kirk-Raven-Schofield (1983) 174–175. However, the explanation for eclipses would appear to be confirmed for the doxographical tradition by the evidence in Epicurus and Lucretius discussed above in section B. Thereafter the next anonymous doxa is somewhat reminiscent of the standard view, except that the blocking is done by clouds and not the moon. One might think of the cosmology of Xenophanes, who does much with compressed clouds, were it not for the fact that two other doxai in the chapter are already attributed to him. The seventh doxa is noteworthy in recording the only cosmological doxa attributed to Aristarchus in the Placita (elsewhere only at A 1.15.5 and 4.13.4). It is based on his famous heliocentric hypothesis and so stands apart from all other views (but this is not emphasized). The difficulty is that the inclination of the earth is not relevant to an explanation of eclipses. The doxa would find a much better place in the previous chapter on solstices. However the formulation with the verb σκιάζεσθαι demonstrates that its place in A was in the current chapter. This is corroborated by S’s manner of excerpting, as we have noted above. The final lemma returns to Xenophanes and records another seemingly odd view involving multiple suns and moons in various places. The sun ‘treads on emptiness’ (Bicknell’s translation: 1967, 76, adducing a parallel in Plu. Flaminius 10) and its light appears to be eclipsed. If we accept Bicknell’s explanation, the reason is that it passes over an area of the earth where there is no nourishment through lack of moisture. The doxa could then be a further explication of the compactly stated cause κατὰ σβέσιν in the doxa earlier in the chapter. However, it can also be linked to the explanation κατ᾽ ἀναχώρησιν in the scholion on Epicurus in D.L. 10.96, i.e. through retirement or withdrawal (cause unspecified).

1030

liber 2 caput 24

The doxa is placed at the end because it involves multiple suns and moons; cf. the final placement of the Heraclitean doxa at A 2.28.6. The last part of the doxa, however, does not address the topic of the chapter, but just like the previous doxa it would be better placed in a chapter Περὶ κίνησεως ἡλίου, part of the subject matter of which is covered by ch. 2.23 on the solstices. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 S does not mention the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif in connection with Thales. Most likely he left it out in coalescing the doxa with the one of the sun’s οὐσία in 2.20. Given, however, the strength of the tradition on Thales, there is another possibility, namely that P himself added it in the process of epitomising A. But since S includes it for the illumination of the moon by the sun in A 2.28.5, it is much more likely that he dropped it here. Later traditions also make Thales the first discover the cause of the moon’s eclipses: cf. Wöhrle (2009) frs. 433–435, 515, 535. But A himself does not mention this in ch. 2.29. The final phrase of the doxa has given rise to much discussion. Heeren (1792– 1801) 1.528 and Diels took τῷ δίσκῳ here to mean an ancient mirror, in which the eclipse can be seen to take place. The verb vidisse in Cicero’s report at Rep. 1.25 recalls βλέπεσθαι and perhaps supports this interpretation. There are two problems. The Greek is somewhat stilted. As Torraca (1961, 452) notes, one would expect ὑποτιθέντι τὸν δίσκον. But doxographical style does not aim at fluency and often shows a preference for an impersonal style (though note πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν ὄψιν in §4). A more significant problem is that the term ὁ δίσκος is later used three times in §§6–8 to refer to the sun and not a mirror. But this is at a fair remove from the opening lemma. The text should be allowed to stand. However, the use of two different senses of the same word may help to explain the degree of textual variation. §7 The final two words τὸν δίσκον are not found in S, and Mau, though leaving them in his text, would prefer them to be removed. He is right to retain them, however, because this text is clearly the lectio difficilior. In Aristarchus’ surviving treatise on the sizes and distances of the sun and the moon (on which see the Commentary on A 2.21) there is no trace of the heliocentric hypothesis; see further Heath (1913) 310. It has often been thought that the unusual term κενεμβατοῦντα (‘stepping into an void’ or ‘treading on emptiness’, as interpreted by Bicknell, see above D(c)) goes back to Xenophanes’ poem; see for example Kirk-Raven-Schofield (1983) 175, Graham (2010) 125. But the occurrence in A is the earliest preserved instance of the verb.

liber 2 caput 24

1031

e Other Evidence Ach gives only a single view, that of Thales but presented anonymously, in terms quite reminiscent of A but not identical. Moreover he adds an evaluative comment in a favour of this view, which is of course the dominant one. He thus differs from the method employed by A, who does not discriminate, although he does place this view first. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.96 (and scholion) ἔκλειψις ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης δύναται μὲν γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ σβέσιν, καθάπερ καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν τοῦτο θεωρεῖται γινόμενον· καὶ ἤδη κατ᾽ ἐπιπροσθέτησιν ἄλλων τινῶν, ἢ γῆς ἢ οὐρανίου {ἤ} τινος ἑτέρου τοιούτου. καὶ ὧδε τοὺς οἰκείους ἀλλήλοις τρόπους συνθεωρητέον, καὶ τὰς ἅμα συγκυρήσεις τινῶν ὅτι οὐκ ἀδύνατον γίνεσθαι. (ἐν δὲ τῇ ιβʹ Περὶ φύσεως (fr. 83 Usener) ταὐτὰ λέγει καὶ πρός, ἥλιον ἐκλείπειν σελήνης ἐπισκοτούσης, σελήνην δὲ τοῦ τῆς γῆς σκιάσματος, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ ἀναχώρησιν. τοῦτο δὲ καὶ Διογένης ὁ Ἐπικούρειος ἐν τῇ αʹ τῶν Ἐπιλέκτων.) Lucretius DRN 5.751–761 solis item quoque defectus lunaeque latebras / pluribus e causis fieri tibi posse putandumst. / nam cur luna queat terram secludere solis / lumine et a terris altum caput obstruere ei, / obiciens caecum radiis ardentibus orbem, / tempore eodem aliut facere id non posse putetur / corpus, quod cassum labatur lumine semper? / solque suos etiam dimittere languidus ignis / tempore cur certo nequeat recreareque lumen, / cum loca praeteriit flammis infesta per auras, / quae faciunt ignis interstingui atque perire? Strabo 2.5.2 see text quoted on ch. 2.21. Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.71 Aucher testantur autem magnopere providentia destitutam necessitatem, eclipsis solis defectioque luminis lunae … quum adsint multiplices causae adducendae. sol enim deficit, luna sub eo intrante conjunctionis tempore, cum advenit interlunium vel novilunium. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 9.1, p. 147.13 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg καὶ πῶς τοῦτο (sc. the sun) τῇ σελήνῃ προσενεχθὲν τὰς ἐκλείψεις ποιεῖ. Themistius APo. paraphr. 40.29 Wallies ἐν Ἐπικούρῳ (fr. 347 Usener) μὲν γὰρ δόξα ἦν ὅτι τῆς σελήνης ὑποτρεχούσης ὁ ἥλιος ἐκλιμπάνει· ᾤετο γὰρ αὐτὸ ἐνδέχεσθαι καὶ ἄλλως ἔχειν· ἐν Ἱππάρχῳ δὲ ἐπιστήμη. Servius Comm. in Verg. Georg. 2.478, p. 264.1 Thilo varios defectus secundum Epicurum (—), qui ait non unam causam pronuniandam, qua sol deficere videtur, sed varias: potest enim fieri ut extinguatur, ut longius recedat, ut aliquod eum corpus abscondat. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 (table of contents) p. 11.11 de lunae et solis defectibus. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.751 de eclipsi; 5.774 de solis et lunae offectione. Eusebius PE 10.14.10 (on Thales, fr. 265 Wöhrle) Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος φυσικὸς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων γεγονὼς περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου καὶ ἐκλειψεως … διελέχθη. §1 Thales: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.23 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) δοκεῖ δὲ κατά τινας πρῶτος ἀστρολογῆσαι καὶ ἡλιακὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος (fr. 144 Wehrli) ἐν τῇ Περὶ τῶν ἀστρολογουμένων ἱστορίᾳ. cf. Heron Mechanicus Def. 11 τίς τί εὗρεν ἐν μαθηματικοῖς; Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστο-

1032

liber 2 caput 24

ρεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις, ὅτι … Θαλῆς (fr. 93 Wöhrle) δὲ ἡλίου ἔκλειψιν … same report at Theon of Smyrna Expos. 198.14–17 Hiller (= Eudemus fr. 145 Wehrli). cf. also Cicero Rep. 1.25 erat enim tum haec nova et ignota ratio, solem lunae oppositu solere deficere, quod Thaletum Milesium (fr. 75 Wöhrle) primum vidisse dicunt. Themistius Or. 26 317B Maisano (on Thales, fr. 300 Wöhrle) καὶ προεφήτευσεν ἐν κοινῷ ἅπασι Μιλησίοις ὅτι νὺξ ἔσοιτο ἐν ἡμέρᾳ καὶ δύσεται ἄνω ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ὑποθεύσεται αὐτὸν ἡ σελήνη, ὥστε ἀποτέμνεσθαι τὴν αὐγὴν καὶ τὰς ἀκτῖνας. Scholia Platonica Resp. 600a p. 272 Greene Θάλης (fr. 578 Wöhrle) … εὗρεν γὰρ τὸν ἥλιον ἐκλείπειν ἐξ ὑποδρομῆς σελήνης. Suda s.v. Θ 17, p. 2.681.21–23 Adler πρῶτος δὲ Θαλῆς (fr. 495 Wöhrle) … ἐκλείψεις τε καὶ ἰσημερίας κατείληφεν. §3 Anaximander: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.4 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) διὸ καὶ ἐπιφρασσομένων τῶν ἐκπνοῶν τὰς ἐκλείψεις γίνεσθαι. §4 Heraclitus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) ἐκλείπειν τε ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην, ἄνω στρεφομένων τῶν σκαφῶν. §5, §8 Xenophanes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.3 (on Xenophanes, 21A33) καὶ ἀπείρους ἡλίους εἶναι καὶ σελήνας. cf. also Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.96 ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ ἀναχώρησιν (cited above under General texts).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APo. 2.1 89b24–31 ζητοῦμεν δὲ τέτταρα, τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι, εἰ ἔστι, τί ἐστιν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ πότερον τόδε ἢ τόδε ζητῶμεν, … οἷον πότερον ἐκλείπει ὁ ἥλιος ἢ οὔ, τὸ ὅτι ζητοῦμεν … ὅταν δὲ εἰδῶμεν τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι ζητοῦμεν, οἷον εἰδότες ὅτι ἐκλείπει καὶ ὅτι κινεῖται ἡ γῆ (cf. ch. 3.15), τὸ διότι ἐκλείπει ἢ διότι κινεῖται ζητοῦμεν. Chapter heading: Diodorus Siculus 1.50.2 (on the Thebans in Egypt) περὶ δὲ τῶν ἐκλείψεων ἡλίου τε καὶ σελήνης ἀκριβῶς ἐπεσκέφθαι δοκοῦσι. Pliny Nat. 1, p. 11.1, 11.11–12 (table of contents) Libro II. continentur: … de lunae et solis defectibus. Geminus Elem. 10, p. 61 Aujac. Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου. John Philoponus in Phys. 221.5 (on Arist. Phys. 193b22–30) ὅσα γὰρ περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων κινήσεως λέγεται. §1 Thales: Aristarchus in Comm. Hom. on Od. 20.156 P.Oxy. 53.3710 col. 2.36–43 (= CPF 3T 1.826) ὅτι ἐν νουμηνίᾳ αἱ ἐκλείψες δηλο[ῖ] Ἀρίσταρχος ὁ Σάμ[ι]ος γράφων· ἔφη τε ὁ μὲν Θαλῆς (fr. 91 Wöhrle) ὅτι ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλ[ι]ον σελήνης ἐπίπροσθεν αὐτῷ γενομένης … §3 Anaximander: Eudemus ap. Simp. in Cael. 471.2–9 (on Arist. Cael. 2.10 291a29) see text cited at ch. 2.15 section E(b) General texts. §7 Aristarchus: See above on §1. Archimedes Aren. 1.5, p. 2.144 Heiberg ὑποτίθεται γὰρ (sc. Aristarchus) τὰ μὲν ἀπλανέα τῶν ἄστρων καὶ τὸν ἅλιον μένειν ἀκίνητον, τὰν δὲ γᾶν περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸν ἅλιον κατὰ κύκλου περιφέρειαν, ὅς ἐστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῷ δρόμῳ κείμενος … Plutarch Fac.Lun. 923A ὥσπερ Ἀρίσταρχον ᾤετο δεῖν Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.500) τὸν Σάμιον ἀσεβείας προσκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς κινοῦντα τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἑστίαν, ὅτι ⟨τὰ⟩ φαινόμενα σῴζειν ἁνὴρ ἐπειρᾶτο μένειν τὸν οὐρανὸν ὑποτιθέμενος, ἐξελίττεσθαι δὲ κατὰ λοξοῦ κύκλου τὴν γῆν, ἅμα καὶ περὶ τὸν αὑτῆς ἄξονα δινουμένην. Quaest.Plat. 8 1006C (on Plato) πότερον οὕτως ἐκί-

liber 2 caput 24 νει τὴν γῆν, ὥσπερ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς πέντε πλάνητας, οὓς ὄργανα χρόνου διὰ τὰς τροπὰς προσηγόρευε, καὶ ἔδει τὴν γῆν ‘ἰλλομένην περὶ τὸν διὰ πάντων πόλον τεταμένον’ (Tim. 40b) μὴ μεμηχανῆσθαι συνεχομένην καὶ μένουσαν, ἀλλὰ στρεφομένην καὶ ἀνειλουμένην νοεῖν, ὡς ὕστερον Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Σέλευκος ἀπεδείκνυσαν, ὁ μὲν ὑποτιθέμενος μόνον ὁ δὲ Σέλευκος καὶ ἀποφαινόμενος; Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 200.7–12 Hiller (quoting Dercyllides) φησὶ δ᾽ ὡς γῆν μὲν χρὴ οἴεσθαι μένειν, ἑστίαν τοῦ θεῶν οἴκου κατὰ τὸν Πλάτωνα, τὰ δὲ πλανώμενα· σὺν τῷ παντὶ περιέχοντι οὐρανῷ κινεῖσθαι· τοὺς δὲ τὰ κινητὰ στήσαντας, τὰ δὲ ἀκίνητα φύσει καὶ ἕδρᾳ κινήσαντας ὡς παρὰ τὰς τῆς μαθηματικῆς ὑποθέσεις ἀποδιοπομπεῖται. Sextus Empiricus M. 10.174 οἵ γε μὴν τὴν τοῦ κόσμου κίνησιν ἀνελόντες, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖσθαι δοξάσαντες, ὡς οἱ περὶ Ἀρίσταρχον τὸν μαθηματικόν, οὐ κωλύονται νοεῖν χρόνον.

1033

Liber 2 Caput 25 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 1 recto, pp. 75, 81 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 891B–C; pp. 355a11–357a1 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.26, p. 402.8–19 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 67; p. 627.11–16 Diels; pp. 193– 202 Jas—PL: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12, p. 53.6–13 Wuensch—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 160–161 Daiber—cf. PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.50, p. 54.1–2 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26, p. 217.18 (tit.) + 1.26.1a–b, pp. 217.22–218.5 + 1.26.1c–f, pp. 218.8–219.1 + 1.26.1g–h, p. 219.5–9 + 1.26.1k, p. 219.18–19 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b11–12 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.21, p. 105.16–17 + 4.23, 106.7–12 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 21, p. 30.6–12 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, pp. 27.21–28.2 Martin

Titulus κεʹ. Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς, ὅμοιον ἁρματείῳ ⟨τροχῷ⟩ κοίλην ἔχοντα τὴν ἁψῖδα καὶ πυρὸς πλήρη, καθάπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, κείμενον λοξόν, ὡς κἀκεῖνον, ἔχοντα μίαν ἐκπνοήν, οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν· ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος πυρίνην. (S2–3,T3) §3 Ξενοφάνης νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον, (P2,S4,T1) §4 Κλεάνθης δὲ πυροειδῆ. (S14) §1 Anaximander 12A22 DK; §2 Anaximenes 13A16 DK; Parmenides 28A42 DK; Heraclitus T446 Mouraviev; §3 Xenophanes 21A43 DK; §4 Cleanthes — titulus Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης PBQ, cf. S Περὶ σελήνης οὐσίας κτλ : Περὶ σελήνης PEG : conflat S tit. cc. 2.25–27 Περὶ σελήνης οὐσίας καὶ μεγέθους (c. 2.26) καὶ σχήματος (2.27) §1 [2–5] Ἀναξίμανδρος … τροχοῦ S ([3] τροχῷ add. ex P Diels Wachsmuth; ἔχοντα coni. Diels Wachsmuth : ἔχοντι SFP, [5] ἐπιστροφὰς e P : τροπὰς SF, τροφὰς SP1, στροφὰς SP2) : al. (vid. comm. infra) PBEQ Ἀναξίμανδρος … τῆς γῆς, ὥσπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ (add. Beck edd. ex S : ἐπὶ PE) τοῦ ἡλίου πλήρη πυρός· ἐκλείπειν … τροχοῦ· ὅμοιον γὰρ εἶναι ἁρματίου (PB(I,II) : ἁρματείῳ PB(III)E) τροχῷ … πλήρη πυρός (PB, πυρὸς πλήρη PE), ἔχοντι (ἔχοντα PE Diels) μίαν ἐκπνοήν (PB(I,II)E : πνοήν PBII) : Ἀναξιμένης (sic) τοίνυν κύκλον τὴν σελήνην εἶναι βούλεται ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, πλήρη πυρὸς ὥσπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου PL : Ἀναξίμανδρος … ἑκκαιδεκαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, om. ὥσπερ … ἐκπνοήν PG §2 [6] Ἡράκλειτος T : om. S ‖ post πυρίνην add. S τὴν σελήνην verisimiliter §3 [7] post Ξενοφάνης add. PG δὲ ‖ πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον scripsimus ‖ πεπυρωμένον PB(II)GLQ : πεπιλημένον PB(III)ES (et PP edd., sed vid. comm. infra) : πεπυρωλημένον PB(I) : cf. νέφη πεπυρωμένα (τὸν ἡλίον καὶ τὴν σελήνην) T ‖ post εἶναι add. τὴν σελήνην SP §4 [8] πυροειδῆ S : τὴν σελήνην add. S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_066

5

liber 2 caput 25

§5 §6 §7 §8 §9 §10 §11 §12 §13 §14 §15

Ποσειδώνιος δὲ καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν Στωικῶν μικτὴν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. (P3,S15) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἀέρα συνεστραμμένον νεφοειδῆ, πεπηγότα ὑπὸ πυρός, ὥστε σύμμικτον. (S12) Πλάτων ἐκ πλείονος τοῦ πυρώδους. (P4,S13) Ἀριστοτέλης ⟨ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος⟩. (cf. S13a) Θαλῆς γεώδη. (S5,T2) Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος στερέωμα διάπυρον, ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πεδία καὶ ὄρη καὶ φάραγγας. (P5,S6,T4) Διογένης κισηροειδὲς ἄναμμα. (S7) Ἴων σῶμα τῇ μὲν ὑελοειδές, διαυγές, τῇ δὲ ἀφεγγές. (S8) Βήρωσος ἡμιπύρωτον σφαῖραν. (S9) Ἡρακλείδης καὶ Ὄκελλος γῆν ὁμίχλῃ περιεχομένην. (P6,S10,T6) Πυθαγόρας κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα. (P7,S11,T5)

§5 Posidonius F 122 E.-K., 301 Theiler; Stoici SVF 2.671, 506; §6 Empedocles 31A60 DK; §7 Plato cf. Tim. 40a; §8 Aristoteles cf. Cael. 1.2 269a31; §9 Thales fr. 356 Wöhrle; §10 Anaxagoras 59A77 DK; Democritus 68A90 DK; §11 Diogenes 64A14 DK; §12 Ion 36A7 DK; §13 Berossus FGH 680 F19a Jacoby, F21c De Breucker; §14 Heraclides fr. 114 Wehrli, fr. 76 Schütrumpf; Ocellus T9 Harder; §15 Pythagoras — §5 [9] Ποσειδώνιος … Στωικῶν S : οἱ Στωικοὶ P ‖ μικτὴν PBLGS : μικτὸν PE ‖ post μικτὴν hab. PG εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ‖ ἀέρος] γεώδους PG ‖ post γεώδους hab. PG ᾠήθησαν §7 [13] τοῦ πυρώδους PBLQS : τοῦ γεώδους PE : πυρός PG ‖ post πυρώδους add. S εἶναι τὴν σελήνην §8 [14] Ἀριστοτέλης σελήνην ἐν μεθορίοις ἀέρος τεταγμένην καὶ τῆς πέμπτης οὐσίας μετέχουσαν ἐν μηνὶ περιέρχεσθαι τὸν ἴδιον κύκλον S, sed verisimiliter e AD, supplevimus ex 2.13.12 et 2.20.11 §9 [15] post γέωδη add. S ipse τὴν σελήνην ἀπεφήνατο §10 [16] Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος PBE (Ἀναξαγόρας om. PP) : Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος PGLQ(ut vid.)SF (δὲ post καὶ add. T) : Δημόκριτος καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας SP §11 [18] post ἄναμμα add. S τὴν σελήνην §13 [20] post σφαῖραν add. S τὴν σελήνην §14 non hab. PG ‖ [21] Ἡρακλείδης καὶ Ὄκελλος ST (καὶ Ὄκελλος secl. Diels) : Ἡράκλειτος P ‖ ὁμίχλῃ PT : ὁμίχλην S §15 non hab. PG ‖ [22] κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα S, cf. Aratea κάτοπρόν τι (vid. test. sec. infra) : κατὰ τὸ πυροειδὲς σῶμα σελήνης PBQ(ut vid.) (κατὰ τὸ πυροειδὲς cruxifix. Mau, coni. κατοπτροειδὲς ex S Diels Lachenaud, σελήνης secl. Diels Mau Lachenaud) : πυροειδὲς σῶμα PL : κατὰ τὸ πυροειδὲς σχῆμα PE (coni. Mras πυροειδὲς σῶμα κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα κατοπτροειδὲς) : πετρῶδες σῶμα T

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.21, 23 4.21.1 (~ §3) καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ὁ Ξενοφάνης νέφη εἶναι πεπυρωμένα φησίν. 4.23 (~ tit.) καὶ περὶ σελήνης δὲ ὁμοίως ὑθλοῦσιν· 4.23.1 (~ §9) γεώδη μὲν γὰρ αὐτὴν ὁ Θαλῆς φησιν, 4.23.2 (~ §2) Ἀναξιμένης δὲ καὶ Παρμενίδης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ἐκ μόνου ξυνεστάναι πυρός·

1035

10

15

20

1036

liber 2 caput 25

4.23.3 (~ §10) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος στερέωμα διάπυρον, ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πεδία καὶ ὄρη καὶ φάραγγας· 4.23.4 (~ §15) ὁ δὲ Πυθαγόρας πετρῶδες σῶμα· 4.23.5 (~ §14) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ γῆν ὀμίχλῃ περιεχομένην. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis fr. 1 recto = P §§1–5 [ κ]α̣τα̣ ̣ [τας επιστροφας του τροχου ομοιον γαρ ε]ινα[ι] [αρματιου τροχωι κοιλην εχοντι τ]η̣ ν αψι[δα] [και πληρη πυρος εχοντι μιαν εκ]π̣ νοην Ξε 5 [νοφανης νεφος είναι πεπιλημε]ν̣ο̣ν̣ ο̣ι ̣ [Στωικοι μικτην εκ πυρος και αερο]ς ̣ [Πλατων εκ πλειονος του πυρωδους] Δ̣ η] [μοκριτος στερεωμα διαπυρον εχον] ε̣ν̣ ps.Galenus HPh c. 67 (~ tit.) Περὶ σελήνης (text Jas) 67.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἑκκαιδεκαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς. 67.2 (~ P2) Ξενοφάνης δὲ εἶναι νέφος πεπυρωμένον. 67.3 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ μικτὴν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ γεώδους ᾠήθησαν. 67.4 (~ P4) Πλάτων ἐκ πλείονος πυρός. 67.5 (~ P5) Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος στερέωμα διάπυρον, ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πεδία καὶ ὄρη καὶ φάραγγας. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12 Ἀναξιμένης τοίνυν κύκλον τὴν σελήνην εἶναι βούλεται ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, πλήρη πυρὸς ὥσπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου (~ P1), Ξενοφάνης δὲ νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον (~ P2), οἱ Στωικοὶ μικτὴν πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος (~ P3), Πλάτων ἐκ πλείονος τοῦ πυρώδους (~ P4), Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος στερέωμα διάπυρον, ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πεδία καὶ ὄρη καὶ φάραγγας (~ P5), Ἡράκλειτος γῆν ὁμίχλῃ περιειλημμένην (~ P6), Πυθαγόρας γε μὴν πυροειδὲς σῶμα (~ P7). Symeon Seth CRN 3.50 Περὶ οὐσίας καὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης καὶ σχήματος (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 21 p. 30.6 Περὶ σελήνης (~ tit) p. 30.7–12 (1) τινὲς οὐδὲ ὅλως βούλονται εἶναι σελήνην. (2) ἄλλοι δὲ αὐτὴν ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως γῆς εἶναι λέγουσιν, (3) ἕτεροι δὲ ἐκ πυρός (~ §2), (4) ἄλλοι καὶ ἀέρος (~ §5), (5) ἄλλοι ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων, (6) ἕτεροι δὲ γῆν πεπυρωμένην στερέμνιον ἔχουσαν πῦρ, εἶναι δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς οἴκησιν ἄλλην ποταμούς τε καὶ ὅσα ἐπὶ γῆς (~ §10), καὶ τὸν λέοντα τὸν Νεμεαῖον ἐκεῖθεν πεσεῖν μυθολογοῦσιν. (7) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ ἀπόσπασμα αὐτήν φησιν ἡλίου. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17 p. 27.21–28.2 Martin ιζʹ Σελήνη. τὴν δὲ σελήνην σύγκριμα ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος (~ §5)· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ πάντων κατωτέρα⟨ν⟩ τῶν ἀστέρων. οἱ δὲ κάτοπρόν τι (~§15).

liber 2 caput 25

1037

Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τούτου οὐσία; et vide textus citatos ad 2.11. A 2.26 Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης. A 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης. A 2.28 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης. A 2.29 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. A 2.30 Περὶ ἐμφάσεως αὐτῆς καὶ διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται. A 2.31 Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων τῆς σελήνης, πόσον ἀφέστηκε τοῦ ἡλίου. §1 cf. A 2.20.1 (de sole) Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ὀκτωκαιεικοσαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς κτλ. §2 cf. A 2.20.3 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης πύρινον ὑπάρχειν τὸν ἥλιον. A 2.30.5 Παρμενίδης διὰ τὸ παραμεμῖχθαι τῷ περὶ αὐτὴν πυρώδεῖ τὸ ζοφῶδες κτλ. §3 cf. A 2.13.13 (de astris), 2.20.2 (de sole). A 2.20.15 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος, ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνοτέρου, ὅπερ ψυχρόν. §4 cf. A 2.20.6 (de luna) Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. §5 A 2.28.3 (de luna) οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀμαυροφανές, ἀεροειδὲς γάρ. A 2.30.6 (de luna) οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἀερομιγὲς τῆς οὐσίας μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα. §7 cf. A 2.13.11 (de astris), 2.20.7 (de sole), 1.7.22 (de deis, text. cit. ad A 2.13.11). §8 vide text. cit. ad 2.11.5 (de caelo). §9 cf. A 2.13.1 (de astris), 2.20.9 (de sole). A 2.24.1 Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον τῆς σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑποτρεχούσης κατὰ κάθετον, οὔσης φύσει γεώδους. §10 cf. A 2.13.3, 5 (de astris), 2.20.8 (de sole). A 2.30.3 (de luna) Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνωμαλότητα τοῦ συγκρίματος διὰ τὸ ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες, τὰ μὲν ἐχούσης ὑψηλά, τὰ δὲ ταπεινά, τὰ δὲ κοῖλα. cf. A 2.30.4 Δημόκριτος ἀποσκιάματα τῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐν αὐτῇ μερῶν· ἄγκη γὰρ αὐτὴν ἔχειν καὶ νάπας. §11 cf. A 2.13.10 (de astris), 2.20.10 (de luna). §13 A 2.29.2 (de lunae defectu) Βήρωσος κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐπιστροφὴν τοῦ ἀπυρώτου μέρους. §14 A 2.13.14 Ἡρακλείδης καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ἕκαστον τῶν ἀστέρων κόσμον ὑπάρχειν, γῆν περιέχοντα ἀέρα τε καὶ αἰθέρα ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ αἰθέρι. §15 A 2.30.1 τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς μέν, ὧν ἐστι Φιλόλαος, τὸ γεωφανὲς αὐτῆς εἶναι …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The chapter on the moon’s substance is one of the longest in Book 2 and is exceptionally well attested. For the tradition of P there are no less than six witnesses. There is also very full record in S, complemented by extracts in T and some parallel material in Ach and the Aratean tradition.

1038

liber 2 caput 25

(1) P records seven doxai. The first attributed to Anaximander is quite long and gives various additional details based on his particular cosmology. It is wholly parallel to the first doxa in ch. 2.20. The remaining six are mainly short. The complete set of doxai is found in E, Q and in an excerpt in Ioannes Lydus. G abridges the first doxa and deletes the final two. The papyrus is very fragmentary but gives evidence on one textual conundrum. As the apparatus shows, in the case of the second, fourth and final doxa there are important textual discrepancies that will need to be examined in detail. For this task the evidence of the remaining witnesses must be taken into account. (2) As occurred in the case of the doxography on the sun, S combines all the material on the moon in a single chapter. His procedure differs a little, however, no doubt because he concluded that to coalesce seven chapters (compared with five on the sun) would simply be too difficult. So he just takes the first three chapters on the moon’s substance, size and shape and combines all the material in them. Since the other two chapters are short, most of the material comes from the chapter on substance. The remaining four chapters are then seemingly written out in full. The procedure thus provides valuable evidence on both S’s method and the original appearance of A (see the remarks at M–R 1.218). Since the following two chapters on the moon’s size and shape are short and distinctive, it should be possible to strip the doxai from them away and so be left with the lemmata originally present in 2.25. A complicating factor, however, is that S has clearly mixed in some material from AD towards the end of the coalesced section of the chapter. Stylistic considerations make it highly likely that the lemmata on Aristotle (1h), Zeno (1i) and Chrysippus (1l) derive from AD (but not the lemma on Cleanthes); on these lemmata see further M–R 3.328– 329 (but the Aristotelian lemma should be added). We shall argue below that the extract on Aristotle from AD very likely replaces a doxa originally present in A. If, then, the extraneous material both from chs. 2.26 and 2.27 and from AD is filtered out, the following fifteen doxai remain (doxai present in P are added in brackets): S1 Anaximander (= P1)—S2 Anaximenes—S3 Parmenides—S4 Xenophanes (= P2)—S5 Thales—S6 Anaxagoras Democritus (= P5)—S7 Diogenes—S8 Ion—S9 Berosus—S10 Heraclides Ocellus (~ P6)—S11 Pythagoras (= P7)—S12 Empedocles—S13 Plato (= P4)—S14 Cleanthes—S15 Posidonius and most of the Stoics (~ P3). Clearly it will be a challenge to reconcile this list with the order of the doxai in P.

liber 2 caput 25

1039

(3) T follows his section on the sun with a parallel section on the moon. But earlier in T 4.21 he had already coalesced the doxai of Xenophanes on the two heavenly bodies, changing the singular into the plural νέφη πεπυρωμένα (Τ1). In T 4.23 he continues with five more doxai which can all be paralleled in S. Significantly, however, he joins up the name-labels of Anaximenes and Parmenides and adds that of Heraclitus to it (T3; missing in S). It is most likely that these three labels were linked together with the view that the moon is fiery. There are also differences in the order of the doxai when compared with S. T begins with Thales (Τ2) and places the doxa of Heraclides (Τ6) after that of Pythagoras (Τ5; this also differs from P). The doxa of Anaxagoras–Democritus (T4) is taken over without modification. (4) On the significant parallels in Achilles and the Aratea see the next section. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The topic of the moon’s substance is prominent in a number of texts which stand close to the doxographical traditions used by A. Two occur in Achilles and the Scholia in Aratum, showing significant though mostly not very exact parallels to A. These will be discussed in section D(e) below. A third text is found in Cicero’s Lucullus, where as we saw in the case of ch. 2.21 Cicero draws on an anterior doxographical tradition. The doxa at §123 is clearly parallel to that of Anaxagoras–Democritus in A (note both mention mountains), but it is attributed to Xenophanes. Finally, there are two suggestive texts in doxographical passages in Philo’s De somniis. At Somn. 1.22 Philo writes that some people have said that the heavenly bodies are ἄγκεα καὶ νάπας καὶ μύδρους διαπύρους. This is not specifically said of the moon, but is reminiscent of the doxa of Anaxagoras and Democritus in §10 (but is even closer to the doxa of Democritus at A 2.30.4). In Somn. 1.145 Philo also gives a view that is similar to the Stoic doxa in A (note the term κρᾶμα). We may surmise that these passages are drawn from the source that he used extensively earlier in the treatise (see above on chs. 2.11 and 2.13). We return to this text when discussing ch. 2.30 below. Lucian in his satire Icaromenippus also refers to questions associated with the moon (substance, size and shape), wittily placing them in the moon’s mouth as a participant in the conversation. Of considerable interest in relation to this chapter (and also chs. 2.28 and 2.30) is the celebrated treatise of Plutarch, Περὶ τοῦ ἐμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῳ τῆς σελήνης. Various views are recorded, some of which correspond to doxai in A (Stoics 921F, Empedocles 922C, Aristotle 928E, Thales etc. 936E, Plato 943A), while others differ (Posidonius 929D, Xenocrates 944A). The proposed

1040

liber 2 caput 25

view at 922B, εἰ οὖν ἡ σελήνη πῦρ ἐστι, recalls the formulation of a θέσις. In fact, the opposition between fiery–light and earthy–heavy, parallel to A’s diaphonia, dominates the entire treatise; see esp. 921E, 936E (cited below section E(a) General texts). Ultimately Plutarch seeks a compromise view associated with Plato and Xenocrates (cf. 943F and 945D, and see further on A 2.30). This is also a common doxographical technique. The entire treatise is a splendid example of how doxographical material and techniques can be utilised and absorbed in a highly literary work. It deserves further detailed analysis from this viewpoint. Most of these doxographical parallels are not included in the notes to the edition of Cherniss’s edition in Cherniss-Hembold (1957) or are concealed in references to collections such as DK and SVF. (2) Sources. That the nature of the moon was a hot topic of discussion in early Greek philosophy, just like in the case of the sun, is evident not only from the material in our chapter but also from the purported exchange between Socrates and Meletus in the former’s speech at his trial (Apol. 26d–e). But it is difficult to trace antecedents for the collection of doxai in our chapter. Aristotle scarcely refers to the moon in De caelo and furnishes no doxographical material (he does refer to two questions regarding it in his theory of knowledge at APo. 2.1 90a3– 5, text below). In general, there is less doxographical and dialectical material on the substance of the moon than on that of the sun (we have found no examples of its use as a rhetorical example of a quaestio or a θέσις). It is clear, however, that the main diaeresis of A’s chapter reflects the main division of opinion on the subject in antiquity; see Préaux (1973) 157. The thorough overview of ancient views in Gundel (1933) 77–84, which is like a modern version of doxography, is organised in a tripartition, beginning with views that the moon is earthlike, followed by views that it is a mixture of elements, and ending with the view that it is composed of fire. C Chapter Heading The longer heading found in PBQ and in S (and PSy) must be the original, as shown by the parallels at chs. 2.11, 2.13 and 2.20. E and G abridge, as they also did in their chapters on the sun’s substance (ch. 2.20). As in the parallel chapters, the heading as the common umbrella formulation Περί x, indicating a quaestio in the category of substance. S has joined together the chapter headings of chs. 2.25–27 at the beginning of his chapter and inserted the remaining headings of chs. 2.28–31 at the appropriate points within the chapter itself. There is no need to follow Wachsmuth in restoring the latter to the initial chapter heading. This is based on Photius’ index, but he could have easily extracted them from within the chapter, as argued by Elter (1880) 72 and Mansfeld (2000b) 182–183.

liber 2 caput 25

1041

D Analysis a Context The doxography on the moon (chs. 2.25–31) follows the same pattern as that on the sun (chs. 2.20–24), starting with a lengthy chapter on its substance. The parallel chapters on the heaven, stars, sun and earth at chs. 2.11, 2.13, 2.20 and 3.9 all include the term οὐσία in their chapter headings (but the chapter on the sun is the only other one to use the formula Περὶ οὐσίας, the others using longer formulations). b Number–Order of Lemmata The task is to identify which doxai belong to the chapter (in most but not all cases this is clear) and to reconcile the differences in order between the three witnesses. The starting-point should be the long list of doxai in S, but we must bear in mind that the epitomator P seldom alters the order that he found in A. We proceed in the following steps. (1) The order in P corresponds well with the order in S, except in the case of P3 = S14 (Stoics) and P4 = S13 (Plato). S often moves doxai on Plato, Aristotle and the Stoa to the end of the chapter and sometimes replaces A with extracts from AD. This will have happened here. We should retain P’s order for these doxai. (2) For the second doxa (Anaximander is first in both P and S) T shows that most likely there were three name-labels Anaximenes–Parmenides–Heraclitus. This means that S must have accidently deleted the Heraclitean view at 1.26.1c (unless the word πυρίνην dropped out of the text). This view is consistent with the Heraclitean doxai in following chapters (A 2.28.7, 2.29.3). (3) As Wachsmuth saw, S5–11 form a block (all with views that the moon is in some way earthy). The view of Xenophanes that precedes in both P and S is to be located earlier in the chapter. (4) The Empedoclean doxa that follows the block (S12) does not belong with it. It is close to the Stoic view and very likely followed it. S may have overlooked it when he passed over the views of the Stoa and then added it after the block. (5) In S an Aristotelian doxa follows on from Plato (the two philosophers are often coupled in the Placita). Its formulation suggests, however, that it was drawn from AD (it should be added to the list in Runia (1996b) 372–376, repr. M–R 3.322–327). It is very likely that it replaced the original doxa in A, which therefore must be supplied. Our conjectured formulation is based on the similar doxai in A 2.13.12 and 2.20.11. (6) As noted above, the doxai of Zeno and Chrysippus near the end in S are taken from AD. However, the formulation of the two brief doxai on substance and shape attributed to Cleanthes at S 1.26.1i differs and so they are more likely

1042

liber 2 caput 25

to come from A (cf. S 1.26.1cf), to be assigned to chs. 2.25 and 2.27 respectively. The former on the moon’s substance precedes the view of Posidonius and the Stoics in S (note the expanded name-label compared with P, who must have compressed here). This order can be retained, the doxa forming a slight contrast with the similar view of Xenophanes, although it is also possible that it followed that of most Stoics as an exception (the option taken at M– R 2.2.580). On the basis of the above there are 15 doxai in the chapter (very similar to the parallel chapters 2.13 and 2.20) in the following order: A1 Anaximander—A2 Anaximenes–Parmenides–Heraclitus—A3 Xenophanes—A4 Cleanthes—A5 Posidonius and most of the Stoics— A6 Empedocles—A7 Plato—A8 Aristotle—A9 Thales—A10 Anaxagoras—Democritus—A11 Diogenes—A12 Ion—A13 Berossus—A14 Heraclides—Ocellus—A15 Pythagoras. This order is fully consistent with that found in P. As noted above in section A(3), T has modified the order in a number of ways. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter If the 15 doxai are analysed (and the further comments in the following subsection are taken into account), it emerges that the chapter has a remarkably coherent structure (first pointed out in Runia 1989), which illustrates beautifully a number of common doxographical techniques used by A. The chapter is dominated by a fundamental diaeresis between the view that the moon is basically fiery and the view that it is primarily made of earth or some solid substance. The leaders of the two views are the venerable Milesians Anaximander (§1) and Thales (§9). After Anaximander there follow three views that the moon is fiery or fire-like (§§2–4). Then there are four doxai in which fire is mixed with other elements (§§5–8). The Aristotelian view coming last in this group might be seen as exceptional, since the quintessence is not fiery in the strict sense. After Thales, leader of the second basic group of views (§§9– 15), a number of doxai follow in which the moon is earthy or solid or glassy etc. These views are only loosely organized and contain some quite idiosyncratic positions. There is an obvious link with the subject of ch. 2.30 on the moon’s appearance and why is appears to be earthy. See further our Commentary on that chapter.

1043

liber 2 caput 25

d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 For this doxa P and S have very different texts, which are not easily reduced to a single version. It is worth setting out the two texts in detail, cutting them up into their separate components and highlighting what is common to them both: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλάσιον τῆς γῆς, ὅμοιον ἁρματείῳ ⟨τροχῷ⟩ κοίλην ἔχοντι τὴν ἁψῖδα καὶ πυρὸς πλήρη, καθάπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου, κείμενον λοξόν, ὡς κἀκεῖνον, ἔχοντα μίαν ἐκπνοήν, οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν· ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ.

P1 P2

Ἀναξίμανδρος κύκλον εἶναι ἐννεακαιδεκαπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, ὥσπερ ⟨τὸν⟩ τοῦ ἡλίου πλήρη πυρός·

P3

ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ· P4 ὅμοιον γὰρ εἶναι ἁρματίου τροχῷ κοίλην ἔχοντι τὴν ἁψῖδα καὶ πλήρη πυρός, P5 ἔχοντι μίαν ἐκπνοήν.

There are two main differences. (1) S has additional material (κείμενον λοξόν, ὡς κἀκεῖνον, οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν), whereas P repeats a phrase (πυρὸς πλήρη). (2) There is a difference in order: compared with S, P has the order P1–4–2–5– 3; compared with P, S has the order 1–3–5–2–4. There can be little doubt that S’s text is superior. Aside from the superfluous repetition, P also states that the wheel causes the eclipse in P3 before introducing it in P4. S’s additional material is not such that it could easily be added on the basis of general knowledge. We note that the phrase οἷον πρηστῆρος αὐλόν recalls διὰ πρηστῆρος αὐλοῦ in A 2.20.1 (though there the full phrase is only found in P); on the interpretation of this phrase see on ch. 2.20, Commentary D(d)§1. We have thus integrally taken over S’s version in our text above. See further Runia (2020). §3 For the reading here the witnesses are fairly evenly divided by πεπυρωμένον and πεπιλημένον. The evidence for the former is a little stronger than the latter if T is added. It is important to realise that both readings are supported by independent parts of the tradition of P. Remarkably the papyrus, unknown to Runia when writing his 1989 paper, contains the final three letters of the participle. The editor Barns supplemented with πεπυρωμένον, but given the virtually identical length of the two variants, this is arbitrary. It is easy to see that something like the reading πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον is required in order to differentiate between the sun and the moon (not understood by T). The strange hybrid reading πεπυρωλημένον in the oldest Byzantine ms. Mosq. 339 can be explained as the result of the superscripting of letters from the

1044

liber 2 caput 25

alternative reading (cf. Diels DG 16 and the apparatus to Mau’s edition) or as the result of haplography, i.e. πεπυρω⟨μένον πεπι⟩λημένον. In Runia (1989) 267 it was proposed that both participles must have originally been present in the text and this was approved by Mourelatos (2008) 148 in his fuller analysis of Xenophanes’ cosmology. If the succession of participles seems a little harsh, one might adduce the text in Ach, γῆν πεπυρωμένην στερέμνιον ἔχουσαν πῦρ (where στερέμνιον goes with γῆν), but of course this is no parallel for the succession of two passive past participles. The unusual nature of the phrase must have led to one of the participles being dropped. The papyrus tells us this happened already at an early stage. The hybrid reading remains as witness to the original text. For the translation of πεπυρωμένον as ‘incandescent’ see above on ch. 2.13 Commentary D(d)§13 and ch. 2.20 Commentary D(d)§2. §7 The reading for the Platonic doxa in S clearly confirms the reading in PB and Lydus against E and G. It is consistent with, but less accurate than A 2.13.11 and 2.20.7. §8 On the conjecture here, based on A 2.13.12 and 2.20.11, see section D(b) above. §12 This is the only appearance of Ion of Chios in the Placita. See the note on unique name-labels at ch. 2.17 Commentary D(d)§3. Brief discussion in a collective volume on Ion by Baltussen (2007) 308–310. §13 Berosus the Babylonian (fl. 330 bce) is only cited in the Placita in relation to the moon; cf. also A 2.28.1, 2.29.2. He is thus not a Presocratic, but like them has an interesting and idiosyncratic view, for which our doxographer always shows an interest. The astronomical fragments of Berosus are controversial. These doxai may have been drawn from his Βαβυλωνιακά, but Jacoby, followed by recent scholars, regarded them as a late Hellenistic invention; see now De Breucker (2012) and the further discussion at ch. 2.28 Commentary D(e). §14 The name-label Heraclides in S is confirmed by T (P has Heraclitus, an easy mistake, esp. in the light of a similar doxa attributed to the latter in A 2.28.7). There is no reason to follow Diels DG 100, 216 and 356 in supposing the name of Ocellus was added by S. Admittedly this is his only appearance in the Placita, but he occurs elsewhere in doxographical material (e.g. S.E. M. 10.316, Philo Aet. 12). We note also Ἡρακλείδης καὶ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι in A 2.13.14. §15 The readings in the tradition of P involving a fiery body are most unlikely to be correct given the structure of the chapter noted above in section D(c). T’s reading πετρῶδες σῶμα is not impossible. But in two nearby chapters there are Pythagorean doxai involving reflection (A 2.20.13, 2.30.2), so S’s reading κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα inspires confidence. It is also supported by the doxa in the Scholia in Aratum (see section D(e) below). The readings in the P tradition can be explained as corruptions of the original reading preserved in S.

liber 2 caput 25

1045

e Other Evidence In a most interesting parallel passage Ach at the beginning of his chapter on the moon presents seven doxai. Although not specifically linked to the subject of its οὐσία, this is clearly what they discuss. These doxai have a complex relationship to what is found in A, regrettably offering little help for the task of reconstructing his original chapter. The doxai are all but the last presented anonymously and are mainly very brief: Ach1. The denial of the moon’s existence is a remarkable doxa. It can be explained as a mechanical application of the originally Aristotelian question types, of which the first is εἰ ἔστιν, whether something exists or not. Cf. A 1.7 on the gods and 1.24 on generation and change; see further M–R 2.1.169. Aristotle actually uses the moon’s existence as an example at APo. 2.1 90a5 (text below). Another explanation might be that the moon we see is only a phantasm or a reflection. Ach2. Not in A, but equivalent to A 2.20.5–6 on the sun. Ach3. Equivalent to the doxa of Anaximenes-Parmenides-Heraclitus in A. Ach4. Parallel to the doxa of Posidonius and the Stoics in A. Ach5. Presumably the Platonic view; cf. Ach ch. 11 on the stars, but there he adds πλείστου δὲ πυρός. Ach6. Basically equivalent to the Anaxagoras–Democritus lemma in A. The mention of the Nemean lion is also found in a scholion on Apollonius Rhodes’ Argonautica, where it is linked to the flat surface of the moon (see on ch. 2.27). The report is also anonymously mentioned by Plutarch Fac. 937F in connection with the moon’s velocity. Ach7. Quite different from the Empedoclean doxa in A (the view has already been mentioned in ch. 16, 23.16 Di Maria on the order of the seven spheres, where it is joined up with fr. B45 DK). There is a further scrap of material in the Scholia in Aratum. The first doxa is basically that of the Stoics (the term σύγκριμα reappears in the Stoic doxa at A 2.30.6 on the moon’s appearance; we note also κρᾶμα at Philo Somn. 1.145). The second doxa most interestingly gives us a parallel for the reading of S in the Pythagorean lemma found in all three witnesses (§15). There can be no doubt that this material comes from a shared tradition.

1046 E a

liber 2 caput 25

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.145, λέγεται γοῦν ὅτι σελήνη πίλημα μὲν ἄκρατον αἰθέρος οὔκ ἐστιν, ὡς ἕκαστος τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων, κρᾶμα δὲ ἔκ τε αἰθερώδους οὐσία καὶ ἀερώδους. also Her 247; see on A 2.11. cf. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12, p. 54.12–14 (copied from Philo Somn. 1.145). Plutarch Fac.Lun. 921E οὐκ ἐθελήσει δέ … τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στέρεον ἡμῖν ὁ Κλέαρχος (not in Wehrli) ἀλλἀ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον … Fac.Lun. 922B εἰ οὖν ἡ σελήνη πῦρ ἐστι, πόθεν αὐτῇ τοσοῦτος ἐγγέγονεν ἀήρ. Fac.Lun. 935B, ⟨γ⟩ῆ τις ⟨ὀλυμπία καὶ⟩ ἱερὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπων νομιζομένη μᾶλλον ἢ πῦρ θολερὸν ὥσπερ οἱ Στωικοὶ (…) λέγουσι καὶ τρυγῶδες. Fac.Lun. 936E οἱ δὲ σῶμα μὴ λεπτὸν μηδὲ λεῖον … ἀποφαίνοντες τὴν σελήνην ἀλλ᾽ ἐμβριθὲς καὶ γεῶδες … Fac.Lun. 943E ἐφορῶσι δὲ πρῶτον μὲν αὐτῆς σελήνης τὸ μέγεθος καὶ τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὴν φύσιν οὐχ ἁπλῆν οὐδ᾽ ἄμικτον ἀλλ᾽ οἷον ἄστρου σύγκραμα καὶ γῆς οὖσαν … ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Ξενοκράτης (fr, 56 Heinze, 161 Isnardi Parente2) ἔοικεν ἐννοῆσαι θείῳ τινὶ λογισμῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβὼν παρὰ Πλάτωνος. Πλάτων (Tim. 31b–32c, 40a) γάρ ἐστιν ὁ καὶ τῶν ἀστέρων ἕκαστον ἐκ γῆς καὶ πυρὸς συνηρμόσθαι δὶα τῶν ⟨δυεῖν⟩ μεταξὺ φύσεων ἀναλογίᾳ δεθεισῶν ἀποφηνάμενος … ὁ δὲ Ξενοκράτης τὰ μὲν ἄστρα καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἐκ πυρός φησι καὶ τοῦ πρώτου πυκνοῦ συγκεῖσθαι τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ δευτέρου πυκνοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἰδίου ἀέρος … Fac.Lun. 945D μικτὸν δὲ καὶ μέσον ἡ ψυχὴ καθάπερ ἡ σελήνη τῶν ἄνω καὶ κάτω σύμμιγμα καὶ μετακέρασμα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ γέγονε … Lucian Icar. 20 (moon speaking in first person) πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ παρὰ τῶν φιλοσόφων ἀκούουσα, οἷς οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν ἔργον ἢ τἀμὰ πολυπραγμονεῖν, τίς εἰμι καὶ πηλίκη, καὶ δι᾽ ἥντινα αἰτίαν διχότομος ἢ ἀμφίκυρτος γίγνομαι. Macrobius in Somn. 1.19.10– 12 denique quia totius mundi ima pars terra est, aetheris autem ima pars luna est, lunam quoque terram sed aetheriam vocaverunt … luna speculi instar lumen quo illustratur emittit, quia illa aeris et aquae, quae per se concreta et densa sunt, faex habetur et ideo extrema vastitate denseta est, nec ultra superficiem quavis luce penetratur; haec licet et ipsa finis sit, sed liquidissimae lucis et ignis aetherii, ideo quamvis densius corpus sit quam cetera caelestia, multo tamen terreno purius … Chapter heading: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 944A καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.13 Marchesi quid sit luna? §2 Anaximenes Parmenides Heraclitus: see Plutarch Fac.Lun. 922B cited above. §5 Posidonius Stoics: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 921F (SVF 673) ἀλλὰ μὴ δόξωμεν ἔφη (Lucius) κομιδῇ προπηλακίζειν τὸν Φαρνάκην, οὕτω τὴν Στωικὴν δόξαν ἀπροσαύδητον ὑπερβαίνοντες, εἰπὲ δή τι πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα, πα⟨γέ⟩ντος ἀέρος μῖγμα καὶ μαλακοῦ πυρὸς ὑποτιθέμενον τὴν σελήνην, εἶθ᾽ οἷον ἐν γαλήνῃ φρίκης ὑποτρεχούσης φάσκοντα τοῦ ἀέρος διαμελαίνοντος ἔμφασιν γίνεσθαι μορφοειδῆ. Fac.Lun. 922C see §6 below on Empedocles. Fac.Lun. 928D (on the Stoics = SVF 2.668) λέγουσι δὲ τοῦ αἰθέρος τὸ μὲν αὐγοειδὲς καὶ λεπτὸν ὑπὸ μανότητος οὐρανὸν γεγονέναι, τὸ δὲ πυκνωθὲν καὶ συνειληθὲν ἄστρα· τούτων δὲ τὸ νωθρότατον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην καὶ θολερώτατον. Fac.Lun. 933F ὁ Φαρνάκης (SVF 2.672) εἶπεν, ὅτι τοῦτο καὶ

liber 2 caput 25 μάλιστα τὴν σελήνην δείκνυσιν ἄστρον ἢ πῦρ οὖσαν· οὐ γάρ ἐστι παντελῶς ἄδηλος ἐν ταῖς ἐκλείψεσιν, ἀλλὰ διαφαίνει τινὰ χρόαν ἀνθρακώδη καὶ βλοσυράν, ἥτις ἴδιός ἐστιν αὐτῆς. Arius Didymus fr. 34 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.652) τὸ ἀθροισθὲν ἔξαμμα μετὰ τὸν ἥλιον νοερὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ποτίμων ὑδάτων ἀναθυμιάματος. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 (SVF 2.650) γεωδεστέραν δὲ τὴν σελήνην, ἅτε καὶ προσγειοτέραν οὖσαν. τρέφεσθαι δὲ τὰ ἔμπυρα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα, … τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐκ ποτίμων ὑδάτων, ἀερομιγῆ τυγχάνουσαν καὶ πρόσγειον οὖσαν, ὡς ὁ Ποσειδώνιος ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου (F 10 E.-K., 260 Theiler). §6 Empedocles: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 922C καὶ γὰρ Ἐμπεδοκλεῖ (31A60 DK) δυσκολαίνουσι (sc. the Stoics) πάγον ἀέρος χαλαζώδη ποιοῦντι τὴν σελήνην ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς σφαίρας περιεχόμενον, αὐτοὶ δὲ τὴν σελήνην σφαῖραν οὖσαν πυρὸς ἀέρα φασὶν ἄλλον ἄλλῃ διεσπασμένον περιέχειν, καὶ ταῦτα μήτε ῥήξεις ἔχουσαν ἐν ἑαυτῇ μήτε βάθη καὶ κοιλότητας, ἅπερ οἱ γεώδη ποιοῦντες ἀπολείπουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπολῆς δηλονότι τῇ κυρτότητι ἐπικείμενον. ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) σελήνην δέ φησι συστῆναι καθ᾽ ἑαυτὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἀποληφθέντος ἀέρος ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρός· τοῦτον γὰρ παγῆναι καθάπερ καὶ τὴν χάλαζαν. §8 Aristotle: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 921D οὐκ ἐθελήσει δ᾽ οἶμαι τὴν σελήνην ἐμβριθὲς ὑποθέσθαι σῶμα καὶ στερεὸν ἡμῖν (Cherniss, mss. ὑμῖν) ὁ Κλέαρχος, ἀλλ᾽ ἄστρον αἰθέριον καὶ φωσφόρον, ὥς φατε (sc. Peripatetics). Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.26.1h (not in Diels DG) Ἀριστοτέλης σελήνην ἐν μεθορίοις ἀέρος τεταγμένην καὶ τῆς πέμπτης οὐσίας μετέχουσαν ἐν μηνὶ περιέρχεσθαι τὸν ἴδιον κύκλον. §9 Thales: see Plutarch Fac.Lun. 936E cited above. §10 Anaxagoras Democritus: Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.22 see text cited at A 2.13. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) τὴν δὲ σελήνην οἰκήσεις ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόφους καὶ φάραγγας. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.6 (59A42 DK) see on A 2.20.8; also Ref. 1.8.10 ἔφη δὲ γηίνην εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ἔχειν τε ἐν αὑτῇ πεδία καὶ φάραγγας. cf. Democritus on Anaxagoras cited on A 2.20.8. ps.Plutarch Strom. 7 (fr. 179 Sandbach, on Democritus, 68A39 DK) see A 2.20.8. cf. Cicero Luc. 123 habitari ait Xenophanes (fr. 43 Strobel–Wöhrle) in luna, eamque esse terram multarum urbium et montium; portenta videntur, sed tamen nec ille qui dixit iurare possit ita se rem habere neque ego non ita. Scholia on Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 498 Wendel (follows on from passage cited on A 2.20.8) τὴν δὲ σελήνην ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀναξαγόρας (59A77 DK) χώραν πλατεῖαν ἀποφαίνει, ἐξ ἧς δοκεῖ ὁ Νεμεαῖος λέων πεπτωκέναι (cf. Achilles §21 cited under Testes secundi; also Plu. Fac.Lun. 937F). Origen Cels. 5.11 (on Anaxagoras) see on A 2.20.8. §12 Ion: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 929B–D φωτίζεσθαι τοίνυν τὴν σελήνην οὐχ ὡς ὕελον ἢ κρύσταλλον ἐλλάμψει καὶ διαφαύσει τοῦ ἡλίου πιθανόν ἐστιν …

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Apol. 26d–e (on Socrates) see on ch. 2.20. Aristotle APo. 2.1 90a2–5 λέγω δὲ τὸ ὅτι ἔστι ἐπὶ μέρους καὶ ἁπλῶς, ἐπὶ μέρους μέν, ἆρ᾽ ἐκλείπει ἡ σελήνη ἢ αὔξεται; εἰ γάρ ἐστι τὶ ἢ μὴ ἔστι τί, ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ζητοῦμεν· ἁπλῶς

1047

1048

liber 2 caput 25

δ᾽, εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μὴ σελήνη ἢ νύξ. Phys. 2.1 193b26–29 see above on ch. 2.20 section E(b) Chapter heading. Chapter heading: see texts cited on A 2.11, 2.13, 2.20. §5 Posidonius Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 1.2.36–39 Todd ὑπὸ τοῦτόν ἐστιν ἡ σελήνη, προσγειοτάτη πάντων τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχουσα. κατὰ τὴν συναφὴν γὰρ τοῦ ἀέρος πρὸς τὸν αἰθέρα εἶναι λέγεται· ὅθεν καὶ ζοφῶδες αὐτῆς τὸ οἰκεῖον ὁρᾶται σῶμα. Cael. 2.4.10–12 ἔστι δ᾽ εὐέλεγκτος ἡ δόξα αὐτοῦ (sc. Berossus, see on §13). πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἀδύνατόν ἐστι τὴν σελήνην ἐν τῷ αἰθέρι οὖσαν ἡμίπυρον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ μὴ δι᾽ ὅλου ὁμοίαν τῇ οὐσίᾳ παραπλησίως τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν ἄστρων. §7 Plato: see on A 2.13.11. Alcinous Did. 14, pp. 170.42–171.5 H. ἑπτὰ τοίνυν σφαιρῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ πλανωμένῃ σφαίρᾳ, ἑπτὰ σώματα ὁ θεὸς δημιουργήσας ὁρατὰ ἐκ πυρώδους τῆς πλείστης οὐσίας ἐφήρμοσε ταῖς σφαίραις ὑπαρχούσαις ἐκ τοῦ θατέρου κύκλου καὶ πλανωμένου. σελήνην μὲν δὴ τῷ μετὰ γῆν ἐπέθηκε κύκλῳ τῷ πρώτῳ … §10 Anaxagoras Democritus: Plato Apol. 26d (on Anaxagoras = 59A35 DK) τὴν δὲ σελήνην γῆν (see further on A 2.20). §13 Berossus: Cleomedes Cael. 2.4.1–3 Todd (FGH 680 F18, F21b De Breucker) περὶ δὲ τῶν φωτισμῶν αὐτῆς πλείους γεγόνασι λόγοι. Βηρωσσὸς μὲν γὰρ ἡμίπυρον οὖσαν αὐτὴν πλείονας κινεῖσθαι κινήσεις ἀπεφήνατο. see further on §5 above. §15 Pythagoras: cf. Proclus in Tim. 2.48.15 οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι ἔλεγον ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ θεωρεῖσθαι τὰ στοιχεῖα διχῶς, ἄλλως μὲν πρὸ ἡλίου, ἄλλως δὲ μετὰ ἥλιον. γῆ μὲν γὰρ αἰθερία ἡ σελήνη.

Liber 2 Caput 26 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 891C; p. 357a2–8 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.27, p. 403.1– 3 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 67a; p. 627.17–19 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 160–161 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127, p. 67 Westerink (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26, p. 217.18 (tit.) + 1.26.1b, p. 218.5–6 + 1.26.1h, p. 219.9–10 + 1.26.1b, 219.19–20 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b11–12 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.23, p. 106.12–14 Raeder

Titulus κϛʹ. Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ μείζονα τῆς γῆς ἀποφαίνονται ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον. (P1,S3,T1) §2 Παρμενίδης ἴσην τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι. (P2,S1,T2) §3 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐλάττονα τῆς γῆς, (S2,T3) §4 ἄλλοι δὲ σπιθαμῆς ἔχειν διάμετρον. (T4) §1 Stoici SVF 2.666; §2 Parmenides 28A42; §3 Aristoteles —; §4 anonymi — titulus Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης PBEQ, cf. S Περὶ σελήνης … μεγέθους (vid. app. ad c. 2.25) : deest in PG (Περὶ μεγέθους suppl. Diels) §1 [2] post μείζονα add. S δὲ ‖ τῆς γῆς] deest in PE suppl. Mras ‖ ἀποφαίνονται PBE : νομίζουσι PG : om. S §2 [3] ἴσην PB(I,II)GS (add. δὲ S) : ἴσον PB(III)E ‖ γὰρ PES : deest in PBGQ(ut vid.) ‖ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PB(I,III)E S : παρὰ PB(II) : ἐξ αὐτοῦ PG Diels, sed ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ leg. Nic. sec. Jas per litt. ‖ φωτίζεσθαι PBEGQ : φωτίζεται S §3 non hab. P ‖ [4] εἶναι τῷ μεγέθει add. S §4 dubium (T testis solus)

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.23 4.23.6 (~ §1) καὶ οἱ μὲν μείζονα τῆς γῆς ἀποφαίνονται, 4.23.7 (~ §2) οἱ δὲ ἰσόμετρον, 4.23.8 (~ §3) οἱ δέ γε ἐλάττονα, 4.23.9 (~ §4) ἄλλοι δὲ σπιθαμῆς ἔχειν διάμετρον. traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 67a (text Diels) 67a1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ μείζονα τῆς γῆς νομίζουσι τὴν σελήνην ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον. 67a2 (~ P2) Παρμενίδης ἴσην τῷ ἡλίῳ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 127 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.21 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου. §2 A 2.28.5–6 (de luna) Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_067

5

1050

liber 2 caput 26

§3 A 2.21.3 (de sole) Ἀναξαγόρας πολλαπλασίονα Πελοποννήσου. §4 A 2.21.4 (de sole) Ἡράκλειτος εὖρος ποδὸς ἀνθρωπείου.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) All the witnesses to the tradition of P reveal only two doxai, the former relating the moon’s size to the earth, the latter to the sun. In the case of G it would seem that the epitomator decided to join up this chapter with the preceding one. As argued by Mansfeld (2000b) 180 and followed by Jas, there is no justification for following Diels in interpolating the missing title and so restoring a separate chapter 67a. G can make this change because he has modified the title in ch. 67 (~ P 2.25), omitting the word οὐσίας. (2) The two doxai in P are also found in S, with an additional doxa relating the view of Aristotle. On Bottler’s suggestion that contamination has occurred here see below D(c). (3) T continues his very compact presentation of views on the moon. He has four doxai, all presented anonymously. Of these the first and third clearly correspond to those of the Stoics (in P and S) and Aristotle (in S). The second differs from what we find in P and S, not comparing the moon’s size to that of the sun but continuing the comparison with the earth. The final doxa is not found elsewhere in the doxographical tradition. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The question of the moon’s size is raised or discussed in the doxographical tradition and related texts less frequently than that of the sun. It would appear that other aspects of the moon were regarded as more interesting, especially its eclipse, illuminations and appearance. For example, in his Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.91 Epicurus states that the sun and the stars are the size that they appear, leaving out a reference to moon (Usener and Marcovich added ⟨καὶ σελήνης⟩ to the text but this is not followed by Dorandi, whose explicit aim is to edit Diogenes and not Epicurus). The subject is not mentioned by Ach in his chapter 21 on the moon. There are some indications, however, of a broader doxographical tradition than what we find in A. Cicero, Plutarch and Galen (texts below) all refer to ‘the scientists’ (οἱ μαθηματικοί) who have treated the subject. Cicero’s measurement is rather inexact (more than half the earth’s size), but Plutarch gives for Aristarchus a much more accurate estimation (dia-

liber 2 caput 26

1051

meter smaller than 60 to 19 and larger than 108 to 43). Its source is known to us, namely the extant treatise of Aristarchus ‘On the sizes and distances of the sun and the moon’. Plutarch also records a view of Anaxagoras that it was as large as the Peleponnese, i.e. a doxa that clearly recalls his view in A 2.21.3 that the sun is many times the size of the Peleponnese (this text is missing in DK), as well as a measurement by some Egyptians (i.e. priests?). It would appear that Plutarch has put together this list of opinions himself; the Anaxagorean doxa may have been taken from a Placita-style doxography, but this is less likely for the other two views. (2) Sources. Though there is much evidence that early philosophers and scientists discussed the subject of the moon’s size—both Thales and Anaximander are described as having been the first to treat it (see texts in Eudemus and Diogenes Laertius cited below)—, the record of their findings is lost. Plato and Aristotle do not mention it in their extant writings, in spite of the doxa in the present chapter (see below section D(d)§3). Advances were made by the astronomers Eudoxus, Aristarchus and Hipparchus. The results of these investigations are visible in the manual of Cleomedes, who uses them to carry on a polemical discussion with Epicurus (note his tell-tale use of the term ποδιαῖος at Cael. 2.3.81, cf. ch. 2.21 on the size of the sun). For overviews of ancient views on the subject see Gundel (1933) 84–86, Pease (1958) on Cic. ND 2.103, Préaux (1973) 202–271. In these accounts A is not treated as a separate source. C Chapter Heading The heading, parallel to that on the sun in ch. 2.21, is of the usual Περὶ x type and poses a quaestio in the category of quantity. It is the same in all extant witnesses of the tradition of P (as noted above, it is missing in G) and is confirmed by S, who has combined the chapter headings of chs. 2.25–27 (on S’s coalescence of A’s chapter headings in his chapter on the moon see above on ch. 2.25 Commentary C). We note also that Ps has coalesced the two chapter headings on size, chs. 2.21 and 2.26, and added the size of the earth which is not discussed in A’s Book 3 as transmitted to us (though the subject is implicit in the Xenophanes doxa at A 3.9.4). As noted above in section A, G appears to have coalesced the contents of the two chapters 2.25 and 2.26 (a rare procedure on his part), altering the heading to the more general Περὶ σελήνης and so deleting the equivalent heading for ch. 2.26 in P. D Analysis a Context As in the case of the sun, the question of the moon’s size follows on from that of its substance.

1052

liber 2 caput 26

b Number–Order of Lemmata This chapter is one of the rare occasions that T records a doxa not present in the two primary witnesses P and S (the other examples are in chs. 4.3 and 4.5). The order that he gives is compatible with that of P and suggests that the Aristotelian doxa was placed third in A’s list of views. There are, however, no parallels anywhere for his final anonymous view that the moon is the width of a span. It is neatly parallel to the Heraclitean doxa on the sun in ch. 2.21 (the span as the distance from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger is a slightly smaller measure than a foot, but there is no evidence that Heraclitus or anyone else held this view on the moon’s size). Moreover it might be regarded as suspicious in that the span is a common biblical measure. In Is. 40:12 LXX it used rhetorically as a measure for the heaven, a text which T quotes on six occasions. But its position here is very apposite and from the formal point of view it represents a typical doxographical lemma, so there is no real reason to be overly suspicious (we revise our view in M–R 2.590). One might compare the doxai on the motion of the cosmos that T presents in 4.16, which we discuss in the Appendix to ch. 2.2. The status of those lemmata is more questionable, however, because there it is necessary to postulate that a whole chapter has follen out, and so in contrast to the present lemma we have not included them in our reconstruction. For a passage in Lucretius that may shed light on this doxa see section D(e) below. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter gives a brief list of four views not dissimilar to the method used in ch. 2.21 on the sun (there is no final ‘epistemological’ Epicurean doxa this time). But the list gives rise to a major difficulty when its rationale is analysed. The first Stoic doxa compares the size of the moon to that of the earth, the same procedure as used in ch. 2.21. The second Parmenidean doxa, however, proceeds differently and compares the moon to the sun, not the earth. It then adds the comment that it is illuminated by the sun, which is the subject of a later chapter (2.28). The view is in itself unobjectionable; cf. the statement at Cleomedes Cael. 2.3 64.19 Todd that the apparent size of both sun and moon is 12 inches. But the doxa interrupts the comparison of the moon’s size with that of the earth in the first and third doxa. This is not the case in T, where the first three doxai all compare the moon and the earth and we have a perfectly logical set of alternatives going from large to very small. There are at least three ways in which this surprising sequence can be explained: (1) The doxa in P and S goes back to A, but is inconsistent with his usual diaeretic method. T perceived this and adapted it to a more acceptable list. It

liber 2 caput 26

1053

was easy to do this because all of his doxai are anonymous and it is clearly the views that are important for him, not fidelity to his source. (2) The doxa in P and S does not go back to A, but a mistake has crept into the tradition. The reference to the moon’s illumination by the sun should belong in ch. 2.28. It is a consequence of the original mistake of comparing the moon to the sun and not the earth. T thus represents in a paraphrased form A’s original intention. This interpretation is put forward by Bottler (2014) 454, who argues that contamination has here occurred between P and S. This drastic conclusion is, however, far from necessary if T has normalised the diaeresis, as argued above. Another possibility, suggested by Jas in an unpublished review of Bottler, is that the transmission of A diverged on this point early on and the one version was used by PS, the other by T. We regard this possibility as less likely than that T altered the text suo Marte. (3) The text in both P and S is partially defective (the result of an early corruption) and originally read Παρμενίδης ἴσην ⟨τῇ γῇ ὡς καὶ⟩ τῷ ἡλίῳ. We note that the first doxa also includes a comparison with the sun. The additional comment in the second half of the doxa might have originally been a gloss. Compare a comparable confusion between sun, moon and earth in A 2.31.1. There seems little alternative but to retain the text as transmitted by both P and S, unsatisfactory though it appears to be. Emendation is, we believe, not justified. d

Further Detailed Comments Individual Points §3 This eminently sensible doxa is found nowhere in Aristotle’s extant works. As we noted in our discussions on the sources for chs. 2.20 and 25, he does not give the sun and moon much individual attention in the De caelo. It is also not found in the spurious De mundo. It is possible that this view was put forward in one of his writings that is not longer extant. §4 The use of ἄλλοι or ἄλλοι δέ for the final doxa of a list is not common in Α, but can be is paralleled at A 2.23.9, 2.27.6, 2.32.10, 5.17.6, 5.23.3. There are no further examples in T, so this could be taken as an argument for his doxa being derived from A rather than added by himself. e Other Evidence In a set of 10 lines on the size of the moon Lucretius strongly emphasizes that it is exactly the size that it seems (DRN 5.575–584, text below section E(a)§4). This is similar to what he, following Epicurus, says about the sun, but he does not allow for a margin of error as his master is reported to do in the case of the larger body (cf. A 2.21.5). Bailey (1947) 1410 wonders why the question of the

1054

liber 2 caput 26

source of the moon’s light is already introduced here prior to the main discussion in DRN 5.705–730. His answer is that, if the moon is an illuminated object, it will have a perfectly clear contour and therefore will be seen exactly as it is. As in the case of the sun, neither the philosopher (in our extant sources) nor the poet give an example of the kind of size it could be. But as we noted in our detailed comment on A 2.21.5, Epicurus’ view was often aligned with the Heraclitean doxa that the sun was the size of a foot. Analogously, it is possible that the comparison with a span in §4 preserved only by T could have the same background, going back either to Heraclitus or to Epicurus. But there seems to be no actual evidence to support this surmisal. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero ND 2.103 luna autem, quae est, ut ostendunt mathematici, maior quam dimidia pars terrae … Strabo see on ch. 2.21 section E(a) General texts. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 923A, πολλῷ μείζονα (sc. τὴν γῆν) τῆς σελήνης οὖσαν ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἐκλειπτικοῖς πάθεσιν οἱ μαθηματικοὶ καὶ ταῖς διὰ τοῦ σκιάσματος παρόδοις τῇ ἐποχῇ τὸ μέγεθος ἀναμετροῦσιν. Fac.Lun. 932Α–Β, ἀλλ᾽ Αἰγυπτίους μὲν ἑβδομηκοστόδυον οἶμαι φάναι μόριον εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, Ἀναξαγόραν (—) δ᾽ ὅση Πελοπόννησος. Ἀρίσταρχος (Magn. prop. 17, p. 408 Heath) δὲ ⟨τὴν διάμετρον τῆς γῆς πρὸς⟩ τὴν διάμετρον τῆς σελήνης λόγον ἔχουσαν ἀποδείκνυσιν, ὃς ἐλάττων μὲν ἢ ἑξήκοντα πρὸς δεκαεννέα, μείζων δ᾽ ἢ ὡς ἑκατὸν ὀκτὼ πρὸς τεσσαράκοντα τρί᾽ ἐστίν. Galen Inst.Log. 12.3 27.8 Kalbfleisch μέγεθος δὲ καὶ ἡλίου ⟨καὶ⟩ σελήνης καὶ τῶν κατ’ αὐτοὺς ἀποστημάτων ἐζήτηται καὶ δέδεικται τοῖς ἀστρονόμοις … Lucian Icar. 20 see on A 2.25. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 1.24 (on Thales, 11A1 DK) καὶ πρῶτος τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μέγεθος ⟨τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ κύκλου ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ τῆς σελήνης μέγεθος⟩ τοῦ σεληναίου ἑπτακοσιοστὸν καὶ εἰκοστὸν μέρος ἀπεφήνατο κατά τινας. Chapter heading: Isidore of Seville Nat. 16 de quantitate solis et lunae §4 Anonymi: cf. Lucretius DRN 5.575–584 lunaque sive notho fertur loca lumine lustrans, / sive suam proprio iactat de corpore lucem, / quidquid id est, nihilo fertur maiore figura / quam, nostris oculis qua cernimus, esse videtur. / nam prius omnia, quae longe semota tuemur / aera per multum, specie confusa videntur / quam minui filum. quapropter luna necesse est, / quandoquidem claram speciem certamque figuram / praebet, ut est oris extremis cumque notata, / quanta quoquest, tanta hinc nobis videatur in alto.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Met. Α.2 982b11–16 ὅτι δ᾽ οὐ ποιητική (sc. the discipline we are looking for), δῆλον καὶ ἐκ τῶν πρώτων φιλοσοφησάντων· διὰ γὰρ τὸ θαυμάζειν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ νῦν καὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἤρξαντο φιλοσοφεῖν, ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν τὰ πρόχειρα τῶν ἀτόπων θαυμάσαντες, εἶτα κατὰ μικρὸν οὕτω προϊόντες καὶ περὶ τῶν μειζόνων διαπορήσαντες, οἷον περί τε τῶν τῆς σελήνης παθημάτων … Philip of Opus, list of writings in the Suda Φ 418 s.v. φιλόσοφος (i.e. Philip of Opus,

liber 2 caput 26 fr. i Tarán, F 27 Lasserre) l. 8, p. 4.733 Adler Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς αʹ. Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.6–8 (commenting on Arist. Cael. 2.10 291a29–32, Eudemus fr. 146 Wehrli, fuller text see on ch. 2.15) τὰ δὲ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἀποστήματα Ἡλίου καὶ Σελήνης μέχρι νῦν ἔγνωσται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκλείψεων τὴν ἀφορμὴν τῆς καταλήψεως λαβόντα, καὶ εἰκὸς ἦν ταῦτα καὶ τὸν Ἀναξίμανδρον (12A19 DK) εὑρηκέναι … Stoics at D.L. 7.132 μίᾳ γὰρ σκέψει ἐπικοινωνεῖν αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ περὶ τὸν κόσμον λόγου) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, καθ᾽ ἣν ζητοῦσι περί τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ τῶν πλανωμένων, οἷον εἰ ὁ ἥλιός ἐστι τηλικοῦτος ἡλίκος φαίνεται, καὶ ὁμοίως εἰ ἡ σελήνη (cf. Cleomedes Cael. 2.1.353 Todd). Aristarchus Περὶ μεγέθων καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης (whole treatise extant). Heron Mechanicus Geom. 1.1 Heiberg ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀστρονομία περὶ μεγεθῶν τε καὶ ἀριθμῶν καὶ ἀναλογιῶν διαλαμβάνει· τό τε γὰρ μέγεθος ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης πολυπραγμονεῖ. Cleomedes Cael. 2.1.293 Todd … δοκεῖ πίθανον εἶναι διπλασίονα εἶναι τὴν γῆν τῆς σελήνης. 2.3.61–70 τῆς δὲ σελήνης τὸ μέγεθος καὶ ὅτι μή ἐστι ποδιαία, ἔνεστι καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως τεκμαίρεσθαι … καὶ διότι μὲν οὔτε ὁ ἥλιος οὔτε ἡ σελήνη οὔτε τῶν ἄλλων τι ἄστρων τηλικοῦτόν ἐστιν ἡλίκον φαίνεται, αὐτάρκως προείρηται. τῶν μὲν οὖν ἄλλων ἄστρων, ὁπόσα γε φαίνεται ἡμῖν, οὐδὲν τῆς γῆς μικρότερον εἶναι δοκεῖ τὴν δὲ σελήνην σμικροτέραν τῆς γῆς φασιν οἱ ἀστρολόγοι εἶναι … Cael. 2.3.76–82 εἰ δέ γε ἴση ἦν ἡ σελήνη ἣ μείζων τῆς γῆς, πολὺ μέρος ἂν αὐτῆς κατεσκίαζεν ἐν ταῖς γινομέναις αὐτῆς ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον ὑποδρομαῖς … φαίνεται δ᾽ ἡ σελήνη μεγάλη καὶ τῷ ἡλίῳ ἰσομεγέθης καῖ τῶν ἀστέρων μείζων, ἐλάττων κατὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐτῶν οὖσα … Scholia in Aristophanem in Nubes 102c Holwerda see above on A 2.13. Chapter heading: Philip of Opus, Eudemus (on Anaximander), Aristarchus, Heron Mechanicus see above under General texts. Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler (at Simp. in Phys. 291.26) see above on ch. 2.11. Ptolemy Synt. 5.17 περὶ μεγεθῶν ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς.

1055

Liber 2 Caput 27 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 891C; pp. 357a8–358a3 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.28, p. 403.4–7 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 68; p. 627.20–29 Diels; pp. 202– 208 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 160–161 Daiber (titulus solus)—cf. PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.50, p. 54.1–2 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26, p. 217.18–19 (tit.) + 1.26.1c, p. 218.8 + 1.26.1f, p. 219.1–2 + 1.26.1i, p. 219.14–15 + 1.26.1k, p. 219.20–22 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b11–12 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.24, p. 106.14–15 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 21, p. 30.12–13, 17–25 Di Maria; Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus κζʹ. Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης (P,S) §1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι ὡς τὸν ἥλιον· (P1,S5) §2 σχηματίζεσθαι δὲ αὐτὴν πολλαχῶς, καὶ γὰρ πανσέληνον γινομένην καὶ διχότομον καὶ ἀμφίκυρτον καὶ μηνοειδῆ. (S6) §3 Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ, (P2,S1) §4 Κλεάνθης πιλοειδῆ, (S4) §5 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δισκοειδῆ, (P3,S2) §6 ἄλλοι κυλινδροειδῆ. (P4,S3) §§1–2 Stoici SVF 2.667; §3 Heraclitus 22A12 DK; §4 Cleanthes SVF 1.506; §5 Empedocles 31A60 DK; §6 anonymi — titulus Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης PBEG1, cf. SPSyQ (Über die Gestalt und die Erleuchtung des Mondes Q, sed lemmata c. 27 desunt) : om. σελήνης PG2, cf. σχημάτων πέρι T : de S vid. app. c. 2.25 §1 [2] σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι PB(I,III)E : εἶναι om. PB(II)GS (sed add. δὲ post σχηματίζεσθαι) ‖ ὡς τὸν ἥλιον PB(I,III)EG : ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον PB(II,III:E) : om. S qui add. τῷ σχήματι §2 non hab. P, sed cf. PG c. 68.5 ‖ [3] γινομένην S : γίγνεσθαι coni. Meineke Diels §3 [5] lemma ante §5 PEG, post PB (ap. S incertum) ‖ post σκαφοειδῆ add. τῷ σχήματι S §4 non hab. P ‖ [6] post πιλοειδῆ add. τῷ σχήματι S verisimiliter §5 [7] post δισκοειδῆ add. τῷ σχήματι S verisimiliter §6 [8] ἄλλοι PBE : ἄλλοι δὲ PG : τινὲς δὲ S

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.24 καὶ τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅσα ἐκεῖνοι σχημάτων πέρι καὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ διαστημάτων μυθολογοῦσιν; Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 68 (~ tit.) Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης (text Jas) 68.1 (~ P1) οἱ Στωικοὶ τὴν σελήνην σφαιροειδῆ ὡς καὶ τὸν ἥλιον νομίζουσιν. 68.2 (~ P2) Ἡράκλειτος δὲ σκαφοειδῆ. 68.3 (~ P3) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δὲ δισκοειδῆ.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_068

5

liber 2 caput 27 68.4 (~ P4) ἄλλοι δὲ κυλινδροειδῆ. 68.5 (deest in P) σχηματίζεται δὲ ἡ σελήνη ἑπταχῶς· ὅτε γὰρ τίκτεται, δοκεῖ φαίνεσθαι μηνοειδής, εἶτα διχότομος, εἶτ᾽ ἀμφίκυρτος, εἶτα πανσέληνος, εἶτα πάλιν ἐπαναχωροῦσα αὖθις γίνεται ἀμφίκυρτος, εἶτα διχότομος καὶ τὸ ὕστερον μηνοειδής, εἶτ᾽ ἀφανὴς κατὰ τὴν καινήν. πλεῖστος γίνεται περὶ αὐτῆς λόγος. λέγεται τοῦτον σχηματίζεσθαι τὸν τρόπον σκιαζούσης ἑκάστοτε τῆς γῆς πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ τὸ μόριον ἑαυτῆς, ποτὲ δὲ κατὰ τὸ παντελὲς ὑπορρεούσης τῆς σελήνης εἰς τὸ κοῖλον (τὸν κῶνον conj. Diels) τῆς γῆς. Symeon Seth CRN 3.50 Περὶ οὐσίας καὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης καὶ σχήματος (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 21 p. 30.12–13 σχῆμα δὲ αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς σελήνης) οἳ μὲν σφαιροειδές, οἳ δὲ δισκοειδές. p. 30.17–25 γίνεται δὲ κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον. γέννα δὲ σελήνης καὶ ἀνατολὴ διαφέρει· μετὰ γὰρ τρεῖς ἢ τέσσαρας τοῦ γεννηθῆναι ἡμέρας φαίνεται καὶ οὐχ ἅμα τῷ γεννηθῆναι. ἀνατέλλει δὲ οὐχ ὅλον τὸ φῶς ἔχουσα περιφερές, ἀλλὰ μηνοειδής. μέχρι δὲ τοῦ ἡμίσεος αὐξηθεῖσα γίνεται διχότομος. ἐὰν δὲ τὸ δίμοιρον περιφωτισθῆι, καλεῖται ἀμφίκυρτος. πληρωθεῖσα δὲ γίνεται πληροσέληνος καὶ πανσέληνος καὶ διχόμηνις (πεντεκαιδεκαταία γάρ ἐστιν, ὅτε πληροῦται, ὅ ἐστιν ἥμισυ μηνὸς διχαζομένων τῶν λʹ ἡμερῶν), καὶ πάλιν αὖ ἀπὸ τῆς πανσελήνου ἄρχεται μειοῦσθαι καὶ γίνεται πρῶτον ἀμφίκυρτος, εἶτα διχόμηνις, εἶτα μηνοειδής. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· … καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν, … σελήνης δὲ μειώσεις τε καὶ αὐξήσεις· … Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 1.14 Περὶ σχημάτων. A 2.2 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου. A 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων. A 2.22 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου. A 3.10 Περὶ σχήματος γῆς. §1 cf. A 2.2.1 οἱ μὲν Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὸν κόσμον. A 2.14.1 οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιρικοὺς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καθάπερ τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην. A 2.22.3 οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ, ὡς τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἄστρα. A 3.10.1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν. §3 A 2.22.2 Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ, ὑπόκυρτον. A 2.24.4 (de defectu solis) Ἡράκλειτος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφήν. A 2.28.7 (de luna) Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας … A 2.29.3 (de defectu lunae) Ἀλκμαίων Ἡράκλειτος Ἀντιφῶν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφὴν … §4 A 2.14.2 (de astris) Κλεάνθης κωνοειδεῖς. A 2.20.5 (de luna) Κλεάνθης δὲ πυροειδῆ. §5 cf. A 2.14.4 (de astris) ἔνιοι δὲ πέταλα εἶναι πύρινα, ὥσπερ ζῳγραφήματα. A 2.22.1 (de sole) Ἀναξιμένης Ἀλκμαίων πλατὺν ὡς πέταλον τὸν ἥλιον. A 3.10.5 (de terra) Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ τῷ μέσῳ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1057

1058

liber 2 caput 27

Commentary A Witnesses (1) All the witnesses in the P tradition have four lemmata (except in Q, where through haplography only the title is preserved). As in the previous chapter, the Stoic doxa is placed first, and it also contains a comparison with the sun. The remaining three doxai all give alternative shapes indicated by a single adjective. In all four cases the adjective has the form x + -ειδής, which was also extensively used in the parallel chapters 2.2 (earth), 2.14 (stars) and 2.22 (sun). There is a difference in the order of the doxai. In PB the Empedoclean doxa precedes that of Heraclitus, in E and G this order is reversed. In addition after the final anonymous doxa G includes a long section on the various shapes of the moon’s phases, which is important evidence that he occasionally inserts additional material among his selection of the Placita (though in the case of shorter texts this is not always certain). (2) The evidence in S has to be disentangled from his coalescence of the three chapters 2.25–27. Unlike ch. 2.26 this chapter includes the doxa of Heraclitus (S1). The view of Empedocles and the anonymous view are coupled together (S2–3), supporting the order in E and G against the Byzantine mss. A little further on we come to two doxai attributed to Cleanthes. In the previous chapter we argued that these derive from A. The odd view (S4) that the moon is cap-like (πιλοειδῆ) is reminiscent of the exceptional Cleanthean view on the stars’ shape at A 2.14.2, where they are cone-shaped (κωνοειδεῖς). There it follows the Stoic lemma as an exceptional view. This is possible here, but it could have also had a place in the list of non-spherical views. Finally S cites the Stoic view that the moon is spherical (S5). The longer name-label including Posidonius belongs to ch. 2.25 and should not be retained here. Unlike in the case of ch. 2.26 S does not include the additional remark drawing the analogy with the sun. It is more likely that S left it out than that P added it to A, so it should be retained. S then adds a section (S6) on the phases of the moon similar but much shorter than that found in G (and cf. Ach). They cannot be reduced to each other: G begins with the new moon, S with the full moon. We agree with Diels that it should be retained for A. Unlike the sun, the moon also has multiple shapes through its phases. There is no need to suspect contamination between G and S here, since G had access to doxographical traditions both earlier and later than and differing from A (see M– R 1.144). (3) T at CAG 4.24 only gives a general reference to the subject without citing any doxai. He speaks of shapes in the plural. This enables him to summarize a number of chapters in his source.

liber 2 caput 27

1059

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Only a limited number of texts give doxographical accounts of the moon’s shape. Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch mention the non-standard Empedoclean view that it is ‘disc-like’ (and also in Plutarch ‘beanshape,’ φακοειδής). The same doxa is also found in Ach, where only two views are recorded, those of the Stoa and Empedocles in a simple diaeresis indicated with a μέν … δέ construction. All three texts may ultimately be derived from an earlier doxographical tradition shared with A. Philo in a text located at Mut. 67 states that the surveyor of the heights (μετεωροπόλος καὶ μετεωρολογικός) will investigate not only questions relating to the sun (see on chs. 2.21 and 2.23) but also the moon’s illuminations and shapings through decrease and increase. This treatise precedes De somniis with its important doxographical summary (see on ch. 2.11), so this text may point to treatment of the subject in the same source. We should also note (1) that Quintilian and Lactantius indicate that the subject of the moon’s shape is a quaestio generalis, i.e. a θέσις, and (2) that the fact that there are seven phases of the moon is exploited in the arithmological tradition (Nicomachus, Clement of Alexandria, Anatolius etc.). (2) Sources. Unlike in the case of the sun (see on ch. 2.22 Commentary B) Aristotle states explicitly that the moon is demonstrated to be spherical through the evidence of sight. The reason for this mention is obviously the fact of its phases, in which it does not always appear to be spherical. He adds that it is further proven through astronomical facts because solar eclipses are moonlike in shape. Cleomedes too connects the moon’s phases with its spherical shape (Cael. 2.5.24–39, text below). He does not give alternative shapes, except that he notes the impossibility of its having a two-dimensional shape (σχῆμα ἐπίπεδον), i.e. using a mathematical term rather than the ‘disk-like’ shape found in the doxographical tradition (cf. §3 on Empedocles and above on Diogenes and Plutarch). The long passage on the illumination of the moon in Gregory of Nyssa is also more likely to be based on a scientific than a doxographical account, as for example in the Handbook of Geminus. It gives no alternative views; see text below section E(b) General texts and further on ch. 2.28. C Chapter Heading There can be no doubt that the heading is simply Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης, parallel to chs. 2.2 and 2.22 (2.14 has the plural because of the multitude of stars or galaxies). It would appear that G also has the full chapter heading, contrary to the text printed by Diels. Jas (2018a) 200 notes that it is found in ms. O and confirmed by Nicolaus’ translation (both not used by Diels). On T’s plural (σχημάτων) see above section A(3). The heading itself is of the usual Περὶ x umbrella type, asking a question in the category of quality. This title is the last one that

1060

liber 2 caput 27

S has conflated in the heading of his chapter 1.26 on the moon. The remaining chapter titles are inserted into the text, starting with that of ch. 2.28 at S 1.26.2 Wachsmuth. D Analysis a Context As in the case of the sun, the question of shape follows that of size. The difference between the two heavenly bodies is that the moon has two kinds of shapes, one as a body, another through its phases. b Number–Order of Lemmata In addition to the four lemmata presenting four different shapes in P, S includes one more shape for the moon as a body (Cleanthes). He then adds a brief section on the phases of the moon, which as argued above in A(2) should be included in the chapter. The parallel texts in G and Ach, though not derived directly from A, suggest a common doxographical origin and so support the view that this topic also belonged to the material discussed in the chapter. The placement of the sentence in oratio obliqua after the first Stoic doxa, as in S, can be accepted. This would mean that the doxa of Cleanthes is not presented as an exceptional view, unlike in 2.14.2. There are thus six doxai in all. The only remaining question is the divergence between PB on the one hand and E, G and S on the other on the order of the doxai of Heraclitus and Empedocles. Priority should be given to the majority reading, unless there are significant structural reasons for departing from it. The appeal of Bottler (2011) 286 to the evidence of Ach in this question is misguided, since it is outweighed by the more direct evidence of the other witnesses. The fact that P and Ach agree is not an argument in favour of P’s order, firstly because Ach is not derived directly from A, and secondly because Ach only has two doxai. See also further Bottler (2014) 460. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter begins with the Stoic view, which of course corresponds to the mainstream position on the topic. It is striking that in all five chapters on the shape of the major cosmic bodies, the Stoics are chosen to represent the spherical view (coupled with Thales in 3.10) and that in all but 2.22 they are placed first. The following doxa adds the shapes that occur during the phases of the moon. These are, from the viewpoint of the observer, modifications of its spherical shape depending on the illumination it receives from the sun (i.e. related to the question to be discussed in the following chapter). As noted above, parallel texts from Aristotle onwards link up the topics of the moon’s shape and

liber 2 caput 27

1061

phases, as is only to be expected. The remaining four doxai all give alternative non-spherical shapes in a list. All of these have to be in some way circular to account for the observed phenomena. The main diaeresis is thus between the mainstream spherical view and the remaining non-orthodox views (this is also suggested by the parallel in Ach and its use of μέν … δέ), which can be summed up under ‘other (circular) shapes’. For the similar diaeresis on the shape of the earth see on ch. 3.10. Bottler (2014) 461 suggests an alternative diaeresis between one phase, multiple phases and phases in comparison. While not impossible, it is less likely because A does not emphasise the contrast between a single and multiples phases. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 A (and also Ach and G) uses the standard terminology for the phases of the moon, as can be seen from the descriptions of Nicomachus of Gerasa, Clement, Cleomedes and Geminus (texts below section E(b) General texts). The reference to ‘the scientist Seleucus’ in Clement is noteworthy. He makes two rare appearances in the Placita at 2.1.7, 3.17.9. §4 The term πιλοειδής is extremely rare. Apart from its use here it is only found in three medical texts (Soranus Gyn. 1.14.1, Oribasius Coll.Med. 24.31.24, 48.50.1). The primary meaning of πῖλος is ‘felt’ (Beekes 2010, 1190), so perhaps the comparison is with a felted product such as a (round) hat, thereby explaining that the moon appears to have a surface that is slightly rough rather than smooth and uniform like the sun. It is thus better to translate ‘hat-like’ rather than ‘cap-like’ (as at M–R 2.2.599 following LSJ). e Other Evidence The question may be posed, given the fact that by time A’s the view that the moon was spherical was universally accepted, where the alternative views in our chapter come from? Some clearly derive from the early periods of Presocratic thought, in which A is always interested (Heraclitus and Empedocles). However, as was the case in the chapter on the shape of the cosmos (see ch. 2.2 Commentary B), it is also possible that the list may have been influenced by dialectical argument. As already noted, Aristotle argues that if the moon were not spherical, it would not be possible to explain the visible evidence of its phases. He does not, however, give any alternative shapes. Some are supplied by Simplicius in his Commentary, but these (drum-like and bean-like) are not the ones found in A. But in an astronomical papyrus located in Paris the alternative examples given are precisely two shapes in our chapter (δισκοειδής and σκαφοειδής); see the text below in section E(b) General texts. We note that this

1062

liber 2 caput 27

dialectical argument combines views on the moon’s shape as a body and the apparent shape of its phases, just as occurs in the present chapter. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Plutarch Quaest.Rom. 288B ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα μὴ καὶ τοῦτο διὰ τὴν σελήνην φοροῦσι (children wearing amulets). τὸ γὰρ φαινόμενον σχῆμα τῆς σελήνης, ὅταν ᾖ διχόμηνος, οὐ σφαιροειδὲς ἀλλὰ φακοειδές ἐστι καὶ δισκοειδές, ὡς Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A77 DK) οἴεται, καὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον. Quintilian Inst.Or. 7.2.6 (on quaestiones generales) quaeritur per coniecturam et qualitatem circa modum speciem numerum … luna globosa an plena an acuta. Lactantius Inst. 3.3.4 Heck–Wlosok nam causas naturalium rerum disquirere aut scire velle … item luna globosa sit an concava. Chapter heading: Philo Mut. 67 τὸν … μετεωρολογικόν, ἐρευνῶντα … καὶ σελήνης περὶ φωτισμῶν, σχηματισμῶν, μειώσεως, αὐξήσεως. §1 Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 34 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.26.1l (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.677) σφαιροειδῆ (sc. τὴν σελήνην) δὲ εἶναι. §3 Heraclitus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (22A1 DK) τούς τε κατὰ μῆνα τῆς σελήνης σχηματισμοὺς γίνεσθαι στρεφομένης ἐν αὐτῇ κατὰ μικρὸν τῆς σκάφης. see also on A 2.28.7, 2.29.3. §5 Empedocles: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.77 (31A77 DK) τὴν δὲ σελήνην δισκοειδῆ. cf. Plutarch Quaest.Rom. 288B cited above. Scholia on Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica 498 Wendel cited on A 2.25.10 (on Anaxagoras).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.11 291b18–23 ἡ δ᾽ σελήνη δείκνυται διὰ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν ὅτι σφαιροειδής· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγίνετο αὐξανομένη καὶ φθίνουσα τὰ μὲν πλεῖστα μηνοειδὴς ἢ ἀμφίκυρτος, ἅπαξ δὲ διχότομος. καὶ πάλιν διὰ τῶν ἀστρολογικῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἄν ἦσαν αἱ τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείψεις μηνοειδεῖς. cf. APo. 1.13 78b4–8 πάλιν ὡς τὴν σελήνην δεικνύουσιν ὅτι σφαιροειδής, διὰ τῶν αὐξήσεων—εἰ γὰρ τὸ αὐξανόμενον οὕτω σφαιροειδές, αὐξάνει δ᾽ ἡ σελήνη, φανερὸν ὅτι σφαιροειδής—οὕτω μὲν οὖν τοῦ ὅτι γέγονεν ὁ συλλογισμός, ἀνάπαλιν δὲ τεθέντος τοῦ μέσου τοῦ διότι … Aristotle Met. Α.2 982b11–17 see on A 2.26. ps.Eudoxus Papyrus Parisinus 1. col. 12.1–9 Blass ἡ σελήνη σφαιροειδής ἐστιν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν δισκοειδής, αὐθημερὸν ἂν αὐτὴν κατέλαμψεν ὁ ἥλιος, [γί]νεται δὲ μετὰ πεντε[κα]ὶ δεχ᾽ ἡμέρας λαμπρά— ὥστε οὐκ ἂν εἴη δισκοειδὴς ἡ σελήνη· εἰ δὲ ἔσται σκαφοειδὴς καὶ τὰ κοῖλα αὐτῆς ἐστραμμένα, οὐχ ἕξει τὸ πρὸς τῶι ἡλίωι αὐτῆς μέρος πρῶτον λαμπ[ρ]όν. νῦν δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων τὸ μὲν κατὰ τὸν ἥλιόν ἐστιν αὐτῆς μέρος πρῶτον λ[α]μπρόν, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν σκιερόν. Geminus Elem. 9.11–12, p. 60 Aujac λαμβάνει δὲ τοὺς πάντας σχηματισμοὺς ἡ σελήνη ἐν τῷ μηνιαίῳ χρόνῳ τέσσαρας, δὶς αὐτοὺς ἀποτελοῦσα. εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ σχηματισμοὶ οἵδε· μηνοειδής, διχότομος, ἀμφίκυρτος, πανσέληνος. μηνοειδὴς μὲν οὖν γίνεται περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν μηνῶν, διχότομος δὲ περὶ τὴν ὀγδοὴν τοῦ μηνὸς, ἀμφίκυρτος δὲ περὶ τὴν δωδεκάτην, πανσέληνος δὲ περὶ τὴν διχομηνίαν· καὶ πάλιν ἀμφίκυρτος μετὰ τὴν διχομηνίαν, διχότομος δὲ περὶ τὴν εἰκοστὴν τρίτην, μηνοειδὴς

liber 2 caput 27 δὲ περὶ τὰ ἔσχατα τῶν μηνῶν. see further on ch. 2.28. Nicomachus of Gerasa at ps.Iambl. Theol.Ar. 60.2 Di Falco (on the hebdomad) συλλογίσασθαι δὲ δεῖ καὶ τὰς ἑπτὰ σχηματικὰς μορφὰς τῆς σελήνης τετράδι, μηνοειδῆ διχότομον ἀμφίκυρτον πανσέληνον, πάλιν ἄλλην ἀμφίκυρτον, ἐκ θατέρου μέρους φωτιζομένης αὐτῆς, καὶ πάλιν διχότομον κατὰ ταὐτὰ καὶ ἄλλην μηνοειδῆ. Pliny Nat. 2.41 multiformis haec ambigua torsit ingenia contemplantium et proximum ignorare sidus maxime indignantium, crescens semper aut senescens et modo curvata in cornua facie, modo aequa portione divisa, modo sinuata in orbem, maculosa eademque subito praenitens, inmensa orbe pleno ac repente nulla. Lucian Icar. 20 see above on A 2.25. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.143.1–3 ἡ σελήνη τε δι᾽ ἑπτὰ ἡμερῶν λαμβάνει τοὺς μετασχηματισμούς. κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν πρώτην ἑβδομάδα διχότομος γίνεται, κατὰ δὲ τὴν δευτέραν πανσέληνος, τρίτῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀποκρούσεως αὖθις διχότομος, καὶ τετάρτῃ ἀφανίζεται. ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτή, καθάπερ Σέλευκος ὁ μαθηματικὸς (—) παραδίδωσιν, ἑπτάκις μετασχηματίζεται. γίνεται γὰρ ἐξ ἀφεγγοῦς μηνοειδής, εἶτα διχότομος, εἶτα ἀμφίκυρτος πανσέληνός τε καὶ κατὰ ἀπόκρουσιν πάλιν ἀμφίκυρτος διχότομός τε ὁμοίως καὶ μηνοειδής. Anatolius de Dec. p. 12.3– 4 Heiberg-Tannery (arithmological) αὐτῆς σελήνης φάσεις ζʹ, δὶς μηνοειδής, ⟨δὶς⟩ διχότομος, δὶς ἀμφίκυρτος, ἅπαξ πανσέληνος. Gregory of Nyssa An.Res. p. 17.4– 18.9 Spira see ch. 2.28. Simplicius in Cael. 479.8–14 εἰ οὖν ἡ σελήνη ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων αὐτῆς φωτισμῶν σφαιροειδὴς δείκνυται, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα εἴη ἂν σφαιροειδῆ. εἰ γὰρ μὴ σφαιροειδὴς ἦν, ἀλλὰ τυμπανοειδής, εἰ τύχοι, ἢ φακοειδής, οὐκ ἂν οἱ φωτισμοὶ τοιοῦτοι ἐγίνοντο, ὡς αὐξανομένην, φησί, καὶ φθίνουσαν τὰ μὲν λεῖστα μηνοειδῆ φαίνεσθαι ἢ ἀμφίκυρτον, ἅπαξ δὲ διχότομον. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν διχότομον τὴν πανσέληνον ἔλεγεν, ὡς διχόμηνον αὐτὴν ἐκάλεσεν Ἄρατος διὰ τὸ διχῇ τέμνειν τὸν μῆνα, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα συνεφώνει καὶ τὸ πλεονάκις μηνοειδῆ φαίνεσθαι· καὶ γὰρ αὐξανομένη καὶ φθίνουσα· καὶ ἀμφίκυρτος ὁμοίως … Chapter heading: Aristotle Phys. 2.1 193b29 περὶ σχήματος σελήνης. Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler see above on A 2.11. Plutarch Suav. 1093E Φίλιππον (sc. of Opus) ἀποδεικνύντα περὶ τοῦ σχήματος τῆς σελήνης. Themistius in Phys. 40.26 εἰ οὖν ἀμφότεροι (sc. the physicist and the scientist) λέγουσι καὶ περὶ σχημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ πότερον ἡ γῆ σφαιροειδὴς καὶ ὁ κόσμος, τίνι διαφέροιεν ἄν; §§1–2 Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 2.5.24–39 Todd ὁπότε μὲν οὖν σύνοδος εἴη, πεφώτισται αὐτῆς τὸ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν τετραμμένον ἡμισφαίριον· τοῦτο γὰρ αὐτῆς τότε πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἀφορᾷ. παραμειβούσης δὲ τὸν ἥλιον αὐτῆς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς λόγον τῆς ἀποχωρήσεως τὸ πρὸς τὴν γῆν αὐτῆς βλέπον ἡμισφαίριον ἐπιστρεφούσης πρὸς αὐτόν, οὕτω πρῶτον μὲν ἐκ τῶν πλαγίων φωτιζομένη μηνοειδὲς ποιεῖ τὸ σχῆμα, εἶτα ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐπιστρεφομένη πρὸς αὐτὸν διχότομον, εἶτα ἀμφίκυρτον, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο πλῆρες, ὁπόταν διαμετρήσῃ αὐτόν. ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ συνόδου ἐπὶ διάμετρον παραγίνεται, ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν τετραμμένου αὐτῆς ἡμισφαιρίου εἰς τὸ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁρῶν κάτεισι τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς, καὶ οὕτω λέγεται αὔξεσθαι μέχρι πανσελήνου. ἐπειδὰν δὲ διαμετρήσασα παραμείψῃ τὴν διάμετρον, μειοῦται πάλιν ἐκ τοῦ πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐτῆς ὁρῶντος ἡμισφαιρίου εἰς τὸ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁρῶν, περιαγομένου τοῦ φωτὸς μέχρι συνόδου. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπιπέδῳ τῷ σχήματι ἐκέχρητο, εὐθέως ἂν ἅμα

1063

1064

liber 2 caput 27

τῷ παρελθεῖν ἀπὸ συνόδου τὸν ἥλιον ἐπληροῦτο καὶ ἔμενεν ἂν μέχρι συνόδου πλήρης· νυνὶ δὲ σφαιρικὸν ἔχουσα τὸ σχῆμα, οὕτω τὰς τῶν σχημάτων ἰδέας ἀποτελεῖ. Cael. 2.5.87–91 οἱ μὲν οὖν παλαιοὶ τρία εἶναι περὶ τὴν σελήνην σχήματα ἔφασαν, τὸ μηνοειδές, τὸ διχότομον, τὸ πεπληρωμένον (ὅθεν καὶ τριπρόσωπον τὴν Ἄρτεμιν ποιεῖν ἔθος ἐστίν), οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι προσέθεσαν τοῖς τρισὶ τὸ νῦν καλούμενον ἀμφίκυρτον, ὃ μεῖζον μέν ἐστι τοῦ διχοτόμου, μεῖον δὲ τοῦ πανσελήνου.

Liber 2 Caput 28 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 891D–E; pp. 358a5–359a10 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.29, p. 403.8–18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 69; p. 628.1–3 Diels—PL: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12, pp. 53.13–54.7 Wuensch—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 160–163 Daiber—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 3.50, p. 54.1–2 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26.2, p. 220.3 (tit.), 5–22 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b11–12 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.15–17 Di Maria

Titulus κηʹ. Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος Ξενοφάνης Βήρωσος ἴδιον αὐτὴν ἔχειν φῶς. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀριστοτέλης ἴδιον μέν, ἀραιότερον δέ πως. (S2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀμαυροφανές, ἀεροειδὲς γάρ. (S3) §4 Ἀντιφῶν ἰδιοφεγγῆ τὴν σελήνην, τὸ δ᾽ ἀποκρυπτόμενον περὶ αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῆς προσβολῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀμαυροῦσθαι, πεφυκότος τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου πυρὸς τὸ ἀσθενέστερον ἀμαυροῦν· ὃ δὴ συμβαίνειν καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα. (P2,S4) §5 Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. (P3,S5) §6 Πυθαγόρας Παρμενίδης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Μητρόδωρος ὁμοίως. (S6) §7 Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας, δεχομένους τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς §1 Anaximander 12A22 DK; Xenophanes 21A43 DK; Berossus FGH 680 F19b Jacoby, F21d De Breucker; §2 Aristoteles —; §3 Stoici SVF 2.670; §4 Antiphon 87B27 DK, Pendrick fr. F27; §5 Thales fr. 159, 357 Wöhrle; §6 Pythagoras —; Parmenides 28A42 DK, cf. B14; Empedocles 31A60 DK; Anaxagoras 59A77 DK; Metrodorus 70A12 DK; §7 Heraclitus 22A12 DK titulus Περὶ P : add. δὲ S ‖ φωτισμῶν PBESyS : φωτισμοῦ PGQ ‖ σελήνης P : αὐτῆς S §1 [2] Ἀναξίμανδρος Ξενοφάνης Βήρωσος S : Ξενοφάνης Βήρωσος om. P ‖ αὐτὴν] αὐτὸς PB(II) ‖ αὐτὴν ἔχειν] inv. PG ‖ post φῶς add. εἴρηκεν PG, postea ἀραιότερον δέ πως P ex §2 (cf. welches jedoch schwach ist Q) §§2–3 non hab. P §4 non hab. PG ‖ [5] ἰδιοφεγγῆ S : ἰδίῳ (add. μὲν PL) φέγγει λάμπειν PBEQ ‖ ἀποκρυπτόμενον] ὑποκρυπτόμενον PE ‖ ὑπὸ] ἀπὸ PE ‖ [6–7] ἰσχυροτέρου πυρὸς PB(I,III)E : ἰσχυροτέρου φωτὸς PL : ἰσχυροτάτου φωτὸς PB(II) : ἰσχυροτέρου S ‖ [7] συμβαίνειν S : συμβαίνει PBEL §5 [9] Θαλῆς … ἔφη S : Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ P (cf. §6) ‖ ὑπὸ] ἀπὸ PG ‖ φωτίζεσθαι S : add. τὴν σελήνην P §6 [10–11] Πυθαγόρας … ὁμοίως S : P vid. supra §5 §7 non hab. PG ‖ [12] P τὸ αὐτὸ : S ταὐτὸν ‖ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην P : τὴν σελήνην τε καὶ τὸν ἥλιον S ‖ post σελήνην add. PL φησί ‖ [13] γὰρ P : δὲ S ‖ post δεχομένους add. δὲ PB ‖ [13–14] τὰς … αὐγάς S : τὰ … αὐτά PBQ (om. αὐτά PEL) ‖ [13] ἀπὸ] ἐκ PL

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_069

5

10

1066

liber 2 caput 28

ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως αὐγάς, φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν, λαμπροτέρως μὲν τὸν ἥλιον, ἐν καθαρωτέρῳ γὰρ ἀέρι φέρεσθαι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐν θολωτέρῳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀμαυροτέραν φαίνεσθαι. (P4,S7) [14–15] λαμπροτέρως S : λαμπρότερον P ‖ al. PL λαμπρότερον δὲ τὸν ἥλιον διὰ τὸ ἐν καθαρῷ ἀέρι φαίνεσθαι ‖ [15] καθαρωτέρῳ] καθαρωτάτῳ PB(II) ‖ [16] θολωτέρῳ] θολέρῳ PE ‖ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο S : διὰ τοῦτο καὶ PBE

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 69 (~ tit.) Περὶ φωτισμοῦ σελήνης (text Diels) 69.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος ἴδιον ἔχειν αὐτὴν φῶς εἴρηκεν, ἀραιότερον δέ πως. 69.2 (~ P3) Θαλῆς δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι τὴν σελήνην. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12 περὶ δὲ τοῦ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν φωτὸς ἐροῦμεν, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν ἴδιον αὐτὴν φῶς ἔχειν βούλεται, ἀραιότερον δέ πως (~ P1), ὁ δὲ Ἀντιφῶν ἰδίῳ μὲν φέγγει λάμπειν τὴν σελήνην φησί, τὸ δὲ ἀποκρυπτόμενον περὶ αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τῆς προσβολῆς τοῦ ἡλίου ἀμαυροῦσθαι, πεφυκότος τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου φωτὸς τὸ ἀσθενέστερον ἀμαυροῦν, ὃ δὴ συμβαίνει καὶ περὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἄστρα (~ P4). Θαλῆς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι τὴν σελήνην ἐνέκριναν (~ P5). ὅ γε μὴν Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην φησί· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασιν ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν, λαμπρότερον δὲ τὸν ἥλιον διὰ τὸ ἐν καθαρῷ ἀέρι φαίνεσθαι (~ P7). Symeon Seth CRN 3.50 Περὶ οὐσίας καὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης καὶ σχήματος (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 16, p. 23.15–17 ἡ δὲ πλείων δόξα, καθ᾽ ἣν πρώτη ἡ σελήνη, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἀπόσπασμα τοῦ ἡλίου λέγουσιν αὐτήν, ὡς καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B45 DK) ‘κυκλοτερὲς περὶ γαῖαν ἑλίσσεται ἀλλότριον φῶς’ (cf. c. 2.16 testes secundi). Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.17 Πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες §2 A 2.30.7 Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον. §3 A 2.25.5 Ποσειδώνιος δὲ καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν Στωικῶν μικτὴν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. A 2.30.6 οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἀερομιγὲς τῆς οὐσίας μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα. §5 A 2.17.1–3 Μητρόδωρος ἅπαντας τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς ἀστέρας ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου προσλάμπεσθαι. Στράτων καὶ αὐτὸς τὰ ἄστρα ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. Διότιμος Τύριος, ὁ Δημοκρίτειος, τὴν αὐτὴν τούτοις εἰσηνέγκατο γνώμην. §6 A 2.26.2 Παρμενίδης ἴσην τῷ ἡλίῳ, καὶ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ φωτίζεσθαι.

15

liber 2 caput 28

1067

§7 A 2.20.6 (de solis substantia) Ἡράκλειτος Ἑκαταῖος Κλεάνθης ἄναμμα νοερὸν ἐκ θαλάττης. A 2.21.2 (de solis figura) Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ, ὑπόκυρτον. A 2.25.2 (de lunae substantia) Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος πυρίνην. A 2.27.3 (de lunae figura) Ἡράκλειτος σκαφοειδῆ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses For the remaining chapters of Book 2, i.e. chs. 28–32, we are in the virtually unique position of having them transmitted to us in exactly the form that they appeared in A’s handbook (only the final lemma in 2.32 is missing). It would appear that for chs. 28–31 S became weary of the process of coalescence that he had carried out for the chapters on the stars, the sun and (so far) on the moon. There is every indication that in the remainder of S 1.26 he has written these four chapters out separately under their titles (ch. 32 had been written out earlier in S 1.8 on the nature of time). We thus have a unique opportunity to study the way A constructed his chapters and how they were excerpted in their very different ways by P and T. Contrary to our usual fashion, therefore, in the case of these chapters we must start with S. (1) S records seven doxai. Their sequence is quite unproblematic. (2) Of the seven doxai in S four remain in P. We note the following manipulations: (a) In his first doxa P combines elements from §1 and §2 in S. This could be the result of a kind of haplography, or perhaps P decided there was little difference between them and they could be conflated, particularly if ‘dimmer’ is taken to be ‘dimmer compared with the sun’. (b) S’s third doxa is deleted by P, no doubt because it adds little (we already know that the moon is ‘air-like’ from ch. 2.25). (c) The fourth doxa of Antiphon is copied out with perhaps a minor change; see below, section D(d). (d) For the next two doxai (which must be read together) P drops the πρῶτος εὑρετής motif for Thales and characteristically shortens the long list of name-labels to καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (exactly the same occurs in 2.1.2). (e) The final doxa in S is copied out in its entirely by P. It emerges therefore that P has excerpted almost all of the chapter, yet two (or three if S5–6 are split up) doxai are obscured. G goes much further in his excerpting, preserving only P’s first and third doxai (which do give the main

1068

liber 2 caput 28

diaresis). We note that G further reduces the name-labels in the latter doxa to Thales only. On the other hand, Lydus writes out all four of P’s lemmata, only abbreviating the final doxa. (3) T has not made use of this chapter. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Two texts at Philo Somn. 1.23 and 1.53 give insight into pre-Aëtian traditions on this topic not mentioned in Achilles. The latter text includes the chapter’s title and gives a brief diaphonia of the two main positions: the moon shines with light derived from elsewhere or it has its own light The former has the same division, but then introduces a third, compromise position in which the moon’s light is a mixture of the sun’s and its own light. On the earlier doxographical tradition on which these texts are based see above Commentary on ch. 2.11 section B. Extensive dialectical-doxographical parallels confirm that the two Philonic texts mentioned above represent standard approaches to the topic. The single diaphonia in Philo’s second text is found in Epicurus, Lucretius, Cicero, Vitruvius, Apuleius and Augustine (texts below section E(b) General texts). The tripartite schema appears, albeit not very clearly, in Plutarch’s De facie (on which see our Commentary on ch. 2.25 section B). It is also found in Cleomedes’ Stoic manual of astronomy, on which see further on §3 in the Detailed comments below, D(d). On the early texts in Epicurus and Lucretius see section D(e) below. For the Patristic authors Irenaeus and Arnobius the topic of the moon’s phases belongs to the standard questions of natural philosophy: see Book 1.proœm. 3 Exempla physica and texts below section E(a). (2) Sources. The subject of this chapter exercised the thinking of the early philosophers to a considerable degree, as can be seen in quotations from the poems of Parmenides and Empedocles and the prose work of Anaxagoras (texts quoted by Philo and Plutarch cited below under section E(a)§6). Plato credits Anaxagoras with the discovery that the moon derives its light from the sun, but does not pronounce on the matter himself. The question also remains unclear in Aristotle; see the note on §2 below in section D(d). C Chapter Heading The witnesses agree on the heading, which is of the simple umbrella Περί x type, though in fact the chapter treats the sub-question of source or origin (πόθεν, unde) of the question type cause; see further our Commentary on ch. 1.6 section C. S now discontinues his practice of conflating headings and places the heading of this chapter as a sub-title within his ch. 1.26, altering it slightly by adding the connecting particle δέ and replacing σελήνης with αὐτῆς. The equivalent ch. 2.17 for the stars uses the formula with the term πόθεν, i.e. πόθεν φωτίζονται οἱ ἀστέρες.

liber 2 caput 28

1069

D Analysis a Context Our author proceeds to the next subject relating to the moon, the source of its light, which follows on from its substance (ch. 2.25) and its phases (ch. 2.27), but precedes discussion of its eclipse (ch. 2.29). Unlike in the case of the sun, however, its illuminations can be linked to but do not necessarily follow directly from its substance as discussed in ch. 2.25. Given the controversy on the source of the moon’s light, the doxographer felt the need for a separate chapter, which does not have an equivalent in the case of the sun, though as we saw the subject is also discussed in the case of the stars (ch. 2.17). b Number–Order of Lemmata Because of the method used by S for this chapter, the number and the order of the lemmata are not in doubt. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The main diaeresis of the chapter is between the view that the moon has its own light and that it receives its light from the sun. It is the same diaeresis as in the second Philonic text and is found in many other texts (see sections B above and D(e) below). The two groups are led by the venerable Milesians Anaximander and Thales (note that the order is not chronological but systematic, for the view that it has its own light is logically prior). The same main representatives and non-chronological order were used in ch. 2.25. For the first view Berossus, who elsewhere is often cited as its chief representative (see the parallels listed below), is placed after the two early Presocratics. The extreme brevity of the second and third doxai make them difficult to interpret. The Aristotelian doxa is basically a refinement of the opening lemma, taking into account the natures of the two heavenly bodies. Pace M–R 2.605 ἀραιότερον here must mean ‘thinner, sparser’ (cf. chs. 2.7.1 and 2.7.3, where the comparison is with πυκνός, ‘dense’). Grammatically the adjective appears to describe the moon’s light, but it makes more sense to refer it to the moon’s composition in terms of the fifth element (cf. A 2.25.8). The Stoic view could also be a restatement of the first doxa. But more likely it relates to the third (compromise) view in the first Philonic text and other Stoics texts. The moon’s dim appearance would be the result of a mixture of its own bodily nature and the light of the sun (but see the detailed comment in the next sub-section and also further below). It would thus be a compromise view. It has to be admitted, however, that the exact meaning could not have been clear to A’s reader. For these two lemmata his desire for brevity has most likely obscured the systematics of his source. In the case of the fourth doxa attributed to Antiphon we also appear to have a compromise

1070

liber 2 caput 28

view: the moon’s own light is obscured by the more powerful light of the sun that shines on it and it reflects. The verbs ἀμαυροῦσθαι and ἀμαυροῦν would pick up the adjective ἀμαυροφανές in the Stoic doxa and reinforce the interpretation that these two views are compromise positions that supply a transition to the second major branch of the diaeresis. However, the final words of the doxa sit uneasily with this interpretation. As noted by Pendrick (2002) 297, the doxa could also be interpreted as explaining why the moon is (largely) obscured during the day, as also happens to the other heavenly bodies (for which reflection of the sun at night does not make much sense). Here too the doxographer does not make the meaning very clear for his reader. The doxa whose discovery is attributed to Thales, that the moon receives its light from the sun, was the dominant view in antiquity. No doubt the impressive list of name-labels is meant to underline this dominance. It is surprising that A does not use the characteristic formulation of ‘bastard light’ that occurs in Philo and in various parallel texts (see texts below). In addition he also does not refer to the theory of Empedocles comparing the moon’s reflection of light with what occurs in a mirror (cf. Philo Prov. 2.70, Plu. Fac.Lun. 929E). The final Heraclitean lemma might appear to belong to the first group of the diaeresis, since the moon’s light comes from the moist exhalation in its bowl, just like in the case of the sun. The difference is that the moon’s light appears ‘dimmer’ (ἀμαυρός again) because of the murky air in which it moves compared to the brighter air for the sun. It is placed at the end most likely because it compares the sun and moon. Such comparisons involving the two planets are found at the end of three other chapters (2.20, 2.24, 2.30). The final placing may also be due to its ‘epistemological’ nature, i.e. dependent on how the two bodies appear to the observer (πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν). We might compare the way that Epicurus’ ‘modal’ views are placed at the end of chs. 2.2, 2.4, 2.13. In various sources it is argued that there is a direct relation between the question of the moon’s phases and the source of its light. But the argument is worked into two opposing directions. At Cleomedes 2.4.56–78 Todd and Plutarch Fac.Lun. 929F–930E, we read that if its light were due only to reflection of the sun’s light, it would not be visible during some of its phases. On the other hand, Geminus Elem. 9.1–10 attempts to use observations to demonstrate the (by his time) dominant view that the moon receives its light from the sun, while Gregory of Nyssa in a lengthy passage at An.Res. p. 17.4–18.19 Spira argues that observation of the phases of the moon demonstrates that it does not possess its own light (see below section E(b) General texts). This is the kind of material that is not found in A, who following his usual practice does not comment on the doxai that he juxtaposes to each other.

liber 2 caput 28

1071

d

Further Comments General Points The main diaeresis of A’s chapter is recognised in modern scholarship, e.g. by Graham (2013) 88 who even goes so far as to introduce an adaptation of the doxographical terminology, i.e. distinguishing between idiophotism and heliophotism. See further ch. 2.29 Commentary D(d). There has in recent scholarship been extensive discussion of the origins of the view that the moon receives its light from the sun. Wöhrle (1995a) concludes that Anaxagoras deserves the credit for the discovery, since according to our sources (esp. Plutarch) he developed the theory most clearly, though it is possible that Parmenides promoted it in his poem. The tradition that Thales discovered it must be a retroprojection, while its ascription to Anaximenes by Eudemus must also be mistaken, even though it appears to stands in the Theophrastean tradition. For the texts cited by Wöhrle see below section E(a) and (b). Graham (2013) 89–92 also discusses the list of philosophers in A’s doxai §§5–6. He discounts Thales and Pythagoras, but is inclined to privilege the contribution of Parmenides. In a very full discussion Couprie (2018) 195–218 reaches a wholly different conclusion, arguing that in the general context of Anaxagoras’ astronomy the statement that ‘the moon receives its light from the sun’ probably means that the moon’s light is ignited by the sun. On this theory of kindling, already suggested by O’Brien (1968) see further on ch. 2.30 Commentary D(d)§5. Individual Points §2 At chs. 2.11.5, 2.13.12, 2.20.11 and 2.25.8 (very likely) A had on each occasion stated that according to Aristotle the heavenly bodies consisted of the ‘fifth body’ without any further qualification. Given the placement of these doxai in the various diaereses (esp. the proximity to Plato’s view), it may be assumed that A thought this body was similar to fire and had its own luminosity (pace Cael. 2.7 289a20–35). The present doxa may be a further deduction on the part of A or his predecessors. There is a single Aristotelian text that hints that the moon may contain some admixture of fire, GA 3.11 761b21. AD in his passage on the sun (fr. 10 Diels), however, denies that the sun or any other of the heavenly bodies is fire. But for Aristotle’s views on lunar eclipses see further on A 2.27 Commentary B(b), 2.29 Commentary B(b), D(d)§8. §3 Cleomedes, in arguing for the Stoic position, gives a doxographical overview of three positions (2.4.1–30 Todd). The first of these is that of Berossus (as in A). The second is that the moon is illuminated by the sun, like what happens with mirrors. The third view, which is regarded as ‘sounder’ (ὑγιεστέρα), argues that the sun’s light produces a luminous effect in the moon’s substance (a mixture of fire and air) which can remain even when the sun’s light is removed

1072

liber 2 caput 28

and is thus a better theory that the one of reflection (see the notes of Bowen– Todd 2004, 137–139). This is thus a kind of compromise view, but more subtle than Philo’s one of mixture or that of Antiphon in A. The Stoic view in A is not presented clearly enough for the reader to deduce the view presented in Cleomedes. §4 To describe Antiphon’s position S says the moon is ἰδιοφεγγῆ, P that it ἰδίῳ φέγγει λάμπειν. The compound adjective used by S is a hapax, occurring only in this text, but it seems very much a vox doxographica. Both the compressed style and the avoidance of verbs are characteristic of doxographical style. Moreover S is less motivated to alter the text than P. So we retain S’s text in this case. It is prudent, however, to retain πυρός in the phrase πεφυκότος τοῦ ἰσχυροτέρου πυρός since it have easily dropped out of S’s text. On the doxai of the sophist Antiphon in the Placita see our comment at A 2.20, Commentary D(d)§4. e Other Evidence The early texts of Epicurus and his follower Lucretius are of considerable interest. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.94–95 states the two main positions and argues that both are consistent with unspecified analogies from our own experience. On this text see Runia (2018) 408 and further on ch. 2.29 Commentary B. Lucretius offers that same diaeresis at DRN 5.575–577, in which the contrast between ‘bastard light’ and ‘its own light’ is exactly the same as that found in Philo’s first text (cf. also Lucian and Apuleius, who cites the poet’s lines). But at DRN 5.705–750 he goes into more detail, giving four explanations which combine the questions of its light and its phases (see also ch. 2.29). It is noteworthy that the third of these views is the Babylonica Chaldaeum doctrina, i.e. the view of Berossus, which is also used by other authors to represent the position that the moon has its own light (Vitruvius, Apuleius, Cleomedes, Augustine). We note that Epicurus does not refer to the doxa of Berossus in his text. It is possible that some of Epicurus’ doxographical material was drawn from the work of Theophrastus; see Bakker (2016) 58–61; Runia (2018) 404. For chronological reasons, however, it is unlikely that the Eresian mentioned the view of Berossus. As argued in Runia (1997) 101–102, Epicurus cannot have referred to him in his De natura, the work that was Lucretius’ main source, because it was written relatively early in his career, before the Babyloniaca became available. Sedley (1998b) 90–91 contests this view, arguing that we do not know that Berossus’ cosmological views became known to Hellenistic readers through that work. However, we do not know of any other works available in Greek, and indeed—as noted above on A 2.25.13—some scholars incline to the view that Berossus’ fragments ‘bear all the characteristics of a falsification of the late Hellenistic period taking advantage of a prestigious name’ (Daroca 1994, 96, citing

liber 2 caput 28

1073

Kuhrt 1987, 43–44, cf. also the most recent edition by De Breucker 2012, 588– 595, 606–609). This is a subject that we cannot pursue further in the present context. In conclusion, the evidence suggests that Lucretius, as well as following his master, also made use of doxographical traditions that developed during the Hellenistic period. See Runia (1997), and on his psychological theories Mansfeld (1990a) 3143–3154 and Introduction to Book 4, section 5. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Eudemus see Theon of Smyrna and Heron Mechanicus below. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.94–95 ἔτι τε ἐνδέχεται τὴν σελήνην ἐξ ἑαυτῆς ἔχειν τὸ φῶς, ἐνδέχεται δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ γὰρ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θεωρεῖται πολλὰ μὲν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν ἔχοντα, πολλὰ δὲ ἀφ᾽ ἑτέρων. καὶ οὐθὲν ἐμποδοστατεῖ τῶν ἐν τοῖς μετεώροις φαινομένων, ἐάν τις τοῦ πλεοναχοῦ τρόπου ἀεὶ μνήμην ἔχῃ καὶ τὰς ἀκολούθους αὐτοῖς ὑποθέσεις ἅμα καὶ αἰτίας συνθεωρῇ καὶ μὴ ἀναβλέπων εἰς τὰ ἀνακόλουθα ταῦτ᾽ ὀγκοῖ ματαίως καὶ καταρρέπῃ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως ἐπὶ τὸν μοναχὸν τρόπον. Lucretius DRN 5.575–577 lunaque, sive notho fertur loca lumine lustrans / sive suam proprio iactat de corpore lucem, / quidquid id est …; DRN 5.705–775 luna potest solis radiis percussa nitere / inque dies magis id lumen convertere nobis / ad speciem, … (715) est etiam quare proprio cum lumine possit / volvier et varias splendoris reddere formas; / corpus enim licet esse aliud, quod fertur et una / labitur omnimodis occursans officiensque, / nec potis est cerni, quia cassum lumine fertur. / versarique potest, globus ut, si forte, pilai / dimidia ex parti candenti lumine tinctus, / versandoque globum variantis edere formas, / donique eam partem, quae cumque est ignibus aucta, / ad speciem vertit nobis oculosque patentis; / inde minutatim retro contorquet et aufert / luciferam partem glomeraminis atque pilai; / ut Babylonica Chaldaeum doctrina refutans / astrologorum artem contra convincere tendit, / proinde quasi id fieri nequeat quod pugnat uterque / aut minus hoc illo sit cur amplectier ausis. / denique cur nequeat semper nova luna creari / ordine formarum certo certisque figuris / inque dies privos aborisci quaeque creata / atque alia illius reparari in parte locoque, / difficilest ratione docere et vincere verbis, / ordine cum ⟨videas⟩ tam certo multa creari … (748) quo minus est mirum, si certo tempore luna / gignitur et certo deletur tempore rusus, / cum fieri possint tam certo tempore multa. cf. DRN 768–770 cited below on A 2.29. Cicero Div. 2.10 num censes eos, qui divinare dicuntur, posse respondere … lunaque suo lumine an solis utatur? ND 2.103 luna autem … isdem spatiis vagatur quibus sol, sed tum congrediens cum sole tum degrediens et eam lucem quam a sole accepit mittit in terras et varias ipsa lucis mutationes habet, atque etiam tum subiecta atque opposita soli radios eius et lumen obscurat, tum ipsa incidens in umbram terrae, cum est e regione solis, interpositu interiectuque terrae repente deficit. Philo of Alexandria Somn. 1.23, τί δέ; σελήνη πότερον γνήσιον ἢ νόθον ἐπιφέρεται φέγ-

1074

liber 2 caput 28

γος ἡλιακαῖς ἐπιλαμπόμενον ἀκτῖσιν ἢ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ μὲν ἰδίᾳ τούτων οὐδέτερον, τὸ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὡς ἂν ἐξ οἰκείου καὶ ἀλλοτρίου πυρὸς κρᾶμα; 1.53 τί δὲ περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης, εἰ νόθον ἔχει φέγγος, εἰ γνησίῳ μόνῳ χρῆται; Seneca Nat. 7.27.1 dic tu mihi prius quare luna dissimillimum soli lumen accipiat, cum accipiat a sole. cf. also Theon of Smyrna Exp. 198.14–199.2 Hiller Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστορεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις, ὅτι … Ἀναξιμένης (13A16 DK) δὲ ὅτι ἡ σελήνη ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου ἔχει τὸ φῶς καὶ τίνα ἐκλείπει τρόπον. same text at Heron Mechanicus Def. 11.2–9 Heiberg. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau (trans. Rufini) quae autem causa est per quam crescit luna et decresci. Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.273 PG 78.704A, 773 Évieux καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν … σελήνης δὲ μειώσεις τε καὶ αὐξήσεις … τί συμβάλλεται εἰς ἀρίστην πολιτείαν, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ συνορῶ. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.705 De lunae lumine. Philo Mut. 67 τὸν … μετεωρολογικόν, ἐρευνῶντα … καὶ σελήνης περὶ φωτισμῶν, σχηματισμῶν, μειώσεως, αὐξήσεως. Eusebius PE 10.14.10 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 265 Wöhrle) φυσικὸς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων γεγονὼς περὶ … φωτισμῶν σελήνης καὶ ἰσημερίας διελέχθη. Quaestio: Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 (tr. Rufini) quae autem causa est per quam crescit luna et decrescit. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.61, p. 137.6– 10 Marchesi quid est inquit vobis investigare, conquirere, … alieno ex lumine an propriis luceat fulgoribus luna. §1 Anaximander Xenophanes Berossus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.1 (on Anaximander, 12Α1 DK) τήν τε σελήνην ψευδοφαῆ, καὶ ἀπὸ ἡλίου φωτίζεσθαι. §2 Aristotle: see Plutarch Fac.Lun. 928F quoted below on A 2.30.6. Symeon Seth CRN 3.50, p. 54.3 Delatte εἰ καὶ οἱ Ἀριστοτελικοὶ πέμπτον ὑπέθεντο σῶμα τὸν οὐρανόν, ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ὁμολογοῦσι μέρη μὲν αὐτοῦ εἶναι παχύτερα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰ τῇ γῇ προσεγγίζοντα, μέρη δὲ λεπτότερα τὰ ἄνωθεν καὶ πορρώτερα τῆς γῆς. ἡ γοῦν σελήνη τῷ ἐν γενέσει καὶ φθορᾷ τούτῳ κόσμῳ πλησιάζουσα οὐκ ἄμοιρος οὐδ᾽ ἀμέτοχος κατελείφθη τῶν τούτου κακῶν, ἀλλὰ παχεῖαν καὶ ὡσανεὶ γεώδη τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει. §3 Stoics: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 929B–D φωτίζεσθαι τοίνυν τὴν σελήνην οὐχ ὡς ὕελον ἢ κρύσταλλον ἐλλάμψει καὶ διαφαύσει τοῦ ἡλίου πιθανόν ἐστιν, οὐδ᾽ αὖ κατὰ σύλλαμψίν τινα καὶ συναυγασμόν, ὥσπερ αἱ δᾷδες αὐξομένου τοῦ φωτός. οὕτως γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐν νουμηνίαις ἢ διχομηνίαις ἔσται πανσέληνος ἡμῖν, εἰ μὴ στέγει μηδ᾽ ἀντιφράττει τὸν ἥλιον, ἀλλὰ δίεισιν ὑπὸ μανότητος ἢ κατὰ σύγκρασιν εἰσλάμπει καὶ συνεξάπτει περὶ αὐτὴν τὸ φῶς … ὃ δὲ λέγει Ποσειδώνιος (F 124 E.-K., 295 Theiler), ὡς ὑπὸ βάθους τῆς σελήνης οὐ περαιοῦται δι᾽ αὐτῆς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐλέγχεται καταφανῶς. ὁ γὰρ ἀὴρ ἄπλετος ὢν καὶ βάθος ἔχων πολλαπλάσιον τῆς σελήνης ὅλος ἐξηλιοῦται καὶ καταλάμπεται ταῖς αὐγαῖς. Fac.Lun. 933D εἴπερ οὖν ἡ σελήνη πυρὸς εἴληχε βληχροῦ καὶ ἀδρανοῦς, ἄστρον οὖσα θολερώτερον, ὥσπερ αὐτοὶ (sc. the Stoics) λέγουσιν, οὐθὲν ὧν πάσχουσα φαίνεται νῦν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐναντία πάντα πάσχειν αὐτὴν προσῆκόν ἐστι, φαίνεσθαι μὲν ὅτε κρύπτεται, κρύπτεσθαι δ᾽ ὁπηνίκα φαίνεται. see also Fac.Lun. 922C cited above on A 2.25.6.

