Abstract
It is the purpose of Book IV to present a survey of the fragmentary data from the early stages of Greek astronomy. About six centuries have to be covered by such an attempt, beginning with the calendaric cycles of Meton and his school in the fifth century B.C. to Ptolemy in the second A.D. Only in two areas is our information substantial enough to make a separate discussion desirable: early planetary and lunar theory on the evidence of tables preserved on papyri of the hellenistic and Roman period (cf. below V A) and the work of the direct predecessors of the Almagest, Apollonius. and Hipparchus (above I D and I E, respectively). For the material left to be included in Book IV we must frequently operate with fragmentary data transmitted by authors of very limited technical competence. The little one can extract from these sources hardly deserves the name “history.”
Cependant, au milieu des rêves philosophiques des Grecs, on voit percer sur l’astronomie des idées saines.
Laplace, Système du monde. Œuvres VI, p. 372.
Sehen Sie sich doch nur bei den heutigen Philosophen um, bei Schelling, Hegel ... und Consorten, stehen Ihnen nicht die Haare bei ihren Definitionen zu Berge? Lesen Sie in der Geschichte der alten Philosophie, was die damaligen Tagesmänner Plato und andere (Aristoteles will ich ausnehmen) für Erklärungen gegeben haben.
Gauss an Schumacher, 1. Nov. 1844.
Gauss, Werke 12, p.62f.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
For the date of Cleomedes (4th cent. A.D.) cf. below V C 2.
That Hipparchus observed in Alexandria is by no means certain; cf. above I E 1, p. 276.
We are a little better informed about mathematics, thanks to the extant mathematical works of Archimedes and Apollonius.
Wilamowitz in his brilliant lecture on “Die Locke der Berenike” (Reden and Vorträge I, 4th ed., Berlin 1925) states categorically (p. 213, note 1) that at the time of Conon “man arbeitete auf der Sternwarte Alexandreias an einem Fixsternkataloge.” This is, of course, pure nonsense. Similarly it is only a modern invention to make Conon a “court-astronomer”; no such rank existed in Ptolemaic Egypt (cf., e.g., the list of officials discussed by Cumont, Ég. astr., Chap. 1 and 2). — What we really know about Conon is little enough. That he was a competent mathematician is evident from the way Archimedes mentions him — in spite of Apollonius’ adverse remarks in the preface to Book IV of the “Conics.” From Conon’s parapegma we have only two data through Pliny (Nat. Hist. XVIII 74, Loeb V, p. 384/5) and seventeen in Ptolemy’s “Phaseis.” Seneca (first cent. A.D.) says (Quaest. nat. VII, III 3, Loeb II, p. 233) that Conon was a careful observer and that he “recorded solar eclipses observed by the Egyptians” — a story difficult to take seriously in view of what we know of Egyptian astronomy (cf. above p. 561). Probus (end of 1st cent. A.D.) ascribes seven books to him “de astrologia” (Thilo-Hagen, Servius, In Vergilii carmina comm., Vol. 3,2, p. 330, 14). — That Conon’s name as astronomer was familiar to Virgil and Propertius (first cent. B.C.) may be due only to Callimachus’ poem on Berenice’s Lock.
Ptolemy, Phaseis, Opera II, p. 67; cf. also below p. 929.
For a similar misunderstanding concerning the “Regula Philippi Aridaei” cf. Neugebauer [1959, 2].
The corresponding latitudinal difference amounts to about 15°.
Cf., e.g., Geminus, Isag. V, 2 (ed. Manitius, p. 44, 4–9) and below p. 582 and Fig. 2.
E.g., Geminus, Isag. III, 15 (ed. Manitius, p. 42, 3–8); Vitruvius, Archit. IX V, 4 (ed Krohn, p. 213, 24–28; Loeb II, p. 244/245); Manilius I 216 and notes by Housman (Vol. I, p. 17); Theon Smyrn., Astron. II (Dupuis, p.201). Cf. also Kepler, Werke II, p. 135, 15–136, 19.
For references to the sun’s zenith positions cf. below p. 937.
Cf., e.g., below V B 8, 3.
Aristotle, De caelo II, 14 (Budé, p. 100) and II, 11 (Budé, p. 80); for the error in this argument cf. below p. 1093.
Diogenes Laertius IX, 21 (Loeb II, p. 430/431). Frank, Plato, p.198–200, denies the validity of this statement in Diogenes and explains it as a misunderstanding of the original formulation by Theophrastus. Cf. also Heidel, Greek Maps, p. 70–72. Both scholars agree that Plato’s Phaedo (≈400 B.C.) must be very near to the time of discovery (Frank, p. 184ff, Heidel, p. 79ff).
Diogenes Laertius IV, 58 (Loeb I, p. 434/435).
Cf., e.g., Euclid, Phaen., Introd. (ed. Menge, p. 6, 5); Cicero, De Nat. Deorum II, 47 (Loeb, p. 166/169); Theon Smyrn., Astr. I (Dupuis, p. 201); Achilles, Isag. 6 (Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 37, 8); Almagest I, 4; Cleomedes I, 8.
Cf., e.g., Neugebauer-Parker EAT I Pl. 8 (column V), Pl. 34, II Pl. 7, etc.
For a list of Normal Stars with coordinates cf. Sachs [1952, 2]; also above p. 546.
For Babylonian constellations cf. Weidner [1967].
Cf. above I E 2, 1 A and I B.
Vitruvius, Archit. IX V, 4 (ed. Krohn, p. 213, 15–17; Loeb II, p. 242/243).
Boll, Sphaera, p. 60–72 (concerning, p. 5, 23–14, 4 in the ed. Kroll).
Rehm [1899], p.252–254; CCAG9, 1, p. 189f.; cf. above p.285.
The “accepted” title is only a re-translation by Rehm into Greek of a Latin version (cf., e.g., Keller, Erat., p. 23) which does not contain the word “Catasterism.”
Cf. for this literature Knaak in RE 6, 1, col. 277–381 (1909) and Keller, Erat. (1946), p. 18–28.
Some always visible stars presuppose the latitude of Alexandria; cf. Rehm [1899], p. 268.
Nothing is gained by the countless speculations published on this subject. This includes also the hypotheses, hesitatingly proposed by Manitius (p. 247–252), about excerpts and commentaries supposedly made in Constantinople.
Isagoge Chap. III, §8 and 13, Manitius, p.38, 16 and p.40, 15 and 19.
Manitius, p. 8/9 and p. 14–19; cf. below p.584.
Geminus, ed. Manitius, p. 108, 4–10.
Cf. above p. 579.
Isagoge, p. 108, 3 Manitius.
Porter-Moss VI, p. 94 and p. 97. — This is the same chapel which had the famous “round zodiac of Denderah” on the ceiling.
A summary is given by Loret [1884], p.99–102.
Grenfell-Hunt, The Hibeh Papyri I, p. 144, p. 148 lines 58 to 62.
For this date cf. Griffiths, Plutarch, p. 17.
Chap. 13 (Griffiths, p. 138/139; Loeb, Moralia V, p. 36/37), Chap. 39 (Griffiths, p. 178/179; Loeb, p. 94–99); Chap. 42 (Griffiths, p. 184/185; Loeb, p. 100/101). Cf. also the commentaries Griffiths, p. 64 f., p. 312, p. 448 f.
This has been seen by Grenfell-Hunt (p. 153 to line 60). — The Roman “Isia” were celebrated in November. Cf. for references Daremberg-Saglio III, p. 583; also Lydus, De mens. IV 148 (ed. Wuensch, p. 1666, 16f.) who gives November 2 and 3 as date for the Isis festival. The Egyptian Khoiak 12 corresponds in A.D. 120 to Alexandrian Athyr 6 = November 2, the date given by Lydus, and in A.D. 140 to Alexandrian Athyr 1=October 28, the beginning date of the “Isia” in the Philocalus Calendar (cf. Stern, Cal. pl. XI, XII).
Manitius, p. 281. All these arguments come from Böckh, Sonnenkr, p. 22–26.
The other authorities mentioned are Meton, Euctemon, Democritus from the 5th century and Eudoxus and Callippus from the 4th. — Incidentally: no “Egyptians” are mentioned; they appear first in a parapegma from Miletus about 100 B.C. (cf. below p. 588; also above p.561f.).
Manitius, p. 181ff.;.; cf. also p. 191ff. on Sirius.
Manitius, p. 32, 4; 32, 19; 36, 2; 80, 13–19; 84, 25, etc.
Manitius, p.6, 17; 8, 3; 70, 16.
Manitius, p.70, 17; cf. also below p.711, n. 26.
Manitius, p.70, 19f.; nowhere is recognition of a doctrine of seven climata discernable.
Manitius, p. 90, 13–18.
In a formulation also found in the “Enoptron” of Eudoxus; cf. Hipparchus, Aratus Comm., ed. Manitius, p. 22, 20–22.
Manitius, p. 50, 12–52, 2. Manitius restores in the corrupt text “Hellespont,” in spite of the fact that the Latin version, made from an Arabic version, has “regionis grecorum.”
Aratus, Phen., verses 497–499; Hipparchus, Aratus Comm., ed. Manitius, p. 26, 3–28, 8. Cf. also Ptolemy, Phaseis, Opera II, p. 67, 16–21 (ed. Heiberg) and Cleomedes I, 6 (ed. Ziegler, p. 52, 1–2 ).
E.g. Manitius, p. 168, 17.
Cf. below p. 590.
E.g. Manitius, p. 168, 12. The same definition again in Hyginus (2nd cent. A.D.; Astron. I, 6 ed. Bunte, p. 24; Chatelain-Legendre, p. 5), in Achilles (3rd cent.; Isag. 26, Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 59), and in Cleomedes (around 400; I, 2 ed. Ziegler, p. 20/22, et passim).
Cf. below p. 865 f.; also p. 871.
Cf below and in general Schlachter, Globus, p. 46.
Manitius, p.28, 11–14. This happens at about φ =46;30° (between climates VI and VII).
Manitius, p. 166, 1 implies that 6°=4200 stades.
Cf. below p. 935.
Geminus, p. 5, Hipparchus, p. 127 (ed. Manitius).
Cf. above p. 278. The same terminology is found in Strabo II 5, 42 (Loeb I, p. 515), in Pliny N.H. II, 178 (Budé II, p. 78) and in Cleomedes I, 10 (ed. Ziegler, p. 94, 10) who explains the measure of “1/4 sign” for the altitude of the star Canopus as “1/48 of the zodiac”; similar in Geminus, Isag. III, 15 (Manitius, p. 42, 7). Hyginus (2nd cent. A.D.) says that all five important great circles on the sphere are “divided into 12 parts” (ed. Bunte I, 6, p. 25, 20f.; ed. Chatelain-Legendre, p. 6).
E.g Manitius, p.26, 8f.; p.82, 20ff.; p.92, 6ff., etc., incorrectly rendered as “1°” by Manitius. Cf. CCAG 1, p. 163, 21 f.: “30° of Cancer or 1st degree of Leo.” For Hipparchus cf. above p. 278f.
Isagoge, Chap. III (Manitius, p. 36–43); for the text of this chapter see also Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. XXV to XXVIII. Cf. also Vitruvius, above p. 577.
Cf. above p. 286.
Isagoge V, 53 (Manitius, p.62, 8f.).
Pliny N.H. 66 (Budé II, p. 29; Loeb I, p. 215); Hyginus (2nd cent.) ed. Bunte, p. 104,20–23; Chalcidius (4th cent.) ed. Wrobel, p. 136, 17–20; Martianus Capella (5th cent.) ed. Dick, p.438, 15/16, P. 456, 22; Remigius of Auxerre (9th cent.) ed. Lutz, p. 258 (ad 434, 14); Sacrobosco, De spera, ed. Thorndike, p. 88, trsl. p. 128. A passage in Manitius (Astron. I, 682) is doubtful; cf. ed. Housman I, p. 61.
Chalcidius, e.g., says (ed. Wrobel, p. 136, 17–20) that “according to the opinion of the old ones” the latitudinal amplitude for the moon and for Venus is 12°. Cf. also below IV B 1, 3 p.
E.g. Pliny; cf. note 26.
Cf. above p.582 and below p. 590.
Cf. above p.515; also Neugebauer-Sachs [1968/1969], p. 203 and note 27 there.
Schott-Schaumberger [1941], p. 109, note 1.
Cf. below IV A 4,3 A.
Cf. for this type of astrological doctrines Bouché-Leclercq AG, p. 159ff.
Manitius, Geminus Isag., p. 255, note 6; for the Eudoxan norm cf. below p. 599.
Cf. above p. 581.
Manitius, p. 10/11.
Manitius, p. 12/13. At a later occasion (Manitius, p. 194, 24) the three outer planets are called “the greatest (μέγιστοι) of the planets.”
a The same opinion is also held by Proclus (Comm. Rep., trsl. Festugière III, p. 170, 15f.).
Manitius, p. 8/9.
Manitius, p. 69/71. Theon in his Great Commentary to the Handy Tables, mentions Serapion as being concerned with the equation of time. If this Serapion is the well-known contemporary of Cicero we would have evidence from the first century B.C. for the recognition of such a correction (in tables based on the era Philip). Cf. Rome [1939] and CA III, introd., p. CXXXIII, note (1). Text in Monum. 13, 3, p. 360.
Manitius, p. 100, 9 and 17; p. 200, 9.
Manitius, p.8, 23; p. 102, 2 et passim.
Manitius, p. 102, 4 et passim.
Manitius, p. 110, 22; p. 114, 15 et passim.
From (4) and (3) it would follow that lm = 2922:99= 48,42:1,39 =29;30,54,32,43,38,...4.
Cf. above IE2,2C.
Manitius, p. 116, 20–23; cf. also above p.69 (1), p. 310, and p.483 (3).
Manitius, p. 118 to 123.
Rome CA III, p. 839, note (1) suggests an emendation of the text on the basis of Theon’s version of the history of the 19-year cycle. Note, however, below p. 623, note 12.
Above p. 584 (1).
Above note 47.
Manitius, p. 200, 10; p. 204, 23/24.
Denoted above II B 2, 3 as F*; cf. also below p. 602.
Almagest IV, 2 (Manitius, p. 195f.), obtained by multiplication with 3 of the famous “Saros” relation (cf. above p. 502 (1) and p. 310 (5)). Surprisingly Geminus ignores the further equivalence with 726 = 3·242 draconitic months which is the key to the theory of eclipses.
Manitius, p. 205.
Cf. above p.480 (1) and (2 a). This fictitious derivation of standard Babylonian parameters is reminiscent of Ptolemy’s procedure in motivating the value (6) of p. 585 (cf. above p. 310).
Manitius, p. 205–211.
Cf. above p. 480 (1) or below p. 602.
The arithmetical rule that in a linear progression the mean value is half the total of the extrema is reminiscent of (less trivial) statements by Hypsicles (cf. below IV D 1,2 A).
The Greek term παράπηγμα belongs to a verb meaning to “fix beside, or near.” The German term for these inscriptions is “Steckkalender” (Diels-Rehm [1904], p. 100).
Cf. Rehm R. E. Par. col. 1300, 5 and 42. For two other small fragments, one from Athens, the other from Pozzuoli, cf. 1.c. col. 1301/2 A 3 and A 4. Cf. also Degrassi, Inscr., p. 299, p. 306–311.
For reasons unknown Manitius (p. 211 ff.) translated neither the title nor the headings but gave only a paraphrase.
The term “parapegma” does not occur in the title of the literary versions. Geminus, however, in the Isagoge, uses the term as freely as the moderns (e.g. Manitius, p. 182, etc.). Manitius’ rendering “calendar” is quite appropriate.
Cf., e.g., Rehm Parap., p. 7.
Cf. above p.581, n. 13.
In Book II of the “Phaseis”; cf. below V B 8, 1 B.
In the Geminus parapegma Meton is only mentioned once (cf below p. 623, n. 12).
Rehm RE Par. col. 1300, 23.
Diels-Rehm [1904], p. 102/3.
In Diels-Rehm [ 1904 ] the julian date is incorrectly given as June 27. Merritt, Ath. Cal., p. 88 gives by mistake Payni 14 instead of 11. All dates are correct in Dinsmoor, Archons, p. 312.
Cf below p. 622.
Cf. below p. 929 and above p. 562 f.
Diels-Rehm [1904], p. 108/9, note 1.
Cf. above p. 581 and p. 583. Also Columella, De re rustica XI 1, 31 (Loeb III, p. 68/69), opposes the doctrine of fixed definite dates for the changes of air. Similarly Ptolemy has his doubts about the prognostications associated with the stellar phases (cf. below p.926, n. 4).
Sinān’s “parapegma” is preserved through Birini in Chap. XIII of his “Chronology” (trsl. Sachau, p. 233–267). Cf. JAOS 91 (1971), p. 506.
Geminus, Elementa Astronomiae, p. 210–233 with German translation and notes.
Ptolem. Opera II, p. 14–67; p. III-V; p. CL-CLXV. No translation.
Contrary to a widespread belief the sexagesimal system did not originate from any astronomical concept. Its beginnings go back to the earliest Mesopotamian civilization, more than a millennium before any computational astronomy existed. Its origin can be found in the norms for weights and measures in combination with palaeographical processes which lead to the place value notation which is the most characteristic element of this number system; cf. Neugebauer [1927] and ThureauDangin SS.
Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 7 (Loeb I, p. 438/9: with different reading: Budé I, 2, p. 85). The same norm is still used in Geminus (Isag., Manitius, p. 58, 23ff.; p. 183, 3ff. etc.; 1st cent. ≈ A.D.), in Manilius (Astron. I, 561ff.; Housman I, p.53; Breiter, p.21/22; 1st cent. A.D.), in Plutarch (Moralia 590 F, Loeb VII, p.464/465; zA.D. 100), by Galen (2nd cent., cf. Rehm [ 1916 ], p.82), in Hyginus (Astron., I,6, ed. Bunte, p. 24; Chatelain-Legendre, p. 5; 2nd cent.), in Achilles (Isag., Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 59, 5; p. 70, 12; 3rd cent.), by Macrobius (≈400: Comm. II 6, 2–5, ed. Eyssenh., p. 606, 24–607, 16; ed. Willis, p. 116, 15–117, 3; trsl. Stahl, p. 207), and by Severus Sebokht (A.D. 660: Nau, Const., p. 93 ).
