Philoponus: On Aristotle Meteorology 1.1–3 9781472551856, 9780715636763

Citation preview

Introduction This volume contains Philoponus’ commentary on the first three chapters of Aristotle’s Meteorology. Philoponus’ extant commentary on this work of Aristotle is not complete: we only have a commentary on book 1, with a large lacuna starting in the middle of chapter 9 and ending several paragraphs into the commentary on chapter 12. The commentary is found in this state in the most complete of the known manuscripts; it is possible that they descend from the same exemplar. The commentary on Meteorology, or at least its final version, most likely belongs to the later period of Philoponus’ philosophical activity.1 Unlike several commentaries considered early (on De Anima, On Generation and Corruption, Categories, and Physics), it is not presented as a revised set of notes from Ammonius’ seminars. Philoponus’ commentary presents many departures and digressions from Aristotle’s argument. Some of them are no doubt informed by his own polemic against Aristotle, and some may also be going back to Ammonius’ discussions of this text, but the extent of Ammonius’ influence is hard to determine. Ammonius most probably lectured on the Meteorology, which was a part of the scientific curriculum in the Alexandrian school,2 but his lectures on this subject do not seem to have been preserved except for occasional references in Philoponus and Olympiodorus.3 Another important source for Philoponus’ commentary is the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias, which is fortunately extant in full. Therefore, unlike Ammonius’ lectures, Alexander’s commentary is easy to track down in Philoponus’ work, both by direct references made and by multiple doctrinal and textual parallels (where Alexander’s arguments are included in a very close, near-verbatim paraphrase).4 Philoponus often adopts Alexander’s exegetical tactics in interpreting the phrasing and technical layout of the argument, but, as we shall see, quite seriously opposes Alexander on several cardinal doctrinal issues. A number of features of the structure and style of the commentary point to its role as a pedagogical text, a common role of philosophical commentaries in the school of Alexandria. Philoponus applies the traditional distinction between theôria (discussion of the general argument of the lemma and related doctrinal issues) and lexis (discussion of stylistic and textual matters) throughout the commentary.5 1

2

Introduction

Theôria is no longer restricted to a mere exposition of Aristotle’s argument accompanied by Philoponus’ own reflection.6 A considerable part of it is occupied now by Philoponus’ polemic against Aristotle and/or his earlier commentators (mainly Alexander of Aphrodisias) and a much more detailed and outspoken presentation of his own position on the subject under discussion. The lemmata are not always complete, and on a number of occasions, there are reduplications, when parts of the main lemma are lemmatised again in the discussion of the text.7 On the other hand, the missing parts of the lemmata are usually supplied in the discussion, in verbatim quotations, so that the commentary gives a full coverage of Aristotle’s text, with few stones left unturned. The Aristotelian text used by Philoponus shows agreement with the main Aristotle manuscripts, with only occasional characteristic departures.8 The division of Aristotle’s text on which the commentary is based into books and chapters does not differ significantly from the familiar division, with only a few minor differences which do not affect the structure of the argument. Philoponus apparently also uses his own division of the commentary into meaningful sections: the first section of such division, is marked at the end of chapter 3, and must therefore include the content of this volume.9 Because the commentary is not complete, we cannot say much about the principles of this division, but it probably has to do with the structure of the teaching process. In his discussion of Meteorology, Philoponus often invokes Aristotle’s doctrines from other treatises of the physical corpus, including Physics itself, De Caelo, and On Generation and Corruption (see, for example, 2,17-18); there is a paraphrase of one of the texts from the spurious Problemata.10 He does make frequent appeals to Platonic physics, the main source being Plato’s Timaeus, but also the physical doctrines of his contemporary and near-contemporary Platonist colleagues and opponents. Philoponus makes several references to an unknown work of Damascius, which must contain a discussion at least of some of the problems to do with Aristotle’s Meteorology.11 The use of the conceptual framework of Aristotelian logic is a common feature of most late Neoplatonic commentaries on Aristotle. A remarkable feature of this commentary is Philoponus’ use of current mathematical and astronomical theories in the exposition, interpretation and criticism of Aristotle’s views. This tendency to use not only philosophical, but also current scientific sources in the interpretation of Aristotle’s cosmology, goes back to the earlier commentators, such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, and becomes prominent in the learned commentaries of the late Neoplatonic writers such as Philoponus and Olympiodorus at Alexandria and Simplicius at Athens. We know that Philoponus’ teacher Ammonius cultivated scientific interests in his school. Philoponus wrote a commentary on Nicomachus’ Introduction to Arithmetic and is familiar with both the basic doctrines and their expositions by late antique

Introduction

3

authors, such as Theon of Smyrna. He is familiar with astronomical theories and understands practical astronomy. A treatise On the Astrolabe is attributed to him. In his commentary on Meteorology, we find several references to the results which go back to Ptolemy’s Almagest: Philoponus is probably familiar with the work, even if not with all the details of its complex argument and mathematical apparatus.12 He may have read other works by Ptolemy, such as Optics, and he certainly knows enough of the principles of geometrical optics to be able to use freely the assumption of the eye-streams in the explanation of the heavenly phenomena which produce various visual effects.13 He has some familiarity with catoptrics.14 The reader will notice that many of Philoponus’ arguments concerning the subjects of mathematical astronomy and geometrical optics either involve a diagram or are more easily followed when supplied with some kind of a drawing. There can be little doubt that using diagrams in geometrical demonstrations was a school routine. This commentary can be a good illustration of the direction in which the scientific curriculum was taken in the Alexandrian school by Ammonius and his circle. Another characteristic feature of this commentary is that Philoponus clearly has a polemical agenda, which is perceived throughout the commentary, most obviously in his direct arguments against Aristotle and Alexander, but also in scattered brief objections where Philoponus avoids a detailed engagement with the argument but refers the audience to his earlier discussions (mainly Contra Aristotelem but possibly also to Aet. 13).15 The argument 1.1. The place of Meteorology in the Aristotelian system Aristotle’s Meteorology 1.1 is a short introductory chapter whose main purpose is to explain the place of the treatise in the order of the works that make up the physical corpus. Aristotle briefly enumerates the subjects which have been dealt with in the works that precede Meteorology, namely the first causes of nature and all natural motion (presumably, Physics), the ordered motions of the stars (presumably De Caelo 1-2, although the astronomical theory itself is presented in Metaphysics 12.8) and the bodily elements, their number, kinds and mutual transformations (this probably corresponds to the De Caelo 3-4 and On Generation and Corruption).16 Meteorology is described as a traditional discipline treating of the natural processes that take place in the region bordering on that of the motion of the stars. These processes include the Milky Way, comets, shooting stars and meteors, winds, earthquakes, thunderbolts, whirlwinds, firewinds, the processes of condensation (such as rain, snow, hail). The next in the order after the Meteorology are the works of the biological corpus, on animals and plants. This

4

Introduction

introduction could have been composed in the course of preparing a certain redaction of the whole corpus of physical works.17 Its main goal is to introduce the reader to the scope and contents of the work. Many Aristotelian commentators use this kind of introduction as an opportunity to present a broader outline of the scope and goals of the discipline within the system of philosophy as a whole. In Ammonius’ commentary on the Categories, we find a detailed discussion of what appears to be a standard list of the ten questions to be answered before studying Aristotle. These include the questions concerning (1) the origin of the names of philosophical schools; (2) a division of Aristotelian writings; (3) the order of Aristotle’s works; (4) the purpose of studying Aristotle’s philosophy; (5) what leads to it; (6) how to prepare to be a student of philosophical discourses; (7) the kind of delivery; (8) why the Philosopher appears to practise unclarity; (9) what and how many assumptions must be made for each of Aristotelian works; (10) what the exegete must be like.18 The purpose of such preliminary discussion is to introduce the students to the principles of Aristotelian exegesis practised in the Neoplatonic schools. Similar preliminary discussions are found in a number of commentaries originating in the Alexandrian school.19 Philoponus is no exception to this tradition.20 In this commentary, his concise preliminary discussion of the principles of division of Aristotelian philosophy and its goals may stand for such an introduction.21 In it, Philoponus presupposes an overall consensus between Platonism and Aristotelianism as philosophical systems. The technical distinctions he draws which can be traced back to Aristotle find further justification and elaboration in the key texts of Plato. Philosophy as a whole is divided into theoretical and practical parts,22 in accordance with the two faculties of the soul, theoretical and the one Philoponus designates as ‘vital’ (zôtikê). Theoretical philosophy deals with matters of truth and falsehood, practical with those of virtue and vice. Both thus need an instrument which might provide a criterion for distinguishing between the true and the false and the good and the bad.23 The role of such instrument (organon) is played by the discipline of logic, whose role is thus defined in accordance with the Aristotelian position.24 The theoretical part of philosophy is divided into three parts, physics, mathematics and theology, i.e. Aristotle’s ‘first philosophy’.25 After the preliminary remarks, Philoponus goes on to a more detailed exposition of the further six methodological questions which, in accordance with Ammonius’ exegetical programme, constitute the ninth of the ten preliminary questions listed above, concerning the assumptions to be made for the study of a particular work by Aristotle, ‘what and how many are the preliminary issues to be resolved concerning each particular work of Aristotle’. The preliminary issues are six in number: (i) the purpose (skopos) of the book, namely the kind of good end intended by the writer; (ii) the utility (to khrêsimon) of the book if it is not apparent

Introduction

5

along with the purpose; (iii) the order of exposition (taxis); (iv) the explanation of the title (epigraphê) if it is not clear (e.g. Peri ouranou [‘On the Heavens’] or Peri geneseôs kai phthoras [‘On Generation and Corruption’]); (v) whether the book is authentic (gnêsion) or spurious; (vi) division into chapters (epi ta kephalaia diairesis).26 Philoponus explains that the purpose of Meteorology (i) is ‘to inform us ... on all the processes that take place between the earth and the heaven, that is in the air and the tinder sphere, processes resulting from the two so-called exhalations, the vaporous and the dry, the one being exhaled by moist bodies, the other by dry ones’.27 The examples are rain, hail, snow, thunder, lightning, winds, shooting stars, thunderbolts, but also earthquakes, mines and waters, because the two exhalations have their effects not only in the heaven and mid-air, but also under the earth. Philoponus points out specially that Aristotle explains the difference between the purely optical effects and those effects which take place ‘in reality’. The usefulness of the work (ii) has to do with the benefits bestowed on the soul by study of reality, order and natural perfection. The authenticity (iii) of the work was not subject to doubt in antiquity.28 The place of the treatise (iv) in the order of Aristotle’s works is stated in accordance with Aristotle’s own indication, and is taken to be uncontroversial, although the question of composition is going to affect this solution to some extent. The title of the treatise (v) is traditional, according to Aristotle himself, but Philoponus offers his justification, of two kinds: on the one hand, in line with the traditional explanation, the title refers to the phenomena up in the sky (meteôra); on the other hand, and in line with Aristotle’s specific approach, these are the phenomena constituted by the two exhalations, which are found in the upper region, but also under the earth, when enclosed (2,20-8). The subject-matter (hupothesis), (vi), refers to the contents. The debate over the composition of the treatise goes back to Alexander of Aphrodisias who thought that the original Meteorology consists of the received books 1-3, while the book transmitted as book 4 discusses the matters which are not proper to meteorology and should be attached as a third book to the treatise On Generation and Corruption.29 Olympiodorus in his commentary reports that Ammonius argued against this suggestion pointing out that this would disrupt the exposition of the doctrine of composites, where the logic requires that the first books of the Meteorology should be studied immediately after the treatise On Generation and Corruption.30 Both Olympiodorus and Philoponus follow this conservative exegetical approach of Ammonius, Olympiodorus elaborating on Ammonius’ thesis concerning the theory of composites, and Philoponus pointing out the connection of book 4 with the immediately preceding theory of exhalations presented in books 1-3 and the subsequent treatises on animals and plants.31

6

Introduction 1.2. Aristotle’s Theory of Elements

In the second chapter, Aristotle gives a concise summary of his doctrine of elements: there are four sublunary elements (earth, water, air, fire), produced by primary qualities (hot, cold, moist and dry) and possessing one of the two natural motions – centripetal/downward (earth and water) or centrifugal/upward (air and fire). These elements constitute all the bodies in the sublunary region and are the material cause of all the sublunary processes. Sublunary region is continuous with the heavenly region made up by a special distinct heavenly element which is eternal and moves with a circular motion which has no spatial limit, but is always complete. This motion of the heavenly element is the efficient cause of all the sublunary processes. Philoponus elaborates on this summary, supplying some links to the arguments Aristotle omits as well as some more detailed explanations of his own and those he finds in the earlier exegetical tradition, primarily in Alexander’s commentary, and possibly also in Ammonius’ lectures. He points out that all the elements are constituted by the incorporeal principles, viz. form and matter; the four sublunary elements are made up by the four elemental qualities because these four qualities yield only four viable combinations according to On Generation and Corruption 2.3. Philoponus follows Alexander in explaining Aristotle’s claim that the sublunary region must of necessity be continuous with the motions of the heavenly spheres by taking a qualified meaning of ‘continuous’ (‘somehow continuous’, according to some manuscripts), which refers to the permanent contact between the sublunary and heavenly region rather than continuity in a precise sense, which would make it difficult to distinguish between the two regions.32 Philoponus also follows Alexander in detailing the way in which the heavenly body governs the sublunary processes, invoking the role of heavenly motions in causing the change of seasons.33 Philoponus adds that heaven is the first corporeal efficient cause of the sublunary processes while the transcendent cause is their first (efficient) cause in a strict sense – an interpretation of Aristotle’s first unmoved mover as efficient cause of the cosmos characteristic of the school of Ammonius is recognisable.34 On the other hand, having spelled out a special status of circular movement which is both spatially infinite and complete at each point, Philoponus cites Plotinus who explains that the heaven moves in a circle because it imitates the intellect, namely its property of turning in upon itself (epistrophê).35 The relation between this intellect, which presumably must be identical with the first unmoved mover of Aristotle’s Metaphysics 12 (described as ‘thought which thinks itself’) and the abovementioned transcendent first cause of the sublunary processes is not made clear, but it is possible to assume the identity here as well.

Introduction

7

1.3. The five elements in Aristotle’s Meteorology In the third chapter, Aristotle discusses the distribution of the four elements within the sublunary cosmos. He has discussed this question also in the De Caelo, where he argued that in accordance with the theory of natural place (based on the theory of natural motion), the elements are distributed in the following way: the centre of the cosmos is occupied by the earth, which is the heaviest of the four elements and always has a tendency to move downwards, i.e. towards the centre. The outermost part of the sublunary cosmos which borders on the heavenly region is occupied by a layer of fire, the lightest of the four elements, which always has a tendency to move upwards, i.e. away from the centre. The space between the earth and the fire is occupied by water and air, in that order, water being lighter than earth but still heavy, i.e. naturally moving towards the centre, and air being heavier than fire, but still light, i.e. naturally moving away from the centre. This distribution of elemental layers differs little from similar arrangements introduced in the Presocratic physics by Empedocles and probably owes much to Plato’s vision of the cosmos stated in the Timaeus, the main difference in the case of Aristotle being that this elemental constitution is applicable only to the sublunary cosmos, whereas the remaining, and by far the larger, part of the universe is occupied by an extra ‘first body’, the ‘fifth element’ of the later tradition, which is not subject to any transformation and possesses a regular circular motion.36 While the De Caelo deals with the general theory of the elements, the task of Meteorology is to explain a broad range of phenomena in the atmosphere, on and under the earth, therefore it necessarily gives a more detailed and nuanced picture of elemental distribution in the sublunary region of the cosmos than the one found in De Caelo. Aristotle explains the way in which these ‘layers’ are arranged in the cosmos that we experience: water rests upon the earth in the way in which rivers, lakes, and seas, are formed in the cavities of the earth’s surface. The most important amendment to the earlier ‘four-layer’ picture is introduced by the theory of two exhalations. According to this theory, there are two kinds of exhalation arising from earth: the vaporous (moist) and the smoky (dry). These two exhalations form the material substrate of many atmospheric processes discussed by Aristotle in the first book. In the third chapter, Aristotle begins by asking the question of the nature of the elements that occupy the space between the earth and the farthest stars, then answers it re-stating his own theories familiar from De Caelo (the upper parts of the sublunary region are occupied by air and fire and the space beyond the sphere of the moon is occupied by the heavenly element) and refuting two theories that differ from his. Having thus re-stated his position on the general issue, Aristotle goes on to deal with two preliminary puzzles on whose solution this position may be said to stand. The first puzzle has to do with the disposition of air

8

Introduction

and fire with respect to the heavenly element, and in particular with the question why clouds are not formed in the upper air. To this latter question, Aristotle gives several answers: in the upper region the condensation does not work because the heavenly sphere generates heat (counteracting the cold necessary for condensation to occur); further, the upper region contains fire rather than air, even though this fire is not the same as flame, i.e. the excess of heat, which we call fire here on earth; finally, some of the air and fire in the upper layer gets caught by the circular motion of the heavenly sphere and moves along, which can also prevent the clouds from forming. The second puzzle Aristotle discusses briefly has to do with the nature of the heat coming from the stars. According to Aristotle, the quality of heat is sublunary and not present in the region of heavens proper; so the heating of the atmosphere by the sun happens not by the heat being imparted from the sun to the earth, but by friction between the heavenly sphere and the atmosphere which is intensive enough to generate heat. Philoponus in his commentary suggests that we should understand Aristotle’s question about the elements filling the space between the earth and the farthest stars as concerned not with the quality of those elements (something already discussed in GC), but ‘with the quantitative question of its magnitude and how far it reaches’ (14,18-22). In accordance with this interpretation, Philoponus proceeds to expound the distribution of the elements using quantitative methods of contemporary mathematics and astronomy. 1.3.1. The size of the cosmos Aristotle discusses the distribution of elemental layers within the cosmos: the earth occupies its centre, as has been shown in De Caelo. The water collects in the earth’s cavities, on the surface and inside. Aristotle points out that the size of the earth with relation to the whole cosmos is small, perhaps even smaller than that of some of the stars. Philoponus discusses the measurements of earth’s perimeter in some detail (15,5-28). His sources are not entirely clear and the description of the method is less clear than might be expected.37 Nonetheless, both the method and the results that he cites are close to what one can find in ancient sources. The first method which Philoponus describes is not attributed to anyone; the result obtained with its help corresponds to one report of Posidonius. Philoponus also cites Arrian’s lost Meteorology as a source for Eratosthenes’ result, and it is tempting to think that Arrian is his source here, but we do not know to what extent Philoponus may depend here on Ammonius and the way these things were taught in his school. The discussion of aether, although purely etymological, does bring out Philoponus’ polemical agenda. Aristotle argues that the doctrine of the fifth element is one of those ‘opinions’ that circulate among men eternally (339b27-30). Philoponus uses this as an opportunity to attack Aristotle’s view of the eternity of the cosmos. (The argument from the

Introduction

9

eternally circulating opinions is taken ad hominem, when Philoponus assumes that the view according to which the world is finite is also eternally recurrent and has the same credibility as the opposite view.) The second argument is that if one permits the existence of the infinite, it is possible to get something ‘greater than infinity’, which makes no sense. This is the argument Philoponus uses often.38 Philoponus questions Aristotle’s doxographical analysis according to which the ancient name of aithêr stems from aei theein, the etymology obliterated later on and replaced by a more vulgar derivation from aithein. Philoponus criticises this doxography, arguing that no Greek thinkers before Aristotle held this opinion (17,35-6). Interestingly, he mentions as a source for the theory of the ‘fifth body’ Alexander’s letter to Aristotle from either India or Babylon. No such letter has been preserved, but the theory according to which heaven is made up of the ‘fifth body’ is attributed to the Brahmans in the Hellenistic source of Strabo’s Geography 15.39 Instead of what turns out an unstable and unpopular construct, Philoponus offers his own etymology, starting from Plato’s discussion of the term in Crat. 410B6-8, and proceeding to his own interpretation of the term, emphasising the transcendent nature of its proper reference. According to his analysis, the derivation of the name of aithêr from aei thein must eventually find its rationale in the incorporeal imperceptible cause, divine principle proper, which alone can cause this kind of motion.40 Aristotle argues that the space between the earth and the sphere of fixed stars cannot be filled with just fire or just air, or just the two of fire or air. This prepares the ground for the claim that the space is filled by air, immediately above the earth, fire, above the air and below the moon, and aether, or divine body, from moon to the fixed stars. The question of the relative size of the earth with respect to the whole cosmos is important in both this argument and Philoponus’ discussion of it. Where Aristotle says only that the size of the earth is rather small, Philoponus argues, in accordance with the postulates of mathematical astronomy, that its size with respect to the whole of the cosmos equals that of a geometrical point. Philoponus also argues for this thesis with the help of astronomical methods (18,23-19,7). That the relative size of the earth with respect to the whole cosmos equals a geometrical point, is shown by the fact that small distances on the earth bring about great differences in observations. This is a common argument; Philoponus illustrates it by the examples which must be familiar to him and his audience: the bright star Canopus is visible in Alexandria and invisible in Byzantium (so Homer who lives in Greece does not know it and calls Sirius the brightest star); Ursa Maior appears high up in Byzantium, just above the horizon in Alexandria, and in Diospolis (Luxor) many of its stars set (19,1-5).41 Philoponus argues further, using a detailed geometrical demonstra-

10

Introduction

tion, that had the size of the earth been in any proportion to the size of the cosmos, the part of the sky above the earth and visible to us would be smaller than a half-circle (19,8-32). But as things stand, the segment of the sky we can see is equal to six zodiacal signs (180º) at each place, so the earth’s own size does not intervene and is thus in no proportion to the size of the cosmos. As a part of the same preparation for the physical argument, to give the audience a better idea of the size of the cosmos, Philoponus discusses the relative sizes and distances of the sun and the earth, starting with relative distances (18,23-20,20). He states, referring to mathematical proofs, that the distance from the moon to the sun is ‘less than twenty times and more than nineteen times as great as the distance from the centre of the earth to the convex surface of the moon’ (20,1-2).42 On this basis he goes on to calculate the relative volumes of the space from the moon to the sun and that from the moon to the earth, raising twenty to the cubic power, and getting the ratio of 8,000. The purpose of this calculation (whose equivalent is not found in Ptolemy) is presumably to give the students an idea of how big the universe is as well as to show the scope of mathematical method which is capable of giving such an estimate. The size of the whole universe is said to be beyond astronomical measurement, so it can be regarded as infinite relatively to any measurable distances. Philoponus sets out to discuss relative sizes of the earth and the sun ‘without the use of mathematical methods’ (20,20-1). This discussion has some parallels with the material from Adrastus cited in the work of Theon of Smyrna, the early second-century writer, On the Usefulness of Mathematics for Understanding Plato.43 Philoponus argues for the spherical shape of the earth on the basis of the sphericity of its shadow, equally observed in all the relative positions of the earth and the moon during lunar eclipses, and argues that the size of the sun is much greater than that of the earth on the basis of the fact that the earth’s shadow has conical shape.44 He indicates that the cone of earth’s shadow reaches beyond the moon sphere and its apex attains to the sphere of Mercury. This whole discussion, both mathematical and semi-formal, of the size of the cosmos, is intended to lend support to Aristotle’s argument that the cosmos is not made either of fire or of air. Philoponus does not share Aristotle’s main conclusion from this argument, but he can relate to certain readings of this conclusion: (a) the region between the earth and the stars is not all made of fire (22,3-29); (b) this whole region is not made of air alone (22,30-23,36). In the case (a), it is not entirely clear if Aristotle allows of such a construal of his argument, which seems to be aimed mainly at the view that the whole outer space, not just the stars, is made of fire. Such is Alexander’s interpretation based on the straightforward reading of 339b30-6.45 But if Aristotle granted Philoponus his construal of the passage, he would agree with him: the region between

Introduction

11

the earth and the stars cannot be made of fire alone. In the case (b), before discussing Aristotle’s argument, Philoponus supplies his own arguments for the impossibility of the cosmos made of just air: (i) ‘the universe would be crippled if deprived of the most beautiful and most life-producing of elements, that is, of fire’; (ii) if there are totalities of earth, water, and air, there must be the same kind of totality of fire, and this is the tinder sphere (22,30-23,22). Aristotle would probably not disagree with either of these arguments, but we must be aware that both (i) and (ii) receive a special significance as a part of Philoponus’ anti-Aristotelian thesis that fire, in its elemental, i.e. heavenly, variety, is the main constituent of the upper cosmos. The elemental ‘totalities’ (holotêtes) is a term used by Neoplatonists to refer to the masses of elements situated, as it were, in the Platonic equivalent of the Aristotelian ‘natural place’. Aristotle argues (340a3-8) that had air been the only constituent of the cosmos, it would have been out of any proportion with other elements, due to the huge size of the cosmos, and thus could not be sustained, or even begin to exist, on that scale. Philoponus in his presentation of this argument points out that the right proportion between the elements is the material cause of their coming to be and existence (23,22-36). Aristotle points out (340a8-13) that the relative proportion of the total masses of the elements should be the same as the proportion between the partial quantities of the same elements (if a pint of air makes twenty pints of fire, then twenty is the ratio between the total masses of air and fire). The Aristotelian argument, according to Philoponus, states that since the mass of earth, with water, is negligible with relation to the surrounding space, and the entire space cannot therefore be filled with fire and air (whose masses are proportionate to those of water and earth), the space beyond fire should be filled with the heavenly element (‘a third element’ in Philoponus’ discussion). Philoponus registers his disagreement in a demure fashion, saying that he had discussed these matters elsewhere, meaning most probably Contra Aristotelem (24,38-25,2).46 Aristotle argues (340a13-17) that these proportions would hold whether or not the elements change into each other. Presumably, the proportions would hold among the elements of Empedocles (which do not change into each other) or Plato (where earth does not change into any of the remaining elements). Philoponus argues against this point, to the effect that a pitcher of water from Lake Maeotis does not exceed the rest of the water in the Lake in either wetness or coldness (the two elemental qualities of water).47 This construal seems to be more a defence of Philoponus’ cosmological theory than a criticism of aether theory: if the large quantities do not differ in their qualitative effects from small quantities, then nothing prohibits the cosmos being made up of fire.

12

Introduction

1.3.2. Relative positions of air, fire and aether: the problem of cloud formation The question of cloud formation, says Aristotle, can help to shed light on the relative positions of air and fire with respect to each other and to aether. The question is as follows: why do clouds not gather in the regions high above the earth? (340a24-33) Aristotle explains first why it would be prima facie natural for clouds to form in that region (340a25-33), then discusses and rejects two problematic prima facie solutions to the problem of the absence of such formation in the most suitable area. These solutions are both based on the assumption that there is no fifth heavenly element: either (i) there are two layers of air, the lower one subject to cloud formation, but not the upper one; or (ii) the lower layer of air is mixed with vapour (340a33-b3). Finally, Aristotle states his own solution, which does make use of the heavenly element moving in a circle. At each step, Philoponus’ commentary adds more and more details, and in the end turns from a commentary to a full-scale polemic against Aristotle’s view. This is one of the most interesting parts of the work. Aristotle explains that the region high above the earth is suitable for air to be condensed into clouds because it is cold, being removed from both the heavenly region, the source of heat, and the earth where the high density of reflected sunrays melts any dense conditions of air. Philoponus adduces some anecdotal evidence showing that there are no clouds in the region high above, e.g. in the high mountains, but they are formed in the lower places (26,30-27,12). At this point he rejects the first horn of Aristotle’s proposed dilemma: there is no reason for supposing that some of the air would condense and some would not, on a random basis. If there is a phenomenon of condensation then it should affect any part of the air, other things being equal; the mere difference of position cannot account for this difference of effects (27,12-18). Aristotle’s explanation of the absence of cloud formation in the region close to the earth by the action of reflected sunrays triggers an interesting digression into geometrical optics in Philoponus’ commentary. This elaboration is hinted at already in Alexander’s commentary, where the region close to the earth is said to be heated by the double onset of rays, the incident and the reflected.48 Philoponus explicitly refers to the equality of the angle of incidence to the angle of reflection (27,31-5). He also uses this opportunity to discuss phenomena of mirror reflection, confidently applying the theory of visual rays and showing some familiarity with catoptrics (27,35-28,24).49 In his discussion of the second horn of Aristotle’s dilemma (29,12-34), Philoponus objects to Alexander, who explains that water would exceed the proportion if the space between the stars were occupied by vapour, i.e. condensed air, and the stars were made of fire, since stars are so much smaller than the space between them.50 Philoponus, perhaps by way of preparing a way for more polemic

Introduction

13

to follow, points out that even then water would not exceed fire, because stars are much bigger than they appear (29,26-34). The next stage of Aristotle’s argument includes his own solution to the problem of clouds not forming in the upper region of the air. The solution is actually composite: it gives three distinct but related reasons for the absence of clouds in the upper region. All the reasons are based on the key assumption of the existence of the heavenly body which permanently rotates in a circle and is a source of heat. It is not a surprise that Philoponus’ commentary becomes increasingly polemical in this part of the chapter. Aristotle’s first step is to state that the motion of the heavenly body generates heat in the sublunary region, specifically, in the part of it which borders on the heaven proper (340b4-10). Aristotle notes that the heavenly element varies in purity and freedom from admixture, and takes on differences (b9-10), and Alexander seconds this point explaining it by the differences in primary qualities accruing to the simple body of the heavens just as they do to the sublunary elements (where heat is present in the fire in a more intensive way than in the air).51 Philoponus points out that a Platonist might explain these differences simply by saying that heavenly bodies are composed of the four elements, in different combinations. The crux of Aristotelian explanation is that the heavenly body moving in a circle and being in contact with the upper edge of the sublunary cosmos sets it on fire by its motion which dissolves and evaporates all the moist and enhances heat. The upper part of the sublunary cosmos is, thus, fire, in which no clouds can last. The part next to it is air, which is moderately warm. This is the second step of Aristotle’s solution: because of the motion of the heavenly body, two layers are formed in the upper region: of fire and air. The layer of fire is called so by custom: it is not our ordinary fire which is the excess of heat and boiling, but elemental fire, the substance which is hot and dry. The layer of air, being moist and hot, is like a vapour. Both layers are formed from the common elemental substrate. This substrate is like matter for the heavenly motion because it contains in potentiality the contrary elemental qualities: heat and cold, dry and moist, which are actualised by motion or lack of motion. The physical processes which produce the two layers are described by Aristotle as ‘exhalations’: the part of exhalation which contains moist and stays at a lower level is called ‘moist’ or ‘vaporous’ exhalation; the part which is dry and hot is ‘dry’ or ‘smoky’ exhalation. In his explanation of the elemental layers, Philoponus makes a ‘geometrical’ digression to show that the heavy bodies which move downwards also by the same token move towards the centre of the universe. He uses a demonstration based on the spherical shape of the earth, which requires that any downward trajectory should pass through the centre of the sphere, as otherwise it will cross the sphere

14

Introduction

and continue beyond it, moving upwards (34,10-35,9).52 Philoponus uses this discussion as an opportunity to promote his preferred definition of place as ‘a three-dimensional incorporeal interval’. He argues that the wording of Aristotle’s text describing the place of the heavy elements as being ‘at the centre or round the centre’ shows that Aristotle here fails to follow his own definition of place from Physics 4 as ‘the limit of the encompassing body’. Philoponus welcomes this inconsistency and refers the reader to his commentary on Physics where he has argued against Aristotle’s definition.53 The third step in Aristotle’s solution to the problem of clouds has to do with his assumption that the heavenly motion being in contact with the upper edge of the sublunary air and moving in a circle, pulls some of the fire and air along with itself in a circle around the earth. This motion would also prevent the cloud formation, since any portion of air that gets condensed and becomes heavier sinks down, the upper area thus being cleared of any products of condensation should it occur (340b32 – 6). Philoponus notes in this connection that according to Platonic physics, air and fire are not moved by traction along with the heavenly sphere, but have this circular motion naturally. According to this theory, some of the totalities are motionless, i.e. earth and water, while others are in circular motion, i.e. air and the tinder sphere (37,18-22). The reader is again referred to the earlier work, most probably Contra Aristotelem 1.54 In the earlier Physics commentary and in De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, Philoponus is committed to a different theory attested for several Platonist writers (Damascius, Simplicius and Olympiodorus), according to which the circular motion of fire is neither natural nor counternatural, but supernatural.55 Aristotle explains that only the higher part of the air, which is not obstructed by high mountains, is moving along with the heavenly sphere; the air which is trapped between the mountains is stagnant and thus can be a suitable place for cloud formation (340b36-8). Any condensed formation in the upper air becomes heavy and tends to sink down, leaving the upper area clean (341a5-9). Philoponus apparently disagrees with Alexander on what might look like a hair-splitting issue: whence the condensed formation in the upper air, according to Aristotle? Alexander seems to think it is brought along with the upward movement of the exhalation and sinks back. Philoponus seems to be less constrained by the theory of natural motion and to allow for a possibility of condensation happening in the upper air.56 If this is what inspires his debate which takes a form of a purely exegetical disagreement on an obscure passage, then we have another example of the original Platonist agenda coming close to the surface in Philoponus’ discussion of Aristotle’s text.

Introduction

15

1.3.3. The sun’s heat In his discussion of Aristotle’s explanation of the way the sun heats the sublunary world, Philoponus first deals with Aristotle’s own argument which he subjects to a thorough criticism. Criticising Aristotle, Philoponus also outlines an alternative theory which is in the background of his polemic, namely that the heavenly bodies are made of the same four sublunary elements that constitute the sublunary cosmos, the difference between the two realms being down to the different purity and proportions of the elements involved. The second part of Philoponus’ discussion concerns the defence of the Aristotelian position by Alexander of Aphrodisias, with a focus on the way the sun’s action is propagated through the medium of the lower heavenly spheres. 1.3.3.1. Aristotle’s argument Aristotle’s explanation of the way the sun heats the sublunary cosmos is based on the already mentioned idea that the heavenly sphere in its rotation touches the ‘tinder’ sphere of elemental fire and ignites it, due to friction. Aristotle explains that he attributes this kind of heating to the sun because the sun both moves fast and is not far from the bodies in the sublunary region. This does not seem to be the case with any other heavenly body: the moon is closer to the earth than the sun, but it moves slower; the fixed stars move faster but are much farther away. The combination of relevant factors is thus unique in the case of the sun.57 Philoponus discusses two prima facie difficulties and resolves them on Aristotle’s behalf, before stating his own objections.58 The first one is as follows. The moon makes a full circle around the earth in a month, the sun in a year’s time: why is the sun said to be faster? His solution involves an explanation of the double character of planetary motion: (i) movement from east to west along with the fixed sphere; (ii) their own (or rather their spheres’) movement from east to west which accounts for retrogradations. The moon is faster than the sun only in the second component of its motion, but it is much slower in its movement along with the fixed sphere, since moving with this sphere they both make a full circle in the same time interval, but the circle of the sun is much larger than that of the moon (40,26-41,15). The second difficulty has to do with the fact that the bodies are not heated by the motion of spheres at night, but the sun must keep its heating power (41,15-23). The question presumably is about the sun’s spheres preserving the heating power at night (since otherwise the question would be answered by Aristotle’s reference to the sun’s unique status). Philoponus solves the problem by pointing to the difference between the texture of the sphere and that of the sun which he takes to be the reference of Aristotle’s mention of ‘the solid’ (tou stereou) at 341a28.59

16

Introduction

Having thus done justice to Aristotle’s argument, Philoponus proceeds to his own objections which are supposed to put to rest the thesis that the sun heats by friction. The first objection has to do precisely with the meaning of the term ‘solid’ used by Aristotle of the sun: it could be mathematical, referring to the three-dimensional, or physical, referring to that which is tangible and resistant (41,25-42,1). The first meaning has to be ruled out because the three-dimensionality is shared by the sun with the spheres. The only remaining option, ‘the resistant’, falls under the category of the tangible, and this characteristic, according to Aristotle himself, is constituted by a pair of elemental qualities, the hot or the cold cum the moist or the dry. The sun then has to be constituted by some such combination – and Philoponus, of course, votes for fire being the major ingredient. With his second objection, Philoponus argues that without being resistant, the heavenly spheres would not be able to preserve their proper shape in their swift motion, as they most obviously do (42,1-32). Aristotle would certainly accept that the shape of the cosmos, with all the details of its concentric structure, is permanent. But if that is the case, then the motion of the spheres of this kind should have a much greater thermal effect on the sublunary cosmos than the sun, because they are much larger than the sun. Also the moon should heat more than the sun because it is located closer to the earth. If Aristotle’s view were true, the sun would have to heat first all the spheres of Mercury, Venus and the moon, which lie between itself and the upper edge of the sublunary cosmos. If it does not do so, then it does not heat the earth; if it does, then these spheres, again, take on sensible qualities and are subject to affection. It follows, for Philoponus, that the sun’s motion is not the cause of heating, but it heats the underlying things by its quality, i.e. heat, ‘as fire also does’ (42,32). Philoponus’ third objection is that there is a third factor which defines the thermal effect of friction, apart from speed and solidity, namely the proximity of the causal agent to the patient (42,32-43,7). Since the moon is much closer to the earth than the sun, and the difference in speed between the two heavenly bodies is not so great, it would follow, on Aristotle’s theory, that the moon rather than the sun should be the main heater of the sublunary world, since it rubs the upper age of the tinder sphere in direct contact. Since this is clearly not the case, it follows that it is not its motion that is the cause of the heat. Even if the moon sometimes does heat, it does so with the heat which it receives from the sun, along with the light, since the heat is inherent in the light (43,7-33). Philoponus rejects the objection made to Aristotle by the critics who point out that if he attributes solidity to the sun on the grounds of its being non-transparent, then he must deny solidity to the spheres, which contradicts his cosmological theory (43,33-44,18). Philoponus points out

Introduction

17

that transparency and solidity are not mutually exclusive properties, and cites the examples of solid bodies that are transparent. Philoponus explains that rubbing solid objects generates fire by setting in motion the air which is trapped inside because there are few pores coming to the surface and says this is the reason Aristotle wants the sun to be of this kind. A relevant explanation of kindling fire by friction is found in [Alexander]’s Problemata 1.60 But Philoponus points out that such explanation must presuppose a contact between the sun and sublunary cosmos. The absence of such contact and the clear evidence of the sun’s heating power suggest that the sun heats not by friction, but by its quality, viz. heat. Philoponus dismisses also Damascius’ suggestion, based on his reading of Alexander, that the power by which the sun heats is one of the peculiar powers that heavenly bodies possess, to produce the effects in the sublunary cosmos (44,18-36).61 Aristotle’s supplementary explanation of the sun’s heat by diffusion of the fire in the tinder sphere due to its being moved along with the heavenly sphere, whereby some bits of elemental fire catch light and are hurled down by a forced movement (341a28-31), is also given short shrift. This kind of process, says Philoponus, could not have any regularity to it, so the only plausible cause of heating is still the heat of the sun itself. (45,24-35). Aristotle argues that the fact that the so called ‘running’ or ‘shooting stars’ do not appear in the higher, properly heavenly region, but come about lower, is a further strong evidence that the heavens are not made of fire (341a31-35). Philoponus’ response is that the stable shape of heavenly spheres preventing them from emitting sparks so as to produce ‘shooting stars’, is easily explained if one assumes, with Platonists, that the spheres are made of a combination of the four elements and thus partake of earth, the principle of solidity, according to Plato (46,11-27). The examples he uses, of sublunary bodies which are hot but do not emit sparks, such as pepper, mustard, spurge and castor, show that the heat of the heavenly bodies is not of an ordinary kind, although not latent without qualification. Rather, its action is selective and produces familiar heating effects only in specific underlying substrates. 1.3.3.2. Philoponus on Alexander’s defence of Aristotle Alexander in his commentary on this chapter raises the problem: how exactly does the sun produce heat in the upper sublunary region without touching the air and without producing any heating effect in the heavenly spheres that separate it from the tinder sphere?62 He offers a solution to this problem which he describes as a ‘palliation’ (paramuthia), perhaps intending to present it as an anodyne reading, aiming to make Aristotle’s theory appear less controversial. Philoponus says that the status of ‘palliation’ means that this is not a real solution.63 Alexander’s first argument is that in many processes involving agent

18

Introduction

and patient, there are also intermediate things which pass on the effect without being affected in this way themselves.64 The examples are the glass filled with water which acts as a lens focussing the sunrays when the sun kindles dung or something of this sort. The lens is, even if heated, not to such an extent as to catch fire. The fishermen can perceive the torpedo-fish caught by their snares or hooks, through either the nets or the fishing line, but these intermediates themselves are not affected in the same way. In the same way, perhaps, the intermediate spheres pass on the heating effect without being affected themselves. Philoponus criticises this solution, objecting first to the example of torpedo-fish and nets as based on a category mistake. The numbing effect of a torpedo-fish is not in the same class with the effects of simple qualities. Rather, it is a part of a broad range of mental and organic activities that supervene on certain select combinations of simple qualities and include at their lower level also ‘unusual powers of plants and stones’, presumably also to do with electricity and magnetism. This is thus an incorrect illustration of the heating effect, since heat is a simple quality. If one grants that a supervenient power also has concurrent simple qualitative effects, then these effects must act upon the intermediary things. Thus, if the torpedo-fish impulse is accompanied by some simple qualitative action, such as heating or drying, the nets or the line must be affected by this action. So if one were to suppose that sun’s action is in its own class, but its effect, heating, is like that of a simple quality, then this effect should be manifest in the intermediate spheres. Philoponus does not consider the possibility that the simple qualitative effect could be triggered by a patient of a particular kind, just as in his own example the heat inside the hot peppers acts only on a particular type of substrate. Alexander probably thinks that the sublunary elemental composition could be just such a ‘trigger’ eliciting the simple qualitative effect from the higherorder action of a heavenly body. This line of explanation is taken over also by some of Philoponus’ fellow Platonists who do not accept his theory of elements, such as Simplicius, Olympiodorus, and probably Damascius.65 Philoponus’ discussion of the second example, of a glass of water that works as a lens, takes up Alexander’s concept of the ‘intermediate’ thing (to metaxu). He objects to Alexander that in the case of a lens, as well as in the case of a mirror, there is no ‘mediation’ in the sense of ‘passing through’, at all (49,2-18). The rays that kindle the dung have not traversed all the way from the sun to the point of combustion in a single physical process. Rather, the trajectory of the rays runs from the point of emission to the next point of reflection. Reflection wards off in this way not just the light but also the accompanying heat, and therefore the surface of the glass or lens is not affected by the rays that heat the dung. The dung, on the other hand, catches light because it does not reflect

