Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T13:45:47.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Planets’ in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

J. J. Hall
J. J. Hall
Affiliation:
University Library, Cambridge
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In four of the last five numbers of the JHS, Doctors D. R. Dicks and D. O'Brien have disputed about Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff. (DK 12A19), which runs (in part, 471.2–6): καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῑ [i.e. ἐκ τῶν περὶ ἀστρολογίαν] περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων ἀποδέδεικται Ἀναξιμάνδρου πρώτου τὸν περὶ μεγεθῶν καὶ ἀποστημάτων λόγον εὑρηκότος, ὡς Εὔδημος ἱστορεῖ τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν εἰς τοὺς Πυθαγορείους πρώτους ἀναψέρων. In his History of Greek philosophy (i 93), Professor Guthrie translates the latter part of this as follows: ‘(…speaking of the planets) “Anaximander was the first to discuss their sizes and distances, according to Eudemus, who attributes the first determination of their order to the Pythagoreans.”’ Guthrie, Dicks and O'Brien all agree that πλανωμένων is accurately translated as ‘planets’; they also evidently agree that Anaximander would not have distinguished the planets from the fixed stars, at least in this matter; and consequently Guthrie (op. cit. i 95) finds Simplicius' statement about Anaximander ‘confusing’; Dicks finds it ‘nonsensical’; and O'Brien speaks of Simplicius' ‘rather ragged context’, and supposes that Eudemus was actually speaking, not of planets, but of sun, moon and stars, i.e. that Simplicius has quite misrepresented his source.

Information

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 91 , November 1971, pp. 138 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

I must thank Professor F. H. Sandbach for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this note.

1 JHS lxxxvi (1966) 30 and lxxxix (1969) 120.

2 JHS lxxxviii (1968) 120 n. 44 and xc (1970) 198.

3 So, explicitly, Guthrie op. cit. i 94–5 and Dicks in JHS lxxxvi (1966) 30.

4 JHS lxxxvi (1966) 30.

5 JHS lxxxviii (1968) 120 n. 44.

6 cf., for example, Aristotle Metaph. 1073b17–23 ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης contrasted with τѽν πλανωμένων ἄστρων and passages that refer to ‘the five planets’ (e.g. Geminus p. 10.3–4 Manitius; Cleomedes p. 182.1–2 Ziegler; Aëtius ii 7.7 [DK 44A16]).

7 See, e.g., von Arnim, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta ii p. 168.32–3Google Scholar (from Stobaeus, Eclogae i p. 184.8 ff.Google Scholar Wachsmuth); Cleomedes p. 30.17–18 Ziegler; Aëtius ii 32.2 (DK 41.9).

8 Aristotle Cael. 291a29–b10, on which Simplicius is commenting, is clearly referring to all the heavenly bodies, i.e. including sun and moon.

9 Guthrie's translation of λόγον εὑρηκότος, cf. supra.

10 Nothing in Simplicius suggests that Anaximander discussed all the planets.

11 References given by O'Brien, JHS lxxxviii (1968) 120 n. 44. (Simplicius in 471.6–10 seems to regard an estimate of the sun's and moon's sizes and distances as Anaximander's particular contribution, though this is the less valuable as being coupled with his implausible inference about Anaximander making calculations from eclipses.)

12 JHS lxxxvi (1966) 36.

13 Simplicius' words do involve a separate difficulty, viz. that any theory of the heavenly bodies' distances implies an opinion about their order, θέσις: how, then, can Eudemus have referred τὴν τῆς θέσεως τάξιν to the Pythagoreans, not to Anaximander? But this is not inexplicable: for example, Eudemus may have meant that the Pythagoreans worked out the order of the planets which he regarded as correct. (So Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen i 6301Google Scholar n.) Alternatively, Anaximander may have referred to this point only by implication or in passing, leaving the Pythagoreans as the first to speak of it explicitly and in detail.