Achilles (Maass, p. 59, 24ff.) adds the remark that “some” divide the circle not in 60 but in 360 degrees (μοίας) “because the year has 365 days.” In the subsequent description of the angles shown in Fig. 1 (below p.1351) he makes several mistakes. Martianus Capella (De nupt. VIII 837, ed. Dick, p.439; 5th cent.) makes 1 quadrant=18 parts thus 1p=5°. This is obviously absurd since it implies ε=4p=20°. Thus one must emend the (8 + 6 + 4)° = 90° of the text to the same norm (6 + 5 + 4)p =90° found in the above mentioned sources.
a Heath, Arist., p. 352/3 (Hypot. 4); cf. also below p. 773, notes 6 to 9.
Cf below p. 699.
Huxley [1963], p. 103 suggests the middle of the second century B.C.
De Falco-Krause-Neugebauer, Hypsikles, passim.
Observations by Timocharis mentioned in the Almagest range between —294 and —271.
Alm. VII, 3, Heiberg II, p. 19–23; Manitius II, p. 18–20.
The translation of Manitius is misleading in so far as he gives always minutes of arc where the text has only unit-fractions of degrees.
First century A.D.; cf. above (p. 579f.).
Such is the case already in the Commentaries to the Almagest by Pappus and Theon; cf. Mogenet [1951] or Rome CA II, p. 452–462.
Cf., e.g., Diophantus, Opera II, ed. Tannery, p. 3–15, or Pachymeres, Quadrivium, ed. Tannery, p. 331–363 (written about A.D. 1300 ).
Rome, CA I, p. 186, 13.
Cf., e.g., ACT I, p.39 and Neugebauer-Sachs [1967/1969] I, p. 204/205.
Cf. above p. 159f.
In both cases one finds that the longitude of Mercury (as morning star) was almost exactly 1° greater than the longitude of the star (the latitudinal intervals are 1;35° and 1;5°, respectively). Since Ptolemy is only interested in the longitudinal component of the distance between the planet and the mean sun, the term brim, literally “above,” seems here to mean “ahead (in longitude).” This is reminiscent of the terminology of Theodosius, where, however, άνώτερον denotes the point ahead in the direction of the daily rotation (cf. below p. 758).
Strabo, Geogr. II 1, 18; cf. above p. 304.
Alm. VII, 1 Heiberg II, p. 4, 16; 5, 1; 7, 14; 8, 2 and p. 6, 11, respectively.
Manitius, p. 186–280; cf. above p. 279.
Manitius, p. 186, 11 etc. (50 cases), perversely translated by Manitius by “Mondbreite.”
Manitius, p. 206, 4 etc. (9 cases). Otherwise one finds only two more passages which mention cubits, and this only in a loose fashion (Manitius, p. 190, 10 and 272, I).
Vogt [1925], col. 30.
The only passage, Manitius, p. 272, 2 is an arbitrary emendation; cf., however, above note 18.
P. Lond. 130; cf. Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Gr. Hor., p. 26.
Pap. Oslo III, p. 30.
Cf., e.g., Gardiner, Eg. Grammar, § 266.
Cf., e.g., ACT I, p. 39: 1 finger=6 barley-corns.
Cf. Neugebauer-Sachs [1967/1969] I, p. 203; also above II C 2, p. 551.
CCAG 8, 3, p. 99, 7f.
Text by mistake “circumference.”
Isagoge XI, 7 Manitius, p. 134/135; p. 271, note 23.
Cf., e.g., below p. 635 (4) and (5); p. 654 (8); p. 667 (1).
In a list of solar eclipses, preserved for the years from −474 to −456; cf. Aaboe-Sachs [1969], p. 17. Other early evidence: Neugebauer-Sachs [1967], p. 197f. (≈ −430); Aaboe-Sachs [1969], p. 3ff. (≈ −400).
For an example of the earlier terminology (in −418/17) cf. Sachs in Neugebauer, Ex. Sci.(2), p. 140.
Cf. Sachs [1952, 3], p. 62.
Cf. Sachs [1948], p. 281; also above II C 1, p. 545.
Pliny, NH II, 31 (Loeb I, p. 188/9; Budé II, p. 17).
Cf., e.g., W. Kroll in RE Suppl. 4 (1924), col. 912f.
Cf. below IV D 3, 1.
Cf. Neugebauer-Parker, EAT III, p. 204f. Since zodiacs belong naturally to the ceiling decorations the chance of destruction of these monuments is particularly great.
The enumeration of the signs, however, always begins with Aries and in this sense one can say that longitudes are counted from 0° to 360°. Incidentally, the Babylonian name for the first sign does not mean “the Ram” but “the Hireling” (1ù-hun-gà).
Cf. above II Intr. 4, 1 etc.
Kugler, BMR, p. 104ff.
Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Greek Horosc., p. 180ff.
Cf. above IV A 3, 3 and below p. 929.
Pliny NH XVIII 58, 221 (Loeb V, p. 328/329; ed. Jan-Mayhoff III, p. 204, 12).
Pliny NH XVIII 58, 264 (Loeb V, p. 356/357; ed. Jan-Mayhoff III, p. 216, 5).
Pliny NH XVIII 57, 214 (Loeb V, p. 324/325; ed. Jan-Mayhoff III, p. 202, 1 and 17). On the other hand Lydus, De mensibus IV, 18 (ed. Wuensch, p. 79, 13f. = Caesar, Comm. III, ed. Klotz, p.219) says — about A.D. 550 — that according to Caesar the sun enters Aquarius on Jan. 22. The Philocalus Calendar of A.D. 354 has even Jan. 23 (cf. Stern, Cal., p. 58f.); but the comparison with the other dates in this calendar shows clearly that Jan. 23 falls outside the scheme of the remaining dates and should be emended to Jan. 17. Obviously Jan. 22 or 23 is a later correction, made in order to obtain a solar longitude in agreement with the norm of Aries 0° for the vernal point. Indeed one has for — 50 Jan. 22 for the sun λ≈301°.
Gundel HT, p. 148.
Can γ.
Cf. for this date Neugebauer, Ex. Sci.(2), p. 68f.
Vitruvius, De archit. IX, 3 (Loeb II, p. 232–235; ed. Krohn, p. 209; also Loeb II, p. 266/267; Krohn, p. 222).
From Venosa in Apulia (east of Melfi). Cf. Degrassi, Inscr., p. 55–62 and Tab. IX.
Degrassi, Inscr., p. 58f. Since the entry of the sun into Gemini is given for May 18 the date of entry into Cancer should perhaps be emended to June 18. Such variations by one day are, of course, explicable by the ambiguity of the use of the term “first degree” The Philocalus Calendar of A.D. 354 gives June 15 for the entry, June 24 for the solstice (as Pliny) but the differences suggest an emendation to 16 or 17; cf. Stern, Cal., p. 58 f. and Degrassi, Inscr., p. 248/249.
Cf. for this date Rehm, RE Par. col. 1309, 50.
Varro, De re rust. I, XXVIII (Loeb, p. 248–251).
Columella, De re rust. IX, XIV 10–12 (Loeb II, p. 480–489; also Wachsmuth, Lydus, De ost., p. 303).
Mommsen, Chron.(2), p. 58, p. 60. The term is misleading: no peasant constructed this calendar which is simply the Roman version of a Greek parapegma. Mommsen only intended to underline the usefulness and need for agricultural work of a calendar based on a solar year, recognizable by fixed star phases.
Mommsen, Chron.(2), p. 62 or Ginzel, Hdb. II, p. 282.
Cf., however, above p. 594, note 4.
For additional references cf. Rehm [1927]; also Rehm RE Par. col. 1324 (B 18), col. 1352, 57–1353, 45 and Rehm Parap. Chap. III. 1 never succeeded separating facts from mere hypotheses in this vast literature.
Columella, De re rust. XI, II 94 (Loeb III, p. 124/125).
Cf., e.g., Rhetorius (≈A.D. 500) who says “at the 30th degree of Cancer, that is at the 1st degree of Leo” (CCAG 1, p. 163, 12f.). The traditional mixup between “first degree” and 0° or 1° mars ancient as well as modern interpretations; cf. also above p. 278 and below p. 600, n. 23.
Rehm, Parap., p. 33f. and RE Par. col. 1343, 48ff. thought that Eudoxus’ parapegma could be more accurately dated to 370 B.C. because the symmetry of the seasons should have been adopted under Plato’s influence who was opposed to an anomaly of the solar motion.
Columella (IX, XIV 12): “antiquorum fastus astrologorum” (Wachsmuth, Lydus De ost., p. 303, 26f.; Loeb II, p. 488/489).
Rehm, for reasons that escape me, follows Columella (cf. below p. 599, note 10).
I am not convinced of the customary association of the Roman “rustic calendar” with Callippus (Rehm [1927], p. 216; Parap., p. 44 and references given there).
Ed. Housman III, p. 23, p. 68; ed. Breiter, p. 73, p. 88 and p. 87, p. 106. Manilius does not follow, however, a consistent system; in I 622 and 625, e.g., he assumes the beginnings of the signs (cf. Breiter, p. 106).
NH II: Loeb I, p. 224/225; Budé II, p. 35 (with antiquated notes on p. 169f.); NH XVIII: Loeb V, p. 328/329.
Mich. Pap. III, p. 76; transl., p. 114.
Associated with the manuscripts of Censorinus, De die natali (written in 238/9) but probably much older since a similar text appears as scholion to the Aratea of Germanicus who died in A.D. 19. Cf. RE 3, 2 col. 1910, 13–19 and RE 10, 1 col. 461, 67; cf. also C. Robert, Eratosthenis catasterismorum reliquiae (Berlin 1878, reprinted 1963 ), p. 203.
Date uncertain; 3rd century or before Firmicus.
For the date of the completion of the Mathesis (about A.D. 355) cf. Thorndike [1913], p. 419, note 2.
Ed. Kroll-Skutsch II, p. 306f.; cf. also Boll, Sphaera, p. 246f.
Ed. Dick, p. 434–438; the essential passage also occurs at the end of a manuscript of Hyginus, Astron. (ed. Hasper, p. 31 f., corresponding to ed. Dick, p. 437, 11–438, 9 ).
Etym. V 34; Nat. rer. VIII 1 (ed. Fontaine, p. 204/205). In both works the cardinal points are placed at the 8th calends of April, July, October, January, respectively. The same dates are found in two parallel inscriptions from Rome, known as “calendarium Colotianum” (first cent A.D.) and “calendarium Vallense,” the latter (now lost) combined with sun dials. Cf. for these texts Degrassi, Inscr., p. 284–287 and Pl. 81–86; also Wissowa [ 1903 ].
For the intricate questions of authorship and sources of these commentaries cf. Stahl [1965], p. 107 ff.
Scientia Petri Ebrei, cognomento Anphus, de dracone, quam dominus Walcerus prior Maluer-nensis ecclesie in latinam transtulit linguam”; cf. Millas Vallicrosa [1943], p. 88. On Petrus Alphonsi (≈ 1100) cf. Cutler [ 1966 ], p. 190, n. 16.
Cf. Kaltenbrunner [1876], p. 294 on a version, composed in 1396, of a computus of 1200.
Ed. Housman III, p. 68. Rehm, Parap., p. 30, n. 1 suggests Meton for the 10° norm, considering the rhetorical question “who else...?” as a proof. Cf. also above p.496.
The name of a canonical collection of texts, arranged in a definite “series,” is taken from its initial words (as one refers to papal bulls) and mentioned in the colophon of each tablet in the series (cf. the colophon given in Bezold-Kopff-Boll [1913], p. 36/37).
The names of the months are the usual ones of the civil calendar, i.e. I = Nisan, etc.
Cf. Pritchett-van der Waerden [1961], p.43f.; also Bezold-Kopff-Boll [1913]. The date of this collection is about 700 B.C., based on observations made in Babylon about 1000 B.C., according to van der Waerden [ 1949 ], p. 20f.
Cf., e.g., van der Waerden [1949], p. 19; [1951], p. 22.
Hipparchus, ed. Manitius, p. 128, 21–27.
Manitius, p. 20, 4–17; p. 22, 1–9; p. 132, 20–134, 2.
Manitius. p.48, 7–10; p.56, 15f. It is amazing to see that the ample testimony of Hipparchus, who still had the writings of Eudoxus at his disposal, is explained away in favor of one sentence in a Roman work on agriculture (Columella; cf. above p. 596), four centuries after Eudoxus. In order to rescue the norm Aries 8° for a “genuine” Eudoxus Rehm postulates a “false” Eudoxus, or at least a “aegypjisierende Überarbeitung” of his parapegma in which the vernal point was moved (why?) to Aries 15° (Rehm RE Par. col. 1308, 35–39; col. 1343, 20–24; Parap., p. 18, p. 35–37). Why Hipparchus used such a version remains unexplained. Rehm also speaks about a “anderweitig erschlossene” false Eudoxus by mentioning doubts cast on the genuineness of a work on the octaeteris, although it has probably nothing to do with the parapegma or the work used by Hipparchus. Böckh (Sonnenkr., p. 192ff.) tried to reconcile our sources by postulating different norms for Eudoxus’ calendaric and “astrognostic” writings.
Column XXII, 21. Blass, p. 25; Tannery HAA, p. 294, No. 54.
Cf. below p. 1453, Fig. 12 on PL VII (col. X).
Turner-Neugebauer [1949], p. 7.
Geminus, Isag. II, 27ff. (Manitius, p. 31); cf. above p. 583.
Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, AG, p. 187, Fig. 23.
Hipparchus, ed. Manitius, p. 132, 7–9.
Cf. Rehm [ 1913 ]; Pritchett-van der Waerden [1961], p. 32–36.
Cf. below VI A 2, 4 and above p. 159.
Version A: from Vat. gr. 191 fol. 170v (CCAG 5, 2, p. 127, 17–19 = Vettius Valens, Anthol. IX 11, ed. Kroll, p. 353,10–13). Version B: from Vat. gr. 381 fol. 163v, published Maass, Aratea, p. 140. For the relationship between these two codices cf. also Maass [1881].
Apollinarios (listed in RE 1, 2 col. 2845 as Apollinaris No. 12) is mentioned by Vettius Valens (p. 250, 26 Kroll=CCAG 5, 2, p. 38, 17); hence he cannot be much later than about A.D. 150. Hephaestion (about A.D. 380) seems to associate him (CCAG 8, 2, p. 61, 16; p. 63, 21) with Antiochus (of Athens) who lived in the first or second century A.D. Hence a date around A.D. 100 could be assumed for Apollinarios. The “Anonymus of 379” (and, following him, “Palchus”: CCAG 5, 1, p. 205, 5 and CCAG 1, p. 80, 19) treat Apollinarios as parapegmatist like Meton and Euctemon, observing in Athens (suggested by his association with Antiochus of Athens?) Honigmann’s (SK, p. 42) “von Laodikeia” is a simple mistake (mixup with a christian author).
Achilles (Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p.47, 13f. or Aratea, p. 143, n. 52) mentions Apollinarios as having written on solar eclipses in the seven climates. A long excerpt in an anonymous fragment (CCAG 8, 2, p. 132, 4 to perhaps 133, 28) shows him as being familiar with the technical terminology of lunar theory. Porphyri in his Introduction to the Tetrabiblos (CCAG 5, 4, p. 212, 14 = Riess [1891], p. 334, frgm. 3) refers to him in connection with arithmetical methods of computing oblique ascensions (cf. also CCAG 8, 4, p. 50, fol. 46).
In astrological context the name of Apollinarios appears beside the above mentioned passages in Vettius Valens and Hephaestion (also CCAG 8, 2, p. 62, 1) in the preface to the Isagogika of Paulus Alexandrinus (p. 1, 13, ed. Boer) and in CCAG 6, p. 15 (fol. 341v).
It is not difficult to replace the numbers in the text by others which are not astronomically excluded but this kind of simply rewriting a text carries little conviction.
This parameter appears, e.g., with Ulugh Beg (Kennedy, Survey, p. 167 sub P), i.e. about 1440. Cf. also for Hipparchus above p. 293.
Rome [1926], p. 9, translating a passage published in Rome CA III, p. 838, 26–839, 10.
The latter seeks a balance between solar years and lunar months by introducing some new forms of “years” which fit some convenient pattern of intercalations. Cf., e.g., for the 19-year cycle above p. 601 (first line in A and B) or below IV B 1, 2.
Cf. for this problem below p. 626.
Above IV A 4, 2 A and below IV D 1, 2, respectively.
Tannery, Mém. Sci. II, p. 345f.; repeated in Heath, Aristarch., p. 314f.
Censorinus, ed. Jahn, p. 57, 6–8
The text has by mistake only 365 days; cf., however, below p. 623.
It follows from (6) that 40,34y = 2434y = 4,6,57,0d = 889020d gives the smallest number of years corresponding to an integer number of days on the basis of (5). Censorinus (Chap. 18, ed. Jahn, p. 55, 14f.) says that Aristarchus assumed 2484y for the return of all planets to the same position. This is certainly a mistake since no such small common planetary period exists. Tannery suggested emending 80 to 30 (π for λ) and assumes that the exact completion of solar years and of days caused a misinterpretation of (6) as a planetary “great year.”
For an early text considering latitudes cf. Neugebauer-Sachs [1968/1969] I, p. 209; cf. also above IIC3,p.554.
The Greek order differs also from the Egyptian sequence; the Indian order, however, is derived from the Greek one since it is the order of the days in the planetary week. Cf. below p. 690.
Alm. IX, 3; omitting here Ptolemy’s refinements expressed as corrections beyond or below exact returns; cf. above p. 151.
