272. But Marcus has shown that the opinion of Hardouin is inadmissible

and inconsistent with the facts; Ajasson, ii. 338-341. He proposes one, which he conceives to be more correct, but we may probably be led to the conclusion, that the imperfect knowledge and incorrect opinions of our author on these subjects must render it impossible to afford an adequate explanation. [222] “flexuoso draconum meatu;” Poinsinet remarks, “Les Grecs ... appellaient dragons les bracelets, les hausse-cols, les chainettes, et généralement tout ce qui avait une figure armillaire;” i. 79, 80. [223] As this remark appears to contradict what was said in the last sentence respecting the sun, we may suspect some error in the text; see Poinsinet, Alexandre, and Marcus, _in loco_. [224] The following comparative statement is given by Alexandre of the geocentric latitudes of the planets, as assigned by Pliny, and as laid down by the moderns. Lemaire, ii. 273:— _Pliny._ _Moderns._ Venus 8° 9° 22′ Moon 6 6 0 Mercury 5 6 54 Mars 2 0 1 51 Jupiter 1 30 1 30 Saturn 1 (or 2°) 2 30 [225] It appears from the remark at the end of this chapter, that this explanation applies to the superior planets alone. [226] It is not easy, as Marcus observes, Ajasson, ii. 341, 345, to comprehend the exact meaning of this passage, or to reconcile it with the other parts of our author’s theory. [227] “Ecliptica,” called by the moderns the nodes; i. e. the two points where the orbits of the planets cut the ecliptic. See the remarks of Marcus on this term; Ajasson, ii. 345, 346. [228] We may presume that our author here refers to the apparent motion of the planets, not to their actual acceleration or retardation. [229] The editors have differed in the reading of this passage; I have followed that of Lemaire. [230] “incipit detrahi numerus.” According to the explanation of Alexandre, “numerus nempe partium quas certo temporis intervallo emetiuntur.” Lemaire, ii. 275. Marcus remarks in this place, “Dans tout ce chapitre et dans le suivant, Pline a placé dans une correlation de causité, tout ce qu’il croit arriver en même temps; mais il n’a pas prouvé par-là que les phenomènes célestes qui sont contemporains sont engendrés les uns par les autres.” Ajasson, ii. 349. [231] The hypothesis of Pliny appears to be, that the planets are affected by the rays of the sun, and that according to the angle at which they receive the impulse, they are either accelerated or retarded in their course. [232] “ex priore triquetro.” [233] Alexandre supposes, as I conceive justly, that our author, in this passage, only refers to the writings of his own countrymen; Lemaire, ii. 276. [234] According to Ptolemy, these numbers are respectively 47° 51′ and 24° 3′; the modern astronomers have ascertained them to be 48° and 29°. The least elongations of the planets are, according to Ptolemy, 44° 7′ and 18° 50′, and according to the observations of the moderns, 45° and 16°; Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 354. [235] I have not translated the clause, “quum sint diversæ stelæ,” as, according to Hardouin, it is not found “in probatissimis codd.,” and appears to have little connexion with the other parts of the sentence; it is omitted by Valpy and Lemaire, but is retained by Poinsinet and Ajasson. [236] When these inferior planets have arrived at a certain apparent distance from the sun, they are come to the extent of their orbits, as seen from the earth. [237] “Quum ad illam Solis distantiam pervenerunt, ultra procedere non possunt, deficiente circuli longitudine, id est, amplitudine.” Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 277. [238] The transits of the inferior planets had not been observed by the ancients. [239] “utroque modo;” “latitudine et altitudine;” Hardouin in Lemaire, ii. 279. [240] “Catholica.” [241] “... quæ (stella Martis) ut maxime excentrica volvitur, motus etiam maxime dissonos habere diu visa est....;” Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 180. [242] “... qui numerus sexangulas mundi efficit formas.” [243] Lynceus was one of the Argonauts and was celebrated for the acuteness of his vision; Val. Flaccus, i. 462 _et seq._ [244] The relative situation of these astronomical phænomena has changed since the time of Pliny, in consequence of the precession of the equinoxes. For an illustration and explanation of the various statements in this chapter I may refer to the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 368-370. [245] Ptolemy’s account of the colours of the planets is nearly similar to that of our author; “Candidus color Jovialis est, rutilus Martius, flavus Veneris, varius Mercurii;” De Jur. Astrol. ii. 9. [246] This effect cannot be produced by any of the planets, except perhaps, to a certain extent, by Venus. [247] “mundi.” [248] It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the method which Pliny employs to explain the different phases of the moon betrays his ignorance, not only of the cause of these particular phænomena, but of the general principles which affect the appearance of the heavenly bodies. [249] “seminani ambitur orbe.” According to the interpretation of Hardouin, “Orbe non perfecto et absoluto;” “major dimidia, minor plena;” Lemaire, ii. 284. [250] As Alexandre justly remarks, our author refers here to the aspects only of the planets, not to their phases; ii. 284. [251] “centrum terræ;” the equator, the part equally distant from the two poles or extremities. [252] It may be remarked, that the equinoxes did not actually take place at this period in the points mentioned by Pliny, but in the 28th degrees of Pisces and Virgo respectively; he appears to have conformed to the popular opinion, as we may learn from Columella, lib. ix. cap. 14. The degrees mentioned above were those fixed by the Greek astronomers who formed the celestial sphere, and which was about 138 years before the Christian æra. See the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 246 & 373, 374. [253] The same remark applies to this as to the former observation. [254] “siderum.” [255] The hypothesis of the author is, that the excess of moisture in the orbit of Saturn, and the excess of heat in that of Mars, unite in the orbit of Jupiter and are discharged in the form of thunder. [256] Alexandre remarks, that Pliny mentions this, not as his own opinion, but that of _many_ persons; for, in chap. 21, he attempts to prove mathematically, that the moon is situated at an equal distance between the sun and the earth; Lemaire, ii. 286. [257] Marcus remarks upon the inconsistency between the account here given of Pythagoras’s opinion, and what is generally supposed to have been his theory of the planetary system, according to which the sun, and not the earth, is placed in the centre; Enfield’s Philosophy, i. 288, 289. Yet we find that Plato, and many others among the ancients, give us the same account of Pythagoras’s doctrine of the respective distances of the heavenly bodies; Ajasson, ii. 374. Plato in his Timæus, 9. p. 312-315, details the complicated arrangement which he supposes to constitute the proportionate distances of the planetary bodies. [258] Sulpicius has already been mentioned, in the ninth chapter of this book, as being the first among the Romans who gave a popular explanation of the cause of eclipses. [259] “Διὰ πασῶν, omnibus tonis contextam harmoniam.” Hardouin in Lemaire, ii. 287. [260] These appellations appear to have originated from different nations having assumed different notes as the foundation or commencement of their musical scale. The Abbé Barthelemi informs us, that “the Dorians executed the same air a tone lower than the Phrygians, and the latter a tone still higher than the Lydians; hence the denomination of the Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian modes.” It appears to have been a general practice to employ the lowest modes for the slowest airs; Anacharsis’s Travels, iii. 73, 74. [261] Hence the passus will be equal to 5 Roman feet. If we estimate the Roman foot at 11·6496 English inches, we shall have the _miliare_ of 8 stadia equal to 1618 English yards, or 142 yards less than an English statute mile. See Adam’s Roman Antiquities, p. 503; also the articles Miliare and Pes in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities; and for the varieties of the stadium, as employed at different periods and in different countries, see the article Stadium. The stadium which Herodotus employed in measurements of Babylon has been supposed to consist of 490 English feet, while that of Xenophon and Strabo has been estimated at 505; see Ed. Rev. xlviii. 190. The Abbé Barthelemi supposes the stadium to be equal to 604 English feet; Anach. Travels, vii. 284. [262] There appears to have been two individuals of this name, who have been confounded with each other; the one referred to by Pliny was an astronomer of Alexandria, who flourished about 260 years B.C.; the other was a native of Apamea, a stoic philosopher, who lived about two centuries later; see Aikin’s Biog. _in loco_; also Hardouin’s Index Auctorum, Lemaire, i. 209. [263] The terms in the original are respectively _nubila_ and _nubes_. The lexicographers and grammarians do not appear to have accurately discriminated between these two words. [264] The words in the text are “vicies centum millia” and “quinquies millia.” [265] Archimedes estimated that the diameter of a circle is to its circumference as 1 to 3·1416; Hutton’s Dict. _in loco_. Ptolemy states it to be precisely as 1 to 3; Magn. Const. i. 12. [266] The author’s reasoning is founded upon the supposition of the length of the sun’s path round the earth being twelve times greater than that of the moon’s; the orbit therefore would be twelve times greater and the radius in the same proportion. [267] “Non inter Lunam et Saturnum, sed inter Lunam et cœlum affixarum stellarum, medium esse Solem modo dixerat. Quam parum sui meminit!” Alexandre in Lem. i. 291. [268] “Qui computandi modus plurimum habet verecundiæ et modestiæ, quum ibi sistit, nec ulterius progreditur.” Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 292. [269] “... ad Saturni circulum addito Signiferi ipsius intervallo, ...” [270] We may remark, that our author, for the most part, adopts the opinions of Aristotle respecting comets and meteors of all kinds, while he pays but little attention to those of his contemporary Seneca, which however, on some points, would appear to be more correct. See the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 244. Under the title of comets he includes, not only those bodies which are permanent and move in regular orbits, but such as are transient, and are produced from various causes, the nature of which is not well understood. See Aristotle, Meteor. lib. i. cap. 6, 7, and Seneca, Nat. Quæst. lib. 7, and Manilius, i. 807 _et seq._ [271] a κόμη, coma. [272] a πωγωνίος, barbatus. Most of these terms are employed by Aristotle and by Seneca. [273] ab ἀκόντιον, jaculum. [274] a ξίφος, ensis. [275] a δίσκος, orbis. [276] a πίθος, dolium. Seneca describes this species as “magnitudo vasti rotundique ignis dolio similis;” Nat. Quæst. lib. i. § 14. p. 964. [277] a κέρας, cornu. [278] a λαμπὰς, fax. [279] ab ἵππος, equus. Seneca mentions the fax, the jaculum, and the lampas among the prodigies that preceded the civil wars; Phars. i. 528 _et seq._ [280] Alexandre remarks, that these dates do not correspond, and adds, “Desperandum est de Pliniana chronologia; nec satis interdum scio, utrum librarios, an scriptorem ipsum incusem,....” Lemaire, i. 295. According to the most approved modern chronology, the middle of the 109th olympiad corresponds to the 211th year of the City. [281] “errantium modo;” this may mean, that they move in orbits like those of the planets and exhibit the same phænomena, or simply that they change their situation with respect to the fixed stars. [282] Seneca remarks on this point, “Placet igitur nostris (Stoicis) cometas ... denso aëri creari. Ideo circa Septemtrionem frequentissime apparent, quia illic plurimi est aëris frigor.” Quæst. Nat. i. 7. Aristotle, on the contrary, remarks that comets are less frequently produced in the northern part of the heavens; Meteor. lib. i. cap. 6. p. 535. [283] _Ubi supra._ [284] See Aristotle, _ut supra_, p. 537. [285] “Videtur is non cometes fuisse, sed meteorus quidam ignis;” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 296. [286] Virgil, Geor. i. 488 _et seq._, Manilius, i. 904 _et seq._, and Lucan, i. 526 _et seq._, all speak of the comets and meteors that were observed previous to the civil wars between Pompey and Cæsar. In reference to the existence of a comet about the time of Julius Cæsar, Playfair remarks, that Halley supposed the great comet of 1680 to have been the same that appeared in the year 44 A.C., and again in Justinian’s time, 521 P.C., and also in 1106; Elem. Nat. Phil. ii. 197,