liber 2 caput 28 §5 Thales: John Philoponus in Cat. 118.7 ἀμέλει φασὶ Θαλῆν τὸν Μιλήσιον (fr. 434 Wöhrle) πρῶτον ἐπιστῆσαι τῇ αἰτίᾳ τῆς σεληνιακῆς ἐκλείψεως κατανοήσαντα ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡ σελήνη δέχεται τὸ φῶς … §6 Pythagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.27 (58B1a DK) τήν τε σελήνη λάμπεσθαι ὑφ᾽ ἡλίου. Parmenides: Plutarch Adv.Col. 1116A (on the moon) οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ πῦρ μὴ λέγων εἶναι τὸν πεπυρωμένον σίδηρον ἢ τὴν σελήνην ἥλιον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ Παρμενίδην ‘νυκτιφαὲς περὶ γαῖαν ἀλώμενον ἀλλότριον φῶς’ (28B14 DK). also Fac.Lun. 929A ὡς δ᾽ ἄστρον ἢ φῶς ἤ τι σῶμα θεῖον καὶ οὐράνιον δέδια μὴ ἄμορφος ᾖ καὶ ἀπρεπὴς καὶ καταισχύνουσα τὴν καλὴν ἐπωνυμίαν· εἴ γε τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ τοσούτων τὸ πλῆθος ὄντων μόνη φωτὸς ἀλλοτρίου δεομένη περίεισι, κατὰ Παρμενίδην ‘ἀεὶ παπταίνουσα πρὸς αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο’ (28B15 DK). Empedocles: Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.70 Aucher lunae vero lumen nonne inepte putatur, a sole juxta Providentiam desumere lucem, cum potius instar speculi casu in se incidentem formam recipiat? quemadmodum Empedocles (dixit) (31B43 DK): ‘lumen accipiens lunaris globus magnum largumque, mox illico reversus est, ut currens caelum attingeret’. also at Plutarch Fac.Lun. 922C (31A60 DK) cited above on A 2.25.6. see further Fac.Lun. 929Ε (31B42–43 DK) ἀπολείπεται τοίνυν τὸ τοῦ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (—), ἀνακλάσει τινὶ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὴν σελήνην γίνεσθαι τὸν ἐνταῦθα φωτισμὸν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς. ὅθεν οὐδὲ θερμὸν οὐδὲ λαμπρὸν ἀφικνεῖται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὥσπερ ἦν εἰκὸς ἐξάψεως καὶ μίξεως ⟨δυοῖν⟩ φώτων γεγενημένης ἀλλ᾽ οἷον αἵ τε φωναὶ κατὰ τὰς ἀνακλάσεις ἀμαυροτέραν ἀναφαίνουσι τὴν ἠχὼ τοῦ φθέγματος αἵ τε πληγαὶ τῶν ἀφαλλομένων βελῶν μαλακώτεραι προσπίπτουσιν, ‘ὣς αὐγὴ τύψασα σεληναίης κύκλον εὐρύν’ ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἀμυδρὰν ἀνάρροιαν ἴσχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς, διὰ τὴν κλάσιν ἐκλυομένης τῆς δυνάμεως. cf. Achilles §16 23.15–17 (31B45 DK) cited above under Testes secundi. ps.Plutarch Strom. 10 (fr. 179 Sandbach: on Empedocles, 31A30 DK) τὸ δὲ φῶς αὐτὴν (sc. the moon) ἔχειν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. Anaxagoras: Plutarch Nic. 23.3 ὁ γὰρ πρῶτος σαφέστατόν τε πάντων καὶ θαρραλεώτατον περὶ σελήνης καταυγασμῶν καὶ σκιᾶς λόγον εἰς γραφὴν καταθέμενος Ἀναξαγόρας οὔτ᾽ αὐτὸς ἦν παλαιὸς οὔθ᾽ ὁ λόγος ἔνδοξος, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπόρρητος ἔτι καὶ δι᾽ ὀλίγων καὶ μετ᾽ εὐλαβείας τινὸς ἢ πίστεως βαδίζων. Fac.Lun. 929B (59B18 DK, follows passage at 929A cited above) ὁ μὲν οὖν ἑταῖρος ἐν τῇ διατριβῇ τοῦτο δὴ τὸ Ἀναξαγόρειον ἀποδεικνύς, ὡς ‘ἥλιος ἐντίθησι τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ λαμπρόν’ ηὐδοκίμησεν. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.8 (59A42 DK) τὸ δὲ φῶς τὴν σελήνην μὴ ἴδιον ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. cf. Ref cf. 1.8.10 οὗτος ἀφώρισε πρῶτος τὰ περὶ τὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ φωτισμούς. see also Olympiodorus in Mete. 67.32–37 (on Anaxagoras and Democritus, not in DK) καὶ δηλοῖ ἡ σελήνη. ταύτης γὰρ ἕτερον μὲν τὸ ἴδιον φῶς, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ ἡλίου· τὸ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς φῶς ἀνθρακῶδές ἐστιν, ὡς δηλοῖ ἡμῖν ἡ ἔλλειψις αὐτῆς. ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα, φησί, τὸ ἐπίκτητον δέχονται (for context see full citation at ch. 3.1 section E(b) General texts). §7 Heraclitus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (22A1 DK) εἶναι μέντοι ἐν αὐτῷ σκάφας ἐπεστραμμένας κατὰ κοῖλον πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἐν αἷς ἀθροιζομένας τὰς λαμπρὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις ἀποτελεῖν φλόγας, ἃς εἶναι τὰ ἄστρα. λαμπροτάτην δὲ εἶναι τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου φλόγα καὶ θερμοτάτην. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα ἄστρα πλεῖον ἀπέχειν ἀπὸ γῆς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἧττον λάμπειν καὶ θάλπειν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην προσγειοτέραν οὖσαν μὴ διὰ τοῦ

1075

1076

liber 2 caput 28

καθαροῦ φέρεσθαι τόπου. cf. Hippolytus Ref. 1.4.3 (T658 Mouraviev) καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πάντα τὸν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τόπον ἔφη κακῶν μεστὸν εἶναι καὶ μέχρι μὲν σελήνης τὰ κακὰ φθάνειν ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γῆν τόπου ταθέντα, περαιτέρω δὲ μὴ χωρεῖν, ἅτε καθαρωτέρου τοῦ ὑπὲρ τὴν σελήνην παντὸς ὄντος τόπου, οὕτω καὶ τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ ἔδοξεν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Met. Α.2 982b11–17 see on A 2.26. Vitruvius 9.2.3 uti autem Aristarchus Samius mathematicus vigore magno rationes varietatis disciplinis de eadem reliquit, exponam. non enim latet lunam suum propriumque non habere lumen, sed esse uti speculum et ab solis impetu recipere splendorem. Apuleius D.Socr. 1–2, p. 7.12–8.9 Moreschini diei opificem lunamque … seu corniculata seu dividua seu protumida seu plena sit …, sive illa proprio sed non perpeti candore ⟨pollens⟩, ut Chaldaei arbitrantur, parte luminis compos, parte altera cassa fulgoris, pro circumversione oris discoloris multiiuga {pollens} speciem sui variat, seu tota proprii candoris expers, alienae lucis indigua, denso corpore sed levi ceu quodam speculo radios solis obstipi vel adversi susupat et, ut verbis utar Lucreti (DRN 5.574), ‘notham iactat de corpore lucem’. utra⟨cum⟩que harum vera sententia est … Cleomedes Cael. 2.4.1–30 Todd περὶ δὲ τῶν φωτισμῶν αὐτῆς πλείους γεγόνασι λόγοι. Βήρωσσος (FGH 680 F18 Jacoby) μὲν γὰρ ἡμίπυρον οὖσαν αὐτὴν πλείονας κινήσεις κινεῖσθαι ἀπεφήνατο … ἕτεροι δέ φασιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μὲν ἐλλάμπεσθαι αὐτήν, κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν δὲ φωτίζειν τὸν ἀέρα· ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐσόπτρων ὁρᾶται γινόμενον καὶ τῶν λαμπρῶν ἀργυρωμάτων καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἔοικε. τρίτη ἐστὶν αἵρεσις ἡ λέγουσα κιρνᾶσθαι αὐτῆς τὸ φῶς ἔκ τε τοῦ οἰκείου ⟨σώματος⟩ καὶ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτός, καὶ τοιοῦτον γίνεσθαι οὐκ ἀπαθοῦς μενούσης αὐτῆς, οὐδὲ παραπλησίως τοῖς στερεοῖς τῶν λαμπρῶν σωμάτων ἀποπαλλομένας ἐχούσης τὰς αὐγὰς καὶ κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν φωτιζούσης τὸν ἀέρα (κατ᾽ ἀνταύγειαν δεχομένης ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὰς ἀκτῖνας καὶ οὕτως ἀντιπεμπούσης πρὸς ἡμᾶς), ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοιουμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ κατὰ τοιαύτην κρᾶσιν ἴδιον ἰσχούσης τὸ φῶς, οὐ πρώτως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μετοχήν, ὡς ὁ διάπυρος σίδηρος κατὰ μετοχὴν ἴσχει τὸ φῶς, οὐκ ἀπαθὴς ὢν ἀλλὰ τετραμμένος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. αὕτη ἡ αἵρεσις ὑγιεστέρα τῆς λεγούσης κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν φωτίζειν τὴν σελήνην ἀποπαλλομένων ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῶν αὐγῶν, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λαμπρῶν ὁρᾶται σωμάτων γινόμενον, ὅταν ᾖ στερεά. Gregory of Nyssa An.Res. p. 17.4–18.19 Spira καὶ τῆς σελήνης μείωσίν τε καὶ αὔξησιν βλέπων, ἄλλα διδάσκει διὰ τοῦ φαινομένου περὶ τὸ στοιχεῖον σχημάτων, τὸ, ἀφεγγῆ τε εἶναι αὐτὴν κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν φύσιν, καὶ τὸν πρόσγειον κύκλον περιπολεῖν· λάμπει δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡλιακῶν ἀκτίνων, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν κατόπτρων γίνεσθαι πεφυκέναι τὸν ἥλιον, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν δεχόμενα οὐκ ἰδίας αὐγὰς ἀντιδίδωσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς ἐκ τοῦ λείου καὶ στίλβοντος σώματος εἰς τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἀνακλωμένου. ὥσπερ τοῖς ἀνεξετάστως βλέπουσιν ἐξ αὐτῆς δοκεῖ τῆς σελήνης εἶναι τὸ φέγγος. δείκνυται δὲ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν, ὅτι γινομένη μὲν ἀντιπρόσωπος τῷ ἡλίῳ κατὰ διάμετρον ὅλῳ τῷ πρὸς ἡμᾶς βλέποντι κύκλῳ καταφωτίζεται … Augustine Enarr. in Ps. 10.3.2–30 Dekkers– Fraipont duae sunt de luna opiniones probabliles. harum autem quae vera sit aut non omnino aut difficillime arbitror posse hominem scire. cum enim quaer-

liber 2 caput 28 itur unde lumen habeat, alii dicunt suum habere sed globum eius dimidium lucere dimidium autem obscurum esse … alii autem dicunt non habere lunam lumen proprium sed a sole illustrari … Chapter heading: Cleomedes see below on §1. Vettius Valens Anth. 1.12 Περὶ φωστισμῶν σελήνης. Geminus ch. 9 Περὶ σελήνης φωστισμῶν. §1 Berossus: Vitruvius 9.1.16–2.1 (fr. 680 F20 Jacoby, 21a De Breucker) nunc de crescenti lumine lunae deminutioneque, ut traditum est nobis a maioribus, dicam. Berosus, qui ab Chaldaeorum civitate sive natione progressus in Asia etiam disciplinam Chaldaicam patefecit, ita est professus: pilam esse ex dimidia parte candentem, reliqua habere caeruleo colore. See also Apuleius, Cleomedes and Augustine cited above under General texts. §2 Aristotle: see on A 2.30.1. §3 Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 2.4.20–32 Todd τρίτη ἐστὶν αἵρεσις ἡ λέγουσα κιρνᾶσθαι αὐτῆς τὸ φῶς ἔκ τε τοῦ οἰκείου ⟨σὼματος⟩ καὶ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τοιοῦτον γίνεσθαι οὐκ ἀπαθοῦς μενούσης αὐτῆς οὐδὲ παραπλησίως τοῖς στερεοῖς τῶν λαμπρῶν σωμάτων ἀποπαλλομένας ἐχούσης τὰς αὐγὰς καὶ κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν φωτιζούσης τὸν ἀέρα, κατ᾽ ἀνταύγειαν δεχομένης ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὰς ἀκτῖνας καὶ οὕτως ἀντιπεμπούσης πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλλοιουμένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς καὶ κατὰ τοιαύτην τὴν κρᾶσιν ἴδιον ἰσχούσης τὸ φῶς, οὐ πρώτως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ μετοχήν, ὡς διάπυρος σίδηρος κατὰ μετοχὴν ἴσχει τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἀπαθὴς ὢν, ἀλλὰ τετραμμένος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. αὕτη ἡ αἵρεσις ὑγιεστέρα τῆς λεγούσης κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν φωτίζειν τὴν σελήνην … §6 Anaxagoras: Plato Cra. 409a–b, τί δὲ ἡ ‘σελήνη’; τοῦτο δὲ τὸ ὄνομα φαίνεται τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν (59A76 DK) πιέζειν. τί δή; ἔοικε δηλοῦντι παλαιότερον ὃ ἐκεῖνος νεωστὶ ἔλεγεν, ὅτι ἡ σελήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἔχει τὸ φῶς. πῶς δή; τὸ μέν που ‘σέλας’ καὶ τὸ ‘φῶς’ ταὐτόν. ναί. νέον δέ που καὶ ἕνον ἀεί ἐστι περὶ τὴν σελήνην τοῦτο τὸ φῶς, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ οἱ Ἀναξαγόρειοι λέγουσιν· κύκλῳ γάρ που ἀεὶ αὐτὴν περιιὼν νέον ἀεὶ ἐπιβάλλει, ἕνον δὲ ὑπάρχει τὸ τοῦ προτέρου μηνός. πάνυ γε. ‘σελαναίαν’ δέ γε καλοῦσιν αὐτὴν πολλοί. πάνυ γε.ὅτι δὲ σέλας νέον καὶ ἕνον ἔχει ἀεί, ‘σελαενονεοάεια μὲν δικαιότατ’ ἂν {τῶν} ὀνομάτων καλοῖτο, συγκεκροτημένον δὲ ‘σελαναία’ κέκληται. cf. Plutarch E apud Delph. 391A–B ‘τὸ δὲ μέγιστον’ ἔφην ‘δέδια μὴ ῥηθὲν πιέζῃ τὸν Πλάτωνα ἡμῶν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἔλεγε πιέζεσθαι τῷ τῆς σελήνης ὀνόματι τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν, παμπάλαιον οὖσαν τὴν περὶ τῶν φωτισμῶν δόξαν ἰδίαν αὑτοῦ ποιούμενον. ἦ γὰρ οὐ ταῦτ᾽ εἴρηκεν ἐν Κρατύλῳ (see above); Lucian Icar. 20 (see also on ch. 2.25) τὰ τελευταῖα δὲ καὶ τὸ φῶς αὐτὸ κλοπιμαῖόν τε καὶ νόθον εἶναί μοί φασιν ἄνωθεν ἧκον παρὰ τοῦ Ἡλίου, καὶ οὐ παύονται καὶ πρὸς τοῦτόν με ἀδελφὸν ὄντα συγκροῦσαι καὶ στασιάσαι προαιρούμενοι. Cleomedes Cael. 2.5.81 Todd ᾔδεσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ παλαιότατοι τῶν φυσικῶν τε καὶ ἀστρολόγων, ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἡ σελήνη τὸ φῶς ἔχει …

1077

Liber 2 Caput 29 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 890E–F; pp. 359a11–360a17 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.51, pp. 415.20–416.9 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 70; p. 628.4–10 Diels; pp. 209–217 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 162–163 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 129.1–2, p. 68 Westerink—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 3.54, p. 57.13 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26.3, pp. 220.23 (tit.), 220.25–221.24 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b13 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.24, p. 106.14–16 Raeder Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 21, p. 30.12–17 Di Maria

Titulus κθʹ. Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης (P,S,T) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος τοῦ στομίου τοῦ περὶ τὸν τροχὸν ἐπιφραττομένου. (P1,S1) §2 Βήρωσος κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐπιστροφὴν τοῦ ἀπυρώτου μέρους. (P2,S2) §3 Ἀλκμαίων Ἡράκλειτος Ἀντιφῶν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφὴν καὶ τὰς περικλίσεις. (P3,S3) §4 τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς κατὰ τὴν Ἀριστοτέλειον ἱστορίαν καὶ τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ Ὀπουντίου ἀπόφασιν ἀνταυγείᾳ καὶ ἀντιφράξει τοτὲ μὲν τῆς γῆς τοτὲ δὲ τῆς ἀντίχθονος. (P4,S4) §5 τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων εἰσί τινες οἷς ἔδοξε κατ᾽ ἐπινέμησιν φλογὸς κατὰ μικρὸν ἐξαπτομένης τεταγμένως, ἕως ἂν τὴν τελείαν πανσέληνον ἀποδῷ, καὶ πάλιν ἀναλόγως μειουμένης μέχρι τῆς συνόδου, καθ᾽ ἣν τελείως σβέννυται. (P5,S5) §1 Anaximander 12A22 DK: §2 Berossus FGH 680 F19c Jacoby, F21d De Breucker; §3 Alcmaeon 24A4 DK; Heraclitus 22A12 DK; Antiphon 87B28 DK, Pendrick fr. F28; §4–5 Pythagorei 58B36 DK, cf. Aristoteles de Pythag. fr. 16 Ross; Philippus Opuntius fr. 10 Tarán, F32–33 Lasserre titulus post Περὶ add. δὲ S ‖ ἐκλείψεως PS : ἐκλείψεων T §1 [2] Ἀναξίμανδρος PB(II)EGQS : Ἀναξίμένης PB(I,III) ‖ post nomen add. PG μὲν ὑπέλαβε ‖ ἐπιφραττομένου] ἐμφραττομένου τὴν σελήνην ἐκλείπειν PG §§2–3 non hab. PG §2 [3] Βήρωσος] om. PE qui hoc modo conflat §§1 et 2 ‖ ἀπυρώτου] πυρώδους PE §3 [5] Ἀντιφῶν] Ἀντίφαντος S, corr. ex P Heeren ‖ στροφὴν] συστροφὴν PB, corr. ex PE Diels Mau, ret. Lachenaud ‖ [6] καὶ τὰς περικλίσεις S : om. P §4 [7] ante τινες hab. PG δέ ‖ [7–8] κατὰ … ἀπόφασιν S : non hab. P ‖ [8] ἀνταυγείᾳ καὶ ἀντιφράξει Diels (P), cf. PG κατ᾽ ἀνταυγείαν καὶ ἀντιφράξιν : ἀνταυγείᾳ καὶ ἐπιφράξει PB(I,II) : ἀνταυγείαν καὶ ἐπιφράξιν PB(III)E : infolge seine Verhüllung Q : ἀντιφράξει S ‖ [8–9] τοτὲ … ἀντίχθονος S : τὸ μὲν … τὸ δὲ PBQ : τῆς γῆς ἢ τῆς ἀντίχθονος PE : τῆς τε γῆς καὶ τῆς ἀντίχθονος PG §5 non hab. PG ‖ [10] τῶν δὲ νεωτέρων τινες S corr. Canter Diels Wachsmuth : τῶν δὲ μεθ᾽ ἑτέρων τινες SFP : οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι PBEQ ‖ οἷς ἔδοξε S : om. P ‖ φλογὸς] φωτὸς PE ‖ [11] ἂν S : om. P ‖ [13] τελείως P : τελείωσιν S, corr. Heeren

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_070

5

10

liber 2 caput 29

§6 §7

§8

Ξενοφάνης καὶ τὴν μηνιαίαν ἀπόκρυψιν κατὰ σβέσιν. (S6) Θαλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας Πλάτων Ἀριστοτέλης οἱ Στωικοὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ συμφώνως τὰς μὲν μηνιαίους ἀποκρύψεις συνοδεύουσαν αὐτὴν ἡλίῳ καὶ περιλαμπομένην ποιεῖσθαι, τὰς δ᾽ ἐκλείψεις εἰς τὸ σκίασμα τῆς γῆς ἐμπίπτουσαν, μεταξὺ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἀστέρων γινομένης, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς σελήνης ἀντιφραττομένης. (P6,S7) Ἀναξαγόρας, ὥς φησι Θεόφραστος, καὶ τῶν ὑποκάτω τῆς σελήνης ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε σωμάτων ἐπιπροσθούντων. (S8)

§6 Xenophanes 21A43 DK; §7 Thales fr. 159, 357 Wöhrle; Anaxagoras 59A77 DK; Plato —; Aristoteles cf. Cael. 2.14 297b29, fr. 210 Rose, fr. 738 Gigon; Stoici SVF 2.676; mathematici —; §8 Anaxagoras 59A77 DK, Theophrastus fr. 236 FHS&G §7 [15] Θαλῆς Ἀναξαγόρας S : om. P ‖ post Πλάτων habet PG δὲ καὶ ‖ Ἀριστοτέλης P (add. καὶ PG) : om. S ‖ [15–16] οἱ μαθηματικοὶ συμφώνως PB : τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς συμφώνως S (prob. Bakker 2016, 51 n. 128) : καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ συμφώνουσι PE : ἔτι δὲ καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ PG ‖ [16] ἀποκρύψεις] ἀλλοιώσεις PG (Nic. alternationes), sed crucif. Jas ‖ [17] περιλαμπομένην] συμπεριλαμπομένην PE ‖ post ποιεῖσθαι add. Q und dadurch, daß das von ihm Erleuchtete der Sonne gegenübersteht ‖ [17–18] εἰς … ἐμπίπτουσαν] σκιαζομένην ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς PG ‖ [18] μὲν PB(I,III)S (secl. Wachsmuth) : δὲ PB(II) : om. PE ‖ [18–19] μᾶλλον … ἀντιφραττομένης PBES (cf. Q und sie (die Erde) ein Hindernis zwischen beiden bildet) : crucif. Diels (qui propos. ἥλιον δὲ τῆς σελήνης ἀντιφραττούσης) Wachsmuth Mau, sed sanum hab. Bernadakis Mras Torraca Lachenaud §8 [20] τῶν S : τινων coni. Usener

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.24 καὶ τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅσα ἐκεῖνοι σχημάτων πέρι καὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ διαστημάτων μυθολογοῦσιν; Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 70 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης (text Jas) 70.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος μὲν ὑπέλαβε τοῦ στομίου τοῦ περὶ τὸν τροχὸν ἐμφραττομένου τὴν σελήνην ἐκλείπειν. 70.2 (~ P4) τῶν Πυθαγορείων δέ τινες κατ᾽ ἀνταύγειαν καὶ ἀντίφραξιν τῆς τε γῆς καὶ τῆς ἀντίχθονος. 70.3 (~ P6) Πλάτων δὲ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τὰς μὲν μηνιαίας †ἀλλοιώσεις† συνοδεύουσαν αὐτὴν ἡλίῳ καὶ περιλαμπομένην ποιεῖσθαι, τὰς δὲ ἐκλείψεις σκιαζομένην ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 129.1–2 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης (~ tit.) ἐκλείπει ἡ σελήνη εἰς τὸ τῆς γῆς ἐμπίπτουσα σκίασμα … (P7). Symeon Seth CRN 3.54 Περὶ σελήνης ἐκλείψεως (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 21, p. 30.12–17 κατὰ μῆνα δὲ ἐκλείπει, ὡς μὲν Ἡράκλειτός φησιν, ὁμοίως τῷ ἡλίῳ τοῦ φωτοειδοῦς {σχήματος} (σκαφοειδοῦς ὀχήματος coni.

1079

15

20

1080

liber 2 caput 29 Diels) ἀναστραφέντος (~ §3), ἄλλοι δὲ τοῦ στομίου τοῦ τροχοειδοῦς, δι᾽ οὗ ἐκπέμπεται τὸ φῶς, ἀποφραχθέντος (~ §1), ὡς δὲ ἄλλοι, ὅταν περὶ τὸ κωνοειδὲς τῆς γῆς γένηται δύνουσα, ὡς δὲ οἱ πολλοί, κατὰ διάμετρον γενομένη ἡλίῳ (~ §7). γίνεται δὲ κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον.

Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.24 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως ἡλίου. §1 A 2.24.3 (de sole) Ἀναξίμανδρος τοῦ στομίου τῆς τοῦ πυρὸς διεκπνοῆς ἀποκλειομένου. A 2.25.1 (Anaximandri de luna) ἐκλείπειν δὲ κατὰ τὰς ἐπιστροφὰς τοῦ τροχοῦ. A 2.28.1 (de luna) Ἀναξίμανδρος Ξενοφάνης Βήρωσος ἴδιον αὐτὴν ἔχειν φῶς. §2 A 2.25.13 (de luna) Βήρωσος ἡμιπύρωτον σφαῖραν. A 2.28.1 vide supra. §3 A 2.24.4 (de sole) Ἡράκλειτος κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς στροφήν … A 2.28.7 (de lunae illuminatione) Ἡράκλειτος τὸ αὐτὸ πεπονθέναι τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην· σκαφοειδεῖς γὰρ ὄντας τοῖς σχήμασι τοὺς ἀστέρας … §6 A 2.24.6 (de sole) Ξενοφάνης κατὰ σβέσιν· ἕτερον δὲ πάλιν πρὸς ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς γίνεσθαι … Α 2.24.8 Ξενοφάνης πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ τὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας· κατά τινα δὲκαιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν. A 2.28.1 (de luna) vide supraad §1. §7 A 2.24.1 Θαλῆς πρῶτος ἔφη ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον τῆς σελήνης αὐτὸν ὑποτρεχούσης κατὰ κάθετον, οὔσης φύσει γεώδους …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) S continues the method initiated in the previous chapter and writes out A’s chapter in full. He records nine lemmata. Of these the final one (S9) rouses suspicion because it alone repeats the subject of the chapter and is moreover entirely superfluous when added to the previous two doxai. We shall argue below that it is added from AD. (2) P preserves six of S’s lemmata, leaving out just two shorter doxai, but omitting or modifying various name-labels (on his procedure see M–R 1.187): (a) For S3 only the name-label of Heraclitus is retained, a very reasonable move considering that the doxa presents specifically Heraclitean doctrine as already introduced in 2.27.3 and 2.28.4. (b) In relation to S4 P does not have the reference to the source of the doctrine in the writings of Aristotle and Philip of Opus, while for S5 the namelabel is slightly simplified. It is difficult to determine here between the

liber 2 caput 29

1081

alternatives: (1) S has added to A or (2) P has abridged A. Mansfeld has argued (2016a, 302) that the reference ‘may … have been interpolated by S’. But this reference differs from those at S 1.18.1c (cf. A 1.18.6) and S 1.23.2 (cf. A 2.11.5), since—as Mansfeld acknowledges—there is no mention of Aristotelian book titles as in the other two references and one may well wonder where he found the information on Philip of Opus if not in his source. So it is safer to give the preference to S and leave the reference in our text. (c) The doxa of Xenophanes that follows on (= S6) is deleted. (d) For S7 = P6 the variations in the name-labels are intriguing. P surprisingly drops Thales and Anaxagoras from the list found in S, but adds Aristotle. (e) P drops the additional Anaxagorean doxa (= S8) and also does not record the final lemma (S9). The text in E carelessly coalesces the first two doxai and shows a number of other textual variations. G reduces the chapter to only the first, third and sixth doxa. Psellus retains the title and opens his chapter with a few words that might be a paraphrase of P’s final doxa. The remainder contains a non-doxographical scientific account more similar to what is found in Geminus or Cleomedes. Symeon Seth utilises only the title. (3) T only indicates that there was a treatment of this subject in his source A, speaking about ‘eclipses’ in the plural, i.e. relating to both the sun and the moon. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Brief doxai on the subject of lunar eclipses are found in doxographical sources such as Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (texts below section E(a)§§1, 3, 7). Most interestingly, early evidence is found in Epicurus. But, unlike Aristotle, he prefers multiple possible explanations to a single definite theory. In his summary treatment in Ep.Pyth. he distinguishes clearly between the question of the phases of the moon (treated at D.L. 10.94) for which three explanations are given, and its eclipses, dealt with in 10.96 taking sun and moon together, for which two explanations are given. There are various correspondences with the doxai in A’s 2.28–29, e.g. rotation (στροφή) of the moon’s body (2.29.2), configurations of the air (2.28.7), interposition of bodies (2.29.7–8), quenching (2.29.5–6). Three of these are the same as in Aristotle, though for interposition he uses the noun προσθέτησις. We note that he uses the formula with κατά no less than six times, the same formula that is prominent in A. On these texts see further Runia (2018) 408. Lucretius follows his master’s lead in DRN 5.762–770, giving three explanations and also noting the link with the question of whether the moon shines with its own light or not.

1082

liber 2 caput 29

As we already saw in relation to ch. 2.28, these texts reveal a debt to the early doxographical tradition, which explains the loose parallelism with the material found in A. Philo at Prov. 2.71 still mentions multiple explanations, but then goes on to give only the standard view, as do all other texts from Cicero onwards, except when referring to early thinkers. (2) Sources. The evidence of the material discussed above gives clear indications of early discussion on the causes of eclipses, but the original texts have not survived. The information will have been collected and transmitted primarily through the Peripatos, as the three references to sources which the chapter— rather unusually—contains indicate; on these see below section D(e). By that time, however, the cause was no longer in dispute. Aristotle himself in his Analytica Posteriora uses the example of the moon’s eclipse or its waxing as a standard example of finding the middle term, which thereby provides the explanation (text below section E(b) General texts). Interestingly, however, in the first two texts he speaks of interposition only as the cause, but in the third text at 93b5–6 he gives three possible causes: interposition, turning (i.e. Heraclitus’ view) or extinction (Xenophanes). This can be regarded as a precursor of a doxographical list albeit without name-labels. C Chapter Heading The heading is of the usual umbrella type Περὶ x, asking a specific question involving causation relating to the moon. As in the case of the chapter on the eclipse of the sun (2.24) there is no variation in the witnesses except T’s use of the plural ἐκλείψεων. This is either because he is referring to the eclipses of both sun and moon, or because he is speaking in general terms. There is no reason to conclude with Bottler (2014) 468 that the plural refers specifically to the phases of the moon. As in the case of the previous chapter, S places the title within his chapter on the moon which coalesces A’s 2.25–31. D Analysis a Context The theme of the moon’s eclipses follows on logically from that of its illuminations. Moreover, because as we shall see the chapter also returns to the subject of its phases, there is a link with ch. 2.27 on its shape. b Number–Order of Lemmata The only question to be resolved here is whether all nine lemmata in S are taken from A. As we shall see in the following section, it is almost certain that the final lemma has been added from another source, in all likelihood AD.

liber 2 caput 29

1083

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter contains a great difficulty which impedes a clear structural analysis. Although its title suggests that the chapter will treat views on the (irregular) eclipses of the moon, its contents also include material relating to the moon’s (regular) phases. As we shall see below (section D(e)), the same double treatment occurs in Ach, who quite unambiguously relates the moon’s ‘failure’ to its monthly cycle (κατὰ μῆνα δὲ ἐκλείπει). The combination of subjects does not appear to derive from a double meaning of the noun ἔκλειψις, as suggested at M–R 2.613. Bakker (2013) 686 argues convincingly that there is no evidence that the noun ἔκλειψις is ever used in association with the moon for anything other than the technical sense of a lunar eclipse, and that elsewhere it is never used for its phases as found in A and Ach (the verb ἐκλείπειν is a different matter; see our comment below, section D(d)§1). The distinction is clearly made in another doxographical text, when Hippolytus says that Anaxagoras was the first to distinguish eclipses and illuminations (Ref. 1.8.10, text below), and of course the distinction is made in the chapter itself in §7 (τὰς μὲν μηνιαίους ἀποκρύψεις, τὰς δ᾽ ἐκλείψεις). It should also be noted that there are clear links with the previous chapter on the moon’s illuminations. Of the sixteen name-labels in the two chapters (omitting that of Chrysippus) ten are held in common (see the table in M–R 2.616). In addition Anaximander and Thales both play a significant role in starting the list and representing the main ‘scientific’ views respectively. This suggests that the main diaeresis that dominated ch. 2.28, namely whether the moon has its own light or receives it from elsewhere, may play a role in this chapter too. The opening three doxai all assume that the moon has its own source of light. A does not state explicitly whether these explanations refer to eclipses or phases. In the case of Anaximander the explanation of blockage is the same as for the sun’s eclipse in A 2.24.3 (but differs from the doxa on the moon at A 2.25.1; see also the detailed comment below). But in the case of Berossus’ doctrine it must the phases that are being explained. Heraclitus is recorded as using his hypothesis of the boat-like shape to explain both phenomena (cf. D.L. 9.10), but the addition of καὶ τὰς περικλίσεις (not in P) also suggests that it is the phases that are explained here. The final three doxai (including that of Chrysippus) all refer to the standard explanation of a lunar eclipse by the interposition of the earth (and also other bodies for Anaxagoras). Here it must be assumed that the moon receives its light from the sun. The addition of Chrysippus is entirely otiose and doubles up on the name-label of the Stoics in §7. When we add the stylistic feature (not decisive by itself) that S only here repeats the subject of the chapter, it may be concluded that this final lemma in S has been added from elsewhere, and most likely from AD (and so should be added to the

1084

liber 2 caput 29

list of AD’s fragments; see M–R 3.332, 583). As in ch. 2.28 the long list of namelabels in §7 is no doubt meant to underline that this is the dominant view. There remain the three intermediate doxai §§4–6. These appear to relate to the diaeresis of ch. 28 in a chiastic fashion. The first Pythagorean view is similar to the dominant view, but adds the interposition of a counter-earth. It patently relates to the lunar eclipse. The younger thinkers, in contrast, posit a theory of gradual inflammation and quenching, similar to the view of Xenophanes which is tagged on to it. These latter two doxai can only explain the phases of the moon. So by adhering to the chronological order of the two groups A has run counter to the logical sequence of the doxai and obscures the similarity between the views of the younger group and Anaxagoras later in the chapter. On the identity of the two groups in §§4–5 see below section D(d). It must be concluded, therefore, that the combination of two different subjects in this chapter, lunar eclipses and lunar phases, has led to a lack of clarity, not to speak of confusion, with a structure that could easily be improved. It would not have been difficult to move §4 to the latter part of the chapter, but A apparently chose to keep the two groups together in a chronological sequence. Bakker (2013) in a thorough analysis of the material of this chapter (building on our earlier treatment) argues that the present chapter is a conflation of two successive chapters in A’s Vorlage, the former on the moon’s concealments, the latter on its eclipse. The clear distinction between the two subjects is shown in the treatment of Epicurus and Lucretius outlined above. Since the same conflation occurs in Ach (see below section D(e)), the confusion must have already been present in the earlier tradition (or Vorlage?) which they share. To this might be added the observation that A often ‘pedantically’ (to use the Dielsian term) divides up what was kept together in his Vorlage. Bakker’s arguments are persuasive, but our task in the present work is to reconstruct and analyse what A has left us, not to speculate on his adaptation of antecedent sources. d

Further Comments General Points The confusion noted in the previous section is not confined to the ancient world, but has also been present in modern discussions. Clarity is provided by Graham (2013) 87–88, who, as noted on ch. 2.28, distinguishes between ascribing to the moon ‘idiophotism’ (i.e. self-illumination) and ‘heliophotism’ (i.e. solar illumination), the former being an active process, the latter merely passive. With regard to the latter theory, futher distinctions could be made, e.g. whether the illumination is caused by reflection or by other means, as in the Stoic theory to be discussed under §3 below. Graham then in relation to eclipses uses the Greek term ‘antiphraxis’ to describe the theory of the block-

liber 2 caput 29

1085

ing of the sun’s light (of course it applies to solar eclipses as well, where the moon does the blocking). He notes that the two theories are related in a certain way. Heliophotism does not of itself entail antiphraxis, because the sun could lose its light (Xenophanes) or the moon suffer eclipse because a cloud covers it (Anaximenes). But antiphraxis does presuppose heliophotism because it accounts for lunar eclipses by having the earth (or another body) block the moon’s source of light. He concludes: ‘Thus heliophotism is a necessary condition for antiphraxis and antiphraxis a sufficient condition for heliophotism. In a certain sense, antiphraxis exploits the insights of heliophotism to explain eclipses phenonmena. It builds on heliophotism as a foundation.’ See also the earlier article of O’Brien (1968). On the term ἀντίφραξις see further our comments at below on §4. Individual Points §1 In the fuller account of Anaximander’s views on the moon in A 2.25.1 more information is given on how it ‘fails’ (ἐκλείπειν) than here. The reference to ‘turnings’ (ἐπιστροφαί) and not blockages indicate that the doxa has lunar phases in mind, not eclipses as in this chapter. (Bakker does not refer to this text.) For a very clear instance where the verb ἐκλείπειν must mean ‘failure’ in a cosmological context see Psellus’ comment in §128 on the sun: οὐ κυρίως ἔκλειψις ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου λέγεται—οὐ γὰρ ἐκλείπει ποτὲ τὸ ἡλιακὸν φῶς—ἀλλ᾽ ἐπισκότησις; cf. much earlier Geminus Elem. 10.2 who says the true term should be ἐπιπροσθήσεις (‘placings in front’). §§2–3 A frequently uses prepositional phrases with κατά to indicate causation; cf. also 2.4.12, 2.19.1, 2.24.4–5, 7, 2.25.1 (the last four all in relation to eclipses). §4 For the explanation of the eclipse the witnesses are divided between the accusative and the dative (both are possible) and between one noun and two joined by καί. That S and PQ have just the single noun is no doubt the result of coincidence (cf. M–R 1.159). The reading ἀντιφράξει in S will no doubt be the result of the running together of the two nouns, e.g. ἀντ⟨αυγείᾳ καὶ ἐπ⟩ιφράξει. But this conceals whether his source read ἐπι- or ἀντι- for the prefix of the second noun. In the context of eclipses the term ἀντίφραξις, meaning obstruction through anteposition, is much more common. The other term ἐπίφραξις means obstruction through blockage and is used by Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 for the Anaximandrean doxa in §1 where A used the equivalent verb. Despite the evidence of PBE and its being the lectio difficilior, Diels is almost certainly right that G’s use of ἀντίφραξις points to the correct reading in this Pythagorean context (but the dative can be retained in light of S). We thus revise our reading in M–R 2.621.

1086

liber 2 caput 29

§§4–5 The two name-labels, τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινές and τῶν νεωτέρων τινές, both expressed with use of the indefinite article, have generally been taken, at least since Diels VS (cf. most recently Laks–Most 4.319), to represent two groups of Pythagoreans. The phrasing of the name-labels does not support this view. It can be argued, however, that A would not have broken the logical sequence of his doxai (as argued above in the previous section) unless there was a special reason for keeping the two groups together. Burkert (1972) makes no reference to the second doxa. §7 Of the five name-labels two are missing in P (Thales and Anaxagoras) and one in S (Aristotle). The presence of the former two can hardly be doubted (cf. ch. 2.28). The case of Aristotle is more difficult. Did S omit or P add? Here too the presence of an Aristotelian doxa in ch. 2.28 favours the former. S may have wished to add a passage from AD but then did not find what he was looking for. It is surprising that Empedocles is not included, contrary to A 2.28.6. It should also be noted that P has used the adverb συμφώνως after the four name-labels in the nominative and it is presumably meant to be taken with all them (four in P’s case), whereas S uses it with the dative for the scientists, so that the first four named philosophers agree with them. The parallel with the use of the nominative at A 5.30.4 (only in P) and of the similar adverb ὁμοίως at 1.30.2 and 2.28.6 has led us to opt for P’s usage, thus disagreeing with Bakker (2016) 128, who prefers the dative. See further on ch. 1.7.23, Commentary D(d). §8 Couprie (2018) 167–194 argues convincingly that this theory is incompatible with that of the previous doxa and that, in the light of Anaxagoras’ theory of the origin of the Milky Way at A 3.1.7 which assumes a flat earth, it must represent his genuine and only explanation for the lunar eclipse. His suggestion (p. 187), however, that it was added to this chapter by S who found it in another source that referred to Theophrastus runs counter to what we know about the anthologist’s method. e Other Evidence This chapter is quite exceptional in making reference to no less than three sources for the contents of its doxai. The mention of Aristotle’s ἱστορία might have the text at Cael. 2.13 293b21–24 in mind, as suggested by Huffman (1993) 246, or to the lost Περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων (Ross includes it as fr. 16 in his fragment collection). The reference to Philip of Opus will be to his work Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης cited by the Suda Φ 418 (the same title as the heading of this chapter except the order of the nouns). The third reference to Theophrastus will be either to his Physics (cf. 2.20.5) or to the Φυσικαὶ δόξαι (as Diels thought, including it as fr. 19 in his fragments). But the earlier references will not have entered the tradition via Theophrastus, since he appears never to have referred directly

liber 2 caput 29

1087

to Aristotle. They will have been added in the tradition later. There is another reference to Aristotle’s lost work at S 1.18.1c, but we have argued against Diels in our Commentary D(e) on ch. 1.18.6 that the passage in which it occurs was most likely derived from AD rather than A. None of the references are confirmed in P’s epitome, so as noted above in section A, the possibility cannot be excluded that one or more of them were added by S. Ach includes four doxai on the eclipse of the moon in his chapter on that body, placing them straight after his treatment of its shape (see above ch. 2.27, Commentary B(a)). In the first doxa, in contrast to A, he immediately makes clear that he is speaking about the monthly phases and then refers to the view of Heraclitus (~ S3). Diels’ conjecture σκαφοειδοῦς ὀχήματος is tempting here, since one would expect an allusion to the Ephesian’s characteristic doctrine. The second anonymous lemma clearly describes the doxa of Anaximander (~ S1). But the next doxa reverts to the classic explanation of a lunar eclipse (~ S7) and finally, to increase the confusion even further, it is pointed out that it only happens when the moon is diametrically opposite the sun, which occurs monthly too. This of course is a necessary but not a sufficient cause of a lunar eclipse. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.94 κένωσείς τε σελήνης καὶ πάλιν πλήρωσεις καὶ κατὰ στροφὴν τοῦ σώματος τούτου δύναιτ᾽ ἂν γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ σχηματισμοὺς ἀέρος ὁμοίως, ἔτι τε καὶ κατὰ προσθετήσεις καὶ κατὰ πάντας τρόπους, καθ᾽ οὓς καὶ τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν φαινόμενα ἐκκαλεῖται εἰς τὰς τούτου τοῦ εἴδους ἀποδόσεις, ἐὰν μή τις τὸν μοναχῆ τρόπον κατηγαπηκὼς τοὺς ἄλλους κενῶς ἀποδοκιμάζῃ, οὐ τεθεωρηκὼς τί δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ θεωρῆσαι καὶ τί ἀδύνατον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀδύνατα θεωρεῖν ἐπιθυμῶν. see also D.L. 10.96 cited above on ch. 2.24. Lucretius DRN 5.762–770 et cur terra queat lunam spoliare vicissim / limine et oppressum solem super ipsa tenere, / menstrua dum rigidas coni perlabitur umbras; / tempore eodem aliud nequeat succurrere lunae / corpus vel supra solis perlabier orbem, / quod radios interrumpat lumenque profusum? / et tamen ipsa suo si fulget luna nitore, / cur nequeat certa mundi languescere parte, / dum loca luminibus propriis inimica per exit? Cicero ND 2.103 see above on ch. 2.28. Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.71 Aucher quum adsint multiplices causae adducendae … eclipsis vero lunae latentis sub umbra terrae, quando tres illi globi ad invicem sunt ex diametro. Seneca Nat. 7.25.3, multaeque hodie sunt gentes quae facie tantum noverunt caelum, quae nondum sciunt cur luna deficiat, quare obumbretur. Quaestiones–exempla physica (cf. ch. 1.proœm. 3): Strabo 2.5.2 καὶ ἐκλείψεις. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.58, p. 133.14 Marchesi (on the moon) cur una specie aut illa non maneat?

1088

liber 2 caput 29

Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.751 de eclipsi; 5.774 de solis et lunae offectione. Eusebius PE 10.14.10 Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 271 Wöhrle) φυσικὸς πρῶτος Ἑλλήνων γεγονὼς περὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης καὶ ἰσημερίας διελέχθη. §1 Anaximander: Eudemus ap. Simp. in Cael. 471.2–9 see on A 2.15. Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.5 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) τὴν δὲ σελήνην ποτὲ μὲν πληρουμένην φαίνεσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ μειουμένην κατὰ τὴν τῶν πόρων ἐπίφραξιν ἢ ἄνοιξιν. §3 Alcmaeon Heraclitus Antiphon: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.10 (on Heraclitus, 22A1 DK) ἐκλείπειν τε ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην, ἄνω στρεφομένων τῶν σκαφῶν. §7 Thales: Apuleius Flor. 18.30–31 Hunink Thales Milesius (11A19 DK) ex septem illis sapientiae memoratis viris facile praecipuus—enim geometriae penes Graios primus repertor et naturae rerum certissimus explorator et astrorum peritissimus contemplator—maximas res parvis lineis repperit: …, itidem lunae vel nascentis incrementa vel senescentis dispendia vel delinquentis obstiticula. Augustine C.D. 8.2.15–18 Dombart–Kalb iste autem Thales (fr. 311 Wöhrle) … rerum naturam scrutatus suasque disputationes litteris mandans eminuit maximeque admirabilis extitit, quod astrologiae numeris conprehensis defectus solis et lunae etiam praedicere potuit. Anaxagoras: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.9 (59A42) ἐκλείπειν δὲ τὴν σελήνην γῆς ἀντιφραττούσης, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ τῶν ὑποκάτω τῆς σελήνης. cf. Ref. 1.8.10 οὗτος ἀφώρισε πρῶτος τὰ περὶ τὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ φωτισμούς Stoics: Arius Didymus fr. 33 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.25.5 (on Zeno, SVF 1.120) τὰς δ᾽ ἐκλείψεις τούτων γίγνεσθαι διαφόρως, ἡλίου μὲν περὶ τὰς συνόδους, σελήνης δὲ περὶ τὰς πανσελήνους. γίνεσθαι δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων τὰς ἐκλείψεις καὶ μείζους καὶ ἐλάττους. Chrysippus at Stob. Ecl. 1.26.3, p. 221.23–24 (very probably from Arius Didymus, not in Diels) Χρύσιππος (SVF 2.678) ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην τῆς γῆς αὐτῇ ἐπιπροσθούσης καὶ εἰς σκιὰν αὐτῆς ἐμπίπτουσαν. Stoics at D.L. 7.146 (SVF 2.678) τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐμπίπτουσαν εἰς τὸ τῆς γῆς σκίασμα· ὅθεν καὶ ταῖς πανσελήνοις ἐκλείπειν μόναις, καίπερ κατὰ διάμετρον ἱσταμένην κατὰ μῆνα τῷ ἡλίῳ, ὅτι κατὰ λοξοῦ ὡς πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον κινουμένη παραλλάττει τῷ πλάτει, ἢ βορειοτέρα ἢ νοτιωτέρα γινομένη. ὅταν μέντοι τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς κατὰ τὸν ἡλιακὸν καὶ τὸν διὰ μέσων γένηται, εἶτα διαμετρήσῃ τὸν ἥλιον, τότ᾽ ἐκλείπει· γίνεται δὲ τὸ πλάτος αὐτῆς κατὰ τὸν διὰ μέσων ἐν χηλαῖς καὶ σκορπίῳ καὶ κριῷ καὶ ταύρῳ, ὡς οἱ περὶ τὸν Ποσειδώνιον (F 126 E.-K., 266 Theiler).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APo. 2.1 90a7–18 (on the moon) ἆρ᾽ ἐκλείπει; ἆρ᾽ ἔστι τι αἴτιον ἢ οὔ; … τί ἐστιν ἔκλειψις; στέρησις φωτὸς ἀπὸ σελήνης ὑπὸ γῆς ἀντιφράξεως. διὰ τί ἔστιν ἔκλειψις, ἢ διὰ τί ἐκλείπει ἡ σελήνη; διὰ τὸ ἀπολείπειν τὸ φῶς ἀντιφραττούσης τῆς γῆς … APo. 2.7 93a29–33 ὧν οὖν ἔχομέν τι τοῦ τί ἐστιν, ἔστω πρῶτον μὲν ὧδε· ἔκλειψις ἐφ᾽ οὗ τὸ Α, σελήνη ἐφ᾽ οὗ Γ, ἀντίφραξις γῆς ἐφ᾽ οὗ Β. τὸ μὲν οὖν πότερον ἐκλείπει ἢ οὔ, τὸ Β ζητεῖν ἔστιν, ἆρ᾽ ἔστιν ἢ οὔ. τοῦτο δ᾽ οὐδὲν διαφέρει ζητεῖν ἢ εἰ ἔστι λόγος αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐὰν ᾖ τοῦτο, κἀκεῖνό φαμεν εἶναι. APo. 2.8 93b3–7 δήλου δ᾽ ὄντος ὅτι τὸ Α τῷ Γ ὑπάρχει, ἀλλὰ διὰ τί ὑπάρχει, τὸ ζητεῖν τὸ

liber 2 caput 29 Β τί ἐστι, πότερον ἀντίφραξις ἢ στροφὴ τῆς σελήνης ἢ ἀπόσβεσις. τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ ἑτέρου ἄκρου, οἷον ἐν τούτοις τοῦ Α· ἔστι γὰρ ἡ ἔκλειψις ἀντίφραξις ὑπὸ γῆς. Chapter heading: Philip of Opus at Suda Φ 418 Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης. Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler see above on A 2.11. Diodorus Siculus 1.50.2 see on A 2.24. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 11.11 (table of contents) de lunae … defectibus. Geminus Elem.. 11.1, p. 62 Aujac Περὶ ἐκλείψεως σελήνης. John Philoponus in Phys. 221.5 (on Arist. Phys. 193b22–30) see on A 2.24. §2 Berossus: see ch. 2.28 section E(b) §1. §4 Pythagoreans: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b18–25 ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὲν μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαί φασιν αὐτήν, κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ μέσον, οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, καθάπερ εἴπομεν πρότερον. ἐνίοις δὲ δοκεῖ καὶ πλείω σώματα τοιαῦτα ἐνδέχεσθαι φέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ μέσον, ἡμῖν ἄδηλα διὰ τὴν ἐπιπρόσθησιν τῆς γῆς. διὸ καὶ τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλείψεις πλείους ἢ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου γίγνεσθαί φασιν· τῶν γὰρ φερομένων ἕκαστον ἀντιφράττειν αὐτήν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μόνον τὴν γῆν (with a reference to the counter-earth in 293b20). Alexander of Aphrodisias commenting on this text, quoted by Simp. in Cael. 7.515.24 τίνων δὲ ἡ τοιαύτη δόξα, οὐκ εἶπε, λέγει δὲ ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, ὅτι δύναται τοῦτο καὶ ὡς Πυθαγορείων τινῶν ἐπὶ ταύτης γενομένων τῆς δόξης ἀκούεσθαι. τεκμήριον δὲ ἐποιοῦντο τοῦ λόγου τοῦδε τὸ τὴν σελήνην πολλάκις ἐκλείπειν καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον· διὰ γὰρ τὸ μὴ μόνον ὑπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων τούτων σωμάτων τῶν περὶ τὸ μέσον κινουμένων ἀντιφράττεσθαι πολλάκις αὐτὴν ἐκλείπειν. §7 Thales: Simplicius in Cat. 191.2–7 on Cat. 7b25 καὶ ἡ μὲν τῆς ἐκλείψεως ἐπιστήμη διὰ Θαλοῦ (fr. 432 Wöhrle) ὕστερον ἦλθεν εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἡ δὲ ἔκλειψις αὐτὴ καὶ τὸ ἐπιστητὸν προϋπῆρχεν. cf. John Philoponus in Cat. 118.4.25 (fr. 434 Wöhrle) and other texts in the Aristotelian commentators. Aristotle: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 932C (= fr. 210 Rose3, 738 Gigon) Ἀριστοτέλης δ᾽ ὁ παλαιὸς αἰτίαν τοῦ πλεονάκις τὴν σελήνην ἐκλείπουσαν ἢ τὸν ἥλιον καθορᾶσθαι πρὸς ἄλλαις τισὶ καὶ ταύτην ἀποδίδωσιν· ἥλιον γὰρ ἐκλείπειν σελήνης ἀντιφράξει, σελήνην δὲ ⟨γῆς, πολλῷ μείζονος οὔσης⟩. Stoics: Cleomedes Cael. 2.6.56–60 Todd ταῦτα οὖν πάντα σχεδὸν ὀφθαλμοφανῶς ἡμῖν παρίστησιν, ὅτι ἡ σελήνη μίαν ἔχει ταύτην τῆς ἐκείψεως αἰτίαν, τὴν περίπτωσιν τὴν περίπτωσιν, καθ᾽ ἣν περιπίπτουσα τῇ σκιᾷ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπισκοτουμένη ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς στέρεται τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἡλιακῶν ἀκτίνων ἐπιβολῆς, αἳ λαμπρύνουσι τὸ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον αὐτῆς τετραμμένον. §8 Anaxagoras: cf. above on §4.

1089

Liber 2 Caput 30 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 892A–B; pp. 361a1–18 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.52, p. 416.10–19 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 71; p. 628.11–17 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 164–165 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26.4, pp. 222.1 (tit.), 222.3–223.7 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b13 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus λʹ. Περὶ ἐμφάσεως σελήνης καὶ διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται (P,S) §1 τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς μέν, ὧν ἐστι Φιλόλαος, τὸ γεωφανὲς αὐτῆς εἶναι διὰ τὸ περιοικεῖσθαι τὴν σελήνην καθάπερ τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν γῆν μείζοσι ζώοις καὶ φυτοῖς μείζοσι καὶ καλλίοσιν· εἶναι γὰρ πεντεκαιδεκαπλάσια τὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῷα τῇ δυνάμει μηδὲν περιττωματικὸν ἀποκρίνοντα, καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν τοσαύτην τῷ μήκει. (P1,S1) §2 ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν ἐν τῇ σελήνῃ ἔμφασιν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τῆς πέραν τοῦ διακεκαυμένου κύκλου τῆς οἰκουμένης ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν θαλάττης. (S2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνωμαλότητα τοῦ συγκρίματος διὰ τὸ ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες, τὰ μὲν ἐχούσης ὑψηλά, τὰ δὲ ταπεινά, τὰ δὲ κοῖλα· {καὶ παραμεμῖχθαι τῷ πυροειδεῖ τὸ ζοφῶδες, ὧν τὸ πάθος ὑποφαίνει τὸ σκιερόν· ὅθεν ψευδοφανῆ λέγεσθαι τὸν ἀστέρα.} (P2,S3) §4 Δημόκριτος ἀποσκιάματα τῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐν αὐτῇ μερῶν· ἄγκη γὰρ αὐτὴν ἔχειν καὶ νάπας. (S4) §1 Pythagorei 44A20 DK; Philolaus test. A20 Huffman; §2 anonymi —; §3 Anaxagoras 59A77 DK; §4 Democritus 68A90 DK Titulus Περὶ … φαίνεται scripsimus, cf. PBEQ (αὐτῆς pro σελήνης PBES, sed des Mondes Q; ante διὰ τί habet PB(II)E καὶ) : διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται ἡ σελήνη PG : Περὶ δὲ ἐμφάσεως αὐτῆς S §1 [2] τῶν Πυθαγορείων … εἶναι S (γαιοφανὲς mss., corr. Meineke) : οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι γεώδη φαίνεσθαι τὴν σελήνην P ‖ [3] post σελήνην hab. PG οἴονται ‖ τὴν σελήνην S : αὐτὴν PB(I)EQ(ut vid.) : ταύτην PB(II,III)G ‖ [4] ζώοις … καλλίοσιν S : μείζοσι ζώοις καὶ φυτοῖς καλλίοσιν PBE : καλλίοσιν om. PQ : ὑπὸ μειζόνων ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν καὶ καλλιόνων PG ‖ πεντεκαιδεκαπλάσια PEGS : πεντεκαιδεκαπλασίονα PB ‖ [5] ζῷα] φυτὰ PB(II) ‖ τῇ δυνάμει] om. PE ‖ περιττωματικὸν] σωματικὸν PE ‖ [6] ἡμέραν P : ἡμετέραν S, corr. edd. §2 non hab. P §3 [9] τοῦ PG : om. S : διὰ τοῦ PBEQ ‖ ψυχρομιγὲς S : ψυχροειδὲς PE : ψυχομιγὲς PBG : denn sie ist leblos und aus kalter und erdachtiger Substanz gemischt Q ‖ [10] τὰ μὲν … κοῖλα S (γαιῶδες SF, ψηλὰ SP, corr. edd.) : om. P ‖ [10–12] verba καὶ … ἀστέρα repetita (praeter ὧν … σκιερόν) ex §5 seclusimus, ret. Diels, non ret. Laks–Most, vid. comm. infra ‖ [10–11] καὶ παραμεμῖχθαι SPQ(ut vid.) : παραμεμῖχθαι γὰρ PBE (δὲ PG) ‖ [11] πυροειδεῖ] πυρώδει PG ‖ ζοφῶδες] γεῶδες PQ(ut vid.) ‖ ὧν … σκιερόν S : desunt in P : ὥστε τὸ πάθος ὑποφαίνειν τὸ σκιερόν suspicimus ‖ [12] ψευδοφανῆ S : ψευδοφαῆ P (-φανῆ P(IIIα a.c.)) et coni. Meineke in S §4 [13] ἀποσκιάματα S : ἀποσκίαμά τι coni. Canter prob. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ ἄγκη S : ἀνάγκη mss., corr. Canter

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_071

5

10

liber 2 caput 30

§5

§6 §7 §8

§9

Παρμενίδης διὰ τὸ παραμεμῖχθαι τῷ περὶ αὐτὴν πυρώδει τὸ ζοφῶδες, ⟨ὧν τὸ πάθος ὑποφαίνει τὸ σκιερόν·⟩ ὅθεν ψευδοφανῆ λέγεσθαι τὸν ἀστέρα. (S5) οἱ Στωικοὶ διὰ τὸ ἀερομιγὲς τῆς οὐσίας μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα. (P3,S6) Ἀριστοτέλης μὴ εἶναι αὐτῆς ἀκήρατον τὸ σύγκριμα διὰ τὰ πρόσγεια ἀερώματα τοῦ αἰθέρος, ὃν προσαγορεύει σῶμα πέμπτον. (S7) οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν τὸ ἀνώμαλον συγκριτικὸν αἰτιῶνται. καθάπερ οὖν τῶν προσαυγαζομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου νεφῶν τὰ μὲν ἀραιότερα μέρη λαμπρότερα φαίνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ πυκνότερα ἀμαυρότερα, οὕτως καὶ τῆς σελήνης ἐοικυίας μὲν νεφελοειδεῖ πιλήματι, προσαυγαζομένης δ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. (S8) Ξενοφάνης τὸν μὲν ἥλιον χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ζῴων γένεσίν τε καὶ διοίκησιν, τὴν δὲ σελήνην παρέλκειν. (S9)

§5 Parmenides 28B21 DK; §6 Stoici SVF 2.669; §7 Aristoteles cf. GA 3.11 761b23; §8 mathematici —; §9 Xenophanes 21A42 DK §5 [16] ὧν … σκιερόν transposuimus ex §3, vid. comm. infra ‖ ψευδοφανῆ S : ψευδοφαῆ coni. Meineke §6 non hab. PG ‖ [18] ἀερομιγὲς PEQ(ut vid.) S Diels Lachenaud : ἑτεροειδὲς PB crucif. Mau §§7–9 non hab. P §8 [23] τὰ μὲν SF: γὰρ add. SP

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 71 (~ tit.) Διὰ τί γεώδης φαίνεται ἡ σελήνη (text Diels) 71.1 (~ P1) οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι γεώδη φαίνεσθαι τὴν σελήνην οἴονται διὰ τὸ περιοικεῖσθαι ταύτην ὑπὸ μειζόνων ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν καὶ καλλιόνων. εἶναι γὰρ πεντεκαιδεκαπλάσια τὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς ζῷα τῇ δυνάμει μηδὲν περιττωματικὸν ἀποκρίνοντα· καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν τοσαύτην εἶναι τῷ μήκει. 71.2 (~ P2). Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνωμαλότητα τοῦ συγκρίματος διὰ τὸ ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες· παραμεμῖχθαι δὲ τῷ πυρώδει τὸ ζοφῶδες. Loci Aetiani: titulus et quaestio A 2.25 Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης. A 2.28 Περὶ φωτισμῶν σελήνης. §2 A 2.25.13 (de luna) Πυθαγόρας κατοπτροειδὲς σῶμα. §§3–4 A 2.25.10 (de luna) Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος στερέωμα διάπυρον, ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ πεδία καὶ ὄρη καὶ φάραγγας. §5 A 2.7.1 Παρμενίδης … καὶ τῆς μὲν γῆς ἀπόκρισιν εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα, διὰ τὴν βιαιοτέραν αὐτῆς ἐξατμισθέντα πίλησιν, τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον· συμμιγῆ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, τοῦ τ᾽ ἀέρος καὶ τοῦ πυρός. sed A 2.25.2 Ἀναξιμένης Παρμενίδης Ἡράκλειτος πυρίνην. §6 A 2.25.5 (de luna) Ποσειδώνιος δὲ καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν Στωικῶν μικτὴν ἐκ πυρὸς καὶ ἀέρος. A 2.28.3 οἱ Στωικοὶ ἀμαυροφανές, ἀεροειδὲς γάρ.

1091 15

20

25

1092

liber 2 caput 30

§7 A 2.28.2 (de luna) Ἀριστοτέλης ἴδιον μέν, ἀραιότερον δέ πως. §8 A 2.25.3 (de luna) Ξενοφάνης νέφος εἶναι πεπυρωμένον πεπιλημένον. §9 cf. A 2.28.9 (de luna) Ἡράκλειτος … φωτίζεσθαι πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν, λαμπρότερως μὲν τὸν ἥλιον, ἐν καθαρωτέρῳ γὰρ ἀέρι φέρεσθαι, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἐν θολωτέρῳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀμαυροτέραν φαίνεσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) In this chapter, as in the case of the previous two, S appears to write out the chapter he had in front of him in full. There is, however, one difficulty that gives rise to suspicion. The doxai ascribed to Anaxagoras (§3) and Parmenides (§5) have an almost identical common element. This might suggest an original multiple name-label, which S may have split up. We analyse these lemmata further below, section D(b). (2) P preserves only three doxai of the original nine. His modifications can again be easily tracked. (a) On the longer title compared with S see below section C. (b) In the first doxa the name-label is the simpler οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι. S’s longer version τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς μέν, ὧν ἐστι Φιλόλαος is to be preferred (P often abridges name-labels). It is difficult to choose between the two sets of opening words, P’s γεώδη φαίνεσθαι τὴν σελήνην versus S’s τὸ γεωφανὲς αὐτῆς εἶναι. If the longer version of the title is chosen (see below C), then P’s words simply repeat the title, whereas S’s words offer a variation on it. We opt for S in this case. See section D(d)§1 below (c) P then records the third doxa attributed to Anaxagoras, but appears to shorten it by leaving out parts of both the first and the second sentence. (d) Of the remaining doxai P writes out only the Stoic doxa (S6). The text is unaltered (on the textual problem in PB see detailed comments below). Of P’s three doxai G preserves only the first two. (3) T makes no reference to this chapter. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. From references in Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus we know that there was discussion on the nature of the moon’s earthlike surface in reports on Anaxagorean doctrine (see texts below section E(a)§§3–4), but it is not certain that this was connected to the question of its face-like appearance

liber 2 caput 30

1093

from the earth. Welcome evidence in Philo, however, has preserved an anonymous doxa (text below section E(a) General texts) with patent similarities to the doxai of the Stoics and Aristotle in A (§§6–7) which does refer explicitly to the moon’s face (πρόσωπον). The emphasis on the ‘mixed’ nature of the moon (οὐκ ἄκρατον, κρᾶμα) is parallel to the same emphasis in §§5–8 of A’s chapter. It is very likely that this Philonic material goes back to the anterior doxographical source used elsewhere in his treatise De somniis (see above on ch. 2.11, Commentary B). Plutarch’s famous treatise on the face in the moon focuses in its entirety on the subject of this chapter. The use of the participle έμφαινομένου in the title of the work recalls the chapter heading in A, but like Philo it also refers to the moon’s face (πρόσωπον), which is missing in A. Many passages can be adduced which contain material that is parallel to A’s doxai. Unfortunately the beginning of the dialogue is lost, but when it commences the speaker Sulla asks whether the conversation should revert ‘to those δόξαι concerning the face of the moon which are current and on the lips of everyone’ (920B, text below section E(a) General texts). Plutarch replies that ‘in obscure and difficult investigations, when common and reputable and customary accounts do not persuade, one should try those that are more unusual.’ This seems like a covert reference to the kind of more archaic material recorded in some of A’s doxai. For the various parallels that can be found see a selection in the apparatus below. The subject of the precise relation between Plutarch’s playful dialogue and the doxographical tradition deserves a fuller study than we can give it here. It should be noted that the diaeresis between fiery and earthy views that is prominent in chs. 2.25 and 29–30 is also a key to his treatment. In addition, for Plutarch the notion of mixture is crucial and it provides the ultimate solution to the question posed by the dialogue: see the doxa of Xenocrates at 943E inspired by Plato, ἄστρου σύγκραμα καὶ γῆς, and the analogy between soul and the moon in the final words of the treatise (945D), τῶν ἄνω καὶ κάτω σύμμιγμα καὶ μετακέρασμα. It should also be noted that the first two of A’s doxai reappear in a very compact form the moon’s speech in Lucian’s satire Icaromenippus, which we have already cited in relation to A 2.25–27. It is not too fanciful to surmise that Lucian knew a doxographical source similar to A. (2) Sources. Aristotle briefly refers to the face of the moon at Cael. 2.8 290a27 when he says it is always facing the earth, but does not discuss the reason why it has the face that it does. Other discussions are uncommon. For example, no atomist texts (including Epicurus) mention the face of the moon. For later texts which may record doxographical material see section D(e) below.

1094

liber 2 caput 30

C Chapter Heading The Byzantine mss. of P have a longer heading for the chapter than S. It is confirmed for P by E (who often abridges but not this time) and Q, as well as by G who bases his title on the second half missing in S. It is possible that it was added on the basis of the first lemma in the P tradition (but not in S), as pointed out by Mansfeld (2000b) 180. As in the case of the two previous chapters S places a version of the heading within his longer chapter on the moon, Ecl. 1.26. He exhibits the same heading (except the added δέ) as the first part of P, but without the additional phrase. It is difficult to decide whether P lengthened or S shortened. An additional factor is the difference between P and S when they repeat the subject of the chapter in the opening lemma. If we opt for the lectio difficilior in S (see further below D(d)§1), then it becomes very possible that the additional title in the phrase has been added by P. In general it is more likely that the epitomator would retain what he found in A rather than lengthen it. It is true that we have to take into account that elements of a text can be modified and developed in the course of the centuries, but the agreement of all four witnesses of P is significant. (In this regard the present chapter differs from ch. 2.20, where only two of the main mss. of PB have the longer title.) A further problem arises with the pronoun. It is found in the headings of both the representatives or P (except Q, who writes ‘des Mondes’, but he may have modified his original) and S, but if it goes back to A, this would make this chapter different from any other in the sequence 2.20–31 in not referring specifically to the sun or moon (cf. also 3.9–15 on the earth). The probability is that both P and S had their own reasons for abridging just slightly by means of the pronoun. On the basis of the above considerations we retain the title as in P, but substitute σελήνης for αὐτῆς. It must be recognized that this is one of those cases where it is quite impossible to reach certainty on what A actually wrote. The formula διὰ τί, indicating cause, recurs in the titles of a number of headings in Book 5 (chs. §§9, 14, 18). But there are no other examples of a heading which combines this formula with the most common umbrella formula Περὶ x. The question involved is again specifically in relation to the moon. Its formulation emphasises appearance rather than substance, for this reason asking for the cause (διὰ τί), but the question of substance as presented in ch. 2.25 continues to play a role. D Analysis a Context The question raised in the chapter is peculiar to the moon, so finds no equivalent in earlier chapters on the heavenly bodies. Its subject is closely related to that of chs. 2.25 (substance) and 2.28 (illuminations). We note that all the

1095

liber 2 caput 30

name-labels in the present chapter also occur in one of both of the earlier two except the astronomers in §8 (but they appear in ch. 2.29) and the slight change from Pythagoras to Pythagoreans. b Number–Order of Lemmata As noted above, S appears to write out the chapter as he found it in his copy of A. But there is a difficulty. The lemmata §§3 and 5 seem to contain a reduplicated element, as can be seen as follows: §3 Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνωμαλότητα τοῦ συγκρίματος διὰ τὸ ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες, τὰ μὲν ἐχούσης ὑψηλά, τὰ δὲ ταπεινά, τὰ δὲ κοῖλα1· καί παραμεμῖχθαι2 τῷ πυροειδεῖ τὸ ζοφῶδες, ὧν τὸ πάθος ὑποφαίνει τὸ σκιερόν3· ὅθεν ψευδοφανῆ λέγεσθαι τὸν ἀστέρα.

§5 Παρμενίδης

διὰ τὸ παραμεμῖχθαι τῷ περὶ αὐτὴν πυρώδει τὸ ζοφῶδες· ὅθεν ψευδοφανῆ λέγεσθαι τὸν ἀστέρα.

1 τὰ μὲν … κοῖλα not in P ‖ 2 S, παραμεμῖχθαι γὰρ PBE ‖ 3 ὧν … σκιερόν S, not in P

Bottler (2014) 478 suggests that we may have a case of ‘Clusterbildung’, i.e. coalescence here. What she means exactly is not entirely clear, but the suggestion is valuable in that it may point to what happened during the transmission of the text. It is clear that the first part of the Anaxagorean doxa (up to κοῖλα) links up well with the following doxa of Democritus. This coheres perfectly with the doxa at A 2.25.10 that the moon has ‘plains and mountains and ravines’, where the two name-labels are conjoined. The remaining part of §3, including the words ὧν τὸ πάθος ὑποφαίνει τὸ σκιερόν, would then not originally have belonged here, but was mistakenly copied out in anticipation of the Parmenides doxa in §5. In M–R 2.628 we suggested that the error might have been made by A. Certainly the evidence of P indicates that it occurred very early before he compiled his epitome. If this analysis of the text is accepted, then there are still nine doxai in all, but the third needs to be shortened, as we have done in our text. See further below section D(d)§5. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The structure of the chapter is not strongly systematic. But it is apparent that, as noted above in section C, the question of substance discussed in ch. 2.25 continues to play a role, and in particular the basic diaeresis between fiery and earthy views of the moon’s substance exerts an influence on this chapter. The order of the two groups of views is, however, reversed. The first four doxai all relate

1096

liber 2 caput 30

to the ‘earthy’ view, as is made very clear in the opening lemma. In the second group of four (§§5–8) the fiery or etherial nature of the moon is implied, but is not made very explicit. Only the final doxa, involving another comparison between the sun and the moon, falls outside the diaeresis. The main diaeresis of ch. 2.28 between the views that the moon has its own light or is illuminated by the sun plays a much lesser role in the chapter, but is relevant to the second group of four doxai. In the first group (§§1–4) the opening doxa of the Pythagoreans (including Philolaus) makes the moon as earth-like as possible. It is inhabited by plants and creatures just as in the case of the earth, but these are fifteen times the size of their equivalents on earth. No doubt this last detail is based on the further view that the lunar day is fifteen times the length of the earthly day. On this doxa see further the extensive commentary in Huffman (1993) 270–276, who concludes that there is no reason to doubt its authenticity and that its details most likely do go back to Philolaus himself. The emphasis on the earth-like nature of the moon is continued in the doxai of Anaxagoras and Democritus, which expand on details already introduced at A 2.25.10. There A uses a double name-label for a single doxa. Here the two names are separated. The Democritean view relates more directly to the earlier doxa. The Anaxagorean doxa is expanded and explains the unevenness of its composite substance through the cold mixed into its composition (an analogy with solidified lava?). The heights, depths and hollows clearly relate to the ‘glens and vales’ of Democritus’ view. There remains the second doxa in the first group, related to the first doxa in a μέν … δέ construction. Since the view fits in well with the doxa ascribed to Pythagoras in A 2.25.15 (moon as a mirror-like body) it might be concluded that these ‘others’ are also Pythagoreans. Diels, perhaps influenced by the attribution of exactly the same theory to the Peripatetic Clearchus in Plutarch (text below section E(a)§2), did not include it in his collection of Pythagorean material in VS. Wehrli (19692), 80 argues that Clearchus, like Heraclides, may have shown Pythagoreanizing tendencies. In the second group (§§5–8) the Parmenidean doxa forms the transition to the ‘fiery’ views (note τὸ πυρῶδες familiar from A 2.25.7). The doxa itself does not indicate what the dark component (τὸ ζοφῶδες) is, but if we compare A 2.7.1, it must be the air. This forms an excellent transition to the doxai of the Stoics and Aristotle, which are very similar to each other, the difference being that in the former the air is mixed in with fire (cf. A 2.25.5 but not made clear here) and in the latter with the fifth element (cf. A 2.25.8). In the last doxa in the group the dark patches are also attributed to irregularity of mixture (cf. §3), but this time they are explicitly related to the reflected light of the sun, recalling the main diaeresis of ch. 2.28 between idiophotic and heliophotic light.

liber 2 caput 30

1097

The final Xenophanean doxa has no direct relation to the rest of the chapter. It joins three other final doxai that all contain joint statements about the sun and the moon (A 2.20.15, 2.24.9, 2.28.7). See further our comments above on the structure of ch. 2.28 (D(c)). The second of these is also attributed to Xenophanes, while the contrast between ‘lighter’ and heavier also occurs in A 2.20.15. It is probable that earlier versions of the doxographies on the sun and the moon contained some comparative material on the two bodies (perhaps even a separate chapter), at least some of which A wished to include in his compendium. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 As noted above, the opening words of the lemma differ quite markedly in S and the P tradition. S’s τὸ γεωφανὲς αὐτῆς εἶναι διὰ τὸ περιοικεῖσθαι τὴν σελήνην might be seen as a paraphrase of P’s γεώδη φαίνεσθαι τὴν σελήνην διὰ τὸ περιοικεῖσθαι αὐτήν. But, as Mansfeld (2000b) 181 (= M–R 3.453) points out, γεωφανής is an extremely rare word, used in the sense of ‘looking or shining like the earth’ in only this text (in different senses only at Thphr. Lap. 61, Orib. Coll. med. 8.2.4), whereas γεώδης is very common. So there can be no doubt that it is the lectio difficilior. An argument in favour of its authenticity is that in the same chapter A uses the equally rare word ψευδοφανής (see below on §3). The use of the pronoun αὐτῆς first in S rather than τὴν σελήνην as in P can also be explained as a continuation of the reference to the moon in the title (see section C above). S’s text should therefore be preferred, though certainty cannot be attained. See further the discussion at Mansfeld (2000b) 180–181 (= M–R 3.451–453). §3 Q translates ψυχρομιγὲς ἅμα καὶ γεῶδες with denn sie is leblos und aus kalter und erdartiger Substanz gemischt. Sie ist leblos is most likely an addition of the translator, for it is hard to see how it can point to the alternative reading ψυχομιγές in PB and G. §4 It is striking that the phrase ἄγκη καὶ νάπας is paralleled exactly at Philo Somn. 1.22, even though Philo there is speaking of the heavenly bodies in general. The terminology thus derives from the anterior doxographical tradition. For the first word of the doxa both mss. of S read ἀποσκιάσματα, but since Canter all the editors have adopted his conjecture ἀποσκίασμά τι (the mss. reading is not even mentioned by Diels at DG 361). The reason was presumably because all the other nouns used to explain the appearance were in the singular. But this is hardly compelling. It can be explained by ‘shadow effects’ in the plural. We have retained the mss. reading. §5 Diels regarded this doxa as a doublet of that of Anaxagoras, and therefore not an authentic report of Parmenides’ doctrine (1897, 110–112). In the first edition of his VS, therefore, he placed among the ‘Unechtes’ (B21, p. 129)

1098

liber 2 caput 30

and there is has languished ever since (= 28B21 DK). The impression might be given, he notes, that ψευδοφανής is a word from Parmenides’ poem (it fits in the hexameter), but that is not the case, because the doxa itself is incoherent. He compares it with the line in 28B14 cited by Plutarch in which the moon is said to have a νυκτιφαές and ἀλλότριον φῶς, i.e. a light that shines in the night and is derived from elsewhere (cf. also 28B15 DK; texts cited on ch. 2.28.6). Thus according to Diels ψευδοφανής means the same as ψευδοφαής, to be translated ‘mit tauschendem Lichte’ and refers to the fact that the moon displays not its own but the sun’s (modified) light, as postulated by Anaxagoras. In our view, however, the doxa does belong to Parmenides, and not Anaxagoras. The clue to its interpretation is that this light does not have to be reflected light. It can also appear because the moon’s fiery nature is kindled by the sun, as in the Stoic doctrine reported by Cleomedes (see ch. 2.28 Commentary D(d)§3). So the falsity of the moonlight can be due not to the fact that it is not its own light, but to the shadows caused by the dark component, which give it an appearance that is not ‘fire-like’ but rather earthy (though the term is not used). §6 The reading ἑτεροειδές in PB, which deviates from the correct ἀερομιγές in all the other witnesses, is a good example of how corruptions have occurred in the Byzantine mss. Clearly the word became unreadable in the archetype and what we have is simply a scribal guess. The crux in Mau’s edition is wholly unjustified and is a clear example of how his edition gives the text of PB rather than the P tradition (Lachenaud gives the right reading, as did Diels). §7 This doctrine is not found in this exact form in the extant works of Aristotle, but it is Aristotelian in spirit. At GA 3.11 761b21 he states the fire animals should be sought on the moon, since it has a share in the fourth element fire; text below section E(b)§1. On the expression ‘fifth body’ see our comment at ch. 2.11 Commentary D(d)§5. e Other Evidence A distant echo of A’s views can be found in the great Arabic scientist ibn alHaytham (Alhacen) (965–1039), mentioned by Cherniss–Hembold (1957) 19– 20; see the text cited below section E(b) General texts. Various opinions are given, including some reminiscent of the doxai in A, e.g. that the facial features are traces of mountains (cf. §§3–4) or reflections of the seas on earth (cf. §2). In addition his own view on the subject recalls the doxa of the scientists in §8, namely that the moon’s composition varies from place to place and this affects the transparency of the sun’s light that falls on it. Unfortunately Daiber is silent on these parallels in the Arabic tradition and the connection between the doxographical tradition and the author remains a mystery.

liber 2 caput 30

1099

Earlier Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s mention of the face of the moon in the De caelo makes reference to various doxai on the moon’s appearance in both Alexander and Iamblichus, including the same theories on reflection or the marks made by earth or sea of mountains. Another doxa on effluences rising from beneath it surface and disturbing its brilliance is not paralleled in A (and also not found in Plutarch). Finally some more late evidence on this question is found in Philoponus. Huffman (1993) 272 notes that a striking parallel to the first doxa, attributed inter alios to Philolaus, is found in his commentary on the reference to the fireanimals on the moon in Aristotle GA 761b21. The correspondences are general and not in relation to points of detail. Philoponus asserts that the creatures neither eat nor drink. As Huffman observes, this would mean that they would not produce any excrement either, precisely the detail that A records. It must be concluded that a great deal of doxographical material on the cause of the face in the moon was built up over the centuries. Some of this has been distilled in A and given elaboration in Plutarch’s treatise, but certainly not all of it. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Philo Somn. 1.145 λέγεται γοῦν, ὅτι σελήνη πίλημα μὲν ἄκρατον αἰθέρος οὔκ ἐστιν, ὡς ἕκαστος τῶν ἄλλων ἀστέρων, κρᾶμα δὲ ἔκ τε αἰθερώδους οὐσίας καὶ ἀερώδους· καὶ τό γε ἐμφαινόμενον αὐτῇ μέλαν, ὃ καλοῦσί τινες πρόσωπον, οὐδὲν ἄλλο εἶναι ἢ τὸν ἀναμεμιγμένον ἀέρα, ὃς κατὰ φύσιν μέλας ὢν ἄχρις οὐρανοῦ τείνεται. cf. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12, p. 53.12 Wuensch (from Philo). Plutarch Fac.Lun. 920B–C ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δεῖ τι πρὸς τὰς ἀνὰ χεῖρα ταύτας καὶ διὰ στόματος πᾶσι δόξας περὶ τοῦ προσώπου τῆς σελήνης προσανακρούσασθαι … ἀναγκαῖον ἐν δυσθεωρήτοις καὶ ἀπόροις σκέψεσιν, ὅταν οἱ κοινοὶ καὶ ἔνδοξοι καὶ συνήθεις λόγοι μὴ πείθωσι, πειρᾶσθαι τῶν ἀτοπωτέρων καὶ μὴ καταφρονεῖν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπᾴδειν ἀτεχνῶς ἑαυτοῖς τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν καὶ διὰ πάντων τἀληθὲς ἐξελέγχειν. Lucian Icar. 20 (follows on from the text cited on A 2.25) καὶ οἱ μὲν κατοικεῖσθαί μέ φασιν, οἱ δὲ κατόπτρου δίκην ἐπικρέμασθαι τῇ θαλάττῃ, οἱ δὲ ὅ τι ἂν ἕκαστος ἐπινοήσῃ τοῦτό μοι προσάπτουσι. Chapter heading: cf. Plutarch Περὶ τοῦ έμφαινομένου προσώπου τῷ κύκλῷ τῆς σελήνης (Fac.Lun. 920B). also Symeon Seth CRN 21 Περὶ τοῦ τῆς σελήνης προσώπου. §1 Pythagoreans: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 937D πρότερον δ᾽ ἂν ἡδέως ἀκούσαιμι περὶ τῶν οἰκεῖν λεγομένων ἐπὶ τῆς σελήνης, οὐκ εἰ κατοικοῦσί τινες ἀλλ᾽ εἰ δυνατὸν ἐκεῖ κατοικεῖν. εἰ γὰρ οὐ δυνατόν, ἄλογον καὶ τὸ γῆν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην. δόξει γὰρ πρὸς οὐθὲν ἀλλὰ μάτην γεγονέναι μήτε καρποὺς ἐκφέρουσα μήτ᾽ ἀνθρώποις τισὶν ἕδραν παρέχουσα καὶ γένεσιν καὶ δίαιταν. Lucian see above General texts. §2 Others: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 920F–921A (on Clearchus the Peripatetic, not in Wehrli) λέγει γὰρ ἁνὴρ εἰκόνας ἐσοπτρικὰς εἶναι καὶ εἴδωλα τῆς μεγάλης θαλάσ-

1100

liber 2 caput 30

σης ἐμφαινόμενα τῇ σελήνῃ τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον. ἥ τε γὰρ ἀκτὶς ἀνακλωμένη πολλαχόθεν ἅπτεσθαι τῶν οὐ κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν ὁρωμένων πέφυκεν, ἥ τε πανσέληνος αὐτὴ πάντων ἐσόπτρων ὁμαλότητι καὶ στιλπνότητι κάλλιστόν ἐστι καὶ καθαρώτατον. Lucian see above General texts. §§3–4 Anaxagoras Democritus: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 935C ὥστε μηδὲν οἰώμεθα πλημμελεῖν γῆν αὐτὴν θέμενοι, τὸ δὲ φαινόμενον τουτὶ πρόσωπον αὐτῆς, ὥσπερ ἡ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔχει γῆ κόλπους τινὰς μεγάλους, οὕτως ἐκείνην ἀνεπτύχθαι βάθεσι μεγάλοις καὶ ῥήξεσιν ὕδωρ ἢ ζοφερὸν ἀέρα περιέχουσιν, ὧν ἐντὸς οὐ καθίησιν οὐδ᾽ ἐπιψαύει τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκλείπει καὶ διεσπασμένην ἐνταῦθα τὴν sἀνάκλασιν ἀποδίδωσιν (cf. also Fac.Lun.934E–F). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.8 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) τὴν δὲ σελήνην οἰκήσεις ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόφους καὶ φάραγγας. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.10 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ἔφη δὲ γηίνην εἶναι τὴν σελήνην ἔχειν τε ἐν αὑτῇ πεδία καὶ φάραγγας. §5 Parmenides: See on A 2.29.6 and below on §7. §6 Stoics: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 921F ἀλλὰ μὴ δόξωμεν … κομιδῇ προπηλακίζειν τὸν Φαρνάκην, οὕτω τὴν Στωικὴν δόξαν (SVF 2.673) ἀπροσαύδητον ὑπερβαίνοντες, εἰπὲ δή τι πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα, πα⟨γέ⟩ντος ἀέρος μῖγμα καὶ μαλακοῦ πυρὸς ὑποτιθέμενον τὴν σελήνην … see also on A 2.25.5. §7 Aristotle: Plutarch Fac.Lun. 928F (on Aristotelian doctrine) ὅλως γάρ, ὦ φίλε Ἀριστότελες, γῆ μὲν οὖσα πάγκαλόν τι χρῆμα καὶ σεμνὸν ἀναφαίνεται καὶ κεκοσμημένον, ὡς δ᾽ ἄστρον ἢ φῶς ἤ τι σῶμα θεῖον καὶ οὐράνιον δέδια μὴ ἄμορφος ᾖ καὶ ἀπρεπὴς καὶ καταισχύνουσα τὴν καλὴν ἐπωνυμίαν· εἴ γε τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ τοσούτων τὸ πλῆθος ὄντων μόνη φωτὸς ἀλλοτρίου δεομένη περίεισι, κατὰ Παρμενίδην (28B15 DK) ‘ἀεὶ παπταίνουσα πρὸς αὐγὰς ἠελίοιο’.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 290a24–27 ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι οὐδὲ κυλίεται τὰ ἄστρα, φανερόν· τὸ μὲν γὰρ κυλιόμενον στρέφεσθαι ἀνάγκη, τῆς δὲ σελήνης ἀεὶ δῆλόν ἐστι τὸ καλούμενον πρόσωπον. Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Cael. 457.9–30 (on 290a27) ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον πρόσωπον διαφορά τις οὐσιώδης ἐστὶ τοῦ σεληνιακοῦ σώματος ἢ παραδειγματικῶς περιέχοντος τὸ πολυειδὲς καὶ διάφορον τῆς γενέσεως, ὡς Ἰάμβλιχός φησιν (fr. 153 Dalsgaard Larsen), ἢ διὰ τὸ μεσότης εἶναι τῶν οὐρανίων καὶ τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην τὸ μὲν εὐφώτιστον ἔχει, τὸ δὲ σκιερώτερον κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, ὡς ἄλλοις ἀρέσκει, ἰσχυρὸν δοκεῖ πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τὸ εἰρημένον· πῶς γὰρ τοῦ ὅλου σώματος κυλιομένου τὴν αὐτὴν ἐκεῖνο θέσιν ἐφύλαττε συνεχὲς ὂν πρὸς τὸ ὅλον; εἰ δέ, ὥς τινες λέγουσιν, ἔμφασίς τίς ἐστιν ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ ἤτοι τῆς γῆς ἢ τῆς θαλάσσης ἢ τῶν ὀρῶν, δύναται, φησὶν ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, καὶ κυλιομένης αὐτῆς ὁμοία μένειν ἡ ἔμφασις τῷ καὶ ταῦτα ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡ ἔμφασις τὰ αὐτὰ μένειν κἀκείνην πρὸς τὸ δέχεσθαι τὴν τοιαύτην ἔμφασιν κατὰ πάντα αὐτῆς μέρη ὁμοίαν ἔχειν ἐπιτηδειότητα καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος φύσιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σχήματος ὁμοιότητα. ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν ἡ ἔμφασις κατὰ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ κατόπτρου τῶν ἀκτίνων ἀνάκλασιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον γίνεται, ὡς τοῖς πολλοῖς δοκεῖ, οὐκ ἂν ἀπὸ παντὸς τόπου ὁρῶντι τὸ αὐτὸ ἂν ἐμφαίνοιτο, ὥσπερ νῦν τὸ τῆς σελήνης πρόσωπον καὶ ἀπὸ μεσημβρινωτάτων τόπων καὶ ἀπὸ βορειοτάτων καὶ ἀπὸ

liber 2 caput 30 ἀνατολικῶν καὶ δυτικῶν ὁρῶντι τὸ αὐτὸ φαίνεται. εἰ μέντοι ἀπόρροιαι τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην ἀναθέουσαι ἄλλαι ἀπ᾽ ἄλλων ἀεὶ περὶ τὸ στιλπνὸν τῆς σελήνης τοιαύτην λαμβάνουσι σύστασιν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατόπτροις εἰδώλων ἔμφασιν συνίστασθαι λέγουσί τινες, δυνατὸν ἂν εἴη καὶ κυλιομένης καὶ δινουμένης τὴν αὐτὴν ἔμφασιν ὁρᾶσθαι ἀπὸ παντὸς τόπου. ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) Über die Natur der Spuren (Flecken), die man auf der Oberfläche des Mondes sieht pp. 1–3 Schoy ‘Wenn man diese Zeichen der Oberfläche aufmerksam betrachtet und beobachtet, so findet man sie immerfort von derselben Beschaffenheit, und keinerlei Veränderung zeigt sich an ihnen … Abergläubische und nicht ernst zu nehmende Menschen haben ihre eigene und abweichende Meinung darüber. Gewisse Leute halten dafür, daß die Spuren dem Mondkörper selbst angehören, andere glauben, daß sie sich außerhalb desselben, nämlich zwischen dem Mondkörper und dem Gesicht des Beobachters, befänden, wieder andere glauben, daß sich ihnen ein umgekehrtes Bild darbiete, weil die Mondoberfläche glatt und reflektierend sei … So gibt es denn auch Leute, die behaupten, daß sie die Figur der irdischen Meere im Spiegelbilde erblicken würden, andere sagen, es seien die Spuren die Bilder der Berge und Gebirge unserer Erde, wieder andere glauben, das Gesehene sei eine Figur, die von den auf die Erde fallenden Reflektionsstrahlen aus ihr ausgeschnitten würde … Aber alle diese bis jetzt vorgetragenen Meinungen sind unzutreffend und daher wertlos, und wir schicken uns jetzt an, das Irrige all dieser Ansichten darzutun. Danach studieren wir die wahre Natur der Spuren …’ pp. 29–30 ‘Wir behaupten also, daß der Mond sein Licht von der Sonne empfängt, daß er ohne Transparenzvermögen ist, und daß ihn kein Licht durchdringt. Der lichtabsorbierenden Kraft des Mondes mangelt also die Transparenz. Dafür ist ein deutlicher Fingerzeig in der Tatsache gegeben, daß diese Kraft die Durchdringungskraft für Licht verändert. Und in diesem Hinweis liegt eine Bestätigung für das, was wir schon früher gesagt haben, nämlich, daß die Absorptionskraft die Durchlässigkeit für Licht verändert, welche den durchsichtigen Körpern eignet, daß die Aufnahmefähigkeit des Mondes für Licht eine verschiedene ist, indem einzelne Partien desselben das Licht vollständig aufnehmen, während dies mit anderen—und das sind diejenigen der Spuren—in nur unvollkommenem Grade der Fall ist, und daß dieser Umstand eine Behinderung der Stelle der Spur für eine vollkommene Lichtaufnahmefähigkeit bedeutet.’ Chapter heading: — §1 Pythagoreans: cf. Aristotle GA 3.11 761b15–23 τὸ δὲ τέταρτον γένος οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτων τῶν τόπων δεῖ ζητεῖν· καίτοι βούλεταί γέ τι κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς εἶναι τάξιν· τοῦτο γὰρ τέταρτον ἀριθμεῖται τῶν σωμάτων. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἀεὶ φαίνεται τὴν μορφὴν οὐκ ἰδίαν ἔχον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἑτέρῳ τῶν σωμάτων· ἢ γὰρ ἀὴρ ἢ καπνὸς ἢ γῆ φαίνεται τὸ πεπυρωμένον.ἀλλὰ δεῖ τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος (sc. fire animals) ζητεῖν ἐπὶ τῆς σελήνης· αὕτη γὰρ φαίνεται κοινωνοῦσα τῆς τετάρτης ἀποστάσεως (i.e. fire). ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἄλλος ἂν εἴη λόγος. John Philoponus in GA 160.14–21 τὰ γεγονότα καὶ γινόμενα ἐξ αὐτοῦ (sc. πυρός) ζῷα ἐν τῇ σεληνιακῇ τυγχάνουσιν ὄντα σφαίρᾳ. εἰσὶ

1101

1102

liber 2 caput 30

γὰρ καὶ γίνονται μερικὰ λογικὰ αἰθέρια ζῷα μήτε ἐσθίοντα μήτε πίνοντα, ἀσχολούμενα δὲ περὶ μόνην τὴν ὁρατικωτέραν καὶ θεωρητικωτέραν διατριβὴν καὶ ἔχοντα τὴν οἴκησιν ἐν αἰθέρι καὶ ἀέρι, καὶ ζῇ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν καὶ ὑπὲρ τὰ τρισχίλια ἔτη, θνήσκει δὲ ὅμως. §6 Stoics: cf. Cleomedes Cael. 1.2.37 (fuller text cited on A 2.25.5) ὅθεν καὶ ζοφῶδες αὐτῆς τὸ οἰκεῖον ὁρᾶται σῶμα. §7 Aristotle: cf. §1 above.

Liber 2 Caput 31 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 892B; pp. 362a19–363a4 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.53, p. 417.1–7 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 72; p. 628.18–22 Diels; pp. 217–225 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 164–165 Daiber—PSch: Scholion ad Ptolemei Alm. 5.1, p. 1.350 Heiberg—PL: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.12, p. 54.7–10 Wuensch S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.26.5, pp. 223.8 (tit.), 10–23 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b13 Henry (titulus solus) T: Theodoretus CAG 4.24, p. 106.15–16 Raeder; cf. 1.96, p. 27.17–25 Raeder Cf. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 19, p. 28.3–4 Martin (titulus solus); Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus λαʹ. Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων τῆς σελήνης (P,S,cf.T) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς διπλάσιον ἀπέχειν τὴν σελήνην ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἤπερ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. (P1,S1,T1) §2 οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον. (P2,S2) §3 Ἐρατοσθένης τὸν ἥλιον ἀπέχειν τῆς γῆς σταδίων μυριάδας τετρακοσίας καὶ ὀκτακισμυρίας, τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἀπέχειν τῆς γῆς μυριάδας ἑβδομήκοντα ὀκτὼ σταδίων. (P3,S3,T2) §4 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ὕψους τοῦ ἀπὸ τὴς γὴς εἰς ⟨τὸν⟩ οὐρανόν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀνάτασις, πλείονα εἶναι τὴν κατὰ τὸ πλάτος διάστασιν, κατὰ τοῦτο τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μᾶλλον ἀναπεπταμένου διὰ τὸ ᾠῷ παραπλησίως τὸν κόσμον κείσθαι. (S4) §5 Βόηθος δὲ πρὸς τὴν φαντασίαν δέχεται τὸ ἀναπεπταμένον, οὐ κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν. (S5) §1 Empedocles 31A61 DK; §2 anonymi, cf. Aristarchus Magn. p. 352 Heath; §3 Eratosthenes fr. I.40 Berhardy; §4 Empedocles 31A50 DK; §5 Boethus SVF fr. 9 titulus Περὶ … σελήνης scripsimus, cf. PQ (Über die Entfernungen des Mondes Q), τῆς σελήνης secl. Diels : Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων αὐτῆς (sc. σελήνης) PE : Περὶ τῶν διαστημάτων τῆς σελήνης καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου PG1 Jas ex Nicolao (om. καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου PG2 Diels) : Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων (ἀποστήματος PB(III)) τῆς σελήνης πόσον (ὃ PB(III)) ἀφέστηκε τοῦ ἡλίου PB : Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀποστημάτων S §1 [2–3] τὴν … γῆς PBEGQ : τῆς σελήνης ἀπὸ γῆς (τῆς γῆς coni. Meineke Wachsmuth) ἤπερ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου S : τὴν σελήνην ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς PSch : τὸν ἥλιον ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἤπερ τὴν σελήνην coni. Diels §2 [4] οἱ PBEGQ : οἱ δὲ SPSch ‖ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν] μαθηματικοὶ PG §3 [5] post ἀπέχειν add. ἀπὸ PE ‖ [5–6] σταδίων … ὀκτακισμυρίας scripsimus, Diels Mau secuti, cf. PEQS : σταδίους -ιάδων -σίων καὶ -ρίων PE (cf. PL) : σταδίων μυριάδας τρεῖς (cf. τʹ = τριακοσίας PSch) καὶ ὀκτάκις μυριάδας PG : 408,000 Stadien Q (vid. comm. infra) : σταδίων μυριάδας μυριάδων τετρακοσίας καὶ σταδια ὀκτακις μύρια S (μυριάδων secl. Diels Wachsmuth) ‖ τετρακοσίας … μυριάδας desunt in PB, rest. edd. ‖ [6] τῆς γῆς] von der Sonne Q ‖ [7] σταδίων PEQSchS : om. PB : ante μυριάδας PGL : 78,000 Stadien Q (vid. comm. infra) §§4–5 non hab. P §4 [8] εἰς ⟨τὸν⟩ Diels Wachsmuth : οἷον SFP1, εἰς SP2

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_072

5

10

1104

liber 2 caput 31

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.24 καὶ τί δεῖ λέγειν, ὅσα ἐκεῖνοι σχημάτων πέρι καὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ διαστημάτων μυθολογοῦσιν; οὐ γὰρ μόνον ὅσον ἀλλήλων διεστήκασι (cf. §1), λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσον τῆς γῆς ἀφεστήκασι· καὶ τετρακοσίας ἀριθμοῦσι καὶ μέντοι καὶ πλείους σταδίων μυριάδας (cf. §3), τὰς μὲν ἀπὸ γῆς μέχρι σελήνης, τὰς δὲ ἐκεῖθεν μέχρις ἡλίου. cf. 1.96 οὕτω τοῖς ἀστρονόμοις οἱ φοιτῶντες πιστεύουσι, καὶ τῶν ἄστρων τὸν ἀριθμὸν λέγουσι καὶ τὰ διαστήματα μετροῦσιν, οἷς ἀφεστήκασιν ἀλλήλων (cf. §1), καὶ πόσαις μυριάσι σταδίων τῆς γῆς ἀφέστηκεν ὁ ὁρώμενος οὐρανός· καὶ πολλῆς οὔσης ἐν τῷ μέτρῳ διαφωνίας, καὶ τῶν μὲν τετρακοσίας καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα σταδίων μυριάδας εἶναι λεγόντων (cf. §3), τῶν δὲ ἐλάττους, τῶν δὲ πολλῷ πλείους, ὅμως πείθονται οἱ φοιτηταὶ τοῖς διδασκάλοις καὶ τοῖς παρ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγομένοις πιστεύουσιν. Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 72 (~ tit.) Περὶ τῶν διαστημάτων τῆς σελήνης καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου (text Jas) 72.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς διπλάσιον ἀπέχειν τὴν σελήνην ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἤπερ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. 72.2 (~ P2) οἱ μαθηματικοὶ ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον. 72.3 (~ P3) Ἐρατοσθένης τὸν ἥλιον ἀπέχειν τῆς γῆς σταδίων μυριάδας τρεῖς καὶ ὀκτάκις μυριάδας, τὴν δὲ σελήνην τῆς γῆς ἀπέχειν σταδίων μυριάδας ἑβδομήκοντα ὀκτώ. Scholion ad Ptolem. Alm. 5.1 (ex P) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς διπλάσιον ἀπέχειν τὴν ☾ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἐδόξαζεν (~ P1), οἱ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθηματικῶν ἀκριβέστερον ἐπιβάλλοντες ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον (~ P2) :—Ἐρατοσθένης τὸν ἥλιον ἀπέχειν σταδίων ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς μυριάδας τʹ καὶ ὀκτακις μυρίων : —τὴν δὲ σελήνην ἀπέχειν τῆς γῆς μυριάδων ἑβδομήκοντα ὀκτώ σταδίων (~ P3). Ioannes Lydus 3.12 (ex P) ἀφεστάναι δὲ λόγος ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς κατὰ τὸν Ἐρατοσθένην τὴν μὲν σελήνην σταδίων μυριάδας ἑβδομήκοντα ὀκτώ, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον τετρακοσίας καὶ ὀκτάκις μυρίας (~ P3). Testes secundi: Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 19, p. 28.3–4 Martin Περὶ ἀποστάσεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς (~ tit.) Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 σκοπήσωμεν οὖν, τί ἡμῖν λυσιτελεῖ εἰς μακαριότητα, τί δ᾽ οὔ· … καὶ τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν, … καὶ τὸ τὰ ἐκείνου (sc. οὐρανῷ) ἢ ταύτης (sc. γῆς) διαστήματα εἰδέναι· … Loci Aetiani: §1 cf. A 2.1.8 τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα.

liber 2 caput 31

1105

§4 A 2.2.3 (de figura mundi) οἱ δ᾽ ᾠοειδῆ. §5 cf. A 3.5.1 τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γίνεται οἷον ὄμβρος χάλαζα, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν ἰδίαν οὐκ ἔχοντα ὑπόστασιν· αὐτίκα γοῦν πλεόντων ἡμῶν ἡ ἤπειρος κινεῖσθαι δοκεῖ· ἔστιν οὖν κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν ἡ ἶρις.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) There are five doxai in S’s version of the text, which no doubt he has again written out in full, as he did for the preceding four chapters. None of the doxai raise any suspicion that they may have come from another source such as AD. (2) P takes over only the first three doxai (the last two in S patently introduce a new subject not covered by the chapter heading). All three are also found in G. For this chapter there are two extra witnesses to P’s tradition. A scholion to Ptolemy’s Almagest writes out all three doxai. The text is found in manuscripts that are considerably older than the Byzantine manuscripts of P; cf. Mansfeld (2000b) 177 with n. 5 (= M–R 3.448–449). Lydus utilizes only the lemma on Eratosthenes. (3) T refers to the chapter when continuing his scathing report on Greek astronomy. He mentions the subject of distances and then gives a very loose report of the first and third doxai. There is nothing that might indicate extra material not in S or P. More interesting perhaps is an earlier passage at 1.96, in which he notes the faith that people place in the teachings of the astronomers. The passage seems loosely based on 2.31, with particularly the reference to the number 470 myriads of stades a tell-tale sign of dependence. There is no need to speculate that there might be evidence of a chapter on the distance of the earth from the heaven, since the theme could have easily have been suggested by the Empedoclean doxa in this chapter. Given T’s loose way of writing in these two passages, there is also no need to conclude that his remarks are based on a different Vorlage, pace Bottler (2014) 481 (who does not refer to the 1.96 passage). Two texts in the wider tradition, however, do suggest that there may have been chapters on this other theme; see the texts from the Aratea and Isidore of Pelusium in the Testes secundi above. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Authors prominent in the proximate tradition seldom refer to views from the early period of Greek philosophy on this subject. In

1106

liber 2 caput 31

his vast compendium on natural philosophy Pliny regards attempts to tackle the subject as rather hubristic, but gives a valuable doxography in which the first two views are the same as in A though in reverse order (A’s first doxa is attributed to Pythagoras and exact figures are given as well as the ratio). Most intriguingly, all three of A’s doxai can be recognized in the same order in Plutarch’s treatise De facie (discussed at length above on ch. 2.30) (1) Empedocles’ view that the moon almost grazes the earth; (2) Aristarchus’ view in his treatise that the distance of the sun from the earth is more than 18 and less than 20 times the distance of the moon from the earth; (3) the highest estimate of 4030 myriads of stades, i.e. a very high figure like that in the doxa of Eratosthenes in A (but he is not named by Plutarch). Mansfeld (2000b) 192 = M–R 3.464 argues that Plutarch may have been indebted to the Placita literature, but ‘that he preferred to substitute more detailed and more accurate data concerning Empedocles and Aristarchus, and replaced Eratosthenes’ tenet by an equally spectacular though quite similar view.’ For Galen, revealing an attitude opposite to that of Pliny, regards the subject as an example of the extent of the powers of the human mind. Commentators on Plato’s astronomy in the Timaeus, as witnessed by Hippolytus, Calcidius, and Macrobius (citing Porphyry) also touch on cosmic distances, but they attempt to see a correlation with numbers and ratios based on the construction of the World Soul in 35a–c. A could have used this kind of material but evidently chose not to. See references below in section E(a) General texts. Ach does not include any material on this subject in his compendium. However, in a brief set of excerpts from introductory material to the poem of Aratus there is a chapter heading Περὶ ἀποστάσεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. The material in the chapter that follows is not relevant, but the heading itself is of some significance for our analysis. We return to it below. We have found no direct parallels for the brief diaeresis in §§4–5 on the distance of the earth to the heaven, i.e. the rim of the cosmos, but the subject is briefly raised in comments appended to the discussions of distances in both Pliny Nat. 2.87 and Plutarch Fac.Lun. 925B–C (texts below section E(a) General texts). (2) Sources. The theme of the chapter is twice briefly mentioned by Aristotle (texts below section E(b) General texts). On both occasions he mentions work done by astronomers, but does not go into detail himself. It is not part of what he considers the subject matter of natural philosophy. Importantly Simplicius informs us that Eudemus discussed the subject of cosmic distances in his account of astronomical researches and made reference to early views (Anaximander, Pythagoreans). This raises the possibility suggested by Mansfeld (2000b) 201 = M–R 3.467–468 that the ultimate source of A’s material

liber 2 caput 31

1107

might be he rather than Theophrastus as postulated in the Dielsian hypothesis. Posidonius too raises the subject in the context of pointing out the difference between astronomy and physics. But A does not follow this division rigidly in his understanding of the φυσικὸς λόγος, as witnessed in the present chapter with its inclusion of doxai attributed to ‘the followers of the μαθηματικοί and Eratosthenes’. Scientific works with detailed measurements, or at least information from them, were available to later authors such as Plutarch (see below) and Theon of Smyrna. C Chapter Heading The heading is of the common umbrella Περὶ x type. The quaestio is asked in the category of quantity, as is indicated by the use of the word πόσον in PB’s heading. However, as in ch. 2.30 there is considerable variation in the witnesses for the chapter’s heading. S and PE have the shortest title without mention of the moon (as in the previous three chapters S places it separately within his longer chapter on the moon, Ecl. 1.26). PB, as in ch. 2.30, has an expanded title. It is not wholly accurate, since in the first and third lemmata the doxai discuss distances of the moon and the sun, not just ‘from the sun’. There can be no doubt that the heading of intermediate length in G and Q is to be preferred. G reads τῆς σελήνης rather than just the bare noun as in all other titles in chs. 2.20–31. It is perhaps to be explained as following on from the earlier use of the article in τῶν ἀποστημάτων, which occurs in all the witnesses. Pace M–R 2.2.642, the article should be retained. A more accurate heading would have been Περὶ τῶν ἀποστημάτων τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης. A similar heading is in fact found in the mss. tradition of G as indicated by Nicolaus’ translation; see Jas (2018a) 217–218. It is consistent with a number of other scattered doxai which deal with both sun and moon together (see our remarks on A 2.28.7). But even this heading in no way covers the final two doxai of the chapter. We return to this problem in our analysis below. D Analysis a Context The final chapter in the sequence of seven chapters on the moon reverts to the category of quantity (made explicit in the long title of PB), namely the distances of the moon from its adjacent cosmic bodies, the earth and the sun. It is not paralleled in the other chapters on the stars and the sun. b Number–Order of Lemmata As in the previous three chapters, it can be assumed that S wrote the chapter out in full. It contains no material that gives rise to suspicion that it might have been added from elsewhere.

1108

liber 2 caput 31

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The first three doxai focus on the chapter’s subject as indicated in the chapter heading. The first lemma in the reading of the P tradition makes very good sense as the kind of straightforward doxa we might expect from the early period of Greek philosophy: the moon is twice as far from the sun as it is from the earth. The version in S reverses the distances and clearly involves a misreading of A’s original. See further the detailed comment below. The second doxa, increasing the ratio of the distances to 18 times, is unproblematic in both P and S. This is clearly a reference to the view of Aristarchus, who however is not named, in contrast to A 1.15.5 & 9, 2.24.7. The third doxa, giving the view of Eratosthenes (the only reference to him in Book 2, elsewhere in the surviving Placita only at 1.21.3 on time), moves to two specific distances in stades, which have proved a headache for the scribal transmission. The Byzantine mss. again have a case of haplography resulting in only the second figure being preserved. In the remaining witnesses there is a great deal of variation as emerges in the following table:

Byzantine mss. E S G Lydus Q Scholion T

First figure

Second figure

missing 400 myriads + 8 myriads 400 myriad myriads + 8 myriads 3 myriads + 8 myriads 400 + 8 myriads 408,000 300 myriads + 8 myriads more than 400 myriads

78 myriads 78 myriads 78 myriads 78 myriads 78 myriads 78 thousands 78 myriads none given

The second figure is thus unproblematic, Q obviously having made a mistake (cf. Daiber 1980, 28). In the case of the first number, the variants involving three in G and 300 in the Scholion can be explained. The scholiast’s τʹ (i.e. 300) will be derived from the abbreviation of τετρακοσίας, which in the case of G, as suggested by Jas, the majuscule Τʹ will have been corrupted to Γʹ. The number in S seems excessively high. Diels and Wachsmuth are justified in bracketing the genetive μυριάδων. The most likely number is that in E and L, i.e. 4,080,000. The ratio between the two numbers is closest to 5:1 in round figures. Given the usual methods of the Placita one might have expected an ascending sequence. But another option is that A first gave the two whole number ratios, followed by

liber 2 caput 31

1109

the figures in real numbers. For further analysis of these numbers see Mansfeld (2000b) 184–188 = M–R 3.456–460, and also section D(d)§3 below. The final two doxai embark on a different subject, still involving distances but not those of the moon, i.e. the distance from the earth to heaven. Its subject is exactly that of the title of a brief chapter in a small collection of excerpts furnishing introductory material on Aratus’ poem (called Isagoga bis excerpta by Maass), Περὶ ἀποστάσεως τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς. The name-label Empedocles is repeated from the first doxa. In the Presocratic’s view the distance from the earth to the heaven is less than the breadth of the heaven, e.g. the cosmos resembles an egg lying on its side. In the final doxa attributed to Boethus, this is a matter of appearance, not reality. We may presume that Boethus espoused the spherical cosmos, which had become standard by his time (on his identity see comment below). Thus these two doxai form a very clear diaeresis, with the ‘epistemological’ view coming second and last, as more often in the Placita. It is very likely that A combined two related subjects that in his source-material had separate chapter headings into a single chapter. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 The genitive τῆς σελήνης in S can be explained if one understands τὸ ἀπόστημα from the chapter heading. Mansfeld (2000b) 185 puts forward another explanation: ‘the genitive … is an obvious mistake … Stobaeus decided to delete τῆς σελήνης in his sub-heading, and this decision was still on his mind when he copied out the first lemma so he wrote a genitive instead of the required accusative’. However this may be, the reading τὴν σελήνην uniformly found in the tradition of P is certainly to be preferred. §3 The reading ὀκτακισμυρίας (fem. plur.) might seem to be dubious Greek, since ὀκτακισμύριος is an adjective and here it does not appear to qualify a noun. We assume that it has been formed through attraction to τετρακοσίας. The reading in S, στάδια ὀκτάκις μύρια, can be read as a somewhat clumsy attempt to remedy the solecism, involving the repetition σταδίων … στάδια. For an analysis of the distances attributed to Eratosthenes see Carman– Evans (2015) 7–11. They argue that (1) it is plausible that Eratosthenes dealt with the subject of the distances of the sun and moon from the earth in the context of his work On the Measurement of the Earth, and that (2) ‘all ambiguity’ in relation to which number to read for the distance of the sun from the earth ‘can be removed, for only the solar distance of 4,080,000 stades is consistent with Eratosthenes’ second value for the size of the earth.’ They then conclude (p. 16) ‘we can now understand why Eratosthenes treated the distances of the Sun and Moon in a work supposedly devoted to the measurement of the Earth.

1110

liber 2 caput 31

The distances of the Sun and Moon are entangled, for example, in Aristarchus’ method and must be found together. And the distance of the Sun is required for Eratosthenes’ calculation of the upper limit for the size of the Earth.’ If these scholars are correct in their assumptions and conclusions, therefore, there is a good chance that the numbers attributed to Eratosthenes in A are correct. §4 One would expect on the basis of this information that the ‘egg-like’ cosmos lying on its side would do so lying horizontally and not standing vertically. The verb κεῖσθαι certainly suggests the former. Couprie (2020) argues, however, that a visualisation of Empedocles’ cosmology requires the latter and that this is compatible with the present doxa (though only just). It is certainly true that a standing egg is more likely to tip to one side that a lying one. Strictly speaking, of course, the cosmos will be ‘ovoid’ in shape, i.e. symmetrical (unlike an egg). But since the comparison here is explicitly with an egg, we translate the term ὠοειδής used at A 2.2.3 with ‘egg-like’ similarly to other -ειδής terms. §5 Boethus of Sidon, a second cent. bce Stoic, wrote a Commentary on Aratus’ poem, which is cited by the Isagoga bis Excerpta 5 = 324.8–9 Maass (on the work and this reference see Goulet at DPhA 2.124). According to Von Arnim RE 3.602, it is likely, but not certain that the doxographical material attributed to him was derived from this work. Boethus the Peripatetic, also from Sidon, is dated to the end of the first cent. bce, so is very likely too late for the Placita (though he is contemporary with Xenarchus, the latest philosopher to be cited). Boethus is only cited here in Book 2, but elsewhere also at A 1.7.16 and 3.2.7. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Posidonius F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler at Simp. in Phys. 291.26 (on astronomy compared to physics, see text cited on A 2.11) ἡ δὲ ἀστρολογία περὶ τοιούτου μὲν οὐδενὸς ἐπιχειρεῖ λέγειν, ἀποδείκνυσι δὲ τὴν τάξιν τῶν οὐρανίων κόσμον ὄντως ἀποφήνασα τὸν οὐρανόν, περί τε σχημάτων λέγει καὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων γῆς τε καὶ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ περὶ ἐκλείψεων καὶ συνάψεων τῶν ἄστρων καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐν ταῖς φοραῖς αὐτῶν ποιότητος καὶ ποσότητος. Pliny Nat. 2.83 intervalla quoque siderum a terra multi indagare temptarunt, et solem abesse a luna undeviginti partes quantam lunam ipsam a terra prodiderunt. Pythagoras (—) vero, vir sagacis animi, a terra ad lunam CXXVI milia stadiorum esse collegit, ad solem ab ea duplum, inde ad duodecim signa triplicatum, in qua sententia et Gallus Sulpicius fuit noster … Nat. 2.85 Posidonius (F 120 E.-K., 297 Theiler) … a turbido ad lunam viciens centum milia stadiorum, inde ad solem quinquiens miliens … inconperta haec et inextricabilia, sed prodenda quia sunt prodita … Nat. 2.87 mirum quo precedat inprobitas cordis humani parvolo aliquo invitata successu, sicut in supra dictis occasionem inpudentiae ratio largitur. ausique divinare solis ad terram spatia eadem ad

liber 2 caput 31 caelum agunt, quoniam medius sol, ut protinus mundi quoque ipsius mensura veniat ad digitos. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 925A–D ἀλλ᾽ ἥλιον μὲν ἀπλέτους μυριάδας ἀπέχειν τῆς ἄνω περιφορᾶς φατε … καὶ φωσφόρον ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ καὶ στίλβοντα καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους πλάνητας ὑφιεμένους τε τῶν ἀπλανῶν καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐν διαστάσεσι μεγάλαις φέρεσθαι, τοῖς δὲ βαρέσι καὶ γεώδεσιν οὐδεμίαν οἴεσθε τὸν κόσμον εὐρυχωρίαν παρέχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ διάστασιν; ὁρᾶτε ὅτι γελοῖόν ἐστιν, εἰ γῆν οὐ φήσομεν εἶναι τὴν σελήνην, ὅτι τῆς κάτω χώρας ἀφέστηκεν, ἄστρον δὲ φήσομεν, ὁρῶντες ἀπωσμένην τῆς ἄνω περιφορᾶς μυριάσι σταδίων τοσαύταις ὥσπερ ⟨εἰς⟩ βυθόν τινα καταδεδυκυῖαν. τῶν μέν γ᾽ ἄστρων κατωτέρω τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὅσον οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι μέτρον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιλείπουσιν ὑμᾶς τοὺς μαθηματικοὺς ἐκλογιζομένους οἱ ἀριθμοί, τῆς δὲ γῆς τρόπον τινὰ ψαύει καὶ περιφερομένη πλησίον, ‘ἅρματος ὡς πέρι χνοίη ἑλίσσεται᾽ φησὶν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31B46 DK) … σκόπει δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀφεὶς ἀπλανεῖς καὶ πλανήτας ἃ δείκνυσιν Ἀρίσταρχος ἐν τῷ Περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ὅτι τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀπόστημα τοῦ ἀποστήματος τῆς σελήνης ὃ ἀφέστηκεν ἡμῶν πλέον μὲν ἢ ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον ἔλαττον δ᾽ ἢ εἰκοσαπλάσιόν ἐστι. καίτοι ὁ τὴν σελήνην ἐπὶ μήκιστον αἴρων ἀπέχειν φησὶν ἡμῶν ἕξ καὶ πεντηκονταπλάσιον τῆς ἐκ τοῦ κέντρου τῆς γῆς. αὕτη δ’ ἐστὶ τεσσάρων μυριάδων καὶ κατὰ τοὺς μέσως ἀναμετροῦντας· καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης συλλογιζομένοις ἀπέχει ὁ ἥλιος τῆς σελήνης πλέον ἢ τετρακισχιλίας τριάκοντα μυριάδας· οὕτως ἀπῴκισται τοῦ ἡλίου διὰ βάρος καὶ τοσοῦτο τῇ γῇ προσκεχώρηκε … Galen Cur.Rat.Ven.Sect. 3, p. 11.256.11 K. (on the use of reason) ὥστε ἔρχεσθαί ποτε τὴν δεῖξιν αὐτῶν ἄχρι τῶν τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἀπίστων, ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ γῆς, οὐ μόνον τῶν μεγεθῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν διαστημάτων τῆς γνώσεως … Inst.Log. 12.2–3, p. 26.20–27.12 Kalbfleisch ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ ζητεῖν εἰ ὀρθῶς Ἐρατοσθένης (—) ἔδειξε τὸν μέγιστον ἐν τῇ γ(ῇ κύκλον ἔχειν σταδίων) μυριάδ(ας) κ̅ε ̅ δισχίλια, ἡ ζήτησίς ἐστι τῆς τοῦ κύκλου πηλικότητος ἢ τοῦ μεγέθους ἢ τῆς ποσότητος ἢ ὅπως ἂν θέλῃς ὀνομάζειν … . μέγεθος δὲ καὶ ἡλίου ⟨καὶ⟩ σελήνης καὶ τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἀποστημάτων ἐζήτηται καὶ δέδεικται τοῖς ἀστρονόμοις. Hippolytus Ref. 4.10.4 εἰ δὴ κατὰ τὸν Ἀρχιμήδην ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τῆς γῆς ἡ σελήνη ἀφέστηκε σταδίων μυριάδας φνδʹ, σταδίους ͵δρλʹ, ῥᾴδιον τούτους τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς αὔξοντας κατὰ τὸ διπλάσιον καὶ τριπλάσιον, ⟨ὡς ἀξιοῖ Πλάτων,⟩ καὶ τὰ τῶν λοιπῶν εὑρεῖν διαστήματα, ὡς μιᾶς μοίρας λαμβανομένης τοῦ τῶν σταδίων ἀριθμοῦ οὓς ἡ σελήνη τῆς γῆς ἀφέστηκεν. Calcidius in Tim. c. 96 Waszink sectioni quoque partium ex quibus animam constituit positio planetum conveniens videtur, cum unam ab uniuerso facit sumptam primitus portionem, id est minimam, a terra ad lunam; cuius duplicem secundam, id est quae inter lunam solemque interiacet … Macrobius in Somn. 2.3.13 et Archimedes quidem stadiorum numerum deprehendisse se credidit quibus a terrae superficie luna distaret et a luna Mercurius, a Mercurio Venus, sol a Venere, Mars a sole, a Marte Iuppiter, Saturnus a Iove; sed et a Saturni orbe usque ad ipsum stelliferum caelum omne spatium se ratione mensum putavit. quae tamen Archimedis dimensio a Platonicis repudiata est, quasi dupla et tripla intervalla non servans; et statuerunt hoc esse credendum, ut quantum est a terra usque ad lunam, duplum sit a terra usque ad solem … hanc Platonicorum persuasionem Porphyrius (fr. 72 Sodano) libris inseruit quibus Timaeus obscuritatibus non nihil lucis infudit …

1111

1112

liber 2 caput 31

Chapter heading: cf. Isagoga bis excerpta 19 cited above under Testes secundi. Quaestiones–exempla physica (cf. A 1.proœm. §3): Strabo 2.5.2 τούτοις δὲ πιστεύσαντες ἢ πᾶσιν ἢ τισὶν οἱ ἀστρονομικοὶ τὰ ἑξῆς πραγματεύονται, … καὶ ἀποστάσεις (fuller text at ch. 2.21). Lucian Paras. 11 ὁ … ζητῶν περὶ σχήματος γῆς … καὶ ἀποστημάτων (fuller text at ch. 2.21). Quintilian Inst. 2.17.38 nec qui intervalla siderum … colligunt (fuller text at A 1.proœm. §3). Augustine Conf. 10.16.25 neque enim nunc scrutamur plagas caeli aut siderum intervalla dimetimus vel terrae libramenta quaerimus. §1 Empedocles: cf. Hippolytus, Calcidius, Macrobius cited above. §3 Eratosthenes: cf. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 925D and Galen Inst.Log. 12.2–3 cited above.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.10 291a29–32 περὶ δὲ τάξεως αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν ἄστρων) ὃν μὲν τρόπον ἕκαστον κεῖται (v.l. κινεῖται) τῷ τὰ μὲν εἶναι πρότερα τὰ δ᾽ ὕστερα, καὶ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα τοῖς ἀποστήμασιν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν θεωρείσθω· λέγεται γὰρ ἱκανῶς. cf. also 291b9–11 τὰ δὲ μεταξὺ κατὰ λόγον ἤδη τῆς ἀποστάσεως, ὥσπερ καὶ δεικνύουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοί. Mete. 1.8 345b1–5 εἰ καθάπερ δείκνυται νῦν ἐν τοῖς περὶ ἀστρολογίαν θεωρήμασιν, τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου μέγεθος μεῖζόν ἐστιν ἢ τὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ τὸ διάστημα πολλαπλασίως μεῖζον τὸ τῶν ἄστρων πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἢ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, καθάπερ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὴν γῆν ἢ τὸ τῆς σελήνης. Eudemus at Simp. in Cael. 471.2–11 (on the text cited above) καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ (sc. ἐν τῇ ἀστρολογίᾳ) περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου (12A19 DK) πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ (fr. 146 Wehrli) τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναφέρων. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 197.8– 12 Hiller ἐπεὶ τοίνυν διὰ τῆς περὶ ἀποστημάτων καὶ μεγεθῶν πραγματείας ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης δείκνυσιν Ἵππαρχος τὸν μὲν ἥλιον σύνεγγυς χιλιοκτακοσιογδοηκονταπλασίονα τῆς γῆς, τὴν γῆν ἑπταεικοσαπλασίονα μάλιστα τῆς σελήνης … Chapter heading: Eudemus (fr. 146 Wehrli) at Simp. in Cael. 471.4–5 (on the heavenly bodies, cited above) περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων (twice). Aristarchus Περὶ μεγέθων καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης (Magn.). §2 Mathematicians: cf. Aristarchus Magn. prop. 7, pp. 352, 377 Heath ἐπιλογίζεται οὖν τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀπόστημα ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τοῦ τῆς σελήνης ἀποστήματος μεῖζον μὲν ἢ ὀκτωκαιδεκαπλάσιον, ἔλασσον δὲ ἢ εἰκοσαπλάσιον … note that this work is referred to in Plutarch Fac.Lun. 925C cited above. also cited by Pappus Syn. 6, p. 556.26 Hultsch.

Liber 2 Caput 32 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 892B–C; pp. 363a5–364a7 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.54, p. 417.9–18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 73; pp. 628.23–629.3 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 164–167 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. C. 137, p. 71 Westerink (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.8, p. 93.15 (tit.) + 1.8.42, pp. 107.14–108.5 Wachsmuth Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 18, p. 25.6–20; c. 19, p. 28.18–29.2 Di Maria

Titulus λβʹ. Περὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ, πόσος ἑκάστου τῶν πλανητῶν χρόνος, καὶ τίς ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός (P,cf.S) §1 ἐνιαυτός ἐστι Κρόνου μὲν ἐνιαυτῶν περίοδος τριάκοντα, Διὸς δὲ δώδεκα, Ἄρεος δυεῖν, Ἡλίου δώδεκα μῆνες· οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοὶ Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀφροδίτης, ἰσόδρομοι γάρ· σελήνης ἡμέραι τριάκοντα· οὗτος γὰρ ὁ τέλειος μὴν ἀπὸ φάσεως εἰς σύνοδον. (P1,S1) §2 γίγνεσθαι δὲ τὸν λεγόμενον μέγαν ἐνιαυτόν, ὅταν ἐπὶ τοὺς ⟨αὐτοὺς⟩ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἤρξαντο τῆς κινήσεως ἀφίκωνται τόπους. (S2) §3 τὸν δέ γε μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν οἱ μὲν ἐν τῇ ὀκταετηρίδι τίθενται, (P2,S3) §4 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδι, (P3,S4) §5 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς τετραπλασίοις ἔτεσιν, (S5) §6 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα ἑνὸς δέουσιν, ἐν οἷς Οἰνοπίδης καὶ Πυθαγόρας· (P4,S6) §7 οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ λεγομένῃ κεφαλῇ τοῦ χρόνου, αὕτη δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ πλανητῶν ἐπὶ ταὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς φορᾶς ἐπάνοδος. (S7) §6 Oenopides 41.9 DK; Pythagoras — titulus Περὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ PBE : Περὶ ἐνιαυτῶν PGQ ‖ πόσος … ἐνιαυτός PB(I,II) : πόσος ἑκάστου τῶν πλανωμένων ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός PB(III), om. PEG : Über die Jahre, wie lange die Zeit jedes einzelnen von den Planeten währt und was das ganz große Jahr ist Q : πόσος ἑκάστῳ τῶν πλανήτων ὁ χρόνος τῆς περιόδου PPs : cf. S Περὶ χρόνου οὐσίας (cf. 1.22) καὶ μερῶν (—) καὶ πόσων εἴη αἴτιος §1 [3] μὲν hab. post ἐνιαυτὸς PG ‖ ἐνιαυτῶν περίοδος] ἐτῶν PG ‖ δὲ PB : om. PGS ‖ [4] δυεῖν] δέκα πέντε μηνῶν PG ‖ [4–5] Ἡλίου … γάρ] om. PG ‖ [5] post σελήνης add. δὲ PE ‖ [5–6] οὗτος … σύνοδον] al. PG τοσοῦτος γὰρ ὁ τέλειος ‖ [6] φάσεως PB(I,III)E1Q S : φάνσεως PB(II)E2 : φαύσεως PB(III:E)E3 §2 non hab. P ‖ [7] ⟨αὐτοὺς⟩ add Canter Diels Wachsmuth §3 [9] γε S : om. P ‖ ἐν τῇ ὀκταετηρίδι] ὀκταετηρίδα PG, cf. setzen die einen auf 8 Jahre fest Q §4 [10] ἐν τῇ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδι] ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα PG, cf. auf 19 Jahre fest Q §5 non hab. P §6 [12] ἑνὸς δέουσιν PBEQ : om. S, add. Heeren Wachsmuth ‖ ἐν οἷς … Πυθαγόρας S : om. P §7 non hab. P ‖ [14] χρόνου coni. Taylor prob. Bodnár : Κρόνου S Diels DG Wachsmuth, κόσμου Kroll, prob. Diels VS2 DK ‖ [15] ταὐτῇ corr. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth : ταύτας S ‖ ἀρχῆς coni. Taylor prob. Bodnár : ἄρκτου S

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_073

5

10

15

1114

liber 2 caput 32

§8 §9

Ἡράκλειτος ἐκ μυρίων ὀκτακισχιλίων ἡλιακῶν. (P5,S8) Διογένης ὁ Στωικὸς ἐκ πέντε καὶ ἑξήκοντα καὶ τριακοσίων ἐνιαυτῶν τοσούτων ὅσος ἦν ὁ καθ᾽ Ἡράκλειτον ἐνιαυτός. (P6,S9) §10 ἄλλοι δὲ δι᾽ ἑπτακισχιλίων ἑπτακοσίων ἑβδομήκοντα ἑπτά. (P7) §8 Heraclitus 22A13 DK; §9 Diogenes Babylonius SVF fr. 28 §8 [16] ὀκτακισχιλίων PS Diels DG DK : ὀκτακοσίων coni. Diels VS1 Tannery secutus, prob. Marcovich Mouraviev ‖ ante ἡλιακῶν add. PG ἐνιαυτῶν §9 [17] ὁ Στωικὸς S : om. P ‖ [17– §10[19]] καὶ1 … ἑβδομήκοντα om. PG (lac. pos. Diels) ‖ [17] ἐνιαυτῶν] ἐτῶν PB(II) ‖ [18] ὅσος ἦν S : ὅσων P §10 [19] ἄλλοι … ἑπτά PBQ : lemma deest in PES (PG vid. supra ad §9)

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 73 Περὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ (text Diels) 73.1 (~ P1) ἐνιαυτὸς μὲν ⟨Κρόνου⟩ ἐστὶν ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, Διὸς δώδεκα, Ἄρεος δέκα πέντε μηνῶν· σελήνης ἡμέραι τριάκοντα· τοσοῦτος γὰρ ὁ τέλειος. 73.2 (~ P2) τὸν δὲ μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν οἱ μὲν ὀκταετηρίδα τίθενται, 73.3 (~ P3) οἱ δὲ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα. 73.4 (~ P4) ἕτεροι δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἑξήκοντα ἑνὸς ⟨δέουσιν⟩. 73.5 (~ P5) Ἡράκλειτος ἐκ μυρίων ὀκτακισχιλίων ἐνιαυτῶν ἡλιακῶν. 73.6 (~ P6) Διογένης ἐκ πέντε καὶ * * * ἑπτά. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 137 Πόσος ἑκάστῳ τῶν πλανήτων ὁ χρόνος τῆς περιόδου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 18, p. 25.6–7 Τίς ὁ καλούμενος μέγας ἐνιαυτός, καὶ ἐν πόσοις χρόνοις ἕκαστος τῶν πλανήτων ἀποκαθίσταται (~ tit.) p. 25.8–20 πάλιν ὁ πρῶτος, ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου, ἀστὴρ παραγίνεται ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον παχυμερῶς μὲν καὶ πλατυκῶς ἔτεσι τριάκοντα, ἀπὸ δὲ σημείου ἐπὶ σημεῖον ἀποκαθίσταται ἐν ἐτῶν μυριάσι τριακονταπέντε καὶ ἔτεσιν ἑξακοσίοις τριακονταπέντε. οὗτος δέ ἐστιν ὁ καλούμενος μέγας ἐνιαυτός. ὁ δὲ τοῦ Διὸς ἀστήρ, ὁ δεύτερος, παραγίνεται ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον πλατυκῶς καὶ παχυμερῶς ἔτεσιν δυοκαίδεκα, ἀπὸ δὲ σημείου ἐπὶ σημεῖον ἀποκαθίσταται ἐν μυριάσιν ἐτῶν δεκαεπτὰ καὶ ἔτεσι χκʹ. ὁ δὲ τοῦ Ἄρεος περιέρχεται ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον δι᾽ ἐτῶν δύο καὶ ἀπὸ σημείου ἐπὶ σημεῖον ἐν μυριάσιν ἐτῶν δυοκαίδεκα. ὁ δὲ τῆς σελήνης περιέρχεται ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον κατὰ μῆνα ἕκαστον, ὁ δὲ ἥλιος ἐν τξεʹ ἡμέραις καὶ λεπτῷ, ὃς δὴ χρόνος καλεῖται ἐνιαυτὸς ἡλιακός. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ ⟨ὁ⟩ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ τῷ ἡλίῳ δι᾽ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον παραγίνονται· σχεδὸν γὰρ ἰσοταχεῖς εἰσιν. §19, p. 28.18–29.2 λέγεται δὲ ἐνιαυτὸς ἡ ἀπὸ ζῳδίου ἐπὶ ζῴδιον ἀποκατάστασις αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμέραις τξεʹ καὶ ἐλαχίστῳ μορίῳ. ἀπὸ δὲ σημείου ἐπὶ σημεῖον ἀποκαθίσταται ἐν ὀκταετηρίδι ⟨ὡς λέγει Εὔδοξος (F 132 Lasserre) ἐν τῇ Ὀκταετηρίδι⟩ (εἴγε γνήσιόν ἐστι τὸ σύγγραμμα· Ἐρατοσθένης γὰρ ἀντέγραψεν δεικνύς, ὡς οὐκ εἴη Εὐδόξου), κατὰ δέ τινας ἐν ⟨ἓξ καὶ⟩

liber 2 caput 32

1115

ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτεσιν (ἧς δόξης ἐστὶ καὶ Κάλλιππος), κατὰ δὲ Μέτωνα δι᾽ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδος. ταύτῃ κατηκολούθησεν Ἄρατος· φησὶ γάρ … Loci Aetiani: §1 A 1.9.1 ὕλη ἐστὶ … A 1.10.1 ἰδέα ἐστὶν … A 1.11.1 αἴτιόν ἐστι … ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὑπογραφικῶς. A 1.12.1 σῶμά ἐστι … ἢ … ἢ … A 1.14.1 σχῆμά ἐστιν … A1.15.1 χρῶμα ἐστι … Α 1.23.1 … κίνησίς ἐστι διαφορά τις ἢ ἑτερότης ἐν ὕλῃ, ᾗ ἔστιν ὕλη. οὗτος πάσης κινήσεως κοινὸς ὅρος. A 3.1.1 (γαλαξιος) κύκλος ἐστὶ … cf. A 2.15.4–5 Πλάτων μετὰ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν θέσιν πρῶτον φαίνωνα λεγόμενον τὸν τοῦ Κρόνου, δεύτερον φαέθοντα τὸν τοῦ Διός, τρίτον πυρόεντα τὸν τοῦ Ἄρεος, τέταρτον ἑωσφόρον τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, πέμπτον στίλβοντα τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, ἕκτον ἥλιον, ἕβδομον σελήνην. τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινὲς μὲν ὡς Πλάτων, τινὲς δὲ μέσον πάντων τὸν ἥλιον. §6 cf. A 2.12.2 Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ἐπινενοηκέναι λέγεται τὴν λόξωσιν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ κύκλου, ἥντινα Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος ὡς ἰδίαν ἐπίνοιαν σφετερίζεται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The final chapter of Book 2 leaves the subject of the moon and returns to the heavenly bodies as a group (cf. ch. 2.13–19). After the (for us) pleasant interlude of ch. 2.28–31, when S writes out A’s chapters in full, we must return to our usual practice of commencing with the tradition of P. (1) The Byzantine mss. preserve seven doxai (if name-labels separated by μέν … δέ are separately counted). E omits the final anonymous doxa, but it is retained in G and Q (G’s text is damaged towards the end, but the word ἑπτά indicates that his text originally contained it). Psellus adapts the title heading. His list of the length of the planetary revolutions is parallel to what is found in P, but not dependent on it for any of the details. (2) S makes use of this chapter in his source in a quite different place than the other chapters on the heavenly bodies, namely in the early ch. 8 Περὶ χρόνου οὐσίας καὶ μερῶν καὶ πόσων εἴη αἴτιος. In this chapter, after various poetical quotes and apophthegmata, he quotes material from chs. 1.21–22 and 3.8, interspersed with copious excerpts from AD. He then appears to write out the contents of ch. 2.32 almost in full, just like later he was to do with chs. 2.28–31. Certainly all the material in the tradition of P can be located in his extract except the final anonymous doxa. His evidence also reveals three additional doxai and some expanded name-labels. The order of the material in both P and

1116

liber 2 caput 32

S is the same, which encourages the conclusion that in S we have the chapter complete except the final doxa. (3) There is again no trace of this chapter in T. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Cicero calls the theme of the Great year a magna quaestio at ND 2.51 and goes on to list the lengths of the revolutions of the planets, but he does not provide any doxographical information for either subject (apparently he expanded on it the question of the great year in his lost Hortensius; a text in Servius records the numbers 12,454 and 12,954). Material parallel to A is found compactly presented in Ach (in the second of the two pages cited above), but above all in a most extensive account in the third century Roman writer Censorinus, a crucial passage which gives us a unique insight into some of the riches of the doxographical tradition that have not come down to us. We study these texts in more detail below in section D(e) and cited them in section E(a). (2) Sources. There is a good deal of evidence to show that early Greek philosophers and scientists, no doubt borrowing from Babylonian predecessors, were not only acquainted with the length of the planetary years (which was uncontroversial and recorded in numerous texts), but were also preoccupied with the length of two more complex years, the luni-solar year and the so-called ‘Great year’ encompassing the revolutions of all seven planets. The earliest evidence relates to Heraclitus in our chapter and has been linked to his interest in the regularity of natural processes, e.g. in a Great winter and a great Summer presumably related to the Flood and the Fire, on which see below; cf. Marcovich (2001a) 347–349. The evidence of Oenopides and Philolaus points to the calculation of the luni-solar year, on which see Huffman (1993) 277–279. Democritus wrote a treatise entitled ‘Great year’, also called ‘Astronomy’ (D.L. 9.48), from which we may deduce that he discussed a Great year as part of his treatment of astronomy. Plato famously mentions the Great year at Tim. 39d, calling it the ‘perfect year’ but giving no indication of its length. Both ancient sources and modern scholars have frequently linked the question of the great year to various other themes, e.g. the reincarnation of the soul (Empedocles), periodic natural disasters (cf. Aristotle’s comment at Mete. 1.14), the periodic conflagration of the universe (esp. the Stoa), the theory of eternal cyclical return (mentioned by Origen Cels. 5.20–21 in relation to the Christian doctrine of ἀποκατάστασις), and so on. None of these related themes are explicitly mentioned in A’s chapter (and we shall not discuss them in any further detail). He confines himself to the astronomical facts (and speculations).

liber 2 caput 32

1117

Many ancient texts combine information about the length of the planetary revolutions and the much longer period of the Great year, a practice that goes back at least to Plato Tim. 39c–d. In addition, numerous texts record a diversity of computations for the Great year. For very full lists see Adam’s note on Resp. 546b (1902, 2.302–305), Pease’s note on Cic. ND 2.52, Rocca-Serra (1980) 61–64, Sallmann (1983) 39–44. We cite a generous selection of these texts below. C Chapter Heading PB has a lengthy chapter heading consisting of three parts, which must have also been present in Q’s exemplar. E and G just take over the first part, using the umbrella formula Περὶ x, with PB and E having the singular ἐνιαυτοῦ (Mras emends) and G and Q the plural ἐνιαυτῶν. Both are possible (S cannot help us, for he preserves only the single adapted word πόσων in his composite title for Ecl. 1.8). The early witness E tips the balance. But should the longer heading in PB be retained? It could have been deduced from the contents of the chapter. But it is possible that the word πόσων in S’s chapter heading is a pointer to the heading that he had before him (cf. PBQ πόσος). It is thus justified to retain the longer heading. As in the previous chapter the term πόσος indicates that the question is in the category of quantity. D Analysis a Context The chapter returns to a treatment of all the planets, which had earlier been discussed in chs. 2.13–19. Since time, or at least its measurement, was commonly regarded as resulting from planetary movement (cf. various doxai in chs. 1.21– 22 and Plato’s classic treatment in the Timaeus, where the genesis of time is described in 38b–39e after the creation of the heavenly bodies in 36d–38b), and since moreover the yearly revolution of the sun and the monthly revolution of the moon play a key role in the measurement of time, it was logical to place the discussion of cosmic time after the treatment of these two bodies. In addition, the subject of the Great year involves the combined movement of all the planets, so forms a fitting climax for the treatment of cosmology in Book 2. b Number–Order of Lemmata As argued above, the chapter is most likely complete if the final lemma in P is added to the sequence of doxai in S. There is also no conflict between the two witnesses on the order of the doxai. It is possible that the introductory lemma on the Great year (S2), which is missing in P, was added from elsewhere. This is argued by Bottler (2014) 488, who notes the interposition of oratio obliqua

1118

liber 2 caput 32

in between two passages of oratio recta and the repetition of the term ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτός in §2 and §3. She argues that it derives from another source such as AD or another place in A. However, without it the concept of the Great year is not explained. The philological argument is far from compelling. Changes between oratio recta and oratio obliqua and vice-versa are common in the Placita. A good parallel is located at A 2.12.2, where the doxa with name-labels is in oratio obliqua and the explanation of the heavenly circles in oratio recta. In fact, in the present chapter the first two doxai, as we shall soon see, are best seen as nominal definitions. The lemma must be retained in our reconstruction. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter opens with a straightforward listing of the planetary ‘years’, which are taken to be the time of their revolution around the earth in the geocentric standard model of ancient astronomy. It is presented in the indicative without any name-labels. This is best taken as a nominal definition, i.e. preliminary to the discussion. But in this case there is no discussion because the contents were universally acknowledged and there are no alternative views (pace G, who gives 15 months for Mars). The numbers are presented in round figures (30 years, 12 years, 2 years, 12 months, 30 days) with symmetrical neatness very typical of our author. A month for the moon is taken to be equivalent to a year for the sun, i.e. a complete revolution. The remainder of the chapter treats the ‘Great year’. It is first explained in a second nominal definition (though this time in oratio obliqua). It too is generally accepted, but it will emerge that it is in fact deficient because it fails to distinguish sufficiently clearly between two kinds of ‘Great year’: (a) the shorter luni-solar year which measures the perfect conjunction between solar and lunar cycles (§§3–6); and (b) the much longer ‘Great year’ which calculates the conjunction between the revolutions of all seven planets (§§7–10). In contrast to Censorinus (see below section D(e)), who distinguishes between an annus magnus and an annus maximus, A uses the term μέγας ἐνιαυτὸς for both. It might be argued, however, that the obscure statement in §7 is meant to mark the transition between the two kinds. of year. The doxai in the first group refer to the luni-solar year and give the lengths of 8, 19, 76 and 59 years. For only the last doxa does A give name-labels, i.e. Oenopides and Pythagoras (only in S); on these see detailed comments below. The order is basically ascending in magnitude. 76 precedes 59 perhaps because of the neatness of it being exact four times the length of the preceding doxa, or because the last doxa is the only one with name-labels (although, as Ach and Censorinus show, these were readily available).

liber 2 caput 32

1119

The next doxa (§7) is quite puzzling. Formally it seems to just continue the list of anonymous doxai, but its contents make clear that it actually introduces the final group of four doxai (§§7–10) which give views on the length of the ‘Greatest year’, i.e. the length of time it takes for all seven planets to line up in single plane. The expression ‘in the head of Kronos’ is highly obscure; see our further comment below. No figure is given in this doxa, but it is followed by three doxai with very large figures, the first two with name-labels, the final one anonymous. Here too the order is basically ascending, but the final number is less than the previous two. The structure of the chapter can thus be summarized as follows. Its first part gives the length of planetary ‘years’ without any differences of opinion. Its second part divides into two. First various views on the length of the smaller ‘Great year’, i.e. the luni-solar year, are given. Secondly some opinions on the length of the ‘Great year proper’ are presented. The sequence of figures is basically ascending in length, but in both groups there is an exception. We shall see below in section D(e) that this manner of presenting figures in an ascending sequence is a standard doxographical technique. Both parts commence with a nominal definition. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 There will have been numerous accounts of the length of the planetary years in all manner of handbooks. Below we cite passages from Cicero (drawing on such material), Geminus, Cleomedes and Theon of Smyrna. A uses the mythological names only, namely (apart from the sun and moon) Kronos, Zeus, Ares, Hermes and Aphrodite. These he had already introduced in ch. 2.15. The handbook accounts use both the mythological and the phenomenological names; see further our comments on A 2.15.4–5. A’s use of the μέν … δέ construction in §1 is difficult to reconstruct. PB has Κρόνου μὲν and Διὸς δέ, but PG and S delete the δέ. It is best to retain it because otherwise the μέν remains without a pendant. The reading in G of ἐνιαυτός μέν ἐστι is attractive, because it suggests a pendant in the next doxa γίγνεσθαι δέ … §6 The two name-labels are presented in a non-chronological order, Oenopides being generally dated to the fifth cent. bce. The unexpected order can be taken to mean that this length of the Great year is above all associated with Oenopides (fifth cent. bce), but that in fact he took the measurement from Pythagoras. One recalls A 2.12.2, where he is said to have plagiarized Pythagoras’ discovery of the Zodiac circle. See further Burkert (1972) 306, Bodnár (2008) 9– 10. Censorinus, however, mentions only Philolaus.