Cf. above p. 351. In the astrological literature these parameters are rarely mentioned; an example is CCAG 7, p. 120f. which mentions the values of N listed in (1), with the exception of N = 83 for Jupiter, which is, however, also a Babylonian goal-year parameter (cf. p. 391 (12)). The text in question might be from Heliodorus (around A.D. 500); cf. I.c. p. 119, n. 27. The same set of parameters, again with Jupiter’s 83, is also used in the “Almanac” of Azarquiel (epoch 1088 Sept. 1) which is based, however, on much older sources; cf. Boutelle [1967].
Cf. Tannery, Mém. Sci. 4, p. 265, from Cod. Scor. III. Y. 12 = CCAG 11,1 cod. 7, fol. 71 = Catálogo... Biblioteca de el Escorial II, p. 160, No. 282, 3.
Cf. above p. 390 (10 a) and (10 b).
The text has 309 instead of 720 (error for 309 syn. months = 25 Eg. years).
Lydus, De mensibus, p. 56f. ed. Wuensch (error for Mars: 294 instead 284).
Cf. Paulus Alex., ed. Boer, p. 12, 15 and p. 14, 15–18; also Ptolemy, Tetrab., Loeb, p. 97 and p. 107.
CCAG 1, p. 163 (cf. apparatus for the correct number); Lydus, De mens., p. 57, 6–8 (ed. Wuensch); Psellus, Omnif. doctr. § 161, 9 f. (ed. Westerink, p. 82), also Tannery, Mém. Sci. 4, p. 261 f. and Boll [1898]. The smallest common multiple of these numbers would be 1461 · 200=292 200.
Proclus, Comm. Rep., ed. Kroll II, p. 23; trsl. Festugière II, p. 128f.
Vettius Valens, Anthol. IV, Chap. 1, 3, and 30 (ed. Kroll, p. 158f. and p.205f.). The total of the minimum periods in (3) is 129; multiplication with the factor 2;50 changes it (exactly) to 365;30. Consequently these new periods are now called “days”; then they are subjected to new arithmetical modifications which are supposed to represent the combined influence of the planets, etc. Similarly Firmicus Maternus II, 25 (Kroll-Skutsch, p. 73 f.) with some errors which can easily be corrected on the basis of the numbers in (3).
Collected in Schnabel, Ber., p. 250–275. Schnabel’s own contributions must be taken with great caution as far as Babylonian astronomy is concerned.
Explaining the star of Bethlehem by planetary conjunctions, comets, novae, etc., is a classical example.
Commentary to Plato’s Timaeus, ed. Diehl I, p. 100, 29–101, 2; transl. Festugière I, p. 143. Cf. also the discussion by Martin [ 1864 ].
From Simplicius, commentary to Aristotle’s De cado II, 12 (Comm. in Arist. gr. VII, p. 506, 8–16, ed. Heiberg).
One need hardly to point out that no trace of such Babylonian data can be found in Aristotle’s work. All this has been said long ago by Martin [1864], of course, with very little effect.
Chronogr. 207 (ed. Dindorf, p.390, 1–5 = Schnabel, Ber., p. 268, 28–33), written A.D. 794 (Dindorf, p. 389, 20 ).
Cicero, De divinatione II 42, 87 (Loeb, p.468/471).
Cf. Neugebauer-Van Hoesen [1964], p. 66 and Neugebauer-Parker [1968]; also above p. 575.
In contrast the astrological geography in Manilius, which reflects conditions in Ptolemaic Egypt at the end of the third century B.C. (cf. Bartalucci [1961]), operates with the association of countries and zodiacal signs; cf. also Cumont [1909].
Chaldaeis in predictione et in notatione cuiusque vitae ex natali die minimum esse credendum.”
What he says, however, about the geocentric distances of the planets (De divin. II 43, 91) is not part of any astrological theory. Modern scholars act much in the same way by reading into the text words which are not there; cf., e.g., the “translation” in Loeb, p. 471: “from the positions of the stars on the day of his birth” (italics mine).
a Labat, Calendr. Baby’., § 64 (p. 132–135) where the future of a child is predicted from the month in which it was born. For a Hittite translation of a Babylonian text of this type (from the second half of the second millennium B.C.) cf. Sachs [1952, 3], p. 52, note 17a.
b An Egyptian papyrus from the Ramessite period, concerning lucky and unlucky days (published: Bakir, Cairo Cal.) contains also entries of the type “someone born on this day will die by a crocodile,” etc. There is, of course, no trace of astrology in this text of the 12th century B.C. and the only element of prediction or advice is the calendar date with its associated religious feasts or mythological events. By the time of Cicero a text of this type could easily be ascribed to the “Chaldeans.”
c Ed. Diehl III, p. 151, 1–9; trans’. Festugière IV, p. 192. This passage has been discussed many times, e.g. by Kroll [1901], p. 561 or by Cumont [1911], p. 5.
d Rehm, Parap., p. 122–140 argued that much in “De signis” belonged to Euctemon. There is no reason, however, to assume that the passage in question belongs to this “Grundschrift.”
e Cf. also below IV A 4, 4 B.
Cf. texts and tabulation in Bilfinger, Bürgerl. Tag, p. 1–16.
Cumont [1910]; also Fotheringham [1928].
A beautiful example is the diagram in Schnabel, Ber., p. 110. His derivation of all these works from two single sources, Berosus and Posidonius, is about as well established as our descent from Adam and Eve.
Strabo XVI 1, 6 (Loeb VII, p. 203); repeated in the Tribiblos of Theodoros Meliteniotes (about 1370): cf. CCAG 5, 3, p. 140, 30–141, 1=Migne PG 149 col. 997/8; Pliny NH VI 30, 121–123 (Loeb II, p. 431); these passages also in Schnabel, Ber., p. 9.−Cf. also above p. 352.
Cf. above p. 601; from Anthol., p. 353, 12 (Kroll)=CCAG 5, 2, p. 127, 19.
Anthol., p. 354, 4–6=CCAG 5, 2, p. 128, 14–16; cf. Cumont [1910], p. 161–163.
One also would like to know which Apollonius is meant; cf. above p. 263.
Strabo III 5, 9 (Loeb II, p. 153). For a Seleucia on the Persian Gulf cf. Cumont [1927]; also Tarn-Griffith, Hellenistic Civilization (3rd ed., 1952 ), p. 158.
Cf., e.g., Susemihl, Griech. Litt. I, p. 764, n. 265; RE Suppl. 5 col. 962f. (Kroll).
Bergk, Abh., p. 170 suggests, with no trace of a proof, that observations mentioned in the Almagest using the “Chaldean era” were therefore made by Seleucus. This era is nothing but the Syrian form of the Seleucid Era; cf. above p. 159.
Pseudo-Plutarch, De plac. II, 1 (ed. Bernardakis V, p. 297, 10) and Stobaeus, Ecl. phys. I, 21 (ed. Wachsmuth I, p. 182, 20f.). Pines [1963] discovered in Arabic sources (Rāzi, died about 925) arguments in support of this theory, probably belonging to Seleucus.
Iamblichus, The Egyptian Mysteries VIII, 1 (Budé, p. 195). Manetho reported 36525 books (a number which represents 25 Sothic periods of 1461 years; cf. Manetho, Loeb, p.227, p.231). Of no interest is the enumeration of 7 phases of the moon (Clemens Alex., Stromata VI 16, 143, 3, ed. Stählin, p. 505, 1–5 ).
Cf. Susemihl, Griech. Litt. I, p. 861f.; Kroll in RE 4 A, 1 col. 563; Esther V. Hansen, The Attalids of Pergamon (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology 29, 1947), p. 370; Cumont [1910], p. 162. Also Wellmann [ 1935 ], p. 427, 433, 438; Bidez-Cumont, Mages I, p. 193. The name Sudines poses some problems; an Old-Babylonian name Suddänu is attested (Ranke PN, p. 166 ). One also could think of a name ending in -idin or -idina but the first half should then contain more than su (or shu?). In our material of astronomical texts the name does not occur.
Pliny NH II 6, 39 (Loeb I, p. 193, Budé II, p. 19). One MS has 23° instead of 22° (cf. ed. Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 139, 1 ).
E.g. P. Mich. 149 (2nd cent. A.D.) X, 31 (Mich. Pap. III, p. 75 and p. 102) and Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 601 (from Anonymus Sangallensis).
Cf. Ptolemy’s discussion in Alm. XII, 10 (above I C 3, 1 ).
Pliny NH XVIII 57, 211 f. (Loeb V, p. 322–325). The relevant passages are collected by Wachsmuth in Lydus, De ost., p. 321–331.
NH XVIII 57, 215f. (Loeb V, p. 325/7); cf. also above p. 562.
This terminology is attested, e.g., in Parker, Vienna Pap., p. 6, a text belonging to the Persian period, around 500 B.C.
Columella, De re rustica XI 1, 31 (Loeb III, p. 69).
For another reference to Chaldeans by Columella cf. above p. 595 f. (concerning the winter solstice).
That parapegmata could have been abstracted from Normal Star Almanacs (cf. above p.553) is not impossible but not very plausible.
Cf. on these origins Sachs [1952, 3], introduction.
This should not be taken too literally; no element in the theory is sufficiently sensitive to require a distinction, e.g., between Babylon and Uruk.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 85f. (=[1877], p. 172f.).
That the Athenian calendar (the only one about which we have ample information) shows no relation to the Metonic 19-year cycle has been stated repeatedly, e.g. in Meritt, Ath. Cal., p. 4/5. From a tabulation made by Pritchett (Ch. M. Tables 8 and p. 62) I reproduce here in Fig. 2 A the epigraphically secure evidence for intercalary (*) and ordinary (o) years, in B the corresponding numismatic results (from M. Thompson, Coinage, p. 612/613) for the last cycles in the same period (cycle 6, 18 = −319 to cycle 18, 9= −100).
Diodorus XII 36, 3 (Loeb IV, p. 448/449).
The έπισημασίαι; cf. below p..
Fotheringham [1924]; revived by van der Waerden [1960].
Cf. above p. 588 and below p. 622, n. 2. The text of the parapegma is given also in Merits, Ath. Cal. p. 88 but should be corrected following Dinsmoor, Archons, p. 312, n. 1.
Added in proofs. My denial of evidence for a calendar expressly constructed for astronomical purposes was based on the implicit assumption that the Athenian dates which are given as the equivalents of Egyptian dates by Ptolemy and in the parapegma in Miletus are dates in the civil calendar, thus useless for astronomical purposes. To this my colleague G. J. Toomer objects that no motive can be seen for the use of Athenian dates in Miletus (which has a calendar of its own) or by Timocharis in Alexandria. He therefore assumes that the cycles of Meton, and then of Callippus, contained definite schematic rules for the lengths of the months and for intercalations, of course independent of the local calendar, although using the Athenian names. Cf. for details the article “Meton” in DSB, vol. 9, p. 337–340.
Geminus, Isag. VIII, 50–56 (Manitius, p. 120/123).
For the number of years any era (e.g. Olympiads, or lists of archons, etc.) would suffice to establish the correct distance.
Remigius, Comm. in Mart. VIII, ed. Lutz, p. 284, 2f. Cf. for this cycle below p. 624.
E.g. by van der Waerden [1952, 2] and [1970].
Censorinus, De die nat. 18, 8, ed. Hultsch, p. 38, 13–15 (also Diels, VS(5), p. 404, 18f.).
Censorinus 19, 2, p. 40, 14f. (also Diels, VS(5), p. 404, 19f.).
Cf., e.g., the Eudoxus Papyrus, below p. 624.
Cf. Ideler, Chronol. I, p. 309 and [ 1810 ] p. 410.
Cf., e.g. the Eudoxus Papyrus, below p. 624.
Cf. the sequence of the powers of 3 mentioned by Plutarch, De animae procreatione ( 1028 B), ed. Hubert, p. 183, 23–25.
elianus, Varia historia X, 7 (ed. Herscher, p. 109, 15–18; also Diels, VS(5), p. 394, 15–17). Censorinus 19, 2 (Hultsch, p. 40, 19f.).
Aaboe-Price [ 1964 ], p. 5. For another reconstruction cf. Tannery, Mém. Sci. II, p. 358f.
G. J. Toomer considers the reference to a specific number of days in the cycle to be a later addition. Cf. DSB, vol. 10, p. 180.
Censorinus 18, 8 (ed. Hultsch, p. 38, 16f.).
The error is perhaps caused by contamination with the directly preceding Callippic cycle of 76 years with 28 intercalations.
Most numbers given by Tannery are restored (without warning); cf. for the text Blass, p. 20 col. XIII, 12-XIV, 6.
This rule implies synodic months slightly shorter than 29 1/2 days, since 48,40:1,39 ≈ 29;29,42.
Censorinus, De die nat. 18 (ed. Hultsch, p. 36–40).
Translation by Heath (Aristarchus p. 291) of “cuius maxime octaeteris Eudoxi inscribitur”, whatever this should mean. Dositheus was a friend of Archimedes and is mentioned for his observations by Ptolemy in the “Phaseis” (cf. below p. 929); also above p. 581.
This seems to follow from Geminus, Isag. VIII, 24 (Manitius, p. 110, 2 ).
Censorinus, De die nat., p. 39, 12f. and p.40, 16f., ed. Hultsch.
That is to say: during these 4 years the Egyptian Thoth 1 is the same as the Alexandrian Thoth 1 (i.e. August 30 in −25, August 29 in −24 to −22). In −21 Alex. Thoth 1= Egypt. Thoth 2 (= August 30). Cf. for the “Era Augustus” below p. 1066.
Diodorus XII 36, 2 (Loeb IV, p. 446/447). Ptolemy, Alm. III, 1 (Manitius, p. 143) says that the summer solstice in this year was observed, but only superficially recorded, by the school of Meton and Euctemon for the morning of Phamenoth 21 (of the year Nabonassar 316, i.e. −431 June 27; cf. above p. 294 and p. 617).
The “Uruk scheme” (above II Intr. 3, 2) would give as date of the summer solstice III 11 (not 13); from Parker-Dubberstein BC one obtains III 10 for −431 June 27. Apparently Skirophorion was about 2 or 3 days ahead of the real lunar month.
We know from Hipparchus that this was before his time the commonly accepted value (Alm. III, 1, Manitius I, p. 145 ).
Geminus, Isag, VIII, 58 (Manitius, p. 122, 13–15). In view of the later 76-year cycle the fraction 5/19 is also put in the form 1/4+1/76 (e.g. Alm. III, 1 Heiberg, p.207, 10; also Geminus, Isag. VIII, 58 Manitius, p. 122, 15 f.), and Theon in his Commentary to Alm. III, 1, quoting Hipparchus (cf. Rome CA III, p. 838 or [1926], p. 9f.).
Geminus, Isag. VIII, 52 (Manitius, p. 121).
Alm. III, 1 (Manitius I, p. 145, 14f.). Theodosius, De diebus II, 18 (ed. Fecht, p. 152, 2) in a passage for which cf. below p. 754, n. 19.
Geminus, Isag. VIII, 50 (Manitius, p. 121).
Censorinus, De die nat. 18, 8 (ed. Hultsch, p. 38, 9–11 ).
The role of Meton seems not too well defined in the ancient tradition. Ptolemy (Alm. III, 1, Manitius I, p. 143) in discussing the summer solstice of −431 speaks first about observations by the “school of Meton and Euctemon,” later on (p. 144) only about the “school of Euctemon.” In the “Geminus”-parapegma Meton is mentioned only once (in contrast to Euctemon “passim”). The “Eudoxus Papyrus” (P. Par. 1) mentions for the length of the seasons only Eudoxus, Democritus, Euctemon, Callippus (Tannery HAA, p. 294, No. 55). Meton’s name does not appear in Geminus’ Isagoge and is also omitted in Maass, Aratea p. 140, list “B” for the length of the year (in contrast to “A”; cf. above p. 601). Modern scholars have avoided the problem by “emending” versions they did not like; cf. Rome [1926], p. 8 = CA III, p. 839, note (1).
Alm. III, 1 (Manitius I, p. 145); Geminus, Isag. VIII, 59 (Manitius, p. 123).
For the Metonic cycle one obtains from (4) 1m=29;31,54,53,37,...d; for the Callippic cycle 29;31,51,3,49,...d (cf. above p. 616). Note that neither one of these numbers appears among Babylonian parameters.
Cf., e.g., the “years of grace” (Chaîne, Chron., p. 111).
Censorinus, De die nat. 18, 9 (ed. Hultsch, p. 38, 18 f.); cf. also above I E 2, 2 C.
Cf. Tannery HAA, p. 285 ff. (Nos. 7, 34, 35, 40).
Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p. 494, 23–495, 16; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 97f.; [1877], p. 184.
Also for the sun; cf. below IV B 2, 2 for the solar latitude.
For a mistake in Simplicius’ formulation concerning the nodal motion cf. Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 21; [ 1877 ], p. 118 (or Tannery, Mém. Sci. I, p. 328–332). Text: Simplicius, Comm., p. 494, 23–495, 16; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 97 (No. 3); [1877], p. 184; Tannery, Mém. Sci I, p. 330.
Simplicius, Comm., p. 497, 18–22; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 100/101; [1877], p. 187. For the inequality of the seasons cf. above I B 1, 3.
Eudemus in Simplicius, Comm., p. 497, 12–21; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 100/101 and p. 85; [1877], pp. 187 and p. 172.
Schiaparelli suggested (Scritti II, p. 85f.; [1877], p. 172f.) about 6° for the maximum equation, thus γ = 6° for the angle between the axes of the two spheres which generate the hippopede (cf. below Fig. 27). From this results a latitudinal width of the curve of about 0;9° (r≈0;0,10) and for the additive or subtractive velocity a maximum of about 1;20o/d (cf. below IV C 1, 2 B (2) and (6) with Δt ≈ 27;30d) — a very reasonable estimate for the equation.
For the Babylonian evidence cf., e.g., Neugebauer-Sachs [1968/9] I, p.203 and ACT I, p. 190f. (No. 200 obv. I, 20); above p. 515 and p. 520.
Cf. above p. 583; also below p.782.
Martianus Capella VIII, 867 (ed. Dick, p. 456/7).