Introduction

19

the rays, but absorbs both them and the heat. The physical mechanism of reflection is explained also with the help of the theory of pores.66 The smooth surface of a burning mirror has no outlets through which the light could be absorbed by the mirror, since the pores are blocked in the process of polishing with the help of a special chemical agent.67 Philoponus’ theory does have problems of its own: it is not clear that it can explain all the phenomena it lays claim to.68 But it is clear that he takes the concept of ‘medium’ in a strictly physical sense, and argues that in the example cited by Alexander, there is no such medium, but the physical mechanism involves the processes of reflection, so even if the source of light has a quality of heat, the ‘intermediate’ thing may remain relatively cold in the process of heating. The second ‘palliating solution’ of Alexander’s that Philoponus considers is based on a revision of Aristotle’s description of the heavenly body as ‘impassive’.69 Alexander points out that since heavenly bodies are moving, they are at least susceptible to this kind of change. Moreover, if receiving the light of another body is being affected, then the moon in some way would be affected by the sun, since it has its light from it.70 So, it would not be totally implausible if the part of the divine body adjacent to the sun were somehow affected by it, not in the sense of taking on a sensible quality, but in the sense of passing the effect down to the lower region. Alexander discusses the problem of qualities of the divine body in his lost commentary on De Caelo to which he refers in our passage.71 Philoponus is unhappy with this solution because he thinks it is an unnecessary and implausible half-way house. If the heavenly body is neither totally impassive nor unalterable, then it is subject to alteration, i.e. qualitative change. Every qualitative change ultimately goes back to the primary oppositions and primary elemental qualities, hot/cold and dry/moist. So, the heavenly body must be altered with respect to one of these qualities. But if it is altered with respect to them, it must be composed of them. The difference of the heavenly elements from the sublunary ones is not in quality as such, but in the way this quality is possessed. Heavenly elements are purer and cleaner than the sublunary elements, but the former produce the same type of effect on the latter as they themselves can endure (50,20-51,10). It is not clear whether Alexander would agree with this criticism. Philoponus presupposes a strict dichotomy between changeable and unchangeable, taking ‘change’ to be an all-or-nothing concept, in all cases traceable to the elemental transformations. Alexander, on the other hand, exploits the parts of Aristotle’s doctrine where he allows for a possibility of a qualified change as almost an intermediary state between change proper and relation. This kind of state does have some dependence on elemental transformations, but this dependence does not amount to that of constitution, as Philoponus suggests. Philoponus points out the connection between Aristotle’s thesis of

20

Introduction

unalterability of the divine body and the argument for its imperishability and eternity. Had Aristotle succeeded in proving that the heavenly body is not subject to alteration, he would by the same token have proven its eternity. But since the unalterability is not established, Aristotle is not entitled to hold that the heavens are imperishable and eternal (51,10-26). Philoponus considers Alexander’s solution to the question why there is no heat in the shadow if the heat is produced by the sun’s motion (52,6-53,2). Alexander’s suggestion is that since heat is spread by contact, the object that casts shadow may be blocking the path of such propagation.72 Philoponus objects to this that propagation by contact does not need to follow just one linear path. For Alexander’s suggestion to work under Aristotle’s assumption that heating is produced by friction, the shadowed air should be blocked off completely, e.g. under the earth or in some closed building. As long as there is at least some area where the air heated by the sun can directly contact the air in the shadow, this latter will be heated. In order to avoid this conclusion, it is best to assume that the sun heats by its quality – then Alexander’s argument will work. Finally, Philoponus discusses the question why the sun heats more when it is in mid-heaven rather than on horizon (53,2-27). Philoponus’ answer is partly based on an example from ordinary experience: things are heated more when they are directly under the fire than on the side – from such examples it may be clear why he is more than other Platonists sympathetic with the theory of natural motions.73 On the other hand, the sun in mid-heaven sends to us more rays than when it is on horizon, as in the latter case a part of the rays is still under the earth. The translation ‘Tinder’ (hupekkauma), the Greek word literally means ‘inflammable material’, something that burns well such as dry branches or straw. Here it refers to the upper layer of the sublunary cosmos made up of the hottest and driest part of the smoky exhalation, which catches fire very easily. This layer has a spherical form and is sometimes called ‘the tinder sphere’. This is where meteors, comets, aurorae and Milky Way are formed. I follow Westerink in using this English word uniformly for hupekkauma, as it is clearly a technical term in Aristotle’s treatise. ‘Fixed sphere’ (hê aplanês sphaira) is sometimes used synomymously with ‘sphere of fixed stars’, but in Philoponus’ commentary these have to be distinct (the second volume makes clear why). ‘Fixed sphere’ refers to the hypothetical starless sphere which explains the regular diurnal rotation of the cosmos; whereas the sphere of fixed stars has a precessional motion along the ecliptic circle. L.G. Westerink translated the text up to 40,6 Hayduck. I have

Introduction

21

revised that translation and made a number of minor corrections. I am grateful to Alan Bowen and Richard Sorabji for their comments on the introduction and to Rick McKirahan for kindly providing me with index templates generated by his own software. I was greatly helped by Ian Mueller who read through the whole translation of the three chapters and as usual made many helpful comments and suggestions which improved the manuscript. I hope it is not too presumptuous to dedicate this volume to his memory. Any remainiong errors are, of course, my own. Notes 1. For the most recent survey of Philoponus’ chronology, see Verrycken 2010. 2. See Westerink 1971, 18-21. 3. Olympiodorus’ commentary in Meteor. contains several respectful references to Ammonius (‘great philosopher’: 51,29 and 118,13; ‘the great Ammonius’: 75,25). Philoponus describes Ammonius as ‘our teacher’ at in Meteor. 106,9. 4. Philoponus’ references to Alexander’s commentaries are both quite frequent and remarkably precise, indicating first-hand consultation of the text as their basis. One might compare this with the way Alexander is cited in Philoponus’ commentary on GC, where some of these references are coupled with references to Ammonius’ discussions and can be second-hand (cf. Kupreeva 2005, 1-2). 5. On this distinction, see Lamberz 1987, 14, Westerink, 1971, 6-10. 6. cf. Philoponus’ commentary on GC where ‘own additions’ are devoted to a number of specific questions and can be easily listed (Williams 1999ab, Kupreeva 2005). 7. Incomplete and truncated lemmata: 9,19-22; 12,38-13,3; 15,1- 4; 15,29-31; 26,15-21; repeated lemma: 21,38-22,3. On this feature of the commentaries, see Lamberz 1987, 14 and n. 52. 8. Most notably at Aristotle, Meteor. 1.3, 340b27, Philoponus 36, 11-22, in the definition of two types of the exhalation, see n. 162 ad loc. 9. See 53,26-27 and n. 240. 10. See 44,6-17 and n. 200 ad loc. 11. See 44,25-26 and n. 201 ad loc. 12. cf. 15,5 and n. 75; 19, 37-20,2 and n. 108 (cf. n. 42 below); 24,9-10 and n. 121. 13. cf. 27,31-35 and n.131 ad loc. 14. cf. 49,9 and n. 219 ad loc. 15. cf. Wildberg 1988, 175 and n. 77. 16. Meteor. 1.1, 338a20-5. 17. The structure and style of the introductory and closing chapters found in a number of books of the physical treatises have been studied in Rashed 2004, where the significance of these summaries with their cross-references to the immediately preceding and immediately following works for the reconstruction of the composition of the corpus is well brought out. 18. Ammonius, in Cat. 1,3-8,18. 19. cf. Ammonius in Int., Olympiodorus in Cat., Elias in Cat. 20. cf. Philoponus’ introductions to Categories, Prior Analytics, Physics and De Anima.

22

Introduction

21. in Meteor. 1,4-23. Philoponus refers to the earlier more detailed discussion of the division and composition of physical corpus at 1,21-2. 22. A distinction familiar from Aristotle’s Metaphysics 6.1. 23. See 1,6 and n. 2 ad loc. 24. On logic as organon, see Solmsen 1935. 25. cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 6.1, 1026a17-23. 26. Ammonius, in Cat. 7,15-8,10. 27. Philoponus, in Meteor. 1,24-8. 28. Some modern scholars raised doubts about Aristotle’s authorship of Meteorology 4, suggesting later Peripatetics (Theophrastus, Strato) as its possible authors (cf. Düring 1980, Gottschalk 1961). For a defence of Aristotle’s authorship, see Furley 1983. 29. Alexander of Aphrodisias, in Meteor. 179,3-5. 30. Olympiodorus in Meteor. 6,19-30. 31. Philoponus in Meteor. 3,14-20; 4,18-21. 32. Philoponus in Meteor. 10,22-31, Alexander in Meteor. 5,24-6,30. 33. Philoponus in Meteor. 10,31-11,15, cf. Alexander in Meteor. 6,1-30. 34. Philoponus in Meteor. 11,4-15; on Ammonius’ thesis that the first unmoved mover is the first efficient cause, see Verrycken 2010. 35. Philoponus in Meteor. 12,5-31; Plotinus Enn. 2.2.1.4. 36. cf. p. 13 at n. 51. 37. See 15,5-28 and nn. 75-8 ad loc. 38. GC 254,8-14, 250,30-3 and n. 82; 304,25-8. 39. The source can be Megasthenes’ lost Indika, but this needs some further checking. See Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.59.52-58, cf. 15.10. 40. See 17,36-18,17 and nn. 96-97 below. 41. cf. Theon of Smyrna, Util. 121,12-122,1. 42. The figure does not exactly match any known calculations, but is very close to Ptolemy’s in Almagest 5.15; see 19,37-20,25 and n. 107 below. 43. See nn. 111-114 below. 44. See 20,20-21,33 with nn. 111-14 ad loc. 45. See 21,37-22,23 and n. 117 ad 22,12. 46. See 24,38-25,2 and n. 122 below; argued in Wildberg 1987b, 202-9. In his commentary on GC 2.6, Philoponus refers to this place, pointing out that the reason for the permanent ratios in elemental transformations have to do with the common matter underlying the four elements which can contract and extend itself. Cf. Philoponus in GC 2.6, 258,38-259,3, cf. Kupreeva 2005, 50 and n. 120. 47. See 25,18 and n. 124 below. 48. Alexander in Meteor. 11,24-31. 49. Philoponus’ immediate sources are not entirely clear, but there are a number of parallels with Ptolemy’s Optics (see 27,35-28,24 and nn. 131, 132, 135 to the translation). 50. Alexander, in Meteor. 12,12-20. 51. See 31,4-18 below and Alexander in Meteor. 12,32-13,9. 52. See pp. 64-5 and nn. 153, 154 below. 53. See 35,9-22 and nn. 159-161 to the translation. 54. cf. Wildberg 1988, 126-34. 55. in Phys. 198,12-19; 198,32-199,12; 378,21-31; Aet. 240,28-241,10; 278,1928, see Wildberg 1988, 128 and n. 66. 56. See 38,13-39,18, especially 39,3-7 and n. 172 ad loc. 57. Alexander, in Meteor. 17,12-15.

Introduction

23

58. The origin of these difficulties is not clear. Alexander does not mention them in his commentary. 59. We may note that Philoponus himself describes the physical shells of the spheres as khumata (4,2; 26,8). 60. See 44,6-17 and n. 200 to the translation. 61. See 44,25-6 and n. 201 to the translation. 62. Alexander in Meteor. 18,8-13, see 42,27-48,1. 63. See 47,35-48,1 and n. 214, cf. 49,37-50,19 and n. 225. 64. Alexander, in Meteor. 18,13-28, Philoponus 48,1-13 below. 65. cf. Simplicius, in Cael. 440,17-442,3; Wildberg 1988, 126-134. 66. See p. 17 and n.60 above. 67. See 49,9-11 and nn. 219-220 to the translation. 68. See 49,13-17 and n. 22 to the translation. 69. Alexander in Meteor. 18,28-19,13, Philoponus in Meteor. 49,34-50,20; n. 225 to the translation. 70. Alexander in Meteor. 19,2-3. 71. Alexander in Meteor. 50,1; cf. fr. 31 Rescigno; Moraux 2001, 192-5. 72. Alexander in Meteor. 19,16-19. 73. See 53,2-27 and n. 238.

Textual Questions 1. The text of Philoponus’ commentary 5,12. Read pente following Westerink instead of panta printed by Hayduck from MSS. 9,32-3. There is a textual problem noted by Hayduck. Readings: ei kai mêde ta toiauta Hayduck (with an obelus); ei kai mê di’heauta ta toiauta coni. Diels; ei kai mê auta toiauta Westerink. The conjectured text must contain a reference to the ourania vel sim., e.g.: ta de ek toutôn sunistamena suntheta, ta te hupo selênên ta ginomena kai phtheiromena kai ta ourania, ei kai mêde toiauta, ktl. 13,28. isa: codd. Westerink reads hosa as suggested by Hayduck in the apparatus. 16,25. Read: ‘Let us grant that it is’ (estô) as suggested by Évrard instead of ‘But it is’ (esti) printed by Hayduck. 16,27. Reading pôs with circumflex accent following Évrard instead of unaccented pôs printed by Hayduck, and changing a colon after par’ hêmin at 16,27 to a question mark. 17,8. Read ‘but if it did not’ with V, instead of ‘but if it did’ printed by Hayduck. ei de eskhen arkhên: insert mê after de following V. Westerink suggested moving the comma from after anapodizôn to after ep’ apeiron, to give the sense: ‘whatever part of past time you were to take in infinite regress, the same opinions will necessarily recur an infinite number of time’. But this seems unnecessary (see nn. 89-90 to the translation, ad loc). 17,33. ‘Or’ supplied by Westerink who reads ê hôs instead of Hayduck’s hôs. 19,11. Put the full stop after gê (as in MS V). Then read: têi epiphaneiâi tês gês ousês. Hayduck signals corruption by putting an obelus sign after gê; Westerink suggested supplying something like tês B en têi epiphaneiâi tês gês ousês, where B refers to a point on the surface. But the point in this text is sêmeion throughout, while the required gender is indeed feminine (and besides B, if it is a point, belongs to the external, not to the inner circle). I suggest reading the text as it stands, taking ousês to refer to the earth as represented by the surface of the inner circle (for Philoponus’ use of the expression ‘surface of a circle’ (epiphaneia tou kuklou) instead of the expected circumference (periphereia) see 19,18 at n. 106 to the translation.

Textual Questions

25

28,17. kai tên te sunantistrophon deiknunta têi kephalêi, corrupt text marked by Hayduck, read: kai tên thesin antistrophon deiknunta têi kephalêi. 29,12.13. Westerink’s draft has a note: ‘punctuation corrected’, which is to be understood as follows: at 29,12 insert quotation marks around hapas ho aêr and ho peri tên gên; at 29,13: delete a full stop after eipen, insert a left hand side quote, at 29,14 insert a closing quote after atmis. 34,32. Supplying pros isas d’epi tên gen gônias pheretai after pheretai, following Hayduck’s suggestion in the apparatus. 35,16. Westerink suggests a reading kath’ho where Hayduck prints katho (see n. 160 to the translation). 39,14 -15. The received text is grammatically difficult (although not impossible). Hayduck in the apparatus suggests a reading: ha kôluei pheresthai katô to baru, sunthlibomenôn hupo tou bareos kai têi pilêsei ekthlibomenôn (‘some portions of the hot and dry tinder which prevent the heavy part from being carried downwards, when [these hot and light portions] are compressed and squeezed out by the heavy’). The intended meaning is the same as the one given by the current translation (on the basis of the text as printed by Hayduck). 42,18-20. Lacuna in the text; read: tên hermaikên, tên tou stilbontos, tên aphrodisiakên, tên tou heôsphorou, tên tês selênês. 43,7. Read: hoson hê asummetros pros to meizon takhos ouk empodizei hê tou hêliou apostasis, as suggested by Hayduck in the apparatus. 43,17. hoson indalma toutou, ‘no more than an image of that [light]’. The reference of ‘that’ (toutou) is ambiguous. Ian Mueller has suggested reading ‘an image of the sun’ (and changing hoson to hoion). 44,9-10. Parenthesise kai epi sidêrou  pur tribomenos. 46,35. delete ta, i.e. read kai kath’heteron heuriskomena toutôn (cf. Hayduck’s note in the apparatus (‘vix sana’)). 47,3-4. The phrase hôs kai hê toutakhous autôn oxutera kineisthai tês aplanous is obelised by Hayduck but perhaps can be allowed to stand if we understand two different comparative constructions: (a) the shooting surpasses the sight in speed, and (b) does so more than the motion of the fixed sphere. 51,25-6. Corrupt sentence: eikhe gar ex anankês hepomenon hoti kai aphtharta homôs ouk edeixen, oukoun oud’hoti aphtharta dedeiktai. Hayduck writes apathê allôs instead of aphtharta homôs. Perhaps read: eikhe gar ex anankês hepomenon hoti kai aphtharta; homôs ouk edeixen, oukoun etc. 51,35. Reading kata tauta gar, as suggested by Hayduck in the apparatus. 52,20. MSS: plên ei mê pan to morion autou katheirgmenon hupo gên huparkhoi ê hupo tinos pantakhothen oikodomêmatos toioutou tinos hupothômetha; Hayduck writes ti instead of to and huparkhon instead of hupakhoi and notes that pan is vix sanum. Perhaps read:

26

Textual Questions plên ei mê pan to morion autou katheirgmenon hupo gên huparkho ê hupo tinos pantakhothen oikodomêmatos< ê> toioutou tinos hupothômetha. 2. Philoponus’ text of Aristotle’s Meteorology

22,12. Either Philoponus’ text has alla kai (‘but also’) where Aristotle (and Alexander) has de (‘while’), or Philoponus chooses to interpret de as meaning ‘but also’, which must be a misreading. The result is not out of line with Aristotle’s original argument, but the point Philoponus is trying to make is different from the one suggested by Alexander (and Aristotle’s text). For Alexander and Aristotle, the goal is to refute those who believe that the whole surrounding substance (and not just the stars) are made of fire. For Philoponus (who ultimately believes together with other Platonists that the heavens are made of fire), Aristotle’s target is the view that the space between the earth and the stars, i.e. the mid-air, is made of fire. This view surely would not be plausible for Aristotle, and Philoponus would agree with him on that. 36,8. 340b27. Philoponus has thermon where all modern editions of the text have psukhron. Lee, 1952 follows Ross, 2004, 115 n. 160 and the revised Oxford translation ed. Barnes, 1984 (following E1 W) and reads psukhron (cf. also Thurot). Philoponus clearly reads thermon, as do Alexander (15,8-15) and Thillet (2008).

PHILOPONUS On Aristotle Meteorology 1.1-3 Translation

John of Alexandria, Professor of Grammar Commentary on the first book of Aristotle’s Meteorology, part one of three [Proem] We have already said before that philosophy can on good grounds be divided into two parts, the practical and the theoretical,1 because the faculties of our soul are also two, a vital one and a theoretical one,2 to which philosophy strives to bring order and perfection: to the one through virtue, to the other through knowledge of reality, since each thing is brought to perfection by attaining its own end for which it came into being. Hence philosophy is also said to be assimilation to God as far as possible;3 for of divine actions, too, some are directed to the knowing of reality, others to creating and providing for it.4 Now into each of our two activities, i.e. theory and practice, some kind of corruption insinuates itself: in the case of theory this is falsehood; in the case of practice, it is vice. Therefore philosophy needed a tool for division: in its theoretical part one that distinguishes falsehood from truth, in its practical part, one that distinguishes vice from virtue, just as, for instance, the line and the rule were devised by the carpenter, by which he distinguishes the straight from the crooked in the pieces of wood. This [tool] is the so-called system of logic, which Aristotle has taught us in several books, and from it we were trained in the science of demonstration.5 Since the theoretical part of philosophy is divided into three parts, physics, mathematics and theology,6 the philosopher has treated physics more fully than the others, as being on our own level and more closely akin. I have elsewhere explained its division in detail;7 the present work also belongs to it. As we prepare to deal with this work, we must of necessity first expound its purpose.8 The philosopher’s aim is to inform us in it on all the processes that take place between the earth and the heaven, that is, in the air and in the tinder sphere,9 processes resulting from the two so-called exhalations, the vaporous and the dry, the one being exhaled by moist bodies, the other by dry ones; examples are rains, hail, snow, thunder, lightning, winds, shooting stars, thunderbolts and all related processes, some of which have their origin in the one exhalation only, others in both.10 He also teaches us that some of these processes have substance and are really such as they appear (e.g. the ones mentioned), while others are only apparent and are due to optical illusion without being in reality (kath’ huparxin) such as they appear, e.g. the rainbow, the halo, rods, mock suns and similar

1,5

10

15

20

25 2,1

5

30

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 3,1

Translation

things11 But since the aforesaid two exhalations also have some effects under the earth, such as earthquakes, mines and waters of various kinds, he counts them as meteorological phenomena and will later deal with them too. The usefulness (khrêsimon)12 of the work is obvious: knowledge of reality is useful to the soul by bestowing order on it and bringing it to its natural perfection. Nor is its authenticity (gnêsion)13 subject to doubt. The preface will instruct us precisely on this point: explaining its place in the series and its position with respect to his other writings, Aristotle lists his works on physics and shows that this one logically follows upon those and forms a sequence with the ones that come after it. From this, both the authenticity and [its place in] the order [of reading] (taxis)14 become manifest. The first place among all his works on physics is allotted to what is more specifically named the Course on Physics, second after it comes On Heaven, third On Coming to be and Perishing and after that the present work; we shall state the reasons for this when explaining the text. The title15 is Meteorology because the things that he examines here take place in the region between earth and heaven. Although he also explains certain things that originate near the earth or under the earth, yet in the first place he derives the name of the present work from the preponderating subject, and his second reason is that the underlying matter is the same in those cases too, namely the vaporous and the smoky exhalation, which, when ascending (hence the name exhalation), produces the processes in the higher regions, but when enclosed, those under the earth. [Aristotle] divided the present subject-matter16 into four sections, in the first of which he begins by teaching us about the bodies between earth and heaven, that after earth and water come the air and the tinder sphere, in which all processes in the higher sphere take place, also raising the question whence, if the sun is not made of the substance of fire, the heat comes that our region receives from it, and stating that from water and earth, as they are separated by the heat from the sun, two kinds of exhalation are produced, from the waters the vaporous exhalation, and from the earth a dry and smoky one, from which exhalations all the processes that take place in the higher regions result. After these preliminaries, which are relevant to what follows, he then proceeds to the doctrine proper of the processes that take place on high. First he deals with those resulting from the dry exhalation; and since, of these, some are short-lived, others appear to last for a longer time, he first discusses the shortlived ones, namely so-called flames, shooting stars (diatheontes asteres), flashes and torches, chasms and hollows, and after them the lasting ones, comets and the so-called Milky Way; hereupon he passes on to those coming from the moist exhalation, that is to say,

Translation

31

clouds and mist, drizzle and rain, dew and hoarfrost, hail, snow and ice; finally, after dealing with rivers (which also originate from rains) he concludes his first section. In the second, having first discussed the sea, he passes on to the remaining processes coming from the dry exhalation, to wit, winds and earthquakes, thunder and lightning, and this is the end of the second book. In the third he deals with the further phenomena that come with windstorms: what a cloud-wind is, what typhoons and firewinds are, and how each of these comes about; with thunderbolts, thunder and lightning, then with the halo, the rainbow, mock suns and rods. This completes processes occurring in the regions above the earth as results of the two exhalations, the vaporous and the smoky exhalations; these are discussed in the first three sections. In the fourth he explains, in turn, whatever is brought about by these same exhalations when enclosed in the earth; this is partly quarried, partly mined. Thus the whole of the work on meteorology relates to the same subject, occurrences brought about by the two exhalations, whether enclosed in the earth or ascending above it; for this reason he called the work Meteorology. Now that this has been adequately discussed let us go on to examine the work itself.

5

10

15

20

Chapter 1 338a20-5 The first causes of nature, all natural motion, also the stars disposed in order in the celestial revolution, the corporeal elements, their number and quality, and their transformation into each other, as well as coming-to-be and perishing in general have been dealt with before. Immediately at the beginning Aristotle lists his own works on nature, all those that have preceded the Meteorology in the natural order, giving the first place to the so-called Course on Physics, to which the common name of Physics was assigned as its own proper title because it treats of the common principles of all natural phenomena, for which reason it also precedes the others.17 Second comes On the Heavens; the ancients were accustomed to give the name of ‘heaven’ also to the whole world, as for instance Plato, who says in the Timaeus, ‘which we call heaven or world’.18 It received with reason the second place; for while the other work dealt with the first principles, matter and form, On the Heavens discusses the bodies which are directly composed of these: they are composed of these [i.e. form and matter] as primary elements, but simple in the way in which bodies are simple.19 For the celestial bodies, too, are made of matter, namely of a fifth body, according to Aristotle, which is the common substrate of all the celestial bodies, and of the form that is imposed on them.20 Of these are made the sun, the moon, each of the stars and even the substance of the materials of the spheres.21 He also expounds his

25

30

35 4,1

32

5

10

15

20

25

30

Translation

doctrine of the four elements: these are simple in the way in which the bodies are,22 since they are composed directly out of matter and form, whereas the animals, plants and minerals subsequently composed out of them possess a secondary and more partial23 nature. From another point of view, inasmuch as things that come to be and perish through transformation into each other are secondary and of lesser worth as compared to things not subject to this condition, he has rightly placed On the Heavens before all the other ones,24 the work in which he teaches us about bodies in circular motion, in which there appears no perishing, no coming-to-be, no transformation into each other. Third is On Coming to be and Perishing, a work more particular than those mentioned before, but more general than all the following: in it he deals with all coming-to-be and perishing without qualification, what it is and in what it differs from the other changes, and whatever else arises out of these points. The fourth place after these he has given to the Meteorology; for since these phenomena are also cases of coming-to-be and perishing, they will correctly find their place after the work that deals with coming-to-be and perishing generally, but they will precede all the others, I mean the works on animals, on plants and on minerals.25 For if the treatment of the celestial bodies rightly comes first, it was consistent that the meteorology should precede the works on animals and plants, because meteorological phenomena are superior to things on earth and locally closer to things celestial. Such then and of this nature is, briefly, the sequence and arrangement of the works on physics we mentioned; let us also look at the details of the text.26 He says, then, ‘the first causes of nature’, because matter and form are the very first causes of all things in nature. There are also more immediate causes of natural process: common to all things composite are the four elements, more direct and more specific causes of some things are the seed in those that have their origin in seed, and necessarily its analogue in the remainder. But he also treats of the contributory causes, time, place and motion, in the same work.27 He further discusses ‘natural motion in general’ in its last four books, that is, rectilinear motion as well as circular. But he adds ‘natural’ on account of psychical and voluntary motions, such as those of animals, and on account of motions brought about by art or by some kind of force. 338a25-b25 There remains a part of this field of research still to be considered: that which all earlier thinkers called meteorology. It deals with all occurrences that take place by a natural process, one, however, that is more irregular than the motion of the first corporeal element, in the region bordering most closely

Translation

33

on the revolution of the stars; our subject will be the Milky Way, comets, fiery phantoms in motion and whatever we may consider as processes common to air and water. The part of physical research that still remains is, he says, meteorology, which in the sequence of the subjects already mentioned ranks after them, but is not the last of all; for after it a part of physical research is still left, the one that deals with animals, plants and minerals.28 What the occurrences in the upper regions are, he goes on to state in more general terms: ‘all occurrences that take place by a natural process, one, however, that is more irregular than the motion of the first corporeal element’ (338b20-3). By the first corporeal element he means the fifth, of which he holds that everything in the heaven consists; he says that it is not an element of composite bodies, but of the entire world as a whole. For the elements of the entire world are said to be five:29 four those of things under the moon, the fifth of things celestial. The sequel should be read as follows: ‘all occurrences [...] that take place in the region bordering most closely on the revolution of the stars, which things take place by a natural process, one, however, that is more irregular than the motion of the first corporeal element’ (338b20-4). ‘More irregular’ is not to be taken in a comparative sense, but simply as ‘irregular’, since nothing in the heavens is irregular, so that we could say that processes in the upper regions take place in a way more irregular than there. The order in the heavens is unalterable and always constant, so much so that astronomers can predict what will happen in them after many years: conjunctions of sun and moon and eclipses of each of them, appearances of planets, their stationary condition, direct and retrograde motion and meeting in the same point, and all their aspects in relation to each other; they also forecast exactly the time of each of these and the hour down to the minutest and well-nigh indivisible fraction,30 when each of these events take place. It is possible to understand ‘more irregular’ not in terms of comparison with the celestial bodies, but of meteorological occurrences as compared to each other. For these, too, have a certain overall order, such as when winter, spring, summer and fall come, at what point each of these begin and where they end, that in winter there is rain, hail and snow, in summer scorching heat, in this particular season southern winds, in another northern ones, and in other things likewise; but their order is not unalterable, rather these things too happen with a certain irregularity, since heat and drought may occur in winter, cold and rain in summer, and seasons may vary their type of wind. Aristotle rightly adds ‘in the region bordering on the revolution of the stars’ (338b22-3), that is to say, the region closer to the heavens

5,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

34

40 6,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Translation

than earth and water are, since heavy bodies are farthest removed from the heaven. The comment is justified, because many of the more ignorant believe that these processes take place in the heaven. But that these things are far removed from the heaven and closer to us than to it, will become clear through their motion, as they seem to move faster than the heavenly bodies, I mean the sun, the moon, and even the fixed sphere, as far as our perception and imagination are concerned. For when two things move at equal speed, the closer one seems to move faster than the other, because it passes faster before our eyes, and even if the closer object moves more slowly, the same thing happens. As regards the question what are the things that occur in the upper regions, Aristotle mentions a few of them as examples. He says, ‘the Milky Way’, that is, the Galaxy, which is white in colour, whence its name, as also used by Aratus: ‘That circle set with eyes, which men call the Milky Way’.31 To this kind comets belong also. By ‘fiery phantoms in motion’ he means shooting stars seen at night, for they are a certain kind of matter turned into fire; what this matter is, we shall hear later.32 But why does he speak of shooting stars as phantoms, although they possess substantial reality and do not exist in appearance only? Perhaps it is because most people take them for stars that he calls them phantoms, commenting on their assumption. Or else he speaks of phantoms with reference to the words ‘in motion’, for some of them are not really in motion, but rather, as one mass of matter is successively turned into fire, they are in continuous process of becoming and present a semblance of motion. By ‘processes common to air and water’ he means those that exist only in appearance without substance, such as halo, rainbow, rods, mock suns. In what sense they are common to water and air, we shall learn later: there can be no semblance of these phenomena without watery clouds, which are partly of air, because of the vapour, partly of water, when they have already thickened and are close to turning into water. 338b25-6 Further, all the parts and forms of earth, and the conditions to which its parts are subject; which facts enable us to consider the causes of air currents and earthquakes. By ‘parts of the earth’ he means perhaps, Alexander says, east, west, north and south (these being the cardinal points into which it is customary to divide the earth); by ‘forms’, the fact that some of it is cavernous and porous, some firm and compressed, and whatever further comparable differences there are. By ‘conditions’ he must mean, Alexander says, the exhalations that develop from it and the water and air that are trapped inside it. Of these, the exhalations are the origins of clouds and rains, also of hail and dew, of thunder and

Translation

35

lightning, of winds and the different nature of air currents. Different kinds of wind are caused by differences in the parts of the earth, while water trapped inside is the cause of springs, and air caught inside, of earthquakes. These are Alexander’s own words.33 But I think he is wrong when he says that ‘forms’ of the earth are cavernous, porous and solid earth; these would rather be conditions (pathê) of it, not forms.34 For when it is conditioned somehow (pathousa gar ti) and tightened it becomes condensed, and it is subjected to the contrary conditions when it is loosened and divided; loosening and tightening are qualities and conditions, which also bring about changes in the elements.35 So, too, are alkali content, sulphur content, asphalt content, and the like, conditions of the earth. The exhalations are comparable to the differences in our bodies, and the air and water trapped inside resemble the obstructions formed by abnormal humours.36 Alexander says that these are the cause of springs and of earthquakes; but earthquakes are conditions of the earth when it surges and breaks, while the springs formed by the waters and the occurrences in the air due to the exhalations do not produce any condition in relation to the earth. And if the cavernous parts of the earth are stony and rocky by nature, it is clear that they do not consist of pure earth, but of earth that has been transformed into another substance. We must therefore examine the question what Aristotle means by ‘forms’ of the earth, and if he means forms properly so called, or in a looser sense. 339a1-2 ‘And of all the occurrences resulting from their motions’.37 ‘Their motions’ is to be understood either with reference to ‘air currents and earthquakes’, words immediately following, or to the parts, forms and conditions. The latter is impossible: what motion the parts have as parts (I am referring to east, west, etc.), or the forms, the cavernous, the loose, the firm and solid and compressed, and whatever else is similar to these, is not easy even to imagine; and likewise with regard to conditions.38 What remains then is to understand motions coming from air currents and earthquakes, for instance, in the case of earthquakes, the surgings of the earth, the tremblings, the fissures, the forcible passage of the air stream, which strikes the air, causing crashes and what seems to be roaring, and which carries upward with it sand from the depths and often stones and a muddy sort of substance, and the appearance, as the earth is torn, of sources formerly hidden. Motions of the air, also, have some extraordinary effects: often they lift stones and drop them again; and the wind called kaikias does the contrary of what other winds do, for whereas the others drive the clouds in the direction opposite to the one from which they come, this wind, conversely, draws them to

35

7,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

36

Translation

itself; hence the saying, ‘Drawing it to himself as Kaikias does the cloud’.39 339a2-3 In some of these cases we raise the question, other points we touch to a certain extent. 35 8,1

5

10

15

20

25

Aristotle’s character is that of a philosopher and a lover of truth: he is not so conceited as to promise a demonstration of the causes of each of these phenomena, but he says, ‘In some of these cases we will merely raise the question’, not being able to state the causes with a strict proof; for though we cannot say the last word on them, yet it is not without its use to raise the issue. Asking a question is the way to find the right answer; for the mere act of taking notice of matters in dispute either leads to a beginning of discovery or at least it teaches us to realise that we do not have the answer to the problem and prevents us from falling victims to double ignorance. For until now40 it is not possible to discover with exact certainty the causes of occurrences in the upper regions, for example, how the rainbow comes into being, where the oblique movement of the winds comes from, where the colour of the Milky Way comes from;41 we shall explain this when we come to that point. ‘Other points’, Aristotle continues, ‘we touch to a certain extent’, that is, we give a pertinent account of them, as it were touching upon their essence; this regards everything bearing upon the formation of clouds, on rains, thunder, lightning, hail and the like. In my opinion it is again out of modesty42 that he uses the phrase ‘we touch to a certain extent’, in other words, we do not go to the bottom of them, but touch upon them only superficially. For even though it is not possible to state the exact facts regarding these matters, yet we shall not remain without any notion at all as to their origin, as long as we touch upon them however superficially. 339a3-5 Also, the fall of thunderbolts, typhoons, firewinds and the other cyclic phenomena, all the processes that come about through coagulation of these same bodies. [Aristotle] will ask the question what each of these is and what their differences are and what the causes of their coming to be. He speaks of the ‘fall of thunderbolts’ because their downward thrust is violent, as if they were slipping down from their natural location. ‘And the other cyclic phenomena’, i.e. those that occur in an annual cycle; they come about, he says, ‘through coagulation of these same bodies’, those of course that he mentioned immediately before, water and air. He does not say that thunderbolts, typhoons and firewinds come about through coagulation, but he speaks of ‘the other cyclic phenomena’, all those that come about through coagulation; these latter are to be distinguished from the former. For some cyclic

Translation

37

phenomena are due to coagulation, snow and hoarfrost of air, hail and ice of water. If the water coagulates in the upper region, it becomes snow, if below, hoarfrost. And again, air coagulated in the upper region becomes snow and, coagulated in the lower one, it becomes hoarfrost. 339a5-9 After dealing with these matters we shall consider if, in the manner already described, we can give some kind of account on the subject of animals and plants,43 in general and separately; when that has been said, it would be the conclusion, in the main,44 of our entire original plan. After the meteorology the study of animals and plants remains, since metals have already been treated in the fourth book of the present work; with that, then, our plan proposed for the study of nature has been completed. We shall treat those subjects too, Aristotle says, ‘in the manner already described’. According to Alexander ‘the manner described’ means that in the preceding works he has not presented a mere study of the facts, but in addition to this has offered specific evidence as to the causes of each of the facts stated and investigated these things using demonstration. His intention is, Alexander says, to conduct the discussion of the remaining subjects in the same way.45 In my opinion, however, by the ‘manner described’ Aristotle means the manner that he has described just before, the modest and philosophical way: ‘In some of these cases we merely raise the question, other points we touch to a certain extent’. This seems rather to be suggested by the ‘if we can’ added to the words ‘we shall consider these matters’.46 He promises to deal with ‘animals and plants in general and separately’: general study of animals is contained in his work Description of Animals and those On Generation of Animals, On Parts of Animals, their Progression and Movement, those On Soul, On Perception and Perceptibles, and On Sleep and Waking; those On Memory and Recollection and On Foresight in Sleep are separate and stand by themselves, since they apply to humans only.47

30

35

9,1

5

10

15

Chapter 2 339a9-21 Let this, then, be the starting-point of our discussion of the subject. We have already determined one principle of bodies, of which the substance of bodies in circular motion is made, and four more bodies deriving from the four principles, [whose motion is twofold, either away from or towards the middle. These four bodies are fire, air, water, and earth: fire on top of them all, earth at the bottom, while the other two are related to each other in a similar way: air is nearest of all to fire,

20

38

Translation water to earth. The whole region of the earth consists of these bodies, and the conditions that affect them are, as we said, the subject of this study.].

25

30

10,1

5

10

15

20

After having defined the purpose of the present work, Aristotle, before embarking on the subject itself, first reminds us of what was said in On the Heavens and On Coming to be and Perishing, and he makes this the starting-point of what is to follow. Through it, he will find the matter and the efficient cause of the processes in the upper regions;48 in the present study he needs only these. What is it, then, that was already stated before in those works? That there are five elements of the whole world, four forming sublunary substances, fire, air, water and earth, and besides these another, the fifth, which forms celestial substances. Aristotle holds that all those are simple in nature, because they are composed of incorporeal things, matter and form, although they are not incorporeal themselves,49 because they have as their substrate the fifth element, various forms of which, gathering in different parts of it, bring about the difference in the revolving bodies, moon, sun, and so on. Regarding the elements of bodies in process of coming-to-be and perishing, he has inferred in On Coming to be and Perishing that there are only four and neither more nor less, an inference made from the four principles, hot and cold, dry and moist (these being the principles of the elements), on the ground that joining these four principles to each other produces only four combinations.50 He also takes for granted now, because proven in On the Heavens, that the motion of the four is twofold, away from the middle and toward the middle; and that the lightest of all rises to the surface of all, while the earth, the heaviest of all, settles at the bottom; in the middle between these are the remaining two, the water next to the earth as less heavy than it, the air next to the fire as less light.51 And since it has been shown that there is no void,52 it is evident that the substance of fire touches the revolving body, air touches fire, water touches it and earth touches water, inasmuch as no void is left in between. What is the origin, then, of the processes occurring in this sublunary world, is the subject of the present book, namely their matter and efficient cause. 339a21-4 This world is of necessity somehow continuous with the motions on high, so that all its power can be governed from there; for what is at the origin of the motion of everything must be considered the first cause. That there is no void intervening between the five bodies, is agreed on the ground of the universal proof that no void exists. After saying ‘continuous’, Aristotle had to add the indefinite ‘somehow’ (‘somehow continuous’, and thus the more accurate manuscripts do read),53

Translation

39

because the sublunary region is not continuous with the heavens in the strict sense of the word, but is only in contact with them. Continuous are those things whose extremes are one, such as the parts of the undivided straight line and of every body that is not divided, because the parts of these exist only potentially in thought. In contact are those things whose extremes are different actually, though they are somehow fitted to each other by the contact and, in a manner of speaking, become potentially continuous.54 After showing that the sublunary world is continuous with the heavens, he states the reason for this: ‘so that all the power of the sublunary world can be governed from there’. For the revolution of the stars and of the heavenly bodies generally is the cause of the administration of all the bodies contained in them: their specific motion brings about turnings and changes in things here below, resulting in winter and summer and the existence of the other seasons, which again result in the production of fruits and plants, from which animals are fed and born, their matter being provided by these. If, then, the sublunary world is governed from there, and bodies cannot act upon other bodies without contact, it follows necessarily that the world below is continuous with the heavens, so that through this contact they act and it is acted upon.55 To establish that it is governed from there, Aristotle continues: ‘For what is at the origin of the motion of everything must be considered the first cause.’ For since ‘what is at the origin of the motion’ is the efficient cause, and since it has been shown that for things contained within the heavens the origin of motion is out there, they must be their first corporeal efficient cause; of course the transcendent cause is the first cause in the strict sense, that which is the cause in the same sense also for bodies in circular motion. Thus the first coordinate cause is the heaven, since the rain is also a cause of fruits, and so is the farmer and the mildness of the climate, and the seed and the one that inseminates and a great many other factors are causes of animals, but for all these the first cause is the revolution of the heavens.56 If this, then, is the first cause of all things in the process of becoming, it follows that it will also be the first cause of processes that produce themselves in the upper regions, those that form the subject of our research.