1120

liber 2 caput 32

§7 The manuscript reading Κρόνου is unlikely to be correct. There is most likely a link with Plato’s description of the periods of time of the heavenly bodies at Tim. 39c–d, where κεφαλή may mean ‘starting-point’, as translated by Cicero, i.e. the aligned position of the planets as indicated by the place of Saturn. So we have overcome our hesitation in M–R 2.653 and now agree with Taylor (1928) 220 that it should be emended. The proposed emendation χρόνου is taken over (without acknowledgement) by Bodnár (2008) 26 (but the translation ‘consummation of time’ is less persuasive). The further expression ‘return of the movement from the North’ (τῆς ἐξ ἄρκτου φορᾶς ἐπάνοδος) in the mss. is altogether too obscure and Taylor’s emendation ἐξ ἀρχῆς should be accepted. §8 For various considerations that make it probable that Heraclitus’ original number was 10,800, including the evidence of Censorinus, see the commentary of Marcovich (2001a) 347. But the mistake could have occurred already in the doxographical tradition. Mindful that we reconstructing A and not Heraclitus, however, we retain the mss. reading. §10 For the number 7777, for which there is no close equivalent in Censorinus, one might compare the number 9977 in Sextus Empiricus (text below section E(a)§§7–10). e Other Evidence As noted above in section B, two passages in Ach cover similar ground to our chapter. The title of his ch. 18, Τίς ὁ καλούμενος μέγας ἐνιαυτός, καὶ ἐν πόσοις χρόνοις ἕκαστος τῶν πλανήτων ἀποκαθίσταται, is not dissimilar to that in P, with the two parts reversed. More detail is given than in A, but the figures for the solar revolutions are the same. The figure that he gives for the Great year of Saturn, 350,635 years, does not correspond with any figure in A (he also gives a figure for a ‘Great year’ of Jupiter, 170,620 years). In the following ch. 19 on the sun there is also a relevant section on its revolutions. Three views are given on the length of the luni-solar year, of which two are found in A (8, 76, 19 years). Differently from A, however, Ach supplies name-labels (Eudoxus, Callippus, Meton, followed by Aratus). Of these names the first and last appear in A at 2.19.3. But by far the most interesting text for comparison with A is the massive doxographical account given by the third cent. rhetor Censorinus when congratulating his patron Caerilius on his 49th birthday in 238 ce. As noted above, in his account Censorinus makes a clear distinction between an annus magnus, i.e. ‘solar year’ (18.2), and an annus maximus, which is not only associated with the return of all the planetary bodies to the same point, but also with the lifecycle of the entire universe (18.11). We cite the complete text below in section E(a) §§2–10. In relation to A’s chapter it can be summarized as follows (corresponding doxai in A are indicated in square brackets):

liber 2 caput 32

Doxa

Name-label

18.2 18.2 18.3 18.5

annus magnus (cf. 18.11) διετηρίς/τριετηρίς (2–3) τετραετηρίς/πενταετηρίς (4–5) ὀκταετηρίς/ἐννεατηρίς (8) [2.32.3]

18.7 18.8

δωδεκαετηρίς (12) ἐννεαδεκαετηρίς (19) [2.32.4] 59 years [2.32.6] 76 years [2.32.5] 82 years 204 years 1461 years annus maximus 2484 years 5552 years 10,800 [cf. 2.32.8] 10,884 120,000 3,600,000 infinite

18.9 18.10 18.11

1121

ancient Greeks ancient Greeks some say Eudoxus of Cnidus others Cleostratus of Tenedos then Harpalus, Nauteles, Menestratus others Dositheus Chaldeans Meton Philolaus the Pythagorean Calippus of Cyzicus Democritus Hipparchus Egyptian calendar (Aristotle) Aristarchus Aretes of Dyrrachium Heraclitus and Linus Dion Orpheus Cassander others

Although the doxography is much fuller and more detailed, the structure is very similar to that of A. There is a long list of numbers ascending (more consistently than in A) from small to very large, with a main division made between the two types of Great year (only implicit in A). The parallels for the various ‘lunisolar’ years are striking. Like Ach Censorinus gives name-labels. A for whatever reason left most of them out. The only name-label held in common is Heraclitus. The confusion between the two figures 18,000 and 10,800 could easily occur. Both may well have a Babylonian origin, 5 × 3600 and 3 × 3600, 3600 being a Babylonian sar; cf. Van der Waerden (1952) 142. Diels in DG 186–199 devoted much attention to Censorinus’ book in relation to significant doxographical parallels to A’s books 4 and 5. But oddly he does not touch on this chapter. As Rocca-Serra (1980) ix notes, it is very likely that the material ultimately derives from the Placita tradition. The intermediary is

1122

liber 2 caput 32

most likely to have been Varro, as elsewhere in Censorinus. A strong hint in this direction is given by the name Dion (of Naples), who elsewhere is only mentioned by Augustine C.D. 21.8 in a verbatim quote from Varro De gente populi Romani (Sallmann 1988, 129). A, Ach and Censorinus are drawing on a common fund of material going back at least to the early first cent. bce or earlier, and in the case of A and Censorinus, using a similar method to organize and structure it. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero ND 2.51 maxume vero sunt admirabiles motus earum quinque stellarum quae falso vocantur errantes; nihil enim errat quod in omni aeternitate conservat progressus et regressus reliquosque motus constantis et ratos. quod eo est admirabilius in is stellis quas dicimus, quia tum occultantur tum rursus aperiuntur, tum adeunt tum recedunt, tum antecedunt tum autem subsecuntur, tum celerius moventur tum tardius, tum omnino ne moventur quidem sed ad quoddam tempus insistunt. quarum ex disparibus motionibus magnum annum mathematici nominaverunt, qui tum efficitur cum solis et lunae et quinque errantium ad eandem inter se comparationem confectis omnium spatiis est facta conversio; quae quam longa sit magna quaestio est, esse vero certam et definitam necesse est (continues below §1). Pliny Nat. 2.39 ideo et peculiaris horum siderum ratio est neque communis cum supra dictis. nam ea et quarta parte caeli a sole abesse et tertia, et adversa soli saepe cernuntur, maioresque alios habent cuncta plenae conversionis ambitus in magni anni ratione dicendos. Clement of Alexandria Strom. 6.140.2 (on the number eight) τήν τε ὀγδοάδα κύβον καλοῦσι, μετὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ πλανωμένων τὴν ἀπλανῆ συγκαταριθμοῦντες σφαῖραν, δι᾽ ὧν ὁ μέγας ἐνιαυτὸς γίνεται οἷον περίοδός τις τῆς τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἀνταποδόσεως. Augustine De Gen. ad litt. imperf. liber 13, p. 487.17–18 Zycha cum omnia sidera ad idem redierint, annus magnus peragitur, de quo multi multa dixerunt. Chapter heading: — §1 Revolutions of planets: Cicero ND 2.52–53 (follows on from text cited above) nam ea quae Saturni stella dicitur Φαίνωνque a Graecis nominatur, quae a terra abest plurimum, XXX fere annis cursum suum conficit, in quo cursu multa mirabiliter efficiens tum antecedendo tum retardando, tum vespertinis temporibus delitiscendo tum matutinis rursum se aperiendo nihil inmutat sempiternis saeclorum aetatibus quin eadem isdem temporibus efficiat. infra autem hanc propius a terra Iovis stella fertur, quae Φαέθων dicitur, eaque eundem duodecim signorum orbem annis duodecim conficit easdemque quas Saturni stella efficit in cursu varietates. (53) huic autem proximum inferiorem orbem tenet Πυρόεις, quae stella Martis appellatur, eaque quattuor et viginti mensibus sex ut opinor diebus minus eundem lustrat orbem quem duae superiores. infra hanc autem stella Mercuri est (ea Στίλβων appellatur a Graecis), quae

liber 2 caput 32 anno fere vertenti signiferum lustrat orbem neque a sole longius umquam unius signi intervallo discedit tum antevertens tum subsequens. infima est quinque errantium terraeque proxuma stella Veneris, quae Φωσφόρος Graece Lucifer Latine dicitur cum antegreditur solem, cum subsequitur autem Ἕσπερος; ea cursum anno conficit et latitudinem lustrans signiferi orbis et longitudinem, quod idem faciunt stellae superiores, neque umquam ab sole duorum signorum intervallo longius discedit tum antecedens tum subsequens. also Resp. 6.24 (Somnium Scipionis), Fin. 2.102. Pliny Nat. 2.31–39 nunc relicto mundi ipsius corpore reliqua inter caelum terrasque tractentur. summum esse quod vocant Saturni sidus ideoque minimum videri et maximo ambire circulo ac tricesimo anno ad brevissima sedis suae principia regredi certum est … Saturni autem sidus gelidae ac rigentis esse naturae, multumque ex eo inferiorem Iovis circulum et ideo motu celeriore duodenis circumagi annis. tertium Martis, quod quidam Herculis vocant, igne ardens solis vicinitate, binis fere annis converti, ideoque huius ardore nimio et rigore Saturni, interiectum ambobus, ex utroque temperari Iovem salutaremque fieri. deinde solis meatum esse partium quidem trecentarum sexaginta … infra solem ambit ingens sidus appellatum Veneris, alterno meatu vagum ipsisque cognominibus aemulum solis ac lunae … signiferi autem ambitum peragit trecenis et duodequinquagenis diebus … simili ratione, sed nequaquam magnitudine aut vi, proximum illi Mercurii sidus, a quibusdam appellatum Apollinis … Scholia in Basilium I 14, p. 198.12–199.3 Pasquali πλανώμενοι ἀστέρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν εἰσὶν ζʹ, οὓς καὶ πλανήτας καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ τὴν ἐναντίαν φέρονται τῷ παντὶ καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις ἄλλοτε τόποις ὁρῶνται· ἐοίκασιν οὖν οὗτοι μόνοι μὴ ἐμπεπῆχθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ (cf. ch. 2.14) καθάπερ οἱ ἀπλανεῖς λεγόμενοι. ἔστιν δὲ αὐτῶν τάξις τοιαύτη (cf. ch. 2.15) … ἀποκαθίσταται δὲ ἡ σελήνη ἀπὸ ⟨σημείου ἐπὶ⟩ σημεῖον ἐν μηνὶ τὸν ἑαυτῆς δρόμον πληροῦσα· ὁ δὲ ἥλιος ἐν ἑνιαυτῷ· ὁ δὲ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης καὶ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ ὁμοίως ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ· ἰσοταχεῖς γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τρεῖς· ὅθεν καὶ διά⟨φωνος αὐτῶν ἡ τάξις⟩. Isidore of Seville Nat. 23 anni autem singularum stellarum hii sunt qui in sphaera subiecta continentur. quibus peractis ad reversionem circuli sui hisdem signis et partibus veniunt. nam luna octo annis fertur explere circulum suum; Mercurius annis XX; Lucifer annis VIIII; sol annis XVIIII; Vesper XV; Phaeton XII; Saturnus XXX. §§2–10 Great year. Censorinus DN 18.1–15, pp. 39.17–45.12 Sallmann … nunc de annis maioribus dicam, quorum magnitudo adeo diverse tam gentibus observata quam auctoribus tradita est, ut alii annum magnum esse in annis vertentibus duobus, alii in multis milibus annorum arbitrati sint. quod quale sit, iam hinc conabor absolvere. (2) veteres in Graecia civitates cum animadverterent, dum sol annuo cursu orbem suum circumit, lunam novam interdum ⟨duodecies, interdum⟩ tridecies exoriri idque saepe alternis fieri, arbitrati sunt lunares duodecim menses et dimidiatum ad annum naturalem convenire. itaque annos civiles sic statuerunt, ut intercalando facerent alternos duodecim mensum, alternos tredecim, utrumque annum separatim vertentem, iunctos ambo annum magnum vocantes. idque tempus τριετηρίδα appellabant, quod tertio quoque anno intercalabatur, quamvis biennii circuitus et re vera διετηρίς esset; unde

1123

1124

liber 2 caput 32

mysteria, quae Libero alternis fiunt annis, trieterica a poetis dicuntur. (3) postea cognito errore hoc tempus duplicarunt et τετραετηρίδα fecerunt. sed eam, quod quinto quoque anno redibat, πενταετηρίδα nominabant, qui annus magnus ex quadriennio commodior visus est, ⟨cum cognitum esset⟩ solis annum constare ex diebus ccclxv et diei parte circiter quarta, quae I in quadriennium diem conficeret. (4) quare agon et in Elide Jovi Olympio et Romae Capitolino quinto quoque anno redeunte celebratur. hoc quoque tempus, quod ad solis modo cursum nec ad lunae congruere videbatur, duplicatum est et ὀκταετηρίς facta, quae tunc ἐννεατηρίς vocitata, quia primus eius annus nono quoque anno redibat. (5) hunc circuitum vere annum magnum esse pleraque Graecia existimavit, quod ex annis vertentibus solidis ⟨et mensibus solidis⟩ constaret, ut proprie in anno magno fieri par est. nam dies sunt soli⟨di i̅i ̅d ccccxxii, menses solidi⟩ uno minus centum, annique vertentes solidi octo. Hanc ὀκταετηρίδα vulgo creditum est ab Eudoxo Cnidio institutam, sed alii Cleostratum Tenedium (6B4 DK) primum ferunt conposuisse et postea alios aliter, qui mensibus varie intercalandis suas ὀκταετηρίδας protulerunt, ut fecit Harpalus, Nauteles, Menestratus, item alii, in quis Dositheus, cuius maxime ὀκταετηρίς Eudoxi inscribitur (fr. 131 Lasserre). (6) ob hoc in Graecia multae religiones hoc intervallo temporis summa caerimonia coluntur. Delphis quoque ludi, qui vocantur Pythia, post annum octavum olim conficiebantur. proxima est hanc magnitudinem quae vocatur δωδεκαετηρίς ex annis vertentibus duodecim. (7) huic anno Chaldaico nomen est, quem genethliaci non ad solis lunaeque cursus, sed ad observationes alias habent adcommodatum, quod in eo dicunt tempestates frugumque proventus ac sterilitates, item morbos salubritatesque circumire. (8) praeterea sunt anni magni conplures, ut Metonicus, quem Meton Atheniensis ex annis undeviginti constituit, eoque ἐννεαδεκαετηρίς appellatur et intercalatur septies, inque eo anno sunt dierum v̅ i ̅d ccccxl. est et Philolai (44A22 DK) Pythagorici annus ex annis quinquaginta novem, in quo sunt menses intercalares viginti et unus; item Callippi Cyziceni ex annis septuaginta sex, ita ut menses duodetriginta intercalentur; et Democriti (fr. 423 Luria) ex annis lxxxii cum intercalaris perinde viginti octo; sed et Hipparchi ex annis ccciiii, in quo intercaletur centies decies bis. (9) haec annorum magnitudo eo discrepat, quod inter astrologos non convenit, quanto vel sol plus quam ccclxv dies in anno conficiat, vel luna minus quam triginta in mense. (10) ad Aegyptiorum vero annum magnum luna non pertinet, quem Graeci κυνικόν, Latine canicularem vocamus, propterea quod initium illius sumitur, cum primo die eius mensis, quem vocant Aegyptii Θωυθί, caniculae sidus exoritur. nam eorum annus civilis solidus habet dies ccclxv sine ullo intercalari. itaque quadriennium apud eos uno circiter die minus est, quam naturale quadriennium, eoque fit ut anno mcccclxi ad idem revolvatur principium. hic annus etiam ἡλιακός a quibusdam dicitur, et ab aliis θεοῦ ἐνιαυτός. (11) est praeterea annus, quem Aristoteles (Protr. fr. 19 Ross) maximum potius, quam magnum appellat, quem solis et lunae vagarumque quinque stellarum orbes conficiunt, cum ad idem signum, ubi quondam simul fuerunt, una referuntur. cuius anni hiemps summa est κατακλυσμός, quam nostri diluvionem vocant, aes-

liber 2 caput 32 tas autem ἐκπύρωσις, quod est mundi incendium: nam his alternis temporibus mundus tum exignescere tum exaquescere videtur. hunc Aristarchus putavit esse annorum vertentium i̅i ̅c ccclxxxiiii, Aretes Dyrrachinus v̅ d lii, Heraclitus et Linus x̅ d ccc, Dion x̅ d ccclxxxiiii, Orpheus c̅ x̅ x̅, Cassandrus tricies sexies centum milium; alii vero infinitum esse nec umquam in se reverti existimarunt … (15) quod ad annos pertinet magnos, in praesentia satis dictum: nunc de annis vertentibus dicendi locus. cf. Servius auctus in Aen. 1.269, p. 99.16– 19 Thilo-Hagen tria sunt genera annorum: aut enim lunaris annus est xxx dierum, aut solstitialis xii mensum, aut secundum Tullium magnus, qui tenet x̅ i ̅i ̅c cccliiii annos, ut in Hortensio (fr. 67 Ruch) horum annorum quos in fastis habemus magnus x̅ i ̅i ̅d ccccliiii amplectitur. cf. Ioannes Lydus Mens. 3.16 (three kinds of τελεία περίοδος). §2 Lucretius DRN 1.1027–1030 (atoms forming world) tandem deveniunt in talis disposituras, / qualibus haec rerum consistit summa creata, / et multos etiam magnos servata per annos / ut semel in motus coniectast convenientis … cf. DRN 5.644 (on the heavenly bodies) quae volvunt magnos in magnis orbibus annos. §3 Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.87 (on Eudoxus, F 130 Lasserre) τὴν Ὀκταετηρίδα κατά τινας συγγράψαι. Suda s.v. E 3429, p. 2.445.26–29 Adler Εὔδοξος (fr. 129 Lasserre), Αἰσχίνου, Κνίδιος, φιλόσοφος, Πλάτωνος ἡλικιώτης·ᾧ τρεῖς ἐγένοντο θυγατέρες, Ἀκτίς, Δελφίς, Φιλτίς. καὶ ἔσχε πρὸς ἀστρολογίαν ὑπερφυῶς ἔγραψέ τε πλεῖστα τοῦ εἴδους τούτου· καὶ Ὀκταετηρίδα, ἔτι δὲ δι᾽ ἐπῶν Ἀστρονομίαν. also K 2454 s.v. Κρίτων. §§7–10 Great(est) year: cf. Cicero ND 2.51 cited above; see also Tacitus Dial. 16.7 nam si, ut Cicero in Hortensio (fr. 80 Grilli) scribit, is est magnus et verus annus, quo eadem positio caeli siderumque, quae cum maxime est, rursum existet, isque annus horum quos nos vocamus annorum duodecim milia nongentos quinquaginta quattuor complectitur … Servius auctus cited above under General texts §§2–10. Arius Didymus fr. 37 Diels at Eus. PE 15.19 (on the Stoics, SVF 2.699) ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον δὲ προελθὼν ὁ κοινὸς λόγος καὶ κοινὴ φύσις μείζων καὶ πλείων γενομένη τέλος ἀναξηράνασα πάντα καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀναλαβοῦσα ἐν τῇ πάσῃ οὐσίᾳ γίνεται, ἐπανελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν πρῶτον ῥηθέντα λόγον καὶ εἰς τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐκείνην τὴν ποιοῦσαν ἐνιαυτὸν τὸν μέγιστον, καθ᾽ ὃν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς μόνης εἰς αὐτὴν πάλιν γίνεται ἡ ἀποκατάστασις. Sextus Empiricus M. 5.105 ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ αὐτὸς τῶν ἀστέρων σχηματισμὸς διὰ μακρῶν, ὥς φασι, χρόνων θεωρεῖται, ἀποκαταστάσεως γινομένης τοῦ μεγάλου ἐνιαυτοῦ δι᾽ ἐννεακισχιλίων ἐννακοσίων καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα καὶ ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν, οὐ φθάσει ἀνθρωπίνη τήρησις τοῖς τοσούτοις αἰῶσι συνδραμεῖν ἐπὶ μιᾶς γενέσεως … Macrobius in Somn. 2.11.11 hoc (sc. end of the cosmic year) autem, ut physici volunt, post annorum quindecim milia peracta contingit. ergo sicut annus lunae mensis est et annus solis duodecim menses, et aliarum stellarum hi sunt anni quos supra rettulimus, ita mundanum annum quindecim milia annorum quales nunc computamus efficiunt.

1125

1126 b

liber 2 caput 32

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aratus Phaen. 454–459 οἱ δ᾽ ἐπιμὶξ ἄλλοι πέντ᾽ ἀστέρες οὐδὲν ὁμοῖοι / πάντοθεν εἰδώλων δυοκαίδεκα δινεύονται. / οὐκ ἂν ἔτ᾽ εἰς ἄλλους ὁρόων ἐπιτεκμήραιο / κείνων ἧχι κέονται, ἐπεὶ πάντες μετανάσται. / μακροὶ δέ σφεών εἰσιν ἑλισσομένων ἐνιαυτοί, / μακρὰ δὲ σήματα κεῖται ἀπόπροθεν εἰς ἓν ἰόντων. Cicero Arat. 230–233 sic malunt errare uagae per nubila caeli / atque suos uario motu metirier orbes. / haec faciunt magnos longinqui temporis annos, / cum redeunt ad idem caeli sub tegmine signum. Chapter heading: cf. Democritus at D.L. 9.48 (68A33 DK) Μέγας ἐνιαυτὸς ἢ Ἀστρονομίη, παράπηγμα. Aelian VH 10.7 cited below on §4. §1 Revolutions of planets: ps.Aristotle Mu. 6 399a6–11 σελήνη μὲν γὰρ ἐν μηνὶ τὸν ἑαυτῆς διαπεραίνεται κύκλον αὐξομένη τε καὶ μειουμένη καὶ φθίνουσα, ἥλιος δὲ ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ καὶ οἱ τούτου ἰσόδρομοι, ὅ τε Φωσφόρος καὶ ὁ Ἑρμοῦ λεγόμενος, ὁ δὲ Πυρόεις ἐν διπλασίονι τούτων χρόνῳ, ὁ δὲ Διὸς ἐν ἑξαπλασίονι τούτου, καὶ τελευταῖος ὁ Κρόνου λεγόμενος ἐν διπλασίονι καὶ ἡμίσει τοῦ ὑποκάτω. Geminus Elem. 1.24–30, p. 6 Aujac ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων σφαῖραν κεῖται Φαίνων, ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου προσαγορευόμενος ἀστήρ· οὗτος τὸν μὲν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον ἐν ἔτεσι λʹ ὡς ἔγγιστα διαπορεύεται, τὸ δὲ ἓν ζῴδιον ἐν βʹ ἔτεσι καὶ ϛʹ μησίν. (25) ὑπὸ δὲ τὸν Φαίνοντα κατώτερον αὐτοῦ φέρεται Φαέθων, ὁ τοῦ Διὸς προσαγορευόμενος ἀστήρ· οὗτος δὲ τὸν μὲν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον διαπορεύεται ἐν ιβʹ ἔτεσι, τὸ δὲ ἓν ζῴδιον ἐν ἐνιαυτῷ. (26) ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦτον τέτακται Πυρόεις ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεος· οὗτος δὲ τὸν μὲν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον διέρχεται ἐν δυσὶν ἔτεσι καὶ ἑξαμήνῳ, τὸ δὲ ζῴδιον ἐν δυσὶ μησὶ καὶ ἡμίσει. (27) τὴν δὲ ἐχομένην χώραν κατέχει ὁ ἥλιος, ἐνιαυτῷ διαπορευόμενος τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον, τὸ δὲ ζῴδιον ὡς ἔγγιστα ἑνὶ μηνί. (28) κατώτερος δὲ τούτου κεῖται Φωσφόρος, ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀστήρ· οὗτος δὲ ὡς ἔγγιστα ἰσοταχῶς κινεῖται τῷ ἡλίῳ. (29) Ὑπὸ τοῦτον δὲ ⟨Στίλβων⟩ ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ ἀστὴρ κεῖται, καὶ αὐτὸς δὲ ἰσοταχῶς τῷ ἡλίῳ κινεῖται. (30) κατωτέρω δὲ πάντων φέρεται ἡ σελήνη, ἐν ἡμέραις κζʹ γʹ διαπορευομένη τὸν ζῳδιακὸν κύκλον, τὸ δὲ ζῴδιον ἐν ἡμέραις βʹ καὶ δῳ μέρει τῆς μιᾶς ἡμέρας ὡς ἔγγιστα. Cleomedes Cael. 1.2.20–42 Todd ὧν (sc. the planets) ὑψηλότατος μὲν εἶναι δοκεῖ ὁ Φαίνων καλούμενος, ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου ἀστήρ, τριακονταετεῖ χρόνῳ τὸν οἰκεῖον κύκλον ἀπαρτίζων κατὰ τὴν προαιρετικὴν τῶν κινήσεων. ὑπὸ τοῦτόν ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ Διός, καλεῖται δὲ Φαέθων, δωδεκαετίᾳ τὸν οἰκεῖον ἀμείβων κύκλον. ὑπὸ τοῦτον Πυρόεις, ὁ τοῦ Ἄρεως, ἀτακτοτέραν μὲν τὴν κίνησιν ἔχων, δοκεῖ δ᾽ οὖν καὶ οὗτος διετίᾳ καὶ πέντε μησὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον ἀνύειν κύκλον. ὑπὸ τοῦτον ὁ ἥλιος εἶναι ὑπονοεῖται, μέσος ὑπάρχων τῶν ἄλλων. οὗτος ἐνιαυτῷ περιερχόμενος τὸν οἰκεῖον κύκλον κατὰ ταύτην μὲν τὴν κίνησιν τὰς ὥρας ἀπαρτίζει, κατὰ δὲ τὴν σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐπιτελεῖ. ὑπὸ τοῦτον ὁ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἐστί, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐνιαυσιαίαν τὴν περίοδον ἔχων. καλεῖται δέ, ὁπόταν μὲν ἐπικαταδύηται τῷ ἡλίῳ, Ἕσπερος, ὁπόταν δὲ προανίσχῃ αὐτοῦ, Ἑωσφόρος. τινὲς δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον καὶ Φωσφόρον καλεῖν εἰώθασιν. ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν Ἀφροδίτην ἐστὶν ὁ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ, Στίλβων καλούμενος, καὶ τοῦτον ἐνιαυτῷ περιιέναι τὸν ἴδιον κύκλον φασίν. ὑπὸ τοῦτόν ἐστιν ἡ σελήνη, προσγειοτάτη πάντων τῶν ἄστρων ὑπάρχουσα … αὕτη τὸν ἴδιον ἀπαρτίζει κύκλον ἐν ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι ἡμέραις καὶ ἡμίσει. συνοδεύει δὲ τῷ ἡλίῳ διὰ τριάκοντα. Theon Exp. p. 135.21– 136.9 Hiller τὸ μῆκος ἀπὸ σημείου ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σημεῖον, εἰς τὰ ἑπόμενα καὶ οὐκ εἰς

liber 2 caput 32 τὰ προηγούμενα, σελήνη μὲν ἐν ἡμέραις κζʹ καὶ τρίτῳ μάλιστα ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς διέρχεται· ὁ ἥλιος δ᾽ ἐνιαυτῷ, ὅς ἐστιν ἡμερῶν ἐγγὺς τξεʹ δʹʹ· φωσφόρος δὲ καὶ στίλβων καθ᾽ ἕκαστα μὲν ἀνωμάλως, ὀλίγον παραλλάττοντες τοῖς χρόνοις, ὡς δὲ τὸ ὅλον εἰπεῖν ἰσόδρομοι ἡλίῳ εἰσίν, ἀεὶ περὶ τοῦτον ὁρώμενοι· διὸ καταλαμβάνουσί τε αὐτὸν καὶ καταλαμβάνονται· πυρόεις δὲ ὀλίγου δεῖν διετίᾳ, καὶ φαέθων μὲν σύνεγγυς ἔτεσι δώδεκα, φαίνων δὲ παρ᾽ ὀλίγον ἔτεσι λʹ. §2 Great year: Plato Tim. 39d ἔστιν δ᾽ ὅμως οὐδὲν ἧττον κατανοῆσαι δυνατὸν ὡς ὅ γε τέλεος ἀριθμὸς χρόνου τὸν τέλεον ἐνιαυτὸν πληροῖ τότε, ὅταν ἁπασῶν τῶν ὀκτὼ περιόδων τὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα συμπερανθέντα τάχη σχῇ κεφαλὴν τῷ τοῦ ταὐτοῦ καὶ ὁμοίως ἰόντος ἀναμετρηθέντα κύκλῳ. Alcinous Did. 14, p. 170.37–42 H. ἐκ δὲ πασῶν τῶν περιόδων ὁ τέλειος ἀριθμὸς καὶ χρόνος συμπεραιοῦται ὁπόταν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σημεῖον πάντες οἱ πλανῆται ἐλθόντες ταύτην τὴν τάξιν λάβωσιν, ὥστε εὐθείας νοηθείσης ἀπὸ τῆς ἀπλανοῦς σφαίρας ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν νευούσης κατὰ κάθετον τὰ κέντρα αὐτῶν ἐπὶ ταύτης θεωρεῖται. Apuleius Plat. 1.10 unde fit ut et magnus ille vocitatus annus facile noscatur, cuius tempus implebitur cum vagantium stellarum comitatus ad eundem pervenerit finem novumque sibi exordium et itinera per vias mundi reparaverit. Proclus in Tim. 3.91.20–93.19 εἰώθασι γὰρ οὕτω τινὲς λέγειν, λαμβάνοντες τὴν ἀκριβῆ τῆς σελήνης ἀποκατάστασιν καὶ τὴν ἡλιακὴν ὁμοίως καὶ ποιοῦντες τὴν ἑτέραν ἐπὶ τὴν λοιπὴν καὶ τὴν Ἑρμαϊκὴν ἐπὶ ταύτας καὶ τὴν Ἀφροδισιακὴν ἐπὶ τὰς τρεῖς καὶ τὴν Ἀρεϊκὴν ἐπὶ πάσας καὶ τὴν Δίιον ὁμοίως καὶ λοιπὴν τὴν Κρόνιον ἐπὶ ταύτας ὅλας καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀπλανοῦς ἐπὶ τὴν μίαν καὶ κοινὴν τῶν πλανωμένων ἀποκατάστασιν. οὕτω μὲν οὖν λέγουσιν, εἴπερ εἶεν οἱ ἀποκαταστατικοὶ χρόνοι πρῶτοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους οἱ προσβαλλόμενοι· … καὶ δῆλον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, τίς τέ ἐστι καὶ πόθεν ὑφίσταται καὶ τίνα παρέχεται συντέλειαν τῷ παντί. §3 cf. Censorinus 18.5 cited above. cf. Scholion on Lucan Bell.Civ. 10.185 Eudoxus (F 134 Lasserre) enim ad cursum suum post octo annos solem reverti dixit et esse annum magnum … Geminus Elem. 8.27, p. 52 Aujac πρώτην δὲ συνεστήσαντο (sc. the Egyptians) τὴν περίοδον τῆς ὀκταετηρίδος, ἥτις περιέχει μὲν μῆνας ϟθʹ, ἐν οἷς ἐμβολίμους γʹ, ἡμέρας δὲ ͵βϡκβʹ, ἔτη δὲ ὀκτή. §4 ps.Theophrastus Sign. 4 διὸ καὶ ἀγαθοὶ γεγένηνται κατὰ τόπους τινὰς ἀστρονόμοι ἔνιοι οἷον Ματρικέτας … καὶ Φαεινὸς … παρ᾽ οὗ Μέτων ἀκούσας τὸν τοῦ ἑνὸς δέοντα εἴκοσιν ἐνιαυτὸν συνέταξεν. Diodorus Siculus 12.36.2 ἐν δὲ ταῖς Ἀθήναις Μέτων ὁ Παυσανίου μὲν υἱός, δεδοξασμένος δὲ ἐν ἀστρολογίᾳ, ἐξέθηκε τὴν ὀνομαζομένην ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδα, τὴν ἀρχὴν ποιησάμενος ἀπὸ μηνὸς ἐν Ἀθήναις σκιροφοριῶνος τρισκαιδεκάτης. ἐν δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἔτεσι τὰ ἄστρα τὴν ἀποκατάστασιν ποιεῖται καὶ καθάπερ ἐνιαυτοῦ τινος μεγάλου τὸν ἀνακυκλισμὸν λαμβάνει· διὸ καί τινες αὐτὸν Μέτωνος ἐνιαυτὸν ὀνομάζουσι. see also 2.47.6. Geminus Elem. 8.50, p. 56 Aujac διόπερ ἐπειδὴ διημαρτημένην εἶναι συνέβαινε τὴν ὀκταετηρίδα κατὰ πάντα, ἑτέραν περίοδον συνεστήσαντο τὴν τῆς ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδος οἱ περὶ Εὐκτήμονα καὶ Φίλιππον καὶ Κάλλιππον ἀστρολόγοι. Aelian V.H. 10.7 ὅτι Μέτων ὁ Λευκονοιεὺς ἀστρολόγος ἀνέστησε στήλας, καὶ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου τροπὰς κατεγράψατο, καὶ τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν ὡς ἔλεγεν εὗρε, καὶ ἔφατο αὐτὸν ἑνὸς δέοντα εἴκοσιν ἐτῶν. cf. Censorinus DN 18.8 cited above.

1127

1128

liber 2 caput 32

§5 Geminus Elem. 8.59, pp. 57–58 Aujac δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν οἱ περὶ Κάλλιππον γενόμενοι ἀστρολόγοι διωρθώσαντο τὸ πλεονάζον τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ συνεστήσαντο τὴν ἑκκαιεβδομηκονταετηρίδα συνεστηκυῖαν ἐκ δ ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίδων … cf. Censorinus 18.8 cited above. §6 Aelian V.H. 10.7 Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος (41A9 DK) ἀστρολόγος ἀνέθηκεν ἐν Ὀλυμπίοις τὸ χαλκοῦν γραμματεῖον, ἐγγράψας ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀστρολογίαν τῶν ἑνὸς δεόντων ἑξήκοντα ἐτῶν, φήσας τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν εἶναι τοῦτον. Theon of Smyrna Exp. 198.14–16 Hiller cited above ch. 2.12. §§7–10 Great(est) year: Aristotle Mete. 1.14 352a28–31 ἀλλὰ πάντων τούτων (sc. periodic deluges) αἴτιον ὑποληπτέον ὅτι γίγνεται διὰ χρόνων εἱμαρμένων, οἷον ἐν ταῖς κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ὥραις χειμών, οὕτως περιόδου τινὸς μεγάλης μέγας χειμὼν καὶ ὑπερβολὴ ὄμβρων. §7 see Plato Tim. 39d cited above on §2. §§8–9 Heraclitus Diogenes: Philo Aet. 77 λέγεται δὲ καὶ Διογένης (SVF fr. 27) ἡνίκα νέος ἦν συνεπιγραψάμενος τῷ δόγματι τῆς ἐκπυρώσεως ὀψὲ τῆς ἡλικίας ἐνδοιάσας ἐπισχεῖν. Plutarch Def.Or. 415F καὶ ὁ Κλεόμβροτος ‘ἀκούω ταῦτ᾽’ ἔφη ‘πολλῶν καὶ ὁρῶ τὴν Στωικὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ὥσπερ τὰ Ἡρακλείτου καὶ τὰ Ὀρφέως ἐπινεμομένην ἔπη οὕτω καὶ τὰ Ἡσιόδου καὶ συνεξάπτουσαν· …’ cf. Censorinus DN 18.11 cited above.

Aetius Placita Book 3 Meteorology and the Earth: Text and Commentary

∵

Introduction to Book 3 1

Transmission

Book 3 of A’s compendium is not very well attested. In its present condition it is by far the shortest in terms of chapters (18), doxai (109) and absolute length (2811 words), and like Book 5 it is quite incomplete.1 PB and PQ are available for all of its eighteen chapters, and E copied out P 3.9–11, the heading of P 3.12 but with the text of P 3.13, and P 3.16, so five chapters in all. G excerpted P 3.1–5, 3.7–11, and 3.13–16, thus omitting P’s chs. 6, 12 and 18, but still preserves a lot of P’s Book 3 (about 60%) and so provides valuable evidence to complement PB and PQ for relatively large sections of the book. In addition there are four very small scraps from the Antinoopolis papyrus, while some headings and lemmata are confirmed by Psellus. Due to Byzantine abridgement S, omitting all of chs. 3.9–14, 3.16 and 3.18, is only available for sections of chs. 3.1–8, 3.15 (where only the Plato doxa remains out of 11 lemmata preserved in P), and 3.17. S therefore unusually provides only 60 doxai to P’s 91. Similarly to Books 1 and 4, therefore, one can make a division between the part for which S is available and the part where there is only P. T leaves aside this book entirely. In addition, chs. 3.9– 14 on the earth, where only P and his tradition are available, have clearly been drastically epitomized. The number and order of the lemmata of these chapters must remain fixed as we find them there. At most we can speculate on how P might have epitomized the material he found in A, in some cases comparing material found in proximate and other sources or extrapolating from what we know about P’s methods elsewhere in his Epitome (for example his manipulation of name-labels). In those cases we shall speak primarily about P, though it must always be borne in mind that A will be hovering in the background.

2

Subject Matter and Macrostructure

There is a division of subject matter between Books 2 and 3, which at first glance seems quite strict. Moreover the Book itself consists of two different parts. The proœmium of our Book states that in the preceding Book the ‘things in the heavens’ (ta ourania) have been treated, and that it is now the turn of ‘what is in the atmosphere’ (ta metarsia) ‘in the third (Book)’. By mentioning

1 For the statistics in this section see further Appendix 3 to the General Introduction.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_074

1132

introduction to book 3

both the ourania and metarsia, it emphasizes the unity of the work. Ch. 3.1 on the Milky Way has a transitional function, as the first and highest of the metarsia so closest to the ourania, see ch. 3.1 Commentary D(a). The proœmium also draws attention to the unity of the book because it not only mentions the metarsia but also the ‘position of the earth’, i.e. refers to ch. 3.11 and its immediate context. In the introductory passage at ch. 3.8.2 below both these parts are mentioned again, the one as having been treated, the other as to be treated now. Here we should note that ch. 3.18 ‘On the halo’, at the end of Book 3 in P (a chapter not paralleled in S), is in the wrong place, as Diels already saw. It belongs with the metarsia, not with the prosgeia. We have therefore decided to put it back to where it belongs, that is after ch. 3.5 ‘On the rainbow’, and to give it the new number ‘3.5a olim 18’. After all, we are reconstructing A, not editing P. An unintended benefit of this rearrangement is that we get two successive series of exactly nine chapters each, with first the metarsia and then the prosgeia, which, as a neat division of the Book’s overarching themes, is a good result. So Book 3 as reconstructed neatly splits into two equal halves. Even so, it has to be admitted that P 3.18 could have been shifted to the end of the Book to strengthen the impression, by returning after the prosgeia to the metarsia with which it begins, that it is a unity. And there are other considerations in favour of leaving P 3.18 in its present anomalous position. In Aristotle the phenomena of reflection (rainbows, halos, mock suns) are found at the end, in Meteorology Book 3. In A these phenomena, except the chapter on the halo, have been moved forward in order to be included among the meteorological phenomena and so make room for the terrestrial phenomena. One could argue that the chapter on the halo was forgotten and remained stuck in its original final position. A further possibility is that originally it was omitted and subsequently reinserted where room was available, namely, at the end of a scroll. It is in our view more likely, however, that it has been misplaced, and for this reason we have moved it to after ch. 3.5 in our reconstruction. A subsidiary argument in favour of this decision is that the division between Books 3 and 4 is less clear-cut than that between Books 2 and 3. The two chapters dealing with the sea at 3.16–17 are followed beyond the Book division by the remaining chapter on terrestrial waters, ch. 4.1 on the Nile. In its final position, as occurs in P, the chapter on the halo gets in the way, and as we have seen at ch. 3.5a Commentary A and D(a) it is not found in G, whose abridged version of 4.1 follows on directly after that of 3.17. Moreover both ch. 3.17 and ch. 4.1, as we shall see below, present recherché name-labels not or very rarely found elsewhere in the Placita. An important contrast resulting in a further subdivision in the first part of the Book (chs. 3.1–8) is between meteorological phenomena that are real (καθ᾽

introduction to book 3

1133

ὑπόστασιν) and those that are merely optical (κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν). This is only made explicit quite a long time after the proœmium, viz. at the beginning of ch. 3.5 ‘On the rainbow’. The postponement of the expression of this preliminary consideration (which puzzled Diels) faithfully echoes the procedure of Aristotle’s Meteorology, where this is made an important thematic issue as late as, and only in, Book 3, in which the rainbow and similar phenomena are treated. There is no need to link this contrast with the name of Posidonius, as used to be the opinio communis; thus e.g. Strohm (1953) 286: ‘Die kluge Einteilung … in Vorgänge, die der Substanz nach, und solche, die nur nach dem optischen Eindruck existieren (κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν/καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν), gilt seit langem mit Recht als eine Art Leitfossil für Poseidonios.’ On the divisions and unity of he treatise see also above, General Introduction section 2.7. A is bent on following an order which goes from the periphery to the centre not only in the treatise as a whole (see M–R 2.1.40–41, 50–59 and passim), but also in the present Book: atmospheric phenomena from Milky Way via comets (ch. 3.2), thunder and lightning (ch. 3.3), clouds (ch. 3.4), rainbow (ch. 3.5), rods (ch. 3.6), winds (ch. 3.7), and summer and winter (ch. 3.8) to a cluster of chapters dealing with the earth and the sea. (P 3.18, on the halo, as we have seen is actually in the wrong place.) Because of this arrangement all the issues concerned with the earth, even those regarding its position and behaviour as a cosmic body, are treated in Book 3 after those in the atmosphere. In Aristotle’s On the Heavens the earth (Cael. 2.13) is part of the cosmic system, like the sun and the moon. It looks like Aristotle included this discussion mainly because of the theory of the Pythagoreans. In A the themes of Aristotle’s chapter and related issues have been interpolated in the meteorology, between the chapters on winds and on summer and winter on the one hand and that on earthquakes on the other, both winds and earthquakes having been treated at length in the Meteorology. The macro-structure of Book 3 is thus the outcome of a rearrangement of the Aristotelian template, or templates. That this did not have to be the case is clear from Seneca’s different approach in the Naturales quaestiones (see for example Nat. 2.1.4–5) and other parallels. Seneca’s treatise begins the other way round, namely with phenomena that are close to the centre, that is, with the terrestrial waters of the present Book 3 according to a later reordering, but Book 1 according to Seneca’s own and original order. See further M–R 2.1.110–125. It should be noted, finally, that—unlike in most other books, but like chs. 1.9–30—all the chapters without exception begin with the umbrella heading περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα, for which see above, ch. 1.3, Commentary C.

1134 3

introduction to book 3

Name Labels

In several respects this Book is rather different from the others. The namelabels of chs. 1–15 are of philosophers only, but ch. 16 includes the Sophist Antiphon who dabbled in natural philosophy, and in ch. 17 on the tides we encounter no less than five non-philosophers: Pytheas, Timaeus, Crates, Apollodorus (unknown), and Seleucus (a comparable bevy of non-philosophers is found only in ch. 4.1, likewise treating a subject not dealt with by Aristotle). As to schools, apart from Stoics we only have Peripatetics at ch. 3.2.6. Anonymi are limited to just five examples. This incidence of name-label and diversity differs markedly from the other four books. The following name-labels are represented with an unusually high number of doxai: Metrodorus (9 doxai, i.e. top of the list!), Anaxagoras (8 doxai), Anaximenes (6 doxai), Anaximander (4 doxai), Heraclides (3 out of 9 doxai in the whole treatise), while Plato (2 doxai), Empedocles (3 doxai), Pythagoras (1 doxa), and Heraclitus (1 doxa) are unusually low. Atomists are cited separately, not lumped together as occurs so often elsewhere. The number of multiple name-labels is the lowest of all the Books, also relative to its size, namely 8, all just consisting of 2 name-labels. Not surprisingly, therefore, in terms of name-labels, Book 3 has least overlap with other Books.

4

Successions and Historical Presentation

Book 3 is the most historical of all the Books in terms of the chronological ordering of sequences of name-labels. It also appears to be the least dialectical, so contrasts strongly with Book 2, where these two positions are reversed. Successions play a minor role, but we still find Thales first in chs. 3.9–11 and 15 (including ‘the successors of Thales’ in 3.11), and Pythagoras or Pythagoreans first in chs. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.14. For the present sections 3 and 4 see further the statistics of Jeremiah (2018) at M–R 4.301, 314–316, 321, 324, and 335.

5

Sources: Proximate Tradition

For the proximate tradition of A’s material in this Book there are substantial parallels to be found in a number of texts, though such evidence is poor or virtually absent for chs. 3.8–9 and 3.12. Among these the most prominent are Lucretius De rerum natura Books 5–6, Seneca Naturales quaestiones; then Strabo, Manilius, ps.Aristotle De mundo, Pliny Naturalis historia Book 2, the physical fragments of Arrian, Diogenes Laertius, Hippolytus Refutatio omnium

introduction to book 3

1135

haeresium Book 1, Macrobius in Somnium Ciceronis, and Achilles De universo (see below) as well as the Scholia on Aratus. For the Lucretian texts the great Léon Robin, in the Ernout–Robin commentary of 1925–1928, already appealed successfully to the doxographical context of the arguments on meteorology and psychology. The sequences of meteorological themes in Lucretius parallel to A Book 3 are listed in Runia (1997) 96–97, repr. M–R 3.260–261. Sedley (1998b) 157–160 puts the closely parallel themes of DRN book 6 and A Book 3.1– 4.1 [note misprint: 4.7], plus the less complete evidence of Metarsiology (for which see the next section) in parallel columns. Dependence of Lucretius for this material on Epicurus cannot be proved, but according to Sedley is plausible in view of Lucretius’ dependence on Epicurus’ On Nature which, as he posits, can be demonstrated for the rest of the DRN. Epicurus, in his turn, would depend on Theophrastus, with a key role for the Physikai Doxai (ibid. 166–185). Obviously, Sedley’s interesting and at a first glance seductive source-critical hypothesis cannot be discussed here. But it is worth repeating that the similarities in macro-organisation between Lucretius and A on meteorology cannot be a matter of coincidence, see Runia at M–R 4.409–411. For the situation in Book 4 on psychology see below Book 4, Introduction, section 6, Parallels in Lucretius and Tertullian. Detailed discussions, overviews, and lists in parallel columns of meteorological phenomena in a multiplicity of related sources are found in Bakker (2016) 76–161, ch. 3 ‘Range and order of subjects in ancient meteorology’. For literature on sources and predecessors of Seneca in the Naturales quaestiones see Hine (2009–2010) 2.38–50. In Achilles De universo three meteorological chapters have been inserted near the end: Ach c. 32 ‘On things in heaven and things on high’ (Περὶ μεταρσίων καὶ μετεώρων), with a full list of the latter, cf. the whole of chs. 3.2–8; Ach c. 33 ‘On winds, and that wind differs from exhalation’ (Περὶ ἀνέμων, καὶ ὅτι διαφέρει αὔρα ἀναθυμιάσεως) cf. ch. 3.7; Ach c. 34 ‘On comets’ (Περὶ κομητῶν) cf. ch. 3.2. The sparse parallels as to content, not mentioned by Diels, Maass, or Di Maria, will be cited at the witnesses for chs. 3.2 and 3.7. But Ach c. 35 ‘On position’ (Περὶ θέσεως) and c. 36 ‘On motion’ are not about the earth but provide advice about how to use the armillary sphere, as is only proper in what has become an Introduction to Aratus. These chapters are followed by three more on the heavenly bodies.

6

Other Source Material

For the ultimate sources of much of the material contained in the Book we must go back to the Peripatos, and think of the otherwise lost sources used and

1136

introduction to book 3

cited by Aristotle, Theophrastus and their predecessors. Important parallels for the meteorological chapters in A, including 3.15 on earthquakes (and also for the wider proximate tradition), are provided by the Metarsiology attributed disertis verbis to Theophrastus in two manuscripts. This text, now to be consulted in the edition with translation of the first complete version and provided with an extensive commentary by Hans Daiber (1992), may be no more than an (incomplete?) compendium (see overview at Sharples 1998b, 16–18), and its precise nature is not clear (see references at Taub 2003, 116). According to the catalogue of Theophrastus’ works at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.44 the work consisted of two Books (Μεταρσιολογικῶν αʹ βʹ). The attribution is accepted by a majority of scholars, but has been challenged by Bakker (2010) 71–73, 95–97, 132–141, who adverts to the mixture of Peripatetic and purported Epicurean ingredients. But we see no cogent reason to question the attribution to Theophrastus; see below on the evidence in Proclus. Reitzenstein’s study of 1928, containing as an appendix a German translation of the text as known at the time, with comments and parallels in the meteorological literature, is also still useful. The Metarsiology, extant as an independent opusculum, is relevant as a source and testifies to the (limited) influence of Theophrastus in the present Book. The absence of name-labels makes it even less likely that (originally) it belonged with the Physikai Doxai than the De sensibus, which does have them. The first editor and translator of this text, Bergsträßer (1918), followed by others, believed that an excerptor had removed the name-labels, but this seems unlikely. Aristotelian and Theophrastean precedent is cited at the individual chapters below. Material deriving from or rather attributed to Plato is limited: a single reference pertaining to the Theaetetus in the meteorological section of the Book, one reference pertaining to the Phaedo and another one pertaining to the Timaeus in the section concerned with terrestrial matters. For many of the chapters it emerges again that the general approach depends on the (Aristotelian) methodology of question types, categories and diaeresis (often turned into diaphonia), while quite a few headings as well as issues and even the contents of several lemmata go back to Aristotle’s Meteorology (in some cases via Epitomai of this work) in the meteorological part, and to De caelo 2.13 in the part concerned with terrestrial matters. For the grouping of phenomena in Aristotle’s Meteorology according to material cause, efficient cause, and location see Wilson (2009) and (2013). More scholastico the Placita separate and distribute over different mostly very short chapters a series of individual themes relating to the earth (thus chs. 3.8–14), which Aristotle and the wider doxographical tradition use to discuss in connection with each other. But the short ch. 3.9 combines several issues, and we note that some of these issues are not par-

introduction to book 3

1137

alleled in Aristotle. The earlier, properly meteorological chapters of the Book, on the other hand, tend to collect under one heading subjects treated by Aristotle in different (sets of) chapters of the Meteorologica. Later Hellenistic sources are also utilized, though sparsely, with the exception of ch. 3.17 on tides, which treats an issue that became important only after Aristotle. Again we note its affinity with ch. 4.1, which likewise treats an issue that was not on Aristotle’s agenda, and was only later discussed in the ps.Aristotelian De inundatione Nili. Hence the unusual name-labels in both these chapters. Otherwise updating is rather rare, the name-label Posidonius only being found in chs. 3.1 and 3.17. A list of themes treated in Theophrastus’ Metarsiology is found at Proclus in Tim. 2.120.30–121.7 (fr. 159 FHS&G): ‘Theophrastus … investigating whence the thunders, and whence the winds, and what kinds of causes there are of thunderbolts, lightnings, presteres, rains, snow, hail, which in his causal explanation of meteorological phenomena he rightly judged to be deserving of the appropriate conjectural account’ (τὸν Θεόφραστον … ζητοῦντος, πόθεν μὲν αἱ βρονταί, πόθεν δὲ ἄνεμοι, ποῖαι δὲ αἰτίαι κεραυνῶν, ἀστραπῶν, πρηστήρων, ὑετῶν, χιόνος, χαλάζης, ἃ δὴ καλῶς ποιῶν ἐν τῇ τῶν μετεώρων α⟨ἰτι⟩ολογίᾳ τῆς πρεπούσης εἰκοτολογίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἠξίωσεν.) In spite of the ascription in the manuscripts the attribution of this work to Theophrastus has been doubted, or even rejected, because of its penchant for multiple explanations, believed to be more appropriately Epicurean. See most recently the thorough discussion of Bakker (2016) 106–108, 145–153, who however admits that several chapters can only be of Peripatetic provenance (ibid. 148–152) and so comes down in favour of a treatise of mixed descent. But Proclus’ list of phenomena—all of which as to content rather precisely correspond to themes in the Metarsiology, though the earthquakes are missing (but Proclus’ list is not a pinax)—in our view alludes to multiple explanations. The plural ποῖαι δὲ αἰτίαι hardly means one single cause for each of the following, but alludes to the various options in each particular case and thus fits the layout of the Metarsiology. And Proclus explicitly attributes this treatment to Theophrastus. See also Sharples (1998b) xv and 228. For the chapter on winds see below, ch. 3.7 Commentary D(d). In several fragments attributed to Theophrastus On Waters, too, more than one causal explanation for a single phenomenon is mentioned, see frs. 211A FHS&G in Proclus (esp. τοῦτο ἓν εἶναι αἴτιον ὄμβρων) and 211B in Olympiodorus, cited below at E(b) General texts. Though we ourselves do not share them, we cite this work as by ‘Theophrastus(?)’ to indicate that doubts have been expressed.

1138 7

introduction to book 3

Further Parallels and Sources

Meteorology as a separate subdiscipline of physics was established, as we know and have just recalled, by Aristotle in his Meteorology. For details see above, section 2, also for treatment of the earth in the De caelo; for references see below. A rough list of subjects treated in the part of theoretical philosophy ‘called meteorological theory’ (i.e. by Stoics) is found at Galen Propr.Plac. 8, p. 180.23–31 Boudon-Millot–Pietrobelli, text Lami: ‘Chrysippus and his followers’ (Χρύσιππος καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ) have shown what knowing about ‘the thunders and lightnings (cf. ch. 3.3) and earthquakes (cf. ch. 3.15) and hail and snow (cf. ch. 3.4) and rainbows (cf. ch. 3.5) and mock sun and streaks (cf. ch. 3.6) and the single or double halo often occurring about the sun or the moon or the triple (halo) sometimes appearing (there) (cf. ch. 3.5a), and everything else that belongs with what is called meteorological theory, is useful for’ (Greek text cited at Book 1.titulus et index, capitulationes). This information has only been available since the editio princeps of the full text of the De propriis placitis in 2005, so is not (yet) found in collections of Stoic fragments. Galen points out that this study is only useful for those who study theoretical philosophy, not for the practising physician. An even more cursory overview is found in the concluding paragraph of Seneca Dial. 12.20.2: ‘then (the mind) examines everything which, filled with terrors, lies between heaven and earth, this expanse disturbed by thunder, lightning (cf. ch. 3.3), blasts of winds (cf. ch. 3.7), and the rain and snow and hail (cf. ch. 3.4) that fall upon our heads’ (trans. Davie–Reinhardt LCL, slightly modified; Latin text cited below at Book 3.proœm. E(a)). We note a reference to the fear of these phenomena that is entirely lacking in A. An anonymous list is at Ioannes Lydus De ostentis c. 4. The Stoic diaereses of the physikos logos (‘physical theory’, ‘account of physics’) at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133, for which see M–R 2.1.96–110 and above, General Introduction section 2.8, mention meteorological subjects ad finem after subjects in psychology (see Introduction to Book 4 section 6), in the second subdivision of the aitiologikon. The study of these matters is shared between mathematikoi and philosophers. The examples given are ‘how clouds are formed (cf. ch. 3.4) and thunders (cf. ch. 3.3) and rainbows (cf. ch. 3.5) and halos (cf. ch. 3.5a) and comets (cf. ch. 3.2) and similar things (cf. ch. 3.1, 3.6–9)’. Diogenes next treats these subjects in the succinct overview of Stoic physics at V.P. 7.152–156, ll. 1294–1346 Dorandi. Discussion of matters concerning the earth here follows on after the treatment of the aerial phenomena just as in A. This treatment of things terrestrial, perhaps rather surprisingly, is interrupted by the division of the heavens in zones (cf. ch. 2.12), which is then followed by that of the earth in zones cf. ch. 3.14. This highlights the parallelism we have

introduction to book 3

1139

noted in our commentaries on these two chapters. Accordingly, the Stoic system presented by him clearly shares a common tradition with the Placita. In Epicurus’ Letter to Pythocles, which makes no distinction in principle between celestial and meteorological phenomena, there is also no separate treatment of the topics concerned with the earth. Of those found in the Stoic system and in the Placita, only the earthquakes are mentioned, namely at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.105–106, wedged in between presteres and hail (this is because of the way they are explained). Individual parallels between alternative explanations of meteorological phenomena listed by Epicurus and mutually conflicting Aëtian doxai will be cited and discussed at the chapters that are involved.

Liber 3 Titulus et index Τ: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 Raeder, cf. 2.95, 5.16 (titulus)—PB: ps.Plutarchus 892C–D; pp. 268–269 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 166 Daiber (titulus), pinax in ms. Damascenus fol. 7v (ineditus)—PE: Eusebius PE 15.32.10, p. 407.1–5 Mras—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN praef., p. 18.1–10 Delatte

Titulus ΑΕΤΙΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΡΕΣΚΟΝΤΩΝ TO Γʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε· Index αʹ. Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου βʹ. Περὶ κομήτων καὶ διᾳττόντων καὶ δοκίδων γʹ. Περὶ βροντῶν ἀστραπῶν κεραυνῶν πρηστήρων τε καὶ τυφώνων δʹ. Περὶ νεφῶν ὁμίχλης ὑετῶν δρόσου χιόνος πάχνης χαλάζης εʹ. Περὶ ἴριδος ⟨ε+ʹ. Περὶ ἅλω⟩ ϛʹ. Περὶ ῥάβδων ζʹ. Περὶ ἀνέμων ηʹ. Περὶ χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους θʹ. Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι ιʹ. Περὶ σχήματος γῆς ιαʹ. Περὶ θέσεως γῆς ιβʹ. Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς ιγʹ. Πότερα μένει ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται ιδʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς, πόσαι εἰσὶν ζῶναι αὐτῆς ιεʹ. Περὶ σεισμῶν γῆς titulus : scripsimus, cf. T 4.31 et M–R 1.326 : Πλουτάρχου φιλοσόφου Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν ἐν ἐπιτομῇ τὸ γʹ, ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(I) : βίβλιον τρίτον ἐν ᾧ κεφάλαια τάδε PB(ΙΙ) : Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων τοῖς φιλοσόφοις βιβλίον τρίτον PB(III:E) : Die dritte Abhandlung aus dem Buch des Plutarchos über das, was die Philosophen von den naturwissenschaftlichen Ansichten billigten Q index : totum indicem om. PB(III:α) : exstat in PQ, sed hactenus ineditus (habemus versionem Daiberi; vid. append. infra t. 4) ‖ [3] τοῦ PB(I,II), cf. tit. c. 3.1 : om. PB(III) : lichterfüllte Himmelssphäre Q [4] καὶ … δοκίδων PB : Über die beschweiften Sterne Q [5] πρηστήρων … τυφώνων PB : das, was „Prester“ und „Typhon“ genannt wird Q ‖ τε PB(I,II)Q : οm. PB(III) [6] Περὶ … χαλάζης PB : ὁμίχλης δρόσου πάχνης om. Q [8] transposuimus ex huius libri loco ultimo; vid. comm. c. 3.5a ‖ [9] ῥάβδων PB : das, was sich in dem „Ruten“ genannten Licht zeigt Q [12] καὶ1 … πόσαι PB, cf. tit. c. 3.9 : om. PQ ‖ ταύτης … πόσαι PB(I,II)Q : οὐσία αὐτῆς καὶ πόση PB(III) [13] γῆς PB(III), cf. tit. c. 3.10 : om. PB(I,II) [16] Πότερα μένει ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται, cf. tit. c. 3.13 : Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς PBGQ ‖ [17] πόσαι … αὐτῆς tit. c. 3.14 : post γῆς hab. PB καὶ : πόσαι … αὐτῆς om. PQ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_075

5

10

15

liber 3 titulus et index

ιϛʹ. Περὶ θαλάττης, πῶς συνέστη καὶ πῶς ἐστι πικρά ιζʹ. Πῶς αἱ ἀμπώτιδες γίνονται καὶ πλημμύραι

1141

20

[19] συνέστη PB(III:E), cf. tit. c. 3.16 : συνέστηκεν PB(I,II), Zustand ist Q [20] Πῶς αἱ PB(I,II), cf. tit. c. 3.17 : Περὶ τοῦ πῶς PB(III) ‖ post πλημμύραι add. ιηʹ Περὶ ἅλω PB(I–III) (ἅλως PB(I), ἅλωνος PB(II)), vid. supra ad l. 8

Testes primi: Theodoretus CAG 4.31 vid. lib. 1.titulus et index Eusebius PE 15.32.10 vid. lib. 1.titulus et index Symeon Seth CRN Praef. p. 18.1–10 Delatte vid. lib. 1.titulus et index

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses As discussed in the equivalent chapter of Book 1, for the title of the entire work and its individual books we must rely on the evidence of T, the only witness to cite the title of the original work and give the name of its author. The titles in P and those witnesses dependent on its tradition are expanded versions of the original title. For the title at the head of P’s Book 3 the evidence in PB is supplemented by the title in Q’s translation, which he has this time cited in a very full version. On these titles see further Book 1.titulus et index Commentary C. For the index of chapters PB is the chief witness, though not all mss. contain it. One of the mss. of Q, Ẓāhirīya (Damascenus) 4871 contains a translation of the list and thus provides valuable additional evidence on the manuscript tradition. Daiber did not include it in his edition, but he has kindly provided the editors with a translation (see Appendix in vol. 4). On this translation and its source see further the Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A. For this book Eusebius again supplies some additional evidence. In PE Book 15 he cites the chapter headings of chs. 3.9–12, 15 both in the pinax at the beginning of the book and in the excerpts themselves. He also mentions the headings of chs. 3.10–12, 15 in his summary at 15.32.8–10. The only reading of note is συνέστη in the heading of 3.15. Symeon Seth in his Preface also cites some titles and doxai from Book 3. See the texts cited in Book 1.titulus et index, testes primi.

1142

liber 3 titulus et index

For the question whether A’s text contained the index see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D. On the practice of prefacing texts with tables of content and chapter headings see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(e). C Book Title As emphasised in our discussion in Book 1.titulus et index Commentary A, the title for the entire work and each of its books must be based on the evidence of T. The titles in the tradition of P are secondary. P’s title in the ms. Mosquensis for this book differs from that of Book 2, with the phrase ἐν ἐπιτομῇ qualifying Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων and indicating the method of the work. In fact this phrase is also found in the proem to Book 3 in A’s original work. See our discussion on the relation between the titles of A and P in Book 1.titulus and index Commentary C. D Analysis of the Index (1) For a discussion giving the reasons why we are convinced that A’s original compendium contained these indices at the beginning of each book, see M– R 2.196–204 and Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(6) and D(e). (2) For the methodology of the reconstruction of the index see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(3). We argue that priority must be given to the chapter headings in the text of the chapters themselves, since A will have based his index on these when he compiled the work. It is thus to be assumed that the list of chapter headings in the index accurately reflects the chapter headings in the text of the Book. In this book there are only two chapters for which the heading in the reconstructed list differs from what is transmitted in the manuscripts: for ch. 3.13 we have given the preference to the chapter heading in S; in ch. 3.14 in the mss. the two parts of the heading are connected with καί. In all other cases the intra-textual chapter heading has differing degrees of support in the pinax as recorded in the manuscripts. The reader is advised to study the apparatus criticus both above and to the headings of individual chapters. (3) For discussion of chapter headings in PB, who often opts for the longer variants, see the comments in our Commentary on individual chapters below (section C). As was the case in Book 2, Q shortens or alters the headings in a number of cases: see chs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.9. On Q’s headings see further Book 2 titulus et index Commentary D(3). D(e) Other Evidence For further discussion on the use of pinakes (tables of contents) in ancient works see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary D(e).

liber 3 titulus et index

1143

E Further Related Texts For an extensive list of parallel texts relating to the compilation and use of pinakes (tables of contents) or indices of chapter headings, see Book 1.titulus et index Commentary E.

Liber 3 ⟨Proœmium⟩ PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 892E; DG pp. 364a8–17 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 73 ad finem; DG p. 629.3 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā p. 167 Daiber Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 32, p. 50.8–14, c. 34, p. 51.14, p. 52.12 Di Maria; Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. II Isag. 8, pp. 126.18–127.12 Maass; Scholia in Aratum schol. 811 p. 403.17–404.5 Martin; Eusebius PE 15.32.10, p. 407.1–5, 15.54.3, p. 407.17–18, 15.58.4, p. 419.19–20 Mras

⟨Proœmium⟩ περιωδευκὼς ἐν τοῖς προτέροις ἐν ἐπιτομῇ τὸν περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λόγον, σελήνη δ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ μεθόριον, τρέψομαι ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ πρὸς τὰ μετάρσια· ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ κύκλου τῆς σελήνης καθήκοντα μέχρι πρὸς τὴν θέσιν τῆς γῆς, ἥντινα κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχειν τῇ περιοχῇ τῆς σφαίρας νενομίκασιν. ἄρξομαι δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν. (P) proœmium non hab. S ‖ [2–5] περιωδευκὼς … ἥντινα om. PG, lac. ind. Diels ‖ [5] κέντρου … περιοχῇ PBQ : † καὶ τῶν κέντρων καὶ PG, crucif. Diels ‖ [6] νενομίκασιν PBQ : τὴν γῆν νομίζουσι PG ‖ ἄρξομαι … ἐντεῦθεν PBQ : om. PG

Testes primi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 73 ad fin. (text Diels) * * * † καὶ τῶν κέντρων καὶ τῆς σφαίρας τὴν γῆν νομίζουσι (~ lib. 3 proœm.). Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 32, p. 50.8–14 (~ P1) (cf. Scholia in Platonem, Sis. 389a, below section E(a) General texts μεταρσιολέσχας) Περὶ μεταρσίων καὶ μετεώρων. διαφέρει δὲ μετέωρα μεταρσίων, ᾗ τὰ μὲν μετέωρα ἐν οὐρανῶι καὶ αἰθέρι ἐστίν, ὡς ἥλιος καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ οὐρανὸς καὶ αἰθήρ, μετάρσια δὲ τὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ αἰθέρος καὶ τῆς γῆς, οἷον ἄνεμοι νεφέλαι ὄμβροι ἀστραπαὶ βρονταὶ κομῆται δοκίδες πώγωνες λαμπάδες ἴριδες ἅλωες διάιττοντες ῥυμοὶ ῥύακες. λεκτέον δὲ περὶ μεταρσίων· περὶ γὰρ μετεώρων προείρηται (sc. Ach cc. 10ff.). c. 34, p. 51.13–14 περὶ δὲ κομητῶν καὶ δοκίδων ἐπραγματεύσαντο πολλοί, …. εἰσὶ δὲ οὐκ ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι. c. 34, p. 52.12 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ὡς ἐν ὀλίγῳ περὶ μεταρσίων. Commentaria in Aratum, Anon. II Isag. 8, pp. 126.18–127.12 Maass Περὶ μεταρσίων. φίνονται οὖν (φησίν) ἀναθυμιάσεις ἐκ τῶν ὑδάτων τῆς γῆς, ἣ μὲν ὑγρὰ καὶ ἀτμώδης, ἣ δὲ ξηρὰ καὶ καπνώδης. καὶ ἡ πλεονάζουσα ὑγρὰ καὶ συνισταμένη νέφη ποιεῖ καὶ κατὰ μεταβολὴν ὑετοὺς καὶ ὄμβρους καὶ πνεύματα ὅσα ἐκ τούτων γίνεται. ἔστι δὲ ὁμίχλη νέφος ἄγονον ὕδατος ἢ ἀτμώδης ἀναθυμίασις, ζόφος δὲ νέφος μέλαν τε καὶ πεπληρωμένον, αἰθρία δὲ ἀὴρ ἀνέφελος καὶ ἀνόμιχλος, ἀχλὺς δὲ πάχος ἀέρος ἀσύστατον, κνηκὶς δὲ νεφέλη λεπτοτάτη κενὴ ὕδατος, δρόσος δὲ ὑγρὸν ἐξ ἀέρος αἰθρίου κατὰ σύστασιν λεπτήν, ψακὰς δὲ ὕδωρ

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_076

5

liber 3 ⟨proœmium⟩

1145

λεπτῶς διεσπασμένον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ὑετὸς δὲ ψακὰς ἁδρὰ καὶ συνεχής, ὄμβρος δὲ μικρὰ συστήματα ὕδατος ἐκ νέφους κατὰ μεταβολήν, πάγος δέ ἐστιν ὕδωρ πεπηγός, πάχνη δὲ ἡμιπαγὴς δρόσος, χιὼν δὲ ὑετῶν ψακὰς ἐν νέφει πεπηγότι, νιφὰς δέ ἐστι χιὼν πίπτουσα λεπτῶς, χάλαζα δέ ἐστιν ὄμβρος πεπηγώς. ἡ δὲ ξηρὰ ἀναθυμίασις ἐκ τοῦ ⟨ὕδατος⟩ ὑπὸ ψύχους μὲν ὠσθεῖσ᾽ ἀνέμους ἐμποιεῖ, ἐμπίπτουσα δὲ διάπυρος γενομένη κεραυνούς, ἀθρόα ἐμποιεῖ, ἐμπίπτουσα δὲ διάπυρος γενομένη κεραυνούς, ἀθρόα δὲ φερομένη ἡμίπυρος οὖσα πρηστῆρας, μὴ πεπυρωμένη δέ πως τυφῶνας, ἀνειμένη δὲ ἡ αὐτὴ ἐκνεφίας ποιεῖ. κεραυνὸς δὲ καὶ πρηστὴρ καὶ τυφὼς κατασκήψας σκηπτὸς λέγεται. τοσαῦτα μὲν ἀρκέσει ὡς ἐν ἐπιτομῆι περὶ τούτων εἰρῆσθαι, ἑξῆς δὲ τὰ ἀκόλουθα τούτων ἐροῦμεν (~ P1). Scholia in Aratum schol. 811 p. 403.17–404.5 Martin τῶν γινομένων καὶ ἐν τῷ μετεώρῳ συνισταμένων μεταξὺ ⟨αἰθέρος καὶ⟩ γῆς τὰ μέν ἐστι κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ μικτά, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν· κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν μὲν οἷον ἶρις, ἅλως, μικτὰ δὲ παρήλιοι, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν δὲ κομῆται, πωγωνίαι, δοκίδες, λαμπάδες, ᾄττοντες (~ P1). Eusebius PE 15.32.10 θήσω δὲ ἑξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὅσα καὶ περὶ τῶν προσγειοτέρων ἐπηπόρησαν, περὶ γῆς σχήματος (~ tit. c. 3.10) καὶ περὶ θέσεως (~ c. tit. 3.11) καὶ ἐγκλίσεως (~ tit. c. 3.12) αὐτῆς καὶ ἔτι περὶ θαλάσσης (~ tit. c. 3.16), ὡς ἂν εἰδείης ὅτι μὴ ⟨περὶ⟩ μόνων τῶν μετεώρων (liber 2) καὶ μεταρσίων (cf. cc. 3.1– 8) οἱ γενναῖοι διέστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς περιγείοις διαπεφωνήκασιν. 15.54.3 καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν οὐρανίων (cf. liber 2) καὶ μεταρσίων (cf. cc. 3.1–8) τοσαῦτα τοῖς δεδηλωμένοις πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεστασίασται. θέα δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ γῆς (cf. cc. 3.9– 17). PE 15.58.4 τούτων καὶ περὶ γῆς διαπεφωνημένων τοῖς γενναίοις ἄκουε καὶ τῶν περὶ θαλάσσης (~ tit. c. 3.16). Loci Aetiani: §1 A 3.4.4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν. A 3.5.1 τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν. A 3.6.1 τὰ κατὰ τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἀνθηλίους συμβαίνοντα μίξει τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως ὑπάρχει. A 3.8.2 περιγεγραμμένων δέ μοι τῶν μεταρσίων, ἐφοδευθήσεται καὶ τὰ πρόσγεια. ‖ ἐν ἐπιτομῇ: cf. tit. libri secundi Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων ἐν ἐπιτομῇ τὸ βʹ, et tit. operis PB Περὶ τῶν ἀρεσκόντων φιλοσόφοις φυσικῶν δογμάτων ἐπιτομῆς βίβλια εʹ (cf. T 4.31 Πλουτάρχου τὴν Περὶ τῶν τοῖς φιλοσόφοις δοξάντων ἐπιτομήν).

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are limited. They are restricted to PB and PQ, with further only a corrupt remnant of the lemma in PG, which has been added to the end of ch. 73,

1146

liber 3 ⟨proœmium⟩

the last chapter from Book 2. It is surprising that he appears to have included this brief section. The other proœmia in Books 1, 2 and 4 were omitted. B Proximate Tradition and Sources The representatives of the proximate tradition, viz. Ach, Scholia in Aratum, Pliny, Seneca, and Eusebius all dwell explicitly at greater or lesser length on the distinctions between the main divisions of physics, the boundaries between them, and the places where they are to be treated. The famous proem of Aristotle’s Meteorology is the ultimate source of inspiration. Its reverberation in the De mundo is quite close to the proximate tradition, and also to A. C Chapter Heading The introductory comments in Books 1, 2, 3 (twice) and 4 fall outside the division into chapters and consequently have no chapter heading. D Analysis a Context These lines indicate the opening of a new Book, starting a further division of physics, namely what happens in the atmosphere (τὰ μετάρσια). The next subdivison is announced at ch. 3.8.2, namely the series of chapters dealing with the ‘things relating to the earth’ (τὰ πρόσγεια). A is bent on following and establishing an order which goes from the periphery to the centre not only in the treatise as a whole (see M–R 2.1.40–41, above General Introduction section 2.8), but also in the present book: a cluster of nine chapters dealing with atmospheric phenomena from the Milky Way (ch. 3.1) via comets (ch. 3.2), thunder and lightning (ch. 3.3), clouds etc. (ch. 3.4), rainbow (ch. 3.5), halo (ch. 5.a), rods (ch. 3.6), winds (ch. 3.7) and summer and winter (ch. 3.8), to a cluster of nine chapters (ch. 3.9–17) dealing with earth and sea. P ch. 1.18, on the halo, an atmospheric phenomenon, is in the wrong place. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is only one lemma, which is found only in P and his tradition. S and T write their own treatises, so obviously have no use for the introductory passages of A. c Rationale–Structure of Proœmium It provides a brief description of the contents of what follows in relation to what precedes, thus emphasizing the unity of the work, since it mentions not only the ourania but also the metarsia. It also highlights the unity of the Book, because it mentions not only the metarsia but also the ‘position of the earth’,

liber 3 ⟨proœmium⟩

1147

i.e. refers to ch. 3.11 and its immediate context. In the introductory passage at ch. 3.8.2 below both these parts are mentioned, the one as having been treated, the other as to be treated. For such authorial passages cf. the proems of Books 1, 2 and 4, and the embedded introductory passages at chs. 3.5.1 (3.8.2 has been cited at loci Aetiani above); see further M–R 2.1.42–59. d Further Comments §1 Such staunchly traditional passages introduce the writer in an authorial role. e Further Evidence From the proem of Aristotle’s Meteorology to substantial passages in the De mundo, Seneca, Diogenes Laertius and Eusebius, see above, Testes secundi, and section E(a) & (b) below. E a

Further Related texts Proximate Tradition

§1 Seneca Dial. 12.20.2 tunc quidquid inter caelum terrasque plenum formidinis interiacet perspicit et hoc tonitribus fulminibus ventorum flatibus ac nimborum nivisque et grandinis iactu tumultuosum spatium. Nat. 2.1.1–3 (Posidonius fr. 331 Theiler) omnis de universo quaestio in caelestia, sublimia, terrena dividitur. … secunda pars tractat inter caelum terramque versantia. hic sunt nubila, imbres, nives, ⟨venti, terrae motus, fulgura⟩ et humanas motura tonitrua mentes; quaecumque aer facit patiturve, haec sublimia dicimus, quia editiora imis sunt. … —quomodo, inquis, de terrarum motu quaestionem eo posuisti loco quo de tonitribus fulguribusque dicturus es?—quia, cum motus spiritu fiat, spiritus autem aer sit agitatus, etiamsi subit terras, non ibi spectandus est; cogitetur in ea sede in qua illum natura disposuit. Pliny Nat. 2.102–103 hactenus de mundo ipso sideribusque: nunc reliqua caeli memorabilia. namque et hoc caelum appellavere maiores quod alio nomine aëra, omne quod inani simile vitalem hunc spiritum fundit. infra lunam haec sedes multoque inferior, ut animadverto propemodum constare, infinitum ex superiore natura aëris, infinitum terreni halitus miscens utraque sorte confunditur. hinc nubila, tonitrua et alia fulmina, hinc grandines, pruinae, imbres, procellae, turbines, …. (103) decidunt imbres, nebulae subeunt, siccantur amnes, ruunt grandines. … venti ingruunt inanes iidemque cum rapina remeant. Scholia Platonica in Sisyph. 389a Greene μεταρσιολέσχας. διαφέρει μετέωρα μεταρσίων, ᾗ τὰ μὲν μετέωρα ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ αἰθέρι ἐστίν, ὡς ἥλιος καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ καὶ οὐρανὸς καὶ αἰθήρ, μετάρσια δὲ τὰ μεταξὺ τοῦ αἰθέρος καὶ γῆς ἐν ἀέρι συνιστάμενα, ὡς ἄνεμοι, νεφέλαι, ὄμβροι, ἀστραπαί, βρονταί, κομῆται, δοκίδες, πώγωνες, λαμπάδες, ἴριδες, ἅλωες, διάττοντες, ῥυμοί, ῥύακες καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα.

1148 b

liber 3 ⟨proœmium⟩

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

§1 Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338a20–339a5 περὶ μὲν οὖν … τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἄνω φορὰν διακεκοσμημένων ἄστρων … εἴρηται πρότερον. λοιπὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ μέρος τῆς μεθόδου ταύτης ἔτι θεωρητέον, ὃ πάντες οἱ πρότεροι μετεωρολογίαν ἐκάλουν· ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅσα συμβαίνει κατὰ φύσιν μέν, ἀτακτοτέραν μέντοι τῆς τοῦ πρώτου στοιχείου τῶν σωμάτων, περὶ τὸν γειτνιῶντα μάλιστα τόπον τῇ φορᾷ τῇ τῶν ἄστρων, οἷον περί τε γάλακτος καὶ κομητῶν καὶ τῶν ἐκπυρουμένων καὶ κινουμένων φασμάτων, ὅσα τε θείημεν ἂν ἀέρος εἶναι κοινὰ πάθη καὶ ὕδατος, ἔτι δὲ γῆς ὅσα μέρη καὶ εἴδη καὶ πάθη τῶν μερῶν, ἐξ ὧν περί τε πνευμάτων καὶ σεισμῶν θεωρήσαιμεν ἂν τὰς αἰτίας καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν γιγνομένων κατὰ τὰς κινήσεις τὰς τούτων· ἐν οἷς τὰ μὲν ἀποροῦμεν, τῶν δὲ ἐφαπτόμεθά τινα τρόπον· ἔτι δὲ περὶ κεραυνῶν πτώσεως καὶ τυφώνων καὶ πρηστήρων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, ὅσα διὰ πῆξιν συμβαίνει πάθη τῶν αὐτῶν σωμάτων τούτων. Mete. 1.3 339b13–15 τὸ δὲ δὴ μεταξὺ τῆς γῆς τε καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἄστρων πότερον ἕν τι νομιστέον εἶναι σῶμα τὴν φύσιν ἢ πλείω, κἂν εἰ πλείω, πόσα κτλ. Mete. 1.9–10. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392a31–b13 μετὰ δὲ τὴν αἰθέριον καὶ θείαν φύσιν … συνεχής ἐστιν ἡ δι᾽ ὅλων παθητή τε καὶ τρεπτή, καί, τὸ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν, φθαρτή τε καὶ ἐπίκηρος. ταύτης δὲ αὐτῆς πρώτη μέν ἐστιν ἡ λεπτομερὴς καὶ φλογώδης οὐσία, ὑπὸ τῆς αἰθερίου πυρουμένη διὰ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς καὶ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς κινήσεως· ἐν δὲ τῇ πυρώδει καὶ ἀτάκτῳ λεγομένῃ τά τε σέλα διᾴττει καὶ φλόγες ἀκοντίζονται καὶ δοκίδες τε καὶ βόθυνοι καὶ κομῆται λεγόμενοι στηρίζονται καὶ σβέννυνται πολλάκις. ἑξῆς δὲ ταύτης ὁ ἀὴρ ὑποκέχυται, ζοφώδης ὢν καὶ παγετώδης τὴν φύσιν· ὑπὸ δὲ ἐκείνης λαμπόμενος ἅμα καὶ διακαιόμενος λαμπρός τε γίνεται καὶ ἀλεεινός. ἐν δὲ τούτῳ, τῆς παθητῆς ὄντι καὶ αὐτῷ δυνάμεως καὶ παντοδαπῶς ἀλλοιουμένῳ, νέφη τε συνίσταται καὶ ὄμβροι καταράσσουσι, χιόνες τε καὶ πάχναι καὶ χάλαζαι πνοαί τε ἀνέμων καὶ τυφώνων, ἔτι τε βρονταὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ πτώσεις κεραυνῶν μυρίων τε γνόφων συμπληγάδες. also Mu. 4. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133 τοῦ δ᾽ ἑτέρου (sc. ἐπισκέψει τοῦ αἰτιολογικοῦ) καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων ἀντιποιεῖσθαι, οἷον πῶς ὁρῶμεν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας, ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. V.P. 7.151 (SVF 2.693) τῶν δ᾽ ἐν ἀέρι γινομένων (introducing the meteorological section Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.151 fin.–154). cf. Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.12, p. 116.15–18 ἐγὼ δὲ ὁπόσα προὐθέμην ἐπελθεῖν ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τῶν ἠθικῶν δογμάτων κατὰ τὴν τῶν Στωϊκῶν φιλοσόφων αἵρεσιν διεληλυθὼς ἱκανῶς, ἤδη τοῦτον τὸν ὑπομνηματισμὸν αὐτόθι καταπαύσω. §1[5] ἄρξομαι δ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν cf. Demosthenes Or. 57.17.8 etc., Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 2.7.5, p. 57.17 (partly derived from Aristotle, cf. ps.Arist. Mu. c. 4 according to Maass).

Liber 3 Caput 1 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 892E–893A; pp. 364a18–366a3 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 74; p. 629.4–19 Diels; pp. 225–244 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 166– 169 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 123, p. 66 Westerink; Phil.Min. 1 24, p. 89 Duffy (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.27.1–8, pp. 225.21–227.3 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b14 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 22; p. 34.11–13; c. 24, p. 37.3–6 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum schol. 231, p. 189.5–6; schol. 462, pp. 291.19–292.1; schol. 469, p. 298.8– 10 Martin

Titulus αʹ. Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου (P,S) §1 κύκλος ἐστὶ νεφελοειδὴς ἐν μὲν τῷ ἀέρι διὰ παντὸς φαινόμενος, διὰ δὲ τὴν λευκόχροιαν γαλαξίας ὀνομαζόμενος. (P1,S1) §2 τῶν Πυθαγορείων οἱ μὲν ἔφασαν ἀστέρος εἶναι διάκαυσιν, ἐκπεσόντος μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἕδρας, δι᾽ οὗ δὲ ἐπέδραμε χωρίου κυκλοτερῶς αὐτὸ καταφλέξαντος ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Φαέθοντα ἐμπρησμοῦ· (P2,S2) §3 οἱ δὲ τὸν ἡλιακὸν ταύτῃ φασὶ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς γεγονέναι δρόμον. (S3) §4 τινὲς δὲ κατοπτρικὴν εἶναι φαντασίαν τοῦ ἡλίου τὰς αὐγὰς πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνακλῶντος, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἴριδος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφῶν συμβαίνει. (S4) §5 Μητρόδωρος διὰ τὴν πάροδον τοῦ ἡλίου· τοῦτον γὰρ εἶναι τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον. (P3,S5) §1—; §§2–4 Pythagorei 58B.37c DK; §3 cf. Oenopides 41.10 DK; §4 cf. Hippocrates 42.6 DK; §5 Metrodorus 70A13 DK titulus Περὶ … κύκλου PB(I,II)G2Q : τοῦ om. PB(III) : κύκλου om. PG1 ‖ Περὶ τοῦ φαινομένου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ γαλακτοειδοῦς κύκλου καὶ λεγομένου γαλαξίου PPs ‖ Περὶ γάλακτος S (cf. index Phot.) : Περὶ γαλαξίου Meineke (cf. Ach) §1 [2] κύκλος PBGS : Himmelssphäre Q ‖ ὁ γαλαξίας ante κύκλος PG §2 [4] τῶν … ἔφασαν PBSF : οἱ μὲν Πυθαγόρειοι SP : οἱ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς PG ‖ [5] μὲν ἀπὸ PBQS : ἐκ PG ‖ ἰδίας PB(I,III)GS prob. Laks–Most : οἰκείας PB(II) : in welchem er verwurzelt war Q ‖ δὲ om. PG ‖ ἐπέδραμε PB(I–III exc. E)QS : περιέδραμε PB(III:E)G prob. Laks– Most ‖ χωρίου PSF : χωρίον SP ‖ [5–6] κυκλοτερῶς … ἐμπρησμοῦ PSF : om. SP ‖ κυκλοτερῶς … καταφλέξαντος PBQS : γλαφυρώτερον αὐτὸ περικαύσαντος PG ‖ [6] φαέθοντα PB(II,III)SP : φαέθοντος PB(I)SF ‖ post ἐμπρησμοῦ add. διὰ τῆς ἐκείνου παρόδου PG, secl. Diels Jas §3 [7] τὸν ἡλιακὸν PBQS : τὴν ἡλιακὴν PG ‖ φασὶ PBSF : φησὶ SP ‖ δρόμον PBQS : δίοδον PG §4 [8] post δὲ add. καὶ PB(II) ‖ κατοπτρικὴν PBQS : τοῦτο μικρὰν PG ‖ τοῦ ἡλίου PBQS : τοῦ πλείονος οὐρανίου πυρὸς PG ‖ [8–9] τὰς … οὐρανὸν PBS : πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν τὰς αὐγὰς PG ‖ πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν PBS : auf sie Q ‖ [9–10] καὶ2 … συμβαίνει PBS : ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς ἴριδος νεφῶν συμβαίνειν εἴωθεν PG : was sich … infolge einer Einwirkung auf die Wolken zeigt Q ‖ [9] καὶ2 PB : om. PGQS §§5 [11]–6 [13] τοῦτον … πυκνοῦ om. PG §5 [11–12] τοῦτον … κύκλον PBQS : om. PG, lac. ind. Diels

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_077

5

10

1150

liber 3 caput 1

§6

Παρμενίδης τὸ τοῦ πυκνοῦ καὶ ἀραιοῦ μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελέσαι χρῶμα. (P4,S6) §7 Ἀναξαγόρας τὴν σκιὰν τῆς γῆς κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος ἵστασθαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅταν ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ὁ ἥλιος γινόμενος μὴ πάντα φωτίζῃ. (P5,S7) §8 Δημόκριτος πολλῶν καὶ μικρῶν καὶ συνεχῶν ἀστέρων συμφωτιζομένων ἀλλήλοις συναυγασμὸν διὰ τὴν πύκνωσιν. (P6,S8) §9 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναθυμιάσεως ξηρᾶς ἔξαψιν πολλῆς τε καὶ συνεχοῦς· καὶ οὕτω κόμην πυρὸς ὑπὸ τὸν αἰθέρα κατωτέρω τῶν πλανητῶν. (P7,S9) §10 οἱ Στωικοὶ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἀραιότητα ἀνώτερον τῶν πλανητῶν. (G7) §11 Ποσειδώνιος πυρὸς σύστασιν, ἄστρου μὲν μανώτερον, αὐγῆς δὲ πυκνότερον. (P8,S10) §6 Parmenides 28A43a DK; §7 Anaxagoras 59A80 DK; §8 Democritus 68A91 DK; §9 Aristoteles cf. Mete. 1.8 345b31–346b6; §10 Stoici —; §11 Posidonius F 129 E.-K., 298b Theiler §6 [13] Παρμενίδης … πυκνοῦ PB(I,III)QS : om. PG, lac. ind. Diels ‖ πυκνοῦ PB(I,III) : κενοῦ PB(II) ‖ ἀραιοῦ PBQS : τὸ τῆς δρόσου PG, τὸ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ S ‖ ἀποτελέσαι PBQS : ἀποτελεῖν PG §7 [15] τοῦτο PBQS : τόδε PG prob. Laks–Most ‖ [16] ὑπὸ PB(IΙ,III)G : ἐπὶ PB(I) : περὶ S, corr. Heeren ‖ [16] ὁ … γινόμενος PB(Ι,III) (γενόμενος S) : γινόμενος ὁ ἥλιος PB(IΙ) ‖ post πάντα add. mit dem Feuer, welches in ihr ist Q ‖ φωτίζῃ PBQS : περιφωτίζῃ PG prob. Laks–Most §8 [17] Δημόκριτος PBGQ : om. S ‖ post Δημόκριτος hab. PG περὶ ‖ καὶ1 PB(II,III)G : om. PB(I) ‖ [18] ἀλλήλοις … πύκνωσιν PBQS : εἶναι PG ‖ συναυγασμὸν … πύκνωσιν PBS (inv. S) : διὰ τὴν πύκνωσιν om. PQ §9 [19] ἀναθυμιάσεως … συνεχοῦς PBQS : om. PG ‖ ξηρᾶς ante πολλῆς PBS : vielen trockenen (Dampfes) Q ‖ ξηρᾶς PSP : μικρᾶς SF ‖ [19–20] καὶ … πλανητῶν om. S, qui add. alia verisimiliter ex AD ‖ [19–20] καὶ οὕτω PBQS : ὡσπερεὶ PG ‖ [20] ὑπὸ τὸν αἰθέρα PB : om. PQ ‖ αἰθέρα PB : ἀέρα PG ‖ κατωτέρω PBQ : καὶ τὸν τόπον PG ‖ τῶν πλανητῶν PB : des Planeten Q ‖ post πλανητῶν add. φαίνεσθαι PG prob. Gigon §10 lemma non hab. PBQS, abnuit Aetio Diels DG 15, citant in app. Laks–Most §11 [23] σύστασιν] τάσιν PG (v.l. πάσιν) ‖ μανώτερον scripsimus : μανωτέραν S edd. : λαμπρότερον PB : stärker Q ‖ [23–24] ἄστρου … πυκνότερον/αν PBQS : om. PG ‖ [24] πυκνότερονPBQ : πυκνοτέραν S, edd.

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 74 Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου 74.1 (~ P1) ὁ γαλαξίας κύκλος ἐστὶ νεφελοειδὴς ἐν μὲν τῷ ἀέρι διὰ παντὸς φαινόμενος, διὰ ⟨δὲ⟩ τὴν λευκόχροιαν ὀνομαζόμενος γαλαξίας. 74.2 (~ P2) οἱ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς ἀστέρος εἶναι διάκαυσιν ἐκπεσόντος ἐκ τῆς ἰδίας ἕδρας, δι᾽ οὗ περιέδραμε χωρίου γλαφυρώτερον αὐτὸ περικαύσαντος ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Φαέθοντα {ἐμπρησμοῦ διὰ τῆς ἐκείνου παρόδου}. 74.3 (~ P3) οἱ δὲ τὴν ἡλιακὴν ταύτῃ φασὶ κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς γεγονέναι δίοδον. 74.4 (~ P4) τινὲς δὲ τοῦτο μικρὰν εἶναι φαντασίαν τοῦ πλείονος οὐρανίου πυρὸς πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν τὰς αὐγὰς ἀνακλῶντος· ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς ἴριδος νεφῶν συμβαίνειν εἴωθεν. 74.5 (~ P5–6) Μητρόδωρος διὰ τὴν πάροδον τοῦ ἡλίου […] καὶ τὸ τῆς δρόσου μῖγμα γαλακτοειδὲς ἀποτελεῖν χρῶμα. (= §3 Jas)

15

20

liber 3 caput 1 74.6 (~ P7) Ἀναξαγόρας τὴν σκιὰν τῆς γῆς κατὰ τόδε τὸ μέρος ἵστασθαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ὅταν ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ὁ ἥλιος γίνομενος μὴ πάντα περιφωτίζῃ. (= §4 Jas) 74.7 (~ P8) Δημόκριτος περὶ πολλῶν καὶ μικρῶν καὶ συνεχῶν ἀστέρων συμφωτιζομένων εἶναι. (= §5 Jas) 74.8 (~ P9) Ἀριστοτέλης ὡσπερεὶ κόμην πυρὸς ὑπὸ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὸν τρόπον πλανητῶν φαίνεσθαι. (= §6 Jas) 74.9 (~ P10) οἱ Στωικοὶ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἀραιότητα ἀνώτερον τῶν πλανητῶν. (= §7 Jas) 74.10 (~ P11) Ποσειδώνιος πυρὸς τάσιν. (= §8 Jas) Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 123.1 Περὶ τοῦ φαινομένου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ γαλακτοειδοῦς κύκλου (~ tit. et §1). Phil.Min. 1 op. 24, p. 89 Duffy Περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν φασμάτων καὶ περὶ κομητῶν [i.q. tit. c. 3.2] καὶ γαλαξίου (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 22, p. 34.11–13 τοὺς δὲ λοξοὺς (sc. κύκλους) οἳ μὲν αἰσθητούς, οἳ δὲ πλείους τὸν γαλαξίαν μόνον (sc. αἰσθητὸν) εἶναι βούλονται, τοὺς δὲ λοιποὺς πάντας νοητούς (~§1). c. 24, p. 37.3 Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου (~ tit.). c. 24, p. 37.4–21 ὁ δὲ γαλαξίας εἴρηται (c. 22) μὲν ὥς ἐστιν ὁρατὸς καὶ μόνος ἐπὶ τῆς σφαίρας αἰσθητός, τῶν ἄλλων ὄντων νοητῶν (~ §1). περὶ δὲ τούτου φησὶν Ἐρατοσθένης ἐν τῶι Καταμερισμῷ (nr. 44 Pàmias y Massana–Zucker) μυθικώτερον τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον γεγονέναι ἐκ τοῦ τῆς Ἥρας γάλακτος· … ἕτεροι δέ φασιν, ὧν ἐστιν καὶ Οἰνοπίδης ὁ Χῖος (41.10 DK), ὅτι πρότερον διὰ τούτου ἐφέρετο ὁ ἥλιος, διὰ δὲ τὰ Θυέστεια δεῖπνα ἀπεστράφη καὶ τὴν ἐναντίαν τούτωι πεποίηται περιφοράν, ἣν νῦν περιγράφει ὁ ζωιδιακός. ἔστι δὲ μυθῶδες τοῦτο καὶ ψεῦδος. τί γὰρ ἐροῦσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες περὶ τῆς σελήνης καὶ τῶν πέντε ἀστέρων; οὐ γὰρ δὴ καὶ οὗτοι διὰ τὰ Θυέστεια δεῖπνα ἀπεστράφησαν (~ §3). ἄλλοι δὲ (Democritus 68A91 DK) ἐκ μικρῶν πάνυ καὶ πεπυκνωμένων καὶ ἡμῖν δοκούντων ἡνῶσθαι διὰ τὸ διάστημα τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἀστέρων αὐτὸν εἶναι φασιν, ὡς εἴ τις ἁλάσι λεπτοῖς καὶ πολλοῖς καταπάσειέ τι (~ §8). Scholia in Aratum schol. 231, p. 189.5–6 Martin ὄψει οὐκ εἰσὶν οἱ κύκλοι καταληπτοί, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ γαλαξίου (cf. §1). schol. 462, pp. 291.19–292.1 Martin αὐτοὶ μὲν καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἀφανεῖς εἰσι πλὴν τοῦ γαλαξίου, ὅτι ἐστὶ νεφελώδης. schol. 469, p. 298.8–10 Martin λέγει δὲ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον, οὗτος γὰρ μόνος παρὰ τοὺς ἄλλους πάντας ὄψει ἐστὶν εὐκατάληπτος διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ὥσπερ νεφελώδη πίλησιν (cf. §1). Loci Aetiani: §1 A 1.9.1 ὕλη ἐστὶ … A 1.10.1 ἰδέα ἐστὶν … A 1.11.1 αἴτιόν ἐστι … ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ὑπογραφικῶς. A 1.12.1 σῶμά ἐστι … ἢ … ἢ … A 1.14.1 σχῆμά ἐστιν … A1.15.1 χρῶμα ἐστι …

1151

1152

liber 3 caput 1

Α 1.23.1 … κίνησίς ἐστι διαφορά τις ἢ ἑτερότης ἐν ὕλῃ, ᾗ ἔστιν ὕλη. οὗτος πάσης κινήσεως κοινὸς ὅρος. A 2.32.1 ἐνιαυτός ἐστι … §4 A 3.2.2 ἄλλοι δὲ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως εἰς τὸν ἥλιον παραπλησίαν ταῖς κατοπτρικαῖς ἐμφάσεσιν. §6 A 2.7.1 Παρμενίδης στεφάνας εἶναι περιπεπλεγμένας ἐπαλλήλους, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἀραιοῦ, τὴν δὲ ἐκ τοῦ πυκνοῦ. …. τοῦ δὲ πυρὸς ἀναπνοὴν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν κύκλον. A 2.8.15 Παρμενίδης τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀραιοτέρου μίγματος ὃ δὴ θερμόν, τὴν δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυκνότερου ὅπερ ψυχρόν. §§7–8 A 3.2.3 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος σύνοδον ἀστέρων δυεῖν ἢ καὶ πλειόνων κατὰ συναυγασμόν. §9 A 3.2.3 Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως διάπυρον σύστασιν (sc. εἶναι τὸν κομήτην). A 3.3.13 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα (sc. ἀστραπὴν βροντὴν κτλ.) γίνεσθαι τῆς ξηρᾶς. A 3.15.4 Ἀριστοτέλης … ἐν ἀπολήψει γινομένης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses for P are PB and PQ with ten lemmata, PG with eleven lemmata (i.e. one extra), and PPs for the heading only. Psellus includes several headings from the meteorological section of the Placita in his De omnifaria doctrina, but the contents of his chapters derive from elsewhere. E does not copy out any of the first eight chapters of the book. (2) The brief chapter of S, which has the same ten lemmata in the same order as the matching lemmata in P, combines the first sentence of the Aristotle lemma with a short excerpt from AD, a type of coalescence found more often in the Anthology, see Diels DG 75 n. 2, M–R 1.249–254, and Jeremiah at M–R 4.286 and 353. S appears to have written out the chapter in full minus one lemma, and P to have refrained from abridging it. (3) G has combined P§5 and §6, omitting the name-label Parmenides. It should also be noted that he has preserved an interesting lemma dealing with the Stoics, which would appear to have been lost in both S and the further tradition of P, a rare event; see discussion at section D(c)(3) below, and for a preliminary overview of extra lemmata in G see M–R 1.149–150. For comparable extra evidence in chapters of G cf. also above, ch. 1.1, Commentary A. One would have assumed that the chapter has survived in full because of the complete agreement between P and S and the continuous sequence of lemmata in

liber 3 caput 1

1153

S, of which those corresponding with lemmata in P are in the same order as in P. Surprisingly, however, the extra lemma in G—rejected by Diels—shows that this is not the case. That it is complete when we include this lemma is not certain either, because the proximate tradition provides doxai (of Theophrastus and Diodorus) not represented here. We note, finally, that T does not make use of any material from Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Quite numerous parallels are found, not only in the usual more or less historiographical sources, but also in literature concerned with celestial phenomena, both in scientific or partly scientific contexts (Lucretius, Manilius, Scholia on Aratus and literature deriving from Aratus) as well as in literature with a moral purpose (Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis, Philo’s De providentia, Macrobius’ Commentary). There is no discussion of the Milky Way in Theophrastus(?) Metarsiology and Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones. (2) Sources. The matrix of the chapter derives from Arist. Mete. 1.8, where the topic to be treated, the cause and nature of the Milky Way, is formulated and dialectical discussion of the views of others announced. More particularly, our §§2–4 (some Pythagoreans, other Pythagoreans, some people) and §§7–8 (Democritus and Anaxagoras) are derived from this Aristotelian chapter virtually verbatim. §9 as to contents represents the doctrine of Mete. 1.7–8. Aristotle too includes a mythical explanation in his overview, but only at second hand, namely the Phaethon story attributed to ‘some Pythagoreans’ (refuted by him along with the others cited). Diels in the Theophrasteorum conspectus at DG 138 places the indeed virtually identical formulations of the Anaxagorean tenet cited by Diogenes Laertius and Hippolytus (see below section E(a)§7) next to §5 of the present chapter in his parallel columns, thus deriving them from Theophrastus. But they are closer to the original presentation by Aristotle (see below section E(b)§7) than to the Placita lemma. Neither in Aristotle nor in §5 do we find the ἀνάκλασις of Hippolytus and Diogenes Laertius. But the two parallel versions of section E(a)§7 will certainly derive from a common intermediary source, perhaps Theophrastus. For parallel evidence related to the issue of the salinity of the sea see below, ch. 3.16 Commentary B. In his wonderful and unjustly forgotten, or at least neglected, commentary on the Meteorology Ideler (1834) 1.409 pointed out that the meteorological placita in Stobaeus, and in those sources with which Stobaeus as a rule agrees (i.e. ps.Plutarch etc.), depend on Aristotle: ‘quibus accedit, quod Stobaeus et reliqui, quibuscum ille [sc. Stobaeus] consentire solet, in enumeratione placitorum, fere unice ab Aristotele pendere soleant’, etc. See also ad chs. 3.5 and 3.5a (olim 3.18)

1154

liber 3 caput 1

below. Diels unfortunately failed to profit from this invaluable insight, or maybe chose to ignore it because it conflicts with the Diels/Usener hypothesis regarding Theophrastus as the source of such parallel later accounts. There is nevertheless a telltale item at Democritus 68A91 DK ‘über die Milchstr.’, where a reference to the Meteorology cited in the Anaxagoras chapter is followed by an abstract from Alexander’s comments, and by quotations of A 3.1.8 and the parallel in Ach. Elsewhere, too, such or similar sequences are to be found, e.g. Aristotle plus A at Anaxagoras 59A81 DK and 59A84 DK, at Empedocles 31A63 DK, at Xenophanes 21A47 DK, at Anaximenes 13A21 DK, and A plus Aristotle at Anaxagoras 59A85 DK. C Chapter Heading Of the standard umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), covering the question types of substance and cause (διᾶ τί), and the category of place. It is not easy to choose between P’s version Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου with κύκλου and S’s Περὶ γάλακτος without it, as κύκλου’s presence may be an anticipation of the first word of §1, and its absence an instance of the usual sort of Stobaean heading abridgement. The word is not really needed when the substantive used is γαλαξίας, which also occurs in §1 in both P and S, while Περὶ γάλακτος is perhaps not immediately clear. Ach and G (text Jas) at any rate have Περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου without κύκλου, which might tip the balance towards leaving it out. S’s γάλακτος may reflect Aristotle’s earlier usage, to which Alexander adverts. It may do so either via the tradition or as the result of an archaizing move, as Aristotle’s embedded heading is περὶ … γάλακτος. Ach’s remark Isag. c. 24, p. 38.4–5, that Aratus l. 476 uses γάλα because γαλαξίας does not fit the metre (διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτὸ ἐντεθῆναι εἰς ἔπος τοῦ γαλαξίου τὸ ὄνομα) is not wrong, but he fails to note the Aristotelian usage (cf. Ideler 1834, 1.411, who calls this observation ‘inept’ and cites Parmenides 28B11.2 DK γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον as precedent). Psellus’ long and composite heading is not relevant for the constitutio. With some misgivings we have preferred P’s reading nevertheless. D Analysis a Context The chapters in A Book 3 dealing with meteorological subjects for a substantial part derive from specific sections, or proto-chapters, in Aristotle’s Meteorology, the first work, as far as we know, to bring these topics together in a systematic way. The derivation holds for the issues themselves as well as for part of the actual contents. But the order of treatment in the Placita is not the same as in the Meteorology, and not the same as in Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones either.

liber 3 caput 1

1155

A begins with the Milky Way at ch. 3.1 to continue at ch. 3.2 with comets and shooting stars, whereas Aristotle discusses shooting stars and similar phenomena at Mete. 1.4–5, continues with comets in Mete. 1.6–7, and only then discusses the Milky Way in Mete. 1.8. Note however that in the proem the order of themes to be discussed is different from the actual order of treatment, namely the Milky Way first and not third, and then the others (Mete. 1.1 338b22–24 περί τε γάλακτος καὶ κομητῶν καὶ τῶν ἐκπυρουμένων καὶ κινουμένων φασμάτων). This again shows that such an overview is not an index of contents in our sense of the word (or in that of the pinax of later literature). Aristotle has just said that phenomena such as these take place in the region bordering on that of the movements of the stars, and therefore not in the astral region. He presumably has Anaxagoras’ and Democritus’ theory of the Milky Way in mind (discussed Mete. 1.8 345a25ff.), who explain it as the light produced by a collection of small (fixed) stars. It is therefore a matter of some programmatic importance to mention the Milky Way qua non-astral phenomenon first, and only then the comets, who according to the same authorities are to be counted among the planets (Mete. 1.6 342b27ff.). By moving the chapter on the Milky Way, which contains references to the stars, to the very beginning of the Book A has it immediately follow upon the heavenly phenomena treated in Book 2, so gives it a transitional function, just as ch. 1.30 at the end of Book 1 has. A may be indebted to the tradition and view represented by Ptolemy and al-Bitriq’s source and echoed in the late commentators, for which see below, Section D(e). As a matter of fact the Milky Way is the first and highest phenomenon in Aristotle’s sublunary cosmos, so treating it first restores the hierarchy. Aristotle bundles things more roughly together in two successive layers of the sublunary cosmos, viz. the upper region where shooting stars, comets and the Milky Way are found (Mete. 1.4–8), and the layer following upon this one and closer to the earth, where we have rain (and similar phenomena, treated a bit later), and clouds, and winter and summer, and winds (Mete. 1.8– 13). For the explanation of A’s order see further Introduction to Book 3, section 2, on the subject matter of the Book, and Book 3, ⟨Proœmium⟩ at Commentary D(a). b Number–Order of Lemmata PB, confirmed by PQ, has ten lemmata, and S has ten lemmata too, the same as PBQ. PG seems to have ten lemmata as well, but because in PG §5 has been coalesced with §6 and the name-label Parmenides has dropped out, this additional witness in fact has, or rather attests to, eleven lemmata, ten of which are paralleled in PBQ and S while one, §10, is not paralleled in either PBQ or S. As the lemmata order is the same in all witnesses (assuming that G’s §10 is found in its

1156

liber 3 caput 1

original position, see below), this order has to be preserved unchanged. Unsurprisingly our order is the same as that of Diels in the DG. We have however augmented the number of lemmata not only by including the extra paragraph preserved by G, but also by splitting up Diels’ first lemma into three separate paragraphs, following our practice of having a separate lemma for every doxa if it is introduced by a different name-label. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter (1) The definition. This is one of the eight Placita chapters to begin with an anonymous definition, clearly meant to be nominal (or conceptual) and valid in all cases (see above ch. 1.9, Commentary D(c)(1) and D(b)(2)). The diaphonia starts at §2. (2) The chapter’s contents are paralleled in a multiplicity of other sources. There is a clear and crucial diaphonia between §§2–3 (two groups of Pythagoreans), lemmata that attribute real existence to the Milky Way, and §4 (doxa purported to be of other Pythagoreans?), a lemma that declares it to be an optical illusion. §§5–§11, too, in various ways declare the Milky Way to be real, so not illusory. This general diaphonia is of decisive importance for the account of the meteorology as a whole. In the remainder of the chapter the view represented by §4 does not occur again, unless one wishes to include the views listed at §§6–7 in the class of optical illusions, which however is hardly feasible. To be sure, the Anaxagorean parallels at Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.8, and Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 posit that the Milky Way is a reflection (ἀνάκλασις) of stars that are not illuminated by the sun, but no reflection is mentioned in our §7, while the συναυγασμός of our §8 is, so to speak, toto caelo different from ἀνάκλασις. One also wonders how these stars come to be reflected, so what is in Hippolytus and Diogenes must derive from a garbled interpretation of a formula similar to what is found in A. In the next chapter moreover, 3.2.3, a similar doctrine as applied to comets etc. is attributed (as in Aristotle) to both physicists together: ‘Anaxagoras Democritus (say they are) a combination of two or even more stars according to their giving off light together (κατὰ συναυγασμόν).’ From §5 to §11 we accordingly have various explanations of the Milky Way as a real physical phenomenon. The first of these, §5 Metrodorus, is similar to the anonymous doxa of §3, the difference being that the (Pythagorean?) Anonymi speak of the past and Metrodorus of the present. §6 Parmenides is the first to provide a characterization in terms of physical elements (cf. §§9–11), but the reference to the milky colour also turns it into an appendix to the descriptive definition of §1. §7 Anaxagoras would be incomprehensible without its Aristotelian precedent; in fact, §§7–8 derive from a single sentence in Aristotle.

liber 3 caput 1

1157

(3) §§9–11 (Aristotle, the Stoics, Posidonius) take us beyond the Presocratics and are additions to the originally for the most part Aristotelian data concerned with the views of others. The substance of the Milky Way is fiery: an inflammation of the dry exhalation that becomes a tail of fire according to Aristotle §9, a loose-textured form of aetherial fire according to the Stoics §10, and a solid fiery structure according to Posidonius §11. The fineness of texture of §10 provides a contrast with the blend of fine and compact elements of §6, as does the term in between the opposed terms ‘rare’ and ‘compact’ of §11. (4) The rather unsatisfactory structure of the chapter can be explained as the result of a restructuring by means of successive additions to this Aristotelian matrix, which nevertheless still determines the exposition. The tenets of §§2–4 plus §§7–8 derive from Aristotle, but in Mete. 1.8 the order is different, namely tenets anticipating §§2–3 followed by tenets anticipating §§7–8 followed by a tenet anticipating §4. There are no Aristotelian antecedents of §§5–6 (and neither, of course, of §§9–11). The restructuring, locating the view that the Milky Way is an optical illusion immediately after the Pythagorean views, thus bypassing those attributed to Anaxagoras and Democritus, has the effect of stating a crucial diaphonia (already prefigured in Aristotle) at the very beginning. The views of §5 Metrodorus and §6 Parmenides come next, as appendixes to respectively §3 (Pythagoreans?) and §1 (definition). §§6–7, tenets that in Aristotle came after those corresponding to §§2–3, thus come after and not (as in Aristotle) before the paragraph about the optical illusion. What is more, the single view attributed in Aristotle to both Anaxagoras and Democritus has now been split up into two different views. Even so, the Aristotelian sequence is followed and its peculiarities are preserved, though modified by the switch between the contents of §§7–8 and §4, the interpolation of §§5–6, and the splitting-up of §§7–8. It is obvious that the material referring to Aristotle himself and the Stoics could only be introduced ad finem. A sort of ring composition effect is involved in the presence of specific diaphoniae at the beginning and end of the chapter, an important one first, a less important one last. The first, as noted, is the result of a modification of the Aristotelian order, the purpose of which is the enhancing of diaphonic clarity more doxographico. The tail of the chapter has likewise been arranged according to doxographical custom. d

Further Comments General Points What is new in comparison with Aristotle, and quite interesting, is the explicit effort to connect the Milky Way (according to some) qua optical phenomenon,

1158

liber 3 caput 1

as in ch. 3.1, with the discussion of the rainbow qua optical phenomenon in ch. 3.5 (the latter, as it turns out, according to Aristotle himself) by means of the remark (at A 3.1.4) ‘just as what happens in the case of the rainbow and the clouds’ (ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἴριδος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφῶν συμβαίνει). Individual Points §1 Visibility and colour: see Pàmias y Massana–Zucker (2013) nn. 682–683. §3 Doxa attributed to Oenopides of Chios and others at Ach c. 24, p. 37.13– 16; for Oenopides cf. section D(e) below. §4 Doxa attributed to the mathematician Hippocrates of Chios by Alex. in Mete. 38.28–32. This theory as applied to comets is attributed to Hippocrates at Aristotle Mete. 2.6 342b35–343a4, and cited (without name-label) in a similar diaphonia at the beginning of the next chapter, 3.2.2, ubi vide. Because he was a mathematician this Hippocrates was later considered to be a Pythagorean (Burkert 1972, 314 n. 77, 322 n. 115), though not always, see Alexander in Mete. 26.27–28 and, following him, John Philoponus in Mete. 77.8–9. Note that the phrase formulating the present doxa is a modified echo of Aristotle’s sentence: Aristotle writes that our visual rays are reflected to the sun (so also the parallel doxa at ch. 3.2.2), while our lemma posits that the sun’s rays are reflected towards the heaven. (The heavenly vault is of course the place where we ‘see’ this projection and so locate the Milky Way). We then hear that this is just like what happens with the rainbow and with the clouds. The rainbow qua phenomenon of reflection is the theme of a large section of ch. 3.5, ‘On the rainbow’, while clouds as involved with other optical phenomena are found in the next chapter, 3.2.5–6. We note that it concerns both rainbow and clouds; accordingly, we have retained the καί between ἴριδος and ἐπὶ τῶν νεφῶν as found in PB. That the sun bends back its rays by way of a cloud that serves as a mirror is not stated explicitly, but only suggested. The parallels for these views of Hippocrates (and Aeschylus) in Aristotle and elsewhere are cited below, section E(b)§4 and at ch. 3.2, section E(b)§4. Most remarkably, views concerned with physics (cosmology, or meteorology) are attributed to a famous mathematician concerned with reflection from the point of view of optics or catoptrics. For the views of Aristotle and the Stoics on fields of study shared by philosophers on the one hand and mathematicians and (mathematical) astronomers on the other see M–R 2.1.97–109. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133 on the subpart of physics shared by (Stoic) philosophers and these scientists mentions as examples the theory of vision and the explanation of mirror images, and ‘how … rainbows and haloes and comets and similar things come to be’ (πῶς ὁρῶμεν, τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας, ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια). Hippo-

liber 3 caput 1

1159

crates on the Milky Way, the rainbow and clouds constitutes the earliest known example of this collaboration between philosophers and mathematicians, in the form of a personal union. §6 We know that Parmenides did in fact discuss the origin of the Milky Way; see the announcement at 28B11 DK. §10 It is quite certain in our view that §10, name-label the Stoics, though rejected by Diels, is Aëtian. One would not expect G to add this sua sponte. Diels did not always pay sufficient attention to diaphonic structures. The diaphonia of §10 Stoics with §9 Aristotle is impeccable. Aristotle’s Milky Way is said to be located ‘underneath the aether and lower than the planets’. These two qualifications are tautological ad sententiam in the context of Aristotle’s cosmology (maybe this is why Q omits to translate ὑπὸ τὸν αἰθέρα), and specifically serve to make explicit the opposition to the Stoic Milky Way, whose double qualification ‘of aetherial fire, higher than the planets’ is not tautological. The condition of the Milky Way according to the Stoics in general is also opposed to that of Posidonius according to §11: a loose-textured structure according to the former, a solid one according to the latter. What is more, it follows that according to Posidonius the Milky Way is located even higher than the stars, viz. between the sphere of the fixed stars and the highest zone, that of the pure αὐγή; see Boyancé (1936) 68–70. Thus the order ad finem is: (§9) Milky Way lower than the planets, (§10) higher than the planets, (§11) higher than the stars—an interesting application of the category of place. A ‘new’ Stoic fragment: Because Diels rejected the contribution of G the general Stoic view has remained unknown! The lemma should be added to our collections of Stoic fragments. The doctrine fits in well with Stoic cosmology. The formula αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἀραιότητα is paralleled at Sen. Nat. 1.2.4: tenuis aether. See further above, section D(c). §11 Kidd (1999) 182, commenting on this lemma and its parallel in Macrobius, says that ‘it is the only certain surviving reference to the Milky Way in Stoicism’. But see the previous paragraph, §10, ad finem. e Other Evidence At the beginning of his account of the Milky Way (in Somn. 1.15.3–8; 1.15.3–7 are printed as Posidonius F 130 E.-K., 298a Th.) Macrobius disertis verbis not only tells us that the authorities to be cited differ among themselves, but also that some of them provided mythical and others physical explanations. He will only provide the latter: views of Theophrastus (fr. 166 FHS&G, paralleled in Philo), Diodorus, Democritus (68A91 DK, paralleled in A, viz. §8), and Posidonius (T 68 E.-K., 298a Theiler), mentioned last apparently because the most influential

1160

liber 3 caput 1

(cuius definitioni plurium consensus accessit). The Posidonius lemma is only partly paralleled in the brief lemma at ch. 3.1.11. Such a blend of the mythical and the scientific is indeed found in other representatives of the proximate tradition, namely in Philo of Alexandria, Achilles, and Manilius, who refer to the stories of Phaethon and of the milk from Hera’s breasts. Philo, too, rejects certain explanations because they are mythical. Both Achilles and Philo (the latter missed by Pàmias i Massana–Zucker) refer to Eratosthenes Cat. c. 44. Olympiodorus, who closely follows Aristotle and (apparently) Alexander of Aphrodisias’ paraphrastic commentary of the Meteorologica, also dwells on the mythical nature of some of the explanations that are cited by Aristotle, and rejects these explanations. For Alexander, who does mention this mythical status, this is no big issue, while Aristotle himself does not refer to it at all (see Mansfeld 2013a). Ach c. 24 begins with the definition, paralleled in §1, then tells the story of Hera’s spent milk after Eratosthenes, next briefly cites Theophrastus view but not his name, and continues with Oenopides’ view (41.10 DK) that the Milky Way is the former orbit of the sun (a view paralleled at §2, where no namelabel), which arrived in its present orbit along the Zodiac because of the dinner of Thyestes (a detail not paralleled in A, but briefly cited by John Philoponus in Mete. 101.34–36). This explanation is rejected by Ach, because those who defend it are hard put to justify in the same way the actual orbits of the moon and the five planets along the Zodiac. Then, anonymously, the view of Democritus paralleled in A (and Manilius), but with a different explanation: the many starlets seem to be one because of the distance of the heaven from the earth, compare what happens when you besprinkle something with numerous fine grains of salt. But presumably it is better to say that it is derived from clouds, or a transparent compression of air of a circular shape. Then line 476 of Aratus’ poem is quoted, who is said to have called it γάλα because the word γαλαξίας does not fit the hexameter. In conclusion the name is explained (it is ‘white and transparent’), and its position on the heavenly globe described. Manilius deals with the Milky Way at 1.684–804. He describes its position on the heavenly globe in astronomical detail, then tells us that it is very visible (cf. A§1 and Ach), suggests that maybe the firmament is coming apart (a scary explanation unparalleled elsewhere, but the converse of the next view cited), or that this is the scar marking the place where the skies came together (a blend of the tenets of Theophrastus and Diodorus, cf. Philo, Manilius and Ach; here too without name-label). Then we have a reference to the possibility that the sun’s horses travelled this path in the past, paralleled in Ach, Aristotle, and §3 (see below). Next are the mythical stories of the consequences of Phaethon’s heavenly voyage, paralleled in Aristotle, Philo and §2, and of the milk flowing from

liber 3 caput 1

1161

the breast of the queen of the heavens (cf. Philo and Ach). These are followed by a brief version of the tenet of Democritus (paralleled in A, Ach and Macrobius), without name-label. Manilius ends with a long account of the heroic souls who have gone up to the Milky Way as their dwelling place. A’s deviation in chs. 3.1–3 from Aristotle’s actual order of treatment is precisely paralleled in ibn al-Bitriq’s Arabic paraphrase of Aristotle’s Meteorology, which derives from a Greek original (published by Schoonheim 2000). Lettinck (1999) 76 points out that al-Bitriq’s text differs from Aristotle’s view in considering the Milky Way to be a heavenly phenomenon, not an atmospheric one, and that this may have been his reason for moving the theme to the beginning. (But as we have noticed in Aristotle’s sublunary cosmos the Milky Way actually comes first, although it is discussed later.) Aristotle’s view of the Milky Way qua atmospheric phenomenon is criticized by Olympiodorus (who cites ‘the great Ammonius’) and John Philoponus. See below section E(b) General texts, and Tihon (1976) 167–172 and Lettinck (1999) 73–74. The compendium of Hunayn ibn-Ishaq published and translated by Daiber (1975) has the comets and meteors (ch. 11), red colouring of the air i.e. aurora borealis (?) (ch. 12), and Milky Way (ch. 13) in an idiosyncratic position ad finem, with the Milky Way at its very end; according to Daiber (1975) 7 it is clear that in this final section ‘ausschliesslich Lichterscheinungen behandelt werden’. Isidore of Seville, on the other hand, follows the trend by placing the Milky Way among the celestial phenomena in Book 3 of the Etymologiae. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Lucretius DRN 6.524–526 hic ubi sol radiis tempestatem inter opacam / adversa fulsit nimborum aspargine contra, / tum color in nigris existit nubibus arqui. Philo of Alexandria Prov. 2.89 Aucher circulus tamen lacteus ad quid est? etenim qui de meteoris agunt, ita inter se dimicant ut dissimilia de illo sentiant. siquidem nonnulli arbitrantur luminis esse revibrationem, ex stellis refulgentibus (cf. §7); quidam vero commissuram totius caeli, ubi coaptantur haemispharia (cf. Macrob. in Somn. 1.15.4); aliqui antiquum ab initio via solis (cf. §3); alii Geryonis pecudum viam, per quam eas duxit Hercules; alii vero ex γαλακτικοῖς sc. lacte plenis Iυnonis uberibus, quod etiam Heratosthenes sensit, quare dicit: ‘miror, si aggrediar Jovis sacra vestigia pedis’, quod cornu appellat hucusque, et circulum festinantis velocisque suffurantis paleas (cf. Eratosth. Cat. 44, p. 131 Pàmias i Massana–Zucker). praetermisse itaque istorum adinventionibus minus probandis, quae ardore dimicandi sunt prolatae, convenit dicere quod ignis est ista glomeratio ab aethere causata naturali necessitate, non providentia (cf. Macrob. in Somn. 1.15.3). Manilius 1.684–804. Macrobius in Somn. 1.15.1–3 (Posidonius F 130 E.-K, 298a Theiler) ostendens lacteum cir-

1162

liber 3 caput 1

culum … cuius meminit (sc. Cic. Somn. 16) his verbis: ‘erat autem is splendidissimo candore inter flammas circus elucens, quem vos ut a Grais accepistis orbem lacteum nuncupatis’. … (3) de hoc lacteo multi inter se diversa senserunt, causasque eius alii fabulosas, naturales alii protulerunt. sed nos fabulosa reticentes ea tantum quae ad naturam eius visa sunt pertinere dicemus (see below, §1, §8, §11). §1 definition: Manilius 1.701–703 nec quaerendus erit: visus incurrit in ipsos / sponte sua seque ipse docet cogitque notari. / namque in caeruleo candens nitet orbita mundo. Scholia in Germanicum p. 371 1–7 Dell’Era lacteus vocatur quod albis nubibus denotetur circuitus eius, quod Iuno ⟨lac⟩ mamillis effudisse dicitur, cum animadvertisset Herculem filium suum non esse. … effusum est lac et facta est circuli albi species. Macrobius in Somn. 1.15.1–2 (Cic. Somn. 16) ‘erat autem is splendidissimo candore inter flammas circus elucens, quem vos ut a Grais accepistis orbem lacteum nuncupatis’. (2) ‘orbis’ hic idem quod circus in lactei appellatione significat. solus ex omnibus his est subiectus oculis, ceteris circulis magis cogitatione quam visu comprehendendis. §2 Pythagoreans: Manilius 1.735–749 fama etiam antiquis ad nos descendit ab annis / Phaethontem patrio curru per signa volantem, / dum nova miratur propius spectacula mundi / et puer in caelo ludit curruque superbus / luxuriat nitido, cupit et maiora parente, / deflexum solito cursu, curvisque quadrigis / monstratas liquisse vias orbemque recentem / imposuisse polo, nec signa insueta tulisse / errantis meta flammas currumque solutum. / quid querimur flammas totum saevisse per orbem / terrarumque rogum cunctas arsisse per urbes?/ cum vaga dispersi fluitarunt fragmina currus, / et caelum exustum est: luit ipse incendia mundus, / et vicina novis flagrarunt sidera flammis / nunc quoque praeteriti faciem referentia casus. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.396 de Phaetonte solis filio. §3 other Pythagoreans: Manilius 1.729–734 an melius manet illa fides, per saecula prisca / illac solis equos diversis cursibus isse /atque aliam trivisse viam, longumque per aevum / exustas sedes incoctaque sidera flammis / caeruleam verso speciem mutasse colore, / infusumque loco cinerem mundumque sepultum? §7 Anaxagoras: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) καὶ τὸν γαλαξίαν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι φωτὸς ⟨τῶν ὑπὸ⟩ ἡλίου μὴ καταλαμπομένων {τῶν} ἄστρων. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.10 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τὸν δὲ γαλαξίαν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τοῦ φωτὸς τῶν ἄστρων, τῶν μὴ καταλαμπομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. §8 Democritus: Manilius 1.755–757 an maior densa stellarum turba corona / contexit flammas et crasso lumine candet, / et fulgore nitet collato clarior orbis? Macrobius in Somn. 1.15.6 Democritus (—) innumeras stellas brevesque omnes, quae spisso tractu in unum coactae, spatiis quae angustissima interiacent opertis, vicinae sibi undique et ideo passim diffusae lucis aspergine continuum iuncti luminis corpus ostendunt. Kompendium der aristotelischen Meteorologie c. xiii.325ff. Daiber Der Bericht über die Milchstrasse. Ihre Ursache ist: … [see below, ad §8] an der Stelle, an welcher die Milchstrasse

liber 3 caput 1 erscheint, sind viele nahe beieinanderliegende leuchtende und nicht leuchtende Sterne. Wenn nun ihr Licht sich in der entflammten Luft ausbreitet, erscheint in ihr jenes Licht, welches ‘milchartige Milchstrasse’ genannt wird. §9 Aristotle: Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.27.7 [attributed to ‘perhaps’ AD by Diels ad loc, but printed as A 3.1.7], p. 226.21–26 (on Aristotle) τὸν γὰρ κύκλον ἐν ᾧ δοκεῖ θεωρεῖσθαι μέγιστον ὄντα, πλήρη τῶν μεγίστων ὑπάρχειν καὶ λαμπροτάτων ἄστρων καὶ ἔτι τῶν σποράδων καλουμένων, διὰ ταῦτα συνεχῶς πλείστην περὶ τοῦτον ἀθροίζεσθαι τὸν τόπον τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἀναθυμίασιν καὶ ποιεῖν τὴν τοῦ γάλακτος φαντασίαν. Olympiodorus in Mete. 45.14–16 μετὰ δὲ τὸν κομήτην ἐρεῖ καὶ περὶ γαλαξίου, ἐπειδὴ ὁ γαλαξίας οὐδὲν ἕτερόν ἐστιν εἰ μὴ κομήτης κυκλικός. Kompendium der aristotelischen Meteorologie c. xiii.323ff. Daiber Der Bericht über die Milchstrasse. Ihre Ursache ist: Die der Himmelssphäre benachbarte Luft ist entflammt und feurig (for the sequel see above §8). §11 Posidonius: Macrobius in Somn. 1.15.7 sed Posidonius (F 130 E.-K., 298a Theiler), cuius definitioni plurium consensus accessit, ait lacteum caloris esse siderei infusionem quam ideo adversa zodiaco curvitas obliquavit, ut quoniam sol numquam zodiaci excedendo terminos expertem fervoris sui partem caeli reliquam deserebat, hic circus a via solis in obliquum recedens universitatem flexu calido temperaret.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345a11–13 ὅπως δὲ καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεται καὶ τί ἐστι τὸ γάλα, λέγωμεν ἤδη. προδιέλθωμεν δὲ καὶ περὶ τούτου τὰ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων εἰρημένα πρῶτον. Eratosthenes Cat. 44, p. 131 Pàmias I Massana– Zucker Γαλαξίας. οὗτος γίνεται ἐν τοῖς φαινομένοις κύκλοις, ὃν προσαγορεύεσθαί φασι γαλαξίαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐξῆν τοῖς Διὸς υἱοῖς τῆς οὐρανίου τιμῆς μετασχεῖν εἰ μή τις αὐτῶν θηλάσειε τὸν τῆς Ἥρας μαστόν. διόπερ φασὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν ὑπὸ τὴν γένεσιν ἀνακομίσαι τὸν Ἡρακλέα καὶ προσσχεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ τῆς Ἥρας μαστῷ, τὸν δὲ θηλάζειν· ἐπινοήσασαν δὲ τὴν Ἥραν ἀποσείσασθαι αὐτόν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκχυθέντος τοῦ περισσεύματος ἀποτελεσθῆναι τὸν Γαλαξίαν κύκλον. Ptolemy Alm. 8 c. 2, 2.1.170.1–179.22 Heiberg περὶ τῆς θέσεως τοῦ γαλακτίου κύκλου (too long to quote). Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 37.8–39.4 ἱστορεῖ (sc. Aristotle whom Alexander is paraphrasing) δὲ τῶν μὲν καλουμένων Πυθαγορείων τινὰς (cf. §2) ὁδὸν λέγειν εἶναι τὸν κύκλον τοῦτον τοὺς μὲν τῶν ἀστέρων τινὸς τῶν ἐκπεσόντων κατὰ τὴν λεγομένην ἐπὶ Φαέθοντος γενέσθαι φθορὰν ἐκπυρώσεως γενομένης, οἱ δέ τινές (cf. §3) φασιν αὐτὸν τὸν ἥλιον πρότερον ταύτην φέρεσθαι· διὸ καὶ διακεκαῦσθαι τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ὑπὸ τῆς φορᾶς αὐτοῦ. … Ἀναξαγόρας (cf. 59A80 DK) δὲ καὶ Δημόκριτος (68A91 DK) (cf. §§7–8) φῶς εἶναι τὸ γάλα λέγουσιν ἄστρων τινῶν. ὁ γὰρ ἥλιος νύκτωρ ὑπὸ γῆν ἰὼν ὅσα μὲν περιλάμπει τῶν ὑπὲρ γῆς ὄντων ἄστρων, τούτων μὲν μὴ γίνεσθαί φασιν φανερὸν τὸ οἰκεῖον φῶς ἐμποδιζόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτίνων· ὅσοις δὲ ἡ σκιὰ τῆς γῆς ἐπιπροσθοῦσα ἐπισκοτεῖ, ὡς μὴ ἐπιλάμπεσθαι τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φωτί, τούτων δὲ τὸ οἰκεῖον φῶς ὁρᾶσθαι, καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ γάλα. … τρίτην δέ φησι δόξαν (cf. §4) εἶναι περὶ τοῦ γάλακτος τὴν λέγουσαν ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τὸ γάλα τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως ἀπό τινος ἀναθυμιάσεως, ἥ τις εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ γάλα, ἐπὶ

1163

1164

liber 3 caput 1

τὸν ἥλιον, ἔνοπτρον γινόμενον τῇ ὄψει τῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ὑπ᾽ αὐτῆς ὁρωμένῳ φωτί, ὡς ἔλεγον οἱ περὶ Ἱπποκράτην καὶ τὸν κομήτην γίνεσθαι. τρίτην δὲ δόξαν εἴρηκε ταύτην εἶναι, καίτοι τετάρτης μνημονεύσας, ἤτοι εἰς μίαν συνάγων τὰς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν, οἳ ὁδὸν μὲν ἔλεγον τὸ γάλα, ἀλλ᾽ οἱ μὲν τοῦ ἡλίου οἱ δὲ ἄστρου τινὸς τῶν ἐκπεσόντων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐπὶ Φαέθοντος φθοράν, ἢ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν ὡς τέλεον κενήν τε καὶ μυθώδη παραιτούμενος. Olympiodorus in Mete. 66.7–68.34 τῶν δὲ περὶ γαλαξίου ψευδῶν δοξῶν τεσσάρων οὐσῶν δύο Πυθαγόρειοί εἰσι (cf. §2– 3), τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ἡ μὲν Ἀναξαγόρειός ἐστιν (cf. §7), ἡ δὲ λοιπὴ Ἱπποκράτειος (cf. §4). ἔστι δὲ ἡ πρώτη τοιαύτη (cf. §2)· Φαέθων, φησίν, ὁ ἀπὸ Ἡλίου καὶ Κλυμένης ᾔτησε τὸν ἴδιον (67) πατέρα παραδοῦναι αὐτῷ τὸ ἅρμα, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἡνιοχεῖται. ἐπείσθη, ἔδωκεν, ἔλαβεν, ἀτεχνῶς ἤλασεν, ἐλάσας κατέφλεξε, καὶ ὁ τόπος ἐκεῖνος ὁ καταφλεχθείς ἐστιν ὁ γαλαξίας. ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ μυθῶδες τὸ λεγόμενον, ἄτοπον δὲ μυθώδη ταῦτα νομίζειν Πυθαγορείου τῆς δόξης καθεστηκυίας, φέρε ταύτην ἀλληγορήσωμεν κτλ. … αὕτη πρώτη Πυθαγόρειος δόξα. ταύτης ὡς μυθώδους παρασιωπᾷ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης τὸν ἔλεγχον· τὸ γὰρ καταδήλως ἐλεγχόμενον περιττὸν εἰς ἐξέτασιν προφέρεσθαι, διὸ καὶ μόνας τρεῖς ἐν τῷ πέρατι λέγει δόξας ὡς ἂν μηδὲ λογισάμενος ταύτην. δευτέρα δόξα καὶ αὕτη Πυθαγόρειος οὖσα (cf. §3), ἔχει δὲ οὕτως· ὁ ἥλιός ποτε μὴ τὴν τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ὁδὸν βαδίσας, ἀλλ᾽ ἑτέραν ἀτραπὸν διανύσας ἐξεπύρωσεν αὐτὴν καὶ ὥσπερ λεωφόρον ὁδὸν ὑπὸ ἁμάξης κατατριβεῖσαν εἰργάσατο, καὶ ἐκεῖνος ὁ τόπος ἐστὶν ὁ γαλαξίας ὀνομαζόμενος. ἀλλά, φησίν, ἄτοπος ὑπόθεσις· κτλ. … τρίτη δόξα Ἀναξαγόρου καὶ Δημοκρίτου (cf. §§7–8). οὗτοί φασι τὸν γαλαξίαν εἶναι τὸ ἴδιον φῶς τῶν ἀστέρων τῶν μὴ φωτιζομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. ἔχουσι γάρ, φησί, τὰ ἄστρα τὸ ἴδιον φῶς καὶ ἐπίκτητον τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. καὶ δηλοῖ ἡ σελήνη. ταύτης γὰρ ἕτερον μὲν τὸ ἴδιον φῶς, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ ἡλίου· τὸ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς φῶς ἀνθρακῶδές ἐστιν, ὡς δηλοῖ ἡμῖν ἡ ἔλλειψις αὐτῆς. (68) ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πάντα, φησί, τὸ ἐπίκτητον δέχονται· τὰ οὖν μὴ δεχόμενα ἐκεῖνα τὸν κύκλον τοῦ γαλαξίου ἀπεργάζονται. ἐλέγχει δὲ καὶ ταύτην τὴν δόξαν Ἀριστοτέλης κτλ. … τετάρτη δόξα Ἱπποκράτους τοῦ Χίου (cf. §4). οὗτός φησι τὸν γαλαξίαν γίνεσθαι ἀνακλάσεως γενομένης πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνακλάσεως οὐκ ἀπὸ ἀτμίδος, καθάπερ ἔφαμεν ἐπὶ τοῦ κομήτου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ ἀστέρων. φέρεται οὖν, φησίν, ἡ ὄψις πρὸς τοὺς ἀστέρας, καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἀνακλᾶται πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον καὶ οὕτω φέρεται πρὸς ἡμᾶς. οὕτως ὁ Ἱπποκράτης. in Mete. 75.24–76.5 (refutation of Aristotle) ὁ δὲ μέγας Ἀμμώνιος διὰ ἰσαρίθμων ἐπιχειρημάτων ἀποδείκνυσιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι πάθος ἀέρος (sc. ὁ γαλαξίας), καὶ ἔστι πρῶτον τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀναλλοιώτου. εἰ γὰρ πάθος ἦν ὁ γαλαξίας, ἔδει αὐτὸν ἀλλοίωσιν ἀναδέχεσθαι καὶ ἐν μὲν τῷ θέρει τυχὸν διὰ τὸ εἶναι πλείονα τὴν καπνώδη ἀναθυμίασιν λαμπρότερον γίνεσθαι, ἐν δὲ τῷ χειμῶνι ἀμαυροῦσθαι. δεύτερον ἐπιχείρημα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ καθόλου. καθόλου γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν γινομένων ἐκ πάθους ἀέρος ἓν ὂν κατ᾽ ἀριθμὸν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ ὁρᾶται· νῦν δ᾽ ὁ γαλαξίας πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν τῇ γῇ ὁμοίως ὁρᾶται. τρίτον ἐπιχείρημα ἐκ τῆς σελήνης. αὕτη γὰρ ὑποκάτω ἐστὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου, διότι αὐτὴ μὲν παραλλάττει. δείκνυται δὲ τοῦτο ἐν τῇ συντάξει Πτολεμαίῳ (Alm. 1, pp. 401–402), ὅτι τὰ μὲν παραλλάσσοντα κατωτέρω εἰσί, τὰ δὲ ἧττον ἀνωτέρω. τέταρτον ἐπιχείρημα ἐκ τῶν ὑπολοίπων πλανωμένων, ὅτι καὶ τούτων ἐπάνω τον ἐπιχείρημα ἐκ τῶν ὑπολοίπων πλανωμένων, ὅτι καὶ τούτων ἐπάνω ἐστὶν ὁ ζῳδιακὸς ἐν αὐτῇ ὢν τῇ ἀπλανεῖ. εἰ γὰρ ἦν κατωτέρω τῆς ἀπλανοῦς, ἡνίκα ὑπερεῖχε τὸν Τοξότην καὶ Διδύμους, καθ᾽ οὓς καὶ συμβάλλει (76) ὁ κύκλος

liber 3 caput 1 αὐτοῦ, νοθεύειν ἤμελλεν αὐτοῦ τὴν χροίαν, καὶ ὅμως λευκότερά ἐστι ταῦτα ὁρᾶν. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἔξωθεν προσευπορῆσαι καὶ ἄλλο ἐπιχείρημα, ὅτι εἰ ἦν πάθος τοῦ ἀέρος, ἔδει, καθὰ συμβάλλει τῷ Τοξότῃ καὶ Διδύμοις, ἐκεῖνα μηδὲ ὅλως φαίνεσθαι· ἦ γὰρ οὐ δύναται πλησίον τῆς ὁδοῦ τοῦ ἡλίου συνίστασθαι, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ἔφη Ἀριστοτέλης. John Philoponus in Mete. 75.17–21 ἔστι δὲ τὰ περὶ ὧν διδάσκει νῦν οἵ τε κομῆται καὶ ὁ καλούμενος γαλαξίας κύκλος. ὅπερ δὲ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ ποιεῖν ἔθος ἐπὶ τῶν φυσικῶν ζητημάτων ἑκάστου, τοῦτο ποιεῖ καὶ νῦν τὰς τῶν παλαιοτέρων περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου δόξας προϊστορῶν καὶ τὰς οὐ καλῶς ἐχούσας ἐλέγχων πρῶτον, εἶτα τὴν οἰκείαν περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου διδάσκων ὑπόληψιν. in Mete. 114.31ff. καὶ ἄλλως δὲ δεικνύειν εὐχερὲς ὡς οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ ἀέρος τὸ γάλα πάθος (κτλ). Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338b22 περί τε γάλακτος. Mete. 1.3 339a34–35 λέγωμεν περί τε τῆς τοῦ γάλακτος φαντασίας. Mete. 1.8 346b13 περί τε … τοῦ καλουμένου γάλακτος. Eratosthenes Cat. Cat. 44, p. 131.1 Pàmias I Massana–Zucker Γαλαξίας. Hipparchus in Arat. 1.9.14 ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἑξῆς περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου εἰπὼν ἐπιφέρει (sc. Aratus) κτλ. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 37.2–3 προτίθεται μὲν περὶ τοῦ γαλαξίου κύκλου ποιήσασθαι τὸν λόγον, καλεῖ δ᾽ αὐτὸν γάλα. Macrobius in Somn. 1.15.8 haec de lacteo. John Philoponus in Mete. 2.42–3.1 περὶ … τοῦ καλουμένου γάλακτος. (Περὶ γάλακτος in medical writers pertains to milk.) §1 Nominal definition: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 346a16–17 οὗτος δ᾽ ὁ κύκλος ἐν ᾧ τὸ γάλα φαίνεται τοῖς ὁρῶσιν. Cicero Rep. 6.16 (= Somn.Scip. 8) illum incolunt locum, quem vides—erat autem is splendidissimo candore inter flammas circus elucens—quem vos, ut a Graiis accepistis, orbem lacteum nuncupatis. Geminus Elem. 5.11 μόνος γὰρ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ κύκλος ἐστὶ θεωρητὸς ὁ τοῦ γάλακτος, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ λόγῳ εἰσὶ θεωρητοί. Elem. 5.68 λοξὸς δέ ἐστι κύκλος καὶ ὁ τοῦ γάλακτος. … συνέστηκε δὲ ἐκ βραχυμερίας νεφελοειδοῦς καὶ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ μόνος θεωρητός. Ovid Met. 1.167–168 est via sublimis, caelo manifesta sereno; / lactea nomen habet, candore notabilis ipso. Pliny Nat. 18.280 est praeterea in caelo qui vocatur lacteus circulus, etiam visu facilis. Martianus Capella 8.826 galaxias vero {lacteus} obliquorum multo maiore ambitu porrectus etiam visibus approbatur. Isidore of Seville Etym. 3.46.1 lacteus circulus via est, quae in sphaera videtur, a candore dicta, quia alba est. §2 Pythagoreans: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345a13–16 τῶν μὲν οὖν καλουμένων Πυθαγορείων (58B37b, Oenopides 41.10 DK) φασί τινες ὁδὸν εἶναι ταύτην οἱ μὲν τῶν ἐκπεσόντων τινὸς ἀστέρων, κατὰ τὴν λεγομένην ἐπὶ Φαέθοντος φθοράν. Lucretius DRN 5.396–406 ignis enim superavit et ambiens multa perussit, / avia cum Phaethonta rapax vis solis equorum / aethere raptavit toto terrasque per omnis. / at pater omnipotens ira tum percitus acri / magnanimum Phaethonta repenti fulminis ictu / deturbavit equis in terram, Solque cadenti / obvius aeternam succepit lampada mundi / disiectosque redegit equos iunxitque trementis, / inde suum per iter recreavit cuncta gubernans, / scilicet ut veteres Graium cecinere poëtae. / quod procul a vera nimis est ratione repulsum. Diodorus Siculus 5.23.2 πολλοὶ … τῶν τε ποιητῶν καὶ τῶν συγγραφέων φασὶ Φαέθοντα τὸν Ἡλίου μὲν υἱόν, παῖδα δὲ τὴν ἡλικίαν ὄντα, πεῖσαι τὸν πατέρα μίαν ἡμέραν παραχω-

1165

1166

liber 3 caput 1

ρῆσαι τοῦ τεθρίππου· συγχωρηθέντος δ᾽ αὐτῷ τούτου, τὸν μὲν Φαέθοντα ἐλαύνοντα τὸ τέθριππον μὴ δύνασθαι κρατεῖν τῶν ἡνιῶν, τοὺς δ᾽ ἵππους καταφρονήσαντας τοῦ παιδὸς ἐξενεχθῆναι τοῦ συνήθους δρόμου, καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν πλανωμένους ἐκπυρῶσαι τοῦτον καὶ ποιῆσαι τὸν νῦν γαλαξίαν καλούμενον κύκλον κτλ. John Philoponus in Mete. 101.25–32 τὸ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὸν Φαέθοντα πλάσμα πολλαχοῦ διαβεβόηται τῆς ποιήσεως, ὡς νέος ὢν καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς Ἡλίου τὸ ἅρμα διφρηλατεῖν ἐπιθυμήσας οὗτος καὶ τυχὼν τούτου νεανικώτερον ἢ σοφώτερον ἐλαύνων οὐδὲ νόῳ κατὰ τὸν ποιητὴν (Od. 6.320) ἐπιβάλλων ἱμάσθλην πολὺ τοῦ κόσμου μέρος κατέφλεξεν· ὧν καὶ ἡ διακεκαυμένη ζώνη ἐστὶ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς Πυθαγορείους (—) ὁ γαλαξίας ἐμφαίνων ἔτι νῦν χρῶμα τῆς ἐκεῖθεν γενομένης πυρώσεως καὶ τῶν ἐνταῦθα πεσόντων ἀστέρων. §3 Other Pythagoreans: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345a16–18 (Oenopides 41.10 DK, cf. Pythagorei 58B.37b) οἱ δὲ τὸν ἥλιον τοῦτον τὸν κύκλον φέρεσθαί ποτέ φασιν· (§§2–3) οἷον οὖν διακεκαῦσθαι τὸν τόπον τοῦτον ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο πεπονθέναι πάθος ὑπὸ τῆς φορᾶς αὐτῶν. John Philoponus in Mete. 101.32–34 ἕτεροι δὲ τῶν Πυθαγορείων (—) πάλιν τὸν ἥλιόν φασί ποτε τοῦτον ἐκπεριιέναι κύκλον, οὐ τὸν ζῳδιακόν, ὃν νῦν δίεισιν, ἀλλὰ τὸν τοῦ γάλακτος, ὅθεν ἐκπυρωθέντα τοῦτο ποιῆσαι τὸ χρῶμα. §4 Other Pythagoreans: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345b9–12 (Hippocrates of Chios + Aeschylus 42.6 DK) ἔτι δ᾽ ἐστὶν τρίτη τις ὑπόληψις περὶ αὐτοῦ· λέγουσιν γάρ τινες ἀνάκλασιν εἶναι τὸ γάλα τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν ἀστέρα τὸν κομήτην. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.133 (Stoics) τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς κατοπτρικῆς φαντασίας. §5 again other anonymi: Beda venerabilis de Nat. 18 lacteus circulus est figura candidior per medium caeli verticem, quem vulgo dicunt ex splendore solis in eo currentis ita fulgere. §6 Parmenides: Parmenides 28B8.55–59 DK τἀντία δ᾽ ἐκρίναντο δέμας καὶ σήματ᾽ ἔθεντο / χωρὶς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων, τῆι μὲν φλογὸς αἰθέριον πῦρ, / ἤπιον ὄν, μέγ᾽ ἀραιὸν {ἐλαφρόν}, ἑωυτῶι πάντοσε τωὐτόν, / τῶι δ᾽ ἑτέρωι μὴ τωὐτόν· ἀτὰρ κἀκεῖνο κατ᾽ αὐτό / τἀντία νύκτ᾽ ἀδαῆ, πυκινὸν δέμας ἐμβριθές τε. 28B11.1–4 DK πῶς … (2) … γάλα τ᾽ οὐράνιον … / (3) … ὡρμήθησαν / γίγνεσθαι. §§7–8 Anaxagoras Democritus: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 345a25–31 οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἀναξαγόραν (59A80 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτον (cf. 68A91 DK) φῶς εἶναι τὸ γάλα λέγουσιν ἄστρων τινῶν· τὸν γὰρ ἥλιον ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν φερόμενον οὐχ ὁρᾶν ἔνια τῶν ἄστρων. ὅσα μὲν οὖν περιορᾶται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τούτων μὲν οὐ φαίνεσθαι τὸ φῶς (κωλύεσθαι γὰρ ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτίνων)· ὅσοις δ᾽ ἀντιφράττει ἡ γῆ ὥστε μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, τὸ τούτων οἰκεῖον φῶς εἶναί φασι τὸ γάλα. §7 Anaxagoras: Aristotle Mete. 1.8 346b5–6 ἔστιν τὸ γάλα, ὡς εἰπεῖν οἷον ὁριζόμενον, ἡ τοῦ μεγίστου διὰ τὴν ἔκκρισιν κύκλου κόμη. §8 Democritus: Damascius at John Philoponus in Mete. 118.9–10 (perhaps quoting Heraclides Ponticus) εἶναι γάρ φησι τὸν γαλαξίαν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τινα διάθεσιν ἄφθαρτον, ἀστρῴαν, μικρῶν ἀστέρων πυκνότητι γαλακτίζουσαν. cf. Thucydides 2.28. §9 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 1.7 344a8–10 ὑπόκειται γὰρ ἡμῖν τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν, ὅσον ὑπὸ τὴν ἐγκύκλιόν ἐστιν φοράν, εἶναι τὸ πρῶτον μέρος ἀναθυ-

liber 3 caput 1 μίασιν ξηρὰν καὶ θερμήν. Mete. 1.8 346b1–6 ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ καὶ περὶ τοῦ φαίνεσθαι κομήτας ἀποδεχόμεθα τὴν αἰτίαν ὡς εἰρημένην μετρίως, καὶ περὶ τοῦ γάλακτος τὸν αὐτὸν ὑποληπτέον τρόπον ἔχειν· ὃ γὰρ ἐκεῖ περὶ ἕνα ἐστὶν πάθος ἡ κόμη, τοῦτο περὶ κύκλον τινὰ συμβαίνει γίγνεσθαι τὸ αὐτό, καὶ ἔστιν τὸ γάλα, ὡς εἰπεῖν οἷον ὁριζόμενον, ἡ τοῦ μεγίστου διὰ τὴν ἔκκρισιν κύκλου κόμη. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 41.14–17 ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ γάλα ὁμοία τις ἀναθυμίασις τῇ κόμῃ. ὃ γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνων ἡ περὶ ἓν ἄστρον ἀναθυμίασις τοιαύτη γενομένη κομήτην ποιεῖ, τοῦτο περὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας ἅμα γενόμενον τοὺς καθ᾽ ὃ τὸ γάλα φαίνεται τὸν καλούμενον ποιεῖ γαλαξίαν κύκλον. §10 Stoics: ps.Galen Qual.Incorp. 19.478.1–2 K., p. 13.14–15 Westenberger (SVF 2.327) τὸ αἰθέριον δὴ ἐκεῖνο πῦρ, ὑφ᾽ οὗ φασι τά τε στοιχεῖα καὶ τὸν κόσμον γεγονέναι.