Dupuis, p. 313/315.
Alm. V, 7 (Man. I, p. 285, 6–17); also Theon, Comm. to Alm. IV, 9 (Rome CA III, p. 1068, 2) or Proclus, Hypot. IV, 63 (Man., p. 116, 22). For the parallaxes cf. above p.101 and p.324.
For the theory of solar latitude cf. below IV B 2, 2.
Cf. Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 23–42; [ 1877 ], p. 120–136.
Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p.497, 17–22; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 100/101; [1877], p. 187.
Assuming a maximum equation of about 2° one obtains according to p.680f. (2), (4), and (6) with γ= 2° a negligible additional latitude (βmax ≈ 0;1° from r ≈ 0;0,1) and ≈ 0;2o/d as a maximum change of velocity, which is a reasonable amount.
Simplicius, Comm., p. 503, 11; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 107; [ 1877 ], p. 193.
Written around 190 B.C. but based on an earlier version, possibly of the period around 300 B.C.; cf. below IV C 1, 3 A.
Tannery, HAA, p. 294, No. 55; text; Blass, p. 25; Not. et Extr. 18, 2, p. 74f.
Cf. Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 83; [1877], p. 170. From the dates and intervals given in the “Geminus” parapegma (cf. above p. 581) one finds, however, for Callippus s1=92, s2=s3=89, s4 = 95 (cf. below p.1352, Fig.4). The explicit statement in the papyrus seems to me the more reliable source.
Tannery (Mém. Sci. 2, p. 236–247) detected in Eudoxus’ parapegma a similar symmetry for the fixed star phases. Cf. also Boeckh, Sonnenkr., p. 110 f. and KI. Schr. 3, p. 343–345. In Ethiopic astronomy, which in many ways depends on hellenistic prototypes, we find a schematic year of 364 days, divided into four seasons of 91 days each.
Rehm (RE Par. col. 1343, 48; also Parap., p. 39) calls it a “revolutionäre Tat” to ignore the earlier observations of Euctemon in order to obtain “harmony” as visualized by Plato.
The Eudoxus Papyrus, e.g., accepts a strictly symmetric (linear) scheme for the length of daylight simultaneously with the recognition of seasons of unequal length (cf. below p.706).
Rehm [1913], p. 9. The Eudoxus Papyrus gives only s1 =s2=90 days, s3 =92 days.
It also should be noted that the 32nd day in Taurus is actually attested in the text (Geminus, ed. Manitius, p. 232, 7).
For our evidence for this definition of the obliquity of the ecliptic cf. below p. 733 f.
Simplicius, Comm., p. 493, 15–17 ed. Heiberg (Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 96; [1877], p. 182); Hipparchus Ar. Comm. I, IX (p. 88, 14–22 ed. Manitius) in criticizing the opinions of Eudoxus and Attalus. For the importance of the ortive amplitudes cf. above I A 4, 4 and below p. 977 f.
Hipparchus I.c. p. 88, 21 f.; cf. also above p. 278 and below p. 807.
Theon of Smyrna (about A.D. 130, mainly based on Adrastus, about a generation earlier) Expositio..., Astron., Chap. 38 (ed. Hiller, p. 194, 4–8; Martin, p. 314/315; Dupuis, p. 212/213); also Chap. 12 (ed. Hiller, p. 135, 12–14; Martin, p. 174/175; Dupuis, p. 222, 10f./223, 8f.). For Adrastus cf. Theon, ed. Hiller, index p.213.
Pliny NH II 67 (Loeb I, p. 214/215; Budé II, p. 29).
Chalcidius 88, ed. Wrobel, p. 159, 10–12; cf. also Chap. 70, ed. Wrobel, p. 137, 12f.
Martianus Capella, De nuptiis VIII 867 (ed. Dick, p. 457, 2–5 ).
Cf., e.g., the collection given in Lattin [1947], p. 215, no. 87.
In Chap. 27 (ed. Hiller, p. 172, 15–173, 16; Martin, p. 258/263; Dupuis, p. 278/281); also Schiaparelli, Scritti H, p. 30f.; [1877], p. 126f.
Some manuscripts seem to give 365 1/6 but the emendation 365 1/2 is secured by the additional remark that the return occurs every two years at the same hour.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 26; [1877], p. 122. Cf. above p. 625, note 8 for the erroneous interchange of the roles of the second and the innermost sphere.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 33 ([1877], p. 128) suggested a connection between Theon’s latitude theory and the octaeteris. But a luni-solar intercalation cycle has nothing to do with the solar latitude; furthermore one should not separate in (1) the motion of the nodes from the motion of the apogee which is part of the same speculative doctrine.
This Commentary was written in the second half of the 4th century A.D.; cf. below p.966f. The historical interest of the section in question was first recognized by Delambre (1817; HAA II, p. 625627); the text was edited by Halma (1822; HT I, p. 53) with a French translation. Nallino (1903; Batt. I, p. 298) gave a Latin translation; Dreyer (1906; Plan. Syst., p. 204) translated it into English. Duhem (1914; SM II, p. 194) again into French. For an Arabic version, found in the Picatrix (second half of the 11th century) cf. the German translation by Plessner-Ritter, p. 82 (1962).
Battānī substituted the name of Ptolemy for Theon (Nallino, Batt. I, p. 126, Chap. 52). Also Bīrūnī in his Chronology (written A.D. 1000) refers to a work by Ptolemy “On the spherical art” (trsl. Sachau, p. 322). This is apparently the same work which Sā‘id al-Andalusī in his Tabagāt al-umam (written 1068) ascribes to Theon (trsl. Blachère, p. 86). Birúni in his Astrology (written 1029) properly reverts to Theon’s authorship (trsl. Wright, p. 101, No. 191).
The title shown in Halma’s edition is Περί τροπής and is indeed found in Par. gr. 2399 fol. 12v. Par. gr. 2400 fol. 13’, 2423 fol. 140v, and Vat. gr. 208 fol. 80v, however, all have the plural. There is no basis for Halma’s new technical term “De la conversion” which has been repeated everywhere in the modern literature.
Vat. gr. 1059 fol. 112r II. All these texts are unpublished, excepting Halma’s Par. gr. 2399.
Παλαιοί τών άποτελεσματικων.
Delambre gives here the specific number of 77 years since Diocletian and Dreyer includes it in his translation. Neither Halma’s printed text nor any of the unpublished MSS known to me has such a number.
Cf. above IV A 4, 2 A and p. 600. Apparently an explanation of this kind was also in Birūnī’s mind (Chronology, trsl. Sachau, p. 322, 15–25; cf. also his Astrology, trsl. Wright, p. 101, No. 191).
Cf. above p.276 and Table 28 there. Excepting the summer solstice of −431 June 27 which is the traditional epoch date for the Metonic cycle (cf. above p. 622) and Aristarchus’ summer solstice of −279 reported by Hipparchus (cf. below p. 634), the above listed equinoxes are the earliest ones mentioned in the Almagest.
III 54 (Manitius, p. 66/69); expressly mentioned (with an amplitude of 8°) in scholion 316 (Manitius, p. 275). Manitius misinterpreted Proclus (p. 287, note 7) when he related this remark to the Eudoxan hypothesis of a solar latitude (for which see above IV B 2, 2), perhaps misled by Schiaparelli who also connected the theory of trepidation with the theory of solar latitude. Schiaparelli remarked correctly (Scritti II, p. 31/32; [1877], p. 127) that a vibration of the equinoxes (i.e. of the intersections of the solar orbital plane with the equator) is a necessary consequence of the assumption of a rotation of the nodes of the solar orbit (i.e. of the intersections with the ecliptic). Assuming an inclination of 1/2° between orbital plane and ecliptic (cf. above IV B 2, 2) and ε =24° one finds that the true equinoxes deviate from the mean at most about 1;15° with a period of 2922 years (because of (1), p. 630). Obviously these parameters cannot explain Theon’s data, even if it were permissible to combine the relations (1) which imply the existence of a solar anomaly with a homocentric model which excludes anomaly.
Brahe, Opera II, p.255f. and Dreyer’s remarks in Opera I, p. XLVI f.
Who found it convenient to reduce the distance of the sun to 1179 earth radii (cf. Neugebauer [1968, 2], p. 101).
His table of parallaxes, Progymn. I 80 (Opera II, p. 65) gives 0;3° for the horizontal parallax of the sun.
Epitome Astron. Cop. IV, 1 (Werke 7, p. 279 ).
Flamsteed and Cassini (cf. Houzeau, Vadem., p. 405).
Heath, Arist., p. 352–411. Tannery, Mém. Sci. I, p. 371–396 reached conclusions in many respects similar to the following arguments.
Cf., e.g., Heath, Arist., p. 412–414 and below p.640.
Vitruvius, Archit. IX, 2, ed. Krohn, p. 208, 1–25; Loeb II, p. 228/231; Budé, p. 17f. and notes p. 124–130.
For the actual formulation of (1) cf. above p.590.
In the text (3) is expressed in the form that the apparent diameter of the moon is 1/15 of a zodiacal sign.
Cf below p.643. Surprisingly the enumeration of results at the beginning mentions only the boundaries for the ratios Rs/Rm and ds/dm (Propos. 7 and 9) and for de/dm (Propos. 15) but not for de/dm (Propos. 17).
It is not unusual in ancient drawings to find that different cases are superimposed in the same figure; cf., e.g., the diagrams for stereographic projection (below V B 3, 2).
Pappus, Coll. VI, ed. Hultsch, p. 560, 11–568, 11; trsl. Ver Eecke II, p. 430–435. The earliest extant manuscript of Aristarchus’ treatise is Vat. gr. 204 of the 10th cent.; cf. Heath, Arist., p. 325.
A clear analysis is given, e.g., in Dijksterhuis, Archimedes, p. 370–373.
Cf. for details below IV B 3, 3 C, but also below p. 664 (11) and (12).
Thus 1°≈833 stades. Aristotle, De caelo II, 14 (Loeb, p.254/255) mentions an estimate of ce=400000 stades (thus 1°≈1100 st.).
Lejeune [1947] is undoubtedly right when he renders őψις by the technical term “pupil” and not by the indefinite “eye” (cf. in particular p. 37, n. 3). The same conclusion had been reached by F. Schmidt, Instrum., p. 330 (1935).
Hippolytus, Heres. IX 12 gives a vivid picture of the fierce strife in the christian community of Rome at the end of the second century A.D.
He was, after all, a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origenes, and other educated theologians (and therefore prone to fall into heresies).
Heresies IV, 8–11, ed. Wendland, p.41–44; trsl. Preysing, p. 51–54.
Ridiculed by Hippolytus as being useless for the true faith. It is illuminating to compare this position with the attitude toward astronomy expressed in the contemporary epigram conventionally ascribed to Ptolemy (cf. below p. 835).
Tannery, Mém. Sci. I, p. 393, but without following up the consequences of his observation.
I am using Wendland’s edition which is preferable to Heiberg’s excerpts in Archimedes, Opera II, p. 552–554.
The distance from the earth to Saturn thus becomes 54α=299383020 stades; cf. above (16) and (18).
a Macrobius, Comm. II, 3 (ed. Willis II, p. 106; trsl. Stahl, p. 196).
Perhaps 1680000 stades; cf. Tannery, Mém. Sci. I, p. 394, note * and Wendland’s apparatus to p. 41, 13.
For a detailed discussion of these dates cf. Marie Laffranque, Posidonios d’Apamée (Paris 1964 ), p. 99–108.
Of greatest influence were the books by K. Reinhardt, Poseidonios (1921) and Kosmos and Sympathie (1926), summarized in his article in RE 22,1 col. 558–826 (1953). A useful discussion of the sources is found in Gronau, Poseid. (1914). For an excellent study of Posidonius’ personality and influence see A. D. Nock, Posidonius, J. Roman Studies 49 (1959), p. 1–15.
Gronau, Poseid., passim, in particular Chap. V and Reinhardt, Pos. p. 185. Cf. also the final (spurious) remarks in Cleomedes (Ziegler, p. 228, 1–5): “The preceding teachings are not the author’s own opinion but collected from older or more recent summaries; much of it is taken from Posidonius.”
Cf. above IV A 3, 2. Some scholars tried to make Geminus a pupil of Posidonius. Even if it were not chronologically excluded (above p. 580) I see nothing that supports such a conjecture (cf. above p. 578, also Reinhardt, Pos. p. 178).
Cicero, De natura deorum II 34/35, 88 (Loeb, p. 206–209).
I do not see how the daily (mean) motions of sun and moon can be combined with the planetary retrogradations (even ignoring latitudes) in one spherical model. D. Price [ 1974 ], p. 57f. tries to explain Archimedes’ planetarium by means of gearings of a type he had discovered in the Antikythera mechanism that represents lunar motions. But even these intricate devices cannot produce more than the mean motions of the outer planets. Hence the most characteristic features of planetary motions, stations and retrogradations, are omitted and the inner planets must be ignored altogether.
Cf. for Canopus (modern: α Carinae) above p. 576, n. 3.
Cf. below p. 671. The same data in Pliny, NH II, 178 (Budé II, p. 78 ).
Letronne (Oeuvres choisies, ser. 2, Vol. 1, p. 263) argues against the authenticity of the whole story but seems to have found no followers.
Actually Rhodes is about 4;50° north, 1;50° west of Alexandria, Syene about 7;10° south, 3° east (cf. Fig. 17).
Actually for Rhodes 90−φ=54° while the declination of Canopus is about −52;30°. Hence the star culminates at Rhodes at an altitude of about 1 1/2° which leads to a visibility of about 2 1/2b (Drabkin [1943], p.510, n.5).
Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 7 (Loeb I, p. 436/437); also Heron, Dioptra 35 (Opera III, p. 302, 12–17); Geminus (Manitius, p. 166, 2), etc.
Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 24 (Loeb I, p. 482/483). Cf. also Pliny NH V, 132 (Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 418, 2) where he ascribes to Eratosthenes the estimate of 469 miles, i.e. ≈ 3750 st.
It is, of course, nonsense when Strabo says that this distance was determined by means of sun dials; these instruments can only furnish angles, never absolute distances.
Strabo, Geogr. II 2, 2 (Loeb I, p. 364/365). The estimate (6) is also mentioned by St. Basil (Hexaemeron IX, Sources Chrétiennes, p. 483) who correctly observes that Moses was not concerned with the shape or the size of the earth, a fact held against the sciences.
Cf. below (9). Perhaps an obscure remark by Pliny (NH II 247, Budé II, p. 111, p. 266) can be taken as an indication that Hipparchus also did not accept (4) unreservedly: he is said to have added “a little less than 26000 stades” to the 252000. [Note: ce=252000+25500=277500st. leads with the Babylonian approximation π ≈ 3;7,30 to exactly re = 44 400 st.].
Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 227 ad line 3. The other variants (584, 583, 588, 573 miles) make no sense (NH V, 132 I.c. p. 418, 2 and var.).
Cf. above p. 635 (4) and below p. 667.
Cleomedes II, 1 (Ziegler, p. 146, 18–25); cf. also II, 3 (Ziegler, p. 178, 12).
Cf. also Fig. 15 in the Eudoxus Papyrus (below p. 1453, Pl. VII col. X II ).
Cf. above p.650(35). Note that Archimedes made Rm=5544130 stades (above p.649(2)), using obviously the same type of stades as Apollonius and Posidonius.
De natura deorum II, 103 (Loeb, p. 221).
The famous paper by Hultsch [1897] on “Poseidonius über die Grösse und Entfernung der Sonne” is a collection of implausible hypotheses which are not worth discussing.
Cleomedes II, 1 (Ziegler, p. 144, 22–146, 16).
Also Ziegler, p. 140, 7–9; cf. also below p. 726: n. 14. Cf. also Pliny, N.H. II, 182 (Budé Il, p. 80).
Pliny, NH II, 21 (Budé II, p. 37 and p. 172–175).
Actually only from the upper limit of the atmosphere (the region of winds and clouds) which adds 40 stades to the radius of the earth.
Distances expressed in lunar diameters are mentioned, e.g., in the Almagest (IX, 7 and IX, 10 in observations from the Era Dionysius (−264 and −261), in X, 1 from Ptolemy and Theon, A.D. 140 and 127). Also P. Lond. 130 for A.D. 81 (Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Gr. Hor., p. 26).
E.g. Aristarchus, according to Archimedes, Sandreckoner (Opera II, p. 222, 6–8); cf. also above IV B 3, I E and p. 592.
In the second part of P. Oslo 73 or Proclus, Hypotyp. IV, 73–75; etc.
Alm. V, 14 (Manitius I, p. 305); Tetrabiblos II, 2 (Boer, p. 110/111; Loeb, p. 231); also Proclus, Hypotyposis IV, 80–86.
Diels; VS(5), p. 68, 6–8; cf. also Heath, Aristarchus, p. 21/22.
De facie 935 D, Loeb, Moralia XII, p. 142/143.
Simplicius (≈ A.D. 530) in his Commentary to Aristotles’ De caelo, ed. Heiberg, p. 504, 25–505,19; French transi. Duhem SM I, p.401. Cf. also Proclus, Hypot. IV 98f. (Manitius, p. 130/131). In the same context we read that Polemarchus (the contemporary of Eudoxus and Callippus, cf. below p. 676) considered the variation of the apparent lunar diameter negligible and ignored it on purpose because he preferred the theory of homocentric spheres (Heiberg l.c. p. 505, 21–23; Duhem I.c. p. 402).
Cf. Alm. VI, 7 (Manitius I, p. 374, 28; 376, 31–377, 1); same in Cleomedes II, 3 (Ziegler, p. 172, 25 ).
Cleomedes II, 3 (ed. Ziegler, p. 172, 22–27).
Comm. Ar., Manitius, p. 90, 10.
Archimedes, Sandreckoner; cf. Lejeune [1947] (above p. 647).
Cf. above p. 644 (1). I do not understand a sentence in Plutarch (Moralia, Loeb XIV, p. 64/65) in which he ascribes to Archimedes the discovery of a certain ratio of the solar diameter to the circumference.
