^{page 102 note 1} References are to Wehrli, F., Die Schule des Aristoteles, Heft V, Herakleides Pontikos, Basle, 1953.Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 2} Cf. fr. 107 (Simplicius, in Aristotelis de Caelo, 541 Heiberg) for a critical analysis of the difficulties involved in this idea.

^{page 102 note 3} Platonis Timaeus interprete Chalcidio cum eiusdem commentario ed. Wrobel, Ioh., Leipzig, 1876 (reimp. Frankfurt, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 102 note 4} Timaeus 38 d 2

^{page 102 note 5} Cap. 109 ‘Lucifer et Mercurius contrarios semper motus exerant mundi circumactioni’.

^{page 102 note 6} So Heath, T. M., Anstarchus of Samos (Oxford, 1913), 257 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 1} Cap. 109 ‘Quod iis usu accidit ex eo quod una medietas atque unum punctum est tam solstitialis circuli quam cuiuslibet alterius stellarum harum’.

^{page 103 note 2} Cap. 111 ‘Hoc fiet apertius si per XKB lineam circumducatur circulus qui contingat duas a se distantes lineas, id est XA et XC, quae demonstrant modum discessionis a sole Luciferi’.

^{page 103 note 3} Smymaeus, Theon, Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium (ed. Hiller, Leipzig, 1878),Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 1} Theon, , p. 137. 10 Hiller.Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} Theon, , p. 137. 17 Hiller.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Sun, Theon, p. 135 = Chalcidius cap. 70. Venus, Theon, p. 137 = Chalcidius cap. 70. Cf. Dreyer, J. L. E., History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, New York, 1953, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} Heath, , op. cit. 199.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} See Heath, , op. cit. 255 (and fol. for earlier writers);Google ScholarDreyer, , op. cit. 126;Google ScholarFabricius, , R.E. s.v. ‘Herakleides’ n. 45 viii. 1 (1912) col. 477Google Scholar and, more recently, Gundel, , R.E. s.v. ‘Planeten’, xx. 2 (1950), cols. 2061–2.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 4} Theon, 178. 3–189. 17.

^{page 105 note 5} For the extent of Simplicius' misunder standing see the discussion in Heath, , op. cit. 197–9.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 6} Simplicius, In Aristotelis de Caelo 504. 16 f., Heiberg.

^{page 107 note 1} Macrobius In Somn. Scip. i. 19. 5–6, but see Stahl, W. H., ‘Astronomy and Geography in Macrobius’, TAPhA lxxiii (1942),Google Scholar who accepts, p. 237, the attribution to Hera-cleides of the circumsolar orbit of Venus and Mercury but argues, pp. 238–41, that Heath's and Dreyer's interpretation of the Macrobius passage as similar is false.

^{page 107 note 2} Capella, Martianus, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, 8. 880.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 3} Cf. Theon, , p. 178. 17Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} Chalcidius, cap. III ‘Erit ergo linea XKB quae solem demonstrat, id est litteram B’.

^{page 108 note 2} Notice ‘linea per punctum solis exeunte’.

^{page 108 note 3} Chalcid., cap. III ‘Tantum autem moveatur haec eadem linea (XKB) quantum sol movetur prope cotidiana momenta singula’.

^{page 109 note 1} Wehrli, , op. cit., 95–6.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} ‘Unum punctum atque unam medietatem duobus daret circulis.’

^{page 110 note 1} Heath, , op. cit. 257 and 269–75.Google Scholar