Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

‘Planets’ in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.

View through CrossRef
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.
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Title: ‘Planets’ in Simplicius De caelo 471.1 ff.
Description:
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.

Related Results

Constraining planet formation with atmospheric observations from the V1298 Tau planet system
Constraining planet formation with atmospheric observations from the V1298 Tau planet system
<p>Theories of planet formation like core accretion mechanism  have been successful over the years in explaining the formation gas giant planets and even...
Truthlikeness and the Number of Planets
Truthlikeness and the Number of Planets
AbstractExamples of hypotheses about the number of planets are frequently used to introduce the topic of (actual) truthlikeness but never analyzed in detail. In this paper we first...
Francesco Piccolomini on Prime Matter and Extension
Francesco Piccolomini on Prime Matter and Extension
Abstract This paper examines the view held by Francesco Piccolomini (1523-1607) on the relation between prime matter and extension. In his discussion of prime matter in the Libri a...
The Planets are Nine in Number
The Planets are Nine in Number
W. V. Quine had, in Word and Object, drawn prominent attention to the opacity of the necessity operator, by comparing the sentences(1) Necessarily 9 > 4and(2) Necessarily the nu...
Planet–planet scattering alone cannot explain the free-floating planet population
Planet–planet scattering alone cannot explain the free-floating planet population
ABSTRACT Recent gravitational microlensing observations predict a vast population of free-floating giant planets that outnumbers main-sequence stars almost twofold. ...
Planet Formation
Planet Formation
Modern observational techniques are still not powerful enough to directly view planet formation, and so it is necessary to rely on theory. However, observations do give two importa...
Holst – Astrology and Modernism in ‘The Planets’
Holst – Astrology and Modernism in ‘The Planets’
The subject of modernism in early 20th-century British music is rarely examined: partly because it is often thought that British composers were not interested in the Modern Movemen...

Back to Top