Alm. IV, 9 (Manitius I, p. 237, 8); also Pappus, Coll. VI, 37 (Hultsch, p. 556, 14ff., trsl. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 413).
De nuptiis VIII, 860 (ed. Dick, p. 452, 13 f.); cf. also below p. 664.
De animae procr., Moralia 1028B (ed. Hubert, p. 183, 17–24 ).
The same intellectual level is still present in Hegel’s “Dissertatio philosophica de Orbitis Pianetarum,” accepted (1801) “pro licentia docendi” at the University of Jena (Hegel, Sämtliche Werke I, Stuttgart 1927, p. 1–29; German transi.: Philos. Bibl., Leipzig 1928, p. 347–402).
Pliny, NH II 83 (Budé II, p. 36, p. 172–175); also Plutarch, De facie, Loeb XII, p. 75.
He has it from Sulpicius Gallus (≈160 B.C. — cf. below p. 666, n. 8). For the subsequent speculation about harmonies cf., e.g., van der Waerden, RE Suppl. 10 col. 857–859.
Cf. the variants in Lydus, De mensibus (ed. Wuensch, p. 54, 7–10) and Diels, Dox., p. 362, 25–363, 4. Tannery (Mém. Sci. I, p. 391 f.) suggested drastic changes of all numbers in order to obtain reasonable results.
Exactly the ratio 6 would require Rm=680000 st.
This is the meaning of the first sentence on p. 44 (misinterpreted in note (a) as referring to the lunar eccentricity); cf. for the terminology, e.g., Archimedes Opera II, p. 218, 18.
Cf. above I E 5, 4: even the mean distances are greater: 67;20 re or 77 re; the maximum is 83 e.
Book I, 20 (ed. Eyssenhardt, p. 564–570; trsl. Stahl, p. 168–174).
Cf. the corresponding waterclock “observation” above p. 658. The coefficient c/216 is mentioned once before in Book I, 16 (Eyssenhardt, p. 550, 29–32; trsl. Stahl, p. 154).
Cf. below IV C 1, 3 B the “Eudoxus Papyrus”, Tannery HAA, p. 290, No. 33.
Cleomedes II, 4 (Ziegler, p. 190, 4); a similar theory also in the Āryabhatīya IV, 47 (trsl. Clark, p. 81).
Sandreckoner, Archimedes Opera II, p. 220, 20f. (trsl. Ver Eecke, p. 356); also Lasserre, p. 17, D 13.
The same argument, in a slightly improved form (sidereal rotations instead of synodic) is also found with Posidonius (cf. above p. 656). Cf. for this whole type of arguing Aristotle, De caelo II, 10 (Loeb, p. 196/199).
Macrobius, Comm. XX, 9, Eyssenhardt, p. 565, 25f.; trsl. Stahl, p. 170.
Cramer, Anecd. Gr. I, p. 373, 27–30; the author is not Dionysius as assumed by Cramer (cf. CCAG 8, 3, p. 10, F. 103; CCAG 8, 4, p. 5, F. 192v; CCAG 7, p. 45, F. 75v).
Also Joannes Damascenus (x 700), Expositio fidei 21 (ed. Kotter, Patristische Texte u. Stud. 12, 1973, p. 60, 164= Migne PG 94, 895C) quotes “the Holy Fathers” for the same opinion.
The same numbers also in Proclus, Hypot. IV, 101 (Manitius, p. 132/133).
Diets, Dox. p. 63 n. 2 = Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 445, 18–22.
Isidore, Nat. rer., ed. Fontaine, p. 333, 31. Isidore himself talks only very cautiously about the sizes of the luminaries (Etym. III, 47, 48; Nat. rer. XVI).
De nuptiis VIII 859 (Dick, p. 452); cf. also below p. 668 and p. 964.
P. Carlsberg 31 (probably second century A.D.); cf. Neugebauer-Parker, EAT III, p. 241–243, Pl. 79 A (not B). The character of this text was not understood in the edition because the scribe had consistently replaced “month” by “year”. The proper explanation was found by A. Aaboe [ 1972 ], p. 111f.
Heron, Dioptra 35; Opera III, p. 302/303, Sect. 22; cf. also Rome [1931, 1].
Plutarch, De facie (Loeb, Moralia XII, p. 131) citing parameters also known from Babylonian astronomy; cf. above p. 321.
E.g. the “prediction” by Helicon of the (annular) eclipse of — 360 May 12 (Ginzel, Kanon, p. 183, No. 15) or of the lunar eclipse of —167 June 21 by Sulpicius Gallus (Pliny, NH II 53; Budé II, p. 23 f. and p. 142f.; Ginzel, Kanon, p. 190ff., No. 27).
Dio Cassius, Roman History (completed about A.D. 230) LX, 26 (Loeb VII, p. 432–435).
Cicero, Dedivinatione II 6, 17 (Loeb, p. 388/389), written 44 B.C.
Quaest. nat. VII, I11, 3 (written between A.D. 62 and 65); cf also above p. 572, n. 4. Tannery, Mém. Sci. 111, p. 353 substituted “Chaldeans” for the implausible “Egyptians”.
Catullus, Carmina 66, 3 (around 50 B.C.).
Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 47, 13f.; cf. also above p.321.
Stobaeus, ed. Wachsmuth, p. 221, 6; cf. also above p. 574.
Diogenes Laertius VII 146 (Loeb II, p. 248/251).
Hipparchus, Ar. Comm., p. 90, 10–12, ed. Manitius. Note that he says nothing about solar eclipses.
Cf. above p. 635 f. and below p. 689; also Cleomedes (from Posidonius): above p. 654; cf. also below p. 963.
Plutarch, De facie 923 B (Loeb, Moralia XII, p. 57, noted) and De anim. procr. 1028 D (ed. Hubert, p. 184, 12 ).
Isagoge XI, 7 (Manitius, p. 134/135); cf. above p.593.
Strabo, Geogr. 11, 12 (Loeb I, p. 24/25).
Pliny, NH II, 180 (Loeb I, p. 312/313; Budé II. p. 79 and p. 234, n. 5) gives the 2nd hour of night for Arbela, moon-rise (i.e. sun-set) in Sicily. Ptolemy, however, in Geogr.I,4 (Nobbe, p. 11, 19f.; Miik, p. 21) reports the 5th hour of night for Arbela, the 2nd for Carthage. Cf. also Ginzel, Kanon, p. 184f. (No. 18) and P. V. Neugebauer, Kanon d. Mondf., p. 42. Cleomedes I, 8 (Ziegler, p. 76, 8–16) gives 45 as difference for eclipses seen in “Persia and Spain”.
All data are reduced to Arbela local time: for Syracuse Δt =1;55h, for Carthage 2;15h.
Pliny, NH II, 180; cf. Ginzel, Kanon, p. 201f. (No. 39).
Cf. above p. 327f. and for the identification of the eclipse p. 316, n. 9.
Martianus Capella, De nuptiis VII, p. 859 f. (Dick, p. 452 f.).
Cf. above p. 663f., and below p. 964.
Cf. below p. 688 and p. 689, n. 21.
Proclus, Hypot. I, 19 (Manitius, p. 10/11).
Proclus, Hypot. IV, 99 (Manitius, p. 130/131). For Ptolemy’s parameters cf. above p. 106.
Cleomedes II, 4 (Ziegler, p. 190, 17–24).
Simplicius, Comm. Arist., Vol. III, ed. Heiberg, p. 505, 1–9; trans]. Duhem, SM I, p. 401.
Above I B 6, 7; for later modifications cf. below p. 997.
Cf., e.g., Schaumberger, Erg., p. 246–249 or Parker, Vienna Pap.
E.g. Marc. gr. 325 fol. 21v, 1–14 (unpublished). Here the argument ω′=345;12° is described as “in the 6th step and about 1/60 [thus 0;15° for the 0;121, northerly and ascending” (cf. Fig. 21).
Cf., e.g., below p. 671, or P. Carlsberg 9 which starts its enumeration of zodiacal signs with Leo (Neugebauer-Parker, EAT III, p. 223 ).
Halma HT I, p. 144/145; cf. below p. 979, n. 3. The steps are not indicated, however, in the corresponding tables of Vat. gr. 1291 (fol. 44r, 45v, 46r).
Similar commentaries, e.g. by Stephanus of Alexandria (: A.D. 620) demonstrate the continuity of the tradition (cf. Usener, K1. Schr. III, p. 296, Chap. 22, unpublished); cf. below p. 1049 ).
Nallino, Batt. I, p. 13, 22–26; II, p. 58, p. 221.
E.g. Vat. gr. 1059 fol. 112r (unpublished). A unique V-shaped diagram is found in Vat. gr. 1291 fol. 47v (originally the last page) but with incorrect legend (latitudes of Mercury instead of solar declinations; the MS was written about A.D. 820; cf. below p. 969f.).
Cf. above IV A 3, 3. Cf. also Ptolemy, Tetrab. II, 12 Loeb, p. 209 and p. 213; ed. Boll-Boer, p. 99, 3, p. 100, 8.
CCAG 7 p. 128, 12–24 (from Antiochus, ≈A.D.200); CCAG 5, 1, p. 198, 8f. (Anonymus of 379); CCAG 8, 1, p. 243 a, 12 f. and p. 243 b, 23f. (from Rhetorius); CCAG 9, 1, p. 180,19 (cod. 16, note 12); etc.
Cf. for the planetary latitudes in the Handy Tables below p. 1016. The customary names for the four quadrants of planetary latitudes are also found in Cleomedes 1,4 (Ziegler, p. 34, 23–36, 1) but no steps or winds.
Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Gr. Hor., p. 154 (cf. also p. 188 f. concerning the question of authorship of Julianus of Laodicaea or Eutocius).
Also the use of χηλαί, i.e. “the Claws” (of Scorpio), for Libra conforms to an early date of Diogenes’ source. It is a funny coincidence that Yonge in 1895 (in Bohn’s Classical Library) mistook χηλαί for “Cancer” and that the same translation appears in the German translations of 1921, 1955, 1967, in the English translation (Loeb) of 1925 and 1950, in the French translation of 1933, and in the Italian translation of 1962. The older Latin translations give simply chelae.
Cf. above p. 652; also Geminus V, 25 (Manitius, p. 52, 4).
Both operate almost exclusively with fractions of whole quadrants, not of sections of a quadrant; cf. below p. 772f.
Steps of 15° are commonly used in Indian astronomy, e.g., just as in Greek astronomy, for solar declinations (Kh.-Kh. I 29. Sengupta, p. 31 for ε=24°); also for the equation of center of the sun (Kh: Kh. 116, Sengupta, p.19 for 2;14° as maximum equation). For the tables of sines cf., e.g., Āryabhatiya 110 (≈A.D. 500) or the “modern” Sūrya-Siddhānta II 15–17 (12th cent.). In the Middle Ages in Europe these tables are known as “kardaga”; cf., e.g., Millas-Vallicrosa, Est. Azar., p. 44 (in six steps to the quadrant) and Goldstein, Ibn al-Muthann5, p. 196/197. The same in Kh.-Kh. I 30 or IX 8 (Sengupta, p. 32 and p. 142) for R= 150.
Fol. 47v; cf. below V C 4, 1 D 2, p. 978.
Terminology: βορρά/νοτία/άνάβασις/κατάβασις. Cf. also Tihon [1973]. p. 103.
In the part published by A. Tihon [1973]; I am using here Marc. gr. 314 fol. 222r (unpublished).
I correct trivial scribal errors.
Marc. gr. 314 fol. 218v, et al. (cf. Tihon [1973], p. 52).
Cf. above p. 358 and below p. 1069.
Alm. VI, 8 for m = 12 digits.
Marc. gr. 314 fol. 222r, 222v, 223v; also Tihon [1973], p. 70, note 1 (counting from the solar apogee).
For references cf. above p. 573. It also has been noted above (p. 599, n. 10) that Rehm tried to distinguish two astronomers named Eudoxus.
Berlin 1966; cf. also the review Toomer [1968].
E.g. Hipparchus, Ar. Comm., Manitius, p. 9.
Collected in Lasserre as Fragm. No. 146–267. Cf. also above p. 588 and below p.929.
Mentioned by Diogenes Laertius VIII 89 (Lasserre, Fragm. T 7, p. 5, 17–20; Loeb, Diog. L. II, p. 402/403). The title has inspired a long sequence of learned (often funny) conjectures.
This title is taken from a sentence by Simplicius (Comm. in Arist. De caelo, ed. Heiberg, p. 494, 12; Lasserre Fragm., p. 69, 10 ).
The often repeated stories about Eudoxus learning astronomy from Egyptian priests, or about his observatories in Egypt, are not worth refuting. Among the “observatories”, shown to Strabo by his guides three centuries later, is mentioned (Strabo, Geogr. XVII 1, 30; Leob VIII, p. 84/85) “Kerkesoura in Lybia” which is Kerkeosiris in the Faiyiim, near Tebtunis (cf. RE 11, 1 col. 291), some 120 km from Heliopolis.
Diogenes Laertius VIII 87 (Lasserre, Fragm. T 7; Loeb II, p. 402/403). This does not agree too well with the familiar story that it was at Plato’s suggestion that Eudoxus undertook to explain planetary motions by means of uniform rotations (Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p. 488, 18–24; p. 492, 31–493, 5; also Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p.95f.; [1877], p. 182).
What we know about the school of Eudoxus can all be found in Böckh, Sonnenkr., p. 150–159.
Theon Smyrn., ed. Hiller, p. 201, 25; Martin, p. 332 and p. 58f.; Dupuis, p. 326/327.
Cf. above p. 623; also Heath, Aristarchus, p. 212.
Cf., e.g., Heath, Euclid I, p. 137; II, p. 112; II, p. 365 (et passim).
Greek text: Metaphysics Λ(=XI), 8 (Opera, ed. Bekker, II, p. 1073b, 17–1074 a, 14). Italian trsl.: Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p.94f. (German: [1877], p. 180f.); English trsl.: Heath, Aristarchus, p. 194f.; p. 212; p. 217.
Greek text: Simplicius. Comm. in Arist. De caelo, ed. Heiberg, p. 493–507. Italian trsl.: Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 95–112 (German: [1877], p. 182–198); English trsl. of the major passages: Heath, Aristarchus, p. 201 f.; p. 213; p. 221–223. Greek text and German trsl. of what is considered to be an Eudoxan “fragment” proper: Lasserre, p. 67–74.
For the corresponding theory for sun and moon cf. above p. 624 f. and p. 627.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 3–112; German translation (with some changes): Schiaparelli [ 1877 ]. For earlier work on the homocentric spheres cf. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 194.
For the modern discussion of the mathematical properties of the hippopede cf. Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 53–55 ([1877], p. 145–147) notes. Also G. Loria, Curve sghembe speciali algebriche e transcendenti (Bologna 1925 ), Vol. I, p. 199–201.
Because of obvious symmetries we may restrict α to the first quadrant.
It is not necessary to know that the curve AC is an ellipse. In order to determine the position of Pl we first consider in the horizontal plane a rotation by the angle a from A to P0. Then we tilt this plane about OA until the axis OX reaches the position OΞ (cf. Fig. 25; inclinations in these figures are not drawn to scale) and B comes to B1. As a result B1 is projected into C and P0 moves into P1′ such that P0P1′G is perpendicular to OA.
According to Diogenes Laertius VIII 86 (Tannery HAA, p. 295; Loeb, Diog. L. II, p. 400/401) on the authority of Callimachus, librarian of the Museum in Alexandria in the third century B.C.
Cf. the examples shown in Figs. 228, 233; in Fig. 35; in V C 4, 5 B 2, Figs. 115 and 116.
Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p. 497, 4; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 100, [1877], p. 186.
Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p. 497, 5; cf. above note 12. Also Heath, Aristarchus, p. 202.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 70ff., p. 74ff.; [1877], p. 159ff.; cf. below p. 683.
Simplicius, Comm., ed. Heiberg, p. 496, 6–9; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 99; [1877], p. 185.
Lasserre in his translation (p. 72) gives 103 days by mistake.
Examples for this reckoning are collected in Heath, Aristarchus, p. 285f.
Simplicius, p.495, 26–28; Schiaparelli II, p. 98/99; [1877], p. 185. The same parameters are also found, e.g., in the “Eudoxus Papyrus” (cf. below p. 688).
Cf. e.g., the tables in Alm. IX, 4.
Cf. for Ptolemy’s estimates at mean distance above p. 193. These values also agree with averages obtainable from Babylonian schemes (cf. ACT II, p. 315, p. 312, p. 305, respectively).
Even crude observations of Mars during one or two decades should have given a greater value, e.g. Δλ≈6,50°, hence about γ≈1,50° in (15).
This was stated, for Mars and Venus, from the very beginning by Schiaparelli (Scritti II, p. 70–72; [1877], p.159–161).
Schiaparelli. Scritti II, p. 73f.; [1877], p. 162. Similar curves are also shown in Hargreave [1970], p. 342–345 but the numerical discussions are without interest for the historical problem.
Simplicius had it from Sosigenes (2nd cent. A.D., the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias, not Caesar’s contemporary) who had it from Eudemus’ “History of Astronomy” (4th cent. B.C.; cf. Simplicius, Comm. ed. Heiberg, p.488, 18–21; Lasserre Fragm., p.67 (F. 121); Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p.95; [1877], p. 182). For the complicated relations between these sources (including Aristotle) cf. Schramm, Haitham. p. 32–63. The difficulties are increased by a gap in the text of Simplicius (cf. Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 101; [1877], p. 187).
Cf. for sun and moon above p. 625 and p. 627, respectively.
Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 79–82; [1877], p. 167–169. For his model he assumes the greatest permissible inclination between the two axes XX′ and ΞΞ′, i.e. γ = 90°. The planet P, however, is not located on the equator of the sphere with axis ΞΞ′ but on the equator of the new innermost sphere whose axis ZZ′ is inclined to ΞΞ′ and rotates about it with twice the angular velocity of XX′ with respect to ΞΞ′. The motion starts when XZΞP (in this order) are located on the same great circle (which then becomes the line of symmetry of the curve and represents the ecliptic).