1167

Liber 3 Caput 2 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 893A–D; pp. 366a4–367a19 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 75; pp. 629.20–630.10 Diels; pp. 244–256 Jas—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 272.4–6 Hagedorn—PL: Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4, p. 9.1–5 Wachsmuth (titulus solus), Mens. 4.116, p. 154.9–10 Wuensch (titulus solus)—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 168–171 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 139, p. 72 Westerink (titulus solus), cf. Omn.Doctr. c. 140. 1–3, p. 72 Westerink; Phil.Min. 1 op. 24, p. 89 Duffy (titulus solus)—cf. PSy: CRN 2.23, p. 33.8 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.28.1a, pp. 227.5–228.14 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b14–15 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 51.13–17, p. 52.3–5 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, p. 404.4–5; schol. 926, p. 450.3–9; schol. 927, p. 451.2–15; schol. 1091, p. 509.2–12 (cf. p. 511.13–16); schol. 1091, p. 510.15–19; schol. 1093, p. 510.20– 511.5; schol. 1093, p. 511.21–512.11 Martin

Titulus βʹ. Περὶ κομητῶν καὶ διᾳττόντων καὶ δοκίδων (P,S) §1 τῶν ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου τινὲς μὲν ἀστέρα φασὶν εἶναι τὸν κομήτην τῶν οὐκ ἀεὶ φαινομένων, διά τινος δ᾽ ὡρισμένου χρόνου περιοδικῶς ἀνατελλόντων. (P1,S1) §2 ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, παραπλησίαν ταῖς κατοπτρικαῖς ἐμφάσεσιν. (P2,S2) §3 Ἀναξαγόρας Δημόκριτος σύνοδον ἀστέρων δυοῖν ἢ καὶ πλειόνων κατὰ συναυγασμόν. (P3,S3) §4 Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως διάπυρον σύστασιν. (P4,S4) §§1–2 Pythagorei—§3 Anaxagoras 59A81 DK; Democritus—; §4 Aristoteles cf. Mete. 1.7 344a8–15 titulus Περὶ … δοκίδων PB : Περὶ κομήτου PPs c. 139, sed. cf. c. 140, p. 72.28 ‖ καὶ δοκίδων PB : ἀστέρων PG : die längliche Röte, welche im Himmel erscheint, als ob sie eine Rute wäre Q : καὶ τῶν τοιούτων S §1 [2] τῶν1] om. PG ‖ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου PBGQ : Πυθαγορείων τινὲς S ‖ [3] φαινομένων PBQS : μενόντων PG ‖ διά τινος δ᾽ P : διὰ δέ τινος S ‖ §2 [5] πρὸς PB(II,III)GS : εἰς PB(I) : von Q ‖ παραπλησίαν PB(I,II)GS : παραπλησίως PB(III) §3 [7] post Ἀναξαγόρας add. καὶ PGS ‖ δυοῖν PB(I)GS : δυεῖν PB(II,III) : vieler Q ‖ [8] συναυγασμόν] der Verbindung des Lichtes und der Erleuchtung von jedem durch den anderen Q §4 [9] τῆς … σύστασιν PBS : ein fester, glühender Dampf aus dem trockenem Dampf Q ‖ τῆς … ἀναθυμιάσεως PB(IIcorr.)GS : τῆν ἐκ τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως PB(I,ΙΙΙ) ‖ post ἐκ add. τῆς PG ‖ διάπυρον σύστασιν PBS : διὰ τὴν ἔμπυρον ἐπίτασιν PG ‖ post σύστασιν add. S fragm. AD, cuius ante init. lac. sign. Wachsmuth

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_078

5

10

liber 3 caput 2

Στράτων ἄστρου φῶς περιληφθὲν νέφει πυκνῷ, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν λαμπτήρων γίνεται. (P5,S5) §6 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς νέφος μετάρσιον ὑπὸ μεταρσίου φωτὸς καταυγαζόμενον. ὁμοίως δ᾽ αἰτιολογεῖ πωγωνίαν ἅλω δοκίδα κίονα καὶ τὰ συγγενῆ τούτοις, καθάπερ ἀμέλει πάντες οἱ Περιπατητικοί, παρὰ τοὺς τοῦ νέφους ταυτὶ γίνεσθαι σχηματισμούς. (P6,S6) §7 Ἐπιγένης πνεύματος ἀναφορὰν γεωμιγοῦς πεπυρωμένου. (P7,S7) §8 Βόηθος ἀέρος ἀνημμένου φαντασίαν. (P8,S8) §9 Διογένης ἀστέρας εἶναι τοὺς κομήτας. (P9,S9) §10 Ἀναξαγόρας τοὺς καλουμένους διᾴττοντας καὶ ἅπτοντας ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθέρος σπινθήρων δίκην καταφέρεσθαι· διὸ καὶ παραυτίκα σβέννυσθαι. (P10,S10) §11 Μητρόδωρος τὴν εἰς τὰ νέφη τοῦ ἡλίου βιαίαν ἔμπτωσιν ὡς βέλος πολλάκις σπινθηρίζειν. (P11,S11) §12 Ξενοφάνης πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων συστήματα ἢ κινήματα. (P12,S12)

1169

§5

§5 Strato fr. 86 Wehrli, 51 Sharples; §6 Heraclides Ponticus fr. 116 Wehrli, 77 Schütrumpf; §7 Epigenes—; §8 Boethus SVF 3 Boeth. 9; §9 Diogenes 64A15 DK, T30 Laks; §10 Anaxagoras 59A82 DK; §11 Metrodorus 70A14 DK; §12 Xenophanes 21A44 DK §5 [11] post φῶς add. πεπληρωμένον PG ‖ νέφει πυκνῷ PBS (dichte Wolken Q) : ψυχῇ τινι PG : ψύχει dub. Sharples in app. ‖ [11–12] καθάπερ … γίνεται om. PG §6 om. PG ‖ [13] post ὑπὸ add. τοῦ PB(ΙΙ) ‖ φωτὸς PBS : Stern Q ‖ [14] ὁμοίως δ᾽ αἰτιολογεῖ PBS : Außerdem erwähnt er Q ‖ verba halo dokis kion transcr. Q ‖ ἅλω PB(I,ΙΙ)Q : ἄλλο PB(IΙΙ) : om. S ‖ [15] τοὺς] om. PB(ΙΙ) [16] ταυτὶ corr. ms. Voss. 2 corr. : ταύτη PB : ταῦτα S §§7–8 πνεύματος … Βόηθος] om. PB(III:E) §7 om. PG ‖ [17] ἀναφορὰν PB : ἀναφορᾷ S ‖ πεπυρωμένου PB(I,ΙΙI)QS : πεπυκνωμένου PB(IΙ) §8 om. PG ‖ [18] ἀνημμένου PB(ΙI)QS : ἀνειμένου PB(Ι,ΙIΙ) §9 [19] ἀστέρας PBQSF (lemma om. SP) : al. PG σημεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ καὶ ἐπισφαλῶς τινος §10 [20] διᾴττοντας καὶ ἅπτοντας : diattontes et aptontes PG(Nic), διᾴττοντας PBQS, ἅπτοντας PG ᾄττοντας corr. Diels ‖ [20–21] τοῦ αἰθέρος PBQS (τοῦ om. PB(II)) : τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς PG ‖ [21] σπινθήρων PBSP : σπινθῆρος PGQSF ‖ διὸ] om. PG ‖ σβέννυσθαι PB(I,ΙΙΙ)GQ : κατασβέννυσθαι PB(ΙΙ) §11 [23] τὴν PBGSF : om SP ‖ βιαίαν] om. PG ‖ ἔμπτωσιν] ἔμπρησιν PG ‖ ὡς βέλος PG : Eindringen des Zündfunkens Q : om. PBS prob. Diels Mau Lachenaud ‖ [24] πολλάκις PGS Diels : om. PBQ ‖ σπινθηρίζειν P : σφιντήρισιν S, σφινθηρίζειν Meineke §12 [25] post τοιαῦτα add. τῶν PB(ΙΙΙ:αA) ‖ [25–26] PBS νεφῶν … κινήματα : das Entstehen von all dem aus glühenden oder sich bewegenden Wolken Q ‖ συστήματα … κινήματα PB(ΙI,III)S (πιλήματα coni. Zeller) : σύστημα ἢ κίνημα PG : κινήματα ἢ συστήματα PB(Ι) ‖ [26] post κινήματα add. εἶναι PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps. Galenus HPh c. 75 Περὶ κομητῶν καὶ διᾳττόντων ἀστέρων (~ tit.) (text Jas) 75.1 (~ P1) ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου τινὲς μὲν ἀστέρα φασὶν εἶναι τὸν κομήτην τῶν οὐκ ἀεὶ μενόντων, διά τινος δὲ ὡρισμένου χρόνου περιοδικῶς ἀνατελλόντων.

15

20

25

1170

liber 3 caput 2

75.2 (~ P2) ἄλλοι δὲ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον παραπλησίαν ταῖς κατοπτρικαῖς ἐμφάσεσιν. 74.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξαγόρας καὶ Δημόκριτος σύνοδον ἀστέρων δυοῖν ἢ καὶ πλειόνων κατὰ συναυγασμόν. 75.4 (~ P4) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως διὰ τὴν ἔμπυρον ἐπίτασιν. 75.5 (~ P5) Στράτων ἄστρου φῶς {πεπληρωμένον} περιληφθὲν ψυχῇ τινι. 75.6 (~ P9) Διογένης σημεῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ θυμοῦ καὶ ἐπισφαλῶς τινος εἶναι τοὺς κομήτας. 75.7 (~ P10) Ἀναξαγόρας τοὺς καλουμένους διᾳττόντας ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰθερίου πυρὸς σπινθῆρος δίκην καταφέρεσθαι καὶ παραυτίκα σβέννυσθαι. 75.8 (~ P11) Μητρόδωρος τὴν εἰς τὰ νέφη τοῦ ἡλίου ἔμπρησιν ὡς βέλος πολλάκις σπινθηρίζειν. 75.9 (~ P12) Ξενοφάνης τὰ τοιαῦτα νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων σύστημα ἢ κίνημα εἶναι. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 272.4–6 Hagedorn (~ §1) εἰσὶ δέ τινες κομῆται προσαγορευόμενοι, οὐκ ἀεὶ μὲν φαινόμενοι, διά τινος δὲ χρόνου περιοδικοῦ ἐπιτέλλοντες· (~ §5) οἱ δὲ πωγωνίαι καλοῦνται καὶ δοκίδες καὶ κίονες. Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4, p. 9.1–5 (~ tit.) σπουδὴ δὲ ἡμῖν ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν περί τε … κομητῶν τε καὶ τῆς κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς διαφορᾶς, αὐλακισμῶν τε καὶ διᾳττόντων. Mens. 4.116, p. 154.9–10 (~ tit.) ὅτι τῶν κομητῶν εἴδη κατὰ μὲν τὸν Ἀριστοτέλην ἐννέα κτλ. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 139 Περὶ κομητοῦ (~ tit.) c. 140.1–3 Περὶ ὑετοῦ, χαλάζης, χιόνος, πάχνης καὶ δρόσου (cf. tit. c. 3.4) κομῆται μὲν καὶ γαλαξίας, ἔτι δὲ δοκίδες καὶ διᾴττοντες, καὶ τἆλλα τὰ εἰρημένα, ἐ τῇ καπνώδει γίνονται ἀναθυμιάσει κτλ. (~ tit.) Phil.Min. 1 op. 24, p. 89 Duffy Περὶ τῶν κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν φασμάτων καὶ περὶ κομητῶν (~ tit.) καὶ γαλαξίου (~ tit. c. 3.1) Symeon Seth CRN 2.23 Περὶ κομητῶν ἀστέρων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 51.13 Περὶ κομητῶν (~ tit.). p. 51.14–17 περὶ δὲ κομητῶν καὶ δοκίδων ἐπραγματεύσαντο πολλοί (~ tit.). οἱ μὲν οὖν κάτω τὸ φῶς ἔχοντες καὶ τὰς μαρμαρυγὰς κάτω νευούσας καλοῦνται κομῆται, … ὁπότε δὲ ἐπίμηκες ἔχουσι τὸ φῶς, καλοῦνται δοκίδες (~ quaestio). p. 52.3–4 τοὺς δὲ κομήτας καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους οἳ μὲν λέγουσιν ἐξ ἀστέρων συνερχομένων γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐμφωτιζομένων (~ §3). p. 52.4–5 οἳ δὲ ἐκ νεφῶν περιπεφωτισμένων (sc. τοὺς δὲ κομήτας καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους λέγουσιν γίνεσθαι) (~ §6). p. 52.5–6 οὐ φαίνονται δὲ ἀεί, ἀλλὰ γίνονται κατὰ περιόδους χρόνων (~ §1).

liber 3 caput 2 Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, p. 404.4–5 Martin καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν δὲ κομῆται, πωγωνίαι, δοκίδες, λαμπάδες, ᾄττοντες (~ quaestio). schol. 927, p. 451.2–15 Martin ὁ διᾴττων ἀστὴρ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, ⟨ἐκ⟩ παρατρίψεως δὲ ἀέρος γένεσις πυρὸς φερομένου. … καὶ οἱ διᾴττοντες ἀστέρες ὅθεν ἐκπηδῶσιν, ἐκεῖθεν τὸ πνεῦμα δεῖ προσδοκᾶν· ὠθεῖ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖθεν. ὅθεν καὶ ἡ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν λευκότης φαίνεται. ἐξωθουμένων γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς πνοῆς τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ πιπτόντων ὀλίγον ἐκ τοῦ αἰθέρος εἰς τὸν ἀέρα, αὕτη ἡ πορεία λευκαίνεται, κατὰ φύσιν ποιοῦντος τοῦτο τοῦ ἀέρος, καὶ μένει ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον ἄχρις ἂν πάλιν εἰς τὸν αἰθέρα ἀνελθοῦσα ἡ ἔκλαμψις σβεσθῇ ὑπὸ τῆς θερμότητος τοῦ αἰθέρος (~ quaestio). schol. 1091, p. 509.2–6 Martin τοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν κομήτας λέγουσι, τοὺς δὲ πωγωνίας, τοὺς δὲ ξιφηφόρους, καὶ ἄλλους ἄλλως ἔχοντας· κομήτας μὲν τοὺς ἄνω τῶν ἀστέρων ἔχοντας τὴν κόμην, πωγωνίας δὲ τοὺς κάτω, ξιφηφόρους δὲ τοὺς ἑκατέρωθεν (~ quaestio). schol. 1093, p. 511.20–512.11 Martin ὁ δὲ Ποσειδώνιος (F 131a E.-K., 316 Theiler) ἀρχὴν γενέσεώς φησι τοὺς κομήτας ἔχειν ὅταν {τὴν} τοῦ ἀέρος παχυμερέστερόν τι εἰς τὸν αἰθέρα ἐκθλιβὲν ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἀέρος δίνῃ ἐνδεθῇ, εἶτα πρὸς πλείονα δίνην ἐπιρρεούσης τῆς ὕλης αὐξόμενοι ἐπιφαίνωνται· ἔνθεν καὶ μείζονας αὐτοὺς αὑτῶν ὁρᾶσθαι καὶ ἥττονας, ὡσὰν ποτὲ μὲν πλεῖον ἐπιδιδούσης αὔξεσθαι, ποτὲ δὲ λειπούσης συστέλλεσθαι. ταύτῃ γοῦν καὶ τοῖς ἀρκτικοῖς συνίστασθαι μάλιστα τόποις, ἔνθα παχυμερὴς καὶ πεπιλημένος ἐστὶν ὁ ἀήρ. κατὰ δὲ τὰς φαύσεις αὐτῶν καὶ πάλιν διαλύσεις τροπὰς γίνεσθαι τοῦ ἀέρος· αὐχμούς τε γὰρ κἀκ τῶν ἐναντίων ῥαγδαίους ὄμβρους κατὰ τὴν διάλυσιν αὐτῶν γίνεσθαι, ἅτε δὴ τῆς συστάσεως αὐτῶν ἐν ἀέρι γενομένης. ὅπερ καὶ ὁ Ἄρατος λέγει κτλ. (~ quaestio). schol. 1091, p. 508.8–12 Martin (cf. p. 511.13–16) τοὺς κομήτας οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ (—) τοῖς πλανωμένοις συγκατηρίθμουν, κατὰ μακρὰς ἀνακυκλήσεις χρόνων ἄλλοτε ἄλλῃ προφαινομένους, ἕνα τοῦτον ὑποτιθέμενοι καὶ κατὰ τὰ βόρεια ἐκτὸς τοῦ ζῳδιακοῦ φαινόμενον (~ §1). schol. 1091, p. 510.15–19 Martin Ἱπποκράτης μέντοι ὁ Πυθαγορικὸς (—) ἕνα λέγει τὸν κομήτην. καὶ οἱ μὲν λοιποὶ ἰδίας αὐτῶν τὰς κόμας ἀποφαίνονται, ὃ δὲ κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν τὴν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἀπὸ τῶν ὄψεων διὰ τὴν τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμίασιν εἰς αὐτὸν ὁλκὴν φαίνεσθαι (~ §2). schol. 1093, p. 510.20–511.5 Martin ἡ ξηρὰ ἀναθυμίασις ξηρᾶς τῆς γῆς καὶ αὐχμηρᾶς τυγχανούσης ἀναδιδομένη ποιεῖ τοὺς κομήτας ἀστέρας καλουμένους, ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας θερμότητος ἐξαπτομένη ῥᾳδίως ἐκ τῶν ὑποκειμένων, καὶ οἷον ἀκτῖνας ἀναπέμπει πρὸς τὸ ἄνω. τὸ γὰρ πῦρ ἄνω πέφυκε φέρεσθαι. τὰς δὲ ἀκτῖνας τοῦ παντὸς ἀστέρος κόμας εἶναι νομίζουσιν (~ §4). schol. 1091, p. 509.7–11 Martin Δημόκριτος (—) δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (—) κατὰ σύλληψιν δύο πλανωμένων ἡνίκα πλησίον ἀλλήλων γένωνται καθάπερ ἐσόπτρων ἀντιλαμπόντων ἀλλήλοις τοὺς κομήτας συνίστασθαι λέγουσι (~ §6). schol. 926, p. 450.3–9 Martin ὁ αἰθὴρ σφόδρα ἐστὶ διάπυρος. ἔστι δὲ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡλίου. οὗτος δὲ ὅταν ξηρὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις δέξηται, ξηρὸς ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ πυρώδης, πυκνούμενος ἀποπέμπει τινὰς ὥσπερ σπινθῆρας. ταύτας ὑπονοοῦμεν ἀστέρων εἶναι διαδρομάς. οὐ γὰρ ἀστέρες ἐκδρομὴν ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ ὁ αἰθήρ ἐστιν ὁ τὰς στιλβηδόνας τὰς πυροειδεῖς ἐκπέμπων· διὸ καὶ ὀλίγον διαδραμοῦσαι παύονται (~ §10).

1171

1172

liber 3 caput 2

Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.2.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· … ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται. §2 A 3.1.4 τινὲς δὲ κατοπτρικὴν εἶναι φαντασίαν τοῦ ἡλίου τὰς αὐγὰς πρὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνακλῶντος, ὅπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἴριδος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφῶν συμβαίνει. §3 A 3.1.8 Δημόκριτος πολλῶν καὶ μικρῶν καὶ συνεχῶν ἀστέρων συμφωτιζομένων ἀλλήλοις συναυγασμὸν διὰ τὴν πύκνωσιν. §4 A 3.1.9 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναθυμιάσεως ξηρᾶς ἔξαψιν πολλῆς τε καὶ συνεχοῦς. A 3.3.13 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα [sc. ἀστραπὴν βροντὴν κτλ.] γίνεσθαι τῆς ξηρᾶς. A 3.15.4 Ἀριστοτέλης … ἐν ἀπολήψει γινομένης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως. §6 A 3.5a (olim 18) titulus Περὶ ἅλω A 3.5a.1 ἡ δ᾽ ἅλως κτλ. §12 A 2.13.13 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν μὲν πεπυρωμένων (sc. τὰ ἄστρα). A 2.20.2 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. T 4.21 καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ὁ Ξενοφάνης νέφη εἶναι πεπυρωμένα φησίν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The number of witnesses for this chapter is similar to those for the previous chapter 3.1. They preserve the contents of the chapter well. Both witnesses preserve the same twelve lemmata in the same order. S appears to have written out the chapter in full, and P to have refrained from abridging it. (1) The tradition of P is represented by PB, PG, PQ and PPs (the last for the heading only). Ps.Galen leaves out a block of three doxai (§§6–8). Psellus includes several headings from the meteorological section of the Placita in his De omnifaria doctrina and elsewhere, but the contents of the chapters derive from elsewhere. (2) The chapter in S combines the first sentence of the Aristotle lemma with a short excerpt from AD, a type of coalescence found more often in the Anthology, see Diels DG 75 n. 2, M–R 1.249–254, and Jeremiah at M–R 4.286 and 352. (3) T does not make use of any material from Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. There are parallels in ps.Aristotle De mundo, the quite substantial physical fragments of Arrian, and several noteworthy general and

liber 3 caput 2

1173

individual parallels in Seneca Naturales quaestiones Book 7. A remarkable collection of meteorological doxai is found in various passages in the late historian Ammianus Marcellinus. The Metarsiology of Theophrastus(?) lacks one or more chapters on meteors and comets, just as it lacks one on the Milky Way (see above, ch. 3.1 at Commentary B), and one on the rainbow (see below ch. 3.5 at Commentary B). (2) Sources. §§1–3 derive from Aristotle’s dialectical overview, Mete. 1.6, while §4 summarizes Aristotle’s own view at Mete. 1.7. We do not know from what sources the other lemmata derive. C Chapter Heading It is of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita, see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C. The umbrella here (like that of the next two chapters) covers a number of different phenomena collected in a single chapter rather than distributed over several. The most important question type/category is that of essence/substance; that of cause (διὰ τί) also plays a part, and the categories of place and quality are of secondary interest. PBQ has a long heading including ‘beams’ (δοκίδες). The shorter headings of G and S are presumably due to the abridgment that is habitual with these authors, while the headings of PPs are formulated rather freely (but it should be noted that δοκίδες are mentioned at the beginning of c. 140). In view of the fact that the ‘beams’ are only mentioned explicitly in §6 as part of a list, one might be tempted to conclude that the shorter version has more chance of being originally A’s. One wonders what would have motivated the heading’s purported extension in P. Because of these uncertainties we retain the longer heading. D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s order in general see above, Book 3.proœm., at Commentary D(a). Just like the previous chapter this one too is related to its predecessors in Aristotle’s treatise. But as we have seen the order of treatment in the Placita is not the same as in the Meteorology. Aristotle discusses shooting stars and similar phenomena at Mete. 1.4–5, continuing with comets in Mete. 1.6–7, while A in this chapter begins with comets and has the shooting stars come second. And Aristotle deals with the comets before the Milky Way, while A begins with the Milky Way. The next chapter, 4.3, is about lightning and similar phenomena, which are treated in Aristotle as far away as Mete. 2.9–3.1. In Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones comets and shooting stars respectively are treated in two different books, viz. Nat. 7 (sixth in the original order) and Nat. 1

1174

liber 3 caput 2

(seventh in the original order), so at least after one the other as in A, contrasting with the order in Aristotle. For the explanation of A’s order in general see above Book 3.proœm., at Commentary D(a). b Number–Order of Lemmata PB, confirmed by PQ, has twelve lemmata, and S has twelve lemmata too, the same as PBQ and in the same order. PG has nine lemmata, leaving out §§6–8 in the middle. As the lemmata order is the same in all witnesses, this has to be preserved unchanged. Accordingly our order is the same as that of Diels in the DG. We have however augmented the number of lemmata by splitting up Diels’ first lemma into two separate ones for the sake of convenience, thus getting §§1–2. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Broadly speaking the chapter falls into two parts, the first, §§1–9 dealing with comets, the second, §§10–11, with shooting stars. But §6 also makes reference to a list of other phenomena similar to comets qua atmospherical phenomena, viz. ‘bearded star, halo, beam, pillar etc.’, while the final lemma, §12, refers to all these phenomena together, including (by implication) comets. The main diaphonia of the first part is between comets as being real (§1: a star, §3: two stars or even more, §4: a structure, σύστασις, §7: a compound of pneuma and earth, and §9: stars again) as opposed to comets as phenomenal or illusory (§2: reflection of vision and §8: appearance of ignited air). It includes two compromise views in a block of two lemmata, §5: light trapped in a dense cloud, and §6: high clouds illuminated by lights high in the sky. These are compromise views, because the phenomena involved fit a qualification formulated further down in Book 3, namely at A 3.6.1: they are a mix of substance and appearance, because what is seen is clouds (and clouds are real), but not according to their own colour but with a different colour seen in the manner of a reflection (μίξει τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως ὑπάρχει, τῶν μὲν νεφῶν ὁρωμένων, οὐ κατ᾽ οἰκεῖον δὲ χρῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν φαίνεται). Furthermore, within one horn of the diaphonia, that of reality, there is a sub-diaeresis between stars (§1, §3 and §9) and atmospherical phenomena, or quasi-phenomena (the block of §§4–7). We also note the role explicitly played by clouds in three lemmata: §5, §6 and §12. In §5 we meet the comet in the guise of the light of a star enclosed in a cloud, whereas in §6 a comet, like other similar phenomena, is (just) a high cloud that has been illuminated from above. §2 does not mention clouds, but presumably the reflection as through a mirror of our vision to the sun can only happen via a cloud. In the previous chapter, 3.1.4, such a cloud may be believed

liber 3 caput 2

1175

to be involved in the appearance of the Milky Way qua optical phenomenon, and this earlier lemma in fact refers forward to §§5–6 of our present chapter and to ch. 3.5, the role of clouds in the production of the rainbow. Finally, in §12 we have Xenophanes’ ignited clouds, familiar from the cosmological chapters in Book 2 where his suns, moon and stars are all said to consist of ignited clouds (see Loci Aetiani §12). This time comets, shooting stars and other similar phenomena are regarded as combinations or movements (for the latter think of shooting stars) of such clouds. The combinations or gatherings of clouds recall the combined little stars of Democritus, but this is by the way. Compare the useful headings in Gundel (1922) 1164–1170: comets as (1) ‘Erzeugnis der Atmosphäre rein meteorologischer Natur’; (2) as ‘beleuchtete Wolken’; (3) as ‘Vereinigung verschiedener Sterne’; and (4) as ‘Weltkörper mit bestimmten Umlaufszeiten’. The organization of the first section of the first part of the chapter resembles that of its predecessor at ch. 3.1: §§1–2 a diaphonia of (purported Pythagorean?) views to begin with, this time however followed immediately by a lemma for Anaxagoras and Democritus at §3 (no interpolated Metrodorus and Parmenides as in ch. 3.1.4–5). §§1–3 derive from Aristotle Mete. 1.6 342b25–343a20. But Aristotle begins with Anaxagoras and Democritus (corresponding to §3), continues with the Pythagoreans (corresponding to §1), and as a third view cites that of (the mathematician) Hippocrates of Chios and his pupil Aeschylus (corresponding to §2). This modification of the sequence seems in the first place to be inspired by the conviction that the ‘others’ of §2 (in Aristotle Hippocrates and Aeschylus) are Pythagoreans, just as the related ‘some people’ at A 3.1.4 and the bearers of the name-label in §1. As a consequence the diaphonia between §1 and §2 mirrors that between the lemmata at ch. 3.1.2–3 and 3.1.4. This first diaphonia, as in the previous chapter, is between reality (the comet qua star) and optical phenomenon (the comet qua the result of the reflection of the visual rays). A similar diaphonia occurs further down, in a bilemmatic block at the end of the presentation of the doxai dealing with comets, viz. between §9: the comet as the ‘appearance’ (φαντασία) of air that has been ignited, over against §10: comets as stars (as in §1). This produces a ring-compositional effect between end and beginning, not unlike the one we discerned in the previous chapter, 3.1. Nevertheless the structure of our chapter is not entirely satisfactory, just as in the case of the previous one. This time, too, the sequence of lemmata at the beginning (§§1–3), not so good from a diaeretical point of view, is to be explained as the result of a restructuring of the Aristotelian matrix, which nevertheless continues to be present. We note an unsystematic series of elemental substances or combinations thereof in various locations: §4 red-hot dry vapour

1176

liber 3 caput 2

from the earth, §5 light in dense cloud, §6 high cloud illuminated by light, §7 ignited blend of air and earth, §8 inflamed air. Atmospherical phenomena are complicated. Arranging this series in a diaeretically correct and worthwhile succession was perhaps too great a challenge. d

Further Comments General Points Epicurus mentions these phenomena at some length in his Letter to Pythocles (see below section E(b) General texts). But this material is absent in the present chapter, perhaps because his multiple solutions are adequately represented by other doxai. In the meteorological section he first appears in ch. 3.4 below, though not with a multiplicity of doxai. For the complicated role of Epicurus in the Placita see Runia (2018) at M–R 4. Individual Points Chapter heading ‘Beams’ are a kind of meteor. For ‘rods’, another kind of meteor or another name for the same kind, see below, ch. 3.6. §2 For Hippocrates of Chius and Aeschylus see above, ch. 3.1.4 Commentary D(d)§4. §11 We have included the words ὡς βέλος preserved by PG, because they explain the violence of the immission. §12 κινήματα] i.e. νέφη κινούμενα, e.g. διάιττοντες according to DK ad loc. e Other Evidence The whole of Seneca Naturales quaestiones Book 7 (Book 6 according to the original order) is about comets. But unlike Aristotle and his tradition, to which A belongs as well, Seneca posits that comets are not atmospherical but celestial phenomena. This point of view is also that of Pliny, Nat. 2.94. Such shared views used to be regarded as derived from Posidonius, and are still so attributed by Theiler. Because of its irregular behaviour a comet could not be a heavenly body consisting of aether in Aristotle’s system. For Seneca this behaviour was not an impediment in view of the homogeneity of nature: the stars, too, consist of fire. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Seneca Nat. 7.4.1 duo certe, qui apud Chaldaeos studuisse se dicunt, Epigenes et Apollonius Myndius, peritissimus inspiciendorum natalium, inter se dissident. hic enim ait cometas in numero stellarum errantium poni a Chaldaeis tenerique cursus eorum. Epigenes contra ait Chaldaeos nihil de

liber 3 caput 2 cometis habere comprensi, sed videri illos accendi turbine quodam aëris concitati et intorti. Nat. 7.19.1–2 quidam (sc. Zeno of Citium, Artemidorus of Paros) nullos esse cometas existimant sed speciem illorum per repercussus vicinorum siderum aut per coniunctionem cohaerentium reddi; quidam (sc. Pythagoreans) aiunt esse quidem sed habere cursus suos et post certa lustra in conspectum mortalium exire; quidam (sc. Aristotle, Epigenes, Posidonius) esse quidem sed non quibus siderum nomen imponas, quia dilabuntur nec diu durant et exigui temporis mora dissipantur. Nat. 7.22.1 ego nostris (sc. Stoicis) non assentior. non enim existimo cometen subitaneum ignem sed inter aeterna opera naturae. Pliny Nat. 2.89 namque et in ipso caelo stellae repente nascuntur. plura earum genera. cometas Graeci vocant, nostri crinitas, horrentes crine sanguineo et comarum modo in vertice hispidas. iidem pogonias quibus inferiore ex parte in speciem barbae longae promittitur iuba. acontiae iaculi modo vibrantur, ocissimo significatu. Nat. 2.94 sunt qui et haec sidera perpetua esse credant suoque ambitu ire, sed non nisi relicta ab sole cerni; alii vero qui nasci umore fortuito et ignea vi ideoque solvi. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392b2–5 ἐν δὲ τῇ πυρώδει καὶ ἀτάκτῳ λεγομένῃ (sc. οὐσίᾳ) τά τε σέλα διᾴττει καὶ φλόγες ἀκοντίζονται καὶ δοκίδες τε καὶ βόθυνοι καὶ κομῆται λεγόμενοι στηρίζονται καὶ σβέννυνται πολλάκις. Mu. 4 395b7–12 (Posidonius fr. 340a Theiler) ὁ δὲ στηριγμός ἐστι χωρὶς φορᾶς προμήκης ἔκτασις καὶ οἷον ἄστρου ῥύσις· πλατυνομένη δὲ κατὰ θάτερον κομήτης καλεῖται. …. πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλαι φαντασμάτων ἰδέαι θεωροῦνται, λαμπάδες τε καλούμεναι καὶ δοκίδες καὶ πίθοι καὶ βόθυνοι. Stobaeus Ecl. 1.28.1a, p. 227.17–21 Wachsmuth (under the name of A; doubtfully attributed to AD by Diels DG, but printed as A 3.2.3) κομήτας δὲ ὅταν ἐπὶ πλέον ἐξαφθῇ καὶ πρὸς πλείονα διαμένῃ χρόνον, τοῦ μὲν ἀστέρος φαινομένου κάτωθεν, τῆς δὲ κόμης ἄνωθεν ἐπιλαμπούσης· πωγωνίας δὲ ὅταν ἔμπαλιν ὁ μὲν ἀστὴρ ἄνωθεν θεωρῆται, ἡ δὲ κόμη κάτωθεν, παρεχομένη τῷ σχήματι πώγωνος ἔμφασιν. Manilius 1.813–851 sunt etenim raris orti natalibus ignes, / protinus et rapti. subitas candescere flammas / aëra per liquidum natosque perire cometas / rara per ingentis viderunt saecula motus. / sive, quod ingenitum terra spirante vaporem / umidior sicca superatur spiritus aura, / nubila cum longo cessant depulsa sereno / et solis radiis arescit torridus aër. / apta alimenta sibi demissus corripit ignis / materiamque sui deprendit flamma capacem, / et, quia non solidum est corpus, sed rara vagantur / principia aurarum volucrique simillima fumo, / in breve vivit opus coeptusque incendia fine / subsistunt pariterque cadunt fulgentque cometae. / … / (831) tum, quia non una specie dispergitur omnis / aridior terrae vapor et comprenditur igni, / diversas quoque per facies accensa feruntur / lumina, quae ruptis exsistunt nata tenebris. / nam modo, ceu longi fluitent de vertice crines, / flamma comas imitata volat, tenuisque capillos; / diffusos radiis ardentibus explicat ignis; / nunc prior haec facies dispersis crinibus exit, / et glomus ardentis sequitur sub imagine barbae. / … / (849) et tenuem longis iaculantur tractibus ignem / (847) praecipites stellae passimque volare videntur, / cum vaga per liquidum scintillant lumina mundum / exsiliuntque procul volucris imitata sagittas, / ardua cum gracili tenuatur semita filo / diffusos radiis ardentibus explicat ignis. Arius

1177

1178

liber 3 caput 2

Didymus fr. 11 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.31.6, p. 243.22–244.2 (on Aristotle) ἐκ δὲ τῆς ὑγρᾶς καὶ ἀτμώδους ἀναθυμιάσεως ὑετούς τε καὶ δρόσους καὶ πάχνας, ὁμίχλας τε καὶ νέφη καὶ χιόνας καὶ χαλάζας. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 6, pp. 2.193–195 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.2.8.1b–2, pp. 228. 15–231.4 (Posidonius fr. 340b Theiler) Χαλδαίους μὲν δὴ λόγος περὶ κομητῶν ὧδε γιγνώσκειν … οἳ δὲ … Δημοκρίτου δὲ ὁ λόγος λεγόμενός ἐστιν (see below §§1, 4, 7). … Ἀρριανός φησιν· ὅσα δὲ μένει ἐπὶ χρόνον, τὰ μὲν ὡς συμπεριφέρεσθαι τῷ οὐρανῷ, τὰ δὲ ἤδη τινὰ κατ᾽ ἰδίαν πλάνην πλανώμενα, οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ κομῆται ἀστέρες καὶ λαμπάδες καὶ πωγωνίαι καὶ πίθοι καὶ δοκίδες, καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα ἕκαστα ἰδέας τῆς ἐπωνυμίας λαχόντα. … καὶ ταῦτα, ὅπως ἂν τύχῃ, ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδέας ἐπικληΐζεσθαι ἕκαστον· κομήτας μὲν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὥσπερ κόμη εἰς τὰ κύκλῳ ἀπολάμπει αὐγὴ πυρός· πωγωνίας δὲ ἀφ᾽ ὅτων εἰς πώγωνος σχῆμα ἀπήρτηται αὐγὴ ἐς τὸ ἐπὶ θάτερα· πίθους δὲ ὅσα μεγάλα ⟨καὶ⟩ κυκλοτερῆ καί τι καὶ βάθους ἔν σφισιν ἐξέφηνε· δοκοὺς δὲ αὖ καὶ λαμπάδας καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα τοῦ εἴδους ⟨οὕ⟩τως ἐπιφημίζεσθαι. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.2–3 cum horrendo stridore sonuerunt in consistorio trabes et visa sunt interdiu sidera cometarum, super quorum natura ratiocinantes physici variant. (see further quotations below). … plura alia de cometis apud peritos mundanae rationis sunt lecta, quae digerere nunc vetat aliorsum oratio properans. cf. 25.2.5 erat autem nitor igneus iste, quem diaissonta nos appellamus, nec cadens umquam nec terram contingens. corpora enim qui credit caelitus posse labi, profanus merito iudicatur et demens. fit autem hic habitus modis compluribus, e quibus sufficiet pauca monstrare. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 11.32–34 de cometis. natura et situs et genera eorum. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 6, pp. 192–193 Roos–Wirth at Photius Bibl. cod. 250, p. 460b17–18 (Posidonius fr. 340b Theiler) ὅτι Ἀρριανὸς Περὶ κομητῶν φύσεώς τε καὶ συστάσεως καὶ φασμάτων βιβλιδαρίον γράψας. §0 Question of existence: Seneca Nat. 7.19.1 quidam (sc. Zeno of Citium, Artemidorus of Paros) nullos esse cometas existimant sed speciem illorum per repercussus vicinorum siderum aut per coniunctionem cohaerentium reddi. §1 some Pythagoreans: Seneca Nat. 7.4.1 duo certe qui apud Chaldaeos studuisse se dicunt, Epigenes et Apollonius Myndius, peritissimus inspiciendorum natalium, inter se dissident. hic (sc. Apollonius) enim ait cometas in numero stellarum errantium poni a Chaldaeis tenerique cursus eorum. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 6, pp. 192–193 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.28.1b, p. 228.15–21 (Posidonius fr. 340b Theiler) Χαλδαίους μὲν δὴ λόγος περὶ κομητῶν ὧδε γιγνώσκειν, ὅτι εἰσί τινες καὶ ἄλλοι ἔξω τῶν φαινομένων πλανητῶν ἀστέρες, οἳ τέως μὲν ἀφανεῖς εἰσιν, ὅτι ἐπὶ πολὺ ἄνω που ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν φέρονται, ἤδη δὲ καὶ ταπεινωθέντες ὤφθησαν οὕτως ξυνήνεγκόν τε εἰς τὰ ὅλα· καὶ τούτους κομήτας καλεῖν φίλον τοῖς οὐ γιγνώσκουσιν, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν ἀστέρων εἰσίν. κτλ. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.3 sedit quorundam opinioni hanc speciem tunc apparere, cum erecta solito celsius nubes aeternorum ignium vicinitate colluceat, vel certe stellas esse quasdam ceteris similes, quarum ortus obitusque, quibus sint temporibus praestituti, humanis mentibus ignorari. §3 Anaxagoras Democritus: Seneca Nat. 7.12.1 quibusdam antiquorum haec placet ratio: cum ex stellis errantibus altera se alteri adplicuit, confuso in unum duarum lumine facies longioris sideris redditur; nec hoc tunc tantum

liber 3 caput 2 evenit, cum stella stellam attigit, sed etiam cum appropinquavi. intervallum enim quod inter duas est illustratur ab utraque inflammaturque et longum ignem efficit. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 6, p. 2.193 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.28.1b, p. 229.5–9 (Posidonius fr. 340b Theiler) Δημοκρίτου (—) δὲ ὁ λόγος λεγόμενός ἐστιν, ὡς κατ᾽ ἀντίλαμψιν τῶν πλανωμένων ἀστέρων πρὸς ἀλλήλους τε καὶ τοὺς ἀπλανεῖς οἱ κομῆται ξυνίστασθαι δοκοῦσι, καθάπερ πλειόνων κατόπτρων ἀντιλαμπόντων σφίσιν ἤδη τινὰ ὤφθη ἀστεροειδῆ φαντάσματα. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.3 quidam enim eos hoc nomine ideo existimant appellari, quod tortos ignes spargunt ut crines in unum stellis multiplicibus congregatis. §4 Aristotle: Stobaeus 1.28.1a, p. 227.17–21 quoted above under General texts. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.3 alii eos arbitrantur ex halitu sicciore terrarum ignescere paulatim in sublimiora surgentes. §5 Strato: Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.3 quidam *** currentesque radios solis densiore nube obiecta degredi ad inferiora prohibitos splendore infuso corpori crasso lucem velut stellis distinctam mortali conspectu monstrare. §7 Epigenes: Seneca Nat. 7.4.1 + 4 Epigenes contra ait Chaldaeos nihil de cometis habere comprensi, sed videri illos accendi turbine quodam aëris concitati et intorti. … (4) ‘cum umida terrenaque in se globus aliquis aëris clusit, quem turbinem dicimus, quacumque fertur, praebet speciem ignis extenti, quae tam diu durat quamdiu mansit aëris illa complexio umidi intra se terrenique multum vehens.’ Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 6, p. 2.193 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.28.1b, pp. 228.24–229.4 (Posidonius fr. 340b Theiler) οἳ δὲ ὑπ᾽ ἀνέμων ἢ θυέλλης ἀναφέρεσθαι ἔστιν ἃ γαιώδη ἐς τὸν ἄνω ἀέρα ἐδόξασαν καὶ ταῦτα ἐκπυρωθέντα καὶ εἰς τὴν δίνην ἐμπεσόντα τοῦ αἰθέρος ξυμπερινοστεῖν τῷ παντὶ ἐπὶ χρόνον, ἔπειτα ἀπαναλωθέντα πρὸς τοῦ πυρὸς ἀφανῆ καθίστασθαι, καὶ τοὺς κομήτας δὲ καλουμένους ἀστέρας ταῦτα εἶναι. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.10.3 alii eos arbitrantur ex halitu sicciore terrarum ignescere paulatim in sublimiora surgentes. §10 Anaxagoras: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.10 (on Anaxagoras, 59A44 DK) τοὺς δὲ μεταβαίνοντας ἀστέρας ὡσεὶ σπινθῆρας ἀφαλλομένους γίνεσθαι ἐκ τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ πόλου. Ammianus Marcellinus 25.2.6 scintillas quidam putant ab aetherio candentes vigore parumque porrectius tendere sufficientes exstingui. §11 Metrodorus: Ammianus Marcellinus 25.2.6 vel certe radiorum flammas iniectas nubibus densis acri scintillare contactu aut, cum lumen aliquod cohaeserit nubi. id enim in stellae speciem figuratum decurrit quidem, dum viribus ignium sustentatur; amplitudine vero spatiorum exinanitum in aërium soluitur corpus ad substantiam migrans, cuius attritu incaluit nimio. §12 Xenophanes: Seneca Nat. 2.12.3 (on lightning etc.) quidam putant inesse ignem nubibus.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338b22–23 περί τε … καὶ κομητῶν. Mete. 1 6 342b25–27 περὶ δὲ τῶν κομητῶν … λέγωμεν, διαπορήσαντες πρὸς τὰ παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων εἰρημένα πρῶτον. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.111 κομῆται ἀστέρες γίνονται ἤτοι πυρὸς ἐν τόποις τισὶ διὰ χρόνων τινῶν ἐν τοῖς μετεώροις συντρεφομένου

1179

1180

liber 3 caput 2

περιστάσεως γινομένης, ἢ ἰδίαν τινὰ κίνησιν διὰ χρόνων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἴσχοντος ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, ὥστε τὰ τοιαῦτα ἄστρα ἀναφανῆναι, ἢ αὐτὰ ἐν χρόνοις τισὶν ὁρμῆσαι διά τινα περίστασιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς τόπους ἐλθεῖν καὶ ἐκφανῆ γενέσθαι· τήν τε ἀφάνισιν τούτων γίνεσθαι παρὰ τὰς ἀντικειμένας ταύταις αἰτίας. Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.114– 115 οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀστέρες ἐκπίπτειν καὶ παρὰ μέρος καὶ παρὰ τριψιν ἑαυτῶν δύνανται συντελεῖσθαι καὶ παρὰ ἔκπτωσιν οὗ ἂν ἡ ἐκπνευμάτωσις γένηται, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀστραπῶν ἐλέγομεν· (115) καὶ κατὰ σύνοδον δὲ ἀτόμων πυρὸς ἀποτελεστικῶν, συμφυλίας γενομένης εἰς τὸ τοῦτο τελέσαι, καὶ κατὰ κίνησιν οὗ ἂν ἡ ὁρμὴ ἐξ ἀρχῆς κατὰ τὴν σύνοδον γένηται· καὶ κατὰ πνεύματος δὲ συλλογὴν ἐν πυκνώμασί τισιν {ἐν} ὁμιχλοειδέσι, καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν τούτων διὰ τὴν κατείλησιν, εἶτ᾽ ἐπέκρηξιν ⟨ἐκ⟩ τῶν περιεχόντων, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν τόπον ἡ ὁρμὴ γένηται τῆς φορᾶς, εἰς τοῦτον φερομένου. καὶ ἄλλοι δὲ τρόποι εἰς τὸ τοῦτο τελέσαι ἀμύθητοί εἰσιν. Plutarch Lys. 12.3 ἔστι δέ τις πιθανωτέρα δόξα ταύτης (sc. of Anaxagoras’), εἰρηκότων ἐνίων ὡς οἱ διᾴττοντες ἀστέρες οὐ ῥύσις εἰσὶν οὐδ᾽ ἐπινέμησις αἰθερίου πυρὸς ἐν ἀέρι κατασβεννυμένου περὶ τὴν ἔξαψιν αὐτήν, οὐδὲ ἀέρος εἰς τὴν ἄνω χώραν πλήθει λυθέντος ἔκπρησις καὶ ἀνάφλεξις, ῥῖψις δὲ καὶ πτῶσις οὐρανίων σωμάτων οἷον ἐνδόσει τινὶ τόνου καὶ περιτρόπου κινήσεως ἐκπαλῶν φερομένων οὐ πρὸς τὸν οἰκούμενον τόπον τῆς γῆς, ἀλλὰ τῶν πλείστων ἐκτὸς εἰς τὴν μεγάλην ἐκπιπτόντων θάλατταν· διὸ καὶ λανθάνουσι. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … ζητοῦσι … ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. V.P. 7.153 (SVF 2.692) κομήτας δὲ καὶ πωγωνίας καὶ λαμπαδίας πυρὰ εἶναι ὑφεστῶτα πάχους ἀέρος εἰς τὸν αἰθερώδη τόπον ἀνενεχθέντος. Proclus in Tim. 2.120.19–221.5. John Philoponus in Mete. 75.17–21 ἔστι δὲ τὰ περὶ ὧν διδάσκει νῦν οἵ τε κομῆται καὶ ὁ καλούμενος γαλαξίας κύκλος. ὅπερ δὲ τῷ φιλοσόφῳ ποιεῖν ἔθος ἐπὶ τῶν φυσικῶν ζητημάτων ἑκάστου, τοῦτο ποιεῖ καὶ νῦν τὰς τῶν παλαιοτέρων περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου δόξας προϊστορῶν καὶ τὰς οὐ καλῶς ἐχούσας ἐλέγχων πρῶτον, εἶτα τὴν οἰκείαν περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου διδάσκων ὑπόληψιν. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338b22–24 περί τε … καὶ κομητῶν καὶ τῶν ἐκπυρουμένων καὶ κινουμένων φασμάτων. Mete. 1.6 342b25 περὶ δὲ τῶν κομητῶν. Mete. 1.8 346b13 περί τε κομητῶν. John Philoponus in Mete. 2.42–3.1 περὶ … κομητῶν. §1 some Pythagoreans: Aristotle Mete. 1.6 342b29–35 τῶν δ᾽ Ἰταλικῶν τινες καλουμένων Πυθαγορείων (42.5 DK) ἕνα λέγουσιν αὐτὸν εἶναι τῶν πλανήτων ἀστέρων, ἀλλὰ διὰ πολλοῦ τε χρόνου τὴν φαντασίαν αὐτοῦ εἶναι καὶ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν ἐπὶ μικρόν, ὅπερ συμβαίνει καὶ περὶ τὸν τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ ἀστέρα· διὰ γὰρ τὸ μικρὸν ἐπαναβαίνειν πολλὰς ἐκλείπει φάσεις, ὥστε διὰ χρόνου φαίνεσθαι πολλοῦ. Olympiodorus in Mete. 50.8–9–11 ὁ μὲν Πυθαγόρας Σάμιος ἦν, πλὴν πρόσεστι τοῦ Ἰταλικοῦ διδασκαλία· διὸ εἶπε ‘τῶν Ἰταλικῶν τινες’. οὗτος οὖν τὸν κομήτην ἕκτον ᾤετο πλάνητα ἔχοντα ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος καὶ τὴν κόμην. John Philoponus in Mete. 76.11– 12 τούτων οὖν τινες μετὰ τοὺς πλανωμένους πέντε, ὧν ἀρτίως ἐμνήσθημεν, ἕκτον ἀστέρα πλανώμενον ὑπετίθεντο τὸν κομήτην. §2 other Pythagoreans: Aristotle Mete. 1.6 342b35–343a20 παραπλησίως δὲ τούτοις (see above §1) καὶ οἱ περὶ Ἱπποκράτην τὸν Χῖον καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν αὐτοῦ Αἰσχύλον (42.5 DK) ἀπεφήναντο, πλὴν τήν γε κόμην οὐκ ἐξ αὑτοῦ φασιν ἔχειν, ἀλλὰ

liber 3 caput 2 πλανώμενον διὰ τὸν τόπον ἐνίοτε λαμβάνειν ἀνακλωμένης τῆς ἡμετέρας ὄψεως ἀπὸ τῆς ἑλκομένης ὑγρότητος ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. … ἐν μὲν οὖν τῷ μεταξὺ τόπῳ τῶν τροπικῶν οὐχ ἕλκειν τὸ ὕδωρ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν διὰ τὸ κεκαῦσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου φορᾶς· πρὸς δὲ νότον ὅταν φέρηται, δαψίλειαν μὲν ἔχειν τῆς τοιαύτης νοτίδος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μικρὸν εἶναι τὸ ὑπὲρ τῆς γῆς τμῆμα τοῦ κύκλου, τὸ δὲ κάτω πολλαπλάσιον, οὐ δύνασθαι τὴν ὄψιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φέρεσθαι κλωμένην πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον οὔτε τῷ τροπικῷ τόπῳ πλησιάζοντος οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ θεριναῖς τροπαῖς ὄντος τοῦ ἡλίου· διόπερ ἐν τούτοις μὲν τοῖς τόποις οὐ γίγνεσθαι κομήτην αὐτόν· ὅταν δὲ πρὸς βορέαν ὑπολειφθεὶς τύχῃ, λαμβάνειν κόμην διὰ τὸ μεγάλην εἶναι τὴν περιφέρειαν τὴν ἄνωθεν τοῦ ὁρίζοντος, τὸ δὲ κάτω μέρος τοῦ κύκλου μικρόν· ῥᾳδίως γὰρ τὴν ὄψιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀφικνεῖσθαι τότε πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. Olympiodorus in Mete. 51.3–6 τουτέστι τοῖς περὶ Πυθαγόραν. καὶ οὗτοι γὰρ ἕκτον ἔλεγον πλάνητα τὸν κομήτην εἶναι. πλὴν ἐν τούτῳ ἡ διαφορά, ὅτι Πυθαγόρας μὲν καὶ τὴν κόμην ἔλεγεν ἐκ τοῦ πέμπτου σώματος εἶναι, ὁ δὲ Ἱπποκράτης ἐκ τοῦ ὑπὸ σελήνην ἔλεγεν αὐτὴν γίνεσθαι. John Philoponus in Mete. 77.8–14 Ἱπποκράτης ὁ Χῖος (—), φησίν (μαθηματικὸς δὲ ὑπῆρχεν οὗτος, οὗ καὶ ὁ τοῦ κύκλου τετραγωνισμὸς διὰ τῶν μηνίσκων εἶναι λέγεται) καὶ ὁ τούτου μαθητὴς Αἰσχύλος τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις παραπλησίως ἕκτον πλανήτην ἀστέρα τὸν κομήτην εἶναι λέγουσι, τὴν δὲ κόμην οὐκ οἴκοθεν ἔχειν αὐτόν, ὡς οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (—) βούλονται. ἐκεῖνοι γὰρ τοῦ ἀστέρος εἶναι μέρος τὴν κόμην ἔλεγον, Ἱπποκράτης δὲ ἔξωθεν αὐτῷ φησι τὴν κόμην προσγίνεσθαι, τούτου πίστιν ἐπαγόμενος τὸ μὴ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ κόμην ἔχειν αὐτὸν δύνασθαι. Aristotle Mete. 1.7 344b1–18 οὐ γὰρ πρὸς αὐτοῖς ἡ κόμη γίγνεται τοῖς ἄστροις, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ αἱ ἅλῳ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον φαίνονται καὶ τὴν σελήνην παρακολουθοῦσαι, καίπερ μεθισταμένων, ὅταν οὕτως ᾖ πεπυκνωμένος ὁ ἀὴρ ὥστε τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι τὸ πάθος ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πορείαν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ κόμη τοῖς ἄστροις οἷον ἅλως ἐστίν· πλὴν ἡ μὲν γίγνεται δι᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τοιαύτη τὴν χρόαν, ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ χρῶμα φαινόμενόν ἐστιν. … τοῦτο γὰρ μάλιστα μηνύει μὴ εἶναι ἀνάκλασίν τινα τὸν κομήτην, ὡς ἅλω ἐν ὑπεκκαύματι καθαρῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν ἀστέρα γιγνομένην, καὶ μή ὡς λέγουσιν οἱ περὶ Ἱπποκράτην, πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, ὅτι καὶ καθ᾽ αὑτὸν γίγνεται κομήτης πολλάκις καὶ πλεονάκις ἢ περὶ τῶν ὡρισμένων τινὰς ἀστέρων. περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἅλω τὴν αἰτίαν ὕστερον (Mete. 3.3) ἐροῦμεν. §3 Anaxagoras Democritus: Aristotle Mete. 1.6 342b27–29 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A81 DK) μὲν οὖν καὶ Δημόκριτός (68A92 DK) φασιν εἶναι τοὺς κομήτας σύμφασιν τῶν πλανήτων ἀστέρων, ὅταν διὰ τὸ πλησίον ἐλθεῖν δόξωσι θιγγάνειν ἀλλήλων. cited verbatim at John Philoponus in Mete. 75.21–24, who glosses τῶν πλανητῶν ἀστέρων with τῶν πέντε πλανωμένων ἅμα δηλονότι. §4 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 1.7 344a8–23 ὑπόκειται γὰρ ἡμῖν τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν, ὅσον ὑπὸ τὴν ἐγκύκλιόν ἐστιν φοράν, εἶναι τὸ πρῶτον μέρος ἀναθυμίασιν ξηρὰν καὶ θερμήν· … φερομένη δὲ καὶ κινουμένη … πολλάκις ἐκπυροῦται· … ὅταν οὖν εἰς τὴν τοιαύτην πύκνωσιν ἐμπέσῃ διὰ τὴν ἄνωθεν κίνησιν ἀρχὴ πυρώδης, μήτε οὕτω πολλὴ λίαν ὥστε ταχὺ καὶ ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐκκαίειν, μήθ᾽ οὕτως ἀσθενὴς ὥστε ἀποσβεσθῆναι ταχύ, ἀλλὰ πλείων καὶ ἐπὶ πολύ, ἅμα δὲ κάτωθεν συμπίπτῃ ἀναβαίνειν εὔκρατον ἀναθυμίασιν, ἀστὴρ τοῦτο γίγνεται κομήτης, ὅπως ἂν τὸ ἀναθυμιώμενον τύχῃ ἐσχηματισμένον· ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ πάντῃ ὁμοίως, κομήτης, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐπὶ μῆκος, καλεῖται πωγωνίας.

1181

Liber 3 Caput 3 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 893D–F; pp. 367a20–370a11 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 76; p. 630.11–29 Diels—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 273.8–11 Hagedorn—PL: Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4, p. 9.1–5 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)— PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 170–173 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. cc. 147, 149, 150, pp. 77–78 Westerink; Phil.Min. 1 op. 24, p. 83; op. 27, p. 94; op. 28, p. 95 Duffy (tituli soli)—cf. PSy CRN 2.15, p. 28.4–5 (pars tituli), c. 2.19, p. 30.9–10, p. 31.1–6 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.29, pp. 231.10–234.3 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b15– 16 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 52.6–11 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum schol. 924, p. 448.13–15; schol. 927, p. 451.5–7 Martin

Titulus γʹ. Περὶ βροντῶν ἀστραπῶν κεραυνῶν πρηστήρων τε καὶ τυφώνων (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος ταυτὶ πάντα συμβαίνειν· ὅταν γὰρ περιληφθὲν νέφει παχεῖ βιασάμενον ἐκπέσῃ τῇ λεπτομερείᾳ καὶ κουφότητι, τόθ᾽ ἡ μὲν ῥῆξις τὸν ψόφον, ἡ δὲ διαστολὴ παρὰ τὴν μελανείαν τοῦ νέφους τὸν διαυγασμὸν ἀποτελεῖ. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀναξιμένης ταὐτὰ τούτῳ παρατιθεὶς τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἥτις σχιζομένη ταῖς κώπαις παραστίλβει. (S2) §3 Μητρόδωρος ὅταν εἰς νέφος πεπηγὸς ὑπὸ πυκνότητος ἐμπέσῃ πνεῦμα, τῇ μὲν συνθραύσει τὸν κτύπον ἀποτελεῖ, τῇ δὲ πληγῇ καὶ τῷ σχισμῷ διαυγάζει, τῇ δ᾽ ὀξύτητι τῆς φορᾶς προσλαμβάνον τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητα κεραυνοβολεῖ· τοῦ δὲ κεραυνοῦ τὴν ἀσθένειαν εἰς πρηστῆρα περιίστησιν. (P2,S3) §1 Anaximander 12A23 DK; §2 Anaximenes 13A17 DK; §3 Metrodorus 70A15 DK titulus ἀστραπῶν … τυφώνων PBQS (sed. inv. ord. Über den Blitz, den Donner Q) : κεραυνῶν … τυφώνων om. PG ‖ post κεραυνῶν und das, was ‘Prester’ und ‘Typhon’ genannt wird Q ‖ post βροντῶν add. καὶ PG ‖ τε καὶ om. S (et ind. Phot.) §1 [3] ταυτὶ πάντα] om. PG : ταῦτ᾽ εἶπε S ‘fort. ex ταυτὶ πάντα corruptum’ Diels ‖ συμβαίνειν PBQ : συμβαίνει S : ὑπιόντος PG ‖ [4] βιασάμενον PBS : βιαζόμενον PG : Gewalt ausübt / unter Zwang fällt Q (‘Doppelübersetzung’) §2 lemma om. P ‖ [7] ταὐτὰ τούτῳ corr. Heeren prob. Diels Wachsmuth Laks–Most : ταῦτα τοῦτο S ‖ παρατιθεὶς corr. Usener conl. §5[19], prob. Wachsmuth : προστιθεὶς S prob. Diels Bollack §3 [9] πνεῦμα] τὸ add. PB(II) ‖ [10] συνθραύσει] θραύσει PG ‖ πληγῇ … σχισμῷ PBG : ord. inv. Q ‖ σχισμῷ P : σεισμῷ S ‖ [11] προσλαμβάνον] προλαμβάνον PΒ(III)

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_079

5

10

liber 3 caput 3

Ἀναξαγόρας, ὅταν τὸ θερμὸν εἰς τὸ ψυχρὸν ἐμπέσῃ (τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν αἰθέριον μέρος εἰς ἀερῶδες) τῷ μὲν ψόφῳ τὴν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖ, τῷ δὲ παρὰ τὴν μελανείαν τοῦ νέφους χρώματι τὴν ἀστραπήν· τῷ δὲ πλήθει καὶ μεγέθει τοῦ φωτὸς τὸν κεραυνόν· τῷ δὲ πολυσωματωτέρῳ πυρὶ τὸν τυφῶνα· τῷ δὲ νεφελομιγεῖ τὸν πρηστῆρα. (P3,S4) §5 Ἀρχέλαος ταὐτὸ λέγει παρατιθεὶς τὸ τῶν διαπύρων λίθων καθιεμένων εἰς ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πάθος. (S5) §6 Ξενοφάνης ἀστραπὰς γίνεσθαι λαμπρυνομένων τῶν νεφῶν κατὰ τὴν κίνησιν. (S6) §7 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἔμπτωσιν φωτὸς εἰς νέφος ἐξείργοντος τὸν ἀνθεστῶτα ἀέρα, οὗ τὴν μὲν σβέσιν καὶ τὴν θραῦσιν κτύπον ἀπεργάζεσθαι, τὴν δὲ λάμψιν ἀστραπήν, κεραυνὸν δὲ τὸν τῆς ἀστραπῆς τόνον. (S7) §8 Διογένης ἔμπτωσιν πυρὸς εἰς νέφος ὑγρόν, βροντὴν μὲν τῇ σβέσει ποιοῦν, τῇ δὲ λαμπηδόνι τὴν ἀστραπήν. συναιτιᾶται δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα. (S8) §9 Ἡράκλειτος βροντὴν μὲν κατὰ συστροφὰς ἀνέμων καὶ νεφῶν καὶ ἐμπτώσεις πνευμάτων εἰς τὰ νέφη, ἀστραπὰς δὲ κατὰ τὰς τῶν ⟨ἀνα⟩θυμιωμένων ἐξάψεις, πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις. (S9) §10 Λεύκιππος πυρὸς ἐναποληφθέντος νέφεσι παχυτάτοις ἔκπτωσιν ἰσχυρὰν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖν ἀποφαίνεται. (S10) §11 Δημόκριτος βροντὴν μὲν ἐκ συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου, τὸ περιειληφὸς αὐτὸ νέφος πρὸς τὴν κάτω φορὰν ἐκβιαζομένου· ἀστραπὴν δὲ σύγκρουσιν νεφῶν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς τὰ γεννητικὰ τοῦ πυρὸς διὰ τῶν πολυκένων

1183

§4

§4 Anaxagoras 59A84 DK; §5 Archelaus 60A16 DK; §6 Xenophanes 21A45 DK; §7 Empedocles 31A63 DK; §8 Diogenes 64A16 DK, T 31a Laks; §9 Heraclitus 22A14 DK; §10 Leucippus 67A25 DK; §11 Democritus 68A93 DK §4 [14] τὸ1] om. S ‖ [15] εἰς] om. PG ‖ τὴν PB : om. S ‖ βροντὴν] μελανίαν PG ex §4[16] ‖ [15–16] τῷ … ἀστραπήν] al. PG τῷ δὲ χρώματι τοῦ νεφώδους τὴν ἀστραπήν‖ [16] παρὰ τὴν μελαν(ε)ίαν] aus der schwarzen Farbe Q ‖ νέφους PB(II)S : νεφώδους PB(I,III)G, prob. Mau Lachenaud Graham ‖ παρὰ … νεφ(ώδ)ους olim secl. Beck ut ex §1 repetita ‖ χρώματι] χρώματος PB(II) ‖ [17] πολυσωματωτέρῳ] πολυσωμάτῳ SF ‖ [18] νεφελομιγεῖ PB(I,II)QS : νεφελοειδεῖ PB(III) : νεφώδει PG §5 om. P ‖ [19] ταὐτὸ corr. Meineke prob. Diels Wachsmuth Laks–Most : τοῦτο S §§6–12 om. P §8 [26] ἔμπτωσιν corr. Canter prob. Diels Wachsmuth Laks : ἐμπύρωσιν S ‖ [27] ποιοῦν] coni. ποιοῦντος Natorp §9 [31–32] ⟨ἀνα⟩θυμιωμένων corr. Schuster prob. Laks–Most : θυμιωμένων S prob. VS Bollack [31] post θυμιωμένων add. ⟨πνευμάτων⟩ Ernout– Robin p. 3.213 §10 [33] ἐναποληφθέντος corr. Canter prob. Diels Wachsmuth Laks–Most : -λειφθέντος S §11 [36–37] σύγκρουσιν corr. Diels conl. D.L. V.P. 10.101 prob. Wachsmuth : σύγκρασιν S prob. Bollack Laks–Most, σύγκρισιν Schneider (1813) ad D.L. V.P. 10.101

15

20

25

30

35

1184

liber 3 caput 3

ἀραιωμάτων ταῖς παρατρίψεσιν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συναλιζόμενα διηθεῖται· κεραυνὸν δὲ ὅταν ἐκ καθαρωτέρων καὶ λεπτοτέρων, ὁμαλωτέρων τε καὶ ‘πυκναρμόνων’, καθάπερ αὐτὸς γράφει, γεννητικῶν τοῦ πυρὸς ἡ φορὰ βιάσηται· πρηστῆρα δ᾽, ὅταν πολυκενώτερα συγκρίματα πυρὸς ἐν πολυκένοις κατασχεθέντα χώραις καὶ περιοχαῖς ὑμένων ἰδίων σωματοποιούμενα τῷ πολυμιγεῖ τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ βάρος ὁρμὴν λάβῃ. (S11) §12 Χρύσιππος ἀστραπὴν ἔξαψιν νεφῶν ἐκτριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων ὑπὸ πνεύματος, βροντὴν δ᾽ εἶναι τὸν τούτων ψόφον· ἅμα δὲ γίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ ἀέρι βροντήν τε καὶ ἀστραπήν, πρότερον δὲ τῆς ἀστραπῆς ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι ἡμᾶς διὰ τὸ τῆς ἀκοῆς ὀξυτέραν εἶναι τὴν ὅρασιν· ὅταν δ᾽ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος φορὰ σφοδροτέρα γένηται καὶ πυρώδης, κεραυνὸν ἀποτελεῖσθαι· ὅταν δὲ ἄθρουν ἐκπέσῃ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἧττον πεπυρωμένον, πρηστῆρα γίγνεσθαι, ὅταν δ᾽ ἔτι ἧττον ᾖ πεπυρωμένον τὸ πνεῦμα, τυφῶνα. (S12) §13 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα γίνεσθαι τῆς ξηρᾶς· ὅταν οὖν ἐντύχῃ μὲν τῇ ὑγρᾷ, παραβιάζηται δὲ τὴν ἔξοδον, τῇ μὲν παρατρίψει καὶ τῇ ῥήξει τὸν ψόφον τῆς βροντῆς γίνεσθαι, τῇ δ᾽ ἐξάψει τῆς ξηρότητος τὴν ἀστραπὴν παρίστησι. (P5a,S13) §14 Στράτων θερμοῦ ψυχρῷ παρείξαντος, ὅταν ἐκβιασθὲν τύχῃ, τὰ τοιαῦτα γίνεσθαι, βροντὴν μὲν ἀπορρήξει, φάει δ᾽ ἀστραπήν, τάχει δὲ κεραυνόν, πρηστῆρας δὲ καὶ τυφῶνας τῷ πλεονασμῷ τῷ τῆς ὕλης, ἣν ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἐφέλκεται, θερμοτέραν μὲν ὁ πρηστήρ, παχυτέραν δὲ ὁ τυφών. (P5b,S14) §12 cf. Chrysippus SVF 2.703; §13 Aristoteles cf. Mete. 2.9 369a10–b11; §14 Strato fr. 87 Wehrli, 52 Sharples [38] παρατρίψεσιν et συναλιζόμενα corr. Meineke prob. Wachsmuth VS : παρατρέψεσιν et συναυλιζόμενα S ‖ [41] βιάσηται corr. Gaisford prob. Wachsmuth Laks–Most : βιώσηται S : βιάζηται coni. Diels ‖ [43] βάρος S prob. Wachsmuth (‘quo pondus vergit’) : βάθος coni. Diels (DG et VS) prob. Laks–Most ‖ ὁρμὴν S prob. Wachsmuth : ῥοπὴν coni. Usener §12 [46] τῆς ἀστραπῆς SF : ταῖς ἀστραπαῖς SP ‖ [49–50] ἧττον … τυφῶνα SF prob. Diels Wachsmuth : ἧττον πνεῦμα καὶ ἧττον πεπυρωμένον τυφῶνα SP ‖ [50] δ᾽ ἔτι corr. Ideler prob. Diels Wachsmuth : δέ τι S §13 [52] post Ἀριστοτέλης hab. PG δὲ ‖ καὶ] πάντα PG ‖ γίνεσθαι τῆς ξηρᾶς] (om. PB(II)) : συμβαίνειν PG ‖ τοιαῦτα] ταῦτα PB(II) ‖ [53] οὖν ἐντύχῃ] τύχῃ SP ‖ παραβιάζηται PB(II,III) : παραβιάζεται PB(I)G : παραβιβάζηται S ‖ ante τῇ habet PG καὶ ‖ [54] τῆς … γίνεσθαι P : om. S ‖ ἐξάψει PBG : Auftreten Q : ἐμφάσει S ‖ [55] παρίστησι post ἀστραπὴν om. P §14 [56–57] Στράτων … κεραυνόν S : om. PBGQ qui add. [58–59] πρηστῆρας … τυφών ad lemma Aristotelis (§13) nomine Stratonis omisso ‖ [57] φάει] φαύσει Usener ‖ [58] πρηστῆρας … τυφῶνας] πρηστῆρα … τυφῶνα PG ‖ τῷ] om. PG ‖ τῷ2] om. P ‖ [59] ἐφέλκεται S : συνεφέλκεται P ‖ θερμοτέραν] θερμότερος PG ‖ παχυτέραν PBQ : παχύτερος PG : ταχυτέραν S

40

45

50

55

60

liber 3 caput 3

§15 οἱ Στωικοὶ βροντὴν μὲν προσκρουσμὸν νεφῶν, ἀστραπὴν δὲ ἔξαψιν ἐκ παρατρίψεως, κεραυνὸν δὲ σφοδροτέραν ἔκλαμψιν, πρηστῆρα δὲ νωθεστέραν. (P4, S15) §15 Stoici SVF 2.705 §15 [61] προσκρουσμὸν S : συγκρουσμὸν PB : κρουσμὸν PG ‖ ἀστραπὴν δὲ] τὴν δὲ ἀστραπὴν PG [63] νωθεστέραν S : νωχελεστέραν P, cf. erfolgt aus einem schwachen Leuchten Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 76 Περὶ βροντῶν καὶ ἀστραπῶν (~ tit.) (text Diels) 76.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑπιόντος, ὅταν περιληφθὲν νέφει παχεῖ βιαζόμενον ἐκπέσῃ τῇ λεπτομερείᾳ καὶ κουφότητι, τότε ἡ μὲν ῥῆξις τὸν ψόφον ἀποτελεῖ, ἡ δὲ διαστολὴ μελανίαν τοῦ νέφους. 76.2 (~ P2) Μητρόδωρος ὅταν εἰς νέφος πεπηγὸς ὑπὸ πυκνότητος ἐμπέσῃ πνεῦμα, τῇ μὲν θραύσει τὸν κτύπον ποιεῖ, τῇ δὲ πληγῇ καὶ τῷ σχισμῷ διαυγάζει, τῇ δ᾽ ὀξύτητι τῆς φορᾶς προσλαμβάνον τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητα κεραυνοβολεῖ. τοῦ δὲ κεραυνοῦ τὴν ἀσθένειαν εἰς πρηστῆρα περιίστησιν. 76.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ ὅταν τὸ θερμὸν εἰς ψυχρὸν ἐμπέσῃ—τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν αἰθέριον μέρος ἀερῶδες—τῷ μὲν ζόφῳ μελανίαν ἀποτελεῖ, τῷ δὲ χρώματι τοῦ νεφώδους τὴν ἀστραπήν, τῷ δὲ πλήθει τοῦ φωτὸς τὸν κεραυνόν, τῷ δὲ πολυσωματωτέρῳ πυρὶ τὸν τυφῶνα, τῷ δὲ νεφώδει τὸν πρηστῆρα. 76.4 (~ P4) οἱ Στωικοὶ βροντὴν μὲν κρουσμὸν νεφῶν, τὴν δὲ ἀστραπὴν ἔξαψιν ἐκ παρατρίψεως, κεραυνὸν δὲ σφοδροτέραν ἔλλαμψιν, πρηστῆρα δὲ νωχελεστέραν. 76.5 (~ P5a) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα συμβαίνειν· ὅταν οὖν ἐντύχῃ τῇ ὑγρᾷ, παραβιάζεται τὴν ἔξοδον, καὶ τῇ μὲν παρατρίψει καὶ τῇ ῥήξει τὸν ψόφον τῆς βροντῆς γίνεσθαι, τῇ δ᾽ ἐξάψει τῆς ξηρότητος τὴν ἀστραπήν. 76.6 (~ P5b) πρηστῆρα δὲ καὶ τυφῶνα πλεονασμῷ τῆς ὕλης, ἣν ἑκάτερος αὐτῶν ἐφέλκεται· θερμότερος μὲν ὁ πρηστήρ, παχύτερος δὲ ὁ τυφών. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 273.8–11 Hagedorn (~ §15) … βροντῆς μὲν ἐξαισίως ἐκρηγνυμένης προσκρούσματι τῶν νεφῶν, ἀστραπῆς δὲ ἐκλαμπούσης τῇ σφοδροτάτῃ κινήσει τοῦ πνεύματος, †ἧς† ἐκ παρατρίψεως ἐκσπινθηρίζεται ἢ κεραυνὸς ἢ σπινθὴρ πρὸς ἐπιστροφὴν τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων. Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4, p. 9.1–5 σπουδὴ δὲ ἡμῖν ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν περί τε … ἀστραπῶν τε καί βροντῶν καὶ κεραυνῶν (~ tit.) Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 147 Περὶ τυφῶνος; c. 149 Περὶ κεραυνοῦ; c. 150 Περὶ πρηστῆρος (~ tit.)

1185

1186

liber 3 caput 3

Op.Phil. 1. c. 22 Περὶ βροντῆς ἀστραπῆς κεραυνοῦ πρηστῆρος ἐκνεφίου και τυφῶνος; c. 27 Περὶ βροντων; c. 28 Περὶ κεραυνῶν (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 2.15, 2.19 2.15 Περὶ ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς (—) καὶ νεφῶν καὶ ὑετῶν (cf. tit. 3.4) καὶ ἀστραπῶν καὶ βροντῶν (~ tit.) 2.19 αἱ δὲ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ βρονταὶ οὐκ ἀποτελοῦνται συγκρουομένων ἀλλήλοις τῶν νεφῶν, ἀλλ᾽ … προηγεῖται δὲ ἡ ἀστραπὴ τῆς βροντῆς ἅμα ταύτῃ γινομένη διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. ἡ ὄψις πρώτη τῶν αἰσθήσεων οὖσα ἀχρόνως ὁρᾷ τὸ ὁρατόν, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ χρόνου αἰσθάνεται τοῦ ἀκουστοῦ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρῶτον ὁρῶμεν τὸ τῆς ἀστραπῆς φῶς, εἶτα ἀκούομεν τῆς βροντῆς (~ quaestio). Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 52.6–11 ὅτε μὲν οὖν συγκρούονται αἱ νεφέλαι πρὸς ἀλλήλας, βροντὰς ποιοῦσι, ῥαγεῖσαι δὲ καὶ πνεῦμα μετὰ ῥύμης καὶ σφοδρᾶς ὁρμῆς ἀφεῖσαι κεραυνοὺς ποιοῦσι διὰ τῆς ῥύμης ἀναπτομένου τοῦ πνεύματος. ἀστραπαὶ δὲ γίνονται ἤτοι ἐξ αὐτῶν πάλιν τῶν νεφῶν φωτὸς ἀναπτομένου καὶ σβεννυμένου ἢ ἐκ πυρὸς μαρμαρυγῆς ἐκπεμπομένης (~ quaestio). Scholia in Aratum schol. 924, p. 448.13–15 Martin ἄλλως· τὴν βροντήν φησι (sc. Aratus) κατὰ ῥῆξιν γίνεσθαι τῶν νεφῶν, τὴν δὲ ἀστραπὴν κατὰ παράτριψιν τῶν ῥηγνυμένων νεφῶν (~ quaestio). schol. 927, p. 451.5–7 Martin ἡ ἀστραπὴ δὲ γίνεται ἐκ τῆς τῶν νεφῶν ἐκθλίψεως, ἡ δὲ ἔκθλιψις ἐκ τοῦ πλησίον πνεύματος γίνεται (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.2.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· … ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ πρηστῆρες ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are both P, represented by PB, PG and PQ, and S. P has 5 and S 15 lemmata, so P has considerably abridged the chapter, going even so far as to reduce §§13–14 to a single lemma by leaving out the name-label Strato and the first part of the text of §14. Such false coalescences happened more often, see already Diels DG 64. To cite some instances: something similar has occurred at ch. 1.20.1–2, where P,

liber 3 caput 3

1187

eliminating the Epicurus lemma extant in A at S 1.18.4a, simply added its namelabel Epicurus to the lemma with name-label ‘Zeno and his followers’ (thus S 1.18.1d), replaced A’s formula with the simpler name-label ‘the Stoics’, and consequently attributed a Stoic doctrine to Epicurus as well, though in reality Epicurus’ view is the opposite to that of the Stoics. In A 4.13.12–13 Histiaeus’ doxa has been coalesced in P with the name-label Empedocles from another lemma that has been left out. Also compare A at P 4.7.1–2, where the namelabel Heraclitus, attested by T, has been eliminated in what originally was the second lemma, and a Pythagoreanizing and Platonizing new lemma is created through coalescence. An interesting case is found in only a part of P’s tradition for ch. 4.23, where a new lemma has been produced by haplography (see at ch. 4.23, Commentary D(d)§§1–2). On P’s procedure in the present chapter see also our analysis at M–R 1.188. G this time abstracted all of P’s 5 lemmata from a text in which the false coalescence had already taken place. S appears to have written out the chapter in full. The lemmata order is the same in P and S, with an exception at the end for the order Stoics/Aristotle (+ Strato) in P 4/5a/5b as opposed to Aristotle/Strato/Stoics in S 13/14/15, see below section D(b). As we have noted T does not make use of any material from Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is for the most part limited to generalities and anonymous doxai. Worthwhile individual accounts are extant in Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones Book 8 (Book 2 according to the original order), which deals with lightning and thunder, and at Lucretius DRN 6.96– 450. From Theophrastus(?) Metarsiology (for this treatise see Introduction to Book 3, section 6) we must cite, as providing parallel evidence the following chapters, citing Daiber’s headings (quoted below under section E(b)): Metars. [1.], The account of the causes of thunder; [2.] The account of the causes of lightning; [3.] The account of the causes of thunder occurring without lightning; [4.] The account of the causes of lightning occurring without thunder; [5.] The account of the reasons why lightning precedes thunder; and [6.] The account of the causes of thunderbolts. In this treatise the firewind is not treated together with thunder and lightning, but this occurs in the last section of ch. [13.], The account of the causes of different winds, at lines (43)–(54). We note that the same holds for Seneca’s Book on winds, where the turbo and its stronger variety, the firewind, are discussed near the end, at Nat. 5.13. (2) Sources. Plato’s Timaeus is silent on these subjects (see Solmsen 1960, 416). Two chapters in Aristotle’s Meteorology, 2.9–3.1 are the ultimate inspiration for a systematic treatment of the issues our chapter is concerned with.

1188

liber 3 caput 3

C Chapter Heading Again of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). The umbrella here (like that of the previous chapter and the next) shelters a number of different phenomena collected in a single chapter rather than distributed over several, as in the Metarsiology attributed disertis verbis to Theophrastus. The most important question type/category is that of essence/substance, that of cause (διὰ τί) also plays a part, and the sub-question unde and the categories of place, quality and action and passion are involved as well. It is virtually identical in PBQ and S, shorter in PG. It adequately lists and sums up the various phenomena treated in the chapter, which can be amply paralleled in headings or heading-like phrases in both the proximate and the wider tradition. Thunder (sometimes represented not by its name but by its audible effect) is the first, lightning (sometimes represented not by its name but by its visual effect) the second phenomenon in the heading, and also in the majority of the lemmata. §6 mentions only lightning, §10 only thunder, but only §12 has lightning first and thunder second. The other phenomena occur in those lemmata where they do occur in the order in which they are cited in the heading. Gregory (2013) 42–48 combines the heading with §1 (name-label Anaximander), and argues that the resulting combination derives from the Milesian and should be seen as important testimony. As to the heading itself, he claims that ‘this is an odd collection of phenomena for a doxographer to bring together in one heading especially as typical headings in ps.-Plutarch and Stobaeus are brief’. But as we know by no means all headings in P and S are brief, and both the preceding chapter, ch. 3.2 (3 items in the heading), and the next, ch. 3.4 (no less than 7 items in the heading)—not cited by Gregory—contain similar collections of related meteorological phenomena. But then Aristotle’s announcement of his treatment of all five subjects mentioned in the embedded heading of ch. 3.3 at Mete. 2.9 369a10–12 should also have been derived by him from Anaximander, because it would be an equally odd and also unusually long list for Aristotle. This passage is cited below at section E(b) Chapter heading, together with a few excellent Aristotelian parallels (one even with three specified items and an unspecified number of others of the same kind, derived from the list of subjects already treated and still to be treated in the proem at Mete. 1.1 339a3–5). Moreover, Wilson (2013) 76–77 with nn. 6–7 and 227–235, argues that this collection of ‘violent atmospheric phenomena: thunder, lightning, hurricanes, whirlwinds, firewinds and thunderbolts’ is the seventh of the ten groups into which Aristotle divides the phenomena studied and explained in the Meteorologica, and shows that this classification and ordering depend on his specific and original meteorological physics.

liber 3 caput 3

1189

What we have in our chapter is of course an instance of the reverberations of Aristotelian embedded headings found throughout the Placita, cf. e.g. ch. 3.1 with Mete. 1.8 345a11–13, ch. 3.4 with 2.12 349a9–11. As a reference (‘eorum fit mentio quae proxime vel antecedunt vel sequntur’, Bonitz 95b33) such an Aristotelian formula is the predecessor or equivalent of a heading, or title, see M–R 2.1.48, 159–161, 162–163, 170, 202–204. Gregory’s suggestion that Anaximander may have targeted passages in Homer and above all Hesiod (esp. Theog. 845–846) is irrelevant. D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s order in general see above, A Book 3.proœm. at Commentary D(a). The present chapter is concerned with phenomena mainly connected with fire and pneuma, the next (3.4) with phenomena mainly connected with air and water. It follows upon ch. 3.2 on comets and precedes ch. 3.4 on clouds. In Aristotle’s Meteorology the chapters parallel in contents to ch. 3.3 on thunder and lightning etc. (viz. the mini-treatise 2.9–3 1, which now rather awkwardly spans two Books), following upon the treatment of earthquakes (Mete. 2.7–8 corresponding to ch. 3.15) and preceding that of haloes and rainbows (Mete. 3.2–5 corresponding to the brief ch. 3.16 plus the long ch. 3.5), are located at quite a distance from the chapters of which the contents correspond to chs. 3.1–2 (see ad loc.). A’s arrangement may be compared with the sequence in Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones, where the Book on lightning and thunder, the final Book according to the original order (Book 8 = Book 2 in the disturbed order), follows upon Book 7 in the disturbed order = originally Book 1, which is about comets. Both chapters are near the beginning in A, while the two books in Seneca’s original order are actually the first ones. For the parallelism of the themes of chs. 3.3–7 + 14–15 + 4.1 with Lucretius’ series at DRN 6.96–737 see Ernout–Robin (1928) 3.253–254 and Runia (1997) 97, reprinted at M–R 3.260, and for details in the present chapter Ernout–Robin (1928) 3.199–208 (on thunder), 3.213–221 (on lightning, ‘éclair’, fulguratio, ἀστραπή), 3.224–235 (on thunderbolt, ‘foudre’, fulmen, κεραυνός), and 3.247–252 (on presteres, πρηστῆρες, translated ‘trombes’). b Number–Order of Lemmata PB, confirmed by PQ and PG, at a first glance has five lemmata, while S has fifteen lemmata. Comparison of P5a–b with S13–14 reveals that P, omitting the first lines of §14 including the name-label Strato, has coalesced the Aristotleplus-Strato lemmata, as Diels ad loc. already pointed out. The cause is either an unfortunate application of the technique of abridgement or a mechanical

1190

liber 3 caput 3

accident in the tradition; for parallel cases see above section A. P’s new lemma augments Aristotle’s doxa with explicit views on the firewind and the typhon, not found in the original §13 (which only implicitly includes them in τὰ τοιαῦτα), so may have been constructed for a reason. Although P also omitted παρίστησι at the end of §13[53], homoioteleuton from ἀστραπήν in §13[53] to ἀστραπήν at §14[55] is unlikely because of the intervening words τάχει δὲ κεραυνόν at §14[55]. The order of the lemmata (taking into account those lacking in P) is the same in both witnesses, with the exception of P4 = S 15. That P interfered with the original order by putting its final lemma before §13 one can understand, because he replaced §12, the Chrysippus lemma, with §15, the Stoic lemma, demonstrating again that he prefers a more general name-label to an individual one, in the present case taking the doxa along as well. And he also coalesced the Aristotle and Strato lemmata, placing this new lemma in the final position. Diels in the DG more or less mechanically adopted P’s modified order, but we feel justified in following that of S. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Thunder (sometimes represented by what we hear) comes first in the majority of lemmata and clearly is the major phenomenon requiring an explanation. Lightning (sometimes represented by what we see) is a sort of epiphenomenon, ensuing when clouds produce thunder when they are bursting on being invaded by pneuma or a hotter element, such as aether or the hot exhalation, or are struck by winds, or collide, etc. The thunderbolt is mentioned in §3, §4, §7, §11, §12, §14 and §15, so in only seven out of fifteen lemmata. The firewind occurs in §3, §4, §9, §11, §12, §14 and §15, so also in only seven out of fifteen. The typhon occurs in §4, §12 and §14, so in only three out of fifteen. Constructing a diaeresis on the basis of these numerical differences as to the presence in lemmata of the five phenomena is impossible. What is rather remarkable, in view of the preference of the Placita for arrangement according to doxa rather than chronology or affiliation (though these too play a part, see M–R 2.73–96 and passim, also Jeremiah (2018) at M–R 4.310–319), is that here we do have examples of both these alternative principles of organization. The first two lemmata, §§1–2, present the early Milesians Anaximenes and Anaximander. Metrodorus is at §3 for another reason (see below), but §§4–5 continue with the Ionian Succession by presenting Anaxagoras and (his follower) Archelaus, another duo. Xenophanes at §6 may represent the Pythagorean (or Italic) Succession to which also Empedocles at §7 may be assumed to belong. Skipping §§8 and §9, Diogenes and Heraclitus, we arrive at §§10–11, presenting the Presocratic Atomists Leucippus and

liber 3 caput 3

1191

Democritus in chronological order. Note that all these eleven figures are Presocratic philosophers (so-called). Post-Socratic philosophy is represented at the end of the chapter by only four lemmata out of fifteen. Chrysippus and the Stoics (both listed because of some theoretical differences) at §12 and §15 come before and after the Peripatetics Aristotle and Strato, another duo in chronological order. Plato and Epicurus are conspicuously absent. A similar mixed organization can be observed in chs. 1.3 and 1.7. A’s diaeresis is for the most part based on differences in the explanation of the cause of thunder by the interaction of external factors and clouds, on a gliding scale. In §§1–3 pneuma interfering with clouds is at issue, which explains how Metrodorus in §3 comes to be grouped with Anaximander and Anaximenes. Moreover pneuma falling upon a frozen cloud (εἰς νέφος πεπηγὸς … ἐμπέσῃ πνεῦμα) preludes upon the conflict between hot and cold in §§4–5. In §§4–5 the cause is the hot falling upon the cold, which Archelaus is said to have illustrated with an example from our ordinary experience (hot stones plunged into cold water). §§6–7 are about the effects of light on clouds, with §7 Xenophanes exceptionally explaining only lightning, while Empedocles explains thunder as the effect of ‘light falling upon a cloud’ (ἔμπτωσιν φωτὸς εἰς νέφος). §8 Diogenes is aptly joined with §7 Empedocles because he mentions ‘fire falling upon a cloud’ (ἔμπτωσιν πυρὸς εἰς νέφος)—note the similar expression. Among the causes mentioned in §9 Heraclitus we next find ‘fallings of pneumata upon the clouds’ (ἐμπτώσεις πνευμάτων εἰς τὰ νέφη). Thus, a series of impacting substances consisting of light–fire–pneumata in what seems a descending scale corresponding to their location, in principle, in the cosmos. §§10–11, Leucippus and Democritus, do not speak of a ‘falling upon’ (ἔμπτωσις, impact) of fire or whatever upon clouds, but, on the contrary, of a ‘falling from’ (emission) or ‘being forced out of a cloud’ of ‘fire’ (πυρὸς … ἔκπτωσιν), or of a peculiar atomic ‘compound of uneven composition’ (συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου … ἐκβιαζομένου). Force is also involved in Democritus’ explanation of the thunderbolt (ἡ φορὰ βιάσηται). In the four lemmata that follow the explanations resemble those of the preceding lemmata in various ways, but there are also important differences. §12 Chrysippus explains lightning plus thunder as the effect of clouds being ‘rubbed and ruptured by pneuma’ (νεφῶν ἐκτριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων ὑπὸ πνεύματος), which comes close to saying that this pneuma forces its way out. And a little later he indeed speaks in these same terms when explaining the ‘movement of the pneuma’ (ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος φορά) that causes the thunderbolt, and its ‘falling out’ (ὅταν … ἐκπέσῃ τὸ πνεῦμα) that causes the firewind. This pneuma is warmer (when producing the thunderbolt) than in the case of thunder plus lighting, or less warm than in the case of the thunderbolt (when pro-

1192

liber 3 caput 3

ducing the firewind). §13 Aristotle of course avails himself of the famous hot and dry exhalation, which when encountering the wet—and also colder— exhalation (compare Archelaus in §5) produces all these phenomena by ‘forcing its way out’ (παραβιάζηται … τὴν ἔξοδον), just as Democritus’ compounds in §11 are doing. §14 Strato likewise speaks of a conflict between hot and cold and of emission, the hot giving in and being forced out (ἐκβιασθὲν), of the cloud presumably. §15 the Stoics is aptly placed in the ultimate position because, exceptionally, no external factors are mentioned, the phenomena being produced by the clouds themselves as they collide and rub against each other. d

Further Comments General Points It is not clear what phenomena are meant by the terms prester and typhon. Possible renderings are whirlwind, hurricane, water-spout and firewind. We have used ‘firewind’ throughout for prester, because the word shows that the phenomenon is ‘burning’; one thinks of the scirocco. For options see Taub (2003) 177 n. 28, Bakker (2016) 120–121, 133. The absence of detailed parallels elsewhere in A for the individual lemmata is noteworthy. The prologue of the Placita lists lightning etc. disertis verbis with other phenomena that fall within the scope of natural philosophy, so highlights their importance, no doubt also for traditional reasons (when we are aware of their rational explanation we need not worry about divine intervention). Individual Points §2 & §5 παρατιθείς: appeals to common experience are a feature of meteorological theorizing; numerous examples in Aristotle’s Meteorology, Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology, Epicurus Ad Pythoclem, and Lucretius. §3 Heat acquired by a moving object may be attributed to its movement alone. Here the movement enables the wind to gather hot particles of solar origin. §§10–11 Leucippus and (generously) Democritus are present, but Epicurus is absent, perhaps because his multiple solutions are adequately represented by other doxai collected in the present chapter. §13 Ideler’s comment (1836) 2. 251 on the parallel AD fragment, which he quotes in full omitting only the final colon, is very much worth quoting: ‘Quae Aristoteles hoc paragrapho ac sequentibus disseruit, succincte exposita reperiuntur apud eos, qui placita philosophorum composuerunt, velut apud Stobaeum Eclog. 1.30’ [= 1.29 Wachsmuth]. We also note that the ultimate source for this lemma is Arist. Mete. 2.9.

liber 3 caput 3

1193

§15 Bollack (1978) 492 has not seen that the lemma is extant at S 1.29.1, p. 234.1–3. e Other Evidence The parallel accounts in widely scattered proximate sources such as Lucretius, Seneca (who cites some little known authorities by name), Pliny, Arrian and the Scholia on Aratus show that a rich intermediate tradition must have been available that dealt with these topics (for which Theiler still made Posidonius responsible). In Seneca Naturales quaestiones Book 8 (Book 2 according to the original order), which deals with lightning and thunder, the succession of opiniones is rather different from that in A, though equally concerned with a relative chronology to which exceptions are allowed. (In Nat. Book 4.a, on the Nile, he begins disertis verbis with the views of the ancients: 2.17.2 ab antiquissimis incipiam). In Nat. Book 2 Thales is not first but second, as he is preceded by the opinio of Empedocles (whose name is not mentioned: Nat. 2.12.3, quidam). Anaxagoras and Aristotle follow (also at A 2.12.3). A second group consists of Anaximenes, Anaximander (in that order), Anaxagoras, and Diogenes (Nat. 2.17–20). A third group appears much later, at 2.54–56, viz. Posidonius, Clidemus and Heraclitus. For suggestions about this division into groups see Setaioli (1988) 386–398. We note that Seneca includes less doxai than A, but those of Clidemus and Posidonius are not present in A. Robin at Ernout–Robin (1925–1928) 3.254, comparing A 3.3–4 with Lucretius DRN 6.451–494, meritoriously identifies Lucretius’ ‘modèle’ as ‘tel manuel doxographique’ which would have the same ‘origine prochaine’ as A (but the tradition he mentions is that of the Dielsian hypothesis with the questionable title: Theophrastus’ Φυσικῶν δόξαι via Posidonius). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.100–105 βροντὰς ἐνδέχεται γίνεσθαι … (101) καὶ ἀστραπαὶ δ᾽ ὡσαύτως γίνονται κατὰ πλείους … (102) … προτερεῖ δὲ ἀστραπὴ βροντῆς … (105) καὶ ἕως μὲν γῆς τοῦ πρηστῆρος καθιεμένου στρόβιλοι γίνονται … ἕως δὲ θαλάττης δῖνοι ἀποτελοῦνται. Lucretius DRN 6.96–450: 96 … tonitru …, 160 fulgit …, 220 fulmina …, 424 presteras … . Manilius 1.99 nubila cur tanto quaterentur pulsa fragore. 1.104–105 eripuitque Iovi fulmen viresque tonandi / et sonitum ventis concessit, nubibus ignem. Seneca Nat. 2.1.3 (Posidonius fr. 331 Theiler) ‘quomodo’ inquis ‘de terrarum motu quaestionem eo posuisti loco quo de tonitribus fulminibusque dicturus es?’ quia cum motus spiritu fiat, spiritus autem aër sit agitatus, etiamsi subit terras non ibi spectandus est: cogitetur in ea sede in qua illum natura disposuit. Nat. 2.21.3 ergo et utramque rem ignem esse constat et utramque rem inter se meando distare;

1194

liber 3 caput 3

fulguratio enim est non perlatum usque in terras fulmen, et rursus licet dicas fulmen esse fulgurationem usque in terras perductam. Pliny Nat. 2.112–113 hinc nasci procellas et, si in nube luctetur flatus aut vapor, tonitrua edi; si erumpat ardens, fulmina; si longiore tractu nitatur, fulgetras. his findi nubem, illis perrumpi, et esse tonitrua inpactorum ignium plagas, ideoque protinus coruscare igneas nubium rimas. (113) … posse et conflictu nubium elidi, ut duorum lapidum, scintillantibus fulgetris. Nat. 2.131–133 sin vero depresso sinu artius rotati effregerunt, sine igni, hoc est sine fulmine, verticem faciunt, qui typhon vocatur. … (133) quod si maiore depressae nubis eruperit specu, sed minus lato quam procella, nec sine fragore, turbinem vocant, proxima quaeque prosternentem. idem ardentior accensusque, dum furit, prester vocatur, amburens contacta pariter et proterens. Arius Didymus fr. 12 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.1, pp. 234.5–236.8 Wachsmuth Ἀριστοτέλης. τυφῶνας μὲν ὅταν … πρηστῆρας δ᾽ ὅταν … κεραυνὸν δ᾽ ὅταν … . Aquilius Def. 86 Rashed ἀστραπή ἐστιν ἔξαψις ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως ἢ ἔκτριψις πυρὸς διὰ πληγῆς νεφῶν. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392b8–13 ἐν δὲ τούτῳ (sc. τῷ ἀέρι) … βρονταὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ πτώσεις κεραυνῶν μυρίων τε γνόφων συμπληγάδες. Mu. 4 394a15–19 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler) γίνονται δὲ … ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς (sc. ἀναθυμιάσεως) … βρονταί τε καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ πρηστῆρες καὶ κεραυνοὶ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἃ δὴ τούτοις ἐστὶ σύμφυλα. Mu. 4 395a10–28 (Posidonius fr. 338a Theiler) βροντὴ … ἀστραπὴ … κεραυνὸς … πρηστήρ … τυφών. Galen Inst.Log.13.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται … ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δὲ (10) σεισμὸς κεραυνὸς ἀστραπή τε καὶ βροντή. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 3, p. 2.187–198 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.2, pp. 235.9–237.6 (Posidonius fr. 338b Theiler) Ἀρριανοῦ. ὅσοι δὲ ξηροὶ ἀτμοί … ἐν νέφει δὲ ἀποληφθέντες, ἔπειτα ῥηγνύντες βίᾳ τὸ νέφος βροντάς τε καὶ ἀστραπὰς ἐξέφηναν· ἐκπίπτοντες δ᾽ ἐπὶ μέγα διάπυροι μὲν κεραυνοί, ἀθρόοι δὲ καὶ ἡμίπυροι πρηστῆρες, ὅσοι δὲ ἔρημοι πυρὸς τυφῶνες … κληΐζονται. … ἀστραπὴ δὲ ὑπὸ … κεραυνὸς δὲ ὅτι … οἱ δὲ τυφῶνες … κεραυνῶν δὲ πολλαὶ ἰδέαι τε καὶ ὀνόματά εἰσιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.153–154 see below section E(b)§12. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau (trans. Rufini) vel quid dicere possumus quomodo … coruscationes et tonitrua … efficiuntur. Ammianus Marcellinus 23.5.14 contra philosophi candorem ignis sacri repente conspecti nihil significare aiebant, sed esse acrioris spiritus cursum ex aethere aliqua vi ad inferiora detrusum aut, si exinde praenoscitur aliquid, incrementa claritudinis imperatori portendi gloriosa coeptanti, cum constet flammas suapte natura nullo obstante ad sublimia convolare. Chapter heading: Seneca Nat. 2.1.3 (Posidonius fr. 331 Theiler) de tonitribus fulminibusque. Nat. 2.12.1 tria sunt quae accidunt: fulgurationes fulmina tonitrua. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.28 de tonitribus et fulgetris. Nat. 1 p. 12.36 de fulminibus. Nat. 1 p. 12.34–35 ecnephias typhon turbines presteres vertices alia prodigiosa genera tempestatum. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 6.96 de tonitru. at DRN 6.160 de fulgure. at DRN 6.204 in nubibus semina ignea inesse. at DRN 6.219 de fulmine. at DRN 6.225 ignis ex fulmine natura. at DRN 6.246 fulmina in crassioribus nubibus et alte gigni. at DRN 6.285 de

liber 3 caput 3 tonitribus. Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 29 De tonitruo. 30 De fulminibus (headings also in the body of the text). Etym. 13.6 De tonitruo (13.8 in the body of the work). Etym. 13.7 De fulminibus (13.9 in the body of the work). Etym. 13.8 De tonitruo (in the body of the work). Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … ζητοῦσι … ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια, excerpted at Suda s.v. Φ 862, pp. 4.775.28–776.3 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις. … περὶ νεφῶν, βροντῶν, ἴριδος. §§1–2 Anaximander Anaximenes: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.100 βροντὰς ἐνδέχεται γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ πνεύματος ἐν τοῖς κοιλώμασι τῶν νεφῶν ἀνείλησιν. Lucretius DRN 6.121–129 hoc etiam pacto tonitru concussa … moenia mundi, /cum subito validi venti conlecta procella / nubibus intorsit sese conclusaque ibidem / turbine versanti magis ac magis undique nubem / cogit uti fiat spisso cava corpore circum, post ubi conminuit vis eius et impetus acer, / tum perterricrepo sonitu dat scissa fragorem. Seneca Nat. 2.27.2–3 cum spiritum intra se clausere nubes, in concavis partibus earum volutatus aër similem agit mugitibus sonum, raucum et aequalem et continuum, utique ubi etiam umida illa regio est et exitum claudit. … (3) aliud genus est acre, quod acerbum magis dixerim quam sonorum … talia eduntur tonitrua, cum conglobata nubes dissolvitur et eum quo distenta fuerat spiritum emittit. §1 Anaximander: Seneca Nat. 2.18 Anaximandros (12A23 DK) omnia ⟨ista⟩ ad spiritum rettulit: ‘tonitrua’ inquit ‘sunt nubis ictae sonu’. quare inaequalia sunt? quia et ipse ⟨spiritus⟩. quare et sereno tonat? quia tunc quoque per crassum et scissum aëra spiritus prosilit. at quare aliquando non fulgurat, et tonat? quia spiritus infirmior non valuit in flammam, in sonum valuit. quid est ergo ipsa fulguratio? aëris diducentis se corruentisque iactatio, languidum ignem nec exiturum aperiens. quid est fulmen? acrioris densiorisque spiritus cursus. Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.7 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) ἀστραπὰς δέ (sc. γίνεσθαι), ὅταν ἄνεμος ἐκπίπτων διιστᾷ τὰς νεφέλας. §2 Anaximenes: Seneca Nat. 2.17 ut Anaximenes (fr. 24 Wöhrle) ait, spiritus incidens nubibus tonitrua edit, et dum luctatur per obstantia atque interscissa vadere, ipsa ignem fuga accendit. Seneca Nat. 2.55.4 Clidemos (cf. ad 62.1 DK and below section E(b)§2) ait fulgurationem speciem inanem esse, non ignem; sic enim per noctem splendere motu remor⟨um m⟩are. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.8 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) ἀστραπὴν (sc. γίνεσθαι) δ᾽ ὅταν τὰ νέφη διϊστῆται βίᾳ πνευμάτων· τούτων γὰρ διϊσταμένων λαμπρὰν καὶ πυρώδη γίνεσθαι τὴν αὐγήν. §3 Metrodorus: Lucretius DRN 6.137–138 fit quoque ut interdum validi vis incita venti / perscindat nubem perfringens impete recto. DRN 6.175–179 ventus ubi invasit nubem et versatus ibidem / fecit ut ante cavam docui spissescere nubem, / mobilitate sua fervescit; ut omnia motu / percalefacta vides ardescere, plumbea vero / glans etiam longo cursu volvenda liquescit (cf. 6.306–308). DRN 6.271–273 quippe etenim supra docui permulta vaporis / semina habere cavas nubes, et multa necessest / concipere ex solis radiis ardoreque eorum. Pliny Nat. 2.113 posse et attritu, dum praeceps feratur, illum, quisquis est, spir-

1195

1196

liber 3 caput 3

itum accendi. posse et conflictu nubium elidi, ut duorum lapidum, scintillantibus fulgetris. §4 Anaxagoras: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.100 βροντὰς ἐνδέχεται γίνεσθαι … καὶ παρὰ πυρὸς πεπνευματωμένου βόμβον ἐν αὐτοῖς (sc. τοῖς κοιλώμασι τῶν νεφῶν). Seneca Nat. 2.12.3 Anaxagoras (59A84 DK) ait illum (sc. ignem) ex aethere destillare, et ex tanto ardore caeli multa decidere, quae nubes diu inclusa custodiant. Nat. 2.19 †Anaxandros [prob. Anaxagoras 59A84 DK] ait omnia ista sic fieri ut ex aethere aliqua vis in inferiora descendat. ita ignis impactus nubibus frigidis sonat; at, cum illas interscindit, fulget, et minor vis ignium fulgurationes facit, maior fulmina. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.11 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) βροντὰς δὲ καὶ ἀστραπὰς ἀπὸ ⟨τοῦ⟩ θερμοῦ γίνεσθαι, ἐμπίπτοντος εἰς τὰ νέφη. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) βροντὰς σύγκρουσιν νεφῶν· ἀστραπὰς ἔκτριψιν νεφῶν. §5 Archelaus: Lucretius DRN 6.146–149 … haec (sc. nubes) multo si forte umore recepit / ignem, continuo magno clamore trucidat, / ut calidis candens ferrum e fornacibus olim / stridit, ubi in gelidum propter demersimus imbrem. Seneca Nat. 2.17.1 quidam existimant igneum spiritum per frigida atque umida meantem sonum reddere. nam ne ferrum quidem ardens silentio tinguitur, sed si in aquam fervens massa descendit, cum multo murmure extinguitur. Pliny Nat. 2.112 igitur non eam infitias posse in has et ignes superne stellarum decidere. … cum vero in nubem perveniunt, vaporem dissonum gigni, ut candente ferro in aquam demerso, et fumidum verticem volvi. hinc nasci procellas et, si in nube luctetur flatus aut vapor, tonitrua edi; si erumpat ardens, fulmina; si longiore tractu nitatur, fulgetras. §7 Empedocles: Lucretius DRN 6.146–152 haec (sc. nubes) multo si forte umore recepit / ignem, continuo magno clamore trucidat. … aridior porro si nubes accipit ignem, / uritur ingenti sonitu succensa repente. Seneca Nat. 2.12.3 quidam aiunt radios solis introcurrentis recurrentisque et saepius in se relatos ignem excitare. §8 Diogenes: Lucretius DRN 6.146–147 haec (sc. nubes) multo si forte umore recepit / ignem, continuo magno clamore trucidat. Seneca Nat. 2.20.1 Diogenes Apolloniates (64A16 DK, T31b Laks) ait quaedam tonitrua igne, quaedam spiritu fieri: illa ignis facit quae ipse antecedit et nuntiat; illa spiritus quae sine splendore crepuerunt. §9 Heraclitus: Lucretius DRN 6.96–98 principio tonitru quatiuntur caerula caeli / propterea quia concurrunt sublime volantes / aetheriae nubes contra pugnantibu’ ventis. DRN 6.137–138 fit quoque ut interdum validi vis incita venti / perscindat nubem perfringens impete recto. Seneca Nat. 2.56.1 Heraclitus (DK 1 Nachtrag p. 492.6, fr. 61(b2) Marcovich) existimat fulgurationem esse velut apud nos incipientium ignium conatum et primam flammam incertam, modo intereuntem, modo resurgentem. §§10–11 Leucippus Democritus: Lucretius DRN 6.145–155 fit quoque, ubi e nubi in nubem vis incidit ardens / fulminis; haec multo si forte umore recepit / ignem, continuo magno clamore trucidat; / … / aridior porro si nubes accipit

liber 3 caput 3 ignem, / uritur ingenti sonitu succensa repente, / lauricomos ut si per montis flamma vagetur / turbine ventorum comburens impete magno. §11 Democritus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 101 καὶ γὰρ κατὰ παράτριψιν καὶ σύγκρουσιν νεφῶν ὁ πυρὸς ἀποτελεστικὸς σχηματισμὸς ἐξολισθαίνων ἀστραπὴν γεννᾷ. Lucretius DRN 2.381–387 perfacile est animi ratione exsolvere nobis / quare fulmineus multo penetralior ignis / quam noster fluat e taedis terrestribus ortus; / dicere enim possis caelestem fulminis ignem / subtilem magis e parvis constare figuris / atque ideo transire foramina quae nequit ignis / noster hic e lignis ortus taedaque creatus. DRN 6.160–161 fulgit item, nubes ignis cum semina multa / excussere suo concursu. Servius in Aen. 1.42, p. 30.23–24 Thilo e nubibus: secundum physicos qui dicunt conlisione nubium fulmen creari. §12 Chrysippus: Lucretius DRN 6.164–166 sed tonitrum fit uti post auribus accipiamus, / fulgere quam cernant oculi, quia semper ad auris / tardius adveniunt quam visum quae moveant res. Pliny Nat. 2.142 fulgetrum prius cerni quam tonitrua audiri, cum simul fiant, certum est, nec mirum, quoniam lux sonitu velocior. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395a21– τὸ δὲ ἀστράψαν ἀναπυρωθέν, βιαίως ἄχρι τῆς γῆς διεκθέον, κεραυνὸς καλεῖται, ἐὰν δὲ ἡμίπυρον ᾖ, σφοδρὸν δὲ ἄλλως καὶ ἀθρόον, πρηστήρ, ἐὰν δὲ ἄπυρον παντελῶς, τυφών. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 3, p. 2.187 Roos– Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.2, 235.9–15 (Posidonius fr. 338b Theiler) καὶ γίγνεται μὲν ἀστραπὴ μετὰ βροντήν, ὀξυτέρα δὲ τοσόνδε ὅσον ὄψις ἀκοῆς ὀξύτερον· καθότι ἀκοὴ μὲν πελαζούσης τῆς φωνῆς αἰσθάνεται, ὄψις δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον αὐτὸ ἐκπέμπεται. Reb.Phys. fr. 2, p. 2.187 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.2 (Posidonius fr. 338b Theiler) Ἀρριανοῦ. ὅσοι δὲ ξηροὶ ἀτμοί, ῥυέντες μὲν εὐθὺς ἀνέμους εἰργάσαντο, ἐν νέφει δὲ ἀποληφθέντες, ἔπειτα ῥηγνύντες βίᾳ τὸ νέφος βροντάς τε καὶ ἀστραπὰς ἐξέφηναν· ἐκπίπτοντες δ᾽ ἐπὶ μέγα διάπυροι μὲν κεραυνοί, ἀθρόοι δὲ καὶ ἡμίπυροι πρηστῆρες, ὅσοι δὲ ἔρημοι πυρὸς τυφῶνες. Commentaria in Aratum, Anonymus II Isag. 8, p. 127.5–9 Maass ἡ δὲ ξηρὰ ἀναθυμίασις ἐκ τοῦ ⟨ὕδατος⟩ ὑπὸ ψύχους μὲν ὠσθεῖσ᾽ ἀνέμους ἐμποιεῖ, ἐμπίπτουσα δὲ διάπυρος γενομένη κεραυνούς, ἀθρόα δὲ φερομένη ἡμίπυρος οὖσα πρηστῆρας, μὴ πεπυρωμένη δέ πως τυφῶνας. Servius auctus in Aen. 8.392, p. 258.20–24 Thilo ignea rima micans: id est fulmen, cuius naturam expressit; namque nubes vento coactae plerumque rumpuntur et ex se fulmen emittunt. ⟦quamvis philosophi fulgura et tonitrua simul exprimi dicant, sed illud celerius videri, quia clarum est, tonitrua autem ad aures tardius pervenire⟧. Ioannes Lydus Ost. 44, p. 97.6–7 Wachsmuth καὶ οἱ μὲν διάπυροι *** πρηστῆρες, οἱ δὲ μὴ πυρώδεις τυφῶνες. §13 Aristotle: Seneca Nat. 2.12.4–6 Aristoteles (cf. Mete. 2.9 369a10–14, 369a25–b11) multo ante ignem colligi non putat, sed eodem momento exilire quo fiat; cuius sententia talis est: ‘duae partes mundi in imo iacent, terra et aqua. utraque ex se reddit aliquid: terrenus vapor siccus est et fumo similis, qui ventos fulmina tonitrua facit; aquarum halitus umidus est, in imbres et nives cedit. sed siccus ille terrarum vapor unde ventis origo est, cum coacervatus est, coitu nubium vehementer actarum eliditur; deinde vi latus nubes proximas feriet. haec plaga cum sono incutitur, qualis in nostris ignibus redditur cum flamma vitio lignorum virentium crepat; et illic enim spiritus habens aliquid

1197

1198

liber 3 caput 3

umidi secum conglobatusque rumpitur flamma. eodem modo spiritus ille, quem paulo ante exprimi collisis nubibus dixi, impactus aliis nec ⟨*** nec⟩ rumpi silentio potest. dissimilis autem crepitus fit ob dissimilitudinem nubium, quarum aliae maiorem sinum habent, aliae minorem. ceterum illa vis expressi spiritus ignis est, qui fulgurationis nomen habet, levi impetu accensus et vanus. ante autem videmus fulgorem quam sonum audimus, quia oculorum velocior sensus est et multum aures antecedit.’ Nat. 2.54.1 nunc ad opinionem Posidonii (F 135 E.-K, 325 Theiler) revertar. e terra terrenisque omnibus pars umida efflatur, pars sicca et fumida; haec fulminibus alimentum est, illa imbribus. §15 Strato: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.100 βροντὰς ἐνδέχεται γίνεσθαι … καὶ κατὰ παρατρίψεις νεφῶν καὶ † τάξεις. Lucretius DRN 6.96–98 principio tonitru quatiuntur caerula caeli / propterea quia concurrunt sublime volantes / aetheriae nubes. Seneca Nat. 1.1.6 quemadmodum nubes conlisae mediocriter fulgurationes efficient, maiore impetu impulsae fulmina. Nat. 2.27.4 non quemadmodum inlisae inter se manus plausum edunt, sic inlisarum inter se nubium sonus potest esse, magnus, quia magna concurrunt?