25

30

35

11,1

5

10

15

339a24-7 Furthermore, that other motion is everlasting and is not limited by space, but always complete, while all bodies here below are separated from each other by limited spaces. This too serves to prove that the bodies in circular motion are the first cause of change and motion in the bodies enclosed by them. That which neither comes to be nor passes away is the cause of what comes to be and passes away, and the perfect of the imperfect, and that

20

40

25

30

35

12,1

5

10

15

Translation

which is always alike of that which is not. Now the circular motion is perfect and always the same, while rectilinear motion has a beginning and an end and is interrupted by rest. This is because the nature of things proceeds in an orderly manner and therefore between the incorporeal and intelligible and totally immutable things and those that are always in the process of becoming and passing away the heavenly bodies take up, as it were, an intermediate position; in that they are bodies and are not entirely immovable and immutable (they are subject to change of place), they are inferior to the first both in rank and in magnitude, but they rank immediately above the things that change in every respect (substance, quality and place), such as are sublunary bodies, inasmuch as they are subject to change of place only. Also, by the uninterrupted continuity of their motion they are at rest in their everlasting movement, and in a manner of speaking they are immovable in motion, as well as by the fact that the totality of the heaven always occupies the same place and does not pass from one place to another.57 The heaven, therefore, is a mean between the first and the last things, having neither the immutability of the former nor the total mutability of the latter; just as it derives from the former its immutability in motion, thus it bestows on its inferiors everlasting change through its own everlasting motion. As [Aristotle] says, ‘its motion is not limited by space’, that is, its locomotion, since there is no place at which the heaven will come to a standstill, as in the case of bodies with rectilinear motion the light ones start their motion from the middle and come to a standstill upon reaching the upper end of the straight line, that is the hollow surface of the moon sphere, while on the contrary the heavy ones, having started their downward motion from there, come to a standstill upon reaching the middle of the universe. After saying ‘its motion is not limited by place’, he then continues (lest anyone should think that he is saying that circular motion is imperfect): ‘but it is always complete’, i.e. it has its motion always perfect.58 For unlike rectilinear motion, circular motion does not begin at a certain point and cease at another (for instance, begin at Aries and end at Pisces), but it has each point as a beginning and an end and a middle: in relation to the circle just completed as an end, in relation to the one that will be completed next, continuously without a standstill or a rest, as a beginning, and in relation to another point, as a middle, the point at which it has completed exactly half the circle, as posited conceptually. Nor can one say that east or west or zenith is the beginning of such a motion, or that one of these is the end, or again the middle, because what is east to us is zenith to others and west to others again; and the same for each of the points all round, so that at whatever point you take the body in motion, there it necessarily has its completion and beginning and end and middle comprised together, which is the definition of perfection

Translation

41

according to some. We add to this59 that no point in the heaven is actual, but all are potential only, since it is continuous throughout. If, then, neither does any point exist there actually, nor any rest of the bodies in motion, but their motion is continuous and uninterrupted, it is consequently impossible to find in them either a beginning of motion or an end. But, as Plotinus says, ‘Why does it move in a circle? Because it imitates intellect’.60 Just as the divine and creative intellect, turning in upon itself, contemplates all things and in them itself, so too, according to Plotinus, celestial bodies, imitating it to the extent of what is possible, turn in upon themselves. And just as that intellect is nowhere in its substance, but everywhere in its activities, so the heaven comes to be present everywhere part by part (since being a body it cannot be everywhere at the same time), and transcending the bodies within it by its substance, governs everything by its activities. This is true of circular motion, but of no other kind. For since it is unlimited, it cannot be rectilinear; it has been shown that when bodies in rectilinear motion have reached the end of the straight line along which they move, they must necessarily come to a standstill upon attaining their own end, which by nature they strove to reach through motion. Therefore it is impossible for rectilinear motion to be perfect or everlasting; rather it must necessarily be incomplete and have a beginning and an end. 339a27-b2 Consequently, of processes around it, we must consider fire and earth and related things as causing events in the role of matter (this is how we describe the substratum and the patient), while causality in the sense of that in which the motion originates must be assigned to the power of bodies in everlasting motion. [After recapitulating the initial theses and the distinctions stated earlier, let us discuss the appearance of the Milky Way, comets, and all the other phenomena that happen to be related to these. We do indeed say that fire, air, water and earth have their coming to be from each other, and each one of these is present in each potentially, as is the case with other things which have one and the same underlying substrate, into which they all are ultimately resolved.]61 He now makes it clear for what reason he referred to points already made in the On the Heavens and On Coming to be and Perishing. This was to show what is the matter of all things in process of coming-to-be and perishing, to wit, the four elements, and what is their primary efficient cause, to wit, the bodies moving in a circle: for that in which the motion of things originates is their efficient cause. It is clear,

20

25

30

35

13.1

5

42

10

15

20

25

30

35

Translation

then, that these same causes are also those of processes in the upper regions. By ‘things related’ to fire and earth he means air and water. ‘Around it’ refers clearly to the world about the earth, that is, the sublunary sphere, in which all coming-to-be and passing-away takes place.62 After using the words ‘in the role of matter’ he explains the phrase, implying that the word ‘matter’ was not very well known as yet.63 Whatever serves as a substratum for something else, he says, ready to undergo the action of which that thing is the agent, we call matter. Thus we call the bronze the substratum and matter for the sculptor upon which to act and on which to impose the form of the statue; the agent itself we call ‘that in which the motion originates’, namely the sculptor. Of natural things the first cause is, among bodies, those bodies that are in circular motion and the power that comes from them to bodies which are in close proximity to them and in contact with them. This power, Alexander says, one may plausibly call nature, as the cause of all that is believed to come to be by nature and according to nature.64 [Aristotle] says ‘in the role of matter’ because matter in the strict sense of the word is that into which bodies are ultimately resolved; it is unchangeable, while the elements change into one another.65 Hereupon66 he returns to what was said before about the four elements, how they have their origin in each other and how the other three are potentially present in each, because their underlying matter is the same, otherwise they would not change into each other. This is also true in the case of all67 other things that change into one another, for instance if a bronze horse should be changed into the form of a human statue: they have one and the same underlying matter, the bronze. Similarly also for things made of gold, wax and the like: the gold plate may become a gold cup, and this may be changed into a mixing bowl, and the wax cube may become a wax sphere.68 He says ‘into which they are ultimately resolved’, because the animal (for example) is first resolved into the homogeneous parts, these again into the four humours,69 the elements ultimately into matter and form. He reminds us of this, in order that with these facts fresh in mind we may find it easier to follow what is going to be said next. Chapter 3

14,1

339b2-6 First one may raise the question of the so-called ‘air’, what we should take its nature to be in the world that surrounds the earth and how it ranks in relation to the other so-called elements of bodies.

Translation

43

After explaining in general terms the elements of the world, that they are five in number, one of bodies in circular motion, the other four of sublunary bodies, in which all coming-to-be and passing-away are manifested (these are what are meant by the ‘initial propositions’ (339a33), which we must have ready at hand before embarking on the present subject), he now raises and solves a preliminary question, which will be useful with a view to the things to be discussed: with what kind of bodies is the space between the earth and the extreme surface of the fixed sphere filled? Is there one or more than one, and if more, how many and which and how do they rank with respect to each other? For since the earth is enclosed by the heavenly bodies and the substance of fire and air, but our sense-perception is aware only of air, one may reasonably ask the question what the nature of this air is with respect to the other substances and what its rank is in relation to the others and how far it reaches. Aristotle rightly says, ‘the so-called elements’, since these are not elements properly so called, but matter and form are, as the simples, out of which those elements were compounded.70 When he says, ‘what we should take its nature to be’, I do not think he refers to what its substance is (this point, which is already dealt with in the On Coming to be and Perishing, is clearly not broached here),71 but to the quantitative question of its magnitude and how far it reaches, which is as a matter of fact the continuation of his instruction. For he himself has already set forth his opinion on these matters, that the elements of the entire world are five, what their nature is and how they rank in relation to each other; but since some have other opinions regarding them, he considers it right, first to refute their suggestions. His argument proceeds by division. The mass of the earth, he says, is obvious as well as water that has gathered in its hollows, the contact of which two results in a single spherical mass made up of both, which occupies the centre of the universe. What comes next, as far as the extreme heaven, must be either only fire or only air, or both air and fire, or, what is left and what is Aristotle’s opinion, air and fire and a third substance, the fifth body.72 This being the division, he will go on to show that up from the earth the world consists neither of fire alone nor of air alone, nor of the two, fire and air, alone, but that air and subsequently the substance of fire (meaning the elemental fire)73 reach as far as the moon, while the remaining space up to the stars, consists of the fifth body. We shall learn the details of the proofs as we go through the text. 339b6-9 As regards the mass of the earth, it is not unknown what its size is in relation to the surrounding magnitudes; for we have already seen using astronomical theorems74 that it is much smaller than even some of the stars.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15,1

44 5

10

15

20

25

30

35 16,1

5

Translation

It has been shown that the earth in relation to the whole heaven is equivalent to a point and a mathematical centre.75 People have also calculated its perimeter: taking two stars at a moderate distance from each other and measuring the line on the earth that extends underneath them, they found it to have a length of 500 stades; now as the great circle is divided into 360 degrees, they multiplied these by the 500 stades and thus found the entire perimeter of the 180,000 stades, including also of course all the water that has collected in its hollows.76 Arrian in his Meteorology says that Eratosthenes of Cyrene asserts that the greatest circle of the earth has a perimeter of 250,000 stades.77 Once the perimeter has been found, the diameter also follows; for the perimeter of any circle is 3 1/7 times its diameter; from these figures its entire cubic content is also known.78 Yet in spite of these dimensions it has been shown to be a great deal smaller only than the sun and certain stars of Sirius, as they say, and Canopus and any others of its size; but it is not smaller than all. At least it appears to be larger than the Moon, since it falls entirely within the shadow of the earth and lingers there for some time in eclipses, before passing through it. I said already that in its hollows it encloses the entire substance of water; for water, separated off and agglomerated by itself outside the centre does not exist, nor can it possibly exist, since it needs a solid to contain it, and there is no such solid other than the earth. Earth and water were therefore measured as one body and one mass. 339b13-16 Should, then, the space between the earth and the extreme stars be regarded as one natural body or more, and if more, how many, and where are the local boundaries? Now that the mass79 of the earth together with the water collected in it has been made manifest, [Aristotle] says, we will discuss the space between it and the extreme stars, with what bodies it is filled. By ‘extreme stars’ Alexander understands those at the lowest extremity in relation to us, that is, the moon sphere.80 This, however, is not true; for Aristotle also inquires about the heavenly bodies themselves, whether they consist of fire entirely, or only the stars do. By ‘[up to the] extreme stars’ we should therefore understand the space up to the convex surface of the fixed sphere. He further says ‘and where are the local boundaries’, meaning how far, if there should be more, the local boundaries extend for each. 339b21-7 What we call aether has had this name from of old. Anaxagoras, it seems to me, indicates that he considers it the same as fire (he says that the upper regions are full of fire), and it was he who made it a custom to call the force in those regions

Translation

45

aether; for men seem to have regarded the body always in motion (aei theon) as something also divine (theion) by its nature, and they made it a rule to call that substance aether, as being identical with nothing in our world. Having said that the whole cosmos surrounding the upward motion is thus unlike anything in our own world, and made of a different substance, the one that moves in a circle, and that this was also the assumption of people before us,81 [Aristotle] tries to establish this in the present passage on the basis of what has been set out previously by means of the way its name differs from other things. He also approves of Anaxagoras for calling it by that name, but criticises him for thinking that aether derives from aithein, i.e. burning; for Anaxagoras says that the upper, that is, the celestial, regions are full of fire. Yet not only he, but Plato too is of this opinion, saying that the stars are made of fire, and the whole heaven mostly of fire, with a little of the other elements.82 Heraclitus, too, was of this opinion,83 and it appears that no one before Aristotle said that heaven was made of another corporeal substance. He is therefore without any ground ascribing his own newfangled doctrine to his predecessors.84 Let us grant85 that it is not derived from aithein, though this etymology is closer; yet how86 does this prove it different from things in our region, since the name imposed on it does not come from its substance, but from its everlasting motion? Thus there is no cogency in his proof, based on the name, that people think that the heaven is different from the elements in our region. We will elsewhere discuss Aristotle’s arguments in the First Book of On the Heavens set up to prove on the ground of the circular movement that the heaven is made of a fifth corporeal substance.87 339b27-30 Our claim is that the same opinions circulate among men, not once or twice or a few times, but an infinite number of times. What Aristotle writes here is in accordance with his own opinion, the assumption being that the universe is without a beginning and without coming-into-being,88 but he is unaware that he is falling into his own nets. If the same opinions arise an infinite number of times because the world has no beginning of being, then it follows necessarily that the same opinions recur not only an infinite number of times, but a multiplicity of infinitudes. For it is not the case that the same opinions recurred an infinite number of times down to Aristotle’s days, but a very long time before him as well they had recurred infinitely often; if not infinitely often, the universe would have a beginning. But if it did not89 have a beginning, then whatever part of past time you were to take the same opinions will necessarily recur

10

15

20

25

30

35 17,1

5

46 10

15

20

25

30

35

18,1

5

Translation

ad infinitum90 an infinite number of times down to Aristotle’s days, not only the opinion that the world is without a beginning, but also the opinion that it had a beginning; and thus both opinions will derive equal credibility from the time argument.91 Secondly, if the past is infinite, the infinite must necessarily increase by the addition of the subsequent, and it will never cease from increasing, since time proceeds infinitely. Now if it is impossible for the infinite by itself to be realised, as Aristotle himself showed, it is a fortiori impossible that anything greater and more infinite than the infinite should come to be.92 If, then, it is impossible for the same opinions to recur an infinite number of times, and no one before him appears to have propounded this opinion, it follows that Aristotle initiated it. It has thus been proven lucidly that he has fallen into his own snare; but in any case it is through these arguments that he wants to infer that there is an older opinion to the effect that the heaven is of a different substance than the sublunary world and that it is everlasting. What he says about it is this: our predecessors, being of [this] opinion, call this body aether, naming it thus on the ground that it is always in motion (aei theein), never rests from movement and that it is divine (theion): a thing which is true of nothing under the moon, everlasting and unceasing motion. When this opinion, Aristotle says, had disappeared in the course of time, the word remained, but was transferred by later generations to a different meaning, that of burning (aithein), as it were fire in its substance. For not only cities and nations, he argues, have their beginnings and ends, resulting in total oblivion, but this also happens to opinions, arts and sciences, which eventually recur in the course of a long time. Thus music and sculpture and some other arts were invented by our predecessors, but they have become dim now and may flourish again in due course.93 It is plausible, therefore, that the same happens to beliefs about reality. And they say that Alexander wrote to Aristotle from India, or94 according to others from Babylon, that the wise men there also say that the heaven is made of another kind of body.95 What the truth of this is, I cannot say, but among Greeks no one before Aristotle appears to have held this opinion. Plato in the Cratylus, discussing correctness in words, derives aether from ‘always running’ (aei thein);96 he says that the survivors of the deluge lived in the highest mountains and for some time led a brutish life, occupied as they were only with the gathering of food and the other necessities of life; but when at last they had recovered a little from the turmoil of the flood, it occurred to them that there was some cause of appearance; and as they observed the celestial bodies and saw their everlasting motion, they called them Aether and God, the one from their burning (aithein), the other from their everlasting movement (aei thein). And because they saw the heaven neither coming into being nor passing

Translation

47

away, but changing the bodies within it through its motion, they surmised it to be their cause and creator. Later, as reason gradually advanced towards a subtler and more inquisitive approach, they ended by enquiring into the cause of this motion and stability of the heaven itself and passed on to the invisible and incorporeal cause. For they argued that being a limited body it would not last forever and remain constant and continue to move, unless it were maintained by an infinite power, which was necessarily incorporeal, unseen, but known by the intellect from its works, since (they thought) in bodies there is no infinite power. And thus they rose to the one principle of all things and called it the divine (theion), using the name of what is superior to the appearances.97 339b30-6 Those, however, who say that what surrounds is pure fire, and not only the bodies in motion, while the space between the earth and the stars is air, would no doubt have abandoned that childlike doctrine, if they had studied what can now be demonstrated through mathematics adequately; it is indeed all too simple to believe that each of the moving bodies is small in size because it seems so to us as we observe it from here. Aristotle makes it clear by means of the proofs presented in astronomy that the space between the earth and the fixed sphere does not consist of fire only. If one were to consider, he says, the enormous mass of the bodies that surround the earth, he will without difficulty arrive at the conclusion that the substance surrounding it cannot possibly be entirely fire, since the enormous magnitude of the surrounding bodies is out of all proportion to the earth. That it is very small and practically nil in proportion to the extreme heaven is clearly shown by means of astronomical methods, and not least by the fact that small distances upon the earth bring about great differences in observations.98 Stars, for example, that are invisible in Byzantium, are visible in Alexandria, such as so-called Canopus (underneath Orion’s feet), located immediately above the southern horizon. It is very bright, larger and clearer than the Dog-Star, and this though it is close to the horizon and is seen through hazy air; nevertheless, thanks to its exceeding brightness it can vie with the Dog-Star.99 It is obvious from this that the Poet, living in Greece, was unacquainted with it, since he says of the Dog-Star, ‘they give it the name of Orion’s Hound, and it is the brightest of the stars’.100 Again, the Bear as seen in Byzantium is very high up, so that it almost seems to be at the zenith, while in Alexandria it grazes the horizon, and in Diospolis many of its stars set.101 This would not be the case, if the magnitude of the earth were not small. Why do I say magnitude, when in proportion to the enormous magnitude of the outermost sphere the earth is proven to be equivalent to a mathematical centre and a point?102

10

15

20

25

30

35 19,1

5

48 10

15

Translation

Let there be a circle ABC, and let its centre be D and its diameter AE, which necessarily divides the circle into two equal half-circles. Let another circle be described around the same centre, smaller, that is, than the outer one. Let the outer circle be the fixed sphere and the inner circle the earth. Now, assuming that the earth is the surface [of the inner circle],103 draw from it a straight line FG to the eastern and to the western horizon. This will divide the fixed sphere into two unequal sections, the one above the earth smaller than a half-circle, let us say, of five signs, and the one underneath the earth of seven, for example, or however it happens to turn out, the one above the earth being FBG, the one underneath FCG.104

Fig. 1.

20

25

30

Now the line through the centre, since the indivisible is in no proportion to the given magnitude,105 divided the outer circle into two equal parts, while the line through the surface of the inner circle106 divided it into unequal parts. If, then, the magnitude of the earth were in any proportion to the fixed sphere, the part of the heaven above the earth and visible to us would inevitably be smaller than a half-circle. But since at all times we see exactly six signs above the earth, it is clear that, as the centre is in no proportion to the fixed sphere, so neither is the earth in any proportion to it, although the earth is quite large and because of its magnitude is called ‘land’ (êpeiros) as equivalent to ‘boundless’ (apeiros), as in the line, ‘We sailed toward a boundless land’.107 Hence it does not conceal any part of the fixed sphere, any more than the indivisible point does; for if its magnitude were in any proportion to the fixed sphere, we would see the half-circle above the earth to be smaller, as the remaining part that completes the half-circle above the earth would be hidden from sight by the magnitude of the earth, as in the circles of our diagram on the eastern horizon the section A to F and on the western horizon the section E to G. If, then, the earth is nothing in proportion to the outermost heaven, it makes no sense to ask whether it is smaller than some stars, one should rather ask if it is larger than any stars at all. As for the sun, mathematicians show that it is a hundred and

Translation

49

seventy times as large as the earth. And they say that the Dog-Star is also larger than it, but that because of the enormous distance it seems small, in the same way as the diameter of the sun seems to those looking at it to be around one foot, and this while the solar sphere is much lower than the fixed [sphere]. It is proven in mathematics, they say, that the distance from the convex surface of the lunar sphere to the sun is less than twenty times and more than nineteen times as great as the distance from the centre of the earth to the convex surface of the moon.108 It follows that the whole cubic content of the space from the moon to the sun and that of the space from the moon down to the earth are in the ratio of eight thousand to one. For any solid is measured through multiplication of the length by the width, and of the product, in turn, by the depth. For instance, in the case of a cube, if its side is two cubits: you multiply two by two, the product being four; you multiply those once more by the depth, which is also two cubits, and the whole cube is found to be eight solid cubits. If, then, the distance from the earth to the moon is one unit, its entire cubic content is also one unit, for one times one makes again one, and this, multiplied by its depth, which is once more one, similarly becomes a three-dimensional one. But since the distance from the moon to the sun is twenty such units, twenty times twenty is four hundred, which multiplied by the twenty of the depth makes eight thousand. Therefore as eight thousand is to one, the space between the moon and the sun is to the space between the centre of the earth up to the moon.109 This being so, the space between the sun and the fixed sphere must extend to a well-nigh infinite magnitude, which on account of its enormousness cannot even be measured by astronomical methods. I shall, however, try to prove that the sun is much larger than the earth, as far as possible without the use of mathematical methods. Let us first demonstrate briefly that the earth has a spherical form, as follows.110 Night is nothing else than the earth’s shadow: on whatever part of the earth the sun casts its rays, the shadow forms on the side opposite to the source of the light. One can see this clearly also from lamplight and from the shadows of bodies. But no body, when illuminated, casts a circular shadow from all sides, with the sole exception of the spherical body. For the rays of the source of the light, falling on the edges of the illuminated object, produce a shadow of the same form as the object itself. Therefore the illuminated part of a cylinder, if the light should come from its base, forms a circular shadow because each of the two ends is circular; but if the light should come from the sides toward the length of the cylinder, it casts a parallelogrammic shadow delimited by parallel straight lines; for as all the rays fall upon one straight line of the cylinder, the shadow on the opposite of the illuminated side must also be delimited by straight lines. Therefore, as already said, only the spherical form

35

20,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

50

21,1

5

10

15

Translation

produces a spherical shadow at each of its sides. Such is also the shadow produced by the earth, and it is for this reason that the moon in its eclipses, from whichever side the eclipse begins, whether from the east, the west, or wherever else, is seen to be darkened along a circular line (as when it becomes crescent-shaped), never in a straight line (as at half-moon), showing that the shadow is circular on all sides. For as I said, the part of it that becomes unilluminated by its moving into the shadow of the earth is never seen cut off from the illuminated part by a straight line. It is therefore clear that the earth, which casts the shadow, has a spherical shape.111 Now that this has been demonstrated let us make another preliminary point, namely that, when a sphere is illuminated by a sphere, if the one illuminated is equal in size to the source of the light, the shadow becomes cylindrical, the rays falling upon the object in undeviating straight lines, so that they neither converge as they advance nor diverge; therefore the shadow is a cylinder.112 If the source should be smaller than the lit object, the rays are pushed outward by the object and reflected so as to diverge on both sides, and thus they are carried forward and spread out through the reflection as it proceeds, the splitting goes on to an ever increasing widening of the distance, until they fall on something simultaneously, and as a result the shape of the shadow becomes that of a basket, starting from a narrower bottom up to the point where the rays fall in together [Fig. 2].113

Fig. 2.

20

25

If, conversely, the source is larger than the object, the rays flow beyond the object, gradually approach each other as they proceed, until they have completely converged, and thus the shadow becomes a cone [Fig. 3]. The cone has a circular base, from which it gradually rises upward, narrowing proportionally as it goes on, until it ends in the point that is its apex.114 That the shadow of the earth is cone-shaped, is proved once again by the eclipses of the moon. For if it suffers a total eclipse

Translation

51

when it is closer to the earth, it remains totally unilluminated for a longer time, because it has run into a wider part of the cone, but if it is in its apogee, that time is shorter, because it has run into the narrower part of the shadow and thus passes through it quicker. It should be understood that the cone of the shadow has its base at the earth itself, but it falls beyond the moon sphere and its apex attains the sphere of Mercury. If it did not reach beyond the moon sphere, the moon would not enter into it completely and remain unilluminated for a time, [as in fact it can] because the narrowest part of the cone stretches farther than the moon owing to the width of the shadow.

30

Fig. 3.

If, then, the shadow of the earth is a cone, it follows that the earth is much smaller than the sun. So what can it be in comparison to the outermost heaven, if not truly a point? These arguments have proved the enormous magnitude of the surrounding bodies in proportion to the sphere formed by earth and water. Let us now see what further conclusion the philosopher builds on this. First we will recall the wording: ‘Those, however, who say that the surrounding substance is pure fire, and not only the bodies in motion, while the space between the earth and the stars is air, would no doubt have abandoned that childlike doctrine, if they had studied what can now be demonstrated through mathematics adequately; it is indeed all too simple to believe that each of the moving bodies is small in size because it seems so to us as we observe it from here’.115 Alexander says that the philosopher here raises the question whether the celestial bodies are all made of pure fire, and not only the stars (for by ‘bodies in motion’ he means the stars), but also the spaces between the stars; for those who maintain this, he says, must consequently believe that everything beyond earth and water up to the moon sphere is air.116 But I do not think that this is what the text refers to; rather, it refers to everything beyond the earth (including the water of course) up to the extreme heaven. For what does he say? ‘And not only the bodies in motion’, that is all those in circular motion (in circular motion are both the stars and the entire heaven), ‘but also117 the air between the earth and the stars’, implying of course that the air in between is not in circular motion. This is an extremely foolish assumption, to believe that land animals and plants live in the

35

40

22,1

5

10

52 15

20

25

30

35

23,1

5

10

Translation

midst of fire. If those who assume this, he says, had studied the mathematical proofs, they would no doubt have abandoned that childlike opinion, the belief that each of the bodies in motion is small in size; apparently they think, according to Aristotle, that even if the stars were made of fire, things in this world would suffer no harm owing to the smallness of their size. But what would they say, then, of the spheres themselves, even if the stars were small, and further of the air between the earth and the moon? Consequently the solution of the problem cannot be derived from the stars only, and this is perhaps why Alexander did not regard the problem as applying to all the bodies in between. The word ‘adequately’ is meant to refer to ‘demonstrated’ (‘adequately demonstrated’) or to ‘studied’ (‘studied adequately’, i.e. not casually and carelessly). His point is that the bodies in between would long ago have been consumed by fire, and it would not even have been possible for them to come into existence to begin with. The evidence from sensation, too, should put them to shame utterly; for we cannot tolerate even a light impact of fire. Aristotle says [339b36-7] that this has been discussed ‘in our study of the upper region’, i.e. in his work On the Heavens.118 340a3-8 Furthermore, those spaces cannot be filled only with air either, which in that case would exceed by far the equality of mutual right proportion in relation to the other elements, even if the space between earth and heaven is filled with two elements; for the mass of the earth (comprising also the main body of water) is in a manner of speaking no part at all as compared to the surrounding magnitude. Having eliminated the possibility that the bodies surrounding earth and water could consist of fire, he goes on to show that all of them cannot consist of air only either. The first reason is that the universe would be crippled, if deprived of the most beautiful and most life-producing of elements, that is, of fire. Heat is seen to be the cause of life in all animals and plants; whence then does this substance come in us, if it were not also an element of the universe, in the way in which we also have our share of the property of the other elements? Surely we cannot say that the elemental fire exists in individual substances, but not also in the universe. If there are totalities of earth, water and air, does it not follow necessarily that there is also a totality of elemental fire? Where will the dry and smoky exhalations go? For if each of the other elements, when detaching itself from the individual substance, joins its own totality (the earthy, such as ashes, going to earth and vapour to water), it is clear that dry and smoky exhalations, such as those mounting from fumigation and from burning wood and stone, go to join some kind of totality of fire. Now since in the region of the earth no totality of fire is manifest, the only possibility left

Translation

53

is that it exists beyond that of air. For the fire in our world is not elemental; rather, just as ice is an excess of cold, and ashes, again, are an excess of the dry, so the ministering fire, I mean the flame in our world, is an excess of the elemental fire.119 Thus there must necessarily be a totality of this element: this is the tinder sphere. In the same way as out of two heavy elements, water and earth, the heavier one sinks below the less heavy, so too, out of two light elements, air and fire, the lighter one floats on top of the less light. Therefore the totality of the elemental fire necessarily exists beyond the air. This is our argument; Aristotle, however, disproves the other doctrine on the ground that the air is out of all proportion to the other elements, if the doctrine should be true. The air will be in no way equal to the rest, he argues, since the whole earth together with the water that it encloses has been shown to be in the ratio of a point and a centre with respect to the universe. Therefore the air exceeds the right proportion in relation to the others, which is absurd, since in this way the universe will perish, or rather, it will not even be formed to begin with. For the right proportion between the elements is the cause (in the sense of matter) both of their coming-into-being and of their preservation, once they have come to be. This is made clear by the bodies formed from them; if any of these should come to be excessive in us, dissolution of the formation follows immediately, for the results are sickness and death. The same absurd consequence would also follow, Aristotle says, if the space beyond the earth up to the extreme heaven were to consist of two elements, air and fire. For the lack of proportion of these with respect to the remaining two, earth and water, will be no less evident, since anything in excess will transform the rest into itself, and thus the world will be gone. By ‘the space between earth and heaven’ Aristotle means, as Alexander rightly comments, the space between the earth and the outermost rotation; what he calls heaven is the fixed sphere.120 Consequently, when Aristotle asked the question whether the space between the earth and the stars could be pure fire, he was also referring, not to the space up to the moon, but from the earth to the fixed sphere. It is obvious, Alexander says, that if he assumed this space to consist of air and fire, he would assign the fixed sphere to fire, and so he would allot the rest to air. Yet not even if the spheres and the rest as far as the earth consisted of air only and only the stars of fire, would it be possible for the right proportion in relation to the other elements to be preserved, for the mass of fire would be an infinite number of times greater than water and earth, since the sun alone is a hundred and seventy times as large as the earth.121 Then what effect would it have with the other stars added, if it were made of fire?

15

20

25

30

35

24,1

5

10

54

15

20

25

30

35

25,1

5

10

Translation 340a8-13 Still we see that the difference in mass is not of such magnitude, when air comes from water as it dissolves, or fire from air. Now a particular small quantity of water must have the same ratio to the air that forms out of it as all the air to all the water.

After arguing that it is not possible for one of the elements to exceed the right proportion with respect to the others (that is, if the universe is to be preserved and to remain constant in its nature), Aristotle demonstrates this very point in the case of the elements themselves by means of the change of portions in them into one another. It is probable, and I think even necessary, he says, that the proportion in mass between a certain quantity of water and the air that is formed from it in the process of change be the same as that between all the air and all the water; e.g., if an ounce of water should change, let us say, into ten times that mass of air, all the air must be ten times all the water. The same in the case of air and fire: if a pint of air, when changed into fire, will make twenty times that mass of fire, the total mass of fire must also be twenty times that of air. And likewise for any change of one element into another: when the thicker ones in their dissolution and rarefaction change into thinner ones, this certainly produces a greater mass, but one that preserves a ratio and a right proportion in relation to the mass out of which it changed, as the change itself into one another has shown. If an ounce of water has produced its tenfold in air, it is evident that, supposing that all water could change into air, it would necessarily make the change so as to result in a tenfold mass. Consequently upon their first coming into being there was the same excess in mass relatively to each other. Furthermore, the mass of the earth, including water, is negligible in proportion to the surrounding space. Therefore the entire space beyond the earth cannot be filled with any other element or with two only; from this it follows that the space up to the moon is filled with air and fire, and what is beyond this with a third element. On all these points we have stated our opinion elsewhere; it is available to anyone interested, so that we can spare ourselves a great many digressions.122 340a13-17 It makes no difference if somebody says that the elements are not formed out of each other, yet are equal in power; for in this case, too, that equality in power must belong to their magnitudes, just as if they were formed out of each other. These words of Aristotle hint at Empedocles, for it was he who claimed that the elements remained unchangeable into each other (as the philosopher writes in the second book of On Coming to Be, refuting his opinion),123 but that nevertheless they all equal each other in power. Now since he himself has refuted the present hy-

Translation

55

pothesis on the ground that the elements change into each other, while Empedocles holds that they do not change into one another, Aristotle says that it makes no difference for the purpose of refuting those hypotheses, inasmuch as Empedocles says that they are equal in power, obviously implying that their masses are also proportionate to each other. If, then, according to the hypothesis the space beyond the earth up to the fixed sphere consists of one or two elements, the mass of that one element, or of those two, will not be in right proportion, on the grounds, that is, that their powers increase with their mass. But this is not true: if you draw a pitcher of water from Lake Maeotis,124 it is not true that all the water in the Lake must exceed the water drawn from it by its powers (wetness and coldness) in equal proportion as it exceeds it in the mass of its magnitude; nor if you take one burning log out of one big fire does it follow that the whole fire is as much hotter than the log as it exceeds the part that has been taken out in magnitude. Likewise in the case of vinegar, for example, of wine, of a white or a black body; in none of these is the whole necessarily greater in its powers than the part separated from them in the same proportion as the whole is greater than the part also in mass.125 340a17-24 It is clear, then, that neither air nor fire alone occupies the space in between; we must now raise and answer the question how these two (air and fire) are located with respect to the position of the first body, and by what cause the heat from the upper stars reaches the regions around the earth. Let us then first discuss air as planned and then return to these. In the preceding passage Aristotle has proposed two questions for examination: first, by what bodies, and how many, the space between the earth and the convex surface of the fixed sphere is filled, whether it is only fire or only air or both or another third in addition to these; second, what position these intermediate bodies occupy with respect to each other (since the substance of earth and water and the one mass formed by both together is a point already agreed upon on the ground of perception). The answer was that it consists neither of fire only nor of air only nor of these two alone, but of these two and a third beyond them; his refutation also included a discussion of the fifth body and it argued that it is not true that the stars themselves are made of fire alone, but the materials of the spheres itself of air. After this he now passes on to the second problem. Having shown that the entire heaven is neither fire nor air, he logically now asks the question how the remaining two, fire and air, are located with respect to it; and, assuming that the heavenly bodies are not made of fire, from where the heat comes that reaches these regions from the stars. First he deals with the second question, beginning as follows.

15

20

25

30

35 26,1

5

10

56 15

20

25

30

35 27,1

5

10

Translation 340a24-33 If water, then, comes out of air and air out of water, for what reason are no clouds formed in the upper region? This should occur in a higher degree, inasmuch as that region is farther away from the earth and is colder owing to the fact that it is not so close, on the one hand, to the stars, which are hot, nor, on the other hand, to the rays reflected from the earth, which prevent the formation of clouds close to the earth by dissolving such formations through their heat. [For clouds are gathered where the rays already expire because of being dispersed in the void.]126

Before explaining the relative position of air and fire, Aristotle raises the present problem, which is pertinent to the question under discussion; for together with its solution the relative position of the two elements mentioned also becomes immediately manifest. The problem is this: since it has been shown, he says, that the four elements change into one another (this has been shown in On Coming to be and Perishing),127 and for this reason water, when rarefied, becomes air, and conversely air, when condensed, becomes water, and this does not happen to some parts of them to the exclusion of others, but whatever part of them one may take is capable of changing into the other, why are no clouds formed in the region that is far above the earth? That there is no such formation is manifest from long observation, since the highest mountains rise above clouds and winds. Some people who had deposited ashes on some of these, or had left them behind from sacrifices that are performed there, when they came back a great many years later to investigate, found them lying as they had left them there. On Mt. Cyllene too, they say, which is an extremely high mountain in Arcadia, some people who had offered sacrifices, returned the next summer to sacrifice again and found the ashes of the victims still lying there in the same way, neither washed away by rainstorms nor scattered by winds. Plutarch records that on Mt. Olympus in Macedon even letters remained from one ascent of sacrificial animals to the next.128 Also, those who travel through such mountains, as somebody who had crossed Mt. Olympus told me, observed beneath their path the formation of clouds and rain gathering and flashes of lightning and the crash of thunder coming up from below; in a word, all the phenomena that result from the gathering of clouds and that seem to us to take place up in the air, are formed at a level lower than theirs. Yet even the highest mountains do not rise very high above the earth; experts in mechanics have calculated their height with the help of their instruments, which they use to measure mountains, and they say that the highest of mountains, measured perpendicularly, are twelve stades high.129 What random reasoning,130 then, to say that some parts of the air

Translation

57

change into water, others do not! If any particle of water can change into air by evaporation, any particle of air will also become water through condensation. For the elements must be equal in their powers; if one of a pair of opposites were to predominate, the other would eventually change into it in its totality, and the whole would be gone, as one constituent of its substance would be dissolved. And yet, [Aristotle] says, cloud formation should more readily take place in that region, inasmuch as it is colder than the air above it, which is close to the stars, and than that about the earth itself, because neither are the stars close by (which according to some are hot and thus by their heat dissolve the cloud formation), nor are the rays reflected from the earth near at hand, which prevent clouds from forming about the earth. A plurality of rays, meeting in the earth as in a centre, then being reflected again, come even closer to each other and by their motion heat the air that is caught between them at each reflection and prevent it from forming clouds; if any part of the air should be compressed, they easily dissolve it by heating it through the friction. That motion heats is obvious to anyone. Therefore, when missiles are shot at great speed, the lead that holds the points together, or simply the glue, melts and causes them to fall apart, unless they are tied together with strings. Clouds are formed, [Aristotle] says, at the point where, as the reflection proceeds, the rays spread indefinitely away from each other, enclosing a great deal of air between them, which, on that account, is not easily affected by heat. It is therefore natural that this is where the clouds form; for it has been shown in the Optics131 that reflection of the rays takes place at equal angles on each side, for which reason the rays reflected spread as they proceed. But in mirrors, too, the incident visual rays, which are reflected from them

Fig. 4.

15

20

25

30

35

58

28,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Translation

owing to the mirrors’ smoothness, return to their point of departure; hence when we see ourselves we think that we see something else, because the judgment on the objects of vision is based precisely on the angle that is formed from reflection in the mirror and for this reason the image that appears outside seems to be inside the mirror.132 And since the reflection occurs at equal angles on both sides, therefore, if we should want to see things above our head, we lay a mirror down flat before our feet and by looking in it we see the ceiling, because the rays of vision are reflected at obtuse angles on both sides,133 forming an acute angle in between and being thus directed upwards, because the reflection does not spread widthwise on both sides [see Fig. 4 on p. 57]. If, however, we should want to see what is below and under foot, we hold the mirror high up and look in it; the visual rays, reflected again, as in the first case, go downward, so that we can also survey the things which are thought to appear in the depth of the mirror. But if the mirror should be positioned upside down inclined as though away from the sight towards the floor, since the sight rays are reflected and produce acute angles on both sides [of the normal line], and widen into an obtuse angle in the middle [viz. the angle bisected by the normal line] as they proceed on both sides, we see a few of the things which lie below to either side and in front of us. Experts in such things, who have understood their causes, have invented many kinds of mirrors, non-reversing ones, convex ones, those that show the person head down,134 and a great many more: by re-shaping mirrors according to the manifold reflections of the visual rays they seem to create such illusions.135 But we must leave these matters to those versed in them; for the present purpose we have said enough by showing the reason why clouds gather neither in the regions around the earth nor in those that are far removed from it. 340a32-5 Therefore either water is not produced naturally from all air, or if it is produced from all air indifferently, the layer around the earth is not only air, but a sort of vapour, which is why it settles again into water. After showing in the form of a question propounded that cloud formations are not produced by all air, Aristotle now posits and refutes what someone would have said offhand in response to what was said. His reply might be to the effect that, (i) if clouds are not formed everywhere, not all air is naturally fit to turn into water. Such a statement would be random and unreasonable, and it has already been refuted above: it is possible for water to be produced from all air indifferently because the nature of all the air is one,136 (ii) or else the air around the earth, in which the clouds form, is not pure, not such as the uppermost air, in which no clouds are formed; rather,

Translation

59

it is like a sort of vapour from which the clouds are formed, and the whole of this is watery air.137 For vapour holds the middle between air and water, being a passage and as it were a coming-to-be from the one resulting in the other, from air as it thickens into water (that is what vapour is, thick air), and again from water as it thins into air (for vapour, while thinner than water, is thicker than air). As for the reason why the air in direct contact with the earth itself is not turned into clouds, even though it is vaporous, Aristotle has already declared that it is the reflection and condensation of the rays taking place at that level, which heats and dissolves the air. But then again, refuting that solution, he writes as follows: 340a35-b3 Yet if all the air, being so great in mass, is vapour, the substance of air and that of water would seem to exceed the rest by far, if it is true that the spaces of the upper regions are full of a certain body; this cannot possibly be fire, because then all the rest would have been dried out, so what remains is air and the water surrounding the entire earth; for vapour is water dissolved. Alexander rightly remarks here that the words ‘all the air’ need the addition ‘around the earth’;138 for it is of this that he said, ‘the layer around the earth is not only air, but a sort of vapour’;139 out of this the question arose, why clouds do not form in every part of the air, but only in that surrounding the earth. If then all the air around the earth is vapour, in other words, fine water that has not been dissolved, and what is beyond is pure air, and in addition to this the body between the stars, in other words, the whole space of the eight spheres is also again air, since it was shown impossible to be fire, otherwise everything would have been burnt up through the disproportion of its magnitude – this being so, air and water exceed the right proportion with respect to the other three. For everything beyond the clouds, as well as the whole body of the spheres, is air, while water does not exceed everything, but only the earth, since the [substance] from the clouds up to the earth is water (for vapour is water), as well as the water enclosed in the hollows of the earth. So great a quantity of water exceeds the earth both in power and mass; it will not exceed fire, if it is true that all the stars consist of fire. Thus the air exceeds everything, water only earth, while fire will be out of all proportion not only with respect to earth (since the sun alone is a hundred and seventy times as large as the earth), but it will also be out of proportion with respect to water; what indeed can the water up to the level of cloud formation, together with the water enclosed by the earth, signify if compared to the magnitude of stars so large and so numerous, since some of the others too have been shown to be larger than the earth together with the water enclosed by it?140

35

29,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

60 35

30,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Translation

After disposing of this further objection Aristotle goes on to state his own position. The solution of the present question will not only articulate this problem in itself, but it will also prove useful with a view to what follows. 340b4-10 This should suffice to deal with these problems. Let us now speak for ourselves, defining our position both with regard to what will follow and with regard to what has been stated now. We say, then, that the upper region, down to the moon, is a body different from fire and air, yet that within it one part is purer, another less free from admixture and that it shows various degrees, especially where it borders on the air, and on the world around the earth. Once more Aristotle reminds us of things already said, namely, what is the substance of the heavens; taking this as proven he derives from it also the relative position of fire and air, which were shown to follow immediately upon the body in circular motion.141 Our claim, he says, is that the whole body in circular motion, from the fixed sphere down to the moon (which is the last of the revolving bodies, for which reason it eclipses all the others by passing underneath each of them, Venus, Mercury, the sun itself and the rest), consists neither of fire nor of air, but of a revolving bodily substance different from these; this has been proven already,142 but we remind you of it now. Yet even within it, Aristotle says, we find great variety. In the same way sublunary bodies are of one substance, that in rectilinear motion,143 but differences which impose themselves upon them have made some upward, some downward moving, and within the number of these, some move faster, some slower along the same track; upward, fire moves faster than air, downward, earth moves faster than water, and this does not come about without a natural difference. So, too, with the heavenly bodies: though the underlying substratum of all is the body in circular motion, yet here too certain substantial differences, variously distributed, cause some of them to move forward, some backward, some of them faster, others more slowly. Again, some of them are brighter and purer, others less so.144 The loss [viz. of purity and brightness], [Aristotle] says, affects most of all those that border upon the air and on the world around the earth; what he calls air in accordance with the common notion is the entire corporeal mass from the earth to the moon, because we cannot discern its differences by eyesight and because at this point he has not yet shown the position of fire and air in relation to each other and to the upper body. With great probability this will also apply in the same sequence to the heavenly bodies: just as, the earth being last, the water that comes after it is clearer and purer than earth, and air more so than water and the tinder sphere more so than air, it is logical to go upwards

Translation

61

from there and to believe that in the case of the heavenly bodies the same progress occurs, the higher levels always proceeding toward the purer and more divine. The strongest evidence for this is to be taken from the moon, which has not even light on its own, but borrows all of it from the sun in different parts at different times; for its own substantial light is seen in eclipses to be extremely dim and emberlike and less than that of all the stars, apparently because the borderland of the heavens is there. But it is manifest that the other stars also differ from each other in size, light and location. Now if this has not come about accidentally, it clearly has its origin in their substantial difference. Now perhaps a Platonist, who believes that the heavenly bodies too consist of the four elements, will find the reason [viz. for the difference of properties among the heavenly bodies] in the various mixture of such bodies and in the form that imposes itself naturally on each of the mixtures;145 Alexander, however, being an Aristotelian, says that the lesser degree of purity and the differences among the heavenly bodies are not due to an admixture to them of some [amount] of mortal substance, but these are differences of the simple body. In the case of the four elements, too, cold is present to a higher degree in water than in earth, and earth is more dry than fire, yet fire is not less dry owing to an admixture of moisture; and fire is more hot than air, but air is not less hot owing to an admixture of cold; and air is more liquid than water, but water is not less liquid than air owing to the admixture of dryness. These are simple bodies, which are not composed from other bodies, but which themselves unite as elements for the production of other bodies.146 340b10-14 Since the first element and the bodies in it are in circular motion, the immediately contiguous part of the world and body underneath dissolves and turns into fire and thus causes the heat. From this point on Aristotle uses his own grounds to solve the problem why clouds do not form in the regions above the earth and close to the moon. Why they do not form below next to the earth, he has already shown: it is because all the rays converging in a small space (the earth being the centre of the universe) heat the air, and because the rays reflected by the earth, more than the unbroken ones, heat the air caught between them and continuously dissolve the vapour that settles. Now, however, he states the reason why clouds are not formed above. Since the first element, he says, that is to say, the fifth from below and the first from above,147 and the stars in it are all in continuous circular motion, the part of the lower world that is contiguous to aether and to the extent that it touches its extreme surface, is made finer by the continuity of the motion of aether, as it