Arist., Metaphys. Λ (Opera II, Bekker, p. 1073b, 38–1074a,14); also Simplicius, Comm. ed. Heiberg, p. 497f; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 101–112; [1877], p. 187–198.
For some ancient difficulties with the count of spheres cf. Simplicius, p. 503,10–504,3; Schiaparelli. Scritti II, p. 107f.; [ 1877 ], p. 193f.
With this find is connected the famous story of the Arabs burning papyri for the pleasant smell of the smoke (Not. et Extr. 18, 2, p. 6, note 1).
The only color used is some reddish brown, indicated by shading in the edition, appearing dark on our photograph PI. VII, p. 1453.
Blass, p. 4f. (Nos. 27 and 50 in Tannery’s count). Suidas (ed. Adler, II, p. 445 = Lasserre T 8) says that Eudoxus had composed a poem called “Astronomy”.
A second hand wrote in the space between these lines “Work, you men, in order not to work” and “Oracles of Serapis” and “Oracles of Hermes”. The words “Oracles of Serapis” are also found at the end of the preceding column (XXIII) and inside the zodiac in col. XXIV.
Adopting Tannery’s sectioning of the text one has the following parallels: No. 1/No. 53; No.7/Nos. 34, 35, 40; No. 9/No. 41; Nos. 26, 27/Nos. 42, 50: No. 39/No. 44.
Tannery No. 27 and No. 50. We have seen that these sections belong to the earliest form of the treatise; cf. above p. 686, note 3.
Tannery (p. 286) replaces 3 by 7 months but the text has words, not alphabetic numerals; nor is the result, 579 days, attested elsewhere.
This parapegma does not agree with what has been reconstructed as Eudoxus’ parapegma; cf. Rehm, RE Par. col. 1322, 37–1323, 51.
The sun is said to remain in each sign 30 days and 5 hours, supposedly as a result of the division by 12 of 365. This implies that one “hour” (ωρα) is taken as 1/12 of one day. Similarly in No. 37 (Tannery HAA, p. 290; Lasserre F 128) 1/2 zodiacal sign is equated to 1/2 hour. Since Letronne (Journal des Savants 1839, p. 585–587; Blass, p. 8; Boll, Sphaera, p. 313, etc.) this has been considered as evidence for the use of the Babylonian “double-hours” (danna). To me this seems very implausible on general historical grounds. I would consider a simple arithmetical error of the redactor of our text much more likely; in particular, since a section from the original poetic version (No. 3, on the variation of the length of daylight) uses ωρα for the equinoctial hours.
For the moon 2 1/4 days per sign (Tannery No. 41 and No. 9).
Cf. Simplicius, Comm. p. 505, 3–23 ed. Heiberg; Schiaparelli, Scritti II, p. 109f., [1877], p. 195f. ‘3 For the problem of relative size and distances of the luminaries cf. above IV B 3.
This fits in with our observation of duplications in the contents (cf. above p. 687).
Cf. above p. 686. I have numbered all figures consecutively; some are still better preserved on the facsimile. Nos. 11 to 19 are shown on PI. VII; this plate is based on photographs which could not be exactly matched to the text in col. XIII.
As shown on p. 600 we have probably a reference here to the solar longitude in the month Thoth, using the Eudoxan norm for the zodiacal signs.
No. 49. Another representation of an annular eclipse (why 3 concentric circles?) is found in Fig. 26, col. XVIII.
Neither text nor figures refer to astrological doctrines.
Cf. Neugebauer-Parker, EAT III, p. 175ff. (cf. also the index).
Discovered by Kugler; cf. for (2): SSB I, p. 9. p. 11; for (3): p. 40. Conveniently listed in Boll [ 1913 ], p. 342.
Boll-Boer, p. 47, 17ff.; Robbins I, 21 (Loeb, p. 98–101).
We shall meet similar sequences, e.g., in the hellenistic shadow tables; cf. below p.739 (5).
Tetrabiblos, ed. Boll-Boer, p. 47 top; Loeb, p. 97.
Boll-Boer, p. 51/52. The list of the Loeb edition (p. 107) has to be modified on the basis of the apparatus in Boll-Boer.
Οί περί μετέωρα δεινοί (Achilles, Isag. 16; Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 42, 25).
Planetary Hypotheses,” below V B 7, 3.
Cicero, De divin. II, 43 (Loeb, p. 474/5). In De nat. deorum II, 53 (Loeb, p. 174/5), however, he follows the order (6c), p. 692.
Plutarch, De animae procr. 31 (Moralia VI, 1, ed. Hubert, p. 183, 20–25 ).
Cf., e.g., Varâhamihira, Pc: Sk., Neugebauer-Pingree, Vol. II, p. 13f., Vol. I, p. 121 (XIII, 39); cf., however, Vol. II, p. 109. Two different derivations of the sequence (5) were given by Cassius Dio (≈A.D.200), one based on musical intervals, the second on the rulers of the hours (Roman History 37, 18 and 19; Loeb III, p. 128–131 ).
Stobaeus, Ecl., ed. Wachsmuth I, p. 185, 14–19.
For references see W. Bousset, Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria and Rom, p. 31 ff. (Göttingen 1915 ).
Theon Smyrn. XV, ed. Hiller, p. 142, 7ff.; Dupuis, p. 232/233. Similarly Chalcidius, Chap. 73, ed. Wrobel, p. 141, 2ff.
Achilles, Isag. 16 (Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 42, 30–43, 2 ).
Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 43, 28.
For the counting of positions in the sequence (4) beginning with Saturn, cf., e.g. Pseudo-Plutarch, De plac. II, 16 (Diels, Dox., p. 344, 17–345, 3); here (4) is ascribed to Plato (!).
Cf. above, p. 646; this opinion is ascribed to Empedocles (5th cent.) by Pseudo-Plutarch, De Plac. II 1, 4 (Diets, Dox., p. 328, 1–3 ).
De animae procr. 1028 C and D (Moralia VI, 1, ed. Hubert, p. 184, 2–17).
Mentioned before (p. 663); similarities with Hipparchian ratios (p.326 (3) and (7)) are probably accidental.
E.g. with Philolaus (second half of the 5th cent. B.C.); Diels. Dox., p. 378, 6–9.
Translated, e.g., in Heath, Aristarchus, p. 165.
From Heraclea in Pontus. He was nicknamed “Pompicus” by the Athenians; for some moderns he is “the Paracelsus of Antiquity” or “un des romanciers les plus lus” (Bidez-Cumont, Mages I, p. 14). At the death of Plato (347 B.C.) he was about 40 years of age.
The main sources are two short passages, one in Pseudo-Plutarch and one in Proclus, and a more substantial discussion by Simplicius in his Commentary to Aristotle’s De caelo (Ps.-Plut.: Diels, Dox., p. 378, 10–15; trsl. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 251. Proclus, Comm. Tim., ed. Diehl III, p. 137; trsl. Heath, p. 255, Festugière IV, p. 176. Simplicius, ed. Heiberg, p. 541, 29; trsl. Heath, p. 255).
Chalcidius, Comm. Tim., Chap. 110 (ed. Wrobel, p. 176, 22–25; trsl. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 256).
Theodosius, De diebus et noct. I 9, I 10, etc. (ed. Fecht); cf. below IV D 3, 3 B.
Archit. IX 1, 6 (Budé, p. 11; p. 89–92).
Theon Sm., Chap. 32f. (Dupuis, p. 300–303). The epicycles are represented by “solid spheres” which carry the planet, rolling inside of “hollow” spheres that correspond to the deferents. The radii of the epicycles increase from the sun to Mercury and to Venus.
Since the sun retains its solid sphere one must assume that the orbits of Mercury and Venus have their center in the mean sun.
Macrobius, Comm. I. 19, ed. Willis II, p. 73f.; trsl. Stahl, p. 162–164; Heath Aristarchus, p.258f.; summary in Dreyer, Plan. Syst., p. 129.
Martianus Capella VIII 857; ed. Dick, p. 450, trsl. Heath, Aristarchus, p. 256.
Initiated by Schiaparelli (1873); Scritti I, p. 361 ff.; II, p. 113 ff. Actually this overlooks a fundamental aim in the work of Copernicus, that is to show that all technical details of the Ptolemaic numerical procedures can also be explained heliocentrically under the severe restriction to uniform circular motions.
Cf., e.g., the simile of the ants on the potter’s wheel or of the traveler on a boat: Vitruvius, Arch. IX 1, 15 (Budé, p. 15, p. 111); Geminus, Isag. XII, 18 (Manitius, p. 140, 23–142, 12); Achilles, Isag. 20 (Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 48, 16–24); Anon. (Maass, p. 97, 33f.); Cleomedes I, 3 (Ziegler, p. 30, 8–15). Cf. also Aryabhatiya IV, 8 (Clark, p. 64); Bar Hebraeus (13th cent.), L’asc. I, 6 (trsl. Nau, p. 10).
Van der Waerden [1944] and [1951, 2] (p. 69, Fig. 5).
Pannekoek [ 1952 ]. Twenty years later van der Waerden ([1970, 1], p. 51) treats his theory of the earth’s motion as an established fact.
Chalcidius, Chap. 111 (ed. Wrobel, p. 178, 5–8 ).
Cf. below p. 804 for the tradition of this parameter (Theon of Smyrna-Chalcidius-Cleomedes-Martianus Capella).
English translation by Heath, Aristarchus, p. 302. Cf. also above p. 646.
Plutarch, De facie (Loeb XII, p. 54/55; Heath, Arist., p. 304); also Pseudo-Plutarch, De Plac. II, 24 (Diels, Dox.; Heath, Arist., p. 305).
Sextus Emp., Adv. Math. X (= Against Phys. II) 174 (Loeb III, p. 298/9; Heath, Arist., p. 305).
Simplicius, Comm. Arist. De caelo (ed. Heiberg, p. 444, 34; trsl. Heath, Arist., p. 254).
Plutarch, Plat. Quaest. 1006 C (ed. Hubert, Moralia VI, 1, p. 129, 21–25).
Heath, Aristarchus, p. 305.
On Seleucus (ca. 170 B.C.) cf. above p.610f.
Van der Waerden [1970, 1], p. 7, p. 51. Needless to say such tables would be useless for a terrestrial observer.
That Seleucus considered the cosmos to be infinite is also known from Pseudo-Plutarch (Diels, Dox., p. 328, 4–6); in Stobaeus’ version not only Seleucus but also Heraclides Ponticus are credited with this opinion.
Plutarch, De facie 11 and 14 (Loeb XII, p. 77–79; p. 89–91).
Erected under Augustus; the hour lines on the pavement were designed by the “mathematician” Novius Facundus.
Ancient Lartos, about 7 km west of Lindos (cf. the map on PI. I in IG XII, 1). Note that the text does not come from a systematic excavation (as has been occasionally asserted).
The text seems to have been lost in the Museum for many years (cf. Hiller v. Gaertringen [1942], p. 165), only a squeeze was reproduced in Herz [1894], p. 1144 (upside down) and in Tannery, Mém. Sci. 15, p. 119. After the second World War Prof. Derek Price of Yale University obtained a new squeeze from Berlin. The fragment measures about 76 by 28 cm.
Hipparchus, Ar. Comm., Introduction et passim; cf. also above p. 278.
Cf. however, the “stadium” of 1/2° in Manilius III 282ff. (below p.719) and the “solar-cubit” in P. Oslo 73 (above p.592).
Cf. for this terminology Tannery, Mém. Sci. 15, p. 182E For the three preceding terms cf., e.g., below p. 933.
Tannery, Mém. Sci. 2, p. 509 suggests restoring 918543 for the above mentioned number 10n for Mercury’s phases.
The initial 40 is doubtful.
The final 10 is doubtful.
Cf. below p.704 (22).
Cf. above p.150 (1), p.170(1), and p. 389 (7) or p. 420 (2).
Cf., e.g., above p.151 (2).
From an epigraphic viewpoint the change from 57 to 50 (or rather from 570 to 500) is unpleasant but seems unavoidable.
Cf. for these concepts above p. 377.
Cf. above p.388f.
Cf., e.g., ACT II, p. 283 or above p.426.
The latter without emendations; perhaps one should read 15436 for Mars and 2456 for Jupiter.
Herz [1894], p. 1142.
Cf. below p.704.
Decreasing L by 20 would lead in (13) to P≈10;59 for Jupiter, to ≈28;57 for Saturn, i.e. to values hardly permissible.
Evidence for planetary models which assume an incorrect sense of rotation on the epicycle will be discussed in V A 1, 4.
Prof. Toomer reminded me of this parallelism; cf. also Toomer [ 1965 ], p. 62, Fig. V.
For further details of the Indian procedure cf., e.g., Neugebauer-Pingree, Varah. Pc: Sk. II, p. 101 and Fig. 59 there.
Cf. Neugebauer-Parker, EAT I, p. 119f. for the difficulties connected with the unexpected ratio M: m = 3:1 and for its possible connection with the origin of the 24-division of the day which appears for the first time in this period.
In ancient mathematical geography the name of this area is “(Mouth of the) Borysthenes” (i.e. Dniepr); cf., e.g., below p.725 (1).
We have textual evidence for the use of water clocks since Old-Babylonian times; cf. Neugebauer [1947, 2].
Cf. for the texts Neugebauer [1947, 2], p. 41.
Written by Christians since it contains, e.g., a discussion between Gregory of Nazianz and Basil.
Published CCAG 8, 4, p. 232. The treatise was perhaps compiled by Balbillus who had great influence on Nero and Vespasianus. (Serious objections against the commonly accepted conjecture that Balbillus was the son of Thrasyllus, the astrological advisor of Claudius, were raised by Gagé, Basiléia, p. 76ff.).
Pañcasiddhāntikā XII 5; cf. Neugebauer-Pingree, Varāham., Pc. Sk. I, p. 105, II, p. 83. For the Paitāmahasiddhānta cf. I, p. 10.
Cf. above p. 706 and Fig. 38.
Mich. Pap. III, p. 77f. (XII, 11–48), p. 104f., p. 114f.
Published by E. Maass, Anal. Erat., p. 141–146 (from Par. gr. 2426; cf. CCAG 8, 3, p. 61. cod. 46, F. T ). Cf. also above p. 332, n. 15.
E.g. March = Dystros = Phamenoth. The text was compiled for a city in Asia with a harbour; cf. CCAG 9, 1, p. 128–137.
E.g. CCAG 11, 1, p. 33/34, F. 71 (also Revilla, CataL I, p. 298, No. 7).
E.g. CCAG 8, 3, p. 123–125, p. 168f. (ascribed to the Prophet David).
a Monumenta Germ. hist., Scriptores rerum Merov. I, 2, p. 405. I owe this reference to D. Pingree.
Acta Sanctorum, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris. Hippolytus Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano, nunc Berolinensi. Bruxelles, Soc. Bolland., 1902 ( Greek).
Sauget [1967] (Syriac) and Patrol. Or. 10, p. 347–353 (Arabic).
a Garitte [1964].
Petri [ 1964 ] Table, p. 283 (without realizing its schematic character).
Cf. below p. 739.
Porphyry. Introd. 193: cf. CCAG 5, 4, p. 209, 1–7.
b Cf. below p.725 (1).
Cf. above p. 581, notes 7 to 10.
Cf. below p. 731.
Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 40 (Loeb I, p. 513) says that M =15h belongs to an area south of Rome but north of Naples. Geminus, Isag. VI 8 (Manitius, p. 70, 16) says that M =15h means “around (περί) Rome.” Also the “Calendarium Colotianum” (1st cent. A.D.) and “Vallense” (Degrassi, Inscr., p. 284–287, Pl. 81–86) assume M =15h. Pliny, NH II 186 (Loeb I, p. 319) associates “Italy” with M =15h. Hyginus, Astron. IV (ed. Bunte, p. 100f.) says that where he lives M:m = 5:3 and he therefore divides the day in 8 parts. John of Damascus, in the 8th century, declares, without any geographical specification, that M =15h, m=9h (Expositio fidei 21, ed. Kotter, Patristische Texte u. Stud. 12, 1973, p. 57, 69f. and 84f. = Migne PG 94 col. 889–892).
These were correctly determined, e.g., in the Almagest; cf. above I A 4, 1.
For M= 12t we have, of course, ρ= 30° for both systems. At M =17h one finds ρ1= 9;10°, ρ6= 50;50° for System A, ρ1=11;15°, ρ6=48;45° for System B.
The time of Hypsicles, about 150 to 120 B.C., is suggested by his preface to his treatise commonly known as “Book XIV” of the “Elements” of Euclid where he refers to Apollonius (cf., e.g., Heath, Euclid III, p. 512); cf. also Huxley [1963], p. 102f.
Cf. ed. De Falco-Krause-Neugebauer, Hypsikles (1966).
Cf., e.g., Neugebauer MKT III, p. 76–80; cf also, p. 83 s.v. Reihen.
Book XIV of the Elements, mentioned above note 5; cf., e.g., Heath. GM I, p. 419–421.
Opera I, p. 470, 17–472, 22 ed. Tannery; also Heath, Dioph., p. 125 f.: p. 252 f.
Vettius Valens, Anthol. (p. 157, 14f., ed. Kroll) remarks that “the king” (i.e. Nechepso) — in contrast to Hypsicles? — gave the rising times only for the first clima (i.e. for Alexandria). What follows in this section are horoscopes which make use of System A for Alexandria and for Babylon (cf. Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Greek Horosc. Nos. L 82 and L 102 IV a and IV b). The reference to Nechepso is, of course, historically valueless.
Cf. RE 14,1 col. 1116, 12–1117, 10.
Astron. III, 394: “mihi debeat artem.”
For System B cf. below p.721.
Astron. III, 247–293; ed. Housman III, p.22–26 and commentary p. XIII-XX.
Cf., e.g., above p. 368 (1).
Cf. below p.719.
Cf. Hypsikles, ed. De Falco-Krause-Neugebauer, p. 16, p. 48 f.