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristophanes Nu. 374–378 (Στ.) ἀλλ᾽ ὅστις ὁ βροντῶν ἐστι φράσον, τοῦθ᾽ ὅ με ποιεῖ τετραμαίνειν. / (Σω.) αὗται (sc. αἱ νεφέλαι) βροντῶσι κυλινδόμεναι. (Στ.) τῷ τρόπῳ, ὦ πάντα σὺ τολμῶν; (Σω.) ὅταν ἐμπλησθῶσ᾽ ὕδατος πολλοῦ κἀναγκασθῶσι φέρεσθαι / κατακριμνάμεναι πλήρεις ὄμβρου δι᾽ ἀνάγκην, εἶτα βαρεῖαι / εἰς ἀλλήλας ἐμπίπτουσαι ῥήγνυνται καὶ παταγοῦσιν. Nu. 403–407 (Στ.) τί γάρ ἐστιν δῆθ᾽ ὁ κεραυνός; / (Σω.) ὅταν εἰς ταύτας (sc. τὰς νεφέλας) ἄνεμος ξηρὸς μετεωρισθεὶς κατακλῃσθῇ, / ἔνδοθεν αὐτὰς ὥσπερ κύστιν φυσᾷ, κἄπειθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης / ῥήξας αὐτὰς ἔξω φέρεται σοβαρὸς διὰ τὴν πυκνότητα, / ὑπὸ τοῦ ῥοίβδου καὶ τῆς ῥύμης αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν κατακαίων. Aristotle APo. 2.8 93a21–23 τὸ δ᾽ εἰ ἔστιν ὁτὲ μὲν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔχομεν, ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἔχοντές τι αὐτοῦ τοῦ πράγματος, οἷον βροντήν, ὅτι ψόφος τις νεφῶν. APo. 2.8 93b7–12 τί ἐστι βροντή; πυρὸς ἀπόσβεσις ἐν νέφει. διὰ τί βροντᾷ; διὰ τὸ ἀποσβέννυσθαι τὸ πῦρ ἐν τῷ νέφει. νέφος Γ, βροντὴ Α, ἀπόσβεσις πυρὸς τὸ Β. τῷ δὴ Γ τῷ νέφει ὑπάρχει τὸ Β (ἀποσβέννυται γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ πῦρ), τούτῳ δὲ τὸ Α, ψόφος. APo. 2.10 94a3–9 διαφέρει … εἰπεῖν διὰ τί βροντᾷ καὶ τί ἐστι βροντή· ἐρεῖ γὰρ οὕτω μὲν ‘διότι ἀποσβέννυται τὸ πῦρ ἐν τοῖς νέφεσι’· τί δ᾽ ἐστὶ βροντή; ψόφος ἀποσβεννυμένου πυρὸς ἐν νέφεσιν. ὥστε ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος ἄλλον τρόπον λέγεται, καὶ ὡδὶ μὲν ἀπόδειξις συνεχής, ὡδὶ δὲ ὁρισμός. (ἔτι ἐστὶν ὅρος βροντῆς ψόφος ἐν νέφεσι· τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς τοῦ τί ἐστιν ἀποδείξεως συμπέρασμα.) Mete. 1.1 339a3–5 ἔτι δὲ περὶ κεραυνῶν πτώσεως καὶ τυφώνων καὶ πρηστήρων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἐγκυκλίων, ὅσα διὰ πῆξιν συμβαίνει πάθη τῶν αὐτῶν σωμάτων τούτων. Mete. 2.9 369a10–12 περὶ δὲ ἀστραπῆς καὶ βροντῆς, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τυφῶνος καὶ πρηστῆρος καὶ κεραυνῶν λέγωμεν· καὶ γὰρ τούτων τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν δεῖ πάντων. Mete. 2.9 370a21–25 τὰ μὲν οὖν λεγόμενα περὶ βροντῆς τε καὶ ἀστραπῆς παρὰ τῶν ἄλλων ταῦτ᾽ ἐστί, τῶν μὲν ὅτι ἀνάκλασις ἡ ἀστραπή, τῶν δ᾽ ὅτι πυρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀστραπὴ διάλαμψις, ἡ δὲ βροντὴ σβέσις, οὐκ ἐγγιγνομένου παρ᾽ ἕκαστον πάθος τοῦ πυρὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐνυπάρχοντος. ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν κτλ. Mete. 3.1 371a9–19 γίγνεται μὲν

liber 3 caput 3 οὖν τυφῶν, ὅταν ἐκνεφίας γιγνόμενος μὴ δύνηται ἐκκριθῆναι τοῦ νέφους· … ὅταν δὲ κατασπώμενον ἐκπυρωθῇ (τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐστὶν ἐὰν λεπτότερον τὸ πνεῦμα γένηται), καλεῖται πρηστήρ· συνεκπίμπρησι γὰρ τὸν ἀέρα τῇ πυρώσει χρωματίζων. ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ νέφει πολὺ καὶ λεπτὸν ἐκθλιφθῇ πνεῦμα, τοῦτο γίγνεται κεραυνός. Mete. 3.1 371b14–17 περὶ μὲν οὖν βροντῆς καὶ ἀστραπῆς καὶ ἐκνεφίου, ἔτι δὲ πρηστήρων τε καὶ τυφώνων καὶ κεραυνῶν, εἴρηται, καὶ ὅτι ταὐτὸ πάντα, καὶ τίς ἡ διαφορὰ πάντων αὐτῶν. Met. Ζ.17 1041a23–25 τὶ ἄρα κατά τινος ζητεῖ διὰ τί ὑπάρχει (ὅτι δ᾽ ὑπάρχει, δεῖ δῆλον εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτως, οὐδὲν ζητεῖ), οἷον διὰ τί βροντᾷ; διὰ τί ψόφος γίγνεται ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν; Theophrastus at Procl. in Tim. 2.119.29–120.7 ἡδέως δ᾽ ἂν ἐροίμεθα τὸν Θεόφραστον (fr. 159 FHS&G) … ζητοῦντος, πόθεν μὲν αἱ βρονταί, …, ποῖαι δὲ αἰτίαι κεραυνῶν, ἀστραπῶν, πρηστήρων, … ἃ δὴ καλῶς ποιῶν ἐν τῇ τῶν Μετεώρων αἰτολογίᾳ τῆς πρεπούσης τῆς πρεπούσης εἰκοτολογίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἠξίωσεν. Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 665E παρὰ πότον διαλέγεσθαι περὶ κεραυνῶν. Galen Inst.Log. 13.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν …, ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δὲ σεισμὸς (cf. ch. 3.15) κεραυνὸς ἀστραπή τε καὶ βροντή. in Epid. vi, 17Β.187.7–189.10 Κ. διὰ τί δὲ καὶ τὸ βροντιαῖον ἀποδέχεται μᾶλλον ἢ τὸ λαιλαπῶδες ἐφεξῆς ἴδωμεν. ἐμοὶ μὲν δοκεῖ, διότι τὰς βροντὰς οἶδε γινομένας ἤτοι διὰ πυρὸς ἐναπόληψιν, ὅταν ἐκκρινόμενον οἷον ῥῆξίν τινα ποιήσῃ τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐτὸ νέφους, ἡνίκα καὶ κεραυνοὶ πίπτουσιν, ἢ παρατριβομένων ἀλλήλοις τῶν νεφῶν, ⟨ὧν⟩ οὐδέτερον ὑπάρχει τῷ λαιλαπώδει. πεπύκνωται γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ καταστάσει συνεχοῦς καὶ μέλανος ἑνὸς νέφους ἅπαντα αὐτὸν κατειληφότος. εἰκότως οὖν οὐ γίνονται βρονταὶ κατὰ τὴν τοιαύτην διάθεσιν τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν ἀέρος. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς διεϲπασμένοις καὶ κατὰ τὴν περιγραφὴν ἰδίαν φερομένοις νέφεσιν, ὅτ⟨αν⟩ ἀλλήλοις ἐντύχῃ, τὴν παράτριψιν εὔλογον γίνεσθαι. τοῦ δ᾽ ὅλου συνεχοῦς τε καὶ ἡνωμένου παράτριψις οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο. διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ κεραυνοὶ πίπτουσιν ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ καταστάσει, μήτ᾽ ἀέρος ἐν τοῖς νέφεσι περιλαμβανομένου θερμοῦ μήτε παρατρίψεως ἰσχυρᾶς γινομένης. ὅταν γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀπαντῶντα τὰ νέφη τὸ μεταξὺ πυρῶδες εἰς ἑαυτὰ συνελαύνοντα καὶ σφίγγοντα πυκνώσῃ τελέως, ἐκθλίβεται τηνικαῦτα ποτὲ μὲν εἰς τὴν ἄνω χώραν ὁ κεραυνὸς ἢ τὴν εἰς τὸ πλάγιον, ἐνίοτε δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν. ταύτην μὲν τὴν φορὰν αὐτοῦ ὁρῶμεν μόνην, αἱ δ᾽ ἄλλαι λανθάνουϲιν ἡμᾶς. … καλῶς ἂν εἴημεν εἰρηκότες τὴν περὶ γενέσεως βροντῶν φυσιολογίαν. Hermogenes Id. 1.6.5.11–14 Patillon ποῦ δ᾽ αὖ λόγου πολιτικοῦ τὸ ζητεῖν … περὶ σκηπτῶν φορᾶς ἢ τὰ τοιαῦτα; Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.1 339a3 ἔτι δὲ περὶ κεραυνῶν πτώσεως καὶ τυφώνων καὶ πρηστήρων. Mete. 2.9 369a10–12 περὶ δὲ ἀστραπῆς καὶ βροντῆς, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τυφῶνος καὶ πρηστῆρος καὶ κεραυνῶν λέγωμεν· καὶ γὰρ τούτων τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν δεῖ πάντων. Mete. 2.9 370a32–33 καὶ περὶ μὲν βροντῆς εἴρηται καὶ ἀστραπῆς. Mete. 3.1 371b14–16 περὶ μὲν οὖν βροντῆς καὶ ἀστραπῆς καὶ ἐκνεφίου, ἔτι δὲ πρηστήρων τε καὶ τυφώνων καὶ κεραυνῶν, εἴρηται. Ovid Met. 1.53–56 inminet his aër, …. illic consistere … / iussit et humanas motura tonitrua mentes / et cum fulminibus facientes fulgura ventos. Agatharchides Mar.Erythr. 107.8 Müller περὶ … κεραυνῶν. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392b8–13 ἐν δὲ τούτῳ (sc. τῷ ἀέρι) πνοαί τε ἀνέμων καὶ τυφώνων … ἔτι τε βρονταὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ πτώσεις κεραυνῶν μυρίων τε γνόφων συμπληγάδες. Mu. 4 394a15–19 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler)

1199

1200

liber 3 caput 3

γίνονται … ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς (sc. ἀναθυμιάσεως) … βρονταί τε καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ πρηστῆρες καὶ κεραυνοὶ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἃ δὴ τούτοις ἐστὶ σύμφυλα. Hermogenes Id. 1.4.5–8 Patillon εἰ ἐξετάζοι τις, ὅπως τε καὶ καθ᾽ ἃς αἰτίας γίνονται … ἢ σκηπτῶν φορὰς ἢ ὅλως τοιαῦτα. John Philoponus in Mete. 3.11 περί τε κεραυνῶν βροντῶν τε καὶ ἀστραπῶν. Suda s.v. Φ 418 φιλόσοφος (i.e. Philip of Opus fr. i Tarán, F 27 Lasserre) l. 9, p. 4.733 Adler Περὶ ἀστραπῶν. §§1–2 Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.18–19 Daiber (thunder arises) when much wind is congested in a hollow cloud and when the cloud is split open. §2 Anaximenes: Aristotle Mete. 2.9 370a10–15 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ τὴν ἀστραπήν, ὥσπερ καὶ Κλείδημος (62.1 DK), οὐκ εἶναί φασιν ἀλλὰ φαίνεσθαι, παρεικάζοντες ὡς τὸ πάθος ὅμοιον ὂν καὶ ὅταν τὴν θάλαττάν τις ῥάβδῳ τύπτῃ· φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀποστίλβον τῆς νυκτός· οὕτως ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ ῥαπιζομένου τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὴν φάντασιν τῆς λαμπρότητος εἶναι τὴν ἀστραπήν. §3 Metrodorus: Aristotle Cael. 2.7 289a21–25 πέφυκε γὰρ ἡ κίνησις ἐκπυροῦν καὶ ξύλα καὶ λίθους καὶ σίδηρον· εὐλογώτερον οὖν τὸ ἐγγύτερον τοῦ πυρός, ἐγγύτερον δὲ ὁ ἀήρ· οἷον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν φερομένων βελῶν· ταῦτα γὰρ αὐτὰ ἐκπυροῦται οὕτως ὥστε τήκεσθαι τὰς μολυβδίδας. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.12 Daiber (thunder arises) when the wind violently strikes a broad and icy cloud. Ovid Met. 2.727–727 non secus exarsit, quam cum Balearica plumbum / funda iacit: volat illud et incandescit eundo / et, quos non habuit, sub nubibus invenit ignes. §4 Anaxagoras: Aristotle Mete. 2.9 369b11–19 καίτοι τινὲς λέγουσιν ὡς ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν ἐγγίγνεται πῦρ· τοῦτο … Ἀναξαγόρας (59A84 DK) δὲ τοῦ ἄνωθεν αἰθέρος (sc. φησιν εἶναι τὸ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενον), ὃ δὴ ἐκεῖνος καλεῖ πῦρ κατενεχθὲν ἄνωθεν κάτω. τὴν μὲν οὖν διάλαμψιν ἀστραπὴν εἶναι τὴν τούτου τοῦ πυρός, τὸν δὲ ψόφον ἐναποσβεννυμένου καὶ τὴν σίξιν βροντήν, ὡς καθάπερ φαίνεται καὶ γιγνόμενον οὕτως καὶ πρότερον τὴν ἀστραπὴν οὖσαν τῆς βροντῆς. §5 Archelaus: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.10–11 Daiber (thunder arises) when an ironsmith throws glowing iron into water, a great noise is the result. §7 Empedocles: Aristotle Mete. 2.9 369b11–14 καίτοι τινὲς λέγουσιν ὡς ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν ἐγγίγνεται πῦρ· τοῦτο δ᾽ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A63 DK) μέν φησιν εἶναι τὸ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενον τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου ἀκτίνων. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.9 Daiber (thunder arises) when fire falls into a humid cloud and then is extinguished. §8 Diogenes: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.9 Daiber (thunder arises) when fire falls into a humid cloud and then is extinguished. §9 Heraclitus: Heraclitus 22B31 DK at Clem.Alex. Strom. 5.104.3 πυρὸς τροπαὶ πρῶτον θάλασσα, θαλάσσης δὲ τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ γῆ, τὸ δὲ ἥμισυ πρηστήρ. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.3 Daiber (thunder arises) when two hollow clouds collide and therefore the one strikes against the other. […] (6) When the wind enters a hollow cloud and then rotates in it. §11 Democritus: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 1.21–22 Daiber (thunder arises) when rough clouds rub against each other. Epicurus Ep. Pyth. at D.L. 10. 101 καὶ ἀστραπαὶ δ᾽ ὡσαύτως γίνονται κατὰ πλείους τρόπους· καὶ γὰρ κατὰ παράτριψιν καὶ σύγκρουσιν νεφῶν ὁ πυρὸς ἀποτελεστικὸς σχηματισμὸς ἐξολισθαίνων ἀστραπὴν γεννᾷ.

liber 3 caput 3 §12 Chrysippus: Aristotle Mete. 2.9 369b7–11 γίγνεται (sc. ἡ ἀστραπή) δὲ μετὰ τὴν πληγὴν καὶ ὕστερον τῆς βροντῆς· ἀλλὰ φαίνεται πρότερον διὰ τὸ τὴν ὄψιν προτερεῖν τῆς ἀκοῆς. δηλοῖ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς εἰρεσίας τῶν τριήρων· ἤδη γὰρ ἀναφερόντων πάλιν τὰς κώπας ὁ πρῶτος ἀφικνεῖται ψόφος τῆς κωπηλασίας. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 2.2–3 Daiber lightning happens because of … beating and friction. Metars. [1] (18–19) (thunder arises) when much wind is congested in a hollow cloud and when (the cloud) is split open. Metars. c. 5.2–4 Daiber lightning precedes thunder … because …, or because lightning and thunder occur at the same time, but we see the lightning more quickly than we can hear the thunder. Epicurus Ep. Pyth. at D.L. 10.101 ἀστραπαὶ δ᾽ ὡσαύτως γίνονται κατὰ πλείους τρόπους· … καὶ κατ᾽ ἐκπιασμόν, θλίψεως τῶν νεφῶν γινομένης εἴθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ ἀλλήλων εἴθ᾽ ὑπὸ πνευμάτων. Cicero Div. 2.44 placet enim Stoicis (SVF 2.699) eos anhelitus terrae, qui frigidi sint, cum fluere coeperint, ventos esse; cum autem se in nubem induerint eiusque tenuissimam quamque partem coeperint dividere atque disrumpere idque crebrius facere et vehementius, tum et fulgores et tonitrua existere; si autem nubium flictu ardor expressus se emiserit, id esse fulmen. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.153–154 (SVF 2.704) ἀστραπὴν δ᾽ ἔξαψιν νεφῶν παρατριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων ὑπὸ πνεύματος, ὡς Ζήνων (SVF 1.117) ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ ὅλου· βροντὴν δὲ τὸν τούτων ψόφον ἐκ παρατρίψεως ἢ ῥήξεως· κεραυνὸν δ᾽ ἔξαψιν σφοδρὰν μετὰ πολλῆς βίας πίπτουσαν ἐπὶ γῆς, νεφῶν παρατριβομένων ἢ ῥηγνυμένων. οἱ δὲ (SVF 2.704) συστροφὴν πυρώδους ἀέρος βιαίως καταφερομένην. τυφῶνα κεραυνὸν βίαιον, πολὺν καὶ πνευματώδη ἢ πνεῦμα καπνῶδες ἐρρωγότος ἀπὸ νέφους· πρηστῆρα νέφος περισχισθὲν πυρὶ μετὰ πνεύματος. Porphyry in Harm. p. 32.10–16 ἀλλ᾽, ὥς φησιν ὁ Δημόκριτος (68A126a DK), ἐκδοχεῖον μύθων οὖσα μένει τὴν φωνὴν ἀγγείου δίκην· ἡ δὲ γὰρ εἰσκρίνεται καὶ ἐνρεῖ, παρ᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ θᾶττον ὁρῶμεν ἢ ἀκούομεν. ἀστραπῆς γὰρ καὶ βροντῆς ἅμα γενομένης τὴν μὲν ὁρῶμεν ἅμα τῷ γενέσθαι, τὴν δ᾽ οὐκ ἀκούομεν ἢ μετὰ πολὺ ἀκούομεν, οὐ παρ᾽ ἄλλο τι συμβαῖνον ἢ παρὰ τὸ τῇ μὲν ὄψει ἡμῶν ἀπαντᾶν τὸ φῶς, τὴν δὲ βροντὴν παραγίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐκδεχομένης τῆς ἀκοῆς τὴν βροντήν. §13 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 2.9 369a10–b7 περὶ δὲ ἀστραπῆς καὶ βροντῆς, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τυφῶνος καὶ πρηστῆρος καὶ κεραυνῶν λέγωμεν· καὶ γὰρ τούτων τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρχὴν ὑπολαβεῖν δεῖ πάντων. τῆς γὰρ ἀναθυμιάσεως, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, οὔσης διττῆς, τῆς μὲν ὑγρᾶς τῆς δὲ ξηρᾶς, καὶ τῆς συγκρίσεως ἐχούσης ἄμφω ταῦτα δυνάμει καὶ συνισταμένης εἰς νέφος, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, ἔτι δὲ πυκνοτέρας τῆς συστάσεως τῶν νεφῶν γιγνομένης πρὸς τὸ ἔσχατον πέρας. … ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκρινομένη θερμότης εἰς τὸν ἄνω διασπείρεται τόπον· ὅση δ᾽ ἐμπεριλαμβάνεται τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως ἐν τῇ μεταβολῇ ψυχομένου τοῦ ἀέρος, αὕτη συνιόντων τῶν νεφῶν ἐκκρίνεται, βίᾳ δὲ φερομένη καὶ προσπίπτουσα τοῖς περιεχομένοις νέφεσι ποιεῖ πληγήν, ἧς ὁ ψόφος καλεῖται βροντή. γίγνεται δ᾽ ἡ πληγὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον, ὡς παρεικάσαι μείζονι μικρὸν πάθος, τῷ ἐν τῇ φλογὶ γιγνομένῳ ψόφῳ, ὃν καλοῦσιν οἱ μὲν τὸν Ἥφαιστον γελᾶν, οἱ δὲ τὴν Ἑστίαν, οἱ δ᾽ ἀπειλὴν τούτων. γίγνεται δ᾽ ὅταν ἡ ἀναθυμίασις εἰς τὴν φλόγα συνεστραμμένη φέρηται, ῥηγνυμένων καὶ ξηραινομένων τῶν ξύλων· οὕτως γὰρ καὶ ἐν τοῖς νέφεσι ἡ γιγνομένη τοῦ πνεύματος ἔκκρισις πρὸς τὴν πυκνότητα τῶν νεφῶν ἐμπίπτουσα ποιεῖ τὴν βροντήν. παντοδαποὶ δὲ ψόφοι διὰ τὴν

1201

1202

liber 3 caput 3

ἀνωμαλίαν τε γίγνονται τῶν νεφῶν καὶ διὰ τὰς μεταξὺ κοιλίας, ᾗ τὸ συνεχὲς ἐκλείπει τῆς πυκνότητος. ἡ μὲν οὖν βροντὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι, καὶ γίγνεται διὰ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν· τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκθλιβόμενον τὰ πολλὰ μὲν ἐκπυροῦται λεπτῇ καὶ ἀσθενεῖ πυρώσει, καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἣν καλοῦμεν ἀστραπήν, ᾗ ἂν ὥσπερ ἐκπῖπτον τὸ πνεῦμα χρωματισθὲν ὀφθῇ. (For what follows see above §12) §15 Stoics: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.153 see above §12.

Liber 3 Caput 4 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 894A; pp. 370a13–371a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 77; p. 631.1–8 Diels—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 269.16– 18 Hagedorn—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 172–173 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. cc. 140, 141, pp. 72–73 Westerink (tituli soli), cf. Op.Phil. 1 op. 20, p. 77 Duffy (titulus solus)—cf. PSy: Symeon Seth CRN c. 2.15, p. 28.4–5 (pars tituli) + c. 2.17, p. 29.13 + c. 2.18, p. 29.16 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.31.1–5, pp. 242.19–243.21 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b18–19 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 52.11–12 Di Maria

Titulus δʹ. Περὶ νεφῶν ὁμίχλης ὑετῶν δρόσου χιόνος πάχνης χαλάζης (P,S) §1 Ἀναξιμένης νέφη μὲν γίνεσθαι παχυνθέντος ἐπὶ πλεῖον τοῦ ἀέρος, μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἐπισυναχθέντος ἐκθλίβεσθαι τοὺς ὄμβρους, χιόνα δέ, ἐπειδὰν τὸ καταφερόμενον ὕδωρ παγῇ, χάλαζαν δ᾽ ὅταν συμπεριληφθῇ τι τῷ ὑγρῷ πνευματικόν. (P1,S1) §2 Ἀναξαγόρας νέφη μὲν καὶ χιόνα παραπλησίως, χάλαζαν δ᾽ ὅταν ἀπὸ τῶν παγέντων νεφῶν προωσθῇ τινα πρὸς τὴν γῆν, ἃ δὴ ταῖς καταφοραῖς ἀποψυχούμενα στρογγυλοῦται. (S2) §3 Μητρόδωρος ἀπὸ τῆς ὑδατώδους ἀναφορᾶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος συνίστασθαι τὰ νέφη. (P2,S3) §4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν· ἀνελκομένου γὰρ ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης τοῦ §1 Anaximenes 13A17 DK; §2 Anaxagoras 59A85 DK; §3 Metrodorus 70A16 DK; §4 Xenophanes 21A46, B30.1 DK titulus Περὶ … χαλάζης S : Περὶ νεφῶν ὑετῶν χιόνων χαλαζῶν PB (ante add. καὶ PB(II)), cf. PQ : Περὶ νεφῶν καὶ χιόνων PG : Περὶ ὑετοῦ χαλάζης χιόνος πάχνης καὶ δρόσου PPs [2] νέφη μὲν γίνεσθαι] ἔφη συμβαίνειν PG ‖ ἐπὶ πλεῖον PGS prob. Diels : ὅτι πλεῖστον PB, om. PQ ‖ [3– 4] ‘sedem mutarunt’ χιόνα et χάλαζαν Diels DG 136 qui mutavit in ed., non prob. Bollack Laks–Most (error antiquus A trib.) ‖ [4] χάλαζαν] χάλαζα PB(I) ‖ [4–5] συμπεριληφθῇ] τι περισυλληφθῇ PB ‖ [5] τι S : om. P ‖ τῷ] om. P(I,III) ‖ πνευματικόν PGQ(ut vid.)S Diels : πνεῦμά τι (Mau Lachenaud) sive πνεύματι PB §2 lemma om. P ‖ [7] ἃ δὴ corr. Usener prob. Wachsmuth Diels VS1 : ἤδη SL ret. Diels DG ‖ [8] ἀποψυχούμενα scripsimus : ἀποψυχρούμενα S ‖ στρογγυλοῦται S prob. Wachsmuth VS : -οῦσθαι coni. Diels VS1, sed in Diels DG post verbum lac. ind. ubi ⟨δὲ⟩ ἀπὸ τῆς μακρᾶς καταφορᾶς ex §5[17] suppl. Meineke (sed non prob. Wachsmuth) §3 [9] ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος S (ἐπὶ SL prob. Bollack, corr. Diels prob. Wachsmuth) : om. PBG : aus der feinen Substanz Q §4 lemma om. P ‖ [11] ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς scripsimus : ἀρκτικῆς S edd. omnes ‖ [12] τἀν coni. Karsten prob. Diels Wachsmuth : κἂν SL prob. Bollack

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_080

5

10

1204

§5 §6

liber 3 caput 4

ὑγροῦ τὸ γλυκὺ διὰ τὴν λεπτομέρειαν διακρινόμενον νέφη τε συνιστάνειν ὁμιχλούμενον καὶ καταστάζειν ὄμβρους ὑπὸ πιλήσεως καὶ διατμίζειν τὰ πνεύματα. γράφει γὰρ διαρρήδην ‘πηγὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶ θάλασσ᾽ ὕδατος’. (S4) Ἐπίκουρος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀτόμων· στρογγυλαίνεσθαι δὲ τὴν χάλαζαν καὶ τὸν ὑετὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μακρᾶς καταφορᾶς ὑποπεπλασμένον. (P3,S5) *** καὶ πνεῦμα μὲν ἀποτελεῖν παρῶσαν τὰ νέφη, ὄμβρους δὲ διαχέαν, χάλαζαν δὲ πιλῆσαν, χιόνα δὲ συμπεριλαβόμενόν τι τοῦ ἀερώδους. (S6)

§5 Epicurus fr. 349 Usener; §6— [13] τε corr. Karsten prob. Diels DG Wachsmuth : τὸ SL §5 [17] post nomen habet PB δ᾽ ‖ ἀτόμων SLPG : ἀτμῶν PBQ ‖ δὲ PB : om. SL (suppl. Wachmuth) PG Diels DG ‖ χάλαζαν καὶ P : θαλάσσαν SL ‖ [18] ὑποπεπλασμένον PB(I,II)SL prob. Diels (etiam DG 54, vert. ‘sensim conformatum’) Usener Mau Lachenaud : ὑποπεπλησμένον PB(III) : rund wird Q : ὑποκεκλασμένον olim Beck : συμπεπιλημένον corr. ms. Voss. 2 ‖ post ὑποπεπλασμένον hab. S Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἔμπτωσιν φωτὸς εἰς νέφος, ex A c. 3.3.7 ap. S 1.29.1, p. 232.13 Wachsmuth hic interpol., secl. Diels Wachsmuth §6 lemma om. P ‖ [19] lac. ind. Karsten prob. Usener Wachsmuth : Ἀριστοτέλης τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ καπνῶδές φησι coni. ante πνεῦμα Karsten : lemma Epicuro trib. Diels DG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus c. 77 (text Diels) 77.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξιμένης ἔφη συμβαίνειν παχυνθέντος ἐπὶ πλεῖον τοῦ ἀέρος, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐπισυναχθέντος ἐκθλίβεσθαι τοὺς ὄμβρους, {γίγνεσθαι} χιόνα δέ, ἐπειδὰν τὸ καταφερόμενον ὕδωρ παγῇ ὑπὸ ψύξεως, χάλαζαν δέ, ὅταν τι περισυλληφθῇ τῷ ὑγρῷ πνευματικόν. 77.2 (~ P2) Μητρόδωρος ἀπὸ τῆς ὑδατώδους ἀναφορᾶς συνίστασθαι τὰ νέφη. 77.3 (~ P3) Ἐπίκουρος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀτόμων. στρογγυλοῦσθαι τὴν χάλαζαν καὶ τὸν ὑετὸν γίγνεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς μακροτέρας φορᾶς διὰ τοῦ ἀέρος συμβαινούσης ἀποπληττόμενον. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 269.16–18 Hagedorn (~ P1) παχύνας τὸν ἀέρα γνώμῃ τῇ ἐμῇ καὶ ἐπισυναγαγὼν τὰ νέφη ἐκθλίβω τοὺς ὄμβρους. ἐπειδὰν δὲ κατιὸν τὸ ὕδωρ παγῇ ἐκ τῆς ἄγαν ψυχρότητος, χιόνα ἀποστέλλω, τῷ δὲ ὑγρῷ πνεῦμά τι συμπλέξας μεταβάλλω εἰς χάλαζαν. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c, 140 Περὶ ὑετοῦ, χαλάζης, χιόνος, πάχνης καὶ δρόσου (~ tit.) Omn.Doctr. c. 141 Περὶ δρόσου καὶ πάχνης (~ tit.) Phil.Min. 1 op. 20 Περὶ ὑετοῦ χαλάζης χιόνος πάχνης καὶ δρόσου (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 2.15 tit. Περὶ ἀέρος καὶ πυρὸς (—) καὶ νεφῶν καὶ ὑετῶν (~ tit.) καὶ ἀστραπῶν καὶ βροντῶν (cf. tit. c. 3.3).

15

20

liber 3 caput 4

1205

CRN 2.18.6–10 καὶ ἐν μὲν τῷ ἀέρι γίνονται ταῦτα· νέφος, ὑετός, χιών, χάλαζα. ὅμοια δὲ τούτοις γίνονται καὶ πρὸς τῇ γῇ· τῷ μὲν νέφει ἀνάλογος ἡ ὁμίχλη, τῷ δὲ ὑετῷ ἡ δρόσος, τῇ δὲ χιόνι ἡ πάχνη, τῇ δὲ χαλάζῃ ὁ κρύσταλλος (~ quaestio). Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 52.11–12 ὄμβροι δὲ ἐξ ὑγρασίας ἀναδόσεως καὶ νεφελῶν ὑγρῶν γίνονται. Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.2.2 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· … ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ πρηστῆρες ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται. A 3.5.1 τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γίνεται οἷον ὄμβρος χάλαζα. §4 A 3.16.1 Ἀναξίμανδρος τὴν θάλασσάν φησιν εἶναι τῆς πρώτης ὑγρασίας λείψανον, ἧς τὸ μὲν πλεῖον μέρος ἀνεξήρανε τὸ πῦρ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, PG, PQ, and S, for these doxai extant only in SL. P has three lemmata, S six, so at most P retained only half the chapter. P’s lemmata are matched in S, and so is their order. Psellus is a witness to the heading and the contents in general, and so is Symeon Seth. The chapter of S treating of clouds etc. (1.31) in which he cites the present ch. 3.4 follows after the chapter (1.30) in which he cites A ch. 3.5, so here he has inverted the order of the Aëtian chapters. His lemmata form a continuous excerpt, so he again appears to have written out a chapter in full. His final lemma lacks the beginning including its name-label. And we have noted that T does not use any material from Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is again for the most part limited to generalities and nameless doxai, but Seneca Naturales quaestiones Book 4B (originally Book 3) is more specific. For the parallelism of the themes of chs. 3.3–7 + 14–15 + 4.1 with Lucretius’ series at DRN 6.96–737 see Runia (1997) 97.

1206

liber 3 caput 4

(2) Sources. The subjects assembled here are treated systematically by Aristotle in no less than four chapters, Mete. 1.9–12. We may also cite (to use Daiber’s headings) Theophrastus Metarsiology [c. 7] The account of the causes of clouds; [c. 8] The account of the causes of different kinds of rain; [c. 9] The account of the causes of snow; [c. 10] The account of the causes of hail; [c. 11] The account of the causes of dew; [c. 12] The account of the causes of hoar-frost. These texts are cited below under section E(b). C Chapter Heading The heading, of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), lists in S all of the seven phenomena that are at issue in various ways in the lemmata of the chapter. The umbrella here (like that of the two previous chapters) shelters a number of different phenomena collected in a single chapter rather than distributed over several, as in the Metarsiology. The most important question type/category is that of essence/substance, that of cause (διὰ τί) is also involved, while the question unde and the categories of place and quality occur as well. In the headings of P and its tradition several of these items are variously omitted. Most of its ingredients are anticipated in the embedded heading in Aristotle Mete. 1.12 349a9–11. Wilson (2013) 76–77 with nn. 6–7, and 146–155, argues that the ‘condensations’—rain, snow, dew, frost, and hail—form the second of the ten groups into which Aristotle divided the meteorological phenomena; cf. above, ch. 3.3 Commentary C ad fin. D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s order in general see above, Introduction to Book 3, section 2, and also Book 3.proœm. at Commentary D(a). The present chapter is concerned with phenomena mainly connected with air and water, while the previous chapter (3.3) deals with phenomena mainly connected with fire and pneuma: we are nearing the earth. It comes before ch. 3.5, ‘On the rainbow’. In Aristotle these subjects are discussed in a rather different order; ch. 3.3 may be placed alongside Mete. 2.9–3.1, ch. 3.4 alongside Mete. 1.9–12, while ch. 3.5 may be placed next to Mete. 3.2–5. In Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones rainbows are treated in Book 1 (Book 7 according to the original order), lightning and thunder in Book 2 (Book 8 according to the original order), while clouds etc. are the subject of Book 4B (originally Book 3). So the order of A chs. 3.4 and 3.5 is the opposite of that of Seneca’s Books 7 and 8, while the theme of the preceding ch. 3.3 is found at a considerable distance in Seneca’s work.

liber 3 caput 4

1207

b Number–Order of Lemmata S has six lemmata, PBQ and PG three. In so far as these correspond they are in exactly the same order, which there is no reason to change and which is already that of Diels in the DG. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The important term is ‘clouds’, νέφη, and the structure of the chapter depends on the differences among the stuffs from which these clouds are said to be formed. §1 Anaximenes and §2 Anaxagoras derive the clouds from air, §3 Metrodorus and §4 Xenophanes from something moist, or moisture, §5 Epicurus from atoms. But for §4 Xenophanes the hot, i.e. fire, also plays a part. We do seem to have a diaeretic list consisting of, in somewhat irregular succession, the terms air–moisture (i.e. water)–moisture (plus fire)—atoms. §4 Xenophanes is linked with the atoms of §5 because the freshwater part of the moisture has a fine-particled structure, is ‘fine-grained’. The mutilated final lemma cannot be integrated in this diaeresis. What causes some surprise is that the role of the sun in bringing up moisture from the sea is attributed to Xenophanes in §4 only, although an evaporation of sorts is also attributed to Metrodorus in §3. d

Further Comments General Points The phenomena listed in the heading are far from equally represented in the lemmata, and in some cases not at all, presumably a sign of abridgement. Clouds (νέφη), the first and clearly most important item, occur in five out of six lemmata (not in §5). Nothing is said about ὀμίχλη, apart from §4[14] ὁμιχλούμενον. The rains (ὑετῶν) are paralleled ad litteram only in §5 ὑετόν, represented by ὄμβρους in §1, §4 and §6, and absent from §2 and §3. Dew (δρόσος) and hoar-frost (πάχνη) are entirely absent. Snow only occurs in §1 and §6, but hail is found four times, viz. in §1, §2, §5 and §6. Precipitation is mentioned four times: in §1 τὸ καταφερόμενον ὕδωρ, §2 πρὸς τὴν γῆν and ταῖς καταφοραῖς, §4 καταστάζειν, and §5 τῆς μακρᾶς καταφορᾶς, while evaporation is represented by §3 τῆς ὑδατώδους ἀναφορᾶς and §4 ἀνελκομένου … τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ γλυκύ, so occurs twice. These processes are not mentioned together in any of the lemmata. Individual Points §1 The production by compression of clouds from air and of rain from clouds rather precisely parallels the series of transmutations of air according to Anaximenes at Simp. in Phys. 24.29–31 (13A5 DK), ‘air when condensed becomes

1208

liber 3 caput 4

wind, and then cloud, and when even more condensed water’, and Hipp. Ref. 1.7.3 (13A7 DK), ‘winds are compressed air, from air a cloud is formed by compression, and when even more (compressed), water’. The information about hail and snow in the mss., as Diels saw, is certainly mistaken, because it is always snow that is said to contain pneuma (this explains its colour). The mistake, shared by P and S, is to be attributed to A, which is why we have not interfered with the transmitted text. §4 The combination ἀρκτικὴ αἰτία cannot be paralleled. The adjective means either ‘northern’ or ‘placed at the beginning of a sentence’. προκαταρκτικὴ αἰτία, ‘antecedent cause’, on the other hand, is standard Stoic and then more general terminology (as in medical literature). The mistake is easily explained, viz. through contrasting association (‘cold’) with the preceding word θερμότητος. For causal terminology in the Placita cf. the auxiliary cause in the previous chapter, A 3.3.8, συναιτιᾶται δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, and the originally Stoic cohesive cause at A 5.30.1, Ἀλκμαίων τῆς μὲν ὑγείας εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν τῶν δυνάμεων. §5 This is Epicurus’ first appearance in Book 3, not, however, with a plurality of equivalent doxai. This happens only at ch. 3.15.11 below, where he appears for the second and last time in this Book. See further Runia (2018) at M–R 4.382. §§5–6 The not entirely intelligible remains of the doxa in the name-labelless lemma mutilum at the end cannot plausibly be attributed to any individual or school. Diels’ suggestion ad loc. in the DG that it may nevertheless be Epicurean was rejected by Wachsmuth and (implicitly) Usener, and has not found favour. Even so, the combined doxai may well have been meant as a single lemma by P. e Other Evidence Of Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones Book 4B (originally Book 3) only the second part, treating hail and snow, is extant, but in the lost part Seneca (preserved in excerpts by Ioannes Lydus) also discussed cloud, rain, dew and frost. For Lucretian parallels to the present chapter see Ernout–Robin (1928) 3.253–257, 259–260 (on clouds), 3.261–266 (on rain), 269–270 (on snow, winds, hail, cold frosts, ice). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Aristophanes Nu. 368–370 (Στ.) ἀλλὰ τίς ὕει; τουτὶ γὰρ ἔμοιγ᾽ ἀπόφηναι πρῶτον ἁπάντων. / (Σω.) αὗται δήπου· μεγάλοις δέ σ᾽ ἐγὼ σημείοις αὐτὸ διδάξω. / φέρε, ποῦ γὰρ πώποτ᾽ ἄνευ νεφελῶν ὕοντ᾽ ἤδη τεθέασαι. Epicurus

liber 3 caput 4 Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.99 νέφη δύναται γίνεσθαι καὶ συνίστασθαι καὶ παρὰ πιλήσεις ἀέρος ⟨ὑπὸ⟩ πνευμάτων συνώσεως καὶ παρὰ περιπλοκὰς ἀλληλούχων ἀτόμων καὶ ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τὸ τοῦτο τελέσαι καὶ κατὰ ῥευμάτων συλλογὴν ἀπό τε γῆς καὶ ὑδάτων· καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλους δὲ τρόπους πλείους αἱ τῶν τοιούτων συστάσεις οὐκ ἀδυνατοῦσι συντελεῖσθαι. ἤδη δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ᾗ μὲν θλιβομένων ᾗ δὲ μεταβαλλόντων ὕδατα δύναται συντελεῖσθαι. Ep.Pyth. 10.106–108 χάλαζα συντελεῖται … (107) … χιόνα δὲ ἐνδέχεται συντελεῖσθαι … (108) … δρόσος συντελεῖται … ⟨πάχνη δὲ συντελεῖται⟩. Lucretius DRN 6.495–504 nunc age, quo pacto pluvius concrescat in altis / nubibus umor et in terras demissus ut imber / decidat, expediam. primum iam semina aquai / multa simul vincam consurgere nubibus ipsis / omnibus ex rebus, pariterque ita crescere utrumque, / et nubis et aquam, quaecumque in nubibus extat, / … / concipiunt etiam multum quoque saepe marinum / umorem etc. DRN 6.527–532 cetera quae sursum crescunt sursumque creantur, / et quae concrescunt in nubibus, omnia, prorsum / omnia, nix venti grando gelidaeque pruinae / et vis magna geli, magnum duramen aquarum, / et mora quae fluvios passim refrenat aventis, / perfacilest tamen haec reperire animoque videre. ps.Vergil Etna 237 (scire) nubila cur Panope caelo denuntiet imbres. Propertius 3.5.25.30 tum mihi naturae libeat perdiscere mores / … / in nubes unde perennis aqua. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392b8–11 ἐν δὲ τούτῳ (sc. τῷ ἀέρι) νέφη τε συνίσταται καὶ ὄμβροι καταράσσουσι, χιόνες τε καὶ πάχναι καὶ χάλαζαι. Mu. 4 394a15–17 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler) γίνονται δὲ ἀπὸ μὲν ταύτης (sc. τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως) ὁμίχλαι καὶ δρόσοι καὶ πάγων ἰδέαι νέφη τε καὶ ὄμβροι καὶ χιόνες καὶ χάλαζαι. Manilius 1.100–103 hiberna aestiva nix grandine mollior esset / … / (102) cur imbres ruerent … / pervidit. Pliny Nat. 2.152 grandinem conglaciato imbre gigni et nivem eodem umore mollius coacto, pruinam autem ex rore gelido; per hiemem nives cadere, non grandines, ipsasque grandines interdiu saepius quam noctu, et multo celerius resolvi quam nives; nebulas nec aestate nec maximo frigore exsistere, rores neque gelu neque ardoribus neque ventis nec nisi serena nocte; gelando liquorem minu⟨i⟩, resolutaque glacie non eundem inveniri modum; varietates colorum figurarumque in nubibus cerni, prout admixtus ignis superet aut vincatur. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 394a19–b5 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler) ἔστι δὲ ὁμίχλη … δρόσος δέ ἐστιν … κρύσταλλος δὲ … πάχνη δὲ … νέφος δέ … ὄμβρος δὲ γίνεται μὲν κατ᾽ ἐκπιεσμὸν νέφους … καὶ τοῦτο καλοῦμεν ὑετὸν … χιὼν δὲ γίνεται … χάλαζα δὲ γίνεται. Arius Didymus fr. 11 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.31.6, pp. 243.23–245.21 Wachsmuth (on Aristotle) ἐκ δὲ τῆς ὑγρᾶς καὶ ἀτμώδους (sc. ἀναθυμιάσεως) ὑετούς τε καὶ δρόσους καὶ πάχνας ὁμίχλας τε καὶ νέφη καὶ χιόνας καὶ χαλάζας κτλ. fr. 35 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.31.7, pp. 245.23–29 (SVF 2.701) Χρύσιππος ἔφησε τὴν ὁμίχλην νέφος διακεχυμένον ἢ ἀέρα πάχος ἔχοντα, δρόσον δὲ ἐξ ὁμίχλης καταφερόμενον ὑγρόν, ὑετὸν δὲ φορὰν ὕδατος ἐκ νεφῶν, ὄμβρον δὲ λάβρου ὕδατος καὶ πολλοῦ ἐκ νεφῶν φοράν, χάλαζαν δὲ ὑετοῦ πεπηγότος διάθρυψιν, χιόνα δὲ νέφος πεπηγὸς ἢ νέφους πῆξιν, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς πεπηγὸς ὕδωρ κρύσταλλον, πάχνην δὲ δρόσον πεπηγυῖαν. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 4, pp. 190–192 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.31.8, pp. 246.2–247.5 (Posidonius fr. 336b Theiler) Ἀρριανός φησι τὴν ὁμί-

1209

1210

liber 3 caput 4

χλην τῇ μὲν πρὸ νέφους ξυνίστασθαι πρὶν ἐξαναστῆναι, ἐπὶ πολὺ δὲ ἀπὸ νέφους ἐκχυθέντος καὶ σκεδασθέντος· … ὑετοὺς ἐκ νεφῶν γεννῶσι. … δρόσος γίγνεται· … πάχνη γίνεται. καὶ ἔστι ὅ τι περ πάχνη πρὸς δρόσον, τοῦτο χιὼν πρὸς ὑετόν, ὅτι καὶ τὸ νέφος ξυνελθὸν μὲν ἄνευ πήξεως εἰς ὑετὸν διακρίνεται, παγὲν δὲ εἰς νιφετὸν συνάγεται. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.153 (SVF 2.702) ὑετὸν δ᾽ ἐκ νέφους μεταβολὴν εἰς ὕδωρ, ἐπειδὰν ἢ ἐκ γῆς ἢ ἐκ θαλάττης ἀνενεχθεῖσα ὑγρασία ὑφ᾽ ἡλίου {καὶ} μὴ τυγχάνῃ κατεργασίας· καταψυχθὲν δὲ τοῦτο πάχνην καλεῖσθαι. χάλαζαν δὲ νέφος πεπηγός, ὑπὸ πνεύματος διαθρυφθέν· χιόνα δ᾽ ὑγρὸν ἐκ νέφους πεπηγότος, ὡς Ποσειδώνιος (F 11 E.-K., 263 Theiler) ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ τοῦ Φυσικοῦ λόγου. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 (tr. lat.) vel quid dicere possumus quomodo pluviae … et collectiones nubium et nebulae … et similia his efficiuntur, adnuntiare quoque et thesauros nivium et grandinis et eorum quae his proxima sunt, quae autem haec nubium praeparatio, aut quis status nebulae … est. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.59, pp. 133.20–134.4 si praesto est quod libuerit scire et in aperto rerum est scientia constituta, edissertate nobis et dicite, quibus modis fiant et rationibus pluviae, ut in superis partibus atque in aeris hoc medio suspensa aqua teneatur, natura res labilis et ad fluorem semper decursionemque tam prona? edissertate, inquam, et dicite, quid sit quod grandinem torqueat, quod guttatim faciat pluviam labi, quod imbres ruat, nivis plumas et foliola dilatarit. Chapter heading: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. Stoics) … ζητοῦσι … ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια, excerpted at Suda s.v. Φ 862, p. 4.775.28–32 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις … περὶ νεφῶν, βροντῶν, ἴριδος. Capitula Lucretiana at 6.451 de nubibus. at 6.495 de imbribus. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.54– 56 natura grandinis, nivis, pruinae, nebulae, roris. nubium imagines. Nat. 1 p. 12.25–26 de imbribus. Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 32 De nubibus. 33 De pluviis. 34 De nive. 35 De grandine (these headings also occur in the body of the work). Etym. 13.5 De aere et nube (13.7 in the body of the work). §1 Anaximenes: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.106 χάλαζα συντελεῖται καὶ κατὰ πῆξιν ἰσχυροτέραν, πάντοθεν δὲ πνευματωδῶν περίστασίν τινων καὶ καταμέρισιν. Lucretius DRN 6.517–518 sed vehemens imber fit, ubi vehementer utraque / nubila vi cumulata premuntur et impete venti. Seneca Nat. 4b.13.2 cum quaerimus quomodo nix fiat, et dicimus illam pruinae similem habere naturam, plus illi spiritus quam aquae inesse. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 394a32–34 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler) χιὼν δὲ γίνεται κατὰ νεφῶν πεπυκνωμένων ἀπόθραυσιν πρὸ τῆς εἰς ὕδωρ μεταβολῆς ἀνακοπέντων· ἐργάζεται δὲ ἡ μὲν κοπὴ τὸ ἀφρῶδες καὶ ἔκλευκον. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.3 + 7.7 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) ἐξ ἀέρος ⟨δὲ⟩ νέφος ἀποτελε⟨ῖ⟩σθαι κατὰ τὴν πίλησιν. … (7.7) συνελθόντα δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ πλεῖον παχυ⟨ν⟩θέντα νέφη γεννᾶσθαι, καὶ οὕτως εἰς ὕδωρ μεταβάλλειν. χάλαζαν δὲ γίνεσθαι, ὅταν ἀπὸ τῶν νεφῶν τὸ ὕδωρ καταφερόμενον παγῇ· χιόνα δέ, ὅταν αὐτὰ ταῦτα ἐνυγρότερα ὄντα πῆξιν λάβῃ. Simplicius in Phys. 24.28–30 (Anaximenes 13A5 DK, Theophrastus fr. 226A FHS&G) ἀέρα … γίνεσθαι πυκνούμενον δὲ ἄνεμον, εἶτα νέφος.

liber 3 caput 4 §2 Anaxagoras: Seneca Nat. 4b.3.5–6 (cf. addenda to Anaxagoras 59A85 at DK p. 2.420.15–18, Posidonius fr. 318 Theiler) praeterea potest, etiamsi non fuit grando talis, dum defertur corrotundari, et totiens per spatium iacens aëris densi devoluta, aequabiliter atque in orbem teri. quod nix pati non potest, quia non est tam solida, immo quia fusa est, et non per magnam altitudinem cadit, sed circa terras initium eius est. ita non longus illi per aera sed ex proximo lapsus est. (6) quare non et ego mihi idem permittam quod Anaxagoras? … grando nihil aliud est quam suspensa glacies, nix {in} pruina pendens {congelatio}. illud enim iam diximus, quod inter rorem et aquam interest, hoc inter pruinam et glaciem, nec non inter nivem et grandinem interesse. §3 Metrodorus: see at §4. §4 Xenophanes: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 7.2–5 Daiber the clouds come into existence … because of much vapour which ascends and with which the ascending vapours of the sea as well as the remaining fluids become mixed. Metars. c. 8.3–4 Daiber continuous rain occurs, if many vapours ascend from the sea. Lucretius DRN 6.470–475 praeterea permulta mari quoque tollere toto / corpora naturam declarant litore vestes / suspensae, cum concipiunt umoris adhaesum. / quo magis ad nubis augendas multa videntur / posse quoque e salso consurgere momine ponti; / nam ratio consanguineast umoribus omnis. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.19 (Xenophanes A1 DK) τὰ νέφη συνίστασθαι τῆς ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου ἀτμίδος ἀναφερομένης καὶ αἰρούσης αὐτὰ εἰς τὸ περιέχον. §5 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.99 νέφη … · ἤδη δ᾽ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ᾗ μὲν θλιβομένων ᾗ δὲ μεταβαλλόντων ὕδατα δύναται συντελεῖσθαι. Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.106–107 χάλαζα συντελεῖται … πάντοθεν δὲ πνευματωδῶν περίστασίν τινων καὶ καταμέρισιν· … (107) ἡ δὲ περιφέρεια οὐκ ἀδυνάτως μὲν ἔχει γίνεσθαι πάντοθεν τῶν ἄκρων ἀποτηκομένων καὶ ἐν τῇ συστάσει πάντοθεν, ὡς λέγεται, κατὰ μέρη ὁμαλῶς περιισταμένων εἴτε ὑδατοειδῶν τινων, εἴτε πνευματοδῶν. Lucretius DRN 6.451–455 nubila concrescunt, ubi corpora multa volando / hoc super in caeli spatio coiere repente / asperiora, modis quae possint indupedita / exiguis tamen inter se compressa teneri. / haec faciunt primum parvas consistere nubes. §6 ***: Seneca Nat. 4b.3.5 praeterea potest, etiamsi non fuit grando talis, dum defertur, corrotundari et, totiens per spatium aeris densi devoluta, aequabiliter atque in orbem teri. Nat. 4b.4.2 ideo, ut ait Vergilius noster (Georg. 1.311), ‘cum ruit imbriferum ver’ vehementior mutatio est aëris undique patefacti et solventis se ipso tepore adiuvante. see also at §1 above.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Tim. 49c καὶ πάλιν ἀέρα συνιόντα καὶ πυκνούμενον νέφος καὶ ὁμίχλην, ἐκ δὲ τούτων ἔτι μᾶλλον συμπιλουμένων ῥέον ὕδωρ κτλ. Tim. 59d– e τὸ πυρὶ μεμειγμένον ὕδωρ … ὅταν πυρὸς ἀποχωρισθὲν ἀέρος τε μονωθῇ, γέγονεν μὲν ὁμαλώτερον, συνέωσται δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐξιόντων εἰς αὑτό, παγέν τε οὕτως τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ γῆς μάλιστα παθὸν ταῦτα χάλαζα, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς κρύσταλλος, τὸ δὲ

1211

1212

liber 3 caput 4

ἧττον, ἡμιπαγές τε ὂν ἔτι, τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ γῆς αὖ χιών, τὸ δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς συμπαγὲν ἐκ δρόσου γενόμενον πάχνη λέγεται. Aristotle Top. 7.5 146b27–30 ἢ πάλιν, ὡς ὁρίζονται … τὸ νέφος πύκνωσιν ἀέρος, … προσθετέον γὰρ πόσου καὶ ποίου καὶ ποῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τίνος. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 7.2–3 Daiber the clouds come into existence … because of the accumulation and thickness of air and its transformation into the nature of water. Themistius Or. 26, p. 2.145.11–16 Schenkl ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὰ ἐγγὺς ἡμῶν καὶ χαμαίζηλα καὶ ἐν ποσί, … καὶ ὑετῶν (sc. πέρι), οὐδὲ τί ὑπομένουσα ἡ χιὼν λευκὴ οὕτως ἐστὶ καίτοι ἐξ ὕδατος πεπηγυῖα, οὐδὲ τί παθοῦσα ἡ χάλαζα τοῦ μὲν χειμῶνος οὐ καταπίπτει, θέρους δὲ τὰ πολλά, καίτοι ψυχρότητι ὑπερβάλλουσα. Olympiodorus in Mete. 80.30–33 ἰστέον δέ, ὅτι ὁ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλης (Mete. 1.9 346b26–31) αἴτιον λέγει τῆς εἰς ὕδωρ μεταβολῆς τὴν ψύξιν μόνον· Θεόφραστος (fr. 211B FHS&G) δὲ οὐ μόνον τὴν ψύξιν αἰτίαν φησὶ τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος γενέσεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν πίλησιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 466.26–27 τῷ δὲ τῆς νεφέλης ὁρισμῷ, ὅτι πύκνωσις ἀέρος, ἔδει προσκεῖσθαι τὸ τοιάδε, ἤγουν σφοδρά. Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338b24 ὅσα τε θείημεν ἂν ἀέρος εἶναι κοινὰ πάθη καὶ ὕδατος. Mete. 1.9 346b32–a12 ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ μὲν ἐξ ὕδατος ἀναθυμίασις ἀτμίς, ἡ δ᾽ ἐξ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ νέφος· ὁμίχλη δὲ νεφέλης περίττωμα τῆς εἰς ὕδωρ συγκρίσεως. … ἀναγομένου δὲ τοῦ ὑγροῦ αἰεὶ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θερμοῦ δύναμιν καὶ πάλιν φερομένου κάτω διὰ τὴν ψύξιν πρὸς τὴν γῆν …, ὅταν … κατὰ μικρὰ φέρηται, ψακάδες, ὅταν δὲ κατὰ μείζω μόρια, ὑετὸς καλεῖται. Mete. 1.10 347a13–16 ἐκ δὲ τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀτμίζοντος ὅσον ἂν μὴ μετεωρισθῇ … πάλιν καταφερόμενον ὅταν ψυχθῇ νύκτωρ, καλεῖται δρόσος καὶ πάχνη. Mete. 1.11 347b12–14 ἐκεῖθεν (sc. ex nubibus) … τρία φοιτᾷ σώματα συνιστάμενα διὰ τὴν ψύξιν, ὕδωρ καὶ χιὼν καὶ χάλαζα. Proclus in Tim. 1.20.30–121.1 καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ἓν εἶναι αἴτιον ὄμβρων φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος (fr. 210 FHS&G), τὴν τῶν νεφῶν πίλησιν πρός τινα τῶν ὀρῶν. in Tim. 2.119.29–120.7 ἡδέως δ᾽ ἂν ἐροίμεθα τὸν Θεόφραστον (fr. 159 FHS&G) … ζητοῦντος … ποῖαι δὲ αἰτίαι … ὑετῶν, χιόνος, χαλάζης, ἃ δὴ καλῶς ποιῶν ἐν τῇ τῶν Μετεώρων αἰτολογίᾳ τῆς πρεπούσης εἰκοτολογίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἠξίωσεν. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 7.2–3 Daiber the clouds come into existence … because of the accumulation and thickness of air. Ovid Met. 1.52–55 inminet his aer, …. illic et nebulas, illic consistere nubes / iussit. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 2.12 349a9-–11 περὶ μὲν οὖν ὑετοῦ καὶ δρόσου καὶ νιφετοῦ καὶ πάχνης καὶ χαλάζης, διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεται καὶ τίς ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν ἐστιν, εἰρήσθω τοσαῦτα. John Philoponus in Mete. 3.1–3 περὶ νεφῶν … καὶ ὁμίχλης ψεκάδων τε καὶ ὑετοῦ, δρόσου καὶ πάχνης χαλάζης τε καὶ χιόνος καὶ κρυστάλλου. §1 Anaximenes: Aristotle Mete. 1.12 348b15–18 ὅταν δ᾽ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἀντιπεριστῇ ἐντὸς τὸ ψυχρὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἔξω θερμοῦ, ὕδωρ ποιῆσαν ἔπηξεν καὶ γίγνεται χάλαζα. συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο ὅταν θᾶττον ᾖ ἡ πῆξις ἢ ἡ τοῦ ὕδατος φορὰ ἡ κάτω. GA 2.2 735b19–22 αἴτιον δ ὅτι ἐγκαταμίγνυται πνεῦμα ὃ τόν τε ὄγκον ποιεῖ καὶ τὴν λευκότητα διαφαίνει, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ ἀφρῷ καὶ τῇ χιόνι· καὶ γὰρ ἡ χιών ἐστιν ἀφρός. ps.Aristotle Probl. fr. 214R3, 760 Gigon at Gell. 19.5.7 manet autem (sc. cum aqua frigore aeris duratur et coit), quod est gravius et sordidius et insalubrius,

liber 3 caput 4 atque id pulsu aeris verberatum in modum coloremque spumae candidae oritur. Theophrastus CP 5.13.7 ἡ μὲν (sc. χιὼν) ἐκ νέφους καὶ οἷον ἀφρός τις ἐμπεριειληφυῖα πνεῦμα, ἡ δ᾽ αὐτὴ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν συνεστηκυῖα καὶ ἐκ λεπτοτέρου τινὸς ἀέρος καὶ ὑγροῦ. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 8.2 Daiber heavy rain occurs, if very hard winds sqeeze and accumulate the clouds. Metars. c. 10.2–3 Daiber hail comes into existence when big drops of water are transformed and are hardened by coldness. Metars. c. 9.4–5 Daiber for we can see with our own eyes that in snow much air is contained. §2 Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 10.3–6 Daiber the hailstone is round because its edges are broken off during its descent … or because the coldness has hardened and compacted it from all sides in an equal manner. §§2–3 Anaxagoras Metrodorus: Aristotle Top. 4.5 127a13–16 τὴν μὲν γὰρ χιόνα φασὶν ὕδωρ εἶναι πεπηγός, τὸν δὲ πηλὸν γῆν ὑγρῷ πεφυραμένην· ἔστι δ᾽ οὔθ᾽ ἡ χιὼν ὕδωρ οὔθ᾽ ὁ πηλὸς γῆ. §2 Anaxagoras: Aristotle Mete. 1.12 348a14–18 (Anaxagoras 59A85 DK) τοῖς μὲν οὖν δοκεῖ τοῦ πάθους (sc. τῆς χαλαζης) αἴτιον εἶναι τούτου καὶ τῆς γενέσεως, ὅταν ἀπωσθῇ τὸ νέφος εἰς τὸν ἄνω τόπον μᾶλλον ὄντα ψυχρὸν διὰ τὸ λήγειν ἐκεῖ τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τῶν ἀκτίνων ἀνακλάσεις, ἐλθὸν δ᾽ ἐκεῖ πήγνυσθαι τὸ ὕδωρ. §4 Xenophanes: Xenophanes 21B30 DK at Schol. Genav. ad Il. 21.196 Ξενοφάνης ἐν τῷ ⟨Περὶ φύσεως⟩· ‘πηγὴ δ᾽ ἐστὶ θάλασσ(α) ὕδατος, πηγὴ δ᾽ ἀνέμοιο· / οὔτε γὰρ ἐν νέφεσιν ⟨γίνοιτό κε ἲς ἀνέμοιο / ἐκπνείοντος⟩ ἔσωθεν ἄνευ πόντου μεγάλοιο / οὔτε ῥοαὶ ποταμῶν οὔτ᾽ αἰ⟨θέρος⟩ ὄμβριον ὕδωρ, / ἀλλὰ μέγας πόντος γενέτωρ νεφέων ἀνέμων τε / καὶ ποταμῶν’. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 7.2–5 Daiber the clouds come into existence … because of much vapour which ascends and with which the ascending vapours of the sea as well as the remaining fluids become mixed. Metars. c. 8.3–4 Daiber continuous rain occurs, if many vapours ascend from the sea. §5 Epicurus: Aristoteles Mete. 1.12 348a34–36 αἱ γὰρ φερόμεναι πόρρωθεν διὰ τὸ φέρεσθαι μακρὰν περιθραυόμεναι γίγνονται τό τε σχῆμα περιφερεῖς. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 10.3–4 Daiber cited above on §2. §6 Theophrastus(?) CP 5.13.7 τὸ δ ὅλον καὶ τμητικωτέρα δοκεῖ ἡ πάχνη τῆς χιόνος εἶναι … · λεπτοτέρα δ᾽ ἐστὶ τῆς χιόνος ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἐκ νέφους καὶ οἷον ἀφρός τις ἐμπεριειληφυῖα πνεῦμα, ἡ δ᾽ αὐτὴ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν συνεστηκυῖα καὶ ἐκ λεπτοτέρου τινὸς ἀέρος καὶ ὑγροῦ. Metars. c. 9.4–5 Daiber cited above §1.

1213

Liber 3 Caput 5 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 894B–F; pp. 371a27–374a8 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 78; pp. 631.9–632.5—PJ : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 269.18– 270.9 Hagedorn—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 172–177 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 142, p. 73 Westerink (titulus solus); Phil.Min. op. 23, p. 86 Duffy (titulus solus)—cf. PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.25, p. 34.12–16 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.30.1a, pp. 238.21–240.11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b16–17 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 24, p. 51.17–18 Di Maria; Nem: Nemesius NH c. 7, p. 59.19 Morani; Scholia in Aratum schol. 829, p. 412.4–14; schol. 940, pp. 455.1–456.6 Martin

Titulus εʹ. Περὶ ἴριδος (P,S) §1 Τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γίνεται οἷον ὄμβρος χάλαζα, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν ἰδίαν οὐκ ἔχοντα ὑπόστασιν· αὐτίκα γοῦν πλεόντων ἡμῶν ἡ ἤπειρος κινεῖσθαι δοκεῖ· ἔστιν οὖν κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν ἡ ἶρις. (P1,S1) §2 Πλάτων φησὶ Θαύμαντος αὐτὴν γενεαλογῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους διὰ τὸ θαυμάσαι ταύτην. Ὅμηρος ‘ἠύτε πορφυρέην ἶριν θνητοῖσι τανύσσει’. διὸ καὶ ἐμυθεύσαντό τινες αὐτὴν ταύρου κεφαλὴν ἔχουσαν ἀναρροφεῖν τοὺς ποταμούς. (P2,S2) §3 πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις; ὁρῶμεν δὴ κατὰ γραμμὰς ἢ κατ᾽ εὐθείας ἢ κατὰ καμπύλας ἢ κατ᾽ ἀνακλωμένας, γραμμὰς ἀδήλους λόγῳ θεωρητὰς καὶ ἀσωμάτους. κατὰ μὲν οὖν εὐθείας ὁρῶμεν τὰ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ τὰ διὰ τῶν λίθων τῶν διαυγῶν καὶ κεράτων· λεπτομερῆ γὰρ ταῦτα πάντα. καμπύλας δὲ γραμμὰς καθ᾽ ὕδατος βλέπομεν γινομένας· κάμπτεται γὰρ ἡ ὄψις βίᾳ διὰ τὴν πυκνοτέραν τοῦ ὕδατος ὕλην· διὸ καὶ τὴν κώπην ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ μακρόθεν καμπτομένην ὁρῶμεν. τρίτος τρόπος τοῦ βλέπειν τὰ ἀνακλώμενα ὡς τὰ κατοπτρικά. (P3,S3) §1—; §2 Plato Tht. 155d, Homerus Il. 17.547; §3— §1 [2] γίνεται οἷον P : οἷον γίνεται S, transp. Heeren Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [3] ἰδίαν post σύστασιν pos. PG ‖ ὑπόστασιν] σύστασιν PG ‖ [4] ἤπειρος] ἄπειρος SP §2 om. PGQ ‖ [6] Θαύμαντος PB(III)SP2 (Plat.) : (ἐκ) θαύματος PB(I,II) : θαυμαστῶς SFP1 ‖ [7] ἠύτε P (Hom.) : ἥντε S ‖ ἶριν P (Hom. Il. 17.547) : νεφέλην S (ex Il. 17.551) ‖ διὸ P : om. S §3 [10] πῶς … ἶρις om. PGQ ‖ [11] ἀδήλους PBQ (secl. Diels) : δὲ S, δὴ coni. Wachsmuth ‖ λόγῳ] λέγω S, emend. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ [12] τὰ2] dub. del. Wachsmuth in app. ‖ [13] καὶ κεράτων PBG : om. PQ ‖ post λεπτομερῆ add. und leuchtend Q ‖ [14] ante καμπύλας add. κατὰ Wachsmuth ‖ γινομένας PBQ : om. S ‖ [15] βίᾳ] om. PGQ ‖ [17] τὰ ἀνακλώμενα] τὰ ἀνακτώμενα PB(I) (κατ᾽ ἀνακλώμενας dub. prop. Wachsmuth in app.) ‖ κατοπτρικά] κατόπτρα PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_081

5

10

15

liber 3 caput 5

§4

§5

§6

§7

ἔστιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἴριδος πάθος τοιοῦτον. δεῖ γὰρ ἐπινοῆσαι τὴν ὑγρὰν ἀναθυμίασιν εἰς νέφος μεταβάλλουσαν, εἶτ᾽ ἐκ τούτου κατὰ βραχὺ εἰς μικρὰς ῥανίδας νοτιζούσας· ὅταν οὖν ὁ ἥλιος γένηται ἐν δυσμαῖς, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἶριν ἄντικρυς ἡλίου φαίνεσθαι, ὅτε ἡ ὄψις προσπεσοῦσα ταῖς ῥανίσιν ἀνακλᾶται, ὥστε γίνεσθαι τὴν ἶριν. (P4,S4) εἰσὶ δ᾽ αἱ ῥανίδες οὐ σχήματος μορφαί, ἀλλὰ χρώματος· καὶ ἔχει τὸ μὲν πρῶτον φοινικοῦν, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἁλουργὲς καὶ πορφυροῦν, τὸ δὲ τρίτον κυάνεον καὶ πράσινον· μήποτε τὸ μὲν φοινικοῦν, ὅτι ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ ἡλίου προσπεσοῦσα καὶ ἡ ἀκραιφνὴς λαμπηδὼν ἀνακλωμένη ἐρυθρὸν ποιεῖ καὶ φοινικοῦν τὸ χρῶμα· τὸ δὲ δεύτερον μέρος ἐπιθολούμενον καὶ ἐκλυόμενον μᾶλλον τῆς λαμπηδόνος διὰ τὰς ῥανίδας ἁλουργές· ἄνεσις γὰρ τοῦ ἐρυθροῦ τοῦτο. ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπιθολούμενον τὸ διορίζον εἰς τὸ πράσινον μεταβάλλει. (P5,S5) ἔστιν οὖν τοῦτο δοκιμάσαι δι᾽ ἔργων· εἰ γάρ τις ἄντικρυς στὰς τοῦ ἡλίου λάβῃ ὕδωρ καὶ πυτίσῃ, αἱ δὲ ῥανίδες ἀνάκλασιν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον λάβωσιν, εὑρήσει γινομένην ἶριν· καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμιῶντες δὲ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν, ὅταν εἰς τὸν λύχνον ἀποβλέψωσιν. (P6,S6) Ἀναξιμένης ἶριν γίνεσθαι κατ᾽ αὐγασμὸν ἡλίου πρὸς νέφει πυκνῷ καὶ παχεῖ καὶ μέλανι παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὰς ἀκτῖνας εἰς τὸ πέραν διακόπτειν ἐπισυνισταμένας αὐτῷ. (P7)

§§4–6 excerpta anonyma ex Aristotele: §4 cf. Mete. 3.4 373b32–34; §5 cf. Mete. 3.4 374a8– 11, 374b32–375a1; §6 cf. Mete. 3.4 373b2–10, 374a22–24; §7 Anaximenes 13A18 DK §4 [18] πάθος] εἶδος PG ‖ [19] τούτου PGQS : τοῦ PB(I,III) : om. PB(II) ‖ [20] post νοτιζούσας add. entsteht daraus ein Regenbogen Q ‖ ἐν δυσμαῖς PQS : ἐν δυσμῇ PG : εἰς δυσμάς PB ‖ [21] πᾶσα] πᾶσαν PB(II)G ‖ ὅτε ἡ P : τότε γὰρ S ‖ ἡ ὄψις PBS : die Strahlen Q ‖ [22] γίνεσθαι] συμβαίνειν PG §5 [23] μορφαί PGS prob. Diels : μορφή PB prob. Mau (cf. Aber aus diesen Tropfen erscheint etwas, das ihnen nicht ähnlich ist Q) ‖ σχήματος … χρώματος] inv. S, corr. edd. ‖ post χρώματος add. φαίνεται PG ‖ [24] φοινικοῦν P : φοινίκινον S ‖ [25] μήποτε] wenn Q ‖ ante τὸ leg. PB οὖν ‖ φοινικοῦν PG (φοινίκεον PB corr. Diels) : φοινίκειον S ‖ [26] ἡλίου] πυρὸς PG ‖ ἀκραιφνὴς λαμπηδὼν P : inv. S ‖ ἀκραιφνὴς] ἀκραιφανὴς S, corr. edd. : om. PQ ‖ [27] ἐρυθρὸν … φοινικοῦν] klar rot gefärbt Q ‖ [27] δὲ P : om. S ‖ [28] ἐκλυόμενον P : ἐκκαιόμενον S ‖ [29] ἁλουργές PBGS : om. PQ ‖ post ἁλουργές ins. δοκεῖ PG ‖ ἄνεσις … ἐπιθολούμενον lac. in S, suppl. Wachsmuth e P ‖ ἄνεσις … τοῦτο P : om. PGQ ‖ [29] μᾶλλον PB(I,II)Q : πάλιν PB(III) (μᾶλλον ἐπιθολούμενον om. PG) ‖ [30] διορίζον PBS prob. Mau : δροσίζον PG prob. Diels Wachsmuth ‖ εἰς τὸ πράσινον] om. PG §6 [31] οὖν P : δὲ S ‖ δοκιμάσαι P : διορίσαι S ‖ δι᾽ ἔργων P : διεῖργον S corr. edd. ‖ ἄντικρυς … ἡλίου PGQS : ἄντικρυς τῶν ἡλίου ἀκτίνων PΒ ‖ [32] post καὶ add. zwischen beiden Q ‖ πυτίσῃ corr. Diels prob. Wachsmuth Lachenaud (πτύσῃ Heeren) : πιτύσει PB : πυτίσει SP : πυτίσοι SF : πιτύι PG (crucif. Diels) ‖ [33] εὑρήσει γινομένην PΒ : εὑρήσει ἐγγινομένην PG prob. Diels : εὕρη εἰσγινομένην S, corr. Wachsmuth ex P §§7–9 non hab. S §7 [35] ἀυγασμὸν PB : ἀνταυγασμὸν PG ‖ [36–37] διακόπτειν PB(I,II)G : διακόψαι PB(IΙI)

1215

20

25

30

35

1216 §8

§9

liber 3 caput 5

Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνάκλασιν ἀπὸ νέφους πυκνοῦ τῆς ἡλιακῆς περιφεγγείας, καταντικρὺ δὲ τοῦ κατοπτρίζοντος αὐτὴν ἀστέρος διὰ παντὸς ἵστασθαι. παραπλησίως δὲ αἰτιολογεῖται τὰ καλούμενα παρήλια, γινόμενα δὲ κατὰ τὸν Πόντον. (P8) Μητρόδωρος ὅταν διὰ νεφῶν ἥλιος διαλάμψῃ τὸ μὲν νέφος κυανίζειν, τὴν δ᾽ αὐγὴν ἐρυθραίνεσθαι. (P9)

§8 Anaxagoras 59A86 DK; §9 Metrodorus 70A17 DK §8 om. PG ‖ [40] αἰτιολογεῖται PB(I,II) : φυσιολογεῖται PB(IΙI) : sprach er Q : φυσιολογεῖ καὶ prop. Reiske ‖ [41] τὸν PB(I,IΙI) : om. PB(ΙI) §9 [42] post nomen add. δὲ PG ‖ ante ἥλιος add. ὁ PB(ΙI)G

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 78 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἴριδος (text Diels) 78.1 (~ P1) τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν τὰ μὲν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γίγνεται οἷον ὄμβρος χάλαζα, τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν οὐκ ἔχοντα σύστασιν ἰδίαν, 78.2 (~ P3) ὥσπερ ὅταν καμπύλας γραμμὰς ὁρῶμεν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τῶν λίθων τῶν διαυγῶν καὶ κεράτων (λεπτομερῆ γὰρ ταῦτα πάντα) καὶ καμπύλας δὲ γραμμάς, ὥσπερ τὰ καθ᾽ ὕδατος ὁρᾶται· κάμπτεται γὰρ πρὸς τὴν πυκνοτέραν τοῦ ὕδατος ὕλην ἡ ὄψις. διὸ τὴν κώπην ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ ὁρῶμεν κεκλασμένην. 78.3 (~ P4) τρίτος δὲ τρόπος τοῦ βλέπειν τὰ ἀνακλώμενα ὥσπερ τὰ κάτοπτρα. ἔστιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἴριδος εἶδος τοιοῦτον. ⟨δεῖ⟩ γὰρ ἐπινοῆσαι τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν τὴν ὑγρὰν εἰς νέφος μεταβάλλουσαν, εἶτα ἐκ τούτου κατὰ βραχὺ εἰς μικρὰς ῥανίδας δροσιζούσας μετιοῦσαν· ὅταν ὁ ἥλιος γένηται ἐν δυσμῇ (ἀνάγκη γὰρ πᾶσαν ἶριν ἄντικρυς τοῦ ἡλίου γίγνεσθαι), τότε ἡ ὄψις προσπεσοῦσα ταῖς ῥανίσιν ἀνακλᾶται, ὥστε συμβαίνειν τὴν ἶριν. 78.4 (~ P5) εἰσὶ δὲ αἱ ῥανίδες οὐ σχήματος μορφαὶ ἀλλὰ χρώματα φαίνεται. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ἔχει φοινικοῦν, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἁλουργὲς καὶ πορφυρίζον, τὸ δὲ τρίτον κυανοῦν καὶ πράσινον. μήποτε τὸ μὲν φοινικοῦν, ὅταν ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ πυρὸς προσπεσοῦσα ἀνακλᾷ τὸ χρῶμα. τὸ δὲ δεύτερον μέρος ἐπιθολούμενον καὶ ἐκλυόμενον μᾶλλον τῆς λαμπηδόνος διὰ τὰς ῥανίδας ἁλουργὲς δοκεῖ. ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον τὸ δροσίζον μεταβάλλεται. 78.5 (~ P6) ἔστι γὰρ τοῦτο δοκιμάσαι δι᾽ ἔργων· εἰ γάρ τις εἰς τὸ ἀντικρὺ τοῦ ἡλίου λάβῃ ὕδωρ καὶ † πιτύι, αἱ δὲ ῥανίδες ἀνάκλασιν λάβωσι πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, εὑρήσει ἐγγιγνομένην ἶριν. καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμιῶντες δὲ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν, ὡς ὅταν εἰς τὸν λύχνον ἀποβλέψωσιν. 78.6 (~ P7) Ἀναξιμένης δὲ ἶριν γίγνεσθαι νομίζει κατ᾽ ἀνταυγασμὸν ἡλίου πρὸς νέφει πυκνῷ καὶ παχεῖ καὶ μέλανι παρὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τὰς ἀκτῖνας εἰς τὸ πέραν διακόπτειν ἐπισυνισταμένας αὐτῷ. 78.7 (~ P9) Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὅταν διὰ νεφῶν ὁ ἥλιος διαλάμψῃ, τὸ μὲν νέφος κυανίζειν, τὴν δ᾽ αὐγὴν ἐρυθραίνεσθαί φησιν.

40

liber 3 caput 5 Julianus Arianista in Job p. 269.18–270.9 Hagedorn (~ P3–5) κἀκ τούτου ἶριν θαυμαστὴν ἀποστέλλω σοφίᾳ τῇ ἐμῇ ὥσπερ γραμμαῖς τισιν εὐθείαις λόγῳ θεωρηταῖς καὶ νῷ περιληπταῖς. ἡ γὰρ ὑγρὰ οὐσία εἰς νέφος μεταβαλλομένη ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ βραχὺ εἰς μικρὰς ῥανίδας νοτίζεται· ἐπὰν δὲ ὁ ἥλιος γένηται ἐν δυσμαῖς, εὐθὺς ἡ ἁψὶς αὐτῆς κυρτοῦται εἰς κάλλος ἀμήχανον. ἡ γὰρ ὄψις προσπεσοῦσα ταῖς ῥανίσιν ἀνακλᾶται, καὶ γίνεται ⟨τὸ⟩ τόξον. αἱ δὲ ῥανίδες οὐ σχήματος μορφὴ ἀλλὰ χρώματος, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον φοινικοῦν, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἁλουργές, καὶ τὸ τρίτον κυανοῦν καὶ πράσινον. τὸ φοινικοῦν γὰρ ὑπὸ τῆς λαμπρότητος τοῦ ἡλίου καταυγασθὲν ἀκραιφνῶς τῇ ἀνακλάσει ἐρυθραίνεται, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον ἐπιθολούμενον καὶ ἐκλυόμενον μᾶλλον τῆς λαμπηδόνος διὰ τὰς ῥανίδας ἁλουργὲς γίνεται (ἄνεσις γὰρ τοῦ ἐρυθροῦ ⟨τοῦτο⟩), ἔτι δὲ μᾶλλον ἐπιθολούμενον τὸ διορίζον εἰς τὸ πράσινον μεταβάλλει. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 142 Περὶ ἴριδος (~ tit.) 142.2–5 ἡ ἴρις … τῇ φύσει μὲν ἀνυπόστατον ἐστίν, ἔμφασις δέ ἐστι καὶ φάντασμα τῆς ὁρώσης ὄψεως, ἀκτίνων ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν προσπιπτουσῶν, εἶτα δὴ ἀνακλωμένων (~ P3). 142.11–12 ἔστι δὲ πᾶσα ἴρις τρίχροος· ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐντὸς αὐτῆς ζώνη φοινικῆ, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα πράσινος, ἡ δὲ τρίτη ἁλουργὸς καὶ οἷον ὑποπόρφυρος (~ P5). Phil.Min. 1 op. 23 Περὶ ἅλω (i.q. tit. 3.5a). καὶ ἴριδος (~ tit.) ῥάβδων τε καὶ παρηλίων (i.q. tit. 3.6). Symeon Seth CRN 2.25 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἴριδος 2.25 ἡ λεγομένη ἴρις ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλ᾽ ἔμφασίς τίς ἐστι. τοῦ γὰρ νέφους μικρὰς ῥανίδας ἔχοντος καὶ ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένου τῷ ἡλίῳ, ἀνακλᾶται ἡ ἡμετέρα ὄψις πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον καὶ δοκεῖ τι κύκλου τμῆμα ἐν τῷ νέφει εἶναι (~ P3–4). Testes secundi: quaestio Achilles Univ. c. 24, p. 51.17–18 ὁπότε δὲ ἰκματῶδες φῶς ὁρᾶται, καλεῖται ἶρις (~ §1). §3 Nemesius NH c. 7, p. 59.18–19 ὁρᾷ δὲ ἡ ὄψις κατ᾽ εὐθείας γραμμάς (~ §3). NH c. 7, p. 62.14–15 καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὴν κώπην ὡς κεκλασμένην ὁρᾷ (~ §3). §4 Scholia in Aratum schol. 940, pp. 455.16–456.6 Martin ἄλλως· Ἀριστοτέλης (Mete. 3.4) κατοπτρικὴν ἐποιήσατο ἔμφασιν. πέφυκε γὰρ {τοῦτο} ᾄσσειν τὴν ὄψιν προσπίπτουσαν τοῖς λείοις σώμασιν ἀνακλωμένην καὶ κατακλωμένην. τοιοῦτον δὲ εἶναι τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ. ἐπὰν τοίνυν ἄντικρυς τοῦ ἡλίου νέφος συστῇ {συνεστὼς} κατὰ ῥανίδα, ἐγγίνεσθαι τὴν ὄψιν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ῥανίδα, καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἀνάκλασιν ἴσχειν, δόξαν δ᾽ ἐμποιεῖν τοῦ συνεχεῖς εἶναι τὰς ἐμφάσεις καὶ {τὸ} πόσην ἐχούσας διάστασιν, διὰ τὸ ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους διάστημα (~ §4). §6 Scholia in Aratum schol. 829, p. 412.4–14 Martin ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμικῶν, ὅτε συμβαίνει κοιλαίνεσθαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, δηλονότι ἐξασθενήσαντος τοῦ

1217

1218

liber 3 caput 5

σώματος [prob. Maas, πώματος ms. M prob. Martin]. ἢ ὥσπερ ὅταν βλέφαρον καταγαγόντες ἢ περιθλίψαντες τῷ λύχνῳ τὴν ὄψιν προσβάλλωμεν, οὐ φαίνεται συνεχὲς τὸ φῶς, ἀλλὰ πλάγιαι καὶ σποράδες αἱ αὐγαί, οὕτως, ὅταν ἀχλὺς ἢ νέφωσις ἀνώμαλος πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου στᾶσα περιθλίψῃ καὶ σείσῃ τὸν τῆς ὄψεως κῶνον εἰς λεπτὰς ἀκτῖνας καὶ ῥαβδοειδεῖς, ὃ πάσχομεν αὐτοὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει, τοῦτο περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι δοκοῦμεν. οὕτω Πλούταρχος (fr. 15 Sandbach) (~ §4). §7 al. Scholia in Aratum schol. 940, p. 455.1–9 Martin ἄλλως· τὴν ἶριν Ἀναξιμένης (13A18 DK) φησὶ γίνεσθαι ἡνίκα ἂν ἐμπέσωσιν αἱ τοῦ ἡλίου αὐγαὶ εἰς παχὺν καὶ πυκνὸν τὸν ἀέρα. ὅθεν τὸ μὲν πρότερον αὐτῆς {τοῦ ἡλίου secl. Martin, non prob. Laks–Most} φοινικοῦν φαίνεται διακαιόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκτίνων ⟨τοῦ ἡλίου supplevimus⟩, τὸ δὲ μέλαν κατακρατούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς ὑγρότητος. καὶ νυκτὸς δέ φησι γίνεσθαι τὴν ἶριν ἀπὸ τῆς σελήνης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πολλάκις, διὰ τὸ μὴ πανσέληνον εἶναι διὰ παντός, καὶ ἀσθενέστερον αὐτὴν φῶς ἔχειν τοῦ ἡλίου (~ §7). §9 al. Scholia in Aratum schol. 940, p. 455.10–15 Martin ἄλλως· Μητρόδωρος (70A17 DK) τὴν ἶριν αἰτιολογῶν φησιν, ὅταν ἐξ ἐναντίας τῷ ἡλίῳ ἐνσταθῇ νέφος πεπυκνωμένον, τηνικαῦτα ἐμπιπτούσης τῆς αὐγῆς, τὸ μὲν νέφος φαίνεσθαι κυανοῦν διὰ τὴν κρᾶσιν, τὸ δὲ περιφαινόμενον τῇ αὐγῇ φοινικοῦν, τὸ δὲ ὂν κάτω λευκόν. τοῦτο εἶναι ἔθεσαν ἡλιακὸν φέγγος (~ §9). Loci Aetiani: §1 A 3.4.4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν. A 3.6.1 τὰ κατὰ τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἀνθηλίους συμβαίνοντα μίξει τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως ὑπάρχει, τῶν μὲν νεφῶν ὁρωμένων, οὐ κατ᾽ οἰκεῖον δὲ χρῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν φαίνεται. A 3.8.2 περιγεγραμμένων δέ μοι τῶν μεταρσίων, ἐφοδευθήσεται καὶ τὰ πρόσγεια. §3 A 4.20.1 ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῆς καμπτομένης ῥάβδου ἡ μὲν ἐπιφάνεια οὐδὲν πάσχει ἡ δ᾽ ὕλη ἐστὶν ἡ καμπτομένη. §7 A 3.6.1 τὰ κατὰ τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἀνθηλίους.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, variously represented by PB, PG, PG and PPs, and S. The first part of the chapter consists of six lemmata presented by P and S and in the same order. PG, as usual, leaves out several lemmata (this time two), while Q omits one lemma, viz. §2 with its references to myth and its poetic quotation. One suspects that he found this doxa a bit awkward for religious reasons (he was a Syrian Christian). The chapter of S treating of the rainbow etc. (1.30) in which he cites the present chapter comes before the chapter (1.31) in which he cites A ch. 3.4, so he has inverted the order of the Aëtian chapters. And his text, which

liber 3 caput 5

1219

misses the final three lemmata, is (exceptionally) not so good in the part that has been preserved. The Byzantine excerptors of S are probably responsible for the loss of these lemmata ad finem, because it is hard to believe that S would not have been interested in the three Presocratic doxai that are cited, and there was nothing to replace them by. T, as we know, had no use for Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The rich proximate tradition is represented mainly by Seneca (the substantial account Nat. 1.3–9 (= Book 7 in the original order)), ps.Aristotle De mundo, Arius Didymus, the Scholia in Aratum, Calcidius and the Epitomai of the Aristotelian Meteorology mentioned below. Lucretius is surprisingly brief. The Aristotelian abstract at Seneca Nat. 1.3.8, only partly reproduced below section E(a)§3, is somewhat better than the one in our present chapter. The Metarsiology of Theophrastus(?) lacks a chapter on the rainbow (just as is the case for the Milky Way, see above ad ch. 3.1 Commentary B, and also for meteors and comets, see above ad 3.2 Commentary B). (2) Sources. For §§1–6 we may think of a treatise (or part of a larger work) ‘On the Rainbow’, with a carefully written introduction (represented by §§1–3) that is both systematic and not without literary pretensions with its references to Plato, Homer, and an unknown mythographer. §3 is a digest of contemporary optical theory that provides an update of the optics of Aristotle in Mete. Book 3 (on §3 see further section D(d) below). §§4–6 ultimately derive from Aristotle’s Meteorology, as e.g. already Ideler and Diels, and now Daiber (commenting on Q), have pointed out. But the name-label ‘Aristotle’ is conspicuously absent. Ideler (1834) 1.268 writes: ‘Excerpta ex capitibus II–V [sc. of Mete. Book 3] reperiuntur apud Stobaeum Eclog. I, 31 [= c. 1.30 Wachsmuth] …, nullo tamen in iis exscribendis a scriptore certo ordine observato.’ Daiber (1980) 423 refers to Mete. 3.4 373a32–375b15. Diels DG 60–61 (cf. ibid. 178) thought of an intermediate source: ‘suspicor Aëtio hic praesto fuisse quoddam de meteoris enchiridion, quod in opinionibus minus quam in rebus ipsis explicandis versabatur’. Such a source, though not entirely the sort Diels had in mind, has since become available; see below section D(e). There is no precedent in Aristotle’s Meteorology for the final three lemmata. For the proximate tradition to these lemmata in Lucretius and others see Ernout–Robin (1928) 3.267–269. C Chapter Heading Of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). The contents of the chapter shows that under it fall the

1220

liber 3 caput 5

question types/categories of substance, quality, and the question type of cause ((διᾶ τί), as well as the sub-question unde. §3 begins with a formula closely resembling a certain type of chapter heading, viz. πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις, but the οὖν shows it is not a heading (or is so no longer). Even so, the contents of this paragraph are analogous to those of a chapter beginning with Πῶς or having πῶς a little later. We are dealing with a problem and its solution (cf. ζητεῖται πῶς, a formula already used by Aristotle). We may compare Placita headings beginning with πῶς γίνεται (or γίνονται), as for instance at chs. 2.19 and 4.11, and quite often in Book 5. See further above, ch. 1.4 at Commentary C. D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s order in general see above, Introduction to Book 3, section 2. The chapter on the rainbow, number five of the nine chapters dedicated to atmospherical phenomena, follows upon ch. 3.4 on clouds etc. and comes before ch. 3.6 on rods. But in Aristotle’s Meteorology the rainbow is treated quite far away from the clouds etc., namely at Mete. 3.4–5, after the halo Mete. 3.2–3. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.110 discusses the halo after the rainbow. b Number–Order of Lemmata We have numbered the lemmata of this long chapter for the sake of convenience (Diels divided the text into twelve parts). According to this numbering P has nine lemmata—that is, PB alone, because not only G, but Q, too, lacks §2. S, lacking the final three items, has six lemmata. In both sources the lemmata order is the same, and like Diels we have of course seen no reason to change it. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The chapter on the rainbow consists of two main parts. The long first part (§§1–6) is a mini-treatise on the rainbow without a name-label for the doxa it contains, the second a block of three doxai with name-labels after the usual fashion of the Placita. Diels already pointed this out, DG 60: ‘genuina sunt … [3]5.10–12 [our §§7–9]. plane diversae farinae est eiusdem capitis initium [sc. our §§1–6]. neque enim placitorum est enarratio, sed ipsius doctrinae, cui Platonis Homerique nomina dumtaxat decoris causa interponuntur. … accersita est prior de iride disputatio et ex alieno conexu divulsa, limpidus autem Placitorum fons in extremis paragraphis adgnoscitur’. As to the doxai there is a clear diaphonia between the (Aristotelian) section at §§4–5, according to which the rainbow is the result of the reflection

liber 3 caput 5

1221

of the visual rays from the droplets of the cloud to the sun, and §§7–8, namelabels Anaximenes and Anaxagoras (both belonging to the Ionian succession and mentioned in chronological order), according to which it is on the contrary the light of the sun that is reflected towards our eyes via a cloud. The doxa of Metrodorus, §9, is not clear about this opposition, so fails to fit the diaeresis and therefore is aptly located in the ultimate position. This diaphonia is in favour of accepting the pseudonymous doxa as belonging with the original chapter structure (or replacing an original more compact set of doxai). At the beginning of his chapter on the rainbow, Mete. 3.4 373a32–34, Aristotle states that it has been established that the rainbow is a reflection (category of substance, or rather quasi-substance), but that what sort of reflection it is (question-type of quality), and how and because of what (question-type of cause) it comes to be still has to be determined. These categorical and causal approaches to the issue are also well represented in our present chapter. d

Further Comments General Points An important contrast in Book 3 is between phenomena that are real (καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν), and those that are merely optical (κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν), or rather optical illusions, as the comparison with the land that seems to move when we are sailing past it shows (πλεόντων ἡμῶν ἡ ἤπειρος κινεῖσθαι δοκεῖ). See also above, Introduction to Book 3, section 2. It is the only piece of general introductory material that is found in both P and S, or rather that is copied out by S, who omitted all other introductory material. In A this contrast is made explicit only here, at the beginning of ch. 3.5. This postponement of the stipulation of this preliminary consideration (which puzzled Diels) faithfully reproduces the procedure of Aristotle’s Meteorology, where it is made a thematic issue as late as and only in Book 3, which treats the rainbow and similar phenomena in chs. 3.2–6. In A it is already present at the beginning of chs. 3.1 and 3.2, just as in the dialectical passages in the Meteorology that correspond to these lemmata, as well as in other lemmata. See further M–R 2.1.43–46. Apart from these dialectical passages there are only a few incidental remarks dealing with this contrast in Mete. Book 1 (not discussed in Mansfeld 2005a). See Mete. 1.5 342b5–15, in the discussion of the aurora borealis: the phenomena may be appearances of burning substances, but the air by reflection (ἀνάκλασις) may produce various colours too, since (as with the rainbow in Book 3) not shape but only colour is rendered. It will do so only briefly, because the composition (σύστασις, sc. of the condensed air) lasts only briefly—thus a blend of σύστασις and ἀνάκλασις, as of ὑπόστασις and ἔμφασις at ch. 3.6. At Mete. 1.7

1222

liber 3 caput 5

344b1–18 Aristotle argues that the tail of the comet is a kind of stellar halo, though its colour is real and not, like that of the sun’s halo, due to reflection (ἀνάκλασις). Against Hippocrates and Aeschylus he then argues that the comet cannot be a reflection (ἀνάκλασις), and certainly not one towards the sun (ἀνάκλασις), cf. Strohm (1984) 146. But ‘the cause of the halo will be treated later’. For the phenomena of reflection (reflection, echo, rainbow) as a separate set see APo. 2.15 98a24–29, cited below section E(b) General texts. Wilson (2013) 236–238, admitting that in view of the description of the meteorological phenomena, proceeding from the sphere below the heavenly bodies to what is underneath the surface of the earth, the reflections could very well have been discussed somewhere before, argues that Aristotle postpones their treatment to Book 3 ‘almost certainly … for architectonic and etiological reasons’. He compares the position of special and valuable themes reserved for the final books of Physics (First Mover) and Nicomachean Ethics (contemplative life). In the Meteorologica this role would have been given to the mathematical explanations of the reflections. Though this interesting motif may have played a part, we believe that the distinction between phenomena that are real, or have some sort of real subsistence however temporary this turns out to be, and those that are a matter of optical illusion, is more important. This aspect has been argued in a paper overlooked by Wilson, namely Mansfeld (2005a), repr. in M–R 3.476–514. Wilson argues that the method of dichotomous division is not applied in the Meteorologica, but this does not entail that we cannot have polar oppositions, or one or more divisions that begin as dichotomous ones and go on in a non-dichotomous way (as instanced in quite a few Placita chapters). As a matter of fact, another dichotomous divison, or polar opposition, is found at the beginning of the concluding passage (assuming this is authentic and not a later fabrication introducing Book 4) of Mete. 3.6 378a12–16, where the effects of the exhalations above the earth’s surface (namely both the real and the optical phenomena treated so far) are contrasted with those enclosed in the earth, the latter very briefly mentioned in what follows. John Philoponus in Mete. 1.24–2.7 is very clear about this bipartite deep structure of the Meteorology. Providing a list of meteorological phenomena from rains to thunderbolts, he tells us that these ‘have existence and are really what they appear to be’ (ὕπαρξιν ἔχει καὶ ἔστιν ἀληθῶς οἷά περ φαίνεται), while others have ‘only appearance and (generate) optical illusion, as they are not as to existence what they appear to be (μόνην ἔμφασιν ἔχει καὶ ὄψεων ἀπάτην οὐκ ὄντα καθ᾽ ὕπαρξιν οἷα φαίνεται), such as rainbow and halo and rods and mock suns and the like’. The didactic nature and structure of the mini-treatise on the rainbow of ch. 3.5.1–6 are clearly brought out by the formulas at the end of §1 and the beginning of §3, §4 and §6. At §1[4] ἔστιν οὖν κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν ἡ ἶρις, the scientific

liber 3 caput 5

1223

treatment of subject is announced. At §3[10] πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις; the problem is formulated, while §4[18] ἔστιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἴριδος πάθος τοιοῦτον its solution is introduced. At §6[31]ff. ἔστιν οὖν τοῦτο δοκιμάσαι δι᾽ ἔργων, this solution is verified by a homely experiment that was already known to Aristotle (and presumably to most of us). The link between the formulas πῶς οὖν, introducing a problem, and ἔστιν οὖν, introducing a solution, can be paralleled from technical literature: see e.g. Herodian Περὶ παθῶν, Gr.Gr. 3.2, p. 329.13–17 Lenz, πῶς οὖν κτλ.—ἔστιν οὖν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι κτλ., and Scholia vetera in Iliadem Ε 576, Vol. 2 p. 81 Erbse, πῶς οὖν τῷ υἱῷ ἕπεται κτλ.—ἔστιν οὖν ὁμωνυμία κτλ. The question πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις; is also answered by ἶριν γίνεσθαι spelled out in §7 and implied in §§8–9. Individual Points §2 ‘Regarding the rainbow, all that the doxographers could find in Plato was that Iris is the daughter of Thaumas (would Plato not have been amused to see the mild joke of the Theaetetus solemnly booked among his ‘physical opinions’?)’. Thus Solmsen (1960) 416. True enough, but one should also take into account the quotation of Homer and the anonymous mythographer adverted to at section B above. §3 Straight, bent, and reflected lines (γραμμὰς εὐθείας, καμπύλας, and ἀνακλωμένας) correspond to the tripartition of optics into respectively general optics (direct vision), dioptrics (refraction, as of the stick seemingly broken in water), and catoptrics (reflection, i.e. vision via mirrors as explained in §4 of the present chapter). The lines are theoretical and incorporeal, which means that they are the mathematical lines of theoretical optics. The assumption is that the visual rays can be imagined to move along such lines. So the present terse summary gives an outline of contemporary theoretical optics. As to optics and catoptrics it is rather precisely paralleled several centuries later in Calcidius’ account and explanation, at in Tim. c. 238 and c. 242, of what (he says) the geometers and Peripatetics respectively call phasis (direct vision—the Greek term is unparalleled in this sense, but Ptolemy used φάσις for the apparition of a heavenly body), emphasis (reflection) and paraphasis (not refraction but vision via a dark or muddled medium—the Greek term is unparalleled in this sense). Damianus (cited by Waszink on Calcidius ad loc.) uses the equally rare terms ἰθυφάνεια (‘direct vision’), ἀντιφάνεια (‘reflection’—but he also uses the standard term ἀνάκλασις), and διάκλασις/διαφάνεια (‘refraction’). Geminus’ account of mathematics cited by Proclus in Eucl. 40.8–22 describes optics, catoptrics and ‘scenography’ as related disciplines. Ptolemy’s and the great Arabic scientist ibn al-Haytham’s (Alhacen’s) Optics deal with, successively, optics (direct vision), catoptrics (reflection), and dioptrics (refracted vision). Ptolemy’s

1224

liber 3 caput 5

Optics is too late for A (note that §§3–4 are found in both P and S), so for the Placita a predecessor of Ptolemy would be relevant, e.g. Euclid, the author of both an Ὀπτικά and a Κατοπτρικά. Heron may also be involved, presumably indirectly; he is the author of a Περὶ διόπτρας and cited as that of a Κατοπτρικά (at Damian. Opt. 14.5–6, but identification of ps.Ptolemy De speculis as a Latin translation of this work is no longer accepted by Jones 2001, 149–151). We can also think of Geminus on mathematics as cited by Proclus (see above). One cannot, however, exclude that Ptolemy’s Optics has in some way left its mark on Calcidius’ presentation. (Ps.Ptolemy’s De speculis did leave its mark, for Calcidius’ account of paraphasis is paralleled at Spec. [5].8–12 Jones, as Waszink points out ad loc.). We have not found (but may have missed) a discussion of the Aëtian and Calcidian evidence in the learned literature concerned with the history of (ancient) optics, which is why we deal with this issue here at some length. §§4–6 Aristotle’s use of the (mathematical) visual ray in Meteorology Book 3 contradicts his theory of visual perception in the De anima and De sensu, esp. ch. 2, where the visual ray is strongly criticized, as was already seen by the ancient commentators, e.g. Alexander in Mete. 141.3–142.20. See also Top. 1.14 105b6–11 (cited below, section E(b) General texts), where on the other hand the view that visual perception is a matter of intromission is cited as being close to an endoxon or reputable opinion. Intromission is also rejected at de An. 2.10 422a14–15 and Sens. 3. 440a15–17. That ‘seeing’ means ‘emitting rays’ is also presupposed in Aristotle’s mathematical account at Mete. 1.8 345a25–31 of the explanation of the Milky Way by Anaxagoras (59A80 DK) and Democritus (68A91 DK): ‘they say that the Milky Way is the light of certain stars, for the sun, when moving underneath the earth, does not see some of the stars’ (φῶς εἶναι τὸ γάλα λέγουσιν ἄστρων τινῶν· τὸν γὰρ ἥλιον ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν φερόμενον οὐχ ὁρᾶν ἔνια τῶν ἄστρων κτλ.). This use of ὁρᾶν and περιορᾶται, unique for the genuine Aristotle— Bonitz 520b17–20 cites parallels from two chapters in the Problemata for ‘ὁ ἥλιος ὁρᾶν dicitur eos locos quos collustrat’—echoes the idiom found in poetry, e.g. Od. 11.16 Ἠέλιος φαέθων καταδέρκεται ἀκτίνεσσιν; see further at ch. 4.13 below, Commentary D(c) ad init. Perhaps Aristotle quotes something actually said by Anaxagoras or even Democritus. For this issue in general cf. again ch. 4.13 below, Commentary D(c). This inconsistency is sharply criticized by Galen, PHP 7.7.10–15. Alexander sticks to the rival doctrine of the De anima, see in Mete. 141.3–12 (Greek text quoted at section E(b)§§4–6): ‘he does not agree with the doxa that tells us that we see by means of the effusion of rays, as the followers of the mathematicians say, an implication of which doxa is the doxa that tells us that we see all that is seen through an appearance in mirrors by a reflection of these very rays.

liber 3 caput 5

1225

… That this is impossible has been demonstrated in (our) On How we See, and Aristotle himself refers to these matters in his On the Soul’. But in the De anima Aristotle mentions visual reflection only once. He does so in the context of his preference for the stimulation of sight by the unified intermediate air (affected by the shape or colour of an object via a smooth surface), over against the idea that sight proceeds from the eye; see de An. 3.12 435a5–8. ‘Although this passage speaks of reflection, it is not an explanation of reflection but rather of all vision through a medium’ (Jones 1994, 58 n. 18). The noun ἀνάκλασις as well as the verb ἀνακλᾶσθαι do occur here, and ἀνάκλασις is also mentioned in the account of sound, de An. 2.8 419b15–18. The word also occurs three times in Aristotle De sensu, namely 2 437b10, 438a8–10, but not as an ingredient of a workedout theory. Merker (2002) 195 points out that in the Meteorology Aristotle does not provide a theory of visual perception, but ‘utilise la vision pour expliquer un phénomène météorologique’. We may add that Aristotle elsewhere (GA 5.1 781a3–8, cited below, ch. 4.13 section E(b) General texts) says that it does not matter (!) whether one explains vision by means of extramission or intromission. Galen PHP 7.7.11–12 (cited below section E(b) General texts), referring to what must be this passage, is scandalized by this cavalier attitude. On the other hand, the Vita Marciana 38–39 attributes to Aristotle the addition to physics of the extramission theory, and of the visual cone. See also below at ch. 4.13 Commentary D(d) individual points, §9. The passage at APo 2.13 79a10–14, cited below section E(b) General texts, may perhaps be interpreted in the sense that the rainbow is to be explained optically in general terms on the one hand, namely as an optical and not a substantial phenomenon, and in strictly mathematical terms (κατὰ τὸ μάθημα, which implies the use of the visual ray in a diagram) on the other. Mansfeld (2005a) 24–25, points out that the contradiction between the Meteorology and the psychological treatises noticed by the Aristotelian commentators is not an issue in the Placita and related literature. He also argues, ibid. 50, that the name-label Aristotle is absent in the present chapter because the author of the Placita may (exceptionally) have believed this explanation of the rainbow to be correct. But the reason may also be that there is no good reason. The (Aristotelian) doxa is after all in a state of diaphonia with two of the Presocratic doctrines cited ad fin., so can hardly be assumed to be correct. There is also the further question of the real or possible interpolations in Aristotle’s mathematical proofs concerned with the rainbow at Mete. 3.5, see Vitrac (2002) and Wilson (2013) 251–270, with references to earlier discussions (among which the pioneering article by Tannery 1886), but this is not relevant in our context. For the problems (which we do not have to solve here)

1226

liber 3 caput 5

concerned with the references in various pragmateiai to optical rays and the transparent medium see further e.g. Hahm (1978) 63 and Jones (1994) 56–64. Aristotle’s standard view of the transparent intermediate medium is cited in A’s chapter ‘On vision’ at 4.13.9, but there is no reference to his views in ch. 4.14, ‘On mirror images’. §4 Catoptrics is perhaps mentioned not second but last because seeing a rainbow is explained more aristotelico by referring to the reflection of the visual rays. But note that the same order is found at ps.Ptolemy Spec. [2].1–5 Jones, cited section E(b)§3. For ‘scenography’ see below, ch. 4.13 at Commentary B. §5 The query πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις is not followed by a formal ἡ δ᾽ ἶρις οὑτωσὶ ἀποτελεῖται (for such a formula cf. 3.5a(olim 18).1) but immediately by the solution. Daiber (1980) 423–424 points out that the Aristotelian order of the colours of the rainbow (1. φοινικοῦν 2. πράσινον 3. ἁλουργές 4. πορφυροῦν) has been modified to 1. φοινικοῦν 2. ἁλουργὲς and πορφυροῦν 3. κυάνεον καὶ πράσινον. He also adverts to the fact that they fade as the clouds become moister, which is not paralleled in Aristotle. §8 It is an interesting coincidence, and perhaps more than a coincidence, that the line of the Iliad (17.547), a scholion on which preserves the Anaxagoras fragment cited on this paragraph in section E(b) below, is also cited at the beginning of the present chapter in §2. Also note that an explanation of mock suns is included, the only reference to this phenomenon in the present chapter. In Aristotle’s Meteorology παρήλιοι are treated in Book 3, along with rainbows and halos, etc. See e.g. the announcement at 3.2 371b18–19. e Other Evidence A late Epitome of Aristotle’s Meteorology, comparable to the source postulated by Diels for the Aristotelian section of our chapter, has since come to light and been translated from the Arabic (itself a translation of a lost Greek original) by Daiber (1975). The longer version of this work has been made accessible in its Arabic translation by ibn al-Bitriq and the Latin translation of this text by Gerardus of Cremona by Schoonheim (2000), but there is as yet no translation into a modern language. Much information on these works through comparison with Aristotle himself and the commentators is provided by Lettinck (1999). Seneca may well have availed himself of a similar Epitome.

liber 3 caput 5

E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Propertius 3.5.25–32 tum mihi naturae libeat perdiscere mores / … / purpureus pluvias cur bibit arcus aquas. Seneca Nat. 1.15.6–7 de his (sc. comets, lightning etc.) nemo dubitat quin habeant flammam quam ostendunt: certa illis substantia est. … (7) nobis non placet in arcu aut corona subesse aliquid corporis certi, sed illam iudicamus speculi esse fallaciam alienum corpus nihil amplius quam mentientis. Pliny Nat. 2.150 arcus vocamus extra miraculum frequentes et extra ostentum. … manifestum est radium solis inmissum cavae nubi repulsa acie in solem refringi, colorumque varietatem mixtura nubium, ignium, aëris fieri. certe nisi sole adverso non fiunt nec umquam nisi dimidia circuli forma nec noctu, quamvis Aristoteles prodat aliquando visum, quod tamen fatetur idem non nisi xxx luna posse fieri. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30, p. 240.13–17 Ἀριστοτέλους. ἅλω δὲ καὶ ἴριδας καὶ παρήλιον καὶ ῥάβδους καὶ τἄλλα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἐμφάσεις ὑπὸ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς αἰτίας γίνεσθαι (πάντα γὰρ εἶναι ταῦτα τῆς ὄψεως ἀνάκλασιν), διαφέρειν δὲ τοῖς τόποις καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ὡς ἔχει συμβαίνειν τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395a28–35 (Posidonius fr. 339 Theiler) συλλήβδην δὲ τῶν ἐν ἀέρι φαντασμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν—κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν μὲν ἴριδες καὶ ῥάβδοι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν δὲ σέλα τε καὶ διᾴττοντες καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ τούτοις παραπλήσια. Ammianus Marcellinus 20.11.26 accedebant arcus caelestes conspectus assidui. quae species unde ita figurari est solita, expositio brevis ostendet. halitus terrae calidiores et umoris spiramina conglobata in nubes exindeque disiecta in aspergines parvas ac radiorum fusione splendida facta supinantur volubiliter contra ipsum igneum orbem irimque conformant, ideo spatioso curuamine sinuosam, quod in nostro panditur mundo, quem sphaerae dimidiae parti rationes physicae superponunt. 20.11.30 suppetunt aliae multae opiniones et variae (sc. de iride), quas dinumerare nunc est superuacuum narratione redire, unde digressa est, festinante. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 6.526 de arquo. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.53 arcus caelistis. Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 31 De arcu (heading also in the body of the work). Etym. 13.8 De arcu et nubium effectibus (heading also in the body of the work, 13.10) Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν (sc. the Stoics) … ζητοῦσι … ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια, exerpted at Suda s.v. Φ 862, pp. 4.775.28–29 + 4.776.3 Adler φυσικὸς λόγος παρὰ φιλοσόφοις … περὶ νεφῶν, βροντῶν, ἴριδος. Psellus Philos.Min. 1 op. 23 Περὶ ἅλω καὶ ἴριδος ῥάβδων τε καὶ παρηλίων. §1 definition: Cicero Luc. 81 vides ne navem illam: stare nobis videtur; at iis qui in nave sunt moveri haec villa. Div. 2.120 nam et navigantibus moveri videntur ea, quae stant. Div. 2.130 navigantibus moveri videntur ea, quae stant. Lucretius DRN 4.387–390 qua vehimur navi, fertur, cum stare videtur; / quae manet in statione, ea praeter creditur ire. / et fugere ad puppim colles campique videntur / quos agimus praeter navem velisque volamus. Seneca Nat. 1.6.4 non

1227

1228

liber 3 caput 5

est ergo propria in ista nube substantia, nec corpus est, sed mendacium et sine re similitudo. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.414 τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ … ὑποπίπτει … ἐπὶ κινήσεως κινούμενον καὶ ἠρεμοῦν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν νηὶ καθεζομένων ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν αἰγιαλοῖς ἑστώτων. Servius auctus in Aen. 3.72, pp. 374–375 Thilo ‘terraeque urbesque recedunt’: physicam rem dixit: ita enim navigantibus videtur, quasi ab his terra discedat. §3 modes of vision: Lucretius DRN 4.438–442 nam quaecumque supra rorem salis edita pars est / remorum, recta est, et recta superne guberna; / quae demersa liquore obeunt, refracta videntur / omnia converti sursumque supina reverti / et reflexa prope in summo fluitare liquore. Cicero Luc. 19 and 79. Vitruvius 6.2.2 in navibus remi, cum sint sub aqua directi, tamen oculis infracti videntur; et quatenus eorum partes tangunt summam planitiem liquoris, apparent, uti sunt, directi, cum vero sub aqua sunt demissi, per naturae perlucidam raritatem remittunt enatantes ab suis corporibus fluentes imagines ad summam aquae planitiem, atque eae ibi commotae efficere videntur infractum remorum oculis aspectum. Seneca Nat. 1.3.9 remus tenui aqua tegitur, et fracti speciem reddit. Nat. 1.4.1 (Posidonius fr. 323 Theiler) rationes quae non persuadent sed cogunt a geometris adferuntur. Nat. 1.4.3 Parianus Artemidorus adicit etiam quale genus nubis esse debeat quod talem soli imaginem reddαt: ‘si speculum’ inquit ‘concavum feceris quod sit sectae pilae pars, si extra medium constiteris, quicumque iuxta te steterint inversi tibi videbuntur et propiores a te quam a speculo’. Calcidius in Tim. cc. 239 + 242 idem (sc. geometrae cum Peripateticis concinentes) aiunt videre nos vel tuitione, quam phasin (sc. φάσιν) vocant, vel intuitione, quam emphasin (sc. ἔμφασιν) appellant, vel detuitione, quam paraphasin (sc. παράφασιν) nominant. tuitione quidem, ut quae simpliciter et prompte videntur quaeque clementer visum recipientia minime eum a se repellunt, ut flexus quin immo fractus rursum ad oculos redeat. intuitione vero, ut quae fragmento radii recurrente ad oculorum aciem videntur, qualia sunt quae in speculis et aqua considerantur, ceteris item, quorum tersa est quidem superficies, sed ob nimiam densitatem idoneus vigor ad repellendum quod offenderit. … (242) quae autem paraphasis ab his appellatur, provenit quotiens non in cute speculi, sed introrsum et tamquam in penetralibus simulacrum invenitur obumbrante aliqua nigredine, ut in pellucidi quidem sed fusci vitri lamina vel stagnis atris ex alto profundo; tunc quippe visus ingreditur non adeo densam cutem et videt interiora, sed non adeo clare. Seneca Nat. 1.3.8–9 longe autem magis visum nobis nostrum remittit aqua, quia crassior est et pervinci non potest; radios luminum nostrorum moratur et eo unde exierunt reflectit. … (9) remus tenui aqua tegitur, et fracti speciem reddit. Tertullian de An. c. 17.2 mendacium visui obicitur, quod remos in aqua inflexos vel infractos adseverat adversus conscientiam integritatis. + c. 17.6 ut in aqua remus inflexus vel infractus appareat, aqua in causa est; denique extra aquam integer visui remus. teneritas autem substantiae illius, qua speculum ex lumine efficitur, prout icta seu mota est, ita et imaginem vibrans evertit lineam recti. Sextus Empiricus M. 7.414 τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ … ὑποπίπτει … εὐθύ τε καὶ κεκλασμένον ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξάλου τε καὶ ἐνάλου κώπης.

liber 3 caput 5 §4 Aristotle: Seneca Nat. 1.3.11 illud dubium esse nulli potest, quin arcus imago solis sit roscida et cava nube concepta. quod ex hoc tibi appareat: numquam non adversa soli est. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395a32–35 (Posidonius fr. 339 Theiler) ἶρις μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἔμφασις ἡλίου τμήματος ἢ σελήνης, ἐν νέφει νοτερῷ καὶ κοίλῳ καὶ συνεχεῖ πρὸς φαντασίαν, ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ, θεωρουμένη κατὰ κύκλου περιφέρειαν. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, p. 241.6–9 (on Aristotle) ἶριν δὲ περὶ μόνον ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην συνίστασθαι, γίνεσθαι δὲ καὶ νύκτωρ, ὀλιγάκις δὲ καὶ πάνυ διὰ πολλοῦ. κύκλον δὲ μηδέποτε φαίνεσθαι τῆς ἴριδος μηδὲ μεῖζον ἡμικυκλίου τμῆμα. … p. 241.22–24 (cf. Posidonius F 15 E.-K., 335 Theiler) τὸ δ᾽ ὅλον εἶναι τὴν ἶριν ἔμφασιν ἡλίου τμήματος ἢ σελήνης ἐν νέφει κοίλῳ καὶ δεδροσισμένῳ κατὰ κύκλου περιφέρειαν ὁρωμένην. §5 Aristotle: Seneca Nat. 1.3.4 videmus in eo aliquid flammei aliquid lutei aliquid caerulei et alia in picturae modum subtilibus lineis ducta. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, p. 241.9–22 ποικίλην δ᾽ ἔχειν τὴν ἔμφασιν διὰ τὸ κατὰ τὴν τῆς ὄψεως ἀνάκλασιν φοινικοῦν καὶ πράσινον καὶ ἁλουργὸν προσπίπτειν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς χρῶμα. φοινικοῦν μέν, ὅτι τὸ λαμπρὸν ἐν μέλανι καὶ διὰ μέλανος ὁρώμενον τοιαύτην ἀποτελεῖ χρόαν. τοῖς γοῦν θεωμένοις τὸν ἥλιον δι᾽ ὁμίχλης ἢ διὰ καπνοῦ δοκεῖν ἐρυθρὸν εἶναι· ἢ τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν φλόγα πεφοινιγμένην διὰ τὸ πολὺν αὐτῇ καταμεμῖχθαι καπνόν. κατὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ἐξωτάτω καὶ μείζονα περιφέρειαν τῆς ἴριδος ἐμφαίνειν τὸ φοινικοῦν· διὰ γὰρ μέλανος τοῦ νέφους ἀνακλωμένην τὴν ὄψιν πρὸς λαμπρότατον ὄντα τὸν ἥλιον ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τοιοῦδε χρώματος. τὴν δὲ δευτέραν καὶ τρίτην περιφέρειαν διὰ τὴν τῆς ὄψεως ἀσθένειαν τό τε πράσινον καὶ τὸ ἁλουργὲς ἐμφαίνειν. Ammianus Marcellinus 20.11.27 cuius species, quantum mortalis oculus contuetur, prima lutea visitur, secunda flavescens vel fulva, punicea tertia, quarta purpurea, postrema caerulo concreta et viridi. §§6–7 Aristotle–Anaximenes: Seneca Nat. 1.3.7–8 Aristoteles idem iudicat. … (8) longe autem magis visum nobis nostrum remittit aqua, quia crassior est et pervinci non potest; radios luminum nostrorum moratur et eo unde exierunt reflectit. ergo cum multa in pluvia stillicidia sint, totidem specula sunt; sed quia parva sunt, solis colorem sine figura exprimunt. deinde cum in stillicidiis innumerabilibus et sine intervallo cadentibus reddatur idem color, incipit facies esse non multarum imaginum et intermissarum sed unius longae atque continuae. §6 Aristotle: Seneca Nat. 1.3.2 altera causa arcus eiusmodi redditur: videmus, cum fistula aliquo loco rupta est, aquam per tenue foramen elidi, quae sparsa contra solem oblique positum faciem arcus repraesentat. idem videbis accidere si quando volueris observare fullonem: cum os aqua implevit et vestimenta tendiculis diducta leviter aspergit, apparet varios edi colores in illo aëre asperso, quales fulgere in arcu solent. §7 Anaximenes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.8 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) ἶριν δὲ γεννᾶσθαι τῶν ἡλιακῶν αὐγῶν εἰς ἀέρα συνεστῶτα πιπτουσῶν. Ammianus Marcellinus 20.11.29 arbitrantur alii tunc iridis formam rebus apparere mundanis, cum altius delatae nubi crassae radii solis infusi lucem iniecerint liquidam, quae non repperiens exitum in se conglobata nimio splendescit attritu et proximos

1229

1230

liber 3 caput 5

quidem albo colores a sole sublimiore decerpit, subvirides vero a nubis similitudine superiectae, ut in mari solet usu venire, ubi candidae sunt undae, quae litoribus illiduntur, interiores sine ulla concretione caeruleae. §8 Anaxagoras: Seneca Nat. 1.11.2 Graeci παρήλια appellant, quia in propinquo fere a sole visuntur aut quia accedunt ad aliquam similitudinem solis. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, p. 242.4–5 (on Aristotle) παραπλήσιον γὰρ ἡλίῳ κατά τε τὴν χρόαν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα φαίνεσθαι τὸν παρήλιον. Cleomedes Mete. 2.6.169–177 Todd πολλῶν δὲ καὶ παντοδαπῶν περὶ τὸν ἀέρα παθῶν συνίστασθαι πεφυκότων οὐκ ἂν εἴη ἀδύνατον, ἤδη καταδεδυκότος τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ ὑπὸ τὸν ὁρίζοντα ὄντος φαντασίαν ἡμῖν προσπεσεῖν ὡς μηδέπω καταδεδυκότος αὐτοῦ, ἢ νέφους παχυτέρου πρὸς τῇ δύσει ὄντος καὶ λαμπρυνομένου ὑπὸ τῶν ἡλιακῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ ἡλίου ἡμῖν φαντασίαν ἀποπέμποντος ἢ ἀνθηλίου γενομένου. καὶ γὰρ τοιαῦτα πολλὰ φαντάζεται ἐν τῷ ἀέρι, καὶ μάλιστα περὶ τὸν Πόντον. δύναιτο δ᾽ ἂν καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀμμάτων ἀπερχομένη ἀκτὶς ἐνίκμῳ καὶ νοτερῷ τῷ ἀέρι ἐντυγχάνουσα κατακλᾶσθαι καὶ ἐντυγχάνειν τῷ ἡλίῳ ἤδη ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος κεκρυμμένῳ.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle APo. 1.13 79a10–14 ἔχει δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὀπτικήν, ὡς αὕτη πρὸς τὴν γεωμετρίαν, ἄλλη πρὸς ταύτην, οἷον τὸ περὶ τῆς ἴριδος· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι φυσικοῦ εἰδέναι, τὸ δὲ διότι ὀπτικοῦ, ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ {τοῦ om. Aldina alii, prob. Brunschwig (1983)} κατὰ τὸ μάθημα. APo. 2.15 98a24–29 τὰ δ᾽ αὐτὰ προβλήματά ἐστι τὰ μὲν τῷ τὸ αὐτὸ μέσον ἔχειν, οἷον ὅτι πάντα ἀντιπερίστασις. τούτων δ᾽ ἔνια τῷ γένει ταὐτά, ὅσα ἔχει διαφορὰς τῷ ἄλλων ἢ ἄλλως εἶναι, οἷον διὰ τί ἠχεῖ, ἢ διὰ τί ἐμφαίνεται, καὶ διὰ τί ἶρις· ἅπαντα γὰρ ταῦτα τὸ αὐτὸ πρόβλημά ἐστι γένει (πάντα γὰρ ἀνάκλασις), ἀλλ᾽ εἴδει ἕτερα. Top. 1.14 105b6–11 (doxai close to endoxa) ὅτι ὁρῶμεν εἰσδεχόμενοί τι, οὐκ ἐκπέμποντες· καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθήσεων οὕτως· ἀκούομέν τε γὰρ εἰσδεχόμενοί τι, οὐκ ἐκπέμποντες, καὶ γευόμεθα ὡσαύτως· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων. ἔτι ὅσα ἐπὶ πάντων ἢ τῶν πλείστων φαίνεται, ληπτέον ὡς ἀρχὴν καὶ δοκοῦσαν θέσιν. Mete. 3.4 372b32–34 ἡ δ᾽ ἶρις ὅτι μέν ἐστιν ἀνάκλασις, εἴρηται πρότερον· ποία δέ τις ἀνάκλασις, καὶ πῶς καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἕκαστα γίγνεται τῶν συμβαινόντων περὶ ταύτην, λέγωμεν νῦν. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.109 ἶρις γίνεται κατὰ πρόσλαμψιν {ὑπὸ} τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς ἀέρα ὑδατοειδῆ· ἢ κατὰ πρόσφυσιν ἰδίαν τοῦ τε φωτὸς καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἣ τὰ τῶν χρωμάτων τούτων ἰδιώματα ποιήσει εἴτε πάντα εἴτε μονοειδῶς· ἀφ᾽ οὗ πάλιν ἀπολάμποντος τὰ ὁμοροῦντα τοῦ ἀέρος χρῶσιν ταύτην λήψεται, οἵαν θεωροῦμεν, κατὰ πρόσλαμψιν πρὸς τὰ μέρη. Lucretius DRN 6.524–526 hic ubi sol radiis tempestatem inter opacam / adversa fulsit nimborum aspargine contra, / tum color in nigris existit nubibus arqui. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens. 25.11–13 ἡ γὰρ ἔμφασις πάθος τί ἐστι κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν γινόμενον ἐν τοῖς λείοις τε καὶ σύστασίν τινα ἔχουσιν, ὡς δύνασθαι σῴζειν τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον διὰ τοῦ μεταξὺ διαφανοῦς γινόμενον. Galen PHP 7.7.11–12 καὶ γὰρ ὅπως ἡ ἶρις γίγνεται καὶ ὅπως ἅλως ἤτοι περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ τὴν σελήνην οἵ τ᾽ ἀνθήλιοι καὶ οἱ παρήλιοι καλούμενοι τά τε διὰ τῶν κατόπτρων ὁρώμενα διερχόμενος (sc. ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης), εἰς ἀνάκλασιν ὄψεως ἀναφέρει πάντα, μηδὲν διαφέρειν λέγων (Mete. 3.4 374b22–23, GA 5.1 781a2–7) ἢ τὴν ὄψιν ἀνακλᾶσθαι νομίζειν ἢ τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμέ-

liber 3 caput 5 νων ἀλλοιώσεις τοῦ περιέχοντος ἡμᾶς ἀέρος, …. οὕτως οὖν καὶ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης ἐπειδὴ σαφῶς ἠπίστατο τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀπιθάνους ἐρεῖν τὰς ὀπτικὰς αἰτίας εἰ φυλάττοι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δόξαν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἀλλοτρίαν ἀφίκετο μηδὲν διαφέρειν λέγων ὁποτέρως ἂν ἑρμηνεύῃ. Themistius Or. 26, p. 2.145.17–19 μηδὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἴριδος ἡμᾶς διδάσκειν πότερον ἴνδαλμά ἐστι καὶ δόκησις τῶν ὀμμάτων, ἢ τὰ χρώματα αὐτῆς ἀληθινὰ καὶ ἡ ποικιλία. Olympiodorus in Mete. 209.20–26 ταῦτα τὰ τέσσαρα ἐπιχειρήματα (sc. περὶ ἴριδός ἅλω παρηλίων ῥάβδων) ἔχουσί τινα κοινωνίαν πρὸς ἄλληλα, οὐ μόνον ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀτμιδώδους ἀναθυμιάσεως ὑπάρχουσιν, ὡς ἄν τις ὑπολάβοι, ⟨ἀλλὰ καὶ⟩ ὅτι κοινῶς κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν γίνονται καὶ οὐ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ δοκεῖ τινὰ μὲν αὐτῶν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν γίνεσθαι, τινὰ δὲ κατὰ ἔμφασιν [‘male intellexit noster Aphrodisiensem’ Stüve]. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις ἔχουσι καὶ ἄλλο κοινόν, ὅτι ἕκαστον αὐτῶν κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν γίνεται, οὐ κατὰ διάκλασιν. Elias in Isag. 40.17–41.1 θαυμάζομεν τὸ βιβλίον (sc. Isagoge) διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον αὐτοῦ, καθά φησι καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὅτι ‘θαυμάσαντες τὸ ὅτι ἐπὶ τὴν ζήτησιν τοῦ διότι ἐρχόμεθα’ (cf. APo. 2.1.89b29), τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι τὸ φιλοσοφεῖν. καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς (sc. Hes. Th. 265– 266, 780) ἡ Ἶρις Θαύμαντος λέγεται θυγάτηρ ὡς φιλοσοφία τις οὖσα καὶ ἀγγελὶς τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν λεγομένων θεῶν, παρὰ τὸ ἐρεῖν ὀνομασθεῖσα Ἶρις. θαυμαστὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ ὁμώνυμος αὐτῇ ἶρις ἐν ὑγρῷ καὶ ῥευστῷ ὑποκειμένῳ τῷ ἀέρι τοιοῦτον ἀποτετορνευμένον καὶ μαθηματικὸν φυλάξασα σχῆμα καὶ τὸ ἀσύγχυτον τῶν χρωμάτων. Suda s.v. I 598, p. 2.666.3–4 Adler ἶρις· νέφους ὑγρότης κατ᾽ ἔμπτωσιν ἡλίου πεποικιλμένου, οἷον τὸ τόξον. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 3.2 371b18–19 περὶ δὲ ἅλω καὶ ἴριδος, τί τε ἑκάτερον καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεται, λέγωμεν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 146.31 μέτεισιν ἐπὶ τὸν περὶ τῆς ἴριδος λόγον. John Philoponus in Mete. 3.11 εἶτα περὶ … ἴριδος. §1 definition: Aristotle Mete. 3.4 373a32 ἡ δ᾽ ἶρις ὅτι μέν ἐστιν ἀνάκλασις, εἴρηται πρότερον. Insomn. 2 459b18–20 καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν κινουμένων δὲ μεταβάλλουσιν, οἷον ἀπὸ τῶν ποταμῶν, μάλιστα δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν τάχιστα ῥεόντων, φαίνεται {γὰρ} τὰ ἠρεμοῦντα κινούμενα. Insomn. 2 460b26–27 λέγω δ᾽ οἷον ἡ γῆ δοκεῖ τοῖς πλέουσι κινεῖσθαι κινουμένης τῆς ὄψεως ὑπ᾽ ἄλλου. Sextus Empiricus P. 1.107 παρὰ δὲ τὸ κινεῖσθαι ἢ ἠρεμεῖν ἀνόμοια φαίνεται τὰ πράγματα, ἐπεὶ ἅπερ ἑστῶτες ὁρῶμεν ἀτρεμοῦντα, ταῦτα παραπλέοντες κινεῖσθαι δοκοῦμεν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 152.10–13 οἱ δὲ περὶ Γέμινον καὶ Αἴλιον εἰς δεῖξιν τοῦ ἔμφασιν τὴν ἶριν εἶναι προσχρῶνται καὶ τῷ προσιόντων τε αὐτῇ δοκεῖν καὶ αὐτὴν προσιέναι καὶ ἀποχωρούντων ἀποχωρεῖν, ὥσπερ ὁρᾶται ποιοῦντα καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς κατόπτροις ἐμφαινόμενα. Augustine de Gen. ad litt. 12.25, p. 417.25–31 fallitur ergo in visione corporali, cum in ipsis corporibus fieri putat, quod fit in corporis sensibus—sicut navigantibus videntur in terra moveri quae stant et intuentibus caelum stare sidera, quae moventur, et divaricatis radiis oculorum duae lucernae species adparere et in aqua remus infractus et multa huius modi. John Philoponus in Mete. 1.24–2.7 βούλεται γὰρ ἡμᾶς ὁ φιλόσοφος … διδάξαι πάντα τὰ μεταξὺ γῆς τε καὶ οὐρανοῦ συμβαίνοντα πάθη …, οἷον περὶ ὑετῶν, χαλάζης, χιόνος, βροντῶν, ἀστραπῶν, ἀνέμων, διᾳττόντων, κεραυνῶν, καὶ ὅσα τούτοις ἐστὶ συγγενῆ …· καὶ ὅτι τινὰ μὲν τῶν τοιούτων ὕπαρξιν ἔχει καὶ ἔστιν ἀληθῶς οἷά περ φαίνεται, ὡς τὰ προειρημένα, τὰ δὲ

1231

1232

liber 3 caput 5

μόνην ἔμφασιν ἔχει καὶ ὄψεων ἀπάτην οὐκ ὄντα καθ᾽ ὕπαρξιν οἷα φαίνεται, ὡς ἶρις καὶ ἅλως καὶ ῥάβδοι καὶ τὰ παρήλια καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον. §2 Plato Homer anonymi: Hesiod Th. 265–266 Θαύμας δ᾽ Ὠκεανοῖο βαθυρρείταο θύγατρα ἠγάγετ᾽ / Ἠλέκτρην· ἡ δ᾽ ὠκεῖαν τέκεν Ἶριν. Th. 780 Θαύμαντος θυγάτηρ πόδας ὠκέα Ἶρις. Plato Tht. 155d μάλα γὰρ φιλοσόφου τοῦτο τὸ πάθος, τὸ θαυμάζειν· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλη ἀρχὴ φιλοσοφίας ἢ αὕτη, καὶ ἔοικεν ὁ τὴν Ἶριν Θαύμαντος ἔκγονον φήσας (sc. Hes. Th. 265–266, 780) οὐ κακῶς γενεαλογεῖν. Vergil Georg. 1. 380–381 et bibit ingens / arcus (cited by Seneca Nat. 1.6.1). Ovid Met. 1.271 concipit arcus aquas. §3 modes of vision: Aristotle PA 2.10 656b26–31 τέτακται … τὰ αἰσθητήρια τῇ φύσει καλῶς, … ἡ δ᾽ ὄψις εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν (ὁρᾷ γὰρ κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν, ἡ δὲ κίνησις εἰς τὸ ἔμπροσθεν, προορᾶν δὲ δεῖ ἐφ᾽ ὃ ἡ κίνησις). Mete. 3.4 373a32–34 ἡ δ᾽ ἶρις ὅτι μέν ἐστιν ἀνάκλασις, εἴρηται πρότερον· ποία δέ τις ἀνάκλασις, καὶ πῶς καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἕκαστα γίγνεται τῶν συμβαινόντων περὶ ταύτην, λέγωμεν νῦν. ps.Ptolemy Spec. 2.1–4 Jones negotium autem quod circa visus dividitur in opticam, id est visivam, et dioptricam, id est perspectivam, et katoptricum, id est inspectivum negotium. et opticum quidem opportune ab hiis qui ante nos descriptum est et maxime ab Aristotele. de dioptrico autem a nobis in aliis dictum est copiose quanta videbantur. videntes autem et katoptricum negotium esse dignum studio etc. Damianus Opt. pinax p. 2.20–23 Schöne βʹ. ὅτι τὰ ὁρώμενα ἤτοι κατ᾽ ἰθυφάνειαν ὁρᾶται ἢ κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν ἢ κατὰ διάκλασιν τῆς ὄψεως τῆς ἡμετέρας. Opt. c. 7 ὁρᾶται δὲ τὰ ὁρώμενα ἤτοι κατ᾽ ὀρθὰς γωνίας ἢ κατ᾽ ὀξείας, κατὰ δὲ ἀμβλείας οὐδέποτε· συνίστανται γὰρ αἱ γωνίαι, καθ᾽ ἃς ὁρῶμεν, πρὸς αὐτῇ τῇ κορυφῇ τοῦ τῆς ὄψεως κώνου. καὶ αἱ μὲν ὀρθαὶ ἐπὶ διαμέτρων βεβήκασι τῆς βάσεως τοῦ κώνου, αἱ δὲ ὀξεῖαι ἐπί τινων εὐθειῶν, αἵ εἰσιν καὶ αὐταὶ ἐν τῇ βάσει τοῦ κώνου ἐλαττούμεναι τῆς διαμέτρου, ἤτοι δὲ ἁρμόζουσαι εἰς τὸν κύκλον ἢ οὔ. Opt. c. 12 λέγειν ἔθος τοῖς παλαιοῖς, ὅσα μὲν δι᾽ ἀέρος καὶ ἀκλάστου φερομένης τῆς ὄψεως θεωροῦμεν, ταῦτα κατ᾽ ἰθυφανὲς πάντα θεωρεῖσθαι, ὧν δὲ τὰς ἐμφάσεις ὁρῶμεν ἐν ὕδασιν ἢ ὅλως ἐν κατόπτρῳ, ταῦτα κατὰ ἀντιφάνειαν ὁρᾶσθαι, τὰ δὲ καθ᾽ ὕδατος ἢ διὰ διαφανῶν θεωρούμενα ταῦτα κατὰ διαφάνειαν ἅπαντα καθορᾶσθαι. Vita Aristotelis Marciana 37–38 Düring τῇ δὲ φυσιολογίᾳ προσέθηκε … τὸ κατ᾽ εἰσδοχὴν ὁρᾶν· τῇ δὲ μαθηματικῇ τὸ ὀξυγώνιον εἶναι τὸν κῶνον τῶν ὄψεων διὰ τὸ ἐπὶ πλέον προιέναι τὴν ὄψιν οὗ ὁρᾷ μεγέθους· καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο γὰρ οὐδὲν τῶν ὁρωμένων ὅλον ἅμα ὁρᾶται, καὶ ταύτῃ μείζονα γίνεσθαι τὸν ἄξονα τῆς ἐκ τούτου τῆς βάσεως καὶ ὀξυγώνιον τὸν κῶνον ἀποτελεῖσθαι. §§4–6 Aristotle: Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 141.3–12: οὐκ ἀρέσκεται (sc. Aristotle) μὲν τῇ δόξῃ τῇ δι᾽ ἀκτίνων ἐκχύσεως ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς λεγούσῃ, καθά φασιν οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων, ᾗ δόξῃ ἀκόλουθός ἐστι καὶ ἡ δι᾽ ἀνακλάσεως τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων ἀκτίνων ὁρᾶν ἡμᾶς πάντα τὰ δι᾽ ἐμφάσεως ὁρώμενα λέγουσα· οὔτε γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως ἀκτῖνάς τινας ἐκχεομένας καὶ προσπιπτούσας τῷ ὁρατῷ τοῦ ὁρᾶν αἰτίας ἡμῖν οἷόν τε γίνεσθαι οὔτε τὰς αὐτὰς ταύτας ἀνακλωμένας ἀπὸ τῶν κατόπτρων καὶ πάντων τῶν διὰ τοιούτων ὁρωμένων ἐπὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον τὴν αἰτίαν πάλιν ἡμῖν παρέχειν τοῦ ταῦτα ὁρᾶν, τῆς τῶν ἀκτίνων ἀνακλάσεως πρὸς ἴσας γινομένης γωνίας. ὅτι γὰρ ἀδύνατα ταῦτα, ἐδείχθη ἐν τοῖς Περὶ τοῦ πῶς ὁρῶμεν, ὧν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ψυχῆς

liber 3 caput 5 (de An. 3.12 435a5–8) ἐμνημόνευσε. cf. Aristotle Top. 1.14 105b6–10 cited above General texts. §§4–6 Aristotle: Aristotle de An. 2.10 422a14–15 τὸ δὲ χρῶμα οὐχ οὕτως ὁρᾶται τῷ μίγνυσθαι, οὐδὲ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις. Sens. 3 440a15–17 τὸ μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, λέγειν ἀπόρροιαν εἶναι τὴν χρόαν καὶ ὁρᾶσθαι διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἄτοπον. §§4–5 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 3.2 372a29–b1 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἡ ὄψις ἀνακλᾶται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὕδατος, οὕτω καὶ ἀπὸ ἀέρος καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν λείαν, ἐκ τῶν περὶ τὴν ὄψιν δεικνυμένων δεῖ λαμβάνειν τὴν πίστιν, καὶ διότι τῶν ἐνόπτρων ἐν ἐνίοις μὲν καὶ τὰ σχήματα ἐμφαίνεται, ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ τὰ χρώματα μόνον· τοιαῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅσα μικρὰ τῶν ἐνόπτρων, καὶ μηδεμίαν αἰσθητὴν ἔχει διαίρεσιν. §4 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 3.4 374a9–10 ἀπὸ ῥανίδων γὰρ μικρῶν γίγνεται ἡ ἀνάκλασις. Mete. 3.4 373b32–34 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀνάκλασις ἡ ἶρις τῆς ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιόν ἐστι, φανερόν· διὸ καὶ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἀεὶ γίγνεται. Proclus in Eucl. 40.8–22 (quoting Geminus) πάλιν ὀπτικὴ καὶ κανονικὴ γεωμετρίας εἰσὶ καὶ ἀριθμητικῆς ἔκγονοι, ἡ μὲν ταῖς ὄψεσι γραμμαῖς χρωμένη καὶ ταῖς ἐκ τούτων συνισταμέναις γωνίαις, διαιρουμένη δὲ εἴς τε τὴν ἰδίως καλουμένην ὀπτικήν, ἥτις τῶν ψευδῶς φαινομένων παρὰ τὰς ἀποστάσεις τῶν ὁρατῶν τὴν αἰτίαν ἀποδίδωσιν, οἷον τῆς τῶν παραλλήλων συμπτώσεως ἢ τῆς τῶν τετραγώνων ὡς κύκλων θεωρίας, καὶ εἰς τὴν κατοπτρικὴν σύμπασαν τὴν περὶ τὰς ἀνακλάσεις τὰς παντοίας πραγματευομένην καὶ τῇ εἰκαστικῇ γνώσει συμπλεκομένην, καὶ τὴν λεγομένην σκηνογραφικὴν δεικνῦσαν, πῶς ἂν τὰ φαινόμενα μὴ ἄρυθμα ἢ ἄμορφα φαντάζοιτο ἐν ταῖς εἰκόσι παρὰ τὰς ἀποστάσεις καὶ τὰ ὕψη τῶν γεγραμμένων. Hero Def. c. 125.12 ὀπτικῆς μέρη λέγοιτο μὲν ἂν κατὰ τὰς διαφόρους ὕλας καὶ πλείω, τὰ δὲ γενικώτατα τρία τὸ μὲν ὁμωνύμως τῷ ὅλῳ καλούμενον ὀπτικόν, τὸ δὲ κατοπτρικόν, τὸ δὲ σκηνογραφικόν. κατοπτρικὸν δὲ λέγεται ὁλοσχερέστερον μὲν τὸ περὶ τὰς ἀνακλάσεις τὰς ἀπὸ τῶν λείων, οὐ μόνον περὶ ἓν κάτοπτρον, ἔστι δ᾽ ὅτε καὶ περὶ πλείω στρεφόμενον, ἔτι μὴν καὶ περὶ τὰ ἐν ἀέρι δι᾽ ὑγρῶν ἐμφαινόμενα χρώματα, ὁποῖά ἐστι τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἴριδας. Plutarch Is.Osir. 358F καὶ καθάπερ οἱ μαθηματικοὶ τὴν ἶριν ἔμφασιν εἶναι τοῦ ἡλίου λέγουσι ποικιλλομένην τῇ πρὸς τὸ νέφος ἀναχωρήσει τῆς ὄψεως. Amat. 765E–F ἀνάκλασις δή που τὸ περὶ τὴν ἶρίν ἐστι τῆς ὄψεως πάθος, ὅταν ἡσυχῆ νοτερῷ λείῳ δὲ καὶ μέτριον πάχος ἔχοντι προσπεσοῦσα νέφει τοῦ ἡλίου ψαύσῃ κατ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν καὶ τὴν περὶ ἐκεῖνον αὐγὴν ὁρῶσα καὶ τὸ φῶς δόξαν ἡμῖν ἐνεργάσηται τοῦ φαντάσματος ὡς ἐν τῷ νέφει ὄντος. Fac.Lun. 921A ὥσπερ οὖν τὴν ἶ⟨ριν⟩ οἴεσθ᾽ ὑμεῖς ἀνακλωμένης ἐπὶ τὸν ἥλιον τῆς ὄψεως ἐνορᾶσθαι τῷ νέφει λαβόντι νοτερὰν ἡσυχῇ λειότητα καὶ ⟨πῆ⟩ξιν κτλ. differently Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.152 (SVF 2.692, Posidonius F 15 E.-K., 335 Theiler; cited Suda s.v. I 598, p. 2.666.4–7 Adler) ἶριν δ᾽ εἶναι αὐγὰς ἀφ᾽ ὑγρῶν νεφῶν ἀνακεκλασμένας ἤ, ὡς Ποσειδώνιός φησιν ἐν τῇ Μετεωρολογικῇ, ἔμφασιν ἡλίου τμήματος ἢ σελήνης ἐν νέφει δεδροσισμένῳ κοίλῳ καὶ συνεχεῖ πρὸς φαντασίαν, ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ φανταζομένην κατὰ κύκλου περιφέρειαν. Aquilius Def. 85 Rashed ἶρίς ἐστιν ἡλίου ἔμφασις ἢ σελήνης ἐν νέφει κοίλῳ καὶ δροσώδει κατὰ κύκλου περιφερείας ὡς ἐν κατόπτρῳ πρὸς αἴσθησιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 151.32–152.1 ὅτι δὲ ἡ ἶρις κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν γίνεται καὶ ἔστιν αὐτῆς κατοπτρικὴ ἡ φαντασία Φίλιππος μὲν ὁ ἑταῖρος Πλάτωνος (Philippus Opuntius 13 Tarán, 33 Lasserre) δεικνύναι πειρᾶται κτλ.

1233

1234

liber 3 caput 5

§§5–6 Aristotle: ps.Aristotle fr. 245.11, p. 188.6–11 R3 yris nichil aliud est quam color solis apparens in nube remota, acciditque yridem a longe videri terre coniunctam nobisque accedentibus disparere ibidem tam yridem quam nubem altam, et apparere ulterius, pro eo quod reflectitur ab aëre remoto, quamvis sit parum remotus, dum modo sit nubilus et spissus. §5 Aristotle: Xenophanes 21B32 DK ἥν τ᾽ Ἶριν καλέουσι, νέφος καὶ τοῦτο πέφυκε, / πορφύρεον καὶ φοινίκεον καὶ χλωρὸν ἰδέσθαι. Aristotle Mete. 1.5 342b5– 13 (on the aurora borealis) διά τε γὰρ πυκνοτέρου διαφαινόμενον ἔλαττον φῶς καὶ ἀνάκλασιν δεχόμενος ὁ ἀὴρ παντοδαπὰ χρώματα ποιήσει, μάλιστα δὲ φοινικοῦν ἢ πορφυροῦν, διὰ τὸ ταῦτα μάλιστα ἐκ τοῦ πυρώδους καὶ λευκοῦ φαίνεσθαι μειγνυμένων κατὰ τὰς ἐπιπροσθήσεις, οἷον ἀνίσχοντα τὰ ἄστρα καὶ δυόμενα, ἐὰν ᾖ καῦμα, καὶ διὰ καπνοῦ φοινικᾶ φαίνεται. καὶ τῇ ἀνακλάσει δὲ ποιήσει, ὅταν τὸ ἔνοπτρον ᾖ τοιοῦτον ὥστε μὴ τὸ σχῆμα ἀλλὰ τὸ χρῶμα δέχεσθαι. Mete. 3.2 372a32–b6 τῶν ἐνόπτρων ἐν ἐνίοις μὲν καὶ τὰ σχήματα ἐμφαίνεται, ἐν ἐνίοις δὲ τὰ χρώματα μόνον· τοιαῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅσα μικρὰ τῶν ἐνόπτρων, καὶ μηδεμίαν αἰσθητὴν ἔχει διαίρεσιν· ἐν γὰρ τούτοις τὸ μὲν σχῆμα ἀδύνατον ἐμφαίνεσθαι …, ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἐμφαίνεσθαί τι ἀναγκαῖον, τοῦτο δὲ ἀδύνατον, λείπεται τὸ χρῶμα μόνον ἐμφαίνεσθαι. Mete. 3.4 373b17–24 ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ δῆλον καὶ εἴρηται πρότερον ὅτι ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐνόπτροις τὸ χρῶμα μόνον ἐμφαίνεται, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα ἄδηλον, ἀναγκαῖον, ὅταν ἄρχηται ὕειν καὶ ἤδη μὲν συνιστῆται εἰς ψακάδας ὁ ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν ἀήρ, … γίγνεσθαι ἔμφασιν χρώματος, οὐ σχήματος. Mete. 3.4 374b30–33 ἡ μὲν οὖν ἰσχυροτέρα ὄψις εἰς φοινικοῦν χρῶμα μετέβαλεν, ἡ δ᾽ ἐχομένη εἰς τὸ πράσινον, ἡ δὲ ἔτι ἀσθενεστέρα εἰς τὸ ἁλουργόν. Olympiodorus in Mete. 211.13–18 οὕτω γοῦν μετὰ τὸ φοινικοῦν εὐθὺς πράσινον, εἶθ᾽ ἁλουργὸν χρῶμα δείκνυσιν ὡς ἤδη ἐξασθενῆσαν, ἢ καὶ ἴριδος σχῆμα, ἐπὰν ἀμελέστερον κατανοήσωμεν. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ σημεῖόν ἐστιν ἐμφάσεως καὶ ἀνακλάσεως, καὶ ὅτι ἐν ἡλίῳ τινὸς ῥάναντος ὕδωρ, ὡς γενέσθαι πολλὰς ῥανίδας, ὁρῶμεν ἐν ταῖς ῥανίσι λαμπηδόνας ἀνακλωμένης τῆς ὄψεως ἀπὸ τῶν ῥανίδων πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον. §6 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 3.4 374a35–b5 γίγνεται δὲ κἄν τις λεπταῖς ῥαίνῃ ῥανίσιν εἴς τι τοιοῦτον χωρίον ὃ τὴν θέσιν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον ἐστραμμένον ἐστὶ καὶ τῇ μὲν ὁ ἥλιος ἀνέχῃ τῇ δὲ σκιάζῃ· ἐν τῷ τοιούτῳ γάρ, ἐὰν εἴσω τις ῥαίνῃ, τῷ ἑστῶτι ἐκτός, ᾗ ἐπαλλάττουσιν αἱ ἀκτῖνες καὶ ποιοῦσι τὴν σκιάν, φαίνεται ἶρις. Mete. 3.4 374a19–23 ἐφαίνετο ἂν ἡ ἶρις ὅλη, ὥσπερ ἡ περὶ τοὺς λύχνους. περὶ γὰρ τούτους τὰ πλεῖστα νοτίων ὄντων ἶρις γίγνεται τοῦ χειμῶνος, μάλιστα δὲ δήλη γίγνεται τοῖς ὑγροὺς ἔχουσι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς· τούτων γὰρ ἡ ὄψις ταχὺ δι᾽ ἀσθένειαν ἀνακλᾶται. §8 Anaxagoras: Scholia vetera in Iliadem Ρ 547b Erbse ἶριν : ὅταν ἐξ ἐναντίας νέφος τῷ ἡλίῳ στῇ πεπιλημένον καὶ πλῆρες ὕδατος, αἱ δὲ ἀκτῖνες προσπίπτωσι τῷ νέφει καὶ καθάπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου τοῦ ἡλίου περιγράφωσι κύκλους, τότε τοῦ μὲν τῶν ἀκτίνων ἐρυθροῦ ἀνειμένου πρὸς τὸ κροκοειδές, τοῦ δὲ ἐν τῷ νέφει μέλανος ἐκλυομένου πρὸς κυάνεον, ἡ κρᾶσις ἀμφοῖν ἶρίς ἐστι· καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (59B19 DK) δέ φησιν· ‘ἶριν δὲ καλέομεν τὸ ἐν τῇσι νεφέλῃσι ἀντιλάμπον τῷ ἡλίῳ’. χειμῶνος οὖν ἐστι σύμβολον (cf. Il. 17.547)· τὸ γὰρ περιεχόμενον ὕδωρ τῷ νέφει ἄνεμον ἐποίησεν ἢ ἐξέχεεν ὄμβρον.

Liber 3 Caput 5a (olim 18) PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 897D; p. 384a1–14 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 186– 189 Daiber—PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 143, p. 74 Westerink; cf. Phil.Min. op. 23, p. 86 Duffy (titulus solus)—cf. PSy Symeon Seth CRN 2.26, p. 35.1 + 3–5 Delatte S: Stobaeus, cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b17 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 34, p. 51.18–19 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, p. 404.6–17, 405.12–14; schol. 877, p. 427.10–12 Martin

Titulus ιηʹ. Περὶ ἅλω (P,S) §1 ἡ δ᾽ ἅλως οὑτωσὶ ἀποτελεῖται· μεταξὺ τῆς σελήνης ἤ τινος ἄλλου ἄστρου καὶ τῆς ὄψεως ἀὴρ παχὺς καὶ ὁμιχλώδης ἵσταται· εἶτ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ τῆς ὄψεως κατακλωμένης καὶ εὐρυνομένης κᾆθ᾽ οὕτω τῷ κύκλῳ τοῦ ἄστρου προσπιπτούσης κατὰ τὴν ἔξω περιφέρειαν, κύκλος δοκεῖ περὶ τὸ ἄστρον φαίνεσθαι (ὃς κύκλος φαινόμενος ἅλως καλεῖται, ὅτι ἐστὶν ἅλῳ προσεοικώς), ἐκεῖ δοκοῦντος τοῦ φάσματος γίνεσθαι, ἔνθα συνέπεσε τὸ πάθος τῆς ὄψεως. (P1) §1 Cf. Aristoteles Mete. 3.2 371b18 + b22–24 + 3.3 373a21–22 lemma om. G, non hab. S titulus Περὶ ἅλω PBPs : wie entsteht der Hof um den Mond? Q ‖ ἅλω PB(III:Ε) prob. Diels Mau Lachenaud: ἅλως PB(I,III:α), ἅλωνος PB(II) §1 [2] οὑτωσὶ PB : wie ich es beschreibe Q ‖ [3] ἐν τούτῳ PB : von dieser Luft Q ‖ [5–6] κατὰ … φαίνεσθαι PB : dann scheint es der Seh(kraft) ein Kreis zu sein; (das geschieht) den Strahlen zufolge, welche zu jenem Stern reflektiert werden Q ‖ [6–7] ὅτι … προσεοικώς] om. Q ‖ [6] ὅτι PB(I,III) : ὅ PB(II) ‖ [7] ἅλῳ PB(I,II) : ἅλως PB(IΙI) ‖ προσεοικώς PB(IΙI) : προσεχῶς PB(Ι,II) ‖ φάσματος PB(IΙI) : φαντάσματος PB(Ι,II) ‖ [7–8] συνέπεσε τὸ πάθος coni. Reiske ‘et legit Ar ut vid.’ (Daiber) : νῦν ἔπεσε τὸ πάχος P : und wovon die Einwirkung auf sie (die Sehkraft) stattfindet Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 143 Περὶ ἅλω (~ tit.) Phil.Min. op. 23 Περὶ ἅλω (~ tit.) καὶ ἴριδος (i.q. tit. c. 3.5) ῥάβδων τε καὶ παρηλίων (i.q. tit. c. 3.6). Symeon Seth CRN 2.26 Περὶ ἅλω (~ tit.) 2.26 γίνεται δὲ ἀπὸ ἀντανακλάσεως τῆς ὄψεως πάντοθεν ὁμοίως ἀντανακλωμένης περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ τὴν σελήνην (~ P1). Testes secundi: quaestio Achilles c. 34, p. 51.18–19 (sub capite Περὶ κομητῶν) ὅταν δὲ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ᾖ κύκλος (ἐνίοτε καὶ δύο καὶ τρεῖς γίνονται, ὅθεν καὶ Ἄρατος εἶπε (v. 816) ‘τριέλικτον ἀλωήν’), ἅλως καλεῖται (~ §1). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_082

5

1236

liber 3 caput 5a (olim 18)

Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, p. 404.6–8 Martin ἅλως δὲ εἴρηται ὅτι τὰς ἅλωνας τῷ σχήματι κυκλοτερῶς διαγράφουσι. καὶ ἔστιν ἡ ἅλως περὶ τὴν σελήνην κύκλος, καὶ αὐτὴ ἐν μέσῳ ἀμυδροτέρα φαίνεται (~ §1). schol. 877, p. 427.10–12 καὶ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἅλωες συνίστανται, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς σελήνης ἔφαμεν (~ §1). schol. 811, pp. 404.9–405.2 Martin ἡ τοίνυν ὄψις κατὰ τὴν ἔνστασιν τοῦ ἀέρος τραχέσι μὲν προσπεσοῦσα αὐτοῦ που καταπαύεται, μηκέτι λαμβάνουσα ἑτέρας φορᾶς ἀρχήν, λείοις δὲ καὶ ὁμαλοῖς προσφερομένη, οἷά ἐστι τὰ ἔσοπτρα καὶ τὰ ὕδατα, ἤτοι ἐνδοτέρω διαδύεται οἱονεὶ ἐγκατακλωμένη, ἤ, εἴπερ τοῦτο ἀδυνατεῖ ποιεῖν δι᾽ ἀντιτυπίαν τῶν σωμάτων, ἀνακλᾶται ἐμφανίζουσα κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον τὰ ὁρώμενα ἀφ᾽ οὗ καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς ἀνακλάσεως ποιεῖται. ὅταν τοίνυν περί τι ἄστρον νέφη συστῇ συνεχῆ καὶ κοῖλα, ἐνσταθῇ δὲ ὁ ἀὴρ ἐπὶ ταῦτα, εἶτα ἀνάκλασιν σχῇ εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ ἄστρον, ἐμφαίνεται τοῦτο καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἀνάκλασιν, καὶ οὕτως ἡ ἅλως ἀποτελεῖται. schol. 811, p. 405.12–14 Martin, τί ἐστιν ἅλως; ἡ ὑγροῦ τοῦ ἀέρος ἐπικειμένου καὶ παχέος ὄντος φαντασία φωτὸς κυκλοειδοῦς περὶ τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην συνισταμένη (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: §1 A 3.5.3–4 τρίτος τρόπος τοῦ βλέπειν τὰ ἀνακλώμενα ὡς τὰ κατοπτρικά. ἔστιν οὖν τὸ τῆς ἴριδος πάθος τοιοῦτον. A 4.14.3 οἱ ἀπὸ Πυθαγόρου καὶ τῶν μαθηματικῶν κατ᾽ ἀντανακλάσεις τῆς ὄψεως.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses (1) The witnesses are limited to PB and PQ, PSy for an abstract, and PPs for the heading alone. PQ, though (as usually) omitting a few words, seems to have had at his disposal a better text for the final clause. It is not found in G, whose c. 88 (corresponding to P 3.17, on the tides) is immediately followed by c. 89 (corresponding to the first chapter of the next Book, P 4.1 on the rising of the Nile), see below at section D(a). It may have been absent in G’s copy of P, or been left out for the sake of abridgement (see section D(a) below), or through an oversight. (2) The chapter heading Περὶ ἴριδος περὶ ἅλω καὶ παρηλίου καὶ ῥάβδων of S 1.30 suggests that the evidence for halo (cf. the present chapter), rods and countersuns (cf. ch. 3.6), which he included by quoting AD fr. 14 Diels, made the citation of A’s chs. 5a and 6 superfluous. It also supports our relocation of the present chs. 3.5 and 3.6, for which see below section D(a). (3) T, as we have seen, has no use for Book 3.

liber 3 caput 5a (olim 18)

1237

B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. This consists of a remark in Pliny, a few rather different passages in Seneca, Naturales quaestiones Book 1, part of AD fr. 14 Diels, and several scholia on Aratus. Ideler (1836) 268 writes: ‘Excerpta ex capitibus II–V [sc. of Mete. Book 3] reperiuntur apud Stobaeum Eclog. I, 31 [= c. 1.30 Wachsmuth] …, nullo tamen in iis exscribendis a scriptore certo ordine observato.’ S 1.30 consists of on the one hand ch. 3.5.1–6 (= §§1–10 Diels) on the rainbow plus on the other Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels on the halo, rainbows, mock suns, so-called streaks and other optical phenomena. These two sources of course had not yet been distinguished, which explains part of the confusion diagnosed by Ideler. (2) Sources. The main source is Aristotle Mete. 3.3, where however A’s explanation of the name halos, paralleled in Seneca, is not found. As was the case for ch. 3.5.1–6, Diels for our chapter too thought of a meteorological handbook as A’s source, but we may also think of a compendium of Aristotle’s treatise, see above at ch. 3.5, Commentary D(e). The doxa is without name-label, just as the (Aristotelian) doctrine of the rainbow in ch. 3.5. There is a single parallel at Theophrastus Metars. c. 14.2 Daiber, cited at E(b). C Chapter Heading PB has the umbrella version (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). The longer version of Q refers to the moon but not to other heavenly bodies; it is not clear which version is to be preferred. However this may be, the main question type at issue covered by the heading is that of cause; the question type/category of substance and the category of place are of secondary importance. D Analysis a Context The chapter on the halo, a phenomenon included among the μετάρσια announced in the proœmium of the treatise, does not really belong at the end of Book 3, immediately before ch. 4.1 on the Nile and after ch. 3.17 on the tides of ebb and flood that conclude the πρόσγεια announced in the proem to the Book and are said to have now been treated at ch. 3.8.2. A better location for it is directly after ch. 3.5 on the rainbow. See already Diels DG 60–61, and also our observations on these earlier chapters. Its omission by G may be significant, because P 3.17 and 4.1 together deal with the terrestrial waters and are interrupted by the chapter on the halo (see ch. 3.17, Commentary D(a), and ch. 4.1, Commentary D(a). Because we are trying to reconstruct A, not editing P, we have reinserted the chapter in what is its proper place. For confirmation

1238

liber 3 caput 5a (olim 18)

provided by the chapter title of S 1.30 see above, section A. However, it has to be admitted that it may have been moved to the end to lend an air of unity to the Book, providing a return to the metarsia of its first part after the treatment of the prosgeia. Optical meteorological phenomena are discussed by Aristotle together in Mete. 3.2–5. In Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology edited by Daiber, where no chapters on the earth or sea per se or, more remarkably, on the rainbow are found, the chapter on the halo (of the moon) is the penultimate ch. [14.], before ch. [15.] on earthquakes. Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.9–111 discusses the halo (of the moon) after the rainbow. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is only one lemma. This is exceptional (there are a few other instances, e.g. the long ch. 1.4, the brief ch. 3.6). Abridgement may be the cause, here as elsewhere. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The lemma, the opening words of which are thetically formulated, has been articulated as if it answers the query πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἅλως; (‘how does the halo occur?’), which in fact corresponds with the heading of Q! The main question type at issue is that of cause, the διὰ τί. In the Greek text of ch. 3.5.3, dealing with a related optical phenomenon, such a query is formulated disertis verbis: πῶς οὖν γίνεται ἶρις; No alternative explanations are extant in the present chapter, though a different view could have been added, namely that the halo around the heavenly body is not an optical phenomenon (δοκεῖ … φαίνεσθαι, Seneca’s visus noster solita imbecillitate deceptus) but a real one; it may have been omitted. It is the (only) view found at Theophrastus(?), Metarsiology ch. [14.] Daiber, The account of the causes of the halo round the moon. d

Further Comments General Points See above, section A. Individual Points §1 Diels unnecessarily brackets l. [6–7] ὃς κύκλος … προσεοικώς as a gloss. e Other Evidence The halo qua relatively important phenomenon of reflection is discussed in Epicurus (not in Lucretius), and in authors such as Seneca, Pliny, and Arius Didymus on Aristotle, and because of its treatment in Aristotle also in Alex-

liber 3 caput 5a (olim 18)

1239

ander’s Commentary on the Meteorology. Seneca’s account (cited section E(a) General texts) provides an excellent parallel to that of A. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.132–133 τὸν δὲ φυσικὸν λόγον διαιροῦσιν … ζητοῦσι … ὅπως νέφη συνίσταται, βρονταὶ καὶ ἴριδες καὶ ἅλως καὶ κομῆται καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1.12.8–9 de coronis caelestibus. de circulis repentinis. §1 anonymus: Seneca Nat. 1.2.1–4 videamus nunc quemadmodum fiat is fulgor qui sidera circumvenit. memoriae proditum est … circa solem visum coloris varii circulum, qualis esse in arcu solet. hunc Graeci ἅλω vocant, nos dicere coronam aptissime possumus. quae quemadmodum fieri dicatur, exponam. (2) cum in piscinam lapis missus est, videmus in multos orbes aquam discedere et fieri primum angustissimum orbem, deinde laxiorem, ac deinde alios maiores, donec evanescat impetus et in planitiem immotarum aquarum solvatur. tale quiddam cogitemus fieri etiam in aëre: cum spissior factus est sentire plagam potest; lux solis aut lunae vel cuiuslibet sideris incurrens recedere illum in circulos cogit. nam umor et aër et omne quod ex ictu formam accipit in talem habitum impellitur qualis est eius quod impellit; omne autem lumen rotundum est; ergo et aër in hunc modum lumine percussus exibit. (3) ob hoc tales splendores Graeci ‘areas’ vocaverunt, quia fere terendis frugibus destinata loca rotunda sunt. non est autem quod existimemus istas, sive areae sive coronae sunt, in vicinia siderum fieri. plurimum enim ab his absunt, quamvis cingere ea et coronare videantur. non longe a terra fit talis effigies, quam visus noster solita imbecillitate deceptus circa ipsum sidus putat positam. (4) in vicinia autem stellarum et solis nihil tale fieri potest, quia illic tenuis aether est. Pliny Nat. 2.98 cernuntur … plerumque et circa solis orbem ceu spiceae coronae et versicolores circuli, … . existunt eaedem coronae circa lunam et circa nobilia astra caeloque inhaerentia. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, pp. 240.13–241.3 Ἀριστοτέλους. ἅλω δὲ καὶ ἴριδας καὶ παρήλιον καὶ ῥάβδους καὶ τἄλλα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἐμφάσεις ὑπὸ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς αἰτίας γίνεσθαι (πάντα γὰρ εἶναι ταῦτα τῆς ὄψεως ἀνάκλασιν), διαφέρειν δὲ τοῖς τόποις καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ὡς ἔχει συμβαίνειν τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. ἅλω μὲν οὖν καὶ περὶ ἥλιον φαίνεσθαι καὶ περὶ σελήνην καὶ καθόλου περὶ τὰ λαμπρὰ τῶν ἄστρων …· συμβαίνειν δ᾽, ὅταν διὰ τοῦ πέριξ ἀέρος ἀχλυώδους ὄντος ἐπιλάμπηται τὸ φῶς αὐτῶν, ὥσθ᾽ ὅλον ὁρᾶσθαι τὸν κύκλον· περιφανῆ γὰρ εἶναι καὶ σφαιρικὴν κατὰ τὴν ἔμφασιν τὴν ἅλω. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395a36–b3 ἅλως δέ ἐστιν ἔμφασις λαμπρότητος ἄστρου περίαυγος· διαφέρει δὲ ἴριδος ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἶρις ἐξ ἐναντίας φαίνεται ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης, ἡ δὲ ἅλως κύκλῳ παντὸς ἄστρου.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 14.2 Daiber the halo round the moon occurs when the air becomes thick and is filled with vapour. Epicurus

1240

liber 3 caput 5a (olim 18)

Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.110–111 ἅλως περὶ τὴν σελήνην γίνεται καὶ {κατὰ} πάντοθεν ἀέρος προσφερομένου πρὸς τὴν σελήνην, ἢ τὰ ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς ῥεύματα ἀποφερόμενα ὁμαλῶς ἀναστέλλοντος ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἐφ᾽ ὅσον κύκλῳ περιστῆσαι τὸ νεφοειδὲς τοῦτο καὶ μὴ τὸ παράπαν διακρῖναι, ἢ καὶ τὸν πέριξ ἀέρα αὐτῆς ἀναστέλλοντος συμμέτρως πάντοθεν εἰς τὸ περιφερὲς τὸ περὶ αὐτὴν καὶ παχυμερὲς περιστῆσαι. Galen PHP 7.7.11 καὶ γὰρ ὅπως ἡ ἶρις γίγνεται καὶ ὅπως ἅλως ἤτοι περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ τὴν σελήνην οἵ τ᾽ ἀνθήλιοι καὶ οἱ παρήλιοι καλούμενοι τά τε διὰ τῶν κατόπτρων ὁρώμενα διερχόμενος (sc. ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης), εἰς ἀνάκλασιν ὄψεως ἀναφέρει πάντα. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 142.34–143.14 ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὸ ἐπέκεινα πάλιν μᾶλλον μὲν συνέστηκεν, ὁμαλὲς δ᾽ ὂν καὶ μικρομερὲς συνεχῆ καὶ μικρὰ κάτοπτρα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ κύκλου περιφέρειαν ἴσχει, πρὸς ἃ κατὰ μὲν τοὺς τὴν τῆς ὄψεως ἀνάκλασιν αἰτιωμένους ἡ ὄψις προσπεσοῦσα ἀνακλασθεῖσα πρὸς τὸ ἄστρον τὴν τῆς ἅλω φαντασίαν ποιεῖ, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἀληθὲς τὸ φῶς τὸ τοῦ ἄστρου προσπῖπτον τοῖς προειρημένοις κατόπτροις, ἔπειτα ἐπὶ τὴν ὄψιν τὴν ὁρῶσαν ἀνακλασθέν τε καὶ διαδοθὲν ποιεῖ τὴν φαντασίαν τῆς ἅλω. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς εἰρημένοις κατόπτροις διὰ μικρότητα, τοῦ χρώματος ἔμφασις γίνεται μόνου. καὶ ἡ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλους δόξα περὶ τῆς ἅλω ὡς ἐπὶ κεφαλαίων τοιαύτη. ἐπηκολούθησε δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 133 E.-K., 315 Theiler), πάντων σχεδὸν τῶν ἄλλων οὐ κατὰ ἀνάκλασιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κλάσεις ὄψεων αἰτιωμένων, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν δι᾽ ὕδατος ὁρωμένων γίνεται· ὑποτίθενται γὰρ σφαιροειδὲς καὶ κοῖλον τὸ νέφος, ἔπειτα τὸ ὑπερκείμενον ἄστρον αὐτοῦ κατὰ κύκλον φασὶ διεσπασμένον ἐν αὐτῷ ὁρᾶσθαι. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν αἱ τοιαῦται δόξαι περὶ τῆς ἅλω ψευδεῖς, ἱκανῶς ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν Σωσιγένης ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ Περὶ ὄψεως ἔδειξεν. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.7 344b17–18 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς ἅλω τὴν αἰτίαν ὕστερον ἐροῦμεν. 3 2.371b18–19 περὶ δὲ ἅλω καὶ ἴριδος, τί τε ἑκάτερον καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεται, λέγωμεν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 138.24 προτίθεται εἰπεῖν περὶ ἅλω. in Mete. 142.21 πρῶτόν γε περὶ τῆς ἅλω ποιεῖται λόγον. in Mete. 143.7–8 καὶ ἡ μὲν Ἀριστοτέλους δόξα περὶ τῆς ἅλω ὡς ἐπὶ κεφαλαίων τοιαύτη. John Philoponus in Mete. 3.11 περὶ ἅλω. §1 anonymus: Aristotle Mete. 1.7 344b2–6 ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ αἱ ἅλῳ περὶ τὸν ἥλιον φαίνονται καὶ τὴν σελήνην παρακολουθοῦσαι, καίπερ μεθισταμένων, ὅταν οὕτως ᾖ πεπυκνωμένος ὁ ἀὴρ ὥστε τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι τὸ πάθος ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πορείαν. Mete. 3.2 371b22–25 τῆς μὲν οὖν ἅλω φαίνεται πολλάκις κύκλος ὅλος, καὶ γίγνεται περὶ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ περὶ τὰ λαμπρὰ τῶν ἄστρων. Mete. 3.3 372b12–17 πρῶτον δὲ περὶ τῆς ἅλω τοῦ σχήματος εἴπωμεν, διότι τε κύκλος γίγνεται, καὶ διότι περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ τὴν σελήνην, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περί τι τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων· ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐπὶ πάντων ἀρμόσει λόγος. γίγνεται μὲν οὖν ἡ ἀνάκλασις τῆς ὄψεως συνισταμένου τοῦ ἀέρος καὶ τῆς ἀτμίδος εἰς νέφος, ἐὰν ὁμαλὴς καὶ μικρομερὴς συνισταμένη τύχῃ. Mete. 3.3 372b34–a2 ἀνακλᾶται δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς συνισταμένης ἀχλύος περὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἢ τὴν σελήνην ἡ ὄψις. Mete. 3.3 373a21–22 φαίνεται δὲ τὸ μὲν λευκόν, ὁ ἥλιος, κύκλῳ συνεχῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ φαινόμενος τῶν ἐνόπτρων. Aratus Phaen. 941 ἢ καί πού τις ἅλωα μελαινομένην ἔχει ἀστήρ.

Liber 3 Caput 6 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 894F–895A; p. 374a9–17 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 176–177, 424 (!) Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 144, p. 74 Westerink (titulus solus); cf. Op.log. 23, p. 86 Duffy (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus, cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b17 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, p. 403.17–404.3; schol. 881, p. 430.11–12, 20, 413.6 Martin

Titulus ϛʹ. Περὶ ῥάβδων (P,S) §1 τὰ κατὰ τὰς ῥάβδους καὶ ἀνθηλίους συμβαίνοντα μίξει τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ ἐμφάσεως ὑπάρχει, τῶν μὲν νεφῶν ὁρωμένων, οὐ κατ᾽ οἰκεῖον δὲ χρῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἕτερον ὅπερ κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν φαίνεται. ἐν δὲ τούτοις πᾶσι τά τε κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τὰ ἐπίκτητα ὅμοια συμβαίνει πάθη. (P1) §1 — lemma om. G, non hab. S titulus Περὶ ῥάβδων PB : περὶ ἅλω (i.q. tit. c. 3.5a) καὶ παρηλίου και ῥάβδων SPhot; Ps opusc. 23 Περὶ ἅλω καὶ ἴριδος ῥάβδων τε καὶ παρηλίων, fort. καὶ παρηλίων vel sim. addendum §1 [2] ἀνθηλίους PB : Abwechseln der Sonne Q ‖ [3] ἐμφάσεως PB : Einbildung Q ‖ ὑπάρχει] ὑπάρχει PB(III) ‖ [4] ante ἔμφασιν add. τὴν PB(I,III)Q ‖ [5] τὰ ἐπίκτητα PB(I,II)Q(ut vid.) : κατ᾽ ἐπίκτησιν PB(III) ‖ ὅμοια] ὁμοίως aut ὅμοια εἶναι prop. Diels in app. ‖ [4–5] ἐν … πάθη PB : Aber die Phänomene sind einander ähnlich in dem, was in diesen Gegenständen an Dingen erscheint, welche der Natur entsprechend sind und an Dingen, welche wieder erworben und angewendet werden Q

Testes primi: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 144 (~ tit.) Περὶ ῥάβδων Op.log. 23 Περὶ ἅλω (i.q. tit. c. 3.5a). καὶ ἴριδος (i.q. tit. c. 3.5) ῥάβδων τε καὶ παρηλίων (~ tit.) Testes secundi: §1 Scholia in Aratum schol. 811, pp. 403.17–404.3 Martin τῶν γινομένων καὶ ἐν τῷ μετεώρῳ συνισταμένων μεταξὺ ⟨αἰθέρος καὶ⟩ γῆς τὰ μέν ἐστι κατ᾽ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ μικτά, τὰ δε καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν (~ §1). schol. 829, p. 412.3–14 ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμικῶν, ὅτε συμβαίνει κοιλαίνεσθαι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, δηλονότι ἐξασθενήσαντος τοῦ σώματος [prob. Maas, πώματος ms. M prob. Martin]. ἢ ὥσπερ ὅταν βλέφαρον καταγαγόντες ἢ περιθλίψαντες τῷ λύχνῳ τὴν ὄψιν προσβάλλωμεν, οὐ φαίνεται συνεχὲς τὸ φῶς, ἀλλὰ πλάγιαι καὶ σποράδες αἱ αὐγαί, οὕτως, ὅταν ἀχλὺς ἢ νέφωσις ἀνώμαλος πρὸ τοῦ ἡλίου στᾶσα περιθλίψῃ καὶ σείσῃ τὸν τῆς ὄψεως κῶνον εἰς λεπτὰς ἀκτῖνας καὶ ῥαβδοειδεῖς, ὃ πάσχομεν αὐτοὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει, τοῦτο περὶ τὸν ἥλιον εἶναι δοκοῦμεν. οὕτω Πλούταρχος (fr. 15 Sandbach) (~ §1). schol. 881, p. 430.11–12 Ἀριστοτέλης (Mete. 3.6) δὲ τὰ παρήλιά φησιν ἔμφα-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_083

5

1242

liber 3 caput 6 σιν εἶναι, μὴ ἔχοντα ὑπόστασιν (~ §1). schol. 881, p. 430.20 ἄλλως: παρήλιόν ἐστιν ἔμφασις ἡλίῳ παρεμφερής κτλ. schol. 881, p. 431.6 ἄλλως: τὰ παρήλια ἀνθήλια μὲν καλεῖται κτλ. (~ §1).

Loci Aetiani: §1 A 3.5.8 παραπλησίως δὲ αἰτιολογεῖται τὰ καλούμενα παρήλια, γινόμενα δὲ κατὰ τὸν Πόντον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The only witness is P, represented by PB, and PQ or rather Q, who makes a mess of the translation. The Byzantine excerptors are probably responsible for the loss of the lemma in the text of S. T as we know did not excerpt Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. A substantial account of beams (or rods) and mock suns is given at Seneca Nat. 1.9–13. There is no section on rods etc. in Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology. (2) Sources. An ultimate source for systematic treatment in context is Aristotle Mete. 3.6, but A, highlighting the mixed nature of these phenomena, is closer to certain representatives of the proximate tradition such as the Scholia on Aratus. C Chapter Heading In PBQ and confirmed by PPs. The longer version in Photius’ index and an opusculum of Psellus suggest that we should perhaps reconstruct a longer title: ‘On rods and counter-suns’. The title itself is of the standard umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). Here it covers the question type of cause (and the sub-type unde) as well as the question types/categories of substance and quality, and the category of place. D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s chapter order in general see above, Book 3.proœm. at Commentary D(a). The present chapter on rods and mock suns, the sixth in the succession of eight (or rather nine) chapters dedicated to atmospheric

liber 3 caput 6

1243

phenomena, follows upon that on the rainbow and ch. 5a(olim 18) on the halo, and comes before that on winds. Already in Aristotle mock suns and rods at Mete. 3.6 are discussed after halo and rainbow at Mete. 3.2 ad init. and 3.4–5. In Seneca, too, rods and mock suns are treated at Nat. 1.9–13 after the rainbow at 1.3–8, while the halo precedes this at 1.2. The structural point concerning the blend of semblance and reality is a sort of appendix to that about semblance as opposed to reality in the preceding ch. 3.5, and to some extent helps to secure the position of the chapter in the chapter series. b Number–Order of Lemmata There is only one lemma. This is exceptional (there are a few other instances, e.g. the long ch. 1.4, the short ch. 3.5a(olim 18)). Abridgement may be the cause, here as elsewhere. There may have been more, but we cannot know this because S is absent. Because of the general nature of the lemma no name-label is included. This too is exceptional, but also occurs in ch. 3.5a. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The possibly abridged lemma fails to tell us in detail how rods and mock suns come to be. Perhaps Q missed this aspect and tried to make up for this lack by his idiosyncratic translation of ἀνθηλίους. The structural point concerning the blend of semblance and reality is linked to that about the opposition between semblance and reality in ch. 3.5. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Aristotle, too, de facto allows for such mixtures; see Mete. 1.5 342b1–15 on the aurora borealis and similar phenomena: they are produced by reflection, while their substance only lasts for a short time. See further Stothers (2009) 36: ‘I suggest that streak [i.e., rod] is simply a multicoloured mock sun’. Daiber’s translation of Q at (1980) 177 is incomplete; for the full text see p. 424. e Other Evidence This limited theme is discussed more or less briefly in more or less contemporary sources such as Seneca, Pliny, and Arius Didymus. For Aristotle see at section B above. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Seneca Nat. 1.9.1 nunc de virgis dicendum est, quas non minus pictas variasque … solemus accipere. in quibus non multum operae consumen-

1244

liber 3 caput 6

dum est, quia virgae nihil aliud sunt quam imperfecti arcus. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, p. 242.4–10 παραπλήσιον γὰρ ἡλίῳ κατά τε τὴν χρόαν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα φαίνεσθαι τὸν παρήλιον. τὴν μὲν γὰρ ὁμαλότητα τοῦ νέφους αἰτίαν εἶναι τοῦ χρώματος, τὴν δ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ὄψεως τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου, διὰ τῆς ἀχλυώδους ἐμφάσεως προσπίπτουσαν ἀθρόως πρὸς πεπυκνωμένον ὥσπερ ἔνοπτρον οὐδέπω μὲν ὂν ὕδωρ, ἐγγὺς δ᾽ ὑπάρχον τῆς πρὸς ὕδωρ μεταβολῆς. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.4 trabes caelestes, chasma caeli. §1 anonymus: Pliny Nat. 2.99 et rursus soles plures simul cernuntur, nec supra ipsum nec infra, sed ex obliquo, numquam iuxta nec contra terram nec noctu, sed aut oriente aut occidente. semel et meridie conspecti in Bosporo produntur, qui ab matutino tempore duraverunt. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395a35– 36 (Posidonius fr. 339 Theiler) ῥάβδος δέ ἐστιν ἴριδος ἔμφασις εὐθεῖα. Arius Didymus fr. 14 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.30.2, p. 240.13–17 Ἀριστοτέλους. ἅλω δὲ καὶ ἴριδας καὶ παρήλιον καὶ ῥάβδους καὶ τἄλλα τὰ κατὰ τὰς ἐμφάσεις ὑπὸ μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς αἰτίας γίνεσθαι (πάντα γὰρ εἶναι ταῦτα τῆς ὄψεως ἀνάκλασιν), διαφέρειν δὲ τοῖς τόποις καὶ ἀφ᾽ ὧν καὶ ὡς ἔχει συμβαίνειν τὴν ἀνάκλασιν. fr. 14 Diels p. 242.4– 17 (on Aristotle) παραπλήσιον … ἡλίῳ κατά τε τὴν χρόαν καὶ τὸ σχῆμα φαίνεσθαι τὸν παρήλιον. τὴν μὲν γὰρ ὁμαλότητα τοῦ νέφους αἰτίαν εἶναι τοῦ χρώματος, τὴν δ᾽ ἀνάκλασιν τῆς ὄψεως τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου, διὰ τῆς ἀχλυώδους ἐμφάσεως προσπίπτουσαν ἀθρόως πρὸς πεπυκνωμένον ὥσπερ ἔνοπτρον οὐδέπω μὲν ὂν ὕδωρ, ἐγγὺς δ᾽ ὑπάρχον τῆς πρὸς ὕδωρ μεταβολῆς· … εἶναι δὲ {διὰ} τὰς καλουμένας ῥάβδους ἰριοειδεῖς εὐθείας ἐμφάσεις περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συνισταμένας δι᾽ ἀνωμαλίαν τῶν ἐνοπτριζόντων νεφῶν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Strabo 7.3.18, 307C.24–25 ἢ καὶ τοῦ πάχους τοῦ ἀέρος ἐκθερμαινομένου πλέον, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν οἱ παρήλιοι ποιοῦσιν. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 3.2 371b18–19 περὶ δὲ ἅλω καὶ ἴριδος, τί τε ἑκάτερον καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν γίγνεται, λέγωμεν, καὶ περὶ παρηλίων καὶ ῥάβδων. John Philoponus in Mete. 3.11–12 περὶ … παρηλίων καὶ ῥάβδων. §1 anonymus: Aristotle Mete. 3.6 377a30–377b4 γίγνεται γὰρ παρήλιος μὲν ἀνακλωμένης τῆς ὄψεως πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, ῥάβδοι δὲ διὰ τὸ προσπίπτειν τοιαύτην οὖσαν τὴν ὄψιν, οἵαν εἴπομεν ἀεὶ γίγνεσθαι ὅταν πλησίον ὄντων τοῦ ἡλίου νεφῶν ἀπό τινος ἀνακλασθῇ τῶν ὑγρῶν πρὸς τὸ νέφος· φαίνεται γὰρ αὐτὰ μὲν ἀχρωμάτιστα τὰ νέφη κατ᾽ εὐθυωρίαν εἰσβλέπουσιν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ὕδατι ῥάβδων μεστὸν τὸ νέφος· πλὴν τότε μὲν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι δοκεῖ τὸ χρῶμα τοῦ νέφους εἶναι, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ῥάβδοις ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ νέφους.

Liber 3 Caput 7 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 2 verso, pp. 75–76 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895A–B; pp. 374a18–375a11 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 79; p. 632.6–15 Diels; pp. 256–264 Jas—PJln : Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job pp. 272.18–273.3 Hagedorn—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 176–179 Daiber—PPs: Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 146, p. 75 Westerink (titulus solus)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.24, p. 21.16 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.32, p. 248.2–11 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b19 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 32 p. 50.13–14; c. 33 p. 50.15–51.11 Di Maria; Scholia in Aratum schol. 786, p. 395.11–12; schol. 845, p. 418.7–8 Martin

Titulus ζʹ. Περὶ ἀνέμων (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος ἄνεμον εἶναι ῥύσιν ἀέρος, τῶν λεπτοτάτων ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὑγροτάτων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου κινουμένων ἢ τηκομένων. (P1) §2 οἱ Στωικοὶ πᾶν πνεῦμα ἀέρος εἶναι ῥύσιν, ταῖς τῶν τόπων δὲ παραλλαγαῖς τὰς ἐπωνυμίας παραλλάττουσαν· οἷον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ζόφου καὶ τῆς δύσεως ζέφυρον ὠνόμαζον, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀπηλιώτην, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων βορέαν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν νοτίων λίβα. (P2) §3 Μητρόδωρος ἐξ ὑδατώδους ἀναθυμιάσεως διὰ τὴν ἡλιακὴν ἔκκαυσιν γίνεσθαι ὁρμὴν πνευμάτων θε⟨ρ⟩ι⟨ν⟩ῶν· τοὺς δ᾽ ἐτησίας πνεῖν τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις παχυνθέντος ἀέρος, ὑποχωροῦντι τῷ ἡλίῳ κατὰ τὴν θερινὴν τροπὴν ἐπισυρρέοντος. (P3) §1 Anaximander 12A24 DK; §2 Stoici SVF 2.697; §3 Metrodorus 70A18 DK §§1–3 non hab. S §1 [2] post nomen hab. οἴεται PG ‖ ῥύσιν] λύσιν PG ‖ [2–3] λεπτοτάτων– ὑγροτάτων–κινουμένων–τηκομένων] λεπτοτάτην–ὑγροτάτην–κινουμένην–τηκομένην PB(II) ‖ [3] κινουμένων ἢ τηκομένων inv. PG §2 [4] πᾶν] om. PGQ ‖ ῥύσιν] om. PG ‖ [5] παραλλάττουσαν PB(II) : παραλλάττουσιν PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ) : παραλλάττειν PG ‖ post παραλλάττουσιν add. durch welche er fließt Q ‖ [5–6] τὸν1–2 PG prob. Diels Mau : om. PB ‖ [5] τοῦ ζόφου] τε ψόφου PB(II) ‖ [6] ὠνόμαζον PG, cf. Dieser Name ist in der Sprache der Griechen von der ‘Dunkelheit’ und vom ‘Fließen’ abgeleitet Q : om. P ‖ καὶ PB(III)G : om. PB(I,II) ‖ [7] post ἄρκτων add. εἶναι PB(III) ‖ τὸν … λίβα] al. PG τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μεσημβρίας νότον (cf. Ach) §3 [9] post nomen hab. PG δὲ ‖ ἐξ PB(II) : om. PB(I,III)G, prob. Diels ‖ [10] θε⟨ρ⟩ι⟨ν⟩ῶν scripsimus, vid. comm. D(d)§4 : †θείων† crucif. edd. : om. PG : θερμῶν vel ἀθρόων dub. Diels DG in app. : ἰθέ(ι)ων Kern ap. DK ‖ ἐτησίας B(I,III) : ἐτησίους B(II) ‖ [11] post παχυνθέντος lac. hab. PG, ἀέρος ὑποχωροῦντος coni. Diels, ἀέρος ὑποχωροῦντι (cf. PB) Jas sed non in text. pos. ‖ τῷ ἡλίῳ PBQG(1,Nic) Diels DG : τοῦ ἡλίου PG2 Diels ‖ [12] ἐπισυρρέοντος corr. Diels : ἐπισυρρέοντας P : om. PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_084

5

10

1246 §4

liber 3 caput 7

Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως τὴν πρώτην ἀναφοράν· γίνεσθαι δέ ποτε τῇ ξηρᾷ πρὸς τὴν ὑγρὰν μῖξιν. (S1)

§4 cf. Aristoteles Mete. 2.4 360a12–13 + 361b1 §4 non hab. P ‖ [14] δέ restituimus : μὲν S ‖ post μῖξιν in S sequuntur aliqua ex AD, cf. Diels DG ad loc., prob. Wachsmuth

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 2 verso (~ P§2) ]…[ τ]αις τ̣[ων ε]̣πωνυ̣[μιας ] κ̣ αι της δ[υσεως 5 κ]α̣ι ̣ του ηλ̣ [ιου ps.Galenus HPh c. 79 Περὶ ἀνέμων (~ tit.) (text Jas) 79.1 (~P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος οἴεται ἄνεμον εἶναι λύσιν ἀέρος τῶν λεπτοτάτων ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὑγροτάτων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τηκομένων ἢ κινουμένων. 79.2 (~ P2) οἱ Στωικοὶ πνεῦμα ἀέρος εἶναι λύσιν ἡγοῦνταί τε τὸν τόπον παραλλαγαῖς τὰς ἐπωνυμίας παραλλάττειν, οἷον τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ ζόφου καὶ τῆς δύσεως ζέφυρον ὠνόμαζον, τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀπηλιώτην, τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων βορέαν, τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς μεσημβρίας νότον. 79.3 (~ P3) Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὑδάτων ἀναθυμίασιν διὰ τὴν ἡλιακὴν ἔκκαυσιν γίγνεσθαι ὁρμὴν πνευμάτων· τοὺς δὲ ἐτησίας πνεῖν τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις παχυνθέντος […] τῷ ἡλίῳ κατὰ τὴν θερινὴν τροπήν. Julianus Arianista Comm. in Job p. 272.18–273.3 Hagedorn (~ P2–3) ἄνεμος γάρ ἐστι ῥεῦμα ἀέρος ταῖς τῶν τόπων ἐξαλλαγαῖς τὰς ἐπωνυμίας ἀμεῖβον· ἐκ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ ζοφώδους τῆς δύσεως ὅταν ῥέῃ ζέφυρος γίνεται, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ἀνατολῆς ἀπηλιώτης, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄρκτου βορρᾶς, λὶψ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν νοτίων. ‖ τοὺς δὲ ἐτησίας πνεῖν ⟨τοῦ⟩ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ⟨παχυνθέντος ἀέρος ὑποχωροῦντι τῷ ἡλίῳ κατὰ τὴν θερινὴν τροπὴν ἐπισυρρέοντος⟩. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 146 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀνέμων Symeon Seth CRN 2.24 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀνέμων Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 32 p. 50.13–14 (~ tit.) πρῶτον δὲ περὶ ἀνέμων εἴπωμεν. c. 33 p. 50.15–51.11 (~ tit.) Περὶ ἀνέμων, καὶ ὅτι διαφέρει αὔρα ἀναθυμιάσεως. Ἀναξίμανδρος (fr. 89 Wöhrle) τοίνυν ῥύσιν ἀέρος τὸν ἄνεμον εἶπε (~ §1), τινὲς δὲ ἀναθυμίασιν ἀέρος (~ §3). ἄλλοι δὲ διαφέρειν ἄνεμον λέγουσιν αὔρας· ἄνεμον γὰρ εἶναι ῥύσιν ἀέρος, αὔραν δὲ ἀναθυμίασιν γῆς. καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἐκ νεφῶν λέγουσιν

liber 3 caput 7 εἶναι ἀνέμους καὶ καλεῖσθαι ἐκνεφίας, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ γῆς φερομένους ἀπογε⟨ί⟩ους, τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ ποταμῶν ἐξυδρίας, ἀπὸ δὲ κόλπων κολπίας, ἀπὸ δὲ ὀρῶν ὀρίας ἢ ὀρεστίας καὶ παρὰ Ἀριστοτέλει ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀνέμων (Aristotle fr. 250 Rose3, i.e. ps.Aristotle) καὶ παρὰ Καλλιμάχῳ (fr. 404 Pfeiffer), ὥστε καὶ ἀπὸ τόπων τινὰς λέγεσθαι, οἷον Καικίαν τὸν ἀπὸ Καΐκου τοῦ ποταμοῦ πνέοντα καὶ Σκείρωνα τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν Σκειρωνίδων πετρῶν. τινὲς δὲ ἀπὸ ὁρμῆς ὠνομάσθησαν, ὡς οἱ σφοδρῶς ῥέοντες καταιγίδες καὶ οἱ μετὰ παλμοῦ τινος καὶ πηδήματος θύελλαι. οἳ δὲ ἀπὸ σχήματος λέγονται, ὥσπερ οἱ μετὰ δινήσεως στρόβιλοι καὶ οἱ κάτωθεν εἰς ὕψος φερόμενοι πρηστῆρες. ἐπραγματεύσατο δὲ περὶ ἀνέμων καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης (fr. II.54 Bernhardy). οἱ δὲ γενικώτατοι ἄνεμοι τέσσαρές εἰσι, καὶ ὁ μὲν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν πνέων καλεῖται ἀπηλιώτης, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρκτικοῦ πόλου βορέας, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνταρκτικοῦ νότος, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ δύσεως ζέφυρος· ζόφος γὰρ ἡ δύσις κατὰ τοὺς ποιητάς (~ §2). Scholia in Aratum schol. 786, p. 395.11–12 Martin καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἅλλο ἄνεμος ἢ ῥύσις ἀέρος (~ §1); schol. 845, p. 418.7–8 Martin καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἄνεμος οὐδὲν ἅλλο ἢ ἀὴρ ῥέων καὶ ποιὰν λαμβάνων κίνησιν, ἅπερ ἐκ τῆς αὐτοῦ τροπῆς συμβαὶνει γίνεσθαι (~ §1). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 1.2.1 πάντα γὰρ τὰ ὁρώμενα, ὅσα μήτε ὑπὸ τύχης μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀνάγκης μήτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῖα μήτε τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ἔχει, φυσικὰ λέγεται καὶ φύσιν ἔχει ἰδίαν· οἷον γῆ πῦρ ὕδωρ ἀὴρ φυτὰ ζῷα· ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα τὰ γινόμενα, ὄμβροι χάλαζαι κεραυνοὶ πρηστῆρες ἄνεμοι· ταῦτα γὰρ ἔχει ἀρχήν τινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἕκαστον τούτων ἐστὶν ἀλλ᾽ ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς γίνεται. §1 A 3.17.1 Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Ἡρακλείδης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν πνευμάτων κινοῦντος καὶ συμπεριφέροντος (sc. ἄμπωτιν καὶ πλήμμυραν γίνεσθαι). §2 A 3.17.4 Ποσειδώνιος ὑπὸ μὲν τῆς σελήνης κινεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀνέμους. §3 A 2.23 tit. Περὶ τροπῶν ἡλίου. 2.23.1 Ἀναξιμένης ὑπὸ πεπυκνωμένου ἀέρος καὶ ἀντιτύπου ἐξωθεῖσθαι τὰ ἄστρα. 2.23.2 Ἀναξαγόρας ἀνταπώσει τοῦ πρὸς ταῖς ἄρκτοις ἀέρος, ὃν αὐτὸς συνωθῶν ἐκ τῆς πυκνώσεως ἰσχυροποιεῖ. 2.23.3 Διογένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀντιπίπτοντος τῇ θερμότητι ψύχους σβέννυσθαι τὸν ἥλιον. A 4.1.1 Θαλῆς τοὺς ἐτησίας ἀνέμους οἴεται πνέοντας τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ ἀντιπροσώπους ἐπαίρειν τοῦ Νείλου τὸν ὄγκον διὰ τὸ τὰς ἐκροὰς αὐτοῦ τῇ παροιδήσει τοῦ ἀντιπαρήκοντος πελάγους ἀνακόπτεσθαι. A 4.1.4 ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων. §4 A 3.1.9 Ἀριστοτέλης ἀναθυμιάσεως ξηρᾶς ἔξαψιν κτλ. A 3.2.4 Ἀριστοτέλης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἐκ γῆς ἀναθυμιάσεως κτλ. 3.3.13 Ἀριστοτέλης ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα γίνεσθαι τῆς ξηρᾶς. ὅταν οὖν ἐντύχῃ μὲν τῇ ὑγρᾷ κτλ. 3.15.5 Ἀριστοτέλης … ἐν ἀπολήψει γινομένης τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως κτλ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1247

1248

liber 3 caput 7

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PP (snippets of four lines of §2), PB, PG, PPs and PQ, and S. P has omitted §4, perhaps because Aristotle’s dry exhalation has already been amply treated elsewhere. On the other hand S’ truncated ch. 1.32 consists of §4 only, so the loss of §§1–3 in this branch of the tradition must again be due to the Byzantine excerptors. As Diels noted, in S the lemma from A is coalesced with a fragment of AD; see M–R 1.249–254, 3.325, and Jeremiah at M–R 4.286 and 353. T, as always for Book 3, is absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. Winds are the subject of Seneca Nat. Book 5 (= Book 4 according to the original order). Other relevant proximate sources are (as is usual in the present series of chapters) Pliny the Elder, ps.Aristotle De mundo, Arrian and the Scholia on Aratus, which used to be derived from Posidonius and are still so attributed by Theiler. (2) Sources. §4, Aristotle, is a straightforward abstract from Mete. 2.4. The sources for the other lemmata are not known. We may also cite ch. [13.] of Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology, though the contents of this substantial chapter have little in common with our ch. 3.7. C Chapter Heading The heading, of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), is confirmed in all witnesses. It also occurs as a chapter heading elsewhere, and as a book title, e.g. of a tract of Theophrastus. Here it comprises the question type of cause (διὰ τί, and the sub-type unde) as well as the question types/categories of substance and quality, and the category of place. D Analysis a Context For a general explanation of A’s order see above, Introduction to Book 3, section 2, and Book 3.proœm. at Commentary D(a). In Aristotle the chapters on winds and pneumata in general, Mete. 2.4–6, are between those on the rivers (1.13–14) and the sea (2.1–3) and those on earthquakes (2.7–8). Treatment of this theme had been announced already at Mete. 1.13 349a12. Since pneuma plays an important part in the aetiology of earthquakes, the treatment of winds and all other pneumata appropriately comes before that of earthquakes. In Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones Book 5 (originally Book 4), on winds, comes

liber 3 caput 7

1249

before Book 6 (originally Book 5), on earthquakes, the same sequence as in Aristotle. In A the chapter on winds comes before ch. 3.8, on summer and winter as the last phenomena with an atmospheric aetiology (note the reference to summer in §3), while the chapter on earthquakes, 3.15, comes before the two chapters on the sea, 3.16–17. b Number–Order of Lemmata P has 3 lemmata, S only 1, and a different one at that. There is no need to interfere with P’s order, for the doxai in §1 and §2 contrast with that of §3 (see below, section (c)). This order is also that of Diels in the DG. It seems reasonable to add S’ lemma with name-label Aristotle at the end, after P’s triad, minus the phrase from AD for which see below section (d)§4. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The main diaphonia is between §§1–2, which explain wind as a flow of air, and §§3–4, which explain it as deriving from evaporation. The difference between §1 and §2 is slight, as it consists only in an explanation of the names of the winds in §2. A subsidiary diaphonia holds between the moist exhalation of §3 and the dry exhalation of §4 (with the second part of this doxa adding a compromise position as well). The question-type at issue is that of cause, the διὰ τί, and the category of place also plays a part (esp. in §2). d

Further Comments General Points Wilson (2013) 76–77 with nn. 6–7, and 196–216, argues that the wind forms the third of the ten groups into which Aristotle divided the meteorological phenomena; cf. above, ch. 3.3 Commentary C ad fin. The definition of wind as a flow of air was rejected by Aristotle but reinstalled by Theophrastus. The latter’s On Winds begins with the statement ‘The nature of the winds, from what and how and through what causes they come to be has been considered before’ (Greek text quoted at section E(b) General texts). These aspects are therefore not the theme of this treatise, although they are not avoided, but they are discussed in the long c. 13 of Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology, which is an additional argument in favour of the correctness of the attribution of the treatise. Individual Points §2 Sprache der Griechen (app. crit.): Q transliterates ‘Zephyrus’, meaningless in Arabic, and therefore adds an etymological derivation, i.e. Dunkelheit and fließen. Cf. chs. 2.1.1[2], 4.11.1[17], 4.12.1[9], and 4.19.3[7] and his adaptation of the chapter heading of 1.8.

1250

liber 3 caput 7

§3 No satisfactory emendation of the corrupt word in this lemma has as yet been proposed (here one again misses the evidence of S). G omits it. We suggest that a ‘Freudian lapsus’ (as Timpanaro calls it) occurred, i.e. the easy corruption of a word, here because of the obvious association between πνεῦμα, ‘spirit’, and θεῖον ‘divine’ (or ἅγιον ‘holy’). We therefore suggest θε⟨ρ⟩ι⟨ν⟩ῶν, ‘summer winds’, or perhaps rather ‘breezes’. The Etesians blow from ca. 15 May to ca. 15 September, so are summer winds as well. Cf. §3[12] θερινήν and Corpus Hippocraticum, Diaet. 37.24 et 26 θερινῶν πνευμάτων, ‘summer winds’ (trans. Jones LCL). The summer solstice is at 21 June. Diels’ suggestion ἀθρόων, based on Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.104 and ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 394b9 is palaeographically unlikely. For the formula ὁρμὴ τοῦ πνεύματος see e.g Aristotle Mete. 2.8 368a9, ps.Aristotle Probl. 33.5 962a5. §4 Diels and Wachsmuth attribute πνεῦμα μὲν ἐκ πολλῶν συνιουσῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων to A, but it seems more likely and simpler to have the Aristotelian doxa end at 3.4.2 μῖξιν and to attribute the phrase to AD’s excerpt from Aristotle. e Other Evidence Not surprisingly, winds are among the most widely discussed atmospheric phenomena, and not only because the Greeks were a seafaring people. They are treated in substantial sections of Aristotle’s Meteorology, namely chs. 1.13 and 2.4–6, in ps.Aristotle On the Locations and Names of Winds, in Theophrastus On Winds, in Theophrastus On Weather Signs 26–37, in ps.Aristotle Probl. 26 ‘What pertains to the winds’, and also in ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 394b7–395a10. They also receive due treatment in the related literature, e.g. Seneca, Arrian, and Pliny (cf. B above), and in the architect Vitruvius. The Placita do not describe the various and more detailed wind roses that were current, but sticks to the early and principal rose of four winds. Seneca, for one, does discuss them: Nat. 5.16–17. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Manilius 1.102–103 ventos quae causa moveret / pervidit. Seneca Nat. 5.7.1 in universum de ventis diximus; nunc viritim illos incipiamus excutere. Pliny Nat. 2.114 simili modo ventos vel potius flatus posse et arido siccoque anhelitu terrae gigni non negaverim, posse et aquis aëra exspirantibus, qui neque in nebulam densetur nec crassescat in nubes, posse et solis inpulsu agi, quoniam ventus haut aliud intellegatur quam fluctus aëris, pluribusque etiam modis. Nat. 2.117 viginti amplius auctores Graeci veteres prodidere de his observationes. Propertius 3.5.25–29 tum mihi naturae libeat perdiscere mores / … / unde salo superant venti, quid flamine captet / Eurus. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 392b11 πνοαί τε ἀνέμων. Mu. 4 394a15–19 (Posidonius fr. 336a Theiler) γίνονται … ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς (sc. ἀναθυμιάσεως) ἄνεμοί τε καὶ πνευμάτων διαφοραὶ … καὶ τὰ ἄλλα

liber 3 caput 7 ἃ δὴ τούτοις ἐστὶ σύμφυλα. Mu. 4 394b7–9 ἐκ δὲ τῆς ξηρᾶς (sc. ἀναθυμιάσεως) ὑπὸ ψύχους μὲν ὠσθείσης ὥστε ῥεῖν ἄνεμος ἐγένετο· οὐδὲν γάρ ἐστιν οὗτος πλὴν ἀὴρ πολὺς ῥέων καὶ ἀθρόος· ὅστις ἅμα καὶ πνεῦμα λέγεται. Arrian Reb.Phys. fr. 3, p. 2.187 Roos–Wirth at Stob. Ecl. 1.29.2, p. 235.10–11 (Posidonius fr. 338b Theiler) Ἀρριανοῦ. ὅσοι δὲ ξηροὶ ἀτμοί, ῥυέντες μὲν εὐθὺς ἀνέμους εἰργάσαντο. Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.11 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) ἀνέμους δὲ γίνεσθαι λεπτυνομένου τοῦ ἀέρος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῶν ἐκκαιομένων πρὸς τὸν πόλον ὑποχωρούντων καὶ ἀποφερομένων. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.59, p. 134.1–4 edissertate, inquam, et dicite … ventus unde oriatur et quid sit. Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 1.277 de vento. Seneca Nat. lib. 5 De ventis. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.30–31 ventorum genera, naturae, observationes. Aulus Gellius 2.22.31 P. enim Nigidii in secundo librorum, quos De vento composuit. Agatharchides Mar.Erythr. 107 περὶ … πνευμάτων. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 Rousseau–Doutreleau (trans. Rufini) vel quid dicere possumus quomodo … ventorum immissiones et similia his efficiuntur. Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 36 De natura ventorum (in the body of work the heading is De ventis). Etym. 13.9 De ventis (at 13.10 in the body of the work). §1 Anaximander: Theophrastus Vent. 29 ἐν τοῖς στενοῖς ἀεὶ πνεῦμα· μένειν γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ οὐ δύναται διὰ τὸ πλῆθος, ἡ δὲ τούτου κίνησις ἄνεμος. Corpus Hippocraticum Flat. 3 (at Diogenes 64C2 DK) πνεύματα δὲ τὰ μὲν ἐν τοῖσι σώμασι φῦσαι καλέονται, τὰ δὲ ἔξω τῶν σωμάτων ἀήρ. … ἄνεμος γάρ ἐστιν ἠέρος ῥεῦμα καὶ χεῦμα (cited by Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 53.27–28 and Olympiodorus in Mete. 171.30). Lucretius DRN 6.685 ventus enim fit, ubi est agitando percitus / aër. Seneca Nat. 5.1.1 ventus est fluens aër. Pliny Nat. 2.114 ventus haud aliud intellegatur quam flatus aëris. §2 Stoics: Homer Od. 5.295–296 σὺν δ᾽ Eὖρός τε Nότος τ᾽ ἔπεσον Zέφυρός τε δυσαὴς / καὶ Bορέης αἰθρηγενέτης. Ovid Met. 1.61–66 Eurus ad Auroram Nabataeaque regna recessit / Persidaque et radiis iuga subdita matutinis; / vesper et occiduo quae litora sole tepescunt, / proxima sunt Zephyro; Scythiam septemque triones / horrifer invasit Boreas; contraria tellus / nubibus adsiduis pluviaque madescit ab Austro. Vitruvius 1.6.4 nonnullis placuit esse ventos quattuor: ab oriente aequinoctiali Solanum, a meridie Austrum, ab occidente aequinoctiali Favonium, ab septentrionali Septentrionem. Seneca Nat. 5.16.1– 2 venti quattuor sunt, in ortum occasum meridiem septemtrionemque divisi; ceteri, quos variis nominibus appellamus, his adplicantur. … (2) vel, si brevius illos complecti mavis, in unam tempestatem, quod fieri nullo modo potest, congregentur: (Vergil Aen. 1.85–86) ‘una Eurusque Notusque ruunt creberque procellis / Africus’, et, qui locum in illa rixa non habuit, Aquilo. Pliny Nat. 2.119 veteres quattuor omnino servavere per totidem mundi partes (ideo nec Homerus plures nominat). ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 394b19–21 καὶ οἱ μὲν ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς συνεχεῖς Eὖροι κέκληνται, Bορέαι δὲ οἱ ἀπὸ ἄρκτου, Zέφυροι δὲ οἱ ἀπὸ δύσεως, Nότοι δὲ οἱ ἀπὸ μεσημβρίας. Aulus Gellius 2.22.16 ex his octo ventis alii quattuor ventos detrahunt atque id facere se dicunt Homero auctore, qui solos quattuor ventos noverit: Eurum, Austrum, Aquilonem, Favonium, a quattuor caeli parti-

1251

1252

liber 3 caput 7

bus, quas quasi primas nominavimus, oriente scilicet atque occidente latioribus atque simplicibus, non tripertitis. see below, ch. 3.8 section E(a) for Lucretius DRN 5.736–748. §3 Metrodorus: Seneca Nat. 5.10.1 + 4 Etesiae quoque, qui in argumentum a quibusdam advocantur, non nimis propositum adiuvant. dicam primum quid illis placeat. … (4) a solstitio illis (sc. Etesian winds) initium est. … quia iam multum e frigida caeli parte in hanc egestum est, ac sol mutato cursu in nostram rectior tendit{ur}, et alteram partem aëris attrahit, alteram vero impellit. §4 Aristotle: Seneca Nat. 5.4.1 alias cum magna et continua e summo evaporatio in altum egit quae emiserat, luctatio ipsa halitus mixti in ventum vertitur. Arius Didymus at Stob. Ecl. 1.32, p. 248.7–8 (and at DG p. 375b5–7) πνεῦμα μὲν ἐκ πολλῶν συνιουσῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων· τὸν γὰρ ἄνεμον μὲν εἶναι ξηρᾶς ἀναδόσεως πλῆθος κινούμενον περὶ γῆν κτλ. cf. Seneca Nat. 5.2.1 (Democritus 68A93a DK).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Top. 4.5 127a3–8 πάλιν εἰ τοῦ πάθους, οὗ ἐστι πάθος, ἐκεῖνο {γένος} φασὶν εἶναι, οἷον τὸ πνεῦμα ἀέρα κινούμενον· {μᾶλλον γὰρ κίνησις ἀέρος τὸ πνεῦμα} ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀὴρ διαμένει, ὅταν τε κινῆται καὶ ὅταν μένῃ. ὥστ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅλως ἀὴρ τὸ πνεῦμα· ἦν γὰρ ἂν καὶ μὴ κινουμένου τοῦ ἀέρος πνεῦμα, εἴπερ ὁ αὐτὸς ἀὴρ διαμένει ὅσπερ ἦν πνεῦμα. Top. 7.5 146b27–35 ὁρίζονται … τὸ πνεῦμα κίνησιν ἀέρος …· προσθετέον … πόσου καὶ ποίου καὶ ποῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τίνος. …. οὐ γὰρ … ἀέρος ὁπωσοῦν οὐδ᾽ ὁποσουοῦν κινηθέντος πνεῦμα. Mete. 2.6 363a21–26 περὶ δὲ θέσεως αὐτῶν, καὶ τίνες ἐναντίοι τίσι, καὶ ποίους ἅμα πνεῖν ἐνδέχεται καὶ ποίους οὔ, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τίνες καὶ πόσοι τυγχάνουσιν ὄντες, καὶ πρὸς τούτοις περὶ τῶν ἄλλων παθημάτων ὅσα μὴ συμβέβηκεν ἐν τοῖς Προβλήμασιν εἰρῆσθαι τοῖς κατὰ μέρος, νῦν λέγωμεν. Theophrastus Vent. 1 ἡ τῶν ἀνέμων φύσις ἐκ τίνων μὲν καὶ πῶς καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας γίνεται τεθεώρηται πρότερον· ὅτι δ᾽ ἑκάστοις αἱ δυνάμεις καὶ ὅλως τὰ παρακολουθοῦντα κατὰ λόγον ἀκολουθεῖ πειρᾶσθαι χρὴ λέγειν οἷσπερ σχεδὸν διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήλων. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 13 tit. Daiber The account of the causes of different winds. Ovid Met. 1.52–56 inminet his aër, …. illic consistere … / iussit … et … ventos. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 466.27–28 τῷ δὲ ὁρισμῷ τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅτι κίνησις ἀέρος, (sc. ἔδει προσκεῖσθαι) τὸ ἐξ ἀναθυμιάσεως τῆς γῆς. Themistius Or. 26, p. 2.145.11–13 ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τὰ ἐγγὺς ἡμῶν καὶ χαμαίζηλα καὶ ἐν ποσί, … καὶ πνευμάτων (sc. πέρι). Proclus in Tim. 2.119.29– 120.7 ἡδέως δ᾽ ἂν ἐροίμεθα τὸν Θεόφραστον (fr. 159 FHS&G) … ζητοῦντος, …, πόθεν δὲ ἄνεμοι, … ἃ δὴ καλῶς ποιῶν ἐν τῇ τῶν Μετεώρων αἰτολογίᾳ τῆς πρεπούσης τῆς πρεπούσης εἰκοτολογίας καὶ αὐτὸς ἠξίωσεν. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.13 349a12–13 περὶ δὲ ἀνέμων καὶ πάντων πνευμάτων … λέγωμεν. Mete. 2.4 359b27 περὶ δὲ πνευμάτων λέγωμεν, λαβόντες ἀρχὴν τὴν εἰρημένην ἡμῖν ἤδη πρότερον. ps.Aristotle Probl. 26 Ὅσα περὶ τοὺς ἀνέμους. Theophrastus at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 5.42 (fr. 137.16a FHS&G) Περὶ ἀνέμων αʹ. Achilles c. 33, p. 51.7 ἐπραγματεύσατο δὲ περὶ ἀνέμων καὶ Ἐρατοσθένης (fr. II.54 Bernhardy). Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 97.10–11 (cf. ibid.

liber 3 caput 7 112.32–34) Θεόφραστος (fr. 189.1–2 FHS&G) δὲ ἐν τῷ Περὶ ἀνέμων. Oribasius Coll.Med. 9.7 Περὶ ἀνέμων. John Philoponus in Mete. 2.1–2 περὶ … ἀνέμων. §1 Anaximander: Aristotle Mete. 1.13 349a16–20 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἵ φασι τὸν καλούμενον ἀέρα κινούμενον μὲν καὶ ῥέοντα ἄνεμον εἶναι, συνιστάμενον δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον πάλιν νέφος καὶ ὕδωρ, ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως οὔσης ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, καὶ τὸν ἄνεμον εἶναι κίνησιν ἀέρος. Mete. 2.4 360a18–21 οὐχ ἡ αὐτή ἐστιν ἥ τε ἀνέμου φύσις καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὑομένου ὕδατος, καθάπερ τινὲς λέγουσιν· τὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀέρα κινούμενον μὲν ἄνεμον εἶναι, συνιστάμενον δὲ πάλιν ὕδωρ. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 13.6–8 Daiber the wind is …—as we have said—compound vapour in which the fine is dominating. Ennius p. 220 Vahlen istic est is Iupiter quem dico, quem Graeci vocant / aerem, qui ventus est et nubes, imber postea, / atque ex imbre frigus, ventus post fit, aer denuo. Vitruvius 1.6.2 ventus autem est aëris fluens unda cum certa motus redundantia. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 6.10.6 intellegimus omnes ventos aëris esse fluorem pulsi et mundanis rationibus concitati. §2 Stoics: Homer Od. 5.295–296 σὺν δ᾽ Εὖρός τε Νότος τ᾽ ἔπεσον Ζέφυρός τε δυσαὴς / καὶ Βορέης αἰθρηγενέτης. Aristotle Mete. 2.6 363b11–17 καλεῖται δὲ κατὰ τὴν θέσιν τῶν τόπων τὰ πνεύματα ὧδε· Ζέφυρος μὲν τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ Α· τοῦτο γὰρ δυσμὴ ἰσημερινή. ἐναντίος δὲ τούτῳ Ἀπηλιώτης ἀπὸ τοῦ Β· τοῦτο γὰρ ἀνατολὴ ἰσημερινή. Βορέας δὲ ⟨καὶ⟩ Ἀπαρκτίας ἀπὸ τοῦ Η· ἐνταῦθα γὰρ ἡ ἄρκτος. ἐναντίος δὲ τούτῳ Νότος ἀπὸ τοῦ Θ· μεσημβρία τε γὰρ αὕτη ἀφ᾽ ἧς πνεῖ, καὶ τὸ Θ τῷ Η ἐναντίον· κατὰ διάμετρον γάρ. Cicero Div. 2.44 placet enim Stoicis (SVF 2.699) eos anhelitus terrae, qui frigidi sint, cum fluere coeperint, ventos esse. Strabo 1.2.21, 29C.3–6 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἵ φασιν εἶναι δύο τοὺς κυριωτάτους ἀνέμους Βορέαν καὶ Νότον, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους κατὰ μικρὰν ἔγκλισιν διαφέρειν, τὸν μὲν ἀπὸ θερινῶν ἀνατολῶν Εὖρον χειμερινῶν δὲ Ἀπηλιώτην, δύσεων δὲ θερινῶν μὲν Ζέφυρον χειμερινῶν δὲ Ἀργέστην. Ovid Met. 1.56–66 Eurus … Vesper … Boreas … Austro. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.152 (SVF 2.698) ⟨τοὺς δ᾽ ἀνέμους ἀέρος εἶναι ῥύσεις· παραλλαττούσας δὲ τὰς ἐπωνυμίας suppl. ab Arnim., lac. Dorandi⟩ παρὰ τοὺς τόπους ἀφ᾽ ὧν ῥέουσι. τῆς δὲ γενέσεως αὐτῶν αἴτιον γίνεσθαι τὸν ἥλιον ἐξατμίζοντα τὰ νέφη. §3 Metrodorus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.100 ἔτι τε ⟨διὰ⟩ πνεύματα κατὰ ἀποφορὰν ἀπὸ ἐπιτηδείων τόπων καὶ δι᾽ ἀέρος κινουμένων, βιαιοτέρας ἐπαρδεύσεως γινομένης ἀπό τινων ἀθροισμάτων ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τὰς τοιαύτας ἐπιπέμψεις. Vitruvius 1.6.2 ventus … nascitur, cum fervor offendit umorem et impetus spiritus factionis exprimit vim flatus. §4 Aristotle: Aristotle Mete. 2.4 360a12–13 ἡ δὲ ξηρὰ (sc. ἀναθυμίασις) τῶν πνευμάτων ἀρχὴ καὶ φύσις πάντων + 359b32–34 ἔστι δ᾽ οὔτε τὸ ὑγρὸν ἄνευ τοῦ ξηροῦ οὔτε τὸ ξηρὸν ἄνευ τοῦ ὑγροῦ, ἀλλὰ πάντα ταῦτα λέγεται κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν + 361b1 ἐκ πολλῶν ἀναθυμιάσεων συνιουσῶν. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 13.22 Daiber strong winds occur, when many vapours ascend.

1253

Liber 3 Caput 8 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895C; pp. 375a12–376a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 80; p. 632.16–19 Diels; pp. 265–267 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 178–179 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.8.42b, p. 107.8–12 Wachsmuth Cf. Eusebius PE 15.32.10, p. 407.1–5; 15.54.3, p. 417.17–18; 15.58.4, p. 419.19–20 Mras

Titulus ηʹ. Περὶ χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους (P) §1 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ χειμῶνα μὲν γίνεσθαι τοῦ ἀέρος ἐπικρατοῦντος τῇ πυκνώσει καὶ εἰς τὸ ἀνωτέρω βιαζομένου, θερείαν δὲ τοῦ πυρός, ὅταν εἰς τὸ κατωτέρω βιάζηται. (P1,S1) §2 περιγεγραμμένων δέ μοι τῶν μεταρσίων, ἐφοδευθήσεται καὶ τὰ πρόσγεια. (P2) §1 Empedocles 31A65 DK; Stoici SVF 2.696 titulus non hab. S §1 [2] ἀέρος] ἐάρος SF : ἔαρος SP ‖ [3] καὶ P : om. S ‖ ἀνωτέρω PB : ἀνώτερον PGS ‖ βιαζομένου] wendet Q ‖ [3] θερείαν] θέρος PG ‖ [4] κατωτέρω P : κατώτερον SF, κατότερον SP ‖ βιάζηται P(II,III)SF : βιάζεται P(I)SP : wendet Q §2 lemma om. G, non hab. S

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus c. 80 (~ tit.) Περὶ χειμῶνος καὶ θέρους (text Jas) 80.1 (~ P1) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ χειμῶνα μὲν γίγνεσθαι τοῦ ἀέρος ἐπικρατοῦντος τῇ πυκνώσει καὶ εἰς τὸ ἀνώτερον βιαζομένου, θέρος δὲ τοῦ πυρός, ὅταν εἰς τὸ κατωτέρω βιάζηται. Testes secundi: Eusebius PE 15.32.10 θήσω δὲ ἑξῆς τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὅσα καὶ περὶ τῶν προσγειοτέρων ἐπηπόρησαν, περὶ γῆς σχήματος (~ tit. c. 3.10) καὶ περὶ θέσεως (~ tit. c. 3.11) καὶ ἐγκλίσεως (~ tit. c. 3.10) αὐτῆς καὶ ἔτι περὶ θαλάσσης (~ tit. c. 3.16), ὡς ἂν εἰδείης ὅτι μὴ ⟨περὶ⟩ μόνων τῶν μετεώρων (cf. liber 2) καὶ μεταρσίων (cf. cc. 3.1–8) οἱ γενναῖοι διέστησαν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι καὶ ἐν τοῖς περιγείοις (cf. cc. 3.9–17) διαπεφωνήκασιν. PE 15.54.3 καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν οὐρανίων (cf. liber 2) καὶ μεταρσίων (cf. chs. 3.1–8) τοσαῦτα τοῖς δεδηλωμένοις πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεστασίασται. θέα δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ γῆς (cf. cc. 3.9–17). PE 15.58.4 τούτων καὶ περὶ γῆς διαπεφωνημένων τοῖς γενναίοις ἄκουε καὶ τῶν περὶ θαλάσσης (cf. cc. 3.9–17). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.19 Περὶ ἐπισημασίας ἀστέρων καί πῶς γίνεται χειμὼν καὶ θερός. §2 A 1.4.2 τὰ μὲν οὖν κυριώτατα μέρη τοῦ κόσμου τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἐγεννήθη.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_085

5

liber 3 caput 8

1255

A 3.prooem. περιωδευκὼς ἐν τοῖς προτέροις ἐν ἐπιτομῇ τὸν περὶ τῶν οὐρανίων λόγον, σελήνη δ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ μεθόριον, τρέψομαι ἐν τῷ τρίτῳ πρὸς τὰ μετάρσια. A 3.5.1 τῶν μεταρσίων παθῶν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, PG and PQ, and S. §2 is only found in PB, while §1 in S is preserved much earlier on at Ecl. ch. 1.8, under the heading ‘On the substance of time and its parts and of how many things it is the cause’. This chapter in S also contains abstracts from ch. 1.21, ‘On time’, from ch. 1.22, ‘On the substance of time’, and from ch. 2.32, ‘On the year’ etc., which S has also collected by removing them from their original position in subsequent books of the Placita. T did not excerpt Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition of §1 is rather sparse, apart from a rather general sentence in the Stoic Book 7 of Diogenes Laertius. Formulas resembling §1 are found in Seneca and Eusebius. There is no precedent in Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology. (2) Sources. The doctrine is Stoic, see Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.151 cited at section E(b)§1. There is virtually no precedent in Aristotle apart from general remarks about the motions of the sun. C Chapter Heading The heading, of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), is only preserved in the tradition of P. We have found no parallel elsewhere. It covers the question type of cause (διὰ τί), the category of the substance (‘air’, ‘fire’), and the category of place (‘higher’, ‘lower’). D Analysis a Context For the explanation of A’s chapter order in general see above, Book 3.proœm. at Commentary D(a). The present chapter is the last in the series of nine consecutive chapters (including ch. 5a) dealing with atmospheric phenomena. It follows upon the chapter on winds (Lucr. DRN 5.736–748 treats seasons and

1256

liber 3 caput 8

winds together). The single doxa it presents, on the vertical motions of air and fire which by turns press each other up and down, may perhaps be interpreted as providing a sort of appendix to ch. 3.7.1–2, which are about air movements that are, for the most part, horizontal. In Seneca the parallel material is found in a different context, viz. in Book 2 (originally Book 8), ‘On lightning and thunder’. §2 provides the announcement of the treatment of the terrestrial matters that occupy chs. 3.9–17. P’s isolated final chapter, 3.18, actually belongs with the series of eight, and more particularly after ch. 3.5, so we have given it the position 3.5a. b Number–Order of Lemmata Diels in the DG left a blank line between §1 and §2, which he failed to do at ch. 1.4, where a lemma of the standard type is likewise followed by an authorial remark. He may have done do because in ch. 1.4 this is linked to a single chapter only, while here it is linked to multiple chapters. It is of course entirely clear that §2, also looking forward to what is to follow, has to come after §1, as in the DG. The little chapter may well be complete, but in the absence of most of S we cannot know. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter If we include the second part, we have two lemmata of an entirely different nature. In fact the structure, if we may use the term here, is that of a doxa followed by an attached authorial note, which we could easily separate out as at the beginning of the book, but for the sake of convenience we have kept the two separate parts together. In effect this chapter is monolemmatic, but unlike chs. 3.5a and 3.7 it has name-labels. Though there is a suggestion that the seasons follow each other in a cycle, this is not stated explicitly, as the emphasis is on the causal explanation of the heat of summer and the cold of winter. d

Further Comments General Points There is another chapter dealing with summer and winter in the Placita, viz. ch. 2.19 according to the second part of the title in P, and the ‘signs relating to winter and summer’ mentioned in its first lemma. Lucretius discusses summer and winter among the caelestia. Individual Points §1 βιαζομένου] ‘sc. τὸν ἥλιον, was wohl im Original aus dem Zusammenhange klar war’, DK ad loc. We note that the heavenly bodies, esp. the sun, are not

liber 3 caput 8

1257

mentioned explicitly in our lemma, though they do appear in the parallels quoted below in section E(a) and (b). §2 On this lemma see M–R. 2.1.55. e Other Evidence In most related texts the emphasis is on the regularity of the seasons’ following one after the other. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Lucretius DRN 5.736–748 ordine cum videas tam certo multa creari : / it Ver et Venus, et Veneris praenuntius ante / pennatus graditur, Zephyri vestigia propter / Flora quibus mater praespargens ante viai / cuncta coloribus egregiis et odoribus opplet. / inde loci sequitur Calor aridus et comes una / pulverulenta Ceres et etesia flabra Aquilonum. / inde Autumnus adit, graditur simul Euhius Euan; / inde aliae tempestates ventique secuntur, / altitonans Volturnus et Auster fulmine pollens. / tandem Bruma nives adfert pigrumque rigorem / reddit. Hiemps sequitur crepitans hanc dentibus algu. Propertius 3.5.25–38 tum mihi naturae libeat perdiscere mores / … / plenus et in partes quattuor annus eat. ps.Vergil Etna 239–241 (scire) tempora cur varient anni (ver, prima iuventa / cur aestate perit, cur aestas ipsa senescit / autumnoque obrepit hiemps et in orbe recurrit?) Hermogenes Id. 1.6.4.5–6 Patillon οἷον ὡρῶν φύσεις εἰ ἐξετάζοι τις, ὅπως τε καὶ καθ᾽ ἃς αἰτίας γίνονται. Arnobius Adv.Nat. 2.59, p. 134.15–17 cur temporum vicissitudines institutae, cum statui unum posset et una esse species caeli, nihil ut rerum desideraret integritas? Chapter heading: Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.737 de anni temporibus. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.24 vis temporum anni stata. §1 Empedocles Stoics: Pliny Nat. 2.105 quis enim aestates et hiemes quaeque in temporibus annua vice intelleguntur siderum motu fieri dubitet? ergo ut solis natura temperando intellegitur anno etc. Seneca Nat. 2.1.1 quemadmodum anni vices servet (sc. caelum), solem retro flectat. Nat. 2.11.1–2 qui (sc. aër) cum sic divisus sit, ima sui parte maxime varius inconstans ac mutabilis est. circa terras plurimum audet plurimum patitur, exagitatur exagitat, nec tamen eodem modo totus adficitur sed aliter alibi, et partibus inquietus ac turbidus est. (2) causas autem illi mutationis et inconstantiae alias terra praebet, cuius positiones hoc aut illo versae magna ad aëris temperiem momenta sunt, alias siderum cursus. ex quibus soli plurimum imputes: illum sequitur annus, ad illius flexus hiemes aestatesque vertuntur; lunae proximum ius est; sed ceterae quoque stellae non minus terrena quam incumbentem terris spiritum adficiunt, et cursu suo occursuve contrario modo frigora modo imbres aliasque terris turbide iniurias movent. Arius Didymus fr. 26 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.8.42a, p. 106.26–107.3 (on Chrysippus, SVF 2.693) ἔαρ δὲ ἔτους ὥραν κεκραμένην ἐκ χειμῶνος ἀπολήγοντος καὶ θέρους ἀρχομένου, ἢ τὴν μετὰ χειμῶνα ὥραν πρὸ θέρους. θέρος δὲ ὥραν ἔτους

1258

liber 3 caput 8

τὴν μάλιστ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἡλίου διακεκαυμένην. μετόπωρον δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μετὰ θέρος μὲν πρὸ χειμῶνος δέ, κεκραμένην. χειμῶνα δὲ ὥραν ἔτους τὴν μάλιστα κατεψυγμένην, ἢ τὸν περὶ γῆν ἀέρα κατεψυγμένον. §2 Proem to the rest of the Book: Seneca Nat. 2.1.1–4 omnis de universo quaestio in caelestia sublimia terrena dividitur. … (2) … tertia illa pars de aquis terris arbustis satis quaerit, et, ut iurisconsultorum verbo utar, de omnibus quae solo continentur. … (4) dicam quod magis tibi mirum videbitur: inter caelestia de terra dicendum erit. ‘quare?’ inquis. quia cum propria terrae ipsius excutimus suo loco, utrum (cf. ch. 3.10) lata sit et inaequalis et enormiter proiecta, an tota in formam pilae spectet et in orbem partes suas cogat, alliget aquas an aquis alligetur, ipsa animal sit an iners corpus et sine sensu, plenum quidem spiritus sed alieni, et cetera huiusmodi quotiens in manus venerint, terram sequentur et in imo collocabuntur.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

§1 Empedocles Stoics: Aristotle Mete. 2.4 361a12–13 διὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν φορὰν (sc. τοῦ ἡλίου) τὴν ἐπὶ τροπὰς καὶ ἀπὸ τροπῶν θέρος γίγνεται καὶ χειμών. GA 4.2 767a5–6 ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἥλιος ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ ποιεῖ χειμῶνα καὶ θέρος. ps.Aristotle Probl. 26.8 941a1–5 διὰ τί αἱ μὲν καθαραὶ δύσεις εὐδιεινὸν σημεῖον, αἱ δὲ τεταραγμέναι χειμερινόν; ἢ ὅτι χειμὼν [‘storm’] γίνεται συνισταμένου καὶ πυκνουμένου τοῦ ἀέρος; ὅταν μὲν οὖν κρατῇ ὁ ἥλιος, διακρίνει καὶ αἰθριάζει αὐτόν, ὅταν δὲ κρατῆται, ἐπινεφῆ ποιεῖ. Corpus Hippocraticum Flat. 3 χειμῶνος καὶ θέρεος αἴτιον, ἐν μὲν τῷ χειμῶνι πυκνὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν γινόμενον (sc. τὸν ἀέρα), ἐν δὲ τῷ θέρει πρηῢ καὶ γαληνόν. Cicero ND 2.49 inflectens autem sol cursum tum ad septemtriones tum ad meridiem aestates et hiemes efficit. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.151–152 (on Stoics, SVF 2.693) τῶν δ᾽ ἐν ἀέρι γινομένων χειμῶνα μὲν εἶναί φασι τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα κατεψυγμένον διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πρόσω ἄφοδον, ἔαρ δὲ τὴν εὐκρασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς πορείαν· θέρος δὲ τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα καταθαλπόμενον τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς ἄρκτον πορείᾳ, μετόπωρον δὲ τῇ παλινδρομίᾳ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι. Pythagorica Hypomnemata at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.26 ἰσόμοιρά τ᾽ εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ … θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, καὶ ξηρὸν καὶ ὑγρόν· ὧν κατ᾽ ἐπικράτειαν θερμοῦ μὲν θέρος γίνεσθαι, ψυχροῦ δὲ χειμῶνα· ἐὰν δὲ ἰσομοιρῇ, τὰ κάλλιστα εἶναι τοῦ ἔτους, οὗ τὸ μὲν θάλλον ἔαρ ὑγιεινόν, τὸ δὲ φθίνον φθινόπωρον νοσερόν.

Liber 3 Caput 9 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895C–D; p. 376a6–19 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.55.1–5, p. 418.1–8 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 81; p. 632.20–24 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 178–179 Daiber—cf. PSy : Symeon Seth CRN 2.7, p. 21.16 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.33, p. 248.13–14 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b19–20 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 4, pp. 12.26–13.6 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium II 4, pp. 368–369 Poljakov

Titulus θʹ. Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μίαν εἶναι τὴν γῆν. (P1) §2 Ἱκέτης ὁ Πυθαγόρειος δύο, ταύτην καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. (P2) §3 οἱ Στωικοὶ τὴν γῆν μίαν καὶ πεπερασμένην. (P3) §4 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ τοῦ κατωτέρω μέρους ‘εἰς ἄπειρον’ ἐρριζῶσθαι, ἐξ ἀέρος δὲ καὶ πυρὸς συμπαγῆναι. (P4) §5 Μητρόδωρος τὴν μὲν γῆν ὑπόστασιν εἶναι καὶ τρύγα τοῦ ὕδατος, τὸν δ᾽ ἥλιον τοῦ ἀέρος. (P5) §1–2 Hicetas 50.2 DK; §3 Stoici SVF 2.647; §4 Xenophanes 21A47 DK, cf. B28.3; §5 Metrodorus 70A20 DK lemmata non hab. S titulus καὶ1 … πόσαι PB : εἰ μία καὶ πεπερασμένη καὶ περὶ ποίου μεγέθους καὶ περὶ θέσεως αὐτῆς (i.q. tit. c. 3.11) SLPhot : non hab. PGEQ ‖ ταύτης οὐσία PB(I,II) : οὐσία ταύτης PB(III) ‖ πόσαι PB(I,II) : πόση PB(III) ‖ §1 [2] post γῆν hab. PG ὑπολαμβάνουσιν §2 [3] Ἱκέτης … Πυθαγόρειος PBE : τῶν δὲ Πυθαγορείων τινὲς PG ‖ Ἱκέτης] οἰκέτης PB(ΙΙΙ) ‖ ταύτην PBG : αὐτὴν PE §3 [4] post οἱ Στωικοὶ hab. PG δὲ ‖ καὶ] om. P(BΙΙΙ)G §4 [5] κατωτέρω PB(II)Q(ut vid.) : κάτω PB(III:AE) : κατωτέρου PB(I,IIIα) ‖ post ἄπειρον hab. μέρος PB(I,II)Ε : del. Diels prob. edd. : βάθος PB(III) prob. Laks–Most : πάθος PB(II) : bis zu ihren oberen (Teil) Q ‖ ἐρριζῶσθαι] dicht ist Q ‖ [6] συμπαγῆναι PB : παγῆναι PE prob. Mras ut poeticum §5 [7] post Μητρόδωρος hab. PG δὲ ‖ ὕδατος] ἀέρος PG ‖ [8] ἀέρος] πυρός PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 81 Περὶ γῆς (~ tit.) (text Diels) 81.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μίαν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. 81.2 (~ P2) τῶν δὲ Πυθαγορείων τινὲς καὶ ταύτην εἶναι καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονά φασιν. 81.3 (~ P3) οἱ Στωικοὶ δὲ γῆν εἶναι μίαν καὶ πεπερασμένην. 81.4 (~ P5) Μητρόδωρος δὲ τὴν γῆν ὑπόστασιν εἶναι καὶ οἱονεὶ τρύγα τοῦ ἀέρος νομίζει, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον τοῦ πυρός. Symeon Seth CRN 2.7 περὶ δὲ τοῦ μεγέθους τῆς γῆς πολλαὶ γεγόνασι δόξαι (~ quaestio).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_086

5

1260

liber 3 caput 9

Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 4, pp. 12.26–13.6 Ξενοφάνης (21B28 DK) δὲ οὐκ οἴεται μετέωρον εἶναι τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ κάτω εἰς ἄπειρον καθήκειν· ‘γαίης μὲν’ γάρ φησι ‘τόδε πεῖραρ ἄνω παρὰ ποσσὶν ὁρᾶται / αἰθέρι προσπλάζον, τὸ κάτω δ᾽ ἐς ἄπειρον ἱκνεῖται’ (~ §4). Scholia in Basilium II 4 pp. 368–369 Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος οὐκ οἴεται μετέωρον εἶναι τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ κάτω εἰς ἄπειρ⟨ον⟩ καθήκειν (~ §4). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.11 Περὶ οὐρανοῦ, τίς ἡ τουτοῦ οὐσία. A 2.13 Τίς ἡ οὐσία τῶν ἄστρων κτλ. A 2.20 Περὶ οὐσίας ἡλίου καὶ ὅτι δύο καὶ τρεῖς εἰσίν. A 2.21 Περὶ μεγέθους ἡλίου. A 2.25 Περὶ οὐσίας σελήνης. A 2.26 Περὶ μεγέθους σελήνης. A 1.3.27 ἄπειρα μὲν κατ᾽ ἀριθμόν, ὡρισμένα δὲ κατὰ μέγεθος. A 1.18.6 ἄπειρον δὲ οὐθὲν ἀπολείπει οὔτε κατὰ τὸ πλῆθος οὔτε κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος. §2 A 2.7.6 Φιλόλαος … πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τοῦτο δέκα σώματα θεῖα χορεύειν, … ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. A 3.11.3 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον, … δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. §4 A 3.11.2 Ξενοφάνης πρώτην, εἰς ἄπειρον γὰρ ἐρριζῶσθαι. §5 A 2.20.8 … Μητρόδωρος μύδρον ἢ πέτρον διάπυρον. A 3.15.6 Μητρόδωρος … διὸ μηδὲ τὴν γῆν, ἅτε δὴ κειμένην φυσικῶς, κινεῖσθαι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, PE, PG and PQ, and S, but for the title only. Because of the presence of the word μέγεθος in the heading according to SPhot, Diels posited that a chapter on the size of the earth, analogous to the chapters on the size of the sun (2.21) and the moon (2.26) has been lost in P. This is of course possible but incapable of proof, though P the epitomator may have felt justified in omitting such a chapter because the terms ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ already pertain to μέγεθος, ‘size’, in the present chapter. The whole section on earth 3.9–16 in S has regrettably been excised by Byzantine excerptors. T did not excerpt Book 3. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is limited. (2) Sources. The main source is Aristotle, De caelo 2.13, the chapter on the earth, which discusses those issues in relation to each other, viz. substance and

liber 3 caput 9

1261

number, shape, position, and motion or rest, that are treated separately in A’s chs. 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.13. His methodology and terminology also shine through, while some name-labels of the Placita chapters on the earth are already found there as well. C Chapter Heading PEGQ have the short title Περὶ γῆς, while PB has a long title, namely Περὶ γῆς καὶ τίς ἡ ταύτης οὐσία καὶ πόσαι (or ποσή), one ingredient of which is confirmed by SLPhot εἰ μία καὶ πεπερασμένη καὶ περὶ ποίου μεγέθους καὶ περὶ θέσεως αὐτῆς (who ad finem combines the heading with that of ch. 3.11). The convergent testimony of PB and S regarding the category of quantity outweighs that of PEGQ, who lack this specification. We have therefore opted for a longer heading, namely that of PB and not of S, and have preserved PB’s reference to the category of substance not found in S. In all our sources the heading starts out as a representative of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). In PB it continues with two of the issues represented in the chapter, pertaining to the category of substance and that of quantity, the latter not further specified. The heading in SL omits the category of substance, but specifies the category of quantity as pertaining not only according to number (μία), but also to size (ποίου μεγέθους). Diels DG 62 as noted suggested that a chapter on the size of the earth has been lost. But Theon of Smyrna, Exp. p. 120.10–12 Hiller (ὅτι γὰρ σφαιρικὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἡ γῆ σφαιρική, κέντρου μὲν κατὰ τὴν θέσιν, σημείου δὲ κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος πρὸς τὸ πᾶν λόγον ἔχουσα) and its sequel, shows that shape, location and size may be treated together. The limit of §3 and the one-sided infinity of §4 show that size is indeed included in the chapter. D Analysis a Context This is the first of the seven consecutive chapters on the earth that have so to speak been interpolated in the series of meteorological chapters, beginning here with the earth’s number, size, and substance, and concluding with ch. 3.15 on earthquakes. They are followed by chs. 3.16–17, on the sea. The background of chs. 3.9–14 is formed by ch. 2.13 of Aristotle’s De caelo, while chs. 3.1–8 plus 3.15– 17 (and the wrongly placed ch. 3.18, now 3.5a) relate to the Meteorology. Because A deals with his material from top to bottom, or from periphery to centre, he has so to speak interpolated the chapters on the earth (a cosmic body) between the two series of proper meteorological chapters. For Diels on a lost chapter see above at section C.

1262

liber 3 caput 9

The categories of quantity and substance at issue in ch. 3.9 are appropriately followed by that of quality in the next, ch. 3.10. Compare the consecutive chs. 2.13 and 2.14, on the substance and shape of the stars, respectively; 2.20 (substance of sun and number of suns), 2.21 (size of sun), 2.22 (shape of sun); and 2.25 (substance of moon), 2.26 (size of moon), 2.26 (shape of moon). For the category of quantity in contexts like the present one see the statement of Gal. Inst.Log. 12.2, ἡ ζήτησίς ἐστι ⟨τῆς⟩ τοῦ κύκλου πηλικότητος ἢ τοῦ μεγέθους ἢ ⟨τῆς⟩ ποσότητος ἢ ὅπως ἂν θέλῃς ὀνομάζειν, cited more fully at ch. 3.14 section E(b). b Number–Order of Lemmata S only attests the heading. PBQ have five lemmata, four of which are left in PG, in the same relative order, which there is no reason to change. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter We may distinguish three blocks, two consisting of two lemmata and one of a single lemma. Their order is that of the themes at issue in the chapter, viz. number, size (‘finite’ vs. ‘infinite’), and substance, with some emphasis on the origin of this substance. A neat diaphonia opposes and links the lemmata of the first block: the majority of §1 recognize a single earth, the Pythagoreans of §2 add a second one. An equally neat diaphonia opposes and links the lemmata of the second block: the earth of the Stoics of §3 is limited, that of Xenophanes in §4 is unlimited at one side. But the single earth of §§3–5, too, is opposed to the multiplicity of §2. The last lemma, Metrodorus’ doxa in §5, does not come under the category of quantity of §§1–4, but pertains to that of substance; its final position is therefore the appropriate one of a maverick doxa. See also Mansfeld (1992a) at M–R 3.75–94. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 Here as elsewhere the Placita provide the name of an individual where Aristotle speaks of ‘the Pythagoreans’. Hicetas is far more surprising than Philolaus would have been, esp. in view of the fact that Cicero Luc. 123 attributes the doxa that the earth turns about its axis and the other heavenly bodies are at rest to Hicetas on the authority of Theophrastus (Phys.Op. fr. 18 Diels, 240 FHS&G). Also cf. ch. 3.12.3 where this doxa is attributed to Heraclides and another Pythagorean again, Ecphantus. §4 The lemma echoes Aristotle’s description of the earth’s infinity on one side, itself echoing a Xenophanes fragment that is extant verbatim. The second part of this paragraph on the earth’s origin, which could constitute a separate lemma and originally maybe did so, links up with §5.

liber 3 caput 9

1263

§5 The reference to the substance of the sun (which does not agree with the Metrodorus doxa at ch. 2.20.8) is extraneous to this chapter on the earth. Probably it is a remnant of a treatment of these matters in which the individual issues were kept apart a bit less rigorously than is generally the case in A. e Other Evidence For the present chapter (and chs. 3.10–11 and 3.10.13) we can cite Aristotle’s treatment in Cael. 2.13, with echoes in the cousin writings, e.g. ps.Plutarch Stromateis, and related (esp. scientific) literature, e.g. Ptolemy. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Eusebius PE 15.54.3 καὶ περὶ … τοσαῦτα τοῖς δεδηλωμένοις πρὸς ἀλλήλους διεστασίασται· θέα δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ γῆς [chs. 3.9–13 follow at Eus. PE 15.55–58]. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.58 natura terrae. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.251 de terra. Eusebius PE 15.54.3 περὶ γῆς. Isidore of Seville Etym. capit. 14.1 De terra (also at 14.1 in thebody of the work). §0 Question of existence: Basil of Caesarea Hexaem. 1.8, p. 15.3–5 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg περὶ τῆς γῆς συμβουλεύωμεν ἑαυτοῖς, μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν αὐτῆς τὴν οὐσίαν ἥτις ποτέ ἐστι, μηδὲ κατατρίβεσθαι τοῖς λογισμοῖς αὐτὸ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐκζητοῦντας. §4 Xenophanes: Cicero Luc. 122 (Xenophanes 21A47 DK) ut videamus terra penitusne defixa sit et quasi radicibus suis haereat. Seneca Nat. 2.1.4 enormiter proiecta. Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.3 (on Xenophanes, 21A33 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν ἄπειρον εἶναι καὶ μήτε ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος μήτε ὑπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ περιέχεσθαι. ps.Plutarch Strom. 4 ap. Eus. PE 1.8.4 (on Xenophanes, 21A32 DK) ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ τὴν γῆν ἄπειρον εἶναι καὶ κατὰ πᾶν μέρος μὴ περιέχεσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἀέρος. §5 Metrodorus: Lucretius DRN 5.495–497 sic igitur terrae concreto corpore pondus / constitit atque omnis mundi quasi limus in imum / confluxit gravis et subsedit funditus ut faex. ps.Plutarch Strom. 5 (Plu. fr. 179 Sandbach) λέγει (Parmenides, 28A22 DK) δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος {ἀέρος} γεγονέναι.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a20–24 ἐναντίως οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B.37 DK) λέγουσιν· … τὴν δὲ γῆν … κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον …. ἔτι δ᾽ ἐναντίαν ἄλλην ταύτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν, ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὄνομα καλοῦσιν. Cael. 2.13 293b18–20 ὅσοι μὲν μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαί φασιν (58B.37a DK) αὐτήν, κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ μέσον, οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. Cael. 2.13 295a13–14 (Empedocles 31A67 DK) διὸ δὴ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν, ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συνελθεῖν φασίν (sc. αὐτήν). Ptolemy Geogr. 1.1.6 προεσκέφθαι γὰρ δεῖ καὶ τῆς ὅλης γῆς τό τε σχῆμα (cf. ch. 3.10) καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ἔτι τε τὴν πρὸς τὸ περιέχον θέσιν (cf. ch. 3.11).

1264

liber 3 caput 9

Chapter heading: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a15 λοιπὸν δὲ περὶ τῆς γῆς εἰπεῖν. §2 Hicetas: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b19–20 (Pythagorei 58Β.37 DK) οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. Met. Α.5 986a11–12 (Pythagorei 58Β4 DK) ὄντων δὲ ἐννέα μόνον τῶν φανερῶν διὰ τοῦτο δεκάτην τὴν ἀντίχθονα ποιοῦσιν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 39.2–3 (Aristotle fr. 203 R3 = de Pyth. fr. 13, p. 138 Ross) τὴν γῆν ἐννάτην, μεθ᾽ ἣν τὴν ἀντίχθονα. in Met. 41.29–42.1 (Aristotle fr. 203 R3 = de Pyth. fr. 13, p. 140 Ross) ἐννάτην δὲ τὴν γῆν (καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτην ἡγοῦντο κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ μένουσαν τὴν ἑστίαν, ὃ πῦρ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτούς), αὐτοὶ προσέθεσαν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονά τινα, ἣν ἀντικινεῖσθαι ὑπέθεντο τῇ γῇ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀόρατον εἶναι. λέγει δὲ περὶ τούτων καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (2 13, see above)καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δόξαις ἀκριβέστερον. §§4–5 Xenophanes Metrodorus: cf. ps.Plutarch Strom. (Plu. fr. 179 Sandbach) at Eus. PE 1.8.5 (on Parmenides, 28A22 DK) λέγει δὲ τὴν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος ἀέρος γεγονέναι. Scholia in Hesiodum Th. 117a Ζήνων δὲ ὁ Στωικὸς (SVF 1.105) ἐκ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὴν ὑποσταθμὴν γῆν γεγενῆσθαί φησιν. §4 Xenophanes: Xenophanes 21B28 DK γαίης μὲν τόδε πεῖραρ ἄνω παρὰ ποσσὶν ὁρᾶται / ἠέρι προσπλάζον, τὸ κάτω δ᾽ ἐς ἄπειρον ἱκνεῖται. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 294a21–24 οἱ μὲν γὰρ … ἄπειρον τὸ κάτω τῆς γῆς εἶναί φασιν, ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον αὐτὴν ἐρριζῶσθαι λέγοντες, ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (21A47 DK). Simplicius in Cael. 522.5–12 ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (21A47 DK) τὸ ἄπειρον τὸ κάτω τῆς γῆς εἶναι καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μένειν αὐτήν. ἀγνοῶ δὲ ἐγὼ τοῖς Ξενοφάνους ἔπεσι τοῖς περὶ τούτου μὴ ἐντυχών, πότερον τὸ κάτω μέρος τῆς γῆς ἄπειρον εἶναι λέγων διὰ τοῦτο μένειν αὐτήν φησιν ἢ τὸν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς τόπον καὶ αἰθέρα ἄπειρον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐπ᾽ ἄπειρον καταφερομένην τὴν γῆν δοκεῖν ἠρεμεῖν· οὔτε γὰρ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης διεσάφησεν (Cael. 2.13 294a21–28) οὔτε τὰ Ἐμπεδοκλέους (31B39.1 DK) ἔπη διορίζει σαφῶς· ‘γῆς’ γὰρ ‘βάθη’ λέγοιτο ἂν καὶ ἐκεῖνα, εἰς ἃ κάτεισιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.57 (Diogenes 62A1 DK) τὴν γῆν … τὴν σύστασιν εἰληφυῖαν κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ θερμοῦ περιφορὰν καὶ πῆξιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ψυχροῦ.

Liber 3 Caput 10 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895D; pp. 376a20–377a6 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.56.1–5, p. 418.9–14 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 82; pp. 632.25–633.2 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 179–180 Daiber—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.3, p. 18.17 Delatte S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.34, p. 248.17 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b21 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A

Titulus ιʹ. Περὶ σχήματος γῆς (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ Στωικοὶ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν. (P1) §2 Ἀναξίμανδρος λίθῳ κίονι τὴν γῆν προσφερῆ, τῶν ἐπιπέδων ⟨δὲ αὐτῆς γυρῶν⟩. (P2) §3 Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ. (P3) §4 Λεύκιππος τυμπανοειδῆ. (P4) §5 Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ τῷ μέσῳ. (P5) §1 Thales fr. 161 Wöhrle; Stoici SVF 2.648; §2 Anaximander 12A25 DK; §3 Anaximenes 13A20 DK; §4 Leucippus 67A26 DK; §5 Democritus 68A94 DK lemmata non hab. S §1 [2] Στωικοὶ PEQ: ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PBG ‖ τὴν γῆν PB(III)GQ : τῇ γῇ PB(I,II) : om. PE ‖ post γῆν add. PG νομίζουσιν §2 [3] λίθῳ κίονι] κίονος λίθῳ Teichmüller ‖ τὴν γῆν] om. PEG ‖ ante τῶν hab. PG τῇ περιφερεί ἐκ ‖ ἐπιπέδων] ἐπὶ πέδων Mras ‖ [3–4] ⟨δὲ αὐτῆς γυρῶν⟩ scripsimus : *** PBEG, und ihre Flächen sind gebogen Q : ‘+ ⟨αὐτῆς γυρῶν⟩’ suppl. Daiber p. 428 : αὐτῆς γυρῶν Lachenaud in app. : ⟨τῶν δὲ ἐπιπέδων ᾧ μὲν ἐπιβεβήκαμεν, ὃ δὲ ἀντίθετον ὑπάρχει⟩ suppl. Diels DG p. 219 ex Hipp. Ref. 1.6.3, ubi etiam invenitur τὸ δὲ σχῆμα αὐτῆς γυρόν [ὑγρόν mss., corr. Roeper prob. Diels], στρογγύλον, κίονι λίθῳ παραπλήσιον §5 [7] Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν om. PG ‖ μὲν] om. PE ‖ τῷ μέσῳ PE prob. Diels edd. Laks–Most : τὸ μέσον PBQ

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 82 (~ tit.) Περὶ σχήματος γῆς (text Diels) 82.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς καὶ οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν νομίζουσιν. 82.2 (~ P2) Ἀναξίμανδρος δὲ λίθῳ κίονι τῇ περιφερείᾳ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιπέδων. 82.3 (~ P3) Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ. 82.4 (~ P4) Λεύκιππος τυμπανοειδῆ […] 82.4 (~ P5) […] τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ τῷ μεγέθει. Symeon Seth CRN 2.3 Περὶ τοῦ εἶναι τὴν γῆν σφαιροειδῆ (~ P1).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_087

5

1266

liber 3 caput 10

Testes secundi: Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, καὶ τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ γῆς, ἢ κύλινδρός ἐστιν ἢ λικνοειδής (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.2 Περὶ σχήματος κόσμου. A 2.14 Περὶ σχημάτων ἀστέρων. A 2.23 Περὶ σχήματος ἡλίου. A 2.27 Περὶ σχήματος σελήνης. §2 A 2.23.7 ἄλλοι δὲ ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας αὐτὸν κινεῖσθαι τὴν ἕλικα οὐ περὶ σφαῖραν ποιοῦντα, περὶ δὲ κύλινδρον. 3.15.8 Ἀναξιμένης διὰ τὸ πλάτος ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, PE, PG and PG, and S, who provides the title only. G coalesces §4 with the second half of §5 (τῷ πλάτει … μέσῳ), and changes the final word μέσῳ to μεγέθει. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is quite rich: not only the usual witnesses such as Pliny, Diogenes Laertius, and Hippolytus, but also astronomers such as Geminus, Cleomedes, and Ptolemy, and authors such as Marius Victorinus and Martianus Capella. (2) Sources. The main source is Aristotle, De caelo 2.13, the chapter on the earth, which discusses those issues in relation to each other that are more doxographico treated separately here in chs. 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.13. Aristotle’s methodology and terminology also shine through. C Chapter Heading Of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), and confirmed in the extant sources. For S it has not been preserved in the index Photianus, but in that of SL, as heading for the lost chapter Ecl. 1.34. For what is under the umbrella see at section D(a) below. D Analysis a Context This is the second of the seven consecutive chapters on the earth, beginning with the previous chapter and ending with one on earthquakes.

liber 3 caput 10

1267

The category at issue is that of quality, as we are told disertis verbis by Galen (cited at section E(b) General texts). It follows harmoniously upon those of substance and quantity (according to the order in the heading) at issue in the previous chapter, and aptly precedes the category of place (the ποῦ) at issue in the next. Compare e.g. chs. 2.24 and 2.25, on the shapes of the stars and on their order, i.e. their relative position. b Number–Order of Lemmata PBE has five lemmata, G four. The relative order is the same. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The sequence of the name-labels from Thales to Democritus is chronological. This to some extent agrees with the diaeresis of the shapes, from more or less round to more or less flat: §1 sphere and §2 cylinder, then §3 table or slab, §4 kettle-drum, §5 flat disk with a hole in the middle that the other shapes do not have. d

Further Comments General Points It is sometimes claimed that the earth has the shape of a cube (cf. the quotation from Cleomedes, above), the result of a confusion of the earth qua cosmic body and earth qua element (consisting of cubical molecules in Plato, Tim. 55d γῇ μὲν δὴ τὸ κυβικὸν εἶδος δῶμεν).

Individual Points §1 We have preferred the reading of E as confirmed by Q to that of PB and G. §2 The full text of Q enables us to supply the words lost in the Greek tradition. §4 τυμπανοειδής means ‘shaped like a (kettle-)drum’ (‘kalottenartige Ausbuchtung nach unten’, Gilbert 1907, 282 n. 1). The adjective τυμπανώδης, never connected with σχῆμα but always with ἦχός, means ‘sounding like a drum’. For the parallel passage Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.30 (missed by Mansfeld 1992a at M–R 3.75–94) the early ms. Φ has preserved the correct reading. That of BPF, as Tiziano Dorandi tells us per litt., is the result of a majuscule mistake: ΟΕΙ is easily misread as Ω. Some of the deteriores read τυμπανοειδές, possibly the result of conjecture, and so has Cobet’s edition, which once again proves his mastery of Greek even if this time he was inspired by one of these later mss. τυμπανοειδής actually is a rare and recherché word, which is only used for the shape of Leucippus’ earth (with the exception of two purely mathematical instances in Ptolemy Anal. 210.20 and 212.18). The doxa cited in A and Diogenes

1268

liber 3 caput 10

Laertius derives from Aristotle, while the name-label is added more doxographico; it is also found in the same context in Simplicius. The restoration of the correct reading in Diogenes helps to understand the nature of his chapters on Presocratic areskonta as a rearrangement of passages pertaining to a single figure taken from systematic tracts dealing with specific issues in the manner of A, which means as doxai abstracted from the wider doxographical tradition. §5 The cavity in the middle of Democritus’ flat earth may perhaps be placed alongside the cavity in the spherical earth of Plato’s Phaedo, 111e–112e. e Other Evidence For the present chapter (and chs. 3.9, 3.11 and 10.13) we must cite Aristotle’s treatment in Cael. 2.13. The shape of the earth is already a subject in Plato’s Phaedo. It has been discussed rather widely, not only in literature parallel to or comparable with the Placita, but also in astronomical writers (Ptolemy). There is a long argument in favour of sphericity in Manilius, 1.173–235. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma? Seneca Nat. 2.1.4 cum propria terrae ipsius excutimus suo loco, utrum lata sit et inaequalis et enormiter proiecta, an tota in formam pilae spectet et in orbem partes suas cogat. Geminus Elem. 16.27–28 Κράτης (F 34 Mette, 37 Broggiato) μὲν οὖν παραδοξολογῶν τὰ ὑφ᾽ Ὁμήρου ἀρχαϊκῶς καὶ ἰδικῶς εἰρημένα (sc. Od. 1.23–24) μετάγει πρὸς τὴν κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν σφαιροποιίαν. (28) Ὅμηρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ποιηταὶ σχεδὸν ὡς εἰπεῖν πάντες ἐπίπεδον ὑ(a)φίστανται τὴν γῆν. Cleomedes Cael. 1.5.10–23 Todd πλείους τοίνυν διαφοραὶ περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν γῆν σχήματος παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοτέροις τῶν φυσικῶν γεγόνασιν. οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν αὐτῇ τῇ κατὰ τὴν ὄψιν φαντασίᾳ ἀκολουθήσαντες πλατεῖ καὶ ἐπιπέδῳ τῷ σχήματι κεχρῆσθαι αὐτὴν ἀπεφήναντο. ἕτεροι δὲ ὑπονοήσαντες, ὅτι μὴ ἂν διέμενε τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, εἰ μὴ βαθεῖα καὶ κοίλη τὸ σχῆμα ἦν, αὐτῷ τούτῳ κεχρῆσθαι τῷ σχήματι ἔφασαν αὐτήν. ἄλλοι δὲ κυβοειδῆ καὶ τετράγωνον εἶναι αὐτὴν ἀπεφήναντο, τινὲς δὲ πυραμοειδῆ. οἱ δὲ ἡμέτεροι καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων πάντες καὶ οἱ πλείους τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ διδασκαλείου σφαιρικὸν εἶναι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ἀπεφήναντο. ἑτέρου τοίνυν σχήματος παρὰ τὰ προειρημένα οὐκ ἂν εὐφυῶς προσαφθέντος αὐτῇ, ἀναγκαίως ἂν τὸ τοιοῦτον διεζευγμένον ἀληθὲς γένοιτο· ἤτοι πλατεῖα καὶ ἐπίπεδός ἐστιν ἡ γῆ, ἢ κοίλη καὶ βαθεῖα, ἢ τετράγωνος ἢ πυραμοειδὴς ἢ σφαιρικὴ τὸ σχῆμα (see below). Cael. 1.5.98–101 Todd εἰ δὲ ἦν κυβοειδὴς καὶ τετράγωνος ἡ γῆ, συνέβαινεν ἂν ἓξ μὲν ὡρῶν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν, δέκα δὲ καὶ ὀκτὼ τὴν νύκτα, ἑκάστης πλευρᾶς τοῦκύβου ἓξ ὥραις καταλαμπομένης. εἰ δὲ καὶ πυραμοειδὴς ἦν ἡ γῆ, ὀκτὼ ἂν ὥραις ἑκάστη πλευρὰ κατελάμπετο αὐτῆς. Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 120.10ff. Hiller ὅτι γὰρ σφαιρικὸς ὁ κόσμος καὶ ἡ γῆ σφαιρική κτλ. Ptolemy Synt. 1.1, p. 14.19–15.27 ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ γῆ σφαιροειδής ἐστιν πρὸς αἴσθησιν ὡς καθ᾽ ὅλα μέρη λαμβανομένη, μάλιστ᾽ ἂν οὕτως

liber 3 caput 10 κατανοήσαιμεν· … εἰ δέ γε ἦν τὸ σχῆμα ἕτερον, οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο συνέβαινεν, ὡς ἴδοι τις ἂν καὶ ἐκ τούτων. κοίλης μὲν γὰρ αὐτῆς ὑπαρχούσης προτέροις ἂν ἐφαίνετο ἀνατέλλοντα τὰ ἄστρα τοῖς δυσμικωτέροις, ἐπιπέδου δὲ πᾶσιν ἅμα καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀνέτελλέν τε καὶ ἔδυνεν, τριγώνου δὲ ἢ τετραγώνου ἤ τινος ἄλλου σχήματος τῶν πολυγώνων πᾶσιν ἂν πάλιν ὁμοίως καὶ κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς αὐτῆς εὐθείας οἰκοῦσιν, ὅπερ οὐδαμῶς φαίνεται γινόμενον. ὅτι δὲ οὐδὲ κυλινδροειδὴς ἂν εἴη, … ἐκεῖθεν δῆλον. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 9.1, p. 147.4–8 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg οὐδὲ ἐπειδὴ οἱ τὰ περὶ κόσμου γράψαντες πολλὰ περὶ σχημάτων γῆς διελέχθησαν, εἴτε σφαῖρά ἐστιν, εἴτε κύλινδρος, εἴτε καὶ δίσκῳ ἐστὶν ἐμφερὴς ἡ γῆ, καὶ ἐξίσου πάντοθεν ἀποτετόρνευται, ἢ λικνοειδής ἐστι, καὶ μεσόκοιλος (πρὸς πάσας γὰρ ταύτας τὰς ὑπονοίας οἱ τὰ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου γράψαντες ὑπηνέχθησαν, τὰ ἀλλήλων ἕκαστος καταλύοντες). Isidore of Pelusium Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A = 773 Évieux καὶ τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ γῆς, ἢ κύλινδρός ἐστιν ἢ λικνοειδής, ἢ κέντρον τοῦ παντός (cf. ch. 3.11). Martianus Capella 6.590–592 (Dicaearchus fr. 108 Wehrli, 121 Mirhady) formam totius terrae non planam, ut aestimant, positioni qui eam disci diffusioris assimulant, neque concavam, ut alii, qui descendere imbrem dixere telluris in gremium, sed rotundam, globosam etiam sicut Secund⟨i⟩ [scripsimus, -us mss.; cf. Pliny Nat. 2.162 = Dicaearchus fr. 105 Wehrli, 118 Mirhady] Dicaearchus asseverat. … (592) … illam priorem, cui etiam physicus Anaxagoras (—) accessit, praestat exigere. Marius Victorinus in Rhet. 1.8, p. 31.20–24 Riesenweber (on Cic. Inv. 1.8 quae sit mundi forma?) ‘quae sit mundi facies’: multi enim dicunt mundum in modum sphaerae esse collectum, multi oblonga rotunditate esse formatum, multi plana facie, multi quadrata, multi in camerae modum, scilicet ut sub terra non sit similis ac supra caput est mundi facies. Damascius in Phaed. (versio 2) 116 ριϛʹ. ὅτι προβλήματα τέσσαρα περὶ γῆς εἴωθε ζητεῖσθαι, περὶ θέσεως αὐτῆς (εἰ ἐν μέσῳ, cf. ch. 3.11), περὶ σχήματος (εἰ σφαιροειδής, ch. 3.10), περὶ τῆς μονῆς (cf. ch. 3.13), περὶ μεγέθους (—). ὧν δύο μὲν τὰ πρῶτα προείληφεν ὁ Σωκράτης, ὅτι τε ἐν μέσῳ καὶ ὅτι σφαιροειδής, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα δύο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν τούτων δείκνυσιν. εἰ γὰρ ἐν μέσῳ ἐστί, τῷ κέντρῳ ὡμοίωται, ὥστε μένει, οἷα κέντρον τι ὁρατόν· καὶ εἰ σφαιροειδής, ὡμοίωται τῷ παντί, ὥστε ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τόπῳ ὥσπερ τὸ πᾶν καὶ ὡς ὄγκος μένει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς κέντρον ἀμερές. Scholium Codicis Vaticani 381 fol. 163, Maass 1881, 389 n. 3 ὅτι οὔτε κοίλη ἡ γῆ ὡς Δημόκριτος (cf. 68A94 DK) οὔτε πλατεῖα ὡς Ἀναξαγόρας (59A87 DK). Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 12.59 de forma eius. Eusebius PE 15.32.10 περὶ γῆς σχήματος καὶ περὶ θέσεως καὶ ἐγκλίσεως αὐτῆς. Cassiodorus Inst. 2.6.4, p. 153.3–5 Mynors unde librum Seneca consentanea philosophis disputatione formavit, cui titulus est De forma mundi (T 56 Vottero). §1 Thales Stoics: Pliny Nat. 2.160 est autem figura prima, de qua consensus iudicat. orbem certe dicimus terrae globumque verticibus includi fatemur. Cornutus Comp. p. 47.2–4 Torres ἀνατιθέασι δ᾽ αὐτῇ (sc. τῇ Δήμητρι) καὶ τὰς μήκωνας κατὰ λόγον· τό τε γὰρ στρογγύλον καὶ περιφερὲς αὐτῶν παρίστησι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς σφαιροειδοῦς οὔσης. Cleomedes Cael. 1.5.17–19 Todd οἱ δὲ ἡμέτεροι καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν μαθημάτων πάντες καὶ οἱ πλείους τῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ Σωκρατικοῦ διδασκαλείου σφαιρικὸν εἶναι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ἀπεφήναντο. Galen Inst.Log. 13.8 ὁ μέντοι ζητῶν

1269

1270

liber 3 caput 10

εἰ σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἡ γῆ, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ποιοῦ κατηγορίαν ποιεῖται τὴν σκέψιν. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.1 Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A1 DK) … μέσην τε τὴν γῆν κεῖσθαι, κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχουσαν, οὖσαν σφαιροειδῆ. V.P. 7.145 (SVF 2.650) δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον οὖσαν. V.P. 8.48 ἀλλὰ μὴν … πρῶτον ὀνομάσαι … τὴν γῆν στρογγύλην (sc. Pythagoras)· ὡς δὲ Θεόφραστος (fr. 227E FHS&G) Παρμενίδην (28A44 DK), ὡς δὲ Ζήνων (SVF 1.276) Ἡσίοδον. V.P. 9.21 (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) πρῶτος δ᾽ οὗτος τὴν γῆν ἀπέφηνε σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι. V.P. 9.57 (Diogenes 64A1 DK) τὴν γῆν στρογγύλην. Calcidius in Tim. c. 59 ait Plato mundi formam rotundam esse et globosam, terram item globosam. Cassiodorus Inst. 2.6.4, pp. 152.21–153.3 Mynors nam mundus ipse, ut quidam dicunt, spherica fertur rotunditate collectus, ut diversas rerum formas ambitus sui circuitione concluderet. unde librum Seneca (for what follows see above Chapter heading). §2 Anaximander: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.3 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) τὸ δὲ σχῆμα αὐτῆς γυρόν, στρογγύλον, κίονι λίθῳ παραπλήσιον· τῶν δὲ ἐπιπέδων ᾧ μὲν ἐπιβεβήκαμεν, ὃ δὲ ἀντίθετον ὑπάρχει. ps.Plutarch Strom. 2 (on Anaximander, 12A10 DK) ὑπάρχειν δέ φησι τῷ μὲν σχήματι τὴν γῆν κυλινδροειδῆ, ἔχειν δὲ τοσοῦτον βάθος ὅσον ἂν εἴη τρίτον πρὸς τὸ πλάτος. §3 Anaximenes: Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν πλατεῖαν εἶναι. §4 Leucippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.30 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) τὴν γῆν …· σχῆμά τε αὐτῆς τυμπανοειδὲς [Φ, Cobet : τυμπανῶδες codd. BPF, wrongly Diels DK 2 2.70.25, Luria Democritus fr. 404, alii] εἶναι. §5 Democritus: Cleomedes Cael. 1.5.13–15 Todd ἕτεροι δὲ ὑπονοήσαντες, ὅτι μὴ ἂν διέμενε τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς, εἰ μὴ βαθεῖα καὶ κοίλη τὸ σχῆμα ἦν, αὐτῷ τούτῳ κεχρῆσθαι τῷ σχήματι ἔφασαν αὐτήν. Agathemerus Geogr. proœm. 2 πρῶτος δὲ Δημόκριτος (68B15 DK) πολύπειρος ἀνὴρ συνεῖδεν ὅτι προμήκης ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ, ἡμιόλιον τὸ μῆκος τοῦ πλάτους ἔχουσα. συνῄνεσε τούτῳ καὶ Δικαίαρχος ὁ Περιπατητικός (fr. 109 Wehrli, 122 Mirhady).

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Phd. 97d–e ταῦτα δὴ λογιζόμενος ἅσμενος ηὑρηκέναι ᾤμην διδάσκαλον τῆς αἰτίας περὶ τῶν ὄντων κατὰ νοῦν ἐμαυτῷ, τὸν Ἀναξαγόραν, καί μοι φράσειν πρῶτον μὲν πότερον ἡ γῆ (e) πλατεῖά ἐστιν ἢ στρογγύλη, ἐπειδὴ δὲ φράσειεν, ἐπεκδιηγήσεσθαι τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνάγκην, λέγοντα τὸ ἄμεινον καὶ ὅτι αὐτὴν ἄμεινον ἦν τοιαύτην εἶναι. Aristotle Phys. 2.3 193b28–30 φαίνονται λέγοντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως … πότερον σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ … ἢ οὔ. Cael. 2.13 293b32– 33 παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τοῦ σχήματος ἀμφισβητεῖται (see below). Aratus Phaen. 22–23 ἀλλὰ μάλ᾽ αὕτως / ἄξων αἰὲν ἄρηρεν, ἔχει δ᾽ ἀτάλαντον ἁπάντη / μεσσηγὺς γαῖαν, περὶ δ᾽ οὐρανὸν αὐτὸς ἀγινεῖ. Scholia in Aratum schol. 22, p. 67.10–13 Martin ⟨ἢ⟩ ἀτάλαντον ἁπάντη: ἴσην καὶ ὁμοίαν. καὶ αὐτὴ γὰρ σφαιροειδὴς ⟨ὡς⟩ καὶ ὁ οὐρανός. Cornutus Comp. 28, p. 44.9–11 Torres στρογγύλη δὲ πλάττεται (sc. ἡ Ἑστία) καὶ κατὰ μέσους ἱδρύεται τοὺς οἴκους διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοιαύτην εἶναι καὶ οὕτως ἱδρῦσθαι συμπεπιλημένην. Comp. 28, p. 47.3–4 Torres τό

liber 3 caput 10 τε γὰρ στρογγύλον καὶ περιφερὲς αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν μηκώνων) παρίστησι τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς σφαιροειδοῦς οὔσης. Galenus Inst.Log. 13.8–9 ὁ μέντοι ζητῶν εἰ σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ἡ γῆ, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ποιοῦ κατηγορίαν ποιεῖται τὴν σκέψιν, ὥσπερ γε καὶ ὁ ἀποφηνάμενος εἶναι σφαιροειδῆ, ποιότητά τινα τῆς γῆς ἀπ(εφήνα)το. Ptolemy Geogr. 1.1.6 προεσκέφθαι γὰρ δεῖ καὶ τῆς ὅλης γῆς τό τε σχῆμα καὶ τὸ μέγεθος (cf. ch. 3.9) ἔτι τε τὴν πρὸς τὸ περιέχον θέσιν (cf. ch. 3.11). Simplicius in Cael. 511.15–20 τρία οὖν περὶ αὐτῆς προβαλλόμενος περί τε τῆς θέσεως αὐτῆς, ὅπου κειμένη τυγχάνει, καὶ δεύτερον, πότερον τῶν ἠρεμούντων ἐστὶν ἢ τῶν κινουμένων (cf. ch. 3.13), καὶ τρίτον περὶ τοῦ σχήματος αὐτῆς (cf. ch. 3.10), τὰς προκαταβεβλημένας καὶ περὶ τούτων δόξας πρῶτον ἐκτίθεται καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰς ὑπαντήσας οὕτω τὰ δοκοῦντα ἑαυτῷ περὶ τούτων συλλογίζεται. in Cael. 519.12–13 καὶ περὶ τοῦ σχήματος διάφορον εἶναι τὴν ἱστορίαν φησὶ τῶν μὲν σφαιροειδῆ λεγόντων τὴν γῆν, τῶν δὲ πλατεῖαν καὶ τυμπανοειδῆ. Chapter heading: — §1 Thales Stoics: Plato Phd. 108e περιφερὴς οὖσα. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b33–34 τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ εἶναι σφαιροειδής. Cael. 2.14 297b17–18 κατὰ τοῦτόν τε δὴ τὸν λόγον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ σχῆμα σφαιροειδὲς αὐτῆς κτλ. Strabo 2.5.2, 110C.20–21 ἡ γῆ σφαιροειδῶς ὁμόκεντρος τῷ μὲν οὐρανῷ μένει. 2.5.5, 112C.12–13 ὑποκείσθω δὴ σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ σὺν τῇ θαλάττῃ, μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιφάνειαν ἴσχουσα τοῖς πελάγεσι. Posidonius (F 18 E.-K., 255 Theiler) at Geminus’ Epitome at Alexander of Aphrodisias at Simp. in Phys. 292.2–12 πολλαχοῦ τοίνυν ταὐτὸν κεφάλαιον ἀποδεῖξαι προθήσεται ὅ τε ἀστρολόγος καὶ ὁ φυσικός, οἷον … ὅτι σφαιροειδὴς ἡ γῆ, οὐ μὴν κατὰ τὰς αὐτὰς ὁδοὺς βαδιοῦνται. ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας ἢ τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ ἄμεινον οὕτως ἔχειν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς γενέσεως καὶ μεταβολῆς ἕκαστα ἀποδείξει, ὁ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν συμβεβηκότων τοῖς σχήμασιν ἢ μεγέθεσιν ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ποσότητος τῆς κινήσεως καὶ τοῦ ἐφαρμόττοντος αὐτῇ χρόνου. καὶ ὁ μὲν φυσικὸς τῆς αἰτίας πολλαχοῦ ἅψεται εἰς τὴν ποιητικὴν δύναμιν ἀποβλέπων, ὁ δὲ ἀστρολόγος ὅταν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν συμβεβηκότων ἀποδεικνύῃ, οὐχ ἱκανὸς θεατὴς γίνεται τῆς αἰτίας, οἷον ὅτε σφαιροειδῆ τὴν γῆν ἢ τὰ ἄστρα ἀποδίδωσιν. Pythagorica (Hypomnemata) at Alex. Polyh. fr. 9 Giannatasio Andria (Pythagorei 58B1a DK) at D.L. 8.25 τὴν γῆν καὶ αὐτὴν σφαιροειδῆ. Cicero Tusc. 1.68 tum globum terrae. Manilius 1.202– 205, est igitur tellus … / (204) nec patulas distenta plagas, sed condita in orbem / undique surgentem pariter pariterque cadentem. Simplicius in Cael. 519.7–8 τὸ σχῆμα οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδές … λέγουσιν, etc. §4 Leucippus: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b34–294a1 τοῖς δὲ πλατεῖα καὶ τὸ σχῆμα τυμπανοειδής. Mete. 2.5 362a32–b2 δύο γὰρ ὄντων τμημάτων τῆς δυνατῆς οἰκεῖσθαι χώρας, τῆς μὲν πρὸς τὸν ἄνω πόλον, καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, τῆς δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον καὶ πρὸςμεσημβρίαν, καὶ οὔσης οἷον τυμπάνου—(τοιοῦτον γὰρ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ἐκτέμνουσιν αἱ ἐκ τοῦ κέντρου αὐτῆς ἀγόμεναι, καὶ ποιοῦσι δύο κώνους κτλ.) Simplicius in Cael. 519.7–8 τὸ σχῆμα … οἱ δὲ τυμπανοειδὲς λέγουσιν, etc.

1271

Liber 3 Caput 11 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 2 recto, p. 76 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895E; p. 377a5–20 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.57.1–4, p. 419.1–9 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 83; p. 633.3–9; pp. 268–272 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 180–181 Daiber—cf. PSy CRN 2.6, p. 21.3 Delatte (titulus solus) S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.33, p. 248.14 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b20 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273, MPG 78.704A; Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 4, pp. 12.20–13.6; c. 28, p. 43.17–23 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium II 4 pp. 368–369 Poljakov ~ I 21b, p. 201.2 Pasquali

Titulus ιαʹ. Περὶ θέσεως γῆς (P,S) §1 οἱ ἀπὸ Θάλεω τὴν γῆν μέσην. (P1) §2 Ξενοφάνης πρώτην, εἰς ἄπειρον γὰρ ἐρριζῶσθαι. (P2) §3 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον (τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς Ἑστίαν), δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, τρίτην δ᾽ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν γῆν, ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένην τε καὶ περιφερομένην τῇ ἀντίχθονι· παρ᾽ ὃ καὶ μὴ ὁρᾶσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇδε τοὺς ἐν ἐκείνῃ. (P3) §1 Thales 11A15 DK; §2 Xenophanes 21A47 DK; §3 Philolaus 44A17 DK lemmata non hab. S titulus post θέσεως add. τῆς PE §1 [2] τὴν γῆν μέσην] μέσην τὴν γῆν οἴονται εἶναι PG §2 [3] πρώτην] πρῶτον τὴν γῆν PG ‖ γὰρ pE : om. P §3 [4] πῦρ] Wasser Q, ‘mendum scriborum Arabum’ non excl. Daiber ‖ [5] Ἑστίαν] αἰτίαν PG Diels, corr. Jas ‖ δευτέραν] ἑτέραν PG ‖ δ᾽ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν γῆν PBQ prob. Mau Lachenaud Graham : τὴν οἰκουμένην γῆν PE prob. Diels : τὴν οἰκουμένην PG ‖ [6] post ἐναντίας add. δὲ PE ‖ [6–7] παρ᾽ ὃ … ἐκείνῃ] om. PG ‖ [7] ἐν1] om. PB(II)Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 2 recto (~ P3) ]…[ εσ]τιαν [ τρ]ι ̣τ̣ην δ̣ε τ̣[ην οικουμενην γην εξ (?) εναντια]ς κειμενη̣ [ν τη αντιχηονι παρ ο και μη (?) 5 ] ο̣ρα̣ ̣σ̣θ̣α̣ι ̣ ϋ̣π̣[ο ps.Galenus HPh c. 83 (~ tit.) Περὶ θέσεως γῆς (text Jas) 82.1 (~ P1) οἱ ἀπὸ Θαλοῦς μέσην τὴν γῆν οἴονται εἶναι. 82.2 (~ P2) Ξενοφάνης πρῶτον τὴν γῆν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐρριζῶσθαι. 82.3 (~ P3) Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον. τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς ἑστίαν, ἑτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. τρίτην δὲ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένην καὶ περιφερομένην τῇ ἀντίχθονι. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_088

5

liber 3 caput 11 82.4, vid. textum c. 3.14. Symeon Seth CRN 2.6 ὅτι δὲ ἐν τῷ μέσῳ κεῖται ἡ γῆ τοῦ παντὸς δῆλον (~ P1). Testes secundi: Isidorus Pelusiota Ep. 2.273 καὶ τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ γῆς, ἢ κύλινδρός ἐστιν ἢ λικνοειδής (cf. c. 3.10), ἢ κέντρον τοῦ παντός (~ quaestio). Achilles Univ. c. 4, pp. 12.20–13.6 ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἕστηκεν ἡ γῆ, παραδείγματι χρῶνται τούτῳ· εἴ τις (φασίν) εἰς φῦσαν κέγχρον βάλοι ἢ κόκκον φακοῦ καὶ φυσήσειε καὶ ἐμπλήσειεν αὐτὴν ἀέρος, συμβήσεται μετεωρισθέντα τὸν κόκκον ἐν μέσωι τῆς κύστεως στῆναι, καὶ τὴν γῆν δὲ πανταχόθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος ὠθουμένην ἰσορρόπως ἐν τῷ μέσῷ εἶναι καὶ ἑστάναι. ἢ πάλιν, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λαβὼν σῶμα δήσειε πανταχόθεν ἐξ ἑκατέρου σχοινίοις καὶ δοίη τισὶν ἰσορρόπως ἕλκειν ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβείας, συμβήσεται πανταχόθεν ἐπίσης περιελκόμενον στῆναι καὶ ἀτρεμῆσαι (~ quaestio). Ξενοφάνης (21B28 DK) δὲ οὐκ οἴεται μετέωρον εἶναι τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ κάτω εἰς ἄπειρον καθήκειν· ‘γαίης μὲν’ γάρ φησι ‘τόδε πεῖραρ ἄνω παρὰ ποσσὶν ὁρᾶται / αἰθέρι προσπλάζον, τὸ κάτω δ᾽ ἐς ἄπειρον ἱκνεῖται’ (~ §2). c. 28, p. 43.17–23 μέμνηται δὲ αὐτοῦ (sc. τοῦ ἄξονος) Ἐρατοσθένης (fr. 16 Powell) ἐν τῷ Ἑρμῇ λέγων: ‘αὐτὴν μέν μιν ἔτετμε μεσήρεα παντὸς Ὀλύμπου / κέντρου ἄπο σφαίρας, διὰ δ᾽ ἄξονος ἠρήρειστο’, καὶ ὁ Ἄρατος (Phaen. 21–23) λέγων ‘αὐτὰρ ὅ γ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὀλίγον μετανίσσεται, ἀλλὰ μάλ᾽ αὔτως / ἄξων αἰὲν ἄρηρεν, ἔχει δ᾽ ἀτάλαντον ἁπάντη / μεσσηγὺς γαῖαν, περὶ δ᾽ οὐρανὸς αὐτὸν ἀγινεῖ’ (~ quaestio). Scholia in Basilium II 4, pp. 368–369 Polyakov, 21b, p. 201.2 Pasquali Διογένης ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης (—) ὑπὸ ἀέρος φέρεσθαι ἔφη τὴν γῆν· Παρμενίδης (28B15a DK) ἐν τῇ στιχοποιίᾳ ‘ὑδατόριζον’ 28B15a DK εἶπε τὴν γῆν· Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (cf. 21B28.2 DK) οὐκ οἴεται μετέωρον εἶναι τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ ‘κάτω εἰς ἄπειρ⟨ον⟩ καθήκειν’ (~ §2). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.proœm. μέχρι πρὸς τὴν θέσιν τῆς γῆς. §1 A 3.15.7 Παρμενίδης Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ἴσον ἀφεστῶσαν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰσορροπίας, οὐκ ἔχουσαν αἰτίαν δι᾽ ἣν δεῦρο μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκεῖσε ῥέψειεν ἄν. §2 A 3.9.4 Ξενοφάνης ἐκ τοῦ κατωτέρω μέρους εἰς ἄπειρον {μέρος} ἐρριζῶσθαι, ἐξ ἀέρος δὲ καὶ πυρὸς συμπαγῆναι. §3 A 2.5α.4 Φιλόλαος (sc. τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου) ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί. A 2.7.6 Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον, ὅπερ ἑστίαν τοῦ παντὸς καλεῖ … πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τοῦτο δέκα σώματα θεῖα χορεύειν, οὐρανόν, τοὺς ⟨εʹ⟩ πλανήτας, μεθ᾽ οὓς ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ σελήνην, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, μεθ᾽ ἃ σύμπαντα τὸ πῦρ, ἑστίας περὶ τὰ κέντρα τάξιν ἐπέχον. A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι (sc. τὴν γῆν) περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

1273

1274

liber 3 caput 11

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, PE, PG. There is also a fragment of four lines which imply no changes for the constitutio of §3 in PP. S, however, provides the title only. G this time has not abridged the chapter further. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. A number of secondary witnesses give evidence of similar discussions, perhaps at greater length, in the wider Placita tradition. There are texts in Achilles and the Scholia to Basil’s Hexaemeron. A brief reference to the subject of the chapter in a letter of Isidore would also seem to betray acquaintance with a parallel tradition, perhaps via Basil; see M–R 1.311. Cicero, Pliny, Seneca, and related literature provide copious parallels. (2) Sources. The main ulterior source is Aristotle, Cael. 2.13, the chapter on the earth, which discusses the location of the earth in relation to its substance and number, shape, and motion or rest, which are more doxographico treated separately in A’s chs. 3.9, 3.10, and 3.13. His methodology and terminology also shine through. See further Mansfeld (1992a) at M–R 3.75–94. C Chapter Heading Of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), and found in PB, PG and PQ. For S it has not been preserved in the Index Photianus, but in that of SL as the last part of the heading of the lost chapter Ecl. 1.33, which combines the headings of chs. 3.9 and 3.11; see Wachsmuth (1882) 18. The category concerned is that of place (as Galen points out), while in §2 and §3 the question type of cause (διὰ τί) also plays a part. D Analysis a Context This is the third of the seven consecutive chapters on the earth. The category at issue is that of place (the ποῦ), as we are told disertis verbis by Galen (Inst.Log. 13.7, text below in section E(b)§1). This aptly follows upon the category of quality of the previous chapter. It comes before four chapters dealing with specific issues that are relevant to the earth alone, just as in Book 2 the series of chapters on, respectively, the sun and the moon are concluded with groups of chapters pertaining to issues of specific interest for either the sun (chs. 2.23–24) or the moon (chs. 2.28–30); ch. 2.31 includes both moon and sun.

liber 3 caput 11

1275

b Number–Order of Lemmata P in all his representatives has four lemmata, of which we have transferred the final one to another chapter; see the discussion at section D(d) below. There is no reason to change the order of the remaining three. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter In terms of doxai the diaphonia is between §1, earth in the middle, and §§2–3, where there is no middle for the earth to be at (§2), or where there is something else, viz. fire, in the middle (§3). A further but rather slight disparity is found between §2, where our earth comes first, and §3, where it comes third and occupies a position after the counter-earth that comes second. As noted the category is place, while the question type in §2 and §3 is cause. In terms of name-labels the main contrast is between the Ionic Succession beginning with Thales and (a representative of) the Italic Succession, namely the Pythagorean Philolaus. A third position is given to Xenophanes, perhaps representing the Eleatic Succession of which he is the archegete; cf. below ch. 3.13 Commentary D(c). d

Further Comments General Points The fourth and final lemma transmitted in P (including G) is a doxa attributed to Parmenides on the inhabited zones of the earth. It has been displaced from ch. 3.14 and should be restored there. See our commentary ad loc. Individual Points §3 The Placita identify a person, Philolaus the Pythagorean, whereas Aristotle speaks of ‘the Pythagoreans’ in general. For this doxa and name-label cf. below, ch. 3.13.2. e Other Evidence For the present chapter (as for chs. 3.9, 3.10 and 10.13) we must again refer Aristotle’s treatment in Cael. 2.13. The position of the earth is already a subject in Plato’s Phaedo. It has been discussed rather widely, not only in literature depending on Plato or Aristotle, or parallel to or comparable with the Placita, but also in astronomical writers (Geminus, Cleomedes, Ptolemy). E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Luc. 122 sed ecquid nos eodem modo rerum naturas persecare aperire dividere possumus, ut videamus terra penitusne defixa sit et quasi radicibus suis haereat an media pendeat (cf. below §1, §2). Silius Italicus

1276

liber 3 caput 11

14.345–346 ille, haereat anne / pendeat instabilis tellus. Seneca Dial. 10.19.1 quid sit quod huius mundi gravissima quaeque in medio sustineat. Dial. 12.20.2 terras primum situmque earum quaerit. Nat. 2.1.5 ubi quaeretur quis terrae situs sit, qua parte mundi consederit. Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 198.13–20 Hiller Εὔδημος (fr. 145 Wehrli) ἱστορεῖ ἐν ταῖς Ἀστρολογίαις ὅτι … εὗρε πρῶτος … · Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A26 DK) δὲ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ μετέωρος καὶ κ{ιν}εῖται περὶ τὸ τοῦ κόσμου μέσον. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8–9, p. 15.13–9.3 Amand de Mendieta– Rudberg μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο ζητεῖν παραινῶ, ἐπὶ τίνος ἕστηκεν (sc. the earth). ἰλιγγιάσει γὰρ καὶ οὕτως ἡ διάνοια, πρὸς οὐδὲν ὁμολογούμενον πέρας διεξιόντος τοῦ λογισμοῦ. ἐάν τε γὰρ ἀέρα φῇς ὑπεστρῶσθαι πλάτει τῆς γῆς, ἀπορήσεις, πῶς ἡ μαλθακὴ καὶ πολύκενος φύσις ἀντέχει ὑπὸ τοσούτου βάρους συνθλιβομένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ διολισθαίνει πάντοθεν τὴν συνίζησιν ὑποφεύγουσα, καὶ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄνω ὑπερχεομένη τοῦ συμπιέζοντος. πάλιν, ἐὰν ὑποθῇς ἑαυτῷ ὕδωρ εἶναι τὸ ὑποβεβλημένον τῇ γῇ, καὶ οὕτως ἐπιζητήσεις, πῶς τὸ βαρὺ καὶ πυκνὸν οὐ διαδύνει τοῦ ὕδατος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀσθενεστέρας φύσεως τὸ τοσοῦτον ὑπερφέρον τῷ βάρει κρατεῖται· πρὸς τὸ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὕδατος τὴν ἕδραν ἐπιζητεῖν, καὶ πάλιν διαπορεῖν τίνι στεγανῷ καὶ ἀντερείδοντι ὁ τελευταῖος αὐτοῦ πυθμὴν ἐπιβαίνει. ἐὰν δὲ ἕτερον σῶμα τῆς γῆς ἐμβριθέστερον ὑποθῇ κωλύειν τὴν γῆν πρὸς τὸ κάτω χωρεῖν, ἐνθυμηθήσῃ κἀκεῖνο ὁμοίου τινὸς δεῖσθαι τοῦ στέγοντος καὶ μὴ ἐῶντος αὐτὸ καταπίπτειν. Damascius in Phaed. (versio 2) 116 ριϛʹ cf. ch. 3.10 E(a) General texts. Chapter heading: Seneca Nat. 6.6.2 de situ terrarum. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 13.5 mediam esse mundi terram. Eusebius PE 15.32.10 περὶ γῆς σχήματος (cf. ch. 3.10) καὶ περὶ θέσεως καὶ ἐγκλίσεως (cf. ch. 3.12) αὐτῆς. Isidore of Seville Nat. capitul. 71 xlviii De positione terrae (heading also in the body of the work). §1 Followers of Thales: Cicero Luc. 122 ut videamus terra … an media pendeat. ND 2.91 terra sita in media parte mundi. Pliny Nat. 2.176 mediam esse mundi totius haut dubiis constat argumentis. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.75 (on Plato) γῆν δὲ … οὖσαν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου. V.P. 9.57 (on Diogenes, 64A1 DK) τὴν γῆν … ἠρεισμένην ἐν τῷ μέσῷ. Hippolytus Ref. 1.9.3 (on Archelaus, 60A4 DK) τὴν μὲν οὖν γῆν … κεῖσθαι δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ οὐδὲν μέρος οὖσαν, ὡς εἰπεῖν, τοῦ παντός. §2 Xenophanes: Cicero Luc. 122 (on Xenophanes, 21A47 DK) ut videamus terra penitusne defixa sit et quasi radicibus suis haereat.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Plato Phd. 97e καὶ εἰ ἐν μέσῳ φαίη (Anaxagoras 59A47 DK) εἶναι αὐτήν, ἐπεκδιηγήσεσθαι ὡς ἄμεινον ἦν αὐτὴν ἐν μέσῳ εἶναι. Tim. 40b–c γῆν δὲ τροφὸν μὲν ἡμετέραν, ἰλλομένην δὲ τὴν περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς πόλον τεταμένον, φύλακα καὶ δημιουργὸν νυκτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας ἐμηχανήσατο. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a15–18 λοιπὸν δὲ περὶ τῆς γῆς εἰπεῖν … περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς θέσεως οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἅπαντες ἔχουσι δόξαν (see further below §1). Pomponius Mela 1.4 medio (sc. mundi) terra sublimis. Manilius 1.202–203 est igitur tellus mediam sortita cavernam / aeris, e toto pariter sublata profundo. Cornutus Comp. 28, p. 44.9–11 Torres στρογγύλη δὲ πλάττεται (sc. ἡ Ἑστία) καὶ κατὰ μέσους ἱδρύεται τοὺς οἴκους διὰ τὸ καὶ τὴν γῆν τοιαύτην εἶναι καὶ οὕτως ἱδρῦσθαι συμπεπιλημένην. Ptolemy

liber 3 caput 11 Geogr. 1.1.6 προεσκέφθαι γὰρ δεῖ καὶ τῆς ὅλης γῆς τό τε σχῆμα (cf. ch. 3.10) καὶ τὸ μέγεθος (cf. ch. 3.9) ἔτι τε τὴν πρὸς τὸ περιέχον θέσιν. Themistius Or. 26, p. 2.145.20–21 Schenkl μηδὲ ὑπὲρ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς, ὅπως βρίθει τε εἰς τὸ κάτω καὶ ἵδρυται ἐν μετεώρῳ. Calcidius in Tim. c. 59 ait Plato mundi formam rotundam esse et globosam, terram item globosam in medietate mundi sitam. Simplicius in Cael. 511.15–20 τρία οὖν περὶ αὐτῆς προβαλλόμενος περί τε τῆς θέσεως αὐτῆς, ὅπου κειμένη τυγχάνει, καὶ δεύτερον, πότερον τῶν ἠρεμούντων ἐστὶν ἢ τῶν κινουμένων (cf. ch. 3.13), καὶ τρίτον περὶ τοῦ σχήματος αὐτῆς (cf. ch. 3.10), τὰς προκαταβεβλημένας καὶ περὶ τούτων δόξας πρῶτον ἐκτίθεται καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰς ὑπαντήσας οὕτω τὰ δοκοῦντα ἑαυτῷ περὶ τούτων συλλογίζεται. in Cael. 511.23–512.31 οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαι λέγουσι τὴν γῆν, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος (fr. 186 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἀναξιμένης (fr. 155 Wohrle) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 403 Luria) καὶ Πλάτων (Phd. 79e, 108e–109a, Tim. 40b– c)· ἀντιφάσκουσι δὲ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B37 DK)· τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνει τὸ ‘ἐναντίως’· οὐ περὶ τὸ μέσον λέγοντες αὐτήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μὲν τῷ μέσῳ τοῦ παντὸς πῦρ εἶναι φασι, περὶ δὲ τὸ μέσον τὴν ἀντίχθονα φέρεσθαί φασι γῆν οὖσαν καὶ αὐτήν, ἀντίχθονα δὲ καλουμένην διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἐναντίας τῇδε τῇ γῇ εἶναι, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα ἡ γῆ ἥδε φερομένη καὶ αὐτὴ περὶ τὸ μέσον, μετὰ δὲ τὴν γῆν ἡ σελήνη· οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν (fr. 204 R3) ἱστορεῖ. Isidore of Seville Nat. 48.1 terra, ut testatur Hyginus (Astr. 1.9, p. 11.120 Viré), mundi media regione conlocata, omnibus partibus aequali dissidens intervallo, centron obtinet. Etym. 14.1.1 terra est in media mundi regione posita, omnibus partibus caeli in modum centri aequali intervallo consistens. §1 followers of Thales: Plato Phd. 99b–c διὸ δὴ καὶ ὁ μέν τις δίνην περιτιθεὶς τῇ γῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μένειν δὴ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν, ὁ δὲ ὥσπερ καρδόπῳ πλατείᾳ βάθρον τὸν ἀέρα (c) ὑπερείδει (cf. DK n. on 13A7.11)· τὴν δὲ τοῦ ὡς οἷόν τε βέλτιστα αὐτὰ τεθῆναι δύναμιν οὕτω νῦν κεῖσθαι, ταύτην οὔτε ζητοῦσιν οὔτε τινὰ οἴονται δαιμονίαν ἰσχὺν ἔχειν. Phd. 108e–109a πέπεισμαι τοίνυν, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ἐγὼ ὡς πρῶτον μέν, εἰ ἔστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῷ οὐρανῷ περιφερὴς οὖσα, μηδὲν αὐτῇ δεῖν μήτε (109a) ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεσεῖν μήτε ἄλλης ἀνάγκης μηδεμιᾶς τοιαύτης, ἀλλὰ ἱκανὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν ἴσχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ πάντῃ καὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς τὴν ἰσορροπίαν· ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι, ὁμοίως δ᾽ ἔχον ἀκλινὲς μενεῖ. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a18–19 τῶν πλείστων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαι λεγόντων. Cael. 2.13 295a13–14 διὸ δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν πάντες ὅσοι τὸν οὐρανὸν γεννῶσιν ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον συνελθεῖν φασιν. Cael. 2.13 295b11– 15 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά φασιν αὐτὴν μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A26 DK)· μᾶλλον μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ εἰς τὰ πλάγια φέρεσθαι προσήκει τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου ἱδρυμένον καὶ ὁμοίως πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχον· ἅμα δ᾽ ἀδύνατον εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κίνησιν· ὥστ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης μένειν. Euclid Phaen. 1 prop. 1 ἡ γῆ ἐν μέσῳ τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστὶ καὶ κέντρου τάξιν ἐπέχει πρὸς τὸν κόσμον (followed by the demonstration). Cicero Tusc. 1.68 tum globum terrae eminentem e mari, fixum in medio mundi universi loco. Ovid Fast. 6.273–277 cumque sit in media rerum regione locata (sc. terra), / ut tangat nullum plusve minusve latus, / ni convexa foret, parti vicinior esset, / nec medium terram mundus haberet onus.

1277

1278

liber 3 caput 11

Strabo 2.5.2, 110C.18–22 τὰ μὲν οὖν παρὰ τῶν φυσικῶν δεικνύμενα τοιαῦτά ἐστι· σφαιροειδὴς μὲν ὁ κόσμος καὶ ὁ οὐρανός, ἡ ῥοπὴ δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον τῶν βαρέων· περὶ τοῦτό τε συνεστῶσα ἡ γῆ σφαιροειδῶς (cf. ch. 3.10.1) ὁμόκεντρος τῷ μὲν οὐρανῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὴ καὶ ὁ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἄξων καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μέσου τεταμένος. Timaeus Locrus c. 31, p. 215.7 Thesleff γᾶ δ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρυμένα. Geminus 16.29 ἡ γὰρ γῆ μέση κεῖται τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου σημείου τάξιν (cf. ch. 3.9) ἐπέχουσα. Hyginus Astr. 1.9, p. 11.120–121 Viré terra mundi media regione collocata, omnibus partibus aequali dissidens intervallo, centrum obtinet sphaerae. Cleomedes Cael. 1.6.1–3 Todd ὅτι δ᾽ ἡ γῆ ὑπὸ τοῦ κόσμου περιεχομένη αὐτὸ τὸ μεσαίτατον ἐπέχει αὐτοῦ, πάλιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐφόδου τῆς κατὰ τὸν διὰ πλειόνων πέμπτον ἀναπόδεικτον ὁρμώμενοι παραστήσομεν. Ptolemy Synt. 1 c. 5 tit. εʹ. ὅτι μέση τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐστιν ἡ γῆ (and passim). Galen PHP 8.1.20 Εὐκλείδης μὲν ἑνὶ θεωρήματι τῷ πρώτῳ κατὰ τὸ τῶν Φαινομένων βιβλίον (v. above) ἐπέδειξε δι᾽ ὀλιγίστων ἐπῶν τὴν γῆν μέσην εἶναι τοῦ κόσμου καὶ σημείου καὶ κέντρου λόγον ἔχειν πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ οἱ μαθόντες οὕτω πιστεύουσι τῷ συμπεράσματι τῆς ἀποδείξεως ὡς καὶ τῷ τὰ δὶς δύο τέτταρα εἶναι· τῶν φιλοσόφων δ᾽ ἔνιοι τοιαῦτα ληροῦσι περὶ μεγέθους (cf. ch. 3.9) τε καὶ θέσεως (cf. ch. 3.11) γῆς ὡς αἰδεσθῆναί τινα περὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἐπιτηδεύματος. Inst.Log. 13.7 ὁ δέ γε δεικνὺς ἐν τῷ μέ(σῳ) τοῦ κόσμου τετάχθαι τὴν γῆν κατὰ τὸ ποῦ {κεῖται} τὴν σκέψιν ποιεῖται. Corpus Hippocraticum Sept. 2.24–26 κατὰ μέσον δὲ τὸν κόσμον ἡ γῆ κειμένη κτλ. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 391b12–14 ταύτης (sc. τῆς διακοσμήσεως) δὲ τὸ μὲν μέσον, ἀκίνητόν (cf. A 3.13) τε καὶ ἑδραῖον ὄν, ἡ φερέσβιος εἴληχε γῆ, παντοδαπῶν ζῴων ἑστία τε οὖσα καὶ μήτηρ. Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 120.10–11 Hiller ἡ γῆ σφαιρική, κέντρου μὲν κατὰ τὴν θέσιν. Ptolemy Synt. 1.1, p. 16.19–17.3 εʹ. ὅτι μέση τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐστιν ἡ γῆ. τούτου δὲ θεωρηθέντος, εἴ τις ἐφεξῆς καὶ περὶ τῆς θέσεως τῆς γῆς διαλάβοι, κατανοήσειεν ἂν οὕτως μόνως συντελεσθησόμενα τὰ φαινόμενα περὶ αὐτήν, εἰ μέσην τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθάπερ κέντρον σφαίρας ὑποστησαίμεθα. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.22 (on Parmenides, 22A1 DK) πρῶτος δ᾽ οὗτος τὴν γῆν ἀπέφηνε … ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι. 9.57 (on Diogenes, 64A1 DK) τὴν γῆν … ἠρεισμένην ἐν τῷ μέσῳ. Theon of Alexandria in Synt. 401.3–5 Rome ἑξῆς καὶ περὶ τῆς θέσεως αὐτῆς διαλαμβάνει (sc. Ptolemy), ὡς ὅτι ἄλλως οὐκ ἂν ἁρμόζοι τὰ φαινόμενα ἡμῖν περὶ αὐτὴν εἰ μὴ μέσην τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καθάπερ κέντρου θέσιν ἔχουσαν αὐτὴν ὑποστησόμεθα. Simplicius in Cael. 511.23–25 (cf. Aristotle fr. 204 R3) οἱ μὲν πλεῖστοι ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαι λέγουσι τὴν γῆν, ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) καὶ Ἀναξίμανδρος (fr. 186 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἀναξιμένης (fr. 155 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 403 Luria) καὶ Πλάτων (Phd. 79e, 108e–109a, Tim. 40b–c). §3 Philolaus: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293a20–24 ἐναντίως οἱ περὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν, καλούμενοι δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B37 DK) λέγουσιν· ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ μέσου πῦρ εἶναί φασι, τὴν δὲ γῆν, ἓν τῶν ἄστρων οὖσαν, κύκλῳ φερομένην περὶ τὸ μέσον νύκτα τε καὶ ἡμέραν ποιεῖν. ἔτι δ᾽ ἐναντίαν ἄλλην ταύτῃ κατασκευάζουσι γῆν, ἣν ἀντίχθονα ὄνομα καλοῦσιν. Plutarch Quaest.Plat. 1006C Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 22 Diels, 243 FHS&G) δὲ καὶ προσιστορεῖ τῷ Πλάτωνι πρεσβυτέρῳ γενομένῳ μεταμέλειν ὡς οὐ προσήκουσαν ἀποδόντι τῇ γῇ τὴν μέσην χώραν τοῦ παντός. Num. c. 11.1–2 Νομᾶς δὲ λέγεται καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἑστίας ἱερὸν ἐγκύκλιον περιβαλέσθαι τῷ ἀσβέστῳ πυρὶ

liber 3 caput 11 φρουράν, ἀπομιμούμενος οὐ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ὡς Ἑστίας οὔσης, ἀλλὰ τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, οὗ μέσον οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ (—) τὸ πῦρ ἱδρῦσθαι νομίζουσι, (2) καὶ τοῦτο Ἑστίαν καλοῦσι καὶ μονάδα· τὴν δὲ γῆν οὔτε ἀκίνητον οὔτε ἐν μέσῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς οὖσαν, ἀλλὰ κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ πῦρ αἰωρουμένην οὐ τῶν τιμιωτάτων οὐδὲ τῶν πρώτων τοῦ κόσμου μορίων ὑπάρχειν. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Πλάτωνά φασι πρεσβύτην γενόμενον διανενοῆσθαι περὶ τῆς γῆς ὡς ἐν ἑτέρᾳ χώρᾳ καθεστώσης, τὴν δὲ μέσην καὶ κυριωτάτην ἑτέρῳ τινὶ κρείττονι προσήκουσαν. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 40.29–41.2 (cf. Aristotle fr. 203 R3, Pythagorei 58B4 DK) … ἐννάτην δὲ τὴν γῆν (καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτην ἡγοῦντο κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ μένουσαν τὴν ἑστίαν, ὃ πῦρ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτούς), αὐτοὶ προσέθεσαν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονά τινα, ἣν ἀντικινεῖσθαι ὑπέθεντο τῇ γῇ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀόρατον εἶναι. λέγει (sc. Aristotle) δὲ περὶ τούτων καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (Cael. 2.13) καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δόξαις (fr. 203 R3) ἀκριβέστερον. in Met. 39.2–3 (cf. Aristotle fr. 203 R3, 162 Gigon) τὴν γῆν ἐννάτην, μεθ᾽ ἣν τὴν ἀντίχθονα. Anatolius de Dec. p. 67.3– 13 Heiberg πρὸς τούτοις ἔλεγον (sc. οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι) περὶ τὸ μέσον τῶν δʹ στοιχείων κεῖσθαί τινα ἑναδικὸν διάπυρον κύβον, οὗ τὴν μεσότητα τῆς θέσεως καὶ Ὅμηρον (Il. 8.16) εἰδέναι λέγοντα ‘τόσσον ἔνερθ᾽ ἀίδαο, ὅσον οὐρανός ἐστ᾽ ἀπὸ γαίης’. ἐοίκασι δὲ κατά γε τοῦτο κατηκολουθηκέναι τοῖς Πυθαγορικοῖς (—) οἵ τε περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέα (—) καὶ Παρμενίδην (28A44 DK) καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν πάλαι σοφῶν φάμενοι τὴν μοναδικὴν φύσιν ἑστίας τρόπον ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρύσθαι καὶ διὰ τὸ ἰσόρροπον φυλάσσειν τὴν αὐτὴν ἕδραν, καὶ δὴ Εὐριπίδης (T38a, fr. 944 Kannicht) ὡς Ἀναξαγόρου γενόμενος μαθητὴς οὕτω τῆς γῆς μνησθείς ‘ἑστίαν δέ σ᾽ οἱ σοφοὶ βροτῶν νομίζουσιν’ (quoted ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. 6.11–20). Simplicius in Cael. 511.25–512.1 ἀντιφάσκουσι δὲ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι (58B.37 DK)· … οὐ περὶ τὸ μέσον λέγοντες αὐτήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μὲν τῷ μέσῳ τοῦ παντὸς πῦρ εἶναί φασι, περὶ δὲ τὸ μέσον τὴν ἀντίχθονα φέρεσθαί φασι γῆν οὖσαν καὶ αὐτήν, ἀντίχθονα δὲ καλουμένην διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἐναντίας τῇδε τῇ γῇ εἶναι, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα ἡ γῆ ἥδε φερομένη καὶ αὐτὴ περὶ τὸ μέσον, μετὰ δὲ τὴν γῆν ἡ σελήνη· οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν (cf. Aristotle fr. 204 R3) ἱστορεῖ. … ἡ δὲ ἀντίχθων κινουμένη περὶ τὸ μέσον καὶ ἑπομένη τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ οὐχ ὁρᾶται ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν διὰ τὸ ἐπιπροσθεῖν ἡμῖν ἀεὶ τὸ τῆς γῆς σῶμα.

1279

Liber 3 Caput 12 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 895F; pp. 377a21–378a2 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.58, p. 419.10 Mras (titulus solus)—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 180–181 Daiber Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 Di Maria

Titulus ιβʹ. Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς (P) §1 Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων. (P1) §2 Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ ἀσθενέστερον εἶναι τὸ μεσημβρινὸν τοῦ περιέχοντος αὐξομένην τὴν γῆν κατὰ τοῦτο ἐγκλιθῆναι· τὰ γὰρ βόρεια ἄκρατα τὰ δὲ μεσημβρινὰ κέκραται· ὅθεν κατὰ τοῦτο βεβάρηται, ὅπου περισσή ἐστι τοῖς καρποῖς καὶ τῇ αὔξῃ. (P2) §1 Leucippus 67A27 DK §2 Democritus 68A96 DK cap. non hab. GS et lemmata om. E titulus c. 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς appos. ad textum c. 3.13 PE §2 [6] αὐξομένην] αὐξανομένην PB(II) : om. PQ ‖ [8] αὔξῃ] αὐξήσει PB(III)

Testes secundi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Achilles Univ. c. 19, p. 28.13–16 κλίματα δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ τὴν γῆν μὴ εἶναι ὁμαλήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχειν οἷον ἐγκλίματά τινα ὑψηλοτέρων ὄντων καὶ ταπεινοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αὐτῆς καὶ τὰς οἰκήσεις τῶν ἐθνῶν ἄλλας ἀλλαχοῦ εἶναι (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι τὸν δίσκον. titulus A 2.8 Τίς ἡ αἰτία τοῦ τὸν κόσμον ἐγκλιθῆναι. §1 A 2.8.1 Διογένης Ἀναξαγόρας μετὰ τὸ συστῆναι τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐγκλιθῆναί πως τὸν κόσμον ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου εἰς τὸ μεσημβρινὸν αὑτοῦ μέρος, ἴσως ὑπὸ προνοίας, ἵν᾽ ἃ μὲν {τινα} ἀοίκητα γένηται ἃ δ᾽ οἰκητὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν. A 2.8.2 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τοῦ ἀέρος εἴξαντος τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου ὁρμῇ, ἐγκλιθῆναι τὰς ἄρκτους, καὶ τὰ μὲν βόρεια ὑψωθῆναι τὰ δὲ νότια ταπεινωθῆναι, καθ᾽ ὃ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσμον. A 3.14.1 ἡ μέση ⟨τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς⟩ τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς ὁρίζει, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη· ἡ δ᾽ οἰκητή ἐστιν ἡ {μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς} ⟨θερινή⟩, εὔκρατός τις οὖσα. §2 A 4.1.4 Δημόκριτος τῆς χιόνος τῆς ἐν τοῖς πρὸς ἄρκτον μέρεσιν ὑπὸ θερινὰς τροπὰς ἀναλυομένης τε καὶ διαχεομένης νέφη μὲν ἐκ τῶν ἀτμῶν πιλοῦσθαι· τούτων

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_089

5

liber 3 caput 12

1281

δ᾽ ἀνελαυνομένων πρὸς μεσημβρίαν καὶ τὴν †Αἴγυπτον† ὑπὸ τῶν ἐτησίων ἀνέμων, ἀποτελεῖσθαι ῥαγδαίους ὄμβρους, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἀναπίμπλασθαι τάς τε λίμνας καὶ τὸν Νεῖλον ποταμόν.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The full text of witness P is represented by PB and PQ only. PE supplies the chapter heading, but the text has fallen out (this may have already occurred in E’s source) and the heading came to be attached to the next chapter. This chapter and the misplaced ch. 3.18 are the only chapters in Book 3 not included by G. T, again, is absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is poor. The parallel for Leucippus in Diogenes Laertius points at the existence of a shared tradition. (2) Sources. There is no reference in Aristotle. The book title Geography, Γεωγραφίη, cited in Diogenes Laertius’ catalogue of Democritus’ works perhaps suggests that this work may have been the source of the Democritus doxa, but it may equally well derive from one of his cosmological works. The doxa of Leucippus will derive from the latter’s Great Cosmic Ordering, Μέγας διάκοσμος, but we do not know by what route. C Chapter Heading Of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), and confirmed in the extant sources. As already noted above, in E it is attached to the wrong chapter. The question type at issue is that of cause (διὰ τί). The categories concerned are ‘being in a certain position’ (κεῖσθαι) and quality. D Analysis a Context The chapter, the fourth in the series of seven chapters dealing with the earth, is a sort of appendix to ch. 3.10, on the shape of the earth, or rather to 3.10.4–5, also with name-labels Leucippus and Democritus. What is presupposed here is an earth the shape of which is more or less flat. The chapter is parallel to ch. 2.8 on the tilting of the cosmos, where as a matter of fact the tilting of the cosmos

1282

liber 3 caput 12

is related to that of the earth, as is entirely clear in 2.8.2 and implicit in 2.8.1, where the inhabited and uninhabited parts of the cosmos must be those of the earth. b Number–Order of Lemmata There are 2 lemmata, the order of which is determined by the relative chronology of the name-labels. The only doxai represented (S is lost) are of Presocratic and even purely Atomist origin. References to later views are absent and may have been lost. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The rationale is determined by the relative chronology. The two in themselves rather peculiar doxai could also have been cited in the opposite order, since they pertain to exactly the same issue and the differences are not very big. Even so, it is worthy of note that this issue is represented by a slight diaphonia between the two early Atomists, a rather exceptional phenomenon illustrating the predilection of the doxographer for the exceptional. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

Chapter heading: Eusebius PE 15.32.10 περὶ γῆς σχήματος καὶ περὶ θέσεως καὶ ἐγκλίσεως αὐτῆς. §1 Leucippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.33 (on Leucippus, 67A1 DK) *** τῷ κεκλίσθαι τὴν γῆν πρὸς μεσημβρίαν· τὰ δὲ πρὸς ἄρκτῳ ἀεί τε νίφεσθαι καὶ κατάψυχρα εἶναι καὶ πήγνυσθαι. §2 Democritus: Diodorus Siculus 1.39.1 Δημόκριτος δ᾽ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (cf. 68A99 DK) φησὶν οὐ τὸν περὶ τὴν μεσημβρίαν τόπον χιονίζεσθαι, … ἀλλὰ τὸν περὶ τὰς ἄρκτους, καὶ τοῦτο ἐμφανὲς εἶναι πᾶσι. τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τῆς σωρευομένης χιόνος ἐν τοῖς βορείοις μέρεσι περὶ μὲν τὰς τροπὰς μένειν πεπηγός κτλ.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) τὰ δ᾽ ἄστρα κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν θολοειδῶς ἐνεχθῆναι, ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. cf. Suda s.v. E 102, p. 3.195.5– 7 Adler: ἔγκλισις· Ἀναξαγόρας φησὶν ὥστε κατὰ κορυφὴν τῆς γῆς τὸν ἀεὶ φαινόμενον εἶναι πόλον, ὕστερον δὲ τὴν ἔγκλισιν λαβεῖν. τουτέστι παρατροπήν. §1 Leucippus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.46 (on Democritus, 68A1 DK) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον (fr. 237 FHS&G) Λευκίππου (cf. Leucippus 67B1–1a DK, Democritus 68B4b DK) φασὶν εἶναι). §2 Democritus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.48 (on Democritus, 68A1, B14c DK) Γεωγραφίη.

Liber 3 Caput 13 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 896A–B; p. 378a3–19 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.58.1–4, p. 4.11–18 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 84; p. 633.10–13 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 181–182 Daiber S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.35, p. 248.20 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b21–22 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Scholia in Basilium I 26, p. 201.3–8 Pasquali = II 5 p. 369 Poljakov

Titulus ιγʹ. Πότερα μένει ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται (P,S) §1 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι μένειν τὴν γῆν. (P1) §2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. (P2) §3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς, τροχοῦ δίκην ἐνηξονισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κέντρον. (P3) §4 Δημόκριτος κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν πλάζεσθαι τὴν γῆν διά τε μικρότητα καὶ κουφότητα, πυκνωθεῖσαν δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ βαρυνθεῖσαν καταστῆναι. (P4) §1 anonymi cf. 44A21 DK; §2 Philolaus 44A21 DK; §3 Heraclides Ponticus fr. 104 Wehrli, 65B Schütrumpf; Ecphantus 51.5 DK; §4 Democritus 68A95 DK lemmata non hab. S titulus Πότερα … κινεῖται SLPhot : Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς PBGQ : om. PE qui appos. tit. c. 3.12 Περὶ ἐγκλίσεως γῆς ad textum c. 3.13 §1 [2] post γῆν add. PG ὑπολαμβάνουσιν §2 [3] περὶ τὸ πῦρ PBE : om. PGQ ‖ [3–4] περὶ … σελήνῃ om. PG ‖ [4] κύκλον λοξὸν corr. Reiske prob. edd., legit Q ut vid. : κύκλου λοξοῦ PBE §3 [5] Ἔκφαντος] Eukrates Q ‖ [6] ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς PE prob. Diels : om. PBG : τροπικῶς PQ ut vid. ‖ [6–7] ἐνηξονισμένην corr. Reiske prob. edd. : ἐν ἄξονι στρεφομένην PE : ἐνιζονισμένην PB(I) : ἐνιζομένην PB(III) : ἐνι—spat. 4 litt. PB(II) : ὡρισμένην PG (περὶ τὸν … πόλον Arist. Cael. 293b31–32, circum axem Cic. Luc. 123) ‖ [7] κέντρον] κίνημα PG §4 om. PG ‖ [8] Δημόκριτος … γῆν PE prob. Diels : κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν πλάζεσθαι γῆν φησιν Δημόκριτος PBQ prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ μικρότητα] μανότητα coni. Dyroff, ὑγρότητα Heidel

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 84 (~ tit.) Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς (text Diels) 84.1 (~ P1) οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι μένειν τὴν γῆν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν. 84.2 (~ P2) Φιλόλαος δὲ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι. 84.3 (~ P3) Ἡρακλείδης δὲ ὁ Ποντικὸς κινητὴν τὴν γῆν, ὡρισμένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς περὶ τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς κίνημα.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_090

5

10

1284

liber 3 caput 13

Testes secundi: Scholia in Basilium I 26, p. 201.3–8 Pasquali = II 5 p. 369 Poljakov τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον ἔφη Παρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης (—) καὶ Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (—)· Πλάτων (Tim. 40b–c) δὲ αὐτὴν ἴλλεσθαί φησι περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμὲνον πόλον, ὅπερ ἅν εἴη στρέφεσθαι (~ §3)· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης (Cael. 2.14 296b22–23) καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—) ἀκίνητον ἀπέλιπον τὴν γῆν (~ §1)· τῇ δὲ προκειμένῃ νῦν αἰτιολογίᾳ τῇ περὶ τῆς ἀκινησίας τῆς γῆς Στράτων (fr. 90 Wehrli, 44 Sharples) δοκεῖ πρῶτος ὁ φυσικὸς χρήσασθαι [vid. infra] (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus Α 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως. Α 2.16 Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀστέρων φορᾶς καὶ κινήσεως. quaestio Α 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι τὸν δίσκον. A 3.17.8 Σέλευκος ὁ μαθηματικὸς κινῶν καὶ οὗτος τὴν γῆν κτλ. §1 A 3.15.6 Μητρόδωρος μηδὲν ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ τόπῳ σῶμα κινεῖσθαι, εἰ μή τις προώσειεν ἢ καθελκύσειε κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν· διὸ μηδὲ τὴν γῆν, ἅτε δὴ κειμένην φυσικῶς. A 3.15.7 Παρμενίδης Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ἴσον ἀφεστῶσαν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰσορροπίας, οὐκ ἔχουσαν αἰτίαν δι᾽ ἣν δεῦρο μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκεῖσε ῥέψειεν ἄν. A 3.15.9 Πλάτων πάσης μὲν κινήσεως ἓξ εἶναι περιστάσεις, ἄνω καὶ κάτω, ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ θάτερα, ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν· κατ᾽ οὐδεμίαν δὲ τούτων ἐνδέχεσθαι τὴν γῆν κινεῖσθαι, ἐν τῷ πανταχόθεν κατωτάτω κειμένην· μένειν μὲν ἀκίνητον, μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ἐξαίρετον εἰς τὸ ῥέψαι μᾶλλον. §2 A 2.5a.4 Φιλόλαος (sc. τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν τοῦ κόσμου) ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ πυρί. A 2.7.6 Φιλόλαος πῦρ ἐν μέσῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον, ὅπερ ἑστίαν τοῦ παντὸς καλεῖ … πρῶτον δ᾽ εἶναι φύσει τὸ μέσον, περὶ δὲ τοῦτο δέκα σώματα θεῖα χορεύειν, οὐρανόν, τοὺς ⟨εʹ⟩ πλανήτας, μεθ᾽ οὓς ἥλιον, ὑφ᾽ ᾧ σελήνην, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν γῆν, ὑφ᾽ ᾗ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, μεθ᾽ ἃ σύμπαντα τὸ πῦρ, ἑστίας περὶ τὰ κέντρα τάξιν ἐπέχον. A 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖ περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον καὶ κατὰ τὰς ταύτης ἐγκλίσεις σκιάζεσθαι τὸν δίσκον. A 3.11.3 Φιλόλαος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος τὸ μὲν πῦρ μέσον, τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι τοῦ παντὸς ἑστίαν· δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀντίχθονα, τρίτην δ᾽ ἣν οἰκοῦμεν γῆν ἐξ ἐναντίας κειμένην τε καὶ περιφερομένην τῇ ἀντίχθον. §3 A 3.17.9 Σέλευκος ὁ μαθηματικὸς ἀντιγεγραφὼς Κράτητι, κινῶν καὐτὸς τὴν γῆν. cf. A ap. T 4.16, p. 104.15–17 Raeder (de mundo) καὶ οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ· καὶ οἱ μὲν μυλοειδῶς, οἱ δὲ τροχοῦ δίκην περιδινεῖσθαι … §4 A 1.4.3 κἄπειτα ἐκ μὲν τῶν ὑποκαθιζόντων ἐγεννήθη ἡ γῆ. A 1.12.6 Δημόκριτος τὰ πρῶτά φησι σώματα (ταῦτα δ᾽ ἦν τὰ ναστά) βάρος μὲν οὐκ ἔχειν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατ᾽ ἀλληλοτυπίαν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. δυνατὸν εἶναι κοσμιαίαν ὑπάρχειν ἄτομον.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

liber 3 caput 13

1285

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P and his tradition, and SL for a version of the heading. The heading is also found in Photius’ index, so doxai from this chapter must have been present in the Anthology, but were removed by Byzantine epitomators. G omits the final doxa in his epitome. P may have omitted a possible parallel chapter on the movement of the cosmos in Book 2, attested at T CAG 4.16, p. 104.15–17 καὶ οἱ μὲν μυλοειδῶς, οἱ δὲ τροχοῦ δίκην περιδινεῖσθαι (sc. the cosmos); cited above at loci Aetiani. The phrase οἱ μὲν σφαιροειδῆ τοῦτον εἶναι, οἱ δὲ ἑτεροειδῆ may be parallel to §3. See above the Appendix to ch. 2.2. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition is rather rich and quite interesting, e.g. among the testes secundi the Scholia on the Hexaemeron of Basil and in the traditio proxima Cicero and Hippolytus. (2) Sources. Among the sources we may mention the discussion in Aristotle, De caelo 2.13, which as we have seen deals with those issues in relation to each other, namely substance and number, shape, position, and motion or rest, that are treated more doxographico separately in our chs. 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.13. His methodology (the diaeresis between those say that the earth is at rest and those who say that it moves) and terminology are also echoed. C Chapter Heading For S the heading has not been preserved in the main manuscripts of the Eclogae F and P, but it is attested in the Index Photianus and in SL. Their wording, ‘Whether the earth is at rest or moves’, Πότερα μένει ἡ γῆ ἢ κινεῖται, differs from what is found in the tradition of P. As this version gives a more precise and detailed description of the contents of the chapter and moreover lists ‘rest’ and ‘motion’ in the order of appearance of these concepts in the lemmata, we have preferred it to the simpler Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς in PBGQ, where it is of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C). Note that the phrase ‘On the earth’s motion’ is ambiguous in that it may also relate to earthquakes (see at ch. 3.15, Commentary D(c)). It is lost in PE, so confirmation either way from this source is lacking.

1286

liber 3 caput 13

D Analysis a Context This is the antepenultimate chapter of the block of seven chapters dealing with the earth. The question of the earth’s rest or motion is one of the main issues in Aristotle’s De caelo ch. 2.13, where it is discussed in connection with that of its position, substance and number, shape, and motion or rest, themes treated more doxographico separately in our chs. 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.13. b Number–Order of Lemmata PB and PG share three lemmata. The relative order is the same, which there is no reason to change. PG omits the final doxa. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The issue is motion or rest in the category of place (for motion in relation to all or some of the categories see ch. 1.23 Commentary C). In terms of doxai the main diaphonia is between §1, the earth at rest, and §§2–4, various sorts of movements of the earth. A third position is occupied by Xenophanes, perhaps representing the Eleatic Succession of which he is the archegete. These movements are listed according to a diaeresis that first opposes circular movement in space (§2) to circular movement about the axis (§3). §4 is a compromise lemma, appropriately located at the end, because it mentions both movement (at the beginning of the earth’s career) and rest (its present situation). It is also rather odd, which appeals to our author and is a further reason for its final position; cf. for example Xenophanes’ disappearing suns and moons in ch. 2.24.8. See further Mansfeld (1992a) at M–R 3.75–94. In terms of name-labels the main contrast is between the majority (presumably the Ionic Succession beginning with Thales) and (representatives of) the Italic Succession, namely the Pythagoreans Philolaus and Ecphantus (plus Heraclides, because of his interest in Pythagoreanism), and Democritus, (an important representative of the Eleatic Succession). Cf. above ch. 3.11 Commentary D(c). d

Further Comments General Points The issue of the earth’s motion returns in ch. 3.17, ‘On earthquakes’, ubi vide. This is because, as already noted above, the phrase ‘the earth moves’ is ambiguous, and can pertain both to the motion of the earth as a whole (around the centre of its system, or about its axis) and of the movement of only a part or parts, as during earthquakes.

liber 3 caput 13

1287

Individual points §2 The Placita again mention an individual, Philolaus, where Aristotle speaks of ‘the Pythagoreans’ in general; the doxa is already ascribed to him at ch. 3.11.3. §3 There is no mention in this chapter of the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus of Samos, for which see ch. 2.24.7 (and e.g. Archimedes Aren. p. 135.8–18, Sextus Empiricus M. 10.174). The earth’s movement according to Heraclides and Ecphantus is axial rotation. The proximate tradition represented by Cicero and Hippolytus mentions another Pythagorean, viz. not Ecphantus but Hicetas: this is another instance of a different attempt at identifying an individual where Aristotle spoke of a group. e Other Evidence The question of the earth’s motion (and position) was discussed widely, often vehemently, with the overwhelming majority being in favour of rest. The heterodox heliocentric view of Aristarchus was strongly condemned by Cleanthes as sacrilegious. The spectacle of the revolutions of the heavenly bodies about the earth was believed to produce the concept of God, see above, ch. 1.6, so Cleanthes’ reaction can be understood. Another variety of the earth’s motion, namely one about the axis that left it in place at the centre, was a minority position too. Because of the ambiguity of the expression ‘the earth moves’, the theme of the present chapter also plays a part in the chapter on earthquakes, 3.15 (for parallels also see above, Loci Aetiani). The doxographies in Simplicius are unusual and interesting. They are not only based on the Aristotelian chapter (Cael. 2.13), but because of the inclusion of name-labels such as Heraclides and Aristarchus must also depend on the wider doxographical tradition. The first three paragraphs of the chapter were quoted by Copernicus in the prefatory letter of the De revolutionibus corporum coelestium, so he presents the motion of the earth as a controversial issue. See Burkert (1972), 337 n. 1, and section E(b) General texts. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Cicero Luc. 122 (Xenophanes 21A47 DK) sed ecquid nos eodem modo rerum naturas persecare aperire dividere possumus, ut videamus terra penitusne defixa sit et quasi radicibus suis haereat an media pendeat. Lucretius DRN 5.534 terraque ut in media mundi regione quiescat. Pliny Nat. 2.162 pendere ipsam (sc. terram) ac non cadere nobiscum, ceu spiritus vis, mundo

1288

liber 3 caput 13

praesertim inclusi, dubia sit, aut possit cadere, natura repugnante et quo cadat negante. Silius Italicus 14.345–348 ille, haereat anne / pendeat instabilis tellus, … / noverat. Seneca Dial. 10.19.1 sciturus … quid sit quod huius mundi grauissima quaeque in medio sustineat. Damascius in Phaed. (versio 2) 116 ριϛʹ cf. ch. 3.10 E(a) General texts. §1 the others: Hippolytus Ref. 1.6.3 (on Anaximander, 12A11 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν εἶναι μετέωρον, ὑπὸ μηδενὸς κρατουμένην, μένουσαν ⟨δὲ⟩ διὰ τὴν ὁμοίαν πάντων ἀπόστασιν. Ref. 1.8.3 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν τῷ σχήματι πλατεῖαν εἶναι καὶ μένειν μετέωρον διὰ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν καὶ διὰ τὸ τὸν ἀέρα ἰσχυρότατον ὄντα φέρειν ἐποχουμένην τὴν γῆν. Ref. 1.9.3 (on Archelaus, 60A4 DK) τὴν μὲν οὖν γῆν ἠρεμεῖν. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 10, p. 17.11– 16 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἤδη δέ τινες τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ τοιαύταις αἰτίαις τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον μένειν κατακομψεύονται. ὡς ἄρα διὰ τὸ τὴν μέσην τοῦ παντὸς εἰληφέναι χώραν, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἴσην πάντοθεν πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον ἀπόστασιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ὅπου μᾶλλον ἀποκλιθῇ, ἀναγκαίως μένειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, ἀδύνατον αὐτῇ παντελῶς τὴν ἐπί τι ῥοπὴν τῆς πανταχόθεν περικειμένης ὁμοιότητος ἐμποιούσης. Theon of Smyrna Exp. p. 198.18–19 Hiller (quoting Eudemus fr. 145 Wehrli) … Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A26 DK) δὲ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ μετέωρος καὶ κ{ιν}εῖται περὶ τὸ τοῦ κόσμου μέσον … (cf. Heron Mechanicus Def. 11.6–7). §2 Philolaus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 8.85 δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτῷ (on Philolaus, 44A1 DK) … καὶ τὴν γῆν κινεῖσθαι κατὰ κύκλον πρῶτον εἰπεῖν· οἱ δ᾽ Ἱκέταν ⟨τὸν⟩ Συρακόσιόν (cf. ad 50.1 DK) φασιν. §3 Heraclides Ecphantus: Cicero Luc. 123 Hicetas Syracusius (50.1 DK), ut ait Theophrastus (Phys.Op. fr. 18 Diels, 240 FHS&G), caelum solem lunam stellas supera denique omnia stare censet, neque praeter terram rem ullam in mundo moveri; quae cum circum axem se summa celeritate convertat et torqueat, eadem effici omnia quasi stante terra caelum moveretur. atque hoc etiam Platonem in Timaeo (40b–c) dicere quidam arbitrantur, sed paulo obscurius. Hippolytus Ref. 1.15.12 Ἔκφαντός τις Συρακούσιος (51.1 DK) ἔφη … τὴν δὲ γῆν μέσον κόσμου κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ αὑτῆς κέντρον ὡς πρὸς ἀνατολήν. Simplicius in Cael. 541.28 εἰ δὲ κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ κέντρον (sc. ἐκινεῖτο ἡ γῆ), ὡς Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς (fr. 107 Wehrli, 68 Schütrumpf) ὑπετίθετο.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Cael. 2.8 289b1–7 ἐπεὶ δὲ φαίνεται καὶ τὰ ἄστρα μεθιστάμενα καὶ ὅλος ὁ οὐρανός, ἀναγκαῖον ἤτοι ἠρεμούντων ἀμφοτέρων γίγνεσθαι τὴν μεταβολήν, ἢ κινουμένων, ἢ τοῦ μὲν ἠρεμοῦντος τοῦ δὲ κινουμένου. ἀμφότερα μὲν τοίνυν ἠρεμεῖν ἀδύνατον ἠρεμούσης γε τῆς γῆς· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐγίγνετο τὰ φαινόμενα. τὴν δὲ γῆν ὑποκείσθω ἠρεμεῖν. λείπεται δὴ ἀμφότερα κινεῖσθαι, ἢ τὸ μὲν κινεῖσθαι τὸ δ᾽ ἠρεμεῖν. Cael. 2.13 293b15–20 περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ τόπου τῆς γῆς ταύτην ἔχουσί τινες (Pythagoreans 58B37a DK) τὴν δόξαν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ μονῆς καὶ κινήσεως· οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ἅπαντες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι μὲν μηδ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κεῖσθαί φασιν αὐτήν, κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ μέσον, οὐ μόνον δὲ ταύτην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονα. Cael. 2 13 295a14–17 ὅτι δὲ μένει, ζητοῦσι τὴν αἰτίαν,

liber 3 caput 13 καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὅτι τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς αἴτιον, οἱ δ᾽ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31Α67 DK) κτλ. Strabo 2.5.2, 110C.20–22 ἡ γῆ σφαιροειδῶς ὁμόκεντρος τῷ μὲν οὐρανῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὴ καὶ ὁ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἄξων καὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μέσου τεταμένος. Ptolemy Synt. 1 c. 7 tit. ὅτι οὐδὲ κίνησίν τινα μεταβατικὴν ποιεῖται ἡ γῆ. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.145 (SVF 2.650) δοκεῖ δ᾽ αὐτοῖς … τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον οὖσαν. Proclus in Tim. 3.136.29–138.11 ζῷον δὲ οὖσα θεῖον καὶ πολλῶν ζῴων μερικῶν περιληπτικὸν ἴλλεσθαι λέγεται ‘περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμένον πόλον’ (Plato Tim. 40b), … ‘ἰλλομένην’ δὲ τὴν σφιγγομένην δηλοῖ καὶ συνεχομένην· οὐ γάρ, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης (Cael. 2 13 293b31, 2 14.296a26) οἴεται, τὴν κινουμένην· διαφερόντως γὰρ ὁ Πλάτων ἀκίνητον φυλάττει τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν προστιθεὶς ἐν τῷ Φαίδωνι, δι᾽ ἣν ἀκίνητος ἵδρυται, λέγει οὖν (Phd. 109a)· ‘ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι’· … εἰ δὲ καί, ὡς ἕνιοι φασι, ‘μένει γὰρ Ἑστία ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ μόνη’ (Phdr. 247a) περὶ ταύτης εἴρηται τῆς γῆς, πολλοῦ ἂν δέοι κινεῖν ὁ Πλάτων τὴν γῆν. … εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πυθαγόρειον Τίμαιον (c. 23, p. 215.7) ἀποβλέψαιμεν, ἔτι μᾶλλον οὐκ ἂν ὑπολάβοιμεν κινεῖσθαι τὴν γῆν· λέγει γὰρ κἀκεῖνος ‘τὰν γᾶν ἐν τῷ μέσῳ’ εἶναι ‘ἱδρυμέναν’. ποῦ δὴ οὖν εὔλογον ἡμᾶς ἰλλομένην ἀκούσαντας εἱλουμένην καὶ στρεφομένην αὐτὴν ποιεῖν, ὡς Πλάτωνι ἀρέσκον λέγοντας; Ἡρακλείδης μὲν οὖν ὁ Ποντικός (fr. 105 Wehrli, 66 Schütrumpf, cf. frs. 106 & 107 Wehrli, 67 & 68 Schütrumpf), οὐ Πλάτωνος ὢν ἀκουστής, ταύτην ἐχέτω τὴν δόξαν, κινῶν κύκλῳ τὴν γῆν· Πλάτων δὲ ἀκίνητον αὐτὴν ἵστησιν. Simplicius in Cael. 511.15–20 τρία οὖν περὶ αὐτῆς προβαλλόμενος περί τε τῆς θέσεως αὐτῆς, ὅπου κειμένη τυγχάνει (cf. ch. 3.11), καὶ δεύτερον, πότερον τῶν ἠρεμούντων ἐστὶν ἢ τῶν κινουμένων, καὶ τρίτον περὶ τοῦ σχήματος αὐτῆς (cf. ch. 3.10), τὰς προκαταβεβλημένας καὶ περὶ τούτων δόξας πρῶτον ἐκτίθεται καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰς ὑπαντήσας οὕτω τὰ δοκοῦντα ἑαυτῷ περὶ τούτων συλλογίζεται. in Cael. 520.24–521.1 μετάγει τὸν λόγον λοιπὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς μένειν μὲν τὴν γῆν λέγοντας, τὴν δὲ αἰτίαν τῆς μονῆς οὐ καλῶς ἀποδιδόντας. καὶ πρῶτον μνημονεύει τῶν μένειν λεγόντων διὰ τὸ ἄπειρον αὐτὴν εἶναι, ὥσπερ Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (—), δεύτερον δὲ τῶν ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος ὀχουμένην μένειν, ὡς Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 425 Wöhrle), τρίτον δὲ τῶν λεγόντων μένειν αὐτὴν ἀνεχομένην ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ἀέρος, ὃν ἐπιπωματίζει πλατεῖα οὖσα καὶ τυμπανοειδὴς ἡ γῆ καὶ οὐ συγχωρεῖ ἀναχωρεῖν· οὕτω δὲ Ἀναξιμένης (fr. 156 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (cf. 59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 376 Luria) ἐδόκουν λέγειν· τέταρτον δὲ τῶν περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέα (—) τὴν δίνην τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τῆς μονῆς τῆς γῆς αἰτιωμένων, καὶ πέμπτον τῶν τὴν ὁμοιότητα καὶ τὴν ἰσορροπίαν αἰτίαν τῆς μονῆς λεγόντων, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος (fr. 187 Wöhrle) καὶ Πλάτων (Phd. 108e– 109a). §1 the others: Plato Phd. 99b–c διὸ δὴ καὶ ὁ μέν τις δίνην περιτιθεὶς τῇ γῇ ὑπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μένειν δὴ ποιεῖ τὴν γῆν, ὁ δὲ ὥσπερ καρδόπῳ πλατείᾳ βάθρον τὸν ἀέρα ὑπερείδει· τὴν δὲ τοῦ ὡς οἷόν τε βέλτιστα αὐτὰ τεθῆναι δύναμιν οὕτω νῦν κεῖσθαι, ταύτην οὔτε ζητοῦσιν οὔτε τινὰ οἴονται δαιμονίαν ἰσχὺν ἔχειν. Phd. 108e– 109a πέπεισμαι τοίνυν, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ἐγὼ ὡς πρῶτον μέν, εἰ ἔστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῷ οὐρανῷ περιφερὴς οὖσα, μηδὲν αὐτῇ δεῖν μήτε ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεσεῖν μήτε ἄλλης ἀνάγκης μηδεμιᾶς τοιαύτης, ἀλλὰ ἱκανὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν ἴσχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ πάντῃ καὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς τὴν ἰσορροπίαν· ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς

1289

1290

liber 3 caput 13

ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι, ὁμοίως δ᾽ ἔχον ἀκλινὲς μενεῖ. Euripides fr. 944 Nauck2 / Kannicht καὶ Γαῖα μῆτερ· Ἑστίαν δέ σ᾽ οἱ σοφοὶ / βροτῶν καλοῦσιν ἡμένην ἐν αἰθέρι. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 294a28–31 οἱ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος κεῖσθαι. τοῦτον γὰρ ἀρχαιότατον παρειλήφαμεν τὸν λόγον, ὅν φασιν εἰπεῖν Θαλῆν τὸν Μιλήσιον (11A14 DK), ὡς διὰ τὸ πλωτὴν εἶναι μένουσαν ὥσπερ ξύλον ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. Cael. 2.13 294b13–15 Ἀναξιμένης (13A20 DK) δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 376 Luria) τὸ πλάτος αἴτιον εἶναί φασι τοῦ μένειν αὐτήν· οὐ γὰρ τέμνειν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπωμάζειν τὸν ἀέρα τὸν κάτωθεν. Cael. 2.13 295a14–18 ὅτι δὲ μένει, ζητοῦσι τὴν αἰτίαν, καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ μὲν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον, ὅτι τὸ πλάτος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος αὐτῆς αἴτιον, οἱ δ᾽ ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A67 DK), τὴν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ φορὰν κύκλῳ περιθέουσαν καὶ θᾶττον φερομένην ἢ τὴν τῆς γῆς φορὰν κωλύειν. ps.Aristotle Mu. 2 391b12–14 ταύτης (sc. τῆς διακοσμήσεως) δὲ τὸ μὲν μέσον, ἀκίνητόν τε καὶ ἑδραῖον ὄν, ἡ φερέσβιος εἴληχε γῆ, παντοδαπῶν ζῴων ἑστία τε οὖσα καὶ μήτηρ. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 923A Ἀρίσταρχον ᾤετο δεῖν Κλεάνθης (SVF 1.500) τὸν Σάμιον ἀσεβείας προσκαλεῖσθαι τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς κινοῦντα τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἑστίαν. Prim.Frig. 954F ὅθεν οὐ κατὰ χώραν μόνον ἐξ ἕδρας ἀκίνητον οὖσαν αὐτὴν (sc. τὴν γῆν), ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀμετάβλητον, Ἑστίαν, ἅτε δὴ ‘μένουσαν ἐν θεῶν οἴκῳ’, κάλλιστα προσηγόρευσαν οἱ παλαιοί (Pl. Phdr. 246E), διὰ τὴν στάσιν καὶ πῆξιν· ἧς ἡ ψυχρότης δεσμός, ὡς Ἀρχέλαος ὁ φυσικὸς (60B1a DK) εἶπεν, οὐδενὸς χαλῶντος αὐτὴν οὐδὲ μαλάττοντος, ἅτε θερομένην καὶ ἀλεαινομένην οὐσίαν. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 10, p. 17.11–16 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἤδη δέ τινες τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ τοιαύταις αἰτίαις τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον μένειν κατακομψεύονται. ὡς ἄρα διὰ τὸ τὴν μέσην τοῦ παντὸς εἰληφέναι χώραν, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἴσην πάντοθεν πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον ἀπόστασιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ὅπου μᾶλλον ἀποκλιθῇ, ἀναγκαίως μένειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, ἀδύνατον αὐτῇ παντελῶς τὴν ἐπί τι ῥοπὴν τῆς πανταχόθεν περικειμένης ὁμοιότητος ἐμποιούσης. Suda s.v. Φ 864, p. 4.777.17–19 Adler ἡ γῆ κινεῖται μὲν κατὰ τὸ βλαστάνειν καὶ ζῳογονεῖν καὶ τὸ ὅλως ἀλλοιοῦσθαι· ἠρεμεῖ δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐκ τόπου εἰς τόπον μετάστασιν. Copernicus De revolutionibus, praef. auctoris postea & apud Plutarchum inveni quosdam alios in ea fuisse opinione (sc. terram moveri), cujus verba, ut sint omnibus obvia, placuit hic asscribere:—full quotation in Greek (!) of P 3.13.1–3 follows. §2 Philolaus: Alexander of Aphrodisias in Met. 40.28–41.2 ὁρῶντες (cf. Pythagoreans 58B.4 DK) δὲ ἐν τοῖς φαινομένοις ἐννέα τὰς κινουμένας σφαίρας, ἑπτὰ μὲν τὰς τῶν πλανωμένων, ὀγδόην δὲ τὴν τῶν ἀπλανῶν, ἐννάτην δὲ τὴν γῆν (καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτην ἡγοῦντο κινεῖσθαι κύκλῳ περὶ μένουσαν τὴν ἑστίαν, ὃ πῦρ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτούς), αὐτοὶ προσέθεσαν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι καὶ τὴν ἀντίχθονά τινα, ἣν ἀντικινεῖσθαι ὑπέθεντο τῇ γῇ …. λέγει (sc. Aristotle) δὲ περὶ τούτων καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ οὐρανοῦ (2 13) καὶ ἐν ταῖς τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δόξαις (fr. 203 R3, 162 Gigon) ἀκριβέστερον. §3 Heraclides Ecphantus: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b30–33 ἔνιοι δὲ καὶ κειμένην ἐπὶ τοῦ κέντρου φασὶν αὐτὴν ἴλλεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμένον πόλον, ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ (Tim. 40b) γέγραπται. Plutarch Num. c. 11.1–2 Νομᾶς δὲ λέγεται καὶ τὸ τῆς Ἑστίας ἱερὸν ἐγκύκλιον περιβαλέσθαι τῷ ἀσβέστῳ πυρὶ φρουράν, ἀπομιμούμενος οὐ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς γῆς ὡς Ἑστίας οὔσης, ἀλλὰ τοῦ

liber 3 caput 13 σύμπαντος κόσμου, οὗ μέσον οἱ Πυθαγορικοὶ (—) τὸ πῦρ ἱδρῦσθαι νομίζουσι, (2) καὶ τοῦτο Ἑστίαν καλοῦσι καὶ μονάδα· τὴν δὲ γῆν οὔτε ἀκίνητον οὔτε ἐν μέσῳ τῆς περιφορᾶς οὖσαν, ἀλλὰ κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ πῦρ αἰωρουμένην οὐ τῶν τιμιωτάτων οὐδὲ τῶν πρώτων τοῦ κόσμου μορίων ὑπάρχειν. ταῦτα δὲ καὶ Πλάτωνά φασι πρεσβύτην γενόμενον διανενοῆσθαι περὶ τῆς γῆς ὡς ἐν ἑτέρᾳ χώρᾳ καθεστώσης, τὴν δὲ μέσην καὶ κυριωτάτην ἑτέρῳ τινὶ κρείττονι προσήκουσαν. Quaest.Plat. 1006C πότερον οὕτως ἐκίνει (sc. Plato) τὴν γῆν ὥσπερ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς πέντε πλάνητας, οὓς ὄργανα χρόνου διὰ τὰς τροπὰς προσηγόρευε, καὶ ἔδει τὴν γῆν ‘ἰλλομένην περὶ τὸν διὰ πάντων πόλον τεταμένον’ (Tim. 40c) μὴ μεμηχανῆσθαι συνεχομένην καὶ μένουσαν, ἀλλὰ στρεφομένην καὶ ἀνειλουμένην νοεῖν, ὡς ὕστερον Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Σέλευκος ἀπεδείκνυσαν, ὁ μὲν ὑποτιθέμενος μόνον, ὁ δὲ Σέλευκος (test. 1 Russo) καὶ ἀποφαινόμενος; Θεόφραστος (fr. 243 FHS&G) δὲ καὶ προσιστορεῖ τῷ Πλάτωνι πρεσβυτέρῳ γενομένῳ μεταμέλειν ὡς οὐ προσήκουσαν ἀποδόντι τῇ γῇ τὴν μέσην χώραν τοῦ παντός. Ptolemy Synt. 1.1, p. 24.5–19 ἤδη δέ τινες … δοκοῦσι δὲ οὐδὲν αὐτοῖς ἀντιμαρτυρήσειν, εἰ τὸν μὲν οὐρανὸν ἀκίνητον ὑποστήσαιντο λόγου χάριν, τὴν δὲ γῆν περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἄξονα στρεφομένην ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ᾽ ἀνατολὰς ἑκάστης ἡμέρας μίαν ἔγγιστα περιστροφήν, ἢ καὶ ἀμφότερα κινοῖεν ὁσονδήποτε, μόνον περί τε τὸν αὐτὸν ἄξονα, ὡς ἔφαμεν, καὶ συμμέτρως τῇ πρὸς ἄλληλα περικαταλήψει. λέληθε δὲ αὐτούς, ὅτι τῶν μὲν περὶ τὰ ἄστρα φαινομένων ἕνεκεν οὐδὲν ἂν ἴσως κωλύοι κατά γε τὴν ἁπλουστέραν ἐπιβολὴν τοῦθ᾽ οὕτως ἔχειν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν περὶ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν ἐν ἀέρι συμπτωμάτων καὶ πάνυ ἂν γελοιότατον ὀφθείη τὸ τοιοῦτον. Galen in Tim. fr. 2.103–105 Schröder ἀκίνητον δὲ εἶναι (sc. τὴν γῆν) κατὰ τὴν ὀνομαζομένην ὑπό τινων μεταβατικὴν κίνησιν, ἥτις ἀμειβόντων τοὺς τόπους καὶ μεθισταμένων ἐξ ἄλλης χώρας εἰς ἄλλην γίνεται. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 3.75 (on Plato) γῆν δὲ … οὖσαν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸ μέσον. Simplicius in Cael. 444.34–445.2 γεγονέναι τινάς, ὧν Ἡρακλείδης τε ὁ Ποντικὸς (fr. 108 Wehrli, 69 Schütrumpf) ἦν καὶ Ἀρίσταρχος (cf. ch. 2.24.7), νομίζοντας σώζεσθαι τὰ φαινόμενα τοῦ μὲν οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄστρων ἠρεμούντων, τῆς δὲ γῆς περὶ τοὺς τοῦ ἰσημερινοῦ πόλους ἀπὸ δυσμῶν κινουμένης ἑκάστης ἡμέρας μίαν ἔγγιστα περιστροφήν (cf. in Cael. 519.9– 11 = Heraclides fr. 106 Wehrli, 67 Schütrumpf and 541.27–28 = fr. 107 Wehrli, 68 Schütrumpf). David Proleg. 61.27–29 ἀκίνητον μὲν ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ, αὕτη γὰρ ἀκίνητός ἐστιν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπέρχεται ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ τόπου εἰς τόνδε τὸν τόπον.

1291

Liber 3 Caput 14 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 896B; p. 378a20–379a5 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 85; p. 633.14–18 (et 8–9 §4) Diels; pp. 272–278 (et 271–272 §4) Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 182–183 Daiber Cf. Ach: Achilles c. 29, p. 45.1, c. 31, p. 50.1–7 Di Maria

Titulus ιδʹ. Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς, πόσαι εἰσὶ ζῶναι αὐτῆς (P) §1 Πυθαγόρας τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ διῃρῆσθαι εἰς πέντε ζώνας, ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν, ὧν ἡ μέση ⟨τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς⟩ τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς ὁρίζει, παρ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη· ἡ δ᾽ οἰκητή ἐστιν ἡ {μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς} ⟨θερινή⟩, εὔκρατός τις οὖσα. (P1) §2 Παρμενίδης πρῶτος ἀφώρισε τῆς γῆς τοὺς οἰκουμένους τόπους ὑπὸ ταῖς δυσὶ ζώναις ταῖς τροπικαῖς. (P2 = P3.11.4) §1 Pythagoras—; §2 Parmenides 28A44a DK lemmata non hab. S titulus πόσαι … αὐτῆς PB : om. PGQ §1 [2] Πυθαγόρας PBQ : τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς PG, fort. recte ‖ παντὸς PBQ, prob. edd. : om. PQ ‖ οὐρανοῦ PBQ, prob. Mau Lachenaud : om. PG quod prob. Diels, sed cf. c. 2.12.1 (ap. PBS) τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν, ubi etiam παντὸς om. PQ ‖ τῇ … σφαίρᾳ PBQ(ut vid.) : τῆς … σφαίρας PG ‖ [3] ἀνταρκτικὴν post ἀρκτικὴν hab. PGQ, ubi transp. Diels : om. PB(I,II) : post ἰσημερινήν hab. PB(III) ‖ χειμερινὴν ἰσημερινήν PBQ : om. PG ‖ [4] μέση P : crucif. Diels DG ‖ post μέση addidimus ⟨τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς⟩ ex [6] ‖ μέσον P : crucif. edd. : θερμὸν maluit Mau ‖ ὁρίζει PB : ὁρίζεται PG : trennt PQ ‖ [4–5] παρ᾽ … τοῦτο PBQ : om. PG ‖ [5] διακεκαυμένη PBQ : διακεκαυμένης PG ‖ καλουμένη] κυκλουμένη PB(III:α) ‖ οἰκητή] οἰκητήριον PB(III:AE) ‖ [5–6] ἡ1 δ᾽ … οὖσα ut glossema uncis incl. Diels prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ μέση … χειμερινῆς P : uncis inclusimus ‖ [6] ⟨θερινή⟩ supplevimus ‖ εὔκρατός τις οὖσα PB : denn sie beide sind gemäßigt Q ‖ τις] om. PG ‖ post οὖσα verba ἠ δὲ ἀρκτικὴ καὶ ἀνταρκτικὴ ἀοίκητός ἐστιν ὑπὸ κρύους intercidisse putat Diels §2 lemma traditum ap. P 3.11.4 (cf. G c. 82.4) hic transp. Beckius prob. Diels ‖ [7] πρῶτος] ὁ πρῶτον PG Jas, {ὁ} πρῶτος emend. Diels ‖ ἀφώρισε PB : ὁρίσας PG Jas, ὥρισε emend. Diels ‖ post τοὺς coni. ⟨οὐκ⟩ Theiler (1982) 2.22 ‖ [7–8] ταῖς δυσὶ ζώναις ταῖς τροπικαῖς PB ‖ τὰς δύο ζώνας τροπικὰς εἶναι τὴν γῆν PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 85 (~ tit.) Περὶ διαιρέσεως γῆς (text Jas) 85.1 (~ P1) τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς τὴν γῆν ἀναλόγως διῃρῆσθαι τῆς τοῦ παντὸς σφαίρας εἰς πέντε ζώνας, ἀρκτικὴν ἀνταρκτικὴν θερινὴν * * ὧν ἡ μέση τὸ μέσον τῆς γῆς ὁρίζεται διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη, ἡ δὲ οἰκητή ἐστι μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ τῆς χειμερινῆς εὔκρατος οὖσα. additum ex c. 83 Περὶ θέσεως γῆς (text Jas) 82.4 (~ P2) Παρμενίδης ὁ πρῶτον ὁρίσας τοὺς οἰκουμένους τόπους ὑπὸ τὰς δύο ζώνας τροπικὰς εἶναι τὴν γῆν. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_091

5

liber 3 caput 14

1293

Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 29, p. 45.1 Περὶ ζωνῶν καὶ ὅτι πέντε (~ tit.). c. 31, p. 50.1–7 πρῶτος δὲ Παρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης (28A44a DK) τὸν περὶ τῶν ζωνῶν ἐνίκησε λόγον. περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ αὐτῶν πολλὴ διαφωνία τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτὸν γέγονεν· οἳ μὲν γὰρ ἓξ αὐτὰς εἶπον ὡς Πολύβιος (cf. ap. Strab. 2.3.1, 96C6–8) καὶ Ποσειδώνιος (F 209 E.-K., Theiler 1982, 2.22) τὴν διασκευαμένην εἰς δύο διαιροῦντες, οἳ δὲ πέντε παρέλαβον, ὥσπερ Ἐρατοσθένης (cf. fr. 16.3–5 Powell) καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, οἷς καὶ ἡμεῖς κατηκολουθήσαμεν. περὶ δὲ οἰκήσεων πάλιν καὶ τῶν ἐνοικούντων καὶ ὀνομάτων γέγονε πολλὴ ταραχὴ καὶ περὶ ἀντιχθόνων καὶ ἀντιπόδων (~ quaestio). Symeon Seth CRN 1.10 διαμεμέρισται δὲ ἡ οἰκουμένη ὑπὸ τῶν πάλαι σοφῶν εἰς τὰ ἑπτὰ κλίματα τρόπῳ τοιούτῳ κτλ. (~ quaestio). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 2.12 Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται. §1 A 1.7.23 … τῇ σφαίρᾳ τοῦ παντός … A 2.5a.4 … τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρας⟩ … A 2.8.1 ἵν᾽ ἃ μὲν {τινα} ἀοίκητα γένηται ἃ δ᾽ οἰκητὰ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου κατὰ ψῦξιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν καὶ εὐκρασίαν. A 2.12.1 Θαλῆς Πυθαγόρας οἱ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεμερίσθαι τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν εἰς κύκλους πέντε, οὕστινας προσαγορεύουσι ζώνας· καλεῖται δ᾽ αὐτῶν ὁ μὲν ἀρκτικός τε καὶ ἀειφανής, ὁ δὲ θερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἰσημερινός, ὁ δὲ χειμερινὸς τροπικός, ὁ δ᾽ ἀνταρκτικός τε καὶ ἀφανής. A 2.24.8 Ξενοφάνης πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας, κατὰ δέ τινα καιρὸν ἐκπίπτειν τὸν δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν. A 3.12.1 ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δ᾽ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses Our only witness is P, represented here by PB, PG, PSy and PQ, who have only a single lemma. A further lemma recorded by the same witnesses (except PSy) must be transposed here from ch. 3.11. See comments in sections D(b) and D(d) below. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition in Ach, including his parallel for the Parmenides lemma (see below section D(c)), confirmed by a much

1294

liber 3 caput 14

richer account in Strabo from which only a few abstracts can be printed below, demonstrates that far more material was available than is extant in our chapter (for which we also lack S’ contribution). The ancient experts failed to agree about the number of zones, the mean difference being between the assumption of five (the majority) and that of six zones (Polybius; Posidonius according to Ach, and even more according to Strabo). The chapter originally may have contained more material than is extant in the tradition of P, who by omitting the alternatives in fact comes down in favour of five zones, just like Ach who states this explicitly. (2) Sources. The issue is discussed by Aristotle Mete. 2.5 362a32–34, and largely paralleled in the wider tradition. C Chapter Heading PB’s long and precise version, rendering the category of quantity explicit (for which cf. Galen), is exactly parallel to the heading of its counterpart in the cosmological Book according to PB, A 2.12 ‘On the division of heaven, in how many zones it is divided’ (Περὶ διαιρέσεως οὐρανοῦ, εἰς πόσους κύκλους διαιρεῖται). PGQ have a short umbrella version (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα), of the type that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), as they also do at ch. 2.12, where we have some further evidence from S, who has a shorter heading in the way usual with this witness, as it combines two chapter headings, namely of chs. 2.11 and 2.12, and abridges them. D Analysis a Context This chapter is the penultimate of the block of seven dealing with the earth proper, the last of which, ch. 3.15, deals with earthquakes. b Number–Order of Lemmata There are two lemmata in the chapter as restored. §1 gives a general account plus name-label; §2 adds a named doxa without the details of §1. We have followed Beck in placing the Parmenides lemma second because it is less general, and because misplacement is easier for a final lemma than for a first. See further below section D(d). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter The category is that of quantity (number). The rationale of the chapter may be gauged by its relation to ch. 1.2.12, which attributes the parallel division of the heaven into ‘five belts or zones’ to ‘Thales Pythagoras and his followers’, thus suggesting that the (standard) view is shared by the two Successions first listed

liber 3 caput 14

1295

in ch. 1.3. In the present chapter only the name-labels of ur-numbers-person Pythagoras and of Parmenides are left. The proximate tradition at Ach c. 31, p. 50.1 states that Parmenides was the first to discuss the zones (of heaven as well as earth, one surmises), but fails to mention their number. Posidonius F 49 E.-K. = 13 Theiler at Strabo 2.2.2, 94C29–30 says that Parmenides mentioned five zones. Our lemma is explicit about this analogy between the division of the heaven and that of the earth, and so there is quite a bit of further evidence one would be in a position to quote. d

Further Comments General Points The zones are (1) the frigid zone north of the Arctic Circle, (2) the temperate zone between Arctic Circle and Tropic of Cancer, (3) the torrid zone between the Tropical Circles, (4) the temperate zone between Tropic of Capricorn and Antarctic Circle, and (5) the frigid zone south of the Antarctic Circle. See the informative Wikipedia article ‘Geographical Zone’. Individual Points §1 The text as transmitted is corrupt, but not desperately so. Diels’ restoration of the correct order of P’s five zones following PG is now confirmed by PQ. The formula μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς transmitted in line [6] was originally omitted in line [4] and put back in the wrong place, where it eliminated the word θερινή because it already contained τῆς θερινῆς. The word μέση, found both in line [4] and in line [6], gives the mechanism away: it was repeated in margine or in the tympanon (a reference symbol being attached) to show where the words τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς should be inserted, but then the whole of this μέση plus τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς was inadvertently inserted further down (Brinkmann’s law, see Brinkmann 1902). We do not have to follow Diels by rejecting the phrase ἡ δ᾽ οἰκητή ἐστιν ἡ μέση τῆς θερινῆς καὶ χειμερινῆς, εὔκρατός τις οὖσα as a glossema. The reconstructed text merely provides standard information also available elsewhere. The formula τῇ τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαίρᾳ in line [1] is paralleled in the first lemma of the above-mentioned counterpart of our chapter, ch. 2.12.1 (Pythagoras and his followers again): τὴν τοῦ παντὸς οὐρανοῦ σφαῖραν, a reading accepted by all editors. Yet either παντός or οὐρανοῦ seems superfluous, and PQ (for once shrewdly, or based on a better text) leaves out παντός both at ch. 2.12.1 and ch. 3.14.1. The phrase σφαῖρα τοῦ παντός occurs rather often (six times, for instance, in Theon’s Commentary on Ptolemy), σφαῖρα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ almost never, so PQ or his Greek predecessor perhaps believed that οὐρανοῦ is a glossema on παντός. The ‘sphere of the All’, τῇ τοῦ παντὸς ⟨σφαίρᾳ⟩, occurs again

1296

liber 3 caput 14

in a Pythagorean context (name-label Philolaus) at ch. 2.4a.4 thanks to a good conjecture. With some misgivings we have followed the tradition of PB and S, the latter at ch. 2.12.1 only. §2 This lemma has been wrongly transmitted as the final one in P 3.11 and its corresponding chapter G 83. Beck already placed it here in 3.14, as Diels points out ad loc. in the app. (cf. also DG 62). Because this is a reconstruction of A, not a publication of P (as in Diels’ left column in the DG, or in the editions of P by Mau and Lachenaud), we feel free to follow Beck’s example. The πρῶτος εὑρετής (‘first finder’) motif is also frequently encountered elsewhere in the Placita, see M–R 2.1.95–96 and e.g. A 1.3.7, 1.3.17, and 2.1.1. e Other Evidence From the parallels quoted at section E(a) & (b), a collection of by no means all the available material, it follows that the information provided in our chapter is rather common. Extensive treatment is found in Ach cc. 29–31. For a detailed history of the development of the concept of the zones of a spherical earth see the excellent study of Abel (1974). It is interesting to compare Aristotle’s tripartition of the inhabited world at Pol. 7 7.1327b18–38, which is similar to that of the Hippocratic Airs Waters Places. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Strabo 2.2.1–3.3 (cf. Posidonius F 49 E.-K., 13 Theiler—far too long to quote, but see below). Isidore of Seville Nat.Rer. 10.1 in definitione autem mundi circulos aiunt philosophi quinque, quos Graeci parallelos, id est zonas vocant, in quibus dividitur orbis terrae. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 13.3 quae portio terrae habitetur. p. 13.7 de obliquitate zonarum. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 5.200 divisio terrae vel vitium. Isidore of Seville Nat. capit. 10 De quinque circulis mundi (also at c. 10 in the body of the work). §1 Pythagoras: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 13.3 quae portio terrae habitetur. Nat. 2.172 nam cum sint eius quinque partes, quas vocant zonas, infesto rigore et aeterno gelu premitur omne, quicquid est subiectum duabus extremis utrimque circa vertices, hunc, qui trionum Septem vocatur, eumque, qui adversus illi Austrinus appellatur. … circa duae tantum inter exustam et rigentes temperantur. Vergil Georg. 1.233–249. Isidore of Seville Nat. 10.1 fingamus eas (sc. zonas) in modum dexterae nostrae, ut pollex sit circulus arcticos, frigore inhabitabilis, secundus circulus therinos, temperatus habitabilis; medius circulus isemerinos, torridus inhabitabilis; quartus circulus xeimerinos, temperatus habitabilis, minimus circulus antarcticos, frigidus inhabitabilis. §2 Parmenides: Strabo 2.2.2, 94C.28–29 φησὶ δὴ ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F49 E.-K., 13 Theiler) τῆς εἰς πέντε ζώνας διαιρέσεως ἀρχηγὸν γενέσθαι Παρμενίδην (28A44a

liber 3 caput 14 DK)· ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνον μὲν σχεδόν τι διπλασίαν ἀποφαίνειν τὸ πλάτος τὴν διακεκαυμένην ὑπερπίπτουσαν ἑκατέρων τῶν τροπικῶν εἰς τὸ ἐκτὸς καὶ πρὸς ταῖς εὐκράτοις. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.21 πρῶτος δ᾽ οὗτος (on Parmenides, 28A1 DK) τὴν γῆν ἀπέφηνε σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Cicero Resp. 6.21 (= Somn.Scip.; cited Macr. in Somn. 2.5.2–3) cernis autem eandem terram quasi quibusdam redimitam et circumdatam cingulis, e quibus duos maxime inter se diversos et caeli verticibus ipsis ex utraque parte subnixos obriguisse pruina vides, medium autem illum et maximum solis ardore torreri. duo sunt habitabiles, quorum australis ille, in quo qui insistunt, adversa vobis urgent vestigia, nihil ad vestrum genus; hic autem alter subiectus Aquiloni, quem incolitis, cerne quam tenui vos parte contingat. Pomponius Mela 1.4 terra … zonis quinque distinguitur. mediam aestus infestat, frigus ultimas; reliquae habitabiles paria agunt anni tempora, verum non pariter. antichthones alteram, nos alteram incolimus. Macrobius in Somn. 2.6.1 superest ut de terrae ipsius spatiis, quanta habitationi cesserint, quanta sint inculta referamus, id est quae sit singulorum dimensio cingulorum. Cicero Tusc. 1.68–69 tum globum terrae eminentem e mari, … duabus oris distantibus habitabilem et cultum, quarum altera, quam nos incolimus, ‘sub áxe posita ad stéllas septem, unde hórrifer, / Aquilónis stridor gélidas molitúr nives’ (Accius Philoct. fr. 20 Ribbeck), altera australis, ignota nobis, quam vocant Graeci ἀντίχθονα, (69) ceteras partis incultas, quod aut frigore rigeant aut urantur calore; hic autem, ubi habitamus, etc. Galen Inst.Log. 12.2 ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ ζητεῖν εἰ ὀρθῶς Ἐρατοσθένης (—) ἔδειξε τὸν μέγιστον ἐν τῇ γ(ῇ κύκλον ἔχειν σταδίων) μυριάδ(ας) κε δισχίλια, ἡ ζήτησίς ἐστι ⟨τῆς⟩ τοῦ κύκλου πηλικότητος ἢ τοῦ μεγέθους ἢ ⟨τῆς⟩ ποσότητος ἢ ὅπως ἂν θέλῃς ὀνομάζειν, ὥσπερ γε κἀπειδὰν τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ τροπικῶν ἑκάτερος ὅσων ἐστὶ σταδί(ων) ζητῇ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τε τῶν οἰκήσεων ὁπηλίκος ἐστὶν ὅ τ᾽ ἀρκτικὸς ὀνομαζόμενος κύκλος καὶ ὁ ἀνταρκτικὸς τό τε ἐξ ἄρκτου τὸ ὑπόλοιπον ⟨ὅσ⟩ων ἐστὶ μορίων ἑκάστῃ τῶν οἰκήσεων. Scholia in Aratum, Proleg. 17, pp. 25.19–26.2 Martin 11. πόσαι εἰσὶ ζῶναι τῆς γῆς; κτλ. §1 Pythagoras: Aristotle Mete. 2.5 362a32–34 δύο γὰρ ὄντων τμημάτων τῆς δυνατῆς οἰκεῖσθαι χώρας, τῆς μὲν πρὸς τὸν ἄνω πόλον, καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, τῆς δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον καὶ πρὸς μεσημβρίαν κτλ. Eratosthenes fr. 16.3–5 Powell πέντε δέ οἱ ζῶναι περιειλάδες ἐσπείρηντο· / αἱ δύο μὲν γλαυκοῖο κελαινότεραι κυάνοιο, / ἡ δὲ μία ψαφαρή τε καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς οἷον ἐρυθρή. Strabo 2.2.3, 95C.24–27 αὐτὸς δὲ διαιρῶν εἰς τὰς ζώνας πέντε μέν φησιν (Posidonius F 49 E.-K., 13 Theiler) εἶναι χρησίμους πρὸς τὰ οὐράνια, τούτων δὲ περισκίους δύο τὰς ὑπὸ τοῖς πόλοις μέχρι τῶν ἐχόντων τοὺς τροπικοὺς ἀρκτικούς, ἑτεροσκίους δὲ τὰς ἐφεξῆς ταύταις δύο μέχρι τῶν ὑπὸ τοῖς τροπικοῖς οἰκούντων, ἀμφίσκιον δὲ τὴν μεταξὺ τῶν τροπικῶν· πρὸς δὲ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια ταύτας τε καὶ δύο ἄλλας στενὰς τὰς ὑπὸ τοῖς τροπικοῖς κτλ. Cleomedes Cael. 1.1.203–211 Todd μέρη τῆς γῆς πέντε, ἓν μὲν τὸ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρκτικοῦ, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ ὑποκείμενον τῷ διαστήματι τῷ μεταξὺ ἀρκτικοῦ καὶ θερινοῦ τροπικοῦ, τρίτον τὸ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο τροπικῶν, ὃ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ μεσαί-

1297

1298

liber 3 caput 14

τατον ὑπερκείμενον ἔχει τὸν ἰσημερινόν, τέταρτον τὸ μέσον χειμερινοῦ τροπικοῦ καὶ ἀνταρκτικοῦ, καὶ τελευταῖον τὸ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνταρκτικοῦ. ταύτας τοίνυν τὰς μοίρας τῆς γῆς οἱ φυσικοὶ ζώνας καλοῦσι· καὶ ἑκατέραν μὲν τῶν ἄκρων ἀοίκητον ὑπὸ κρύους εἶναί φασι, τὴν δὲ μεσαιτάτην ὑπὸ φλογμοῦ· τὰς δὲ ταύτης ἑκατέρωθεν εὐκράτους εἶναι κτλ. Mete. 1.4.95–98 Todd (Posidonius F 210 E.-K., 283 Theiler) καὶ πέντε ζώνας εἶναι τῆς γῆς τῶν εὐδοκίμων φυσικῶν ἀποφηναμένων, αὐτὸς τὴν ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων διακεκαῦσθαι λεγομένην οἰκουμένην καὶ εὔκρατον εἶναι ἀπεφήνατο. Geminus Elem. 15.1–4 Περὶ τῶν ἐν γῇ ζωνῶν. ἡ τῆς συμπάσης γῆς ἐπιφάνεια σφαιροειδὴς ὑπάρχουσα διαιρεῖται εἰς ζώνας εʹ, ὧν δύο μὲν αἱ περὶ τοὺς πόλους, πορρώτατα δὲ κείμεναι τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου παρόδου, κατεψυγμέναι λέγονται καὶ ἀοίκητοι διὰ τὸ ψῦχός εἰσιν, ἀφορίζονται δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρκτικῶν πρὸς τοὺς πόλους. (2) αἱ δὲ τούτων ἑξῆς, συμμέτρως δὲ κείμεναι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πάροδον, εὔκρατοι καλοῦνται· ἀφορίζονται δ᾽ αὗται ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἀρκτικῶν καὶ τροπικῶν κύκλων, μεταξὺ κείμεναι αὐτῶν. (3) ἡ δὲ λοιπὴ μέση τῶν προειρημένων, κειμένη δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πάροδον, διακεκαυμένη καλεῖται· διχοτομεῖται δ᾽ αὕτη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ γῇ ἰσημερινοῦ κύκλου, ὃς κεῖται ὑπὸ τὸν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἰσημερινὸν κύκλον. (4) τῶν δὲ εὐκράτων δύο ζωνῶν τὴν βόρειον ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν τῇ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς οἰκουμένῃ κατοικεῖσθαι συμβέβηκεν. Elem. 16 Περὶ οἰκήσεων (too long to quote). Lucretius DRN 5.204–205 inde duas porro prope partis fervidus ardor / adsiduusque geli casus mortalibus aufert. Isidore of Seville Nat. 10.2, p. 211 horum (sc. circulorum) primus septentrionalis est, secundus solistitialis, tertius aequinoctialis, quartus hiemalis, quintus australis, de quibus Varro (Chorographia fr. 13 Blänsdorf, 17 Courtney) ita dicit: ‘at quinque aethereus zonis accingitur orbis / ac vastant imas hiemes mediamque calores: / sic terrae extremas inter mediamque coluntur, / qua solis valido †numquam ut† auferat igne’. Cicero ND 1.24 atqui terrae maxumas regiones inhabitabilis atque incultas videmus, quod pars earum adpulsu solis exarserit, pars obriguerit nive pruinaque longinquo solis abscessu. Ovid Met. 1.45–51 utque duae dextra caelum totidemque sinistra / parte secant zonae, quinta est ardentior illis, / sic onus inclusum numero distinxit eodem / cura dei, totidemque plagae tellure premuntur. / quarum quae media est, non est habitabilis aestu; / nix tegit alta duas: totidem inter utrumque locavit / temperiemque dedit mixta cum frigore flamma. Plutarch Def.Or. 429F ἐν δὲ τῷ παντὶ πέντε μὲν ζώναις ὁ περὶ γῆν τόπος, πέντε δὲ κύκλοις ὁ οὐρανὸς διώρισται, δυσὶν ἀρκτικοῖς καὶ δυσὶ τροπικοῖς καὶ μέσῳ τῷ ἰσημερινῷ. Heraclitus All.Hom. 50.1–5 πτύχας δ᾽ ὑπεστήσατο (sc. Homer) τῆς ἀσπίδος πέντε, σχεδὸν οὐκ ἄλλο τι πλὴν οὐκ ἐμπεποικιλμένοις τῷ κόσμῳ ζώνας ὑπαινιξάμενος. ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀνωτάτω περὶ τὸν βόρειον εἰλεῖται πόλον, ἀρκτικὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ὀνομάζουσιν· ἡ δ᾽ ἐφεξῆς εὔκρατός ἐστιν· εἶτα τὴν τρίτην διακεκαυμένην καλοῦσιν· ἡ τετάρτη δ᾽ ὁμωνύμως τῇ πρότερον δευτέρᾳ εὔκρατος ὀνομάζεται· πέμπτη δ᾽ ἐπονύμως τοῦ νοτίου μέρους ἡ νότιός τε καὶ ἀντάρκτιος καλουμένη. τούτων αἱ μὲν δύο τελέως ἀοίκητοι διὰ τὸ κρύος, ἥ τε τὸν βόρειον εἰληχυῖα πόλον καὶ ἡ τὸν ἀπαντικρὺ νότιον· ὁμοίως δ᾽ ἐν αὐταῖς ἡ διακεκαυμένη καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς πυρώδους οὐσίας οὐδενὶ βατὴ ζῴῳ. δύο δὲ τὰς εὐκράτους φασὶν οἰκεῖσθαι, τὴν μέσην ἀφ᾽ ἑκατέρας ζώνης κρᾶσιν ἐπιδεχομένας. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.156 (SVF 2.649) ζῶναί τ᾽ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἰσι πέντε·

liber 3 caput 14 πρώτη βόρειος ὑπὲρ τὸν ἀρκτικὸν κύκλον, ἀοίκητος διὰ ψῦχος· δευτέρα εὔκρατος· τρίτη ἀοίκητος ὑπὸ καυμάτων, ἡ διακεκαυμένη καλουμένη· τετάρτη ἡ ἀντεύκρατος· πέμπτη νότιος, ἀοίκητος διὰ ψῦχος. Anatolius de Dec. 9.17–18 ζῶναι πέντε, δύο κατεψυγμέναι, δύο εὔκρατοι καὶ μία διακεκαυμένη. ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. p. 33.4–7 De Falco ὧν (sc. τῶν κατὰ τὸν οὐρανὸν κυκλῶν) ἀναλόγως τῇ θέσει πέντε καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ζῶναι ἐπινοοῦνται, κεκαυμένη μὲν ἰσημερινῷ, εὔκρατοι δὲ δύο τροπικοῖς δυσίν, ἴσαι δὲ αἱ ⟨δύο⟩ ἀοίκητοι ὑπὸ κρύους τῶν παρ᾽ ἑκάτερα πόλων. Olympiodorus in Mete. 184.7–10 ἡ δὲ μεταξὺ τοῦ θερινοῦ τροπικοῦ καὶ τοῦ χειμερινοῦ χώρα, ἐν ᾗ ἀπολαμβάνεται καὶ ὁ ἰσημερινὸς τροπικός, διακεκαυμένη κεκλήσθω.

1299

Liber 3 Caput 15 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 3 (a) + (b) recto plus (a) + (b) verso pp. 70–71 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 896C–F; pp. 379a6–381a11 Diels— PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 86; pp. 633.19–634.2—PL Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4, p. 9.1– 6 Wachsmuth (titulus solus)—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 182–185 Daiber— PPs : Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 164, p. 83 Westerink; Phil.Min. op. 26, p. 92; 29, p. 95 Duffy (tituli soli)—PSy: Symeon Seth CRN 2.20, p. 31.10 Delatte (titulus solus)— S: Stobaeus Ecl. 1.36.1, p. 249.3–10 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b22 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Ach: Achilles Univ. c. 4, p. 12.23–26, p. 13.6–9 Di Maria; Scholia in Basilium I 26, p. 201.3–4 Pasquali; Scholia in Basilium II 4, p. 368 Poljakov

Titulus ιεʹ. Περὶ σεισμῶν γῆς (P,S) §1 Θαλῆς μὲν καὶ Δημόκριτος ὕδατι τὴν αἰτίαν τῶν σεισμῶν προσάπτουσιν, (P1) §2 οἱ δὲ Στωικοὶ σεισμὸν εἶναι λέγουσι τὸ ἐν τῇ γῇ ὑγρὸν εἰς ἀέρα διακρινόμενον καὶ ἐκπῖπτον. (P2) §3 Ἀναξιμένης ξηρότητα καὶ ὑγρότητα τῆς γῆς αἰτίαν τῶν σεισμῶν, ὧν τὴν μὲν αὐχμοὶ γεννῶσι τὴν δ᾽ ἐπομβρίαι. (P3) §4 Ἀναξαγόρας ἀέρος ὑποδύσει τῇ μὲν πυκνότητι τῆς ἐπιφανείας προσπίπτοντος, τῷ δ᾽ ἔκκρισιν λαβεῖν μὴ δύνασθαι τρόμῳ τὸ περιέχον κραδαίνοντος. (P4) §5 Ἀριστοτέλης διὰ τὴν τοῦ ψυχροῦ ⟨τῷ θερμῷ⟩ πανταχόθεν ἀντιπερίστασιν, κάτωθεν καὶ ἄνωθεν αὐτῷ περιστάντος· τὸ γὰρ θερμὸν ἀνωτέρω γενέσθαι σπεύδει ἅτε δὴ κοῦφον ὄν· διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ἀπολήψει γινομένης §1 Thales fr. 163 Wöhrle; Democritus—; §2 Stoici SVF 2.707; §3 Anaximenes cf. 13A21 DK; §4 Anaxagoras 59A89 DK; §5 cf. Arist. Mete. 2.8 365b21–29 §§1–9, 11 non hab. S titulus Περὶ σεισμῶν γῆς PBGPs2QSL-ind: σεισμοῦ PPs1 : om. γῆς PLPs1&2Sy ‖ §2 [4] σεισμὸν … λέγουσι PG, cf. glaubten Q : PB φασι· σεισμός ἐστι ‖ ἐν … γῇ PBQ : ἐκ τῆς γῆς PG ‖ [4–5] διακρινόμενον PBG : sich verwandelt Q (‘mendum interpr. ?’ Daiber) §3 om. G ‖ [6] ὑγρότητα PG olim Corsinus prob. Ideler Mau Lachenaud cf. [7] ἐπομβρίαι et Arist. Mete. 2.7 365b6–7 βρεχομένην … καὶ ξηραινομένην : ἀραιότητα PB, cf. Trockenheit Q, prob. Bollack ‖ [7] post ἐπομβρίαι lac. postulavit Ideler explicationem terrae motuum desiderans §4 om. G ‖ [9] τῷ δ᾽ PB(II,III)Q : τὸ δὲ PB(I) ‖ [10] κραδαίνοντος PB(III)Q(ut vid.) : κραδαίνεσθαι PB(II) : κερδαίνεσθαι PB(I) §5 [11] ⟨τῷ θερμῷ⟩ (sive ⟨τῷ πυρὶ⟩) add. Reiske, prob. Mau Lachenaud, non prob. Diels : non hab. spatium PP, abest etiam ap. PQ ‖ [12] κάτωθεν … ἄνωθεν PBG : von oben und von unten Q ‖ αὐτῷ corr. Reiske prob. Mau Lachenaud : αὐτῇ PBQ prob. Diels Bollack (‘sc. τῇ γῇ’) : αὐτοῦ PG ‖ [13] ὄν PB : καὶ PG ‖ ἀπολήψει PB(I,III) : ἀπολείψει PB(II) ‖ γινομένης PB : γινόμενον PG

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_092

5

10

liber 3 caput 15

τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως τῇ σφηνώσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνθελιγμοῖς διαταράττεσθαι. (P5) §6 Μητρόδωρος μηδὲν ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ τόπῳ σῶμα κινεῖσθαι, εἰ μή τις προώσειεν ἢ καθελκύσειε κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν· διὸ μηδὲ τὴν γῆν, ἅτε δὴ κειμένην φυσικῶς, κινεῖσθαι, τόπους δέ τινας αὐτῆς ⟨ὑπο⟩νοστεῖν τ⟨ῷ⟩ σάλ⟨ῳ⟩. (P6) §7 Παρμενίδης Δημόκριτος διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ἴσον ἀφεστῶσαν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰσορροπίας, οὐκ ἔχουσαν αἰτίαν δι᾽ ἣν δεῦρο μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκεῖσε ῥέψειεν ἄν· διὰ τοῦτο μόνον μὲν κραδαίνεσθαι μὴ κινεῖσθαι δέ. (P7) §8 Ἀναξιμένης διὰ τὸ πλάτος ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι. (P8) §9 οἱ δέ φασιν ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος, καθάπερ τὰ πλαταμώδη καὶ σανιδώδη ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων· διὰ τοῦτο κινεῖσθαι. (P9) §10 Πλάτων πάσης μὲν κινήσεως ἓξ εἶναι περιστάσεις, ἄνω καὶ κάτω, ἐπὶ τὰ δεξιὰ καὶ θάτερα, ἔμπροσθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν· κατ᾽οὐδεμίαν δὲ τούτων ἐνδέχεσθαι τὴν γῆν κινεῖσθαι, ἐν τῷ πανταχόθεν ἰσωτάτῳ κειμένην· μένειν μὲν ἀκίνητον, μηδὲν ἔχουσαν ἐξαίρετον εἰς τὸ ῥέψαι μᾶλλον, τόπους δ᾽ αὐτῆς κατ᾽ ἀραιότητα σαλεύεσθαι. (P10,S1) §6 Metrodorus 70A21 DK; §7 Parmenides 28A44 DK, cf. Democritus 68A98 DK, Luria frs. 4, 379, 403; §8 Anaximenes 13A20 DK; §9 anonymi—; §10 Plato cf. Phd. 109a, 111d–e, Tim. 34a, 40b–d [14] ξηρᾶς PBQ : ὑγρᾶς PG ‖ σφηνώσει PB : ἀντισπάσει PG ‖ ἀνθελιγμοῖς PG prob. Diels : ἀντελιγμοῖς PB prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [14–15] διαταράττεσθαι PB : τὸν σεισμὸν ποιεῖ PG §6 om. G ‖ [16] μηδὲν fort. om. PP ‖ [16–17] προώσειεν corr. Dübner prob. edd. : προσώσειεν PBQ(ut vid.) ‖ [17] ἢ καθελκύσειε fort. om. PP ‖ κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν PB : om. Q ‖ [18] τόπους … σάλῳ : Vielmehr lassen das (einzelne) Stellen von ihr vermuten (sc. ὑπονοεῖν Daiber) Q : ‘das folgende νοστεῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις ist verderbt’ Gilbert (1907) p. 303 n. 1 ‖ ⟨ὑπο⟩νοστεῖν coni. Diels DG cf. Arist. Mete. 3.7 365b12–13 prob. Lachenaud : νοστεῖν PB(II,III) legit Mau prob. Bollack : νοσεῖν PB(I) prob. Bernardakis ‖ τῷ σάλῳ dub. prop. Diels Bernardakis, prob. Lachenaud : †τοῖς ἄλλοις PB crucif. Diels DG sed prob. Bollack : †ἄλλοις crucif. Mau : αὐτῆς *** νοστεῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις VS : fort. ⟨ὑπο⟩νοστεῖν τοῖς ἀέρσι §7 om. G ‖ [20–21] ἐπὶ … ἰσορροπίας PB : om. Q ‖ [21] ἐκεῖσε PB(I,III) : ἐκεῖ PB(II) §8 om. G §9 om. G ‖ [24] πλαταμώδη PB(I,II)Q : πλατανώδη PB(III) ‖ [25] διὰ … κινεῖσθαι PB(I,II) : om. PB(III)Q §10 [26] post Πλάτων hab. PG δὲ ‖ καὶ] : om. PB(III)Q ‖ [27] καὶ θάτερα P : καὶ καθ᾽ ἕτερα SFP : ap. S lectionem PB introd. Canter Wachsmuth : links Q ‖ [27–28] οὐδεμίαν … κινεῖσθαι] al. PG ἀκίνητον μὲν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ὑποτίθεται ‖ [28] κινεῖσθαι, ἐν PS prob. Mau Lachenaud : post κινεῖσθαι desiderat ἀλλ᾽ Diels ‖ ἰσωτάτῳ S damn. Diels (‘non genuinum est’) : gleich ist Q : κατωτάτην PB : κατωτάτω corr. Bonon. 3635 prob. Diels Mau Bollack Lachenaud ‖ [29] μὲν P : om. S ‖ post ἀκίνητον add. ἅτε δὴ S ‖ ῥέψαι PB(I,II)S : ῥέπειν PB(III) ‖ [30] τόπους … σαλεύεσθαι PBQS : al. PG κατὰ δέ τινας τόπους αὐτῆς τοὺς σεισμοὺς συμβαίνειν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐναποκλεισθέντος

1301

15

20

25

30

1302

liber 3 caput 15

§11 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν ὑπὸ πάχους ἀέρος τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ὑδατώδους ὄντος ἀνακρουομένην αὐτὴν καὶ οἷον ὑποτυπτομένην κινεῖσθαι· ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ σηραγγώδη τοῖς κατωτέρω μέρεσι καθεστῶσαν ὑπὸ τοῦ διασπειρομένου πνεύματος εἰς τὰς ἀντροειδεῖς κοιλότητας ἐμπίπτοντος σαλεύεσθαι. (P11) §11 Epicurus fr. 350 Usener §11 om. G ‖ [31] ὑπὸ PB(I,II)Q : τοῦ PB(III) ‖ [31–32] τοῦ … ὄντος PB : und Wasser unter der Luft Q (‘mendum interpr.?’ Daiber) ‖ [32] αὐτὴν PB(ΙΙΙ)Q(ut vid.) : δι᾽αὐτὴν PB(I) : ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ PB(II) ‖ [33] σηραγγώδη … καθεστῶσαν PB : durch das …, was in ihren (sc. Erde) unteren Teilen von gleicher Natur ist Q

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 3 (a) + (b) recto plus (a) + (b) verso (~ P3–6, P11) [ ] ̣ ̣[ [ εκπιπ]τον Ανα [ξιμενης ξηροτητα και ὑγρο]τητα της [γης αιτιαν των σεισμων ων την] μεν̣ αυ 5 [χμοι γεννωσι την δε επομβρια]ι ̣ Α̣ναξα [γορας αερος υποδυσει τη μεν πυκ]νοτη [τι της επιφανειας προσπιπτο]ντ̣ος τω [δε εκκρισιν λαβειν μη] δυνασθαι [τρομῳ το περιεχον κραδαινοντο]ς Αρισ 10 [τοτελης δια την του ψυχρου παν]τ̣α̣χοθεν [αντιπεριστασιν κατωθεν και ανωθεν] α̣υ̣ [τη περισταντος γ]ενε [σθαι ε]ν απο [ληψει ἀ]ν̣αθυ 15 [μιασεως ανθε]λ̣ ιγμοις [διαταραττεσθαι ε]ν τω οι [κειω τοπω σωμα κινεισθαι ει μη] τ̣ι ̣ς προ [ωσειεν διο μηδε την] γ̣ην α [τε δη κειμενην φυσικως κινεισ]θ̣αι ̣ το/[πους verso πνευ] [μ]ατος [εἰς τας αντροειδεις κοιλοτητας εμ] πιπτο[ντος σαλεύεσθαι ] (sequentia vid. c. 3.16) ps.Galenus HPh c. 86 Περὶ σεισμῶν γῆς (~ tit.) (text Diels) 86.1 (~ P1) Θαλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος ὕδατι τὴν αἰτίαν τῶν σεισμῶν προσάπτουσιν.

35

liber 3 caput 15 86.2 (~ P2) οἱ Στωικοὶ σεισμὸν εἶναι λέγουσι τὸ ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὑγρὸν εἰς ἀέρα διακρινόμενον καὶ ἐκπῖπτον. 86.3 (~ P5) Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ διὰ τὴν τοῦ ψυχροῦ πανταχόθεν ἀντιπερίστασιν κάτωθεν καὶ ἄνωθεν αὐτοῦ περιστάντος· τὸ γὰρ θερμὸν ἀνωτέρω γενέσθαι σπεύδει, ἅτε δὴ κοῦφον. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ἀπολείψει γινόμενον τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως τῇ ἀντισπάσει καὶ τοῖς ἀνθελιγμοῖς τὸν σεισμὸν ποιεῖ. 86.4 (~ P10) Πλάτων δὲ ἀκίνητον μὲν εἶναι τὴν γῆν ὑποτίθεται, κατὰ δέ τινας τόπους αὐτῆς τοὺς σεισμοὺς συμβαίνειν τοῦ πνεύματος ἐναποκλεισθέντος. Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4 σπουδὴ δὲ ἡμῖν ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν περί τε … καί τὸ δὴ πέρας περὶ σεισμῶν (~ tit.) Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 164 Περὶ σεισμοῦ (~ tit.) Phil.Min. op. 26 Περὶ σεισμῶν; c. 29 Περὶ σεισμοῦ καὶ κινήσεως γῆς (~ tit.) Symeon Seth CRN 2.20 Περὶ σεισμῶν (~ tit.) Testes secundi: Achilles Univ. c. 4, p. 12.23–26 Di Maria τὴν γῆν δὲ πανταχόθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος ὠθουμένην ἰσορρόπως ἐν τῷ μέσῷ εἶναι καὶ ἑστάναι. ἢ πάλιν, ὥσπερ εἴ τις λαβὼν σῶμα δήσειε πανταχόθεν ἐξ ἑκατέρου σχοινίοις καὶ δοίη τισὶν ἰσορρόπως ἕλκειν ἐπ᾽ ἀκριβείας, συμβήσεται πανταχόθεν ἐπίσης περιελκόμενον στῆναι καὶ ἀτρεμῆσαι (~ §7). c. 4, p. 13.6–9 Di Maria Ἀριστοφάνης δ᾽ ἐν Νεφέλαις (Nub. 264) μετέωρον αὐτὴν εἶπεν· λέγει γάρ: ‘ὦ δέσποτ᾽ ἄναξ, ἀμέτρητ᾽ Ἀήρ, ὃς ἔχεις τὴν γῆν μετέωρον’, ἑστῶσαν μέντοι καὶ ἀκίνητον (~ §8). Scholia in Basilium I 21b, p. 201.2 Pasquali Παρμενίδης (28B15a) ἐν τῇ στιχοποιίᾳ ‘ὑδατόριζον’ εἶπεν τὴν γῆν (~ §9). 24b, p. 201.3–8 Pasquali = 5 p. 369 Poljakov τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον ἔφη Παρμενίδης ὁ Ἐλεάτης (~ §7) καὶ Ξενοφάνης ὁ Κολοφώνιος (—)· Πλάτων (Tim. 40b–c) δὲ αὐτὴν ἴλλεσθαί φησι περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς τεταμὲνον πόλον, ὅπερ ἅν εἴη στρέφεσθαι· ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης (Cael. 2.14 296b22–23) καὶ οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς (—) ἀκίνητον ἀπέλιπον τὴν γῆν· τῇ δὲ προκειμένῃ νῦν αἰτιολογίᾳ τῇ περὶ τῆς ἀκινησίας τῆς γῆς Στράτων (fr. 90 Wehrli, 44 Sharples) δοκεῖ πρῶτος ὁ φυσικὸς χρήσασθαι. Scholia in Basilium II 4 p. 368 Poljakov Διογένης ὁ Ἀπλλονιάτης (cf. 60A16a DK, T25 Laks) ὑπὸ ἀέρος φέρεσθαι ἔφη τὴν γῆν (~ §4, §8). Loci Aetiani: titulus A 3.13 Περὶ κινήσεως γῆς. A 4.6 Περὶ κινήσεως ψυχῆς. §§6–9 A 3.13.1 οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι μένειν τὴν γῆν. §6 A 3.9.5 Μητρόδωρος τὴν μὲν γῆν ὑπόστασιν εἶναι καὶ τρύγα τοῦ ὕδατος. A 3.13.4 Δημόκριτος κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν πλάζεσθαι τὴν γῆν διά τε μικρότητα καὶ κουφότητα, πυκνωθεῖσαν δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ καὶ βαρυνθεῖσαν καταστῆναι. §10 A 1.23 Περὶ κινήσεως [ubi de numero motuum]. A 3.15.7 διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν

1303

1304

liber 3 caput 15

ἴσον ἀφεστῶσαν μένειν ἐπὶ τῆς ἰσορροπίας, οὐκ ἔχουσαν αἰτίαν δι᾽ ἣν δεῦρο μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκεῖσε ῥέψειεν ἄν. §11 A 2.2.5 Ἐπίκουρος δ᾽ ἐνδέχεσθαι μὲν … ἐνδέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ … A 2.13.15 Ἐπίκουρος οὐδὲν ἀπογινώσκει τούτων, ἐχόμενος τοῦ ἐνδεχομένου. A 2.22.4 Ἐπίκουρος ἐνδέχεσθαι τὰ προειρημένα πάντα.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PP (a large and important fragment of §§3–6 and §11), PB, PG and PQ, with the heading only in PL, PPs and PSy, and S. In S only the heading and the Plato lemma are extant, the other lemmata undoubtedly having been excised by the Byzantine editors. Ecl. 1.36 has been much abridged by the Byzantine copyists, for it only contains this Plato lemma and a long abstract from AD with name-label Aristotle; see M–R 1.202–203. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The relevant chapters in the ps.Aristotelian De mundo and above all Seneca’s Naturales quaestiones Book 6 (originally Book 5), entirely devoted to earthquakes, provide a number of parallels. For the parallelism of the themes of chs. 3.3–7 + 14–15 + 4.1 with Lucretius’ series at DRN 6.96–737 see Runia (1997) 97, and for details concerning parallels in the present chapter the pages in the Lucretius commentary of Ernout–Robin (1928) 3.270–283, 286– 288. See also Bakker (2016) 104–105 and 135–136. Williams (2012) 232–241, quot. 222, claims that Seneca’s critical overview of doxai from Thales to Asclepiodotus on earthquakes has a built-in ‘sub-plot of movement from visual perception of the world to an increasingly theoretical and abstract mode of engagement with its workings’. Thales’ view that the earth ‘moves’ because it floats on water is based on a ‘relatively uncomplicated, descriptive mode of analogy’ (ibid. 233). Such a sub-plot is not found in A, where the ‘primitive’ analogies occur as late as §§8–9: ‘floating’ on water like pieces of wood according to Anonymi in §9, ‘riding upon’ air according to Anaximenes in §8. Another difference is that Seneca presents the doxai in a more or less chronological order (compare his not entirely strict procedure cited below ad ch. 4.1 Commentary B). Note however that he begins with a systematic summary at Nat. 6.5.1 before starting with Thales at 6.5.2.

liber 3 caput 15

1305

(2) Sources. Passages in Aristotle’s Topics and Posterior Analytics cited at section E(b) General texts show that the explanation of earthquakes was, understandably, an important topic, treatment of which according to him however left something to be desired. The subject is treated in Mete. 2.7, where the views of Democritus, Anaximenes and Anaxagoras are discussed in a systematic order (he also tells us disertis verbis what the chronological order is). The Anaximenes lemma (§3) derives from Aristotle’s dialectical discussion; and so does the first Democritus lemma (§1), but not the second (§7). The resemblance between the Anaxagoras lemma (§5) and Aristotle’s treatment is small. The Aristotle lemma is an abstract from Mete. 2.8. Sources for the lemmata and name-labels that have been added to these four are not known. For Aristotle the earth’s cosmic motion is of course not a meteorological but a cosmological issue, see Cael. 2.13 and parallels and comments above, at ch. 3.13. Theophrastus(?) Metarsiology c. 15 provides a considerable number of parallels. C Chapter Heading The heading, of the umbrella type (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), is attested in P, and for S in the index of Photius and SL. It covers the question type of cause and the categories of place and action and passion. D Analysis a Context This is the last of A’s series of seven chapters on the earth. It is followed by two chapters on the sea, 3.16–17, which also belong with the πρόσγεια announced at ch. 3.8a, and by ch. 4.1 on the inundation of the Nile if (as we should) we discount P’s misplaced ch. 3.18 (now reinstalled as A ch. 3.5a). In Aristotle earthquakes are discussed at Mete. 2.7–8, between Mete. 2.2–6 on winds and Mete. 2.9 on lightning and thunder etc. In the Metarsiology of Theophrastus(?), which does not deal with the sea, the chapter on earthquakes (here a meteorological phenomenon) comes last and follows upon that on the halo, which also contains the theological excursus. Epicurus discusses earthquakes (which can be caused in different ways, the first mentioned being κατὰ πνεύματος ἐν τῇ γῇ ἀπόληψιν) between presteres and winds at Ep.Pyth. at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 10.105–106. In Seneca Nat. Book 6 (originally Book 5), on earthquakes, follows after Book 5, on winds (originally book 4), so (not deliberately, one suspects) remains faithful to the Aristotelian order. The location of the chapter in A is in the first place a consequence of the decision to discuss the earth in the meteorological section after the treatment of the atmospheric phenomena, see ch. 3.8. But note that Seneca, who does not include treatment of the earth

1306

liber 3 caput 15

per se in his meteorology, includes earthquakes because of the role of ‘air’, or pneuma, in causing them, see Nat. 2.1.3 (Latin text cited below at section E(a) General texts): ‘How come’, you say, ‘that you included the study of earthquakes in the place where you were going to talk about thunder and lightning-bolts?’ ‘Because, since a quake is produced by breath, and breath is air set in motion, even if it goes beneath the earth, it should not be considered there: it should be examined in the place that nature allocated it.’ (trans. Hine). Bakker (2016) 136 argues that Book 3 preserves an original order (ch. 3.7 winds followed by ch. 3.15 earthquakes), provided one accepts that chs. 3.9–14 on the earth per se have been interpolated in between and ch. 3.8 on winter and summer is also seen as a later insertion. b Number–Order of Lemmata P, as represented by PB and PQ, has no less than 11 lemmata, 5 mutilated ones of which are preserved in PP and only 4 are in PG. S has merely 1 lemma, see above at section A for the reason. The sequence of name-labels shows that the order of lemmata is not chronological throughout. There is no ground for modifying PBQ’s order, which to some extent is confirmed by PP and G. This order is moreover confirmed by the rationale of the chapter, see immediately below at section D(c). c Rationale–Structure of Chapter Since the present chapter to an important extent derives from Aristotle’s treatment in the Meteorology (see above, section B), its combined treatment of ‘earthquake’ and ‘motion of the earth’ has been influenced by Aristotle’s vocabulary, who Mete. 2.7 365a14 announces his theme as ‘we must next speak of the quake and motion of the earth’, περὶ δὲ σεισμοῦ καὶ κινήσεως γῆς μετὰ ταῦτα λεκτέον. He tells us that Anaxagoras says that the air, when trapped in hollows below the earth, ‘moves it’ (κινεῖν αὐτήν), i.e. causes earthquakes, or shocks (365a18–21), while Democritus posits that it ‘is moved’ (κινεῖσθαι) by too much water in the hollows (365b1–2). The phrases ‘the earth moves’ or ‘the motion of the earth’ are ambiguous and can pertain both to its motion as a whole (around the centre of its system, or about its axis as in ch. 3.13 and in some lemmata of the present chapter), and of only a part or parts, as during earthquakes. κινεῖσθαι in §6 (twice), §7 and §10 pertains to cosmic movement, but in §9 and §11 to local movement, i.e. earthquakes, or shocks, tremors. In the Placita tradition this ambiguity was exploited, either on purpose or by mistake. Therefore also the earth’s rest became an issue here, as its ‘motion’ or ‘rest’ as a whole has still to be distinguished from these partial motions. This blending of cosmic and local motion is not, of course, beyond criticism. Part of the matter for ch. 3.13

liber 3 caput 15

1307

may have ended up in ch. 3.15, in spite of the unambiguous chapter heading of 3.15. In §10 there is also some affinity with ch. 1.23, see below at section D(d)§10. The chapter has three parts: the block §§1–5 are about earthquakes (and not about the earth in general); the block §§6–10 about the earth as being immobile qua cosmic body but being moved locally, i.e. also about earthquakes (note however that §8 does not mention them explicitly); and the single lemma §11, in a sense a continuation of §§1–5, again about earthquakes. The opposition between the two blocks is clear: (1) the first block lacks the movement of the earth qua cosmic body, and (2) the explanation of the earthquakes in the second block is different, since the elemental causal factors listed in the first are absent from it. The diaeresis or weak diaphonia that organises the lemmata in the first block focuses on the particular element or elements that cause the phenomenon: water/the wet in §§1–2, relative dryness/wetness in §3, air in §4, and hot/cold in §5. The second block also includes the cause of the earth’s rest (or motion) qua cosmic body, providing unsophisticated as well as advanced explanations, in a rather curious order. §6 attributes a sophisticated view to (Aristotle’s contemporary the Atomist) Metrodorus, resembling the doctrine of natural places and motions of Aristotle. This is followed by instances of the sophisticated doctrine well known as one of Anaximander and Plato (cited section E(b)§7), here (wrongly) attributed to Parmenides and Democritus at §7; it is also attributed to Plato at §10. But this sequence of related advanced doxai is interrupted by the unsophisticated pair §§8–9, doxai that at a first glance are to some extent opposed to one another. §8 only provides an explanation of the earth’s rest, or at least fails to add one for earthquakes. §9 first gives the explanation of the earth’s rest traditionally attributed to Thales but here assigned to Anonymi, then uses the same motive to explain its movement (κινεῖσθαι) in the sense of its being subject to earthquakes. So all is not well as to the arrangement of the lemmata, presumably because of the decision to cope with both general and local motions of the earth. The concluding §11, on the other hand, various explanations of the earth’s local movements equally admitted by Epicurus, is fittingly placed at the end, as also occurs with similar Epicurean doxai at chs. 2.2.5, 2.4.13, 2.13.15, and 2.22.5. d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 and §9 A separates the first name-label of the lemma, Thales, from the detailed explanation of earthquakes (cf. Seneca on Thales) he assigns to Anonymi in §9. §1 and §7 The name-label Democritus occurs twice, the first time in relation to earthquakes only, the second also in relation to a mistakenly attributed explanation of the earth’s immobility qua cosmic body.

1308

liber 3 caput 15

§3 and §8 In a similar way as in §1/§9 (on Thales) Anaximenes’ explanation of earthquakes in §3 is separated from the explanation of the earth’s immobility in §8. §6 ‘Proper place’ (οἰκείῳ τόπῳ) and ‘natural location’ (κειμένην φυσικῶς) are Aristotelian or quasi-Aristotelian expressions and concepts, which surprise in relation to an Atomist. We may assume that the doxa has been reformulated in Peripatetic terms. The expression κειμένην φυσικῶς is not so easily paralleled, but cf. Aristotle Cael. 2.13 295b28–29 δῆλον ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί τινα καὶ τῇ γῇ φύσει τόπον, and Phys. 4.5 212b33 μένει δὴ φύσει πᾶν ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ τόπῳ. Also recall that according to Democritus the earth, after its initial wanderings, does come to a halt (A 3.13.4). §7 For Democritus see at §1. The doubtful attribution of this view to Parmenides too (it fails to square with the verbatim quote 28B15a DK—from Scholia in Basilium, see above, Testes secundi—that ‘the earth is rooted in water’, Παρμενίδης ἐν τῇ στιχοποιίᾳ ὑδατόριζον εἶπεν τὴν γῆν) may be due to the attribution to him of a ‘spherical earth in the middle’ (28A1 DK at Diogenes Laertius V.P. 9.21, πρῶτος δὲ οὗτος τὴν γῆν ἀπέφαινε σφαιροειδῆ καὶ ἐν μέσῳ κεῖσθαι). §8 See at §3.—Hall (1977) 427 points out: ‘this is quite inaccurate: Mete. 2.8 does not mention ἀντιπερίστασις nor the natural lightness of dry exhalation’. §9 See at §1. §10 These directions of motion are subspecies of the species locomotion. One would have expected to find them in ch. 1.23, although the motions listed there according to number are different kinds of motion. The seventh subspecies of locomotion, i.e. that in a circle, which Plato in the Timaeus attributes to the heavens (see at section E(b)§10), is not mentioned here. This could have been attributed to the earth: axial motion. According to Aristotle Cael. 2.13 293b30–32 and Cicero Luc. 123, this is what Plato means at Tim. 40b–c (ἰλλομένην), while according to Theophrastus at Plutarch Quaest.Plat. 1006C (Phys.Op. fr. 22 Diels, 243 FHS&G) Plato in his old age repented, and wanted to attribute axial motion to the earth (see M–R 3.75–83). The present doxa implicitly denies this tradition and reading. Against the interpretation of Aristotle and Cicero cf. e.g. Alcinous Did. c. 15, 171.28–29 H. and Proclus in Tim. 3.137.6–7; see Steel (2009) 271–272. §11 This is Epicurus’ second and last appearance in the meteorological section (or his first see ch. 3.4.5), and the only time he is made to provide a multiplicity of causes for a meteorological phenomenon in Book 3. See Runia (2018) 402, 411. The evidence not strong enough to prove beyond all doubt an early version of Placita as source, though this is quite likely.

liber 3 caput 15

1309

e Other Evidence Earthquakes too, then as now much to be feared, are discussed rather widely. As noted above, important parallels are found in Aristotle and Seneca; we may also mention Pliny, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ammianus Marcellinus, and quite a few of the other authors that usually provide parallels for the Placita. For the earth’s cosmic movement see above, at ch. 3.13. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Seneca Nat. 2.1.3 (Posidonius fr. 331 Theiler) ‘quomodo’ inquis ‘de terrarum motu quaestionem eo posuisti loco quo de tonitribus fulminibusque dicturus es?’ quia cum motus spiritu fiat, spiritus autem aër sit agitatus, etiamsi subit terras non ibi spectandus est: cogitetur in ea sede in qua illum natura disposuit. 6.6.2 non enim nunc de situ terrarum sed de motu agitur. Nat. 6.5.1–3 causam qua terra concutitur alii in aqua esse, alii in ignibus, alii in ipsa terra, alii in spiritu putaverunt, alii in pluribus, alii in omnibus his. quidam liquere ipsis aliquam ex istis causam esse dixerunt, sed non liquere quae esset. (2) nunc singula persequar. illud ante omnia mihi dicendum est, opiniones veteres parum exactas esse et rudes: circa verum adhuc errabatur, nova omnia erant primo temptantibus; postea eadem illa limata sunt, et si quid inventum est, illis nihilominus referri debet acceptum. magni animi res fuit rerum naturae latebras dimovere, nec contentum exteriore eius aspectu introspicere et in deorum secreta descendere. plurimum ad inveniendum contulit qui speravit posse reperiri: (3) cum excusatione itaque veteres audiendi sunt. (there follow the doxai of Thales Anaxagoras Anaximenes Archelaus Aristotle Theophrastus Democritus Metrodorus; see below). 6.21.2 ut Posidonio (F 230 E.-K., 320 Theiler) placet … . Nat. 6.22.2 Asclepiodotus … . Pliny Nat. 2.191–192 Babyloniorum placita et motus terrae hiatusque, qua cetera omnia, siderum vi existimant fieri …. praeclara quaedam et inmortalis in eo, si credimus, divinitas perhibetur Anaximandro Milesio (cf. 12A5a DK) physico, quem ferunt Lacedaemoniis praedixisse ut urbem ac tecta custodirent, instare eim motum terrae. … perhibetur et Pherecydi (F21 Schibli), Pythagorae doctori, alia coniectatio, sed et illa divina, haustu aquae e puteo praesensisse ac praedixisse civibus terrae motum. (192) … ventos in causa esse non dubium reor. neque enim umquam intremiscunt terrae nisi sopito mari caeloque adeo tranquillo, ut volatus avium non pendeant, subtracto omni spiritu qui vehit, nec umquam nisi post ventos, condito scilicet in venas et cava eius occulta flatu. neque aliud est in terra tremor quam in nube tonitruum, nec hiatus aliud quam cum fulmen erumpit incluso spiritu luctante et ad libertatem exire nitente. Cornutus c. 22, p. 35.14–19 Torres τινάκτορα γαίας (Soph. Trach. 502) (sc. ἐπωνόμασαν τὸν Ποσειδῶνα) ὡς οὐ παρ᾽ ἄλλην αἰτίαν τῶν σεισμῶν γινομένων ἢ παρὰ τὴν εἰς τὰς ἐν τῇ γῇ σήραγγας ἔμπτωσιν τῆς τε θαλάττης καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὑδάτων· στενοχωρούμενα γὰρ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ πνεύματα καὶ ἔξοδον ζητοῦντα κλονεῖσθαι καὶ ῥήγνυσθαι αὐτὴν ποιεῖ, ἀποτελουμένων ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε καὶ

1310

liber 3 caput 15

μυκημάτων κατὰ τὴν ῥῆξιν. Manilius 1.99–103 … cur … / … solidusque tremesceret orbis / … / pervidit. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 395b33–36 (Posidonius fr. 341a Theiler) πολλάκις δὲ πολὺ γενόμενον (sc. τὸ πνεῦμα) ἔξωθεν ἐγκατειλήθη τοῖς ταύτης κοιλώμασι καὶ ἀποκλεισθὲν {ἐξόδου} μετὰ βίας αὐτὴν συνετίναξε, ζητοῦν ἔξοδον ἑαυτῷ, καὶ ἀπειργάσατο πάθος τοῦτο ὃ καλεῖν εἰώθαμεν σεισμόν. Apuleius Mu. 18. saepe accidit ut nativi spiritus per terrae concavas partes errantes concuterent solida terrarum, saepius, ut spiritus crescente violentia et insinuantes se telluris angustiis nec invenientes exitum terram moverent. Pausanias 7.24.6–7 τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα ἐπὶ τοῖς σεισμοῖς, ὅσοι μεγέθει τε ὑπερήρκασι καὶ ἐπὶ μήκιστον διικνοῦνται τῆς γῆς, προσημαίνειν ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ ὡς τὸ ἐπίπαν εἴωθεν—ἢ γὰρ ἐπομβρίαι συνεχεῖς ἢ αὐχμοὶ πρὸ τῶν σεισμῶν συμβαίνουσιν ἐπὶ χρόνον πλείονα, καὶ ὁ ἀὴρ παρὰ τὴν ἑκάστοτε τοῦ ἔτους ὥραν χειμῶνός τε γίνεται … κτλ. Aulus Gellius NA 2.28.1 quaenam esse causa videatur, quamobrem terrae tremores fiant, non modo his communibus hominum sensibus opinionibusque incompertum, sed ne inter physicas quidem philosophias satis constitit, ventorumne vi accidant specus hiatusque terrae subeuntium an aquarum subter in terrarum cavis undantium pulsibus fluctibusque, ita uti videntur existimasse antiquissimi Graecorum, qui Neptunum σεισίχθονα appellaverunt, an cuius aliae rei causa alteriusve dei ui ac numine, nondum etiam, sicuti diximus, pro certo creditum. Galen Inst.Log.12.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· ἐν ἰατρικῇ μὲν οὖν ἐ(κ) τίνος αἰτίας γίγνονται … ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δὲ (10) σεισμὸς κτλ. Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.9 adesse tempus existimo pauca dicere, quae de terrae pulsibus coniectura veteres collegerunt. ad ipsius enim veritatis arcana non modo haec nostra vulgaris inscitia, sed ne sempiterna quidem lucubrationibus longis nondum exhausta physicorum iurgia penetrarunt. 17.7.11 (cf. 59A89 DK) accidunt autem, ut opiniones (sc. doxai) aestimant, inter quas Aristoteles aestuat et laborat, [see below]. 17.7.12–14 Anaximander (12A28 DK) ait arescentem nimia aestuum siccitate aut post madores imbrium terram rimas pandere grandiores, quas penetrat supernus aër violentus et nimius, ac per eas vehementi spiritu quassatam cieri propriis sedibus. qua de causa terrores huiusmodi vaporatis temporibus aut nimia aquarum caelestium superfusione contingunt. ideoque Neptunum umentis substantiae potestatem Ennosigaeon et Sisichthona poetae ueteres et theologi nuncuparunt. … sed hinc ad exorsa. Servius auctus in Georg. 2.479, p. 264.14–20 Thilo ‘unde tremor terris’ variae sunt opiniones. alii dicunt ventum esse in concavis terrae, qui motus etiam terram movet: Sallustius (Hist. fr. 28 Maurenbrecher) venti per cava terrae citati, Lucanus (3.460) ‘quaerentem erumpere ventum’ credidit. alii aquam dicunt genitalem sub terris moveri et eas simul concutere, sicut vas aquae, ut dicit Lucretius (DRN 6.552), alii σπογγοειδέα terram volunt, cuius plerumque latentes ruinae superposita cuncta concutiunt. Chapter heading: Seneca L. Annaei Senecae naturalium quaestionum liber sextus qui fertur De terrae motu. Nat. 6.6.2 non enim nunc de situ terrarum sed de motu agitur. Nat. 6.4.2 (T 55 Vottero) aliquando De motu terrarum volumen iuvenis ediderim. Nat. 2.1.3 de terrarum motu quaestionem. Nat. 5.14.4 cum

liber 3 caput 15 quaeram de motibus terrae. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 13.25 de terrae motibus. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 6.285 de … et terrae motu. at DRN 6.535 de terrae motu. Arius Didymus fr. 13 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.36.2, p. 251.25–27 (on Aristotle) περὶ μὲν σεισμῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν περὶ τὴν γῆν παθημάτων ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον. Ioannes Lydus Ost. 4.1–8 σπουδὴ δὲ ἡμῖν ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν περί τε … καὶ τὸ δὴ πέρας περὶ σεισμῶν. On this reference see beginning of chapter §1 Thales Democritus: Seneca Nat. 6.20.1–4 Democritus (68A98 DK) plura putat. ait enim motum aliquando spiritu fieri, aliquando aqua, aliquando utroque, et id hoc modo prosequitur: ‘aliqua pars terrae concava est; in hanc aquae magna vis confluit. ex hac est aliquid tenue et ceteris liquidius. hoc, cum superveniente gravitate reiectum est, inliditur terris et illas movet; nec enim fluctuari potest sine motu eius in quod impingitur.’ etiamnunc quomodo de spiritu dicebamus, de aqua quoque dicendum est: ubi in unum locum congesta est et capere se desiit, aliquo incumbit et primo viam pondere aperit, deinde impetu. nec enim exire nisi per devexum potest diu inclusa, nec in directum cadere moderate aut sine concussione eorum per quae vel in quae cadit. si vero, cum iam rapi coepit, aliquo loco substitit et illa vis fluminis in se revoluta est, in continentem terram repellitur, et illam, qua parte maxime pendet, exagitat. praeterea aliquando madefacta tellus liquore penitus accepto altius sedit, et fundus ipse vitiatur. tunc ea pars premitur in quam maxime aquarum vergentium pondus inclinat. spiritus vero nonnumquam impellit undas, et si vehementius institit, eam scilicet partem terrae movet in quam coactas aquas intulit. nonnumquam in terrena itinera coniectus et exitum quaerens movet omnia. et terra autem penetrabilis ventis est, et spiritus subtilior est quam ut possit excludi, vehementior quam ut sustineri concitatus ac rapidus. Nat. 6.7.1 quidam motum terrarum aquae imputaverunt, sed non ex eadem causa. Hippolytus Ref. 1.1.1 (on Thales, fr. 210 Wöhrle) ἀφ᾽ οὗ (sc. τοῦ ὕδατος) καὶ σεισμούς. §2 Stoics: Seneca Nat. 6.8.5 habeant enim oportet ⟨et⟩ pluribus locis sparsum umorem, et in uno coactum, ut eructare tanto impetu possint. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 7.154 ⟨σεισμοὺς δὲ γίνεσθαι εἰσδύοντος πνεύματος⟩ εἰς τὰ κοιλώματα τῆς γῆς ἢ καθειρχθέντος πνεύματος ἐν τῇ γῇ, καθά φησι Ποσειδώνιος (F 12 E.-K., 264 Theiler) ἐν τῇ ηʹ (sc. του Φυσικοῦ λόγου)· εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτῶν τοὺς μὲν σεισματίας, τοὺς δὲ χασματίας, τοὺς δὲ κλιματίας, τοὺς δὲ βρασματίας. §3 Anaximenes: Seneca Nat. 6.10.1 Anaximenes (cf. 13A21 DK) ait terram ipsam sibi causam esse motus, nec extrinsecus incurrere quod illam impellat, sed intra ipsam et ex ipsa; quasdam enim partes eius decidere si aut umor resolverit aut ignis exederit aut spiritus violentia excusserit. sed his quoque cessantibus non deesse propter quod aliquid abscedat aut revellatur. etc. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.8 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) σεισμὸν δὲ τῆς γῆς ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀλλοιουμένης ὑπὸ θερμασίας καὶ ψύξεως. Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.12 † Anaximander [12A28 DK; i.e. Anaximenes, cf. Capelle 1924, 363, DK p. 1.88 ad loc. and on 13A21 DK] ait arescentem nimia aestuum siccitate aut post madores imbrium terram rimas pandere grandiores, quas penetrat supernus aër violentus et nimius, ac per eas vehementi spiritu quassatam cieri propriis sedibus. qua de causa tremores huius-

1311

1312

liber 3 caput 15

modi vaporatis temporibus aut nimia aquarum caelestium superfusione contingunt. §4 Anaxagoras: Seneca Nat. 6.9.1 (Anaxagoras 59A89 DK) ignem causam motus quidam † et quidam non † iudicant, in primis Anaxagoras, qui existimat simili paene ex causa et aëra concuti et terram: cum ⟨in⟩ inferiore parte spiritus crassum aëra et in nubes coactum eadem vi qua apud nos quoque nubila frangi solent rumpit, et ignis ex hoc collisu nubium cursuque elisi aëris emicuit, hic ipse in obvia incurrit exitum quaerens, ac divellit repugnantia, donec per angustum aut nactus est viam exeundi ad caelum aut vi et iniuria fecit. Nat. 6.12.1–2 Archelaus (60A16a DK—perhaps to be attributed to Anaxagoras, see below Amm. Marc.) … ita ait: ‘venti in concava terrarum deferuntur. deinde, ubi omnia spatia iam plena sunt, et in quantum aër potuit densatus est, is qui supervenit spiritus priorem premit et elidit, ac frequentibus plagis primo cogit, deinde proturbat; tum ille quaerens locum omnes angustias dimovet, et claustra sua conatur effringere. sic evenit ut terrae spiritu luctante et fugam quaerente moveantur. itaque cum terrae motus futurus est, praecedit aëris tranquillitas et quies, videlicet quia vis spiritus quae concitare ventos solet in inferna sede retinetur.’ Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.3–4 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν τῷ σχήματι πλατεῖαν εἶναι καὶ μένειν μετέωρον διὰ τὸ μέγεθος καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι κενὸν καὶ διὰ τὸ τὸν ἀέρα ἰσχυρότατον (4) ὄντα φέρειν ἐποχουμένην τὴν γῆν. Ref. 1.8.12 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) σεισμοὺς δὲ γίνεσθαι τοῦ ἄνωθεν ἀέρος εἰς τὸν ὑπὸ γῆν ἐμπίπτοντος· τούτου γὰρ κινουμένου καὶ τὴν ὀχουμένην γῆν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ σαλεύεσθαι. Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.9 (on Anaxagoras, 59A1 DK) σεισμὸν ὑπονόστησιν ἀέρος εἰς γῆν. Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.11 aut certe (sc. accidunt), ut Anaxagoras (cf. 59A89 DK) affirmat, ventorum vi subeuntium ima terrarum; qui cum soliditatibus concrustatis inciderint, eruptiones nullas repperientes eas partes soli convibrant, quas subrepserint tumidi. unde plerumque observatur terra tremente ventorum apud nos spiramina nulla sentiri, quod in ultimis eius secessibus occupantur. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 15.15–19 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἐάν τε γὰρ ἀέρα φῇς ὑπεστρῶσθαι πλάτει τῆς γῆς, ἀπορήσεις, πῶς ἡ μαλθακὴ καὶ πολύκενος φύσις ἀντέχει ὑπὸ τοσούτου βάρους συνθλιβομένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ διολισθαίνει πάντοθεν τὴν συνίζησιν ὑποφεύγουσα, καὶ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄνω ὑπερχεομένη τοῦ συμπιέζοντος. §5 Aristotle: Arius Didymus fr. 13 Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.36.2, pp. 249.12– 251.27 Wachsmuth Ἀριστοτέλης φησὶ σεισμοὺς γίνεσθαι καὶ μυκήματα καὶ χάσματα τῆς ξηρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως εἰς τὰς ἀραιότητας κατὰ τῆς γῆς ῥυείσης καὶ κατὰ τὰς ἀθρόας ἐμπτώσεις τρόμους καὶ βρασμοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν ἀπεργαζομένης. ὡς γὰρ ὁρμήσασαν ἔξω τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἄνεμον ποιεῖν σφοδρόν, οὕτως εἴσω καθειρχθεῖσαν τῇ ῥύμῃ τῆς φορᾶς διακραδαίνειν τοὺς τόπους, ἐν οἷς ἂν ἀποληφθῇ. συνέχεσθαι ⟨δὲ⟩ τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην ἐν τῇ γῇ διά τε πύκνωσιν τῆς ἐπιφανείας καὶ διὰ κατάψυξιν καὶ διὰ ξηρασίαν. κτλ. Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.11 accidunt autem, ut opiniones aestimant, inter quas Aristoteles aestuat et laborat, aut in cavernis minutis terrarum, quas Graece syringas appellamus, impulsu crebriore aquis undabundis.

liber 3 caput 15 §6 Metrodorus: Seneca Nat. 6.19.1 Metrodorum Chium (70A21 DK) … audiamus … quid ergo dicit? ‘quomodo, cum in dolio cantatur, vox illa per totum cum quadam discussione percurrit ac resonat, et tam leviter mota tamen circumit non sine tactu eius tumultuque quo inclusa est, sic speluncarum sub terra pendentium vastitas habet aëra suum, quem, simul alius superne incidens percussit, agitat, non aliter quam illa de quibus paulo ante rettuli inania indito clamore sonuerunt’. §7 Parmenides Democritus: Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 10, p. 17.11–16 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg ἤδη δέ τινες τῶν φυσικῶν καὶ τοιαύταις αἰτίαις τὴν γῆν ἀκίνητον μένειν κατακομψεύονται. ὡς ἄρα διὰ τὸ τὴν μέσην τοῦ παντὸς εἰληφέναι χώραν, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἴσην πάντοθεν πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον ἀπόστασιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ὅπου μᾶλλον ἀποκλιθῇ, ἀναγκαίως μένειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτῆς, ἀδύνατον αὐτῇ παντελῶς τὴν ἐπί τι ῥοπὴν τῆς πανταχόθεν περικειμένης ὁμοιότητος ἐμποιούσης. §§8–9 Anaximenes and Others: Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 15.13– 16.5 Amand de Mendieta–Rudberg μηδὲ ἐκεῖνο ζητεῖν παραινῶ, ἐπὶ τίνος ἕστηκεν. ἰλιγγιάσει γὰρ καὶ οὕτως ἡ διάνοια, πρὸς οὐδὲν ὁμολογούμενον πέρας διεξιόντος τοῦ λογισμοῦ. ἐάν τε γὰρ ἀέρα φῇς ὑπεστρῶσθαι πλάτει τῆς γῆς, ἀπορήσεις, πῶς ἡ μαλθακὴ καὶ πολύκενος φύσις ἀντέχει ὑπὸ τοσούτου βάρους συνθλιβομένη, ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ διολισθαίνει πάντοθεν τὴν συνίζησιν ὑποφεύγουσα, καὶ ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄνω ὑπερχεομένη τοῦ συμπιέζοντος. πάλιν, ἐὰν ὑποθῇς ἑαυτῷ ὕδωρ εἶναι τὸ ὑποβεβλημένον τῇ γῇ, καὶ οὕτως ἐπιζητήσεις, πῶς τὸ βαρὺ καὶ πυκνὸν οὐ διαδύνει τοῦ ὕδατος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀσθενεστέρας φύσεως τὸ τοσοῦτον ὑπερφέρον τῷ βάρει κρατεῖται· πρὸς τὸ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὕδατος τὴν ἕδραν ἐπιζητεῖν, καὶ πάλιν διαπορεῖν τίνι στεγανῷ καὶ ἀντερείδοντι ὁ τελευταῖος αὐτοῦ πυθμὴν ἐπιβαίνει. cf. Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.6.22, p. 18.7–11 Schenkel quid nobis discutere utrum in aëre pendeat an super aquam, ut inde nascatur controversia, quomodo aëris natura tenuis et mollior molem possit sustentare terrenam aut quomodo, si super aquas, non demergatur in aquam grauis terrarum ruina? §8 Anaximenes: ps.Plutarch Strom. 3 (Anaximenes 13A6 DK) πιλουμένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος, πρώτην γεγενῆσθαι λέγει τὴν γῆν, πλατεῖαν μάλα· διὸ καὶ κατὰ λόγον αὐτὴν ἐποχεῖσθαι τῷ ἀέρι. Hippolytus Ref. 1.7.4 (on Anaximenes, 13A7 DK) τὴν δὲ γῆν πλατεῖαν εἶναι, ἐπ᾽ ἀέρος ὀχουμένην. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 1.8, p. 15.15–19 see above at §4. Ambrose of Milan Exam. 1.6.22, p. 18.13–15 Schenkel multi etiam in medio aëris terram esse dixerunt et mole sua immobilem manere, quod aequabili motu hinc atque inde ex omni parte protendat. §9 Others: Lucretius DRN 6.552–556 fit quoque, ubi in magnas aquae vastasque lacunas / gleba vetustate e terra provolvitur ingens, / ut iactetur aquae fluctu quoque terra vacillans, / ut vas inter ⟨aquas⟩ [coni. Martin, alii alia] non quit constare, nisi umor / destitit in dubio fluctu iactarier intus. Seneca Nat. 3.14.1 Thaletis (11A15 DK) inepta sententia est. ait enim terrarum orbem aqua sustineri et vehi more navigii mobilitateque eius fluctuare tunc cum dicitur tremere. Nat. 6.6.1 in aqua causam esse nec ab uno dictum est nec uno modo. Thales Milesius (fr. 101 Wöhrle) totam terram subiecto iudicat umore portari et innare, sive illud Oceanum uocas, seu magnum mare, sive alterius naturae sim-

1313

1314

liber 3 caput 15

plicem adhuc aquam et umidum elementum. ‘hac’ inquit ‘unda sustinetur orbis velut aliquod grande navigium et grave his aquis quas premit’. see also above on §1. §10 Plato: Philo Leg. 1.4 ἑξαχῆ γὰρ τὸ ὀργανικὸν σῶμα πέφυκε κινεῖσθαι, πρόσω καὶ κατόπιν, ἄνω καὶ κάτω, ἐπὶ δεξιὰ καὶ εὐώνυμα. Somn. 1.26 ὅτι τὸ σῶμα … ἑξαχῇ κινητόν, ἴσμεν, … κινήσεις δὲ τὰς διπλασίας ἕξ, τὴν ἄνω, τὴν κάτω, τὴν ἐπὶ δεξιά, τὴν ἐπὶ εὐώνυμα, τὴν πρόσω, τὴν εἰς τὸ κατόπιν. Simplicius in Cael. 520.30–521.1 πέμπτον τῶν τὴν ὁμοιότητα καὶ τὴν ἰσορροπίαν αἰτίαν τῆς μονῆς λεγόντων, ὡς Ἀναξίμανδρος (fr. 187 Wöhrle) καὶ Πλάτων (Phd. 108e–109a). §11 Epicurus: Epicurus Ep.Pyth. at D.L. 10.105–106 σεισμοὺς ἐνδέχεται γίνεσθαι καὶ κατὰ πνεύματος ἐν τῇ γῇ ἀπόληψιν καὶ παρὰ μικροὺς ὄγκους αὐτῆς παράθεσιν καὶ συνεχῆ κίνησιν, ὃ τὴν κράδανσιν τῇ γῇ παρασκευάζει. καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦτο ἢ ἔξωθεν ἐμπεριλαμβάνει ⟨ἢ⟩ ἐκ τοῦ πίπτειν Iεἰς} ἐδάφη εἰς ἀντροειδεῖς τόπους τῆς γῆς ἐκπνευματοῦντα τὸν ἐπειλημμένον ἀέρα. ⟨καὶ⟩ κατ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν διάδοσιν τῆς κινήσεως ἐκ τῶν πτώσεων ἐδαφῶν πολλῶν καὶ πάλιν ἀνταπόδοσιν, ὅταν πυκνώμασι σφοδροτέροις τῆς γῆς ἀπαντήσῃ, ἐνδέχεται σεισμοὺς ἀποτελεῖσθαι. (106) καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλους δὲ πλείους τρόπους τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας τῆς γῆς γίνεσθαι. Lucretius DRN 6.535–542 nunc age, quae ratio terrai motibus extet / percipe. et in primis terram fac ut esse rearis / supter item ut supera ventosis undique plenam / speluncis multosque lacus multasque lacunas / in gremio gerere et rupes deruptaque saxa; / multaque sub tergo terrai flumina tecta / volvere vi fluctus summersaque saxa putandumst; / undique enim similem esse sui res postulat ipsa. DRN 6.591– 593 quod nisi prorumpit, tamen impetus ipse animai / et fera vis venti per crebra foramina terrae / dispertitur ut horror, et incutit inde tremorem. Seneca Nat. 6.20.5–7 omnes istas esse posse causas Epicurus (fr. 351 Usener) ait, pluresque alias temptat, et illos qui aliquid unum ex istis esse adfirmaverunt corripit, cum sit arduum de his quae coniectura sequenda sunt aliquid certi promittere. (6) ‘ergo’ ut ait ‘potest terram movere aqua si partes aliquas eluit et adrosit, quibus desiit posse extenuatis sustineri quod integris ferebatur. potest terram movere impressio spiritus: fortasse enim aër extrinsecus alio intrante aëre agitatur, fortasse aliqua parte subito decidente percutitur, et inde motum capit. fortasse aliqua pars terrae velut columnis quibusdam ac pilis sustinetur, quibus vitiatis ac recedentibus tremit pondus impositum. (7) fortasse calida vis spiritus in ignem versa et fulmini similis cum magna strage obstantium fertur. fortasse palustres et iacentes aquas aliquis flatus impellit, et inde aut ictus terram quatit aut spiritus agitatio ipso motu crescens et se incitans ab imo in summa usque perfertur.’ nullam tamen illi placet causam motus esse maiorem quam spiritum.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Top. 7.5 146b27–35 ἢ πάλιν, ὡς … ὁρίζονται … τὸν σεισμὸν κίνησιν γῆς …· προσθετέον … πόσου καὶ ποίου καὶ ποῦ καὶ ὑπὸ τίνος. …. οὐ γὰρ ὁπωσοῦν γῆς κινηθείσης οὐδ᾽ ὁποσησοῦν σεισμὸς ἔσται. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Top. 466.21–23 καὶ ὁ τοῦ σεισμοῦ δὲ ὅρος ὡσαύτως· ἔδει γὰρ προσκεῖσθαι τὸ ‘ἐκ πνεύματος βιαίου ἐνσχεθέντος τοῖς κοιλώμασι τῆς γῆς καὶ ζητοῦντος διέξο-

liber 3 caput 15 δον’. Aristotle APo. 2.1 89b29–31 ὅταν δὲ εἰδῶμεν τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι ζητοῦμεν, οἷον εἰδότες … ὅτι κινεῖται ἡ γῆ, τὸ … διότι κινεῖται ζητοῦμεν. Mete. 1.1 338b25–339a2 ἔτι δὲ γῆς ὅσα μέρη καὶ εἴδη καὶ πάθη τῶν μερῶν, ἐξ ὧν περί τε πνευμάτων καὶ σεισμῶν θεωρήσαιμεν ἂν τὰς αἰτίας καὶ περὶ πάντων τῶν γιγνομένων κατὰ τὰς κινήσεις τὰς τούτων. Mete. 2.7 365a14–19 περὶ δὲ σεισμοῦ καὶ κινήσεως γῆς μετὰ ταῦτα λεκτέον· ἡ γὰρ αἰτία τοῦ πάθους ἐχομένη τούτου τοῦ γένους ἐστίν. ἔστι δὲ τὰ παρειλημμένα μέχρι γε τοῦ νῦν χρόνου τρία καὶ παρὰ τριῶν. Ἀναξαγόρας τε γὰρ ὁ Κλαζομένιος (—) καὶ πρότερον Ἀναξιμένης ὁ Μιλήσιος (—) ἀπεφήναντο, καὶ τούτων ὕστερον Δημόκριτος ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης (—). Mete. 2.8 369a7–9 περὶ μὲν οὖν σεισμῶν, καὶ τίς ἡ φύσις, καὶ διὰ τίνα αἰτίαν γίγνονται, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν συμβαινόντων περὶ αὐτούς, εἴρηται σχεδὸν περὶ τῶν μεγίστων. Vergil Georg. 2.475–479 Musae … monstrent … unde tremor terris. ps.Vergil Aetna 154–155 hinc terrae tremor, hinc motus, ubi densus hiantes / spiritus exagitat venas cessantiaque urget. Plutarch fr. 106.9–10 Sandbach ὃς καὶ τὴν ἀκίνητον γῆν κινεῖ Ἐνοσίχθων καλούμενος. Galen Inst.Log. 13.9–10 κατὰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν αἱ τῶν αἰτίων γίγνονται ζητήσεις· …, ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ δὲ σεισμὸς κτλ. Hermogenes Id. 1.6.4.7–8 Patillon καὶ … κινήσεις γῆς … εἰ ζητοίη τις, ὅπως γίνονται. Id. 1.6.5 Patillon ποῦ δ᾽ αὖ λόγου πολιτικοῦ τὸ ζητεῖν, ὅπως κινεῖται γῆ. Suda s.v. Σ 291, p. 4.348.3–7 Adler Σεισμος: πνεύματος εἰς τὰ κοιλώματα τῆς γῆς ἐγκαθειρχθέντος. … Ἀριστοφάνης (Ran. 825)· ‘γηγενεῖ φυσήματι’· ἀντὶ τοῦ μεγάλῳ, ὥστε σεισμοὺς ποιεῖν· ἀρχαία γὰρ ὑπόνοια τὸ ὑπὸ πνευμάτων κατεχομένην σείεσθαι τὴν γῆν. Isidore of Seville (from Servius, see above) Etym. 14.2–3 cuius (sc. terrae) motum alii dicunt ventum esse in concavis eius, qui motus eam movet. Sallustius (Hist. fr. 28 Maurenbrecher): ‘venti per cava terrae citatu rupti aliquot montes tumulique sedere’. (3) alii aquam dicunt genetalem in terris moueri, et eas simul concutere, sicut vas, ut dicit Lucretius (DRN 6.555). alii σπογγοειδῆ terram volunt, cuius plerumque latentes ruinae superposita cuncta concutiunt. terrae quoque hiatus aut motu aquae inferioris fit, aut crebris tonitruis, aut de concavis terrae erumpentibus ventis. de Nat. 46.1 sapientes dicunt terram in modum sphungiae esse conceptumque ventum rotari et ire per cavernas. cumque tantum ierit quantum terra capere non possit, huc atque illuc ventus fremitum et murmura mittit. dehinc quaerente eo viam evadendi, dum sustinere eum terra non potuerit, aut tremit aut dehiscit ut ventum egerat. inde aiunt fieri terrae motum, dum universa ventus inclusus concutit. Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.1 338b26 περί … σεισμῶν. Mete. 2.7 365a14 περὶ δὲ σεισμοῦ καὶ κινήσεως γῆς μετὰ ταῦτα λεκτέον. Mete. 2.8 368b13 οἱ σεισμοὶ τῆς γῆς. Mete. 2.8 369a7 περὶ μὲν οὖν σεισμῶν. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15 tit. Daiber The account of the causes and of the different kinds of earthquakes. Philo Opif. 59 σεισμὸν γῆς. Plutarch Cic. 32.4 σεισμόν τε τῆς γῆς. Publius Aelius Phlegon Mir. 19.1 Θεόπομπος (FGrH 115 fr. 70 Jacoby) δέ φησιν ὁ Σινωπεύς ἐν τῷ Περὶ σεισμῶν. Agatharchides Mar.Erythr. 107 περὶ … σεισμοῦ. Ammianus Marcellinus 17.7.12 ideoque Neptunum umentis substantiae potestatem Ennosigaeon et Sisichthona poetae veteres et theologi nuncuparunt. Isidore of Seville Nat. 46 De terrae motu [also in the body of the work].

1315

1316

liber 3 caput 15

§1 Thales Democritus: Aristotle Mete. 2.7 365b1–6 Δημόκριτος (68A97 DK) δέ φησι πλήρη τὴν γῆν ὕδατος οὖσαν, καὶ πολὺ δεχομένην ἕτερον ὄμβριον ὕδωρ, ὑπὸ τούτου κινεῖσθαι· πλείονός τε γὰρ γιγνομένου διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι δέχεσθαι τὰς κοιλίας ἀποβιαζόμενον ποιεῖν τὸν σεισμόν, καὶ ξηραινομένην ἕλκουσαν εἰς τοὺς κενοὺς τόπους ἐκ τῶν πληρεστέρων τὸ μεταβάλλον ἐμπῖπτον κινεῖν. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15b.7–9 Daiber If some hollows contain water, which is shut up, and if that water is moved because it finds a narrow exit or because of another reason, it shakes the earth as billows cause a ship to shake. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 115.13–20 εἰπὼν δὲ περὶ τῆς Ἀναξαγόρου δόξης μέτεισιν ἐπὶ τὴν Δημοκρίτου (—), καὶ φησὶ τοῦτον λέγειν ὅτι πλήρης οὖσα ἡ γῆ ὕδατος, ὅταν καὶ ἔξωθεν πολὺ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀμβρίων ἄλλο δέξηται, τότε ὑπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ πολλοῦ κινεῖται. πλεῖόν τε γὰρ γινόμενον τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι δέχεσθαι αὐτὸ τὰς ἐν τῇ γῇ κοιλίας ἀποβιαζόμενον καὶ στενοχωρούμενον κινεῖ αὐτήν. ἀλλὰ καὶ ξηραινομένη καὶ ἕλκουσα εἰς τοὺς κενοὺς τόπους καὶ ξηροὺς ἐκ τῶν πληρεστέρων τὸ ὕδωρ ἐν τῇ μεταρρεύσει τε καὶ μεταβάσει τῇ τοιαύτῃ κινεῖται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. Simplicius in Cael. 520.26–27 δεύτερον δὲ τῶν ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος ὀχουμένην μένειν, ὡς Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος (fr. 425 Wôhrle). §3 Anaximenes: Aristotle Mete. 2.7 365b6–12 Ἀναξιμένης (13A21 DK) δέ φησιν βρεχομένην τὴν γῆν καὶ ξηραινομένην ῥήγνυσθαι, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν ἀπορρηγνυμένων κολωνῶν ἐμπιπτόντων σείεσθαι· διὸ καὶ γίγνεσθαι τοὺς σεισμοὺς ἔν τε τοῖς αὐχμοῖς καὶ πάλιν ἐν ταῖς ἐπομβρίαις· ἔν τε γὰρ τοῖς αὐχμοῖς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ξηραινομένην ῥήγνυσθαι, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων ὑπερυγραινομένην διαπίπτειν. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15a.4–6 Daiber For it [sc. the surface] falls down because the earth becomes dry and crumbles, or because it becomes humid and dissolves. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 115.21–27 μετὰ δὲ τὴν Δημοκρίτου καὶ τῆς Ἀναξιμένους (fr. 67 Wöhrle) δόξης μνημονεύει. τοῦτον δέ φησι λέγειν βρεχομένην τὴν γῆν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ξηραινομένην ῥήγνυσθαι, ἔπειτα ἀπορρηγνυμένων τινῶν τῷ τοιούτῳ πάθει κολωνῶν καὶ ἐμπιπτόντων αὐτῇ, γίνεσθαι τοὺς σεισμούς. διὸ καὶ γίνεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἔν τε τοῖς αὐχμοῖς καὶ πάλιν ἐν ταῖς ὑπερομβρίαις· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς αὐχμοῖς ξηραινομένην ῥήγνυσθαι, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὑπερομβρίαις ἐξυγραινομένην διαπίπτειν. §4 Anaxagoras: Aristotle Mete. 2.7 364a19–25 + a31–33 Ἀναξαγόρας (59A89 DK) μὲν οὖν φησι τὸν αἰθέρα πεφυκότα φέρεσθαι ἄνω, ἐμπίπτοντα δ᾽ εἰς τὰ κάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ κοῖλα κινεῖν αὐτήν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄνω συναληλεῖφθαι διὰ τοὺς ὄμβρους (ἐπεὶ φύσει γε ἅπασαν ὁμοίως εἶναι σομφήν), ὡς ὄντος τοῦ μὲν ἄνω τοῦ δὲ κάτω τῆς ὅλης σφαίρας, καὶ ἄνω μὲν τούτου ὄντος τοῦ μορίου ἐφ᾽ οὗ τυγχάνομεν οἰκοῦντες, κάτω δὲ θατέρου. … εὔηθες … τὸ λέγειν μὲν ὡς διὰ τὸ μέγεθος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀέρος μένειν, σείεσθαι δὲ φάσκειν τυπτομένην κάτωθεν ἄνω δι᾽ ὅλης. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15bc.9–11 Daiber If the earth contains much wind which is shut up, and if this wind can pass out through a narrow way, it shakes the earth. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 114.13–23 ἔστι δ᾽ ἡ μὲν Ἀναξαγόρου (—) δόξα τοιαύτη· φησὶ τὸν αἰθέρα πεφυκότα φέρεσθαι ἄνω, ἐμπίπτοντα δὲ εἰς τὰ κάτω τῆς γῆς κοῖλα κινεῖν αὐτήν, ἄνω μὲν λέγων τῆς γῆς τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν, ἐφ᾽ ἧς οἰκοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, κάτω δὲ τὸ ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐκείνην αὐτὴν τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν· ὧν τὴν μὲν ἐφ᾽ ἧς ἡμεῖς οἰκοῦμεν συνα-

liber 3 caput 15 ληλίφθαι τε καὶ ἡνῶσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ὄμβρων, τὴν δὲ κάτω σομφήν τε εἶναι καὶ ἔχουσαν διαστήματα· πᾶσαν γὰρ τὴν γῆν εἶναι σομφὴν φύσει· τὸν οὖν αἰθέρα τὸν ὑπὸ τῇ γῇ, πεφυκότα ἄνω φέρεσθαι εἰς τὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς, ἐν τῇ ἀνόδῳ ἐμπίπτοντα εἰς τὰ κοῖλα καὶ σομφὰ τῆς γῆς κινεῖν αὐτήν, καὶ οὕτω γίνεσθαι τοὺς σεισμούς. ὡς οὔσης δὲ τῆς γῆς πλατείας καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐποχουμένης τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ ἀέρι καὶ μενούσης ἔνθα ἐστί, λέγει ταῦτα. §5 Aristotle: Aristotle APo. 2.1 89b29–31 ὅταν δὲ εἰδῶμεν τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι ζητοῦμεν, οἷον εἰδότες … ὅτι κινεῖται ἡ γῆ, τὸ … διότι κινεῖται ζητοῦμεν. Mete. 2.8 365b21–366a5 ἀλλ᾽ ἐπειδὴ φανερὸν ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον καὶ ἀπὸ ὑγροῦ καὶ ἀπὸ ξηροῦ γίγνεσθαι ἀναθυμίασιν, … ἀνάγκη τούτων ὑπαρχόντων γίγνεσθαι τοὺς σεισμούς. ὑπάρχει γὰρ ἡ γῆ καθ᾽ αὑτὴν μὲν ξηρά, διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὄμβρους ἔχουσα ἐν αὑτῇ νοτίδα πολλήν, ὥσθ᾽ ὑπό τε τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ πυρὸς θερμαινομένης πολὺ μὲν ἔξω πολὺ δ᾽ ἐντὸς γίγνεσθαι τὸ πνεῦμα· καὶ τοῦτο ὁτὲ μὲν συνεχὲς ἔξω ῥεῖ πᾶν, ὁτὲ δ᾽ εἴσω πᾶν, ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ μερίζεται. εἰ δὴ τοῦτ᾽ ἀδύνατον ἄλλως ἔχειν, τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο σκεπτέον ἂν εἴη ποῖον κινητικώτατον εἴη τῶν σωμάτων· … ὥστ᾽ εἴπερ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος φύσις τοιαύτη, μάλιστα τῶν σωμάτων τὸ πνεῦμα κινητικόν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ πῦρ ὅταν μετὰ πνεύματος ᾖ, γίγνεται φλὸξ καὶ φέρεται ταχέως. οὐκ ἂν οὖν ὕδωρ οὐδὲ γῆ αἴτιον εἴη, ἀλλὰ πνεῦμα τῆς κινήσεως, ὅταν εἴσω τύχῃ ῥυὲν τὸ ἔξω ἀναθυμιώμενον. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15cd.12–15 Daiber If the earth contains much fire which is shut up and (if then the fire) makes the air contained by that earth fine, dissolves it and makes it loose, (the fire) begins to look for a larger place. If therefore (the air) splits up and leaves the earth, it begins to shake that. Seneca Nat. 6.13.1–2 (Theophrastus fr. 195 FHS&G) quid utrique (sc. Aristotle and Theophrastus) placeat exponam. ‘semper aliqua evaporatio est e terra, quae modo arida est, modo umido mixta; haec ab infimo edita et in quantum potuit elata, cum ulteriorem locum in quem exeat non habet, retro fertur atque in se revolvitur; deinde rixa spiritus reciprocantis iactat obstantia et, sive interclusus sive per angusta enisus est, motum ac tumultum ciet’. (2) Straton (fr. 89 Wehrli, 53 Sharples) ex eadem schola est, …. huius tale decretum est: ‘frigidum et calidum semper in contraria abeunt, una esse non possunt; eo frigidum confluit unde vis calida discessit. et invicem ibi calidum est unde frigus expulsum est.’ etc. John Philoponus(?) in APo. 335.16–21 (on APo. 2.1 89b29–31) καὶ πάλιν ὁρῶμεν τὴν γῆν σειομένην, καὶ φαμὲν ‘ἡ γῆ σείεται, σειομένης δὲ πνεῦμα ἐν τοῖς κοιλώμασιν καὶ σήραγξιν αὐτῆς ἀποκλείεται, ἐν τῇ γῇ πνεῦμα ἀποκλείεται’· τοῦτο ἡ ἀνάλυσις. εἶτα ἡ ἀπόδειξις· ‘ἐν τῇ γῇ πνεῦμα ἀποκλείεται, πνεύματος ἀποκλειομένου σεισμὸς γίνεται, ἐν τῇ γῇ ἄρα σεισμὸς γίνεται’. §§7–8 Parmenides Democritus and Anaximenes: Ovid Fast. 6.269–280 terra pilae similis, nullo fulcimine nixa, / aëre subiecto tam grave pendet onus: / ipsa volubilitas libratum sustinet orbem, / quique premat partes angulus omnis abest: / cumque sit in media rerum regione locata, / ut tangat nullum plusve minusve latus, / ni convexa foret, parti vicinior esset, / nec medium terram mundus haberet onus. / arte Syracosia suspensus in aëre clauso / stat globus, immensi parva figura poli, / et quantum a summis, tantum secessit ab imis / terra; quod ut fiat forma rotunda facit.

1317

1318

liber 3 caput 15

§7 Parmenides Democritus: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 295b11–16 εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά φασιν αὐτὴν μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξίμανδρος (12A26 DK)· μᾶλλον μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ εἰς τὰ πλάγια φέρεσθαι προσήκει τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου ἱδρυμένον καὶ ὁμοίως πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχον· ἅμα δ᾽ ἀδυνατον εἰς τὸ ἐναντίον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν κίνησιν· ὥστ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης μένειν. (see above on §1.) Anatolius de Dec. p. 67.7–11 Heiberg ἐοίκασι δὲ κατά γε τοῦτο κατηκολουθηκέναι τοῖς Πυθαγορικοῖς (—) οἵ τε περὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέα (—) καὶ Παρμενίδην (28A44 DK) καὶ σχεδὸν οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν πάλαι σοφῶν φάμενοι τὴν μοναδικὴν φύσιν ἑστίας τρόπον ἐν μέσῳ ἱδρύσθαι καὶ διὰ τὸ ἰσόρροπον φυλάσσειν τὴν αὐτὴν ἕδραν (cited by Iamblichus Theol.Ar. p. 6.14–18 De Falco). §8 Anaximenes: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 294b13–16 Ἀναξιμένης (13A20 DK) δὲ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (cf. 59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 376 Luria) τὸ πλάτος αἴτιον εἶναί φασι τοῦ μένειν αὐτήν. οὐ γὰρ τέμνειν ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιπωμάζειν τὸν ἀέρα τὸν κάτωθεν, ὅπερ φαίνεται τὰ πλάτος ἔχοντα τῶν σωμάτων ποιεῖν. Epicurus Π. φύσ. Book 11, fr. [26][42]–[43] Arrighetti. Scholia in Epicurum Ep.Hdt. at D.L. 10.74 (fr. 348 Usener) καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις (sc. λέγει) τὴν γῆν τῷ ἀέρι ἐποχεῖσθαι. Lucretius DRN 5.543–538 terraque ut in media mundi regione quiescat, / evanescere paulatim et decrescere pondus / convenit atque aliam naturam subter habere / ex ineunte aevo coniunctam atque uniter aptam / partibus aëriis mundi quibus insita vivit. Hyginus Astr. 1.9, p. 11.120–121 Viré terra mundi media regione collocata, omnibus partibus aequali dissidens intervallo, centrum obtinet sphaerae. Simplicius in Cael. 520.27–30 τρίτον δὲ τῶν λεγόντων μένειν αὐτὴν ἀνεχομένην ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου ἀέρος, ὃν ἐπιπωματίζει πλατεῖα οὖσα καὶ τυμπανοειδὴς ἡ γῆ καὶ οὐ συγχωρεῖ ἀναχωρεῖν· οὕτω δὲ Ἀναξιμένης (fr. 156 Wöhrle) καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας (59A88 DK) καὶ Δημόκριτος (fr. 376 Luria) ἐδόκουν λέγειν. §9 Others: Aristotle Cael. 2.13 294a28–31 οἱ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὕδατος κεῖσθαι. τοῦτον γὰρ ἀρχαιότατον παρειλήφαμεν τὸν λόγον, ὅν φασιν εἰπεῖν Θαλῆν τὸν Μιλήσιον (11A14 DK), ὡς διὰ τὸ πλωτὴν εἶναι μένουσαν ὥσπερ ξύλον ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15b.7–9 Daiber if some hollows contain water, which is shut up, and if that water is moved, because it finds a narrow exit or because of another reason, it shakes the earth as billows shake a ship. §10 Plato: Plato Tim. 34a κίνησιν γὰρ ἀπένειμεν αὐτῷ (sc. τῷ κόσμῳ) τὴν τοῦ σώματος οἰκείαν, τῶν ἑπτὰ τὴν περὶ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησιν μάλιστα οὖσαν. Tim. 43a– b ὥστε τὸ μὲν ὅλον κινεῖσθαι ζῷον, ἀτάκτως μὴν ὅπῃ τύχοι προϊέναι καὶ ἀλόγως, τὰς ἓξ ἁπάσας κινήσεις ἔχον· εἴς τε γὰρ τὸ πρόσθε καὶ ὄπισθεν καὶ πάλιν εἰς δεξιὰ καὶ ἀριστερὰ κάτω τε καὶ ἄνω καὶ πάντῃ κατὰ τοὺς ἓξ τόπους πλανώμενα προῄειν. Phd. 108e–109a πέπεισμαι τοίνυν, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς, ἐγὼ ὡς πρῶτον μέν, εἰ ἔστιν ἐν μέσῳ τῷ οὐρανῷ περιφερὴς οὖσα (sc. ἡ γῆ), μηδὲν αὐτῇ δεῖν μήτε (109a) ἀέρος πρὸς τὸ μὴ πεσεῖν μήτε ἄλλης ἀνάγκης μηδεμιᾶς τοιαύτης, ἀλλὰ ἱκανὴν εἶναι αὐτὴν ἴσχειν τὴν ὁμοιότητα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑαυτῷ πάντῃ καὶ τῆς γῆς αὐτῆς τὴν ἰσορροπίαν· ἰσόρροπον γὰρ πρᾶγμα ὁμοίου τινὸς ἐν μέσῳ τεθὲν οὐχ ἕξει μᾶλλον οὐδ᾽ ἧττον οὐδαμόσε κλιθῆναι, ὁμοίως δ᾽ ἔχον ἀκλινὲς μενεῖ. Tim. 62d–63a εἰ γάρ τι καὶ στερεὸν εἴη κατὰ μέσον τοῦ παντὸς ἰσοπαλές, εἰς οὐδὲν ἄν ποτε τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐνεχθείη διὰ τὴν πάντῃ ὁμοιότητα αὐτῶν. Nicomachus Intr.Ar. 2.6.4, p. 85.9–13 Hoche τού-

liber 3 caput 15 τοις γὰρ αἱ λεγόμεναι περὶ πᾶν σῶμα ὑπάρχειν ἓξ περιστάσεις ὁρίζονται, καθ᾽ ἃς αἱ κατὰ τόπον κινήσεις διακρίνονται, πρόσω, ὀπίσω, ἄνω, κάτω, δεξιά, ἀριστερά. Apuleius Plat. 1.198 septem locorum motus habeantur, progressus et retrocessus, dexteriores ac sinistri, sursum etiam deorsumque nitentium et quae in gyrum circuitumque torquentur. ps.Iamblichus Theol.Ar. p. 47.15–19 De Falco ἕκαστον δὲ διάστημα πεπερασμένον ἑκατέρωθεν ἡγούμενοι δεῖν εἶναι, δύο καθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐπινοήσομεν πέρατα, τριῶν δὲ ὄντων ἓξ ἀποτελεσθήσονται, δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ αἱ λεγόμεναι σωματικαὶ περιστάσεις τοσαῦται γίνονται καθ᾽ ἕκαστον διάστημα δύο θεωρούμεναι. §11 Epicurus: Theophrastus(?) Metars. c. 15.2 Daiber There are four causes of earthquakes.

1319

Liber 3 Caput 16 PP: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 3 (b) verso, p. 77 Barns–Zilliacus—PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 896F–897A; pp. 381a12–382a13 Diels—PE: Eusebius PE 15.59.1– 6, p. 420.1–16 Mras—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 87; p. 634.3–9 Diels; pp. 278–286 Jas—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 184–186 Daiber—PPs: Omn.Doctr. c. 166.1 + 8– 11, p. 84 Westerink S: Ecl. 1.37, p. 252.2 Wachsmuth (titulus solus); cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b22 Henry (titulus solus) Cf. Symeon Seth CRN 2.14.10–13

Titulus ιϛʹ. Περὶ θαλάσσης, πῶς συνέστη καὶ πῶς ἐστι πικρά (P,S) §1 Ἀναξίμανδρος τὴν θάλασσάν φησιν εἶναι τῆς πρώτης ὑγρασίας λείψανον, ἧς τὸ μὲν πλεῖον μέρος ἀνεξήρανε τὸ πῦρ, τὸ δὲ ὑπολειφθὲν διὰ τὴν ἔκκαυσιν μετέβαλεν. (P1) §2 Ἀναξαγόρας τοῦ κατ᾽ ἀρχὴν λιμνάζοντος ὑγροῦ περικαέντος ὑπὸ τῆς ἡλιακῆς περιφορᾶς καὶ τοῦ λιπαροῦ ἐξατμισθέντος εἰς ἁλυκίδα καὶ πικρίαν τὸ λοιπὸν ὑποστῆναι. (P2) §3 Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ‘ἱδρῶτα’ τῆς γῆς ἐκκαιομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου διὰ τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖον πίλησιν. (P3) §1 Anaximander 12A27 DK; §2 Anaxagoras 59A90 DK; §3 Empedocles 31A66 DK cf. B55 lemmata non hab. S titulus πῶς … πικρά PBEQSL : Περὶ θαλάττης διὰ τί ἁλμυρά ἐστιν PG : Περὶ θαλάσσης verisim. PPSPhot §1 [2] post Ἀναξίμανδρος hab. εἶναί φησι PG ‖ πρώτης PBEG(Nic) : προτέρας PG(mss.) ‖ post ὑγρασίας add. τὸ PG ‖ [3] πλεῖον PPB(I,III)E prob. Laks– Most : πλεῖστον PB(II)GQ ‖ ἀνεξήρανε PB(I,III:E)EG : ἀνεξήραινε PB(III:A) : ἐξήρανε PB(II) et ut vid. PP : ἀνεξηραμένον PG crucif. Jas (ἀνεξηραμμένον Diels) ‖ τὸ πῦρ] γλυκύ PG crucif. Jas, prob. Diels §2 [6] λιπαροῦ PPBEQ : λεπτομεροῦς Roeper ap. Philol. 8 (1852) 635 n. 32 : fort. λεπτοτέρου Diels : λεπτοτάτου Gomperz 1890, p. 145, prob. Diels 59A90 DK Laks–Most ‖ ἐξατμισθέντος PB : ausgepreßt Q §3 [8] τῆς PBE : om. PG ‖ ἐκκαιομένης PB(ΙΙ)EG : ἐκκαιόμενον PB(Ι,ΙΙΙ) ‖ post ἐκκαιομένης add. ausschwitzt Q ‖ [8–9] διὰ … πίλησιν] om. PG ‖ ἐπὶ … πίλησιν PE, prob. Karsten Zeller Duebner Diels Lachenaud Graham : ἐπιπόλαιον πλῆσιν PB(I,II) : ἐπιπόλαιον πλύσιν PB(III) : durch die Kontinuität ihres (der Sonne) Kreisens erfährt Q : †πλῆσιν† crucif. Mau : πρῆσιν coni. Bernardakis

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_093

5

liber 3 caput 16

§4 §5 §6

Ἀντιφῶν ἱδρῶτα τοῦ θερμοῦ, ἐξ οὗ τὸ περιληφθὲν ὑγρὸν ἀπεκρίθη, τῷ καθεψηθῆναι παραλυκίσασα, ὅπερ ἐπὶ παντὸς ἱδρῶτος συμβαίνει. (P4) Μητρόδωρος διὰ τὸ διηθεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς γῆς μετειληφέναι τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν πάχους, καθάπερ τὰ διὰ τῆς τέφρας ὑλιζόμενα. (P5) οἱ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος τοῦ στοιχειώδους ὕδατος τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀέρος κατὰ περίψυξιν συνιστάμενον γλυκὺ γίνεσθαι, τὸ δ᾽ ἀπὸ γῆς κατὰ περίκαυσιν καὶ ἐκπύρωσιν ἀναθυμιώμενον ἁλμυρόν. (P6)

§4 Antiphon 87B32 DK, F 32 Kendrick; §5 Metrodorus 70A19 DK; §6 Platonici— §4 [10] post ἱδρῶτα add. ⟨τοῦ πρώτου ὑγροῦ ἐξατμισθέντος ὑπὸ⟩ Diels 87B32 DK, cf. von der Hitze erzeugt wird Q ‖ [10] τοῦ PEQ : om. PB, prob. Mau Laks–Most ‖ θερμοῦ PBEQ : susp. Diels, crucif. Pendrick, θερμὸν dub. prop. Lachenaud ‖ post θερμοῦ fort. πάχους addendum, cf. infra §5[2] ‖ περιληφθὲν PB(III) prob. Mras : περιλειφθὲν PPB(I,II)E, prob. Bernardakis, Diels 87B32 DK : om. PQ ‖ ἀπεκρίθη PB(I,III)E : ὑπεκρίθη PB(III) ‖ post ἀπεκρίθη add. ⟨καὶ θάλασσα ἐπωνομάσθη⟩ Diels 87B32 DK ‖ [10–11] τῷ … παραλυκίσασα PBE : om. PQ ‖ [11] καθεψηθῆναι PPE : κατεψηθῆναι PB ‖ [11]–§5[12] παραλυκίσασα … μετειληφέναι om. PP per haplographiam ‖ [11] παραλυκίσασα PB(III) prob. Graham : παραλυκίσαντα Xylander prob. Laks–Most, Lachenaud qui dubit. et prop. παραλυκίσαι : παραλυκίσαν corrector sec. Voss. : crucif. Diels Mau §5 [12] διηθεῖσθαι PB(III)E : διηθεῖσαν PB(I,II)Q ‖ μετειληφέναι PBE : übrig bleibt Q §6 [15] ἀπὸ γῆς PBE : om. PG ‖ περίκαυσιν] περίθραυσιν PG crucif. Jas ‖ [16] ἐκπύρωσιν PBE : ἔκπυρον PG ‖ ἀναθυμιώμενον PBE : ἀναθυμίασιν PG : om. PQ ‖ post ἁλμυρόν add. εἶναι PG

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: Papyrus Antinoopolis 85 fr. 3 (b) verso (~ P1–6) ι[ Ανα[ξιμανδρος την θάλασσαν φησιν ει] 5 να[ι της πρωτης υγρασιας λειψανον ης το μεν] πλιον μ̣ [ερος ἀνεξηρανε το πυρ το δε ὑπολειφθεν] δια την [εκκαυσιν μετεβαλεν Αναξαγορας] του κατ α̣[ρχην λιμναζοντος υγρου περικα] εν̣τ[̣ ος υπο της ηλιακης περιφορας και του] 10 λι ̣π̣ [αρου εξατμισθεντος εις αλυκιδα και] πι ̣[κριαν το λοιπον υποστηναι Εμπεδο] κλη[ς ιδρωτα της γης εκκαιομενης υπο του] ηλιο[υ δια την επι το πλειον πιλησιν Αν] τιφω[ν ιδρωτα του θερμου εξ ου το περι] 15 λειφ[θεν υγρον απεκριθη τω καθεψηθη] ναι ̣ [του περι αὐτην παχους καθαπερ τα] δια τ[ης τεφρας υλιζομενα οι απο Πλατω]/[νος ps.Galenus HPh c. 87 (~ tit.) Περὶ θαλάττης διὰ τί ἁλμυρά ἐστιν (text Jas) 87.1 (~ P1) Ἀναξίμανδρος εἶναί φησι τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς πρώτης ὑγρασίας τὸ λείψανον, ἧς τὸ μὲν πλεῖστον μέρος †ἀνεξηραμένον γλυκύ†, τὸ δὲ ὑπολειφθὲν διὰ τὴν ἔκκαυσιν μετέβαλεν.

1321 10

15

1322

liber 3 caput 16

87.2 (~ P3) Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἱδρῶτα γῆς ἐκκαιομένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου. 87.3 (~ P6) οἱ ἀπὸ Πλάτωνος τοῦ στοιχειώδους ὕδατος τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀέρος κατὰ περίψυξιν συνιστάμενον γλυκὺ γίγνεσθαι, τὸ δὲ κατὰ †περίθραυσιν† καὶ ἔκπυρον ἀναθυμίασιν ἁλμυρὸν εἶναι. Psellus Omn.Doctr. c. 166 Διατί ἁλμυρὸν ἐστιν τὸ τῆς θαλάττης ὕδωρ (~ tit.) 166.8–11 αἴτιον δὲ τῆς ἁλμυρότητος καὶ ὁ ἥλιος· τῇ γὰρ οἰκείᾳ θερμότητι ἐξατμίζων τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὸ γλυκύτερον ἕλκων καὶ κουφίζων πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα, κάτω τὸ ἁλμυρότερον ἐᾷ καὶ βαρύτερον (~ §2). Symeon Seth CRN 14.10–13 ἁλυκὸν δέ ἐστι τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης ὕδωρ διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ἀνιμᾶται τὸ λεπτομερὲς αὐτῆς ὑγρόν, καταλείπεται τὸ παχὺ καὶ ἔχει τοιαύτην γεῦσιν (quaestio). Loci Aetiani: quaestio A 4.1.2 Εὐθυμένης ὁ Μασσαλιώτης ἐκ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τῆς ἔξω θαλάσσης γλυκείας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν οὔσης νομίζει πληροῦσθαι τὸν ποταμόν. titulus A 1.4 Πῶς συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος A 2.13 2.13 Τίς οὐσία τῶν πλανητῶν καὶ ἀπλανῶν, καὶ πῶς συνέστη. §1 A 3.4.4 Ξενοφάνης ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου θερμότητος ὡς ⟨προκατ⟩αρκτικῆς αἰτίας τἀν τοῖς μεταρσίοις συμβαίνειν· ἀνελκομένου γὰρ ἐκ τῆς θαλάττης τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ γλυκὺ. §5 A 2.18.1–2 Ξενοφάνης … Μητρόδωρος … A 3.2.10–11 Μητρόδωρος … Ξενοφάνης … A 3.9.4–5 Ξενοφάνης … Μητρόδωρος …

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PP, PB, PE, PG, PQ, and (for a version of the heading only) PPs. Small snippets of the text are preserved in PP, the Antinoopolis papyrus. For S only an abridged version of the heading is extant in the Index of Photius and in SL; the lemmata of S are lost, again excised by the Byzantine editors. T is again absent as well. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. The proximate tradition as represented by the usual authors consists of a heading and a general note in Pliny, a general remark in Eusebius, phrases in Lucretius and Hippolytus; there is also a relevant passage in Basil of Caesarea.

liber 3 caput 16

1323

(2) Sources. The issue itself and three of the six lemmata, viz. §1, §3, and §5 derive (virtually unchanged!) from Aristotle’s treatment in Mete. 2.1–2, so we do not have to derive these doxai from Theophrastus’ Physikai Doxai. Aristotle does not provide name-labels the first time he lists them, though subsequently he identifies the second doxa as that of Empedocles (paralleled in §3), and he includes Democritus among the representatives of that of §1. But he does not identify Anaximander among the proponents of the first doxa. The ascription to Theophrastus (Phys.Op. fr. 23 Diels, Theophrastus fr. 221 FHS&G, cited below section E(b) general texts), whose name is cited, of a section in Alexander’s in Meteorologica commenting on Aristotle’s overview should not be extended beyond the phrases printed in spaced letters (Sperrdruck) by Diels, who correctly points out, DG 494 ad loc.: ‘operae pretium erit Aristoteleum exemplum conferre, cuius pleraque paraphrasis esse videntur’; see further Mansfeld (2013a) 339. It is not clear from what Theophrastean work Alexander’s quotation has been taken, for Alexander does not cite the title. The treatise On Waters is the most plausible candidate (Sharples, loc. cit., mentions the Περὶ τῶν φυσικῶν δοξῶν, i.e. the Physikai Doxai). Alexander in Sens. 71.24–72.4 (fr. 212 FHS&G) cites the title On Waters in another context, where he gives us Theophrastus’ explanations for brackishness because of having filtered through a certain type of earth, or bitterness for having filtered through ashes. What is clear is that the Aëtian name-label Anaximander in §1 is confirmed by Theophrastus, who also mentioned Diogenes (of Apollonia), not paralleled in A at P here. Possibly also the name-labels Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Metrodorus (all of which are paralleled in A at P), and Archelaus (not Anaxagoras, as Alexander writes) were mentioned by Theophrastus, since, as we saw above, only ‘Empedocles’ and ‘Democritus’ are named in Aristotle’s account. That Alexander remembered them from another doxography is less likely ( fontes non sunt multiplicandi praeter necessitatem), but cannot be excluded. Hippolytus (Ref. 1.14.4) mentions both Xenophanes and Metrodorus; only the latter is paralleled in Theophrastus and §5, while a doxa that differs from that of Metrodorus is ascribed to Xenophanes. Diels DG 153 hypothesizes that the two name-labels plus doxai have been ultimately abstracted from ‘Theophrasti Opiniones’, and it is indeed likely that a chapter in a cousin writing of A comprised more information, as is also suggested by the fragmentary contents of Pap. Pack2 1499, which seem to be parallel to §§1, 3 and 5, cf. section D(e) below and section E(a) General texts. The intermediary sources for §2, §4 and §6 are not known.

1324

liber 3 caput 16

C Chapter Heading The long version as in PB is a combination of the standard umbrella formula (περὶ τοῦ δεῖνα) that dominates in the Placita (see above, ch. 1.3 Commentary C), and a further indication of the subjects treated. It should be maintained, because it clearly echoes Aristotle’s announcement of the subject at Mete. 2.1. πῶς is used twice, and the two themes indicated by this adverb are interrelated. Among the Placita headings beginning with Πῶς or containing πῶς a little later there are several with the formula πῶς γίνεται (or γίνονται), see at ch. 1.4 above, Commentary C. We are dealing with a problem (i.e. ζητεῖται πῶς, a formula already used by Aristotle), and looking for a causal explanation (question type). D Analysis a Context This is the first of the two chapters dealing with the terrestrial waters that conclude the treatment of the πρόσγεια announced at ch. 3.8.2. It is followed by ch. 3.17, on tides, and (if we recognise that P ch. 3.18 = A ch. 3.5a has not been transmitted in the right place in ps.Plutarch) by a third chapter, 4.1 on the Nile, which appears to have finished up in the wrong Book. In Aristotle the origin and salinity of the sea are discussed at Mete. 2.1–3, after 1.13–14, on (winds,) rivers, and changes in the distribution of sea and land, and before 2.4–6, on winds. The order in the Placita is more rigorous. In Pliny’s Naturalis historia the chapters on the salinity of the sea (2.222–223) are preceded by those on the tides (2.212–221), while in A the order is the opposite: salinity first (3.16), then tides (3.17). b Number–Order of Lemmata There are six lemmata. The relative order of §1, §3 and §5 exactly corresponds to the relative order of the (anonymous) doxai at Arist. Mete. 2.1 353b5–16, cited below at section E(b)§§1,3,5. Of the doxai not paralleled in Aristotle that at §2, name-label Anaxagoras, pertains to the desiccation of the original moisture and resembles the doxa attributed to Anaximander in §1, while that at §4, name-label Antiphon, pertains to sweat, just as the doxa of Empedocles in §3. They are varieties of the preceding doxai, as is the case more often with couplings of doxai in the Placita. Accordingly the order of §§1–5 is determined by the original order of the doxai of §1, §3, and §5 in Aristotle. This leaves the final position for the doxa with name-label Platonists at §6. There is accordingly no reason to modify the order of A at P, also preserved by Diels in the DG.

liber 3 caput 16

1325

c Rationale–Structure of Chapter We may discern a systematic rationale in the sequence of explanations of the sea’s salinity through desiccation (§§1–2), as sweat (§§3–4), or by admixture (§5). The final lemma, §6, is different, as it not only provides an explanation for the salinity of the sea through the evaporation of elemental water from the earth by means of heat and burning, but also explains how sweet elemental water is produced from air by cooling and compression. Accordingly the main diaphonia that can be discerned in the sequence is between §§1–5, which presuppose (as in Aristotle’s reportage) a coming to be but also a passing away of the sea, and §6, which implies that the processes of evaporation and condensation are everlasting. d

Further Comments Individual Points §2 Seawater is believed to be fatty, as the salt contains oil, see ps.Aristotle Probl. 23.7 932b4–6, ‘or is it because the sea is oilier (λιπαρωτέρα ἡ θάλαττα)?’; Probl. 23.9 932b18, ‘for there is something oily in salty juice’ (λιπαρὸν γὰρ ἔνεστιν ἐν τῷ ἁλμυρῷ χυμῷ); Probl. 23.15 933a17–20, ‘why does the sea burn whereas water does not? Or does the latter too burn, whereas the sea is able to extinguish fire because it is oilier? And there is a sign that it is oilier: for oil is extracted from salt’ (σημεῖον δὲ ὅτι λιπαρωτέρα· ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἁλῶν ἔλαιον ἀφαιρεῖται)—all trans. Mayhew (2011a). Also see Probl. 32 935.5–9, cited below section E(b)§2. Cf. Plutarch Quaest.Conv. 627C, ‘that (the sea) is oily Aristotle has said himself’; Aet.Phys. 911E ‘the sea partakes of a lot of fatness’. §6 This theory of evaporation and condensation is well known as one of Aristotle, see Mete. 1.9 346b16–347a12, 2.4 359b34–360a17; cf. Laks (1997) 241 n. 16 = (2007) 32 n. 15. It is not easy to understand why it came to be attributed to the followers of Plato, though of course Aristotle is one, in a way. e Other Evidence An extremely important text has been (poorly) preserved on an early papyrus, PPack2 1499, third cent. bce, quoted section E(a) General texts: Three positions on the salinity of the sea are distinguished, and the overview is introduced by a word that Diels reconstructed as ⟨διαφωνί⟩α but for which we, more cautiously, propose the Aristotelian ⟨ἐναντιολογί⟩α. The result is the same, namely an explicitation of the kind of diaeresis or diaphonia characteristic of Peripatetic dialectic and later doxography. The positions listed there belong to ‘some’, ‘others’, and ‘Democritus’. Diels, reconstructing the doxai ad probabilem sententiam, had recourse to Aristotle Mete. 2.1–3. The name-label Democritus, not found (or at least not extant) in the present chapter, is indeed found in

1326

liber 3 caput 16

this context at Aristotle Mete. 2.3 356b10–11. Diels printed the papyrus text among the testimonia in the Democritus chapter of the Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Curiously enough it has not been realized that it constitutes one of the rare instances of evidence intermediate between Aristotle and the Placita. Because of its early date it is even more exceptional than the Chrysippean parallel for ch. 4.5 (where see at Proximate tradition). The text has been attributed to Theophrastus. Funghi and Sassi at Adorno & alii (1999) 844ff. suggest it derives from his On Waters, though with a question mark; cf. also Sharples (1998) 219–220, with references. It is indeed far from certain that it is Theophrastean. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Papyrus Pack2 1499 = Hibeh Papyrus 16 p. 62 Grenfell–Hunt, col. 1, Democritus fr. 68A99a DK = 410a Luria, Theophrastus Appendix no. 4 FHS&G 1 pp. 462–464 (with Diels’ supplements); Adorno & alii eds. (1999) 844–851: 104 Theophrastus(?) 4, De Aquis(?), edited by M.S. Funghi–M.M. Sassi; cf. Laks–Most (2016) Democritus D123.

Text Funghi–Sassi as related to ch. 3.16

[στα ± 11] [ως ± 13

].[.]νειν… [..].. ]α μὲν οὖν μάλι ] περὶ τῆς γενέσε ] οἱ μὲγ γὰρ ὑπό ]. ης ὑγρότητος ὑ]δάτων οἱ δὲ Δη]μόκριτος δὲ ] .. ποιεῖν ]. τρων

Restoration by Diels (68A99a DK)

⟨διαφωνί⟩α μὲν οὖν μάλι⟨στά που γεγένηται⟩ περὶ τῆς γενέσε⟨ως τῆς ἁλμυρότητος·⟩ οἱ μὲγ γὰρ ὑπό⟨λειμμά φασιν τῆς πρώ⟩της ὑγρό-τητος ⟨ἐξατμισθέντων πλείστων ὑ⟩δάτων· (~ §1) οἱ δὲ ⟨ἱδρῶτ᾽ εἶναι τῆς γῆς⟩· (~§3) ⟨Δη⟩μόκριτος δὲ ⟨ὁμοίως δοκεῖ τοῖς ἐν τῆι γῆ⟩ι ποιεῖν ⟨τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῆς· οἷον ἁλῶν καὶ νί⟩τρων … (~ §5)

Pliny Nat. 2.222 sic mari late patenti saporem incoqui salis, aut quia exhausto inde dulci tenuique, quod facillime trahat vis ignea, omne asperius crassiusque linquatur—ideo summam aequorum aquam dulciorem profunda; hanc esse veriorem causam asperi saporis quam quod mare terrae sudor sit aeternus—aut quia plurimus ex arido misceatur illi vapor aut quia terrae natura sicut medicatas aquas inficiat. Basil of Caesarea in Hexaem. 3 p. 51.10–17 Amand de

liber 3 caput 16 Mendieta–Rudberg σκοπείτωσαν δὲ εἰ μὴ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοῖς περιπίπτουσιν, οἵ γε τὴν θάλασσαν λέγουσι μήτε πλημμυρεῖν τοῖς ποταμοῖς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου δαπάνης, καὶ προσέτι ἁλμυρὰν καὶ πικρὰν ἀπολείπεσθαι, τοῦ λεπτοῦ καὶ ποτίμου ὑπὸ τῆς θέρμης ἀναλωθέντος· ὅπερ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ ἡλίου μάλιστα γίνεται διακρίσεως, τὸ μὲν κοῦφον ἀπάγοντος, τὸ δὲ παχὺ καὶ γεῶδες οἷόν τινα ἰλὺν καὶ ὑποστάθμην ἐναφιέντος· ἐξ οὗ τὸ πικρὸν καὶ ἁλμυρὸν καὶ ξηραντικὸν τῇ θαλάσσῃ προσεῖναι. οἱ δὴ ταῦτα περὶ θαλάσσης λέγοντες, πάλιν μεταβαλλόμενοι, μηδεμίαν τοῦ ὑγροῦ γίνεσθαι μείωσιν ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου φασί. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 14.4 quare salsum mare. Capitula Lucretiana at DRN 2.464 de sudore salso. at DRN 2.471 de aqua marina. Arnobius of Sicca Adv.Nat. 2.59, p. 134.7–8 quae est causa, quae ratio, ut maria salsa sint? Isidore of Seville Nat. capitul. 52. Cur mare amaras habeat aquas (heading also in the body of the work). §2 Anaxagoras: Hippolytus Ref. 1.8.4–5 (on Anaxagoras, 59A42 DK) τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ γῆς ὑγρῶν τὴν μὲν θάλασσαν ὑπάρξαι ⟨τῆς γενέσεως ἐκ⟩ τε τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ ὑδάτων, ⟨ὧν⟩ ἐξατμισθέν ⟨των⟩ τὰ ὑποστάντα οὕτως γεγονέναι, καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν καταρρευ(5)σάντων ποταμῶν. §3 Empedocles: Servius in Aen. 5.801, p. 1.650.3 Thilo de mari autem ideo, quia dicunt physici sudorem salsum esse (cited Mythographus Vaticanus II, c. 40.13) §5 Metrodorus: Diogenes Laertius V.P. 2.17 (on Archelaus, 60A1 DK) τὴν δὲ θάλατταν ἐν τοῖς κοίλοις διὰ τῆς γῆς ἠθουμένην συνεστάναι. Hippolytus Ref. 1.14.4 οὗτος (on Xenophanes, 21A33 DK) τὴν θάλασσαν ἁλμυρὰν ἔφη διὰ τὸ πολλὰ μίγματα συρρέειν ἐν αὐτῇ· ὁ δὲ Μητρόδωρος (cf. 70A19 DK) διὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ γῇ διηθεῖσθαι, τούτου χάριν γίνεσθαι ἁλμυράν.

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: Aristotle Mete. 1.13 349a12–13 περὶ … ποταμῶν καὶ θαλάττης λέγωμεν. Mete. 2.1 353a32–34 περὶ δὲ θαλάττης, καὶ τίς ἡ φύσις αὐτῆς, καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἁλμυρὸν τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὕδατος πλῆθος, ἔτι δὲ περὶ τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γενέσεως λέγωμεν. Mete. 2.1 353b5–6 οἱ δὲ σοφώτεροι τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην σοφίαν ποιοῦσιν αὐτῆς γένεσιν. Mete. 2.3 356b4–6 περὶ δὲ τῆς ἁλμυρότητος αὐτῆς λεκτέον, καὶ πότερον αἰεί ἐστιν ἡ αὐτή, ἢ οὔτ᾽ ἦν οὔτ᾽ ἔσται ἀλλ᾽ ὑπολείψει· καὶ γὰρ οὕτως οἴονταί τινες. ps.Aristotle Probl. 23.35 935a34–36 διὰ τί ἡ θάλαττα ἁλμυρὰ καὶ πικρά ἐστιν; ἢ ὅτι ἐν τῇ θαλάττῃ πλείους εἰσὶν οἱ χυμοί; καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἁλμυρὸν καὶ τὸ πικρὸν ἅμα φαίνεται. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 66.8–10 ἄρχεται (sc. Aristotle) τοῦ δευτέρου ἀπὸ τοῦ περὶ θαλάσσης λόγου καὶ ζητεῖ, τίς τε αὐτῆς ἡ οὐσία καὶ φύσις, καὶ τίς ἡ τῆς ἁλμυρότητος τοῦ ὕδατος αἰτία, καὶ πῶς ἐξ ἀρχῆς γίνεται. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Sens.71.24–72.4 τά τε γὰρ ἁλμυρὰ τῶν ὑδάτων τῷ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης γῆς διηθεῖσθαι τοιαῦτά ἐστιν (οἱ γὰρ ἅλες εἶδός τι τῆς γῆς εἰσι, δι᾽ ὧν τὸ διηθούμενον ὕδωρ ἁλμυρὸν γίνεται), καὶ καθόλου ὁποία ἂν ἡ τῆς γῆς ποιότης ᾖ, τοιοῦτος καὶ ὁ χυμὸς τοῦ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ῥέοντος γινόμενος ὁρᾶται, διὰ μὲν ἀσφαλτώδους ἀσφαλτώδης, διὰ δὲ πικρᾶς πικρός· τὰ γοῦν διὰ τῆς τέφρας διηθούμενα πικρὰ γίνεται. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ πλεῖσται πηγῶν καὶ κρηνῶν εἰσι διαφοραί· αἱ μὲν γὰρ πικραὶ

1327

1328

liber 3 caput 16

τῶν κρηνῶν εἰσιν, αἱ δὲ ὀξεῖαι παρὰ τὰς τῆς γῆς δι᾽ ἧς ῥέουσι διαφοράς. ἱστόρηται δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα Θεοφράστῳ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ ὕδατος (fr. 212 FHS&G). Chapter heading: Aristotle Mete. 1.13 349a12–13 περὶ … ποταμῶν καὶ θαλάττης λέγωμεν. Mete. 2.1 353a32–35 περὶ δὲ θαλάττης, καὶ τίς ἡ φύσις αὐτῆς, καὶ διὰ τίν᾽ αἰτίαν ἁλμυρὸν τοσοῦτόν ἐστιν ὕδατος πλῆθος. ps.Aristotle Probl. 23 Ὅσα περὶ ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ καὶ θάλατταν. ps.Alexander Probl. 3.10 tit. pp. 80.19, 98.16 Bruns Περὶ θαλάσσης ἐκ τῶν Μετεωρολογικῶν. §1 Anaximander: Aristotle Mete. 2.1 353b5–11 οἱ δὲ σοφώτεροι (Anaximander 12A27 DK) τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην σοφίαν ποιοῦσιν αὐτῆς γένεσιν· εἶναι γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ὑγρὸν ἅπαντα τὸν περὶ τὴν γῆν τόπον, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἡλίου ξηραινόμενον τὸ μὲν διατμίσαν πνεύματα καὶ τροπὰς [τροφὰς Böker] ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης φασὶ ποιεῖν, τὸ δὲ λειφθὲν θάλατταν εἶναι· διὸ καὶ ἐλάττω γίγνεσθαι ξηραινομένην οἴονται, καὶ τέλος ἔσεσθαί ποτε πᾶσαν ξηράν. Mete. 2.2 355a21–25 (Diogenes 64A9 DK) τὸ δ᾽ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει … ἄλογον καὶ τοῖς φάσκουσι τὸ πρῶτον ὑγρᾶς οὔσης καὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ τοῦ κόσμου τοῦ περὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου θερμαινομένου, ἀέρα γενέσθαι καὶ τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν αὐξηθῆναι, καὶ τοῦτον πνεύματά τε παρέχεσθαι καὶ τὰς τροπὰς [τροφὰς Böker] αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν. Mete. 2.3 356b9–12 τὸ δὲ νομίζειν ἐλάττω τε γίγνεσθαι τὸ πλῆθος, ὥσπερ φησὶ Δημόκριτος (68A100 DK), καὶ τέλος ὑπολείψειν, τῶν Αἰσώπου μύθων οὐδὲν διαφέρειν ἔοικεν ὁ πεπεισμένος οὕτως. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 67.11–14 ταύτης τῆς δόξης ἐγένετο, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Θεόφραστος (Phys.Op. fr. 23 Diels, 221 FHS&G), Ἀναξίμανδρός (12A27 DK) τε καὶ Διογένης (64A17 DK, T32 Laks)· Διογένης δὲ καὶ τῆς ἁλμυρότητος ταύτην αἰτίαν λέγει, ὅτι ἀνάγοντος τοῦ ἡλίου τὸ γλυκὺ τὸ καταλειπόμενον καὶ ὑπομένον ἁλμυρὸν εἶναι συμβαίνει. §2 Anaxagoras: Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 67.17–21 (Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 23 Diels, 221 FHS&G) τρίτη δὲ δόξα περὶ θαλάσσης ἐστὶν ὡς ἄρα τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ διὰ τῆς γῆς διηθούμενον καὶ διαπλῦνον αὐτὴν ἁλμυρὸν γίνεται τῷ ἔχειν τὴν γῆν τοιούτους χυμοὺς ἐν αὑτῇ· οὗ σημεῖον ἐποιοῦντο τὸ καὶ ἅλας ὀρύττεσθαι ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ νίτρα· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ὀξεῖς χυμοὺς πολλαχοῦ τῆς γῆς. ταύτης πάλιν τῆς δόξης ἐγένετο Ἀναξαγόρας (59A90) τε καὶ Μητρόδωρος (70A19 DK). Aristotle(?) Probl. 32 935.5–9 διὰ τί ἡ θάλαττα μόνον τῶν ὑδάτων κάεται, τὰ δὲ πότιμα καὶ ποτάμια οὔ; πότερον ὅτι γῆν πολλὴν ἔχει; δηλοῦσι δὲ οἱ ἅλες. ἢ διότι λιπαρά; δηλοῖ δὲ τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἅλασιν ὑφιστάμενον ἔλαιον. §3 Empedocles: Aristotle Mete. 2.1 353b11–13 ἔνιοι δ᾽ αὐτῶν θερμαινομένης φασὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τῆς γῆς οἷον ἱδρῶτα γίγνεσθαι· διὸ καὶ ἁλμυρὰν εἶναι· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἱδρὼς ἁλμυρός. Mete. 2.3 357a24–26 ὁμοίως δὲ γελοῖον κἂν εἴ τις εἰπὼν ἱδρῶτα τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὴν θάλατταν οἴεταί τι σαφὲς εἰρηκέναι, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (31A25 DK)· πρὸς ποίησιν μὲν γὰρ οὕτως εἰπὼν ἴσως εἴρηκεν ἱκανῶς (ἡ γὰρ μεταφορὰ ποιητικόν). Sens. 4 441b4 διὸ καὶ πολλοί φασι τῶν ἀρχαίων φυσιολόγων τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸ ὕδωρ δι᾽ οἵας ἂν γῆς πορεύηται. καὶ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμυρῶν ὑδάτων μάλιστα· οἱ γὰρ ἅλες γῆς τι εἶδός εἰσιν. Lucretius DRN 2.464–465 sed quod amara vides eadem quae fluvida constant, / sudor uti maris est, minime mirabile debet. DRN 5.483–488 inque dies quanto circum magis aetheris aestus / et radii solis cogebant undique terram / verberibus crebris extrema ad limina in

liber 3 caput 16 artum [coni. Munro, alii alia: partem codd.] / in medio ut propulsa suo condensa coiret, / tam magis expressus salsus de corpore sudor / augebat mare manando camposque natantis. Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 67.14–17 (Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 23 Diels, 221 FHS&G) οἱ δέ τινές φασιν οἷον ἱδρῶτά τινα τῆς γῆς εἶναι τὴν θάλασσαν· θερμαινομένην γὰρ αὐτὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου ταύτην ἀφιέναι τὴν ὑγρότητα· διὸ καὶ ἁλμυρὰν αὐτὴν εἶναι· τοιοῦτος γὰρ ὁ ἱδρώς. ταύτης τῆς δόξης Ἐμπεδοκλῆς (—) γέγονε. §5 Metrodorus: Aristotle Mete. 2.1 353b13–16 οἱ δὲ τῆς ἁλμυρότητος αἰτίαν τὴν γῆν εἶναί φασιν· καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ διὰ τῆς τέφρας ἠθούμενον ἁλμυρὸν γίγνεται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ταύτην ἁλμυρὰν εἶναι μειχθείσης αὐτῇ τοιαύτης γῆς. Mete. 2.3 359b4–21 (the words εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν χωρὶς ἐν ἄλλοις pertain to Sens. ch. 4). Sens. 4 441b1–5 διὸ καὶ πολλοί φασι τῶν ἀρχαίων φυσιολόγων τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸ ὕδωρ δι᾽ οἵας ἂν γῆς πορεύηται. καὶ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμυρῶν ὑδάτων μάλιστα· οἱ γὰρ ἅλες γῆς τι εἶδός εἰσιν. καὶ τὰ διὰ τῆς τέφρας διηθούμενα πικρᾶς οὔσης πικρὸν ποιεῖ τὸν χυμόν. Theophrastus CP 6.3.1 ἄχυμον … τὸ ὕδωρ καθ᾽ αὑτὸ, δι᾽ ὃ καὶ οἱ παλαιοί φασι δι᾽ οἵας ἂν γῆς ῥέῃ τοιοῦτον καὶ εἶναι. Arius Didymus fr. 14a Diels at Stob. Ecl. 1.39, pp. 253.25–254.3 Ἀριστοτέλους· τὰς δὲ τῶν ὑδάτων δυνάμεις καὶ τοὺς χυλοὺς καὶ τὰς ἄλλας πάσας ποιότητας, ὡς εἰπεῖν συλλαβόντι, γίνεσθαι παρὰ τρεῖς αἰτίας. ἢ γὰρ παρὰ τὴν τῆς γῆς διαφοράν· ἐν οἵᾳ γὰρ ἂν ἕκαστον ᾖ καὶ δι᾽ οἵας ἂν ῥέῃ, τοιοῦτον ἴσχειν τὸν χυλόν, οἷον ἁλυκὸν ἢ νιτρῶδες ἢ πικρὸν ἢ τῶν ἄλλων ὁποιονοῦν· κτλ. Plutarch Quaest.Nat. 911E ἢ γέγονεν ἄποτον καὶ πικρὸν τὸ ὕδωρ, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης φησίν (Mete. 2.3 358a14–15) ἀναμίξει κατακεκαυμένης γῆς; Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mete. 67.17–22 (Theophrastus Phys.Op. fr. 23 Diels, 221 FHS&G) τρίτη δὲ δόξα περὶ θαλάσσης ἐστὶν ὡς ἄρα τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ διὰ τῆς γῆς διηθούμενον καὶ διαπλῦνον αὐτὴν ἁλμυρὸν γίνεται τῷ ἔχειν τὴν γῆν τοιούτους χυμοὺς ἐν αὑτῇ· οὗ σημεῖον ἐποιοῦντο τὸ καὶ ἅλας ὀρύττεσθαι ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ νίτρα· εἶναι δὲ καὶ ὀξεῖς χυμοὺς πολλαχοῦ τῆς γῆς. ταύτης πάλιν τῆς δόξης ἐγένετο Ἀναξαγόρας (59A90 DK) [Ἀρχέλαος suggested by Oder (1899) 47 n. 49 not accepted by Diels] τε καὶ Μητρόδωρος (cf. 70A19 DK).

1329

Liber 3 Caput 17 PB: ps.Plutarchus Plac. 897B–C; pp. 382a14–383a25 Diels—PG: ps.Galenus HPh c. 88; p. 634.10–18 Diels—PQ: Qusṭā ibn Lūqā pp. 186–187 Daiber—PL: Ioannes Lydus Mens. 4.83 p. 134.8–20 Wuensch—PPS: Psellus Or.Min. op. 24 l. 52 Littlewood (titulus solus). S: Ecl. 1.38, pp. 252.5–253.21 Wachsmuth; cf. Phot. Bibl. 167, p. 112b22–23 Henry (titulus solus)

Titulus ιζʹ. Πῶς ἀμπώτιδες γίνονται καὶ πλήμμυραι (P,S) §1 Ἀριστοτέλης Ἡρακλείδης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν πνευμάτων κινοῦντος καὶ συμπεριφέροντος· ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἐμβαλλόντων μὲν προωθουμένην ἀνοιδεῖν τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν θάλασσαν καὶ κατασκευάζειν τὴν πλήμμυραν, καταληγόντων δ᾽ ἀντιπερισπωμένην ὑποβαίνειν, ὅπερ εἶναι τὴν ἄμπωτιν. (P1,S1) §2 ⟨Δικαίαρχος ὁ⟩ Μεσ⟨σ⟩ήνιος ἡλίῳ καὐτὸς τὴν αἰτίαν ἀνατίθησι, καθ᾽ οὓς μὲν ἂν τόπους γένηται τῆς γῆς πλημμύροντι τὰ πελάγη, ἐξ ὧν δ᾽ ἂν τύχῃ παραποστὰς ὑποσυνέλκοντι· ταῦτα δὲ συμβαίνειν περὶ τὰς ἑῴας καὶ τὰς μεσημβρινὰς ἐκκλίσεις. (S2) caput Posidonius fr. 317 Theiler; §1 Aristoteles cf. Mete. 2.1 354a5–8, 2.8 366a18–20, GA 4.10 777b17–778a2; Heraclides Ponticus fr. 117 Wehrli, 78 Schütrumpf; §2 Dicaearchus fr. 114 Wehrli, 127 Mirhady titulus Πῶς … πλήμμυραι (γίνονται) PSL-ind, cf. SPhot : om. SFPL ‖ ἀμπώτιδες / πλήμμυραι inv. ord. Q ‖ ἀμπώτιδες P : ἄμπωτις SL-ind Phot ‖ post Πῶς add. αἱ PB(I) ‖ ante πλήμμυραι add. αἱ PB(IΙ) ‖ γίνονται pos. post πλήμμυραι SL-ind Phot §1 [2] ante Ἀριστοτέλης et Ἡρακλείδης add. ὁ PL ‖ Ἡρακλείδης] Ἡράκλειτος PB(III) : om. PG ‖ post Ἀριστοτέλης add. καὶ SPL ‖ ὑπὸ τοῦ PBGS : om. PL ‖ τὰ πλεῖστα om. Q ‖ post τὰ add. γὰρ PB(I,ΙΙΙ) ‖ [3] κινοῦντος PBLS : κινεῖσθαι PG ‖ συμπεριφέροντος PB : περιφέρεσθαι PG : περιφέροντος PLS : mischt Q ‖ [3–5] ὑφ᾽ … πλήμμυραν PBS : Und dann, wenn das zum Meer gelangt, welches ‘Atlantiqus’ genannt wird, entsteht daraus die Flut brevius Q ‖ [3] ἐμβαλλόντων PB(III)L : ἐμβαλόντων PB(I,II)G ‖ [3–4] μὲν προωθουμένην om. PG ‖ post μὲν add. καὶ S ‖ προωθουμένην PB(I,II) : προωθουμένων PB(III) ‖ [4] ἀνοιδεῖν] ἐνοιδεῖν PG ‖ κατασκευάζειν PGLS prob. Diels : παρασκευάζειν PB prob. Mau Lachenaud ‖ [4–5] τὴν πλήμμυραν PLS : τὰς πλημμυρίας PG ‖ [5] post πλήμμυραν add. εἰτ᾽ αὖθις PL ‖ καταληγόντων PBS : ληγόντων PL ‖ δ᾽ ἀντιπερισπωμένην PBLS : om. Q ‖ [5–6] ὅπερ … ἄμπωτιν PBGS : καὶ οὕτω τὰς ἀμπώτεις γίνεσθαι PL, cf. entsteht daraus die Ebbe Q §2 om. P ‖ [7] ⟨Δικαίαρχος⟩ ὁ Μεσ⟨σ⟩ήνιος Meineke prob. Diels DG Wehrli Mirhady: ***ηνιος Μεσήνιος SL : ⟨Εὐή⟩νιος Elter (1880) 13 ex Ind. Phot. cod. 167 p. 114a36 Εὐηνίου, prob. Diels RhM (1881) 345 Wachsmuth (qui del. Μεσήνιος ‘ut discrepantem scripturam nominis ***ηνιος’) Kirchner Phil. (1923) 322 Theiler F317, fort. recte ‖ [8] πλημμύροντι corr. Diels prob. Wachsmuth : πλημμυροῦντι SL : πλημμυρεῖν ποιοῦντι Meineke ‖ [9] τύχῃ corr. Sarti prob. Diels Wachsmuth : τύχης SL ‖ περὶ corr. Meineke prob. Diels Wachsmuth : παρὰ SL

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004428409_094

5

10

liber 3 caput 17

§3 §4 §5

§6

§7 §8 §9

Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης τῇ πληρώσει τῆς σελήνης τὰς πλημμύρας γίνεσθαι τῇ δὲ μειώσει τὰς ἀμπώτιδας. (P2,S3) Ποσειδώνιος ὑπὸ μὲν τῆς σελήνης κινεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀνέμους, ὑπὸ δὲ τούτων τὰ πελάγη, ἐν οἷς τὰ προειρημένα γίνεσθαι πάθη. (S4) Πλάτων ἐπὶ τὴν αἰώραν φέρεται τῶν ὑδάτων· εἶναι γάρ τινα φυσικὴν αἰώραν διά τινος ἐγγείου τρήματος περιφέρουσαν τὴν παλίρροιαν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἀντικυμαίνεσθαι τὰ πελάγη. (P3,S5) Τίμαιος ὁ Ταυρομενίτης τοὺς ἐμβάλλοντας ποταμοὺς εἰς τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν διὰ τῆς Κελτικῆς ὀρεινῆς αἰτιᾶται προωθοῦντας μὲν ταῖς ἐφόδοις καὶ πλήμμυραν ποιοῦντας, ὑφέλκοντας δὲ ταῖς ἀναπαύλαις καὶ ἀμπώτιδας κατασκευάζοντας. (P4,S6) Κράτης ὁ γραμματικὸς τὸν ἀντισπασμὸν τῆς θαλάσσης αἰτιᾶται. (S7) Ἀπολλόδωρος ὁ Κερκυραῖος τὰς ἐκ τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ παλιρροίας. (S8) Σέλευκος ὁ μαθηματικὸς ἀντιγεγραφὼς Κράτητι, κινῶν καὐτὸς τὴν γῆν, ἀντικόπτειν αὐτῆς τῷ δίνῳ φησὶ τὴν περιστροφὴν τῆς σελήνης· τοῦ δὲ μεταξὺ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σωμάτων ἀντιπερισπωμένου πνεύματος καὶ ἐμπίπτοντος εἰς τὸ Ἀτλαντικὸν πέλαγος κατὰ λόγον οὕτω συγκυμαίνεσθαι τὴν θάλασσαν. (P5,S9)

§3 Pytheas fr. 2 Mette; §4 Posidonius F 138 E.-K., cf. 317 Theiler; §5 Plato cf. Phd. 111e–112a; §6 Timaeus FGrH 566F73; §7 Crates F 7 Mette, 136 Broggiato; §8 Apollodorus Cercyraeus—; §9 Seleucus Babylonius test. 6a–b Russo §3 [11] Πυθέας PBLydQ : Kυθέας SL : Εὐθυμένης PG ‖ Μασσαλιώτης] μασαλιήτης SL ‖ πληρώσει PBGL : die Füllung und die Zunahme Q (‘Doppelübersetzung’) ‖ [11–12] τὰς … ἀμπώτιδας PBQ, cf. PL : καὶ τῇ μειώσει τὰς ἑκατέρου τούτων αἰτίας ἀνατίθησιν SL ‖ [12] μειώσει PBLQS : ἐκλείψει PG §4 om. P §5 om. PGQ ‖ [15] αἰώραν PB(II)LS : ἑώραν PB(I) : ἐώραν PB(III) ‖ φέρεται PB(I,II,III:αγ)S : φέρεσθαι PB(III:AE) ‖ αἰτιᾶται post ὑδάτων add. PL ‖ [16] αἰώραν PB(II)LS : ἑώραν PB(I) : ἐώραν PB(III) ‖ ἐγγείου SL : ἐγγίου SFP : στομίου PBL prob. Mau Lachenaud del. Beck Diels ‖ τρήματος PBSL : τρήμματος SFP §6 [18] Τίμαιος PBSL : Τιμόθεος PG ‖ ὁ Ταυρομενίτης SL : om. P ‖ τοὺς … ποταμοὺς P : τὰς et ποταμὸς SL ‖ [19] προωθοῦντας PB(II,III)GSL : προσωθοῦντας PB(I) ‖ ταῖς ἐφόδοις PBSL : τὰς ἐφόδους PG ‖ [20] καὶ … ποιοῦντας P Mau Lachenaud : om. SL ut additamenta del. Diels ‖ πλήμμυραν PB : πλημμυρίαν PG ‖ [20–21] καὶ … κατασκευάζοντας PBQ Mau Lachenaud : ληγόντων δὲ τὰς ἀμπώτιδας γίγνεσθαι PG : om. SL ut additamenta del. Diels §§7–8 om. P §9 om. PG ‖ [24] ἀντιγεγραφὼς Κράτητι PBSL : om. Q ‖ καὐτὸς S : καὶ οὗτος PB ‖ κινῶν … γῆν PBS : glaubte, daß die Erde sich bewegt und ruht Q ‖ [25] ἀντικόπτειν … σελήνης PB : und ihre Bewegung und ihr Ruhen entsprechend der Drehung des Mondes (eintritt) Q ‖ τῷ δίνῳ SL : τῇ δίνῃ PB ‖ post φησὶ add. καῖ τῇ κινήσει P prob. edd. Plutarchi sed damnavimus ut gloss. ‖ [27] κατὰ λόγον PBSL : om. Q ‖ οὕτω SL : αὐτῷ PB ‖ [27–28] συγκυμαίνεσθαι SL : συγκυκᾶσθαι PB prob. Mau Lachenaud, Diels apud P sed συγκυμαίνεσθαι apud S

1331

15

20

25

1332

liber 3 caput 17

Testes primi: Traditio ps.Plutarchi: ps.Galenus HPh c. 88 (~ tit.) Πῶς ἀμπώτιδες γίνονται καὶ πλημμυρίαι (text Diels) 88.1 (~ P1) Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν πνευμάτων κινεῖσθαι καὶ περιφέρεσθαι, ὑφ᾽ ὧν ἐμβαλόντων ἐνοιδεῖν τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν θάλασσαν καὶ κατασκευάζειν τὰς πλημμυρίας, ληγόντων δὲ ἀντιπερισπωμένην ὑποβαίνειν, ὅπερ εἶναι τὴν ἄμπωτιν. 88.2 (~ P2) Εὐθυμένης ὁ Μασσαλιώτης τῇ πληρώσει τῆς σελήνης τὰς πλημμυρίας γίνεσθαι, τῇ δὲ ἐκλείψει τὰς ἀμπώτιδας. 88.3 (~ P4) Τιμόθεος τοὺς ἐμβάλλοντας ποταμοὺς εἰς τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν διὰ τῆς Κελτικῆς ὀρεινῆς αἰτιᾶται προωθοῦντας μὲν τὰς ἐφόδους καὶ πλημμυρίαν ποιοῦντας, ληγόντων δὲ τὰς ἀμπώτιδας γίγνεσθαι. Ioannes Lydus 4.83 83.1 (~ P1) ὅτι ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ ὁ Ἡρακλείδης φασίν, ἡλίου τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν πνευμάτων κινοῦντος καὶ περιφέροντος καὶ τούτων ἐκβαλλόντων μὲν προωθουμένων δὲ ἀνοιδεῖν τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν θάλασσαν καὶ παρασκευάζειν τὴν πλημμύραν, εἰτ᾽ αὖθις ληγόντων ἀντιπερισπωμένην ὑποβαίνειν καὶ οὕτω τὰς ἀμπώτεις γίνεσθαι. 83.2 (~ P3) Πυθέας δὲ ὁ Μασσαλιώτης τῇ πληρώσει τῆς σελήνης τὰς πλημμύρας γίνεσθαι βούλεται, τῇ δὲ μειώσει τὰς ἀμπώτεις· 83.3 τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ οἱ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις φιλοσοφοῦντες (~ P4?)· 83.4 (~ P5) Πλάτων δὲ τὴν αἰώραν τῶν ὑδάτων αἰτιᾶται· εἶναι γὰρ φυσικήν τινα αἰώραν διά τινος στομίου τρήματος περιφέρουσ⟨αν τὴν παλίρροιαν⟩, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἀντικυμαίνεσθαι τὰ πελάγη. Psellus Or.Min. op. 24 l. 52 τί μέγα, εἰ μάθοιμι ὁπόθεν τὸ θαλάττιον ὕδωρ ἁλμυρὸν πέφυκε (~ tit.) Loci Aetiani: §2 et §9 A 2.15.6a … καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεφήνατο. §9 A 2.24.7 Ἀρίσταρχος τὸν ἥλιον ἵστησι μετὰ τῶν ἀπλανῶν, τὴν δὲ γῆν κινεῖσθαι περὶ τὸν ἡλιακὸν κύκλον. A 3.13.2 Φιλόλαος δ᾽ ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κύκλῳ περιφέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ πῦρ κατὰ κύκλον λοξὸν ὁμοιοτρόπως ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ. A 3.13.3 Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικὸς καὶ Ἔκφαντος ὁ Πυθαγόρειος κινοῦσι μὲν τὴν γῆν, οὐ μήν γε μεταβατικῶς, ἀλλὰ τρεπτικῶς.

For an English translation of the Aëtian text see Volume 5.4

Commentary A Witnesses The witnesses are P, represented by PB, G, Q, PL, by PPS for the heading, and S. §§2–4 and 6–9 have been omitted in the abridged chapter in SFP, but are

liber 3 caput 17

1333

preserved in the Florentine florilegium SL. For this abridgement, typically only preserving doxai of Plato and Aristotle (and in this case also of Heraclides Ponticus), see M–R 1.202–203. The matching lemmata in the full text of S and that of P are presented in the same order. It appears that S must have written out the entire chapter. Préaux (1973) 104–107 fails to realize that P, G and S represent the same source. For PPS see M–R 1.171 n. 163. T is again absent. B Proximate Tradition and Sources (1) Proximate tradition. As the tides became an object of scientific questioning rather late in the day, the proximate tradition is rather late too, and mainly found in Strabo, who mentions Seleucus, Posidonius, Athenodorus (i.e. A. Calvus), and others. Posidonius devoted much attention to the subject, FF 214–221 E.-K., see examples below at section E(a)§§1,4,9. (2) Sources. The tides are not treated in Aristotle’s Meteorology, as he was not aware of their importance. For Aristotle’s scattered references to the issue, which became relevant only by hindsight, see below, section D(d)§1. Theophrastus’(?) Metarsiology does not deal with the tides either. The intermediary sources for the specialized scientific information are unknown. Préaux (1973) 20–21, 103–115 provides an instructive overview against a wider background including translated passages. Also see Duhem (1914) 267–390 (ch. xiii. ‘la théorie des marées et l’astrologie’). C Chapter Heading The quite specific and detailed heading is attested in the witnesses with only minor variations. For Placita headings beginning with Πῶς (indicating search for a cause (διὰ τί) so dealing with this question type, cf. αἰτία in §2) or having πῶς a little later see at ch. 1.4 above, Commentary C. The category of place is also at issue here. D Analysis a Context ‘Ursprünglich sind die Gezeiten deswegen in der Meteorologie behandelt worden, weil die Winde mitzuwirken schienen’ according to Theiler (1982) 2.205. Since the tides are not treated in Aristotle’s Meteorology, this perceptive remark does not apply to his treatise. Chs. 3.16 and 3.17 on the sea are incorporated in the meteorological Book of the Placita because the sea belongs with the πρόσγεια announced at ch. 3.8. What is true is that the role of the winds (pneumata) in §1, §4 and §9 (as of pneuma in causing and so explaining earthquakes in ch. 3.15, where see at Commentary D(a)) contributes to the present inclusion of these matters in the meteorology. For the position of an account of winds cf.

1334

liber 3 caput 17

ch. 3.7 above, at Commentary D(a). In Pliny’s Naturalis historia the chapters on the tides (2.212–221) are followed by those on the salinity of the sea (2.222–223), while in A the order is the opposite: first salinity (ch. 3.16), then tides (ch. 3.17). If we discount ch. 3.5a, which we believe to have been transmitted in the wrong place in P as p. 3.18, the two chapters on the sea, 3.16–17, are immediately followed beyond the Book division by another chapter on terrestrial waters, ch. 4.1 on the river Nile. And just as ch. 3.17 deals with the high and low waters of the sea (perhaps not only during a twenty-four-hours period but also in summer and winter), so ch. 4.1 deals with the high and low waters in summer and winter of an exceptional river. We also note another link between chs. 3.17 and 4.1, namely the presence of name-labels and further qualifications that do not, or only exceptionally, occur elsewhere in the Placita (see further at ch. 4.1, Commentary D(a)). Pytheas (to be dated between c. 350–300 bce) occurs only here, in §3 (G has another and earlier Massaliot, Euthymenes, presumably because of a confusion with ch. 4.1.2 via the ethnicon). Timaeus occurs in §6 with his ethnicon (the latter in S, not in P), and further down, in ch. 5.15.2, without it. Crates plus occupation occurs in §7 (in S only, name-label repeated in §9, also only in S), and in ch. 2.15.6 (in P not S) without occupation. The Apollodorus of §9 (S only) never occurs elsewhere. Seleucus occurs at §7 and at ch. 2.1.7 (where without ethnicon in P, with it in S). So in no less than 6 of the 9 lemmata of ch. 3.17 the namelabel is followed by a further specification: the ethnicon four times, namely §2 Μεσ⟨σ⟩ήνιος, §3 ⟨ὁ⟩ Μασσαλιώτης, §6 ὁ Ταυρομενίτης, and §8 ὁ Κερκυραῖος, and twice a professional qualification, namely §7 ὁ γραμματικός, and §9 ὁ μαθηματικός. In ch. 4.1, for which S is lost, we still have, in P 4.1.2, ‘Euthymenes the Massaliote’, in 4.1.5 ‘Herodotus the writer’, and in 4.1.6 ‘Ephorus the historian’. Both our chapters, 3.17 and 4.1, contain rare names and professions of a rather special kind: the explorers Euthymenes and Pytheas, the historians Herodotus, Ephorus and Timaeus, Crates, a man of letters, Seleucus, an astronomer (astronomers are encountered more often in the Placita), and Apollodorus of Corcyra about whom nothing more is known. This ‘Apollodoran’ parallel is a point in favour of accepting an otherwise unknown Euenius at A 3.17.2 (see however below, section D(d)§2). But Dicaearchus is also acceptable, because this would be the first time he is mentioned in the Placita, so the ethnicon would have been used to introduce him in the proper way. b Number–Order of Lemmata See above section A. PB has five lemmata, of which PG has copied out three and PL also three (but of these PG and PL only share two, viz. §1 and §3). PQ has 4 lemmata, so has lost

liber 3 caput 17

1335

one. S has nine lemmata, five of which coincide with the lemmata of P. In P and S the lemmata are arranged in the same relative order. Accordingly, like Diels in the DG, we have preserved this sequence, also because there is no reason to interfere in view of the rationale. c Rationale–Structure of Chapter As the heading already shows the chapter is concerned with the question type of cause, the διὰ τί, then of course also with the category of place. The lemmata order is not chronological. A first opposition is between §§1–2, on the sun as the cause of the tides, and §§3–4, on the moon as their cause. §1 sun via winds is also opposed to §4 moon via winds. §§1–4 together, which speak of celestial bodies as the cause, are opposed to §§5–8, which posit watery causes: oscillating terrestrial waters (§5), rivers falling into and withdrawing from the Ocean (§6), a mysterious push and pull of the sea (§7), and equally mysterious refluxes from the Ocean. We also have a succession of elements: heavenly fire, airs, waters, earth in more or less descending order. The final lemma, §9, is close to §§3–4 in positing the moon as cause and to §1 and §4 in adding the wind, while it is also related to §§5–8 in attributing a role to the sea itself. So §9 has it both or even more than both ways, and is appropriately arranged last as being the compromise position and also because, exceptionally in this chapter—which would not have been the case in ch. 3.15—‘Seleucus, too’ (καὶ σύ, τέκνον), moves the earth. To prove, or to claim, that the earth moves always was a minority position in Antiquity, whether this was said to happen by rotation or by revolution or by both. The theory of the present lemma only needs the axial rotation (see below at section D(d)§9). d

Further Comments Individual Points §1 Aristotle did not discuss or try to explain the tides of the sea. His experience was limited to the Mediterranean, where (with the exception of the Adriatic) the tides are insignificant. Unsurprisingly, the present doxa concerned with the tides of the Atlantic cannot be paralleled from the pragmateiai, where Ἀτλαντικός (plus a word for sea) never occurs (a single occurrence in Theophr. Vent. 38, and four in the De mundo). There is, however, a remarkable passage at GA 4.10 777b17–778a2 (cited at section E(b)§1), where he argues that the periodicities of the sun and moon (i.e. ‘day and night and month and year’ etc.) determine what is ‘of inferior standing’: ‘the sea … is settled or is moved according as the winds are at rest or in motion, while the behaviour of the air and the winds in turn depends on the period of the sun and moon’ (tr. Peck, LCL). Mete. 2.1 354a5– 11 (also cited at section E(b)§1) contrasts the clearly visible flow and swaying

1336

liber 3 caput 17

backwards and forwards of the sea in straits with that of the open sea, where this movement is unnoticeable—an obvious reference not to the Atlantic but to the virtually tideless Mediterranean. Lee ad loc. (in the LCL Meteorology) remarks that ‘[i]t is not clear what Aristotle means by this ebb and flow (lit. swinging to and fro [sc. this ταλαντεύεσθαι δεῦρο κἀκεῖσε]) of the sea, for he had no real knowledge of the tides’. But in the GA passage Aristotle goes further, adducing the movements of the winds and the air that set the sea in motion as determined by the regular movements of the heavenly bodies, esp. sun and moon. But this is a postulate rather than an explanation, although later readers may have felt justified in believing that Aristotle here really alluded to the tides as described and explained by later authorities. According to Strabo Aristotle was criticized by Posidonius for making the coasts of Morocco and Spain the cause of the tides, the headlands catching the waves and hurling them back (see at section E(b)§1). This is not attested in the pragmateiai either (Mete. 2.1 345a6–12, cited by Pajón Leyra 2013, 727 and others, is not about coastal seas but about straits). As Kidd (1988) 791 points out, Posidonius may have transferred Aristotle’s remark about the straits of the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. (Compare his account of what happens when winds are forced from a wide into a narrrow place such as gates or a (hollow) road, Mete. 3.1 370b18–27). It is rather ironic that the doubtlessly apocryphal story of his death as reported by Procopius (cited at section E(b)§1) has him die a difficult death because he realized his failure to find an explanation for the currents in the Euripus. We note in passing that Reinhardt, who (1921) 123 briefly discusses our chapter, accepts the information in §1 as valid for Aristotle, thus sinning against his own principle that doxographical passages containing a name-label should be distrusted, and omitting to take Aristotle’s own works into account. §2 ‘Dicaearchus etiam 4.2.7 et 5.1.4 magistrum sequitur’, thus Diels DG ad loc., though two years later he changed his mind as to the correct restoration. For the constitutio we have followed the recent editors of and commentators on the fragments of Dicaearchus, but are far from certain that the attribution is right. To be sure, against Elter (who refers to Εὐήνιος in Photius’ index cod. 167 p. 114a36) and Wachsmuth one may argue that ms. ***ηνιος may well be a duplicate of Μεσήνιος rather than the other way round. This Euenius moreover is not known from elsewhere. And Photius is not infallible! Though the namelabel Dicaearchus occurs at chs. 4.2.7 and 5.1.4, he fails to list it in his overview of names. On the other hand the Peripatetic Dicaearchus follows on well after Aristotle and Heraclides (who is often associated with the Peripatos), and the rather unclear doxa ascribed to him is a variety of that of his two predecessors cited in the previous lemma.

liber 3 caput 17

1337

§3 In a note to his account of the tides in his Physische Geographie (first published by F.Th. Rink in 1802) Kant wrote: ‘According to the report of Plutarch, Pytheas of Massilia was the first to refer the tides to the revolutions of the moon, and had there not been such a great discrepancy between the mere perception that something was thus and the proof that it was necessarily so and could not be otherwise, it would have been amazing that Newton was the first to demonstrate the truth of this observation’. Trans. by O. Reinhardt quoted from E. Watkins ed., Immanuel Kant: Natural Science, Cambridge (2012), 497– 498. German text in Kants Gesammelte Schriften Vol. 9, Berlin–Leipzig 1923, 220. N. 142 at Watkins ed. p. 731 identifies Plutarch as the real one. It is perhaps odd that Kant failed to refer to Seleucus, see §9 below. §4 This intermediate function of the winds (attested for Aristotle, see at §1) is not confirmed in the other documentation for Posidonius’ views on tides, see Kidd (1986) 523–525, (1999) 198. Theiler (1982) 204–205 prefers to accept this evidence, though he, too, points out that the doxa is quite similar to that attributed to Aristotle and Heraclides in §1. Ioannes Lydus may have Posidonius in mind when opaquely mentioning those who practise philosophy in Rome (83.3) §9 Plutarch, cited section E(a)§9, tells us that Seleucus, like Aristarchus, ‘moved the earth’. Aristarchus’ theory that the earth revolves around the sun could be seen as blasphemous (Cleanthes at Plu. Fac. 923A = SVF 1.500; his Πρὸς Ἀρίσταρχον is on the list of his books at D.L. 7.174 = SVF 1.481). The less radical theory of Heraclides and Ecphantus (and Plato according to some), concerned with axial rotation, could be seen as counter-intuitive and bizarre. It is not certain that Seleucus followed Aristarchus all the way, though this is argued by Roller (2005) 114. All we need for the theory at issue in §9 is the axial rotation of the earth plus its atmosphere (see Heath 1913, 307), which in combination with the counter-influence of the moon (revolving around the earth) is sufficient to cause the movement of the tides. That Seleucus, ‘too, moved the earth’ need not mean more than that he did so in the same way as Heraclides and Ecphantus mentioned a few chapters back, i.e. ‘not from one place to another, but by revolution in the manner of a wheel upon an axle, from west to east about its own centre’ (ch. 3.13.3). Nevertheless his thesis may count as a stunning anticipation of Newton’s explanation of the tides as the combined result of the moon’s influence and the earth’s own movement. Broggiato (2001) believes that καὶ αὐτός implies that Α believes that Crates, just as Seleucus, set the earth in motion, which according to her is wrong because Crates’ universe is geocentric. So A, she adds, must have someone else in mind, e.g. Apollodorus (see above for Aristarchus). But an earth in the middle

1338

liber 3 caput 17

may still move around its axis. Seleucus’ rejection of Crates’ explanation of the tides may involve a rejection of Crates’ view of the earth’s immobility, if this is what he believed. For possible confusions in Strabo’s reportage and even in Posidonius’ account see Kidd (1988) 2.777–779. Russo (1995) 149 argues that it is odd that the lemma should mention the Atlantic instead of the Indian Ocean studied by ‘Seleucus of Babylonia’ according to Strabo and his sources (cited section E(b)§9). It is of course possible that the doxography is to be blamed: since the Atlantic is mentioned in §2 (τὴν Ἀτλαντικὴν θάλασσαν) and §6 (τὴν Ἀτλαντικήν), τὸ Ἀτλαντικὸν πέλαγος may have supplanted an original τὴν Ἐρυθρᾶν θαλάττην in §9. On the other hand the general, or astronomical, causes of the tides, valid for all Oceans, should not be confused with the particular variations responsible for local differences. e Other Evidence The chapters on the moon in Book 2, 2.25–31, fail to refer to the influence of the moon on the tides, our §§3–4 and §9. Chs. 2.20–24 on the sun fail to refer to the purported role of the sun, our §§1–2, and ch. 3.7 on winds fails to refer to the purported role of winds, our §1 and §5. These differences are in agreement with the Hellenistic origins of the present chapter, in which not a single Presocratic philosopher is mentioned. The tides of the sea, not explained by Aristotle, are not discussed by Epicurus (as far as we know), and not by Lucretius either. Epicurus is a younger contemporary of Theophrastus, who as we noted does not seem to have treated the tides either. Treatment by Dicaearchus is uncertain (see ad §2, the attribution of which is hypothetical and the gist unclear). Lucretius, in his section on the sea DRN 6.608–639 (after his treatment of earthquakes [cf. ch. 3.15], and before that of Etna which in its turn is followed by the passage on the Nile [cf. ch. 4.1]), inter alia discusses the traditional issue why the mass of the sea does not grow less, while at 5.506–508 he mentions the Black Sea, ‘which flows on with changeless tide, preserving ever the constant rhythm of its gliding’ (tr. Bailey). So we may hypothesize that he declined to treat the subject because there was no antecedent in Epicurus. The importance of the Oceanic tides only became known through the expedition of Pytheas, whose book was not known to or at any rate not used by Aristotle, and esp. the campaigns of Alexander the Great. E a

Further Related Texts Proximate Tradition

General texts: Strabo 1.3.11, 54C.31–55C.10 (Eratosthenes fr. 16 Roller) διὰ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τοὺς εὐρίπους ῥοώδεις εἶναι, μάλιστα δὲ τὸν κατὰ Σικελίαν πορθμόν, ὅν

liber 3 caput 17 φησιν (sc. Eratosthenes) ὁμοιοπαθεῖν ταῖς κατὰ τὸν Ὠκεανὸν πλημμυρίσι τε καὶ ἀμπώτεσι· δὶς γὰρ μεταβάλλειν τὸν ῥοῦν ἑκάστης ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, καθάπερ τὸν Ὠκεανὸν δὶς μὲν πλημμυρεῖν δὶς δὲ ἀναχωρεῖν. τῇ μὲν οὖν πλημμυρίδι ὁμολογεῖν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Τυρρηνικοῦ πελάγους εἰς τὸ Σικελικὸν καταφερόμενον ὡς ἂν ἐκ μετεωροτέρας ἐπιφανείας, ὃν δὴ καὶ κατιόντα ὀνομάζεσθαι, ὁμολογεῖν δ᾽ ὅτι καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν ἄρχεταί τε καὶ παύεται καθ᾽ ὃν αἱ πλημμυρίδες· ἄρχεται μὲν γὰρ περὶ τὴν ἀνατολὴν τῆς σελήνης καὶ τὴν δύσιν, λήγει δ᾽ ὅταν συνάπτῃ τῇ μεσουρανήσει ἑκατέρᾳ, τῇ τε ὑπὲρ γῆς καὶ τῇ ὑπὸ γῆς· τῇ δὲ ἀμπώτει τὸν ἐναντίον, ὃν ἐξιόντα καλεῖσθαι, ταῖς μεσουρανήσεσι τῆς σελήνης ἀμφοτέραις ἐναρχόμενον, καθάπερ αἱ ἀμπώτεις, ταῖς δὲ συνάψεσι ταῖς πρὸς τὰς ἀνατολὰς καὶ δύσεις παυόμενον. 1.3.12, 54C11– 12 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν πλημμυρίδων καὶ τῶν ἀμπώτεων εἰρήκασιν ἱκανῶς Ποσειδώνιός (F 215 E.-K, 10 Theiler) τε καὶ Ἀθηνόδωρος (i.e., Athenodorus Calvus). Pomponius Mela 3.1–3 restat ille circuitus quem ⟨ut⟩ initio diximus cingit Oceanus. ingens infinitumque pelagus it magnis aestibus concitum, ita enim motus eius adpellant, modo inundat campos, modo late nudat ac refugit, non alios aliosque invicem neque alternis accessibus nunc in hos nunc in illos toto impetu versum, sed ubi in omnia litora, quamvis diversa sint, terrarum insularumque ex medio pariter effusum est, rursus ab illis colligitur in medium et in semet ipsum redit, tanta vi semper inmissum, ut vasta etiam flumina retro agat, et aut terrestria deprehendat animalia aut marina destituat. (2) neque adhuc satis cognitum est, anhelitune id suo mundus efficiat, retractamque cum spiritu regerat undam undique, si, ut doctioribus placet, unum animal est, an sint depressi aliqui specus, quo reciprocata maria residant, atque unde se rursus exuberantia adtollant (cf. below §5), an luna causas tantis meatibus praebeat (cf. below §§3, 4, 9). ad ortus certe eius occasusque variantur neque eodem adsidue tempore, sed ut illa surgit ac demergitur, ita recedere atque adventare conperimus (cf. Solinus Coll. 23.19–22, compiled by Isidore of Seville de Nat. 40.1–2). Seneca Dial. 12.20.2 deinde condicionem circumfusi maris cursusque eius alternos et recursus (sc. quaerit animus). Benef. 7.1.5 licet nescias, quae ratio Oceanum effundat ac revocet. Nat. 3.28.6 ut solet aestus aequinoctialis sub ipsum lunae solisque coitum omnibus aliis maior undare. Pliny Nat. 1 p. 14.1–2 quae potentia lunae ad terrena et marina, quae solis. Nat. 2.212–215 aestus maris accedere ac reciprocare maxime mirum, pluribus quidem modis, verum causa in sole lunaque. bis inter duos exortus lunae adfluunt bisque remeant vicenis quaternisque semper horis, et primum attollente se cum ea mundo intumescentes, mox a meridiano caeli fastigio vergente in occasum residentes, rursusque ab occasu subter ad caeli ima et meridiano contraria accedente inundantes, (213) hinc, donec iterum exoriatur, ⟨se⟩ resorbentes nec umquam eodem tempore quo pridie reflui, velut anhelantes sidere avido trahente secum haustu maria et adsidue aliunde quam pridie exoriente, paribus tamen intervallis reciproci senisque semper horis, non cuiusque diei aut noctis aut loci, sed aequinoctialibus ideoque inaequales vulgarium horarum spatio, utcumque plures in e⟨o⟩s aut diei aut noctis illarum mensurae cadant, (214) et aequinoctio tantum pares ubique. ingens argumentum plenumque lucis ac vocis etiam diurnae, hebetes esse qui negent

1339

1340

liber 3 caput 17

subtermeare sidera ac rursus eadem exsurgere, similemque terris, immo vero naturae universae, et inde faciem in isdem ortus occasusque operibus, non aliter sub terra manifesto sideris cursu aliove effectu quam cum praeter oculos nostros feratur. (215) multiplex etiamnum lunaris differentia, primumque septenis diebus: (etc.). Seneca Dial. 1.4 iam vero si quis observaverit nudari litora pelago in se recedente eademque intra exiguum tempus operiri, credet caeca quadam volutatione modo contrahi undas et introrsum agi, modo erumpere et magno cursu repetere sedem suam, cum interim illae portionibus crescunt et ad horam ac diem subeunt ampliores minoresque, prout illas lunare sidus elicuit, ad cuius arbitrium Oceanus exundat. Nat. 3.14.3 mare unum est, ab initio scilicet ita constitutum; habet suas venas, quibus impletur atque aestuat. Irenaeus of Lyon Haer. 2.28.2 (trans. Rufini) quid autem possumus exponere de Oceani accessu et recessu, cum constet esse certam causam? Hephaestion Apotel. p. 65.20–25 Pingree τάς τε τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ κατά τε ἀνατολὰς καὶ τὰς δύσεις ὑποχωρήσεις, πλημμύρας καὶ ἀμπώτεις τοῦ τε Ἀτλαντικοῦ πελάγους καὶ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάσσης τὰς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον νυχθήμερον γινομένας ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς σελήνης ἀνατολῶν καὶ καταδύσεων σαλεύεσθαι καὶ κινεῖσθαι ἐκ βάθρων σημαίνει. Priscianus Lydus Sol.Chosr. p. 69.27–29 Bywater (Posidonius F 219 E.-K, 313 Theiler; Arrianus Reb.Phys. fr. 2 Roos) de accessu per Rubrum mare et recessu, et per exteriorem Oceanum talibus factis passionibus vel in aliis maris nostri partibus, multa quidem differenter dicta sunt a veteribus. Chapter heading: Pliny Nat. 1 p. 13.54–57 qua ratione aestus maris accedant et recedant. ubi aestus extra rationem idem faciant. Isidore of Seville de Nat. capitul. 40 De Oceani aestu (long heading in the body of the work: De Οceano, cur Οceanus in se reciprocis aestibus revertatur). Etym. 13.18 De aestibus et fretis (only in the body of the work). §1 Aristotle Heraclides: differently Strabo 3.3.3, 153C.5–9 τὸν Ἀριστοτέλη (fr. 680 R3) φησὶν ὁ Ποσειδώνιος (F 220 E.-K., 20 Theiler) οὐκ ὀρθῶς αἰτιᾶσθαι τὴν παραλίαν ⟨ταύτην⟩ καὶ τὴν Μαυρουσίαν τῶν πλημμυρίδων καὶ τῶν ἀμπώτεων· παλιρροεῖν γὰρ φάναι τὴν θάλατταν διὰ τὸ τὰς ἀκτὰς ὑψηλάς τε καὶ τραχείας εἶναι δεχομένας τε τὸ κῦμα σκληρῶς καὶ ἀνταποδιδούσας. Procopius Goth. 4.6.19.21 (Arist.Dox.Trad. fr. 48c Düring) τὰ γὰρ ἐν πορθμοῖς ἅπασι ξυμπίπτοντα πάθη οὐδενὶ λόγῳ φαίνεται εἴκοντα, οὐδέ τις αὐτὰ φράσαι πώποτε ἱκανὸς γέγονεν. ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ Σταγειρίτης Ἀριστοτέλης, σοφὸς ἀνὴρ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα, ἐν Χαλκίδι τῇ τῆς Εὐβοίας τούτου δὴ ἕνεκα γεγονώς, κατανοῶν τε τὸν ταύτῃ πορθμὸν, ὅνπερ Εὔριπον ὀνομάζουσι, καὶ λόγον τὸν φυσικὸν ἐς τὸ ἀκριβὲς διερευνᾶσθαι βουλόμενος, ὅπως δὴ καὶ ὅντινα τρόπον ἐνίοτε μὲν τὰ τοῦ πορθμοῦ τούτου ῥεύματα ἐκ δυσμῶν φέρεται, ἐνίοτε δὲ ἐξ ἡλίου ἀνατολῶν, καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα πλεῖν τὰ πλοῖα ξύμπαντα ἐνταῦθα ξυμβαίνει, ἢν δέ ποτε τοῦ ῥοῦ ἐξ ἀνίσχοντος ἡλίου ἰόντος, ἀρξαμένων τε τῶν ναυτῶν ἐνθένδε ξὺν τῇ τοῦ ῥοθίου ἐπιρροῇ ναυτίλλεσθαι, ᾗπερ εἰώθει, ἀπ᾽ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ τὸ ῥεῦμα ἴῃ, ὅπερ πολλάκις ἐνταῦθα φιλεῖ γίνεσθαι, ἀναστρέφει μὲν τὰ πλοῖα ταῦτα εὐθὺς ἔνθεν ὥρμηται, τὰ δὲ ἄλλα ἐκ δυσμῶν ἐπὶ θάτερα πλεῖ, καίπερ αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀνέμων τινὸς ὡς ἥκιστα ἐπιπνεύσαντος, ἀλλὰ γαλήνης τε βαθείας τινὸς καὶ νηνεμίας ἐνταῦθα οὔσης, ταῦτα ὁ Σταγειρίτης ἐννοῶν τε καὶ ἀνακυκλῶν ἐπὶ χρόνου μῆκος,

liber 3 caput 17 δυσθανατῶν ἐπὶ ξυννοίᾳ ἀφίκετο ἐς τὸ μέτρον τοῦ βίου. οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ κἀν τῷ τὴν Ἰταλίαν τε καὶ Σικελίαν διείργοντι πορθμῷ πολλὰ τῷ παραλόγῳ γίνεσθαι πέφυκε. §3 Pytheas: Pliny Nat. 2.217 octogenis cubitis supra Britanniam intumescere aestus Pytheas Massiliensis (fr. 13a Mette) auctor est. §4 Posidonius: Cicero Div. 2.33–34 ut enim iam sit aliqua in natura rerum contagio, quam esse concedo—multa enim Stoici (SVF 2.1211) colligunt … (34) quid de fretis aut de marinis aestibus plura dicam? quorum accessus et recessus lunae motu gubernantur. sescenta licet eiusdem modi proferri, ut distantium rerum cognatio naturalis appareat. Priscianus Lydus Sol.Chosr. pp. 69.27– 70.2 + 72.10–73.2 de accessu per Rubrum mare et recessu, et per exteriorem Oceanum talibus factis passionibus vel in aliis maris nostri partibus, multa quidem differenter dicta sunt a veteribus: qui autem videntur ex omnibus collegisse talis passionis causas, Stoicus est Posidonius Assyrius (F 219 E.-K, 313 Theiler) et ei consentientes, quorum et Arrianus (Reb.Phys. fr. 2 Roos) approbat sententiam. dicunt enim moveri exteriorem Oceanum ad lunae ambitum, compati vero interius mare: iuxta columnas ei Herculis solummodo coniunctum quasi portus pelago compassione afficitur et alios motus speciales accipit. … horum igitur causas requirens Stoicus Posidonius … discernit magis causam eius esse lunam et non solem. solis quidem enim ignem sincerum esse et summae virtutis; itaque vapores quantoscumque a terra et mari sublevat, eosdem mox ab igne domolitur: lunae vero ignem non sincerum sed infirmiorem esse et imbecillem ac per hoc fertiliorem quidem in ea quae sunt in terra; consumere autem quaecumque infert non potest, sed solummodo elevare umida et fluctificare, submoventem quidem ea a caliditate, non autem minorantem et infirmitate caloris et maiori umiditate—unde etiam putrescunt quaecumque a luna calificantur: quoniam et aqua in lebete calefacta mensurate primum intumescit et extollitur fusa, imposito vero igne incessanter consummata subsidit: atqui et magnum mare a sole quidem aequaliter pati quaecumque in lebete aqua a nimio igne; a luna vero quaecumque ab infirma et prima caliditate: sic quoque circuire cum luna undam maris, veluti ab ipsa exaltata et sic infirmata redundare; respiciente autem in occasu coinclinare: hocque ipsum facere et sub terram luna abeunte per singulos dies. §9 Seleucus: Strabo 1.1.8, 5C.27–6C.4 τοῖς τε πάθεσι τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ τοῖς περὶ τὰς ἀμπώτεις καὶ τὰς πλημμυρίδας ὁμολογεῖ τοῦτο μᾶλλον· πάντη γοῦν ὁ αὐτὸς τρόπος τῶν τε μεταβολῶν ὑπάρχει καὶ τῶν αὐξήσεων καὶ μειώσεων, ἢ οὐ πολὺ παραλλάττων, ὡς ἂν ἐπὶ ἑνὸς πελάγους τῆς κινήσεως ἀποδιδομένης καὶ ἀπὸ μιᾶς αἰτίας. Ἵππαρχος δ᾽ οὐ πιθανός ἐστιν ἀντιλέγων τῇ δόξῃ ταύτῃ, (6C.1) ὡς οὔθ᾽ ὁμοιοπαθοῦντος τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ παντελῶς οὔτ᾽, εἰ δοθείη τοῦτο, ἀκολουθοῦντος αὐτῷ τοῦ σύρρουν εἶναι πᾶν τὸ κύκλῳ πέλαγος τὸ Ἀτλαντικόν, πρὸς τὸ μὴ ὁμοιοπαθεῖν μάρτυρι χρώμενος Σελεύκῳ τῷ Βαβυλωνίῳ (test. 2 Russo). 3.5.9, 174C22–29 φησὶ (sc. Posidonius, F 218 E.-K., 26 Theiler) δ᾽ οὖν Σέλευκον (test. 3 Russo) τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐρυθρᾶς θαλάττης καὶ ἀνωμαλίαν τινὰ ἐν τούτοις καὶ ὁμαλότητα λέγειν κατὰ τὰς τῶν ζῳδίων διαφοράς· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἰσημερινοῖς ζῳδίοις τῆς σελήνης οὔσης ὁμαλίζειν τὰ πάθη, ἐν δὲ τοῖς τροπικοῖς ἀνωμαλίαν εἶναι καὶ πλήθει καὶ τάχει, τῶν δ᾽ ἄλλων

1341

1342

liber 3 caput 17

ἑκάστου κατὰ τοὺς συνεγγισμοὺς εἶναι τὴν ἀναλογίαν. αὐτὸς δὲ κατὰ τὰς θερινὰς τροπὰς περὶ τὴν πανσέληνόν φησιν ἐν τῷ Ἡρακλείῳ γενόμενος τῷ ἐν Γαδείροις πλείους ἡμέρας μὴ δύνασθαι συνεῖναι τὰς ἐνιαυσίους διαφοράς. Plutarch Plat.Quaest. 1006C πότερον οὕτως ἐκίνει (sc. Plato) τὴν γῆν, ὥσπερ ἥλιον καὶ σελήνην καὶ τοὺς πέντε πλάνητας, οὓς ὄργανα χρόνου διὰ τὰς τροπὰς προσηγόρευε, καὶ ἔδει τὴν γῆν (Tim. 40b) ‘ἰλλομένην περὶ τὸν διὰ πάντων πόλον τεταμένον’ μὴ μεμηχανῆσθαι συνεχομένην καὶ μένουσαν, ἀλλὰ στρεφομένην καὶ ἀνειλουμένην νοεῖν, ὡς ὕστερον Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Σέλευκος (test. 1 Russo) ἀπεδείκνυσαν, ὁ μὲν ὑποτιθέμενος μόνον ὁ δὲ Σέλευκος καὶ ἀποφαινόμενος;

b

Sources and Other Parallel Texts

General texts: ps.Theophrastus Sign. 29 ἡ ἄμπωτις βόρειον πνεῦμα σημαίνει, πλημμύρα δὲ νότιον. ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ ἐκ βορείων πλημμύρα ἥκῃ εἰς νότιον μεταβάλλει, ἐὰν δ᾽ ἐκ νοτίων ἄμπωτις γίνηται εἰς βόρειον μεταβάλλει. Varro LL 9.26 at in mari, credo, motus non habent {dis}similitudines geminas, qui in xxiiii horis lunaribus cotidie quater se mutant, ac cum sex horis ⟨a⟩estus creverunt, totidem decreverunt, rursus idem, itemque ab his. an hanc analogian ad diem servant, ad mensem non item, alios motus sic item cum habeant alios inter se convenientes? de quibus in libro quem De ⟨a⟩estuariis feci scripsi. Caesar BG 4.29.1 eadem nocte accidit ut esset luna plena, qui dies maritimos aestus maximos in Oceano efficere consuevit, nostrisque id erat incognitum. Cicero ND 2.19 (Posidonius fr. 356 Theiler, not in E.-K.) quid vero tanta rerum consentiens conspirans, continuata cognatio quem non coget ea quae dicuntur a me conprobare? possetne uno tempore florere, dein vicissim horrere terra, aut tot rebus ipsis se inmutantibus solis accessus discessusque solstitiis brumisque cognosci, aut aestus maritimi fretorumque angustiae ortu aut obitu lunae commoveri. Philo of Alexandria Spec. 2.143 ἃς δὲ παρέχεται τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς ἅπασιν ὠφελείας σελήνη, τί χρὴ διεξιόντα μηκύνειν; ἐμφανεῖς γὰρ αἱ πίστεις. ἢ οὐχὶ ταῖς αὐξήσεσιν αὐτῆς ἀναχέονται ποταμοὶ καὶ πηγαὶ καὶ μειοῦνται πάλιν μειώσεσι, καὶ πελάγη τοτὲ μὲν ἐξαναχωρεῖ καὶ ἀμπωτίζοντα ὑποσύρεται τοτὲ δ᾽ ἐξαπιναίως ἐπιτρέχει κατὰ παλίρροιαν. Vergil Geor. 475–479 Musae … monstrent … qua vi maria alta tumescent. Hermogenes Id. 1.6.5.11–13 Patillon ποῦ δ᾽ αὖ λόγου πολιτικοῦ τὸ ζητεῖν …, καὶ ὅτι ἐπικλύσει ἢ ὑπονοστήσει ὕδατος. Silius Italicus 14.349 et pater Oceanus qua lege effunderet aestus. Plutarch Fac. Lun. 940A (SVF 2.679) δέδοικα δ᾽ ἡσυχάζοντα Φαρνάκην αὖθις ἐρεθίζειν καὶ κινεῖν, Ὠκεανοῦ τε πλημμύρας, ὡς λέγουσιν αὐτοί, καὶ πορθμῶν ἐπιδόσεις διαχεομένων καὶ αὐξανομένων ὑπὸ τῆς σελήνης τῷ ἀνυγραίνεσθαι παρατιθέμενος. ps.Aristotle Mu. 4 396a25–27 πολλαί τε ἀμπώτεις λέγονται καὶ κυμάτων ἄρσεις συμπεριοδεύειν ἀεὶ τῇ σελήνῃ κατά τινας ὡρισμένους καιρούς. Apuleius Mu. 19 sentitur etiam caeli marisque cognatio, cum menstruis cursibus lunae detrimenta et accessus fretorum atque aestuum deprehenduntur. Macrobius in Somn. 1.6.61. in Somn. 2.9.1–3 (Crates fr. 35f Mette) nunc de Oceano quod promisimus adstruamus … ab oriente vero duos sinus refundit, unum ad extremitatem septentrionis, ad australis alterum, rursusque ab occidente duo pariter enascuntur sinus, qui usque ad ambas quas supra diximus

liber 3 caput 17 extremitates refusi occurrunt ab oriente demissis. et dum vi summa et impetu immaniore miscentur invicemque se feriunt, ex ipsa aquarum collisione nascitur illa famosa Oceani accessio pariter et recessio, et ubicumque in nostro mari contingit idem vel in angustis fretis vel in planis forte littoribus, ex ipsis Oceani sinibus quos Oceanum nunc vocamus eveniunt, quia nostrum mare ex illis influit. Chapter heading: Varro LL 9.26 in libro quem De ⟨a⟩estuariis feci. Agatharchides Mar.Erythr. 107 περὶ μὲν ἀμπώτιδος. §1 Aristotle Heraclides: Aristotle Mete. 2.1 354a5–11 ῥέουσα δ᾽ ἡ θάλαττα φαίνεται κατά τε τὰς στενότητας, εἴ που διὰ τὴν περιέχουσαν γῆν εἰς μικρὸν ἐκ μεγάλου συνάγεται πελάγους, διὰ τὸ ταλαντεύεσθαι δεῦρο κἀκεῖσε πολλάκις. ᾗ δὲ διὰ τὴν στενότητα τῆς γῆς ὀλίγον ἐπέχει τόπον, ἀναγκαῖον τὴν ἐν τῷ πελάγει μικρὰν ταλάντωσιν ἐκεῖ φαίνεσθαι μεγάλην. Mete. 2.8 366a18–20 ὥστ᾽ ἔσω γίγνεται πάλιν ἡ ῥύσις, ὥσπερ ἄμπωτις, εἰς τοὐναντίον τῆς ἔξω πλημμυρίδος. Mete. 2.8 367a13– 17 ὅταν γὰρ ἄνεμος μέλλῃ πνευσεῖσθαι νότος, προσημαίνει πρότερον· ἠχοῦσι γὰρ οἱ τόποι ἐξ ὧν γίγνεται τὰ ἀναφυσήματα, διὰ τὸ τὴν θάλατταν μὲν προωθεῖσθαι ἤδη πόρρωθεν, ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτης τὸ ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναφυσώμενον ἀπωθεῖσθαι πάλιν εἴσω, ᾗπερ ἐπέρχεται ἡ θάλαττα ταύτῃ. GA 2.4 738a20–22 αἱ δὲ τῶν μηνῶν σύνοδοι ψυχραὶ διὰ τὴν τῆς σελήνης ἀπόλειψιν, διόπερ καὶ χειμερίους συμβαίνει τὰς συνόδους εἶναι τῶν μηνῶν μᾶλλον ἢ τὰς μεσότητας. GA 4.10 777b17–778a2 εὐλόγως δὲ πάντων οἱ χρόνοι καὶ τῶν κυήσεων καὶ γενέσεων καὶ τῶν βίων μετρεῖσθαι βούλονται κατὰ φύσιν περιόδοις. λέγω δὲ περίοδον ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα καὶ μῆνα καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς χρόνους τοὺς μετρουμένους τούτοις, ἔτι δὲ τὰς τῆς σελήνης περιόδους. εἰσὶ δὲ περίοδοι σελήνης πανσέληνός τε καὶ φθίσις καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ χρόνων αἱ διχοτομίαι· κατὰ γὰρ ταύτας συμβάλλει πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον· ὁ γὰρ μεὶς κοινὴ περίοδός ἐστιν ἀμφοτέρων. ἔστι δὲ ἡ σελήνη ἀρχὴ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον κοινωνίαν καὶ τὴν μετάληψιν τὴν τοῦ φωτός· γίγνεται γὰρ ὥσπερ ἄλλος ἥλιος ἐλάττων· διὸ συμβάλλεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τελειώσεις. αἱ γὰρ θερμότητες καὶ ψύξεις μέχρι συμμετρίας τινὸς ποιοῦσι τὰς γενέσεις, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰς φθοράς· τούτων δ᾽ ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς αἱ τούτων κινήσεις τῶν ἄστρων. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ θάλατταν καὶ πᾶσαν ὁρῶμεν τὴν τῶν ὑγρῶν φύσιν ἱσταμένην καὶ μεταβάλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν καὶ στάσιν, τὸν δ᾽ ἀέρα καὶ τὰ πνεύματα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων φυόμενα καὶ τὰ ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον· κατὰ λόγον γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τὰς τῶν ἀκυροτέρων περιόδους ταῖς τῶν κυριωτέρων. βίος γάρ τις καὶ πνεύματός ἐστι καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθίσις. Mete. 2.5 361b14–23 ὁ δ᾽ ἥλιος καὶ παύει καὶ συνεξορμᾷ τὰ πνεύματα· ἀσθενεῖς μὲν γὰρ καὶ ὀλίγας οὔσας τὰς ἀναθυμιάσεις μαραίνει τῷ πλείονι θερμῷ τὸ ἐν τῇ ἀναθυμιάσει ἔλαττον ὄν, καὶ διακρίνει. ἔτι δὲ αὐτὴν τὴν γῆν φθάνει ξηραίνων πρὶν γενέσθαι ἔκκρισιν ἀθρόαν …. διὰ μὲν οὖν ταύτας τὰς αἰτίας καταπαύει τε τὰ πνεύματα καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς γίγνεσθαι κωλύει, τῇ μὲν μαράνσει καταπαύων, τῷ δὲ τάχει τῆς ξηρότητος γίγνεσθαι κωλύων. John Philoponus in GA 210.7–16 ad loc. ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξει τῇ ‘τούτων δ᾽ ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς’ τὸ ‘τούτων’ περὶ τῆς θερμότητος καὶ ψυχρότητος εἴρηται. ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ καὶ γένεσίς ἐστι θερμότητος ἥ τε τῆς σελήνης αὔξησις καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὰ βόρεια ζῴδια προσέλευσις, ψύξεως δ᾽ ἐκείνης μὲν ἡ μείωσις, τοῦ δὲ

1343

1344

liber 3 caput 17

ἡλίου ἡ πρὸς τὰ νότια ἀναχώρησις. καὶ ὥσπερ ἡ θάλασσα μεταβάλλει κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν, τὰ δὲ πνεύματα γίνεται, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Μετεώροις (2.4 361a22–b1) εἴρηται, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γινόμενα καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντα ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον τῇ τῶν ἀστέρων τούτων κινήσει. Theophrastus Vent. 17 ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ ἡ σελήνη ταὐτὰ (sc. as the sun) πλὴν οὐχ ὁμοίως· οἷον γὰρ ἀσθενὴς ἥλιός ἐστι. διὸ καὶ νύκτωρ δεινότεραι ⟨αἱ πνοαὶ⟩ καὶ αἱ σύνοδοι τῶν μηνῶν χειμερινώτεραι. συμβαίνει δ᾽ οὖν ὁτὲ μὲν ἀνατέλλοντος τοῦ ἡλίου τὰ πνεύματα ἐπαίρεσθαι ὁτὲ δὲ λήγειν· καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς δύσεως ὁμοίως· ὁτὲ μὲν γὰρ κατέπαυσεν ὁτὲ δὲ ὥσπερ ἀφῆκεν. εἰ δέ ποτε καὶ κατὰ σύμπτωμα γίνοιτο ταῦτα, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄστρων ἀνατολαῖς καὶ δύσεσιν, ἐπισκεπτέον. CP 2.19.4–5 τὰ δὲ πλέον καταδυόμενα καὶ ὑπερίσχοντα δῆλον ὅτι ψυχρότερα καὶ ἀσθενέστερα, δι᾽ ὃ μᾶλλον συμπάσχει ταῖς μεταβολαῖς. ἡ δὲ αἴσθησις οὕτως ὀξεῖα γινομένη τοῖς καθ᾽ ὕδατος οὐκ ἄλογος, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἐν τόποις θερμοῖς καὶ ἐμπύροις. ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς μὴ τοιούτοις αἱ διαδόσεις ταχεῖαι πάντων ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῶν ἄστρων. φαίνεται γοῦν συμπάσχειν οὐ μόνον τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ γῆς ὕδατα τροπαῖς τε καὶ ἐπιτολαῖς· ἐπ᾽ ἐνίων δὲ ἄστρων καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ γῆ καὶ ἡ θάλαττα μεταβάλλει. πάσχει δέ τι παραπλήσιον τούτῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθῶν πολλὰ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν· ἀεὶ γὰρ συμπεριφέρεται τῷ ἡλίῳ νεύοντα καὶ ἐγκλίνοντα πρὸς αὐτόν. Lucan Phars. 1.409–419 quaque iacet litus dubium quod terra fretumque / vindicat alternis vicibus, cum funditur ingens / Oceanus uel cum refugis se fluctibus aufert. / ventus ab extremo pelagus sic axe volutet / destituatque ferens, an sidere mota secundo / Tethyos unda vagae lunaribus aestuet horis, / flammiger an Titan, ut alentes hauriat undas, / erigat Oceanum fluctusque ad sidera ducat, / quaerite, quos agitat mundi labor; at mihi semper / tu, quaecumque moves tam crebros causa meatus, / ut superi voluere, late. ps.Aristotle Mirab. 55 834b3–4 ὁ πορθμὸς ὁ μεταξὺ Σικελίας καὶ Ἰταλίας αὔξεται καὶ φθίνει ἅμα τῷ σεληνίῳ. Aulus Gellius NA 14.1.3– 4 (quoting Favorinus on the Chaldaeans) atque eos, quoniam viderent terrena quaedam inter homines sita caelestium rerum sensu atque ductu moveri, quale est, quod Oceanus quasi lunae comes cum ea simul senescit adolescitque, hinc videlicet sibi argumentum ad persuadendum paravisse, ut crederemus omnia rerum humanarum et parva et maxima tamquam stellis atque sideribus evincta duci et regi. esse autem nimis quam ineptum absurdumque, ut, quoniam aestus Oceani cum lunae curriculo congruit, negotium quoque alicuius, quod ei forte de aquae ductu cum rivalibus aut de communi pariete cum vicino apud iudicem est, ut existimemus id negotium quasi habena quadam de caelo vinctum gubernari. Ptolemy Tetr. 1.2.3–4 ἥ τε σελήνη πλείστην ὡς περιγειοτάτη διαδίδωσιν ἡμῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν τὴν ἀπόρροιαν, συμπαθούντων αὐτῇ καὶ συντρεπομένων τῶν πλείστων καὶ ἀψύχων καὶ ἐμψύχων καὶ ποταμῶν μὲν συναυξόντων καὶ συμμειούντων τοῖς φωσὶν αὐτῆς τὰ ῥεύματα, θαλασσῶν δὲ συντρεπουσῶν ταῖς ἀνατολαῖς καὶ ταῖς δύσεσι τὰς ἰδίας ὁρμάς, φυτῶν δὲ καὶ ζῴων ἢ ὅλων ἢ κατά τινα μέρη (4) συμπληρουμένων τε αὐτῇ καὶ συμμειουμένων. Tetr. 2.9.7 περὶ δὲ ποταμοὺς ἢ καὶ θαλάσσας κοινῶς μὲν χειμῶνας καὶ στόλων ναυάγια καὶ δυσπλοίας καὶ τῶν ἰχθύων ἔνδειαν καὶ φθοράν (sc. ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου ἀστὴρ ἐμποιεῖ), ἰδίως δὲ ἐν μὲν θαλάσσαις ἀμπώτεις καὶ παλιρροίας, ἐπὶ δὲ ποταμῶν ὑπερμετρίαν καὶ κάκωσιν τῶν ποταμίων ὑδάτων. Tetr. 2.13.7–8

liber 3 caput 17 αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων τῶν κατὰ μέρος ποιοτήτων αἱ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἐπιτάσεις ἀποτελοῦνται μάλιστα μὲν ὅταν τῶν ἀπλανῶν οἱ λαμπρότεροι καὶ δραστικώτεροι φάσεις ἑῴας ἢ ἑσπερίας ἀνατολικὰς ἢ δυτικὰς ποιῶνται πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον, τρέπουσι γὰρ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τὰς κατὰ μέρος καταστάσεις πρὸς τὰς ἑαυτῶν φύσεις, οὐδὲν δὲ ἔλαττον (8) καὶ ὅταν τινὶ τῶν κέντρων τὰ φῶτα ἐπιπορεύηται. πρὸς γὰρ τὰς τοιαύτας αὐτῶν σχέσεις αἱ καθ᾽ ὥραν ἀνέσεις καὶ ἐπιτάσεις τῶν καταστημάτων μεταβάλλουσι, καθάπερ πρὸς τὰς τῆς σελήνης αἵ τε ἀμπώτεις καὶ αἱ παλίρροιαι. Sextus Empiricus M. 9.79 (SVF 2.1013) ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ὁ κόσμος σῶμά ἐστιν, ἤτοι ἡνωμένον ἐστὶ σῶμα ἢ ἐκ συναπτομένων ἢ ἐκ διεστώτων. οὔτε δὲ ἐκ συναπτομένων οὔτε ἐκ διεστώτων, ὡς δείκνυμεν ἐκ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν συμπαθειῶν. κατὰ γὰρ τὰς τῆς σελήνης αὐξήσεις καὶ φθίσεις πολλὰ τῶν τε ἐπιγείων ζῴων καὶ θαλασσίων φθίνει τε καὶ αὔξεται, ἀμπώτεις τε καὶ πλημμυρίδες περί τινα μέρη τῆς θαλάσσης γίνονται. Commenta Bernensia in Lucanum p. 30.28–29 Usener (ad Phars. 1.413) quia hic dicit crescere et decrescere mare ad imitationem lunae. §4 Posidonius: Cleomedes Cael. 2.1.386–392 Todd τοσαύτῃ δὲ πρὸς τοῖς εἰρημένοις κέχρηται περιουσίᾳ δυνάμεως (sc. ὁ ἥλιος), ὥστε καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δεχομένη τὸ φῶς αὐτὸ τοῦτο πάσης τῆς περὶ αὐτὴν δυνάμεως αἴτιον ἔχει κατὰ τὰς τῶν σχημάτων διαφοράς, οὐ μόνον ἐν τῷ ἀέρι μεγάλας ἐργαζομένη τροπὰς καὶ κατακρατοῦσα αὐτοῦ καὶ μυρία ἐπιτήδεια ἐργαζομένη, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ὠκεανὸν πλημμυρίδων καὶ ἀμπώτεων αὕτη ἐστὶν αἰτία. Cael. 2.3.64–65 Todd καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ἀμπώτεων καὶ πλημμυρίδων αὐτῆς (sc. τῆς σελήνης) αἰτίας γινομένης. §5 Plato: Plato Phd. 111e–112a ταῦτα δὲ πάντα κινεῖν ἄνω καὶ κάτω ὥσπερ αἰώραν τινὰ ἐνοῦσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ· ἔστι δὲ ἄρα αὕτη ἡ αἰώρα διὰ φύσιν τοιάνδε τινά. ἕν τι τῶν χασμάτων τῆς γῆς ἄλλως τε μέγιστον τυγχάνει ὂν καὶ (112a) διαμπερὲς τετρημένον δι᾽ ὅλης τῆς γῆς, τοῦτο ὅπερ Ὅμηρος εἶπε, λέγων αὐτό (Il. Θ 14) ‘τῆλε μάλ᾽, ᾗχι βάθιστον ὑπὸ χθονός ἐστι βέρεθρον·’ ὃ καὶ ἄλλοθι καὶ ἐκεῖνος καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν ποιητῶν Τάρταρον κεκλήκασιν. εἰς γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ χάσμα συρρέουσί τε πάντες οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἐκ τούτου πάλιν ἐκρέουσιν· γίγνονται δὲ ἕκαστοι τοιοῦτοι δι᾽ οἵας ἂν καὶ τῆς γῆς ῥέωσιν. (cf. Athenodorus Calvus at Strab. 3.5.7, 173C.10–12 εἰ δ᾽, ὥσπερ Ἀθηνόδωρός (FGrH 746F5c) φησιν, εἰσπνοῇ τε καὶ ἐκπνοῇ τὸ συμβαῖνον περὶ τὰς πλημμυρίδας καὶ περὶ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἔοικεν.) Aristotle Mete. 2.2 355b32–356a11 τὸ δ᾽ ἐν τῷ Φαίδωνι γεγραμμένον περί τε τῶν ποταμῶν καὶ τῆς θαλάττης ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν. λέγεται γὰρ ὡς ἅπαντα μὲν εἰς ἄλληλα συντέτρηται ὑπὸ γῆν, ἀρχὴ δὲ πάντων εἴη καὶ πηγὴ τῶν ὑδάτων ὁ καλούμενος Τάρταρος, περὶ τὸ μέσον ὕδατός τι πλῆθος, ἐξ οὗ καὶ τὰ ῥέοντα καὶ τὰ μὴ ῥέοντα ἀναδίδωσιν πάντα· τὴν δ᾽ ἐπίρρυσιν ποιεῖν ἐφ᾽ ἕκαστα τῶν ῥευμάτων διὰ τὸ σαλεύειν ἀεὶ τὸ πρῶτον καὶ τὴν ἀρχήν· οὐκ ἔχειν γὰρ ἕδραν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀεὶ περὶ τὸ μέσον εἱλεῖσθαι· κινούμενον δ᾽ ἄνω καὶ κάτω ποιεῖν τὴν ἐπίχυσιν τοῖς ῥεύμασιν. τὰ δὲ πολλαχοῦ μὲν λιμνάζειν, οἷον καὶ τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι θάλατταν, πάντα δὲ πάλιν κύκλῳ περιάγειν εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν, ὅθεν ἤρξαντο ῥεῖν, πολλὰ μὲν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τόπον, τὰ δὲ καὶ καταντικρὺ τῇ θέσει τῆς ἐκροῆς, οἷον εἰ ῥεῖν ἤρξαντο κάτωθεν, ἄνωθεν εἰσβάλλειν. Plutarch Fac.Lun. 924B–C οὐ ῥεῦμα λάβρον ὕδατος κάτω φερόμενον, εἰ πρὸς τὸ μέσον ἔλθοι σημεῖον ὅπερ αὐτοὶ λέγουσιν ἀσώματον, ἵστασθαι περικορυσσόμενον ⟨ἢ⟩ κύκλῳ περιπολεῖν, ἄπαυστον αἰώραν καὶ ἀκατάπαυστον αἰωρούμενον;

1345

1346

liber 3 caput 17

§7 Crates: Strabo 1.1.7, 4C.21–35 ἔχεται δὲ τῆς αὐτῆς φιλοπραγμοσύνης καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν τὰ περὶ τὰς πλημμυρίδας τοῦ ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀψορρόου ὠκεανοῖο, λέγοντα καὶ (Od. 12.105) ‘τρὶς μὲν γάρ τ᾽ ἀνίησιν ἐπ᾽ ἤματι, τρὶς δ᾽ ἀναροιβδεῖ’ (but Charybdis is meant, not the Ocean). καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὴ τρὶς ἀλλὰ δίς, τάχα τῆς ἱστορίας παραπεσόντος ἢ τῆς γραφῆς διημαρτημένης, ἀλλ᾽ ἥ γε προαίρεσις τοιαύτη. καὶ τὸ ‘ἐξ ἀκαλαρρείταο’ (Il. 7.422) δὲ ἔχει τινὰ ἔμφασιν τῆς πλημμυρίδος, ἐχούσης τὴν ἐπίβασιν πραεῖαν καὶ οὐ τελέως ῥοώδη. Ποσειδώνιος (F 216 E.-K., 1 Theiler) δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σκοπέλους λέγειν τοτὲ μὲν καλυπτομένους τοτὲ δὲ γυμνουμένους καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποταμὸν φάναι τὸν ὠκεανὸν εἰκάζει τὸ ῥοῶδες αὐτοῦ τὸ περὶ τὰς πλημμυρίδας ἐμφανίζεσθαι. τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον εὖ, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον οὐκ ἔχει λόγον· οὔτε γὰρ ποταμίῳ ῥεύματι ἔοικεν ἡ τῆς πλημμυρίδος ἐπίβασις, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ἡ ἀναχώρησις οὐ τοιαύτη, ὅ τε τοῦ Κράτητος (cf. ad. fr. 61 Broggiato) λόγος διδάσκει τι πιθανώτερον. 1.2.36, 43C.21–29 περὶ δὲ τῶν τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ παθῶν εἴρηται μὲν ἐν μύθου σχήματι· καὶ γὰρ τούτου στοχάζεσθαι δεῖ τὸν ποιητήν. ἀπὸ γὰρ τῶν ἀμπώτεων καὶ τῶν πλημμυρίδων ἡ Χάρυβδις αὐτῷ μεμύθευται, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὴ παντάπασιν Ὁμήρου πλάσμα οὖσα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱστορουμένων περὶ τὸν Σικελικὸν πορθμὸν διεσκευασμένη. εἰ δὲ δὶς τῆς παλιρροίας γινομένης καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα ἐκεῖνος τρὶς εἴρηκε (Od. 12.105) ‘τρὶς μὲν γάρ τ᾽ ἀνίησιν ἐπ᾽ ἤματι, τρὶς δ᾽ ἀναροιβδεῖ,’ λέγοιτ᾽ ἂν καὶ οὕτως· οὐ γὰρ κατ᾽ ἄγνοιαν τῆς ἱστορίας ὑποληπτέον λέγεσθαι τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ τραγῳδίας χάριν καὶ φόβου.