40 31,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

62

35

32,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Translation

moves along with it and circulates with it and is thereby dissolved; because thus no thickness remains in it, it is heated by this process and turned into fire. How could it be possible, then, for a cloud to form in such a region? Now if it is set on fire in such a way that all moisture in it is spent, it will not only be hot, but also dry, and such is the substance of fire. Thus the order of the elements and the substance itself of fire which is contiguous to the bodies above have been revealed. Next to the substance of fire, consequently, will be the body of air, which is moderately hot inasmuch as it is adjacent to fire, but no longer dry inasmuch as at the lower end it is next to water. Aristotle takes up this point next in a clearer form, as follows. 340b14-19 Our method and starting-point in thinking this out must be the following. The body underneath the revolving element above is a sort of matter, potentially hot, cold, dry and moist, and whatever other passive modes there are coming with these; but they become and are such and such through motion and immobility, of which we have stated the cause and origin before. By ‘the body underneath the revolving element’ Aristotle understands the entire sublunary region, that is, the four elements. This whole body, being subject to affection (since it comes into being and perishes), is a kind of matter for the elements, underlying as a substrate in the production of what is formed out of them, as wood is to the carpenter and wool to the weaver. Explaining in what sense it is ‘a sort of matter’ he says ‘potentially hot, cold, dry and moist’; for that which underlies as a substrate to qualities and has the potentiality for all [of them] is matter. Such is the entire sublunary body, which changes into each of the contrary qualities and all the passive modes148 that were shown to come with them in the Second Book of On Coming to Be and Perishing, that is, rarity and density, hardness and softness, smoothness and roughness, and in short, everything listed there. For anything that has one of a pair of contraries in actuality, for instance cold, is potentially hot, and what is actually dry is potentially moist, and likewise in all other cases. How then does it become actually what it is potentially? ‘By motion’, Aristotle says, ‘and immobility’: while in process of comingto-be and change, it moves, but when it has already come to be and has attained its perfect form, it then remains at rest in it; so that motion contributes to becoming, and rest to being what it has become. The efficient cause of their motion and change is the revolution of the heavens, the elements themselves are the matter, and the final cause is the completeness of the universe, in order that not only the constant and changeless should exist, but also that which comes to be and perishes; for, as Plato says, the universe would be imperfect, if this did not exist, and it is neither all nor whole, unless completed by those things whose existence was not impossible.149

Translation

63

This being the case, one might raise the question why, if clouds do not form up there owing to the hotness of the uppermost air, there is a great deal of snowfall in the highest mountains and why it lasts for a much longer time than on the plain and even stays until the summer itself. We already solved this problem before, by saying that the space between the surroundings of the earth and the uppermost air is colder because it is at a distance both from the tinder sphere above and from the concentration and reflection of the rays that occurs here below, since at that height the rays spread out indefinitely and can no longer act upon the great volume of air that has been caught between them. At those heights, then, where snow forms because of the cold, clouds are also most likely to form. One can also raise this question: if it is true that the air above the summits of the highest mountains, which we claim to rise above clouds and wind, revolves together with the bodies in circular motion, how could we say that ashes lying there stay for a long time in their original place?150 Would not the air in its revolving motion scatter them? Our answer is that that motion of the air is not vehement or irregular, but equable and smooth, and the air is finely divided, whereas to stir up the ashes on the ground (especially if compressed, as one can imagine, owing to the moisture of the sacrifices) a rougher movement is needed and a thicker body in motion, such as the movement of the winds and their body in motion itself, strong enough to dislodge and displace objects. Gusts of wind certainly cause the sea to crest and fell trees, and in earthquakes tear up the entire earth. But the air up there is finely divided; hence it is extremely cold, because easily affected, and it does not condense into water owing to its fineness, and its movement, as we said, is smooth and equable. 340b19-23 Thus at the middle and around the middle the heaviest and coldest has been separated off, earth and water, around them and contiguous to them is the air and what we call fire out of habit, though it is not fire, fire being an excess and a sort of boiling. From here on Aristotle explains the position and the order of the two elements and from it he concludes that it is not possible for clouds to form, so that by means of each of these two the other is demonstrated at the same time: by means of the fact that no clouds form in that region owing to its heat, it is proven that the body of fire rises above the air, as we too mentioned already before; and by means of their relative position, which he discusses now, it is shown that water and clouds do not form there. What, then, is the purport of the present passage? Out of the four elements, Aristotle says, those that are the heaviest and the coldest

35

33,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

64

35

34,1

5

10

15

20

25

30

Translation

(i.e. earth and water), separated from the others, which are light, have taken up the place in the middle of the universe. And what lacks those qualities (i.e., air and fire) necessarily rises above those two. For it follows that what is contrary in its powers must occupy contrary positions: now as light is contrary to heavy and hot to cold, so up is contrary to down; and the middle is down, while the circumference is up. But just as earth, being heavier than water moves below it and subsides, so fire being lighter than air rises to the surface and takes up the farthest place upward among all four. Thus water is contiguous to earth, and next to water is air, which, inasmuch as it is moist, borders upon water, but inasmuch as it is warm, is in contact with the fire that comes after it.151 [Aristotle] says, ‘what is habitually called fire, though it is not really fire’. The flame in our world is not fire in a proper sense,152 being an excess of natural heat, in the same way as ice and snow are not the elemental cold, but an excess of it; for the elemental cold and hot preserve what is composed out of them, while the things mentioned are on the contrary destructive; hence no composite thing is formed out of them. What, then, is the elemental hot, which has its position beyond the air? [Aristotle] explains this advancing step by step; but we shall examine what he has said before. The fact that heavy things have been allotted momentum toward the middle of the universe, i.e., the centre, is demonstrated by the fact that heavy objects from any point of the world move down from the circumference to the earth and that rainwater makes equal angles on both sides;153 this would not be the case if they did not have their momentum toward the very centre of the universe and if this were not the end of their motion. You will understand the point from the following: the heavenly body being spherical, and the earth being inside it and having been proven spherical, if you draw two circles, the one outside and enclosing, the other inside and enclosed by it, and from the larger outer circle you draw straight lines from any point in the direction of the inner one, those that move toward the centre make equal angles on both sides, but those that miss the centre, make unequal angles, the one acute, the other, on the contrary, obtuse. Therefore only the lines directed towards the centre were drawn so as to form equal angles on both sides, and those drawn so as to form equal angles converge upon the centre.154 For if any of them should deviate so as to fall outside the centre, they follow the motion of light things towards the circumference, and not the motion that is proper to heavy things, which necessarily must all follow one perpendicular line toward the centre. This having been demonstrated thus in mathematics, let the outer circle be the air that surrounds the earth, and the inner one the earth. Now if heavy objects moving towards the earth from everywhere all approach it at equal angles, and only those that have their

Translation

65

momentum towards the exact centre [approach the earth at equal angles],155 it is clear that the earth too occupies the middle of the universe, i.e. the centre. For if the earth were placed outside the centre, no heavy object moving towards it from the circumference would form equal angles on both sides;156 rather one of them would be obtuse, the other necessarily acute, which we do not see to be the case anywhere.157 If, therefore, the momentum of heavy objects toward the centre is natural to them, and if all things in rectilinear motion, upon reaching their own end, come to a standstill and to rest in it, as for instance fire at the tops, heavy things at the bottom (in the same way as is the case with qualitative and quantitative movement; anything that moves towards whiteness or heat and all things that grow upon reaching the end of their movement, come to a standstill there, for example a thing that has become something, let us say white, in its whiteness, and a thing that has become hot, in its heat, and a thing that has reached its full-grown size grows no more),158 it is obvious that things in locomotion, upon reaching the end to which they naturally aspired, also come to a natural standstill in it. Consequently the earth, too, settled as it is around the centre of the universe, needs no force to remain aloft in it; on the contrary, any part of the earth will need force to leave that position. Even the heavy objects lying upon the earth, if they were to find room and that which supports them were taken away, would move straight for the centre itself and come to a standstill on reaching it. Now that this has been said, let us look at the text. After saying ‘at the middle’ [Aristotle] had to add ‘around the middle’, to prevent anyone from thinking that the region below, to which heavy things move, was said to be the middle. The exact middle, i.e. the centre, is not a place; it is without parts and without dimension, while the place of bodies is an interval.159 The place of heavy objects, then, is that around the centre, and this is the middle. This being true it follows that place is not the limit of the encompassing body, where160 it encompasses the encompassed; for the place of heavy objects is neither the body that encompasses a centre nor the surface of a body, but a three-dimensional incorporeal interval. This has been discussed adequately in our commentary on the Fourth Book of the Physics;161 here, I only draw attention to Aristotle’s words, to which he is led by the nature of the facts. It is possible, however, to refer the words ‘at the middle’ to the earth, and ‘around the middle’ to the water. But since Aristotle said that the body beyond the air is not fire, he now goes on to explain what its nature is: [340b23-7] Rather, as for that which we describe and designate as air, we must consider the part of it around the earth as in a way

35

40 35,1

5

10

15

20

25

66 25

30

35

36,1

5

10

15

20

25

Translation moist and hot because it emits vapour and contains exhalation from the earth, while the part beyond it is definitely hot and dry.

Because most people call the body between the earth and the moon air, since sense perception alone without reason cannot discern its parts, Aristotle speaks of ‘what we describe as air’. Of this, he says, the part around the earth is moist and hot, that is to say, air properly so called. It is moist because it emits vapour, for vapours are seen to rise from it, and vapour rises from moist bodies, as is proven by water boiled in kettles above a fire; in addition, [Aristotle] says, it is hot, since it also contains a certain exhalation; the two, in fact, are mixed in it. He will later explain how exhalation and vapour differ from each other. The part of so-called air that lies beyond this is hot and dry. In proportion as it rises above cold and moist bodies, it increases in heat (the air was already hot because placed beyond the cold), and it casts off all its moisture and now becomes dry, for privation of either one of a pair of contraries is coming-to-be of the other. For as the exhalation present in the air is by its upward progress separated from the vapour (which is moist), what is left is necessarily dry and hot. In everyday speech this is loosely called fire, but Aristotle appropriately calls it the ‘tinder sphere’, inasmuch as it is ready to be kindled and inflamed, according as its dryness and heat increase. 340b27-9 For the nature of vapour is moist and hot,162 that of exhalation dry and hot, and vapour is potentially like water, exhalation potentially like fire. Here [Aristotle] calls the smoky substance specifically exhalation, later on he calls both indifferently exhalations; in fact, he already said before [340a33-5] about vapour that the part around the earth is moist and hot because it emits vapour and contains exhalation from the earth. He says that vapour is potentially water, because as it thickens it loses its heat and its lightness, and acquires their contraries, cold and moistness, and thus becomes water; while the smoky exhalation is potentially fire, by which I mean flame: as each of the two qualities in it increases it becomes flame. How is it possible, then, that in this region or in the one very close to it water or cloud should form at all? The body here, he argues, is not only air, but even more like fire, being dry and hot, such as is the nature of fire, though it possesses these qualities in a weak, not in an intense form,163 as fire does. 340b32-6 There is no reason why cloud formation in the higher region should not also be prevented by its circular motion; for all of the surrounding air must be in a state of flux, except for the part enclosed by the circumference that rounds off the earth so as to make it a complete sphere.

Translation

67

It is not only, [Aristotle] says, because of its dryness and heat that the air up there does not condense into clouds, but also because it is carried along with the circular motion of the heavenly bodies, as if in a revolving stream. Thus the continuous motion does not allow it to condense, but whatever vaporous substance should happen to be present in it is immediately dissolved by the motion. We can think of two spherical surfaces of the earth, the one passing through the plain, above which the mountains rise, the other through the summits of the mountains, the plains being lower and forming hollows with respect to it. The point is then that the air inside the outer circumference (the one passing through the mountain tops), being enclosed between them and in a manner of speaking stagnant, is not carried along with the heavenly bodies, but is like a motionless lake between the mountains, as stagnant waters are, while the air above the summits of the highest mountains and the tinder sphere beyond it are carried along with the motion of the revolving body. The tinder sphere comes next to the heavenly bodies, and the air below it, in turn, comes next to it, so that the former is carried along with the heavenly bodies, the latter with the tinder sphere, and for this reason that kind of air does not condense into clouds.

30

35 37,1

5

340b33-6 For all of the surrounding air must be in a state of flux, except for the part enclosed by the circumference that rounds off the earth so as to make it a complete sphere.164 The earth is not an exact sphere: it also has deep hollows, into which the water has flowed together, filling them, and projecting mountains, and ravines. In this case, again, the air that is caught between the mountains fills the hollows and thus forms one terrestrial sphere, as an outer circumference is extended through the mountain tops, in such a way that the whole earth, including the water that is gathered in the hollows and the air between the mountains and the ravines, is spherical. In this way the air beyond this circumference necessarily flows in a circle on the outside, being pulled along with the revolution of the heavens, together with the tinder sphere, a motion which according to Aristotle is not natural to it, but comes from the external constraint of the body in circular motion. Note that the Platonists do not think that the tinder sphere and the air next to it are pulled along with the heaven, but rather that they have this motion naturally. Of the totalities of the elements, they say, some are motionless, namely earth and water, others are in circular motion, to wit, air and the tinder sphere; none of these totalities is in rectilinear motion.165 This is not the right time to discuss these questions; we have debated them fully elsewhere.166

10

15

20

68 25

30

35

38,1

5

10

15

20

Translation 340b36-8 For even as it is we observe that winds originate in the stagnant regions of the earth and that air currents do not rise above the highest mountains.

[Aristotle] establishes that cloud formation takes place in the stagnant air between the mountains also from the origin of winds. For winds, too, develop in the same regions, not in the air that is carried along with the surrounding bodies. If they developed there, the motion of all of them would be one and the same with the motion of that level of air; as it is, they blow from everywhere, also from contrary directions, west and east, north and south, and the intermediate points, so that often they blow straight against each other, because their matter is stirred up from contrary regions. We have already shown in another way [26,32-27,9] that mountains are above clouds and above winds. 341a2-3 Fire is continuous with the upper element, and air with fire. [Aristotle] once more follows common usage in calling the tinder sphere fire; this fire, then, he says, is continuous with the upper element, i.e., the celestial one. As we said already before [10,23-31], what he calls continuous is contiguous to them and in contact;167 and air is truly continuous with the tinder sphere. For he said earlier that of the one mass of air between the earth and the moon one part is hot and moist, the other hot and dry air; so that even what he calls the tinder sphere is described as hot and dry. Certainly Plato also says that aether is the ‘most limpid’ part of the air.168 341a5-9 But at any time any particle of it that becomes heavier, as the hot is pressed out to the higher region, sinks down, while others in their turn are carried up with the fire that is exhaled, and thus the one level is constantly full of air, the other of fire, and all the time each of them becomes now the one, then the other. Since he has said that in the upper region no clouds are formed and no change into water takes place, and if this were so it would follow that that body must always remain the same, neither coming to be nor perishing, but this is contrary to the evidence of our eyes (we see the elements under the moon come to be and perish and undergo change into one another), he appends the present remarks to answer the objection. If something in that region, he says, becomes heavy and moist undergoing the action of the adjacent mass, or if something having these qualities should be carried upward with the smoky exhalation, it immediately sinks down, unable to remain there in the place that

Translation

69

is not natural to it; contrariwise, if one of the particles below becomes light by being turned into fire, or169 even if it had been brought down together with one that plunges down from on high through heaviness, it is immediately carried upwards. For because the two exhalations, the dry and the moist, are intertwined with each other, and the dry exhalation is above, often some part of the moist exhalation that is caught in it travels upward with it; and conversely, if some part of the dry exhalation is caught in the moist exhalation, the dry is often carried along with the moist as it sinks down. But if what dominates prevails, it changes the other into itself; if it does not, the part not prevailed upon at once moves on to its own place, the dry going up, the moist down.170 And otherwise: since the two bodies, air and the tinder sphere, are in contact and continuous with each other, it is plausible that they will be affected by each other in turn, the one prevailed upon by the one that has prevailed; the particle that has been prevailed upon by the upper one and become dry immediately moves towards it, while the one that has been prevailed upon by the lower one and has become moist sinks down to the prevailing element. And as in this way the alternating change into each other proceeds, each of the places171 is full of the substance that belongs naturally there, yet it is not always numerically the same substance, but each time a partly different one that moves into that place. Thus the equalisation of the elements is effectuated. The text is unclear; it runs as follows: ‘But at any time any particle of it that becomes heavier, as the hot is pressed out to the higher region, sinks down’ (341a5-6). Alexander renders this in the following words: ‘But any moister and heavier part in it, whether it has become so or has been carried upward along with it, sinks down when in the motion and revolution the hot part that carried it upward is pressed out.’172 But Aristotle is not referring to the heavy and moist that is moving upwards, but to that which comes to be in the tinder sphere itself and changes. He says: ‘But any particle of it’, that is, of the tinder sphere, in other words, any particle that changes and becomes heavy. Consequently, he is not speaking of the heavy and moist that is carried upward with the light, but of that which becomes heavy and moist while above. The point, then, is this. When a certain part of the tinder sphere becomes heavy and moist, since this [part] is held together by some portions of the tinder sphere, which173 being hot and light prevents the heavy [part] from being carried downwards, when [the hot and light part] is compressed by the heavy and squeezed out by the process of condensing into the same place above in which the heavy [part] was, the heavy [part], now being freed and segregated from that which constrained and held it together, is carried downwards right away.

25

30

35

39,1

5

10

15

70 20

25

30

35

40,1

5

10

15

Translation 341a12-17 The heat that comes to be produced by the sun, it is more appropriate to discuss by itself and with due precision in the On Sense; for the hot is a certain affection of the sense-perception. But the reason why it comes to be although those [i.e. heavenly bodies] do not have this quality may as well be discussed now.

In the beginning Aristotle set out to examine two questions: first, what kind of body fills out the interval between the earth and the stars, whether it is one or several, and if several, what kind [of bodies] these are and how they are related to each other positionally; second, how the stars and the sun, without being hot themselves, heat the sublunary things. Having sufficiently explained the first, he now proceeds to the second, which he has also discussed in the second book of On the Heavens,174 but aptly revives the same arguments again now too. And he says that the discussion of the heat by itself and more precisely would suit the treatise On Sense and Senseobjects. For the hot is an affection of sense perception, and the sense perception is the perception of sensible, and vice versa, sensible is sensed by sense perception: these are relatives; relatives belong to the opposites, but the knowledge of the opposites is one, and it is impossible to get proper knowledge of one of them without the other.175 Therefore someone who discusses the sensible things (and the hot is sensible), will also discuss sense perception, and vice versa, someone [who discusses] sense perception will always [discuss] the sensible. So we have rightly said that the discussion of the heat would be appropriate in the treatise On Sense; however, since we are now not discussing the hot as a sensible in general, but only how the sun, if it is not by nature hot, heats the things in this world, in the study of the upper regions the examination of this would be useful too. 341a17-23 We do see that motion can dissolve and incandesce the air, so that things that are moved are often seen to be melting. So the coming to be of warmth and heat can be sufficiently produced in this way just by the motion of the sun; for it must be fast, and not far removed, etc.176 [But the motion of the stars is fast, but far removed, whereas that of the moon is below [sc. that of the sun], but slow; whereas the motion of the sun is adequate in terms of both requirements.] That the sun, not being hot, can heat things here just by its fast motion, he proves from a certain evident assumption, namely, that motion heats by dissolving and rarefying the air through which it occurs. He takes as evidence for this the fact that those things that are naturally disposed to melting, often melt when forcefully moved

Translation

71

through the air, e.g. the lead that holds the arrow’s barb on the wooden shaft; for when the air adjacent to such things in their passing [through it] is made incandescent by forceful motion, melting happens. If, then, motion heats, then also a thing that moves more intensively heats the air through which it moves more intensively, and that which is closer to the thing being heated heats more intensively. Now, the fixed stars have the fastest motion of all [heavenly bodies], but they are too far removed from sublunary things; the moon, on the other hand, is the closest of them, but it has slower motion; but the moving thing needs both speed and proximity to the thing which is going to be heated. So the sun alone is both not as far removed from us as the fixed sphere and has much faster motion than the moon. But this seems incompatible with the evidence. For if the moon accomplishes the full circle in a month, but the sun in a year, why does he say that the sun moves faster than the moon? I reply that the motion of the planets is double, one (i) that by which they are led along with the fixed sphere from east to west,177 another, (ii) in the reverse direction from west to east, by which they, or rather their spheres, are moved by themselves.178 So, the moon is faster than the sun in its own motion, but in being carried round together with the whole, which is what Aristotle means here, the moon is much slower than the sun.179 For although the sun moves in a greater and the moon in a smaller circle, they still return to the same point together in the same period of time; and this would not happen unless the one that has a greater circle moved faster, and faster to the same extent to which one circle is greater than the other. And if the distance at which the sun is removed from the earth is about twenty times greater than [the same distance] of the moon, as we said earlier,180 then the circle of the sun will be as many times greater than the circle of the moon; for [the distance] is related to the perimeter [of a circle] as a diameter.181 Aratus, too, said this about the Aries and the Little Bear, the former being in the equator, the latter in the arctic circle, but both returning to the same point simultaneously:

20

25

30

35

41,1

5

There too are the paths of the Aries, the swiftest, because it speeds round in the longest circle and yet does not lag behind the Bear Cynosura as it runs.182 Moreover, it is because the moon accomplishes its own motion faster than the sun, that its motion along with the whole is slower. For because in the motion of the fixed sphere in itself the moon, in accordance with its own motion, is subsiding backwards, it is always necessary for it, when it rises together with the sun, not to set together with it, but lag behind until it is carried along to its setting

10

72 15

20

25

30

35

42,1

5

10

Translation

by the fixed [sphere], over the distance by which it subsided in accordance with its own motion.183 But someone will say, if the movement of heavenly bodies heats, why are things here not heated also at night, if the spheres move then as well, but we make the motion of the sun alone into the cause? And Aristotle has resolved this saying ‘for the motion of the solid body rarefies it’, i.e. the air, ‘most’ (341a28), meaning by ‘solid’ the body of the sun and other stars. For the moving stone too heats the air more than does a leaf or wool or something of this sort. Hence, it is plausible that the sun, being solid, heats us with its motion more than do other [heavenly bodies].184 [The views] of Aristotle and his followers are then such. Now, we too, in producing our account in accordance with truth, must state our objections to each of these. And first one should inquire what he is calling ‘solid’, whether the three-dimensional, which is said to be ‘solid’ in contradistinction to the planes, or the resistant and not yielding to touch, as Plato does,185 for he does say that heavenly bodies are solid in the sense that they partake of earth; for earth alone of the elements is a solid body. Now, the first is impossible, for all heavenly bodies are three-dimensional.186 So it remains that he is now calling ‘solid’ the resistant and the unyielding to touch, just as we call earth solid, but not air, water or fire because they are yielding to touch and flowing. If, then, he is now calling this solid, namely, the hard and the resistant, and in On Coming to be and Perishing he placed all these oppositions under the hot and cold, and the dry and moist,187 [then], first, heavenly bodies too must partake of both these oppositions, of which everything sublunary partakes, i.e. of hot/cold and dry/moist, and Aristotle inadvertently agrees with those who construct them [i.e. the heavenly bodies] out of the four [elements], but the stars out of fire for the most part. Secondly, if each of the spheres and each of the stars is circumscribed by its peculiar spherical shape, it is clear that each of the heavenly bodies must be solid and resistant, for they are all spherical. For were [any of them] not of this kind [i.e. solid], it would not preserve its own proper shape in such a swift motion. For [bodies] that are not resistant but by their nature soft and moist and easily yielding to things that touch them do not have their peculiar shape, being hard to bound by their own limit, but bounded by that of another, and by the shape of the container, as air and water are.188 So if each of the heavenly spheres and each of the stars is circumscribed by its own proper shape, and has it unaltered by any of the things it encounters or by the great rush [of its motion], then both the spheres themselves and the bodies must be somehow solid, that is to say, resistant. But assuming this is the case, if he thinks that the solid of the substance of the sun causes [it] to heat the air with its

Translation

73

motion, the spheres should have been doing this to a much greater extent, insofar as they exceed the sun in size, almost infinitely, and similarly the moon, which comes closer than other [heavenly bodies] to bodies under it and touches them.189 For the sun which occupies the middle zone,190 does not touch sublunary bodies at all, since it has three planetary spheres after it, the sphere of Mercury, the shining one, the sphere of Venus, the Morning Star,191 and the one of the moon; but none of the natural agents acts upon another without touch. For fire acts upon us in baths not immediately, but by first heating the bricks which are placed beside it; these then heat the air next to them, and it, in turn, us. So, if the sun heats sublunary things only by motion and not by quality through the medium of successive spheres, then it first heats the spheres that follow after it, in order that they, thus heated, could then themselves heat the air. It follows that they will be subject to affection. And if they are impassive according to him, [the sun] does not heat the [spheres] in-between so as to heat the air through them, since, in particular, it is also the view of Aristotle that natural bodies do not act upon each other without touch;192 therefore the sun’s motion should not be thought to be the cause of the heat that comes to be here, but the motions of the whole spheres, or – since this is clearly false (for the sun obviously heats things near it) – it is somehow absolutely necessary that it, being hot, acts upon the underlying things with its quality, as fire also does. In addition to what has been said, it would also be fair to consider the following. If all the stars are solid, and heating requires, along with solidity, also quickness of motion, and the sun moves faster than the moon, in the way we have assumed, and therefore he says that the cause of the heat that comes to be here from the heavenly bodies is the motion of the sun and not the moon; but since along with solidity and speed there must also be proximity of location between the thing moved and its mover, and the sun is removed from us at the greatest distance, whereas the moon is continuous with the air beneath it, and the distance from the sun is twenty times greater than that from the moon, as we have said before, and as for the interval by which it falls behind the sun when it makes a daily return in accordance with its own motion, [also] being carried along with the fixed sphere, that is some small part of the zodiacal sign;193 so this small difference of speed by which the moon falls behind from the sun could not possibly prevent things here from being heated by the moon’s motion, since these are continuous with it, to the extent to which the sun’s distance incommensurate with respect to its greater speed does not prevent [the sun from heating the things here].194 And I shall add, as I have already said before, that everything that acts in a natural way apparently touches that which is acted upon, and this is proper to the moon alone of all the stars. So if a full moon at night does not heat us to the same extent as the sun, it follows that

15

20

25

30

35

43,1

5

10

74

15

20

25

30

35

40 44,1

5

10

Translation

it is not its motion that is the cause of the heat coming to be here. For, even if the moon sometimes does heat, still this happens not because of its motion, since [otherwise] it should heat even when it is unlit, but because of the light. For it only heats when it is full or nearly full; hence it is only its light that heats and not its motion. Now, it receives the light from the sun; therefore, the heat of the sun also accedes to things here from its light. And since it receives the light of the sun not clean and pure but receives it dim and no more than an image of that [light],195 as from the reflection of some of its rays, in the manner of a mirror, it is plausible that the heat that comes to be in things here from the light of the moon is dim and weak. If, then, the light which comes to be in it from reflection heats the air, then to a much greater extent the pure light of the sun is the cause of heat here, and not its rotation along with the fixed [sphere]. And the heat is inherent in the light, for it is also joined with the fire. For it has been proved by this that the sun heats things here by quality and not by the speed of motion. And if the reflections of the sun’s rays make the heat that comes from it to us stronger, this does not change the fact that it too heats us in accordance with quality, since the rays from fire too when they fall upon stones or bodies, such as mirrors and cleaned silver and watery substances, in a similar way being reflected from them towards us, can seriously undo us as they set us on fire,196 but therefore we do not separate from heating the fire without reflection. What wonder is it then if this same thing happens also with the sun, and that the heat which comes to be from it due to the quality is intensified by the reflection of the rays? And since some claim that Aristotle blunders in saying that the sun which is not transparent is solid197 (for the spheres are transparent, but none of the stars are; at any rate, the lower cover the higher ones when they come to be under one perpendicular line, so that the sun is eclipsed when the moon passes under it), we shall say in our turn first that they misuse the names transferring them onto different meanings, when they put the ‘non-transparent’ in place of the ‘solid’ and say that what is transparent is not solid. Further, many of the hardest stones and the glass are the most transparent; these then [according to the objectors] do not heat the air by moving through it because they are solid, while being transparent. But this is against the evidence. For things made of them, and most especially of glass are seen to be almost set on fire by heat when they are rubbed. Therefore Aristotle called ‘solid’ the hard and resistant and unyielding to things coming across;198 for such things heat by motion, compressing the enclosed air. For this reason, at any rate, not any chance stones kindle fire by being rubbed, but only the densest and the most solid kindle fire, (and with iron, again, the case is similar: the iron will not kindle fire when rubbed unless it is very dense and hardened),199 so that the air which is enclosed inside the stones being

Translation

75

rubbed against each other and moving from them could not escape through the pores, but remaining one and the same were inflamed by continuous motion. For in more open-textured substances with some of the air leaving through the pores, and some still enclosed, it is not one and the same [air] that is continuously rubbed, but different each time, since the first one, as I have said, always flees the mover and leaves along with [the motion as it starts] before being kindled by the continuity of motion.200 This is why Aristotle wants also the sun to be of this kind, so that it would heat by motion always imparting motion to the same air. But if friction comes to be by contact with what produces friction, and the sun cannot touch the air being separated from it by so many bodies in-between, it follows that the sun’s motion is not the cause of the heat here. So, since it clearly does heat, it follows that it heats only by quality, unless some were to send us, as in mythical stories, to other causes unheard of, unseen and unknown, such as the ones which Damascius ascribes to Alexander, namely, that in the heavens there are peculiar powers productive of the affections below, and the bodies below receive them easily.201 The cohesive [power] of Saturn brings about coldness; the divisive power of Mars, disproportionate boiling of fire; that of Jupiter, a certain adjustment of the extremes; that of the sun, the re-kindling202 of passive light; the moon, the moister dissolution, the peculiar property of Venus, more stable union, and that of Mercury the communion of the extremes. Those who write this, are not ashamed of describing such visible effects as produced by the sun, with the heat that is peculiar to it (for [places] that come near it, it makes uninhabitable by inflaming, while [places] which are very distant and deprived of its warmth and made dead by the cold it left barren and empty), but turning to myths, they most illogically fail to recognise that when we are investigating natural things, we must give an account in terms of natural causes. 341a23-8 That the heat is increased simultaneously with the presence of the sun itself is reasonable, if one considers similar facts from things which happen in our ordinary experience. For here too when things are carried by force, the adjacent air becomes the hottest. And it is reasonable that this should be the case; for the motion of a solid dissolves it to the greatest extent. ‘Simultaneously with the sun’ means simultaneously with its rising. For insofar as it depends on the revolution of the heavenly bodies, it should have heated all the sublunary things also at night, for the sun moves the air even when it is on the other side of the earth. But, he says, as in the things here that are carried by force such as propelled stones or spears, and stones being rubbed against each other, from which fire is kindled, the air that is adjacent to them is heated most,

15

20

25

30

35

45,1

5

10

76

15

20

Translation

so too is indeed the case with the sun: for being solid it most heats those things which are adjacent to it when it is moving. Now, at night it heats things on the other side of the earth; during daytime, things on our side. But if he wants similar facts as those ‘from things that happen in our ordinary experience’ to happen also in the case of the sun, what could be a more obvious [illustration] than that fire heats the adjacent things at the same time as it appears? But he, avoiding clear [evidence], resorts to dubious witnesses. For the motion of solids heats; but if from there it heated in our ambience, the motion of the whole body of the heavens, because it is the most solid, would heat things in our ambience always and every moment, which is not the case. Therefore this affection subsists by virtue of quality alone. 341a28-31 For this reason, therefore, the heat reaches this place, and because the fire surrounding the air is frequently diffused by motion and carried down by force.

25

30

35 46,1

5

10

He gives a second explanation why the air in our region is heated. For the tinder sphere surrounding it, which he often, following the common usage, calls ‘fire’, being pulled along by the revolution of the heavens is, he says, forcibly diffused by motion, i.e. certain particles of it are forcibly hurled down and heat the air into which they are carried, as if someone were to move with a greater force a pot of water, and the particles of this [i.e. water] were sprayed around by some chance motion. But it is clear that this will not happen always nor in the same places, but as it may happen, not just during the daytime, but also at night. But the winter and the summer are ordered and arise because of the retreat of the sun and its coming near us. And why also are places around the poles always cold and not heated from the tinder? Such heat, then, cannot be produced by anything else except the sun alone. 341a31-5 A sufficient sign that the place above is neither hot nor fiery is the running stars. For they do not come to be there, but below, and yet things that move longer and quicker are quicker to catch fire. By ‘running stars’ he means the so called ‘shooting stars’, named so because they ‘shoot’ (diaittein): Aristotle uses a colloquial expression.203 For he now uses it as a sign that heavenly bodies are not fiery, the fact that shooting stars obviously do not come to be there. And yet, he says, if they [i.e. the heavens] were of fire, these effects ought to have come to be there rather, because its fastest motion would be sufficient to set on fire anything that arises, if moving things were indeed of such nature. To this it is possible to respond that all those bodies are solid,

Translation

77

partaking of earth, according to Plato, the hardest of the elements, and this is the reason why all of them are circumscribed by a peculiar shape, as has been shown previously.204 For, even if fire prevails in them, as Plato believes, the whole nonetheless is compressed because of the composition. It is the same with the things composed of the elements in our region: none of them has flowing structure, even if they are extremely hot, such as castor, spurge, pepper and mustard, or anything else of this sort. Therefore none of them emits sparks, even if someone were to move them very intensively. As for tinder, air beneath it, and water, they are not compressed but easily divisible, being scattered by any chance cause; therefore none of them has its peculiar limit or shape, but they are shaped along by the surrounding [body], and their particles travel from place to place within the whole whenever any chance motion of [these bodies] takes place. Thus any incidental cause subjects them to the mentioned affections, being cooled, heated, solidified, losing some of their parts and acquiring particles of the neighbouring [bodies]. Therefore the argument attempted above does not prove conclusively that things in the heaven are not fiery, for they are composite and not simple.205 And that ‘running stars’ are not stars is clear to anyone able to reflect on the facts even a little; still it will not be in vain for us to state this briefly. First, the brighter stars until the sixth magnitude have been described by astronomers,206 and the same ones are always found in the same places, preserving the same number and order as well as magnitude and colour and shape and any other characteristics observed in them. And if they seem sometimes to ‘shoot’, as though coming out of certain stars, this is nothing but the optical illusion. For the ignited parts of the tinder running beneath some stars and found207 on the other side of them, when they suddenly blaze up and run across [the sky], produce for many an appearance of running across the sky from that star with which they were on the same perpendicular line.208 So, if you pay attention after the ‘shooting’ you will see that no effect took place in the star, but also that the shooting is in our region below, which is the reason why our sight rays get an impression that it [the shooting]209 surpasses them in speed more than the fixed [sphere]: for being below in our region and moving from a small distance they go past us faster. For if two birds were moving, one the highest-flying, say, an eagle, and the other nearest the ground, say, as a jackdaw or a crow, of which one [i.e. the eagle] has the fastest motion, another the slowest, the one that is lower will give an impression of moving faster than the one above, because it will be moving on a shorter arc.210 341a35-6 In addition to this, the sun, which does seem to be the hottest, is obviously white and not fiery.

15

20

25

30

35

47,1

5

10

78

15

20

25

30

35 48,1

5

10

Translation

He seems to be using the colours of bodies as evidence for their temperatures, but this is not right. For note: blood and rose are red, but one is hot while the other cold. Again, milk is white as well as is white lead, but also wine is white, and the heads of the leeks, and garlic and onions, of which the former are cold, while the latter hot. Pepper is black and the violet likewise, but one is the hottest, another coldest.211 But neither does the sun appear white, which is the colour of many stars: for it is manifestly seen to be yellow, like the [colour] of the flame made by dry and fine-structured matter. And even had it been of white colour, this is not a proof of its not being of fire. For the colour of fire does change relatively to a certain kind of matter. For the shooting stars and lightning are white, as is the colour of the stars, wherefore they are called ‘stars’, and the poet knows ‘bright lightning’.212 Similarly too comets are white, and none the less it is clear that they are fire. And the sun itself, when it is on horizon, appears to be more yellow, and sometimes also red. Hence, the argument from colour that the sun is not of fire is not conclusive. So much for this, then. Alexander raises this problem. If the sun’s motion ignites and heats the air which does not touch it (for, he says, the sphere of the moon lies between them, and we have already said before that natural agents act upon the object of their action by contact with it, either immediately, or through some intermediate which is the first to receive this affection by contact and then transmits it to the object of action, as we have shown by the example of the bath), then, if the spheres in between are impassible, how does the sun, without either touching the air, or producing heat in the things in-between, heat the air in our region?213 He palliates this aporia, as he himself says; for he has not resolved it, and it is a refutation of his position.214 The first attempt is as follows.215 Many things, he says, which are acted upon through the intermediate are not themselves acted upon immediately by the agent, but the intermediate through which the affection is passed on to them, does not endure the same sort of affection as it has passed on to the next things. For through a glass vessel filled with water the sun kindles dung or something of this sort, without either the vessel or the water in it being additionally heated. But even if they [i.e. the vessel and the water] are acted upon in some way, he says, they still are not heated to such an extent as to be kindled. And the net-fishermen again, or just fishermen, when a torpedo-fish is caught by the snares or by the hook, become aware beforehand of the prey because the affection homonymous with the fish216 announces it beforehand, without either the net, or the cords or the fishing rod or the line enduring the affection from the torpedofish. What wonder, then, he says, if the intermediate spheres too remain impassive while the affection from the sun is passed on through them to the air? The first attempt, then, is this; and we also have something to say

Translation

79

against it. Now the second example is extremely ill-suited to the initial assumptions: for torpedo-fish act not just by quality, say, heating or drying, or producing the affections contrary to these, but they produce the affection by the composite form supervenient on such and such a blending of simple [bodies]. For as many of the composite [bodies] as only heat or cool, or dry or wet, do this by qualities that are inherent in them from the elements, and vice versa, as many affections of simple qualities heat, cold, moisture, dryness as come to be in the composite bodies, come to be from the elements. As to desire and attraction, digestion and evacuation, sideways motion, sleep, wakefulness, memory, and unusual powers of plants and stones, [all these] come about from the supervenient form in composite [bodies]. If, then, heat alone is the affection that has come to be in the air from the sun it follows that it has come to be from a simple and elemental quality. For, as [Aristotle] has said, it is reasonable to believe on the basis of the facts in our region that the same is the case with the sun. If, then, fire heats the things that are affected not by motion, but only by quality, co-presence and contact, then it is reasonable that the sun too heats in this way. And the affection from torpedo-fish comes to be not from simple quality, but, as I have said before, from a composite form supervenient on it. Hence, the example has nothing in common with the object of inquiry. But let us suppose that it also acts by quality, heating, e.g., or cooling, and drying or moisturising: how come it does not also dispose in this way the things in-between? For to deny the affection itself because the cord or the line do not have the awareness of the affection is most ridiculous: for they are soulless and do not have the awareness of affection. In this way, one has to say that stone, or wood, or iron, are neither heated nor cooled, because they are not aware of the affection. But neither is it necessary for us to be aware of the affection inflicted by torpedofish on things in-between; nor should others be aware of our own affection. Let this, then, be resolved in this way, and let us go on to the other example [sc. Alexander’s example of glass and water transmitting heat without themselves being heated]. I say: glass and water have not transmitted the affection [of burning] undergone by the kindled matter. For the rays which fall onto the dung have not travelled through the depth of either glass or water, but only to the surface of the glass from which they are reflected.217 And this is clear also from the fact that we arrange the surface of the vessel which is inclined towards the dung as facing the sun.218 And this is clear to all, that reflections of rays come from smooth and shining bodies; in this way, at any rate, they are reflected from burning mirrors219 when their surface is made exactly smooth and the pores of the bronze are blocked up by the Magnesian talc moulded in their shape.220 For the rays do not pass through the depth of the

15

20

25

30

35

49,1

5

10

80

15

20

25

30

35 50,1

5

10

Translation

bronze, but reflected only from its surface run back to the object being acted upon, and act upon it in unmediated fashion. For the same reason also the glass vessel is filled with water, in order to block the pores of the glass so that the rays cannot slip away through them, but are forced to be reflected, there being no passage through.221 The same service as the one that the Magnesian talc provided to the bronze is given by water to glass. Such, then, is the case with these. As to the object of inquiry, if the rotation of the sun heats by its motion the air in our region, it is impossible to explain how the spheres in-between transmit that to the air. For neither does the motion of the sun move the lower spheres, nor does the motion by which they move with the fixed sphere, nor does the proper motion of each. If, then, the rotation of the sun were to be the cause of heat in our region, the motion of the fixed sphere (for it carries about along with it the spheres under it) rather than any other should have caused heat by moving the air through the medium of the last sphere. But if this were true, it would have done the same also at night: for its motion is always one, continuous and the same. Now, since this does not happen, but the air is heated at the same time as the sun is present, it follows that neither the motion of the sun, nor that of the spheres is the cause of the heat, but its natural quality (for this is what remains), just as the quality of fire [sc. in the cause of heating in the case of things heated by fire]. For if he himself took things in our region to be the evidence of things there, and fire does not heat the air by motion, but only by quality, then it is reasonable to believe that the same takes place with the sun, and not to fight against the facts and perception itself because of the desire to rescue Aristotle’s own assumptions, according to which heavenly bodies are impassive. Alexander, at any rate, is aware of this, when he also yields to reality and evidence: he also agrees that the bodies of the heavenly things are not impassive, and says that Aristotle means this, writing literally the following: ‘But perhaps the divine body is not altogether impassive; for neither has he demonstrated that it is unalterable in the first book of On the Heavens, although he set this out as his task, but he has proved that it is not generated and not perishable, and similarly that it does not undergo increase, but he has no longer demonstrated in the same way that it is unalterable, as I have noted in the commentary on it; and it is his custom to say that divine body is not impassive without qualification, but to add “to all the ills of the mortal body”,222 for it is with respect to these affections that it is impassive. Now, these are the affections that come to be by change in form,223 and divine bodies are unsusceptible of this change and affection, but not therefore also all affection. Thus motion, for one, is a certain affection, of which they are not unsusceptible. Further still, if receiving another’s light is a kind of being affected, then the moon would in some way be affected by the sun, since it has its light from

Translation

81

it. So, there is nothing incongruous in [supposing that] the part of the divine body adjacent to the sun is somehow affected by its motion, but affected not so as to change in form and become fiery (ekpurousthai), to serve the body below it through this affection, so that it be heated by it [the sun’s motion] and become fiery, particularly since that body is already less pure and clean, as he said shortly before, when he stated:224 “We say that above, up to the moon, there is a body different from fire and air, but one part of which is cleaner, another less pure and having differences, this mostly in the part in which it borders on air and the world around the earth”’.225 These are Alexander’s own words. But if that body is not completely impassive nor unalterable, and the alteration of a body is nothing but change in accordance with quality, and every bodily quality originates from the two first oppositions, hot and cold and dry and moist, and it is impossible to partake of any of the others without partaking of these first (for Aristotle has shown that all are traced back to these),226 then if the divine body is altered and affected, it always must be altered primarily in respect of the mentioned four qualities, as was also Plato’s belief.227 But if it is altered with respect to these, then it is composed of them, and the alteration takes place with respect to the one of them that prevails, the way it is in our bodies.228 For that which is heated changes from colder to hotter and what is moistened was drier, and similarly with each of the others. For had its constitution been not of them, it would not be able to change in respect of them; for it is not easy to imagine an alteration different from these that a natural body undergoes. In what then, generally, are those of the heavenly bodies that are the last and near to us less clean and pure than the upper ones, if the matter of heavenly bodies is one and simple, the fifth body not mixing with any contrariety? It must be that the upper bodies partake of the cleaner and purer portion of the elements and those below and near the world around the earth partake of that which is less clean and less pure. And of the sublunary things some happen to receive the cleaner part of the simple [bodies], while others receive their sediment and as it were dregs. And in what way is the last of the heavenly bodies affected by the sun when it is altered and passes its own affection to the air beneath it? Well, in what other than by being heated from it? For the sphere of the moon is not moved by the sun, either in respect of its own motion towards the east, which all the planets have, or in respect of the motion by which it is pulled along by the fixed sphere. What then would be an affection coming to be in it from the sun except the heat which it passes on without mediation to the air which lies after it, as the air to the elements lying after it, water and earth?229 One should take a good note of Alexander’s observation. ‘Perhaps’, he says, ‘the divine body is not entirely impassive. For in the first

15

20

25

30

35

51,1

5

10

82

15

20

25

30

35

52,1

5

10

Translation

book On the Heavens he has not demonstrated that it is unalterable, although he set this out as his task, but he proved that it is not generable and not perishable, and likewise that it is not subject to increase, but he has not yet demonstrated in the same way that it is unalterable, as we have noted in our commentary to this place’.230 So Alexander. But what was Aristotle’s reason for setting it out as his task to prove that that body is unchangeable, even though he did not manage to prove it? Perhaps it was in order to prove that it is completely impassive and by virtue of this again imperishable. For the qualitative affections of bodies such as being heated or cooled and their like, when they are moderate and do not completely transgress the natural proportion of their subjects, are and are called affections; but when they exceed the whole proportion of the body, then they are perishing and dissolution of the constituted form. So, knowing this and wanting to prove that bodies moving in a circle are imperishable, Aristotle set it as his task to prove that they are unalterable; for this has as its necessary consequence that they are imperishable; however, he has not proved [this], hence they have not been proven to be imperishable.231 But ‘it is his custom to say’, says Alexander, ‘that divine body is not impassive without qualification, but to add “to all the ills of mortal body”, for it is with respect to such affections that it is impassive. But these are the affections that come to be by change in respect of form, and divine bodies are unsusceptible of this kind of change and affection, but not therefore also of all affection’.232 Let us say then what those ills are which befall an animal while it still exists;233 and what else but being heated with the heat greater than natural, and cooled, and dried, and moistened, and as many as follow upon these, bring to those that have them, by disposing the body in an unnatural way, ills and a foreboding of dissolution, and a complete perishing of the form which follows upon these. [For it is by this]234 that things perishable by nature are distinguished from those that are not such. So, if that body is not entirely impassive, nor has Aristotle proved that, then he, gratuitously adding to it ‘to all the ills of mortal nature’, compliments it on the feature it does not have. For if it generally becomes hotter than itself from the sun and passes this affection on to the air that lies after it, then it does not escape the ills of the mortal nature; for they will not be able to prove that any other affection of the divine body heats the air, not within the limits of conceivability. Alexander also did well to question the following: if the heat here comes from the sun’s motion, why is there no heat from it in the shadows, although the shadowed air is under the motion of the sun just as the air which is not shadowed?235 Perhaps, he says, since one [part of the air] is heated from another by continuity and touch, and the object that casts shadow simultaneously prevents the continuity

Translation

83

and contact with heating in that place; for since the shadowed air is not touched in the same way as the one that is not shadowed, it is not hot in the same way.236 Alexander would have said this well, had he said that not the sun’s motion, but only its quality, as the one in fire, heats the air. For its first part, which is near the fire, being heated from it [i.e. the fire] heats the one after it, and that the next, until the heat in the parts getting weaker because of the being removed from fire, is completely extinguished. And if according to Aristotle the air is heated only by the motion of the sun, or rather of the solar sphere, and the whole of it is continuous – unless we assume that a part of it is completely shut in under the earth or [enclosed] on all sides by some building or by something of this sort237 – then there also must be the same degree of heat in each part. Let it be granted that such [i.e. enclosed] air be neither moved nor heated. But as for air which is shadowed by some walls or stones and is continuous throughout with the lit air except only from the side cut through by the object casting shadow, why does it not partake of the same heat as the parts of air continuous with it and receiving light, if it partakes of the same motion of the sun? I believe it is clear from this too that not the sun’s motion, which does not touch the air, but its quality, as in fire, heats the air, and therefore those parts of it that are covered by shadow, since the quality of the sun does not get to them through the object casting shadow, are not heated in the same way as the other parts, because only moderate heat is passed on to them from the adjacent [parts], and not as great as the one that comes to be in the parts that receive the rays without mediation. From this it is clear that heat always accompanies the sunlight, as this also obviously is the case with fire, because their light is coupled with heat. Hence, the sun heats by quality and not by motion, either its own, if indeed it does have any proper motion of its own, or by that of the solar sphere. For if it did heat in this way, then it would no less provide the same heat in much the same way always to all things, including those in the shadow and in winter, since the motion is always one and the same, both of the fixed [sphere] and of the wandering ones, in the latter case in a peculiar way for each [sphere]. But, they say, if it is fiery and heats by its heat sublunary things, why does it heat more when it is in mid-heaven and not when it is on the horizon?238 The explanation is that things are heated more not when placed on the side by the fire but when they are laid upon it, as in the case of things which are boiled or smelted. Many things that melt, such as lead, are most melted when placed in the fire. For just as light, unless anything impedes it, travels everywhere, so too the heat that accompanies it. Further, the cause of this is also clear: near the horizon the sun does not send all its rays to us,239 but some are under the earth, and some above us, while when it has come to mid-heaven it sends its rays into all of the air in our region and heats all of it.

15

20

25

30

35

53,1

5

10

84

15

20

25

Translation

Further, there is much mist around the earth, and when the sun is on the horizon, its rays travelling through it have dimmer light; therefore the sun itself then appears to be red, like the fire made with wet wood; but when it has risen and stayed above the earth for longer time, it dissolves the mist. For although it is, as they say, one hundred and seventy times greater in size than the earth the same proportion does not hold in respect of the whole body above the moon. Therefore as many places as are near it, as those under the equator, are utterly scorched, whereas as many as are more distant from it are more chilled, e.g. those at the poles because of the greatest distance are extremely cold and uninhabitable, just as are those under the equator because of burning heat. Consequently, the sun’s motion is not the cause of heat in sublunary things – for it would have heated to the same extent everything at all times; but the nature of the sun being fiery heats proportionately two inhabited zones, the one to the north of the northern tropic and the one to the south of southern tropic, and makes them well-mixed, but renders the remaining three uninhabitable because of an excess in the contraries. Since these arguments are sufficient, we stop the lecture (akoê) and give here a limit to the first division.240

Notes 1. 1,5. For a similar division in other commentaries by Philoponus, see in Cat. 4,25; 10,11; in An. Pr. 8,23; in Phys. 1,4 and 218,26. 2. 1,6. For the bipartite structure of the soul, compare in De An. 117,30118,5. 3. 1,10. On philosophy as assimilation to god (homoiôsis theôi) see Theaet. 176B1-2. 4. 1,11. ‘creating and providing’: dêmiourgikai kai pronoêtikai. The practical aspect of assimilation with god is out of line with Aristotle (cf. EN 10.8, 1178b25-7), but agrees with the Neoplatonic treatment of Aristotle’s god as efficient cause in a strong sense (cf. Ammonius ap. Simplic. in Phys., 1361,111363,12). 5. Philoponus discusses the question of the status of logic as ‘instrument’ (organon) rather than a part of philosophy in his commentary on An. Pr. 6,19-10,20. 6. Here Philoponus follows Aristotle’s division in Metaph. 6.1, 1026a18-21. 7. cf. in Phys. 1,3-3,10. 8. In the list of the ten preliminary questions to be answered before studying Aristotle found in Ammonius’ commentary on the Categories (1,3-8,18), the ninth is ‘what and how many are the questions which should be asked about each particular work of Aristotle’. The questions to be asked about a particular Aristotelian work are six in number: (i) the purpose (skopos) of the book, namely the kind of good end intended by the writer; (ii) the utility (to khrêsimon) of the book if it does not appear along with the purpose; (iii) the order of exposition (taxis); (iv) the explanation of the title (epigraphê) if it is not clear (e.g. Peri ouranou or Peri geneseôs kai phthoras); (v) whether the book is authentic (gnêsion) or spurious; (vi) division into chapters (epi ta kephalaia diairesis) (7,15-8,10). (See Kupreeva 2005.) In the introduction to this commentary, Philoponus follows this method very closely. 9. 1,26. The tinder sphere (hupekkauma) is the outermost elemental layer in the sublunary cosmos, made of fiery substance and adjacent to the indestructible body of the heavens. 10. 2,1-4. ‘Rains, hail, snow, thunder, lightning, winds, shooting stars, thunderbolts and all related processes, some of which have their origin in the one exhalation only, others in both’. Rains (huetoi), hail (khalazê) and snow (khiôn) are produced from moist exhalation (see Meteor. 1.11-12), winds from dry exhalation (Meteor. 2.2-4); ‘shooting stars’ (diaittontes) can be produced from either kind of exhalation (see Meteor. 1.4, 342a16-24). It takes both kinds of exhalation to produce thunder, lightning and thunderbolts (Meteor. 2.9-3.1). 11. 2,6-7. ‘e.g. the rainbow, the halo, rods, mock suns and similar things’. Rainbow (iris), halo (halôs), rods (rhabdoi), mock suns (parêlia) are treated by Aristotle as visual effects (discussion in Meteor. 3.2-6). 12. 2,10. See 2,6 and n. 8 above.

86

Notes to pages 30-32

13. 2,12. See n. 8 above. 14. 2,6. See n. 8 above. 15. 2,20. epigraphê, see n. 8 above. On the title Meteorology (meteôra), see Introduction, p. 5. 16. 2,28. hupothesis. This section corresponds to the diairesis of n. 8. Philoponus’ division corresponds to our received division of Aristotle’s work into books and chapters. 17. 3,30. On Philoponus’ commentaries on Aristotle’s physical corpus, see Introduction. 18. 3,32. Plato, Tim. 28B2-4, cf. Polit. 269D4-8. 19. 3,36. ‘In the way in which the bodies are simple’: the simple bodies (often called ‘elements’) are composed of form and matter and in that sense composite; but qua bodies they are simple because they are not composed of any other bodies. The school distinction between two types of composition (hylomorphic and aggregate) is common to many commentators, going at least as far back as Alexander of Aphrodisias (see De Anima 3,21-7). 20. 3,36-4, 1. Aristotle himself does not analyse the fifth element into form and matter; but this analysis is carried out by Alexander (Quaest. 1.10, 1.15), who distinguishes between the sublunary and heavenly matter (the distinction rejected by Philoponus: see ‘Introduction’, pp. 11, 18-20). 21. 4,2. The word translated as ‘materials’ is khuma (see LSJ s.v.) Westerink translates ‘fluid mass’ (for this meaning cf. Aratea 127,14-20), but nothing in this commentary gives us any details of the exact physical nature of these materials, so I keep a more neutral translation, which it seems to have also in astronomical texts, e.g. Ptolemy Synth. Math. 175,16; 176,24; 178,18. (cf. 26,8 below). 22. 4,3. See n. 19 ad 3,36 above. 23. 4,5-6. merikôteran, i.e. more special (whereas Physics deals with motion, place and time in a more general way). 24. 4,8. i.e. before other ‘special’ works in the physical corpus, following Physics. 25. 4,18. ‘The works on animals, plants and on minerals’ (tên peri zôiôn legô kai phutôn kai metallôn): Philoponus lists in the reverse order the parts of Aristotle’s physical corpus, possibly as they were studies in the Alexandrian curriculum. ‘The works on animals’ corresponds to Aristotle’s HA, PA, GA, MA and IA; ‘the work on minerals’ is the fourth book of Meteorology. It is not clear what corresponds to ‘on plants’ in Philoponus’ list and whether any Peripatetic works on plants were read in the Alexandrian school (the reference may be triggered by Aristotle’s mention of plants at 339a6, see n. 43 (ad 8,34) below). Aristotle’s work of that title was considered lost early in antiquity and preserved through the compendium made by Nicolaus of Damascus in the first century which in turn was preserved in Syriac translation, according to Lulofs 1989 (for doubts concerning the date of Nicolaus, see Fazzo 2008; for a defence of Aristotelian source of Nicolaus’ compendium, see Herzhoff 2006). Two works on plants (HP and CP) were composed by Theophrastus. cf. also 5,6 below, with n. 28. 26. 4,22. Text (lexis): Philoponus invokes the distinction, used by the Alexandrian commentators, between the theôria (discussion of the main ideas of the commented passage) and lexis (close discussion of the text). In this case, theôria seems to include the introduction to the whole treatise. 27. 4,24-9. Philoponus’ classification of causes is as follows. The first causes

Notes to pages 33-37

87

of all natural objects are matter and form understood in a most general sense, insofar as they refer to the common structure of all physical things. The ‘more immediate’ or ‘direct’ causes (rendering here the word prosekhestera, which can also be translated as ‘more proximate’) are the specific form and matter characterising particular substances of a given kind. Time, place and motion (which Aristotle does not regard as causes) are described as ‘contributory’ causes (sunaitia, literally ‘co-causes’, a Stoic term). 28. 5,6. cf. n. 23 above. 29. 5,12: pente rightly Westerink; panta Hayduck with MSS. 30. 5,25-6. ‘Down to the minutest and wellnigh indivisible fraction’ (mekhri kai tou leptotatou skhedon kai amerous) probably refers to the indivisibility of a mathematical point (there is no suggestion of an indivisible physical interval in this text). 31. 6,9. Aratus, Phaen. 476. ‘That star-emblazoned wheel (men call it the Milk)’, tr. Douglas. 32. 6,12. The shooting stars are discussed in Meteor. 1.4 (see next volume). 33. 6,27. Alexander, in Meteor. 2,30-3,5. 34. 7,1. Philoponus seems to be suspecting Alexander (perhaps unjustly) of a strict metaphysical use of the word ‘form’ as referring to the permanent structure underlying a natural kind, and indicates that the kinds of earth listed by Aristotle are the states of the same earth, susceptible of reverse transformations. 35. 7,3. On loosening and tightening in this role, see Aristotle, Phys. 8.7, 260b7-15, cf. 4.9, 217a10-26. 36. 7,8. ‘Formed by abnormal humours’ (ek tôn para phusin ginomenais khumôn): reference to Galenic humoural theory. The four humours (blood, spleen, yellow and black bile) are said to be the main element-like constituents of the human organism. Their blending (temperament) in accordance with the particular nature is the condition of health, and any illness is ultimately down to some anomaly at the level of blending. Philoponus often uses medical doctrines and examples in his commentaries (cf. in An. 2.7, 336,3-340,21). 37. 7,15. This is not printed as a lemma by Hayduck, but most probably it is a lemma. So too 340b23-7 and 340b33-6 below. 38. 7,21. Here Philoponus rejects two out of the three of the interpretations outlined in Alexander’s commentary (in Meteor. 3,5-23), adopting one (3,8-14). 39. 7,32. Trag. adesp. fr. 50 Nauck. Alexander refers to kaikias at this point in his commentary (in Meteor. 3,12-14). Cf. Meteor. 2.6, 364b13, Probl. 26.29, 943a33. 40. 8,7-8. ‘Until now’: perhaps one of the rare instances where an expectation of the progress of knowledge is being expressed. 41. 8,8-9. The rainbow is discussed in Meteor. 3.4, the Milky Way in 1.8 (below) and the winds in 2.5-6. It is not clear whether we could take this passage as evidence that Philoponus wrote the commentary on books 2 and 3, but at least it is clear that he planned to. 42. 8,13. ‘Out of modesty’ (metriazôn), i.e. as a rhetorical understatement. 43. 8,34. See n. 25 above. 44. 8,35. ‘In the main’ (skhedon): a marginal note in V says, ‘Olympiodorus said that “in the main” is used on account of the On the soul, but this is not correct, for this work is included in “on animals”. But I think that he said “in the main” because of the metals: for these are not included in either “on animals” or “on plants”’. Cf. Olympiodorus, in Meteor. 14, 16-20.

88

Notes to pages 38-42

45. 9,8. Alexander, in Meteor. 4,7-11. 46. 9,10. Alexander does not comment on 339a2-3. 47. 9,12-18. This list is an abbreviation of Alexander’s discussion in in Meteor. 3,34-4,6. 48. 9,27. ‘In the upper regions’, en tois meteôrois, refers to the upper regions of sublunary cosmos. 49. 9,32-3. There is a textual problem noted by Hayduck. Readings: ei kai mêde ta toiauta Hayduck (with an obelus); ei kai mê di’heauta ta toiauta coni. Diels; ei kai mê auta toiauta Westerink. The conjectured text must contain a reference to the ourania vel sim., e.g.: ta de ek toutôn sunistamena suntheta, ta te hupo selênên ta ginomena kai phtheiromena kai ta ourania, ei kai mêde toiauta, ktl. 50. 10,7. GC 2.3, 330a30-b1. 51. 10,12. Cael. 4.4; 1.2. 52. 10,13. Phys. 4.3-4. 53. 10,26. A reference to a different reading found in some manuscripts is made at this point by Alexander, 5,28-6,1. The description of those manuscripts that contain the indefinite pôs as more accurate (akribestera) is Philoponus’ own. 54. 10,26-31: the definitions of things continuous and in contact, from Aristotle’s Phys. 5.3 (227a1, a10-15), are also adduced at this point in Alexander’s commentary. 55. 11,4. cf. Alexander in Meteor. 6,1-6,6. 56. 11,13. On the distinction between the primary and proximate causes of generation, see Philoponus in GC 2.10, 295,20-296,3. 57. 11,34. Philoponus adopts Alexander’s explanation of this point (cf. Alexander in Meteor. 6,13-17). 58. 12,5-7. ‘Its motion is not limited by place, but it is always complete’ renders telos ouk ekhousa tôi topôi tês kinêseôs, all’ aei en telei, literally ‘its motion has no end (telos) with respect to place, but it is always at its end’. Any sublunary process of locomotion which lacks an end (or limit) with respect to place is incomplete and thus deficient. In the case of heavenly rotation which is permanent such lack of a ‘stop’ at a particular place is, on the contrary, a necessary consequence of its perfection: it can be regarded as complete at any point of its continual process. 59. 12,20. ‘We add to this’: the preceding explanation (12,5-20) expands on the discussion contained in Alexander’s commentary ad loc. (in Meteor. 6,2230). The addition may be Philoponus’ own: since the heavenly bodies make no actual stops, it is impossible to speak about the ‘points’ of their trajectory except in the sense of potentiality. On the assumption of the eternity of the cosmos, one could add that this potentiality could never be realised; but Philoponus, as we know, does not share this assumption. 60. 11,24. Plotinus, Enn. 2.2.1.1. 61. See n. 66 at 13,25 below. 62. 13,12. cf. Alexander in Meteor. 6,33-7,5. 63. 13,12-14. cf. the same explanation in Alexander, in Meteor. 7,5-9. 64. 13,21-2. Alexander, in Meteor. 7,12-14. 65. 13,22-5. By ‘matter in the strict sense of the word’ Philoponus means the prime matter, i.e. the matter of the four elements. 66. 13,25. This is a comment on Aristotle’s text at 339a33-b2, which in modern editions is printed at the beginning of the third chapter. Alexander has the same text division as Philoponus.

Notes to pages 42-45

89

67. 13,28. isa: codd. Westerink reads hosa as suggested by Hayduck in the apparatus. 68. 13,25-33. cf. Alexander in Meteor. 7,28-31. 69. 13,35. A reference to Galenic theory of bodily constitution where the four humours occupy an intermediate position between the four elements and the homoiomerous parts (see Galen, De Elem. ex Hipp.). cf. n. 36 at 7,8 above. 70. 14,16-18. cf. Alexander in Meteor. 7,36-8,2. 71. 14,20-1. cf. GC 2.2-3. 72. 14,32. The division is not found in the text of Aristotle, but is introduced by Alexander, whose discussion in in Meteor. 8,1-10,11 Philoponus loosely follows at the beginning of this chapter. 73. 14,35-6. The distinction between the ‘elemental’ (stoikheiôdes) fire and flame, discussed several times below, goes back to Aristotle, cf. Meteor. 366a2-3, GC 331b25. 74. 15,2-3. ‘Using astronomical theorems’: cf. Cael. 2.13-14. Thillet argues that Aristotle refers either to his own lost work or to contemporary astronomical treatises (Thillet 2008, 22, 103). 75. 15,5. Philoponus may be referring to Ptolemy, Almagest 1.6 (but the assumption that the size of the earth is negligible with respect to the size of the universe goes back at least to the time of Eudoxus). 76. 15,6-13. The two best known early calculations of the Earth’s perimeter, by Eratosthenes and Posidonius, both involve the data about the position of one star observed from two different locations the distance between which is known. Eratosthenes reportedly takes the Sun’s zenith distance at Syene which is 5,000 stades away from Alexandria, to be 0 at noon on solstice day and measures its distance at the same time in Alexandria obtaining 1/50 x 360 degrees, getting the value 250,000 stades for the perimeter and 700 stades for the 1 degree arc on the earth. Posidonius uses a similar method on the basis of the position of the star Canopus observed from Alexandria (where the angle was 1/48) and Rhodes (3,750 stades away) where it was taken to be zero, and gets 240,000 stades for the perimeter and 500 stades for a one degree arc (Cleomedes, Meteor. 1.7, 8-47). Strabo tells us that Posidonius calculated the earth’s perimeter to be 180,000. On this ‘change of mind’, see Thurston 1994, 120-1. Ptolemy’s method described in Geography 1.4 already presupposes the value for one degree arc, and still needs measurements taken with respect to two points of observation. Either something has gone wrong with the text or Philoponus misunderstood the method he is describing. If his source is Arrian (see below and next note), then we have a further (if confused) testimony to the methods of measuring the size of the earth coming from the second century. 77. 15,13-15. Arrian, Fragmenta de rebus physicis, fr. 1 Roos & Wirth. On Eratosthenes’ method and values, see previous notes. 78. 15,15-17. If Philoponus knows Archimedes’ formula for the volume of the sphere, he does not demonstrate it. 79. 15,32. ‘Mass’ (onkos) not in a modern post-Newtonian sense; we get an idea of its volume and bulk. 80. 15,34-5. Alexander in Meteor. 8,13. 81. 16,13-15. Philoponus refers to Aristotle’s discussions of the divine element in the first two books of De Caelo. 82. 16,20-2. Plato, Tim. 63B. 83. 16,22-3, cf. Heraclitus A 11 (= ‘Aët.’ 2,13,8): ‘Parmenides and Heraclitus believe that stars are compressions (pilêmata) of fire’; cf. A 10 (= ‘Aët.’ 2,1,2).

90

Notes to pages 45-47

84. 16,23-4. Philoponus cites some authorities to counter Aristotle’s version of the state of the question. He has criticised the ‘fifth element’ in his lost work Contra Aristotelem, to which he alludes several times in this chapter. The fragments are translated in Wildberg 1987, with discussion in Wildberg 1988. 85. 16,25. ‘Let us grant that it is’ (estô): reading suggested by Évrard 329n.4 instead of ‘But it is’ (esti) of Hayduck’s text. 86. 16,27. Reading pôs (with circumflex accent, Évrard 329n.4, Westerink) where Hayduck prints pôs unaccented, and changing a colon after par’ hêmin at 16,27 to a question mark. 87. 16,30-2. Probably Contra Aristotelem, cf. Évrard 339-40. Note the future tense. 88. 16,36-17,1. Aristotle argues for the eternity of the universe in Cael. 1.10-12. 89. 17,8. Read ‘but if it did not’ with V, instead of ‘but if it did’ printed by Hayduck. ei de eskhen arkhên: insert mê after de following V. 90. 17,8. Westerink suggested moving the comma from after anapodizôn to after ep’ apeiron, to give the sense: ‘whatever part of past time you were to take in infinite regress, the same opinions will necessarily recur an infinite number of time’. But it seems that the argument does not require an infinite regress in assumptions in order to make its point. Instead, it is sufficient to take any point in time to see that the same opinions recur infinitely, an infinite number of times. 91. 17,2-11. Philoponus shows that Aristotle’s appeal to history would only be impressive on the assumption that the ancient beliefs he invokes have historical priority over the rival opinions. But if the world has no beginning, such priority can never be established, and thus Aristotle’s argument is undermined. 92. 17,13-15. Aristotle, Cael. 1.5-7. Philoponus apparently attempts to show that the idea of eternal world is in contradiction with Aristotle’s own arguments against the possibility of an infinite (or unlimited) body. 93. 17,26-32. Aristotle also speaks of the eternal recurrence of knowledge in Cael. 1.3 (also in the discussion of the name of aether) and of the recurrence of human crafts and political institutions in Pol. 7.10 (1329b25-30). Theophrastus uses the eternity of crafts in his argument for the eternity of the world (184.145-205 FHSG). 94. 17,33. ‘Or’ supplied by Westerink who reads ê hôs instead of Hayduck’s hôs. 95. 17,33-5. cf. Strabo, Geogr. 15.1.59.52-8, where the doctrine of the fifth element is atributed to the Brahmans by his Hellenistic source (Megasthenes, see Introduction, p. 9n.39). 96. 17,36-8. Plato, Crat. 410B6-8. 97. 17,38-18,17. Philoponus seems to be giving his own interpretation of Crat. 397C3-D6, where Plato says only: ‘It seems to me that the first inhabitants of Greece believed only in those gods in which many foreigners still believe today – the sun, moon, earth, stars and sky. And, seeing that these were always moving and running, they gave them the name ‘theoi’ because it was their nature to run (thein). Later, when they learned about the other gods, they called them all by that name’ (tr. Reeve). Plato nowhere mentions the derivation of aithêr from aithein. 98. 18,31. cf. Aristotle’s argument in Cael. 2.14, 297b31-a10, on which Philoponus seems to be elaborating here.

Notes to pages 47-51

91

99. 18,31-6. On Posidonius’ use of the observation of Canopus, see n. 76 above. Philoponus here may well be reporting his own observations at Alexandria. It would be interesting to know if the references to Byzantium and Diospolis at 19,4 are also based on personal travel experience. 100. 19,1-2. Homer, Il. 22.29-30. 101. 19,4-5. Diospolis is the Greek name of the Egyptian Thebes (modern Luxor). 102. 19,6-7. Aristotle in Cael. 2.14, 297b31-98b3 argues only that the size of the earth is not very large. For the comparison with a point, see n. 75 above. 103. 19,11. Put the full stop after gê (as in MS V). Then read: têi epiphaneiâi tês gês ousês. Hayduck signals corruption by putting an obelus sign after gê; Westerink suggested supplying something like tês B en têi epiphaneiâi tês gês ousês, where B refers to a point on the surface. But the point in this text is sêmeion throughout, while the required gender is indeed feminine (and besides B, if it is a point, belongs to the external, not to the inner circle). I suggest reading the text as it stands, taking ousês to refer to the earth as represented by the surface of the inner circle (for Philoponus’ use of the expression ‘surface of a circle’ (epiphaneia tou kuklou) instead of the expected circumference (periphereia) see 19,18 at n. 106 below. 104. A diagram very similar to the one supplied as Fig. 1 is found in the MS V. 105. 19,16-17. ‘The indivisible’ refers to the earth considered as a point; i.e. since the size of the earth is negligible. 106. 19,18. ‘Surface of the inner circle’, tês epiphaneias tou entos. 107. 19,24. Euripides, fr. 110 Nauck. 108. 19,37-20,2. It is not entirely clear where Philoponus gets this figure. Ptolemy in Almagest 5.15 arrives at a ratio between the mean distances of the sun and the moon from the earth as 1210/59, i.e. 20.5; so it could be between 20 and 21. Much earlier, Aristarchus, On Sizes and Distances, Proposition 7, establishes the ratio between 18 and 20 (by a method criticised by Ptolemy). See also Heath 1913, 328-50. 109. 20,2-17. Needless to say, Philoponus’ method is only good for the calculation of relative volumes of the spheres (cf. n. 78 ad 15,15-17 above). On the tradition of calculating the volumes of heavenly bodies in Greek astronomy, see Toomer 1984, 257 n. 66. 110. 20,23-21,7. Philoponus elaborates on the argument presented by Aristotle in Cael. 2.14. 111. 20,20-21,16. Cf. Adrastus apud Theon of Smyrna, Util. 121,5-13. 112. 21,7-12. Cf. Theon of Smyrna, Util. 195,9-196,4. 113. 21,12-18. Cf. Theon of Smyrna, Util. 196,5-11. The word kalathos, from which the adjective kalathoeidês (basket-shaped) is formed, refers to a particular type of basket that is narrow at the base. Shadow is at the outer boundary of the ‘basket’ surrounding the reflected rays. 114. 21,18-23. Cf. Theon of Smyrna, Util. 197,1-7. 115. 21,38-22,3. An instance of repeated lemma as a part of the discussion of lexis (rendered here as ‘wording’). 116. 22,3. Alexander in Meteor. 9,21-7. 117. 22,12. Either Philoponus’ text has alla kai (‘but also’) where Aristotle (and Alexander) has de (‘while’), or Philoponus chooses to interpret de as meaning ‘but also’, which must be a misreading. The result is not out of line with Aristotle’s original argument, but the point Philoponus is trying to make is different from the one suggested by Alexander (and Aristotle’s text). For

92

Notes to pages 52-57

Alexander and Aristotle, the goal is to refute those who believe that the whole surrounding substance (and not just the stars) are made of fire. For Philoponus (who ultimately believes together with other Platonists that the heavens are made of fire), Aristotle’s target is the view that the space between the earth and the stars, i.e. the mid-air, is made of fire. This view surely would not be plausible for Aristotle, and Philoponus would agree with him on that. 118. 22,29. See Cael. 2.7. 119. 23,5-6. On the distinction between the elemental fire and flame, see n. 73 above and cf. below at 23,9-18. Elemental fire does not exist in sublunary particular substances because there is it mixed with other elements, but there could be a place in the cosmos for its ‘totality’, corresponding to the ‘natural place’ of the fire, where it would prevail in its elemental form. 120. 23,36. Alexander, in Meteor. 9,25-7. 121. 24,9-10. This is Ptolemy’s result for the relative volumes of the sun and the earth, see Almagest 5.16. 122. 24,38-25,2. The ‘digressions’ are Philoponus’ objections to the theory of the fifth element. He is probably referring once again to his Contra Aristotelem, but note the perfect (eirêtai) here compared with n. 87 above, where he was speaking of this discussion in future tense. 123. 25,9. Aristotle discusses Empedocles’ view in GC 2.6, and Philoponus devotes a detailed discussion to Aristotle’s criticism in his own commentary on GC. See Kupreeva 2005, 4-6. 124. 25,18. Maeotis, a lake near Alexandria; another local feature in Philoponus’ commentary. 125. 25,18-27. Aristotle’s point is: if the four elements were not able to change into each other (Empedocles’ view), they would have maintained the same relative proportions of powers with respect to each other. Philoponus draws from this a consequence which is indeed implied by Aristotle, namely that the proportionate effects of the whole mass of a given element A on another element B will be the same as the effects of a small portion of A on a small portion of B. He argues that this is not the case, as the water of the whole lake is neither wetter nor colder than the water in a pitcher. But Aristotle’s point seems to be that the amount of air which can be produced from a pitcher is smaller than that produced from evaporating the whole lake, while being proportionate with regard to the initial quantity of water in each case. 126. 26,21. The parenthesised sentence is not a part of the lemma, but is commented upon at 27,31-9. 127. 26,26-7. GC 2.4. 128. 26,30-27,7. This passage is printed by Sandbach as fr. 191 in Plutarch’s Fragments (Moralia vol. 15, Cambridge, Mass.-London (Loeb Classical Series): see his note c at 351. Cf. Geminus, Elem. 17.3. Note also Arrian fr. 4 Roos on the ash of sacrifice remaining undisturbed on Mt. Oeta. 129. 27,12. Theon of Smyrna cites the measurements of Eratosthenes and Dicaearchus as ten stades: Theon, De Utilitate, 124,19-22. Geminus 17.5 gives the height of Mt. Cyllene as 15 stades. The varying value of ‘stade’ may account for the difference, but it would be good to know Philoponus’ sources for his. 130. 27,12. Or ‘how is it not arbitrary’ (tis oun apoklêrôsis, a standard way of introducing the objection ‘begging the question’). 131. 27,34. ‘In the Optics’, en tois optikois: the proposition ‘angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection’ goes back to Euclid’s lost Catoptrics. Philoponus may be referring to the Optics by Ptolemy (if we take this reference as

Notes to pages 58-62

93

specific rather than generic, in parallel with ‘in mathematics’, en tois mathêmasi (34,29; cf. 18,19; 19,37; 21,41; 22,15), para tois mathêmatikois (19,33)). 132. 28,2. The principle of mirror reflection is stated in terms of the theory of visual rays adopted by virtually all the ancient writers on optics (e.g. Euclid, Aristarchus, Ptolemy). Aristotle himself resorts to it in his discussion of the rainbow in Meteor. 3.4. Philoponus’ source here could be the opening of the third book of Ptolemy’s Optics (see Smith 1996, 131-4). 133. 28,6. ‘Reflected at obtuse angles on both sides’, i.e. with respect to the normal line (see fig. 4). The difficult and counterintuitive part of this explanation is that the visual rays are supposed to continue their travel to the ceiling upon being reflected from the mirror, and produce in us an impression that the object we see with their help appears in the mirror. 134. 28,17. kai tên te sunantistrophon deiknunta têi kephalêi, corrupt text marked by Hayduck, read: kai tên thesin antistrophon deiknunta têi kephalêi. 135. 28,16-20. See Ptolemy, Optics 2 and 4 on convex and concave mirrors; cf. Plutarch, De Facie 930B-E. 136. 28,29-30. The first horn of the prima facie solution suggested by Aristotle to the preliminary aporia (see Introduction, p. 12). Philoponus has already stated its refutation at 27,12-18 above, jumping the order of Aristotle’s exposition. 137. 28,33-5. The second horn of the dilemma, its solution is discussed under the next lemma (29,6-11). 138. 29,12.13: Westerink’s note: ‘’means: insert quotation marks around hapas ho aêr and ho peri tên gên; at 29,13: delete a full stop after eipen, insert an opening quote, at 29,14 insert closing quote after atmis. 139. 29,12-13. Alexander, in Meteor. 12,9-10. Philoponus follows Alexander’s exposition of this argument (cf. Alexander, in Meteor. 12,9-20), but in the end objects to him saying that although even if one assumed that the space between the stars is filled with vapour, but the stars are made of fire, water would not exceed fire, since stars are much larger than they seem. 140. 29,34. On relative sizes of the earth and the stars see n. 102, cf. 19,30-20,20 above. 141. 30,11. On relative positions and natural places of the elements, see Aristotle, Cael. 4.4. 142. 30,16. ‘Proven already’, in the first two books of De Caelo. 143. 30,18. ‘One substance, that in rectilinear motion’, ithuphorikês ousias, the sublunary prime matter which takes on differences as determined by the elemental qualities. In Cael. 4.5, Aristotle speaks of the matter of the sublunary elements as in a way one and in a way differentiated. 144. 30,27. Alexander on the mutual differences of the heavenly bodies: in Meteor. 12,30-13,11, cf. ap. Simplic. in Cael. 436,4-21; 438,13-17. 145. 31,4: cf. Plato, Tim. 31B-32C. 146. 31,7-16, cf. Alexander, in Meteor. 12,32-13,9. 147. 31,28-9. Aristotle always refers to aether as the first element, but the subsequent tradition quite early on makes it ‘fifth’. 148. 32,17. ‘Passive modes’: pathê, which could also be translated as ‘properties’. See also the list and discussion of properties in GC 2.2. 149. 32,27-30. Plato, Tim. 41B7-8. For Aristotle’s use of the ‘completeness’ argument, see GC 2.10, 336b23-37a7.

94

Notes to pages 63-69

150. 33,5-7. See 26,33-27,2 above. 151. 34,4: Westerink has a full stop here, where Hayduck’s text has a comma. 152. The distinction between the proper fire and flame invoked by Philoponus is not the one pursued by Aristotle in this work (although he does use it elsewhere, e.g. Topics 134b29, 146a15-17). 153. 34,15: ‘On both sides’ (hekaterôthen) of the trajectory of a falling raindrop as it touches the sphere of the earth (presumably, the effects of the wind can be neglected). This anticipates the geometrical explanation that follows. 154. 34,24-6. This can be construed as following from Euclid’s Elem. 3, propositions 18 and 19. 155. 34,32: Hayduck noted a lacuna after pheretai, and supplied pros isas d’epi tên gen gônias pheretai. 156. 34,34-5. Strictly speaking, those objects whose trajectory would pass through both the centre of the universe and the centre of the earth in its new position would still form equal angles with the surface of the earth. 157. 34,34-7. This example seems to be different from Aristotle’s thought experiment in Cael. 2.13 in that Philoponus wants to prove that the earth is not outside the centre of the universe since all the falling objects form right angles with the surface of the earth. 158. 34,40-35,3. Philoponus makes sure to include all the three main types of change of Aristotle’s physics (qualitative (alteration), quantitative (growth) and with respect to place (locomotion)). 159. 35,13. As Philoponus himself admits below, this is not an Aristotelian definition of place; in fact, Aristotle rejects the definition of place as interval in Phys. 4.4, 211b5-212a2. Philoponus explains that he disagrees with Aristotle on this point. 160. 35,16. ‘Where it encompasses the encompassed’: Westerink suggests reading kath’ho instead of katho (which would give ‘to the extent that it encompasses the encompassed’). Presumably, the goal is to emphasise the contrast between Aristotle’s definition of place as limit (two-dimensional) and Philoponus’ preferred definition of place as a three-dimensional interval. I am not sure the reading makes a difference as both seem to bring out the contrast, but the contrast itself is indeed very important. 161. 35,19. Philoponus, in Phys. 4, 557,8-585,4, translated in Furley & Wildberg 1991. 162. 36,8. Lee, 1952 follows Ross, 2004, 115 n. 160 and the revised Oxford translation ed. Barnes, 1984 (following E1 W) and reads psukhron (cf. also Thurot). So too Pepe. Philoponus clearly reads thermon, as does Alexander (15,8-15). Thillet defends the latter reading. 163. 36,21-2. ‘Weak’ and ‘intense’, aneimenas and epitetamenas, literally, ‘relaxed’ and ‘intensified’, emphasising the common substrate. 164. 37,6-8. Not printed as a lemma by Hayduck.. 165. 37,18-22. For earlier Platonist views, see Proclus in Tim. 2,112,20115,12. 166. 37,23. Philoponus probably again refers to Contra Aristotelem. 167. 38,1-2. Phys. 5.3 and n. 54 ad 10,26-31 above. 168. 38,6-7. Plato, Tim. 58D2. 169. 38,22: Westerink reads ê for ei2 of Hayduck’s text. 170. 38,28-30. On prevalence as the mechanism of elemental transformations, see Aristotle, GC 2.3 and Philoponus’ commentary in Williams 1999b.

Notes to pages 69-73

95

171. 38,36. ‘Of the places’ (tôn topôn): Philoponus means the ‘natural places’ of the elements. 172. 39,3-7. Alexander in Meteor. 16,25-7. Alexander seems to assume that no condensed part can be formed in the upper region, therefore when Aristotle speaks of a heavy portion sinking he must be referring to the condensed bit which was brought up with the exhalation. Philoponus, on the other hand, seems to allow that condensation can happen somehow in that region, thus taking the ‘argument from motion’ as relatively independent from the whole of Aristotle’s argument. 173. 39, 14-15, see Textual Questions (1.) 174. 39,30. Cael. 2.7. 175. 39,35. Note the derivation of elemental qualities in GC 2.2, 329b7-11. 176. Hayduck notes that in V this lemma is continued until a23. 177. 40,29-30. This is the motion which is responsible for the daily risings and settings of the sun and the moon. 178. 40,30-1. This is the motion of a planet with respect to the zodiac. 179. 40,31-4. The moon completes a full circle around the zodiac (moving ‘with its own motion’ from west to east) in a month, while the sun does the same in a year; but since their motion from east to west (along with the fixed sphere) results in the same regular pattern of daily risings and settings, the moon is thought to be slower than the sun because had their westward speeds been equal, we should have observed several risings of the moon per one rising of the sun. 180. 41,1. See n. 108 ad 19,37-20,2 and Introduction, p. 10n.12 above. 181. 41,3-4: ‘Diameter’, hê diametros: strictly speaking, the distance from the earth is a radius of the circle; but the difference is not important for the relative perimeters. 182. 41,7-9. Arat. Phaen. 225-7, tr. D. Kidd. 183. 41,15. Philoponus apparently is referring to the difference between the sidereal and synodic month. 184. 41,15-23. The question presumably has to do with the spheres of the sun which move over the shadowed areas during the night but fail to heat the objects. 185. 41,26-8. Plato Tim. 31B. Euclid’s definition of solid as ‘having length, width and depth’ (Elem. 11) appears in different formulations in all ancient mathematics textbooks; cf. the Introduction to Arithmetic by Nicomachus Introd. 2.6.4.4, perhaps the best known to Philoponus, on which he commented (Philoponus in Nicomachi Introd. 23, 12). The formulation ‘three-dimensional’, sometimes with the addition ‘with resistance’, was adopted by the Stoics. 186. 41,29-30. Solidity is presented by Aristotle above (see 41,15-23) as a distinctive property of the sun which explains why it heats; as such it should not be shared by other heavenly bodies. 187. 41,34-5. GC 2.2, 329b18-34. 188. 42,8. GC 2.2, 329b30-2. 189. 42,15. ‘And similarly the moon’: the moon is located on the innermost planetary sphere and thus would have a greater heating effect than the sun. 190. 42,17. ‘Middle zone’: between the lower (moon, sun, Mercury) and higher (Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) planets. 191. 42,18-20. Lacuna in the text; read: tên hermaikên, tên tou stilbontos, tên aphrodisiakên, tên tou heôsphorou, tên tês selênês. 192. 42,27-8. Note that in GC 1.7 Aristotle develops a more nuanced view on

96

Notes to pages 73-77

the relation between acting upon and contact, allowing for a possibility where the agent is not itself being acted upon (324a30-b13), and thus could counter Philoponus’ ad hominem argument. 193. 43,4. See at n. 108 above. 194. 43,7: hoson asummetros pros to *** tou hêliou apostasis. Lacuna of 15 words in V; no lacuna indicated in M. Hayduck suggests adding meizon takhos; read: hoson hê asummetros pros to meizon takhos ouk empodizei hê tou hêliou apostasis. 195. 43,17. ‘No more than an image of that [light]’, hoson indalma toutou. The reference of ‘that’ (toutou) is ambiguous. Ian Mueller has suggested reading ‘an image of the sun’ (and changing hoson to hoion). 196. 43,29-30: lian hêmas aniôsin ekphlegousai: understanding aniôsin as a form of anhiêmi; an alternative would be to take it as a form of aniaô giving the sense: ‘cause us a serious distress by warming us up’. I prefer a more physicalist sense here, as this seems closer to Philoponus argument (rays without fire can heat us even to the extent of causing the destruction of tissues), and cf. at n. 233 below. 197. 43,33-4. Aristotle’s critics seem to be saying that if Aristotle says that the sun is solid because it is not transparent, it would follows by the same reasoning that the spheres which are transparent, are not solid, which, of course, contradicts his own theory. These critics could be Platonists who presuppose a contrast between the solidity (stereon) and transparence (diaphanes), such as we find in Proclus in Tim. 3,128,15-30, where the visible cosmos is made of things which contain fire and the solid elements, and the less visible is made of things that contain fire with ‘the transparent and the translucent’. The ultimate source is Plato, Tim. 31B. 198. 44,4-5. Aristotle has no formal definition of the physical solid (which he distinguishes from mathematical solid), but gives a number of descriptions in different contexts (calling it ‘earthen’, ‘hard’). The definitions given by Philoponus, especially the ‘resistant and unyielding to things coming across’ are closer to the Stoic technical definitions of the solid. 199. 44,9-10. Parenthesise kai epi sidêrou  pur tribomenos. 200. 44,6-17. This explanation of kindling fire by striking is found in [Alexander], Problemata 1, sections 60-1. Fire is said to come to be from the thinned air enclosed inside such materials. 201. 44,25-6. Otherwise unknown testimony for Damascius. There is no other evidence of his discussions of Alexander of Aphrodisias, but the attribution to him of the idea mentioned by Philoponus may have to do with his discussion of the influence of the divine power on the sublunary region in such texts as Quaest. 2.3, where this influence is closely connected with the elemental powers. The treatment of such powers as divine powers identified with particular planets may be of Neoplatonic provenance. Philoponus shows little tolerance to such approach here as well as in 1.8 below. See also the reading in MS A at the end of his commentary on De Anima 2.10, 407,7 (Charlton 2005, 96). 202. 44,28-9. anaphlogôsis: the word is not in LSJ. The only other occurrence in TLG is (in pl.) in Anonyma Tactica Byzantina; the verb anaphlogein also rare. 203. 46,5-6. Aristotle’s ‘running’ or ‘shooting stars’ are meteoroids (formed in the outer space but producing their visible effects in the earth’s atmosphere). 204. 46,13-14. See 42,2-32 above and Introduction, p. 16. 205. 46,11-27. Philoponus offers an alternative explanation to the phenome-

Notes to pages 77-81

97

non of shooting stars based on the Platonic theory of elements, without disputing Aristotle’s presentation of the phenomenon. 206. 46,29-31. The Greek system of star magnitudes runs from 1 (the brightest) to 6 (the dimmest) (cf. Ptolemy’s catalogues in Almagest 7.5-8.1). 207. 46,35: delete ta1, i.e. read kai kath’heteron heuriskomena toutôn (cf. Hayduck’s note in the apparatus (‘vix sana’)). 208. 46,34-47,1. The perpendicular line drawn through the star in the upper cosmos and the point of ‘shooting’ in the lower cosmos (i.e. the ‘shooting star’ proper). 209. 47,3-4: supplying diadromê with hê. The phrase hôs kai hê tou takhous autôn oxutera kineisthai tês aplanous is obelised by Hayduck but perhaps can be allowed to stand if we understand two different comparative constructions: (a) the shooting surpasses the sight in speed, and (b) does so more than the motion of the fixed sphere. Cf. the clarification and example below. 210. 47,8-9. cf. previous note. 211. 47,16-17. The property of pepper is well known (cf. Philoponus, in GC 65,27-9; 98,7-16); on violet, cf. Cyranides 5.9. 212. 47,23-5. argêta keraunos, Il. 8.133, Od. 5.128. 213. 47,27-35. Alexander, in Meteor. 18,8-13. 214. 47,35-48,1. Alexander, in Meteor. 18,13-19,19. Alexander presents his solution to the problem as a paramuthia (18,13-14), which Philoponus takes to be an admission of its inconclusive status. 215. 48,1. Alexander, in Meteor. 18,8-28. 216. 48,9. i.e. narkê, torpor, numbness. 217. 49,4-6. Philoponus objects to the view that the ray emitted by the sun travels all the way to the combustible object, preserving continuity, and traversing the whole distance as a single physical process. 218. 49,6-7. i.e. we arrange the magnifying glass to ensure that the rays are reflected so that the last reflection makes them focus on the combustible material. 219. 49,9. Burning mirrors, ta puria, are concave bronze mirrors used in fire-making. The focal properties of concave mirrors were studied in a number of ancient mathematical treatises (On the Burning Mirror by Apollonius of Perga (lost), the treatises entitled Catoptrica by Archimedes (lost), Heron of Alexandria, and Ps.-Euclid). Philoponus is more interested in the physics of the process. 220. 49,11: Magnêsias: the name of several ores and metallic amalgams (see LSJ s.v.). Alchemical text On Making Cinnabar mentions magnesia huelourgikê (glass-making Magnesia) used for making enamelling for the mirrors and wonderful swords (Fragmenta Alchemica 2.38.10-12 Berthelot-Ruelle). 221. 49,13-17. It is not entirely clear what kind of a mechanism Philoponus has in mind in the case of a glass vessel: he should be able to imagine the case where the vessel plays the role a convex lens stationed between the sun and the combustible. In such case, the light ostensibly has to pass through the middle part of the lens to ignite the material. 222. 50,5. ‘Of all the ills of the mortal body’, pasês thnêtês duskhereias, cf. Aristotle, Cael. 2.1, 284a14. 223. 50,6. ‘In form’, kat’eidos, cf. 50,12 where this seems to be Philoponus’ (or his source’s) addition to the quoted text from Alexander. 224. 50,16-19. Meteor. 1.3, 340b6.

98

Notes to pages 81-84

225. 49,37-50,19: Alexander’s second ‘palliating solution’ of the difficulty, Alexander, in Meteor. 18,28-19,13. 226. 50,25-6. GC 2.2. 227. 50,28. cf. Tim. 31B. 228. 50,30. en tois hêmeterois sômasi. Either ‘our human bodies’, or ‘the bodies in our region of the universe (i.e. here on earth)’. 229. 50,20-51,10. Philoponus again argues that the Platonic theory of elements offers a better alternative to the unconvincing solution to the difficulty given by Peripatetics. 230. 51,11-16, cf. 49,37-50,4 above. 231. 51,25-6. Corrupt sentence: eikhe gar ex anankês hepomenon hoti kai aphtharta homôs ouk edeixen, oukoun oud’hoti aphtharta dedeiktai. Hayduck writes apathê allôs instead of aphtharta homôs. Perhaps read: eikhe gar ex anankês hepomenon hoti kai aphtharta; homôs ouk edeixen, oukoun etc. 232. 51,26-30. Alexander, in Meteor. 18,32-19,1. 233. 51,30. Literally: ‘still set together’ (eti sunestôtos). 234. 51,35. Reading kata tauta gar, as suggested by Hayduck in the apparatus. 235. 52,6-9. Alexander in Meteor. 19,13-16. 236. 52,9-13. Alexander in Meteor. 19,16-19. 237. 52,20. MSS: plên ei mê pan to morion autou katheirgmenon hupo gên huparkhoi ê hupo tinos pantakhothen oikodomêmatos toioutou tinos hupothômetha; Hayduck writes ti instead of to and huparkhon instead of hupakhoi and notes that pan is vix sanum. Perhaps read: plên ei mê pan to morion autou katheirgmenon hupo gên huparkho ê hupo tinos pantakhothen oikodomêmatos< ê> toioutou tinos hupothômetha. 238. 53,2. This problem is discussed by Simplicius in his commentary in Cael. 440,17-443,3. His solution is based on the higher density of the rays when the sun is in zenith or at mid-day, compared to winter and morning and evening, respectively, but the mechanism of heating is explained in terms of Platonic corpuscular theory, which Philoponus does not invoke here. 239. 53,10. ‘To us’, eis hêmas, in this case refers to a particular region on the surface of the earth’s globe. 240. 53,26-7. ‘To the first division’, tôi prôtôi tmêmati: Philoponus refers here to the structure of his own commentary which seems to have gone unannounced in the opening discussion and does not correspond to any of the discussed divisions of Aristotle’s text.

Bibliography J. Barnes (ed.), The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. W. Charlton (tr.), Philoponus: On Aristotle On the Soul 2.1-6, London: Duckworth, 2005. I. Düring (ed. & comm.), Aristotle’s Chemical Treatise, Meteorologica, Book IV, Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag, 1944. P. Golitsis, Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d’Aristote, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008. H.B. Gottschalk, ‘The authorship of Meteorologica Book IV’, Classical Quarterly 55 (1961), 67-79. E. Évrard, ‘Les convictions réligieuses de Jean Philopon et la date de son Commentaire aux Météorologiques’, Bulletin de la classe des letters, sciences morales et politiques de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 39 (1953), 299-357. S. Fazzo, ‘Nicolas, l’auteur du Sommaire de la Philosophie d’Aristote; doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine’, Revue des Études Grecques 121 (2008), 1.99-126. D.J. Furley, ‘The mechanics of Meteorologica iv. A prolegomenon to biology’, in P. Moraux, J. Wiesner (eds), Zweifelhaftes im Corpus Aristotelicum. Studien zu einigen Dubia; Akten des 9. Symposium Aristotelicum, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1983, 73-93 T.L. Heath, Aristarchus of Samos, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. B. Herzhoff, ‘Ist die Schrift “De Plantis” von Aristoteles?’, Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption Bd. 16 (2006), 69-108. I. Kupreeva (tr.), Philoponus: On Aristotle On Coming to be and Perishing 2.5-11, London: Duckworth, 2005. E. Lamberz, ‘Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars’, J. Pépin, H.-D. Saffrey (eds), Proclus lecteur et interprète des anciens, Paris: CNRS 1987, 1-20. H.D.P. Lee, Meteorologica: Aristotle, Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, 1952. P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen: Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, 3. Bd: Alexander von Aphrodisias, Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter, 2001. L. Pepe (ed.), Aristotele: Meteorologia, Milan: Bompiani Testi a Fronte, 20032. M. Rashed, ‘Agrégat de parties ou vinculum substantiale? Sur une hésitation conceptuelle et textuelle du corpus aristotelicien’, in A. Laks and M. Rashed (eds), Aristote et le mouvement des animaux: dix études sur le De motu animalium, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2004, 185-202. A. Rescigno (ed.), Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De caelo di Aristotele: Frammenti del primo libro, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 2004. A. Rescigno (ed.), Alessandro di Afrodisia: Commentario al De caelo di Aris-

100

Bibliography

totele: Frammenti del secondo, terzo e quarto libro, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 2008. W.D. Ross, Aristotle (revised 6th edn, with introduction by J.L. Ackrill), London: Routledge, 2004. F. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, Berlin: Weidmann, 1929. C. Scholten, Antike Naturphilosophie und christliche Kosmologie in der Schrift De opificio Mundi des Johannes Philoponos, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1996. P. Thillet (ed.), Aristote: Météorologiques, Paris: Gallimard, 2008. H. Thurston, Early astronomy, New York: Springer, 1994 G.J. Toomer (tr. & comm.), Ptolemy’s Almagest, London: Duckworth, 1984 L.G. Westerink, ‘Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 64 (1971), 6-21. C. Wildberg (1987a), ‘Prolegomena to the Study of Philoponus’ contra Aristotelem’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, London: Duckworth, 1987. C. Wildberg (1987b) (ed. & tr.), Philoponus: Against Aristole on the Eternity of the World, London: Duckworth, 1987. C. Wildberg, John Philoponus’ Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Aether, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1988. C.J.F. Williams 1999a (tr.) Philoponus: On Aristotle On Coming to Be and Perishing 1.1-5, London: Duckworth, 1999. C.J.F. Williams 1999b (tr.) Philoponus: On Aristotle On Coming to Be and Perishing 1.6-2.3, London, Duckworth, 1999.

English-Greek Glossary abandon pauein able to vie with amphêristos abnormal para phusin above epanô above the wind huperênemos absurd atopos accidentally kata sumbebêkos accompany sumparomartein accurate akribês acquire proslambanein act energein act upon poiein activity energeia actuality energeia acute oxus acute angle oxeia gônia add prostithenai adjacent prosekhês adjustment summetria administration to kubernân advance proerkhesthai; proienai aether aithêr affection pathos aforesaid proeirêmena agglomerate sunistasthai agree homologein; sumphônein air aêr air current pneuma alkali content to nitrôdes alkaline nitrôdês allot prosaptein allow sunkhôrein aloft meteôros alter alloioun alteration alloiôsis angle gônia animal zôiôn announce beforehand promênuein annual cycle etêsios kuklos answer (the objection) hupantân apex koruphê apogee apogeios appearance emphasis appearance phantasia appropriate prosêkôn

appropriately prosêkontôs approve apodekhesthai argument epikheirêsis; logos arise proerkhesthai; proienai around the earth perigeios arrange skhêmatizein arrive at a conclusion sullogizesthai art tekhnê articulate diarthroun ashes tephra asphalt asphaltôdês aspire speudein assert iskhurizesthai assign apoklêrousthai; prosnemein assimilation (to god) homoiôsis theôi assume hupotithenai assumption lêmma; huponoia; hupolêpsis; hupothesis astronomer astronomos astronomical astronomikos astronomy astronomia at equal speed isotakhôs attain apolambanein; prosballein; lambanein attempt epibolê attempted argument epikheirêma authentic gnêsios authenticity to gnêsion awareness sunaisthêsis balance summetria barren agonos base basis basket-shaped kalathoeidês bath balaneion be einai; gi(g)nesthai huparkhein be a substrate hupokeisthai be above huperkeisthai be acted upon paskhein be adjacent geitniân; homilein be affected paskhein be appropriate prosêkein be ashamed aidesthai be available prokeisthai

102

English-Greek Glossary

be aware antilambanesthai; sunaisthanesthai be carried sunephelkesthai be cold katapsukheisthai be completed telos lambanein be conceited apauthadiazesthai be conditioned paskhein be coupled with suzeugnusthai be demonstrated at the same time sunapodeinknusthai be deprived of stereisthai be described huphêgeisthai be fitted to epharmozein be formed from sunistasthai be in contact sunaptesthai be in direct contact kata sunekheian haptesthai be in excess huperekhein be in motion kineisthai be in proportion to en logôi tini einai be in zenith mesouranein be inclined neuein pros ti ( epi ti) be inferior in rank hupheisthai be inherent in sumphunai be made of sunistasthai be manifested theôreisthai be moderate metriazein be occupied with enaskholeisthai peri ti be of an opinion hupolambanein be possible endekhesthai be proper proseinai; prosêkein be relevant suntelein be revealed sunanaphainesthai be stagnant limnazein be subject to change metaballein be subjected to hupomenein be the evidence tekmairesthai be the object of action paskhein bear arktos become also manifest sunanaphainesthai become aware beforehand proaisthanesthai being inflamed ekphlogôsis being trapped inside enapolêpsis believe pisteuein belong huparkhein; telein hupo ti blending krasis block up apophrassein blow against antipneein (sic) blunder in saying paralogôs legein body sôma boil hupokaiein

boiling zesis book logos border upon geitniazein borrow eranizein bottom puthmên bound horizein boundless êpeiros briefly suntomôs bright argês; epiphanês bring about poiein bring down together sunkatapherein bring order kosmein bring perfection teleioun brute boskêmatôdês burn aithein burn up consume (of fire) kataphlegein burning mirror purion call prosagoreuein can dunasthai carelessly atêmelôs carpenter tektôn carry along sumperipherein; sumperiagein carry upwards with sunanapherein; sunanarrhiptein cast prosballein cast off apotithenai cast shadow skiasma poiein; episkotein castor kastorion casually parergôs catch sunapolambanein cause aitia; aition; aitios cause (v.) apotelein; poiein cause to crest koruphoun cavernous antrôdês; hupantros ceiling orophê celestial ouranios centre kentron change (v.) metaballein change metabolê character êthos circle periphora; kuklos circular kukloterês circular movement kuklophoria circulate with sunkuklizein circumscribe perigraphein clean eilikrinês clear prophanes; eueidês close to the earth perigeios cloud nephos coagulation pêxis

English-Greek Glossary cohesive sunektikos cold (n.) psukhos cold psukhros collect sunapolambanein; (of water) surrhuein colloquial expression sunêtheia come proseinai come about gi(g)nesthai; sunistasthai come across antibainein come first huperanestanai come into existence huphistasthai come to be gi(g)nesthai come towards proserkhesthai (- ienai) come with akolouthein; sumbainein comet komêtês coming about genesis coming to be genesis comment episêmeiousthai commentary hupomnêma; skholika sungrammata common usage sunêtheia comparable homoios complete (v.) sumplêroun; plêroun; dianuein completeness teleiotês completion to teleion compose suntithenai composite sunthetos composition sunthesis compound suntithenai compress sumpilein compress sunthlibein compression pilêsis comprise sullambanein concept epinoia conceptually kat’epinoian conclude sunagein condense puknoun; sunkrinein; sunistasthai condition pathos cone kônos conic kônoeidês conjunction sunodos consider theôrein consist sunistasthai construct suntithenai contact haphê contain sunekhein container to periekhon contemplate theôrein contiguous sunekhês; prosekhês continue epagein continuity sunekheia

103

continuous sunekhês continuously sunekhôs; kata sunekheian contradistinction antidiastolê contrariety enantiôsis contribute suntelein contributory cause to sunaition converge sumpiptein; sunneuein convex kurtos; (of mirrors) exôphanês cool psukhein coordinate suntattein coordinate cause suntetagmenê aitia co-presence sumparousia cord kalôdion correctly eikotôs correctness orthotês cosmos kosmos count as sunarithmein course akroasis cover by shadow skiazein create illusions thaumatourgein creative dêmiourgikos creator dêmiourgos credibility axiopiston credible axiopistos crescent-shaped mênoeidês cube kubos cup kratêr cut through diakoptein cyclic enkuklios cylinder kulindros cylindrical kulindroeidês deal dialambanein debate diagônizein delimit periekhein deluge kataklusmos demonstrate apodeiknunai demonstration apodeixis dense puknos density puknotês deny anairein deposit apotithenai derive sunagein; (the name) etumologein describe diagraphein destructive phthoropoios detach diakrinein details (of the text) akribeia devise epinoein diameter diametros differ diapherein difference diaphora different diaphoros

104

English-Greek Glossary

difficulty aporia diffuse diarrhainein digression parekbasis dim amblus; amudros direct motion of the planets propodismoi (tôn planômenôn) directed to knowing gnôstikos directed to providing pronoêtikos directly euthu(s); prosêkhôs disappear aphanizein discern diakrinein discuss dialegesthai, gumnazein peri tinos discussion logos dislodge ekmokhleuein displace methistanein dispose diatithenai dispose of (objection) dialuein disproportion asummetria disprove elenkhein; elenkhon poeisthai dissolution diakhusis; diakrisis, dialusis dissolve diakrinein; dialuein; dissolving diakritikos distance apostasis; apostêma, diastasis; diastêma distinguish diakrinein; diastellein diverge huptiazesthai divide diakrinein; diairein divine theios division diairesis tomê do poiein do later on proienai doctrine didaskalia downward moving katôphoros draw straight lines ekballein eutheias (grammas) dregs trux dry (v.) xêrainein dry xêros dry exhalation xêra anathumiasis dryness xêrotês dung onthos earth gê earthquake seismos easily affected eupathês easily divisible eudiairetos east anatolê; anatolai eastern anatolikos eclipse ekleipsis effect pathos efficient poiêtikos

element stoikheion elemental stoikheiôdes eliminate anairein embark on the subject eis theôrian emballein ember-like anthrakôdês emit sparks apospinthêrizein emit vapour atmizein empty kenos enclose periekhein; dialambanein; sullambanein; sumperilambanein; enapolambanein; lambanein; sunapolambanein encompass periekhein encompassing body to periekhon end telos endure hupomenein enormousness huperbolê equable homalos equalisation exisôsis equator isêmerinos kuklos establish kataskeuazein etymology etumologia evacuation apokrisis evaporate exatmizein everlasting motion aeikinêsia everyday speech sunêtheia evidence enargeia; tekmêrion exact facts to akribes examination diaskepsis examine theôrian poieisthai examining exetasis exceed huperbainein; huperballein; huperekpiptein; huperekhein excess huperokhê; huperbolê exhalation anathumaisis exhale anathumiazein exist einai; sunistasthai expert epistêmôn explain saphênizein explanation aitia extent tropos extinguish aposbennunai eyesight opsis facing antiprosôpos faculty (of the soul) dunamis fail to recognise agnoein fall (season) metopôron fall apart diapiptein fall behind hupoleipein fall beyond huperekpiptein fall of thuderbolts ptôsis keraunôn

English-Greek Glossary fall onto, upon prospiptein falling in together sumptôsis, sunemptôsis fast takhus fiery purios fill anaplêroun; plêroun; sumplêroun final cause telos find a reason aitiasthai fine leptomerês finely divided leptomerês fineness leptomereia fine-structured leptomerês fire pur firm stereos first (adv.) proteron first prôtos first demonstrate prodeiknunai fisherman alieus fixed aplanês flourish akmazein flow perirrhein flow together surrhuein follow parakolouthein; sunagein following akolouthos; (adv.) akolouthôs following common usage sunêthôs for division diairetikos force bia forcibly biaiôs foreboding elpis forecast proapophainesthai form (v.) suntelein; apotelein; poiein; sunistasthai form eidos; skhêma formation genesis; sustasis fresh enaulos friction paratripsis full plêrês full moon panselênos fumigate thumian garlic skorodon gather sunienai gathering sunkrisis general katholikos generation genesis get proper knowledge prosêkontôs gnônai give account logon didonai give thorough consideration ephistanai glue kolla go past diallattein go through eperkhesthai

105

god theos govern kubernan grant homologein; hupotithenai graze paraxein gust pneuma habit sunêtheia half-moon dikhotomos selênê hard sklêros hard to bound dusoristos harden kataskellein have already done something phthanein have borderland apoperatousthai have circular motion kuklophoreisthai have end telos lambanein have opinion doxazein have share metalambanein hazy homikhlôdês head down sunantistrophos hear manthanein heat (v.) thermainein heat additionally prosthermainein heat thermasia; thermê; thermotês; to thermon heaven ouranos heavenly ouranios heavy barus height anatasis; hupsos hide from sight apokruptein high hupsêlos hint neuein pros ti (epi ti) hold together kata sunekheian haptesthai hollow place koilôma homogeneous homoiomerês hot thermos human statue andreikelos hurl exakontizein hypothesis hupothesis ice krustallos ignorance agnoia ignorant idiôtikos ills duskhereia illusion dokêsis illustration hupodeigma image indalma; eidôlon imagination phantasia imitate mimeisthai immediately euthu(s); prosêkhôs immobility akinêsia immovable akinêtos

106

English-Greek Glossary

immutable ametablêtos impact prosbolê impart motion kinoun impassive apathês imperfect atelês imperishable aphthartos impose on something proserkhesthai; prosienai; epigi(g)nesthai; epitithenai impossible adunatos impression huponoia in a comparative sense sunkritikôs in accordance sumphônôs in circular motion kuklophorikos in the higher upper regions meteôros incident rays prospiptousai aktines include sullambanein; sumperilambanein sunapolambanein incommensurate asummetros incomplete atelês incorporeal asômatos increase epiteinein increase with sunauxanein individual atomos indivisible amerês infer sullogizesthai infinite apeiros infinite number of times apeiroplasiôn inflame ekphlogoun inquisitive zêtêtikos insinuate hupoduein instruct didaskein instruction didaskalia instrument organon intellect nous intelligible noêtos interrupt dialambanein intertwine sumplekein intervene dialambanein invent epinoein investigate theôrian poieisthai iron sidêros irregular ataktos joining sumplokê judgement krisis kindling exapsis know gignôskein knowledge gnôsis lack diapheugein lack of proportion asummetria

lag behind huponostein lamplight lukhniaion phôs last hupomenein; diarkein lead along sunepagein lead molibdos leave apoleipein leave along with sunexienai let (by assumption) hupokeisthai letter gramma life zôê life-producing zôiogonikos light kouphos lightning astrapôn; keraunos likewise homoiôs limit horos limpid euagês line stathmê linger khronon tina poieisthai list katarithmein live diaitasthai; diagein log purkaia long-lasting polukhronios look apoblepein loosen manoun loosening manôsis lose apoballein; apotithenai loss meiôsis lunar selêniakos make poiein make a difference diapherein make a preliminary point prolambanein make an assumption hupotithenai make an inference sullogizesthai make dead nekroun make dim amblunein manifest prodêlos manifold poikilos manner tropos manuscript antigraphon mass onkos mathematical mathêmatikos mathematics mathêmata mean mesotês meaning sêmasia measure metrein mechanical mêkhanikos mechanics mêkhanikê tekhnê meet sunerkhesthai meeting in the same place sunemptôsis melt têkein melting têxis

English-Greek Glossary meteorological meteôros Meteorology ta meteôra method methodos middle mesotês mildness of climate eukrasia mineral metallikos mines metalla ministering diakonikos (pur) mirror katoptron; esoptron; enoptron mist akhlus misuse parakhrêsthai mixture krasis moderate metrios modest epieikês moisture ikmas month mên moon selênê mortal thnêtos motion kinêsis mould anaplassein mountain oros move along with sunkineisthai move below hupokhôrein move in a circle kuklophoreisthai move kineisthai; (tr.) kinein move on to metakhôrein movement kinêsis moving in a circle kuklophorikos muddy borborôdês multiply by poluplasiazein epi ti mustard sinêpi mythical muthikôs name epiklêsis; prosêgoria narrow stenos narrow (v.) stenoun natural phusikos; kata phusin nature phusis neighbour geitniazein net sagênê net-fisherman sagêneutês newfangled doctrine kainotomêtheisa doxa next to ephexês; prosêkhôs night nux non-reversing mirror dexiophanês katoptra not easily affected duspathês not mixing with anepimiktos not shadowed anepiskiastos not subject to increase anauxês not undergoing increase anauxêtos note episêmainein notion huponoia

107

object enistasthai objection huponoia oblivion lêthê observation paratêrêsis observe theôrein obstruction emphraxis obvious prophanes occult epiprosthein occupy (place, zone) epekhein occur sumbainein occurrences ta sumbainonta of meteorology meteôrologikos of the same form homoioskhêmôn of the same level sustoikhos of the sun hêliakos offer evidence pistousthai offhand prokheiros onion kromuon open-textured manos opinion hupolêpsis; huponoia opposite, be antikeisthai opposites ta antikeimena opposition antithesis optical illusion opseôn apatê; planê tês opseôs order taxis originate sunistasthai ounce of water kuthiaion hudôr out of proportion asummetros palliate paramutheisthai parallel parallêlos parallelogrammic parallêlogrammos partake metekhein partial merikos particular merikos pass (intr.) metienai; metabainein pass (trans.) metadidonai pass on diabibazein pass through hupexerkhesthai, parallattein pass underneath hupotrekhein passive pathêtikos path poreia peak koruphê peculiar idiotropos pepper peperi perceptible aisthêton perception aisthêsis perfect teleios perfection teleiôsis; to teleion perimeter perimetros; periphereia perish apollusthai perpendicular kathetos

108

English-Greek Glossary

phantom dokêsis philosophy philosophia physics to phusiologikon place topos place before (in the order of books) protattein place in the series sunekheia plain pedias plane epipedon planets hoi planômenoi (asteres); ta planômena (astra) poet poiêtês point (of an arrow) akis; (geom.) sêmeion pole polos pore poros position (v.) skhêmatizein position dogma; thesis; taxis possible dunaton potentially dunamei power dunamis practical praktikos practice praxis precede proêgeisthai predict prolegein preface prooimion present prokeimenos preserving sôstikos prevail pleonazein; kratein primarily proêgoumenôs prior proteros privation sterêsis problem aporia; problêma proceed proerkhesthai; proienai; probainein process pathêma; pathos produce apotelein produce itself sunistasthai progress proödos progression poreia projecting mountains horôn anataseis promise epangellein proof tekmêrion proportion analogia; summetria proportionally di’analogias proportionate analogian ekhon proportionately summetrôs propose protithesthai proposition thesis propound prohupokeisthai propound an opinion katarkhesthai doxês proximate prosekhês psychical psukhikos

pull along with sunephelkein pure eilikrinês purport dianoia purpose skopos ( tês pragmateias) put haptein put to shame entrepein quality poiotês quarry oruttein question aporia; problêma quickness takhos rainbow iris raise a preliminary question proaporein raise question, problem aporein random apoklêrôtikos random reasoning apoklêrôsis rank immediately above huperanestanai rarefaction manôsis rarefy manoun ray aktis reach beyond huperekpiptein read anagignôskein readily prosêkon ready at hand prokheiros reality huparxis; alêtheia; pragma reason logos reasonable eulogos reasonably eikotôs recall hupomimnêskein receive dekhesthai recover ananêphein rectilinear euthuporikos; ithuphorikos recur anakuklein red eruthros reflect klan; anaklân; ephistanai reflected (rays) anaklômenai (aktines) reflecting surface enoptron reflection anaklasis; klasis refutation elenkhos refute elenkhein; elenkhos poiein region topos regress anapodizein re-kindling anaphlogôsis relative position taxis relatives ta pros ti remind hupomimnêskein render exêgeisthai research methodos re-shape skhêmatizein

English-Greek Glossary re-shaping diaplasis resistant antitupos resource euporia rest (v.) paulan ekhein rest paula; êremia; stasis result from sunistasthai retrograde motion (of the stars) hupopodismos return palindromein return to the same point apokathistasthai return to the same point together sunapokathistasthai revive (arguments) anakinein (logous) revolution periphora revolve together sumperiagein revolving kuklophorikos revolving bodies enkuklia sômata rise hupsousthai; (of the sun) anatellein rise to the surface epipolazein rise together with sunanatellein rising above clouds hupernephês roaring mukêthmos round wheel trokhalos rub paratribein run thein; theein run beneath hupotrekhein run into prosballein; prospiptein running of a star diadromê asteros sacrifice (v.) thuein sacrifice thusia say in response hupantan saying paroimia scatter diaskedannuein school (adj.) skholikos science epistêmê science of demonstration apodeiktikê epistêmê sculptor andriantopoios sculpture andriantoplastikê (tekhnê) sediment hupostathmê semblance phantasia semi-circle hêmikuklion send anapempein sense-object, sensible aisthêton separate apokrinein sequence akolouthia; sunekheia serve diakonein set dunai set in motion kinein set on fire ekphlegein; ekpuroun

109

set out protithesthai set together with sundunein set up kataskeuazein settle huphistasthai shadow (v.) skiazein shadow skia; skiasma shape along suskhêmatizein shape skhêma shine stilbein shining stilpnos shoot diaittein; diaissein ‘shooting stars’ diaittontes asteres short-lived oligokhronios sideways plagios sight rays opseis sign sêmeion similar homoios similarly homoiôs sink hupokhôrein sink down brithein katô sleep hupnos slight leptos slip down olisthanein smelt têkein smoky kapnôdês soft malakos solid steremnios; stereos solution epilusis; lusis solve epiluein solve before proepiluein soul psukhe space topos; diastêma specific eidikos; idikos specifically exairetôs speed takhos sphere sphaira spherical sphairikos; sphairoeidês splitting skhisis spray diarrainein spread exaploun spread indefinitely away eis akhanes diistasthai spread out eurunein spread widthwise platunein spring pêgê spurge euphorbion squeeze out ekthlibein stability diamonê stagnant limnaios stagnate limnazein star aster; astron start arkhên poiein state beforehand prolambanein state preliminaries prolegein

110

English-Greek Glossary

stationary condition (of the planets) stêrigmos (tôn planômenôn) straight euthus strive to reach epeigein study (v.) theôrein study theôrêma study of the facts historia subject to affection pathêtos subject-matter hupothesis subsequent ephexes subside huphizanein subsist huphistasthai substantial ousiôdês subtend hupoteinein subtle (of method) leptos such as to diverge upside down huptios suffer eclipse ekleipein sufficient autarkos suggestion huponoia sulphur theiôdês summer (adj.) therinos summer (n.) theros summer, i.e. northern, tropic ho therinos tropikos sun hêlios superficially epipolês supervenient epigenomenos surface epiphaneia surge brassein surging brasmos surmise hupotopazein surround periekhein system pragmateia take lambanein take note episêmeiousthai take notice ephistanai take place sumbainein teach didaskein temperature krasis text lexis theological theologikos theology to theologikon (meros tês philosophias) theoretical theôrêtikos theory theôria thick pakhus thicken pakhunein thin (adj.) leptos thin (v.) leptunein think huponoein three-dimensional diastaton to trikhê

tie together sundein tighten puknoun tightening puknôsis tinder hupekkauma title epigraphê tool organon top koruphê torpedo-fish narkê totality holotês touch (v.) ephaptein touch haphê touching upon their essence euthiktôs trace back anagein train paideuein transfer metagein; metapherein transform metaballein; metalloioun transgress huperbainein transmit diabibazein; diakonein transparent diaphanês travel from place to place ameibein tous topous traverse diodeuein treat metakheirizein tropic tropikos ( kuklos) true alêthês truth alêtheia try epikheirein turn in epistrephesthai; epistrophên poieisthai turn into clouds eknephoun turn into fire puroun turn into vapour exatmizein turning tropê unacquainted with something, be agnoein unalterable analloiôtos; aparabatos (taxis) unceasing apaustos unchangeable ametablêtos unclear asaphês undergo paskhein; hupomenein underlie hupokeisthai underlying things hupokeimena undeviating aparenklitos undivided atmêtos unilluminated aphôtistos uninhabitable aoikêtos uninterrupted adiakopos unite sunienai unknown agnôstos unsusceptible (of change) anepidektos unusual paradoxos upward moving anôphoros

English-Greek Glossary use as evidence tekmairesthai vaporous atmidôdes vapour atmis; atmos vessel angos vice kakia violent labros violet ion virtue aretê vision opsis visual rays opseis; opseôn aktines vital zôtikos void to kenon voluntary proairetikos wander planâsthai wandering stars hoi planômenoi (asteres); ta planômena (astra) wash away katakluzein watery diugros way tropos weak asthenês weaver huphantês well known gnôrimos well-mixed eukratês

west dusmê; dusmai; dusis western dutikos widen eurunein wind anemos; pneuma windstorm pneuma winter (adj.) kheimerinos winter, i.e. southern, tropic ho kheimerinos tropikos with great probability eulogos without a beginning anarkhos without any notion anennoêtos without dimension adiastatos without parts amerês work pragmateia; sungramma world kosmos write logopoiein year eniautos yellow xanthos yield hupeikein yielding to touch antitupos zenith mesouranêma zodiacal sign zôidion zone zônê

111

Greek-English Index (Ar.) after the line number indicates Aristotle, (Arat.) Aratus, (Eurip.) Euripides, (Hom.) Homer; (Plat.) Plato. adiakopos uninterrupted 11,31; 12,23 adiastatos without dimension 35,13 adunatos, adunaton impossible 7,18; 11,2; 12,23.35; 17,14.15.16; 29,20; 32,30; 39,36; 41,30; 44,19; 50,24 aeikinêsia everlasting motion 11,37 aêr air 1,26; 2,30; 6,18.21.22; 7,11.24; 8,26.29.31; 9,30; 10,12.14; 11,1; 13,10; 14,13.14.15.30.31.34.35; 18,35; 21,40; 22,8.12.13.20.37; 23,6.14.20.21.23.27.33; 24,3.5.6.21.22.23.24.26.31.32.37; 26,1.6.9.10.11.22.27.28; 27,13-15.20.26.33; 28,27.30.32.33.36-38; 29,1.12-15.18.19.22.28; 30,10.21.28.32.34; 31,12-14.25.26; 32,32,35; 33,1.4.7.8.9.16.28.34; 34,1.3.11.30; 35,23.24.28.29.31.36.38; 36,2.20.27.33; 37,2.4.6.11.14.15.19.20.27.29; 38,3.4.6.7.31; 40,14.17.19.20.21; 41,32; 42,8.13.22.25.27; 42,1.20; 44,1.6.11.13.18.20; 45,8.11.13.24.28; 46,19; 47,28.34.35; 48,13.25; 49,18.24.27.31; 50,17.19; 51,5.10; 52,3.4.8.12.15.19.22.24.26.28.29; 53,11 aerios of air 30,15; 31,38 agnoein to be unacquainted with something, fail to recognise 18,36; 44,35 agnoia ignorance 8,6 agnôstos unknown 44,23 agonos barren 44,34 aidesthai be ashamed 44,31

aithein burn 16,18; 18,26; 17,25; 18,5 aithêr aether 16,19; 17,21.37; 18,5; 31,30 aisthêsis perception 6,3; 9,15; 14,14; 22,26; 26,5; 35,28; 39,32.33.34.37; 40,2; 49,34 aisthêton perceptible, sense-object, sensible 9,16; 39,32-34.36.37; 40,1.3 aitia cause, explanation 2,20; 4,24.26; 6,36; 7,36; 8,1.7.22; 9,6; 10,32.35; 11,5; 13,21; 18,11; 23,29; 28,16.21; 29,3; 31,28; 32,26; 42,13.36; 43,10; 44,22.23.36; 45,24; 46,20.23; 49,14.22.28; 53,9.21; hôs hulê 23,29; hê poiêtikê 9,27; 10,17; 13,7.8; 32,26 aitiasthai find a reason 31,6 aition cause 9,27; 10,17; 11,6.8.9.10; 13,19; 18,4.7.10; 23,3; 42,13; 43,22 aitios cause 11,11.13-15.19.21; 13,7.8.10 akhanês, eis akhanes diistasthai spread indefinitely away 27,32 akhlus mist 53,12 akinêsia immobility 32,8.23 (Ar.) akinêtos immovable, motionless 11,27.32; 36,36; 37,20 akis point (of an arrow) 27,29 akmazein flourish 17,31.32 akolouthein come with 32,17 akolouthia sequence 5,4 akolouthos following 2,15; 4,14.19; 33,35; akolouthôs 30,32 akribeia details (of the text) 4,23 akribes accurate 10,25; 39,31; to akribes the exact facts 8,15;

114

Greek-English Index

akribôs 1,22; 5,24; 8,7; 12,14; 19,21; 35,12; 37,8; 49,9 akroasis course 2,18; 3,28; 35,19; 44,28.30 aktis ray 20,24.28.34; 21,10.13.18.19; 27,23.24.32.35.37; 31,23.25; 32,37; 43,18.25.27.33; 49,4.8.12.15; 52,33; 53,9.11.12; rays of vision 28,5.14; alêtheia truth, reality 1,15; 6,17; 17,35; 34,5; 38,3; 41,25 alêthês true 16,1; 25,18; 35,15; 47,13; 49,25; alêthôs really 2,5 alieus fisherman 48,8 alloiôsis alteration 50,21.29.34 alloiousthai be altered 50,26.27.28.33; 51,4 amblunein make dim 17,31 amblus dim 53,13 ameibein tous topous travel from place to place 46,22 amerês indivisible, without parts 5,26; 19,17.25; 35,12 ametablêtos immutable, unchangeable 11,25.27.35.36; 25,7.8; 32,28 amudros dim 30,40 amphêristos able to vie with 18,36 anagein trace back 50,25.26 anagignôskein read 5,14 anairein eliminate, deny 22,36; 48,36 anakinein (logous) revive (arguments) 39,20 anaklâsthai, be reflected 49,6.9.12.16; anaklômenai (aktines) reflected (rays) 27,22.24.36.37; 28,13; 43,29 anaklasis reflection 27,32; 28,19; 29,4; 31,25; 32,27; 43,17.20.25.30.33; 49,8 anakuklein recur 17,4.6.9.16.29 analloiôtos unalterable 50,1.3.21; 51,13.14.17.24 analogia proportion; di’analogias proportionally 21,11; analogian ekhontes proportionate 25,14 ananêphein recover 18,2 anapempein send 44,23 anaplassein mould 49,11 anaplêroun fill 37,9.11 anapodizein regress 17,8 anarkhos without a beginning 16,36; 17,10

anatasis height; horôn anataseis projecting mountains 37,10 anatellein rise (of the sun) 45,6 anatolê east 12,14.16; 51,7; anatolai 40,30 anatolikos eastern, east 7,18; 19,12 anathumaisis exhalation 1,27; 2,8.26.34.38; 3,2.6.13.18; 6,31.32; 7,6.10; 23,8.11; 35,26.34.35; 36,2.11.12.14; 38,20.24 anathumiazein exhale 2,1 anauxês not subject to increase 51,14 anauxêtos not undergoing increase 50,3 anaphlogôsis re-kindling 44,28.29 andreikelos human statue 13,29 andriantoplastikê (tekhnê) sculpture 17,30 andriantopoios sculptor 13,16.18 anemos wind 2,2; 3,7.10; 6,34.35; 7,29.30; 8,8; 33,12.14; 37,28 anennoêtos without any notion 8,16 anepidektos unsusceptible (of change) 50,7.8; 51,30 anepimiktos not mixing with 50,37 anepiskiastos not shadowed 52,9.12 angos vessel 48,4.6 anôphoros upward moving 30,19 antibainein come across; ta antibainonta things something encounters, things that come across 42,10; 44,5 antidiastolê contradistinction 41,26.27 antikeisthai be opposite; ta antikeimena opposites 39,35 antigraphon manuscript 10,25 antilambanesthai be aware 14,14 antipneein (sic) blow against 37,32 antiprosôpos facing 49,7 antithesis opposition 41,36.37; 50,23 anthrakôdês ember-like 30,40 antitupos yielding to touch, resistant 41,27.31.34; 42,3.5; 44,5 antrôdês cavernous; to antrôdes cavernous parts (of the earth) 7,12.19 aoikêtos uninhabitable 44,33; 53,20.26 apathês impassive 42,26; 47,33; 48,12; 49,33.35(Ar.).37; 50,5.6.20; 51,12.18.25.27.28.36

Greek-English Index aparabatos (taxis) unalterable 5,19.33 aparenklitos undeviating 21,10 apauthadiazesthai be conceited 7,35.36 apaustôs unceasingly; to apaustôs kineisthai unceasing motion 17,24 apeiroplasiôn an infinite number of times 24,8 apeiros, ap. dunamis infinite, infinite power 18,12.14; to apeiron the infinite 17,3.12.15 aphanizein disappear 17,25 aphôtistos unilluminated 21,5.26.32; 43,12 aphthartos not perishable, imperishable 50,2; 51,14.18 aplanês fixed; aplaneis asteres fixed (stars) 40,21; hê aplanês sphaira 6,2; 14,11; 16,3; 19,11.13.19.22.25.26.37; 20,18; 23,38; 24,3.4; 25,16; 26,1; 30,11; 40,25.29; 41,12.15; 43,3.22; 47,4; 49,21.23; 51,8; 53,1 apoballein lose 46,25 apoblepein look 28,5.9 apogeios apogee 21,27 apodeiknunai demonstrate, demonstration 7,36; 34,19 apodeiktikê epistêmê science of demonstration 1,19 apodeixis demonstration 8,1; 9,6; 11,19; 14,38 apodekhesthai approve 16,17 apodidonai state, declare (reasons, causes), give account 8,11; 10,32; 29,3; 31,28; 44,36; 45,24 apokathistasthai return to the same point 41,6 apoklêrôsis random reasoning 27,12 apoklêrousthai assign 3,29 apoklêrôtikos random 28,30 apokrinein separate from 33,32; 39,17 apokrisis evacuation (physiol.) 48,22 apokruptein hide from sight 19,25 apolambanein attain 1,8 apoleipein leave 10,15; 26,34 apollusthai perish 23,27 apoperatousthai have borderland 31,1 apophrassein block up 49,10.15

115

aporein raise question, problem 8,1.3(Ar.); 9,10(Ar.); 31,21; 32,31; 47,27 aporia question, problem, difficulty 8,4; 14,9; 22,21-23.25; 28,27; 29,14.35; 47,36 aposbennunai extinguish 52,18 apospinthêrizein emit sparks 46,18 apostasis distance 41,1; 43,1.7; 45,32; 52,17; 53,19 apostêma distance 19,35 apotelein cause, produce, form 7,25; 20,29.31.37; 21,23.37; 24,28; 34,16; 37,11; 44,26 apotithenai deposit, cast off, lose 26,33; 35,38; 36,15 aretê virtue 1,7.15 argês bright 47,23 (Hom.) Aristotelês 1,18; 7,35; 16,23; 17,5.18.33.36; 23,22; Aristotelikos 31,7; 35,20; 36,5; 37,16; 39,7; 40,33; 41,18.23.38; 42,27; 43,34; 44,4.17; 49,32.36; 50,25; 51,16.23.37; 52,18 arktos bear; hê en astrois 19,2; 41,9 asaphês unclear; a. lexis 39,1 asthenês weak 43,20 astêr star 2,41; 4,2; 6,15; 10,33; 15,6.19; 18,31; 19,4.31; 31,2; 41,21; 42,9.12; 46,5.27.30.34.37; 47,2.18.23 astrapôn lightning 3,7.11; 6,34; 8,12; 27,6 astron star 5,15.36; 14,37; 15,33.34; 16,2.21; 21,40; 22,5.6.11.12.18.21; 24,2.7.10; 26,8 27,20.21; 29,18.28; 39,27.33; 30,40; 31,29; 39,25; 42,1.2.33; 43,9.35; 46,35 astronomia astronomy 18,24 astronomikos astronomical; a. methodoi 18,29; 20,20 astronomos astronomer 5,20; 46,30 asummetria lack of proportion, disproportion 23,34; 29,21 asummetros out of proportion, incommensurate 18,26; 29,29.31; 43,6 asphaltôdês asphalt; to asphaltodes asphalt content 7,5 asômatos incorporeal 18,13 ataktos irregular 5,8.15-8.26.33; 33,9.11

116

Greek-English Index

atelês imperfect, incomplete 12,6.36; 32,29; ta atelê the imperfect (caused by the perfect) 11,21 atêmelôs carelessly 22,24.25 atmêtos undivided 10,27 atmidôdes vaporous 36,29; atmidôdês, anathumiasis vaporous (exhalation) 1,27; 2,34 atmizein emit vapour 35,31; 36,13 atmis vapour 28,35.36; 29,14.16.25; 35,32.35; 36,3 atmos vapour 35,31 atomos individual; ta atoma individual substances 23,5.9 atopos absurd 23,27.32 autarkos sufficient; autarkôs adequately, sufficiently 35,19; 39,28 axiopistos credible; to axiopiston credibility 17,11 balaneion bath 42,20; 47,33 barus heavy 5,38; 10,11.12; 12,3; 23,19; 33,31.36.38; 34.13.15.28.37.39; 35,7.11.14.17; 38,19.23; 39,2.7.9-17 basis base; kulindrou of a cylinder 20,30; kônou of a cone 21,21.28 bia force 35,5.7 biaiôs forcibly 46,26 borborôdês muddy; b. sustasis muddy sort of substance 7,26 boskêmatôdês brute; b. bios brutish life 17,39 brasmos surging; gês 7,23 brassein surge 7,9 brithein katô sink down 38,35 dekhesthai receive 43,15.16.18; 44,25; 52,26.33 dêmiourgikos creative, directed to creating; energeiai 1,11; nous 12,25 dêmiourgos creator 18,8 dexiophanês non-reversing; d. katoptra 28,17 diabibazein pass on, transmit 48,3.4.13; 49,19.20; 52,30 diagein live 17,39 diagônizein debate 37,23 diagraphein describe 44,31 diadromê running; asteros of a star 46,5; 47,1

diairein divide 1,20; 6,28; 15,9; 19,13 diairesis division 1,22; 14,26.33; 19,13 diairetikos for division; d. organon 1,13.14 diaittein shoot 46,5 (diaissein 46,34); diaittontes astêres ‘shooting stars’ 6,11.13; 46,5.8; 47,3.22 diaitasthai live 22,14 diakhusis dissolution 44,29 diakonein transmit, serve 49,2; 50,13 diakonikos ministering; pur 23,16 diakoptein cut through 52,25 diakrinein distinguish 1,14.17; divide 2,33; 7,3; detach 23,9; dissolve 29,17; 31,27.32; 40,14; discern 30,30; 35,28; rarefy 41,19 (Ar.) diakrisis dissolution 24,27 diakritikos (tôn opseôn) dissolving (sight-streams) 44,27 dialambanein deal; intervene; interrupt; enclose 3,33.35; 10,22; 11,24; 27,33 dialegesthai discuss 17,37; 39,36.37 diallattein go past 47,5 dialuein dissolve, dispose of (objection) 27,22; 29,4.34; 36,30 dialusis dissolution 51,23 diametros diameter 15,16.17; 19,8.35; 41,4 diamonê stability 18,10 dianoia purport; hê tôn prokeimenôn (legomenôn) 33,30 dianuein complete 12,11 diaphanês transparent 43,34.35.39.40; 44,2 diapherein differ, make a difference, 25,12; 35,35 diapheugein lack 33,33 diaphora difference 2,9; 6,30.34.35; 7,6; 8,21; 10,1.2.29; 18,31; 30,17.18.22.23.30; 31,4; d.ousiôdeis 30,23 diaphoros different 31,5.8.9; 50,18 diapiptein fall apart 27,30; tou kentrou miss the centre (geom.) 34,23 diaplasis re-shaping 28,19 diarkein last, 18,11; 32,33 diarrainein diffuse, spray 45,26.29

Greek-English Index diarthroun articulate 29,36 diaskedannuein scatter 33,7 diaskepsis examination 40,6 diastalteon to be distinguished 8,28 diastasis distance 7,23; 21,15; d. hêliou 42,39 diastaton, to trikhê three-dimensional 41,26 diastêma distance, space 14,36; 15,7.9.33; 18,30; 19,38; 22,6; 23,33; 24,4.36; 29,19; 35,13.17; 39,25 41,14; 47,5 diathein run; diatheontes astêres running stars 2,41 diatithenai dispose 51,34 diatrekhein run 46,28.36; 47,1; diatrekhontes astêres running stars 46,28 diatribein remain (for some time) 21,31 didaskalia doctrine, instruction 2,37; 14,22 didaskein teach, instruct, deal, 2,10.13.29; 3,4; 4,9; 9,1; 14,5.23; 26,22; 39,28 dikhotomos selênê half-moon 21,3 diodeuein traverse 27,4.5 diugros watery; d. nephê 6,21 dogma position 48,1 dokêsis illusion, phantom (opp. alêtheia) 46,37 mekhri dokêseôs kai monês einai exist in appearance only (opp. ousiôdê huparxin ekhein) 6,13.14 doxazein have opinion 14,25; 17,11 dunamis power 10,33 (Ar.); 13,20; 18,12.14; 25,10.13.16; 27,15; 32,15; 33,35; 44,24; 48,24; faculty (of the soul) 1,6; dunamei potentially opp. energeiâ 10,28.30; 13,26; 29,26-7; 32,14(Ar.).20-22 dunasthai can, may, be possible, 9,11(Ar.); 12,29; 13,37; 18,26; 20,20; 22,36; 27,14; 30,30; 33,1.13; 35,29; 36,14.17; 40,12; 46,29; 51,17; dunaton possible 1,9; 5,26.34; 12,26; 20,21; 22,37; 24,36; 28,32; 33,25; 35,21; 43,5; 46,11 dunai set 19,5 dusis west 12,15.16; 41,15 duskhereia ills 50,5; 51,28.31.33; 52,1.3 (Ar.)

117

dusmê, dusmai west 40,30 dusoristos hard to bound 42,7 duspathês not easily affected 27,33 dutikos western, to dutikon (meros gês) 7,19 ho dutikos horizon western horizon 19,12.13 eidikos specific; eidikôtera aitia more specific courses 4,27 eidôlon image 28,2 eidos form 3,34; 4,1.4.25; 6,29.37; 7,2.14.17.19; 9,32.33; 13,17.36; 14,17; 31,6; 50,6.12; 51,23; to teleion eidos perfect form 32,24; role 13,13.23 eilikrinês pure, clean 30,26.36; 31,7; 50,15.18.36.38; 51,2 eikotôs on good grounds, with reason, correctly, reasonably 1,4; 3,33; 4,16; 14,15; 26,10; 35,3; 41,22; 43,18 einai to be, exist 1,10; 3,17.27; 5,3.12; 6,13.15.16.29; 9,31; 10,13.23; 11,3.19.27; 12,6.29.36; 14,30; 15,25; 16,14.20.21.24.29.31.36; 17,2.19.23.34; 18,3.7.14.26; 19,20.33.36; 20,2.31; 21,39; 22,2.17.37; 23,5.7.18.23; 24,4.23.26.36.37; 25,10.14.22.26; 27,2.15.18; 28,2.32; 29,20; 30,15; 31,9; 32,25.28.30; 33,4.6; 35,22.25; 36,13.14; 37,8.13; 38,5.7.37; 41,28.29.32; 42,3.13.36.38; 43,34.40; 44,17.24.26; 47,21.27; 50,17.18 ekballein eutheias (grammas) draw straight lines 34,22 ekleipein suffer eclipse 21,25 ekleipsis eclipse; ekleipseis hêliou, selênês solar, lunar eclipses 5,21.22; 15,22; 20,28; 21,24.25; 30,39.40 ekmokhleuein dislodge 33,13 eknephoun turn into clouds 29,2 ekphlegein set on fire 43,30 ekphlogoun inflame 44,33 ekphlogôsis being inflamed 36,6 ekpuroun set on fire, 31,34.35; 40,17; 46,10.35.36 ekthlibein squeeze out 39,15 elenkhein refute 14,26; 25,9.11 elenkhos refutation 47,36; e. poiein disprove, refute 23,24; 25,13

118

Greek-English Index

elpis foreboding 51,34.35 emphasis appearance, 2,5 (opp. huparxis, hupostasis) emphraxis obstruction 7,4 enantiôsis conrariety 50,37 enapolambanein enclose 44,6.14 enapolêpsis being trapped inside; hudatos kai pneumatos en têi gêi 6,32.35.36; 7,7 enargeia evidence 44,2 enaskholeisthai peri ti be occupied with 18,1 enaulos fresh; mnêmê memory 13,37 endekhesthai be possible, 8,16; 15,25; 24,16; 31,35; 45,35 energeia activity; actuality; energeiâi, kat energeian, in actuality, actually 10,29; 12,20.22.28.31; 32,20-2; hai theiai energeiai (opp. hêmôn) divine activities 1,10.12 energein act 43,8 eniautos year 40,27 enistasthai object; ta pros hekaston enistamena objections to each [argument] 41,24.25 enkuklios, cyclic 8,24; enkuklia sômata, revolving bodies 10,1.2 ennoia, eis ennoian elthein it occurred to them 18,3 enoptron mirror, reflecting surface 28,11 entrepein put to shame 22,26.27 epagein continue 11,4; 12,6; 35,23 epangellein promise 7,36; 9,12 epanô above; ta astra epanô the higher stars 43,36 epeigein strive to reach 12,35 êpeiros boundless (Eurip.) 19,23.24 epekhein occupy (place, zone), move in a (particular) circle 11,33; 40,36; 42,17 eperkhesthai go through 14,38; 26,37; 53,33; ephaptein touch 8,10.14; 9,10 (Ar.) epharmozein be fitted to 10,30 ephexês next to, following immediately subsequently,14,35; 30,11; 32,2; 34,3; to ephexes the subsequent 17,12 ephistanai to take notice, give thorough consideration, reflect 8,2.4; 46,28

epibolê attempt 48,1.13 epigi(g)nesthai to impose upon (of form) 30,19; 31,6; epigenomenos supervenient 48,17.24.31 epigraphê title 2,20 epieikês modest 9,9 epikheirein to try 16,16 epikheirêma attempted argument 46,27 epikheirêsis argument 16,31 epiklêsis name 19,1 epiluein to solve 14,9 epilusis (aporias) solution 29,5 epinoia concept; kat’epinoian conceptually 12,13 epinoein to devise, invent 1,16; 28,17 epipedon plane 41,27 epiphaneia surface 12,3; 14,10.11; 16,3; 19,11.18; 20,1; 25,36; 31,21.31; 35,17; 36,31; 49,5.7.9.12; hê eskhatê tês aplanous sphairas the extreme surface of the fixed sphere 14,10.11; hê kurtê tês aplanês 16,3; 25,36; 26,1; hê koilê tês selêniakês 12,3 hollow surface of the lunar sphere; hê kurtê tês selêniakês convex surface of the lunar sphere 19,38; 20,1 epiphanês bright 46,30 epipolazein rise to the surface 10,10; 34,1 epipolês superficially 8,15.17 epiprosthein to occult 30,12; 43,35; 52,25.29.31 episêmainein to note 50,4; 51,15 episêmeiousthai to comment, draw attention, take note 5,38; 35,20; 51,11; 52,12 episkotein to cast shadow 52,10 epistêmê science 1,19; 17,28; 39,35 epistêmôn expert 27,10; 28,16 epistrephesthai eis heauton convert upon itself 12,25.26.35 epistrophê, epistrophên poieisthai eis heauta convert upon themselves 12,27 epiteinein increase 35,37; 36,6.17.22; 43,32 epitithenai 4,1 impose (of form); epikeimenon lying upon, laid upon 35,7; 53,5 eranizein borrow 30,39

Greek-English Index êremia rest 11,24; 12,12 eruthros red 47,26 esoptron mirror 28,1; 43,18.28 etêsios kuklos annual cycle 8,24 êthos character; êthos philosophon kai philalêthes (tou Aristotelous) (Aristotle’s) character of a philosopher and a lover of truth 7,35 etumologein derive (the name) 17,38 etumologia etymology 16,26 euagês limpid (Plat.) 38,7 eudiairetos easily divisible 46,20 eueidês clear 30,33 eukrasia mildness of climate 11,12 eukratês well-mixed 53,25 eulogos with great probability, reasonable 30,33; 48,27 eupathês easily affected 33,16; eupathôs receiving affections easily 44,26 euphorbion spurge 46,17 euporia resource 8,3 eurunein spread out, widen 21,15.17; 28,14 euthiktôs touching upon their essence 8,11 euthuporikos rectilinear 12,33 euthus straight (line) 1,16; 10,27; 19,12; 20,33.34.35; 21,3.6.10; 34,22.38; hê ep’eutheias kinêsis rectilinear motion 4,31; 11,23; 12,1.2.8.32.33.36; 37,22; euthu(s), directly, immediately 3,26; 23,31; 26,24; 35,8; 36,30; 38,21.23.29.33; 39,17 exairetôs specifically 36,11 exakontizein hurl 45,27 exaploun spread 27,35.36 exatmizein turn into vapour, evaporate 27,14 exapsis kindling 36,6 exetasis examining 3,20 exêgeisthai to render 39,4 exisôsis hê tôn stoikheiôn equalisation 39,1 exôphanês convex (of mirrors) 28,17 gê earth 1,25; 2,8.22.23.27.29.30.33.35; 3,12.15.18; 4,21; 5,37; 6,27.28.35.37; 7,9.12.13.14.23.27; 9,30; 10,10.11.15; 13,10.11;

119

14,10.13.27.33; 15,8.15.21.27.32; 18,23.25.30; 19,5.11.14.15.16.19.20.21.26.28.38; 20,4.10.17.20.22.23.24.37; 21,6.7.24.29.34.36.40; 22,7.9.12.20.36; 23,6.10.13.19.25.33.35.37.38; 24,2.3.7.8.10.34.36; 25,15.16.36; 26,4.31; 27,9.20.22.23.24; 28,33; 29,2.13.14.16.24.25.27.29.32.33; 30,21.28.29.33; 31,10.11.22.24.25; 33,15.25.32.38; 34,2.15.19.30.31.33.34; 35,5.7.22.25.26.27.30; 36,13.14.31; 37,7.8.11.20; 38,4; 39,25; 41,1.29.32; 45,8.13; 46,12; 50,19; 51,1.10; 52,20; 53,10.12.15.16 geitniazein to be in close proximity, border upon, neighbour 13,20; 34,3; 46,25; 52,32 geitniân to be adjacent 50,12 genesis coming to be, generation, coming about, formation 2,4.19; 3,4; 4,10.11.13.16.28; 8,17.22; 9,14.25; 10,3.6,37; 13,5.12.26; 14,7.20; 24,33; 25,9; 26,26; 28,36; 31,16; 32,11.18; 36,2; 37,28; 41,35; genesis kai phthora coming to be and passing away 13,12; 14,7; ta en genesei kai phthorâi sômata bodies in process of coming to be and passing away 10,3 gnêsios authentic; to gnêsion authenticity 2,16 (tês pragmateias) gnôsis knowledge 1,8; 2,11 gnôrimos well known 13,13 gnôstikos directed to knowing 1,11 gramma letter 27,2 gumnazein peri tinos discuss 37,23 gônia angle 28,1; ambleia, oxeia obtuse, acute 28,6.13; gôniai isai equal angles 27,35; 28,3; 34,16.23.25.32.35. gignôskein know 25,1; 28,16; 39,36; 47,24 gi(g)nesthai come to be, come about, be 1,9; 8,27; 12,34; 13,32.33; 16,15.28; 17,14.26; 20,6; 22,21; 23,29; 24,21; 26,12; 27,15; 28,32; 30,22; 31,3; 32,23.25; 35,1; 38,19.22.34; 39,5.10.13.16;

120

Greek-English Index

horizein bound 42,8; ho horizôn (kuklos) horizon 19,4; 47,25; 53,4.9.13; ho anatolikos, haphê touch, contact 41,27.33; dutikos eastern, western 42,20.28; 44,19; 47,31 19,12.13.29.30; ho notios haptein put 44,7.10 southern 18,33.34 hêliakos of the sun; hêliakê horos limit 46,21 sphaira 19,35.36; 52,19.37; hupantan to say in response, hêliakon phôs 52,34 answer (the objection) 28,28; 38,18 hêlios the sun 2,32.33; 4,1; 5,21; 6,2; hupantros cavernous 6,29; 7,1 10,2; 15,18; 19,32.35; huparkhein to be, belong 1,6; 5,5; 20,1.3.13.17.18.21.24; 21,34; 24,9; 6,12; 11,10; 14,27; 15,11; 29,30; 30,14.38; 39,27; 19,19.34.37; 20,9; 23,6.22; 24,9; 40,4.12.24.27.28.32.34; 29,26; 30,32; 31,4.7; 32,2; 34,9; 41,1.2.10.13.18.20.22; 44,33; 47,33; 50,37; 52,20 42,13.14.17.24.28.30.34.36.38; huparxis reality 2,4.6; 6,13.19; 43,1.2.5.7.10.15.17.21.24.25.31.34.3 10,36 6; 44,17.19.21.28.32; hupeikein yield 41,28 (Plat.); 44,5 45,6.8.11.14.20.32.35; hupheisthai to be inferior in rank 47,18.25.27.28.34; 11,28 48,5.12.25.27.30; hupekkauma tinder 1,26; 2,30; 49,7.18.20.22.27.31; 50,10.11; 23,18; 30,35; 32,36; 36,5; 51,4.6.8; 37,2-4.16.19.20.37; 38,3.6.31; 52,2.7.9.14.19.27.28.30.33.36; 39,8.9.13.14; 45,25.34; 46,19.36 53,9.13.21.23 huperanestanai to come first, rank hêmikuklion semi-circle immediately above; be, rise (far) 19,9.14.20.26.27 above 4,20; 11,30; 26,31; 33,28.34; heterotês the way of differing 16,17 35,37; 36,32 historia study of the facts 9,4 huperbainein exceed, transgress holotes totality; hê tou ouranou 25,21; 51,21 11,33; hai tôn stoikheiôn huperballein to be excessive, 23,6.7.9.12.18.22; 37,20.22 exceed, 23,26.30; 24,17; 27,16; homalos equable; h. kinesis 29,21.24.26.28; 42,15 33,9.17 huperbolê enormousness, excess homiklôdês hazy 18,35 18,25.27.35; 19,6.34; 20,19; 21,36; homilein be adjacent 40,17 23,15.16.17; 34,6.7; 53,26 homoiomerês homogeneous 13,35 huperekhein to be in excess, homoios comparable, similar 7,6; exceed, be greater 23,35-6; 25,20; 45,14 29,27; 41,3 homoiôs likewise, similarly, in the huperekpiptein to fall beyond, same way 5,33; 7,21; 13,30; 17,11; reach beyond, exceed 21,29.30; 20,12; 24,27; 25,23; 28,10.31; 51,22 32,21; 42,15; 43,29; 44,9; huperênemos above the wind 47,13.17.24; 50,2.3.32; 26,33; 33,4; 37,34 52,12.13.31.38; 53,22 huperkeisthai to be above, 27,19 homoiôsis theôi assimilation to god hupernephês to be, rise above (hê philosophia) 1,9.10 clouds (of mountains) 26,32; 33,4; homoios khêmôn of the same form 37,34 20,29 huperokhê excess 24,33 homologein grant, agree 10,9.23; hupexerchesthai pass through 26,5; 49,36 49,15 homônumos homonymous 48,9 huphantês weaver 32,13 homose khôrein tôi pragmati huphêgeisthai be described 49,34.35 9,3.4.8.9 (Ar.) 43,20.26; 46,8; 47,2; 48,26.31; 49,3.9; 53,11

Greek-English Index huphistasthai settle, subsist 10,10; 45,20; to come into existence 22,25 huphizanein subside 33,38 hupnos sleep, 9,16.17; 48,23 hupodeigma illustration 6,6; 47,33; 48,14.32; 49,2 hupoduein insinuate 1,12 hupokaiein boil 35,33 hupokeisthai to underlie, be (serve as) a substrate, substratum 2,25; 3,37; 9,33; 13,14.16.27.30; 30,23; to let (by assumption) 34,29; hupokeimenon subject, substrate, that which underlies 32,11.15; 51,21; hupokeimena objects 33,13; underlying things (the sense: things lying below) 42,32 hupokhôrein to sink, move below 23,19; 33,38 hupolambanô to be of an opinion 17,21 hupoleipein fall behind 43,2.4; hupoleipthentes survivors (of the deluge) 17,38 hupolêpsis assumption, opinion 16,15.21.23 hupomenein to last, be subjected to, undergo, endure 2,40; 7,3; 38,17; 46,24; 48,3.11; 50,34 hupomimnêskein remind, recall, 9,24; 13,36; 21,38; 30,8.16 hupomnêma commentary 50,4; 51,15 huponoein to think 16,30 huponoia assumption, suggestion, opinion, notion, impression 6,15; 14,26; 22,16; 30,29; 47,8; objection 38,18 huponostein to lag behind 41,12.14 hupopiptein [produce] an impression on sight-streams 47,3 hupopodismos retrograde motion (of the stars) 5,23 hupostathmê sediment 51,3 hupoteinein subtend 15,7 hupothesis subject-matter, assumption, hypothesis 2,28; 22,14; 25,11.13.15; 49,32 hupotithenai make an assumption, assume, grant 17,1; 22,15; 24,4; 42,35; 52,21 hupotopazein surmise 18,8

121

hupotrekhein pass underneath, run beneath 30,13; 43,37; 46,34 hupsêlos high 26,36; hupsêlotata highest 26,32; 27,9; 32,32; 33,4; 37,1.26 (Ar.); 47,6 hupsos height; eis hupsos high up 28,9; eis to hupsos upward 21,22; 28,7 hupsousthai rise 53,15 huptiazesthai diverge 21,11 huptios such as to diverge, upside down 21,13; 28,11 idikos specific; idikôteron more specifically 2,18 idiotropos peculiar; hai en ouranôi dunameis idiotropoi peculiar powers in the heaven 44,24.25 idiôtikos ignorant 5,39 ithuphorikos rectilinear 30,18 ikmas moisture 31,36; 33,11 indalma image 43,17 ion violet 47,17 iris rainbow 6,20; 8,8 isêmerinos kuklos equator 41,5; 53,18.20 isotakhôs at equal speed 6,3 iskhurizesthai assert 15,14 kaikias the wind of this name; ho anemos 7,29.32 kainotomein, kainotomêtheisa doxa newfangled doctrine 16,25 kalathoeidês of a shape of a basket 21,16.17 kalôdion cord, 48,35 kakia vice 1,13.15 kapnôdês smoky; anathumiasis exhalation 2,35; 36,11.17 kastorion castor 46,17 kathetos perpendicular 27,12; 34,29; 43,36; 46,37; 47,1 katholikos general 4,12 katakluzein wash away 27,1 kataklusmos deluge 17,38; 18,3 katarithmein list 32,19 katarkhesthai propound; doxês an opinion 17,18 kataskellein harden 44,10 kataskeuazein establish, set up 11,4; 16,16.30; 37,28 kataphlegein burn up, consume (of fire) 22,25; 29,20

122

Greek-English Index

katapsukheisthai be cold 45,33; 53,19.20 katoptron mirror 27,36.39; 28,2.4.9.12.17.19 katôphoros downward moving 30,19 kenos empty; to kenon void 10,13.15.22.23 kentron centre 15,5.25; 19,7.8.10.16.22; 34,22; to tou pantos kentron, centre of the universe 34,13.16.33; 35,5.12.14 keraunos lightning 47,22.24 (Hom.) kheimerinos winter; ho kheimerinos tropikos winter, i.e. southern tropic 53,24 kinein move, set in motion 34,40; 44,16; 45,28; aporian raise a problem 26,23; 45,12 kineisthai move, be in motion 6,3.4.5.10.16; 11,9.20.30.32; 12,1.18.22.24.34; 13,7.19; 16,28; 17,24; 18,4.12; 30,20.25; 32,23; 33,9.11.12; 34,38; 35,3.11; 37,21.30.33; 40,19.24.28.31.34.36; 41,21; 42,35 kinêsis movement, motion 4,29.30.32; 5,9.16; 6,1.18; 7,16.18.22.27; 8,9; 9,15; 10,8.35; 11,5-7.20.23.31.32.36.38.39; 12,2.5.7.15.23.32.35.36; 13,8.18.22; 18,7.10; 27,26.28; 31,32; 32,22.25; 33,8.11.12.17; 34,17.27.40; 35,1; 36,29.30; 37,2.17.19; 39,6; 40,12.13.17.18.21.23.26.29.32; 41,10.11.12.15-19.23; 42,5.13.23.29.30.34-6.38; 43,3.6.10.12.14.24; 44,1.5.11.12.17.18.21; 45,17.18.27.29 kinoun impart motion 44,18 klan reflect 21,13; 28,9 klasis reflection; aktinôn of rays 21,14; 27,26.35; 28,1.3 koilôma hollow place; koilômata tês gês hollows of the earth 15,12.13.23; 29,25.26 kolla glue 27,30 komêtês comet; hoi komêtai pur eisi comets are fire 47,24 kônoeidês conic 21,24 kônos cone 21,21.26.28.33. koruphê peak, top; orous of a

mountain 36,32; 37,1.12; kônou apex 21,23.29 koruphoun (tên thalassan) cause the sea to crest 33,14 kosmein to bring, bestow order 1,7; 2,11 kosmos world, cosmos 3,31.32; 5,11.12; 9,29; 10,16.31.33; 11,3; 13,11; 14,5.23; 16,13; 17,2.10; 23,36; 30,28; 31,30; 34,14; 50,19; 51,1; ho katô (ho hupo selênên) kosmos sublunary 10,16.31.33; 11,3; ho peri tên gên about the earth 13,11; 50,19; 51,1 kouphos light (opp. heavy) 10,11.12; 23,20; 33,32; 34,1; 36,15; 38,22; 39,11; to kouphon the light 12,1; 33,36; 34,27; 39,11.14 krasis mixture, blending 31,6; 48,17; temperature 47,12 kratein prevail 38,28.29.32-35 kratêr cup 13,32 Kratulos Cratylus 17,37 Krios (ho en tois zôidiois) Aries 41,5.7 krisis judgement; hê tôn horatôn on the objects of vision 27,39 kromuon onion 47,16 krustallos ice 23,15 kuthiaion hudôr an ounce of water 24,22 kubernan to govern 11,1.4; 12,30; to kubernân administration 10,33; kubos cube 13,33; 20,7.9 kuklos circle 15,9.15.16; 19,8-10.17.18.29; 34,20.30; 40,27.34.36.37; 41,2.3.5.8 (Arat.); kuklôi in a circle 4,31; 8,24; 11,9.20.22; 12,6.9.11.13.17.24.31; 13,7.19; 36,28; 37,6.20; 51,24; eph’ hou ho hêlios, eph’ hou hê selênê the circle of the sun, the moon 41,2.3; hô isêmerinos equator 41,5; hô megistos kuklos tês gês the greatest circle of the earth 15,15 kuklophoreisthai to move in a circle, have circular motion; ta kuklophoroumena sômata 4,9; 10,13.14; 14,6; 16,14; 22,11.13; 30,10.12.14.15.23; 31,29; 33,5 kuklophoria circular movement 16,30

Greek-English Index kuklophorikos moving in a circle; k. sôma revolving body, body in circular motion 37,2.17; k. ousia revolving (bodily) substance 30,16 kukloterês circular 20,27.31.37 kulindroeidês cylindrical 21,9 kulindros cylinder 20,30.32.34; 21,12 kunosoura (i.e. hê arktos) Ursa Minor 41,5 Kuôn (ho en tois astrois) Canis 15,19; 18,34.36 kurtos convex 19,38; 25,36 lambanein take, have, attain, enclose 10,8; 17,27; 32,24; 34,11; 37,7(Ar.); 40,15; 48,35; 50,9 legein, say, 1,4.10; 3,2.27; 4,18.31; 5,12.18; 6,2.20.21.27.31.37; 7,14.19; 8,1.14.16; 9,6.9; 12,3.6; 13,11; 14,16.19; 17,33.35; 19,6; 20,36; 22,5.6.8; 23,2.16.37; 24,2; 25,1.7.8; 27,5; 28,20.21.30; 29,37; 30,8; 32,3; 33,5; 34,18; 35,19.20.24.25,29; 39, 40,27; 41,20.25.27; 12; 43,34.40; 46,5.11; 48,14.34; 49,20; 50,4; 51,21.26.31; 52,13.14 labros violent 125,8(Ar); 129,23(Ar) lêmma assumption 40,13 leptomereia fineness 33,17 leptomerês fine, finely divided, fine-structured 29,17.25; 33,9.15; 47,20 leptos slight, thin (of vapour), 5,26; 18,9; 21,32; 24,28; 29,1; subtle (of method) 18,9 leptunein thin 28,38; 31,33 lêthê oblivion 17,28 lexis text 39,1.4; 49,37 limnaios stagnant 37,1 limnazein stagnate; be/become stagnant 36,35; 37,27 logikos, logikê pragmateia system of logic 1,17.18 logopoiein write 44,31 logos discussion, reason, argument, account 2,40; 19,7.16.18.22.26; 20,4.15.16; 23,25.26; 24,20.29; 26,13; 32,2; 35,28; 39,7.30.31; 40,2.3; 41,25; 47,27; book 3,5.14; 4,31; l. ekhein pros ti as one is to the other 20,15.16; en logôi tini einai be in proportion to

123

19,18.19; en oudeni, l. skhedon einai be negligible in proportion to 24,34.35; mêdena l. ekhein pros ti be in no proportion to 19,16.22; logon poieisthai deal with 2,40; logon didonai give account 8,11; discussion 9,8; argument 14,26; reason 18,8; sêmeiou kai kentrou l. ekhein be equivalent to a point and centre 15,5; 19,7; proportion 19,6 lukhniaion phôs lamplight 20,25.26 lusis solution; aporias 22,21; 26,24; 29,35 malakos soft 42,5 manos open-textured 44,13 manôsis loosening, rarefaction 7,3; 24,27 manoun to loosen, rarefy 7,3; 26,27; 40,14 manthanein hear 6,12 mathêmata mathematics 18,19-29(Ar.); 19,37; 21,41; 22,15.16; 34,29 mathêmatikos mathematical; to m. (meros tês philosophias) mathematics 1,20; 19,33; hai mathêmatikoi methodoi mathematical methods 20,21 meiôsis loss 30,27 mêkhanikos mechanical; m. tekhnê mechanics 27,10 mên month 40,27 mênoeidês crescent-shaped 21,2.3 merikos partial, particular 4,5.6.11 mesotês mean, middle, 11,34; 12,10.13.16.19 mesouranein be in zenith, 19,3; 53,3; mesouranêma zenith, 12,15.16; 53,10.11 metabainein pass (from one place to another) 11,33 metaballein to change, be subject to change, to transform 11,28.29.36.37; 13,24.28.29.32; 18,7; 23,35; 24,22.24.29.32; 25,12; 26,26.30; 27,13.14.17; 28,30; 32,16.23; 38,28; 39,8.10; 50,13.31 metabolê change, 4,7.10.14; 10,36; 11,19; 13,29; 32,26; 38,14.17.36; hê kat’eidos (kata poiotêta) m.

124

Greek-English Index

change in respect of form (quality) 50,6.7.22; 51,29; hai tôn stoikheiôn (eis allêla) metabolai changes in the elements 7,4; 24,19.20.26,28.30; 25,10.11 metagein transfer 43,38 metadidonai pass, pass on, 51,5.9; 52,2-3.32 metakheirizein treat 1,21 metakhôrein to move, move on to 38,29.38 metalambanein have share 23,4 metalla mines 2,9 metallikos mineral; ta metallika minerals, 3,16; 4,5.18; 5,6; 9,1 metalloioun transform 7,13 metapherein transfer 17,26 metekhein partake 41,28.36.37; 46,12; 50,24.25.38; 52,25.27 meteôrologikos of meteorology; m. pragmateia the work on meteorology 3,16.17.19; to m. meros tês phusikês methodou meteorology 5,3 (ta) m. 2,21; 4,20 meteôros aloft, in the higher, upper regions, in the higher sphere, meteorological 2,9.27.31.35; 5,7.18.28; 6,6; 8,7.30; 9,27; 11,15; 13,9; 19,3; 35,6; 40,5; ta meteôra Meteorology 4,15; 15,13 methistanein displace 33,13 methodos research, method 5,3.6; 18,29; 20,20.21 metienai to pass on, go on to 3,1.6; 18,11; 22,37; 26,9; 29,35; 49,2 metopôron fall, 5,29 metrein measure, 15,8; 20,5.19; 27,11 metriazein to be moderate, do something out of modesty 8,13; 15,6 metrios moderate 51,20; 52,31; metriôs moderately 32,1 mimeisthai to imitate 12,25.27 molibdos lead 27.29; 40,16 mukêthmos roaring 7,25 muthikôs mythical 44,22 narkê torpedo-fish 48,8.11.16.30 nekroun make dead 44,34 nephos cloud 3,2; 6,21.32; 7,31.32; 8,12; 26,30; 27,5.8.19.23.26.31.34; 28,23.27.30.33-35; 29,15.23.24.31;

31,22.27.34; 32,32; 33,3.26.27.30; 36,19.28; 37,5.27; 38,13 neuein pros ti (epi ti) hint, be inclined 25,7; 28,12; 49,6; pros to kentron neuein converge upon the centre 34,26 nitrôdês alkaline; to nitrôdes alkali content 7,5 noêtos intelligible; ta noêta 11,25 nous intellect; ho theios kai dêmiourgikos 12,25 nux night 20,23; 41,16; 45,31 oligokhronios short-lived 2,39.40 olisthanein slip down 8,23 onkos mass 24,9.20.22.25.28; ho tês gês 14,27; 15,32 onthos dung 48,5; 49,5.6 opsis eyesight, vision 28,5.12; 30,30; 47,1; opseis, visual rays, sight rays 28,10.13.19; 47,3; eyes 6,5; opseôn apatê optical illusion 2,6; planê tês opseôs optical illusion 46,34; opseôn aktines visual rays 27,37 optikos, ta optika Optics 27,34 orophê ceiling 28,5 oros mountain 17,39; 26,32.36; 27,4.9.11.12; 32,32; 33,4; 36,32.34; 37,1.10.12.14.27.34 orthotês correctness; hê onomatôn in words 17,37 oruttein quarry 3,16 ouranios heavenly, celestial; ta ourania (sômata) heavenly bodies 3,36.37; 4,19.21; 5,13.27; 6,2; 9,31; 10,26.31.34; 11,13.26; 14,13; 16,1.19; 18,4; 22,4; 26,10.12; 30,9.22.32.35; 31,1.5; 32,26; 34,18; 36,28.35; 37,3.4.15; 41,16.28.30.36; 42,3.9.36; 45,7.18.26; 46,7; 49,33.36; 50,35.36; 51,4 ouranos heaven i.e. holos ho kosmos 1,25; 2,19.22.29; 3,30.32.34.36; 4,8; 5,10.17.19.37-40; 9,25; 10,9; 11,11.33.35.39; 12,21.27.29; 13,4; 14,30; 15,5; 16,22.24.29.31.32; 17,20.35; 18,9.28; 19,20.31; 21,35; 22,10.12.29.34.37.38; 37,18; 38,1; 39,30; 44,24; 46,26; 50,1; 51,13 hoi ouranoi 5,17.19.37

Greek-English Index ousia pemptê the fifth substance sômatôn 16,31.32 ousiôdês substantial; huparxis reality 6,13; diaphorai differences 30,23.24; 31,3.4 organon tool, instrument 1,13; 27,10 oxus acute; oxeia gônia acute angle 34,24.36 pakhunein thicken 28,37 pakhus thick; pakhus aêr (hê atmis) 28,38; 29,1 palindromein return 27,38; 43,2 panselênos full moon 43,9.13 paradoxos unusual 7,28; 48,24 parakolouthein to follow 13,37.38; 23,32 parallattein pass through 15,23 parallêlogrammos parallelogrammic 20,32.33 parallêlos parallel 20,33 paralogôs legein blunder in saying 43,33 paramutheisthai palliate; aporian 47,35.36 paratêrêsis observation 51,11 paratribein rub 44,8.11 paratripsis friction 27,27; 44,19 parakhrêsthai to misuse 43,38 paraxein graze; hê arktos paraxeei (sic) ton horizonta 19,4 parekbasis digression 25,2 parergôs casually 22,24 paroimia saying 7,32 paskhein to be conditioned, acted upon, affected; to undergo, be the object of, action; to happen to, 7,2; 11,4; 13,15; 17,29.32; 26,29; 38,19.31; 43,8; 47,31.32; 48,2.6.28; 49,13; 50,9-12.26; 51,4 pathêma process 2,37 pathêtikos passive 44,28 pathêtos subject to affection 32,10; 42,26 pathos condition, effect, affection, process, passive mode 1,26; 2,27.36; 3,6.9; 5,39; 6,19.31; 7,1.3-5.9.11.17.21; 9,27; 10,16; 13,9; 32,17; 39,33; 44,25; 45,20; 46,9.24; 47,2.32; 48,3.9.11.12.17.18.26.30.35.36.38.3 9; 49,3; 50,6.7.8.13; 51,5.9.19.21.28.29.30; 52,2.4;

125

pathê gês conditions of the earth 7,1; ta en tôi meteôrôi sumbainonta pathê processes in the upper region 13,9.10 pauein abandon 22,1.16 (Ar.) paula, paulan ekhein rest 17,22 pedias plain 32,33; 36,31.33 pêgê spring 6,36; 7,8.10 peperi pepper 46,17; 47,16 periekhein enclose, surround, delimit, encompass 14,12; 18,25.27; 20,35; 21,36; 22,36; 34,20.30; 35,16; 45,25; to periekhon surrounding substance, surrounding space 18,26; 24,35; encompassing body; container 35,15.16; 42,8 perigeios close to the earth, around the earth 21,25; 28,22 periglênês set with eyes (Arat.) 6,9 perigraphein circumscribe 42,3.9; 46,13 perimetros perimeter; kuklou 41,4; hê tês gês 15,6.11.14.15.16 periphereia 37,12.14; 47,8 periphora revolution, circle; tôn ouraniôn 10,34; 11,13; 32,26; 37,15 45,7.26; hê exôtatô periphora outermost rotation 23,38 perirrein flow 37,15 pêxis coagulation 8,25.27-29 phantasia imagination, semblance, appearance, 6,3.18.19.21 philosophia philosophy 1,5.7.9.20 phthanein to have already done something 29,3; 32,34; 36,12; 43,7; 47,30; 48,31 phthoropoios destructive, 34,9 phusikos natural 2,12; 3,26-29; 4,25.26.30.32; 5,3.6; 13,18; 30,22; 31,6; 34,37; 35,4.19; 37,16.19; 42,27; 43,8; 44,35.36; 49,28; 50,34; 53,35 phusikôs 47,30; 53,36; on physics, on nature 2,4.17.18; 3,26-28; 4,22; physical 5,3; ta phusika nature 9,2 phusis nature, natural process, substance 4,5.24.37(Ar.); 5,8(Ar.).15; 7,12.13; 9,31; 11,24; 13,21.22; 14,2(Ar.)15.19(Ar.).24; 23,3; 24,18; 28,33; 34,6; 35,4.20 23; 36,11.21; 38,21; 40,4; 42,6.7.19.31; 46,10;

126

Greek-English Index

51,20.32.34.36; 53,23; para phusin abnormal 7,8; kata phusin natural, by nature 8,23; 12,35 phusiologikos, to phusiologikon physics 1,20.21 pilêsis compression 39,15 pistousthai offer evidence 9,6 pisteuein believe 13,22 plagios sideways; epi ta plagia kinêsis oblique movement 8,8; ek tôn plagiôn from the sides 20,32 planâsthai to wander; hoi planômenoi (asteres), ta planômena (astra) wandering stars, planets 5,22; 40,29; 42,18; 51,7; 53,2 planê tês opseôs optical illusion 46,34 platunein spread widthwise 28,8 pleonazein prevail 38,28; 46,14 plêrês full, filled with 16,20; 24,36.37; 38,37 plêroun fill, complete 14,11; 15,34; 19,27; 39,25; 48,5; 49,14 pneuma windstorm, air, air current, wind, gust 3,9; 6,32.34.36; 7,7.16.22.24.28; 27,1; 33,15; pneumata notia, boreia 5,32.35 poiein to do, make, bring about, act upon, cause, form 5,24; 7,30; 9,26; 10,35; 11,2.4; 12,27; 13,15.16.17.28; 18,31; 20,8.15.27.33; 24,25.28.31; 25,2; 27,30; 28,6.13; 30,19.24; 34,23.35; 40,4; 41,10.25; 42,14.19.20.28; 43,26; 48,2; 49,25; 53,25; peri tinos poieisthai tên theôrian, ton logon examine, deal with something 2,21.40; 9,7; 26,13; arkhên poiein start 12,1; epistrophên poieisthai convert 12,27; khronon tina poieisthai linger 5,22; to skiasma poiein cast a shadow 21,7; elenkhon poeisthai disprove 23,24 poiêtês poet 19,1; 47,23 poiêtikos efficient; poiêtikon aition, poiêtikê aitia 9,27; 10,17; 11,6.8; 13,7.8; 32,26; 44,25 poikilos manifold 28,18 poiotês quality 7,3; 11,29; 32,15.16; 33,33; 34.40; 36,18; 42,23.31;

43,24.27.32; 44,22; 45,20; 48,15.20.21.22.26.29.30.33; 51,19; 52,14.29.30.36; hê phusikê poiotês natural quality 49,28.31; sômatikê corporeal quality 50,22.27 polos pole; hoi poloi (tês gês) 45,33; 53,19 polus, polu many, long (time), far (distance) 2,39; 5,40; 10,4; 11,13; 14,11; 16,22; 17,6; 21,25; 26,30.34; 27,9.24.32; 28,18.22; 30,17; 32,33; 33,2.6; 39,26; 42,1; 53,15; pleiôn preponderating 2,24; pleious several 1,18 poluplasiazein epi ti multiply by 15,10; 20,6.8.15 polukhronios long-lasting 2,42 poreia progression, path 9,15; 27,5 poros pore; poroi (sômatos) 44,11.13.15; 49,9.10.15 pragma reality 49,35 pragmateia system, work 1,18.23; 2,10.14.17.24; 3,17.19.20.26; 4,9.22.30; 5,6; 9,14.23; 17,32; 22,29; 35,21; 39,32; 40,2; 44,35 praktikos practical; to praktikon (meros tês philosophias) the practical part of philosophy 1,5 praxis practice (opp. theôria) 1,12.13.15 proairetikos voluntary 4,32 proaisthanesthai become aware beforehand 48,9 proapophainesthai forecast 5,25 proaporein raise a preliminary question 14,9 probainein proceed 21,20 problêma problem, question 26,9; 29,36; 39,24 prodeiknunai first demonstrate 20,22 prodêlos manifest 2,16; prodêlôs manifestly 47,19 proêgeisthai precede 3,27.30; 4,17.20; proêgoumenôs primarily 50,27 proepiluein solve before 32,34 proerkhesthai, proienai proceed, advance, arise, do something later on 2,37; 11,24; 17,13; 18,8; 21,11.15.22; 27,31.36; 29,15; 34,12; 36,11; 39,29 prohupokeisthai propound 17,17

Greek-English Index prokheiros ready at hand; offhand 14,8; 28,28 prolambanein make a preliminary point, to state beforehand 9,29; 21,8 prolegein state preliminaries; predict 2,36; 5,20; proeirêmena aforesaid 2,5; 4,12; 5,4 promênuein announce beforehand 48,10 pronoêtikos directed to providing 1,11 proödos progress 30,36; 36,3; en tôi proödôi as something goes on, proceeds 21,22; 28,14 prooimion preface 2,12 prophanes obvious, clear 27,28; 42,30; prophanôs 47,25 propodismoi (tôn planômenôn) direct motion of the planets 5,22.23 pros in relation to; ta pros ti relatives 39,34 prosagoreuein to call 13,15; 17,22 prosaptein allot 24,5 prosballein cast, run into, attain 20,24; 21,27.30 prosbolê impact 22,27 prosêgoria name 2,24 proseinai to come, be proper to 20,30; 43,9; to mê proson feature it does not have 52,1 prosêkein to be appropriate, proper; prosêkôn appropriate 40,2; prosêkon readily 27,18; prosêkontôs appropriately 36,5; prosêkontôs gnônai get proper knowledge 39,36 prosekhês proximate, contiguous, adjacent, next to 7,16; 31,30.38; 32,1; 37,3.19; 38,2; 42,22; prosêkhôs directly, immediately 3,34; 8,26; 11,30 proserkhesthai (-ienai) to come towards, impose itself on something 20,32; 30,24 proslambanein to acquire 36,16; 46,25 prosnemein to assign 24,5 prospiptein fall onto, upon, run into 20,28.34; 21,10.26; 43,28; 49,5; prospiptousai aktines incident rays 27,37

127

prosthermainein to heat additionally 48,5 prostithenai to add 5,7.36; 9,11; 10,24; 12,20; 17,12; 25,35; 35,10; 43,7; 50,5; 51,27; 52,1 protattein place before (in the order of books) 4,8.9 proteros see prôtos prôtistôn see prôtos protithesthai propose, set out 9,2; 39,24; 50,1; 51,13.16.24; prokeisthai to be available 25,1; prokeimenos present, 1,23; 2,19.24.28; 9,1.28; 10,17; 16,16; 25,11; 26,22; 29,35; 33,30; 48,15; to prokeimenon problem, present subject 8,5; 14,8; to prokeimenon epikheirêma argument attempted above 46,26-7 prôtos first 2,17.23.29.38.40; 3,5.27.33; 4,24.25.27; 5,8.9; 11,6.8.9.10.13-15.19.28.34; 13,7.18.34; 16,30; 17,17; 22,37; 24,33; 25,35; 26,13; 28,10; 31,28.29; 39,24; proteros prior, proteron before, first 1,4.24; 9,24; 13,4.25; 14,26; 16,15; 33,28; 38,4; 39,28; 41,2.30; 50,25; prôtistôn 3,35; 4,24 psukhê soul 1,6; 2,11; 9,15 psukhein to cool 44,24; 48,19.33.38; 51,19.32 psukhikos psychical 4,32 psukhos cold 5,35 psukhros cold 10,5; 22,13; 23,15; 25,20; 27,19; 31,10.13; 32,14; 33,2; 33,31.36; 34,7.8; 35,37.38; 36,16; 41,35.37; 44,26; 47,14.16.17; 48,4; 50,23.30 ptôsis keraunôn fall of thuderbolts 8,22 puknoun to tighten, condense 7,2; 26,28; 27,15 puknôsis tightening 7,3; 29,4; 32,37 puknos dense 44,8.9 puknotês density 32,18 pur fire 2,31; 9,30; 10,12.14; 13,10; 14,13.30.31.33-35; 16,2.20-22; 17,26; 18,23.26; 21,39; 22,4.14.18.17.36; 23,2.5.7.13.14.16.20.22.33; 24,1.4.5.7.8.24.25.37; 26,1.5.8.10.11.22; 29,19.27-29;

128

Greek-English Index

30,10.21.32; 31,11.12.36.37; 32,1; 33,34; 34,1.4-6.39; 35,23; 36,5.17.20-22.37; 41,33; 42,1.20.32; 43,23.27.31; 44,7.8.10.27; 45,10.15.26; 46,8.14; 47,21.24.27.28; 49,29.30; 50,17; 52,14.15.17.29.35; 53,5.7.15; to stoikheiôdes pur elemental fire 14,35.36 23,5.7.22; opp. to par’hêmin to diakonikon 2,14.16; pur to zôiogonikôtaton tôn stoikheiôn the most life-producing of the elements, 23,1.2 purion burning mirror 30,15; 33,28; 46,7.26; 53,2 purios fiery 24,10; 26,12; 53,2 purkaia log 25,21.22 puroun turn into fire 38,22 puthmên bottom 21,17 sagêneutês net-fisherman 48,7 sagênê net 48,10 saphênizein explain 13,13 seismos earthquake 2,8; 3,7; 6,36; 7,9.17.22.23; 33,15 selênê moon 4,2; 5,13.21; 6,2; 9,30; 10,2.16.26.31.32; 11,1.30; 13,12; 14,7.36; 15,21; 17,20.24; 20,3.4.11.13.17.38; 21,24.31; 22,20; 24,2.37; 30,12.18.30.37; 31,22; 32,9.16; 35,27; 38,4.16; 39,28; 40,22.25.27.28.32.35; 41,2.3.10.12.37; 42,15.17.19.24.34.37.39; 43,1.5.9.11.19.37; 44,29; 45,8; 47,29; 50,10.16; 51,2; 53,3.17.21; ta hupo selênên (sômata) sublunary bodies 5,13; 9,30; 10,26; 17,20.23.24; 30,18; 39,27.28; 40,22; 53,3.21; ho hupo selênên kosmos sublunary world 10,16.31.32. selêniakos lunar; selêniakê sphaira the sphere of the moon 12,3; 15,35; 20,1; 21,29.30; 22,7.8 51,6; selêniakê kinêsis 43,6 sêmasia meaning 17,25; 43,38 sêmeion sign (in a proof) 46,7; point (geom.) 12,8.10.13.17.18.20.22; 19,25; 21,23.35; 23,25; hê gê logon sêmeiou ekhei pros ton holon ouranon earth is equivalent to a point in relation

to the whole heaven 15,5; 19,7; 21,25; 23,25 skhêma form, shape 20,36; 42,2.5.10 skhêmatizein position, re-shape, arrange 28,12.19; 49,7 skhisis splitting 21,16 skholikos school; skholika sungrammata commentary 35,19 sidêros iron 44,9.10 sinêpi mustard 46,17 skia shadow 20,25-27.29.31.33.35.37.38; 21,4.9.12.17.21.27.28.32.33; 52,8.38 skiazein to shadow, cover by shadow 52,8.24 skiasma (tês gês) shadow (of the earth) 15,21; 20,23; 21,5.7.24 sklêros hard 41,34; 44,4 skopos (tês pragmateias) purpose 1,24; ho protetheis hêmin our proposed plan 9,2 skorodon garlic 47,16 sôma body 2,1.29; 3,35-37; 4,3.9.19; 5,9.11.16.38; 7,6; 8,25; 10,2.3.14.22.28.34; 11,2.8.26.27; 12,29; 13,19.20.24; 14,10; 15,27.34; 16,24.32; 17,22.34; 18,11.14.25; 20,26.27; 21,36.40; 22,5.10.22.36; 23,30; 25,24.36; 26,3.7.12; 29,18.33; 30,15.16.23.29.31; 31,9.15.31.38; 32,10; 33,5.12.13.28; 34,19; 35,13.16.17.22.27.32.37; 36,20; 37,2.17; 38,15.31; 39,25; 41,20.29.30; 42,16.17; 42,28; 43,28; 44,20.25; 45,18; 46,7.12; 47,12; 49,8.33.35.37; 50,4.12.14.15.17.21.26.30.34.35.37; 51,4.12.17.19.22.27.34.37; 52,4; 53,17; to pempton the fifth 14,32.37 sôstikos preserving, (that which) preserves 34,8 speudein aspire 35,4 sphaira sphere 13,33; 21,8; hai tôn asterôn (hai ouraniai) of the stars (heavenly) 4,2; 22,19; 24,6; 26,9; 29,19.23; 40,31; 41,17; 42,2.9.11.14.18.24.25.29.35; 48,12; 49,28; hai metaxu tôn tou hêliou kai tou

Greek-English Index hupekkaumatos between the sun and the tinder 47,34; 48,12; 49,19.21; hê aplanês, see aplanês 19,7; 24,1.4; hê selêniakê lunar 12,3; 15,35; 20,1; 21,29; 22,7.8; 47,29; 51,6; hêliakê solar 19,36; 52,19.37; tês gês of the earth 37,11; tou hupekkaumatos tinder 45,25; hai hupo tês aplanou under the fixed 49,24; hê apo tês gês kai tou hudatos formed by earth and water 21,37 sphairikos spherical 20,36; 34,18; 42,2.4 sphairoeidês spherical 14,28.29; 20,22.28; 21,7; 34,19; 37,13 stasis rest 12,22 stathmê line 1,16 stenos narrow 21,27 stenoun to narrow 21,23 stereisthai to be deprived of 44,34 steremnios solid 7,1.20; 15,26; 43,40; 46,12 stereos firm, solid 6,29; 41,19-22.26-29.31-33; 42,3.9.11.12.33.37; 43,34.39; 44,2.4.8; 45,12.17.18; 46,11; to holon stereon to apo selênês mekhri tou hêliou (mekhri tês gês) 20,3.5.10.11; cubic 15,17 sterêsis privation 36,1.2 stêrigmos (tôn planômenôn) stationary condition (of the planets) 5,22 stilbein to shine; ho Stilbôn (astêr) the Shining (star), Mercury 42,19 stilpnos shining 49,8 stoikheion element 3,35; 4,3; 5,9.11.16; 7,4; 9,29.33; 10,3.5; 13,6.24.35; 14,5.17.24; 23,2.4.9.18.28.33; 24,16.18.35; 26,24.26; 27,16; 31,10.16.28; 32,10; 33,25.31; 38,1.16; 39,1; 41,29; 46,13.16; 48,19.22; 50,38; 53,37; ta tessara four 4,26; 5,12.13; 9,29.33; 13,26; 25,8.15.16; 31,9.10; to pempton the fifth 5,9.10.13; 9,31.33; 31,29; to anô the upper 38,1 stoikheiôdes elemental 14,35; 23,5.7.17.22; 34,7.8.10; 48,26; to stoikheiôdes psukhron the

129

elemental cold opp. hê toutou huperbolê 34,7 sullambanein to comprise, include, enclose 12,19; 22,9; 23,25 sullogizesthai to make an inference, infer, arrive at a conclusion 10,6; 17,20; 18,25.26 sumbainein to take place, come with, occur, to be/do something as a matter of fact, eventually, to be the case 1,25; 2,22.31.36; 3,9.13; 5,7.14.15.34; 10,16; 14,22; 17,29; 19,5; 21,16.20; 23,32; 27,7.36; 34,16; 36,30; 38,14; 43,16.32; 44,14; 45,30; 48,25; ta sumbainonta occurrences 3,17; 5,7.28; 7,11; 8,7; 13,9; kata sumbebêkos accidentally 31,3 summetria balance, proportion, adjustment; hê tôn stoikheiôn of the elements 23,23.26.28; 24,8.16.29; 25,16; 29,22; 51,20.22; hê kata phusin natural 51,20; tôn akrôn of the extremes 44,28 summetrôs proportionately 53,24 sumparomartein to accompany 52,34; 53,8 sumparousia co-presence 48,29 sumperiagein to carry along, revolve together 33,5; 36,28.35; 43,3; 49,23 sumperilambanein enclose, include 15,23; 26,7 sumperipherein to carry along 41,15 sumperiphora being carried round together with 40,33 sumphônein to agree 42,1 sumphônôs in accordance 16,36 sumphunai to be inherent in 43,22 sumpilein to compress 27,27; 46,15.19.20 sumpiptein to converge 21,20 sumplekein to intertwine 38,24 sumplêroun to fill, complete 26,1; 32,30 sumplokê joining 10,7 sumptôsis falling in together 21,18 sunagein to follow, derive, conclude 24,37; 30,9; 33,25 sunaisthanesthai to be aware 48,38.39; 49,34 sunaisthêsis awareness 48,35.37

130

Greek-English Index

sunaitios being contributory cause, to sunaition 4,29 sunanaphainesthai to become also manifest, be revealed 26,25; 31,37 sunanapherein to carry upwards with 38,20.25; 39,5.10,11 sunanatellein to rise together with 41,13 sunanarriptein to carry upward (with itself) 7,25 sunantistrophos head down 28,17-18 sunapodeinknusthai to be demonstrated at the same time 33,26 sunapokathistasthai return to the same point together 40,35 sunapolambanein to include, collect, enclose, catch 15,12.32; 29,33; 38,26 sunaptesthai to be in contact 34,4 sunarithmein to count as 2,9 sunauxanein to increase with 25,16 sundein to tie together 27,31 sundunein to set together with 41,13 suneinai to be joined with 43,23 sunekheia place in the series, sequence, continuity 2,13; 4,22; 31,31; 52,10.11; kata sunekheian continuously, 12,12; 44,15.16; step by step 34,12; kata sunekheian haptesthai to be in direct contact 29,2 sunekhein to contain, maintain, hold, hold together 15,26; 18,12; 27,30; 39,13.17; 40,17 sunekhês continuous, contiguous 2,16; 10,23-26.31; 11,3.31; 12,21.22; 34,2; 36,29; 38,1-3.31; 42,39; 43,6; 44,12; 49,26; 52,19.24.26; sunekhê dist. haptomena 10,23-31; to sunekhes tês didaskalias continuation of his instruction 14,22; sunekhôs continuously 6,18; 31,30 sunektikos cohesive 44,26 sunemptôsis meeting in the same place 5,23; sunemptôsis hê tôn aktinôn falling together of the rays 21,16; sunemptôseis tôn planômenôn of the planets 5,23 sunêtheia habit, everyday speech,

common usage, colloquial expression 34,4; 36,4; 37,37; 46,6 sunêthôs following common usage 45,25 sunepagein to lead along 40,29 sunephelkesthai to be carried, pulled along with 37,3.5.15.16.18.29; 38,27; 45,26; 51,8 sunerkhesthai to meet 27,24 sunexienai to leave along with 44,16 sungramma work (of Aristotle) 2,14; skholika sungrammata commentaries 35,19 sunienai to gather, unite 10,1; 31,15 sunistasthai to form, condense, come about, result from, originate, be formed from, consist, produce itself, be made of, agglomerate; exist; 1,27; 2,23.37; 5,10; 11,15; 13,31; 14,33.37; 15,25; 16,1; 18,23; 23,14.30.31; 26,30.31; 27,6.8.23.31.34; 28,1.29.33.35; 29,15; 31,21.23.27; 32,32; 33,2.26.27.29; 34,10; 37,29.30; 38,13; 45,33; 51,23.31 sunkatapherein bring down together 38,23 sunkhôrein allow; ou sunekhôrêsen prevented 8,6 sunkineisthai to move along with 31,32 sunkrinein to condense 33,16; 36,27.29; 37,5 sunkrisis gathering hê tôn nephôn of clouds 27,8 sunkritikôs in a comparative sense, in terms of comparison 5,17.27 sunkuklizein circulate with 31,32 sunneuein converge 21,11; 31,24 sunodos conjunction; sunodoi hêliou kai selênês of sun and moon 5,21; union 44,30 suntattein to coordinate; suntetagmenê aitia coordinate cause 11,10 suntelein to contribute, be relevant, form 2,36; 26,4; 32,25 sunthesis composition, being composed 9,32; 46,15; 50,29 suntithenai to compose, compound, construct 3,35.36; 4,4; 14,18; 42,1;

Greek-English Index sunthetos composite 4,26; 5,11; 34,10 48,17.18.20.24.31; 46,26.27 sunthlibein compress 39,15; 44,6 suntomôs briefly 4,22; 20,22 surrhuein to flow together, collect (of water) 15,12; 37,9 suskhêmatizein to shape along 46,21.22 sustasis formation; hê tôn nephôn sustasis of clouds 8,12; 27,6.19; 29,31.32; 37,27 sustoikhos of the same level; sustoikhos hêmin on our own level 1,22 suzeugnusthai to be coupled with 52,35 taxis order, relative position, position, being located in relation to, being related (to each other) positionally 26,3.11.22.24; 30,10.31; 31,37; 39,27; 46,32; hê tôn phusikôn, (Aristotelous) pragmateiôn of Aristotle’s works on nature 2,13.16.17; 3,27.32; 4,22; 5,4; hê en têi tôn ontôn phusei in the nature of things 11,24; 14,12.16.24; hê tôn stoikheiôn of the elements 33,24.29; hê en tois ouraniois in the heavens 5,19.28.33 takhos speed, quickness 40,23; 42,34.37; 43,4.24; 47,3 takhus fast 6,1; 30,21; 40,12.25.28.32.36.37; 41,10 têkein melt, smelt 40,15.16; 53,6.7 tekhnê art 4,33; 17,28; mêkhanikê 27,10 tekmairesthai to be evidence, use as evidence 30,37; 47,12 tekmêrion evidence, proof 40,15; 47,20; 49,29 tektôn carpenter 1,16; 32,13 telein hupo ti belong to something 1,23 teleios perfect 11,21.22; 12,35; 32,24; megethos full grown size 35,3; to teleion completion, perfection 12,7.18.19; teleiôs 21,20.25.26 teleiôsis perfection; hê kata phusin 2,11 teleiotês completeness 32,27 teleioun to bring perfection, 1,7.8

131

telos end, being limited; final cause 1,8; 11,14.(Ar.)23.38(Ar.); 12,5(Ar.).7(Ar.).11,19.34; 12,15.19.34; 32,27; 34,17.41; 35,4; telos (adv.) finally 3,4; telos lambanein be completed, have end 9,2; 17,27 tephra ashes 23,10.15; 26,33.37; 33,6.10 têxis melting 40,18 thaumatourgein to create (illusions) 28,20 thein, theein to run 17,22.38; 8,6 theios divine 1,10; 12,25; 17,23; 18,16; 30,37; to theion (sôma) divine body 49,37; 50,4.26; 51,12.27; 52,4; ta theia (sômata) divine bodies (heavenly) 50,7; 51,30 theiôdês sulphur content; to theiôdes (gês) of the earth 7,5 theologikos theological; to theologikon (meros tês philosophias) theology 1,21 theôrein to consider, contemplate, study, observe 8,33(Ar.); 9,11(Ar.); 12,26; 21,41(Ar.); 22,3(Ar.).24; theôreisthai to be manifested 14,7 theôrêma study 22,28 (Ar.) theôrêtikos theoretical; hê dunamis tês psukhês the theoretical faculty of the soul 1,6; to meros tês philosophias the theoretical part of philosophy 1,6.19.20 theôria theory 1,12-14; 8,37; 9,2.13.28; 40,5; eis theôrian emballein to embark on the subject 9,24; theôrian poieisthai to examine, investigate 2,21; 9,7 theos god 1,9; 18,5 therinos summer; ho therinos tropikos summer, i.e. northern tropic 53,24 thermainein to heat 27,26.28; 31,24.26.33; 39,27; 40,5.12.14.18-20.24; 41,16.21.23-26.43; 42,13.21.22.25.27.31; 43,5.10.11.13.14.21.24.27.30; 44,1.6.7.18.21.22; 45,7.11.12.13.15.17-19.24.28.34;

132

Greek-English Index

46,24; 47,28.35; 48,7.16.18.28.30.33.37; 49,19.24.27.30; 50,14.30; 51,5.19.32; 52,4.10.11.14.16.19.23.29.31.36.37; 53,3-5.12.22.25 thermasia heat 26,13; 43,32; 45,34; 48,21.25; 52,17.22.34.38 thermê heat 43,15.21; 49,22.28 thermos hot 10,4; 23,17; 25,22; 27,21; 34,4.6; 35,38; 36,7.27; 39,3.6.14.28; 40,2-4.12; 41,37; 46,17; 47,16.17; 50,23.31; 52,2.13; to thermon the hot, heat (elemental quality) 23,2; 31,12.36; 32,1.20; 33,27.36; 34,8.11; 35,2.25.26.30.33.36.37; 36,4.13.15.21; 38,5.6; 39,32.37; 41,35; 42,31; 43,23; 47,14; to thermon tôi phôti sumpephuke the heat is inherent in the light 43,22.23 thermotês heat 2,32.33; 27,21; 32,31; 34,41; 35,2; 39,31; 42,29.36; 43,11.19.26; 44,4.21.32; 47,35; 51,9.32; 52,7.8.26.32.35; 53,2.8 theros summer 5,29.31.35; 10,36; 26,37; 32,34; 45,32 thesis proposition; position 14,8(Ar.); 28,13; 33,24; 34,11; onomatos thesis name imposed 16,28; hê ex arkhês thesis original place 33,7; thesin ekhein be placed 34,34 thnêtos mortal; thnêtê ousia 31,8; 50,5(Ar.); 51,28(Ar.).31; 52,1.3 thuein sacrifice 26,26.27 thumian fumigate, thumiômena fumigations 23,12 thusia sacrifice 26,33; 33,10 tomê division 1,4 topos place, region, space 2,22; 3,12; 4,21.29; 5,14.36; 11,28-30.33.38.39; 12,5; 14,10; 16,4.5; 22,28; 23,37; 25,36; 26,31;

27,18; 31,2.22.24.34; 32.25; 33,26.27.33.35; 35,3.11-13.15.17.19; 37,29.31.33; 38,13.19.21.29.36; 39,3.16; 45.31; 46,22.31; ho para phusin, opp. ho oikeios not natural, opp. its own (place) 38,21.29 ho katô topos region below 35,11 trokhalos round; wheel (Arat.) 6,9 tropê turning; tropai kai metabolai 10,35-36 tropikos (kuklos) tropic (therinos, kheimerinos) 53,24 tropos manner, extent, way 8,10.14.34(Ar.); 9,4.9.10(Ar.); 20,23; 42,35 trux dregs 51,3 xanthos yellow 47,19.25 xestiaios ounce 24,24 xêrainein to dry 48,16.19.33; 51,33 xêros dry 3,6; 10,5; 23,8; 23,11.16; 31,11.12.14.36; 32,1.14.21; 35,27.36; 36,1.4.6.21.27; 38,5.6.24.25.27.28.30.33; 41,35.38; 47,19; 50,23.31; xêra anathumiasis dry exhalation 1,27; 2,1.35.38; xêrotês dryness 48,21 zesis boiling; puros 44,27 zêtêtikos inquisitive 18,9 zôê life 23,2 zôidion zodiacal sign 19,14.21; 43,4 zôiogonikos life-producing; to zôiogonikôtaton tôn stoikheiôn (to pur) 23,1.2 zôiôn animal 4,5.18.20.33; 5,6; 8,37; 9,12-14; 10,37; 11,12; 13,34; 22,14; 23,2; 51,31 zôtikos vital 1,6 zônê zone 42,17; 53,23.24; hai duo zônai, (tês gês) hai oikoumenai two inhabitable zones of the earth 53,23.24

Index of Passages Cited ADRASTUS OF APHRODISIAS

ap. Theonem Smyrnaeum (Hiller) 121,5-13: 91n111

‘AËTIUS’

(Diels) 2,1,2: 89n83; 2,13,8: 89n83

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS

de Anima (Bruns) 3, 21-7: 86n19 apud Simplicium in de Caelo (Heiberg) 111,24-112,24 (Rescigno fr. 31a): 19; 23n71; 436,4-21 (Rescigno fr. 31): 93n144; 438,13-17: 93n144 in Meteorologica (Hayduck) 2,30-3,5: 34-5; 87n33; 3,5-23: 35; 87n38; 3,8-14: 35; 87n38; 3,12-24: 87n39; 3,34-4,6: 37; 88n47; 4,7-11: 37; 88n45; 6,1-6,6: 39; 88n55; 6,13-17: 40; 88n57; 6,33-7,5: 41; 88n62; 7,5-9: 41-2; 88n63; 7,12-14: 42; 88n64; 7,28-31: 42; 89n68; 8,13: 44; 89n80; 9,21-7: 51; 91n116; 9,25-7: 53; 92n120; 11,24-31: 12; 22n48; 12,9-10: 59; 93n139; 12,9-20: 93n139; 12,12-20: 12; 22n50; 12,30-13,11: 93n144; 12,32-13,9: 13; 22n51; 61; 93n146; 15,8-15: 94n162; 16,25-7: 69; 95n172; 17,12-15: 22n57; 18,8-13: 17; 23n62; 78; 97n213; 18,8-28: 78; 97n215; 18,13-28: 18; 23n64; 18,28-19,13: 19; 23n69; 18,13-19,19: 78; 97n214; 18,28-19,13: 80-1; 98n225; 18,32-19,1: 82; 98n232; 19,2-3: 23n70; 19,13-16: 82; 98n235; 19,16-19: 20; 23n72; 82; 98n236; 50,1: 19; 23n71; 179,3-5: 5; 22n29 Quaestiones (Bruns) 1.10: 86n20; 1.15: 86n20

[ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS]

Problemata 1 (Ideler) 60-1: 74; 96n200

AMMONIUS OF HERMEIAS

apud Simplicium in Phys. (Diels) 1361,11-1363,12: 85n4 in Categorias (Busse) 1,3-8,18: 4; 21n18; 85n8; 7,15-8,10: 5; 22n26; 85n8

ANONYMA TACTICA BYZANTINA

De re strategica (Dennis) 8.15: 96n202

ARATUS

Phaenomena 225-7: 71; 95n182; 476: 34; 87n31

ARISTARCHUS OF SAMOS

de Magnitudinibus et Distantiis Solis et Lunae (Heath) Pr. 7: 91n108

ARISTOTLE

de Caelo 1.2: 88n51; 1.3: 90n93; 1.5-7: 90n92; 2.1, 284a14: 97n222; 2.7: 52; 70; 92n118; 95n174; 2.13: 94n157; 2.13-14: 89n74; 2.14, 297b31-a10: 47; 90n98; 4.4: 60; 88n.51; 93n141; 4.5: 93n143 Ethica Nicomachea: 10.8, 1178b25-27: 85n4 de Generatione et Corruptione 1.7, 324a30-b13: 73; 95-96n192; 2.2: 81; 98n226; 2.2, 329b7-11: 95n175; 329b18-34: 72; 95n187; 329b30-2: 72; 95n188; 2.2-3: 89n71; 2.3: 94n170; 2.3, 330a30-b1: 38; 88n50; 2.4, 331b25: 89n73; 2.6: 54; 92n123; 2.10, 336b23-37a7: 93n149 Metaphysics 6.1: 4; 21n.22; 1026a17-23: 4; 22n25; a18-21: 85n6 Meteorology 2.6, 364b13: 87n39; 3.4: 87n41; 2.8, 366a2-3: 43; 89n73 Physics 3.4: 88n52; 4.4, 211b5-212a2: 65; 94n159; 4.9, 217a10-26: 87n35; 5.3: 227a1: 39; 88n54; a10-15: 39; 68;

134

Index of Passages Cited

88n54; 94n167; 8.7, 260b7-15: 87n35 Politics 7.10, 1329b25-30: 90n93 Topics 134b29: 94n152; 146a15-17: 94n152 [ARISTOTLE]

Problemata 26.29, 943a33: 87n39

ARRIAN

Fragmenta de rebus physicis (Roos & Wirth) fr. 1: 44; 89n77; fr. 4: 92n128

CLEOMEDES

Meteora (Todd) 1.7, 8-47: 89n76

CYRANIDES

(Kaimakes) 5.9: 97n211

EUCLID

Elementa 3 pr. 18, 19: 64; 94n154; 11: 95n185

EURIPIDES

Fragmenta (Nauck) fr. 110: 48; 91n107

FRAGMENTA ALCHEMICA

(Berthelot-Ruelle) 2.38.10-12: 78; 97n220

GEMINUS

Elementa astronomiae (Aujac) 17.3: 56; 92n128; 17.5: 92n129

HERACLITUS

(DK 22) A 10: 45; 89n83; A11: 45; 89n83

HOMER

Iliad 8.133: 78; 97n212; 22.29-30: 47; 91n100 Odyssey 5.128: 78; 97n212

JOHN PHILOPONUS

de Aeternitate mundi contra Proclum (Rabe) 240,28-241,10: 22n55; 278,19-28: 22n55 in Analytica Priora (Wallies) 6,19-10,20: 85n5; 8,23: 85n2 in de Anima (Hayduck) 117,30-118,5: 85n3; 336,3-340,21: 87n36; 407,7: 96n201 in Categorias (Busse) 4,25: 85n1; 10,11: 85n1 in de Generatione et Corruptione (Vitelli) 65,27-9: 97n211; 98,7-16: 97n211; 250,30-3: 22n38; 254,8-14: 22n38; 258,38-259,3: 22n46; 2.10, 295,20-296,3: 88n56; 304,25-8: 22n38

in Nicomachi Introductionem (Hoche) 23,12: 95n185 in Physica (Vitelli) 1,4: 85n2; 198,12-19: 22n55; 198,32-199,12: 22n55; 218,26: 85n2; 378,21-31: 22n55; 557,8-585,4: 65; 94n161 NICOMACHUS OF GERASA

Introductio arithmetica (Hoche) 2.6.4.4: 95n185

OLYMPIODORUS

in Meteorologica (Stüve) 6,19-30: 5; 22n30; 14,16-20: 87n44; 51,29: 1; 21n3, 75,25: 1; 21n23; 118,13: 1; 21n23

PLATO

Cratylus 397C3-D6: 46-7; 90n97; 410B6-8: 46; 90n96 Politicus 269D4-8: 86n18 Theaetetus 176B1-2: 85n3 Timaeus 28B2-4: 31; 86n18; 31B: 72; 81; 95n185; 98n227; 31B-32C: 93n145; 41B7-8: 62; 93n149; 58D2: 94n168; 63B: 89n82

PLOTINUS

Enneads (Henry-Schwyzer) 2.2.1.1: 41; 88n60; 2.2.1.4: 6; 22n35

PLUTARCH of CHAERONEA

de Facie in Orbe Lunae 930B-E: 93n135 Fragments (Sandbach) fr. 191: 56; 92n128

PROCLUS

in Timaeum (Diehl) 2,112,20-115,12: 94n165; 3,128,15-30: 74; 96n197

PTOLEMY

Almagest (Syntaxis rerum mathematicarum) (Heiberg) 1.6, 20,3-21,6: 89n75; 7: 5.15: 10; 22n42; 91n108; 5.16: 53; 92n121; 7.5-8.1: 97n206; 8.2, 175,16: 86n21; 176,24: 86n21; 178,18: 86n21 Optica (Lejeune) 2: 93n135; 4: 93n135 Geographia (Müller) 1.4: 89n76

SIMPLICIUS

in de Caelo (Heiberg) 440,17-442,3: 18; 23n65; 83; 98n238

Index of Passages Cited in Physica (Diels) 1361,11-1363,12: 85n4 STRABO

Geographica (Meineke) 15.10: 9; 22n39; 15.1.59.52-8: 9; 22n39; 46; 90n95

THEON OF SMYRNA

De utilitate mathematicae ad Platonem legendum (Hiller) 121,12-122,1: 9; 22n41;

135

121,5-13: 91n111; 124,19-22: 92n129; 195,9-196,4: 50; 91n112; 196,5-11: 50; 91n113; 197,1-7: 50; 91n114 THEOPHRASTUS OF ERESUS

(Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples, Gutas) 184.145-205: 90n93

TRAGICA ADESPOTA

(Nauck) fr. 50: 36; 87n39

Subject Index aether, etymology 45-6 air, motions of 35; does not fill all the space between the earth and the heavens 53; relative position with fire 55-6; around the earth is vapour 58; lower stagnant air the place of cloud formation 57-67; upper air moving in a circle 63, 66-7; easily divisible 77 Alexander of Aphrodisias 34, 37, 42, 44, 51, 53, 61, 69, 75, 78, 80-2 Alexander of Macedon 46 Alexandria 47 alteration, of the divine body 81 Anaxagoras 45 Aratus 34, 71 Arcadia 56 Aries 40, 71 Aristotle’s character of philosopher and lover of truth 36 Aristotle’s works on nature, sequence and arrangement 31-2; dealing with animals and plants 37 Arrian 44 Babylon 46 burning mirrors 79 Byzantium 47 Canopus 44; visible in Alexandria but not in Byzantium 47 castor 76 causes, first (matter and form), more immediate (four elements), contributory (time, place, and motion) 32; of occurrences in upper regions, uncertain 36; the heaven first corporeal efficient cause, first coordinate cause 39; transcendent cause first cause in the strict sense 39; the ungenerated causes the generated, the perfect the

imperfect, that which is always alike that which is not 39; causes of change in sublunary world, efficient, material, and final 62 centripetal movement, geometrical demonstration 64 certainty 36 clouds 57-68; formed in the stagnant air 57-67; formed where reflected rays spread away 57-9; not formed below 61; not formed in the upper region 61-2 coagulation 36; of air (snow and hoarfrost) and water (ice) 37 colours, as evidence of bodies’ temperatures 77 contact 38, 68 contiguous 68 continuous 38; strict and less strict sense 68 contraries, privation of either is coming to be of the other 66 cubic content of space 49 Cyllene, Mt. 56 Damascius 75 Diospolis (Luxor) 47 Dog-Star, see Sirius dry exhalation, exhaled by dry bodies, 29; effects: short-lived (flames, shooting stars, flashes and torches, chasms and hollows) and lasting (comets, the Milky Way) 30 earth, a point in relation to the whole heaven 43, 47; perimeter 43-4; diameter 44; cubic content 44; earth’s shadow a cone 50-1; relative size 48-51, 59; centre of the universe 65; the hardest element, according to Plato 76 earthquakes 35 elements, fifth (first) element 33;

Subject Index five 38, 42; four sublunary 38, 42; ‘so called’ and proper 43; mutual proportions are constant 53-5 Empedocles 54 Eratosthenes 44 eternity of the universe, Philoponus’ criticism of Aristotle 45-6 exhalations, the vaporous and the dry 29, 66; comparable to differences in our bodies 35 fire touches the revolving body 38; whether fills the space from earth to heavens 51, 59; the most beautiful and the most life-producing element 52; in our world not elemental, ministering, an excess of elemental fire, flame 52, 64; relative position to air 55-6 fishermen 78 fixed sphere 48 friction 75 heat, ought to be discussed in the De sensu 70; heating by motion 70; always accompanies the sunlight 83 heaven, first corporeal efficient cause, first coordinate cause 39; immovable in motion 40; no point in the heaven is actual, but all are potential only 40; imitates intellect 41; no one (among the Greeks) before Aristotle said is made of another corporeal substance 45, 46; made of another kind of body according to Indian or Babylonian sages 46; things in the heaven composite not simple 77 heavenly bodies, differ in motion, brightness, size and location 60-1; upper bodies partake of cleaner and purer portion 81; unalterable therefore imperishable, according to Aristotle 81-2; not entirely impassive 82 heavenly spheres, solid and resistant 72 Heraclitus 45 Homer, the poet, living in Greece unacquainted with Canopus 47

137

India 46 instruments, used to measure mountains 56 intellect 41 intermediate, does not endure the affection it mediates 78 Jupiter 75 kaikias (wind) 35-6 kindling through glass of water, by reflection not refraction 79 Little Bear 71 Macedon 56 Maeotis, Lake 55 Magnesian talc 79 Mars 75 mathematicians 48 matter 42; the entire sublunary body, elements 62 mechanics, experts in 56 Mercury 60, 75 Meteorology: usefulness of the work, authenticity 30; place in order of reading, title, division of subject matter into four books 30 Milky Way 34 mirrors 57-8 missiles 57 moist exhalation, exhaled by moist bodies 29; effects (clouds and mist, drizzle and rain, dew and hoarfrost, hail, snow and ice) 31 moon 44; light, own and borrowed 60-1; the interval by which it lags behind the sun a small part of zodiacal sign 73; heats when full or nearly full 73, 75 mountains, height calculated 56 mustard 76 myths 75 natural quality of heat, the cause of sun heating 74, 80 nature, power that comes from heavens to contiguous sublunary bodies (Alexander, approved by Philoponus) 42 night, why there is no heating 71 Olympus, Mt. 56 Optics 57

138

Subject Index

Orion 47 Orion’s Hound, see Sirius pepper 76 Philoponus’ cross-references to his other works 45, 54 (in GC), 65 (in Phys.), 67n166 philosophy 29; divided into theoretical and practical 29; assimilation to God as far as possible 29 Pisces 40 place, three-dimensional incorporeal interval 65; centre of the universe not a place 65 Plato 45-6, 76 Plotinus 41 reality vs optical illusion 29 reflection, under different angles 57-8 Saturn 75 shooting (‘running’) stars 34, 76; not stars 77 Sirius, Dog-Star, Orion’s Hound 47-8 solid, definition 72, 74 and n198; only the most solid materials kindle fire 74 spurge 76 sublunary region not continuous, but in contact with the heavens 38 substratum 42

sun, 170 times as large as the earth 48, 59, 83, distance from the convex surface of the lunar sphere more than 19, less than 20 distances from the earth to the lunar sphere 49, 73; relative size demonstrated by ‘shadows’ 49-51; how heats 70-83; moves faster than the moon 71; solid 72; heats in accordance with the quality of heat 74, 80, 82, alleged power of re-kindling passive light 75; sun’s motion not the cause of heat 75, 82-4 supervenient form, in composite bodies, a cause of affections 78-9 tinder sphere 52, 60, 66; moves naturally according to the Platonists 67; easily divisible 77 torpedo-fish, acts by the composite form, not by simple quality 78-9 totalities of the elements 52 touch, a necessary condition of any natural acting and being acted upon 72 void, there is no 38 water 44, 77 zones of the earth, two inhabited and three uninhabitable 84