CCAG 1, p. 163, 4–14.
For the date of Rhetorius cf above p.258, n. 14.
Ed. Kroll, p. 23f.
Ed. Kroll, p. 304, 4, 9, 18.
Above p. 597, n. 31.
Above p.718 (11). Manilius III 275, 279, 291, 418, 437; ed. Housman III, p. 24ff., p.41, p. 44; commentary p. XIV.
Cf. above p.
Since 0;30°=0;0,5d and since 1 beru =0;5d (the “double-hour” of the older literature, e.g., Bilfinger) one could say that the stadia are the “minutes” of the béru. But in Babylonian astronomy the units below the béru are the u3, i.e. the degrees (1/30 béru) and their sexagesimal parts, and not units of 1/60 béru.
Tetrab. I, 21 Boll-Boer, p. 46, 10–14=I, 20 Robbins, p. 94/95.
CCAG V, 4, p. 211, § 41 (194 Wolf).
Ed. Boer, p. 3, 4–8, 2; p. 10, 17–11, 3; p. 81, 13–19.
Firmicus, Math. II, 11 (ed. Kroll-Skutsch I, p. 53–55 ).
In fact the above p.718 (11) mentioned values for Babylon (in degrees).
Cf. Ryssel [1893], p. 47f. Syriac text and Latin translation in Patrologia Syriaca, Vol. I, part 2 (Paris 1907), p. 513, No. 8.
Cf. for Paulus (z A.D. 375) below V C 2, 4 B; for Chap. 30 (which is not found in all MSS) cf. ed. Boer, p. 81 f.
Tetrab. I, 21 Boll-Boer, p. 46, 7–9; = I, 20 Robbins, p. 20.
Pliny NH VII 49, 160 (Jan-Mayhoff II, p. 55, 19–56, 6; Loeb II, p. 612–615 but unreliable in the translation); Censorinus, De die nat. 17, 4 (ed. Hultsch, p. 31, 15–24). The best presentation of these passages is given by Honigmann in Mich. Pap. III, p. 307–311.
One has for Babylon M = 3,36°, d = 4°; for Alexandria M = 3,30°, d = 3:20°. For System B one would find κ = 110 for Babylon, κ = 114 for Alexandria.
Geminus, Isag. VI, 8 (Manitius, p. 70, 16f.); or above p. 581.
There is no proof, however, for Honigmann’s conjecture (Mich. Pap. III, p. 316) to see in Epigenes the “inventor” of the “astrological climata”.
Cf., e.g., Geminus, Isag., ed. Manitius, p. 70, 16; cf. also above p.
In Book III, 458–462; cf. also Housman, Manilius III, p. XIX f.
Mich. Pap. III; text: XI, 38-XII, 11 (p. 76/77); transl.: p. 114; 301–321 and Neugebauer [1942, 2], p. 255–257.
It follows from (7) or (10), p.713f., respectively, that also d and progression if the M form such a sequence.
a Patrol. Or. 10, p. 59–87 (menologium from Aleppo); slightly garbled versions: p.93–97 (from Scete in the Wâdi Natrûn, Lower Egypt), p. 102–107 (Antioch), p. 127–151 (Aleppo).
De nuptiis VIII, 878 (ed. Dick, p. 463,10–15).
Gerbert, Opera, ed. Bubnov, p. 39.
Martianus, De nupt. VIII, 844f. (ed. Dick, p. 444, 1–445, 13 ).
Cf. CCAG 12, P. 216, P. 223–228. On Gergis cf. also Ruska, Turba, P. 26 (No. 27) and p. 56f.
Both terms are used interchangeably, e.g., by Geminus (cf. the index in Manitius, p. 307 f., p. 325) or by Vettius Valens (Anthol., ed. Kroll, p. 317, 1/2, p. 343, 8/17, etc.).
E.g. in the Latin version of Ptolemy’s Analemma (Opera II, p. 217, 17).
In geometry κλίμα can denote the length of the generating line of a cone or the edge of a pyramid (e.g. Heron, Stereom. 14 and 30, Opera V, p. 12, 15–20 and p. 28, a4/b 5).
An entirely different meaning of κλίμα is associated with the four cardinal directions, East, West, etc. (e.g. Heron, Geom., Opera IV, p. 176, 18f. or Isidorus, Etym. III 42, 1; XIII 1, 3) or with the four principal winds (Cramer, Anecd. gr. Par. I, p. 369, 3f.).
Geogr. I, 23, ed. Nobbe, p. 45–47; trsl. Mžik, p. 65 f. The same spacing is also found in the “Diagnosis” (cf. Diller [1943], p. 44, verso 12-p. 46).
Angles between ecliptic and meridian: Alm. II, 13 (cf. p.50f.); diagram for ortive amplitudes: Alm. VI, I1 (cf. Fig. 32 below p. 1216), with explicit reference to the “seven climata” (ed. Heiberg, p. 538, 25/539, 1); tables for oblique ascensions in the “Handy Tables” (cf. V C 4, 2 A); tables for parallaxes, ibid. (cf. p. 990); values for φ in the nomogram of the “Analemma” (cf. Fig. 35, p. 1382 ).
Vettius Valens, Anthol., ed. Kroll, p. 24, 13–21 for seven climata, p. 157, 14 for Alexandria=No. I, p. 157, 22 for Babylon = No. II. Cf. also Honigmann SK, p.42f. and Neugebauer-Van Hoesen, Greek Horosc. L82, L102, IVa and b; also p. 184.
This unfortunate classification was introduced by Honigmann (SK p. 3 et passim). When Paulus Alex. in his astrological treatise calls the clima of Alexandria the “third” (ed. Boer, p. 3, 5 and p. 10, 18), thus following (1), then Honigmann simply speaks about an “unpassende Reminiszenz.”
Honigmann, SK, p. 11/12. The width of a zone of practically constant conditions is occasionally specified to be 400 stades (Geminus, Isagoge, ed. Manitius, p. 62/65, p. 170/171). Cleomedes 1, 10 (ed. Ziegler, p. 98, 4f.) says that the gnomon near Syene casts no noon-shadow at the summer solstice in an area of 300 stades diameter. Pliny NH II 182 (Jan-Mayhoff I, p.197, 5–7; Loeb I, p. 315) considers 300 to 500 stades the limits for practically equal shadow lengths, whereas Posidonius takes 400 stades as within observational accuracy in the determination of latitudes (Strabo, Geogr. II 1, 35, Loeb I, p. 330/1; Budé I 2, p. 44 ).
Cf. above p. 721; also below p. 733, n. 28 for a possible connection with Eudoxus, i.e. evidence from the fourth century B.C.
According to Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 36–42 (Loeb I, p. 509–517) Hipparchus singled out 10 parallels between M= 13h and 17h for which AM is either 1/2h or 1/4h, and once, at the end, 1h. For Ptolemy see above p. 725.
Entirely unfounded is the association of some Old-Babylonian mythology with this hellenistic invention (Honigmann, SK, p. 8).
Eusebius, Praep. evang. VI 10 (278) [164], ed. Dindorf, Opera I, p. 321, 3–6.
Perhaps there exists some relation to the geographical version of the doctrine of the “Heptomades”; cf. Boll, Lebensalter, p. 137ff.; also Kranz [1938], p. 139.
Cf., e.g., Millás-Vallicrosa, Est. Azar., p. 64 and p. 67.
As we have seen the “System” in combination with M determines all parameters needed for the computation of a table of oblique ascensions (cf. p. 713).
Note the remark “since there exist seven climata” (ed. Kroll, p. 24, 13 f.).
Math. II, 11, ed. Kroll-Skutsch I, p. 53–55. For details of the reconstruction cf. Neugebauer [1942, 2], p. 258 f.
Pliny, NH VI, 211–218 (Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 517–521; Loeb II, p.4 4–501). Cf. also below p. 747.
Above p. 725 (1). Cf., however, for the special role of M=15h above p. 711f.
Since Pliny refers to Nigidius Figulus (1st cent. B.C.) in connection with the value M=15;12h for Rome it has been assumed that Nigidius was Pliny’s direct source for the whole selection of “climata” (cf., e.g., Honigmann, SK, p. 31, p. 45, etc). Honigmann then appointed Serapion gnomonicus, supposedly a pupil of Hipparchus, as “ältesten Urheber” of the whole scheme. I see no gain in this web of hypotheses. Incidentally, M=15;12h is also in Ptolemy’s Geography (VIII 8, 3 Nobbe, p. 205, 7 f.) the value given for Rome.
For the details cf. Neugebauer [1942, 2], p. 256f.
One more name is only partially preserved, perhaps A[sia] or A[rmenia].
Cf., e.g., Strabo, Geogr. II 2, 2 (Loeb I, p. 363); I 2, 24 (Loeb I, p. 111ff.); etc.
Above p. 723; cf. also for Manilius, p. 722.
Cf. above p. 723 (1). For earlier Syriac sources on rising times cf above p. 720. See also Bar Hebraeus, L’asc. II, 3, ed. Nau, p. 143–157; on climata 1.c. II, 1, 7–9, p. 125–129 and Candel. p. 583–590.
Hipparchus tells us (Ar. Comm., Manitius, p. 29) that Eudoxus applied in the “Phenomena” the ratio M:m = 12: 7, presumably for a certain region in Greece, after having used 5:3 (i.e. M =15s) in the “Enoptron” for Greece in general (Manitius, p. 23; cf. also above p. 581, n. 8). The ratio M:m = 12:7 can hardly be correct, however, because it cannot be expressed in units of hours or degrees (M ≈ 15;9,28,...h = 3,47;22,... o). It is tempting to emend the ratio to 11:7 which belongs as climate III b to the Babylon sequence, associated with “Athens” (cf. above Table 2, p. 730) or with “Rhodes” (above p. 730 (2)). If one accepts this emendation we would have here the earliest evidence for the arithmetical climata, indeed from prehellenistic times.
Geminus, Intr. V, 45–48 (Manitius, p. 58, 18–60, 13); XVI, 6–12 (Manitius, p. 164, 22–168, 20 ).
Archit. IX 7 (ed. Krohn, p. 216, 6 f.; Loeb II, p. 250/251; Budé, p. 27).
Ed. Hiller, p. 151, 16–18 (Martin, p.214/215; Dupuis, p.246/247); p.199,7f. (Martin p. 324/325; Dupuis p. 320/321); p. 202, 12; p. 203, 10–14, etc.
Cf. Ver Eecke, Dioph., Introd., p. XI, n. 2; also Heron, Opera IV, p. 168, 10–12=Theon Smyrn., ed. Hiller, p. 199, 7.
Comm. Euclid., ed. Friedlein, p. 269, 13–18 (trsl. Ver Eecke, p. 231); Hypotyposis III, 28 (ed. Manitius, p. 54, 1–5), VI, 13 (Manitius, p. 206, 6–8). Obviously wrong is a reconstruction by Mugler of a corrupt passage in Proclus, Comm. Rep., trsl. Festugière II, p. 152, n. 1 which leads to ε=20°(!).
About” 24°: Hipparchus, Comm. Ar. I 10, 2 (Manitius, p. 96, 21); Plutarch, Moralia 590 F (Loeb VII, p. 464/465); Ptolemy, Planisph. (Opera II, p. 259, 13) or Geogr. VII 6, 7 (Neugebauer [1959, 1], p. 23, n. 6). Also without such specification ε=24° is common: e.g. Anonymus, Maass, Comm. Ar. rel., p. 132,1 (≈ A.D. 500) or Anon., Logica et Quadr. (11th cent.), Heiberg, p. 104, 21 f.; Bar Hebraeus (13th cent.), East. II 1, 1; II 2, 3f. etc. (Nau, p. 113, p. 134ff.) beside the accurate value 23;55 in II 1, 9 (Nau, p. 128).
Strabo II 5, 7 (Berger, Geogr. Fr. Hipp., p. 111 f., II B, 15 and II B, 23; Loeb I, p. 436/437f.). Cf. also above p. 590.
Opera I, 1, p. 67, 17–68, 6. Theon’s commentary (Rome CA II, p. 528/529) is, as usual, only a paraphrase of Ptolemy’s text.
By arguments which are bound to lead to absurd results Diller [1934] tried to show that Hipparchus assumed ε=23;40° “although this fact has disappeared entirely from the tradition and is not attested by any ancient author.” Diller first computes latitudes φ from distances given for parallels of longest daylight M (i.e. he converts rounded numbers of stadia into accurate degree values) and then operates with a formula of modern spherical trigonometry to find ε from φ and M. This then is taken seriously to establish a deviation of 0;10°.
Berger, Geogr. Fr. Erat., p. 131 tries to show that (5) does not belong to Eratosthenes. His arguments are much too pedantic in view of Ptolemy’s clear text (cf., e.g., Thalamas, Erat., p. 121 f.). In any case there remains the problem of explaining the origin of the peculiar fraction 11/83 in (5).
It should not have been difficult to obtain in hellenistic Egypt a fair estimate of the reduction of sailing time to account for the huge bend of the Nile in the region of Tentyra-Diospolis Parva.
A summary of the literature supporting this view is found in Prell [1959].
For the little we know about Hipparchus’ methods in mathematical geography cf. above I E 6, 3.
Indeed between M=12 1/2h and 16h are about 40°=48000st.
Cf. for details Neugebauer [1975], based on Marc. gr. 314 fol. 222r and several parallels.
Alm. II, 8 has for clima VII only tp =48° (in MS D expressly 48;0). This may be a residue of the simple arithmetical pattern.
A Babylonian shadow table belongs to the second tablet of the “series” mulApin (cf. above p. 598), published by Weidner [1912], p. 198f. The length s of the shadow (measured in cubits) and the time t after sunrise (measured in time degrees) are related through the formula s · t = c with c = 1,0 at the summer solstice, c=1,15 at the equinoxes, c=1,30 at the winter solstice; cf. for details above p. 544. The Greek scheme, described below p. 738 (1), is obviously unrelated to this Babylonian approach.
Cf. above p.581, notes 7 to 10. Only in text (q) do we find M:m=14:10.
Ambros. C 37 sup. fol. 137r-139r (unpublished); cf. CCAG 3, p. 7, cod. 11.
This text also operates with M:m = 15:9 but refers it correctly to a latitude φ = 41° (cf. Almagest II, 8 where φ=40;56° corresponds to M =15h). For a gnomon of 7 feet cf. also below p. 744.
Texts (a), (b), (d, V), (I), (m); cf also the Ethiopic texts V1 and V2 below p. 742.
This is certainly the case with Bar Hebraeus (13th cent.) because Macedonia is mentioned in this context; cf. below p. 744.
Generally identified as Philip of Opus; cf. RE 19, 2 col. 2351, 67–2352.5 [v. Fritz]. For his association with Euctemon see, e.g., Ptolemy, Phaseis, ed. Heiberg, p.17, 15; 18.5 etc. Rehm says in Parap., p. 99, n. 3 (and similarly in RE Par. col. 1346, 13–41): “So ist das Parapegma des Philippos tatsächlich sicher nichts anderes als eine noch dazu sehr wenig selbständige Bearbeitung des euktemonischen,” referring to Griech. Kal. III [1913], p. 36 where he represents in a diagram Euctemon and Philip as independent (!) sources of Ptolemy’s Phaseis.
Ptolemy, Phaseis, p. 67, 5, ed. Heiberg. Also Hipparchus, Comm. Ar.. Manitius, p. 29, 13–18.
Also for meteorological data a schematic transfer to Alexandria from Greece has been established; cf. Hellmann [1916], p.332–241.
The same error we noticed above (p. 724) with Gerbert (10th cent.) for the length of daylight.
Cf. Schissel [1936], p. 115–117 (who did, however, not grasp the simple background).
All three texts are edited and translated in Bouriant [1898]; an added astronomical commentary by Ventre Bey is without value.
This selection is probably determined by the hours of prayer.
Maskaram = Thoth ≈ September.
For details cf. Neugebauer [1964], p. 62–67, p. 69. All our texts (as Ethiopic texts in general) are of very recent date (last three centuries).
Found, e.g., in Berlin, Eth. 84 fol. 41” and in Vindob. Aeth. 6 fol. 32” II, 16–33’ I, 16.
Chaine, Chron., p. 251. Actually our manuscript was written in 1768 (cf. Sobhy [ 1942 ], p. 169 ).
Sobhy [1942], p. 187, Arabic text [1943], p.250.
The increment of 6 feet corresponds exactly to the 3rd hour after noon.
Beyond some wrongly placed numbers in the first two columns all numbers for 3h (and thus for 9h) are one unit too low.
I.e. a moral and social code. Our text is Chap. XXI in a supplementary section; cf. West, Pahl. T., p. 397–400; also Kotwal [1969], p. 86–89. The arithmetical pattern makes it very easy to correct the few doubtful passages in the text.
The text uses “parts” as smaller units such that 1 foot =12 parts.
Cf. p. 741 (L, A), later than the 9th century. The codex was probably written in the monastery of Flavigny (on the Moselle, south of Nancy) in the 9th century but our table is “manu recentiore.”
In this table also the hours are paired: “hora 1 et 11,” etc.
Above p. 741 (LF); cf. also the calendar of Ibn al-Bann (above p. 743).
Exeter Cathedral and a Cotton MS (LD); probably also in the missal of Jumièges (west of Rouen) of 1150 (LG). A similar, also slightly corrupt pattern, is found in the manuscript (L, I). The hourly increments are said to be 1, 2, 2, 5, 10 feet, i.e. 2 and 5 instead of 3 and 4. The longest shadows run with the difference 2 between 19 and 29 instead of between 21 (i.e. u = 11 and 31 (i.e. U = 11).
West of Koblenz, north of Trier; cf. above p. 741 (LC).
Hipparchus, Ar. Comm. Manitius, p. 27, p. 35, and p. 29. Cf. for the last mentioned ratio above p. 733, n.28.
Vitruvius, Archit. IX, 7 ed. Krohn, p. 215, 8 f.; Loeb II, p 248/249. Similar data in the same section (for Rhodes, Tarentum, and Alexandria) are not transmitted securely enough to be usable as independent evidence.
Strabo, Geogr. II 5, 41; Loeb I, p.513. Of little interest, because isolated, is another remark by Strabo (II 5, 38; Loeb I, p. 511) according to which Hipparchus (if he is meant) assumed for Carthage g:s0=11:7. This would lead to φ: 32;28°, almost 4 1/2° less than in reality.
The correct determination of φ from M or vice versa suggests the use of analemma methods by Hipparchus (cf. above I E 3, 2).
Hipparchus, Ar. Comm. I, III 10, Manitius, p. 28/29.
Above p. 739, p. 743 and p. 744. Cf. also p. 929.
Hypsikles, Anaph., ed. De Falco-Krause-Neugebauer, p. 48.
Pliny, NH VI, 211–218 (Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 517–521; Loeb II, p.494–501).
Readings and emendations vary between 100:77 (≈ 1;17,55), 105:77 (=15:11 ≈ 1;21,4,51), and 100:74 (= 50: 37 ≈ 1;21,49). Using a sequence of constant second difference 0;0,35 for all six climata from la to III b one finds for IIIa the value g:s0=1;22,50=1,46;18,10:1,17≈106:77 and a corresponding φ ≈ 35;55°.
Pliny NH II, 182 and VI, 218 (Jan-MayhoffI, p. 197, 11–13; p. 521, 18f. Loeb I, p. 317; II, p. 501).
The ratio 9:8 is also found in Vitruvius, Arch. IX 7,1 (ed. Krohn, p. 215, 6f., Budé, p. 26, Loeb II, p. 249).
Rotating” sphere conveys a better idea of the meaning of this title than “moving” sphere.
From “De Habitationibus,” as usually quoted.
For the general background of these treatises cf. Tropfke GEM V, p. 118–121 and Heath, GM I, p. 348–353; II, p. 245–252.
Euclid, Phaen. 1.
Theodosius, Dieb. II, 19; a similar discussion of irrational quantities is found in Theod., Sph. III, 9 (ed. Heiberg, p. 146, 10) and in Pappus, Coll. VI, 8 (ed. Hultsch, p. 484).
The number of preserved copies is relatively high, e.g. some 40 manuscripts of Autolycus (none older than about A.D. 900, i.e. not less than 12 centuries of transmission).
Cf. below IV D 3, 6.
At the end of the 14th century Ibn Khaldûn still names the Spherics of Theodosius as preparatory for the study of Menelaus (trsl. Rosenthal III, p. 131).
Cf. for details Fecht, Theod., Introduction, and Ver Eecke, Theodosius, Introduction.
Strabo, Geogr. XII 4, 9 (Loeb V, p. 466/467).
Theorem 10; of course Hipparchus’ name is not mentioned in the text.
Cf. below p. 757.
E.g. still in Czwalina’s translation of the Spherics (1931) who overlooked Heiberg’s “Tripolites deleatur ubique” (“Corrigenda”, p. XVI).
Suidas, ed. Adler I, 2, p. 693; cf. also Konrat Ziegler in RE VA (1934) col. 1931.
Date suggested by Vogt [1912].
On the coast of Asia Minor, opposite Lesbos.
For the chronological details cf. the introduction in Mogenet, Autol.. p. 5–19.
The beginning of a roll is always particularly exposed.
Nokk [1850]; Heiberg, Stud. Eukl. (1882); Hultsch [1886] etc.; Björnbo [ 1902 ]; Heath, GM I, p. 348–352 (1921); Mogenet [1947].
For the underlying argument cf. below p. 761.
Above p. 748; for the testimonia in general see Euclid, Opera VIII, ed. Menge-Heiberg, p. XXXII-XXXIV.
In Book I only mentioned at the end of the proof of Theorem 10, though used implicitly long before.
Such a “revised edition” could go back to the author himself; cf., e.g., the preface of Apollonius to Book I of his “Conics.”
Occasionally explicit references to figures are found in the texts, e.g. in Euclid, Phaen. 12b (p. 74, 1, ed. Menge), Autolycus, Rot. Sph. 2 (p. 199, 16, ed. Mogenet), Theodosius, Dieb. I, 1 (p. 58, 5/6) and Hab., Scholion 13 (p. 46, 17, ed. Fecht). Cf., however, below n. 3.
Cf., e.g., the contrast between the ancient figure Mogenet, Autol., p. 207 and its absurd counterpart in Hultsch’s edition, p. 31.
Normally figures are inserted in spaces left free in the text (and often remaining blank) but this is not the case in Vat. gr. 191. Hence it seems possible that the figures on the margins are later additions.
For another drastic case of total disrespect for the importance of diagrams for the understanding of a text (Heron) cf. Neugebauer [1938, 2] II.
Euclid, Phaen. 2 and 3 from Vat. gr. 204 fol. 61v/62v (for this manuscript cf. Mogenet, Autol., p. 145 and p. 187).
This has been first observed and widely utilized by A. Rome (CA I, p. 141 note).
Heinrich Schäfer, Von ägyptischer Kunst, besonders der Zeichenkunst, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1919; this first edition is the best one (in my opinion).
Cf. also the figures in the “Eudoxus Papyrus,” above p. 689.
Cf., e.g., Rome CA II and his notes to the figures.
E.g. Euclid, Phaen., p. 118, 19/20 (ed. Menge).
Theodosius, Dieb. II, 19: EΓΔZ instead of EΓZΔ (p. 154, 12, ed. Fecht).
E.g. Theodosius, Dieb. Lemma II, 10 has the letters T and Y (and the corresponding arc) misplaced (ed. Fecht, p. 122).
Th’eodosius, Dieb. II 10 and 11: the arc representing the winter tropic is missing.
I do not know what kind of drawing instruments were used that could produce with high accuracy constructions of great complexity (cf., e.g., the astrolabic figures 1 to 8 in Delatte AA II).
Cf. below Figs. 52a and 52b; or Euclid, Phaen. 14, Versions (a) and (b) (ed. Menge, p. 86/87).
Cf. above p.749. Also the references to Callippus and to Meton and Euctemon look strange in this context.
It also may be noted that the concluding theorems to Theodosius, Hab. (10 to 12), do not fit the rest of the treatise very well; cf. below p. 757.
For a summary cf. Mogenet, Autol., p. 160; text: ibid. note (3).
Examples: Euclid, Phaen. 12 (ed. Menge, p. 72, 6–74, 1); Theodosius, Sph. II, 11 and 12; III, 2 and 3, etc.
Angles” subtending an arc never occur; arcs are either “similar” (öμοιος) or “equal” if located on the same circle (e.g. Theodosius, Dieb. 9, p. 122, 11 f., ed. Fecht). Otherwise arcs are “greater than” or “less than” similar (e.g. Euclid, Phaen., p. 48, 4; p. 66 (b), 8; Autol., Rot. Sph., p. 34, 2).
Elements XI, Definitions 14 to 17 (Opera IV, p. 4, 21–6, 3; trsl. Heath, Vol. III, p. 261 ).
Heron, Definitions 76 to 81 (Opera IV, p. 52–55).
Cf. also Mogenet [1947].
Theorem 12, which states that both these circles are great circles. Also Theorem 11 does not mention the ecliptic.
Tannery, HAA, p.287f., No.21.
Autolycus, Rot. Sph. 7; Euclid, Phaen. 3.
Euclid, Phaen. 1 (p. 12, 9, ed. Menge).
Euclid, Phaen. Introd. (p. 6, 5, ed. Menge); cf. for this topic also above p. 576f.
A reference “as shown in the Optics” (Phaen., p. 2, 8, ed. Menge) seems to have no basis in the extant works on optics.
References to “Theodosius” and phrases like “he says,” etc. (ed. Fecht, p. 54, 11 etc.).
The definition of axis and poles appears only in one of the Greek manuscripts; cf. Mogenet, Autol., p. 195, 9–11 appar.
Tannery, HAA, p. 287 f., Nos. 15 to 21.
Of course no value for the obliquity of the ecliptic is ever mentioned in any of our treatises.
Cf. below IV D 3, 4; also V A 3.
Also the author of scholion No. 146 to Autolycus, Ris. Set. II, 1 (Mogenet, p. 273) begins the “day” when the sun is still 15° distant from the horizon.
Cf. above p. 58 (1).
Here, as always in such general estimates, “month” means 30 days; cf., e.g., Geminus, !sag. VI, 5 (Manitius, p. 70, 7).
Theodosius, Dieb. I,1 (Fecht, p. 56, 26f.; also p. 54, 2 ).
Quoted by Hipparchus, Comm. Ar.; cf. ed. Manitius, index p. 310.
άσύμπτωτοι; the restriction to semicircles is, of course, essential since complete great-circles would always intersect on the sphere.
Theodosius, Sph. ed. Heiberg, p. 67.
The theorem for sphaera recta that corresponds to II, 13 is formulated in II, 10.
Definitions are given in the introduction to Euclid, Phaen. (p. 10, 3–10, ed. Menge), in the introduction to Theodosius, Dieb. (p. 54, 7–16, Fecht), and in the scholia Nos. 106 and 114 to Euclid, Phaen. (p. 147 and 150, ed. Menge). In spite of variants in the formulations these definitions are obviously derived from a common source.
The sun at the midpoint of the arc AB (cf. Fig. 55) is 15° distant from the horizon; CD is the do-decatemorion diametrically opposite to AB. While AB interchanges one hemisphere CD interchanges the other. The arc CD is visible almost all night.
Autolycus, Ris. Set. II, 6. Expressly formulated in II, 1 and then consistently applied in II, 3 and II, 9 to 18; implicitly used in I, 2 and 3; casually mentioned in the proof of I, 10, a theorem that is parallel to II, 15.
Cf. for the notation below VI B 5, 2 or VI D 3, 4.
Using the south pole as center of projection. The figures in the text are much more primitive than in the Rot. Sph. or in Euclid and Theodosius and show no trend toward stereographic projection.
Theorem II,9 is also related to this group but at least the proof seems to be corrupt since it intro-duces the meridian which has no connection with the phases.
The translations by Czwalina and by Bruin-Vondjidis repeatedly err by adding the word star where only the phases are meant.
Cf. for the continued interest in these quantities above p. 38.
The proof more or less assumes what should be demonstrated. Scholion 81 (ed. Menge, p. 143) rightly refers for the necessary lemma to Theodosius, Sph. III, 7.
Below p. 765.
Above IV D 3, 3 D.
Similar discussions are also found in Theodosius, Dieb., Lemma II, 10 and in its applications in II, 10to14.
Cf. below p. 766f.
Scholion 7 (ed. Fecht, p. 156), but calling it Phaen. 18 instead of 14.
Dieb. II, 5 and 6.
Dieb. I, 11.
Mid-day” is the exact midpoint between sunrise and sunset and not identical with “noon.”
Dieb. II, 10.
Cf. above I B 2.
Cf. above p. 749, n. 5.
Or, to use the terminology of our treatises: with with the radius of the greatest always visible circle.
Its assertion concerns the monotonic decrease of as function of the distance from the summer solstice (cf. above p. 765).
It may be noted that (4) accidentally covers the space of the five climata from Syene to Mid-Pontus to which Ptolemy restricts his discussion in the “Phaseis” (cf. above p. 726).
Cf., e.g., above p.43f.
Euclid, Phaen. 2; Theodosius, Hab. 3 and 5.
Pappus, ed. Hultsch II, p. 474, 10, 6f., and 12f., respectively.
Book VI, Sect. 27 (Hultsch, p. 518–524).
It suffices to refer to Mogenet’s discussion (Autol., p. 167–170) of Pappus’ attitude toward Autolycus.
Hultsch, p. 536, 8–540, 25.
Hultsch, p. 540, 26–546, 2.
Translated by Heath, Arist., p. 412–414.
Cf. also above p. 640.
Cf. Hultsch, apparatus to p. 568, 12.
Sect. 55, Hultsch, p. 600, 9–11; German translation in Björnbo, Menelaos, p. 70.
Cf. above p. 301.
Hultsch (p. 622, 19–27) has maltreated the text because he was unfamiliar with the geographical terminology; cf. Honigmann SK, p. 80f.
Cf. Hultsch, p. 475, n. 1.
As suggested by Mogenet [1956].
D. Pingree, Gnomon 40 (1968), p. 15 f. has enumerated the passages which are commonly invoked to support the hypothesis of the existence of a collection under the name “Little Astronomy.” Among these sources I consider the following ones entirely unrelated to our problem: Theon’s commentary on the “little astrolabe” (mentioned by Suidas) is well-known to be concerned only with the “planisphaerium” (cf. below V B 3, 7 F); Cassiodorus’ distinction between Ptolemy’s “minor” and “major” astronomy concerns only Ptolemy and has nothing to do with a collection; Philoponus discusses specifically the methodology of Theodosius, Autolycus, and Euclid from the viewpoint of philosophical classification, without any reference to a larger “collection” (cf. Mogenet, Autol., p. 160; cf. also above p. 755).
Boll [1916], p. 72 states that a work of Ptolemy is referred to as μικρòς άστρομούμενος by the “Anonymous of 379” (CCAG 5, 1, p. 197, 23 and p.205, 18 — the latter repeated by “Palchus” CCAG 1, p. 81, 2) and thus adds the “Phaseis” to the well-known “collection.” In fact, however, the word μικρός is not in the text, being Boll’s own arbitrary addition.
Steinschneider [ 1865 ]; Pingree, Gnomon 40, p. 16.
Cf. for this date above IV A 3, 1.
In astrological parlance such signs are called “seeing each other”; cf., e.g., Bouché-Leclercq, AG, p. 159–162; also P. Mich. 149, XII 27 (Mich. Pap. III, p. 104).
Isag. II, 27–45; VI, 44–50; VII, 18–31.
This has been observed, long ago, by Smyly (Hibeh Papyri I, p. 141).
Cf. above IV D 2, 1 A.
This does not imply the assumption of observational improvements.
Isag. VII, 32–34.
For the trigonometrically computed oblique ascensions (Alm. II, 8) one must use the smaller intervals of 10° in order to obtain proper results by simple linear interpolation.
Isag. XIII.
Cf., e.g., above p. 761f. and Fig. 56 (p.1368).
Alm. VIII, 4.
It was P. Luckey ([1927], p. 29–31) who first understood that τιά τών γραμμών “by rigorous methods,” in contrast to merely numerical results. Luckey started from the passages in Ptolemy’s “Analemma,” adding occurrences in the Almagest (which can easily be multiplied). Chronologically the earliest occurrence of this expression for “rigorous,” known to me, is found in Hipparchus’ commentary to Aratus (ed. Manitius, p. 150, 14–17). For its continued use can be quoted (without any claim to completeness): Pappus, Comm. to Alm. VI, ed. Rome, p. 171, 16–17 (≈A.D. 320).
Theon, Comm. to Alm. I, ed. Rome, p.451, 11–12 (≈A.D. 370); in the Great Commentary to the Handy Tables he uses the comparative (γραμμικώτερον) which can only mean “more accurate” (quoted Tihon [1971] I, p. VII, note 1).
Basil of Caesarea, Homily III 57B, ed. Giet, Sources Chrétiennes [1950], p. 198, ridiculing “their proofs... as exact and artificial nonsense”; Basil died 379.
Proclus, Comm. to Plato’s Rep., ed. Kroll II, p.27, 16–17 (≈450).
Heliodorus”, Comm. to Paulus Alex., ed. Boer, p.92, apparatus (≈560).
Theodoros Metochites, Logos 14, 35, ed. Ševčenko, Métoch., p. 263, 32–33 (≈1300).
A Latin equivalent is found in Pliny, NH II, 63 (Jan-Mayhoff I, p. 147, 3 f.): ratione circini semper indubitata.
This does not mean that “trigonometric” problems are absent from Babylonian mathematics. On the contrary, we know of typical trigonometric topics (“chord” and “arrow”) in Old-Babylonian mathematical texts (cf., e.g. Neugebauer, MKT I, p. 180) but we find no trigonometry in connection with astronomical problems. Also the general approach is not the same as in Greek trigonometry: in the cuneiform texts a numerical answer is sought to geometrically formulated examples whereas Greek trigonometry uses general geometrical theorems to obtain specific numerical results.
Cf. above I A 1.
Cf. above I E 3, 1.
Cf. above p. 302; p. 299. Also “four-sixtieths of a great circle” (i.e. 24°) for the obliquity of the ecliptic (Strabo Geogr. II 5, 43, Loeb I, p. 520/521).
Archimedes, Sand-Reckoner, Opera II, p. 226, 19–20; p. 228, 12 and 18; etc. Aristarchus, Heath, p. 352, 11–12; p. 380, 16–17; etc. Once, p. 376, 22, a right angle is divided in 60 parts but only to show that the ratio 1/4 (R): 1/30 (R)= 15: 2.
Aristarchus, Heath, p. 366, 6; p. 368, 9–10.
Aristarchus, Heath, p. 366, 2–3; p. 380, 17; etc.
Aristarchus, Heath, p. 352, 14–15; p. 364, 21–366, 2; etc.
Cf. for this treatise above IV B 3, 1.
Cf above p. 645 (8 b).
Archimedes, Opera II, p. 332, 3–10; trsl. Ver Eecke, p. 361.
Equivalent to (1) since c′=a/ sin α′, etc.
Cf. above I E 3, 1.
Cf. above p. 640 and Fig. 11 there; the present angle α′ is the angle α in Fig. 11.
Actually cos 1° ≈ 0;59,59,27 while 89/90 = 0;59,20≈cos 8;30°.
Alm. I, 10; cf. above p. 24.
Cf. above p.23 (C) and (A).
In the “Book on the determination of the chords in a circle (Boilot [1955], p. 197 No. 64; translated in Suter [1910]) and in a chapter of the Qānūn (Boilot [1955], p. 211 f., No. 104; summary in Schoy, Bir.). Cf. also Toomer [1973], p. 20–23.
Cf. for details Tropfke [1928].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neugebauer, O. (1975). Early Greek Astronomy. In: A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61910-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61910-6_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-61912-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-61910-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive