SIMPLICIUS

On Aristotle
On the Heavens 2.10-14
This page intentionally left blank
 SIMPLICIUS
On Aristotle
On the Heavens 2.10-14

Translated by
Ian Mueller

Duckworth
Ancient Commentators on Aristotle
General
LON DON  Þ  0 'editor:
9  &' . * + Richard Sorabji
Þ  0 ' 9  YO4 -  Þ  SY DN ';
 Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in 2005 by
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway
LondonGerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd. New York
90-933DP
WC1B Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6BF
NY 10018
UK Tel: 020 7490 7300 USA
Fax: 020 7490 0080
www.bloomsbury.com
[email protected]
www.ducknet.co.uk
Bloomsbury is a registered trade mark of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published ©
in 2005
2005 by
byGerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Ian Mueller
3DSHUEDFNHGLWLRQÀUVWSXEOLVKHG

All rights reserved. NoIan

© 2005 by part of this publication
Mueller
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
Ian Mueller hastransmitted,
asserted his rights under
in any the or
form Copyright,
by any Designs
means,and Patents Act, 1988, to be
electronic,
LGHQWLÀHGDVWKH$XWKRURIWKLVZRUN
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
All rights reserved. Nowithout the
part of this prior permission
publication of the publisher.
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior
A catalogue permission
record for thisinbook
writing from the publishers.
is available
from the British Library
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action
as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author.
ISBN 0 7156 3342 2
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for Acknowledgements
this book is available from the British Library.

,6%1+%  
 The present translations3% have been made possible by generous and

 imaginative funding from the 
H3') following sources: the National En-
dowment for the Humanities, Division of Research Programs, an
independent federal agency of the USA; the Leverhulme Trust; the
British Academy;
Library ofthe JowettCataloging-in-Publication
Congress Copyright Trustees; theData Royal Society
A catalog
(UK); Centro record for this book is
Internazionale A.available
Beltrame fromdithe Library
Storia of Congress.
dello Spazio e del
Tempo (Padua); Mario Mignucci; Liverpool University; the Leventis
Acknowledgements
Foundation; the Arts and Humanities Research Board of the British
The present translations have been made possible by generous and
Academy; the Esmée Fairbairn Charitable Trust; the Henry Brown
imaginative funding from the following sources: the National Endowment
Trust; Mrforand Mrs N. Egon;
the Humanities, Division theof Netherlands Organisation
Research Programs, an for
Scientific Research
independent (NWO/GW);
federal agency of theDr Victoria
USA; Solomonides,
the Leverhulme the Cul-
Trust; the
turalBritish
Attaché of thethe
Academy; Greek
JowettEmbassy
Copyrightin London.
Trustees; theThe
Royaleditor
Societywishes
to thank A. Bowen,
(UK); Centro G. Guldentops,
Internazionale S. di
A. Beltrame Leggatt, and
Storia dello D. Furley
Spazio e del for
theirTempo
comments,
(Padua);John
MarioSellars and
Mignucci; Inna Kupreeva
Liverpool University;for
thepreparing
Leventis the
Foundation;
volume for press,the Arts
and and Humanities
Deborah BlakeResearch Board
who has of theDuckworth’s
been British
editorAcademy; the Esméesince
for all volumes Fairbairn
the Charitable
beginning. Trust; the Henry Brown
Trust; Mr and Mrs N. Egon; the Netherlands Organisation for
6FLHQWLÀF5HVHDUFK 1:2*: 'U9LFWRULD6RORPRQLGHVWKH&XOWXUDO
Attaché of the Greek Embassy in London. The editor wishes
to thank A. Bowen, G. Guldentops, S. Leggatt, and D. Furley for
their comments, John Sellars and Inna Kupreeva for preparing the
volume for press, and Deborah Blake who has been Duckworth’s
editor for all volumes since the beginning.
Typeset by Ray Davies
Typeset
Printed and by Ray
bound Davies Britain by
in Great
Printed Ltd,
Biddles and bound in Lynn,
King’s Great Britain
Norfolk
 Contents

Preface vii
Abbreviations ix
Introduction 1

Translation 9
2.10 The speeds and distances of the stars 11
2.11 That the stars are spherical 17
2.12 Why the sun and moon have fewer motions than the other
five planets; why the sphere of the fixed stars contains so
many stars whereas the other heavenly spheres contain no
more than one. (Simplicius has a long excursus on planetary
theory in his commentary on this chapter) 20
2.13 Discussion of people’s views on the position, motion or rest,
shape, and size of the earth 50
2.14 That the earth is a relatively small sphere at rest in the
centre of the cosmos 80

Notes 99
Appendix: [Alexander] on Metaphysics 12.8, 1073a17-1074a15 123
Bibliography 129
Textual Questions 135
English-Greek Glossary 139
Greek-English Index 147
Index of Passages 176
Index of Names 179
Subject Index 187
This page intentionally left blank
 Preface

The first draft of this translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Book 2

of Aristotle’s De Caelo was finished in 1998-99 when I was an exchange
fellow at the Centre d’Histoire des Sciences et des Philosophies Arabes
et Médiévales (CHSPAM) at the Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS) in Paris.
I would like to thank the personnel, staff, and associates of CHSPAM
for their assistance, intellectual and personal, in making my year in
Paris profitable and pleasurable, with particular thanks to the then
director, Roshdi Rashed and to Tony Lévy, Régis Morelon, Pierre Pelle-
grin, Muriel Rouabah, and Bernard Vitrac for their interest and
kindness. I also thank the University of Chicago and the CNRS for
choosing me as an exchange fellow for that year.
Completion of the translation was set back by two years because of
administrative duties at the University of Chicago. I am grateful to the
readers of the translation for their comments and suggestions, which I
have followed more often than not. The names of most of them are not
known to me, but I am in a position to mention and especially thank
Alan Bowen and David Furley. John Sellars has done admirable edito-
rial work, making many improvements, including the elimination of all
too many mistakes. For the all too many that remain I am, of course,
fully responsible.
My deepest debt is, as always, to my wife Janel Mueller, who, while
pursuing an academic and administrative career of her own, provided
me with more support and encouragement than anyone is entitled to.
Details concerning the text translated and some of my translational
practices can be found in the Introduction.

Chicago Ian Mueller

This page intentionally left blank
 Abbreviations

CAG = Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Berlin: G. Reimer, 1882-

1909.
DK = Diels, Hermann, and Kranz, Walther (ed. and trans.), Die Frag-
mente der Vorsokratiker, 6th edn, Berlin: Weidmann, 1954.
DSB = Gillispie, Charles Coulston (ed.), The Dictionary of Scientific
Biography, 16 vols, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970-80.
El. = Euclid’s Elements, vols 1-4 in Heiberg, J.L. and Menge, Hermann
(ed. and trans.), Euclidis Opera Omnia, Leipzig: Teubner, 1883-1916.
FGrH = Jacoby, Felix (ed.), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker,
Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-.
Guthrie = Guthrie, W.K.C. (ed. and trans.), Aristotle, On the Heavens,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, and London: William
Heinemann, 1939.
Heiberg = CAG, vol. 7.
Karsten = Karsten, Simon (ed.), Simplicii Commentarius in IV Libros
Aristotelis De Caelo, Utrecht: Kemink and Son, 1865.
Leggatt = Leggatt, Stuart (ed. and trans.), Aristotle, On the Heavens I
& II, Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1995.
LSJ = Liddell, George Henry, and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexi-
con, Oxford: Clarendon Press, and New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996.
Moraux = Moraux, Paul (ed. and trans.), Aristote: du Ciel, texte établi
et traduit par Paul Moraux, Paris: Belles Lettres, 1965.
Oeuv. Comp. = Platon, Oeuvres Complètes, 27 vols, Paris: Belles Lettres,
1920-64.
PW = Paulys Realencyclopaedie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
51 vols, Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, 1893-1997.
This page intentionally left blank
 Introduction

1. Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle

On the Heavens 2.10-14
Richard Sorabji
Aristotle believed that the outermost stars are carried round the earth
on a transparent sphere. The sun, moon and planets are carried on
different revolving spheres closer to the earth. The spheres are angled
in relation to each other, with some counteracting others in such a way
as to explain the apparent irregularity of planetary motion in relation
to the earth. The spheres and celestial bodies are composed of an
everlasting fifth element, which has none of the ordinary contrary
properties like heat and cold which could destroy it, but only the facility
for uniform rotation. But this creates problems as to how the heavenly
bodies produce light and, in the case of the sun, heat.
The value of Simplicius’ commentary on the first nine chapters of
Aristotle’s On the Heavens Book 2, already translated by Ian Mueller in
an earlier volume, lies partly in their preserving the lost comments of
Alexander, the leading champion of Aristotelianism at the end of the
second century AD, and partly in Simplicius’ objections to Alexander in
the sixth century. The two of them discuss not only the problems
mentioned, but also whether soul and nature move the spheres as two
distinct forces or as one. Alexander appears, in a work preserved in
Arabic translation, to have simplified Aristotle’s system of 55 spheres
down to seven, and some hints may be gleaned as to whether, simplify-
ing further, he thinks there are seven ultimate movers, or only one.
Simplicius, by contrast, and his teacher Ammonius, endorsed Ptolemy’s
hypothesis of a ninth sphere, to account for the precession of the
equinoxes (462,12-31).
Sosigenes, the teacher of Alexander, is quoted in Chapter 12 as
recording that, because Aristotle’s system of spheres was concentric, it
could not account for the annual approach and retreat of Venus and
Mars in relation to the earth. He alleges that Aristotle recognised this
in a lost work. Alternatives to concentric movements were eccentric
movements or epicycles. An eccentric movement relative to the earth is
a circuit round the earth whose (movable) centre is not the earth’s
centre. An epicycle is a circle upon a circle. Simplicius thinks that
2 Introduction
eccentrics may have been introduced by Pythagoreans and Iamblichus
ascribes to them the epicyclic hypothesis as well.
Aristotle’s system was a development of the earlier systems of
Eudoxus and Callippus, and Ian Mueller translates Pseudo-Alexander’s
treatment of these systems from another work.
Chapter 13 provides a feast for lovers of the Presocratics and other
early philosophers. We hear of theories which, unlike Aristotle’s, made
the earth move, in the case of certain Pythagoreans, around a central
fire, in the case of the Platonist Heracleides, by spinning on its axis. For
those who saw the earth as stationary, some explained this like Empe-
docles, who is extensively quoted, by the behaviour of vortices, others by
the principle of no sufficient reason for motion. Aristotle had already
considered these alternatives to his own explanation in terms of natural
places.

2. The text
Ian Mueller
This translation of Simplicius’ commentary on Book 2 of Aristotle’s De
Caelo (On the Heavens) is based on Heiberg’s edition of the text printed
as volume 7 of CAG. For the text of De Caelo itself I have relied on
Moraux. Since it seems reasonably clear that Heiberg’s edition should
not be regarded as definitive1 and the present textual situation affects
my translational practices, I wish here to say a few words about
Heiberg’s edition. My remarks are based on Heiberg’s preface to his
edition (cited here by Roman numeral page) and his earlier, more
detailed but slightly discrepant report to the Berlin Academy (Heiberg
(1892)). I confine my remarks to Book 2, the situation for Book 1 being
significantly different.
For Heiberg the most important manuscript is:

A Mutinensis III E 8, thirteenth-fourteenth century, in the Este

Library in Modena (Wartelle (1963), no. 1052)

Heiberg (1892), p. 71, singles out A for its correctness and purity. But
he admits that it is badly deficient and hastily written, with frequent
incorrect divisions of words, misunderstandings of abbreviations, arbi-
trary use of accents and breathing marks, extremely many omissions,
and frequent insertions in a wrong place of words occurring in the
vicinity. A glance at the apparatus on almost any page of the edition of
Book 2 makes clear how often Heiberg feels forced to depart from A. On
the whole these departures seem justified, but, as I shall discuss further
below, there are many cases where he follows A and produces a text
which seems to me impossible or at least very difficult.
Heiberg thought that A and another text, which he calls B, derived
independently from a lost archetype. B stops in Book 1, the remaining
 Introduction 3
pages being torn out. However, there are two other manuscripts which
Heiberg took to be copied from B:

J Taurinensis C.I.3, sixteenth century, in the National Library of

Turin (Wartelle 1963), no. 2086)

Perusinus cod. 51, fourteenth century, in the Municipal Library of

Perugia (Wartelle (1963), no. 1658)

Heiberg makes no use of either of these manuscripts in his edition of

Book 2, but it looks as though attention ought to be paid to them.2
Four manuscripts which Heiberg does cite are:

C Coislinianus 169, fifteenth century, in the National Library in

Paris (Wartelle (1963), no. 1560)
D Coislinianus 166, fourteenth century, in the National Library of
Paris (Wartelle (1963), no. 1558)
E Marcianus 491, thirteenth century, in the library of San Marco,
Venice (Mioni (1985), pp. 299-300; not in Wartelle (1963))
F Marcianus 228, fifteenth century, in the library of San Marco,
Venice (Wartelle (1963), no. 2129)

Heiberg took D and E to be significantly different from A and B, and C

to be intermediate between D and E, on the one hand, and A and B, on the
other. C and D are, in fact, texts of De Caelo with extensive marginalia from
Simplicius’ commentary (not necessarily word-for-word quotations) rather
than complete texts of Simplicius. According to Heiberg E, which is a
complete (although lacunose) text, and D were copied from the same
prototype, E being copied by an uneducated scribe. E was corrected by
Bessarion (E2), using the Latin translation of William Moerbeke, a work to
which I shall return shortly. Heiberg sometimes adopts readings of D or E
and, less frequently, of C. Heiberg’s treatment of F, which contains only
Books 2 to 4, causes the greatest difficulty. Heiberg decided on quite
inadequate grounds, that F is a descendant of A. He cites it only where it
seems useful, so that, as he says, nothing can be concluded about its
contents in places where it is not mentioned in the apparatus.
Heiberg also cites three printed versions of the commentary in his
apparatus:

(a) The editio princeps of the Greek text: Simplicii Commentarii in

Quatuor Libros de Coelo, cum Textu Ejusdem, Venice: Aldus
Romanus and Andrea Asulani, 1526
(b) The editio princeps of the Latin translation of William Moerbeke:
Simplicii philosophi acutissimi, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros
De coelo Aristotelis. Venice: Hieronymus Scotus, 1540
(c) Karsten (1865)
4 Introduction
Citations of (a) are rare because Heiberg ((1892), p. 75) realised that it
was a translation back into Greek of Moerbeke’s Latin translation.3
However, he did not realise that (b) was ‘corrected’ in the light of a. Since
Moerbeke used an older manuscript of the commentary than any now
extant, it is clear that one condition of a satisfactory edition of the Greek
text is a new edition of Moerbeke’s translation. The situation is made
even more complicated by the discovery of a translation by Robert
Grosseteste of parts of Simplicius’ commentary, including the whole of
Book 2.4 Clearly an edition of this text is needed for the reconstruction
of Simplicius’ Greek. In my reports on what is in Heiberg’s apparatus
criticus I usually omit what he says about (b).
Karsten’s edition was published one year after his death. It includes
no critical apparatus, and has no preface by Karsten. Throughout it is
based on single manuscripts, in the case of Book 2 on:

Paris 1910, dated 1471, in the National Library in Paris (Wartelle

(1963), no. 1396)

In the absence of a critical apparatus or inspection of Paris 1910, it is

impossible to tell what alterations of his source Karsten made, but it
seems certain that he made some ‘improvements’.5 In Heiberg’s judge-
ment this manuscript is a descendant of:

K Marcianus 221, fifteenth century, in the library of San Marco,

Venice (Wartelle (1963), no. 2122)

Books 2-4 of K were copied from F and corrected by Bessarion on the

basis of Moerbeke’s Latin translation (K2). Not surprisingly Heiberg
makes very little use of K, but his apparatus includes an extensive,
although not complete, record of Karsten’s text. As I have suggested, the
major gap in his apparatus is the incomplete record of F. However, my
main subjective impression from reading the apparatus is the large
number of places in which Karsten and F agree against the text printed
by Heiberg, frequently producing a lectio facilior and, in the case of
citations or paraphrases of Aristotle, frequently agreeing with what
Moraux prints. (In many cases Moraux’s apparatus records variants
which agree with what Heiberg prints.) I am not always confident about
the distinction between a lectio difficilis and a lectio impossibilis, but I
have fairly often chosen to translate a reading from Heiberg’s apparatus
rather than what he prints. Such divergences are recorded in the
Textual Suggestions on pp. 135-6, and in a note at the relevant place in
my text. I do not think of most of these changes as emendations, since
there is no point in talking about emendations until a better Greek text
of the commentary is available to us.
 Introduction 5

3. Issues of translation
Ian Mueller
In English it is customary to distinguish among sun, moon, the stars,
and the planets. The usual term for referring to all of them together is
‘heavenly body’. The usual Greek word for all of them is astêr or astron.
I have chosen to translate these two words as ‘star’ rather than ‘heav-
enly body’ because Simplicius often uses that phrase (ouranion sôma)
and frequently uses it to refer not to what we would think of as a
heavenly body, but to the body of the whole heaven or a heavenly sphere.
So the reader has to bear in mind that in this translation the general
meaning of ‘star’ is ‘sun, moon, star, or planet’.
In Greek astronomy the word ‘planet’ (planêtês, usually plural) refers
to the moon, sun, and five known ‘planets’, Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter, Saturn. ‘Planet’ occurs relatively rarely in the commentary,
usually in connection with other writers or when Simplicius is quoting
a passage in which Aristotle uses the word; see the Greek-English Index
under planêtês. In the translation I have used the customary names for
the five planets, although, of course, the Greeks associate them with
their own divinities, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares, Zeus, and Kronos. In the
commentary on Chapters 10 to 14 Simplicius explicitly refers twice to
Venus as the star (or so-called star) of Aphrodite (496,6 and 504,27) and
twice to Mercury as the star of Hermes (474,20 and 495,26); Simplicius
also refers to Venus as the star of Heôsphoros at 495,26, where I have
given the translation ‘Morning Star’. In addition, there are several
implicit references of this kind, including two in Aristotle at 292a5
(Mars), which is quoted by Simplicius at 479,16 and paraphrased at
481,10, and Metaphysics 12.8, 1073b34-5 (Jupiter and Saturn), which is
quoted by Simplicius at 497,11. Other examples of such implicit refer-
ences are found at 471,17 (Saturn), 474,21 (Venus), 495,27-8 (Mars,
Jupiter, Saturn), 496,7-8 (Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn), 497,23 (Ve-
nus, Mercury, Mars), 498,11 (Jupiter), 498,18 and 25 (both Saturn),
504,28-9 (Venus, Mars). But Simplicius also refers to the planets di-
rectly with the name of the appropriate divinity; see 474,17-19 (Venus,
Mercury, Jupiter), 474,24 (Venus), 491,21 (Jupiter, Saturn), and 502,28-
30 (Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn). And he has no hesitation in
speaking about the sphere or spheres or the distance of, say, Venus
(references in the Index of Names). So it looks as though Simplicius is
willing to refer to the five planets simply with the name of the corre-
sponding divinity. Sun and moon are always referred to directly as
hêlios and selênê. I do not capitalise ‘sun’ and ‘moon’; neither does
Heiberg, except sometimes in contexts where Simplicius mentions other
planets as well (471,6-18, 474,18-25, and 495,28 (where Simplicius
mentions that Saturn was once called ‘star of Hêlios’)).
The word ‘planet’ comes from the verb planasthai, meaning ‘to wan-
der’. Simplicius uses planasthai either as an infinitive or as a present
6 Introduction
participle. As an infinitive it always occurs in an expression like ‘star
(or sphere) which is said (or thought) to wander’, an indication of
Simplicius’ Platonist belief that the planets don’t ‘really’ wander. When
it is used as a participial adjective and the noun it modifies is either
explicit or it is reasonably clear what the noun is I have translated the
participle ‘planetary’ except when the noun is ‘star’, in which case I have
translated ‘planetary star’ as ‘planet’. When the participle is a substan-
tive there are more difficulties. In these cases I have rendered the plural
as ‘planets’. However, Simplicius often uses the singular to refer to the
domain of the planets; here I have rarely (only at 435,3) used ‘planetary’
and chosen ‘the planets’ instead.
I have translated the word aplanês (unwandering) as ‘fixed’. Sim-
plicius most often uses this adjective by itself without a noun. Most
frequently it is in the feminine singular and the noun to be supplied is
‘sphere’ (sphaira); so ‘fixed sphere’ in this translation refers to what we
ordinarily call the sphere of the fixed stars. Sometimes ‘fixed’ is in the
plural and the noun to be supplied is ‘star’. I list here all the places
where aplanês modifies a noun:

fixed heavenly body (= the fixed sphere): 408,3

fixed heaven (= the fixed sphere): 420,36; 444,28; 459,26; 487,14
fixed stars: 415,22; 444,18.28; 453,12; 454,25; 455,9; 490,27;
537,14; 549,5 (fixed star at 445,15)
fixed sphere: 449,2; 453,14; 514,16; 462,13; 548,27
At 455,5 the words aplanê tôn astrôn (the fixed among the stars)
is quoted from Plato

Aristotle does not use the word aplanês in De Caelo. He normally uses
endedemenos, which I have translated ‘fastened’.
The word to meson is sometimes translated ‘middle’, but it has
frequently seemed to me necessary to translate it ‘centre’. Because of
this fact I have chosen to translate the word kentron, usually translated
‘centre’ as ‘central point’.
A considerable portion of the commentary is very close paraphrase of
the text being commented on, so close that the line between paraphrase
and quotation is frequently difficult to draw. Heiberg indicates what he
takes to be quotations by spacing letters more widely; I use single
quotation marks. In general I have identified fewer quotations than
Heiberg does, and have tried to restrict quotation marks to strings of at
least five or six words which are strictly identical with the correspond-
ing Aristotelian passage. The choice is to some extent arbitrary since
Simplicius sometimes omits particles which are grammatically neces-
sary in an Aristotelian sentence but unnecessary when the sentence is
embedded in a larger context, and he sometimes merely varies Aris-
totle’s word order or inserts a word which is only implicit in the text he
is dealing with.
 Introduction 7

Notes
1. See especially the unpublished thesis, Hoffmann (1981), e.g., p. 18. I have
relied heavily on this work.
2. So Hoffmann (1981), pp. 240, 293.
3. A fact first noticed by Peyron (1810).
4. See Allan (1950), and Bossier (1987), pp. 289-90 and 320-5.
5. See Bergk (1883), p. 143, n. 1 and p. 148.
This page intentionally left blank
 Simplicius
On Aristotle
On the Heavens 2.10-14

Translation
This page intentionally left blank
 On the Second Book of
Aristotle’s On the Heavens

[Chapter 10]
291a29-b10 Let their <the stars’> order – [the way in which
each moves, with some being prior others posterior, and the way
in which they are related to one another in their distances – be
studied on the basis of astronomical works, since they are
spoken about sufficiently <there>.
291a32 And it turns out that the motions of each are in
proportion with its distance, some being faster others slower; for
since it is assumed that the last revolution of the heaven is
simple and the fastest and the revolutions of the others are
slower and more multiple (because each moves on its own circle
in a direction contrary to the heaven), it is consequently reason-
able that the one which is closest to the simple and first
revolution traverse its circle in the most time, the furthest away
in the least time, and in the case of the others, the closer always
in more time, the further away in less. For the closest one is
most dominated <by the last revolution>, the furthest away
least of all because of the distance. And the intermediate ones
<are dominated> in proportion to their distance,] as the mathe-
maticians also prove.
It was necessary for those who discuss heavenly things also to discuss
the order with respect to position of the spheres and the stars and to 470,30
say which ones are prior and more proximate to the fixed sphere, and
which are posterior and closer to earth, and further how they relate
to one another in their distances, taken with respect to the earth, on
the basis of which the ratios of their sizes are apprehended. Let these 471,1
things, he says, ‘be studied on the basis of astronomical works’. For
there, demonstrations have been given about the order of the planets
and their sizes and distances. Eudemus recounts that Anaximander
was the first to have given an account of their sizes and distances, and
he credits the Pythagoreans with the first ordering of their position.1 5
The sizes and distances of the sun and moon have been figured out
before now, the first impulse to their apprehension being taken from
eclipses (and it is likely that Anaximander also discovered these
things). And the first impulse for the apprehension of the sizes and
distances of Mercury and Venus was taken from their conjunction2
with the sun and moon. These sizes and distances were made more
 12 Translation
10 precise by people after Aristotle, and most completely by the associ-
ates of Hipparchus, Aristarchus, and Ptolemy.3
(291a32) He says that it turns out that the motions are in propor-
tionality with their distances because those close to earth, like the
moon, move faster, those further from the earth slower in proportion-
15 ality with their distances. It was appropriate to have added this point
to the discussion of order and distances, but it rightly raised a
difficulty: why the <stars> near the earth move faster, and the ones
which are higher and nearer to the fixed sphere more slowly; for
example Saturn is restored in thirty years, whereas the moon makes
20 a revolution in a month.4 And the difficulty might be stirred up from
two sources. First, from size, since a greater body moves with its own
motion faster, as Aristotle himself has said,5 and what contains is
always greater than what it contains. How, then, is it the case that
the outer motions are not faster in proportion with their size and
distance, but on the contrary slower? And, second, it is also necessary
to raise the difficulty on the basis of proximity to or distance from the
fixed sphere, since if the fixed sphere has the fastest motion of all the
25 spheres, it follows that things nearer to it move faster than things
further away in proportion with their distance, and if the earth is
naturally motionless it should have been the case that things nearer
to the earth be slower than things further away, and this again in
proportion with their distance.
He solves these difficulties skilfully by saying that, since the fixed
30 sphere has a single motion from the east, which is the fastest, and the
planetary spheres have this motion and an opposite6 one, it would be
reasonable that the closest to the fastest revolution traverse a revo-
lution opposite to it in the most time, because it is dominated and
472,1 resisted by the fastest revolution, whereas the furthest away is
dominated least of all because of the distance and moves faster than
the others, ‘and the intermediate ones <are dominated> in proportion
to their distance, as the mathematicians also prove’.
What then? Do the spheres nearer to the fixed sphere move more
5 slowly because they are forced to by that sphere? However, if they are
moved by force, they also move in a completely unnatural way.
Consequently both of their motions, that from the east in which they
are carried around with the fixed sphere and their own motion from
the west would be forced and unnatural.7 Alexander8 confronts this
difficulty in a good way. He says:

The fact that the motion of the fixed sphere is fastest is a cause
of the sphere of Saturn having a slower restoration, but the
10 sphere is not unwilling. For these things would be chosen and
willed, since nothing would be better for them or more choice-
worthy than this cosmic order. So, the cause which works in
terms of necessity and the cause which works in terms of the
 Translation 13
best have come together, since it is necessary that there not be
force only. And because it is best that things be this way Saturn
moves voluntarily; but because it is near to the sphere moving
in a contrary direction, it does so by necessity. For these inter- 15
active motions are not unnatural for the spheres since they have
no unnatural motion because their motion doesn’t even have an
opposite.9 But all their motions will be natural for them in that
some stem from themselves and some from their interaction.
Consequently one should also say the same thing in the case of
the motion which they have because of being moved along with
the fixed sphere: it, too, is not unnatural for them. 20

But perhaps the difficulty still remains. For let it be the case that
their interactive motions are neither forced nor unnatural but volun-
tary. Would it still really be necessary that the spheres, which have
soul and share in action (as he will say they do),10 have their own
motions in a completely natural way? If they have two motions, one
from the east and one from the west, since their motion from the east 25
belongs to the fixed sphere (for they have the motion because they are
carried with the fixed sphere), and they have the motion from the
west and it is dominated and resisted by the fixed sphere, what
proper motion can they have naturally? So Aristotle’s account does
not solve the difficulty of how it can still be true that a greater body
moves with its proper motion faster and how what is adjacent to the 30
fixed sphere – which has the fastest motion – and is obviously more
akin to it (since it has been given the neighbouring place in accord-
ance with its kinship in substance) has a slower motion whereas what
is proximate to the earth, which is motionless, has a faster one. So I
do not think <Alexander> has solved these difficulties; rather he has 473,1
thought of another cause which does not get away from force com-
pletely. And even if they have this derivative motion from the east by
being moved along with the fixed sphere, nothing prevents their
moving this way voluntarily because they also have their own motion
in accordance with their own unhindered impulse and proceed natu- 5
rally as if they were not carried around with the fixed sphere.
But if their own natural motion is resisted and dominated, how can
that not be forced? Unless someone were to say the following:11

<Spheres> which are near to the fixed sphere, insofar as they

are akin to it, have both their own motion and their motion from
the east; and the greater sphere always moves faster <from the
east>, the size and the speed of the motion being in the same 10
ratio, there being one nexus of all the spheres in a single
heavenly body; but insofar as they have a nature which makes
them move in a contrary way, the spheres which move a little
way under <the fixed sphere> do move faster with the motion
 14 Translation
which is akin to the fixed sphere because they remain more in
the special character of that sphere, but they move with the
15 motion of the contrary nature more slowly12 because in a way
they do not stand still completely in relation to that sphere, just
as the sphere of the moon (which is further away from the fixed
sphere, not just spatially but also in substance, and closer to
what comes to be) since it is smaller, moves more slowly with
the motion of the fixed sphere, but faster with the counter
revolution. It is as if you were to conceive some structure of
20 substance in the sublunary world changing from air to water:
for the part of the structure which moves a little way out of the
air moves with the motion akin to air (the motion upward) faster
than the parts of the air which move out further, but it moves
downward more slowly, and in succession they have their speed
and slowness proportional to their kinship with the air, force not
25 being shown anywhere, but nature itself having each thing. But
here <in the sublunary world> this sort of mixture of substance
has its existence in terms of change and opposition, there it has
it in terms of procession and declension and change of form
involving no opposition. For it has been proved that the motion
from the east and the motion from the west are not opposites, so
that – if this account has anything true to say in connection with
474,1 these most difficult matters – it is presumably also possible for
the same thing to move in both these ways at the same time in
accordance with a single nature which is constituted on the
basis of procession; for in this way the proportionality of the size
to the speed from the upper to the lower will be preserved as in
a single whole, and again the motion of the planetary <spheres>
as planetary, which itself is also proper <to them>, will no longer
5 have a proportionality of speed in accordance with size, but in
accordance with revealing to a greater or less degree the special
character of the planetary.

Alexander also confirms that the greater spheres are faster in

accordance with their own nature, but that the higher spheres move
more slowly because hindered by the fixed sphere from the fact that,
as he says, the spheres of Mars and Mercury, which are higher, as he
10 says, than that of Venus and therefore also greater are restored at the
same speed as each other and as the sphere of Venus; for the smaller
spheres, which are not equally hindered by the last revolution be-
cause of the distance, move at the same speed as spheres greater than
they are.13
But to say that the sphere of Mercury is above that of Venus is
15 either a scribal error in which Mercury is substituted for the sun or
it is expressed in accordance with the opinion of earlier people. In the
Republic Plato describes the celestial sphere in accordance with this
 Translation 15
opinion;14 he says that the circle of Venus is sixth <counting> from
above and second in brightness after Jupiter, the sun is seventh and
the moon eighth, so that he orders Mercury above Venus. Observa-
tions in which Mercury is recorded moving under Venus make clear 20
that Mercury has been apprehended under Venus.15 And this has also
been proved by the account of the distance of their apogees and
perigees; for the greatest distance of Venus has been proved to be
more or less the same as the distance of the sun, so that Venus is
nearer than the sun, but the greatest distance of Mercury has been
proved to be quite close to the least distance of Venus, and the 25
greatest of the moon close to the least of Mercury – these things are
proved in the Syntaxis of Ptolemy, if the account of the eccentricity of
the stars is transformed into an account of their <distance>16 from the
central point of the earth. But since, as I have said, this is either a
scribal error or expressed in terms of an earlier way of describing the
sphere, it does not require much discussion.
Alexander also gives another explanation for why the things which 30
are nearer to the fixed sphere are restored more slowly, namely that
the higher spheres are greater.17 And it is clear that containing
spheres are greater than contained ones, but, unless the ratios of the
distance and the sizes there are apprehended, it is not possible to say 475,1
that the speeds are proportional to the sizes. For the sphere of Saturn
is restored in thirty years, that is, in three hundred and sixty months;
and let it be assumed that the moon is restored in roughly one month;
so, if the size of the sphere of Saturn were more than three hundred 5
and sixty times that of the lunar sphere, it would be possible to
declare that the sphere of Saturn moves faster than the lunar sphere;
for it is necessary that what moves a greater distance in an equal time
move faster – especially in the case of things which move uniformly.
Not only Aristotle but also Plato thinks that what moves in smaller
circles moves faster than what moves in greater ones. For he says in 10
the Timaeus:

<The motion of the planets> is along the motion of the Differ-

ent,18 which is oblique and goes through the motion of the
Same19 and is dominated by it.20 Some move in greater circles,
some in smaller, and those moving in smaller circles revolve21
faster, those in greater slower.22

And in the Republic, when he speaks about their order and makes the
fixed sphere first,23 the moon eighth, and puts the others in between, 15
he adds,

Of these spheres the eighth was24 fastest, second25 and together

with one another were the seventh, sixth, and fifth, third moved
}26 the fourth, fourth the third, and fifth the second.27
 16 Translation
But Plato could be saying that the lower ones move faster because he
20 is not considering the ratio of the size but only the time of restoration,
because they are restored in less time.28 For if, as has been said, the
ratio of the size is greater than the ratio of the time of motion, what
is restored in less time is slower. Indeed, it seems that Aristotle finds
the solution of the difficulty according to which the motion itself29 of
25 things closer to earth is faster in this way. For if being dominated and
resisted by the fixed sphere hinders the motion itself and makes it
slower,30 it is clear that in itself and not in terms of its restoration,
the motion of things closer to earth is slower – unless one should say
on this account that, although a greater revolution is now faster and
able (insofar as it is just up to itself) to be restored together with a
30 smaller one, the domination of the fixed sphere does not make it
476,1 appear so much faster. And Aristotle provides the reason for the fact
that it is not without qualification true that the spheres near to the
fixed sphere are slower, but that they appear to be slower than they
are: to the extent it was up to themselves they might perhaps be
restored together with smaller spheres, but they fall behind being
restored simultaneously to the extent of the domination of the fixed
5 sphere; for in this way the doctrine that greater things move faster
when they move naturally and as much faster as they are greater
remains unshaken. And there is nothing anomalous about there
being in the case of some form a suitability of such a kind that it is
this thing in itself but it becomes such and such else because of the
domination of something stronger, just as it31 has a limited power
10 in itself but it is and moves ad infinitum because of the unmoving
cause.
Those32 who make the assumption that all the spheres have the
same motion, that from the east, in such a way that in a day the
sphere of Saturn is restored simultaneously with the fixed sphere
with a small deficiency, the sphere of Jupiter with a larger one, and
so on, escape many other difficulties; for <then> the motion will have
15 speeds proportional to magnitudes and things which are of the same
substance will have the same motion.33 But a hypothesis of this sort
has been proved to be impossible. For it is necessary that the revolu-
tion of the planets be circular and always the same so that their
motion will be ordered and therefore also apprehensible. And will
20 they say that this circle on which they maintain that each of the
planets makes its motion from east to west is one of the circles
parallel <to the equator> or an oblique circle? For if it were one of the
parallel circles the planets could not move further south or north, nor
could they rise and set at different places on the horizon. But if it were
oblique, it would be necessary that each day each of the planets
25 appear to move southward or northward34 because, as they say, they
all make a revolution on their oblique circle in accordance with each
revolution of the universe (except for the degrees by which they are
 Translation 17
observed to be left behind). But both of these <possibilities> conflict
with clear <facts>.
It is worth noting that a difficulty concerning the isodromic stars35
still remains on every hypothesis: why are the spheres which contain
and are contained (which is the same as to say, the greater and 30
smaller spheres) restored in an equal time. For whether one makes
the assumption that the fixed sphere and the spheres of the planets
move in the same direction or that those spheres which are near to
the fixed sphere and are dominated by it move more slowly, one does
not preserve the proportion of magnitudes to speeds in the case of the
isodromic spheres whether <one says that> those nearer to the fixed 477,1
sphere move faster or that the smaller ones do.

[Chapter 11]
291b11-17 One would most reasonably assume that the shape
of each of the stars [is spherical. For since it has been proved
that they are not of such a nature as to move on their own, but
nature does nothing unreasonably or pointlessly, it is clear
that it has given to these unmoving things a shape which is
least kinetic; but the sphere is least kinetic because it has no
organ for motion; so] it is clear that they will be spherical in
bulk.
He has already said that the stars are spherical because they are of 5
the same substance as the heavenly body, and proved that they do not
change place because they are spherical, or rather he assumed that
they are spherical as a hypothesis, and therefore said, ‘furthermore,
since the stars are spherical, just as others also say in agreement with
us’; however not simply as a hypothesis, but he reasonably used the
causal conjunction ‘since’, and he added the easier justification with 10
the words ‘since they generate them from that body’.36 There he called
to mind their sphericity by referring to motion; here he proves in a
primary way that the stars are spherical, using two arguments of
which the second is double.37 The first is based on the fact that the
stars do not move on their own. He means by this change of place on 15
their own; and forward motion is of this kind. He again38 takes as an
axiom that nature does nothing unreasonably and, having demon-
strated already that the stars do not change place on their own, he
produces a syllogism which amounts to this:

(i) The stars do not change place on their own;

(ii) things of this kind have no organ for this kind of motion 20
because nature does nothing unreasonably;
(iii) things which have no organ for motion are spherical because
they have no extrusion;
 18 Translation
(iv) so it is clear that the stars will be spherical in bulk, that is,
in body.

But if he proved previously that the stars do not change place

25 because they are spherical by considering on the basis of a division
the motion which is appropriate to spheres,39 and now he proves that
they are spherical on the basis of the fact that they do not move, how
can the proof not be circular? In response to this they40 say that he
did not prove their lack of motion only on the basis of their being
478,1 spherical nor their being spherical only on the basis of their not
moving; rather both have been proved by several arguments. And for
this reason, Alexander says, the proof is not circular.
But how does the fact that the same conclusion has been estab-
lished by means of other arguments make this demonstration not
5 circular? The fact that the statements have been demonstrated
through other arguments and not just in this circular way is evidence
that and an explanation why the statements cannot be refuted, but
how can it be evidence that or an explanation why these proofs are
not circular? So perhaps Aristotle is taking sphericity and not having
10 an organ for change of place (from which not changing place follows
necessarily) as convertible and demonstrates each from the other in
a reasonable way. It is as if someone inferred having milk from
having given birth and having given birth from having milk, or
inferred human being from mortal, rational animal and inferred the
definition from human being. Circular proofs of this kind should not
be rejected.41
15 One should also recognise from these things what kind of motion
Aristotle denies the stars to have, namely the one which is foreign to
spherical shapes, change of place by means of organs. For he says that
spherical shape is least kinetic in this way, and he adds the reason,
‘because it has no organ for motion’. But he has said that internal
20 motion is most proper to spherical shapes, not just to the heaven, but
also to the stars, when he wrote, ‘therefore it would seem reasonable
that the whole heaven and each of the stars be spherical. For the
sphere is the most serviceable shape for internal motion (for in this
way they can move most quickly and most perfectly occupy the same
place), but it is the least serviceable for forward motion; for it is the
25 least similar to things which move on their own since none of it is
detached or projecting, as in a rectilinear figure }.’42 And what he
says in our present text harmonises with this statement since Aris-
totle says in the present text that the stars do not make their
apparent change of place on their own and in the statement he clearly
assigns them an internal motion as being appropriate to a spherical
30 shape. And so he says both of these things about spherical shape: that
it is least kinetic for changing place on one’s own; that ‘the sphere is
the most serviceable shape for internal motion’.43
 Translation 19

291b17-23 Furthermore,44 one and all are similar; [but the 479,1
moon is proved to be spherical by observation, since, were it
otherwise, in its waxing and waning it would not usually be
crescent-shaped or doubly convex and only once bisected.
291b21 And again it is shown in astronomy that eclipses of
the sun would not be crescent-shaped <if the moon were not
spherical>. Consequently, since one star is spherical, it is clear]
that the others will be as well.
This is the second argument proving the sphericity of the stars; and
it uses an axiom which says that any one of the stars and all of them
are similar in shape, since all are of the same simple substance. So, 5
if the moon is proved to be spherical because of its visible illumina-
tions, it is clear that the other stars will also be spherical. For, if it
weren’t spherical but, say, drum- or lentil-shaped, he says that its
illumination in its waxing and waning would not be such as to be
usually crescent-shaped or doubly convex and only once bisected. 10
But if he is calling the full moon bisected, in the way in which
Aratus calls it month-bisecting45 because it divides the month in half,
then everything else would be in harmony as would its frequently
appearing to be crescent-shaped (since it does so in waxing and
waning) and similarly for appearing to be doubly convex. But since
shortly hereafter he calls the moon bisected in the way we usually use
the word when he says ‘for we have seen the moon, when bisected, 15
move under Mars, which was hidden from sight by the dark part of
the moon and then moved out from the light and bright part’,46 they47
correctly interpret the words ‘once bisected’ as follows: in its waxing
and waning <the moon> is crescent-shaped and doubly convex most
of the time (for more and less are applicable to these shapes), and, 20
even if it is also bisected both when it waxes and when it wanes,
nevertheless this does not happen during a period of time (nor are
more and less applicable to the shape), but the time of it is instanta-
neous, as the word ‘once’ indicates.
These shapes of the illuminations are, in fact, peculiar properties
of what is spherical, because a hemisphere is always illuminated; so
when the moon is moving under the sun and is at the same degree <of 25
longitude> as it, the part of the moon which is towards the sun is
illuminated and the part facing us is covered in shadow, but when the 480,1
moon is at a distance from the sun what is illuminated is always a
hemisphere, and as much as the hemisphere facing away from us is
always losing <illumination>, so much is the part facing us taking it
on. Therefore, the moon appears to be crescent-shaped until it is a
half-moon, but when half of the upper48 <lunar hemisphere> and half
of the <hemisphere> which faces us are illuminated, the moon is seen
as bisected; but from the time when it stands at a square distance
from the sun49 until it is in opposition to it, it is seen as doubly convex. 5
 20 Translation
But when it is in opposition the whole hemisphere which is towards
us receives illumination, but what faces up is not illuminated; and
again, as it approaches the sun, it first presents itself to us as doubly
convex, then as bisected, then as crescent-shaped and then, when it
is in conjunction <with the sun>, as covered in shadow. The reason
is, as I have said, that a hemisphere of the moon is always illuminated
because it is spherical.50
10 Notice that if the moon were drum- or lentil-shaped, it would
appear the same as it does now in its conjunctions <with the sun> and
at full moons, but if it were at any distance from the sun in either
direction, it would not be crescent-shaped or bisected or doubly
convex; rather, if it were drum-shaped, the part towards us would be
illuminated as a whole because none of it would resist the rays <of
the sun>; but if it were lentil-shaped, and its height at the middle
15 were slight, the shape of the illumination would be different.51
(291b21) Next he adds another demonstration based on astronomy,
namely ‘that eclipses of the sun would not be crescent-shaped’ as they
are now seen to be, if the moon moving under the sun were not
spherical. For it has been proved that, when one sphere is darkened
by another, the sections are of this kind. But perhaps the other
20 roundish figures such as the drum- or lentil-shaped make crescent-
shaped sections when they cover <the sun>. But if they are assumed
to move around their own central points, drum- or lentil-shaped
things will not make the sections to be of this kind52 in every position.

[Chapter 12]
291b24-292a18 There are two difficulties53 [which anyone
might reasonably discuss; and we should try to state what
appears to be true, considering such zeal to be a form of modesty
rather than of rashness, if a person because of his thirst for
philosophical knowledge is content with a little understanding
in the case of things about which we have the greatest difficulty.
There are many such difficulties and not the least amazing
of them is this: what is the reason why, although those things
which are more distant from the first motion always have
several motions, the things in between have most? For it would
seem to be reasonable that, since the first body has one motion,
what is nearest to it would have the fewest motions, perhaps
two, the next thing three, or that there be some other such order.
But, in fact, the opposite turns out to be the case. For the sun
and moon have fewer motions than some of the planets but the
planets are further away from the centre <of the cosmos> and
nearer to the first body. And in some cases this has even been
made clear visually; for we have seen the moon, when bisected,
move under Mars,54 which was hidden from sight by the dark
 Translation 21
part of the moon and then moved out from the light and bright
part. The early Egyptians and Babylonians say the same thing
about other stars, and they have made observations for very
many years, and we have much trustworthy evidence about
each of the stars from them.
(292a10) So one might rightly raise this difficulty and also
the following: what is the reason why the multitude of stars in
the first motion is so great that their whole grouping is thought
to be uncountable, whereas for each of the others, there is one
separate <star>, and one does not observe two or more fastened
in the same motion?
(292a14) It55 is good to seek even more understanding of
these things, even though we have little to start from and are at
such a great distance from what occurs in their case. Neverthe-
less, for those who study on the basis of things of the following
kind,] the present difficulties will not seem to be anything 25
inexplicable.56
He proposes two remaining difficulties about heavenly things; and
they really are the most difficult. The first of them is this: why, when
the fixed sphere has one motion, does what is nearest to it, that is,
the sphere of Saturn, not have the fewest motions, perhaps two, what
comes after it three, or there exist some other analogous numerical
order so that what is further away always has more motions, but 30
rather the opposite has turned out to be the case?57 For the sun and 481,1
the moon are lower than the other <stars> (since he, like Plato,58
hypothesises that the sun is directly above the moon), but they ‘have
fewer motions than some of the planets’. For among the planets the
motion of the sun is simplest, and that of the moon is simpler than 5
the others, but it should have been the case that higher things which
are further away from the centre and nearer to the fixed sphere
(which he calls the ‘first body’) have simpler motions than the sun and
the moon. And he shows that the moon is lower than the other
<planets> by reference to its recorded passages under <other plan-
ets>, one of which he says he has seen, its passage under Mars. He
says that he has seen the moon, when bisected, move under Mars, 10
which was hidden from sight by the dark part of the moon and then
moved out from the bright part (since the moon was bisected in the
course of waxing). But he observed this himself, and Egyptians and
Babylonians observed the same thing happening in the case of other
higher stars, as has been conveyed by many of their observations
concerning each star. 15
(292a10) Next he adds the second difficulty: what is the reason why
the multitude of stars59 in the fixed sphere is so great that it is
thought to be uncountable, whereas one does not observe more than
one star in any of the spheres under it?60
 22 Translation
(292a14) And then, seeing the hazardousness of the inquiry and
20 reckoning it to be frightening because of the magnitude of the diffi-
culties, he makes an exhortation by saying that it will be good to
investigate these things and to attain greater understanding or,
rather, to demand greater understanding.61 Alexander thinks that
the text is somewhat deficient in this way because he thinks that
what is added to it is smoother. But perhaps the text is not deficient.
25 For, even if Aristotle is terse, he does not usually express himself
elliptically. Rather what he says is those who have most under-
standing – and not people taken at random – should investigate such
things and not be fearful, even if they have little concerning them to
start from and they stand further from what occurs in their case than
is their spatial distance from them, as he says elsewhere.62 Neverthe-
less, even if this is the way things are, on the basis of the reasoning
30 which will be given, the present difficulties would not seem to be
inexplicable.

482,1 292a18-b10 We think about these things as if they were just

bodies,63 [monads in a certain order and entirely without soul.
But we ought to conceive them as sharing in action and life; in
this way what occurs will not be thought at all paradoxical. For
it seems that (i) the good accrues without action to what is in the
best condition, (ii) with a single slight action to what is closest
to the best condition, and (iii) with more for what is further
away, just as in the case of the body, one is in a good condition
without exercise, another by walking a little, a third needs
running, wrestling, and getting down in the dirt,64 and again
this good will not accrue to a fourth person, no matter how much
he works, although a different good will.65
(292a28) It is difficult to be successful either in many things
or often; for example, to throw ten thousand Chians66 at dice is
unbelievable, but to succeed in one or two cases is easier. And
again, when it is necessary to do one thing for the sake of a
second, that for the sake of a third, and so on, it is easy to
succeed in one or two steps, but to the extent that more are
required it is more difficult. Therefore, one should suppose that
the action of the stars to be like that of animals and plants. For
here humans perform the most actions, since it is possible to
attain many good things, so that humans perform many actions
and some for the sake of others. (However, no action is necessary
for what is in the best condition,67 since it is that for the sake of
which <everything else is done>, since68 action is69 of two kinds,
when it is that for the sake of which and when it is for the sake
of something.) And indeed other70 animals perform fewer ac-
tions, and <the action> of plants is perhaps one little thing, since
 Translation 23
either there is some one thing which they may achieve (as is also
the case with a human)]71 or the many things they do are all a
means to achieving the best thing.
What has been said up to now has concerned the two difficulties, and
now, starting after the solution of the first difficulty, he first states
the reason why the issue seems so very difficult and says that it is not
because of what is sought but because of the people seeking. For we 5
suppose the difficulty to be unsolvable because we think about heav-
enly things as if they were just bodies without soul and like the
monads in numbers, which just have an order relative to one another
but are ‘entirely without soul’. For the difficulty would be unsolvable
if they were this way and no starting point for a solution were
discovered by considering them. But we should think about them as 10
having soul, a rational soul, so that they also share in action and a
life of action. For we also speak about doing or making in the case of
irrational souls and bodies without soul, but we predicate action
uniquely in the case of rational souls. If we do conceive them in this
way what occurs in the case of the motion of the heavenly bodies will 15
not be thought at all paradoxical. For since these things engage in
action, and all action results from motion for the sake of the good, it
is clear that those things which possess the best or are the good itself
or are united in substance with the good itself (as the prime mover is
– and such is the much-honoured intellect) are without action and
motion and they possess the good. Or, as he says, one thing has it and 20
another shares in it directly, and the good accrues with a single slight
motion to what is closest <to the good>, as in the case of the fixed
sphere, and with more <motions> for what is further away, as in the
case of the planets,72 and other things cannot attain it immediately
but are contented with being near to things that do attain it, as is the
case with the earth, which is also motionless as a result, or73 also
everything sublunary, since the motion of some of them is in a
straight line, because they are incomplete, and that of others, fire and 25
the upper air, is circular along with the heaven.
Next he uses the body and health as an example. He says that one
body is in good condition independently of exercise because it is in the
best condition (this is analogous to what is motionless),74 ‘another by
walking a little’ (which he compares to the fixed sphere), but a third
needs more exercise for being healthy, e.g., running and wrestling 30
and gymnastic workout in wrestling (getting down in the dirt is this 483,1
kind of thing, because wrestling is practised in dirt) – this has been
taken as analogous to the planets; but the unmixed goodness of
health does not accrue to the body which is least well disposed no
matter how much it works (he compares this to the inability of the
sublunary to participate immediately in divine goodness and its 5
consequent lack of motion on its own).
 24 Translation
(292a28) He perceives that what he has said is still deficient, since
he has not stated the reason for the differentiation of the planets –
why the sun and moon have fewer motions, the higher planets more;
and so he fills out what is left out when he says that more honourable
10 beings perform more actions because it is possible to attain many
good things, and that being successful either in many things or often,
which is extremely difficult, is more suitable for these beings, ‘for
example, to throw ten thousand Chians’ in playing dice – or Coans,
since the text is also written this way because there are large dice on
both islands;75 but it is not just difficult, it is also impossible to do this,
15 ‘but to succeed in one or two cases is easier’. And attaining the most
complete good through more <steps> is suitable to stronger things,
for example, if it is necessary to do one thing for the sake of a second,
the second for a third, and the third for a fourth – as it is necessary
to learn reading and writing in order to be able to participate in
mathematics and to do this in order to do philosophy, and to do this
for assimilation to the divine.76 For even for a weaker person ‘it is easy
20 to succeed in one or two steps, but to the extent that more are
required it is more difficult’. So, just as among mortal animals the
actions of humans are most numerous because it is possible for a
human who performs many actions, acting politically for the sake of
others and taking their good upon himself, to attain many good
25 things, one should also believe that the action and motion of the stars
is many times more variegated, when one is compared with others,
because they are able to attain more good things; for a human being
is also more honourable than the other animals because it can per-
form more actions.
The whole argument would amount to the following. If things that
move in more ways are more honourable, they move in more ways
because there are more ways to be successful; but if they are worse,
they move in more ways because they are not able to attain the best
30 by means of a simple motion. Consequently, even if opposites belong
to the same things and the same things to opposites, we will not be at
a loss for a solution, but we will provide the explanations in a way
which is appropriate to the subjects. So, when Aristotle says these
things, he is not judging the worth of the gods, since saying such
things is precarious, but he is giving starting points for a solution;
484,1 following up on them, we will not be surprised if more honourable
things are less active or if worse things are.77
Having said that humans perform many actions and in such a way
as to perform one action for the sake of another, he adds, in order that
5 someone not take this behaviour as the best, ‘however, no action is
necessary for what is presumably in the best condition’:78 and he adds
the reason, or rather the entire demonstration when he says that
what is in the best condition is that of which the essence (einai) is to
be that for the sake of which, since the best is the end of everything
 Translation 25
and everything is for the sake of it, but what performs an action is
different from that for the sake of which it performs the action. And
again he adds the reason for this premiss when he says, ‘since action
is of two kinds, when it is that for the sake of which and when it is for 10
the sake of something’. For if everything which performs an action
performs the action it performs because of a desire for a good, the good
will be one thing, what acts another. It follows in the second figure
that what is in the best condition has no need of action, since what is
in the best condition is that for the sake of which, and what performs
an action is not that for the sake of which.
And having spoken in between about the best he connects the 15
words ‘and indeed other animals perform fewer actions’ and so on
with what was said before about humans. He says that the action of
plants is one little thing – perhaps <he means> action involving
nourishment79 – since they cannot be successful in many things. He
uses the word ‘action’ in a more ordinary way to apply to the activity 20
of a plant, since action in the strict sense is rational activity.
The next words ‘since either there is some one thing which they
may achieve’ are perhaps not spoken about plants but spoken univer-
sally about everything which performs actions80 because either there
is some one thing open to what performs actions which it may achieve
(just as in the case of a human being there are more things open to 25
it); or, if what is open is not one thing but several as is also the case
with a human, then, nevertheless, these many things are ‘a means to
achieving the best thing’ because everything else inclines towards
that and is chosen because of it.
The words ‘since either there is some one thing’ may also apply to
plants with respect to what is expressed by ‘perhaps one little thing’;
for either there is one good for a plant which it may achieve, just as a
human being may achieve each of its many goods; or, if the good of a 30
plant is also thought to be multiple – e.g. nourishment, growth,
reproduction – all these things are a means to its one and most 485,1
complete good, which is limited compared to the human good.

292b10-25 So one thing has and shares in the best, [another

reaches it through a few <steps>, another through many, an-
other does not even try for it, but it is sufficient <for it>81 to come
close to the ultimate.
292b13 For example, if health is the end, one person is always
healthy, another thins to be healthy, another runs and thins,
another performs some other action for the sake of running, so
that its motions are more numerous, another is unable to be
healthy, but only to run or thin (and one or the other of these
things is the end for those people). It would be clearly best for
each person to attain that end, but, if not, it would always be
 26 Translation
better to the degree that it got closer to the best. And that is why
the earth does not move at all, and things close to it have few
motions. For these things do not reach the ultimate, but they
attain as much of the most divine starting point as they are
able.82 But the first heaven attains it straightaway with one
motion. But the things in between what is first and what is last,
do reach it,] but they reach it with more motions.83
5 Having said that one should not think about heavenly things as
things without soul but as things having soul and engaging in action,
and having presented the differences among things which engage in
action, he comes to the issue set forth and provides the solution of the
difficulty raised. As Alexander says, he uses what was said first in
providing the explanation, that no action is necessary for what is in
the best condition, other things need some slight action for attaining
10 what is best, and others more. But perhaps he also mixes in the
second determination which proves that a little motion is not always
better, but is sometimes worse than more.84
And so he says that among existing things neither the first nor the
last has need of action, the last because it does not directly attain the
end, the first because it is not divided from the good but has it and
15 shares in it in its own substance. The word ‘has’ might be said of the
hypersubstantial goodness and the One, and the word ‘shares’ of the
intellect which is directly unified with the good and shares in it; for
the One is said to ‘have’ in its own substance because it projects
something, intellect is said to share because it receives from some-
20 thing else. (That Aristotle has a conception of something above
intellect and substance is clear at the end of the book on prayer where
he says clearly that god is intellect or even something which tran-
scends intellect.)85
Another thing reaches its own end through a few motions. But
there are two kinds of end, one which is the best and most final of all
things, the other more partial. And there are two senses of slight
25 motion:86 in one sense, the multitude of motions is brought together
in itself and consequently it attains the common and whole end, in
the other it is a part of many motions and consequently reaches
towards a partial end. And it is clear that in the first sense a slight
motion is better than many motions, but in the other it is worse, so
that what attains an end through more actions and activities would
be a mean among things which attain an end through slight mo-
30 tions.87 In this way there is a solution of the difficulty why the sun
and moon, which are further from the fixed sphere, which has one
motion, have fewer motions than higher things, which are nearer to
486,1 the fixed sphere but have more. He says that this is because some
things which have slight motions are better than things which have
more motions and some are worse. And he has said which is which:
 Translation 27
what is last does not even try to attain the goal immediately, so
that it does not move either, but it is sufficient for it to come close 5
to the end.
(292b13) Next he clarifies what he has said by means of the
example of health (in the example, ‘thinning’ means ‘becoming lean’);
he says that attaining the most final end is best, but otherwise
attaining what is as close as possible to that; and he next applies the
present example to what he has said, moving from the last things to
the first and then encompassing what is in between them. He says,
‘that is why the earth does not move at all’, its lack of motion not being 10
for the same reason for which the good and that for the sake of which
is motionless; the latter is that for the sake of which things which
move move, and it is not necessary for it88 to move. However, since
the earth is last, it is not of such a nature as to share in that for the
sake of which immediately, but to do so by being as near to things
which share in it directly as is possible for it, and <in that way> 15
sharing in it. The things close to the earth have few motions since
they do not reach the ultimate end, i.e. the first and perfect good,
because they are separated from it, but they move as far as they can
in terms of sharing in the most divine starting point, and they can do
this partially. And if he means by ‘earth’ earth in the strict sense, he
would mean by what is ‘close to’ earth the elements which are above 20
the earth and under the moon, but if he means by ‘earth’ everything
sublunary, he would be calling the moon and the sun, which have few
motions, close, and this is more appropriate to what he has said; for
the difficulty concerned these things: why, when the fixed sphere has
one motion, don’t things further away from it, the sun and moon,
always have more motions, whereas in fact the sun and moon have 25
few motions, the things in between more? So, if, when he mentions
few motions, he were not talking about the sun and moon, the
solution of the difficulty would lack real authoritativeness; but if he
is speaking about sun and moon, the words ‘for these things do not
reach the ultimate’ seem to be harsh, unless he were saying that they
are not made equal to its complete perfection because they are more
partial; for he says clearly that these things share in the first starting 487,1
point according to their own measures, since he says that they share
in the most divine starting point as much as they are able.89
He says that the first heaven attains the first starting point
straightaway, i.e. immediately, with a motion which is one in form 5
because this one motion contains, generates, and brings together all
the motions. For the first heaven is the first thing moved, and it
imitated through its perfect motion the perfection of what is motion-
less; and Plato90 would say that what that perfection is with respect
to what endures forever, the first heaven becomes with respect to all
the time of the things under it which divide the sameness of that
perfection. But if trusting in divine myths91 is dear to someone, let 10
 28 Translation
him grasp from these things that the successor of the first heaven, the
great Saturn, started the division and particularisation. But these
matters are discussed elsewhere.
He speaks of ‘the things in between what is first and what is last’,
meaning by what is first the fixed heaven, by what is last the sun and
15 the moon. For these are the extremes of the divine body. He says that
what are in between these things, being more universal than last
things, do reach more towards the perfection of the starting point, but
they reach it through a division of motions and not through one
motion in the way the first heaven does, so that they reach it through
several motions which divide up the one motion completely, and so
they are said to reach to where the one motion also leads.
20 And it seems to me that Aristotle has considered all the heavenly
motions which unfold the entirety of the unmoving unity and found
the fixed sphere to have one motion which contains all the motions,
the spheres after it to have all <motions> in a divided way, and the
sun and moon not to have all motions; for these are not observed to
have stations, backward motions, different phaseis, or retrogressions
25 and progressions,92 so that the astronomers, in providing explana-
tions of the phenomena, are satisfied with simpler hypotheses <in
their case>. And so, hypothesising that the motions are cases of action
and occur on account of assimilation to the good, he says that the first
heaven directly attains perfect assimilation to what is unmoving
30 through one perfect motion, but the spheres after it reach perfect
assimilation through all the divided motions, and the sun and the
488,1 moon, which do not have all the motions, share in it as much as
possible.
In this way Aristotle has provided the solution of the difficulty,
while making a concession to it and agreeing that the planets move
with motions which are many in form because they do not just appear
5 to move forward, they also appear to move backward and stand still,
and they have different phaseis and retrogressions and progressions
and all kinds of non-uniformities. In order to preserve these <appar-
ent motions> the astronomers use many motions for each <planet>;
some hypothesise eccentric <spheres> and epicycles, others homocen-
10 tric <spheres> which are called counteractive. The true account does
not accept that they stand still or move backward, or that there is
addition or subtraction in the numbers of their motions93 even if they
are observed to move in this way, nor does it admit hypotheses of this
kind; rather it demonstrates that the heavenly motions are simple,
circular, uniform, and ordered, using as evidence their substance. Not
15 being able to grasp with precision how what occurs in the heaven is
only the appearance of their condition and not the truth, the <as-
tronomers> were content to find out on what hypotheses the
phenomena concerning the stars which are said to wander could be
preserved by means of uniform, ordered, circular motions. And, as
 Translation 29
Eudemus recorded in the second book of his astronomical history (and
Sosigenes94 took this over from Eudemus), Eudoxus of Cnidus is said 20
to be the first of the Hellenes to have made use of such hypotheses,
Plato (as Sosigenes says) having created this problem for those who
had concerned themselves with these things: on what hypotheses of
uniform and ordered motions could the phenomena concerning the
motions of the planets be preserved?
If, then, the several motions for each of the several planets are 25
hypotheses and they are not demonstrated to be this way in truth, as
is made clear by the fact that different people make different hypothe-
ses, what necessity is there to seek in this way the reason why the
planets proximate to the fixed sphere have more motions than the
last ones, as if there were in truth several bodies and therefore
several motions in the cases of each of the planets?95 Perhaps (if it is 30
necessary for us to hazard making these kinds of comparisons at all),
it is necessary to determine the worth of these things not with respect
to the difference among their locations, but to say that each has been
assigned to be where it benefits the universe. So, since sublunary 489,1
things do not have their own light, but are illuminated from outside,
it is reasonable, one might say, that the two luminaries of the cosmos
have been assigned to be directly above them, and perhaps they have
simplicity in their motions because simplicity is better than compo-
siteness.
Plato is thought to say in the Laws that the planets are observed 5
to move in variegated ways, but do not move this way in truth,
whereas in the Timaeus he agrees that their motion is more vari-
egated because they are means between what is entirely ordered and
what is entirely disordered, and therefore have an ordered non-uni-
formity. Consequently in the Laws he inveighs against those who
predicate only wandering of them and do not consider that their 10
wandering also participates in order and is natural for them.96
When Alexander is discussing this passage he says without further
ado that the four sublunary elements are without soul and do not
participate in action. But who would not be surprised if, when ani-
mals which are compounded out of very small portions of the
elements97 have soul (although their substance is short-lived and
altogether contracted into a small span), such large portions of the 15
universe, which are eternal in their entireties, were not judged
worthy of soul by the demiurge? For even if they are simple, it would
not be necessary that they be without soul, if the heaven, which is
simple, was given soul,98 and when each of the things which is
compounded from the four elements is what it is called because of the
predominance of one of the elements. But if they do not share in
action, because they are not active in different ways at different times 20
as particular animals are, the heaven, too, always has the same order
of activities. But if <Alexander> thinks that the earth is without life
 30 Translation
and soul because it does not change place, first of all we ought to be
ashamed if we say that plants which are given life by the earth live
and have soul, but that the earth itself is without life and soul; and
25 secondly, when Aristotle says that intellect and soul are alive,99 he
does not require that they move locally; and even if the earth, as the
hearth of the universe,100 stands still, it has this action and activity,
since, just as moving in a vital way is action and activity involving
soul, so is standing still in a vital way. And so heavenly things move,
the earth stands still, and particular animals both move and stand
30 still.

292b25-30 In the case of the difficulty [about there being one

motion in the case of the first <sphere> although it is composed
of a great multitude of stars, whereas each of the others has
separately received its own motions, one might reasonably think
that this holds primarily because of one thing; for one should
think that, with regard to each’s life and sovereignty,101 there is
a] great superiority of the first over the others }
He has proposed two difficulties and solved the first. He now turns to
490,1 the second, which inquires why the fixed sphere, which is one and has
one motion, has a multitude of stars so great as to be thought
uncountable,102 all having the single motion of the fixed sphere,
whereas each of the stars which are said to wander has received its
own motion from the sphere in which only it is. He solves this
5 difficulty with two or three103 arguments, the first of which he has
taken104 from the superiority which the fixed sphere has over the
others; for even if all of them have life and a sovereign worth, one
should grasp that there is a great superiority of the first over the
others with regard to life and sovereignty. Its superiority in power is
made clear by its immediate kinship with the first efficient and
10 moving cause,105 by the fact that it contains the others and carries
them around with itself, and furthermore by the fact that it attains
the most complete good by means of a single, simple, perfect motion
which is, if one were to conceive its magnitude, practically instanta-
neous. Consequently one might rightly be more surprised by the
opposite, that is, if, when it excels by so much, it nevertheless had
15 some numerical ratio of its power to <that of> the other spheres, a
ratio which the multitude of stars moved by it have to each single star
fastened in the other spheres.

292b30-293a4 } and this106 will be a reasonable result, [since

the first <motion>, which is one, causes many divine bodies to
move, but each of the many others causes only one to move (for
any one of the planets has several motions). So in this way
 Translation 31
nature equalises and makes a certain order, assigning many
bodies to the one motion] and many motions to the one body.
They107 say that one should not run this together with the preceding,
connecting the two texts, but should understand it as a second 20
argument. For he says that the first motion, that of the fixed stars,
which is one, causes many divine bodies to move in accordance with
its one motion, but the motions of the planets, of which there are
several of several spheres in the case of each star, cause a single body
to have several motions; for each of the planets has several motions,
since it is moved by several of the so-called counteractive <spheres>.
So, he says, in this way nature equalises the superiority which is so 25
great and makes a certain order, assigning many bodies of the fixed
stars to the one motion of the fixed sphere, and many motions to the
one body of a planet.
The interpreters who count this argument as distinct in itself
recommend that one not connect it with what precedes. But perhaps 30
if it is not connected to what precedes, the words ‘and this will be a
reasonable result’ are unintelligible. For what is ‘this’, if he is not 491,1
referring to the superiority <of the fixed sphere>? To say, as Alexan-
der does, that ‘this’ is the thesis or the order or the apparent
inequality makes the ellipsis of expression great. Perhaps then he is
speaking of the great superiority of the fixed sphere over the plane-
tary spheres and using it to solve the difficulty by proving next that
this superiority is somehow equalised by the divine demiurgic crea- 5
tivity using proportionality. For as the one motion of the fixed sphere
is to the many stars which are moved by it, so the one planet is to its
many motions. For if what is said is not understood in this way, but
it is treated as in itself a completely distinct argument, perhaps it also
refutes what was said before,108 since that makes superiority respon- 10
sible, and this makes equalisation responsible.

293a4-11 And furthermore, the other spheres have a single

body109 [because the motions before the last one, which has a
single star, move several bodies; for the last sphere which is
moved is fastened in several spheres, but each sphere is a
particular body. The task of that body will therefore be common,
since, while each sphere itself has its proper natural motion,
this motion is, as it were, added,] and the power of any finite
body is related to a finite body.110
This is another argument (the second or the third)111 providing, on the 15
basis of the so-called counteractive spheres, an explanation of the fact
that the planetary <spheres> have one star each and the fixed sphere
has as many as it does. He says that the sphere which has a single
star that is said to wander is moved, fastened in many spheres, which
 32 Translation
are called counteractive or (as Theophrastus calls them) starless;112
20 this sphere is the last one in the whole system of spheres which cause,
e.g., Saturn or Jupiter or some other <planet> to move. And there is
a natural simple motion which is proper113 to each of these spheres,
both the one which has the star and those which contain that sphere,
but the variegation and non-uniformity of the star, which seems to
move forward and backward and to add to and subtract from its
25 numbers114 and to stand still, are added from outside <the sphere
which has the star>; for they are produced by the counteractive
spheres, since, as has been said, each of the spheres moves with its
proper motion, and they each cause the sphere having the star to
move in a different way in accordance with their own appropriate
motion. So, since each sphere is a body, and in the case of the
outermost sphere in each system, which moves with the fixed sphere,
30 there is added to its own motion the fact that it also causes all the
other spheres which it contains to move in common with the same
492,1 motion with which it moves, it would be a difficult task for the
outermost sphere to move both so many corporeal spheres and the
sphere having the single star, if that sphere had many stars rather
than one, as the fixed sphere does. Aristotle indicates the difficulty of
the task when he says that ‘the power of any finite body is related to
5 a finite body’. For if what causes motion had infinite power, then
nothing could overcome it with respect to being moved; but since it is
a finite body and so has finite power, this power will be related to
something finite and commensurable with it, and not to anything
whatsoever. And if so great a number of bodies exceeds the kinetic
10 power of the one sphere with respect to being moved by it, then, if the
sphere having one star had many, the assigned task would be really
difficult.
It seems to me that this argument goes forward <only> against the
person who says that the fixed sphere has a great superiority over the
planetary spheres. For what prevents it being the case that, just as
the fixed sphere causes both all the stars in it and all the spheres
15 contained by it to move along with it, so too the outermost counterac-
tive sphere causes both the counteractive spheres under it and the
one having the star, which <by assumption> no longer has one but
many stars, to move? If the fixed sphere is not so superior, what is the
difference between the fixed sphere (which exists along with its stars
and has its own motion in such a way as to carry around the spheres
which it contains) and the sphere having the planet (supposing it had
20 a multitude of them) which makes motion caused by another a more
difficult task for the <latter> cause of motion? (The difficulty of the
task is not due to these bodies having weight, since Aristotle has
denied this on the basis of demonstrations;115 rather it is due to the
fact that in the case of those things too there must always be a
 Translation 33
commensurability between what causes motion and what is moved.
And Aristotle has based his demonstration <here> on this fact.)
One should note that this argument proceeds on the basis of the 25
assumption that the astronomical hypotheses concerning the coun-
teractive spheres truly hold, but, as I said previously,116 there is no
necessity to these hypotheses, since other people preserve the phe-
nomena by means of other hypotheses. It would be appropriate to the
discussion of the heaven and the heavenly motions to discuss briefly
these hypotheses with which each of them strove to preserve the 30
phenomena.117 And I have also said previously118 that Plato without
hesitation assigned to the heavenly motions circularity, uniformity, 493,1
and order and put forward to the mathematicians this problem: by
making what hypotheses about uniform, circular, and ordered mo-
tions will it be possible to preserve the phenomena involving the
planets? And I have said that Eudoxus of Cnidus first proposed the
hypotheses using the so-called counteractive spheres. Callippus of 5
Cyzicus, who studied with Polemarchus, the associate of Eudoxus,
went to Athens after him and lived with Aristotle,119 and together
with him corrected and filled out the discoveries of Eudoxus. Because
it hypothesised that the counteractive spheres are homocentric (and
not eccentric in the manner of later <astronomers>) the hypothesis of 10
counteractive spheres appealed to Aristotle who thought that all the
heavenly bodies should move around the centre of the universe.
It seemed to Eudoxus and his predecessors120 that the sun has
three motions: it is carried around from east to west by the sphere of
the fixed stars; it moves in the opposite direction through the twelve
signs of the zodiac; and, third, it turns to the sides of the middle of the
signs of the zodiac (this was determined from the fact that it does not 15
always rise at the same place at the summer and winter solstices).121
Therefore he said that it is carried in three spheres – Theophrastus
called these spheres starless because they have no star;122 and they
carry along what is lower and counteract what is higher. The sun has 20
three motions, and it would be impossible for it to be moved in
opposite directions by the same thing, at least if neither the sun nor
the moon nor any other star moves on its own, but they are all
fastened to and moved by a circular body. If, then, the sun were to
complete its circuit in length and its departure in breadth <from the
ecliptic> in one and the same time, two spheres would be sufficient; 25
one, that of the fixed stars which makes a revolution towards the
west; the other, turning towards the dawn around an axis fastened in
the first sphere at right angles to the oblique circle – it is on this
sphere that the sun would be thought to make its <west-east> pro-
gression. However, since this is not the way things are, but the sun
goes around the one circle in one time and makes its departure in
breadth in another, it is necessary to assume a third sphere in 30
addition so that each motion will explain a different phenomenon
 34 Translation
concerning the sun. So, in this way there are three spheres, all
494,1 homocentric with one another and with the universe; one sphere
containing the other two was hypothesised to turn around the poles
of the cosmos in the same direction as the sphere of the fixed stars
and to be restored in the same time as it; a second sphere, smaller
than this but greater than the third was hypothesised, as has been
5 said, to turn from west to east around an axis which is at right angles
to the plane through the middle of the signs of the zodiac; and the
smallest was hypothesised to turn in the same direction as the
second, but around a different axis which should be conceived as
perpendicular to the plane of a certain great, oblique circle which the
sun is thought to describe with its own central point when it is carried
by the smallest sphere in which it is fastened. As is clear from his
treatise On Speeds,123 he <Eudoxus> posited that the retardation
10 <produced by the third> sphere is much slower than that of the
sphere containing it (the one which is intermediate in size and
position). So the largest sphere makes both the remaining spheres
turn in the same direction as the fixed stars due to the fact that the
first carries in itself the poles <of the second> and the second carries
in itself the poles of the third, which carries the sun, and similarly
15 <the second> has in itself the poles on which it is carried around,
turning along with itself both the third sphere and therefore at the
same time the sun; in this way it results that the sun is observed to
move from east to west. And if the two spheres, the middle one and
the smallest, did not move on their own, the revolution of the sun
would take the same amount of time as the revolution of the cosmos,
20 but, in fact, since these spheres turn backward in the opposite direc-
tion, the return of the sun from one rising to the next lags behind the
time of the revolution of the cosmos.
This is what was said about the sun. In the case of the moon
<Eudoxus> ordered some things in the same way and some differ-
ently. He thought there are three spheres carrying the moon because
25 it appeared to have three motions; one of these is the same as the
motion of the fixed stars; a second turns in the opposite direction to
this around an axis which is perpendicular to the plane of the <circle>
through the middle124 of the signs of the zodiac, as also in the case of
the sun; but the third is no longer the same as in the case of the sun
because, although it is similar in its position, it is not similar in its
495,1 motion; rather it moves in the direction opposite to the second, being
carried in the same direction as the first in a slow motion and turning
around an axis perpendicular to the plane of the circle which would
be thought to be described by the central point of the moon and which
is inclined to the <circle> through the middle of the signs of the zodiac
5 to the extent of the greatest departure in breadth of the moon. But it
is evident that the distance of the poles of the third sphere from those
of the second would be the arc of a great circle conceived as passing
 Translation 35
through the poles the length of which is half of the breadth through
which the moon moves.125 So, he hypothesised the first sphere be-
cause of the moon’s circuit from east to west, the second because of its
apparent retardation in the signs of the zodiac, the third because it is 10
observed that it is not furthest north and furthest south in the same
points of the zodiac but that these points in the signs of the zodiac
always shift towards preceding signs.126 Consequently, he assumed
that this sphere moved in the same direction as the sphere of the fixed
stars, but because in each month the shift in the points mentioned
was very slight he assumed that its westward127 motion was slow.128 15
He said this much about the moon. Aristotle sets out his opinion
concerning the five planets.129 He says that these are moved by four
spheres, of which the first two are the same and have the same
position as the first two in the case of sun and moon; for in the case 20
of each of them the sphere which contains all <the other spheres>
turns around the axis of the cosmos from east to west in the same time
as the sphere of the fixed stars, and the second sphere, which has its
poles in the first makes its revolution in the reverse direction from
west to east around the axis and poles of the circle through the middle
of the signs of the zodiac in the time in which each of them is thought 25
to traverse the zodiac. Accordingly, he says that the second sphere
completes <its circuit> in a year in the case of Mercury and the
Morning Star,130 in two years in the case of Mars, in twelve years in
the case of Jupiter, and in thirty in the case of Saturn (which earlier
people called the star of Helios).131
The last two spheres are arranged more or less in the following
way. In each case the third sphere has its poles on the circle through 30
the middle of the signs of the zodiac, the circle which is conceived of 496,1
as in the second sphere in each <system>,132 and it turns from south
to north,133 going through all its relations to the sun, in the same time
in which its planet moves from one phasis134 to the next – the
mathematicians also call this the time of traversal.135 This time is
different for different <planets>, so that the revolution of the third
sphere does not take the same amount of time for all of them; rather, 5
according to what Eudoxus thought, it takes nineteen months in the
case of Venus, one hundred and ten days136 in the case of Mercury,
eight months and twenty days in the case of Mars, and very close to
thirteen months in the case of each of Jupiter and Saturn.137
So the third sphere moves in this way in this much time. The
fourth, which also carries the star, turns in a certain oblique circle 10
with, in each case, its own poles; it completes a revolution in the same
time as the third sphere but it moves in the opposite direction from
east to west.138 He <Eudoxus> says that this oblique circle is inclined
relative to the greatest of the parallel circles in the third sphere,139
but not inclined equally or in the same way in all cases. It is, then, 15
evident that the one sphere which turns in same way as the fixed
 36 Translation
stars makes all the remaining spheres turn in the same direction
because each has its poles in another, and accordingly does so in the
case of the sphere carrying the star and in the case of the star itself.
And for this reason each of the planets will rise and set. And the
second sphere will make its passage under the twelve signs of the
20 zodiac, since it turns around the poles through the middle of the signs
of the zodiac and makes the remaining two spheres and the star turn
with it towards successive signs in the time in which the star is
thought to complete the zodiacal circle. The third sphere has its poles
on the circle through the middle of the signs of the zodiac in the
second sphere; it turns from south to north and from north to south,
25 and it will make the fourth sphere, the one containing the star, turn
with it, and it will contain the cause of the star’s motion in breadth.
However, not it alone, since to the extent that the star moved on this
circle it would reach the poles of the circle through the middle of the
signs of the zodiac, and it would also come to be near to the poles of
the cosmos. But now the fourth sphere, which turns around the poles
30 of the oblique circle of the star from east to west in the opposite
497,1 direction to the third and makes a revolution in an equal time as it,
will prevent an excessive departure from the circle through the
middle of the signs of the zodiac and will make the star describe what
Eudoxus called a ‘horse fetter’140 about this same circle.141 Conse-
quently, the star will seem to depart in breadth from the ecliptic by
the amount of the breadth of this line <the horse fetter>. People
5 attack Eudoxus for this.
Eudoxus’ description of the sphere uses twenty-six spheres in all
for the seven planets, six for sun and moon and twenty for the five
<other planets>. Aristotle has written this about Callippus in Book
12 of the Metaphysics:

Callippus posited the same position for the spheres, i.e., the
10 order of their distances,142 as Eudoxus, and he assigned the
same number of spheres to Jupiter and Saturn as Eudoxus, but
he thought that two spheres had to be added to <each of> the
sun and moon, if one was going143 to explain the phenomena, and
one more144 to each of the other planets.145

So, according to Callippus, there are in all five times five and two
times four, that is thirty-three, spheres.146 There does not survive a
15 treatise by Callippus stating the reason that these additional spheres
must be added, nor does Aristotle supply the reason. But Eudemus
recounts briefly for the sake of which phenomena <Callippus>
thought that these spheres had to be added. He says that <Callippus>
says that since the times between the solstices and the equinoxes
20 differ by as much as Euctemon and Meton thought,147 the three
spheres for each <of sun and moon> were not sufficient to preserve
 Translation 37
the phenomena, obviously because of the apparent non-uniformity in
their motions. And Eudemus also recounts briefly and clearly for
what reason <Callippus> added one sphere in the case of each of the
three planets Mars, Venus, and Mercury.148
After recounting Callippus’ opinion about the counteractive
spheres, Aristotle adds: 25

But if all the spheres added together are going to explain the
phenomena, it is necessary that there be for each of the planets
other spheres, one less <than the number of spheres associated
with the planet>, which are counteractive and always restore
the first sphere of the star beneath it in order to the same
position;149 for only in this way can they all produce the motion
of the planets.150

So Aristotle has stated these things briefly in this way and151 clearly; 498,1
Sosigenes praises him for his acumen and tries to find the use of the
spheres added by him; he says:152

It is necessary for these spheres (which <Aristotle> calls coun-

teractive) to be attached to the hypotheses for two reasons: so 5
that there will be the proper position for both the fixed sphere
for each planet and for the spheres under it; and so that the
proper speed will be present in all of the spheres. For it was
necessary both that a sphere move in the same way as the
sphere of the fixed stars or as some other sphere around the
same axis as it and that it rotate in an equal time, but neither
<property> could possibly belong to it without the addition of
the spheres mentioned by Aristotle. For the sake of clarity let us 10
give the explanation in terms of the spheres which move Jupi-
ter. If we were to fit the poles of the first sphere for Jupiter into
the last of the four spheres for Saturn, the one in which Saturn
is fastened, how could the poles remain on the axis of the sphere
of the fixed stars when the sphere carrying them is turning
around another axis which is to the side? However, in the case 15
of the outermost motion it is necessary for them to remain on
that axis if the sphere which turns around them is going to
receive the ordering of the sphere of the fixed stars. Further-
more, since the three spheres carrying Saturn are turned by one
another and the first sphere, and they have some speed of their
own, the fourth sphere will not have some simple motion, but a 20
motion which shares in all those above it. For it will be shown153
that something of the speed belonging to spheres moving in the
contrary direction is subtracted from them by the sphere which
causes turning in the same direction and that in the case of
those turning in the same direction something is added to the
 38 Translation
motion which penetrates to them from the spheres above be-
cause of the motion of those spheres. Consequently, if the first
25 of the spheres of Jupiter were fitted into the sphere carrying
Saturn and the first sphere of Jupiter had its own speed which
would make it return again to the same place in a rotation of the
cosmos, the motion of the spheres above would not permit it to
have its present speed, but there would be some addition, since
they are moved towards the west, and the first sphere of Jupiter
would itself be moving in the same direction.
The same argument also applies to the next spheres. For the
499,1 motion will be more and more compounded and their poles will
change from their proper position. But it is necessary, as we
said, that neither of these things happen.154 In order that this
not occur and that one encounter nothing unsatisfactory be-
5 cause of it, he <Aristotle> conceives of ‘<spheres> which are
counteractive and which always restore the first sphere of the
star beneath it in order to the same position.’155 For he says
exactly these words and he is referring to both of the reasons for
which he introduces these things. When he says ‘counteractive’,
he is referring to the restoration of the motion to its proper
10 speed, and when he says ‘which always restore the first sphere
of the star beneath it in order to the same position’, he is
referring to the poles remaining in the suitable place. For the
position of the moving spheres is grasped by reference to the
poles only if they remain fixed.156 But he says that the first
sphere of the star beneath <another planet> in order is restored
by the <counteractive spheres of the star above> since <the first
sphere> receives its appropriate speed and appropriate position
from the counteraction, and all the speeds and positions of the
15 next spheres are preserved.

Sosigenes proves that these things result, after first setting out some
things which are serviceable for the argument. What he sets out is,
in brief,157 this:

Figure 1 (499,16-500,14)158
 Translation 39
Suppose there are two homocentric spheres, DE, FG, which are
contained by another outside them, the one containing them
being either in motion or remaining fixed;159 and suppose they
move in directions opposite to each other and in an equal time,
i.e. at the same speed; then all the points in the contained sphere 20
will always be in the same position relative to the containing
sphere, as if the points in fact remained fixed.160
For suppose DE is moving from A towards B.
If the smaller sphere FG were only turning with DE and not
moving in the contrary direction, it is seen that just as D is at
some time under B, so F moves together with D and in the same
time. But since they also move together and FG also moves in 25
the contrary direction to DE, however much <FG> adds by
moving in the same direction, it cancels by moving in the
contrary direction. The result is that when D is under B, F is
under A, just as F was observed to be originally. Consequently
the proposition is true. So, if AB remains fixed what has been 500,1
proved is clear and it is clear that161 if both things hold and the
inner sphere <FG> moves around with the outer one <DE> and
also moves in the contrary direction, then the same points will
always have the same position, but not if <FG> moves only in
the same direction as <DE> or only in the contrary direction.
But if the sphere AB also were to move, either in the opposite 5
direction or in the same direction as the second sphere DE, the
same thing would happen in the case of the points on the third
sphere FG, which moves together with DE and moves in the
contrary direction at an equal speed. For if the sphere AB turned
from A towards B and drew DE with it so that D moved to E, the
middle sphere itself, DE, would move either in the opposite
direction or in the same direction as AB and at some speed or 10
other relative to AB and in an equal time with FG; and because
<DE> makes the third sphere <FG> turn in the same direction
as it, it makes the point F go beyond A. But the third sphere
moving in the contrary direction will make F again be under A,
and, since this will always happen, all the points on the sphere
FG will be under the same points on the sphere AB.162

So the proposition has been proved in the case in which the spheres 15
move around the same axis, and the argument is the same even if
they do not move around the same axis. For the position of the points
under the same points does not result because their motion is along
the same parallels, but because the contained sphere is carried
around by the containing sphere and also moves in the contrary
direction, and however much it adds it subtracts, whether the carry-
ing around in the two directions occurs in the case of an oblique circle 20
or an upright one.
 40 Translation
Again, suppose there are two homocentric spheres moving in the
same direction, each with some speed, the smaller not only being
carried together with the greater but also having its own motion in
the same direction. Then, if their speeds are equal, <Sosigenes> will
25 prove that the compound motion is double in speed; but if the speed
of one is double <that of the other>, the speed of the compound will
be triple, and so on. For if the greater causes the smaller to move a
quarter circle and the smaller moves at the same speed, then the
smaller itself also moves a quarter circle, and a quarter circle will
have been moved through twice, so that the motion compounded of
both is double the motion of the one. <Sosigenes> says:

501,1 We say these things if the motions are around the same poles.
But if they are not, something else will happen because of the
obliqueness of one of the spheres. For then the speeds will not
be compounded in this way, but in the way it is usually proved
in the case of a parallelogram where the motion along the
5 diagonal is produced from two motions, one of a point moving on
the length of the parallelogram, and one of this length itself
drawn down in the same time through the breadth of the paral-
lelogram. For the point and the side of the length which has been
drawn down will be together at the other end of the diagonal;
and the diagonal will not be equal to <the sum of> both of the
10 lines which are broken at it, but it will be less, so that also the
speed of the compound will be less <than the sum of the two
speeds> although it is compounded of the two.163

And <Sosigenes> says the following in a way quite similar to what he

has said:

If there are two homocentric spheres, whether having the same

or different poles, being carried around in opposite directions
with the smaller being carried around by the greater and also
15 moving at a lesser speed in the contrary direction, the points in
the smaller sphere will reach the same place in a longer time
than if the smaller sphere were only fastened in the greater
<and not moving in the contrary direction>. Because of this fact
the restoration of the sun itself from rising to rising is slower
than the rotation of the cosmos because it moves more slowly
than the universe and in the opposite direction, since if it moved
in an equal time to the fixed sphere and it were carried around
20 in the contrary direction and always were restored in the same
time, it would always rise together with the same point.

These things being taken to start, Sosigenes comes to the things

said by Aristotle concerning the necessity for other counteractive
 Translation 41
spheres for all but one of each of the planetary spheres, if the
phenomena are going to be explained. And he sets out the theory of 25
Aristotle’s description of the sphere as follows:

The first of the spheres carrying Saturn moved in accordance

with the sphere of the fixed stars, the second moved in the circle
through the middle of the signs of the zodiac and was left behind
<by the first>, and the third moved from south to north through
the circle perpendicular to the circle through the middle of the
signs of the zodiac, which it carried aside in breadth – this circle
was perpendicular to the circle through the middle because it 30
had its poles on that circle, and circles which cut through the
poles, cut perpendicularly.164 The fourth sphere, which has the
star, moved the star on a certain oblique circle which delimits 502,1
the breadth of the planet’s turning away to the north so that it
does not come near the poles of the cosmos.
And then one should conceive an additional fifth sphere, prior
to those carrying Jupiter,165 moving around the same poles as
the fourth, in the opposite direction as it, and making a revolu-
tion in the same time; this sphere will cancel the motion of the 5
fourth sphere because it moves around the same poles as it, but
in an opposite direction, and in the same time – for this has been
proved – and it will diminish the apparent speed.166 After the
fifth, in order to preserve the phenomena, one should conceive
another sixth sphere with the same poles as the third, which it
counteracts, and moving in the opposite direction in the same
time; and the points on the third sphere will always appear 10
directly below on the sixth sphere. And after this sphere one
should add a seventh, counteracting the second, which is fitted
in around the poles of the circle through the middle <of the signs
of the zodiac>, around which the seventh also moves, but turn-
ing in the opposite direction to the second and in the same time
as it. The seventh sphere cancels the motion and the speed
which penetrates through from the second sphere to the spheres
beneath it; for the seventh sphere, moving along with the fixed 15
sphere, adds to the speed <of the motion> from east to west of
the spheres under it.167 So it will turn in this way and move in
the same way as the fixed sphere, but it will not have the order
of the fixed sphere, since it turns around poles different from
those of the fixed sphere; but it does move from east to west.

After the seventh sphere one should conceive a final eighth sphere, 20
the first of Jupiter. Sosigenes correctly notes that the last of the three
counteractive spheres <for Saturn> is not, as some people think, the
first sphere of Jupiter, because then the last of the spheres counter-
acting the higher motions would be the first of the spheres moving the
 42 Translation
planet beneath so that the seventh sphere and what we call the eighth
would be the same, and be the first sphere of Jupiter; for it turns out
25 for those people who try to preserve the number of counteractive
spheres stated by Aristotle that they count the same sphere twice.
For, in the case of each star the counteractive spheres should be one
less than those moving the sphere; consequently there being four
spheres moving each of Saturn and Jupiter, there will be three
counteractive spheres, and there being five spheres moving each of
30 the four, Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the sun, there will be four. So
503,1 the total of counteractive spheres is two times three for Saturn and
Jupiter and four times four for Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the sun,
and the total is twenty-two. But there were eight spheres carrying
Saturn and Jupiter, and twenty-five carrying the remaining five. So
5 if these thirty-three spheres are added to the twenty-two counterac-
tive spheres, the total will be fifty-five. (For no spheres are needed to
counteract those moving the moon, since it is last and Aristotle says
that only the spheres in which the star lowest in order is moved need
not be counteracted.)168
10 It is clear that this is the number of all the spheres. But Aristotle
says that if one does not add to the sun and the moon the motions we
have spoken about, the total will be forty-seven, and this remark
produces consternation. For if we subtract the two spheres of the sun
and moon which Callippus added and obviously also two others from
the sun, namely the ones counteracting the two added spheres (since
15 if those two are subtracted, one should also subtract the spheres
intended to counteract them), six spheres will be subtracted, two
carrying the sun and two counteracting them in addition to the two
added by Callippus for the moon. But when these are subtracted from
the fifty-five it will not result that there remain forty-seven in all, but
20 forty-nine. But Aristotle says that forty-seven are left, perhaps be-
cause he has forgotten that he has subtracted only two, not four,
spheres for the moon, unless one should say that he has subtracted
the four counteractive spheres which he added for the sun and the
spheres for both sun and moon which Callippus added, so since eight
spheres are subtracted from the fifty-five, the remainder is forty-
25 seven. The number <given by Aristotle> results in this way, but we
will not be able to say why there are no spheres counteracting the two
spheres of the sun, the second and third, but <Aristotle> says that
only the <system> in the lowest position is not counteracted.169
However, Sosigenes also correctly notes that it is necessary to
30 hypothesise counteractive spheres for the moon170 in order that the
speed added from the spheres above it to those moving the moon do
not make it depart towards the west at a speed which is not the same
as the fixed sphere. But given that only <the moon> does not have a
counteractive sphere,171 the number <47> does not result, and this
caused both Alexander172 and Porphyry in his commentary on Book
 Translation 43
12 of the Metaphysics173 consternation.174 Sosigenes notes this and
says that it is better to believe that the mistake in the number has 35
come from the scribes175 than to make the seventh and eighth spheres 504,1
identical;176 nor, if this were done, would the number harmonise with
<Aristotle’s> words since there will not then still be fifty-five spheres
in all, as he himself says.
Sosigenes correctly177 adds the following:

However, it is clear from what has been said that Aristotle has 5
one thing in mind when he calls these spheres counteractive,
Theophrastus another when he calls them restorative.178 They
have both <features>. For they counteract motions of things
above them and restore the poles of the spheres under them;
they subtract motions, and they set motions in the right way.
For it is necessary that motions not penetrate from above to the 10
motions179 of lower stars and that the poles of lower spheres fall
directly below the poles of similar spheres so that the first
spheres of stars which are lower in the ordering are restored to
the same position (and obviously because of the first spheres the
lower ones as well). For only in this way is it possible for all of
them to make the motion of the fixed stars, as we have already 15
said.

The description of the sphere by means of counteractive spheres is

something like this, and it is not able to preserve the phenomena.
Sosigenes also makes this accusation when he says:180

However, the <hypotheses> of the associates of Eudoxus do not

preserve the phenomena, and not just those which were appre-
hended later, but also those which had been known previously
and were accepted by them themselves. And what necessity is
there to speak about other things, some of which Callippus of 20
Cyzicus also tried to preserve when Eudoxus had not been able
to do so, whether or not Callippus did preserve them? But this
very thing, which is also manifest to sight, none of them until
Autolycus of Pitane181 proposed to validate through hypotheses
(and even Autolycus himself was not able to establish it). This
is made clear by his disagreement with Aristotheros.182 What I
mean is that there are times when the planets appear near, but 25
there are times when they appear to have moved away from us.
And in the case of some <planets> this is apparent to sight. For
the star which is called Venus and also the one which is called
Mars appear many times larger when they are in the middle of
their retrogressions so that in moonless nights Venus causes
shadows to be cast by bodies;183 and also in the case of the moon 30
it is apparent to sight that it is not always equally distant from
 44 Translation
us because it does not always appear to us to have an equal
magnitude, although the conditions under which it is seen are
the same.184 And indeed the same thing is accepted by those who
make observations using instruments because sometimes a
seven-inch disk and sometimes an eight-inch185 disk, placed at
35 an equal distance from the observer, blocks his vision so that
505,1 <the moon> does not fall on it. In addition to these things what
occurs in the case of total eclipses of the sun bears witness to
what has been said and is evidence for the truth about this
question. For when the central point of the sun and the central
point of the moon and our eye happen to be in a straight line,
5 what occurs does not always appear similar; but sometimes the
sun itself is also contained by the cone containing the moon and
having our eye as vertex, and then it remains invisible to us for
a certain time; and sometimes it deviates from this by so much
that there is left at the temporal midpoint of the eclipse a kind
of rim of the sun visible outside <the moon>.186 Consequently it
10 would be necessary that the <heavenly bodies> appear to be
different in size when atmospheric conditions are quite similar
because of the inequalities of the distances.
What occurs in these cases <of variations in distance> is also
clear to sight, and it is reasonable that it also occurs with the
other planets even if it is not manifest to sight; and it is not just
reasonable, it is also true, since their motion each day appears
non-uniform. But in the case of the apparent sizes <of these
planets> there is no striking difference because their change
upward and downward187 (which the mathematicians customar-
15 ily call their motion in depth)188 also does not involve much
difference. Consequently <these people> did not try at all to
preserve this <phenomenon>, so that they did not show that the
motion changes each day, although the problem189 requires this.
However, it is possible to say that the inequality of the distances
20 of each <planet> in relation to itself did not escape them. For
Polemarchus of Cyzicus190 clearly recognises it, but, on the
grounds that it is not perceptible, he ignores it because he
prefers that the position of the spheres themselves in the uni-
verse be around the centre itself. Aristotle also makes this clear
in his Physical Problems when he introduces difficulties for the
25 hypotheses of the astronomers on the basis of the fact that
magnitudes of the planets do not appear equal.191 So he is not
entirely satisfied with the counteractive spheres, even if he192
does propose that the spheres are homocentric with the universe
and move about its centre.193

And it is also evident from what <Aristotle> says in Book 12 of the

Metaphysics that he does not think that the facts concerning the
 Translation 45
motions of the planets are sufficiently described by the astronomers
before and during his time. At least he says the following sort of thing: 30

In order194 to get some conception <about the number of the

heavenly motions> we will state what some mathematicians say
in order to have some determinate number for our mind to take
hold of,195 but as far as the other things are concerned we should
investigate some ourselves and learn others from196 those who 506,1
investigate; and if some of those who concern themselves with
these things think differently from what we say now, we should
love both, but listen to the more precise.197

But also in the same book, after counting all the motions, he adds:

Let198 the number of motions199 be this great; and so it is reason- 5

able to take there to be equally many substances and unmoving
and perceptible200 principles. Let us leave it for stronger
<minds> to talk about necessity.201

The words ‘let’ and ‘reasonable’ and ‘leave it for stronger <minds>’
indicate his uncertainty on these matters. So, listening to Aristotle,
one should rather follow those who came after him on the grounds
that they preserve more of the phenomena; and even if these later 10
people do not completely preserve them, those earlier people did not
know as many phenomena, since the observations sent back from
Babylon by Callisthenes,202 when Aristotle requested them from him,
had not yet reached Greece (Porphyry recounts that these observa-
tions were preserved for thirty-one thousand203 years until the time
of Alexander of Macedon); nor were those earlier people able to 15
validate as much as they did know by means of hypotheses.204
Ptolemy205 also censures these people because they introduce such
a great multitude of spheres only for the sake of the simultaneous
restoration of the seven planets in relation to the revolution of the
fixed sphere206 and for saying that contained and last spheres are
responsible for the simultaneous restoration of containing ones above
them, even though nature always makes the higher things responsi- 20
ble for the motion of lower ones207 (since in our case impulses to move
are communicated through the nerves from the hegemonic part to all
the organs).208
But I do not know why for each star they arrange the first sphere
in the same way as the fixed sphere and have it move at the same
speed and they restore all the spheres after it down to the one having
the star simultaneously with the fixed sphere. For if the sphere which 25
lies above communicates the form of its own motion to the lower ones,
why should we not say that the fixed sphere is the strongest and most
dominant of all the spheres and restores all those under it simultane-
 46 Translation
ously with it? For, since, in the case of each star the spheres which
cause motion in length and in breadth are different, it was necessary
30 that the spheres restoring them be different. But since the simulta-
507,1 neous restoration together with the fixed sphere is the same for all
the spheres, why is he not satisfied with <having> the planets carried
around by the fixed sphere rather than <having> each star have need
of spheres producing this motion and – according to Aristotle –
spheres counteracting them? He would perhaps say that even if they
5 are restored simultaneously with the fixed sphere because they move
from the east with the same motion as it, nevertheless, because they
differ in size they also differ completely in the speed of their motion;
so how would it be reasonable that, when they have been severed and
not bound together, they have their different motions because of the
one fixed sphere?
So, in censuring the hypothesis of counteractive spheres, the peo-
10 ple who came later deprecated the homocentric counteractive spheres
most of all because they did not preserve the difference in depth and
the non-uniformity of motions; and they hypothesised eccentric cir-
cles and epicycles – unless the hypothesis of eccentric circles was
conceived by the Pythagoreans, as some others, Nicomachus and,
following him, Iamblichus, recount.209 In order that in writing a
15 treatise on the heaven, we get some conception of the use of these
hypotheses, let us first set out, in terms of a diagram, the hypothesis
of eccentricity by comparison with that of homocentricity.

Figure 3 (507,18-25; 507,27-508,16)

Let the homocentric circle ABCD with central point E through the
middle of the signs of the zodiac be conceived; let it be assumed that
our eye is at E, and let AEC be a diameter. If a star makes a uniform
20 passage from A to B on the circle ABCD, it is evident that, since our
eye is at the central point E, if we conceive the ray from it and falling
on the star as the straight line AE, it too will be carried around
uniformly and obviously the star will also be observed making a
passage uniformly and always at the same distance from us. How-
25 ever, since this is not the way they are in fact seen to behave, but
 Translation 47
rather they are seen to make their passage non-uniformly and to be
at different distances at different times – as is made clear by the
differences in their <apparent> sizes – let the circle ABCD be as-
sumed to be not homocentric with the zodiac in the sense that it is no 30
longer the central point of the zodiac E on which we say the eye is,
but F, and ABCD is no longer homocentric with the circle through the
middle of the signs of the zodiac but eccentric relative to it;210 <and
let> its apogee, that is, its greatest distance from the eye at F, be A,
its perigee, its least distance from the eye at F, be C. If, then, we
conceive the star moving in the same way on the eccentric circle
ABCD and uniformly traversing the arc AB from the apogee A to B, 35
and also a straight line from the central point211 <E> being carried 508,1
around with it, it will also move around uniformly. Let this line be
EB. Then, if FB is joined from the eye at F to the star, it will result
that the star has moved uniformly through the angle AEB but ap-
pears to have moved through the smaller angle AFB; for, since the
angle <AEB> at E is exterior to the triangle BEF, it is greater than 5
the interior and opposite angle <BFA> at F.212 But if, in making its
passage from the perigee C, it moves uniformly through the arc CD
(so that the straight line ED is also carried around uniformly), and
we again join the straight line FD from the eye at F, the uniform
passage from the perigee will again be contained by the angle CED, 10
the non-uniform apparent passage by CFD, and obviously its appar-
ent passage <seen> from F213 will be greater than its uniform passage
because the angle <CFD> at F is greater than the <angle CED> at
E.214 And the angle AEB in the case where the star’s position is B will
be uniform,215 but the angle AFB will be apparent, and the difference
is EBF;216 but in the case where the star’s position is D, the angle CED 15
will be uniform, CFD apparent, and the difference is EDF.

Figure 4 (508,22-509,3; 509,3-6)

In terms of being simpler this hypothesis harmonises with the

stated purpose of the mathematician, and they have found another
hypothesis which can validate the same things as the preceding one,
 48 Translation
that is, make it that the stars are observed to traverse arcs of the
20 circle through the middle of the signs of the zodiac non-uniformly
although they are moving uniformly. For, again, let the circle ABCD
with central point E, at which again our eye is, be conceived homo-
centric with217 the circle through the middle of the zodiac; and <let>
the star not move on this circle but on the circular FGHK, called an
25 epicycle, which always has its central point A on the circumference of
the circle ABCD; and let it move in such a way that the star reaches
its apogee at F, in the same way as before, and its perigee at H. And
it is clear that, when the epicycle moves uniformly through the arc
AB, it comes to B, and the straight line EB is again carried around
30 uniformly; but the star makes its passage from the apogee F to G,
again moving uniformly through FG. And we will join the straight
509,1 line EG from the eye at E, and again the star will be moved around
uniformly through the arc AB by the epicycle, i.e., through the angle
AEB. But it will appear to move through the angle AEG, which is
greater than the uniform angle <AEB>, the angle BEG being the
difference between them. But when it makes its passage from the
5 apogee not to G but to K, again the angle AEB will belong to the
uniform passage, the angle AEK to the appparent one, which is
smaller than the uniform one, the difference between them being
KEB. So a hypothesis of this kind can validate that the passages of
the stars towards their apogees is both greater and smaller, greater,
obviously, when the star makes its passage from the apogee of the
10 epicycle in the same direction as the circle, smaller when it makes its
passage in the opposite direction; but the eccentric passage towards
apogee always appears less than the uniform one since the apparent
angle AFB is always smaller than the uniform angle AEB.
Each of these hypotheses taken by itself satisfies the purpose of
astronomy, except that in the case of the moon they require both
15 additions. For in order that the phenomena be preserved by the
hypothesis, they hypothesise that the epicycle carrying the moon is
carried around on an eccentric circle.218 These hypotheses are also
simpler than previous ones since they do not require inventing so
many heavenly bodies and they preserve the phenomena, both the
other phenomena and especially those related to depth and non-uni-
formity. However, they do not retain the axiom of Aristotle according
20 to which every body which moves in a circle moves around the centre
of the universe, but neither do they leave room for the solution of the
difficulty which has been stated219 and which has given rise to all
these discussions. For there is no room left for equalisation since it is
no longer true to say that the first motion, which is single, causes
many divine bodies to move, and the motions which are many cause
25 only one body to move; for the motions before the last, which has the
single star, do not move many bodies.220 Sosigenes also adduces these
anomalies against these hypotheses, but he is not satisfied with the
 Translation 49
hypothesis of counteractive spheres for the reasons previously
stated.221
But it is also necessary for those who believe that the stars have
their own motion because they have soul to object to the first <axiom
of Aristotle>, since each star is not just a part of the heaven, it is also
a whole in itself. So a true axiom would instead be one which says 30
that every body which moves in a circle moves about its own central
point, so that it is true to say that whatever heavenly body has the
centre of the universe as its centre moves around the centre of the
universe, but whatever body, being more particular, is outside that 510,1
centre, moves about its own centre, as the stars222 and epicycles and
eccentric circles (if there are such bodies in heaven) do. But these
things move about the centre of the universe, if not with their own
motion, then with that of the sphere which is homocentric with the
universe and carries them.223 And for this reason Aristotle’s doctrine 5
that every body which moves in a circle moves about the centre of the
universe would also be true, unless one were to add that it is moving
with its own motion.
There will be partial room for the solution of the difficulty even on
these hypotheses <of eccentric spheres and epicycles>. For on these
hypotheses it is in a way true to say that nature equalises and
produces a certain order by assigning many bodies to one motion and 10
many motions to one body. For even if each has its own single motion,
nevertheless everything under the fixed sphere will have its motion:
the epicycles will have this motion plus the motion of the homocentric
or eccentric circles; and the star, which he calls one body,224 will have
the motion of the epicycle and the motion of the homocentric or
eccentric circles and the motion of the fixed sphere.
Furthermore, the eccentric circles would not be moving in a circle 15
since they do not move around the centre but about what is outside
the centre; and, since in turning they take up a place and leave it
behind, they make it necessary for there to be a void; and their shape
will be strange since what is inside is always cutting off a part of what
is outside. Perhaps we will escape all these problems if we fit eccentric
spheres into homocentric ones and say that a homocentric sphere 20
moves around its own central point and carries the eccentric one
(which also moves around its own central point) around with it. And
we will say that they are all perfect spheres, not fearing to say that
in their case a body passes through a body.225
Sosigenes also raises quite a few other astronomical difficulties for
these hypotheses in an excellent way; these should be considered on 25
another occasion when there is time. Now it would seem that, having
investigated the theories concerning heaven and heavenly motions
and confirmed the demonstrations by which they are proved to be
circular, uniform, and ordered – since they are observed to be non-uni-
form and to have upward and downward motions – he has provided a
 50 Translation
conception of the hypotheses on the basis of which the earlier and
30 later astronomers preserve the phenomena by means of uniform,
circular, ordered motions. Now if this is more suitable for the discus-
sion of the heaven than for that of first philosophy, no one will accuse
us of turning the discussion aside for too long if the digression has
35 been opportune. But we should pass on to Aristotle’s next discussion.

[Chapter 13]
511,1 293a15-27 It remains to speak about the earth, [where226 it lies,
whether it is stationary or moving, and about its shape.
293a17 Not everyone has the same opinion about its position.
But most people say it lies at the centre <of the cosmos> (indeed,
everyone who says that the whole heaven is finite does so).
However, the Italians who are called Pythagoreans say the
opposite, since they say there is fire at the centre and that the
earth, which is one of the stars, moves in a circle around the
centre to make night and day. Furthermore, they contrive an-
other earth opposite to this, which they call by the name of
‘counterearth’, but they do not seek theories and explanations
by relation to the phenomena; rather they force the phenomena
to fit certain of their own theories and opinions] and try to put
them in order together.227
He turns to the tenth and last topic of the book,228 the earth, a topic
which is also appropriate to discussion of the heaven. For he referred
5 previously to the earth, saying that it lies at the centre of the whole
heaven,229 is motionless,230 and has the relation of central point to
it;231 and he demonstrated the sphericity of the heaven from that of
the earth.232 Now he demonstrates in an unqualified way the things
he assumed hypothetically about the relation of the earth to the
heaven so that his discussion of the heaven will be complete. For the
10 astronomers who are concerned with heaven and heavenly things
also prove these things about the earth – that the earth is at the
centre, that it is motionless, that it has the relation of central point
to the heaven, and that its shape is spherical, since all these things
belong to the earth in its relation to the heaven; and he will describe
all the other things which belong to the earth because of its coordina-
tion with the other three elements in the two books which follow.
15 Now he proposes three issues about the earth: about its position,
where it lies, and second ‘whether it is stationary or moving’, and
third ‘about its shape’. He first sets out the opinions on these subjects
which have been put forward earlier, responds to them, and then
argues for his own opinions on the subjects.
20 (293a17) And first he says about the position of the earth that those
who say that the cosmos is infinite would not inquire about its
 Translation 51
position in the universe since there is no starting point, middle, or end
in what is infinite. Most of those who say that the cosmos is finite,
e.g., Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Democri-
tus, and Plato, say that the earth lies at the centre.233 But the 25
Pythagoreans contradict this (this is what is meant by ‘say the
opposite’); they say that the earth is not around the centre, but that
there is fire in the centre of the universe. And they say that the
counterearth, which is an earth, moves around the centre (they call
it the counterearth because it lies opposite to this earth), and they say
that the earth comes after the counterearth and it, too, moves around
the centre and the moon comes after the earth (this is what he 30
recounts in his work on the Pythagoreans).234 The earth, being one of
the stars and moving around the centre, makes night and day because
of its relation to the sun; the counterearth moves around the centre
and follows this earth, but it is not seen by us because the body of the
earth always stands in front of us. <Aristotle> says that they say 512,1
these things because they do not seek theories and explanations
which harmonise with the clear facts; rather they force the phenom-
ena to fit certain of their own opinions and theories and try to make
the apparent facts harmonise together with them – and this is very
strange. For since they hypothesised that ten is the perfect number, 5
they wished also to bring the number of bodies moving in a circle to
ten. And <Aristotle> says that, assuming the one fixed sphere, the
seven planetary spheres, and this earth, they filled out the ten with
the counterearth.235
This, then, is the way he understands the Pythagorean doctrines.
But those who share in them in a more genuine way say that the fire 10
in the centre is the demiurgic power which generates living things
from the centre of the whole earth and heats its parts which have
grown cold. This is why some of them call fire the tower of Zeus,236 as
<Aristotle> recounts in his Pythagorica, others the guardpost of
Zeus,237 as he says in this work,238 and others the throne of Zeus, as
others say.239 They called the earth a star on the grounds that it too
is an instrument of time, since it is the cause of day and night – it 15
makes day when the part facing the sun is illuminated, night because
of the cone which is produced from its shadow. And the Pythagoreans
called the moon the counterearth and also aitherial earth both on the
grounds that it blocks the solar light, which is a special feature of
earth, and on the grounds that it is the limit of heavenly things, just
as the earth is of what is sublunary. 20

293a27-b4 Many others might also accept [that one should not
assign the earth the space at the centre, but they do not found
their belief on the phenomena but rather on arguments. For
they think that it is suitable for the most honourable space to
 52 Translation
belong to the most honourable thing, that fire is more honour-
able than earth, that the limiting is more honourable than the
intermediate, and that the extremity and the centre are limits;
reckoning on the basis of these ideas, they think that earth does
not lie at the centre of the sphere, but rather fire does.
293b1 Furthermore, because it is most suitable that the most
authoritative <part> of the universe, and such is the centre, be
guarded, the Pythagoreans call the centre <and>]240 the fire
which occupies this space the guardpost of Zeus.
It was a matter of concern to Plato and – in emulation of him – to
Aristotle not to be thought to condemn older ideas without allowing
them a defence, and so they first described earlier doctrines in a
25 plausible way, when it was possible. Aristotle does this here when he
says that many other people might also accept not assigning the
central space to earth, if a person does not get his belief from the
nature of things but from the persuasiveness of arguments. For it is
possible to argue in a plausible way that fire, not earth, is in the
centre. And he next sets out a plausible argument, first assuming as
30 an axiom that the most honourable sublunary space is suitable for the
most honourable sublunary body. And he produces a syllogism in the
first figure as follows:

(i) Fire is the most honourable body;

513,1 (ii) the most honourable place is appropriate for the most hon-
ourable body;
(iii) and the conclusion is that the most honourable place is
appropriate for fire.

However, the centre is the most honourable place, since a limit is

most honourable; and in the cosmos the extremity and the centre are
limits;241 consequently, of sublunary places the centre is the most
5 honourable;242 so, if the most honourable place is appropriate for fire,
but the centre is the most honourable sublunary place, then the
central place is appropriate for fire.
Alexander says that Archedemus,243 who was later than Aristotle,
was of this opinion, but that it is necessary to search in history to find
out who thought this before Aristotle. But perhaps <Aristotle> does
10 not say ‘many others might also accept’ meaning that some others
besides the Pythagoreans thought in this way, but that other people
might also accept this when the argument is set out in a quite
plausible way.
(293b1) And that is why he next sets out the demonstration of the
Pythagoreans since they also tried to give this demonstration in a
plausible way. For, he says, the Pythagoreans did not say that the
earth moves around the centre and fire is situated at the centre just
 Translation 53
in order to fill out the ten bodies which move in a circle, but also they 15
said that fire is situated in the centre ‘because it is most suitable that
the most authoritative <part> of the universe be guarded’, and the
centre, that is, what is in the centre, is such as to be guarded so that
nothing foreign gets near to it and so that the central point enjoys to
the greatest extent the binding and watchful uniqueness of the gods.
So, because fire is guarded in the centre they call fire the guardpost 20
of Zeus since it is guarded by the demiurgic binding power which is
at the central point.
And it is also possible to call the centre itself ‘the most authori-
tative <part> of the universe’ (he previously244 called this most
honourable, as being an extremity); and it is most suitable245 that this
be guarded, and that what does the guarding be the fire which 25
occupies this space – and they call this fire the guardpost of Zeus
because it guards and not because it is guarded. So the previous
argument for placing fire in the centre was based on the idea that the
more honourable should be in the more honourable space, and this
one on the idea that it is a guard in what most ought to be guarded.
With this246 interpretation it is necessary to take the words ‘call }
the guardpost of Zeus’ as detached from what follows, but what is said 30
next seems to harmonise more with the interpretation which takes
the centre and not fire as what is most authoritative.247

293b4-16 <They argue> as if ‘centre’ had only one sense [and the 514,1
centre of a <thing’s> magnitude were the centre of the thing and
of its nature. However, just as in the case of animals the centre
of the animal and of its body are not the same, so one should
even more make this assumption in the case of the whole
heaven. For this reason they should not be alarmed about the
universe or introduce a guardpost at its central point; rather
they should seek that centre and find out what it is like and
where it really is.
293b11 For that centre is a starting point and honourable,
but the spatial centre resembles a termination more than a
starting point, since the centre is what is delimited, the limit is
what delimits. And what contains and the limit is more honour-
able than what is bounded. For the one is matter, the other the
substance of the structure.]
Some people, then, have this opinion concerning the place of
the earth }.
The first argument assumes that the centre is the most honourable
space, the second that it is the most authoritative <part> of the
universe, and each infers from this that fire is in the centre. He now 5
gives a refutation of what is said on the basis of the homonymy of
‘centre’; he says that the argument proceeds as if ‘centre’ were used
 54 Translation
in one way only and there were no difference between the centre
relative to a magnitude and that relative to the nature of a thing.
However, in the case of animals these two are not the same; rather in
their case the centre of the corporeal magnitude is that from which
10 the magnitude in each direction is equal (the navel, for example), and
the natural centre is that in which what is most honourable and the
starting point for being is (for example, the region around the heart,
where this starting point or something analogous to it might be). In
the same way in the case of the whole cosmos it turns out that the
central point is the centre of the spherical magnitude and body, but
15 it is necessary to seek something else as the most honourable <part>
analogous to the heart, namely the centre; and this is not the central
point but rather the fixed sphere because it is the starting point of the
being of the cosmos and carries around the other spheres with it and
contains the whole corporeal nature. Here is where one should seek
what is most honourable, here where there is no need for a guardpost;
and one should not say it is the central point and be alarmed about it
because it needs a guardpost and therefore introduce fire at the
20 central point, calling fire the guardpost of Zeus. So, when he said
previously that ‘it is most suitable that the most authoritative <part>
of the universe be guarded’, he meant that the centre is guarded and
fire is the guard.
(293b11) And he also says that ‘centre’ has two senses, and the
25 centre related to nature is really a starting point and honourable, but
the spatial centre resembles a termination more than a starting
point. He proves these things as follows. The spatial centre (most of
all in the case of spherical figures) is delimited and contained, being
bounded by the starting point, whereas the starting point delimits
and contains; so if what is delimited and bounded is analogous to
matter, what delimits and bounds to form and being, and form and
30 substance are more honourable than matter, then the starting point
is more honourable than the centre.
In general someone who chooses to make these hazardous compari-
sons should also say that demiurgic creativity proceeds from above
from the fixed sphere and moves down from the heaven to the
sublunary world and here introduces higher elements which are
515,1 stronger than lower ones, so that at the last it produces earth and the
central point of the universe. But perhaps one should conceive of the
whole heaven as a complete sphere down to its central point and so
say that in the heaven the partlessness of its central point and what
5 holds it together and what is reverenced and sovereign and its centre
and its perimeter have equal standing, and that perhaps the
Pythagoreans were zealous to make apparent what is divine in the
central point, something which escapes the notice of the wicked.
In general <Aristotle> said248 that the central point is more hon-
ourable because it is both a starting point and a limit, and he said
 Translation 55
that, like the heaven, it is more honourable than what is in between.
And so the whole argument runs as follows:

(i) A limit is more honourable than what is between; 10

(ii) the extremity and the centre are limits.

Consequently the comparison is not of the central point with the

heaven, but of both extremity and centre with what is between. For
also Plato does not say that earth, which is in the centre, is ‘the first
and most senior thing’ of heaven but of ‘whatever has come to be
inside heaven’.249

293b16-30 Similarly in the case of rest and motion, [since not

everyone has the same conception. Rather those who say that it
does not lie at the centre <say> that it moves in a circle around
the centre, and not just it but also the counterearth, as we said
previously.
293b21 And some people even think that there may be sev-
eral bodies of this kind moving around the centre, but invisible
to us because of the interposition of the earth;250 and they say
that is why there are more eclipses of the moon than of the sun,
since each of these moving bodies, and not just the earth, blocks
it.
293b25 For they think that even if we do not dwell at the
central point nothing prevents the same phenomena from re-
sulting as would if the earth were at the centre, since the earth
is not the central point, but is distant from it by a whole
hemisphere; for even now nothing makes it obvious] that we251
are at a distance of half a diameter from the central point. 15
After his historical discussion of the position of the earth, he recounts
the opinions about its motion and rest. He says that those who say
that the earth does not lie at the centre, as the Pythagoreans do, say
that it moves in a circle around the centre, and not only it but also the
counterearth.
(293b21) And some people think that there is not just one coun- 20
terearth but that ‘there may be several bodies of this kind moving
around the centre’, but that, just as the Pythagoreans said that the
counterearth is invisible to us because of the interposition of the
earth, so too for the same reason these things are not seen from where
we are. (He does not say who had these opinions, but Alexander says
that it is possible that it is to be understood that certain Pythagore- 25
ans were of this opinion.) They produced as evidence for this doctrine
the fact that, compared with the sun, the moon is eclipsed often; for
it is eclipsed often because it is blocked not only by the earth but also
by these other bodies which move around the centre.
 56 Translation
516,1 (293b25) But the fact that the phenomena occur as if the earth has
the relation of a central point and is at the centre told against those
who said that the earth is not at the centre but outside it, whether it
stands still or moves; for if the earth is not in fact at the centre of the
universe, having the relation of central point to the heaven, the same
5 stars would not seem to have the same size to observers at different
places as if the observers were in the same place; and also the planes
extending through our eye, which we call horizons, are observed
always to bisect the heavenly sphere and greatest circles in it, since
we always observe six signs of the zodiac above the earth while six
10 remain beneath the earth, which would not happen if the earth had
some perceptible size in relation to the heaven or were not in the
centre. And so, as if releasing these and similar difficulties from those
people, Aristotle says that the phenomena can also be preserved in
terms of this kind of opinion just as they can also be according to the
people who say that the earth is at the centre. For the people who say
it is at the centre do not say it is the central point of the universe,
15 since, unlike a central point, it is not without parts, since it has a
certain size; rather, according to these people the central point of the
universe is not the whole earth but the central point of the earth. And
so the surface of the earth, from which observations are made and the
planes of the horizons are extended, will be distant from the central
point of the universe by a whole hemisphere of the earth. So if there
20 is no difference as far as the phenomena are concerned for us who live
on the surface of the earth and are distant by a hemisphere from the
central point and <what they would be> if we were at the central
point, nothing prevents the phenomena being preserved even if one
were to suppose that the earth is distant from the central point by a
whole sphere, as <it is for> those who say that it is outside the central
25 point. For if the earth were in the centre and we lived at the central
point, there would be a great difference relative to those who say that
the earth is outside the centre, but if the earth is hypothesised to be
in the centre but we do not live at the central point but on the surface,
the surface of the earth will not differ much whether the earth lies in
the centre or outside it. For whether the earth lies outside the centre
30 or in it, the surfaces which face towards each other can be in practi-
cally the same place.

517,1 293b30-32 And some people say that it lies at the central point
[and is wound and moves around the pole which stretches
through the universe,] as is written in the Timaeus.252
Having spoken about those who say that the earth lies outside the
central point and moves around it, <Aristotle> adds that some assert
5 that it lies at the central point and winds and moves, as is written in
the Timaeus of Plato. The words of Plato’s Timaeus are the following:
 Translation 57
<The demiurge> designed earth, which is our nurse,253 wound254
around the pole which stretches255 through the universe, to be
the guardian and demiurge of night and day, the first and most
senior of the gods which have come to be inside heaven.256

He is now calling the axis the pole257 which stretches through the 10
universe. In Plato the word ‘pole’ means three things: in the Phaedo
he calls both the heaven and the limits of the axis around which the
heaven turns, poles,258 and here in the Timaeus he also calls the axis
a pole. The word illomenên (wound), if it is written with an ‘i’,
indicates that the earth is bound, and this is the way Apollonius the
poet uses it:

<Hercules> shook the beast, wound in bonds, from his great 15

back.259

And so does Homer:

They wind it in bonds260 and drag it unwilling by force.

But if it is written with the diphthong ‘ei’ (eillomenên) it then indi-

cates being shut in, as it does with Aeschylus in the Bassarids.261 And
that Plato has used illomenên is made clear by what is said in the 20
Phaedo about the earth:

For a thing evenly balanced and placed in the centre of some-

thing uniform will not be able to incline more or less in any
direction.262

It is also made clear by what Timaeus <Locrus> (whom Plato is here

following) says:263

Earth, seated in the centre, is the hearth of the gods, bound-

ary264 of night and dawn,265 producing settings and risings266 at
sections of the horizons.267 It is the most senior of the bodies 25
within heaven.

And then, a little later, in speaking about the other elements, he adds:

So the earth is the root of everything and base for the others and
is itself fixed firm by the same inclinations <towards the cen-
tre>.

Alexander says: 518,1

Since Aristotle asserts that this is what is said in the Timaeus

 58 Translation
and the text itself, illomenên, indicates turning,268 to declare by
force that it is not expressed269 in this way is a case of changing
what is said in the direction of one’s own hypotheses. For even
the word ‘rolled up’270 into which they change ‘wound’ is itself
5 indicative of moving. And if elsewhere (and here he is obviously
pointing to what is in the Phaedo) Plato speaks in a different
way, this is irrelevant to the argument. For Aristotle is chastis-
ing what is in the Timaeus, whether Plato is there expressing
his own view or the view of Timaeus <Locrus>.

Alexander says these things, and I will start with the last texts.
10 That Timaeus <Locrus> says that the earth is seated in the centre
and is a basis and is fixed firm is prima facie clear from his words
which I have set out. The text makes clear enough that the earth is
bound – as the words271 set out indicated, as does the word ‘rolled up’
– when the text is written with the diphthong ei and is written with
one l;272 and, furthermore, being rolled up is also applied to circular
15 figures even if they are motionless. In addition, even if the text might
indicate either being bound or moving, how ought one to understand
the words of Plato when he adheres to the statements of Timaeus that
things are this way, and he has demonstrated273 the stationariness of
the earth: as indicating that the earth is bound or that it is in motion?
But <Alexander> says:

20 If Aristotle asserts that <Plato> has spoken in this way, it is not

reasonable to speak against him, since it is not really likely that
he was ignorant of either the meaning of the text or of Plato’s
intention.

So perhaps, all things considered, it would be correct to say one of two

things:

(1) Since the text <can> also indicate being rolled up, Aristotle
takes the text in this way, just as he usually concerns himself
with refuting the surface meaning of texts because of those who
understand things in a more superficial way. For, then,274 if he
25 were speaking <about Plato> after speaking about those who
say that the earth275 moves around the centre and someone,
understanding illomenên as indicating movement, were to sup-
pose that Plato says the earth moves at the centre, there would
be at the same time another hypothesis made by people who say
that the earth moves (for it would be hypothesised to move
either around the centre or at the centre), and the person who
understands what Plato says in this way will be refuted at the
same time.276
30 (2) Or one should say that the words ‘and moves’ were added
 Translation 59
to ‘is wound’ <at 293b31> later by someone,277 but that Aristotle
having originally proposed to inquire about the earth, whether
it is stationary or moving,278 and having given a historical 519,1
account of those who say it moves around the centre, has added
the witness of Plato’s Timaeus that it is bound and stationary at
the centre; for if ‘and moves’ is not added, it is also possible to
understand what he says in this way. That he has given a
historical account in terms of oppositions, not just in the case of 5
moving but also in the case of being at rest, is also made clear
by what he adds about the shape <of the earth>: that people
speak in much the same way as in the case of motion and rest,
some saying that it is spherical in shape, others that it is
drum-shaped.279

Heraclides of Pontus thought he could preserve the phenomena by

hypothesising that the heaven is stationary and that the earth is at 10
the central point and moves in a circle.280

293b32-294a11281 They dispute in much the same way about

the shape <of the earth>, [since some people think that it is
spherical and others that it is flat and drum-shaped. They give
as evidence for <the latter view> that the sun, in setting and
rising, is observed to make the part hidden from sight by the
earth a straight line rather than a curved one on the grounds
that if the earth were spherical it would be necessary that the
section be curved. But these people do not take into account the
distance of the sun from the earth and the size of the circumfer-
ence; for from far away it appears to be a straight line in the
apparently small circles <of the sun’s disc>.282 So they should
not at all doubt that the bulk of the earth is round on account of
this appearance.
294a9 But they add more and say it is necessary for it to have
this shape in order to be stationary.
294a10 And so the ways in which people have spoken about
the motion and rest of the earth are many.]
And he says that there is a different history to tell about the shape,
since some people say the earth is spherical, others that it is flat and
drum-shaped. He says that those who say it is drum-shaped give as 15
evidence for this that the sun, in rising and setting, is observed to
have a straight line distinguishing its visible and invisible parts.
However, they say, if the earth were spherical and stood in front of
the sun, the section would be crescent-shaped or doubly convex, as is
seen in the case of solar and lunar eclipses: in the case of solar eclipses
the moon blocks <the sun>, and in the case of lunar eclipses, the cone 20
of the shadow <of the earth is responsible>. But they say that since
 60 Translation
we are, in fact, on the plane <surface> of a drum-shaped figure we see
the sections as straight lines. For if the arc of a circle is placed in the
same plane as the eye, it will appear to be a straight line, as has been
proved in the Optics.283 Against the people who assert these things
Aristotle says that they do not take into account the great distance of
25 the sun from the earth and the very small apparent size of the solar
body in relation to its distance or that the circles in apparently small
bodies appear to be straight lines from a great distance. For spherical
surfaces are judged to be plane from far away, as in the case of the
sun and the moon.
30 But if the distance and apparent smallness of size is the cause of
the section appearing to be a straight line, why doesn’t the same thing
happen in the case of solar and lunar eclipses, since the distance and
the apparent size are the same? Perhaps one should say that if we
520,1 were outside the earth and saw the sun partially obstructed by the
earth, the sections would always appear to us to be curved, just as do
the sections of the sun in solar eclipses, when it is obscured by the
moon, or of the moon when it is obscured by the cone of the shadow
5 <of the earth>. But now, since we are on the earth and we see the sun
rising and setting because of the horizon (and a horizon is the plane
extended through the surface of the earth and our eye), it results that
the solar sphere is cut in a circle by the horizon; but a circle which is
in the same plane as our eye is seen as a straight line.
(294a9) Having rejected the evidence based on the sun as an
10 insufficient ground for supposing that the earth is not round, Aris-
totle says that they add another reason why the earth is drum-shaped
when they say that it is necessary for it to have this shape in order to
be stationary, since it is stationary because it has this shape. For a
spherical shape moves easily, but the shape of a drum is suitable for
rest since it is mounted on what is under it with an entire plane
15 <surface> or, as they say, it sits like a lid on the air beneath it.284
(294a10) Having said that the earth is stable because of its drum
shape, he adds that the ways in which people have spoken about the
arrangement285 of the earth are many. On some views its arrange-
ment is suitable for motion, on others, such as the one just mentioned,
it is suitable for rest.

20 294a11-21 That there is difficulty must strike everyone. [For a

mind must be quite untroubled not to be surprised at how a little
piece of earth which is raised up high and released moves and is
unwilling to remain at rest, and a larger piece always moves
faster, but if someone were to raise up the whole earth and
release it, it would not move. But in fact it is stationary, even
though it is so heavy. However, even if someone were to take
away the earth when parts of it were moving but before they had
 Translation 61
fallen, they would move down if there were no resistance.
294a19 As a result the difficulty has reasonably enough
become a subject of philosophical discussion for everyone. But
one might be surprised that the solutions concerning this do not
seem <to people> stranger than the difficulty.286]
He has already recounted the opinions about the position, motion,
and shape of the earth, and briefly spoken against them, disdaining
most of them as inconsistent; he next transfers the discussion to those
who say that the earth is at rest but do not provide a good explanation 25
of its being so. And first he mentions those who say it is at rest
because the earth is infinite,287 such as Xenophanes of Kolophon;
second those who say it rests by being supported on water, as Thales
said; third those who say it rests by being held up by an underlying
air on which the earth, being flat and drum-shaped, sits like a lid and
does not agree to withdraw – Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democri- 30
tus are thought to have spoken in this fashion;288 fourth the associates
of Empedocles, who make the vortex of heaven responsible for the
earth being at rest; and fifth those, such as Anaximander and Plato,
who say that the cause of its being at rest is its uniformity and even
balance.
But first he constructs the difficulty relating to the earth’s being 521,1
at rest, that it must strike everyone that there is a difficulty about
how the earth remains at rest. ‘For a mind must be quite untroubled’,
that is, lazy, ‘not to be surprised at how a little piece of earth which
is raised up high and released moves’ down ‘and is unwilling to 5
remain at rest’ and a greater piece always moves faster, but if
someone were to raise up the whole earth and release it, it would not
move down. Satisfactory evidence that it would not move if it were
released is the fact that now it is stationary although it is on high and
has such great weight. And he says that this is a difficulty worth
raising concerning the same thing: how if the parts of the earth were
falling from above, if someone were continually to move away the 10
underlying earth before they had fallen, they would remain in motion
until something resisted them, although the whole earth does not move
but is stationary even though there is nothing resisting beneath it.
(294a19) He says that because of these things the difficulty about
the earth has become a subject of philosophical discussion for every-
one, since it is genuinely philosophical to seek the causes of existing
things. But concerning the solutions of these289 one might be sur- 15
prised <that they> continue290 to seem stranger than the difficulty,
since, although the <people who offer them> wish to solve the diffi-
culty in these matters, they seem to use things which are worthy of
more difficulty. Alexander offers this interpretation, writing the text
as ‘but concerning the solutions of these291 one might be surprised’
<and so forth>; he explains that the text lacks completeness, as has 20
 62 Translation
been said.292 But perhaps, even if this is the text, its expression is brief
rather than elliptical.293 For, having said that ‘the difficulty has
reasonably enough become a subject of philosophical discussion for
everyone’, he adds, ‘but concerning the solutions of these <people>294
one might be surprised that they (obviously the people who offer the
solutions) do not seem stranger than the difficulty’. So one should not
attach the word ‘strange’ to the solutions, but to the people who offer
25 them. However, I have found that many of the copies read this way:
‘but one might be surprised that the solutions concerning these
<things> do not seem stranger than the difficulty.’ And this is
smoother.
Having said these things he next says which of the earlier people
provided which explanations for the earth remaining at rest.

522,1 294a21-b13 For these reasons some people, such as Xenophanes

of Kolophon, say that what is beneath the earth is infinite,295 [so
that they don’t have the concern of seeking the explanation. And
so Empedocles chastises them, saying:296 ‘if the depths of earth
and abundant aithêr were infinite, as has been said by the
tongue of many people, and poured out from their mouths,
people who have seen little of the universe’.297
294a28 Others say it lies on water. This is the earliest theory
which has come down to us; they say that Thales asserted it on
the grounds that earth remains at rest because it floats like a
piece of wood or something else of that sort (since none of these
things is of such a nature as to remain on air, but <only> on
water). As if there was not the same issue concerning earth and
concerning the water supporting the earth; for water is not of
such a nature as to remain on high, but it rests on something.298
294b1 Furthermore, just as air is lighter than water, water
is lighter than earth; so how can what is lighter lie beneath what
is heavier by nature?
294b3 Furthermore, if the whole <earth> is of such a nature
as to remain on water, it is clear that each of its parts will be so
too; but, in fact, this is not observed to be the case, but a chance
piece moves to the bottom299 and more quickly the greater it is.
294b6 These people seem to have inquired up to a certain
point but not as far as the difficulty allows. And it is habitual for
all of us not to inquire with respect to the issue, but with respect
to the person who says the opposite. A person inquires within
himself up to the point where he is no longer able to argue
against himself. So the person who is going to inquire correctly
should be able to raise objections based on what is appropriate
to the <subject> genus, and this comes from] having studied all
its differentiae.
 Translation 63
He says that all these people are moved by the difficulty but are not
willing to have the concern of seeking until they find the most
authoritative explanation, and each of them declared what struck
them as obvious, just as Xenophanes of Kolophon declared that what 5
is beneath the earth is infinite and as a result it remains at rest. Since
I have not encountered words of Xenophanes dealing with this sub-
ject, I do not know whether he said that the underneath part of the
earth is infinite and as a result it remains at rest or that the region
under the earth and aithêr is infinite so that the earth falls ad
infinitum and seems to be stationary. For Aristotle does not make 10
this clear and the words of Empedocles do not determine this clearly,
since ‘depths of earth’ might also mean the things into which it
descends.
(294a28) However, he does not consider this opinion worth arguing
against since it is completely implausible, and after it he sets out the
opinion of Thales of Miletus, who says that the earth is supported on
water like a piece of wood or something else of such a nature as to 15
float on water. Aristotle argues against this position, which is per-
haps more prominent because it is expressed by the Egyptians in the
form of a myth. And perhaps Thales took the doctrine from there.
The refutation consists of three arguments. One derides them all
elegantly for trying to solve the difficulty by means of something no 20
less difficult, since someone could raise the same question about the
water underlying the earth: what does it stand on when it supports
the earth? ‘For water is not of such a nature as to remain on high’,
just as earth isn’t either.
(294b1) The second argument is the following. If lighter things are
of such a nature as to rise up over heavier ones, and heavier things
support lighter ones, and, just as air is lighter than water, water is
lighter than earth, ‘how can what is lighter lie beneath what is 25
heavier by nature’?
(294b3) The third argument uses what is called a conversion with
antithesis.300 If the whole earth is of such a nature as to remain at
rest on water, it is clear that each of its parts can ride on water.
However, this is not observed to be the case, since a chance piece
which is thrown into water does not stand still until it reaches the 30
depth of the water (this is what ‘sinks’ means), and a greater piece
moves more quickly. From this it is clear that if you put water under
earth, the whole earth would sink down faster than any part of it. The 523,1
upshot of the syllogism is obvious: therefore the whole earth is not of
such a nature as to remain at rest on water.
(294b6) Having said these things, he discloses in a wonderful and
universal way the reason we do not solve difficulties well. For, he
says, ‘these people seem to have inquired up to a certain point’ but
not to the extent of the difficulty, but only to the point where it would 5
still be possible to raise difficulties for such solutions; so they are
 64 Translation
satisfied with giving a random solution. He confirms that this is the
way things are by saying that it is habitual for all of us not to inquire
with respect to the issue set out, ‘but with respect to the person who
says the opposite’: for if we satisfy this person, we are contented even
10 if the person does not put forward to us all the difficulties which are
appropriate to the issue. And again he confirms that this is the way
things are from the things which each of us is conscious of undergoing
by himself in inquiries; for each of us by himself inquires about an
issue set out up to the point where he is no longer able to argue
against himself, since then we think that no difficulty remains. As a
15 result the person who is going to inquire correctly should consider all
the difficulties which are appropriate to the issue set forth and raise
objections against all of them, whether he makes his inquiry to
himself or to another person, since in this way the solutions of the
difficulties will have completeness.
He calls objections appropriate if they are taken from the issue
20 itself and are not sophistical. We should raise difficulties and objec-
tions against all the objections which are appropriate to the issue if
we are to have considered all the differences by which the issue set
forth for inquiry differs from the others. For the people who say that
the earth floats on water because they saw wood floating on it were
deceived because they could not make out the difference between
25 earth and wood. He also says in the first book of the Topics301 that one
of the things which is serviceable for furnishing arguments for the sake
of understanding is reflecting upon all the differences from one another
of those things which most seem to have community with one another.
In saying this now he has passed over acknowledging that one
should also study all of the points of communion of things that differ.
For many difficulties are set in motion by this. But the things which
30 are said in the Topics302 to complete the discovery of premisses for the
furnishing of syllogisms are: making divisions for what has several
senses, finding the differences appropriate to the issue set forth, and
the study of similarity.

524,1 294b13-23 Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus [say that

the cause of its remaining at rest is flatness. For it does not cut
the air beneath it but sits on it like a lid, as those bodies which
are flat are observed to do, since they also are hard to move
against winds because of the resistance. They say that because
of its flatness the earth behaves in the same way with respect to
the underlying air which, not having sufficient room to change
position, is stationary because of a mass <of air> underneath
it303 – this can be compared with the water in clepsydras.304 And
they give a lot of evidence that air which is cut off and remains
fixed is able to support a great weight.]
 Translation 65
Third he examines those who say that the cause of the earth’s
remaining at rest is its flatness. For this flatness, even if it is of such
a nature as to move downward, is not able to cut the underlying air,
but it sits on it like a lid, as bodies which are flat are observed to do; 5
for they are seen to sit like a lid. For, just as bodies which are flat are
hard to move against winds because they block and resist winds (for
when the wind is blocked and has no way out it remains motionless,
as in the case of houses with no ventilation, and as a result flatter
bodies are hard for the wind to move), so the earth because of its 10
flatness behaves in the same way with respect to the underlying air,
but the air, not having sufficient room for changing position is con-
strained to be stationary by a mass underneath which is part of it and
does not move; for since the part next to the earth does not have a way
out, what is under it remains as a mass, and so all the air is stationary
with a mass <of air> underneath, and if it is stationary and is not 15
divided, it is necessary that the earth remain at rest on top of it.
He introduces the water in clepsydras as an example of the air
beneath remaining motionless when the air near the earth does not
have a passageway. A clepsydra is a container with a narrow mouth
and a wider bottom pierced by little holes; it is now called a hudrar- 20
pax.305 When the container is lowered into water with its mouth above
stopped up, the water will not enter through the holes because the
mass of the air in the container resists the water and prevents its
upward passage since it does not have any place where it can change
position. But when what is stopping up the mouth above is taken
away, the water will enter as the air makes way for it. Thus it is in 25
this respect306 that the example provides a resemblance: when the
water is taken as analogous to the earth which does not move through
the underlying air and what is in the clepsydra is taken as analogous
to the air which underlies the earth and resists it. But in addition if
the clepsydra is filled with water and one stops up the mouth above
so that air does not enter,307 the water does not flow out through the
holes in order that the container remain not void when air does not 30
enter through either the stopped up mouth above or through the holes
below which are the way out for the water through their entire
opening. So, just as, when the air does not enter, the water in the 525,1
clepsydra remains at rest, so too the air under the earth remains at
rest because it does not have a passageway; but if it remains at rest
the air under it also remains as a mass, and when all of this remains
at rest the result is that the earth is supported and held up by it.
In connection with Aristotle saying that they give a lot of evidence 5
that the air which is cut off and remains fixed is able to support a
great weight but not himself introducing the evidence, Alexander
says that it is clear that the air is strong because of earthquakes and
winds and the fact that the strongest things are torn asunder when
the sound from thunder crashes into them.308 But it is clear that these
 66 Translation
10 things are acts of a blast of air which is moving and not stationary.
So the example based on skin bags which he sets out in the sequel309
is better, since when these are blown up and supported by water they
carry heavy burdens, as I also have seen in the case of the river
Aboras.310

294b23-295a29 First of all, if the shape of the earth311 is not flat,

[it cannot be stationary because of its flatness.
294b24 However, on the basis of what they say, it is not its
flatness but rather its size which is the cause of its being at rest.
For the air, not having a passageway because of its confinement
remains fixed because of its quantity: it is large because it is
enclosed by the large magnitude of the earth. So, this would be
the case even if the earth were spherical and just as large in size,
since it would remain fixed according to their argument.
294b30 In general our dispute with those who speak in this
way about the motion of the earth is not about parts but about
a certain whole and entirety. For one should determine at the
start whether there is some312 natural motion in bodies or none
and whether there is not a natural motion, but there is a forced
one. But since we have determined this previously313 to the
extent of our present abilities, we must use these determina-
tions as facts. For, if they have no natural motion, they won’t
have a forced one either, but if there is neither natural nor
forced motion, nothing will move at all. For concerning these
things it has been determined previously that this must result,
and it has also been determined that there cannot be rest either,
since just as motion is either forced or natural, so too is rest.
However, if there is some natural motion, there will not be
either forced motion only or forced rest only. So if the earth now
remains at rest by force, it also came together at the centre
because of the vortex, since, on the basis of what happens in the
case of things in liquids or air, everyone says that the vortex is
the cause; for in liquids or air greater and heavier things are
always carried towards the centre of the vortex.
295a13 And so everyone who says that the heaven came to be
says the earth came together at the centre,314 and they seek the
cause of its remaining there. And in this way some of them say
that the cause is its flatness and size, others, such as Empedo-
cles, that it is the motion of the heaven which, running around
in a circle and moving faster than the earth, prevents <the earth
from moving>, like water in ladles; for, when a ladle is moved in
a circle, although it is of a nature to move downward and it is
often underneath the bronze, it does not move downward for the
same reason.
 Translation 67
295a21 However, if neither the vortex nor flatness prevents
<the earth from moving>, but instead the air yields,315 where
will the earth move? For it moves to the centre by force, and it
remains there by force, but it is necessary that it have some
natural motion. Is this motion upward or downward or in what
direction? For it is necessary that it have some natural motion,
but if that motion is no more upward than downward, the air
above will not prevent its motion upward, nor would the air
under the earth prevent its motion downward;] for it is neces- 15
sary that the same things be the cause of the same things for the
same things.
Having presented in as plausible a way as possible the case of those
who say that the earth is stationary because of its flatness, he now
argues against them; and he first uses the following argument:

If someone says that the earth is stationary because of its

flatness and a shape of this sort, then, if it were proved that it
is not flat but spherical, flatness could not be the cause of its 20
being stationary. And so it is necessary that the person who
argues in this way prove first that the earth is flat and, in this
way, that it is stationary because of its flatness.

Perhaps Aristotle has converted the syllogism which they state,

which is the following:

If the earth remains at rest, it is flat, and it remains at rest

because of its flatness.

And he says:

If the earth is not flat, it could not be stationary because of its 25

flatness.

The result is that, because it has been proved that the earth is not
flat, it is also demonstrated that it is not stationary because of its
flatness.
(294b24) Secondly, it is evident on the basis of what they say that
even if the earth remains stationary because it is held up by the
underlying air, its flatness is not the cause of its being at rest; rather
its size is. For if the <amount of> air is large and fills the whole space 30
and it is confined because it is contained by the large magnitude of
the earth, it would not move in this space. But if it also has no
passageway because it is sat on as if by a lid at every point, it would 526,1
not exit either. But it is possible that these things be the case even if
the earth is not flat but spherical and so large in size as to sit like a
 68 Translation
lid on the air at every point; for in this way the air would also remain
motionless with the earth on top of it, according to their argument.
5 So, even if the earth is in fact spherical, they are able to provide this
explanation because of its size, but they limit it to the flatness of its
shape. So neither those people <who say the earth is flat> nor the
person who proves that the earth is spherical has correctly stated316
the cause of its being at rest on the basis of the underlying air.
(294b30) Having overturned their argument in this fashion, he sets
out a third argument which starts in a universal way from principles
10 of physics. He says that in general his dispute with those who speak
in this way about the motion of the earth and say it does not move is
not about the earth itself, which is a part of the universe, but about
the whole structure of natural bodies; for it is necessary that what
holds of other things also hold of the earth. And so one should
determine at the start whether there is a natural motion in bodies or
there is none, and, if there is not a natural motion, then whether there
15 is a forced motion or there is not a forced motion either. And, having
made this division, he reminds us of what was said in the Physics and
in the preceding book,317 where it has been proved that if there is no
natural motion there will not be a forced one either. For an unnatural
motion is forced, and the opposite of a natural motion is an unnatural
one; so if the unnatural is a turning away from the natural, if there
20 were no natural motion there would not be unnatural or forced
motion; so if there were no natural motion, nothing would move at all.
And the same things have been proved in the case of rest: if there is
unnatural rest, it is necessary that there also be natural rest, and if
there is no natural rest, there isn’t unnatural rest either, nor is any
body at all stationary. But it was also proved that if something doesn’t
25 move naturally it isn’t stationary either naturally or unnaturally. For
natural rest is the limit of natural motion, as unnatural rest is of
unnatural motion; consequently, if there is no natural motion nothing
either moves or is stationary. If these things are absurd (since many
things are observed to be moving and stationary), it is clear that
30 bodies have a natural motion. But if they do, ‘there will not be either
forced motion only or forced rest only’. So if, according to those who
believe that the earth is supported by the air, the earth now remains
at rest at the centre by force, it is clear that it is carried to the centre
by force, as those who compress it forcibly into the centre by means
of a vortex say.
(295a13) He next inserts the statement that everyone who asserts
the coming to be of the cosmos says that the earth came together in
35 the centre because of the vortex motion of the heaven. And this is not
527,1 just Empedocles, but also the associates of Anaxagoras and others.
And they are carried318 to this position because of the fact that
rotations in water and in air forcibly compress greater and heavier
bodies towards the centre, and they make the vortex responsible for
 Translation 69
the initial motion. In seeking319 the cause of its remaining there, some
say its flatness is the cause, as was said previously,320 others, such as 5
Empedocles, say that the vortex motion of the heaven321 is also the
cause of this, since the motion of the heaven, running in a circle and
moving faster than the downward motion of the earth, prevents it
<from moving>, ‘like water in ladles’. For when ladles are made to
revolve with extreme speed by jugglers (and this is now done with
cups), although it is of a nature to move downward and the water is 10
often beneath the bronze of the ladles or cups, it does not move
downward because of the vortex motion; rather, because the vortex
motion is faster than the natural inclination of the water, it prevents
it from moving.
(295a21) Having inserted these statements about the earth coming
together at the centre by force and remaining at the centre by force
according to those who make the vortex and the earth’s flatness
responsible for these things, he next adds the consequences of what
was said before. If the earth came together to the centre by force and 15
remained there by force, if the force were hypothetically taken away
so that neither the vortex nor its flatness prevented it <from mov-
ing>, but also the supporting air were to depart,322 where would the
earth move naturally? For they say that it came together at the centre
by force and it remains there by force, but because of what has been
proved, it is also necessary for it to have some natural motion. So is 20
this motion upward or downward or in what direction? For it is
necessary that it have some natural motion. And if it was carried to
the centre by force from every direction, it will also naturally move in
every direction from the centre. But if that motion is no more upward
than downward (because it is in every direction), the air will not
prevent its motion upward; for they do not make the air lying above
responsible for its not moving upward, so that the air should not be
the cause of its not moving downward either. ‘For it is necessary that 25
the same things be the cause of the same things for the same things.’
So if the earth naturally moves upward and downward in the same
way (which is what follows for those who say that it is carried to the
centre by force and remains in the centre by force), whatever is the
cause of its not moving upward naturally should also be the cause of
its not moving downward naturally either. 30
Having said that both the associates of Anaxagoras and Empedo-
cles say that the same thing, the vortex, is the cause of the earth’s
coming together in the centre, but that the former make its flatness
responsible for its rest there, the latter makes the vortex responsible,
and having spoken against those who make the vortex and flatness
and the resisting air responsible for its rest, he turns the discussion
back to Empedocles. 35
 70 Translation

528,1 295a29-32 Furthermore, one might say this against Empedo-

cles. [When the elements had been split apart by Strife, what
was the cause of the earth’s rest?] For he cannot also make the
vortex responsible at that time.
Having just spoken together both against those who make the vortex
responsible for the earth’s rest and against those who make the
earth’s flatness responsible, he adds another argument against Em-
pedocles, saying that ‘furthermore one might say323 this against
5 Empedocles’. He uses four arguments, the first of which seems to
have been expressed unclearly. He says:

When the elements had been split apart by Strife, what was the
cause of the earth’s rest? For he cannot also make the vortex
responsible at that time.

Now with the words ‘when the elements had been split by Strife’ he
seems to refer to some condition besides the present one and calling
10 that the one which comes to be because of Strife. However, Empedo-
cles says that this cosmos comes to be because Strife divides the
elements, just as the Sphere comes to be when Love brings them
together and unites them. So how can <Aristotle> say that there is no
vortex under the domination of Strife, since that domination is
<now>?324
Alexander thinks that he can somehow straighten out what is said
in the following way:

15 When the elements had been split apart by Strife but had not
yet come to be separate – that is, had not as yet been separated
and divided into this cosmic order in which the vortex is the
cause of the earth’s resting in the centre – but rather when they
were together with Love dominating, what was the cause of the
earth’s resting then? For there was no vortex at that time, since
then the elements stood still, not yet having been divided apart
20 by Strife in this way. So, one should speak in this way or325 say
that ‘split apart by Strife’ means ‘Strife having been separated
from them’. For Strife is assumed by Empedocles to be the cause
of a cosmic order of the elements like the present one and of the
vortex motion of the surrounding air, which, he says, moves in
a circle when it has first been separated out.

That <Alexander> has understood and combined these words in an

25 implausible way is manifest to anyone, since he understands Aris-
totle to be speaking of the elements as not having come to be separate,
and he forcibly tries to make the time referred to by the clear words
of Aristotle ‘when the elements had been split apart by Strife’ be the
 Translation 71
domination of Love. And who would use the words ‘when the elements
had been split apart by Strife’ to mean ‘Strife having been separated
from them’? However he was forced or rather is forced326 because he
believes that according to Empedocles this cosmos has come to be
because of Strife only. But perhaps, even if Strife dominates in this 30
cosmos, as Love does in the Sphere, nevertheless both <this cosmos
and the Sphere> are said to come to be by the action of both <Love
and Strife>. But perhaps there is nothing to prevent setting out some
of the words of Empedocles which make this clear:327

But I shall turn back to the path of song I traced before, drawing 529,1
off this argument from another:328
When Strife had reached the lowest depth of the vortex and
Love had come to be in the centre of the eddy, in Her then all
these things come together to be one thing only; not immedi- 5
ately, but different things coming together from different
directions at will. And, as they were being mixed, countless
types of mortal things poured forth, but many things that Strife
still restrained from above stayed unmixed, alternating with
those which were combining, for It had not yet329 blamelessly 10
and completely retired to the last limit of the circle, but It
remained in some of the limbs and departed from others. And to
the degree that It was always running out, a gentle, immortal
impulse of blameless Love followed in pursuit. Immediately,
exchanging their paths, what had learned previously to be
immortal grew as mortal, and what had previously been un- 15
mixed became mixed.

In these lines it is made clear that in the simple cosmic order Strife
is confined and Love dominates when it has come into the centre of
the eddy, i.e., the vortex, so that there is also a vortex when Love
dominates; and it is made clear that some of the elements remain
unmixed under Strife, but the mixed ones make mortal animals and
plants (mortal because things which are mixed are again dissolved). 20
But also in speaking about the coming to be of corporeal eyes
<Empedocles> adds:

From which the goddess Aphrodite fashioned tireless eyes,330

and a little later:

Aphrodite, putting <them> together with bolts of love,331 25

and, giving the reason why some things see better in the day, others
at night, he says:
 72 Translation
When they first grew together in the hands of Kupris.332

And <to see> that he is speaking about these things in this cosmos,
hear these words:

530,1 But if your belief about these things is in any way defective: how
the forms and colours of mortal things, as many as333 have now
come to be, came to be when water, earth, aithêr, and sun were
mixed, harmonised together by Aphrodite,334

5 and a little later:

As then when Kupris, busily making forms,335 moistened earth

in water and gave it to nimble fire to strengthen,336

and again:

Of things which She fashioned dense inside and rare outside,

10 they having chanced on this kind of wateriness in the hands of
Kupris.337

I have collected and set out these passages from a few of the verses
which present themselves to be taken literally. But perhaps Empedo-
cles, speaking as a poet in a more mythical way, does say their
domination is by turns:

At one time all things coming together into one thing because of
Love, at another again being carried apart from each other
15 because of the hostility of Strife.338

And Aristotle, contenting himself with this more mythical statement,

asks those who make the vortex responsible for the earth’s being at
rest the following question:

Since, when the elements had been split apart by Strife, the
elements were unmixed and there was no order between heaven
20 and earth – or rather, since the elements were unmixed there
was not yet, on this hypothesis, even a heaven, but there was
earth, since the elements are eternal, as they suppose – what
then was the cause of the earth’s rest? ‘For he cannot also make
the vortex responsible at that time.’

I think that Empedocles would say that there is not a time when the
elements had been split apart and their coordination with one an-
other did not exist, since, if there was, they would not be elements;
rather Empedocles’ words are intended to unfold the nature of things,
 Translation 73
and they hypothesise the coming to be of what does not come to be 25
and the division of unified things and the unification of divided
things.

295a32-b10 It is also strange that they do not reflect [on the

following question: previously the parts of the earth were car-
ried to the centre by the vortex, but what is the reason why all
things which have weight now move to <the earth>, since the
vortex is not near us?
295b1 And furthermore, what is the reason why fire moves
upward? It is not because of the vortex. But if fire is of such a
nature as to move somewhere, it is clear that one should suppose
that earth is as well.
295b3 But heavy and light are not determined by the vortex
either; rather there are previously existing heavy and light
things and the former come to the centre, and the latter rise up
because of the motion. So these things were heavy or light before
the vortex came to be, but by what were they determined, and
how were they of such a nature as to be carried, and where? For
if <the universe> is infinite, it is impossible for there to be an up
or down, but heavy and light are determined by these two.]
So most people work with these explanations.
Next he adds a second argument based on what they say. Those who
generate the cosmos from a starting point by the action of a vortex 30
thrust the earth away into the centre as if it were chips in swirling 531,1
waters; they say that it then remains at rest in the centre by force. It
is then strange, he says, that they do not reflect upon the question
what the reason is why things having weight now move towards the
earth. You cannot say that it is because of the vortex, since even if it
exists now, the vortex is not near us. But for whatever reason heavy
things now move to the centre, it is for the same reason that the earth 5
was then carried, since that was its starting point of motion.
(295b1) He adds this third argument. If fire is not carried upward
by the vortex, but because it has a particular sort of nature – for, as
they say, the vortex is the reason why heavy things move towards the
centre – why do we not say that the earth moves to the centre because
it has a particular nature? Unless someone were to say that, although 10
heavy things are carried to the centre by the vortex, things lighter
than them rise up by necessity, and this is the reason why fire moves
upward. For also Aristotle himself will say, ‘the former come to the
centre, and the latter rise up because of the motion’.
(295b3) He adds a fourth argument in which he draws out the 15
absurdity on the basis of which they speak. For if they say that the
vortex forcibly compresses heavy things into the centre, one should
note that the vortex is not the cause of the heaviness or lightness of
 74 Translation
bodies according to them, but that heavy and light things exist prior
<to the vortex> because they differ in their inclinations and therefore
20 in the vortex one was carried in one direction, the other in another.
So if some things were heavy and others light in their own nature
before the vortex, how were they distinguished from one another?
And what was the place proper to each, and where did they move
naturally? For this is not the same, since if what it is to be heavy and
what it is to be light were the same, the vortex would not separate
25 these identical things, but they would also be carried in the same
direction by the vortex. But if someone were to assign to them proper
natural places, he would have the explanation for their natural motion
and rest. But not all <of these people can> produce this. For if the
universe is infinite, as Anaximander and Anaximenes are thought to
say,339 it would be impossible for there to be up and down, and if these
30 did not exist, neither would heavy and light, since what moves down-
ward naturally is heavy, what moves upward naturally is light.

295b11-296a23 There are some people, such as Anaximander

among the earlier thinkers, who say it remains at rest because
of uniformity, [since it is no more suitable for what is situated
at the centre and uniformly related to the extremities to move
upward than downward or to the side; but it is impossible to
move in opposite directions simultaneously, so that necessarily
it remains at rest.
295b16 This is said cleverly but not truly, since according to
this argument it would be necessary that anything whatever
which is placed at the centre remain at rest, so that even fire
would be stationary there – for what was said does not apply
uniquely to the earth. But this is not necessary, since <earth>
is not only observed to remain at the centre, but also to move
towards the centre. For it is necessary that the whole <earth>
move wherever any part of it moves, but it also remains natu-
rally wherever it moves naturally. Therefore, <it does not
remain at rest> because of being uniformly related to the ex-
tremities, since this is common to all things, but moving to the
centre is unique to earth.
295b25 It is also strange to inquire why the earth remains at
the centre, but not to inquire why fire <remains> at the extrem-
ity. For if the extremity is its place by nature, it is clear that it
is necessary that there also be some place for earth by nature.
But if its present position is not its by <nature> but it remains
there because of the necessity of uniformity, then they should
inquire about the resting of fire at the extremities. (This uni-
formity is like the assertion that a hair which is strongly and
uniformly stretched in every direction will not break or that if a
 Translation 75
person is extremely and equally hungry and thirsty and at an
equal distance from food and drink, he also necessarily remains
stationary.)
296a1 It is also surprising that they inquire about things
being at rest but not about their motion. <They do not ask> for
what reason one thing moves upward, another downward, if
nothing hinders them.
296a3 However, what they say is not even true. It is indeed
true in the indirect sense that it is necessary that anything for
which it is no more suitable to move here than there remain at
the centre.
296a6 But on the basis of this theory it will not remain but it
will move, not indeed as a whole, but having been torn apart.
For the same argument will also apply to fire, since it would be
necessary that it remain at rest in the same way as earth if it is
placed <at the centre> because it would have the same relation
to any point at the extremities. However, if nothing prevented
it, it would move from the centre towards the extremity (as it is
also observed to do), except that <it would not move> as a whole
towards one point (since this follows necessarily only on the
basis of the argument about uniformity), but a proportional part
would go to a proportional part of the extremity. (I mean, for
example, that a fourth part would go to a fourth part of the
surrounding <extremity>; for a point is not a body.)
296a17 And just as what is compressed can come together
from a large place into a smaller one, so what becomes more rare
can come from a smaller into a larger one. Consequently, on the
basis of the theory of uniformity, the earth would move in this
way from the centre if it were not the place of the earth by
nature.
These, then, are practically all the ways of conceiving the
shape of the earth and its position, rest, and motion.]
Plato is also of this opinion when he says in the Phaedo:

For a thing which is evenly balanced and placed in the centre of 532,1
something uniform will not be able to incline more or less in any
direction.340

But Aristotle, finding that it was assumed earlier by Anaximander,

thinks it more suitable to refute him than to argue against Plato; or,
as some of those who set the <two> philosophers in opposition say,
since he earlier said that Plato says that the earth ‘winds and moves 5
about the pole which stretches through the universe’341 he does not
refer this opinion about the earth’s rest to Plato. Alexander says the
following:
 76 Translation
By saying ‘such as Anaximander among the earlier thinkers’ he
makes clear that there were others of this opinion who were not
‘earlier’. Or rather it is unclear, as far as this text goes, whether
10 it is stationary at the centre or whether it remains at the centre
because of its own even balance and the uniformity of what
contains it, but, while remaining there, it winds and moves
‘around the pole which stretches through the universe’.

Anaximander thought that the earth remains at rest because of the

air holding it up342 and because of even balance and uniformity.
Having proposed to speak against this opinion, <Aristotle> first sets
out the argument supporting it, as is his custom:

15 It is no more suitable for what is situated at the centre and

uniformly related to the extremities to move upward than down-
ward or to the side because of its being everywhere evenly
balanced and because of the uniformity of it and what contains
it. But it is also impossible to move in opposite directions simul-
taneously. So if it is not possible for this <earth> to move all
20 together or by turns, it is necessary that it be stationary.

(295b16) He says that this argument is spoken cleverly, i.e., in a

plausible way, but not truly. For being related in a uniform way to the
extremities is not unique to the earth; it also attaches to fire and the
other elements, since each of these, because of its own homoiomerous-
ness and that of what contains it, is also related in a uniform way to
25 what contains it. Consequently, according to this argument, it is
necessary that whatever is placed at the centre remain there, so that,
if fire were placed at the centre, it would be stationary there. So this
is the way in which he responds to the doctrine: agreeing, to start
with, that uniformity is the explanation, he refutes the doctrine on
the grounds that it ought to be the explanation of the same thing in
the case of the other <elements>, and then he objects that it is not
30 necessary that uniformity be the explanation of resting, but that
rather the explanation is that which is also the explanation of motion
towards the centre; for <earth> is observed not only to remain at the
centre, but also to move to it. And next, since the whole earth is not
perceived moving to the centre, he argues for this with the words, ‘for
it is necessary that the whole <earth> move wherever any part of it
35 moves’ – since it is homoiomerous. However, a thing remains natu-
533,1 rally where it moves naturally – for this was proved previously.343 So,
if being uniformly related to the extremities is also common to the
other elements, and moving naturally to the centre is unique to earth,
the explanation <of its resting at the centre> would be not uniformity
but its kinship with the centre, because of which it moves to the
5 centre and remains there.
 Translation 77
(295b25) He says that those who inquire about the earth’s being at
rest also do this strange thing: they inquire concerning it ‘why the
earth remains at the centre, but not why fire remains at the extrem-
ity’. For the word ‘remains’ applies in common to both subjects.344 For
this would be a path of discovery for them in the case of the earth. For
if they found that this remaining at rest at the extremity belongs to 10
fire by nature, it would be clear that it is necessary that there also be
by nature some place for earth in which it remains at rest. But if a
position at the extremity is not fire’s by nature, the centre is not
earth’s by nature, and, if this is so, it would be necessary to make the
necessity of uniformity responsible.
However, this account is fictional and similar to the one about the
hair. The sophists say that if a hair which is homoiomerous were 15
stretched strongly and the stretching were uniform through the
whole of it, it would not break; for why should it break in this part
rather than that, since the hair is similar in all its parts and the
stretching of it is uniform? Similarly in the case of a person who is
extremely hungry and thirsty, each equally, and equally in need of
food and drink (and therefore yearning <for each> equally), he also 20
necessarily remains stationary and does not move in either direction;
for why should he first move in this direction but not in that one, since
the need and desire are equal? So, if the places are not by nature, but
the earth remains at rest because of the necessity of uniformity
(which is similar to the fictions we have just mentioned), they should
inquire about the resting above of fire. For if it does not remain at rest 25
by nature, the theory causes difficulty and causes even more difficulty
than in the case of the earth, since it is not possible to make uniform-
ity responsible in the case of <fire>. But if <fire rests> by nature, the
same explanation will apply to earth.
His furnishing of the examples of uniformity with mocking ele-
gance is wonderful. But it is clear that the hair will break, since to
hypothesise that it is homoiomerous in this way is a fiction. But also 30
the uniform stretching of the extremities and the centre is impossible.
In the case of the other example, even if the person is equally distant
<from food and drink> the thirst will be more urgent. But even if one
<desire> is no more urgent than the other, he will choose whichever
he happens to choose, since when two equally pleasant dishes are
presented to us we choose345 first whichever we happen to. For
uniformity does not completely prevent choice, although uniformity 534,1
does make one’s approach slower because it is drawn to the alterna-
tive.
(296a1) He says that it is also surprising that they inquire about
the earth’s being at rest but not about its motion. <They do not ask>
for what reason one thing moves upward, another towards the centre,
if nothing prevents them. For the discovery of the explanation for 5
 78 Translation
remaining at rest follows from discovery of it in the case of motion,
and conversely (since they coincide).
(296a3) He has previously proved that in the case of the earth’s
being at rest the theory of uniformity is not necessary because
another explanation is easier, that in terms of nature, since it is clear
that, if <the earth> moves towards the centre naturally, it also
10 remains there naturally. And now he proves that what they say is not
even true at all per se, although it is true in the indirect sense that ‘it
is necessary that anything for which it is no more suitable to move
here than there remain at the centre’. For if something remains at the
centre naturally, it is necessary for it to remain at the centre, and if
it is necessary for something to remain at the centre, then it has the
15 feature of not moving more in one direction than another. So, even if
it is true to say that it is necessary for that ‘for which it is no more
suitable to move here than there’ to remain at the centre, this is not
because that is the explanation of its remaining, but because that is
attached to what by necessity remains.
(296a6) Since this is not the explanation of <the earth’s> remain-
ing at rest, he shows the extent to which on this theory there is
20 nothing to prevent motion of the following kind: not indeed together
as a whole, but being torn apart.346 For also, if fire were placed in the
centre, it would necessarily remain at the centre as far as the theory
of uniformity is concerned, since it would have the same relation to
all the extremity, which is homoiomerous. But we see that fire does
not remain, but it moves in every direction from the centre to the
extremity, if nothing prevents it, ‘except that it <does not move> as a
25 whole towards one point’ but a proportional part of the fire goes to a
proportional part of the extremity; for example, a fourth part of the
fire goes to a fourth part of the surrounding <extremity> (it is possible
for it to be divided proportionally since no body is without parts, since
<only> the point shows <partlessness>). He says that what follows
necessarily from uniformity is only that the body will not move to one
30 point, but not that it will not move.
(296a17) He has said that as far as uniformity is concerned, just as
if one hypothesised that fire is lying at the centre, nothing would
prevent its moving in its parts because of uniformity, so too in the
case of the earth. He now brings in another kind of motion. He says
535,1 that it would be possible, since uniformity does not prevent this kind
of motion at all, for the earth to be rarefied and become greater from
being smaller and to move from the centre if this place did not belong
to it by nature so that it does not grow and become very large.
This, then, is what Aristotle says, and one might suppose that in
5 fact Aristotle is not referring to the Platonic demonstration at all. For
Plato makes even balance and uniformity responsible, but Aristotle
obviously does not mention even balance anywhere (even if Alexander
always understands even balance as equivalent to uniformity). How-
 Translation 79
ever, even if Aristotle is directing his discussion at Plato, it should be
said that Socrates carries out his discussion on the basis of the
hypothesis that if the earth is in the centre of the heaven and is round, 10
it will need nothing to keep it from falling, not air and not a vortex.347
For natural even balance is not a matter of chance; rather it is what
draws the earth, which is homoiomerous, uniformly to the central
point, and the homoiomerousness and even balance of the heaven are
sufficient for keeping the earth at rest. For it will not ever depart
voluntarily either as a whole or in its parts; for why should it go here 15
rather than there, since it is uniformly related to the whole heaven?
But it won’t go in its parts since this place belongs to it naturally. Nor
will the heaven ever force it, either in its parts (since the whole
heaven is homoiomerous with itself) or as a whole (since it is always
the same and always has the same relation to the earth). But fire,
even if it is, like the earth, homoiomerous and evenly balanced, is not 20
evenly balanced relative to the central point, but evenly balanced
relative to the perimeter. Therefore, when fire is placed at the central
point, a position which is foreign to it, it strives to ascend to its proper
place348 by the briefest path, and in fact if someone placed all of fire
at the central point, it would be necessary that it be torn apart; and
earth would undergo the same thing if it were placed at the perime-
ter. But, unless some of it changed, fire wouldn’t move as a whole or 25
in its parts from the perimeter either, since it is natural for it and
heaven is related uniformly to it; rather it is also true to say of it that
‘for a thing which is evenly balanced and placed near something
uniform will not be able to incline more or less in any direction’.349 But
because fire is near heaven and more unified with it, after maintain- 30
ing its own position as heaven does, it moves along with heaven,
whereas earth, being akin to the central point, remains around that.
Notice that Socrates hypothesises what Aristotle says is the explana-
tion of the earth’s being at rest, <namely> the fact that this position
is natural for it, and he adds the physical cause because of which,
when things are in their proper places they do not need some other 536,1
superfluity such as air or a vortex in order not to move from there,
since even balance and the uniformity of what contains them is
sufficient for them. But Aristotle is dealing with those who think that
uniformity and even balance is sufficient for there being no motion
even in the case of things lying in a place which is foreign to them, so 5
that he tries to refute the argument by setting out the example of fire
which is placed here, and he everywhere brings the cause around to
being in a place naturally, considering this principle to be sufficient.
But Socrates has also provided the explanation of this. And it seems
to me that something of the same kind results for Aristotle in connec-
tion with the principles of the elements, since he is satisfied with the 10
qualities hot and dry and their opposites, but Timaeus <Locrus> also
 80 Translation
searches for the principles of these things and ascends to the fig-
ures.350
Having finished up his historical account of the shape, position,
15 and rest of the earth, he next turns to his own opinions about these
things.

[Chapter 14]
296a24-b26 Let us first say whether it moves or remains at rest,
[since as we have said,351 some people make it one of the stars,
and others, who place it at the centre, say it winds and moves
around the central pole. That this is impossible is clear if one
takes as a starting point that, whether it is away from the centre
or at it, if it moves it is necessary that it be moved by force. For
the motion doesn’t belong to the earth itself, since, if it did, each
of its parts would have this motion; but, in fact, they all move in
a straight line towards the centre. Therefore the <alleged mo-
tion of the earth> could not be eternal, since it is forced and
unnatural, but the order of the cosmos is eternal.
296a34 Furthermore everything that moves in a circle, ex-
cept for the first <sphere>, is observed to be left behind and to
have more than one motion, so that it would be necessary that
the earth have two motions, whether it moved about the centre
or while lying at the centre; and if this happened, it would be
necessary that there be passage and turnings of the fastened
stars. But this is not observed to happen; rather they always rise
and set at the same places on the <earth>.
296b6 Furthermore, the natural motion of parts of the earth
and of the whole is to the centre of the universe – this is why it
now lies at the central point.
296b9 Since the centre of both is the same, one might raise
the following difficulty: towards which do things having weight
and the parts of the earth naturally move? Is it because it is the
centre of the universe or of the earth? In fact it is necessary that
it be towards the centre of the universe, since light things and
fire, which move in the opposite direction as things with weight,
move towards the extremity of the place which surrounds the
centre.
296b15 But it happens to be the case that the centre of the
earth and of the universe are the same. For they also move to
the centre of the earth, but in an indirect sense insofar as it has
its centre at the centre of the universe. A sign that they also
move towards the centre of the earth is that weights, which
move towards it, do not move in parallel but at similar angles so
that they move towards one centre, which is also the centre of
the earth.
 Translation 81
296b21 It is evident then that it is necessary that earth be at
the centre and motionless both for the reasons given and be-
cause weights which are projected upward by force in a straight
line return to the same <place> even if the power propels them
to infinity.
296b25 So that it neither moves nor lies away from the
centre] is evident from these things.
He first proposes to prove that the earth does not move in a circle
either around the centre as one of the stars, as the Pythagoreans said,
or in the centre winding around the axis of the universe. And he 20
proves that it is impossible that it move in this way using the second
hypothetical mode352 as follows:

(i) If the earth moves in a circle, it is necessary that it be moved

by force;
(ii) but it is impossible for it to be moved by force and unnatu-
rally;
(iii) therefore it is impossible for the earth to move in a circle.

And he proves the conditional as follows:

(i) If the earth is not moved in a circle by force, it moves 25

naturally, since what moves is either moved by force or natu-
rally;
(ii) but if it moved in a circle naturally, each of its parts would
have this motion;
(iii) however, its parts do not move in a circle – rather they move
in a straight line towards the centre;
(iv) therefore, the earth does not move in a circle naturally;
(v) therefore, it is moved by force. 30

And he tacitly proves the opposite, which says that it is not moved by
force, categorically in the second figure as follows:

(i) The earth is eternal;

(ii) what is moved by force and unnaturally is not eternal;
(iii) therefore the earth is not moved by force.

He proves that the earth is eternal on the basis of the fact that the
order of the cosmos is eternal, so that the earth is also eternal.
(296a34) Next he adds this second argument. If the earth moves in 537,1
a circle, whether about the centre or at the centre, it is necessary that
it have two motions, just as all the other <stars> which come after the
fixed sphere have the motion of the fixed sphere and their own motion
around the poles of the zodiac, which is in reverse to the fixed sphere,
 82 Translation
5 as a result of which they are left behind by the fixed sphere. For if any
one of the planets rises today with the star on the heart of Leo,353 say,
when the planet moves, say, two degrees towards the following signs
so that it comes to be at the fifth degree of Leo, the planet is observed
to be left behind, since the star on the heart subsequently rises and
10 sets before it. So if the earth moved in a circle, it is clear that it too
would have its own motion opposite to that of the fixed sphere, so that
it would be left behind by the fixed sphere; and furthermore it would,
in fact, move around the poles of the zodiac just like the planets,
which are more honourable than it. But if this were so, the fixed stars
would no longer be observed by us to rise and set at the same points
15 on the horizon as they do now, but instead the planets would, since
they would be moving around the same poles as the earth; but the
complete opposite is observed. And next, if the earth moved at the
same speed as some one of the planets, the planet would be seen at
the same point, neither rising or setting, which is clearly unreason-
20 able. (One should notice that it has been indicated <by Aristotle>
that, if the alleged circular motion of the earth were to be like the
other circular motions around the fixed sphere, the earth would also
move around the poles of the zodiac; and <this is clear> from the
anomaly he adduces, since the differences of the risings and settings
do not follow simply from the motion of the earth or from being left
25 behind, unless the earth also were to move around the poles of the
zodiac or some poles other than those of the equator.)
(296b6) He adds a third argument based on the following kind of
axiom which he has assumed previously:354 something remains at rest
naturally in a place to which it moves naturally. So if the natural
motion of parts of earth and of the whole of it is towards the centre of
30 the universe, and something remains at rest naturally in a place to
which it moves naturally, then it remains at rest at the centre of the
universe. And also fire which moves towards the perimeter remains
at rest there, insofar as it is able to. Perhaps, too, he is indicating that
the motion of the earth is towards the centre, not around it, since the
motion of its parts and of the whole of it is to the centre of the
universe.
35 (296b9) Having said that the motion of the earth is to the centre of
the universe, he adds that, even if the earth does not move, as some
538,1 say, but lies at the central point, one might raise this difficulty. Since
the centre of both the universe and the earth is the same thing in
subtratum,355 towards which centre ‘do things having weight and the
parts of the earth naturally move? Is it because it is the centre of the
universe or of the earth?’. Having raised this difficulty he says that it
5 is necessary for them to move towards the centre of the universe, and
he proves this by reference to fire and light things in general. For
these things – for example, fire – which move in the opposite direction
to things with weight, being opposite to them, do not move to what is
 Translation 83
up in themselves, but to what is up in the universe. Consequently,
too, earth, moving in the opposite direction to fire and towards the
opposite, would move to what is down in the universe and the centre
of it.
Alexander says that the words ‘move towards the extremity of the 10
place which surrounds the centre’ mean the same as ‘<move> towards
the extremity of the universe and what is up, the heaven, by which
what is down and the centre, the sublunary realm, are surrounded’.
But perhaps <Aristotle> means by ‘extremity of the place which
surrounds the centre’ the highest part of the air, to which fire moves,
so that the place surrounding the centre would be the limit of the air
on the side of the earth and its extremity would be its upper part into 15
which both the purest air and fire move.
(296b15) So, having proved that heavy things move towards the
central point of the universe, he adds that they also move towards the
central point of the earth, and he proves this on the basis of the fact
that weights do not move in parallel. For if they fell in parallel, they
would not both converge to the same central point. He proves that 20
they do not move in parallel but converge towards the central point
on the basis of the fact that they move at similar angles. (Those who
put angles under <the category of> quality called equal angles simi-
lar.)356 Obviously angles are equal or similar when each is right, since:

When a straight line set up on a straight line makes the adjacent

angles equal to each other, each of the equal angles is right,

as we learned in the Elements.357 And that weights naturally fall to 25

earth at right angles is made clear by the fact that a column, wall, or
other weight does not stand if it doesn’t make a right angle with the
plane.358 And we have learned that <straight lines> which fall at right
angles converge towards the central point from the 19th theorem of
the third book of the Elements of which the enunciation is: 30

If a straight line is tangent to a circle and a straight line is

drawn from the point of contact at right angles359 to the tangent,
the central point of the circle will be on the line which has been
drawn.

And the theorem before this proves the same thing; its enunciation
is:

If a straight line is tangent to a circle and a straight line is joined

from the centre to the point of contact, the straight line which
has been joined will be perpendicular to the tangent. 35

But since it has been proved in the Elements that the central point is
 84 Translation
539,1 on a straight line which is perpendicular to a tangent and a straight
line through the central point is perpendicular to the tangent, but it
is now proposed to prove that a straight line which is perpendicular
to the plane of the earth converges to the central point, it should be
shown that a straight line which is perpendicular to the tangent is
also perpendicular to the plane of the earth:

5 Let ABC be a great circle in the surface of the earth, and let the
straight line DE be drawn tangent to the circle <at A>, and let
there be some weight F moving to the tangent on the straight
line FA in such a way that the angles FAD, FAE are equal to one
another. I say that the whole angle FAB is equal to the whole
angle FAC. But these angles are produced by the falling weight
relative to the plane of the earth.
10 Let FA be extended to the central point G of the circle (for it
has been proved that the central point is on the straight line
perpendicular to the tangent). Since then the angles DAG, EAG
are equal (since each is right) and the angle GAC is equal to the
angle GAB (since they are angles of semicircles of the circle
ABC),360 therefore the remainders, the horn-shaped361 angles at
15 A <EAC, DAB> are equal to one another. But the angles FAD,
FAE are also equal. Therefore, the whole angle FAC is equal to
FAB and they are angles relative to the surface of the earth.

Figure 5 (539,5-540,4)362

At the start of the Suntaxis363 Ptolemy hypothesises that weights

fall to the earth at equal angles and therefore also remain uninclined
in any direction and do not fall away, and he proves that they all press
20 to the central point. For suppose FA stands at equal angles, like a
kind of pillar. If we join a straight line from the central point <G> to
A and we erect a straight line DE from A and at right angles to the
diameter AG, FA and AG will be in a straight line; for since the whole
angle FAB is assumed to be equal to FAC, and in them the one
25 horn-shaped angle is equal to the other, the remainder FAD will be
equal to FAE. Therefore each is a right angle. But DAG, EAG are also
right angles. Therefore FAD, DAG are two right angles. Therefore,
 Translation 85
FAG is one straight line by the 14th proposition of the first book of
the Elements, of which this is the enunciation: 540,1

If two straight lines not lying on the same side of a straight line
make with the line at the same point the adjacent angles equal
to two right angles, <the>364 straight lines will be in a straight
line with one another.

Therefore the weight F will move to the central point.

In general if all weights did not converge towards the central point, 5
but moved in parallel, all of them would not move to the earth but
some would move past the earth, since the earth, which is at the
centre, does not extend over all the intermediate <region>.365
Therefore, if the earth moves to the centre naturally, it also
remains at the centre naturally.
(296b21) He next adds another clearer demonstration that the 10
earth doesn’t move at all, either around the centre or away from the
centre.366 For if weights which are projected upward by force fall
again to the same place in a straight line, even if the power projects
them upward to infinity, so that there is a great amount of time
between their projection upward and their fall, then the earth does
not move. For, if the earth moved and the parts of it changed from
place to place, what was projected upward would fall to a different 15
place and not to that from which it was projected upward.
(289b25) Having resolved both of the issues and proved that the
earth is at the centre and is motionless, neither moving in a circle
around the centre or in a straight line, he adds the general conclusion,
saying that it is evident from what has been said that ‘it neither
moves nor lies away from the centre’, which is the same as ‘it lies in 20
the centre and is stationary’.

296b26-297a2 In addition, the cause of <the earth’s> being at

rest is clear from what has been said. [For if it is of such a nature
as to move naturally to the centre from every place, as it is
observed to do, and fire in turn moves from the centre to the
extremity, it is impossible that any part of the earth move from
the centre unless it is forced. For one thing has one motion and
a simple thing has a simple motion, but not opposite motions.
However, motion from the centre is opposite to motion to the
centre. If, then, it is impossible for any part to move from the
centre, it is evident that it is even more impossible for the whole
to do so. For if the part is of such a nature as to move somewhere,
the whole is also of such a nature as to move there. Conse-
quently, since it is impossible for it to move except because of
 86 Translation
something with greater strength,] it is necessary that it re-
main367 at the centre.
Having proved that the earth is stationary at the centre, he next
25 explains the reason why it is stationary: it is not because of underly-
ing air or the vortex, but because it is natural for it to remain at the
centre. The argument is this. If its parts move naturally to the centre
from every place, as they are observed to do, then, because fire also
moves from the centre to the extremity, ‘it is impossible that any part
of the earth move from the centre unless it is forced’. For it is not
30 possible that it move naturally both from the centre and to the centre
because one body has one natural motion and a simple body has a
541,1 simple motion, ‘but not opposite motions. However, motion from the
centre is opposite to motion to the centre’. Consequently, if motion to
the centre is natural, motion from the centre will not be natural, but,
if there is such motion, it is by force. So if it is impossible for any part
to move from the centre naturally, it is more impossible for the whole
5 to do so. So if <earth> moves to the centre naturally, it is impossible
that it move from the centre naturally. But if this is impossible, it is
necessary that it remain at the centre. But the antecedent, the
assertion that the parts of earth move towards the centre from every
direction naturally, is true; therefore the consequent, the assertion
that it remains at the centre naturally, is also true. This, then, is the
10 reason it remains at the centre, that it is of a nature to do so. And one
should not seek another reason.

297a2-8 What the mathematicians say in astronomy also bears

witness to these things. [For the phenomena, the changing of the
figures by which the order of the stars is determined, occur as if
the earth lay at the centre.
297a6 About the manner of the earth’s position and rest and
motion] let this much be said.
He introduces as a witness to the fact that the earth lies at the centre
and is stationary the fact that the astronomers also prove that the
15 heavenly phenomena occur as if the earth lies at the centre and is
stationary. What is said next is this. The phenomena, ‘the changing
of the figures by which the order of the stars is determined’, occur as
if the earth lay at the centre. For the order of the stars is determined
with respect to the configurations which result from the motions. For
if the earth were not in the centre of the heaven, the sizes of the stars,
20 which appear in the east and then come to the meridian and finally
reach the west, would not always appear to be equal. But if the earth
had been displaced to the west the same stars would appear to be
greater in setting than in rising, and if to the east, the opposite, and
similarly for the intervals between them. And eclipses of the moon
 Translation 87
would not have an order of their configurations such that they are 25
always produced when the moon is in the position diametrically
opposite the sun,368 but they would also occur in intervals less than a
semicircle. And this would happen if the earth changed place. But if
it moved in a circle about the central point, as Heraclides of Pontus
hypothesised,369 and heavenly things were stationary, if it moved
towards the west, the stars would be observed rising from there. And
if it moved towards the east, then, if it rotated around the poles of the 30
equator, the sun and the other planets would not rise at different
places on the horizon, and, if it rotated around the poles of the zodiac,
the fixed stars would not always rise from the same places as they
now do; and whether it moved around the poles of the equator or
around the poles of the zodiac, how would the change of place of the 542,1
planets into successive zodiacal signs be preserved, if heavenly things
were motionless? Ptolemy also says this: <if the earth revolved from
west to east> all things not standing <on the earth> would always be
observed to have one motion opposite to that of the earth, and neither
would a cloud ever be shown proceeding towards the east nor would
any bird or projectile, since the earth would always exceed everything 5
in speed, since it makes so great a revolution in such a brief time.370
(297a6) Having finished up what he has to say about the position
of the earth (it is in the centre) and its rest and motion (it remains at
rest and does not move), he turns next to the discussion of its shape. 10

297a8-b18 It is necessary that it have a spherical shape. [For

each of its parts has weight as far as the centre, and when a
smaller part is pushed by a greater it cannot swell, but rather
one is compressed together by the other and yields to it until it
comes to the centre.
297a12 One should understand what I say as if <the earth>
comes to be in the way in which some of the physicists say it
came to be, except that they make force responsible for the
downward motion; but it is better to set out what is true and say
that this happens because what has weight has the nature to
move towards the centre. So, the mixture existing in potential-
ity, the things which were divided moved from every place
towards the centre in a similar way. The result would be the
same whether the parts which were drawn together at the
centre from the extremities were similarly divided or arranged
in some other way. So it is evident that, since they move from
the extremities in a similar way from every direction towards a
single centre, the bulk must become similar in every direction;
for when an equal <amount> is added in every direction, it is
necessary that the extremity be at an equal distance from the
centre, but that is the shape of a sphere. And it will make no
 88 Translation
difference to the argument if the parts of the earth did not move
together towards the centre in a similar way from every direc-
tion, since it is necessary that the greater part always push a
smaller one in front of it forward since both have the same
inclination up to the centre, and the heavier thing pushes the
lesser weight forward up to the centre.
297a30 The difficulty which someone might raise has the
same solution as these things: the earth being at the centre and
spherical, if a weight many times as great were to be added to
one hemisphere, the centre of the universe and of the earth
would not be the same, so that the earth would either not remain
at the centre or, if it did, it could also be stationary now, not
occupying the centre, <in a position> in which it is its nature to
move.371
297b1 So this is the difficulty, but it is not difficult to compre-
hend if we stretch a little and determine the way in which we
think that any magnitude whatsoever moves towards the centre
if it has weight. For it is clear that it does not do so until its
extremity touches the central point; rather the greater magni-
tude must dominate until it takes the centre with its centre,
since it retains its inclination until it reaches there.
297b7 Now there is no difference between saying this of a
chance clod or piece of earth and saying it of the whole earth
since what has been asserted does not follow372 because of
smallness or largeness, but with respect to everything with an
inclination to the centre. Consequently if the earth moves from
somewhere as a whole or in its parts, it is necessary that it move
up to the point where373 it assumes the centre equally from every
direction and the smaller <parts> are equalised by the greater
because of the forward thrust of its inclination.
297b14 So if <the earth> has come to be, it is necessary that
it has come to be in this way, so that it is evident that its coming
to be would be spherical, and, if it has not come to be but endures
forever, remaining at rest, it is necessary that it be in the same
way as it would have first come to be if it had come to be.]
According to this argument then374 it is necessary that its shape
be spherical.
He proves that the earth is spherical through five arguments. He
15 demonstrates the first, assuming at the start that the parts of earth
are so constituted as to move as far as the centre – he indicates this
with the words ‘has weight as far as the centre’, since what has weight
and moves because of weight moves as far as the centre of the
universe if it is not prevented. And all the parts incline towards the
centre and the smaller ones are pushed and compressed by the
20 greater because the greater always have a stronger inclination to-
 Translation 89
wards the centre; and when some are displaced by others from every
direction the result is a spherical figure, just as, in the case of wax
which is molded into a sphere, what extrudes is always pushed
towards the centre.
Next he corrects our imagination, which places one part on top of
another up to a great height until it loses its striving to the centre and
goes somewhere else. For he says it does not swell, that is, it does not 25
increase in bulk so that it spills over, since neither what is pushing
nor what is pushed has an inclination towards anything else than the
centre. Or perhaps he means by ‘it cannot swell’ that the smaller
withdraws and changes places with the greater, since this is what
happens to liquid things. But in the case of parts of the earth the
smaller is instead compressed by the larger and the one is pressed 30
together by the other or yields to it until the heavier comes to the
centre, but, although they increase in bulk, they do not spill over as
waves do.
(297a12) In order to clarify what he has said he hypothesises that
the earth has come to be, as some of the physicists do (they indicate
the ordering of primary and posterior things in the cosmos through
their coming to be). However, these people make the vortex responsi- 543,1
ble, saying that the earth is moved towards the centre by force; but it
is better and truer to say that this happens because what has weight
has a nature to move towards the centre. On the hypothesis (which is
thought to have been Anaxagoras’) that the earth was mixed with
other things previously and then divided out, coming to exist actually 5
from existing potentially and moving to the centre, if heavy things
were carried from the extremities equally from every direction to the
centre (which is one), it would be necessary, since an equal <amount>
is added from every direction, that ‘the extremity be at an equal
distance from the centre’, but that is a spherical shape. And even if
‘the parts of the earth did not move together towards the centre in a
similar way from every direction’, but more came from one direction,
less from another, the same thing would result. And in this way it is 10
necessary that the shape come to be spherical. For to the extent that
the addition becomes greater, to that extent, with the weight increas-
ing, what is underneath, which is smaller and lighter, would be
pushed out by what is heavier until the lighter things pushed out by
the heavier ones to the other side of the central point were collected
together in an even balance with what was pushing them out and
came to have a similar striving for the central point.
It is in this way that Alexander thinks that a weight which is 15
pushed will not go beyond the central point. But what departs upward
from the central point obviously leaves some room and what pushes
it pushes it upward. But then how can what is heavier be pushed out
upward naturally? For in general what has come to the central point
will not still have weight so that it can push. And Aristotle clearly
 90 Translation
20 says that heavier things push as far as the centre, not that they push
beyond the centre. So what he is saying is that the greater <weight>
pushes the lesser forward and does this as far as the centre. The
pushing forward then results when one thing pushes and compresses
another of the things which yield (as he says) and increase in bulk
because of the compression, since in this way it is put inside one
25 surface. But also what continues to extrude and is further away from
the central point strives to get nearer to it and moves down to a more
hollow place and in this way a sphere is produced.375
(297a30) And so, having shown that the earth is made spherical
using the hypothetical coming to be of the earth and that its centre is
equally distant in every direction from the limits, he adds a difficulty
30 which grows up out of what are called problems concerning centres of
gravity by those who do mechanics. Archimedes and many others
have written many very elegant treatises on centres of gravity. The
treatises have as their purpose showing how one finds the central
point of a given weight, that is, a certain point in the body such that
if a cord is fastened to the point and the body is raised up, it will not
544,1 incline in any direction.376 And it is clear that the centre of a magni-
tude is not always the same as its centre of gravity.
The difficulty is this.377 The earth being at the centre and being
spherical, if some ‘weight many times as great were to be added to
one hemisphere’, it is clear that, after the earth had been increased
on one side by a magnitude many times as great as its original one,
5 the centre of the earth would not be the same as it was before when
the centre of the earth and that of the cosmos were the same.
Consequently at that time the earth would not be stationary at the
centre, since, having been increased by so much on one side, it would
no longer be in the centre of the universe, or, if it were stationary
when it was this way (this is what is meant by the phrase in commas
‘or, if it did,’) it could also be stationary now and lie outside the centre
10 of the universe and not have the centre of the universe as its centre,
even if no weight had been added to it on one side; for it is being
hypothesised that it is stationary even when it has come to be outside
the centre because of the addition. Having said ‘it could also be
stationary now, not occupying the centre’, he adds, ‘<in a position> in
which it is its nature to move’. He means that it could be stationary
relative to that position outside the centre relative to which it is its
15 nature not to be stationary but to move. But it is absurd that it be
stationary in the place relative to which it is its nature to move. (He
hypothesises that the added weight is many times as great <as the
earth> so that the present centre of the earth’s weight is very far
away from the centre.)378
(297b1) He has raised the following difficulty based on the hypoth-
esised addition taking place in the coming to be of the earth: if the
earth had been increased on one side by a magnitude many times as
 Translation 91
great as itself, it would be necessary, since its centre of gravity has 20
been changed, that it incline to that side to which the addition of the
weight was made and no longer remain at the centre, or if it were
possible for it to remain at rest when it was outside the centre because
of the addition, it could be stationary now apart from the addition,
occupying something other than the centre, something relative to
which it is its nature not to remain at rest but to move. But this is
absurd, since nothing is stationary in a place in which it is its nature 25
to move, but <only> in a place which it is not its nature to move from.
And he now says, ‘so this is the difficulty, but it is not difficult to
comprehend’ and recognise the difficulty and its solution ‘if we stretch
a little’. Obviously he means ‘stretch our mind a little’, or rather he
means, ‘stretch the previous argument’ (the one hypothesising the
coming to be of the earth) and specify the way in which we think that
any magnitude whatsoever which has weight moves towards the 30
centre. For before it was said in an indeterminate way that what has
weight has a nature to move towards the centre. But now let it be
specified that what has weight does not move towards the central
point just as far as its own extremity touches the central point and,
as it were, stands on it; but the greater weight always dominates over
the lesser and either pushes it out or compresses it, and, uniting with 35
it, it moves as far towards the centre as it can. Stretching and forming 545,1
a sphere with its own centre, that is with its concave surface, it
encompasses the centre of the universe, since it retains its inclination
until it reaches there. Consequently, even if a weight were added to
the earth, as the argument raising the difficulty hypothesised, it
would not remain with an extrusion, but it would also become spheri-
cal and encompass the surface of the earth, and again the original 5
centre would also be the centre <of the earth> with the addition. For
it is necessary that this earthy thing want to draw itself near to the
centre, ‘since it retains its inclination until it reaches there’. For if it
continued to move and went beyond the centre of the universe with
its centre, it would be moving upward and unnaturally.
(297b7) He says that there is no difference if one makes the 10
argument for parts of the earth or the whole of it, since what has been
asserted does not result because of smallness or largeness but be-
cause of a natural inclination to the centre. ‘Consequently if the earth
moves from somewhere as a whole’ (as those who assert that the
earth was at one time divided out from the mixture and carried to the
centre) ‘or in its parts, it is necessary that it move up to the point 15
where’, being spread around ‘equally from every direction, it assumes
the centre’,379 the smaller parts always taking on a surface which is
equal to <that of> the greater ones. For since the greater and heavier
move downward more, the smaller are pushed out upward by force by
the forward thrust of this inclination which belongs to each of the
greater, and they take on a surface equal to theirs. (Alexander says 20
 92 Translation
that some manuscripts say ‘it is necessary that it move with this’, that
is, with an inclination to the centre, ‘until it assumes }’ in place of ‘it
is necessary that it move up to the point where it assumes’. Alexander
accepts the latter text.)380
(297b14) Finishing up the argument, Aristotle says that if the
earth has come to be it is necessary that it has come to be in the way
which has been described, in accordance with its inclination towards
25 the centre, so that its shape is spherical, and if, being eternal, it
endures, it is in the same way as it would have first come to be had it
come to be. So in this way too it is necessary that the earth be
spherical.

297b18-23 And <it is evident that it neither moves nor lies away
from the centre> because all weights381 move in similar angles
[and not in parallel; but this belongs by nature <to what moves>
towards what is by nature spherical. So either <the earth> is
spherical, or, at least, it is by nature spherical. But one should
speak about each thing in terms of the way it tends to be and
exist by nature] and not382 in terms of the way it tends to be and
exist by force and unnaturally.
30 This is the second argument which proves that the shape of the earth
is spherical on the basis of the fact that weights move in similar, that
is, equal, angles. For when everything converges from every direction
to the same place and one thing is always added to another with a
similar inclination, it is necessary that the <straight lines drawn> to
546,1 the extremities from the centre to which everything converges be
equal, and this <resulting> shape is spherical. Therefore, that
weights fall in similar angles and not in parallel belongs by nature
<to what moves> towards what is by nature spherical. For moving
weights cannot move from every direction in similar angles unless
5 that towards which they move has a spherical surface. But since the
spherical shape of the earth was not made precise because of the
extrusions of the mountains and its hollows, he says that either the
earth is spherical (if one takes into account the fact that a difference
of this sort is extremely slight, since, if someone put a millet seed on
a huge wax sphere, one would not hesitate to call it a sphere because
of the protrusion of the millet seed) or, if someone is speaking pre-
10 cisely, he will say that it is at least by nature spherical, since by
nature it converges towards the centre from every direction, as is
made clear by the fact that all weights fall at similar angles. So if one
should speak about each thing in terms of how it tends to be and exist
by nature and ‘not in terms of the way it tends to be and exist by force
and unnaturally’, it is clear that it would be reasonable to say that
the earth is spherical.
15 Alexander adds in a graceful way the reason why the shape of the
 Translation 93
earth is not precisely spherical, making anhomoiomerousness and
lack of even balance responsible. He says:

For it is not true that in the case of every heavy body the centre
of inclination and gravity is precisely the centre of the magni-
tude as well; rather in some cases there is a difference. For all
things with weight are not equally heavy, but things with
weight do strive to occupy the centre with the centre of their own 20
inclination, not the centre of their magnitude. Therefore, noth-
ing prevents it being the case that, although the centre of the
earth, that is, the centre of inclination, is in the centre of the
universe, the distances of the magnitude of the earth from the
centre are not equal in every direction.

297b23-30 <It is also possible to show that the earth is spheri-

cal> by means of perceptual phenomena, [since <if it were not>
lunar eclipses would not have sections of the kind they do. For
now in its monthly configurations it takes on all divisions (since
it becomes straight and doubly convex and concave), but in the
case of eclipses the delimiting line is always convex, so that,
since it is eclipsed because of the interposition of the earth, the
cause of the shape <of the delimiting line> will be the circumfer-
ence of the earth], which is spherical.383 25
This third, clear argument is based on what appears to perception in
a lunar eclipse. For, if the earth were not spherical, eclipses of the
moon would not always be observed to have a convex line delimiting
the illuminated <part> of the moon and the <part> covered in
shadow. For if a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon falls into the 30
shadow produced by the earth, it is necessary that the shadow be
either conical or cylindrical or basket-shaped, since if it were of
another shape, it would not always make the section of the lunar
sphere convex. But all convex shadow shapes have been proved to be
produced by a spherical shape. If the sun is greater than the earth,
the shadow will be cone-shaped; if both are equal, it will be cylinder- 547,1
shaped, and if the sun is smaller, it will be basket-shaped and like a
truncated cone having its narrower <part> faced towards the earth.384
So if the delimiting line is always convex and a line which is always
convex is produced by some shadow385 of this kind, and all shadows of
this kind come from a spherical body, the earth will have a spherical
shape. For if the earth were drum-shaped it would produce a shadow 5
of this kind when the sun was in a certain position relative to the
earth; but it would not always do so for every position unless it were
spherical.
He reminds us that the fact that the delimiting line in eclipses is
always convex does not result because the moon is not of such a
 94 Translation
nature as to be divided into sections by a straight line, but results
10 from the shadow on the basis of the fact that in its monthly configu-
rations (in which the shadow does nothing to it) the moon takes on all
divisions, since the division becomes straight in its bisected phases,
doubly convex in the doubly convex ones and concave in the crescent-
shaped ones, but in eclipses it always has a convex dividing line.

15 297b30-298a15 Furthermore, it is evident from the appearance

of the stars [not only that it <the earth> is round, but also that
its size is not great. For when we change our position a little to
the south or north the horizon obviously becomes different, the
stars overhead change greatly and do not appear the same to
those who move to the north or south; for some stars are seen in
Egypt and in the vicinity of Cyprus but are not seen in the areas
to the north, and the stars which are always seen in areas to the
north are set in those regions. So, from these things it is clear
that the shape of the earth is round and also is that of a sphere
which is not large, since <if it were not, the difference> would
not be so quickly obvious to those who change their position so
slightly.
298a9 Therefore, those who assume that the region around
the Herculean Pillars is connected to the region around India
and in such a way that there is one sea do not seem to assume
things which are overly unbelievable. They say, using elephants
as evidence, that their species occurs in both extreme regions,
thinking that because they are connected the extreme regions]
have this feature with each other.
This is the fourth argument demonstrating that the earth is spheri-
cal; it also demonstrates that its size has the relation of a point to the
heaven. For if when we move to the north the star called Canopus is
20 not observed at all but the stars of Ursa Major always seems to be
overhead, but Canopus is observed on high by people in Theban
Diospolis386 and the last star of Ursa Major is observed by them to set
and rise, then it is clear that horizons become different for people who
change position slightly. But this happens because the earth is
25 spherical. For if it were drum-shaped and we moved from the limits
to the limits, the horizon would remain the same because we were
progressing in one and the same plane, and the same things would
always be observed as far as the position of the stars is concerned. So,
if the horizons are different, the earth is spherical; and it is also not
large, since the horizons change obviously even if we do not proceed
30 far; for if a sphere is large, the difference of the horizons would not be
easily seen straightaway.
(298a9) But, he says, if the earth is not very large, one should not
consider that those who assume that the westernmost and eastern-
 Translation 95
most regions which are known to us (that is, the region around 548,1
Gadeira387 and the Pillars of Hercules (which he calls Herculean)388
and the region around India) are connected with one another and not
from far away (so that the sea which is called the Red Sea and the sea
near us are one) say things which are unbelievable. They use as
evidence that these regions do not stand very far apart the fact that 5
the species of elephant is in both regions, which are extremities with
respect to our location, thinking that these extremities have this
feature of bearing elephants (the same ones being distributed here
and there, as it seems) because they are connected with one another.
For I do not think that he wishes to indicate a similarity between
these regions with these words but proximity, since similarity could
also attach to things at a great distance; for the atmospheric condi- 10
tions are practically the same for those who live in the same parallel
<even if they live far apart>.

298a15-20 And the mathematicians who try to calculate the

size [of the circumference say that it is about forty myriads.389
On the basis of this evidence, it is necessary not only that the
bulk of the earth be spherical, but also that its size not be great
in relation to the other stars.]
He also introduces this last justification for <the belief that> the 15
earth is spherical and that it is not great in comparison with the size
of the stars; it is based on the witness of the mathematicians. For they
taught its measurements and said that it is spherical and not very
large, since they inferred its size and expressed it as so and so many
stades.390 But they also demonstrated that the sun itself is close to
one hundred and seventy times the earth in size,391 although it 20
appears to be a foot <in breadth>392 because of the distance; so, if
someone observed the earth from the sun, he would see it as having
a breadth which was one one hundred and seventieth of a foot. But if
some of the fixed stars are greater than the sun although they appear
to be so much smaller because of the distance, the earth would also
exhibit an extremely small size in comparison with them. (He says 25
‘the other stars’ because the Pythagoreans, speaking symbolically,
said that the earth was also one of the stars.)393 Indeed, if one were to
compare the earth with the whole fixed sphere, it would be seen to be
really unextended and to have to the sphere the relation of a central
point in the strict sense. This is also clear from the fact that the
central points of the instruments used in astronomy, the meteoro- 30
scope and the armillary sphere,394 are analogous to the central point
of the universe when they are placed anywhere on the earth.
Since Aristotle mentions the measurement of the earth and says 549,1
that its circumference is forty myriads, it would be good also to write
down briefly the method of measurement of the earlier people be-
 96 Translation
cause of those who doubt their wisdom. Using a diopter,395 they took
5 two fixed stars distant from one another by a distance of one degree,
that is one three hundred and sixtieth part of a great circle in the
fixed sphere. With a diopter they found the places396 at which the two
stars are at the zenith, and they measured the distance between the
places with an odometer397 and found it to be five hundred stades.
From this it follows that a great circle of the earth has a perimeter of
10 eighteen myriads, as Ptolemy calculates it in the Geography.398 And,
since it is proved by Archimedes that the perimeter of a circle is
greater than three times its diameter by a seventh of the diameter,399
the diameter of the earth will be five myriads plus seven thousand
two hundred and seventy-three.400 And again it is proved that the
<rectangle> contained by the diameter and one fourth of the peri-
15 meter is equal to the area of the circle,401 so that the plane of the circle
is in stades twenty-five double myriads of area and seven thousand
seven hundred and twenty-eight simple myriads and a further five
thousand.402 And again it is proved that the whole surface of a sphere
is four times the area of a great circle <of the sphere>,403 so that it
follows that the size of the surface is in stades one hundred and three
20 double myriads and nine hundred and fourteen <simple> myriads.404
To find the size in three dimensions of the earth,405 one multiplies a
great circle, which has twenty-five double myriads and seven thou-
sand seven hundred and twenty-eight simple myriads and a further
five thousand monads, by the diameter, and the result is a cylinder
which has a base equal to a great circle and a height equal to the
25 diameter, <containing> one hundred and forty-seven triple myri-
ads,406 six thousand and eighty-eight double myriads, four thousand
three hundred and eighty simple myriads and a further five thousand
monads.407 And since a cylinder of this kind is one and a half times
the sphere, I subtract a third of this <number> and I have as the
remainder the number of the volume of the sphere of the earth:
30 ninety-eight triple myriads, four thousand and sixty-three double
myriads, six thousand four hundred and forty-six simple myriads and
a further nine thousand five hundred and three monads.408 Seeing
that the earth has this great a size, the heights of mountains are
sufficient neither to do away with its spherical shape nor to destroy
550,1 the measurements which are inferred on the basis of the assumption
that it is spherical. For Eratosthenes proved, using diopters409 which
measure from distances, that a straight line falling perpendicularly
from the higher410 mountains to the lowest places is ten stades
<long>.
5 If Aristotle says that the mathematicians infer that the size of the
circumference of the earth is about forty myriads (and he is certainly
calling its surface its ‘circumference’),411 since he has not added that
this is the measurement in terms of stades, it is unclear whether he
is in disagreement with the number of stades in the surface of the
 Translation 97
earth which was inferred later. But it would not be surprising if he
were in disagreement, since <in his time> the theorems provided by 10
Archimedes for the steadfast apprehension of the present subject had
not yet been discovered. But perhaps Aristotle does not clearly accept
this measurement as precise, but he only takes this much from it:
however great the measures of the earth are, it is not very large.
This page intentionally left blank
 Notes

1. The sentence, which has been the subject of considerable controversy, is

Eudemus text 146 Wehrli (1955). (471,1-9 is DK12A19.) See Hall (1971), which
includes references to some earlier discussions of the passage. I take the sense
of what Eudemus said to be that Anaximander offered an incorrect account of
the sizes and distances of some of the stars and the Pythagoreans gave a ‘correct’
account of all of them. On Eudemus see Goulet (1989-), vol. 3, pp. 285-9.
2. Reading parabolês with D, E, F, and Karsten. A has meta parabolês.
Heiberg prints the otherwise unattested word metaparabolês without explana-
tion.
3. On Aristarchus see Heath (1913), part 2, on Hipparchus, DSB, vol. 15, pp.
207-22, and on Ptolemy, DSB, vol. 11, pp. 186-206.
4. The introduction of sidereal periods here is a potential source of confusion,
which sometimes obscures the discussion which follows: to say that Saturn is
restored more slowly than the moon is to speak of angular speeds, to say the
moon has a slower east-west motion than Saturn is to speak in terms of linear
speeds. The difference between the two kinds of speed becomes reasonably clear
starting at 474,30.
5. cf. Cael. 2.8, 289b15-16 and 289b34-296a5.
6. Here Simplicius uses enantios in a loose way, since he accepts Aristotle’s
claim (Cael. 1.4) that there is no opposite to a circular motion.
7. The east-west motion would seem to be forced because it is a matter of
being carried around by the fixed sphere; the west-east motion would seem to
be forced in the sense that it is resisted by the east-west motion of the fixed
sphere. Alexander responds by saying that the planet ‘chooses’ to be moved by
the fixed sphere. Simplicius accepts this for the east-west motion (473,2-6), but
not for the west-east one.
8. On the Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, to whom
Simplicius constantly refers in this commentary, see Sharples (1987).
9. See the note on 471,31.
10. At 2.12, 292a20-1 below.
11. In what follows Simplicius gives a Neoplatonist account of the phenom-
ena Aristotle is considering. He imagines that planetary spheres ‘process’ from
the fixed sphere and come to be less and less like it and more ‘planetary’ as they
get smaller.
12. Heiberg’s suggestion that there is a lacuna here does not seem compel-
ling, but, given that we are dealing with a ‘sentence’ of 216 words, it is difficult
to be certain.
13. It seems unlikely that Alexander would have said that the sidereal
periods of Mars and Mercury are the same when that of Mars is practically twice
as great as that of Mercury. Perhaps one should emend Areos in line 9 to Hêliou.
In any case Simplicius only discusses the relative position of Mercury and
100 Notes to pages 15-16
Venus, which have the same period (and the same as the sun), although on the
geocentric hypothesis one of them has to be further away from the earth than
the other. (Simplicius returns to this difficulty at 476,28-477,2, where he leaves
it unresolved.) On the question of the relative order of Mercury and Venus see
Neugebauer (1975), pp. 691-2. Simplicius espouses the standard order, adopted
notably by Ptolemy, with Mercury below Venus, but Alexander’s order had more
supporters than Simplicius suggests. It is found, for example, in the De Mundo
ascribed to Aristotle (392a16-31); for other references see also Bousset (1915),
pp. 31-6. Alexander’s claim is presumably that Mercury has a west-east motion
which is faster than Venus, but that both are restored in an equal time, so that
Venus is less hindered by the motion of the fixed sphere.
14. Rep. 10, 617A. Since Plato does not name the planets in this passage, it
is an inference (albeit a common one) that the sixth planet is Venus rather than
Mercury. For a defence of the view that the sixth planet is Venus see Bidez
(1935).
15. This sentence is badly formulated, but its point is clear enough. In the
Hypotyposis (Manitius (1909), 224,4-6) Proclus mentions the same observation
in connection with unnamed individuals who carried out a calculation like that
described by Simplicius in the next sentence: ‘Venus is observed to move under
Mars, just as Mercury is observed to move under Venus.’ Theon of Smyrna
(Hiller (1878), 193,13-20), using a theory in which Mercury and Venus revolve
around the sun, makes clear the unreliability of any such observation: ‘<Mer-
cury and Venus> sometimes seem to obstruct (epiprosthein) one another,
coming to be above and beneath each other because of the sizes, obliquities, and
positions of their circles. However, precision is not easy (adêlos) in their case
because they revolve around the sun, and because Mercury, being a small point
close to the sun and brightly illuminated, is especially difficult to observe
(aphanê).’
16. Perhaps apostaseôs should be supplied here. What Simplicius is describ-
ing is similar to what Ptolemy does in the second part of book 1 of his Planetary
Hypotheses (Goldstein (1967)), sections 3 and 4, transforming his models for
planetary motion into a cosmological picture; for a brief description see Ped-
ersen (1974), pp. 391-7. See also Proclus, Hypotyposis (Manitius (1909)),
221,16-224,26 and in Tim. (Diehl (1903-6)), vol. 3, 62,16-63,20, and Hartner
(1964).
17. Now restoration is discussed in terms of linear speed.
18. i.e. west-east along the ecliptic.
19. i.e. east-west along the equator.
20. Translating the iousan te kai kratoumenên of Karsten. Heiberg prints
iousês (all the MSS he reports have ousês) te kai kratoumenês, which is also the
text of Rivaud (Oeuv. Comp., vol. 10); on the difficulty of this reading see Taylor
(1928), ad 39A1.
21. Heiberg prints periietai with A; Karsten and Rivaud (Oeuv. Comp., vol.
10) print periêiein; F has periêiei.
22. Tim. 38E6-39A3.
23. i.e. outermost.
24. Simplicius omits the ienai of our Plato MSS.
25. Heiberg prints deuteron, Chambry (Oeuv. Comp., vol. 7.2) and Karsten
deuterous.
26. Simplicius omits the words hôs sphisi phainesthai apanakukloumenon.
27. Rep. 10, 617A8-B3.
28. That is, Plato is considering the angular, not the linear west-east speed
of the planets.
 Notes to pages 16-20 101
29. That is, their west-east motion.
30. So that planetary spheres closer to the fixed stars are more hindered.
31. Simplicius refers to the cosmos which is finite and therefore has only
finite power, but is able to continue moving forever because of the prime mover.
32. I do not know to whom Simplicius is referring.
33. That is, every heavenly sphere will move only in an east-west direction,
and those closer to the fixed sphere will move faster than those further away.
34. That is, the planets would not appear to have a daily motion parallel to
the equator.
35. The isodromic stars are Mercury, Venus, and the sun which have equal
sidereal periods. Simplicius correctly points out that there is no way to account
for this behaviour if all planets are assumed to revolve around the earth and
speeds are supposed to be proportional to distance from the earth, whether one
assumes that planets closer to the fixed sphere have a slower east-west motion
or a faster west-east one than planets further away from it. Cf. 474,7-13 with
the note.
36. Simplicius cites Cael. 2.8, 290a7-9. For his text see the first note on the
lemma at 452,7 in the commentary on ch. 8.
37. See the next lemma.
38. Cf. 290a31 in ch. 8, where Aristotle says that nature does nothing by
chance.
39. Cael. 2.8, 290a7-29.
40. ‘They’ seems clearly to be Alexander.
41. Simplicius is perfectly right to reject the solution he ascribes to Alexan-
der. But his own position (apparently that if p and q are equivalent in some
strong sense, each can be used to prove the other) is weak.
42. Cael. 2.8, 290a35-b7; for a textual issue see the first note on the lemma
at 458,8 in the commentary on ch. 8.
43. Simplicius leaves out an Aristotelian men gar.
44. Translating the de (or d’ ) of F, D, E, and Karsten, which is the reading
of all manuscripts of Aristotle. Heiberg prints de, ei, a correction of de eis in A.
45. dikhomênon, a word used by Aratus in the Phaenomena (Kidd (1997)) at
lines 78, 471, and 737 to characterise the full moon, the mid-point of the lunar
month; cf. Geminus (Aujac (1975)) 8.11. Simplicius is worried because in the
course of a lunar month there are two half-moons and Aristotle speaks of the
moon being only once bisected in the course of its waxing and waning. But he
decides – correctly – to take ‘bisected’ as a characterisation of the half moon.
46. Cael. 2.12, 292a3-6.
47. I take this to be Alexander; cf. 477,27 with the note.
48. That is, faced away from us.
49. That is, when the straight lines from the sun and moon to the earth form
a right angle.
50. There is a fuller description of the sun’s illumination of the moon in
Cleomedes (Todd (1990)), 2.5.41-80. I owe this reference and many significant
corrections to Alan Bowen.
51. The drum-shaped case is equivalent to the case of a flat disc always faced
towards the earth, the lentil-shaped case to a convex disc with a face always
towards the earth. Simplicius is noticeably vague on the lentil shape. In any
case the arguments about the apparent shapes of the moon and eclipses of the
sun would not rule out that the moon is only approximately a sphere.
52. Translating Heiberg’s suggestion toiautas tas instead of the tas which he
prints.
102 Notes to pages 20-23
53. Heiberg prints aporiôn ousôn, Moraux aporiain ousain, which is also
found in D, E, F, and Karsten.
54. According to Schoch (1927), col. xx, the only possible date for this
occultation is 4th May, 356.
55. In a citation of these first words at 481,21-2 Heiberg prints a men here
which is not printed by Moraux or Karsten.
56. Heiberg prints ouden an alogon einai doxeie, and Moraux ouden alogon
an doxeien einai, which is also printed by Karsten. It appears from Heiberg’s
apparatus that D has ouden alogon an doxeien, E ouden alogon an doxeien
followed by one erased letter, and F ouden an alogon doxeien einai.
57. A question mark here is probably preferable to Heiberg’s period.
58. Tim. 38C7-D2; see also Rep. 10, 616E8-617A1. Simplicius contrasts this
order with the, for him, standard one of Ptolemy, in which the sun lies above
Mercury and Venus.
59. Simplicius closely paraphrases Aristotle here, but he has asterôn where
Aristotle has astrôn.
60. Here again Heiberg prints a period.
61. Simplicius pretty much quotes 292a14-15 but adds the verb ‘attain’
changing the kai of line 15 from an ‘even’ to an ‘and’. Alexander proposed adding
the verb ‘demand’ to the text. It seems clear that Simplicius is right to suggest
that no addition is needed, but his own paraphrase beginning with ‘Rather what
he says’ is not easy to reconcile with the text he quotes.
62. Simplicius refers to Cael. 2.3, 286a3-6, which I have translated, ‘Since
motion in a circle is not opposite to a motion in a circle, we should inquire why
there is a plurality of motions, although we have to try to make the inquiry from
far away, not far away spatially but much more because we perceive very few
of their features.’ I have translated the word ‘features’ (sumbebêkotôn) of this
passage as ‘what occurs’ in the present text because it picks up on the phrase
‘what occurs’ (sumbainontôn) in the passage on which Simplicius is comment-
ing.
63. Heiberg prints monon autôn, Moraux and Karsten autôn monon, which
is also the reading of E; F has autôn monôn. Simplicius cites these words at
378,15 in the commentary on ch. 1 and 388,23 in the commentary on ch. 2, on
which see the notes.
64. koniseôs. Simplicius offers his explanation of this problematic word at
483,1-2.
65. The meaning of this last phrase is explained in the next lemma at 292b17.
66. On the text here and its meaning see below 483,13-15 with the note.
67. On Simplicius’ text here see 484,5 with the note.
68. Translating the gar of Simplicius’ citation at 484,10. Aristotle and
Karsten have de.
69. Moraux prints aei estin. Both words are missing from Simplicius’ citation
at 484,10 as printed by Heiberg (they are present in Karsten). I have translated
Heiberg’s text here.
70. At 484,16 Simplicius cites these words as kai dê kai tôn allôn, where
Moraux prints tôn d’ allôn.
71. Simplicius discusses these difficult words at 484,21-31.
72. Simplicius takes it that in 292a18-28 Aristotle treats the seven planets
as things which achieve the good through several motions, and that he only
addresses the difficulty starting at 292a28. See 483,7ff.
73. Reading the ê of A, C, D, E, F, and Karsten rather than the hêi which
Heiberg prints.
74. i.e., the prime mover.
 Notes to pages 24-26 103
75. For the complicated textual situation in Aristotle see Moraux (1954), pp.
158-9; he believes that the alternative text proposed by Simplicius is not ‘Coans’
but ‘Chians or Coans’. The die (astragalos) referred to here is a very rough
six-sided object. For a photograph, see Jenkins (1986), ill. 36; and for drawings,
Pottier and Reinach (1887), vol. 1, p. 217. The following description is based on
Daremberg and Saglio (1875), vol. 5, p. 29: ‘The only difference between the
astragalos and the die (kubos) is that the former was elongated and could not
stand on its two extremities, which are too thin and rounded. Of the other four
faces a broad and slightly convex one was called the back (pranês); opposite it
was the broad and slightly concave “belly” (huptia); the remaining two faces
were long and narrow; one slightly hollowed out was called the Coan and was
the least stable of all; opposite it was the Chian.’ For the scholarly disagreement
on which side was the Coan, which the Chian, see PW, vol. 13, col. 1934. I do
not know the point of saying there are large dice on the two islands.
76. The standard Neoplatonic human goal, taken from Plato, Theaetetus
176B.
77. So Simplicius does not see Aristotle as providing a specific solution to the
difficulty, but only pointing out that there are two types of hierarchies relative
to action, one expressed in terms of the number of actions in a chain needed to
achieve a good, the other in terms of the number of different types of actions one
can perform. This double hierarchy makes it possible to explain the difference
between the sun and moon and the other planets. The sun and moon may have
fewer motions because they can achieve the good with fewer; the planets may
have more because they can do more things.
78. Heiberg here prints tôi de isôs arista ekhonti, Karsten tôi d’ hôs arista
ekhonti, which is also printed by Moraux at 292b4-5. With the hôs it seems clear
that Aristotle is talking about what is in the best condition, but it becomes
difficult to see why Aristotle should say that what is in the best condition is that
for the sake of which. Without the hôs, to arista ekhon can be translated either
‘what is in the best condition’ or ‘being in the best condition’. It seems that in
this paragraph Simplicius relies on this ambiguity. I have consistently trans-
lated to arista ekhon as ‘what is in the best condition’ although this translation
undermines the plausibility of what Simplicius says.
79. cf. GA. 2.23, 731a24-6: ‘The substance of plants has no other function or
action than generating seed.’
80. Simplicius first considers severing 292b8-11 from the preceding reference
to plants to avoid having Aristotle say that they might have a plurality of
activities, but then suggests a way in which this might be true.
81. I have inserted these words in the light of Simplicius’ paraphrase at 486,5
(which inserts an autôi).
82. Moraux prints this sentence as alla mekhri hotou dunatai tukhein tês
theiotatês arkhês. Simplicius’ ‘citation’ at 487,2-3 is mekhri gar hou dunatai,
phêsi, metekhei tês theiotatês arkhês.
83. Heiberg prints tôn kinêseôn with A: Moraux prints kinêseôn, as does
Karsten with D, E, and F.
84. See the discussion of the preceding lemma with the note on 484,2. It is
difficult to see how Alexander’s suggestion could solve the difficulty raised by
Aristotle solely in terms of the number of steps needed to achieve the good.
85. This sentence is Aristotle fr. 49 (Rose (1886)).
86. Simplicius switches to the singular oligê kinêsis (‘slight motion’) from the
plural oligai kinêseis (‘few motions’, sometimes ‘slight motions’). I take him to
be distinguishing between things which achieve an ultimate good with a single
104 Notes to pages 26-28
simple motion and things which can only perform a few of the motions which
they would require to attain such a good and so only achieve a partial good.
87. I take Simplicius to be saying that what attains an ultimate end with
many motions is a mean between what attains it with slight motion and what
can only attain a partial end. This enables one to say that all the planets are
better than sublunary things and not as good as the fixed sphere. This resolves
the difficulty raised by Aristotle only if it is assumed that sun and moon don’t
attain the good attained by the higher planets, an option Simplicius adopts in
the following paragraphs.
88. Reading the auto of Karsten rather than the ep’ auto printed by Heiberg.
89. It seems reasonably clear that Simplicius has not found a fully satisfac-
tory solution to the difficulty raised by Aristotle. He is unhappy with saying that
the sun and moon do not attain the highest good at all (as sublunary things do
not), and so he considers with apparent reluctance saying that they do not attain
it in a fully perfect way, perhaps explicable as becoming identical with the good.
90. In this sentence Simplicius gives a formulation of the account of the
creation of time in Plato’s Timaeus (37C-38E). The ‘perfection’ is the world of
Forms, the first heaven is the sphere of the fixed stars and endures forever, and
time breaks up the unity of the world of Forms.
91. The myth is the story of the overthrow of the chief god Ouranos (heaven)
by his son, the Titan Kronos (Saturn); see Hesiod, Theogony (West (1966),
154-82. In the interpretation followed by Simplicius, Kronos is identified with
khronos (time). On this identification, which is very common, see PW, vol. 11,
cols 1986-7, 2008-9. For Kronos as the source of division and particularisation
see Proclus, in Tim. (Diehl (1903-6), vol. 3, 188,2-20). A reader gave me much
help with this paragraph.
92. In this paragraph and elsewhere Simplicius uses astronomical terminol-
ogy without explaining it. A phasis here is presumably a heliacal rising or first
visibility, a notion normally only applied to the fixed stars, but applicable by
extension to the five planets (although it is not clear why the moon could not be
said to have phaseis in this sense as well). The word recurs with the same sense
at 488,6 and 496,2; at 547,13 it is used for phases of the moon. In the course of
their generally west-east motion through the zodiac, the five planets (but not
the sun and moon) are observed to stand still (stêrizein) or to have stations
(stêrigmoi) and to move in reverse. In astronomical terminology one zodiacal
sign, say Taurus, which is to the east of another, say Aries, is said to follow
(hepesthai) the other, because the sun is in Taurus after it is in Aries (see
421,20ff. in the commentary on ch. 5 and 496,22, 537,7, and 542,2); and Aries
is said to precede (proêgeisthai) Taurus because the sun is in Aries before it is
in Taurus (see 421,12.15.19 in the commentary on ch. 5). The west-east motion
of a planet is said to be towards (epi) or into (eis) the following or successive
signs (ta hepomena (zôidia)) (496,22; 537,7; 542,2); Simplicius describes the
east-west motion of the lunar nodes as epi ta proêgoumena (‘towards preceding
signs’) at 497,13. On the other hand, an east-west motion is called a proêgêsis
(literally, ‘motion forward’), which I have translated ‘retrogression’ because the
proêgesis of a planet is a motion contrary to its west-east motion through the
zodiac (here and at 488,6 and 504,28). Simplicius calls a west-east motion of a
planet an akolouthêsis, which I have translated ‘progression’ (here and at
488,7). In the text here and at 488,6.10 Simplicius uses the noun hupopodismos,
which I have translated more literally as ‘backward motion’ (cf. the use of the
verb hupopodizein at 491,24), since it refers to the same thing as proêgêsis, but
is understood in relation to a planet’s west-east motion through the zodiac
rather than in relation to the east-west motion of the fixed stars. Simplicius also
 Notes to pages 28-31 105
uses the noun propodismos (488,5) and the verb propodizein (491,24), which I
have translated ‘forward motion’ and ‘move forward’.
93. i.e. that they change their speed.
94. On Sosigenes, the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias, see Moraux
(1984), pp. 335-60. For a brief discussion of this complicated sentence, which is
Eudemus text 148 (Wehrli (1955)) and Eudoxus fr. 121 (Lasserre (1966)), see
Görgemanns (1970), p. 93. Simplicius discusses the astronomical theories of
Eudoxus starting at 492,25.
95. Reading planômenôn or planêtôn for the aplanôn in Heiberg’s text, of
which I can make no sense. I note that a series of words printed by Heiberg do
not occur in D or E, giving the sense ‘as if there really were several motions’.
96. At 822A4-8 of the Laws the Athenian criticises the belief that the sun,
moon, and other stars ‘wander’. He continues, ‘Each of them has the same path;
they do not traverse many paths, but always just one, which is circular,
although they appear to move through many.’ But in the Timaeus (35E-40B),
Timaeus makes the apparent motion of the planets a composite of a west-east
motion and the east-west motion of the fixed stars. Some modern scholars (and
apparently some ancients) have seen an inconsistency here, but others have not
(see, for example, Vlastos (1975), pp. 101-2, who espouses a reconciliation quite
like Simplicius’ here).
97. I had first supposed that Simplicius was here referring to all animals,
who are composed of relatively small portions of the elements, but I have
followed a reader’s suggestion that Simplicius is only thinking of very small
creatures such as insects.
98. i.e. the world soul of Plato’s Timaeus.
99. Simplicius is presumably thinking of Metaph. 12.7, 1072b26-30, where
Aristotle is describing the prime mover; since this prime mover is intellect, it is
also a part or kind of soul.
100. On the earth as hearth (hestia) of the universe see PW, vol. 8, cols
1293-8.
101. arkhê, which Simplicius paraphrases as sovereign worth (arkhikon
axiôma) at 490,7 and then, it seems, as power (dunamis) at 490,9 and 14.
102. Simplicius picks up on the first formulation of the difficulty at 292a10-4.
103. For the issue, which relates to the breaking off of this lemma, see the
discussion of the next lemma starting at 490,17.
104. Trying to translate the eilêptai of D, F, and Bessarion’s correction of the
eileiptai of E. Heiberg prints eirêken with A. Karsten prints eilêphen.
105. The prime mover.
106. ‘This’ is feminine in the Greek. In what follows Simplicius indicates that
Alexander supplied a noun for ‘this’ in order to make the present lemma contain
an independent response to the second difficulty. Simplicius seems uncertain
what to do, but when he considers taking this to be the superiority, a more
appropriate translation of these first words would be ‘and this superiority will
be proportional, }’.
107. Again, at least Alexander; see 490,29-491,3.
108. i.e. in the previous lemma.
109. Heiberg prints kai eti dia touto hen ekhousi sôma hai allai sphairai with
A and F. Moraux and Karsten print kai eti dia tode (tod’ Karsten) hen ekhousi
sôma hai allai phorai, which is the reading of D and perhaps E. (Heiberg’s
apparatus indicates that E has tode, but he says nothing about sphairai.)
[Alexander] (in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 1), 703,2-4) cites the words as kai eti dia
touto hen ekhousi sôma kai hai allai phorai. I have translated sphairai because
106 Notes to pages 31-34
there is no trace of phorai in Simplicius’ discussion (although there is nothing
which could be called a paraphrase of this first part of the lemma).
110. cf. Cael. 1.7, 274b33-275b4. The following final four lines of ch. 12
(293a11-15) are not included in any lemma and are not discussed by Simplicius:
‘We have spoken about the stars which have a circular motion and said what
they are like both in terms of their substance and in terms of their shape, and
we have spoken about their motion and their order.’
111. See the discussion of the preceding lemma. 491,15-510,35 are translated
into French in Aujac (1979), pp. 157-99, with a facing Greek text, a slightly
modified version of Heiberg, from which I have taken several changes as
indicated in subsequent notes.
112. cf. [Alexander], in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 1), 703,22-3. 491,17-28 are text
165B in Fortenbaugh et al. (1992). On Theophrastus see PW, suppl. vol. 7, cols
1354-1562.
113. The idios of D, printed in Aujac (1979), is preferable to the idion of A
printed by Heiberg.
114. i.e. move faster and slower.
115. In Cael. 1.3, 269b18-270a12.
116. See 488,3-29.
117. At this point Simplicius begins a long excursus (which ends at 510,35)
on the history of planetary theory, probably derived mainly, if not entirely, from
Sosigenes, on whom see the note at 488,20; Simplicius does not mention
Sosigenes again until 498,2. Moraux (1984), pp. 347-51, gives a useful philologi-
cal analysis of the passage. Lasserre (1966) prints 492,31-497,8 as fr. 124 of
Eudoxus.
118. See 488,18-24.
119. This clause has been variously interpreted and translated. I more or less
follow the suggestion first made by Böckh (1863), p. 155, according to whom it
says that Callippus, who was a pupil of Polemarchus, who in turn was a pupil
of Eudoxus, came to Athens after Eudoxus, etc. Others (e.g. Dicks (1970), p. 190)
suppose that Callippus came to Athens after Polemarchus. On Polemarchus,
about whom our only other information comes from 505,18-23, see PW, vol. 21,
cols 1256-8; on Callippus see PW, suppl. vol. 4, cols 1431-8.
120. At 488,18-24 Simplicius says that Eudoxus was the first to carry out this
kind of investigation. If he has anyone specific in mind here, perhaps it is
Pythagoras; see below 507,12-14. On the description of the theory of Eudoxus
which follows see, e.g. Heath (1913), pp. 193-211, who summarises the fuller
discussion of Schiaparelli (1874). Schiaparelli’s influential account has been
challenged frequently, most recently by Mendell (1998 and 2000) and Yavetz
(1998 and 2001).
121. That Eudoxus believed in this latitudinal variation in the sun’s west-
east motion is attested by Hipparchus (Manitius (1894), 1.9.2, partly identical
with Eudoxus fr. 63b Lasserre (1966)). Lasserre rejects the idea. Because the
idea is problematic (see Neugebauer (1975), pp. 629-31), I postpone discussion
of the role and speed of the second and third spheres until Simplicius takes up
the case of the moon, starting at 494,23.
122. This is a careless formulation, since only the outer and middle spheres
for the sun are starless; cf. 491,18-20. 493,17-20 are text 165C in Fortenbaugh
et al. (1992).
123. This work has not survived, and is known only from the descriptions of
Eudoxus’ planetary system which we have (Lasserre (1966), fr. 121-6).
124. The mesôn of D, E, F, and Karsten, printed by Aujac (1979) is preferable
to the mesou of A, printed by Heiberg.
 Notes to page 35 107
125. That is, the angular distance between the planes of the second and third
circles corresponds to the distance the moon departs from the ecliptic.
126. That is, the moon’s greatest deviations in latitude (and therefore its
intersections with the ecliptic (nodes)) occur further and further to the west in
the zodiac; see the note on 487,25.
127. The dusmas of D, E, F, and Karsten, printed by Aujac (1979), is
preferable to the dusmôn of A, printed by Heiberg.
128. Most commentators since Ideler (1830), p. 77, have assumed that
Simplicius has interchanged the second and third sphere in the case of the moon
and, presumably, of the sun, even though Aristotle (Metaph. 12.8, 1073b17-22)
assigns the same position to the second and third spheres for sun and moon as
Simplicius does (although Aristotle does not mention their speeds). I quote
Heath (1913), p. 197, on the moon: ‘The object of the third sphere was } to
account for the retrograde motion of the nodes in about 181/2 years. But it is clear
(as Ideler saw) that Simplicius’ statement about the speeds of the third and
second sphere is incorrect. If it had been the third sphere which moves slowly,
as he says, the moon would only have passed through each node once [in the
course of the 181/2 years] and would have been found for nine years north, and
then for nine years south, of the ecliptic. In order that the moon may pass
through the nodes as often as it is observed to do, it is necessary to interchange
the speeds of the second and third spheres as given by Simplicius; that is, we
must assume that the third sphere produces the monthly revolution of the moon
from west to east round a circle inclined to the ecliptic at an angle equal to the
greatest latitude of the moon, and then that this oblique circle is carried round
by the second sphere in a retrograde sense [in approximately 181/2 years].’ The
underlying assumption of this criticism is that Simplicius (or his source) is
correct to say that Eudoxus was interested in explaining the retrogression of the
lunar nodes. The assumption may be anachronistic; cf. Dicks (1970), pp. 180-1.
129. At Metaph. 12.8, 1073b22-32. But the description which follows is more
detailed than Aristotle’s. (Metaph. 12.8, 1073a17-1074a15 and the commentary
on it traditionally ascribed to Alexander are translated in the Appendix.)
130. Venus.
131. On the association of Saturn with the sun (Hêlios) see Boll (1917-19).
The values given here are standard, reasonable approximations; see e.g. Heath
(1913), p. 208.
132. It is actually the equator of the second sphere.
133. Simplicius’ description does not enable one to determine which of two
possible rotations Eudoxus assigned to the third sphere, but this turns out to
make no substantive difference.
134. See the note on 487,24.
135. diexodou khronon, i.e. the synodic period. I have found no occurrence of
the term in this sense, although LSJ give three occurrences of diexodos meaning
something like ‘orbit’ in Herodotus, Euripides’ Andromache, and the De Mundo
traditionally ascribed to Aristotle.
136. Or three and two-thirds months if we follow F and Karsten. As this
variation suggests, months are taken to be thirty days long; cf. Heath (1913),
pp. 285-6.
137. Except for the case of Mars, where the number given is about one third
of the true value, these figures are approximately correct; cf. Heath (1913), p.
208, and, for further discussion, Mendell (1998), pp. 213-18, where possible
emendations of the number for Mars are considered. The words ‘according to
what Eudoxus thought’ (kathaper Eudoxos ôieto) suggest that Simplicius is
aware of the discrepancy.
108 Notes to pages 35-8
138. We have no quantitative information about the inclination of the poles
of the fourth sphere to those of the third. For his reconstruction of Eudoxus’
theory, Schiaparelli (1874) calculated inclinations using the now accepted
lengths of the arcs of retrogradation of each of the planets. The notion of
opposite rotation is, of course, problematic in the case of spheres with axes
inclined to one another. Schiaparelli made sense of it by assuming that the
inclination had to be less than 90 degrees, an assumption which led to quite
unsatisfactory descriptions of the motions of some planets, most clearly for
Mars. For an alternative understanding of opposite rotation see Yavetz (1998),
pp. 231-2.
139. i.e. the equator of the third sphere.
140. hippopedên, normally just transliterated in this context. For a fuller
description of this curve, roughly a figure eight lying on its side, see e.g. Heath
(1913), pp. 202-7.
141. i.e. the ecliptic.
142. The words ‘i.e. the order of their distances’ are bracketed by Ross (1953)
and Jaeger (1957).
143. Heiberg prints melloi where Karsten prints mellei in agreement with
Ross (1953) and Jaeger (1957) and E.
144. Heiberg prints an ana here, which is not in our texts of Aristotle and
not printed by Karsten.
145. Metaph. 12.8, 1073b32-8.
146. The next four sentences constitute Eudemus text 149 Wehrli (1955).
147. On Euctemon and Meton see DSB, vol. 4, pp. 459-60 and 9, 337-40. In
the Eudoxan system the west-east motion of the sun is uniform, implying
equality of the seasons. Callippus actually made a more accurate determination
of the length of the seasons than Euctemon and Meton; see Heath (1913), pp.
215-16.
148. Presumably the additional spheres for the moon were also intended to
account for its non-uniform west-east motion. Unfortunately, Simplicius does
not tell us Callippus’ reason, and Schiaparelli (1874), p. 101 (p. 187 in the
German translation) supposed a lacuna here. For Schiaparelli’s conjectures
about the additional spheres for the five planets see Heath (1913), pp. 212-16,
and see now Mendell (1998), pp. 229-60.
149. Heiberg prints eis tauton apokathistôsas, Ross (1953) and Jaeger (1957)
eis to auto apokathistasas. F and Karsten have eis tauto apokathistasas.
150. Metaph. 12.8, 1073b38-1074a5.
151. Adding a kai to Heiberg’s text with D, E, F, and Karsten; Heiberg follows
A.
152. Simplicius’ last mention of Sosigenes is at 510,24. Between here and
there Simplicius quotes and/or paraphrases him extensively. Heiberg does not
indicate that what follows is a quotation. Moraux (1984), p. 347, says that here
‘scheint <Simplikios> wörtlich zu zitieren’.
153. Starting at 499,17.
154. Moraux (1984), p. 349, n. 68, takes the words which follow down to
499,17 to be Simplicius rather than Sosigenes.
155. Metaph. 12.8, 1074a2-4. The Heiberg text here and a few lines below is
the same as that reported in the note on 498,1. Heiberg’s apparatus indicates
that only Karsten has apokathistasas in both places.
156. Aujac (1979) brackets this sentence as a badly inserted gloss.
157. Moraux (1984), p. 347, calls what follows up to 501,21 a resumé; he does
not mention the phêsin at 501,1.
158. This figure, which is based on Schiaparelli (1874), fig. 20, and those in
 Notes to pages 39-42 109
the following pages are not in our texts of Simplicius. For understanding the
next two arguments it helps to visualise the ‘initial’ situation as one in which
the points D and F are under A.
159. Translating the kinoumenês eite menousês tês periekhousês ekeinas of F
(Karsten does not have the ekeinas). Heiberg prints menousês eite perieilousês
ekeinas, noting that A has periekhousês, D and E periagomenês. Aujac (1979)
prints periagomenês eite menousês tês periekhousês.
160. Translating the menonta of F and Karsten rather than the menousa of
D, E, printed by Heiberg (A has malista).
161. Heiberg calls the text corrupt here. I have attempted to render the text
he prints. In any case the sense is not in doubt.
162. The argument is that the effect of the motion of AB is to keep D and F
under A, the effect of the motion of DE is to make D and F cease to be under A,
and the counter effect of the motion of FG is to bring F back under A.
163. Sosigenes indicates that the motion of a point A along the diagonal AC
of a parallelogram ABCD can be described as a motion of A along AB while AB
moves down to coincide with CD when A reaches B.

164. cf. Theodosius (Heiberg (1927)) 1,15.

165. Conjecturing ton Dia [tettarôn] for the tên dia tettarôn printed by
Heiberg (D does have ton for tên here).
166. Schiaparelli (1874), p. 106 (German translation, p. 192), takes this very
vague phrase (kai meiôsei kata to phainomenon to takhos) to be an inexact
expression of the point that the number of spheres which would affect the
motion of Jupiter is reduced by one. Aujac (1979) renders it ‘elle en modifiera
donc la vitesse pour qu’ il y ait accord avec les faits observés’.
167. As it stands, this sentence is unsatisfactory. I have emended ‘second’ to
‘seventh’ and changed an imperfect ‘added’ to a present ‘adds’. The second
sphere by itself does not add to the east-west speed of the spheres under it,
although one might say it does so in combination with the first sphere. The
important point, which is brought out in my version of this sentence and
certainly in the remainder of the paragraph (provided we assume some refer-
ence to the seventh sphere), is that in itself the seventh sphere moves from east
to west along the ecliptic, but since with it the effect of the second, third, and
fourth spheres are counteracted, it has as a composite motion the motion of the
sphere of the fixed stars. This fact means that one really shouldn’t need a new
sphere representing the sphere of the fixed stars in the system for Jupiter.
Simplicius goes on to discuss this point in the next paragraph; see also 503,36-
504,3. At 506,23-507,8 he points out that one could get along with just the
sphere of the fixed stars and no spheres representing it for the planets and hence
no spheres counteracting such representing spheres.
168. Simplicius cites Metaph. 12.8, 1074a7-8. From here to 504,3 he is
concerned with Metaph. 12.8, 1074a1-14.
110 Notes to pages 42-44
169. The interpretation envisaged starts from five spheres for the sun, three
of Eudoxus, two of Callippus; for these Aristotle would add four counteractive
spheres. The interpretation proposes that he considers the result of subtracting
these four spheres plus the two added by Callippus, plus the two added by
Callippus for the moon. But, Simplicius objects, this leaves two Eudoxan solar
spheres, the second and the third, uncounteracted.
170. That is, spheres counteracting the effect of the spheres of the sun on the
spheres of the moon.
171. One would prefer the plural here, which Schiaparelli (1874), p. 108
(German translation, p. 194), and Aujac (1979) supply without textual warrant.
172. cf. [Alexander], in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 1), 705,39-706,15, translated in
the Appendix.
173. Heiberg here prints Metaphusikês, an otherwise unattested word, with
A rather than the standard Meta ta phusika of F and Karsten.
174. Lines 22-34 are Porphyry fr. 163 Smith (1993); on Porphyry see PW, vol.
22, cols 275-313.
175. i.e. the number should be 49 rather than 47.
176. That is, to adopt the proposal considered at 502,19-27, according to
which the last counteractive sphere for Saturn (the seventh sphere) is the first
sphere for Jupiter (the eighth sphere). If similar identifications are made for the
planets below Jupiter, the number of spheres in the Aristotelian system would
turn out to be 49, not 55.
177. This renders the eu legôn which Simplicius puts at the end of the
following ‘quotation’, which expands on the criticism of the idea of making the
seventh and eighth spheres identical. 504,4-15 are text 165D of Fortenbaugh et
al. (1992).
178. There is, of course, something unsatisfactory about calling both the
spheres of Eudoxus and Callippus and those added by Aristotle ‘counteractive’.
179. Translating the phoras of Karsten rather than the diaphoras of A and
F printed by Heiberg.
180. Most of the text from here to 506,3 is translated by Heath (1913), pp.
221-3. 504,16-22 is printed by Lasserre (1966) as fr. 126 of Eudoxus.
181. On Autolycus see DSB, vol. 1, pp. 338-9.
182. An otherwise unknown person, once thought to be a teacher of Aratus;
see PW, vol. 2, cols 1055-6, with suppl. vol. 1, col. 136. Perhaps one should revive
Schiaparelli’s suggestion ((1874), p. 109, n. 1 (German translation, p. 109, n. *))
to read ‘Aristotle’.
183. cf. Pliny, HN (Beaujeu (1950)) 2.6.37, Martianus Capella (Willis (1983)),
8.883, Isidore of Seville, Liber de Natura Rerum (Fontaine (1960)), 23.1.
184. tôn autôn peri to di’ hou theôreitai kathestôtôn. Something like this
seems to be the meaning; Heath (1913), p. 222, has ‘under the same conditions
as to medium’, whereas Schiaparelli (1874), p. 109 (German translation, p. 195),
offers a quite different rendering.
185. Literally, eleven-fingered and twelve-fingered. On the use of the ‘finger’
as a unit of measurement see Neugebauer (1975), pp. 658-9.
186. On the treatment of annular eclipses in antiquity see Görgemanns
(1970), pp. 136-9. In the Hypotyposis (Manitius (1909), 130,16-23) Proclus
apparently refers to this passage from Sosigenes.
187. i.e. change of distance from the earth.
188. This sort of expression is not used in extant standard astronomical texts
(as opposed to mathematical commentaries and philosophical discussions) but
Ptolemy uses it in his Harmonics (Düring (1930)), e.g. at 103,24.
189. Set by Plato (488,18-24).
 Notes to pages 44-46 111
190. cf. the note on 493,7.
191. This sentence is Aristotle, fr. 211 Rose (1886). Schiaparelli (1874), pp.
110-11 (German translation, p. 196), gives no credence to the suggestion that
Aristotle had misgivings about homocentric spheres; such suggestions, he says,
are due to the desire to excuse the later Peripatetics’ abandonment of homocen-
tric spheres in favour of eccentric circles and epicycles.
192. I have tried to translate the autôi of A rather than the auton of F (and
Karsten) printed by Heiberg, which a reader suggests could be translated ‘he
was won over by <the thesis> that the spheres are homocentric etc.’.
193. Heiberg ends Simplicius’ quotation of Sosigenes at this point.
194. Heiberg prints an oun here which is omitted in our texts of Aristotle and
by Karsten.
195. Heiberg prints hupolambanein, Karsten and Aristotle have hupolabein.
196. Heiberg omits a para printed by Karsten and found in Aristotle.
197. Metaph. 12.8, 1073b11-17.
198. Heiberg omits an oun which is printed by Karsten and in Aristotle.
199. Heiberg prints phorôn, which is the reading of Themistius in his
paraphrase of Metaph. 12 (CAG, vol. 5.5, 28,14), whereas the MSS of Aristotle
and apparently [Alexander] (CAG, vol. 1, 706,18) have sphairôn, which is
printed by Karsten. See Ross (1953) ad loc. for this and for the words ‘and
perceptible’ which follow.
200. The words ‘and perceptible’ (kai tas aisthêtas) are found in all MSS of
Aristotle, but bracketed by Ross (1953) and Jaeger (1957).
201. Metaph. 12.8, 1074a14-17.
202. On Callisthenes, the nephew of Aristotle, who accompanied Alexander
the Great to the East, see Prandi (1985).
203. The Latin translation b has a more plausible ‘one thousand nine
hundred and three’.
204. This sentence is Porphyry fr. 164 (Smith (1993)), and part of it is FGrH
124.3. On this report and other parallel pieces of ‘obvious nonsense’ see Neuge-
bauer (1975), pp. 608-10. See also Toomer (1988).
205. Simplicius cites book 2 of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses, which does
not survive in Greek, but is preserved in an Arabic translation, rendered into
German by Ludwig Nix (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 2, 111-45). The Arabic text is
printed by Goldstein (1967). In the next notes I cite parallel passages from Nix’s
translation.
206. ‘Erstens weil die Dinge am Himmel nicht viele Bewegungen haben
wegen des Verhaltens der Sphären, welche sich einander drehen, da es wohl
möglich ist sich vorzustellen, dies geschehe in wenigen Bewegungen’ (Heiberg
(1898-), vol. 2, 117,21-4). I have not found anything in the text which refers
specifically to simultaneous restoration.
207. ‘Das wunderbarste hierbei ist aber dass sie die letzten Sphären die
ersten bewegen lassen und die umschlossenen die sie umschliessenden, die
mehrfach anomalistischen die einfachen, ganz im Gegensatz zur natürlichen
Lehre’ (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 2, 118,27-31).
208. I quote a segment of an extremely long sentence: ‘} der Anfang <der>
Bewegung in der in <einem Tier> Lebenskraft ist, dann ein Impuls von dieser
Lebenskraft eintritt, der sich dann in den Muskeln zieht, dann von den Muskeln
in die Füsse beispielhalber } und hier zu Ende kommt }’ (Heiberg (1898-), vol.
2, 119,26-31).
209. On Iamblichus see Dillon (1987). He associates Pythagoras with both
eccentrics and epicycles in his life of Pythagoras (Deubner (1975), 6.31). For
other such ascriptions to Pythagoras see Burkert (1972), p. 325, n. 10. I have
112 Notes to pages 47-51
found nothing in the extant work of Nicomachus, on whom see Dillon (1996),
pp. 352-61.
210. Simplicius would have done better to express this sentence as follows:
let the circle ABCD through the middle of the signs of the zodiac not be
homocentric with the universe in the sense that it is no longer the central point
of the zodiac E on which we say the eye (and the earth) is, but F, and ABCD is
no longer homocentric with the universe but eccentric relative to it.
211. Reading kentrou for the ekkentrou printed by Heiberg and Karsten.
212. See El. 1, 16.
213. I have bracketed the perigeiou printed by Heiberg. Karsten has pros-
geiou, which at least makes sense.
214. Again see El. 1, 16.
215. Here, for the first time, Simplicius applies the word ‘uniform’ (homalês)
to an angle rather than to a motion and contrasts uniform angles with apparent
angles. The terminology is unfortunate, but it is clear from Simplicius’ examples
what he has in mind.
216. The statement of the differences relies on El. 1, 32.
217. The tôi (masc.) of F and Karsten and Aujac (1979) is preferable to the
pros to of A printed by Heiberg.
218. For this aspect of Ptolemy’s lunar theory see Neugebauer (1975), pp.
84-8, or (less complex) DSB, vol. 11, pp. 192-4. In the theory the centre of the
eccentric circle is not stationary.
219. At Cael. 292a10-14.
220. It appears that Simplicius thinks that in the theory of epicycles only the
epicycle moves the star, presumably because there is no reason to think that the
motion of the epicycle FGHK around E should affect the motion of FGHK
around A (see Figure 3). However, he suggests a possibility for accommodating
epicycles and eccentrics to ‘equalisation’ below at 510,8-15.
221. At 504,16-505,27.
222. For the view that the stars rotate around their centres see 454,23-
456,27 in the commentary on ch. 8.
223. On its own this assertion would not apply to eccentric spheres, but at
510,19-23 Simplicius suggests that eccentric spheres can be fitted inside <pairs
of> homocentric spheres.
224. If ‘he’ is Aristotle, Simplicius is presumably referring to 293a3-4.
225. Simplicius here describes the planetary picture put forward by Ptolemy
in book 2 of the Planetary Hypotheses (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 2, 123-45); for
discussion see Neugebauer (1975), pp. 923-6.
226. Simplicius at 511,16 substitutes hopou for Aristotle’s hou.
227. On this astronomical system, which is now usually ascribed to Philo-
laus, see Huffman (1993), pp. 231-61.
228. See 366,16-22 in the outline of book 2 at the beginning of the commen-
tary on book 2.
229. In ch. 3 at 286a18-20.
230. In ch. 8 at 289b5-6.
231. I take Simplicius to be referring to ch. 4, 287a30-b4; see his commentary
on that material, starting at 414,20.
232. cf. ch. 4, 287a30-b4.
233. Part of this sentence is included in DK59A88 (Anaxagoras).
234. 511,25-31 are part of Aristotle fr. 204 Rose (1886).
235. cf. Alexander, in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 1), 40,26-41,2.
236. Zênos purgon. Proclus, in Tim. (Diehl (1903-6), vol. 2, 106,22 and vol. 3,
141,11-2) and Simplicius, in Phys. (CAG, vol. 10, 1355,9) have Zanos.
 Notes to pages 51-57 113
237. Dios phulakên. Proclus (in Euc. (Friedlein (1873), 90,18) and in Tim.
(Diehl (1903-6), vol. 2, 106,22)) has Zanos.
238. cf. the next lemma.
239. This sentence is a part of fr. 204 Rose (1886). The expression ‘throne of
Zeus’ is not uncommon (it is used by Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides), but
I know no other identification of it with cosmic fire.
240. Reading the ho which is bracketed by Guthrie, Moraux, and Leggatt,
following Allan (1936), but is retained by Longo (1961). Without the ho the
words ‘the centre <and>’ would be dropped from my translation. Simplicius
clearly read the ho, and at 513,12-32 he offers two interpretations of what
Aristotle is saying. On the first, fire is the most authoritative part of the
universe and is guarded at the centre; on the second, which Simplicius finally
opts for at 514,21-3, the centre is the most authoritative part and is guarded by
fire.
241. Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s singular with a plural.
242. Heiberg prints hôste kai topos hupo selênên ho mesos topos. I have
translated Karsten’s hôste kai tôn hupo selênên ho mesos topos timiôtatos.
243. Of Tarsus, a Stoic of the late second century BC. This passage is SVF 16
for Archedemus (von Arnim (1903-24), vol. 3, p. 264). On the disputed reliability
of this report, see PW, suppl. vol. 12, cols 1366-8.
244. As Heiberg indicates, the reference is to the present lemma.
245. Reading prosêkei with F and Karsten rather than the prosêkein printed
by Heiberg following A.
246. Reading tautên tên with A, F, and Karsten rather than the tên autên
substituted by Heiberg.
247. There is no grammatical break between the end of this lemma and the
beginning of the next, and the next lemma raises an issue about the notion of
centre.
248. I am inclined to read the legôn of F and Karsten rather than the legei
printed by Heiberg on the basis of b.
249. Simplicius quotes from Tim. 40B8-C3, a sentence which he quotes in full
at 517,7-9.
250. That is, because we are on the side of the earth away from the
counterearths. On this paragraph and the next see Dicks (1970), pp. 66-70.
251. In the lemma Heiberg prints apekhontôn hêmôn tês diametrou with A.
hêmôn is omitted in F, and Moraux does not print it (Karsten ends his lemma
at 293b21).
252. In this passage Aristotle broaches and answers a question which is still
open: did Plato in the Timaeus ascribe any kind of motion to the earth? (For
some bibliography see Cherniss (1959-60), pp. 223-4.) The centre of the contro-
versy is a word used by Plato at 40B8, which in the MSS is either illomenên,
heillomenên, or eillomenên. The exact sense of these words is unclear. It does
seem clear that Aristotle read illomenên and understood it to imply a rotation
around the axis of the cosmos. I have translated illomenên as ‘wound’. For
Simplicius the word indicates that the earth is fixed, ‘bound’ as he puts it at
517,14.
253. Heiberg, following A, does not print a men, which is in F and Karsten
and our MSS of Plato.
254. The tên of our MSS of Plato is missing in Simplicius. On this tên see
Cornford (1937), p. 120, n. 1.
255. Karsten and our MSS of Plato have polon tetamenon. Heiberg prints
tetamenon polon.
256. Tim. 40B8-C3.
114 Notes to pages 57-59
257. In Simplicius’ time, as in ours, a distinction was made between a pole
(polos) and an axis (axôn), which, as Simplicius shows, was not always made
earlier.
258. The word polos does not occur in our texts of the Phaedo. At Axiochus
371B2 it has the sense of heaven. In its other two occurrences in the Platonic
corpus (Cratylus 405C9, Epinomis 986C4) it has the sense of heavenly or stellar
revolution.
259. Argonautica (Fränkel (1961)), 1.129.
260. illasin dêsantes. Simplicius cites Iliad (West (2000)), 13.572.
261. See Snell et al. (1971-), vol. 3, p. 140 (Aeschylus, fr. 25).
262. Phaedo 109A4-5. This text is also quoted at 532,1-2 and 535,28-9, on
which see the notes. Here Heiberg prints klithênai with the text of Plato. A has
kai theinai, F and Karsten kinêthênai. At 532,2 Heiberg prints klithênai with F
and Karsten, where A has ekklithênai, C kinêthênai.
263. The next two quotations are from section 31 of On the Nature of the
Kosmos and the Soul of Timaeus Locrus (Marg (1972)). For Simplicius’ use of
Timaeus Locrus see Marg (1972), pp. 102-10.
264. Simplicius and the MSS of Timaeus Locrus have horos, which Marg
(1972) prints as the Doric ôros.
265. Translating the aous of F and Karsten (Marg (1972) prints aôs). A has
agos; Heiberg prints augas.
266. Marg prints anatolas, which is also the reading of F and Karsten.
Heiberg prints antolas.
267. The words hôs tâi opsei kai ta apotomai tas gâs perigraphometha (which
we describe by vision and the section of the earth), which Marg prints, are
missing in Simplicius. For the plural ‘horizons’ see Baltes (1972), p. 108.
268. Reading to strephomenês sêmainousês with F and Karsten rather than
the sêmainousês printed by Heiberg.
269. Reading eirêmenon with F and Karsten rather than the eirêmenou
printed by Heiberg.
270. Reading sustrephomenên with F rather than the strephomenên printed
by Heiberg; see 518,13, which makes clear that ‘rolled up’ was offered as a
paraphrase of the reading eillomenên in the Timaeus passage.
271. Reading Karsten’s rhêseis instead of the khrêseis printed by Heiberg.
272. i.e. as eilomenên (or perhaps heilomenên), which means the same thing
as eillomenên (or heillomenên).
273. In the Phaedo, 109A.
274. Reading the oun of A, F, and Karsten rather than the an conjectured by
Heiberg, and placing Karsten’s period rather than Heiberg’s comma after
ekdekhomenous.
275. Heiberg prints tautên with A rather than the tên gên of F and Karsten.
Either way the meaning is the same.
276. Simplicius refers ahead to the beginning of ch. 14, where Aristotle
argues against the two hypotheses simultaneously.
277. As Moraux, p. clxv points out, this is one of the few cases in which
Simplicius suggests an alteration of the text. According to Moraux only two
manuscripts adopt Simplicius’ suggestion.
278. Simplicius cites 293a15-16.
279. Simplicius refers ahead to the next lemma.
280. On Heraclides see the note on 541,28.
281. Heiberg’s lemma here is unusual in only containing the initial words of
the text and not its conclusion. Karsten’s lemma has the standard form, and
 Notes to pages 59-64 115
Heiberg’s apparatus (‘Lemma ad p. 294a11 continuat F’) indicates that F does
as well.
282. For Simplicius’ understanding of these words (which differs from that
of, e.g., Leggatt) see 519,23-8.
283. Simplicius paraphrases proposition 22 of Euclid’s Optics (Heiberg and
Menge (1883-1916), vol. 7).
284. cf. 294b13-23 (below 524,1).
285. Simplicius glosses over the fact that at the end of the lemma Aristotle
reverts to the topic of the earth’s motion and rest.
286. Simplicius discusses this sentence and Alexander’s handling of it at
521,14-27. For the sentence Moraux prints: to de tas peri toutou luseis mê mallon
atopous einai dokein tês aporias, thaumaseien an tis. Simplicius’ discussion is
not clear and the MSS show considerable variation at various places involving
peri tas and tas peri as well as toutou and toutôn. See my notes below and the
very helpful discussion of Moraux (1954), pp. 159-61.
287. Simplicius describes material following the present lemma.
288. This sentence is part of DK59A88 (Anaxagoras).
289. Reading peri tas toutôn with Karsten rather than the peri tas peri toutou
printed by Heiberg, following A, or the tas peri toutou of F and the Aldine.
Moraux (1954), pp. 159-61, who takes the present sentence to represent Alex-
ander’s account of Aristotle’s meaning, thinks that the correct text here would
be peri tas toutou (the solutions of this).
290. Simplicius inserts the word phulaxasthai. Moraux ((1954), p. 160)
assumes the insertion is Alexander’s.
291. Reading the toutôn of F and Karsten rather than the toutou of A, printed
by Heiberg.
292. Simplicius has not said this but he is apparently referring to the
insertion of phulaxasthai at 521,15.
293. And we do not have to add phulaxasthai.
294. Reading toutôn with F and Karsten rather than the toutou of A, printed
by Heiberg, and reading the toutôn in line with what Simplicius goes on to say.
295. Moraux prints a text which includes the words ep’ apeiron autên
errizôsthai legontes (saying that the earth is rooted ad infinitum). It seems
reasonably clear from what Simplicius says at 522,5-11 that he did not have
these words, since he expresses uncertainty about the referent of ‘what is under
the earth’ and makes no mention of the unusual word errhizôsthai, which
implies that the earth stretches down infinitely.
296. This paragraph and Simplicius’ comment on it (522,7-12) are part of
DK21A47 (Xenophanes); cf. DK21B28.
297. These lines constitute DK31B39; however, obeying the edict of Wil-
lamowitz-Moellendorff (1930), p. 249, DK substitute glôssas elthonta (coming
through the tongues) for the glôssês rhêthenta printed by Moraux.
298. This paragraph and Simplicius’ comment (522,14-18) constitute
DK11A14.
299. pheretai eis buthon. At 522,29-31 Simplicius paraphrases this with eis
ton puthmena tou hudatos elthêi, and suggests that he is offering a paraphrase
of buthizetai.
300. This is a fairly common expression in commentaries on the logical
works. Here it is presumably applied to modus tollens; [Ammonius], in An. Pr.
(CAG, vol. 4.6), 68,25-9, gives as an example of conversion with antithesis ‘if
human, then animal; but not animal; therefore not human’.
301. Top. 1.18, 108a38-b6.
302. In Top. 1.18.
116 Notes to pages 64-71
303. The text here causes difficulty. Moraux prints athroôs [tôi] katôthen
(remains stationary as a mass under the earth). It is clear from 524,12-16 that
Simplicius had the athroôi tôi of some MSS of Aristotle, but not clear exactly
what he made of it. I have done the best I could with Simplicius’ text.
304. The lemma up to this point is part of DK13A20 (Anaximenes); it is also
mentioned in DK59A88 (Anaxagoras). On the clepsydra, which Simplicius
describes at 524,17-525,4, see Last (1924).
305. This word appears to be a hapax.
306. Simplicius gives a second way of reading Aristotle’s invocation of
clepsydras in the next sentence.
307. Reading eisienai aera with F and Karsten rather than the eisienai
printed by Heiberg.
308. I have translated enseisantos auta instead of the enseisthentos autois
printed by Heiberg.
309. The reference is to Cael. 4.4, 311b6-13, where Aristotle apparently says
that an inflated wineskin weighs more than an uninflated one.
310. The modern Khabur, which flows from southeast Turkey into Syria,
where it joins the Euphrates. The Khabur is about 100 kilometers via an ancient
trade route from Harran, the town where some think Simplicius wrote his
commentaries; see Hadot (1987), pp. 9-21 (and in English in Hadot (1990)), for
discussion and references, and see Lameer (1997) for sceptical remarks. Here
Simplicius refers to the kelek, a raft which floats on inflated skins; see Tardieu
(1990), pp. 71-95.
311. Moraux prints to skhêma tês gês, as does Karsten. Heiberg prints to
skhêma tautês with A; F has tês gês to skhêma.
312. tis, printed by Moraux, but not by Heiberg in the paraphrase of this
passage at 526,14, although it is included in F and by Karsten.
313. On this and the same expression just below see the note on 526,17.
314. Cael. 295a9-14 is included in DK59A88 (Anaxagoras), which also in-
cludes an edited version of 511,23-5 and 520,28-31.
315. For a textual issue here see the note on 527,18.
316. Translating the aneirêke of F, Karsten, and a correction in a second
hand of A, which has an eirêke; Heiberg conjectures anêirêke.
317. Phys. 5.6 and Cael. 1.2.
318. A pun?
319. The epizountes in Heiberg’s text is apparently a misprinting of
epizêtountes. I have translated the tên aitian zêtountes of F and Karsten.
320. cf. the preceding lemma (294b13-14).
321. Translating tou ouranou with F and Karsten rather than the toutou
printed by Heiberg.
322. ekstantos, Simplicius’ paraphrase of the word I have translated ‘yield’
at 295a22. There, Moraux conjectures hupeikontos in place of the well-attested
hupelthontos, for which Verdenius (1969), p. 280, provides a plausible defence.
323. Moraux prints eipeien. F and Karsten have an eipoi, A eipoien, C eipoi.
Heiberg prints eipoi an.
324. For the evidence that Simplicius is correct to say that, according to
Empedocles, the world is now under the domination of Strife see Wright (1981),
pp. 45-8.
325. Alexander’s second alternative involves interpreting dieistêkei khôris
hupo tou neikous as something like dieistêkei khôris tou neikous.
326. Simplicius substitutes an aorist for an imperfect.
327. Simplicius now quotes the first 15 lines of DK31B35; he quotes all but
 Notes to pages 71-79 117
the first two lines of this fragment at in Phys. (CAG, vol. 9), 32,12-33,2; for other
partial citations see DK. For commentary see Wright (1981), pp. 206-8.
328. DK print the logou of Bergk (1842), col. 1002 (= Bergk (1886), p. 47), as
does Karsten. Heiberg prints logôi with A and F.
329. Reading (with Wright (1981)) the unaccented pô of F and Karsten
(which Heiberg accents); DK conjecture tôn.
330. DK31B86 (this passage the only source). The ‘which’ are presumably
‘elements’ which make up the eyes. In connection with this and the next two
quotations it is useful to consult Theophrastus, De Sensibus 8-9 (Stratton
(1917), pp. 72-4).
331. DK31B87 (this passage the only source). Again the ‘them’ are presum-
ably the ‘elements’ which make up the eyes.
332. i.e., Aphrodite. This is DK31B95, for which this is the only source. Again
the ‘they’ are presumably the ‘elements’ which make up the eyes.
333. Translating the toss’ printed by DK and Karsten rather than the toi’ of
Stein (1852), p. 51, printed by Heiberg (toia in A and F).
334. DK31B71, for which this passage is our only source.
335. Translating the eidea poipnuousa of F and Karsten printed by DK
rather than the aither’ epipneiousa of Stein (1852), p. 58, printed by Heiberg. A
has ei de apopnoiousa.
336. DK31B73, for which this is our only source.
337. DK31B75. Simplicius cites the last half again at in Phys. (CAG, vol. 9),
331,9 as an example of Empedocles’ invocation of chance.
338. These lines are DK31B17, 7-8. Simplicius quotes all but one of the 35
lines of this fragment at in Phys. (CAG, vol. 9), 158,1-159,4, the missing line
being supplied from Phys. 8.1, 250b30; for other citations see DK.
339. C, F, and Karsten add the words ‘and Democritus’ here, but A, which
Heiberg follows, does not. Anaximander, of course, called the starting point of
cosmogony apeiron, and the doxographers standardly applied the word to
Anaximenes’ starting point, air; see especially Simplicius, in Phys. (CAG, vol.
9), 22,9-13, where Simplicius says that the notion of infinity in magnitude
applies to Anaximander and Anaximenes, who hypothesised that there was one
element infinite in magnitude.
340. Phaedo 109A4-5, quoted earlier at 517,20-2 and below at 535,28-9, on
which see the notes. In all three passages Heiberg prints oudamose with the text
of Plato, F, and Karsten. A and C have oudamôs here, and A has it at 535,22.
341. See Cael. 293b30-2 with Simplicius’ discussion at 517,1-519,8.
342. On this anomalous second explanation (perhaps explicable by the fact
that Anaximander thought the earth was (more or less) flat) see Kahn (1960),
p. 55, where the shape of Anaximander’s earth is also discussed.
343. cf. Cael. 1.8, 276a22-4.
344. Simplicius indicates that one must supply the word ‘remains’ as indi-
cated by the brackets in the translation of the lemma.
345. Reading hairoumetha with F and Karsten rather than the anai-
roumetha of A printed by Heiberg. b has eligemus (‘we choose’).
346. Heiberg prints diaspômenon, Karsten diespasmenon. For the corre-
sponding Aristotle text Moraux prints diespasmenon; some Aristotle
manuscripts have diaspômenon.
347. Heiberg prints dinêseôs, conjectured on the basis of the dianoêsei of A.
F and Karsten have the perfectly intelligible dinês.
348. Reading the ton printed by Karsten rather than Heiberg’s to.
349. Phaedo 109A4-5, quoted earlier at 517,20-2 and 532,1-2, on which see
118 Notes to pages 80-87
the notes. Here Heiberg (and Karsten) prints plêsion in place of the en mesôi of
the text of Plato.
350. Simplicius contrasts Aristotle’s account of earth, water, air, and fire in
GC 2.1-3, with the geometric treatment of them in section 35 of On the Nature
of the Kosmos and the Soul of Timaeus Locrus (Marg (1972)); cf. Plato’s Timaeus
53C-56C.
351. See the beginning of the previous chapter, 293a17-b32.
352. i.e. modus tollens, the second anapodeiktos argument of the Stoics; see
e.g. Kneale and Kneale (1962), pp. 162-3. See also the note on 466,32 in the
commentary on ch. 9.
353. The star Regulus. In his star catalogue (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 1.2, 98-9,
line 6) Ptolemy gives the longitude of Regulus as 2.5 degrees into Leo.
354. cf. 532,35-533,2 with the note.
355. Simplicius says that the two are the same ‘in substratum’ (hupo-
keimenôi) to indicate that the notion of being the centre of the universe is not
the same as the notion of being the centre of the earth.
356. On the question of the category to which angles belong see Heath (1926),
vol. 1, pp. 177-8, 252.
357. El. 1, def. 10. Heiberg prints poiêsêi with A, whereas Euclid, F, and
Karsten have poiêi.
358. The meaning of this expression (or at least its reference) becomes clear
in the geometric argument at 539,5-17. The plane is the surface of the earth.
The notion of right angle is extended to include angles like FAC in the figure of
that argument.
359. Simplicius has pros orthas gônias akhthêi eutheia; in El. Heiberg prints
pros orthas [gônias] eutheia grammê akhthêi (gônias being omitted in his
preferred manuscript P of the Elements).
360. On the equality of the angles contained by a diameter and circumference
of a semicircle see Heath (1949), pp. 23-4. Euclid (El. 3, def. 7) defines the angle
of a segment of a circle, but offers no proofs concerning their equality; presum-
ably the equality of the angles of similar segments of a circle would be proved
by superposition; cf. Alexander, in An. Pr. (CAG, vol. 2.1), 268,15-16.
361. keratoeideis, the standard term for the angles made by a convex
circumference and a straight line; cf. Proclus, in Euc. (Friedlein (1873)), 127,14.
362. This figure is found only in MS A.
363. In Suntaxis 1.7 (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 1.1, 21,14-22,11). Ptolemy simply
asserts that weights fall in a direction perpendicular to the plane tangent to the
earth at the point of contact, and says that this means they would fall to the
centre of the earth if they weren’t stopped.
364. Heiberg inserts a hai from Euclid which is omitted by Simplicius.
365. That is, the diameter of the earth is less than that of the sublunary
sphere.
366. It is clear from 540,18 that Simplicius takes this argument to be directed
against both the alleged Platonic position that the earth rotates around the
central axis and a position according to which it moves in a straight line, but
not against the Pythagorean position that the earth is a planet.
367. The lemma omits an an eiê of our MSS of Aristotle; it is included by
Karsten. It is also omitted by Simplicius at 541,6.
368. The text, which Heiberg prints as kata tên <kata> diametron autês aei
pros ton hêlion stasin apoteleisthai is obscure, but the sense is assured by the
parallel passage in Ptolemy’s Almagest: pros tên kata diametron têi hêliôi stasin
apoteleisthai (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 1.1, 19,24-5).
369. For an account of Heraclides’ astronomical views see, e.g., Heath (1913),
 Notes to pages 87-92 119
part 1, ch. 18. Most people accept Heath’s view that Heraclides assigned to the
earth a west-east rotation about the poles of the equator to replace the east-west
rotation of the fixed sphere. Simplicius’ criticism of this position makes the
apparently false assumption that Heraclides denied an independent west-east
motion to the sun and other planets.
370. Simplicius virtually quotes the Almagest (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 1.1,
25,6-12).
371. I have translated Heiberg’s text of Simplicius’ citation of 297a34-b1 at
544,13-14: êremêsei ge kai nun kai mê to meson ekhousa, hêi pephuke kineisthai.
Moraux, following the MSS of Aristotle, prints the words kai nun after kineis-
thai, giving the sense ‘if it did, it could also be stationary, not occupying the
centre to which it is now its nature to move’.
372. I have translated Simplicius’ sumbainei to eirêmenon (545,11-12) rather
than the more difficult eirêtai to sumbainon of our MSS of Aristotle.
373. For some textual issues here see 545,20-22 with the note.
374. Heiberg’s lemma does not have the te of Aristotle (and Karsten), which
connects with the kai beginning the next lemma.
375. On Alexander’s view heavier things push less heavy things away from
the centre until a sphere is formed. Simplicius objects that this would mean that
the less heavy things were being forced away from the centre, and proposes that
the heavier things ‘push’ the less heavy ones towards the centre and the whole
mass ‘strives’ to get as close to the centre as possible.
376. On this characterisation of the centre of gravity see Heath (1921), pp.
250-1; for Archimedes’ works on centres of gravity see his On the Equilibrium
of Planes (Heiberg (1910-15), vol. 2, 124-212; see also Pappus Col. (Hultsch
(1876-8)), 1022-46.
377. The difficulty on which Simplicius is now commenting is not easy to
interpret. We may state it by supposing that the centre of the earth E is Ce and
the centre of the universe is Cu. Now these two centres coincide, and the question
is what would happen if E were to be added to, to become E’ with a new centre
Ce’. Simplicius takes it that at 297b4-7 Aristotle expresses the view that in this
situation E’ would reform into a sphere with centre Cu. But for now Aristotle
considers two alternatives; (i) E’ does not ‘rest at the centre’; (ii) E’ rests in its
new position. For Simplicius (ii) is impossible because if E’ rests, then E would
rest if its centre were Ce’. But he does not indicate what, if anything, is wrong
with (i), and so does not tell us what he takes Aristotle’s first alternative to be.
378. That is, the difficulty does not depend on the amount of weight added
on one side of the earth.
379. A comma is needed after meson, as in Karsten.
380. Just above at 545,14-15 Simplicius cited these words with mekhri toutou
pheresthai heôs (move up to the point where), the text of our MSS of Aristotle.
An alternative text, apparently rejected by Alexander, is meta toutou pheresthai
heôs (‘move with this until’). Heiberg follows A, in which the alternative
accepted by Alexander is mekhri toude pheresthai heôs (with the same meaning
as mekhri toutou pheresthai heôs); F and Karsten have the toutou of our MSS of
Aristotle. For other passages in the De Caelo where, according to Simplicius,
Alexander reported divergences among the MSS, see Moraux, p. clxii, n. 1.
381. Heiberg prints barê with A and F; Karsten and Moraux print barea.
Simplicius consistently uses barê in the discussion of the lemma.
382. For the lemma Heiberg prints the mê of A rather than the mê ho of F
and Karsten, which is in all the MSS of Aristotle and in Simplicius’ para-
phrase/citation at 546,13.
120 Notes to pages 93-96
383. On the weakness of the argument here see Neugebauer (1975), pp.
1093-4.
384. cf. Theon of Smyrna (Hiller (1878)), 195,5-197,7 and Cleomedes (Todd
(1990)), 2.2.19-30.
385. Reading tinos ginetai with F and Karsten rather than the prosginetai of
A printed by Heiberg.
386. That is, Thebes (modern Luxor), one of several Egyptian cities which
the Greeks called Diospolis; see PW, vol. 5, cols 144-5.
387. Cadiz.
388. ton te peri ta Gadeira [viz. topon] kai tas Hêrakleious stêlas, on Hêrak-
leian ekalese. For Aristotle Moraux prints ton peri tas Hêrakleias stêlas topon,
and Longo (1961) prints what he supposes Simplicius to have read, namely ton
peri tên Hêrakleian topon.
389. i.e. 400,000.
390. On the determination of the earth’s magnitude see below 549,1-10, with
the note on 549,10.
391. This figure for the relative volumes of sun and earth is given in 5,16 of
Ptolemy’s Almagest (Heiberg (1898-), vol. 1.2, 427,8-9); it is also in Proclus,
Hypotyposis (Manitius (1909)), 133,22-4.
392. Heraclitus apparently said that the sun is a foot in breadth (DK22B3).
Aristotle knows that it is not, but he twice says it looks that way (DA 3.3,
428b2-4; Somn. 2, 460b16-20).
393. cf. 512,9-20.
394. On these two instruments, which are very similar, see Rome (1927).
395. The diopter in question is presumably like the one described by Heron
in chs 1 to 5 of the Dioptra (Schöne (1903), 188,1-204,24). He describes its use
for measuring distances between stars in ch. 32 (287,34-288,19).
396. Reading tous topous with F and Karsten rather than the topous of A,
which is printed by Heiberg.
397. Heron describes an odometer in ch. 24 of the Dioptra (Schöne (1903),
292,16-302,2).
398. i.e. 180,000. The fixed figures in this description are the 180,000 stades
for the circumference of the earth and the equivalent 1o = 500 stades (cf.
Ptolemy, Geography (Nobbe (1843)), 1,7,1; 1,11,2; 7,5,12 (Berggren and Jones
(2000), pp. 64, 71, 110), and Planetary Hypotheses (Goldstein (1967), section 4)).
The length of the earth’s equator is, in fact, slightly less than 25,000 miles.
Assuming that the earth is a sphere with that circumference Ptolemy’s figure
for the earth’s circumference would be incredibly accurate if he used a stade of
733 feet. But we do not know the length of Ptolemy’s stade. The ‘method’
described by Simplicius is certainly a mathematical exercise, not a piece of
observational geography. For the method to work the two stars must be on the
same celestial longitude, so that the places at which the stars are at the zenith
would then be on the same meridian (cf. Ptolemy’s description of the method of
his predecessors for determining the circumference of the earth at 1,3,1 of the
Geography (Berggren and Jones (2000), p. 61); on the determination of the
meridian of a place see Neugebauer (1975), pp. 841-2). The accuracy of the
odometer measurement of the earthly distance (if ‘correct’, c. 70 miles) between
the two places would depend on the terrain and the ability of its user to move
on a straight line between the two places. The measurement of a distance of 1o
between the two stars and the determination of the places for which the stars
are at the zenith could not be made with any reasonable accuracy (and an error
of one nth of a degree in the former means a one nth error in the estimate of the
earth’s circumference).
 Notes to page 96 121
399. In proposition 3 of The Measurement of a Circle (Heiberg (1910-15), vol.
1, 236,7-242,21) Archimedes establishes rigorously that the value in question
lies between 310/71 and 31/7. See also the note on 414,4 in the commentary on ch.
4.
400. i.e. 57,273, a slight rounding off.
401. As proposition 1 of The Measurement of a Circle (Heiberg (1910-15), vol.
1, 232,1-234,17) Archimedes proves the equivalent, namely that the area of a
circle is equal to that of a right-angled triangle with legs equal to the radius and
the circumference of the circle.
402. A double myriad is 100 million (= 10,0002). So the answer calculated is
2,577,285,000.
403. Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder, book 1, prop. 33 (Heiberg
(1910-15), vol. 1, 120,14-124,13).
404. I have translated the text printed by Heiberg, including the inserted
‘simple’. This represents the correct calculation, i.e. 10,309,140,000. All the
texts reported by Heiberg (A, F, b, and Karsten) give an answer of
10,307,140,000, i.e. they have heptakosiôn instead of the hennakosiôn printed
by Heiberg.
405. In the next calculation Simplicius applies a part of the porism to
proposition 34 of book 1 of Archimedes’ On the Sphere and Cylinder (Heiberg
(1910-15), vol. 1, 130,4-132,3): the volume of a sphere is two-thirds that of a right
cylinder with base equal to a greatest circle of the sphere and height equal to
its diameter.
406. A triple myriad is a ‘quadrillion’ (= 10,0003).
407. i.e. 147,608,843,805,000.
408. At this point Simplicius’ calculations go awry. He ends up with
98,406,364,469,503, where he should have 98,405,895,870,000.
409. See the note on 549,4.
410. Reading the khthamalôtera of A rather than khthamalôtata of F and
Karsten printed by Heiberg. With that change this sentence is a virtual quota-
tion of Theon of Alexandria (Rome (1936), 394,17-395,2). The two passages are
printed as fr. II A, 2 in Berger (1880). There is a parallel passage without the
number in Theon of Smyrna (Hiller (1878), 124,19-22). On Eratosthenes see
DSB, vol. 4, pp. 388-93.
411. Since Simplicius goes on to say that he doesn’t know what unit of
measurement Aristotle is using, it is not clear why he chooses to say Aristotle
is talking about surface area rather than length of circumference.
This page intentionally left blank
 Appendix
[Alexander]1 on Metaphysics 12.8,
1073b17-1074a15

1073b17-1074a15 Eudoxus postulated that the motion of2 the sun and
moon was in three spheres; [of these the first was that of the fixed stars,
the second <rotated> on the circle through the middle of the signs of the
zodiac, the third on an inclined circle in the breadth of the zodiac (the
circle on which the moon moves is inclined at a greater depth than that
on which the sun moves). And he postulated that the motion of each of the
planets was in four spheres; and of these, the first and second were the
same as those <for the sun and moon>; for the sphere of the fixed stars
moves all the spheres, and the sphere positioned under this and having
its motion in the circle through the middle of the signs of the zodiac is
common to all; the poles of the third sphere were in every case in the circle
through the middle of the signs of the zodiac, and the motion of the fourth
was on a circle oblique to the middle of this circle; and the poles of the
third sphere are different for each except that those of Venus and Mercury
are the same.
1073b32 Callippus made the position of the spheres, i.e. the order of
their distances,3 the same as Eudoxus, and he assigned the same number
<of spheres> to Jupiter and Saturn as Eudoxus, but he thought that two
spheres had to be added to the sun and moon, if one was going to explain
the phenomena, and one more to each of the other planets.
1073b38 But if all the spheres added together are going to explain the
phenomena, it is necessary that there be for each of the planets other
spheres, one fewer <than the number of spheres associated with the
planet>, which are counteractive and always restore the first sphere of the
star beneath it in order to the same position; for only in this way can they
all produce the motion of the planets. So since4 there are eight spheres in
which some of the planets move and twenty-five in which others do, and
of these only those in which the low star moves do not need to be
counteracted,5 there will be six spheres counteracting the spheres of the
first two and sixteen for the next four. The number of all of the spheres,
those carrying the stars and those counteracting them, will be fifty-five.
And if one were not to add for the moon and sun the motions which we
mentioned, they will make forty-seven in all.6 <So let the number of the
spheres be this great.>7]

The views of Eudoxus and Callippus and later Aristotle on the number of 703,1
spheres, how they move, and why, have been stated with great care in the
second book of <my> De Caelo8 in the exegesis of the text extending from ‘and
furthermore the other motions have a single body because’ to ‘the power of any
 124 Appendix
finite body is related to a finite body’.9 And that was essentially an exegesis of
5 the present passage extending from ‘Eudoxus postulated that the motion of the
sun and moon was in three spheres’ to ‘so let the number of spheres be this
great’. So, let the person who wishes provide himself with clarification on this
subject from there. But since some of the passages have not been clarified there,
it is worthwhile to investigate them here.
10 The first of these passages is ‘of these the first was that of the fixed stars’.
Aristotle does not mean by this – as someone might think – that the fixed sphere
is first (although it is, in fact, first); rather what he is saying is that, according
to Eudoxus, of the three spheres carrying the sun, the first, which both contains
15 the other two and has the same motion as the fixed sphere (for they said it moves
from east to west and we said why in <my> De Caelo), was considered by
Eudoxus to be fixed relative to the other two which it contained. And he didn’t
call just the first sphere of the sun fixed but <he called> also the first sphere of
Saturn and of Jupiter, and the first and greater spheres of each of the other
20 stars fixed, the first sphere being one fixed sphere in which are the mass of stars
filling up the zodiac, the first sphere for Saturn another, that for Jupiter
another, and so on – Theophrastus called these spheres starless.10
The words ‘the third on an inclined circle in the breadth of the zodiac’ mean
the circle inclined in the breadth of the signs of the zodiac, as explained in <my>
25 De Caelo, the one which the sun is thought to describe with its own central point
when it is moved by the sphere in which it is implanted; the tropics seem to vary
because when the sun makes its turnings it is not always observed to rise from
the same places.
The words ‘the circle on which the moon moves is inclined at a greater depth
than that on which the sun moves’ are equivalent to ‘the breadth of the
30 inclination of the circle which the moon is thought to describe with its own
central point is greater than the breadth of the circle which the sun is thought
to describe with its own central point’; and this was learned from the fact that
the moon and the sun in their turnings do not make their risings from the same
positions. For let the horizon be AGBCMD,11 the equator DEB, the inclined
35 circle in the breadth of the zodiac which the sun is thought to describe with its
own central point AEC, and the inclined circle which the moon is thought to
describe with its central point GEM. And let the sun rise at the time when it
makes its summer turning from the point A and rise at the equinox at the point
D. It is clear that the greatest breadth of inclination is the arc DA. But let the
704,1 moon when it makes its turning in the north rise at the point G; it is clear that
the greatest breadth of its inclination is DG, and it is greater than the inclina-
tion DA, which is the greatest breadth of the inclination of the sun. And this is
5 what is meant by ‘the circle in which the moon moves is inclined at a greater
angle than that in which the sun moves’.

Figure 6 (703,34-704,4)12
 Appendix 125
The words ‘the poles of the third sphere were in every case in the circle
through the middle of the signs of the zodiac’ mean that all the third spheres
have their poles in the circles which are described through the signs of the zodiac
by the central points of the stars.
(1073b32) The words ‘<Callippus> made the order of the spheres, i.e. the
order of their distances’13 mean that Callippus said that the kind of spheres 10
which Eudoxus said were first and second were first, and that Callippus said
that the sphere of Saturn was as far from the sphere of Mercury as Eudoxus had
said.
(1073b38) The words ‘that there be for each of the planets other spheres, one
fewer <than the number of spheres associated with the planet>, which are
counteractive’ mean that since there are four spheres moving Saturn, there are 15
three counteractive spheres, since three is less than four by one; and again since
according to Callippus there are five spheres moving Mars four counteractive
spheres are added to them, since four are one less than five. What purpose the
addition of the counteractive spheres served for Aristotle has been explained in 20
<my> De Caelo.
The words ‘always restore the first sphere of the star beneath it in order to
the same position’ will be clear if certain circles are drawn. Let there be three
circles AB, DE, FG. Let there be a star, e.g. Jupiter, in FG, and let it be the point
K.14 Let A be some point, and D and F and B, E, G. They are not to be stars but 25
are to be conceived just as points, and let A, D, and F lie on the same straight
line; and similarly for B, E, G. And let the sphere AB move towards the point B
so that A comes to be at point B. And let the sphere DE and the sphere FG move
at the same speed in the direction of D, F so that E, G reach D, F. So since ED
and GF move in the same direction at the same speed, it is clear that the motion 30
of the sphere GF will be double that of the sphere ED. For the motion of the
sphere ED imparts as much motion to the sphere GF as GF has, since they are
moving in the same direction. Consequently in the time in which E moves to D,
G, moving through the whole circle GF, again reaches G15 unless the sphere AB 35
moves in an opposite direction to DE and drags it towards B and prevents it
from imparting to the sphere FG another motion as great as it has. So AB drags
DE towards B16 and impedes it, and DE impedes FG and in this case FG will
always keep the same position in relation to the position of AB.17 Consequently
when G reaches F and F is now where G is, then A will come to be where B is 40
now, and B where A is and the points A, F and B, G will always be on the same 705,1
straight line. And when A rises, so does F and when B sets so does G, and they
will never rise or set before A, F. And if AB and GF move in the same direction
the same thing will happen.18

Figure 7 (704,23-35; 704,35-705,4; 704,4-5)19

 126 Appendix
5 But let the sphere be conceived as counteractive (this then is what is meant
by ‘always restore the first sphere of the star beneath it in order to the same
position’). What is said would be the following. Let the counteractive spheres be
conceived to move in such a way that they make the first and outermost of the
10 spheres moving Jupiter always keep the same position in relation to the sphere
in which the star is fastened20 and never let points taken in the first sphere
precede the points taken in the sphere in which the star is fastened, but let them
always rise and set together.
The words ‘so21 there are eight spheres in which some of the planets move
15 and twenty-five in which others do’ are equivalent to ‘so according to Callippus
there are eight spheres for the sun and moon and twenty-five for the others,
Saturn, Jupiter, and the rest’. For what was said just before, ‘he thought that
two spheres had to be added to the sun and moon’ are equivalent to ‘one to each’.
For since Eudoxus postulated six for the sun and the moon, and he says
20 Callippus postulated eight, it is clear that he added one for each of them. And
similarly he added one to the remaining spheres of the five stars. For Eudoxus
said there were four spheres for each of the remaining five stars, and <Callip-
pus> made them five.22
The words ‘and of these only those in which the low star moves do not need
to be counteracted’23 mean ‘it is only not necessary for the spheres which move
25 the moon to have counteracting spheres’ since the moon is the lowest of all the
stars.
The words ‘there will be six spheres counteracting the spheres of the first
two’ mean ‘there will be six spheres counteracting Saturn and Jupiter’. For,
since there are four spheres moving Saturn and four moving Jupiter and it is
necessary that for each star there be one less counteractive sphere, there will
30 be six counteractive spheres for Saturn and Jupiter, and since there are five
spheres moving each of the remaining four, that is Mars, Venus, Mercury, and
the sun, there will be four counteractive spheres for each.
As a result the total number of counteractive spheres is two times three for
Saturn and Jupiter and four times four for Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the sun.
So the total is twenty-two. And the carrying spheres were eight for Saturn and
35 Jupiter and twenty-five for the remaining five. So if these thirty-three spheres
are added to the twenty-two counteractive spheres, the total will be fifty-five.
For, as has been said, only the spheres which move the moon do not have to be
counteracted, since the moon is last. And so Aristotle has said that only the
spheres in which the planet ordered low is carried do not need to be counter-
acted.
The additional words ‘if one were not to add24 for the moon and sun the
40 motions which we mentioned, the total number of spheres will be forty-seven’25
706,1 create consternation. For if we subtract the two spheres of the sun and moon
which Callippus added (and obviously the two additional counteractive spheres
for the sun – for if we subtract the spheres added by Callippus we must also
subtract the ones intended to counteract them), six spheres will be subtracted,
two carrying the sun, two counteracting them, in addition to the two added by
5 Callippus for the moon. But when these are subtracted from the fifty-five it will
not result that there remain forty-seven in all, but forty-nine.26
Or perhaps he has forgotten that he subtracted only two, not four, spheres
for the moon, unless one should say that he subtracted the four counteractive
10 spheres which he added for the sun and both <pairs> which Callippus added,
so that eight spheres were subtracted from the fifty-five, leaving forty-seven as
a remainder, and in this way the number which Aristotle gives results.27 Or, as
Sosigenes says with understanding, it is better to say of the number that it is
 Appendix 127
an error produced by the scribes than to make the seven spheres themselves 15
also eight.28

Notes
1. The identity of the author of the commentary on books E-N of the
Metaphysics which is printed as part of a commentary on the whole of the
Metaphysics and ascribed on the title page to Alexander of Aphrodisias in vol. 1
of CAG is a matter of dispute, although there is general agreement that the
author of the latter part of the commentary is not Alexander. Tarán (1987)
summarises the history of the dispute and argues that the commentary is a
forgery produced no later than the mid-fifth century. Hadot (1987a), p. 229, n.
12, and pp. 242-5, defends the more common view that the commentary is the
work of Michael of Ephesus, a Byzantine commentator on Aristotle (twelfth
century).
2. The lemma omits the words ‘each of’ found in our MSS of Aristotle.
3. These words (tout’ esti tôn apostêmatôn tên taxin) are bracketed by Ross
(1953) and Jaeger (1957), following a suggestion of Christ (1866). For [Alexan-
der]’s text see 704,9.
4. On [Alexander]’s text here see the note on 705,13.
5. For [Alexander]’s text of this clause see the note on 705,24.
6. On [Alexander]’s text here see the two notes on 705,40-1.
7. See the two notes on 506,4 of Simplicius’ commentary. This last sentence
actually begins the next lemma in the commentary, but [Alexander] refers to it
at 703,6-7.
8. Since the authorship of the present passage is disputed (see the first note
in this appendix), it is not possible to know what commentary is being referred
to. Moraux ((2001), pp. 224-5) argues that the reference here is to Alexander’s
commentary on the De Caelo (because, as he thinks, the Metaphysics commen-
tary we have incorporates much material from Alexander’s original
commentary). Moraux further infers that the extensive material on planetary
theory in Simplicius’ commentary, which Simplicius refers to Sosigenes, a
teacher of Alexander, was also taken from Alexander. It is perhaps worth
mentioning that Simplicius himself wrote a commentary on the Metaphysics;
see Hadot (1987a).
9. Cael. 293a4-11. See the first note on the lemma at 491,12.
10. 703,17-23 are Theophrastus text 165A in Fortenbaugh et al. (1992).
11. The text reads ‘AGBMCD’, but if that order is used in the diagram the
moon would never be south of the sun’s path in the zodiac.
12. I have supplied the figures in this appendix.
13. [Alexander] writes tên autên etitheto taxin, toutesti tôn apostêmatôn, Ross
(1953) and Jaeger (1957) print tên men thesin tôn sphairôn tên autên etitheto
Eudoxôi, [tout’ esti tôn apostêmatôn tên taxin].
14. The point K plays no role in the subsequent argument, and I have not
included it in the figure.
15. This remark requires that ADFGEB be a diameter of the circle AB, as in
Figure 7.
16. i.e. ‘towards E’.
17. This will not happen unless DE has only the motion imparted to it by AB,
as in Figure 7 (centre).
18. In this case AB and GF cannot keep the same relative position unless DE
counteracts the motion of FG, as in Figure 7 (right).
128 Appendix
19. In these figures arrows represent self-motion. Containing circles impart
whatever motion they have to contained ones. An argument similar to the one
given here, due to Sosigenes, is to be found in Simplicius at 499,17-500,14.
20. It is tempting to emend the text here and in the next line. The point of
the counteractive spheres for Saturn is to make the first and outermost of the
spheres moving Jupiter always keep the same position in relation to the sphere
of the fixed stars; so perhaps one should read ‘the sphere in which the stars are
fastened’ (endedentai hoi asteres in place of endedetai ho astêr).
21. [Alexander] has hôste where our texts of Aristotle have epei oun.
22. What is said in this paragraph is a misunderstanding; it is corrected
starting at 705,25. The meaning should be ‘there are eight spheres for Jupiter
and Saturn, and twenty-five for the other five planets’.
23. [Alexander] has anelikhthênai ou dei, en hais to katô pheretai, where our
texts of Aristotle have ou dei anelikhthênai en hais to katôtatô tetagmenon
pheretai. But at 705,38-9 [Alexander] has ou dei anelikhthênai en hais pheretai
to katô tetagmenon astron.
24. Aristotle has prostitheiê where [Alexander] (and Simplicius at 503,11)
has prostheiê.
25. [Alexander] (and Simplicius at 503,12) has hepta kai tettarakonta esontai
pasai where Aristotle has hai pasai sphairai esontai hepta te kai tessarakonta.
26. This paragraph is essentially identical with Simplicius 503,10-20.
27. This sentence is very much the same as Simplicius 503,21-26.
28. This sentence is a somewhat garbled version of Simplicius 503,35-504,1,
on which see the second note.
 Bibliography

Allan, D. J. (ed.) (1934), Aristotelis De Caelo, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Allan, D. J.(1950), ‘Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle “De Caelo” ’ and of the
Commentary of Simplicius’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2, 82-120.
Arnim, Hans von (ed.) (1903-1924), Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols,
Leipzig: Teubner.
Aujac, Germaine (ed. and trans.) (1975), Geminos, Introductions aux
Phénomènes, Paris: Belles Lettres.
Aujac, Germaine (ed. and trans.) (1979), Autolycus de Pitane, La Sphère en
Mouvement, Levers et Couchers Héliaques, Testimonia, Paris: Belles Lettres.
Baltes, Matthias (1972), Timaios Lokros: Über die Natur des Kosmos und der
Seele, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Beaujeu, Jean (ed. and trans.) (1950), Pline l’Ancien, Histoire Naturelle, Paris:
Belles Lettres.
Berger, Hugo (1880), Die Geographischen Fragmente des Eratosthenes, Lepizig:
Teubner.
Berggren, J. Lennart and Jones, Alexander (trans.) (2000), Ptolemy’s Geogra-
phy, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bergk, Theodor (1842), Review of Karsten (1838) in Zeitschrift für die Altertum-
swissenschaft 9, cols 1001-11. Reprinted in Bergk (1886), pp. 45-59.
Bergk, Theodor (1883), Fünf Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Griechischen
Philosophie und Astronomie, Leipzig: Fues’s Verlag.
Bergk, Theodor (1886), Kleine Philologische Schriften, vol. 2, Halle an der Saale:
Waisenhaus.
Bidez, J. (1935), ‘Les couleurs des planètes dans le mythe d’Er au livre X de la
République de Platon’, Académie royale de Belgique: Bulletins de la Classe
des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 5e série, 20, 257-77.
Böckh, August (1863), Ueber die Vierjährigen Sonnenkreise der Alten, Berlin:
Georg Reimer.
Boll, F. (1917-19), ‘Kronos-Helios’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 19, 342-6.
Bossier, Fernand (1987), ‘Traductions Latines et influences du commentaire in
De Caelo en occident (XIIIe-XIVe s.)’, in Hadot (1987), pp. 289-325.
Bousset, D.W. (1915), Jüdisch-Christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und
Rom, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Burkert, Walter (1972), Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans.
Edwin L. Minar Jr), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cherniss, Harold (1959-60), ‘Plato (1950-1957)’, Lustrum 4 (1959) and 5 (1960).
Christ, W. (ed.) (1886), Aristotelis Metaphysica, Leipzig: Teubner.
Cornford, Francis Macdonald (1937), Plato’s Cosmology, London: K. Paul,
Trench, Trubner, and New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Daremberg, Ch., and Saglio, Edm. (eds) (1875), Dictionnaire des Antiquités
130 Bibliography
Grecques et Romaines d’après les Textes et les Monuments, 2nd edn, 5 vols,
Paris: Hachette.
Deubner, Ludovicus (ed.) (1975), Iamblichi De Vita Pythagorica Liber (with
additions and corrections by Udalricus Klein), Stuttgart: Teubner.
Dicks, D.R. (1970), Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Diehl, Ernestus (ed.) (1903-6), Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum Commen-
taria, 3 vols, Leipzig: Teubner.
Dillon, John (1987), ‘Iamblichus of Chalcis (c. 240-325 AD)’, in Wolfgang Haase
(ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II 36.2, Berlin and New
York: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 862-909.
Dillon, John (1996), The Middle Platonists, revised edn, Ithaca NY: Cornell
University Press, and London: Duckworth.
Düring, Ingemar (ed.) (1930), Die Harmonielehre des Klaudios Ptolemaios
(Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift 36), Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktie-
bolag.
Endress, Gerhard, and Kruk, Remke (eds) (1997), The Ancient Tradition in
Christian and Islamic Hellenism, Leiden: Research School CNWS, School of
Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.
Fontaine, Jacques (ed. and trans.) (1960), Isidore de Seville, Traité de la Nature,
Bordeaux: Féret et Fils.
Fortenbaugh, W.W. et al. (ed. and trans.) (1992), Theophrastus of Eresus:
Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought, and Influence, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Fränkel, Hermann (ed.) (1961), Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica, Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
Friedlein, Godofredus (ed.) (1873), Procli Diadochi in Primum Euclidis Elemen-
torum Librum Commentarii, Leipzig: Teubner.
Görgemanns, Herwig (1970), Untersuchungen zu Plutarchs Dialog De facie in
orbe lunae (Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften n.f., 2.
Reihe, Bd. 33), Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Goldstein, Bernard R. (1967), The Arabic Version of Ptolemy’s Planetary Hy-
potheses (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society n.s. 57.4),
Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.
Goulet, Richard (ed.) (1989-), Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, Paris:
Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Hadot, Ilsetraut (ed.) (1987), Simplicius, sa Vie, son Oeuvre, sa Survie, Berlin
and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Hadot, Ilsetraut (1987a), ‘Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de
Simplicius sur la Métaphysique d’Aristote’, in Hadot (1987), pp. 225-45.
Hadot, Ilsetraut (1990), ‘The Life and Work of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic
Sources’, in Sorabji (1990), pp. 275-303.
Hall, J.J. (1971), ‘ “Planets” in Simplicius de caelo 471.1ff.’, Journal of Hellenic
Studies 91, 138-9.
Hartner, Willy (1964), ‘Mediaeval views on cosmic dimensions and Ptolemy’s
Kitab Al-Manshurat’, in Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, pp. 254-82.
Heath, Thomas (1913), Aristarchus of Samos, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heath, Sir Thomas (1921), A History of Greek Mathematics, 2 vols, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Heath, Thomas (trans.) (1926), The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements, 2nd
edn, 3 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, Sir Thomas (1949), Mathematics in Aristotle, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heiberg, J.L. (1892), ‘Handschriftliches zum Commentar des Simplicius zu
 Bibliography 131
Aristoteles de caelo’, Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin: Georg Reimer, pp. 59-66.
Heiberg, J.L. (ed.) (1898-), Claudii Ptolemaei Opera Quae Exstant Omnia, 3
vols, Leipzig: Teubner.
Heiberg, J.L. (ed.) (1910-15), Archimedis Opera Omnia, 2nd edn, 3 vols, Leipzig:
Teubner.
Heiberg, J.L. (ed. and trans.) (1927), Theodosius Tripolites Sphaerica (Abhan-
dlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Philologische-
historische Klasse, Neue Folge 19.3), Berlin: Weidmann.
Heiberg, J.L., and Menge, Hermann (ed. and trans.) (1883-1916), Euclidis
Opera Omnia, Leipzig: Teubner.
Hiller, Eduardus (ed.) (1878), Theonis Smyrnaei Philosophi Platonici Expositio
Rerum Mathematicarum ad Legendum Platonem Utilium, Leipzig: Teubner.
Hoffmann, Philippe (1981), Recherches sur la Tradition Manuscrite du Com-
mentaire de Simplicius au De Caelo d’Aristote, Thèse présentée à l’Université
de PARIS IV pour le Doctorat de Troisième Cycle.
Huffman, Carl A. (1993), Philolaus of Croton, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Hultsch, Fridericus (ed.) (1876-8), Pappi Alexandrini Collectionis Quae Super-
sunt, 3 vols, Berlin: Weidmann.
Ideler, Ludwig (1830), ‘Über Eudoxus’, Abhandlungen der königlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Historisch-philologische Klasse, pp.
49-88 (published in 1832).
Jaeger, W. (ed.) (1957), Aristotelis Metaphysica, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jenkins, Ian (1986), Greek and Roman Life, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Kahn, Charles H. (1960), Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology,
New York and London: Columbia University Press.
Karsten, Simon (ed. and trans.) (1838), Empedoclis Agrigentini Carminum
Reliquae, Amsterdam: Johannes Müller.
Kidd, Douglas (ed. and trans.) (1997), Aratus, Phaenomena (Cambridge Classi-
cal Texts and Commentaries 34), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kneale, William, and Kneale, Martha (1962), The Development of Logic, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Lameer, Joep (1997), ‘From Alexandria to Baghdad: Reflections on the Genesis
of a Problematical Tradition’, in Endress and Kruk (1997), pp. 181-91.
Lasserre, François (ed. and trans.) (1966), Die Fragmente des Eudoxos von
Knidos, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Last, Hugh (1924), ‘Empedocles and his Klepsydra Again’, Classical Quarterly
18, 169-73.
Longo, Oddone (ed. and trans.) (1961), Aristotele, De Caelo, Firenze: Sansoni.
Manitius, Carolus (ed. and trans.) (1909), Procli Diadochi Hypotyposis Astro-
nomicarum Positionum, Stuttgart: Teubner.
Manitius, Carolus (ed. and trans.) (1894), Hipparchi in Arati et Eudoxi Phaeno-
mena Commentariorum, Leipzig: Teubner.
Marg, Walter (ed. and trans.) (1972), Timaeus Locrus: De Natura Mundi et
Animae, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, Paris: Hermann, 1964.
Mendell, Henry (1998), ‘Reflections on Eudoxus, Callippus, and their Curves:
Hippopedes and Callippopedes’, Centaurus 40, 177-275.
Mendell, Henry (2000), ‘The trouble with Eudoxus’, in Suppes, Moravcsik, and
Mendell (2000), pp. 59-138.
132 Bibliography
Mioni, Elpidio (1985), Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum Codices Graeci
Manuscripti, vol. 1, Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato.
Moraux, Paul (1954), ‘Notes sur la tradition indirecte du “De caelo” d’Aristote’,
Hermes 82, 145-82.
Moraux, Paul (1984), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. 2, Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Moraux, Paul (2001), Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. 3, Berlin and
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Neugebauer, Otto (1975), A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, 3 vols,
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nobbe, Carolus Fridericus Augustus (ed.) (1843), Claudii Ptolemaei
Geographia, Leipzig: Tauchnitz.
Pedersen, Olaf (1974), A Survey of the Almagest (Acta Historica Scientiarum
Naturalium et Medicinalium 30), Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.
Peyron, Amedeo (1810), Empedoclis et Parmenidis Fragmenta, Leipzig: I.A.G.
Weigl.
Pottier, Edmond, and Reinach, Salomon (1887), La Necropole de Myrina, 2 vols,
Paris: Ernest Thorin.
Prandi, Luisa (1985), Callistene. Uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni,
Milan: Jaca Book.
Rome, A. (1927), ‘L’Astrolabe et le Météoroscope d’après le commentaire de
Pappus sur le 5e livre de l’Almageste’, Annales de la Société Scientifique de
Bruxelles, vol. 47, series A (Sciences Mathématiques), part 2 (Mémoires),
77-102.
Rome, A. (ed.) (1936), Commentaires de Pappus et de Théon d’Alexandrie sur
L’Almageste, vol. 2 (Studi e Testi 72), Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana.
Rose, Valentinus (1886), Aristotelis Qui Ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta, 3rd
edn, Lepizig: Teubner.
Ross, W.D. (1953), Aristotle’s Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and
Commentary, 2 vols, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Schiaparelli, Giovanni (1874), ‘Le sfere omocentriche di Eudosso, di Callippo e
di Aristotele’, reprinted in Schiaparelli (1925-27), vol. 2, pp. 3-112 (German
translation by W. Horn as ‘Die homocentrischen Sphären des Eudoxos, des
Kallippus und des Aristoteles’, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathema-
tik 1 (1877), 101-98).
Schiaparelli, Giovanni (1925-27), Scritti sulla storia della astronomia antica, 3
vols, Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli.
Schoch, Karl (1927), Planeten-tafeln für Jedermann, Berlin: Linser Verlag.
Schöne, Hermann (ed. and trans.) (1903), Herons vom Alexandria Vermessungs-
lehre und Dioptra, Leipzig: Teubner.
Sharples, R.W. (1987), ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticsm and Innovation’,
in Wolfgang Haase (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II
36.2, Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 1176-1243.
Smith, Andrew (ed.) (1993), Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, Stuttgart and
Leipzig: Teubner.
Snell, Bruno et al. (ed.) (1971-), Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Sorabji, Richard (ed.) (1990), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators
and Their Influence, London: Duckworth, and Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Stein, Heinrich (ed.) (1852), Empedoclis Agrigentini Fragmenta, Bonn: A. Mar-
cus.
 Bibliography 133
Stratton, George Malcolm (1917), Theophrastus and the Greek Psychological
Theory before Aristotle, London: George Allen and Unwin.
Suppes, Patrick, Moravcsik, Julius M., and Mendell, Henry (eds) (2000), Ancient
and Medieval Traditions in the Exact Sciences, Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Tarán, Leonardo (1987), ‘Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander’s commentary on
Metaph. E-N’, in Wiesner (1987), pp. 215-32.
Tardieu, Michel (1990), Les Paysages Reliques: routes et haltes syriennes d’Isi-
dore à Simplicius, Louvain and Paris: Peeters.
Taylor, A.E. (1928), A Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Thiel, Helmut van (ed.) (1991), Homeri Odyssea, Hildesheim and New York: G.
Olms.
Todd, Robert (ed.) (1990), Cleomedis Caelestia, Leipzig: Teubner.
Toomer, G. J. (1988), ‘Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy’, in Erle Leichty,
Maria de J. Ellis, and Pameli Gerardi (eds), A Scientific Humanist: Studies
in Memory of Abraham Sachs (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah
Kramer Fund 9), Philadelphia: no publisher given, pp. 353-62.
Verdenius, W. J. (1969), ‘Critical and Exegetical Notes on De Caelo’, in Ingemar
Düring (ed.), Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast, Heidelberg:
Lothar Stiehm Verlag.
Vlastos, Gregory (1975), Plato’s Universe, Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Wartelle, André (1963), Inventaire des Manuscrits Grecs d’Aristote et de ses
Commentateurs, Paris: Belles Lettres.
Wehrli, Fritz (1955), Die Schule des Aristoteles, vol. 8 (Eudemos), Basel: Benno
Schwabe & Co.
West, M.L. (ed.) (1966), Hesiod, Theogony, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
West, M.L. (ed.) (2000) Homeri Ilias, vol. 2, Munich and Leipzig: K.G. Saur.
Wiesner, Jürgen (ed.) (1987), Aristoteles – Werk und Wirkung, vol. 2, Berlin and
New York: Walter De Gruyter.
Willamowitz-Moellendorff, U. v. (1930), ‘Lesefrüchte’, Hermes 65, 241-58.
Willis, James (ed.) (1983), Martianus Capella, Leipzig: Teubner.
Wright, M.R. (1981), Empedocles: The Extant Fragments, New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
Yavetz, Ido (1998), ‘On the homocentric spheres of Eudoxus’, Archive for History
of Exact Sciences 52, 221-78.
Yavetz, Ido (2001), ‘A new role for the hippopede of Euxous’, Archive for History
of Exact Sciences 56, 69-93.
This page intentionally left blank
 Textual Questions

(a) Textual suggestions

Listed here are places where I have translated a text different from the one
printed by Heiberg. For reasons which I hope I have made clear in the Introduc-
tion I prefer to call these deviations suggestions rather than emendations. In
many cases notes on the lines in the translation provide more information.

471,9 For metaparabolês read parabolês with D, E, F, and Karsten.

474,9 For Areos one should perhaps read Hêliou.
474,28 For ek read <apostaseôs> ek.
480,22 For tas read toiautas tas, a suggestion of Heiberg.
482,24 For hêi read ê with A, C, D, E, F, and Karsten.
486,13 For ep’ auto read auto with Karsten.
488,28 For aplanôn read planômenôn or planêtôn.
490,5 For eirêken read eilêptai with D and F (Karsten has eilêphen).
491,23 For idion read idios with D and Aujac (1979) (Karsten has idion).
494,28 For mesou read mesôn with D,E,F, Karsten, and Aujac (1979).
495,15 For dusmôn read dusmas with D, E, F, Karsten, and Aujac (1979).
498,2 For houtôs read houtôs kai with Karsten (D, E, and F have houtô kai).
499,19 For menousês read kinoumenês with F and Karsten; for perieilousês read
menousês tês periekhousês with F and Karsten.
499,22 For menousa read menonta with F and Karsten.
502,3 For tên dia tettarôn read ton Dia [tettarôn].
502,15 For deutera read hebdoma.
502,16 For prosetithei read prostithêsi.
503,33 For anelittousan read anelittousas.
503,34 For Metaphusikês read Meta ta phusika with F and Karsten.
504,10 For diaphoras read phoras with Karsten.
505,27 For auton read autôi with A (F and Karsten have auton).
508,1 For ekkentrou read kentrou.
508,12 Bracket perigeiou (Karsten has a preferable prosgeiou).
508,22 For pros to read tôi with F, Karsten, and Aujac (1979).
513,24 For prosêkein read prosêkei with F and Karsten.
513,29 For tên autên read tautên tên with A, F, B, and Karsten.
515,7 For legei read legôn with F and Karsten.
518,2 For sêmainousês read to strephomenês sêmainousês with F and Karsten.
518, 3 For eirêmenou read eirêmenon with F and Karsten.
518,4 For strephomenên read sustrephomenên with F (Karsten has stre-
phomenên).
518,13 For khrêseis read rhêseis with Karsten.
518,25 Place a period after ekdekhomenous, and read oun for an with A, F, and
Karsten.
136 Textual Questions
518,26 For tautên read tên gên with F and Karsten.
521,14 For peri tas peri toutou read peri tas toutôn with Karsten (F has tas peri
toutou).
521,19 For toutou read toutôn with F and Karsten.
521,24 For toutou read toutôn with F and Karsten.
524,29 For eisienai read eisienai aera with F and Karsten.
525,9 For enseisthentos autois read enseisantos auta.
526,7 For anêirêke read aneirêke with F, Karsten, and a correction in A.
527,4 For epizountes (presumably a misprint) read tên aitian zêtountes with F
and Karsten.
527,6 For toutou read tou ouranou with F and Karsten.
533,34 For anairoumetha read airoumetha with F and Karsten.
535,11 For dinêseôs read dinês with F and Karsten.
535,23 For the first to read ton with Karsten.
547,4 For prosginetai read tinos ginetai with F and Karsten.
549,7 For topous read tous topous with F and Karsten.
550,2 For khthamalôtata read khthamalôtera with A (F and Karsten have
khthamalôtata).

(b) Simplicius’ citations of On the Heavens 2.10-14

Here I bring together places where the text of a citation by Simplicius of a
passage from De Caelo 2.10-14 as printed by Heiberg differs from Moraux’s text
of Aristotle. I also indicate what is printed by Karsten and (where Heiberg
provides the information) what appears in F. In general Heiberg’s text repro-
duces A. I have not included a few cases where it seems clear that Simplicius
had a text different from ours, but there is no citation, and I have paid no
attention to the numerous differences regarding elision (e.g. de vs. d’) or minor
variations in spelling (e.g. hauton vs. heauton or teleiotaton vs. teleôtaton).

Moraux Heiberg Karsten

292a14 dê 481,21 men dê dê

292b4 Tôi d’ hôs 484,5 tôi de isôs tôi de isôs
292b6 de 484,10 gar de
292b6 aei estin 484,10 omit aei estin
292b7 Tôn d’ 484,16 kai dê kai tôn kai dê kai tôn
294b33 tis 526,14 omit tis (and F)
295a30 eipeien 528,5 eipoi an an eipoi (and F)
297b1 mê 544,13 nun kai mê nun kai mê
297b1 kai nun 544,14 omit omit
297b9 eirêtai to 545,11 sumbainei to sumbainei to
sumbainon eirêmenon eirêmenon

(c) Simplicius’ citations of other texts

Here I bring together places where the text of a citation by Simplicius of a
passage from a work other than De Caelo as printed by Heiberg differs from the
text of a standard edition of the work. I also indicate what is printed by Karsten
and (where Heiberg provides the information) what appears in F. In general
Heiberg’s text reproduces A. I have paid no attention to the numerous differ-
ences regarding elision (e.g. de vs. d’) or minor variations in spelling (e.g. hauton
vs. heauton or teleiotaton vs. teleôtaton).
 Textual Questions 137
Aristotle, De Caelo 2.1-9
Moraux Heiberg Karsten

292a19 autôn monon 378,14 monon autôn monon autôn (also F)

388,23 monon autôn monon autôn
292a19 monadôn 388,23 monadôn monadôn dianooumetha
dianooumetha
292a20 pampan, 388,24 pampan pampan
dianooumetha

Aristotle, Metaphysics
Ross (1953) Heiberg Karsten

1073b11 men 505,30 oun men men

1073b13 hupolabein 505,32 hupolambanein hupolabein
1073b14 para 506,1 omit para
1073b37 mellei 497,13 melloi mellei (also E)
1073b38 mian 497,10 ana mian mian
1074a3 eis to auto 497,28 (cf. 499,6.9) eis eis tauto apokathistasas (also F)
apokathistasas tauton apokathistôsas
1074a14 men oun 506,4 oun men oun
1074a14 sphairôn 506,4 phorôn sphairôn
1074a16 [kai tas 506,5 kai tas aisthêtas kai tas aisthêtas
aisthêtas]

Empedocles
DK31 Heiberg Karsten

B35, line 2 logou 529,2 logôi logou (F has logou)

B35, line 10 tôn 529,10 pô pô (also F)
B71, line 4 toss’ 530,4 toi’ (Stein (1852)) toss’ (F has toia)
B73, line 2 eidea 530,7 aither’ epipneiousa eidea poipnuousa (also F)
poipnuousa (Stein (1852))

Euclid, Elements
El. vol. 1 Heiberg Karsten

1, d. 10 (p. 4,1) poiêi 538,24 poiêsêi poiêi (also F)

3, pr. 19 (p. 216,20) 538,31 gônias gônias
[gônias]
3, pr. 19 (p. 216,21) 538,32 akhthêi eutheia akhthêi eutheia
eutheia grammê akhthêi

Plato, Phaedo
Oeuv. Comp. vol. 4.1 Heiberg Karsten

109A4 en mesôi 535,28 plêsion plêsion

Plato, Republic
Oeuv. Comp. vol. 7.2 Heiberg Karsten

617A8 deuterous 475,16 deuteron deuterous

138 Textual Questions
Plato, Timaeus
Oeuv. Comp. vol. 10 Heiberg Karsten

39A3 periêiein 475,14 periietai periêiein (F has periêiei)

40B8 men 517,7 omit men (and F)
40C1 tên 517,7 omit omit
40C1 polon tetamenon 517,7 tetamenon polon polon tetamenon

Timaeus Locris
Marg (1972) Heiberg Karsten

215,7 aôs 517,24 augas aous (also F)

215,8 anatolas 517,24 antolas anatolas (also F)

(d) Lemmas
Here I bring together places where the text in a lemma printed by Heiberg
differs from Moraux’s text of Aristotle. I also indicate what is printed by Karsten
and (where Heiberg provides the information) what appears in F. In general
Heiberg’s text reproduces A. I have paid no attention to the numerous differ-
ences regarding elision (e.g. de vs. d’) or minor variations in spelling (e.g. hauton
vs. heauton or teleiotaton vs. teleôtaton). I should perhaps note that the lemmas
in Heiberg and Karsten generally give only the first and last few words of a
passage, and so represent less than 10 per cent of the text of De Caelo.

Moraux Heiberg Karsten

291b17 d’ 479,1 de, ei d’ (also D and E; F has de)

291b24 aporiain ousain 480,24 aporiôn ousôn aporiain ousain (also D, E, and F)
292a17 alogon an 480,24 an alogon alogon an doxeien einai
doxeien einai einai doxeie alogon an doxeien (D and E)
an alogon doxeien einai (F)
292a19 autôn monon 482,1 monon autôn autôn monon (also E)
monon autôn (F)
292b25 kinêseôn 485,4 tôn kinêseôn kinêseôn (also D, E, and F)
293a4 tode 491,12 touto tod’ (also D and E; F has touto)
293a5 phorai 491,12 sphairai phorai (also D; F has sphairai)
293b30 apekhontôn 515,15 apekhontôn hêmôn not in Karsten’s lemma (F has
apekhontôn)
294b23 tês gês 525,14 tautês tês gês
295a29: aitia 525,15 aition aitia (also F)
297b17 te 542,12 omit te
297b22 mê ho 545,29 mê mê ho (also F)
 English-Greek Glossary

This glossary gives standard Greek equivalents for many nouns, verbs, adjec-
tives, adverbs, and a few prepositions in the translation. Most Greek words
which occur only once are omitted, as are many words which have been given a
variety of translations (e.g. logos and apodidonai) and certain very common
words (e.g. einai, ekhein, and legein). The reader will get a better sense of the
range of a Greek word by looking at the Greek-English Index for the word and
ones closely related to it.

able, be: dunasthai, endekhesthai area: embadon, khôrion

above: huperanô argue: epikheirein, sullogizesthai
absurd: atopos argue (for): kataskeuazein
accepted, be: sundokein argue against: antilegein
account, take into: proslogizesthai argument: epikheirêma
act (v.): poiein argument against: antilogia
action: praxis; engage in or perform arrangement: diathesis
action: prattein; engaging in or assimilation: homoiôsis
involving action: praktikos assume: hupolambanein, lambanein;
activity: energeia assume (first or at the start or
add: epagein, prostithenai, previously): prolambanein
suntithenai assumed, be: hupokeisthai
addition: prosthêkê, prosthesis assumption: hupolêpsis
agree: sunkhôrein astronomer: astrologos, astronomos
air: aêr astronomical: astrologikos,
akin: sungenês astronomikos
always: aei, pantote astronomy: astrologia, astronomia
amazing: thaumastos attached, be: prosgignesthai
analogous: analogon; be analogous: attack (v.): enkalein
analogein authoritative: kurios
angle: gônia axiom: axiôma
animal: zôion axis: axôn
annual: etêsios
anomalous: atopos backward motion: hupopodismos
apart: khôris balanced evenly: isorrhopos
apogee, at: apogeios base (n.): basis
apparent: sumphanês basket-shaped: kalathoeidês
appear: phainesthai, phantazesthai belong: huparkhein
appearance: phantasia best: aristos
apprehend: katalambanein better: beltiôn, kalliôn, kreittôn
apprehension: katalêpsis birth, give: tiktein
appropriate: oikeios bisected: dikhotomos
arc: periphereia block (v.): antiphrattein, apophrattein
140 English-Greek Glossary
body: sôma complete (adj.): pantelês, teleios;
book: biblion complete (v.): suntelein
bottom: basis completion: apotelesma
bound, be: dedesthai compounded, be: sunkeisthai
bound (v.): perainein compress: sumpilein, thlibein;
breadth: diastêma, platos compress forcibly: sunôthein
brief: brakhus, suntomos concave: koilos
bright: lampros conceive: ennoein, epinoein,
bulk: onkos; increase in bulk: hupolambanein, noein
onkousthai conception: ennoia
concern oneself: pragmateuesthai,
call (v.): kalein spoudazein
call to mind: mnêmoneuein conclusion: sumperasma
cancel: aphairein condition: katastasis
carry: pherein; carry around: cone: kônos
periagein, peripherein, configuration: skhêmatismos
sumperiagein, sumperipherein; confirm: bebaioûn, pistousthai
carry around in the contrary connect: sunaptein
direction: antiperiagein consequence, be a: akolouthein
cause: aitia, aition consider: apoblepein, episkeptesthai
censure (v.): enkalein construct: sunistanai
centre of gravity: mesos tou barous, contain: periekhein, perilambanein
mesos kata to baros container: angeion, angos
central point: kentros containing: periektikos
chance (adj.): tukhôn contented, be: agapân
change (n.): metabolê contrary motion: antikinêsis
change (trans.): ameibein, converge: sunneuein
metapherein; change (intrans.): conversion: antistrophê
metaballein, parallattein; change convert: antistrephein
place: metabatikôs kineisthai; convex: kurtos
change position: methistanai coordination: suntaxis
changing place (adj.): metabatikos corporeal: sômatikos
choose: haireisthai correct (v.): diorthoun
chosen: hairetos cosmic order: diakosmêsis
circle: kuklos; moving in a circle: counteract: anelittein
kuklophorêtikos counterearth: antikhthôn
circuit: periodos crescent-shaped: mênoeidês
circular: kuklikos, enkuklios; circular cup: potêrion
(of an argument): diallêlos curl: sustrephesthai
circumference: periphereia curved: peripherês
clear: dêlos, enargês, kataphanês, cut (v.): temnein
saphês; make clear: dêloun cylinder: kulindros
clearly: saphôs
clepsydra: klepsudra dark: melas
clever: perittos day: hêmera
close (adj.): engus declare: apophainesthai
come to be: gignesthai deficient: elleiptikos, ellipês; be
come together: sunerkhesthai deficient: elleipein
coming to be (n.): genesis degree: moira
common: koinos delimit: diorizein, hôrizein
communicate: diadidonai demiurge: dêmiourgos
compare: paraballein demiurgic creativity: dêmiourgia
comparison: sunkrisis demiurgic: dêmiourgikos
 English-Greek Glossary 141
demonstrate: apodeiknunai be eclipsed: ekleipein
demonstration: apodeixis elegant: kharieis
deny: apophanai element: stoikheion
depart: existanai, parakhôrein elephant: elephas
departure: parakhôrêsis elliptical: ellipês
depth: bathos, puthmên encompass: perilambanein
derivative: allotrios end (n.): telos
describe: graphein endure: diatelein
desire (n.): orexis, hormê entire: holos
destroy: diaballein enunciation: protasis
detached: apêrtêmenos epicycle: epikuklos
determine: aphorizein, diorizein, equal: isos, homoios
hôrizein equalise: anisazein
diameter: diametros equator: isêmerinos
die (n.): astragalon escape notice: lanthanein
differ: diapherein eternal: aidios
difference: diaphora, parallagê even balance: isorrhopia
different: diaphoros evidence: tekmêrion; use as evidence:
differentia: diaphora tekmairesthai
difficult: aporos, ergôdês evident: phaneros
difficulty: aporia; raise a difficulty: example: paradeigma
aporein exceed: huperairein
diopter: dioptra exercise (v.): gumnazesthai
directly: prosekhôs exist: huparkhein, huphistanai
disagree: diaphônein express: apangellein
disagreement: diaphora extend: ekballein
discover: heuriskein extreme, extremity: akron
discovery: heuresis extrude: exekhein
displaced, be: parakhôrein extrusion: exokhê
dissolve: dialuein eye: omma, ophthalmos, opsis
distance: apostasis, apostêma,
diastasis, diastêma; be at a fabricate: plassein
distance: diistanai fall (v.): katapheresthai, piptein
distant, be: apekhein, aphistanai far (away): porrô
distinguish: diakrinai, diorizein fast: takhus
divide: diairein, diakrinai, diorizein, fastened, be: endedesthai
merizein faster: thattôn
divine: theios few: oligos
division: diairesis, diakrisis, fewer: elattôn/elassôn
merismos fiction: plasma
do: poiein figure: skhêma
dominate: epikratein, kratein fill: plêroun; fill out: sumplêroun
domination: epikrateia find: exeuriskein, heuriskein
doubly convex: amphikurtos finish up: sumperainein
drum-shaped: tumpanoeidês finite: peperasmenos
fire: pur
earlier: palaios fit in(to): enarmozein
earth: gê fixed: aplanês
east (adj.): anatolikos; east (n.): flat: platus; flatness: platos
anatolê float: epinêkhesthai
easy: prokheiros, rhaidios follow: akolouthein
eccentric: ekkentros following (adj.): akolouthos
eclipse: ekleipsis foot: pous
142 English-Greek Glossary
foot wide (adj.): podiaios
force (v.): biazein; force (n.): bia; idea: epibolê
forced: biaios illumination: phôtismos
form (n.): eidos illuminated, be: phôtizesthai
full moon, at: panselênos imagination: phantasia
furnishing (n.): euporia immediate: amesos
implausible: apithanos
general: koinos impossible: adunatos
generate: gennân inclination: rhopê
go beyond: parallattein incline (v.): rhepein; be inclined:
go forward: proienai enklinesthai; not inclining in any
god: theos direction: aklinês
good: agathos; good itself (n.): increase (v.): prosauxein, auxanein
autoagathon indicate: dêloun, endeiknunai,
goodness: agathotês epideiknunai, sêmainein
grasp: ennoein, hairein inequality: anisotês
great: megas inexplicable: alogos
grow: auxanein infer: sullogizesthai
guard (v.): phulattein infinite: apeiros
guardpost: phulakê inquire: zêtein
inquiry: zêtêsis
hair: thrix instrument: organon
hard to move: duskinêtos intellect: nous
harmonise: sumphônein, interposition: epiprosthêsis
sunarmozein interpret: exêgeisthai
hazardous: parabolos interpretation: exêgêsis
health: hugeia introduce: paragein, prostithenai
hear: akouein investigate: zêtein
heart: kardia invisible: adêlos, aphanês
heaven: ouranos; heavenly: ouranios irrational: alogos
heavy: barus issue: problêma
height: anastêma, hupsos
hemisphere: hêmisphairion join: epizeugnunai
hide from sight: apokruptein justification: pistis
high: meteôros
hinder: empodizein keep: phulattein
historical discussion or account: kinetic: kinêtikos
historia kinship: sungeneia
history: historia know: epistasthai, gignôskein; not
hold: huparkhein, huphistanai know: agnoein
hold up: anekhein
hole: opê lack: elleipein
hollow (adj.): koilos ladle: kuathos
homocentric: homokentros large: megas
homoiomerous: homoiomerês; last (adj.): eskhatos, loipos, teleutaios
homoiomerousness: homoiomereia later: husteros, metagenesteroi
honourable: timios lazy: argos
horizon: horizôn learn: manthanein
horn-shaped: keratoeidês leave: kataleipein
human (being): anthrôpos left behind, be: hupoleipeisthai
hypothesis: hupothesis length: mêkos
hypothesise: hupotithenai lentil-shaped: phakoeidês
hypothetical: hupothetikos less: elattôn/elassôn, hêtton
 English-Greek Glossary 143
lie above: huperkeisthai myth: muthos
life: zôê; lifeless, without life: azôs mythical: muthikos
light (adj.): kouphos
light (n.): phôs natural: phusikos, kata phusin
likely: eikos nature: phusis
limit (n.): peras near: plêsios, prosêkhês; be or get
limit (v.): apostenoun near: plêsiazein
line: grammê necessary: anankaios
listen to: peithesthai necessity: anankê
little: brakhus, mikros next: ephexês, loipos
live: oikein non-uniform: anômalos;
Love (n.): Philia, Philotês non-uniformity: anômalia
lunar: selêniakos north (adj.): arktos, boreios
note (v.): ephistanai
magnitude: megethos number: arithmos, plêthos
maintain: phulattein
make: parekhein, poiein object (v.): enistanai
manifest: prodêlos objection: enstasis
manner: tropos oblique: loxos
many times as great or large: obscure (v.): epiprosthein
pollaplasios observe: paraphulattein, têrein,
mass, having: athroos theasthai
mathematician: mathêmatikos obvious(ly): dêladê, dêlonoti,
mathematics: mathêmata epidêlos, prokheiros
matter: hulê one’s own: oikeios
mean (v.): dêloun, sêmainein opposite: antistrophê, enantios; be
means: hodos opposite: antikeisthai
measure, measurement (n.): metron opposition: enantiôsis
measure (v.): metrein order (n.): suntaxis, taxis
mention: hupomimnêskein, order (v.): diatassein
mnêmoneuein ordinary: koinos
meridian: mêsembria organ: organon
milk: gala ought: opheilein
mix: mignunai
mode: tropos parallel: parallêlos
monad: monas parallelogram: parallêlogrammon
month: meis part: meris, meros, morion
moon: selênê partial, particular (adj.): merikos
motion: kinêsis, phora; motionless: partless: amerês
akinêtos pass through: khôrein
mountain: oros passage, passageway: parodos
mouth: stomion path: hodos
move (intrans.): kineisthai, peculiar: idios
pheresthai, khôrein, metabainein; penetrate: diikneisthai
move (trans.): kinein; move along perceptible: aisthêtos
with: sunkineisthai; move in the perception: aisthêsis
contrary direction: antipheresthai; perfect (adj.): pantelês
move in the same direction: perigee, at: perigeios
sumpheresthai; move out: perimeter: perimetros
exerkhesthai; move under or perpendicular: kathetos, orthos
down: huperkhesthai; move phase: phasis
under: hupotrekhein philosophical: philosophos; subject of
multitude: plêthos
144 English-Greek Glossary
philosophical discussion: put forward: proballesthai
philosophêma
pillar: kiôn quick: takhus
place (v.): tithenai
place (n.): topos raise up: meteôrizein
plane (figure): epipedos random: tukhôn
planet: planetês rational: logikos
plausible: pithanos ray: aktis
poet: poiêtês reach: aphikneisthai, hêkein
point (n.): sêmeion, stigmê reason: aitia; reasonable: eikos,
pole: polos eulogos, kata logon
portion: moira recognise: ephistanai, ephistanein,
posit (v.): tithenai gignôskein
position: topos record, recount: historein
possible: dunatos; be possible: refer: mnêmoneuein
dunasthai, endekhesthai reflect: sunnoein
posterior: husteros refutation: antilogia
power: dunamis refute: anatrepein, dielenkhein,
practically: skhedon elenkhein
precede: proêgeisthai; preceding: region: khôra, topos
prosekhôs reject: diaballein
precise: akribês relation: skhesis
predicate (v.): katêgorein release: aphienai, luein
predominance: epikrateia remain: diatelein; remain (fixed or at
premiss: lêmma, protasis, protethen rest): menein; remaining: loipos
preserve: aposôzein, diasôzein, sôzein remind: hupomimnêskein
prevent: kôluein resemble: eiokenai
primary, be: proêgeisthai resist: antikoptein, antereidein
principle: arkhê responsible: aitios
prior, be: huperairein rest (n.): êremia, monê
problem: problêma rest (v.): êremein
proceed: proerkhesthai restoration: apokatastasis;
procession: proödos simultaneous restoration:
produce: apotelein, gennân, poiein sunapokatastasis
product: apotelesma restored, be: apokathistasthai; be
progress: proïenai restored simultaneously:
progression: akolouthêsis sunapokathistasthai
project (v.): proballesthai; project retain: phulattein
upward: anarrhiptein retardation: hupoleipsis
prominent, be: epikratein retrogression: proêgêsis
proof: deixis revolution: periagôgê, periphora,
proper: idios, oikeios strophê; make a revolution:
proportion, proportionality: periienai
analogia; proportional: analogon right: dikaios, orthos
propose: epiballein, proballesthai, rise: anatellein; rise up: epipolazein;
protithesthai rising (n.): anatolê
prove: deiknunai, paradeiknunai room: khôra, topos
provide: parekhein rotation: peristrophê, sustrophê
proximate: prosêkhês round, roundish: kukloterês,
proximity: geitniasis peripherês
purpose: skopos
push: ôthein same: homoios; much the same:
push out: exôthein paraplêsios
 English-Greek Glossary 145
scribal error: graphikon ptaisma stand (still): histanai
search (v.): zêtein stand in font of: epiprosthein
section: apotomê standing still (n.): stêrigmos
see: apidein, horân, theôrein star: astêr, astron; starless: anastros
seek: zêtein start (n.): arkhê; start (v.): arkhein,
seem: eoikenai hormân; starting point: aphormê,
separate (v.): khôrizein arkhê
serviceable: khrêsimos station: stêrigmos
set (v.): tithenai stir up: hormân
set out: ektithesthai, paratithesthai, straight: euthus
protithenai strange: atopos
setting (n.) dusis stretch (v.): epiteinai; stretching (n.):
shadow: skia; covered in shadow: tasis
skieros Strife: Neikos
shape: skhêma strive: speudein, spoudazein; striving
share in: metalambanein (n.): spoudê
show (v.): dêloun, endeiknunai, strong: enkratês, iskhuros, karteros;
epideiknunai stronger: kreittôn
side (adj.): plagios structure: sustasis
sight: opsis study (n.): theôria
similar: homoios, paraplêsios study (v.): theôrein
simple: haplos substance: ousia
sit like a lid: epipômatizein, subtract: aphairein
epipômazein successful, be: katorthoun
situated, be: hidrusthai sufficient: autarkês, hikanos; be
size: megethos sufficient: arkein
slight: brakhus, oligos suitable: emmelês, epitêdeios; be
slow: argos, bradus suitable: prosêkein
small: brakhus, mikros superiority: huperokhê
smaller: elattôn/elassôn support (v.): hupereidein, okhein
smooth: katallêlos surface: epiphaneia
solar: hêliakos surprising: thaumastos
solid (adj.): stereos surprised, be: thaumazein
solution: lusis surround: periekhein
solve: dialuein, luein surrounding: perix
soul: psukhê; having or involving swell (v.): kumainein
soul (adj.): empsukhos; without syllogism: sullogismos; produce a
soul: apsukhos syllogism: sullogizesthai
south (n.): mesêmbria system: suntaxis
south, southward: notios
sovereign: arkhikos tangent, be: ephaptesthai
space: khôra tear apart: diaspân
speak against: anteipein text: graphê, lexis
special character: idiotês theorem: theôrêma
speed: takhos; having the same theory: theôria
speed (adj.): isotakhês thesis: thesis
sphere: sphaira; description of the three-dimensional: stereos
sphere: sphairopoiia; production time: khronos; taking the same
of a sphere: sphairôsis; spherical: amount of time (adj.): isokhronios
sphairikos, sphairoeidês traversal: diexodos
spill over: huperekkheisthai traverse: diexienai, diienai
split apart: diistanai treatise: sungramma
stade: stadion true: alêthês
146 English-Greek Glossary
truth: alêtheia variegated: poikilos
try: enkheirein, epikheirein, peiran vertex: koruphê
turn (intrans.): strephesthai, vision: opsis
poleuein, metienai, metabainein; vitally: zôtikôs
turn (trans.): epistrephein; turn in void (adj.): kenos
the same direction (trans.): voluntary: hekôn, hekousios
sunepistrephein vortex, vortex motion: dinê, dinêsis
turning away (n.): ektropê
twinkle: stilbein wander: planasthai
wane (v.): phthinein
ultimate: eskhatos water: hudôr
unclear: adêlos, asaphês wax: auxanein
uncountable: anarithmêtos way: tropos
undergo: paskhein way out: diexodos
underlie: hupokeisthai weight: baros; having weight (adj.):
understand: akouein, ekdekhesthai, barus
eklambanein west (n.): dusis, dusmê
unification: henôsis whole (adj.): holos
uniform: homalês; uniformity: wind (n.): anemos
homoiotês wind, be wound: illesthai
unify: henoun winter (adj.): kheimerinos
unique: idios; uniqueness: idiotês witness (n.): marturia, marturion
unite: henoun wonderful: thaumastos
unity: henôsis word: epos, lexis, rhêma; words: lexis,
universal: holikos, katholikos, rhêsis
katholou worse: katadeesteros, kheirôn
unmixed: amiktos, eilikrinês worth (adj.): axios
unmoving: akinêtos worth (n.): axiôma
unnatural: para phusin write: graphein
unreasonable: alogos
unsolvable: alutos year: etos
upright: orthos
urgent, be: katepeigein zenith: koruphê
use (n.): khreia zodiac: zôidiakos kuklos, to
use (v.): khrêsthai, proskhrêsthai zôidiakon; sign of the zodiac:
zôidion
validate: epideiknunai
 Greek-English Index

This index, which is based on Heiberg’s text with my emendations, gives the
English translations of many nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and a few
prepositions used by Simplicius; certain very common words (e.g. einai, ekhein,
and legein) and number words are omitted, as are words which only occur in
quotations (or apparent quotations) of other authors (the exceptions to this are
Alexander, Ptolemy, and Sosigenes). When a word occurs no more than ten
times, its occurrences are listed; in most other cases only the number of
occurrences is given. Occurrences in lemmas are ignored. Sometimes compara-
tives, superlatives, and adverbs are included under the positive form of an
adjective, sometimes they are treated separately. There is a separate index of
names.
536,34, all with 296a32 and 34;
abiastos, not forced, 473,7 545,25
adêlos, invisible, unclear, 515,22 aiônios, enduring, 487,8
(with 293b22); 532,9 (Alexander); aiskhunesthai, to be ashamed,
550,8 489,23
adianoêtos, unintelligible, 490,31 aisthanesthai, to perceive, 483,7
adiastatos, unextended, 548,28 aisthêsis, perception, 532,33; 546,26
adioristôs, indeterminately, 544,31 (with 297b24); also 290b33
adunatos, impossible, 15 aisthêtos, perceptible, 505,22
occurrences in Simplicius, 7 in (Sosigenes); 505,6 (Aristotle);
Aristotle 516,10
aêr, air, 42 occurrences in aithêr (untranslated), 522,9; 530,2.7
Simplicius, 6 in Aristotle; (both with 294a25, which quotes
translated ‘atmospheric condition’ Empedocles)
at 505,11 and 548,11 aitherios, aitherial, 512,18 (as a
agapân, to be contented with, Pythagorean term)
482,23; 488,16; 505,22; also aitia, reason, cause, explanation, 70
291b27 occurrences in Simplicius, 16 in
agathos, good, 20 occurrences Aristotle
between 482,16 and 490,13 aitiasthai, to make responsible,
expanding on 292a28; see also 491,11; 520,32; 527,4.14.24.33.34;
beltiôn and aristos 528,2.4.8; 530,17.22 (all 5 with
agathotês, goodness, 483,5; 485,16 295a32); 533,14.27; 535,6; 543,1
agenêtos, not coming to be, 530,25; (with 297a14); 546,16; translated
also 297b15 ‘to censure’ at 510,33
agnoein, not to know, 506,23; aition, cause, 476,9; 490,10; also
518,21; 522,7 296b27
aïdios, eternal, 489,16; 530,20; 5 aitios, responsible (often translated
occurrences between 536,31 and using ‘cause’; sometimes ‘reason’),
478,6.8; 480,9; 524,39 (with
148 Greek-English Index
294b14); 525,21.29; alupos, untroubled, 521,3 (with
527,5.25.26.29.30.31 (all 8 with 294a12)
294b26 and 295a16); 531,12; alutos, unsolvable, 482,8.9
532,31; 533,4.28; 534,17.19; ameibein, to change, 544,20; 547,29
535,33; also 295a29 amerês, without parts, 515,4;
akampês, steadfast, 550,11 516,15; 534,28
akariaios, instantaneous, 479,22 amesos, immediate, 482,23; 483,4;
akhrêstos, unserviceable, 478,24 486,4.14; 487,4; 490,9
(with 290b5) amiktos, unmixed, 529,19; 530,18.19
akhronos, instantaneous, 490,12; amoiros, not participating in, 489,13
see also akariaios amphikurtos, doubly convex,
akinêtos, unmoving, motionless, 471,10.14.19; 480,5.7.12 (all 3
471,26; 473,1; 476,9; 477,6.17.19 with 291b20); 519,18; 547,13(2)
(all 3 with 291b15); 482,24.28; (with 297b27, on which see the
486,12; 487,7.21.29; 489,22; note)
494,18; 506,5; 511,6.11; 518,15; amphisbêtêsis, dispute, 526,11
524,9.17; 526,4; 540,18 (with (with 294b32)
296b22); 542,2 anagein, to lead (487,20); to refer
aklinês, not inclining in any (532,7); to put (538,22)
direction, 539,19; 543,34 anakhôrein, to withdraw, 520,30
akolouthein, to follow, to be a analegein, to collect, 530,11
consequence, 506,9; 527,27; 534,6; analogein, to be analogous, 482,28;
537,24 483,2; 514,15.29; 524,27; 548,32
akolouthêsis, progression, 487,25 analogia, proportion,
(on which see the note); 488,7 proportionality, 471,12.14;
akolouthos, following, 471,25; 474,3.5; 477,1; 491,6
527,15 analogizesthai, to calculate, to
akôn, unwilling, 472,10 reckon, 549,10; also 293a33 and
akouein, to understand (515,26; 298a16
521,25; 528,25); to hear (529,28) analogon, proportional, in
akribeia, precision, 488,15 proportion, analogous, 473,23;
akribês, precise, 470,9; 506,3; 475,2; 476,15; 480,30; 514,13;
546,15.18; 550,12 524,26; 534,25(2).27 (all 3 with
akribologeisthai, to speak 296a14 and 15)
precisely, 546,10 analuein, to cancel, 499,26
akribousthai to be made precise anankaios, necessary, 30
471,10 occurrences in Simplicius, 25 in
akron (adj. used as substantive), Aristotle
extreme, extremity, 487,15; 533,31 anankazein, to constrain (524,12);
aktis, ray, 480,14; 507,22 to require (489,12); to make
alêtheia, truth 488,16.26.28; 489,6; necessary (510,17)
505,3 anankê, necessity, 34 occurrences in
alêthês, true, 19 occurrences in Simplicius, 6 in Aristotle
Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle anapherein, to credit (471,6); to
allokotos, strange, 510,18 take (483,24)
allotrios, coming from something anaphuesthai, to grow up, 543,11
else, derivative, 473,3; 513,19; anaplattein to invent, 509,18
535,21; 536,5 anaplêroun, to fill out, 483,9
alogos, unreasonable, irrational, anapolein, to return, 498,27
inexplicable, 477,17.20 (both with anaptussein, to unfold, 530,25
291b13); 481,30 (with 292a18); anarithmêtos, uncountable, 481,17;
482,12; 537,19 490,2 (both with 292a12)
 Greek-English Index 149
anarrhipsis, projection upwards, (both with 293a2); 510,9; also
540,14 297b13
anarrhiptein, to project upward, anisorropos, lacking even balance,
540,13.16 546,17
anastêma, height, 480,15; 549,33 anisôsis, equalisation, 491,11
anastros, starless (used by anisotês, inequality, 491,2;
Theophrastus to refer to the 505,10.20
spheres postulated by Eudoxus), anistanai, to erect, 539,22
491,20; 493,18 ankhinoia, shrewdness, 498,3
anateinesthai, to reach towards, anô, upward, up, upper, above, 32
485,27 occurrences in Simplicius, 9 in
anatellein, to rise, 476,23; 493,17; Aristotle
496,18; 519,16; 520,5 (both with anodos, upward motion, 510,29
294a1); 537,6.15.18 (all 3 with anoigma, opening, 524,32
296b5); 541,23.30; 547,23 anoikeios, foreign, 478,16
anathalpein, to heat, 512,12 anômalia, non-uniformity, 488,7;
anathein, to ascend, 535,23 489,9; 491,23; 497,22; 507,10;
anatolê (often in plural), east (23 509,19
occurrences); rising (494,21(2); anômalos, non-uniform, 505,14;
501,17.18; 537,24) 507,26; 508,10.20; 510,28
anatolikos, east, 541,20; 548,1 anomoiomerês, anhomoiomerous,
anatrepein, to refute, 478,5 546,16
anatreptikos, refuting, 491,10 anôtatô, highest, 538,14
anazêtein, to search for, 536,11 anôterô, higher, 471,17; 474,8.32;
aneilêsis, counteraction, 499,15 481,5.13; 483,9; 486,1; 493,20;
anekhein, to hold up, 520,29; 503,30; 506,20; 532,5
525,4.28; 532,13 anôteros, higher, 474,10; 515,1
anelittein, to counteract (participle anôthen, from above (or on high),
frequently rendered 474,17; 504,9; 506,21; 514,32;
‘counteractive’), the term is used 521,9
in connection with the spheres antanapherein, to carry along
introduced in the theory of (493,19); to restore (504,6.7) (a
Eudoxus, modified by Callippus, term applied by Theophrastus to
at 488,9; 490,25; 491,16.19.26; the spheres called counteractive
492,16.26; 493,5.10.11.19.25; by Aristotle)
497,25; 507,9.11.27. It is applied anteipein, to speak against, 518,20;
to the spheres introduced by 520,23; 527,33; 532,14
Aristotle in Metaph. 12.8 (using antereidein, to resist, 521,11.12
this term) 29 times between (both with 294a19); 524,8.23.28
497,28 and 507,3 (all 3 with antereisis at 294b18);
anemos, wind, 524,8.9; 525,8 527,34
(Alexander) anthrôpinos, human, 485,2
anempodistos, unhindered, 473,5 anthrôpos, human (being),
anendoiastôs, without hesitation, 478,13(2); 483,22.23.26;
493,1 484,15.24.25.30 (all 9 with 292b3
anereunân, to investigate, 510,27 and 9)
anerkhesthai, to ascend, 536,12 antibainein, to resist, 480,13
angeion, container, 524,19.21; see antigraphon (substantive), copy (of
also angos a text), 521,26
angos, container, 524,30 antikeisthai, to be opposite (to),
anisasmos, equalisation, 509,22 519,4; 526,19; also 284b22
anisazein, to equalise, 490,26; 491,5 antikhthôn, counterearth,
150 Greek-English Index
511,27.28.29.33; 512,7.17; 511,22; 520,26; 522,6.8.9 (with
515,20.21.22 (cf. 293a24,b20) 294a22); 531,27 (with 295b8); eis
antikineisthai, to move in a apeiron, to infinity, 540,13 (with
contrary way (or direction), 296b24); ep’ apeiron, ad
473,12; 500,12; 501,14 infinitum, 476,10; 522,10
antikinêsis, contrary motion, apekhein, to be distant (or at a
405,35; 418,25 distance) from, 507,25.32.33;
antikoptein, to resist, 472,1.28; 515,15.19; 516,20.23 (all 4 with
473,7; 475,25 293b26 and 30); 533,32; 543,7.29
antilegein, to argue against, 522,16; (both with 297a24); 549,5; also
523,14 (with 294b10); 525,18; 291b30, 292a16, and 295b34
532,4 apemphainein, to be inconsistent,
antilogia, argument against, 520,24
refutation, 522,13.19; 528,5 apenantios, opposite (angle), 508,6
antiparistanai, to respond to, aperittos, lean, 486,7
532,27 apêrtêmenos, detached, 478,25
antiperiagein, to carry around in (with 290b6); 513,20
the contrary direction, 501,20 aphairein, to subtract (491,25;
antiperiagôgê, being carried 498,22; 500,20;
around in the contrary direction, 503,13.15.16.18.22.23.24; 504,8;
500,19.21 549,28); to cancel (502,5.14); to
antiperiistasthai, to change places take away (524,24; 527,16); to do
with, 542,28 away with (549,33)
antiperiphora, counter revolution, aphairesis, subtraction, 488,11
473,19 aphanês, invisible, 519,17
antiphaskein, to contradict, 511,25 aphienai, to release, 521,5.7.8 (all 3
antipheresthai, to move in the with 294a14 and 16)
contrary direction, 472,15; 473,15 aphikneisthai, to reach, 485,4.22;
(both with 291b2); 486,16.28; 487,16.17.19.31
498,22.23.25.26; 500,3.4.7 (all 7 aphistanai, to be at a distance,
Sosigenes) 479,26; 480,5; 481,29; 504,31;
antiphrattein, to block, 504,35; 507,26; also 290b7
512,19; 515,29 (with 293b25); aphorizein, to determine, 488,32
519,20 aphormê, starting point, 471,7;
antipiptein, to tell against, 516,2 481,27 (with 292a16); 482,10;
antipleonektein, to have equal 484,1
standing, 515,5 aphôtistos, not illuminated, 480,7
antistrephein, to convert, 478,8; apidein, to see, 481,19
525,23 apistein, to doubt, 549,3; also 294a8
antistrophê, conversion, 522,27; apistos, unbelievable, 547,32 (with
opposite, 536,23 298a12)
antithesis, antithesis, 522,27 apithanos, implausible, 522,14;
apagein, to refer, 528,17 528,24
apaitein, to demand, 481,21 aplanês, fixed; used to modify ‘star’,
apakribousthai, to be made ‘sphere’, and ‘heaven’; hê aplanês
precise, 546,5 frequently translated ‘fixed
apangellein, to express, 521,21; sphere’, 101 occurrences in
528,6 Simplicius
apantân, to encounter, deal with, apoballein, to reject, 478,14
499,4; 536,4 apoblepein, to consider, 475,20;
apatân, to deceive, 523,23 518,22
apeikazein, to compare, 483,4 apodeiknunai, to demonstrate, 14
apeiros, infinite, 492,5; 511,20; occurrences in Simplicius
 Greek-English Index 151
apodeiktikôs, on the basis of apomerizesthai, to be separated,
demonstrations, 492,22 486,18
apodeiliân, to be fearful, 481,27 apomnêmoneuein, to record, 488,20
apodein, to deviate, 505,8 aponostêsis, return, 494,22
(Sosigenes) apoperatoun, to be the limit of,
apodeixis, demonstration, 478,3; 512,19
480,16; 484,6; 492,24; 510,27; apophainesthai, to declare, 475,6;
513,12; 535,5; 540,10 522,5; translated ‘to give an
apodekhesthai, to attain (481,22); account’ at 284b4
to understand (490,20; 491,9; apophanai, to deny, 478,15; 492,22
512,9; 518,17.30); to accept apophrattein, to block, 524,8(2)
(545,22; 550,12) apopimplanai, to be satisfied, 523,9
apodidonai, to give (472,33; also apopsukhesthai, to grow cold,
291b14); to provide (476,1; 483,32; 512,12
485,8; 487,27; 488,3; 491,16; aporein, to raise a difficulty, 15
520,26; 521,29; 526,5; 536,9); to occurrences in Simplicius, 7 in
express (484,28); to assign (490,27 Aristotle
(with 293a3); 497,11 (Aristotle); aporia, difficulty, 26 occurrences in
510,10; 512,27 (with 293a29)); to Simplicius, 5 in Aristotle
refer (491,1); to explain (493,31; aporos, difficult, 480,26; 472,21;
497,13.27 (both Aristotle); 501,24; 474,2; 482,5; 522,20(2); 523,14;
521,20); to satisfy (509,13); to 533,26(2); 545,4
produce (547,7) aposôizein, to preserve, 507,11
apodosis, provision, 485,9 apostasis, distance, 15 occurrences
apogeios, an adjective which I have in Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; see
translated using ‘apogee’, 474,22; also apostêma
507,31.34; 508,26.29; 509,4.7.9.11 apostêma, distance, 19 occurrences
apogennêtikos, generative, 487,6 in Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; see
apokatastasis, restoration, 472,10; also apostasis
475,20.27; 499,9 (Sosigenes); apostenoun, to limit, 485,1; 526,6
501,18; translated ‘revolution’ at apostrephesthai, to turn
542,7 (Ptolemy) backwards (intrans.), 494,20
apokathistasthai, to be restored apoteinesthai, to direct or refer,
(an astronomical term for the 535,5.9
return of a star or a sphere to a apotelein, to produce, 501,5; 541,26
previous position), 14 occurrences apotelesma, product (367,5; 397,35;
in Simplicius 398,9; 404,31; 421,25); completion
apokhôrein, to move away from, (396,30)
504,26 apoteleutân, to produce, 515,2
apokhrêsthai, to be contented with, apotemnein, to cut off or divide into
530,16 sections, 510,19; 547,9
apokrinesthai, to be separated out, apotomê, section, 480,19.21.23;
528,23 517,24 (Timaeus Locrus);
apokruptein, to hide from sight, 519,18.22.30; 520,2 (all 4 with
479,16; 481,10 (both with 292a5) 294a4); 546,32 (with 297b25)
apolambanein, to take on (480,2; apsukhos, without soul, 482,6.8.13;
545,19); to cut off (525,6 (with 485,5 (with 292a20);
294b22)) 489,12.17.23.25
apolauein, to enjoy, 513,20 areskein, to please, to satisfy, to
apoleipein, to fall behind (476,4); to hold a view, 493,10; 505,26;
lose (480,1); to be left (505,8) 509,27; 518,7
apoluein, to sever, 507,7 argos, lazy, slow, 521,3; 534,1
152 Greek-English Index
aristos, best, 17 occurrences in astronomos, astronomer, 487,26;
Simplicius, 7 in Aristotle 510,30; 511,10
arithmein, to count, 502,35 ataktos, disordered, 489,8
arithmêtikos, numerical, 490,14 atelês, incomplete, 482,25; also
arithmos, number, 480,29; 482,7; 284a7
488,22; 491,25; 502,26; athroizein, to collect, 543,14;
503,10.26.33.35; 504,2; 512,5.6; translated ‘found’ at 293a29
549,29; 550,9; also 286b34 athroos, adjective translated using
arkein, to be sufficient, 523,9; the word ‘mass’, 524,12.14.15.22;
536,2.4 525,3 (all with 294b20)
arkeisthai, to be satisfied with, atopos, anomalous, strange, absurd,
507,2; 523,6; 536,10 15 occurrences in Simplicius, 3 in
arkhaios, old (512,24; also 294a28); Aristotle
earlier (532,8.9 (both Alexander) autarkês, sufficient, 493,25; 505,29;
with 295b12) 535,14; 536,7
arkhê, principle, starting point, autoagathon, good itself, 482,17.18
start, 30 occurrences in autothen, in itself, 490,29
Simplicius, 6 in Aristotle auxanein, to wax (of the moon)
arkhein, to start, 487,12; 518,10 (479,9.13.18.21 (all with 291b19);
arkhikos, sovereign, 490,7; 515,4 491,11); to grow (484,21; 535,3);
arktos, north, 496,2.24.25; 501,30; to increase (543,12)
502,1; 547,19 (with 297b34; axiôma, axiom, 477,16; 479,4;
298a2,4,5); see also boreios 509,19.31; 512,30; 537,37;
asaleutos, unshaken, 476,5 translated ‘worth’ at 490,7
asaphôs, unclearly, 528,6 axios, worth, 476,28; 483,33; 488,32;
aselênos, moonless, 504,29 521,9.17
askos, wineskin, 525,11 (referring axioun, to judge worthy (522,13); to
ahead to 311b10) require (505,19); to specify
astêr, star, 63 occurrences in (544,29)
Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; see also axôn, axis, 493,27; 494,4.7.27;
astron 495,2.21.23; 498,8.14.15.16;
asthenês, weak, 483,20 500,15.16; 517,10.12.13; 536,20
astragalizein, to play dice, 483,13 azôs, without life, 489,22.24
(with 292a29)
astragalos, die, 483,12.13 (both ballomenon, missile, 542,5
with 292a29) (Ptolemy)
astrolabos, armillary sphere, 548,31 baros, weight, thing with weight, 39
astrologia, astronomy, 471,2 (citing occurrences in Simplicius, 12 in
291a31); see also astronomia Aristotle; in addition the phrases
astrologikos, astronomical, 492,26; mesos tou barous and mesos kata
509,13; at 488,20 Simplicius to baros are translated ‘centre of
refers to a work of Eudemus as gravity’ at 544,2.20 and 546,18
astrologikê historia (Alexander)
astrologos, astronomer, 505,24.29; barus, heavy, having weight,
541,14 (with astrologia at 297a4) 522,24(2).26 (all 3 with 294b2);
astron, star, 31 occurrences in 525,12;
Simplicius, 17 in Aristotle; see 531,3.5.8.10.16.19.21.24.29.30 (all
also astêr 10 with 4 occurrences between
astronomia, astronomy, 480,16 295b4 and 9); 538,17; 542,31;
(where Aristotle has astrologikos 543,6.13(2).18.20; 545,17 (all 7
at 291b21); 548,30 with 297a29); 546,17.19.20 (all 3
astronomikos, astronomical, 510,24 Alexander)
barutês, heaviness, 531,17
 Greek-English Index 153
basis, base (geometrical), bottom, deiknunai for a wide variety of
517,27 (Timaeus Locris); 524,10; kinds of reasoning; see also
549,24 apodeiknunai and epikheirêma
bathos, depth, 505,16; 507,10; deiktikos, proving, 479,3; see
509,19; 522,12 (with 294a26 deiknunai
(Empedocles)) deixis, proof, 477,27; 478,3.7.14; see
bebaioun, to confirm, 510,27 deiknunai
bebêkenai, to be a basis, to stand, dekhesthai, to receive, 498,17
518,11; 522,22; 542,3 dêladê, obviously, 507,24
beltiôn, better, 472,11; 503,35; 543,2 dêlonoti, obvious(ly), 472,32;
(with 297a15) 497,21; 503,14; 504,13; 508,11;
bia, force, 26 occurrences in 509,9; 518,6; 521,24; 523,2;
Simplicius, 10 in Aristotle 538,23; 543,17; 544,28
biaios, forced, 472,13; 473,2; dêlos, clear (all but once in neuter
526,15.18(2).21.30.33; 527,19 (all singular), 28 occurrences in
7 with 295a3 and 8); 536,32 (with Simplicius, 11 in Aristotle
296a33); 543,1 dêloun, to make clear, 23
biazesthai, to force or be forced, occurrences in Simplicius;
472,4; 518,2; 528,26.29(2); 535,18; translated ‘mean’ at 486,7 and
540,29 (with 296b30) 544,9, ‘show’, at 534,28, and
biblion, book, 485,21; 506,4; ‘indicate’ at 479,23, 517,14.18,
511,3.15; 526,17; 538,30 and 518,23
boreios, north 457,24; 476,22.25; dêmiourgia, demiurgic creativity,
495,11; see also arktos 491,6; 514,33
boulesthai, to wish, to will, to dêmiourgikos, demiurgic, 512,11;
intend, to tend, 472,11; 509,20; 513,22
512,5; 521,17; 522,3; 530,25; dêmiourgos, demiurge, 489,17;
546,13 (with 297b22); 548,9 517,8
bradus, slow (usually in deuro ê deuro, here than there
comparative, twice in positive), 24 534,12.17 (both with 296a6)
occurrences in Simplicius, 2 in diaballein, to reject or destroy,
Aristotle 520,9; 550,1
bradutês, slowness, 473,24; cf. diadidonai, to communicate, 506,22
takhutês (Ptolemy) and 26
brakhulogos, terse, 481,25 diagignôskein, to make out (the
brakhus, small, little, brief, slight, difference), 523,23
473;18; 477;2; 489;15; 492;3; diairein, to divide, 526,16 (logical);
542;6; 548;24; also 298a9 534,27 (physical)
brontê, thunder, 525,9 (Alexander) diairesis, division, (logical, 477,25;
buthizesthai, to sink, 522,31 523,32); (of the moon, 547,12(2)
(apparently read by Simplicius at with 297b26)
294b5-6 where Aristotle has diakeisthai, to be disposed or in a
pheretai eis buthon) condition, 483,3; 488,15
diakhôrizein, to separate, 531,24
dedesthai, to be bound, diakosmêsis, cosmic order, 472,12;
518,12.16.19; 519,2 528,17.22 (all 3 Alexander); 529,16
dedoikenai, to fear, 510,22 diakrinai, to divide (out) (523,16;
deiknunai, to prove, 65 occurrences 528,11; 543,4; 545,13; also
in Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; 297a18); to distinguish (531,22)
translated ‘indicate’ at 492,4, diakrisis, division, 487,12; 540,25
‘argue’ at 525,21, and ‘show’ at dialegesthai, to discuss, 492,30
542,4. The translation ‘prove’ is diallêlos, circular (argument),
conventional; Simplicius uses 477,26; 478,3.4.6.7.14
154 Greek-English Index
dialuein, to solve or dissolve, diexodos, traversal (496,4); way out
489,33; 529,20; see also luein (524,9.14)
diametrein, to be in opposition diienai, to traverse, 471,32 (with
(astronomical term), 480,6 291b4)
diametros, diameter, 501,5.9(2); diikneisthai, to penetrate, 498,23;
507,19; 539,22; 541,25; 502,15; 504,9
549,12(2).14.23.25; also 293b30; diistanai, to be or stand at a
translated ‘opposition’ at 480,5 distance (471,28; 495,6; 548,5.10);
dianuein, to complete (a circular to split (apart) (528,7.9.15.26.28;
orbit), 496,22 520,17.23 (all 7 with 295a29 on
diapherein, to differ, 497,5; 505,16; Empedocles))
514,7; 523,22.29; 531,19; 545,10 dikaios, right, 471,16; 490,13
(with 297b7); also 297a25 dikhomênos, month-bisecting
diaphônein, to be in disagreement, (Aratus), 479,11
550,8.9 dikhotomein, to bisect, 516,7
diaphora, difference, dikhotomos, bisected
differentiation, disagreement, 479,10.11.14.15.18.20; 480,4.8.12
differentia, 17 occurrences in (all with 291b21); 481,10.12 (both
Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle with 292a4)
diaphoros, different, 13 occurrences dinê, vortex or vortex motion, 40
in Simplicius occurrences between 526,33 and
diapnoia, ventilation, 524,10 543,1 associated with 7
diarrhêgnusthai, to break occurrences in Aristotle between
(intrans.), 533,29 (with 295b32) 295a13 and b7); see also dinêsis
diasaphein, to make clear, 522,11 dineisthai, to swirl, 531,1
diasôzein, to preserve, 474,3; dinêsis, vortex motion, 527,11; see
488,17 (ta phainomena); 488,23; also dinê
493,3 (ta phainomena); 499,15; diodos, passage through, 524,32
504,17(ta phainomena).21.22; dioptra, diopter, 549,4.7; 550,3
505,18; 506,10 (ta phainomena); diorismos, determination, 485,11
see also sôzein diorizein, to determine (522,11;
diaspasthai, to be torn apart, 526,15 (with 294b33); also 295a1
534,20; 535,24 (both with 296a8) and 5, b7 and 9); to distinguish
diastasis, distance, 480,4; 481,29 (519,16); to divide (485,15); to
diastêma, distance (475,7; 519,27; specify (544,29.32); to delimit
549,5.8); interval (541,24.27); (547,3.9)
breadth (of the sun) 548,23 diorthoun, to correct, 493,8; 542,23
diatassein, to order, 494,24 drân, to do, 547,11
diateinein, to unfold (487,21); to dromos, running, 482,30 (with
strive (492,31) 292a26)
diatelein, to remain or endure, dunamis, power, 476,9; 490,9.15;
505,7; 545,25 (with 297b7) 492,5.6.7.8.9 (all 5 with 293a11);
diathein, to run, 527,7 512,11; 540,13 (with 296b25);
diathesis, arrangement, 520,18 dunamei translated ‘tacitly’ at
diatribê, workout, 483,1 536,30, and ‘potentially’ at 543,5
didaskein, to explain, 540,24 (with 297a17); cf. 477,18
didonai, to give, assign, 478,29; dunasthai, to be able or possible, 23
484,1 occurrences in Simplicius, 2 in
dielenkhein, to refute, 518,24 Aristotle
diexienai, to traverse or go through, dunatos, possible, 17 occurrences in
495,25; 496,3; 508,20; translated Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle
‘exit’ at 526,1 dusis, setting (517,24 (Plato);
537,24; also 298a6); west (541,29)
 Greek-English Index 155
duskinêtos, hard to move, 524,7.10 elleiptikos, deficient, 481,24.25;
(both with 294b17) 491,3
duskolos, difficult, 483,14 ellipês, elliptical, deficient, 483,7;
dusmê (always in plural), west, 21 521,21
occurrences in Simplicius embadon, area, 549,15.16.18; see
dutikôtatos, westernmost, 547,32 also khôrion
emballein, to throw into, 522,30
eidos, form, 473,27; 476,7; 487,5; emmelês, suitable, 532,3; also 284b3
488,5; 506,27; 514,29.30; 530,3 empalin, in the reverse direction,
(Empedocles) 495,24
eikôn, image, 368,22 emphainein, to show, reveal, make
eikos, reasonable, likely, 471,8; apparent, exhibit, 473,24; 474,6;
477,10; 478,10; 489,2; 521,22 515,6; 548,25
(with 294a19); 505,12.13; 507,7; empiptein, fall into, 546,30
also 291b24; 518,21; see also empodizein, to hinder, 474,9.12;
eulogos 475,26; also 296a3
eilikrinês, entire (473,5); unmixed empsukhos, having or involving
(483,3) soul, 472,23; 482,10; 485,6;
ekballein, to extend, 516,7.19; 489,14.24.28; 509,29
520,7; 539,10 enallax, alternating, 529,8
ekdekhesthai, to understand, enantios, opposite (direction), 42
518,25.27; 519,4, occurrences in Simplicius, 8 in
ekkentros, eccentric, 488,8; 493,11; Aristotle; tounantion is translated
507,12(2).17.31.34; 509,11.15; ‘on the contrary’ at 471,22
510,2.13.14.15.19.21 enantiôsis, opposition, 473,26.27
ekkentrotês, eccentricity, 474,27 enargeia, clarity, 542,32
eklambanein, to understand (a enargês, clear, 476,27; 512,1;
passage in a certain way), 528,24 537,19; 540,10; 546,26; 548,29
ekleipein, to be eclipsed, 515,27.29; enarmozein, to fit in(to), 498,13;
also 297b29 502,12; 510,20
ekleipsis, eclipse, 471,7; 480,17 endedesthai, to be fastened, 490,16;
(with 291b22); 505,2.9 (both 491,20 (with 293a7); 493,22.26;
Sosigenes); 519,19.31; 520,3; 494,9; 498,12; 501,16; also 292a14
541,24; 546,27(2).30; 547,9.14 (5 and 296b4
five with 297b24,28); also 293b23 endeia, need, 533,22
ekpempein, to send back, 506,12 endeiknunai, to indicate (506,8;
ekpiptein, to lose, 542,24 537,22.33; 542,34); to show
ekrhein, to flow out, 524,30 (543,29)
ekthesis, setting out, 499,17 endein, to be in need of, 533,20
ektithesthai, to set out, 495,18; endein, to fit into, 498,25
501,25; 511,19; 512,30; 513,11.12; endekhesthai, to be possible or
532,16 able, 497,29; 504,14; 505,21;
ektropê, turning away, 502,1; 526,20 515,21 (with 293b21); also 295a6;
elattôn/elassôn, less, smaller, related expressions include
fewer, 44 occurrences in dunatos, dunasthai, hoion,
Simplicius, 9 in Aristotle enkhôrein, einai, exeinai
elenkhein, to refute, 514,6; 518,30; endidonai, to surrender to (a
532,3.28; 536,6 difficulty), 488,4
elephas, elephant, 548,6.8 (with endoiasmos, uncertainty, 506,8
298a13) energeia, activity, 484,20.21;
elleipein, to lack, be deficient, 485,29; 489,21.27.28; the dative
481,23; 486,27; 521,20 energeiai is translated ‘actually’
at 543,5
156 Greek-English Index
energein, to be active, 484,2; 489,20 ephêmeros, shortlived, 489,14
engus, close, 471,31; 473,17; ephesis, desire, 484,11
474,25.26 (all 4 with 3 ephexês, next, 13 occurrences in
occurrences in 291b3-7); 482,21 Simplicius
(with 292a23); 4 occurrences ephistanai, to note, recognise,
between 486,5-21 (with 3 in 476,28; 478,15; 492,25; 502,21;
292b12-19); 496,9; 548,20 503,29.35; 531,17; 544,27
eniautos, year, 495,26 ephistanein, to recognise, 537,20
enistanai, to raise objections, to epiballein, to propose, 493,4; 504,23
object, 509,28; 523,17.20; 532,29 epibolê, idea, 427,23; 458,12
enkalein, to attack or censure, epideiknunai, to validate (504,24;
497,5; 506,16 506,15; 508,19; 509,8); to show
enkheirein, to try, 486,4 (with (505,19); to indicate (548,9)
292b12) epidêlos, obvious, 547,29 (with
enklinesthai, to be inclined, 495,4; 297b34, 298a8); also 293b29
496,13 epidromos, approach, 534,2
enkômiazein, to praise, 498,2 epigignesthai, to be added, 544,3
enkratês, strong, 453,16; 454,5 (with 297a32)
(both picking up on 290a20) epikatapheresthai, to move down,
enkuklios, circular, 488,13.17; 543,26
493,1.3; 510,27.30; 536,20.21 epikheirein, to try (498,3; 513,13;
(both with 296a35); also 293a12 522,20); to argue (514,6)
ennoein, to conceive, to grasp, epikheirêma, argument, 477,13;
485,20; 487,11; 490,7; 490,12 478,4; 479,3; 490,5.20.29;
ennoia, conception, 505,31; 507,15; 491,9.15; 492,25; 513,27; 514,3;
510,29 515,9; 522,19; 523,26; 525,18;
enseiein, to crash into, 525,9 526,9; 528,6; 530,29; 531,7.15;
enstasis, objection, 516,12; 523,19 537,1.27; 542,14; 545,23.30;
(with 294b12); 523,21 546,26; 547,17
enteinein, to stretch, 545,1 epikrateia, predominance,
entugkhanein, to encounter, 522,7 domination, 489,19; 528,13.27;
eoikenai, to seem (513,31; 523,4 530,13
(with 294b6); 548,8; also 292a22); epikratein, to dominate or be
to resemble (514,26; 524,25; also prominent, 522,17; 528,31;
293b12) 529,17.18
epagein, to add (a remark), 30 epikratês, dominant, 506,27
occurrences in Simplicius; epikuklos, epicycle, 488,9; 507,12;
translated ‘propose’ at 505,27 and 508,25.27; 509,1.9.15; 510,2.13.14
‘adduce’ at 509,26 and 537,23 epilambanein, to take up (place)
epanapauesthai, to trust in, 487,11 (510,17); to stop up
epanastasis, protrusion, 546,9 (524,21.24.29.31)
epanô, preceding (490,19); higher epilanthanesthai, to forget, 503,21
(502,22); above (287a9) epinêkhesthai, to float, 522,15;
epaporein, to raise difficulties, 523,6 523,24(2)
epeigesthai, to press, 539,20 epinoein, to think of, to conceive,
epekeina, transcending, 485,22 473,2; 495,3; 499,5; 507,13;
epekhein, to occupy, 544,24 epinenoêmenôs is translated
eperkhesthai, to strike, 521,2 (with ‘thoughtful’ at 465,5
294a12); 522,5 epipan, enough, 518,12
ephaptesthai, to be tangent, epipedos, plane (figure), 18
538,31(2).34.35 (all 4 Euclid); occurrences in Simplicius; the
538,36; 539,1.3.6.7.12 neuter adjective is frequently
epharmozein, to apply to, 486,9
 Greek-English Index 157
translated by the noun ‘plane’ have translated ‘task’; I have
with a geometric sense therefore rendered ergôdês in
epiphainesthai, to appear, 497,21 terms of being a difficult task
epiphaneia, surface, 19 occurrences ergon, act, 525,10; translated ‘task’
in Simplicius at 293a9
epiphora, upshot, 523,1 erôtân, to ask, 530,16
epipolaios, superficial, 518,25 errhômenos, powerful, 453,16
epipolazein, to rise up, 522,24; eskhatos, ultimate, last, extreme,
531,12.14 (both with 295b6) 41 occurrences in Simplicius, 21
epipômatizein, to sit like a lid (on), in Aristotle; translated ‘least’ at
520,29; 526,1.3 483,3
epipômazein, to sit like a lid (on), etêsios, annual, yearly, 372,2(2)
520,15; 524,5.6 (both with 294b15) ethelein, to be willing (517,17
epiprosthêsis, interposition (of the (Homer); 521,5 (with 294a15)); to
earth in eclipse), 515,23 (293b22); want (545,7)
also 297b29 etos, year, 471,18; 506,13; also
epiprostithenai, to stand in front 292a18
of, to obscure, 511,34; 519,18; eu, correctly (504,15); ta eu
520,1.4 translated ‘good things’ at 483,10
episkêptein, to accuse (504,17); to and 22 (both with 292b3); eu
request (506,13) ekhein translated ‘to be in good
episkeptesthai, to consider, 477,25; condition’ at 482,28 (with
487,21; 510,25; 523,16.22 292a25); to eu translated ‘the
episkôptein, to deride, 522,19 good’ at 292a23
episkotein, to darken, 480,19 eukinêtos, easily moving, 520,14
episphalês, precarious, 483,33 eulogos, reasonable, 471,31 (with
epistasthai, to know, 506,11.15 291b3); 478,21 (with 291b12);
epistrephein, to make turn, 494,13; 506,6.7 (both Aristotle); 518,20
496,17 (Alexander); also 291b31 and
epistrephesthai, to turn, 494,4; 292b28; on his own Simplicius
494,6; 496,2 appears to prefer eikos; other
epitagma, assigned task, 492,11 related expressions are kata logon
epitêdeios, suitable, 520,14; 520,18 and logon ekhein
epitêdeiotês, suitability, 476,7 eumêkhanôs, skilfully, 471,29
epiteinai, to stretch, 544,28 (with euphuôs, in an excellent way, 510,25
297b2) euporia, furnishing, 523,26.30;
epitithenai, to put on, 546,8 533,29; translated ‘understanding’
epitunkhanein, to succeed, 483,11 at 291b27
(with 292a32) eusunoptos, easily seen, 547,30
epizeugnunai, to join, 508,2.8.31; eutaktos, well-ordered, 404,27
538,34.35; 539,21 euthetizein, to straighten out (a
epokheisthai, to ride on, 522,29 text), 528,14
epos, word, 522,7.11 euthugrammos, rectilinear, 478,26
erein, to say, 510,22; 511,15; 531,13 (with 290b7)
êremein, to be or remain stationary, euthunein, to chastise, 518,7
to rest, 47 occurrences in euthus (adj.), straight, 27
Simplicius, 11 in Aristotle occurrences in Simplicius (9 from
erêmên (adj. in the accusative), Euclid), 2 in Aristotle; always in
without allowing a defence, 512,24 feminine and meaning ‘straight
êremia, rest, 474,32; 467,25 line’; ep’ eutheias (epi tês eutheias
ergôdês, difficult, 492,1.3.11.20.21; at 288a3) translated ‘in a straight
all occurrences relate to line’ at 482,25, 536,28 (with
Aristotle’s ergon at 293a9, which I 296a31), 539,23, and 540,18
158 Greek-English Index
euthus (adv.), straightaway (487,4 538,21.22(2).24.25.26.28.32;
(with 292b23); 547,30); literally 539,8(2).9.13.19.21; 540,3 (all 15
(530,11) with 296b20); 545,31; 546,2.4.12
exallagê, change, 473,27 (all 4 with 297b19); the word
exaptein, to fasten, 543,34 ‘angle’ is frequently supplied in
exêgeisthai, to interpret, 479,18; geometric arguments
521,18 grammata, ta, reading and writing,
exêgêsis, interpretation, 513,29.30 483,18
exêgêtês, interpreter, 490,29 grammê, line, 497,4; 546,28;
exekhein, to extrude, 542,22; 547,8.14 (all 3 with 297b28)
543,25; 545,4 graphê, text, 545,22
exerkhesthai, to move out graphein, to write or describe, 11
(intrans.), 473,21.22; 479,17 (with occurrences in Simplicius, 1 in
292a6); 481,11 Aristotle
exeuriskein, to find, 475,25; 508,18 graphikon ptaisma, scribal error,
existanai, to depart, 527,18; 529,10 474,15.29
(Empedocles); 543,15.16 gumnasia, exercise, 482,30
exokhê, extrusion, 477,21; 546,6; gumnastikos, gymnastic, 483,1
529,2 gumnazesthai, to exercise, 482,28;
exomoioun, to make like, 537,20 483,2 (both with 292a25)
exôthein, to push out,
543,12.13.14.18; 544,35; 545,19 hairein, to grasp, 488,15
haireisthai, to choose, 514,31;
gala, milk, 478,11.12 533,33.34
gê, earth, 277 occurrences in hairesis, choice, 534,1
Simplicius, 56 in Aristotle hairetos, choiceworthy, chosen,
gêïnos, earthy, 545,6 472,12; 484,27
geitniasis, proximity, 471,23; 548,9 haplos, simple, 23 occurrences in
geitniazein, to be adjacent, 472,31 Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle; see also
genesis, coming to be, 526,35; haplôs
529,21; 530,25; 542,34; 543,28; haplôs, without qualification
544,18.29 (all 4 with 297b15) (476,2); simply (477,10; 537,23);
genêtos, mortal, 483,21 in an unqualified way (511,7); at
gennân, to generate (477,12 (with all (535,5); Aristotle’s haplôs
290a9); 530,30; also 295a14); to legomenon at 293b4 is translated
produce or reproduce (484,31; with ‘only one sense’
517,24 (Plato)) haptesthai, to make use of (a
genos, species, 548,6 (with 298a14); certain kind of hypothesis)
translated ‘genus’ at 294b12 (488,21); to touch (544,13 (with
gignesthai, usually translated ‘to 297b5))
come to be’, but sometimes in harmodios, harmonious, 512,2
other ways such as ‘to be harmozein, to harmonise, 508,17;
produced’, 97 occurrences in translated ‘to apply to’ at 296a8
Simplicius, 21 in Aristotle hêdus, pleasant, 533,34
gignôskein, to know (504,19; 548,1); hêgeisthai, to believe, 505,29
to recognise (523,26) hêgemon morion, hegemonic part,
gnêsios, genuine, 512,10 506,21
gnôrimos (adjectival subst.), hêgoumenon, antecedent (of a
associate, 493,6 conditional), 541,7
gnôrizein, to recognise, 505,21 hêkein, to reach, 496,28; 501,16;
(Sosigenes) 506,12
gônia, angle, 508,4.5.10.13; hekôn, voluntary, 535,15; see also
509,2.3.5; hekousios
 Greek-English Index 159
hekousios, voluntary, 472,14 historia, history; historical
(Alexander); 472,22; 473,4; see discussion or account, 513,8;
also hekôn 515,16; 519,5; 519,13; 536,14
hêliakos, solar, 512,19; hodometron (or hodometros?),
519,12(2).25.31; 520,3.7 odometer, 549,8
hêmera, day, 11 occurrences in hodos, means (484,26; 485,1 (both
Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle with 292b9)); path (533,9; 535,22)
hêmisphairion, hemisphere, holikos, universal (in comparative),
479,24; 480,1.6.9; 516,19.20 (both 487,16; see also katholikos and
with 293b26); 544,3 (with 297a33) katholou
heneka/heneken, for the sake of, holoklêros, perfect, 490,12
482,17; 483,17.23; holos, whole, entire, 46 occurrences
484,4.7.8.9.10.11.14(2) (all 11 in Simplicius, 14 in Aristotle; see
with 5 occurrences in 292a31-b7); also holôs
486,12.13 (both with 292b15); holôs, in general, at all, 13
497,18.23; 498,4.11; 499,5.7; occurrences in Simplicius, 4 in
506,17 Aristotle
henôsis, unity (487,22); unification holotês, entirety, 489,16
(530,26) homalês, uniform, 30 occurrences in
henoun, to unite or unify, 528,12; Simplicius; see the note on 508,14
530,26; 535,30; 544,3 homoiomereia, homoiomerousness,
heôs, dawn (standing for east), 532,25; 525,14; see homoiomerês
493,26 homoiomerês, homoiomerous (i.e.
hepomenos, successive, following, having parts which are like the
496,22; 511,33; 537,7; 542,2; see whole which they compose; fire
the note on 487,25 and flesh are homoiomerous, but
hermêneia, expression, 491,3 a human being is not), 532,15;
hermêneuein, to express oneself, 533,15.30; 534,23; 535,13.18.20
481,26 homoios, similar, same, equal, 57
hêtton, less, 474,6; 479,20.22; 484,1; occurrences in Simplicius, 18 in
517,21; 522,20; 532,2; 535,29 Aristotle
heuresis, discovery, 533,10; 534,5 homoiôsis, assimilation, 483,19;
heuretikos, inventive, 465,5 487,28.29.31
heuriskein, to find, discover, 19 homoiotês, uniformity (520,33; 21
occurrences in Simplicius; logon occurrences between 531,32 and
heuriskein is translated ‘give an 536,4 with 4 occurrences between
account’ at 471,5 295b11 and 296a20); similarity
hidruesthai, to be situated, (548,9.10)
513,5.16; 517,23 (Timaeus homokentros, homocentric, 488,9;
Locrus); 518,10; 532,16 (with 493,10; 494,1; 499,18; 500,22;
295b14) 501,12; 505,26;
hikanos, sufficient, 486,5 (with 507,11.17.18.28.30; 508,22;
292b12); 497,20; 520,10; 524,12 510,5.13.14.20(2)
(with 294b20); 549,33; also homologein, to agree, 477,8
291a32; translated ‘satisfactory’ homônumia, homonymy, 514,6
at 521,7 homou, together, 501,8
histanai, to stand (still), 473,16; horan, to see, 19 occurrences in
489,26.28.29.30; 516,2; 529,8 Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; the
(Empedocles); 538,24.27; 539,21 imperative hora is translated
historein, to recount or record, ‘notice’
471,5; 474,21; 481,8; 497,17.24.25; horismos, definition, 478,13
506,13; 507,13; 511,31; 512,13; horizein, to delimit (502,1;
515,17; 519,1; 520,22 514,27.28.29(2) (all 4 with
160 Greek-English Index
293b13(2)); 546,28 (with 297b28)); huperôthein, to push beyond, 543,21
to determine (505,32; 541,17.18 huperousios, hypersubstantial,
(both with 297a5); also 295b4); to 485,16
divide (547,14); see also horizôn huperpherein, to excel, 490,14
horizôn, horizon, 476,23; 516,7.19; huphesis, declension, 473,27
517,25 (Timaeus Locris); huphexistasthai, to make way for,
520,5.6.8; 537,14; 541,31; 524,25
547,24.26.28.30 (all 4 with huphistanai, to exist, to hold, to be
297b34) (473,26; 492,18; 492,26; 535,32);
hormân, to stir up (471,19); to start to be constituted (474,1); to
(482,4; 526,10) support (522,24); to assume
hormê, desire, 473,5; 506,22; 529,14 (495,6)
hothen, from where, 543,9(2); 544,25 hupoballein, to overcome, 492,6
hudôr, water, 32 occurrences in hupodromos, passage under
Simplicius, 9 in Aristotle (astronomical), 481,9
hudrarpax (untranslated; later hupokatô, beneath (497,29;
name for the clepsydra), 524,20 499,6.10.13; 502,23 (all 5 with
hugeia, health, 482,27; 483,4; 486,6 Metaph.1074a4); lower (504,10;
(with 292b13) 504,13; 515,1); underneath (522,9;
hugiainein, to be healthy, 482,30; 524,17)
also 292b13,16 hupokeisthai, to underlie, be below
hugros, liquid, 542,29; also 295a11 (14 occurrences in Simplicius, 1 in
hugrotês, moistness, 442,27 Aristotle); to be assumed (475,4;
hulê, matter, 514,19.30 507,19.27; also 291a35)
hupantân pros, to confront or hupokhôrein, to withdraw, 542,28
respond to, 472,8; 511,19 hupolambanein, to assume, to
huparkhein, to exist, be, hold, conceive, to take, 484,4; 505,32,
belong, accrue, attach, 29 506,6 (both Aristotle); 547,32
occurrences in Simplicius, 9 in (with 298a9); also at 291b12,
Aristotle 292a21, 293b7,18, 296a22, and
huperairein, to exceed or be prior 298a12
to, 492,9; 475,22 hupoleipesthai, to be left behind,
huperanô, above, 498,21.24.27; 476,27; 501,28; 523,15;
504,7 537,5.9.12.24 (all 4 with 296a35)
huperbainein, to go beyond, 543,16 hupoleipsis, retardation, 493,10;
huperballein, to depart (from the 495,10
ecliptic), 497,1 hupolêpsis, assumption, 476,12.31
hupereidein, to support (air/earth), hupomimnêskein, to remind, to
526,32; 527,17 mention, 526,16; 547,10; 549,1
huperekhein, to be greater than huponoein, to suppose, 535,4
(mathematical), 549,12 hupopodismos, backward motion,
huperekkheisthai, to spill over, 487,24; 488,6.10; see the note on
542,27.31 487,25
huperkeisthai, to lie above, 506,26; hupopodizein, to move backward,
527,24 491,24; see the note on 487,25
huperkhesthai, to move under huposelênos, under the moon,
(473,13; 479,16; 481,10 (both with 486,20
292a4)); to move down (514,33) hupospân, to move away, 521,10
huperokhê, superiority, hupostellein, to constrain, 529,16
490,6.7.9.26; 491,1.4.5.11 (all 8 hupostigmê, comma, 544,9
with 292b29); 492,13 hupothesis, hypothesis, 35
huperonkousthai, to become very occurrences in Simplicius
large, 535,3
 Greek-English Index 161
hupothetikos, hypothetical, 477,10; isorrhopos, evenly balanced,
536,21 517,20; 532,1 (both Plato);
hupotithenai, to hypothesise, 535,20.28; 543,14
487,27; 494,2; 495,8; 503,29; isos, equal, 52 occurrences in
512,5; 516,23; 519,10; 533,30; Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; see also
535,34; 539,18; 541,28; 543,3; isôs
544,17; 544,29; 545,4; translated isôs, perhaps, presumably, 473,29;
‘put under’ at 522,32 484,5; 484,19.28 (the latter with
hupotrekhein, to be moving under 292b8); 489,4; 507,4; 515,6;
(said of the moon’s relation to the 522,17.18
sun in a solar eclipse), 479,25; isotakhês, having the same speed,
480,18 474,11.13; 499,20; 500,27; 503,31;
hupsêlos, high, 550,2 506,24; 537,17
hupsos, height, 505,16; 542,24; itus, rim (in an annular eclipse;
549,24 Sosigenes), 505,8
husterein, to lag behind, 494,20
husteros, posterior, later, 470,31 kalathoeidês, basket-shaped (i.e.
(with 291a30); 493,11; 504,18; having the shape of a truncated
518,31; 542,34; 550,8 cone), 546,31; 547,1
kalein, to call, 26 occurrences in
idios, peculiar, unique, distinct, Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle
proper, 20 occurrences in kalliôn, better, 525,10; 529,6
Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle kalôs, general word of
idiotês, special character, commendation, frequently
uniqueness, 473,14; 474,6; 513,19 translated ‘correctly’ but also
illesthai, to wind or be wound, ‘well’ and ‘in a wonderful way’,
Simplicius discusses this word, 472,8; 479,18; 481,21 (with
which is used by Aristotle at 292a14); 503,28; 518,22; 520,25;
293b31 from 517,3 to 519,1; he 523,3.15; 549,2; also 294b11
refers back to the Aristotle kardia, heart, 514,12.15; 537,7.9
passage at 532,5-12. The word (these two of the constellation Leo)
occurs again at 536,20 (with karphos, chip, 531,1
296a26) karteros, strong, 525,9
isêmeria, equinox, 497,19 kataboân, to inveigh against, 489,10
isêmerinos, translated ‘equator’ katabuthizesthai, to sink down,
although the noun kuklos is not 523,1
supplied, 537,26; 541,30.33 katadeesteros, worse, 483,29;
iskhnainesthai, to thin, 486,7 (with 484,2; 485,28; 486,3
3 occurrences in 292b14-7) katagein, to draw down, 501,7.9
iskhuros, strong, 483,15; 506,27; kataginôskein, to censure, 507,9
525,7; 533,16 (with 295b31); katagraphê, diagram, 507,16
542,16; also 2 at 506,7 which are katakolouthein, to follow, 507,14
Aristotle citations katalambanein, to apprehend,
isobarês, equally heavy, 546,19 471,1; 474,19.33; 493,16; 504,19
isodromos, isodromic, 476,28 (on katalampesthai, to be illuminated,
which see the note); 477,1 512,16
isokhronios, taking the same kataleipein, to leave, 506,8; 549,28
amount of time, 494,3.19; 495,22; katalêpsis, apprehension, 471,7;
496,5; 500,11; 501,7; 502,6.9.13 550,11
isomegethês, having the same size, katalêptos, apprehensible, 476,19
516,5 katallêlos, smooth (said of a text),
isorrhopia, even balance, 12 481,24; 521,27
occurrences in Simplicius
162 Greek-English Index
kataphanês, clear, 505,12 kentros, central point, 77
(Sosigenes) occurrences in Simplicius, 6 in
katapheresthai, to fall, 521,10; Aristotle
522,10; 538,26.28; 539,10.19; kephalaion, topic, 511,3
540,12.16; 546,2 kephalê, head, 547,21 (with 298a1)
kataphora, fall, 546,12 keratoeidês, horn-shaped (angle),
kataphronein, to disdain, 520,24 539,14.24(2)
katapsêphizesthai, to condemn, kêrinos, wax, 546,8
512,24 kêros, wax, 542,22
katarithmeisthai, to count, 506,3 khalkos, bronze, 527,10 (with
kataskeuazein, to argue (for), 295a20)
512,29; 532,33, 536,30; translated kharieis, elegant, 522,19; 543,31
‘to contrive’ at 293a24 kharis, elegance, 533,29
katastasis, condition, 528,10; 548,11 kheimerinos, winter, 493,17
kataxioun, to judge worthy, 489,17 kheirôn, worse, 485,12
katêgorein, to predicate, 482,14; Khios, Chian (name of a side of a
489,10 die; derived from the island of
katêgorikôs, categorically (i.e. Chos), 483,12 (with 292a29)
using a categorical syllogism), khôra, space (512,22.26.31;
536,31 513,25.27 (all 5 with
katekhein, to occupy (a space), 293a28,31,293b4); 514,4;
478,24 525,31.32); room (509,21.23; 510,8)
katepeigein, to be urgent, 532,32.33, khôrein, to move, progress, pass
katharos, pure, 538,16 (through) (486,10; 510,23; 524,26;
kathetos, perpendicular, 538,35 534,30; 545,17); to leave room for
(Euclid); 550,3; at 502,11 and (543,17)
504,11 kata (hupo) tên autên khôris, apart, 13 occurrences in
kathêton eutheian is translated Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle
‘directly below’ khôrizein, to separate, 528,16.21.29
kathienai, to lower, 524,21 khreia, use, 498,3; 507,15; 514,19;
kathistanai, to set or put, 504,9.32; translated ‘need’ at 401,13 (Plato)
543,25 khrêsimos, serviceable,
kathodos, downward motion, 510,29 478,23.24.32 (all 3 with 290b3);
katholikos, universal, 526,9; see 499,17; 523,25
also holikos khrêsthai, to use, 477,10.13; 482,27;
katholou, universal 484,22; 523,3; 485,9; 525,18; 528,5; also 295a2
see also holikos khronos, time, 34 occurrences in
katô, down, downward, beneath, Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle
underneath, lower, 24 occurrences khthamalatata, ta, lowest places,
in Simplicius, 10 in Aristotle 550,2
katorthoun, to be successful, kinein, to cause or produce motion,
483,11.29; 484,19 (all 3 with to move (trans.), 16 occurrences in
292a28) Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle
katôthen, beneath, 520,15; kineisthai, to move (intrans.) or be
524,13.15 (both with 294b15 and moved, 231 occurrences in
20) Simplicius, 21 in Aristotle;
kekhênuios, wide-mouthed (= Simplicius frequently uses the
obtuse, said of an angle), 441,20 expression kinêsin kineisthai (‘to
kenghros, millet seed, 546,8.9 move a motion’), usually
kenos, void, 510,17; 524,30 translated ‘to move’
kentrobarika, problems of or kinêsis, motion, 196 occurrences in
treatises on centres of gravity, Simplicius, 25 in Aristotle
543,30.31 kinêtikos, kinetic, 478,17.30 (both
 Greek-English Index 163
with 290b15); 492,9; note that kuklophorêtikos, always in the
this word can either mean phrase sôma kuklophorêtikikon
‘capable of causing motion’ or (body which moves in a circle),
‘capable of being moved’ 509,20.31; 510,6; 512,5; 513,4 (the
kiôn, pillar, 538,27; 539,21 last two in plural)
klasthai, to be broken, 501,10 kuklos, circle, 71 occurrences in
klepsudra, clepsydra, Simplicius, 11 in Aristotle;
524,19(2).27.29; 525,1 (all with megistos kuklos translated ‘great
294b21) circle’ at 495,7; 539,5;
koilos, concave (545,2; 546,13 (with 549,6.9.19.21.24
297b27)); hollow (543,27) kukloterês, round, roundish,
koilotês, hollow, 546,6 480,20; 520,10 (with 294a8)
koinônein, to have community, kulindrikos, cylindrical, 546,31
523,27 kulindroeidês, cylinder-shaped,
koinônia, point of communion, 547,1
523,28 kulindros, cylinder, 549,24.27
koinos, common, general, ordinary, kuma, wave, 542,32
484,19; 485,26; 492,1 (with kumainein, to swell, 542,25.27
293a8); 528,3; 533,3.9 (with (both with 297a10)
295b24); 540,8 kurios, authoritative, 486,27;
Kôios, Koan (name of a side of a die; 513,17.23.31; 514,4.22 (all 5 with
derived from the island of Kos), 293b2); 522,4; see also kuriôs
483,13 kuriôs, in the strict sense, 484,20;
kolouros, truncated, 547,2 486,20; 548,28
kôluein, to prevent, 17 occurrences kurtos, convex, 546,28.32;
in Simplicius, 6 in Aristotle 547,3(2).9.14 (all 6 with 297b28)
komidêi, altogether, 489,15
komizein, to take, 522,16 lambanein, to take, to get, to
kompsos, clever, 532,21 (with receive, to assume, to occupy, 23
295b16) occurrences in Simplicius, 5 in
kônikos, conical, 546,31 Aristotle
konis, dirt, 483,1 lampros, bright, 479,17; 481,11
konisis, getting down in the dirt, (both with 292a6)
483,1 (with 292a26) lanthanein, to escape the notice of,
kônoeidês, cone-shaped, 547,1 505,20; 515,6
kônos, cone, 505,5; 512,17; 519,20; lêgon, consequent, 541,8
520,4; 547,2 leipein, to be left out, 483,9
koruphê, zenith (549,7); vertex lêmma, premiss, 397,15; 403,4;
(505,6 (Sosigenes)) 411,19; 425,17; 430,2
kouphos, light (in weight), 13 leukotês, brightness, 474,17
occurrences in Simplicius, 7 in lexis, text (518,12.16.20.22;
Aristotle 521,18.21; 532,9); word or words
kratein, to dominate, 472,1.2.27; (499,7; 518,2); what is said
473,7; 475,12 (Plato); 475,25; (541,16)
476,33 (all 7 with 291b7); 528;18; logikos, rational, 478,12; 482,11.13
544,34; also 297b5 logismos, reasoning, 481,30
kreittôn, stronger (476,8; 515,1); logizesthai, to reckon, 481,20
better (485,12.27; 486,2; 489,4); logos, discussion, thing said,
translated ‘greater’ at 297a1 account, argument, relation, 97
kuathos, ladle, 527,8.9.10 (with occurrences in Simplicius, 14 in
295a10(2)) Aristotle; kata logon, in
kuklikos, circular, 493,23; 508,24; proportion (471,22; 472,3 (both
518,15 with 291a33,b9)); rational
164 Greek-English Index
(484,21); reasonable (490,30 (with melas, dark, 479,17; 481,11; also
292b31)) 292a6
loipos, next, remaining, last, 27 melein, to be a matter of concern,
occurrences in Simplicius, 1 in 512,23
Aristotle menein, to remain (fixed or at rest),
loxos, oblique, 476,21.24.25; 493,27; 91 occurrences in Simplicius, 26
494,8; 496,11.13.29; 500,20; 501,32 in Aristotle
loxotês, obliqueness, 501,3 mênoeidês, crescent-shaped,
luein, to solve (a difficulty) (471,29; 479,10.13.19; 480,3.8.12.17.21 (all
472,29; 473,1; 485,30; 490,5; 8 with 291b20,22); 519,18; 547,13
491,4; 521,16.24.25; 522,20; 523,3; mênuein, to refer to, 499,7
544,27; see also dialuein); to merikos, particular (489,21.29;
release (516,12) 510,1); partial (485,24.27;
lusis, solution (of a difficulty), 486,19.29; 489,21.29; 510,8; 520,1)
475,22; 482,4.10; 483,32; 484,1; meris, part, 375,18; see also meros,
485,7; 486,27; 488,3; 509,21; morion
510,8; 521,15.19.23.25.26 (all 5 merismos, division, 487,12.17
with 294a20); 523,6.18; 544,27 merizein, to divide, 487,10.19.23.30
(with 297a31) meros, part, 34 occurrences in
lusitelein, to benefit, 489,1 Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle; para
meros is translated ‘in turn’ at
manousthai, to be rarefied, 535,1 530,12 and 532,20; see also meris,
(paraphrasing manoteron morion
gignomenon at 296a19) mesêmbria, south (496,1.24.25;
manthanein, to learn, 483,18; 501,29; also 297b33 and 298a2);
529,14 (Empedocles); 538,25.29 meridian (541,20); cf. notios
marturein, to bear or give witness, mesos, usually translated ‘centre’
505,2; also 297a2 (often to meson), sometimes
marturia, witness, 519,2; 548,15; ‘middle’; other translations,
see also marturion ‘intermediate’ (494,11); ‘central’
marturion, witness, 541,13; see also (512,26; 513,6); 286 occurrences
marturia in Simplicius, 72 in Aristotle
mathêmata, mathematics, 483,18; metabainein, to turn (542,10); to
hoi apo tôn mathêmatôn as move (547,19 (with 298a13))
‘mathematicians’ at 496,4 and metaballein, to change, 473,20;
505,17 535,27; 541,16 (with 297a4)
mathêmatikos, ho, mathematician, metabasis, change of place, 542,2
472,3 (with 291b10); 493,2; 505,31 metabatikôs kineisthai, to change
(Aristotle); 505,18; 548,15; 550,6 place, 477,24; 478,10
(both with 298a15); also 297a3 metabatikos, changing place,
megas, great, large, 75 occurrences 477,7.15.18.19; 478,9.17.31; 541,27
in Simplicius, 11 in Aristotle metabolê, change, 473,25; also
megethos, magnitude, size, 69 298a1
occurrences in Simplicius, 11 in metagein, to transfer, 520,24
Aristotle metagenesteroi, later (people),
meioun, to diminish, 502,7 506,9; 507,9; 510,31
meis, month, 471,18; 475,3.4; metalambanein, to share in
479,12; 495,15; 496,6.8.9; 547,11 (486,15; 488,2); to change (trans.
(with 297b25) 518,4); to take (518,23)
mêkhanikos, ho, one who does metapherein, to transform, to
mechanics, 543,30 change, 474,27; 518,3
mêkos, length, 493,23; 501,6.7.9; metapiptein, to shift, 495,12
506,29 metaptôsis, shift, 495,14
 Greek-English Index 165
metastasis, change (of position), monimos, stable, 520,16
505,16; also 297b33 morion, part, piece, 24 occurrences
metaxu, between, intermediate, 11 in Simplicius, 18 in Aristotle; see
occurrences in Simplicius, 3 in also meris, meros
Aristotle muthikos, mythical, 530,12.16
meteôrizein, to raise up (high), muthos, myth, 487,11; 522,17
521,5.6 (both with 294a14 and
15); 543,34 Neikos, Strife (in Empedocles), 21
meteôros, high, 521,8; 522,22 (with occurrences between 528,7 and
294a34); 547,22 530,18 with 295a31
meteôroskopos, meteoroscope, nemein, to distribute, 548,8
548,30 neôteros, later, 513,7
methistanai, to change position, nephos, cloud, 542,4
524,12.24 (both with 294b19); neuein, to face (480,7; 516,30); to
547,23 (with 298a9) incline (484,27)
methodos, method (of neura, nerves, 506,22
measurement), 549,3 noein, to conceive, 15 occurrences in
metienai, to turn (to the discussion Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle
of something), 489,33; 511,4; nomizein, to suppose, believe,
536,15 consider, think, 12 occurrences in
metrein, to measure, 549,8; 550,3 Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle
metron, measure, measurement, notios, south, southward, 476,22.25;
487,1; 548,18; 549,1; 550,8.12.13 495,11
migma, mixture, 545,13 (with nous, intellect, 482,19;
297a17) 485,17.20.21.22; 485,25;
mignunai, to mix, 485,11; translated ‘intention’ at 518,21
529,19.20; 543,4 nuttesthai, to point to, 518,6
mikros, little, small, 481,27 (with
291b27 and 292a15); 482,29; oikein, to live, 516,21.25.27; 548,12
484,18.28 (all 3 with 292a25 and oikeios, proper, appropriate, one’s
292b8); 519,26.27 (both with own, 43 occurrences in Simplicius,
294a6); 521,4 (with 294a13); 1 in Aristotle
524,20; 544,27 (with 297b2); also oikêsis, location, 548,6
297b32. See also elattôn oikos, house, 524,9
mikrotês, smallness, 545,11 (with okhein, to support, 520,28;
297b9) 522,15.22; 525,4.12 (all related to
mimeisthai, to imitate, 487,8 294a33)
mixis, mixture, 473,26 oknein, to hesitate, 546,9
mnêmoneuein, to call to mind, to oligôrein, to ignore, 505,22
refer, to mention, 477,12; 511,5; oligos, few, slight, 25 occurrences in
520,26; 535,7; 549,1 Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle
moira, degree (circle measurement, omma, eye, 519,22; 520,9; 529,23
476,26; 479,25; 537,8(2)); portion (Empedocles)
(489,14.16) omphalos, navel, 514,11
moiriaios, of one degree, 549,5 onkos, bulk, 477,4.23 (both with
monakhôs, in one way only, 514,7 291b17); also 297a23 and 298a18
(paraphrase of haplôs at 293b4) onkousthai, to increase in bulk,
monas, monad, 482,7 (with 292a19); 542,25.31; 543,24
549,23.27.31 opê, hole, 524,20.22.30.32
monê, rest, resting, remaining opheilein, ought, 513,28; 532,29
(fixed), 40 occurrences in ophthalmos, eye, 529,21
Simplicius, 10 in Aristotle; see opsis, sight, vision, eye, 19
also menein
166 Greek-English Index
occurrences in Simplicius, 2 in 487,8.17.28.29.31; 505,1; 522,13;
Aristotle 534,1
opson, dish (food), 533,34 pantose, in every direction, 527,22
oregesthai, to yearn for, 533,20 pantote, always, 507,25; 508,25;
orexis, desire, 533,23 509,12; 516,8
organikos, using instruments, pantotês, entirety, 487,21
504,33 pantothen, from every place, 540,27
organon, organ (477,20.21; (with 296b38); also 297a18
478,9.16.19 (all 5 with 291b19); paraballein, to compare, 507,7;
506,22; instrument (512,15; 548,17.25.27
548,30) parabolê, conjunction
oros, mountain, 546,9; 549,21; 550,2 (astronomical), 471,9
orthôs, correctly, 502,20 parabolos, hazardous, 481,19;
orthos, right (of an angle, 514,31
538,23.24.27; 539,13.26(3); 540,3 paradeigma, example, 482,26;
(Euclid)); perpendicular (494,7; 486,6; 524,18.26; 525,22; 533,28.32
495,2); upright (500,20); pros paradeiknunai, to prove, 536,33
orthas, perpendicular, at right paradekhesthai, to accept, 488,11
angles, 493,27; 494,5.27; paradidonai, to present (485,7); to
501,28.30.31; 538,26.28.31.36; convey (481,15); to assert
539,1.2.3.4.11.22 (526,35); to teach (548,18)
ôthein, to push, 542,19.23.26(2); paragein, to introduce, 515,1; 548,16
543,16.17.18.19.20.23 (all 10 with paragignesthai, to move, 496,3
297a10) paragumnoun, to disclose, 523,4
ouranios, heavenly, 21 occurrences paraiteisthai, to prevent (497,2); to
in Simplicius deprecate (507,11)
ouranos, heaven, 55 occurrences in parakeleuesthai, to recommend,
Simplicius, 8 in Aristotle 490,30
ousia, substance, 15 occurrences in parakhôrein, to depart (497,5;
Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle 503,32); to be displaced (541,22;
542,21)
pakhumerês, rough (i.e. parakhôrêsis, departure,
approximate), 475,4 493,24.29; 495,5
palaiein, to wrestle, 483,1 paralambanein, to use, to take, to
palaios, earlier, 474,15.30; 495,29; understand, 483,3; 488,8; 497,7;
510,30; 521,28; 549,3; also 284a19 535,8; 548,30; also 294a29
palaistrikos, in wrestling, 483,2 parallagê, difference, 516,21.26.28;
panselênos, at full moon, 479,11; 537,24; 547,31
480,11 parallattein, to change, be different
pantakhose, in every direction, (499,3; 505,18; 540,15; 546,19); to
527,23 go beyond (500,12; 540,6; 545,8)
pantakhothen, from every parallêlogrammon, to,
direction, everywhere, 18 parallelogram, 501,4.6.8
occurrences in Simplicius, 4 in parallêlos, parallel, 476,21.22;
Aristotle 496,14; 500,17; 538,18.19.20;
pantakhou, everywhere, always, 540,6 (all 4 with Aristotle’s par’
536,7; 535,8 allêla at 296b19); 546,3 (with
pantêi, in every direction, 534,23 Aristotle’s par’ allêla at 297b19);
(with 295b18); 546,23 548,11
(Alexander); also 297a23(2) paralogos, paradoxical, 482,15
panteleia, complete perfection, (with 292a22)
486,29 paramutheisthai, to make an
pantelês, complete, perfect, 486,17; exhortation, 481,21
 Greek-English Index 167
paranatellein, to rise alongside, occurrences in Simplicius, 13 in
501,21 Aristotle
parapherein, to carry aside, 501,29 perainein, to bound, 514,28.29(2)
paraphulattein, to observe, 504,33 (all 3 with 293b14); see also
(Sosigenes) peperasmenos
paraplêsios, quite similar, much peras, limit, 13 occurrences in
the same, 501,12; 505,11; 519,6; Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle;
also 293b32 translated ‘end’ at 485,21 and
parasunaptikos, causal (said of a 501,8
conjunction such as epei (since)), periagein, to carry around, 494,16;
477,10 501,14; 509,16; 510,21; 536,7
parataxis, ordering, 542,23 periagôgê, revolution (494,20);
parathesis, setting out, 536,6 carrying around (500,21)
paratithesthai, to set out, periekhein, to contain, 34
518,11.12; 525,11; 528,33; 530,11 occurrences in Simplicius, 3 in
pardeigmatikôs, in a paradigmatic Aristotle; translated ‘surround’ 4
way, 457,10 times between 538,10 and 14
pareisagein, to introduce, 499,8 (with 296b14)
parekbasis, digression, 510,33 periektikos, containing, 487,6.22;
parekhein, to make or provide, 490.10
496,20; 497,3; 510,29; 531,27 periergeia, superfluity, 536,1
parekteinesthai, to extend over, perigeios, the positive and the
540,7 superlative are translated using
parektrepesthai, to turn, 493,15 ‘perigee’, the comparative is
parienai, to pass over, 523,28 translated as ‘closer to earth’,
parisôsthai, to be made equal, 470,31; 471,13; 474,22; 475,24.27;
486,29 507,32; 508,6.9.12
paristanai, to describe, 512,24 periienai, to make a revolution,
parodeuein, to proceed, 542,4 471,18; 475,18; 476,25; 493,29
(Ptolemy) perikheisthai, to be spread around,
parodos, passage or passageway, 545,15
496,19; 507,20.24.26; 508,7.10.30; perilambanein, to encompass or
509,4.5.8.10; also 296b4 (all 12 contain, 486,10; 505,5 (Sosigenes);
astronomical); 524,18.23; 525,2.32 525,31; 545,2.5
(last with 294b26; these 5 not perimetros, perimeter, 549,9.11.14
astronomical) periodos, circuit, 493,23; 495,9
parorama, mistake, 503,35 peripatein, to walk, 482,29 (with
paskhein, to undergo something, 292a26)
523,12; 535,24; 542,29 periphainesthai, to be visible
peirân, to try, 502,26; 504,21; outside (said of the sun in an
505,18; 512,4 (with 293a27); annular eclipse), 505,8
528,27; 536,6; also 291b25 and periphereia, circumference (495,7;
298a16; translated ‘see’ at 525,13 508,26.28; 549,2; 550,5.6 (all 3
peithesthai, to listen to, 506,3 with 298a17); also 294a5 and
(Aristotle); 506,9 297b30); arc (507,35; 508,21;
pelazein, to draw near, 545,7 509,1; 519,23)
peperasmenos, finite, 476,9; peripherês, round, curved, 520,2
491,13(2); 492,4.5.7(2).8 (all 7 (with 294a2,4); 525,10; also
with 293a10,11); 511,22 (with 297b32 and 298a7
293a19); 513,22 (with 293a19) peripheresthai, to be carried
pephukenai, to be of such a nature around or made to revolve,
as to, to be so constituted as to, 21 508,1(2); 527,8
168 Greek-English Index
periphora, revolution, 471,32(2); philosophêma, subject of
474,12; 475,28; 476,17.26; 506,18 philosophical discussion,
peristrephesthai, to rotate, 498,9 521,13.22 (with 294a20)
(Sosigenes) philosophia, philosophy, 510,33
peristrophê, rotation, 498,26; 501,18 philosophos, philosophical, 521,14;
peritrepein, to overturn (an ho philosophos is translated
argument), 526,8 ‘philosopher’ at 532,4
peritunkhanein, to chance upon, Philotês, Love (in Empedocles), 5
419,7 occurrences in 529,4-530,14, 3 of
perix, surrounding, 528,23; to perix them quotations; see also Philia
is translated ‘perimeter’ at 515,5, phora, motion, 40 occurrences in
535,21.25(2), and 537,32 Simplicius, 24 in Aristotle;
phainesthai, to appear, to be clear, Simplicius prefers kinêsis (also
to be observed, 109 occurrences in usually translated ‘motion’)
Simplicius, 20 in Aristotle; ta phortion, burden, 393,26
phainomena is sometimes phôs, light, 489,2; 512,19
translated ‘phenomena’; in many phôstêr, luminary, 489,3
passages it is difficult to know phôteinos, illuminated, 546,28
how to translate phainesthai and phôtismos, illumination, 479,6.9.24;
related words because for 480,15
Simplicius astronomical phôtizesthai, to be illuminated,
observations are just appearances 479,24.26; 480,1.4.6.9.13; 489,2
in the Platonist sense phrourêtikos, watchful, 513,19
phakoeidês, lentil-shaped, 479,8; phthinein, to wane (of the moon),
480,10.14.20.22 479,9.13.18.21 (all 4 with 291b20)
phaneros, evident, 495,5; 496,15; phulakê, guardpost, 512,13;
505,28; 507,21; and 8 other 513,21.26.29; 514,19.20(2) (all 7
Aristotelian occurrences; with 293b3,9)
translated ‘light’ at 479,17 phulattein, to guard, retain,
phantasia, appearance, maintain, keep, 16 occurrences in
imagination, 488,15; 542,23; also Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle
294a7 and 297b31 phusân, to blow up (i.e. inflate),
phantazesthai, to appear, 504,26; 525,11
505,15 phusikoi, hoi, the natural
phasis (untranslated), 487,24 (on philosophers, 407,12
which see the note); 488,6; 496,2; phusikos, natural, physical,
phase (of the moon, 547,13) 526,9.12; 535,34; 545,12
pherein, to carry, 30 occurrences in phusiologos, physicist, 542,33 (with
Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle; see also 297a14)
pheresthai phusis, nature, 121 occurrences in
pheresthai, to move or be carried, Simplicius, 24 in Aristotle; para
121 occurrences in Simplicius, 56 phusin is translated
in Aristotle; Simplicius prefers ‘unnnatural(ly)’, kata phusin
kineisthai; translated ‘survive’ at ‘natural(ly)’
497,15 piezesthai, to be compressed, 542,29
Philia, Love (in Empedocles), 4 piptein, to fall, 504,11.29; 505,1;
occurrences in 528,12-31; see also 521,10 (with 294a18); 535,11;
Philotês 539,19; 550,2
philokalôs, in a graceful way, pisteuein, to accept, 504,20
546,15 pistis, justification, 477,11; 530,1
philos, dear, 487,10 (Empedocles); 548,15
philosophein, to do philosophy, piston, to, belief, 512,27 (with
483,19; also 298b12 293a29); also 292a9
 Greek-English Index 169
pistousthai, to confirm, 474,9; poiein, to act, do, make, produce, 66
523,7.11 occurrences in Simplicius, 15 in
pithanos, plausible, 512,25.28(2).30; Aristotle; to prôton poioun te kai
513,11.13; 525,17; 532,22 kinoun aition is translated ‘first
plagios, to the side; mostly in moving and efficient cause’ at
phrases like eis ta plagia (to the 490,9
side), 493,15(2); 532,18 (with poiêtês, poet, 517,14; 530,2
295b13); translated ‘oblique’ at poikilia, variegation, 491,23
475,11 in a quotation of Plato poikilos, variegated, 483,25; 489,6.7
planasthai, to wander, 488,18; poiotês, quality, 536,10
490,3; 491,18; see the poleuein, to turn, 517,12
Introduction, and cf. planômenos politeuein, to act politically, 483,23
planê, wandering (of planets), 489,10 pollakhôs legomenon, having
planêtês, planet, 482,23; 488,4.30; several senses, 523,31
489,6; 495,17; 497,13 (Aristotle); pollaplasiazein, to multiply,
497,23; 498,1 (Aristotle); 505,25 549,3.9
(Sosigenes); 506,17 (Ptolemy); pollaplasios, many times as great
541,13 or large, 504,28 (Sosigenes);
planômenos, for the translation see 544,3.4.16.19 (all 4 with 297a32)
the Introduction, 37 occurrences polos, pole, 42 occurrences in
in Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle; see the
plasma, fiction, 533,24.30 discussion of this word at 517,3-13
plasmatôdês, fictional, 533,14 polueidês, of all kinds, 488,7
Platonikos, Platonic, 535,5 polutimêtos, much honoured (said
platos, breadth, flatness, 36 of nous), 482,19
occurrences in Simplicius, 6 in ponêros, wicked, 515,6
Aristotle poreia, progression, 493,27
plattein, to mold, 542,22 poreutikê, forward motion, 477,16
platus, flat, 519,4 (with 293b34); porizein, to provide, 550,10
520,29; 524,10; porrô, far (away), 12 occurrences in
525,20.22.24.25.26; 526,2 (with Simplicius, 5 in Aristotle
294b23); translated ‘wide’ at porrôthen, from far away, 469,3;
524,19 519,28 (with 294a7); 548,3
plêmmelês, unsatisfactory potêrion, cup, 527,9.10
(Sosigenes), 499,5 pothen, from somewhere, 545,13
plêrês, complete, 521,20 (with 297b11)
plêroun, to fill, 524,28; 525,30 pous, foot, 10 occurrences in
plêsiasmos tôn topôn, Simplicius, 1 of them from Plato
neighbouring place, 472,33 where it is translated ‘base’ (459,6)
plêsiazein, to be or get near, 14 pragma, thing (492,6; 512,27; 514,8
occurrences in Simplicius (with 293b5); 517,21 (Plato);
plêsios, near, 472,14; 474,24.31; 530,25; 532,1; 535,28 (both
476,2; 477,1; 480,1; 481,6 (both Plato)); fact (512,1.3); concern
with 291b33 and 292a2); 504,2.25; (522,3 (with 294a24)); issue
535,28 (Plato) (523,8.10.16.19.21 (all 5 with
plêthos, multitude, number, 294b8))
quantity, 481,12 (with 292a11); pragmateia, treatise, 507,16
485,25; 490,2.15 (both with pragmateuesthai, peri, to concern
292b26); 492,20; 497,10; 505,32; oneself with, 506,2; 511,10
505,4 (all 3 Aristotle); 506,16; also praktikos, engaging in or involving
294b7 action, 482,12.16; 485,6; 487,27
pneuma, blast of air, 525,10 prattein, to perform an action, to
podiaios, a foot wide, 548,21.22 engage in action, 482,13;
170 Greek-English Index
483,10.23.37; propodizein, to move forward,
484,3.4.8.11(2).12(2).14.22.23 (all 491,24 (see the note on 487,25)
14 with 292b4); 485,6; also 292b15 prosanagraphein, also to write
praxis, action, 472,24; 482,11.16.19; down, 549,4
483,22.25; 484,10.13.18.20(2); prosanaplêroun, to fill out, 493,8
485,9.13.28; 489,13.20.27.28 (all prosaporein, to introduce
17 with the 6 occurrences in difficulties, 505,24
292a21-b6) prosauxein, to increase, 544,5.7.19
proagein, to carry out (535,10); to proseikazein, to compare, 482,29
put forward (523,10) prosêkein, to be suitable, 483,11;
proanatellein, to rise before, 537,9 499,11; 510,32; 512,31; 513,17.24;
proapodeiknusthai, to be 514,22 (all 4 with 293a31 and b2);
demonstrated already, 477,17 532,18; 534,13.17 (all 3 with
proballesthai, to propose, put 295b13 and 296a6)
forward, project, 480,26; 485,18; prosekhês, near, proximate, 470,31;
511,16 471,25; 473,1; 488,29; see also
problêma, issue, problem, 488,22; prosekhôs
493,2; 505,19; 505,24; 540,17 prosekhôs, directly, preceding,
prodêlos, manifest, 504,22; 505,13; 481,2; 482,21; 485,14.17; 486,15;
518,11; 528,25 487,29; 489,3; 514,3
produnein, to set before, 537,9 proselkein, to force to fit, 512,3
proêgêsis, retrogression, 487,25 (on (with 293a27)
which see the note); 488,6; 504,28 prosgignesthai, to be attached to,
proekhôn, projecting, 478,26 498,5; 547,4
(quoting 290b6 in ch. 8) prosienai, to approach, 480,7
proektithenai, to set out first, prosiesthai, to admit, 488,13
499,16 proskeisthai, to be added,
proerkhesthai, to proceed, 492,26; 491,25.30 (both with 293a10);
547,29 519,3
proïenai, to progress, go forward, proskhrêsthai, to use, 479,4; 521,17
492,12; 547,27 proslambanein, to assume in
prokataballein, to have put addition, 493,30
forward (opinions) earlier, 511,18 proslogizesthai, to take into
prokeisthai, to be open, set forth, or account, 519,24 (with 294a4);
present, 484,23.24.25; 485,7; 546,8
486,9; 523,16.22.32; 533,34; 539,2; prosphorôs, in an appropriate way,
550,11 483,32
prokheirizesthai, to examine, 524,3 prospiptein, to strike, to present
prokheiros, obvious, easy, 522,5; oneself, 505,15; 530,11
534,9 prosthêkê, addition, 543,11;
prolambanein, to assume first or at 544,12.18.21.22.24; 545,16
the start or previously, 501,22; prosthen, eis to, forward, 478,24
512,30; 532,2; 537,27; 542,15 prosthesis, addition, 488,11;
proödos, procession, 473,27; 474,1 498,11.28
proôsis, forward thrust, 545,18 prostithenai, to add, to introduce,
(with 297b13) 42 occurrences in Simplicius, 2 in
proôthein, to push forward, 543,22 Aristotle
(with 297a28 and 29) protasis, premiss (484,9; 523,31);
proôthismos, pushing forward, enunciation (538,30.33; 540,1)
543,23 (with proôthein at 297a28 proteinein, to put forward, 493,2
and 29) prothumeisthai, to be zealous,
propodismos, forward motion, 515,7
488,5; see the note on 487,25 protithenai, to set out, 523,8.13
 Greek-English Index 171
protithesthai, to propose, 489,33; sêmantikos, indicative, 518,5
518,32; 532,15; 536,18; to (Alexander)
protethen is translated ‘the sêmasia, meaning, 518,22
proposition’ at 500,1.16 sêmeion, point, 24 occurrences in
proüparkhein, to exist before, Simplicius, 3 in Aristotle;
531,18 translated ‘sign’ at 296b18
psophos, sound, 525,9 sêmeron, today, 537,6
psukhê, soul, 482,11.12.14; skhedon, practically, 490,12; 516,31;
489,16.25 531,33; 548,11; also 296a23
psukhousthai, to be given a soul, skhêma, shape, figure, 50
489,18 occurrences in Simplicius, 15 in
ptaisma, graphikon, scribal error Aristotle; translated ‘form’ at
474,15.29 522,18; used for the figure of a
ptôsis, fall, 540,14 syllogism at 484,13 and 512,32
pur, fire, 45 occurrences in skhêmatismos, configuration,
Simplicius, 11 in Aristotle 541,18.25; 547,11 (with 297b26)
Puthagorikos, Pythagorean, skhesis, relation, 496,3; 511,8.13.32;
511,31; 512,13 (both referring to a 535,19
work of Aristotle) skia, shadow, 504,29 (Sosigenes);
puthmên, depth, 522,31 512,17; 519,20; 520,4;
546,31(2).33; 547,1.4.6.10.11
rhadios, easy, 483,15 (with 292a30); skieros, covered in shadow, 479,26;
483,20 (with 292a32) 480,8; 546,29
rhêgnusthai, to be torn asunder, to sklêros, harsh (of a text understood
break, 525,8; 533,16 in a certain way), 486,28
rhêma, word, 518,11 skopos, purpose, 508,18; 509,13;
rhepein, to incline, 542,19; 544,20 543,32
rhêsis, words, 504,2; 517,6; 518,13 smikrotês, smallness, 519,30
rhiptein, to project, 540,12 (with sôma, body, 67 occurrences in
296b23) Simplicius,16 in Aristotle
rhiza, root, 517,26 (Timaeus Locrus) sômatikos, corporeal, 492,2; 514,9;
rhopê, inclination, 517,27 (Timaeus 514,18; 529,21
Locris); 527,12; 531,19; 542,20.27; sophistês, sophist, 533,15
545,3.8.12.18.22.25 (all 8 with sophistikos, sophistical, 523,20
297b14); 545,33; 546,18.20.22 (all sôzein, to preserve, 17 occurrences
3 Alexander) in Simplicius; a form of the
phrase sôzein ta phainomena
saphênizein, to clarify, 486,6 (preserve the phenomena) or
saphês, clear, 498,11; see also something close to it occurs at
enargês 492,28, 492,30, 497,21, 502,10,
saphôs, clearly, 478,29; 485,21; 504,18, 506,10, 509,16, 509,18,
487,2; 497,24; 498,2; 522,11; 510,31, 516,13, 516,24, and
528,26; 543,20; see also enargês 519,10; see also diasôzein
sebesthai, to be reverenced, 515,4 spartos (fem.), cord, 543,34
seismos, earthquake, 525,8 speudein, to strive, 546,20
selênê, moon, 73 occurrences in sphaira, sphere, 130 occurrences in
Simplicius, 5 in Aristotle; hupo Simplicius, 7 in Aristotle
selênên is translated ‘sublunary’ sphairikos, spherical, 30
selêniakos, lunar, 475,5.6; occurrences in Simplicius; see also
519,19.20.31; 546,33 sphairoeidês
sêmainein, to indicate or mean, sphairoeidês, spherical, 39
511,26; 517,11; 518,2.16.19; occurrences in Simplicius, 17 in
522,31; 542,16 Aristotle; see also sphairikos
172 Greek-English Index
sphairopoiein, to describe the 290a26; translated ‘to make a
sphere, 474,16 revolution’ at 502,4
sphairopoiia, description of the strophalinx, eddy, in an
sphere, 474,30; 497,6; 501,25; Empedocles quotation at 529,4
504,16 and explained by Simplicius at
sphairôsis, production of a sphere, 529,17
543,27.28 strophê, revolution, 494,19; 495,24;
sphairousthai, to form a sphere, 496,5.12; 497,1
545,1 sullogismos, syllogism, 523,1.30;
sphodra, extremely, 533,19 (with 525,23
295b33) sullogizesthai, to produce a
sphodrôs, with extreme speed, 527,8 syllogism, to infer, to argue,
spoudazein, to strive (535,22; 477,18; 511,20; 512,32; 548,19;
542,24; 543,15.26); to concern 550,6.8
oneself with (488,22; 518,24) sumbainein, to result, happen,
spoudê, striving, 542,24; 543,15 occur, turn out, follow, 36
stadion, stade (unit of distance), occurrences in Simplicius, 14 in
548,18; 549,9.17.19; 550,4.7.9 Aristotle; sumbebêke(n) translated
stasis, position, 541,26 as ‘attach to’ at 534,15 and 18
stathmên, kata, in a straight line, sumbebêkos, kata, in an indirect
505,3; 540,12 (with 296b24) sense, 534,11 (with 296a4); also
stêlai, Pillars (of Hercules), 548,2 296b17
(with 298a10) sumbolikôs, symbolically, 548,26
stenokhôreisthai, to be confined, summetria, commensurability,
525,31 (with the stenokhôrian of 492,23
294b26) summetros, commensurable, 492,8
stenokhôria, confinement, 543,24; sumperainein, to finish up, 536,13;
also 294b26 542,8; 545,23
stenos, narrow, 547,2 sumperasma, conclusion (logical),
stenostomos, having a narrow 478,5; 513,2; 540,19
mouth, 524,19 sumperiagein, to carry around,
stereos, three-dimensional, solid, 492,19; 493,13; 500,19; 507,2;
549,21.29 508,1.28
stêrigmos, station, standing still, sumperiagôgê, carrying around,
487,24; 488,6.10; see the note on 500,19
487,25 sumperilambanein, to contain
stêrizein, to stand still, 491,25; see (geometric; Sosigenes), 505,6
the note on 487,25 sumperipherein, to carry around
stigmê, point, 534,28 (with 296a17) (with), 472,6; 472,26; 473,6;
stilbein, to twinkle, 453,12 (with 490,11; 500,2; 501,14; 507,23;
290a18); 454,15.16.19 (all 3 with 508,8; 514,17
290a20) sumphanês, têi opsei, apparent to
stoikheion, element, 36 occurrences sight, 504,27.30 (both Sosigenes)
in Simplicius, 2 in Aristotle; used sumpheresthai, to move or be
to refer to Euclid’s Elements at carried together or in the same
538,25.30.36; 540,1 direction, 6 occurrences between
stomion, mouth, 524,21.24.29.31 499,24 and 500,23
strephesthai, to turn (intrans.) or sumphônein, to harmonise, 478,26;
be turned, 493,26; 494,2.27; 479,12; 513,32
495,2.22; 496,11.16.20.24.30; sumpilein, to compress, 543,23;
498,15.17; 500,8; 502,14.17.18; 544,35
510,17; 518,4; also 287a16 and sumplattesthai, to be pressed
together, 542,30
 Greek-English Index 173
sumplêroun, to fill out, 512,8; (intrans.) or be turned (with or in
513,14 the same direction), 498,19.23(2);
sunagein, to draw (531,16; 535,13); 499,23
to infer (514,5); to bring (512,6; sunerkhesthai, to come together,
528,12) 526,35; 527,13.15.19 (all 4 with
sunagesthai, to be established or 295a9,14); 529,5; 530,14 (both
inferred, to follow (478,5; 484,12; Empedocles); also 288a16 and
548,19; 549,9.19; 550,1); to be 296a17
drawn together (7 occurrences sunesis, understanding, 481,22
between 424,21 and 425,19 with (with 292a15)
288a25; also 297a20) sunêthês, habitual, 523,7 (with
sunaidein, to harmonise, 504,2 294b18)
sunairein, to bring together, 485,25 sunetos, having understanding,
sunairetikos, bringing together, 481,26 (cf. sunesis)
487,6 sungeneia, kinship, 472,32; 473,23;
sunanatellein, to rise together 490.9; 533,4
with, 501,21 sungenês, akin, 472,31; 473,8.14.21;
sunaphairein, to subtract, 503,15 535,32
sunapodeiknusthai, to be also sungramma, treatise, 494,12;
proved, 525,6 497,16
sunapokatastasis, simultaneous sunistanai, to construct, 521,1;
restoration, 506,17.19; 507,1 532,15; 529,6 (Empedocles); also
sunapokathistasthai, to be 292b26; arista sunestanai is
restored simultaneously, 475,29; translated ‘to be in the best
476,3.4.12; 506,25.28; 507,4; cf. condition’ at 482,28
apokathistasthai sunkatabioun, to live with, 493,7
sunaptein, to connect or place in sunkeisthai, to be compounded,
contact, 484,15; 490,19.30(2); 489,14.19; 500,24.26; 501,3.11
548,3 (with 298a10); to sunkhein, to run together, 490,19
sunêmmenon is translated sunkhôrein, to agree (488,4; 489,7;
‘conditional’ at 536,24 520,30; 532,27); to yield (542,30;
sunarithmein, to count, 506,3 534,24 (both with 297a11))
sunarmozein, to harmonise (with), sunkineisthai, to move (intrans.) or
512,4; 530,4 (Empedocles) be moved along with, 472,19;
sundedemenos, bound together, 473,3; 492,15; 502,15; 535,31
507,7 sunkrisis, comparison, 488,31;
sundesis, nexus, 473,12 514,31; 515,11
sundokein, to be accepted, 504,33 sunneuein, to converge,
(Sosigenes); 512,26; 513,10.11 (all 538,20.21.29; 539,3; 540,5; 545,32;
3 with 293a18) 546,2.11
sunêgorein, to present a case, 525,7 sunnoein, to reflect upon, 523,18;
suneidenai, to be conscious of, 531,2 (with 295a33)
523,12 sunodos, conjunction (astronomical),
sunektikos, holding together, 515,4 480,8.10
suneleusis, coming together, 527,31 sunokhê, binding power, 513,22
sunênômenos, united with, 482,18 sunokhikos, binding, 513,19
sunepispân, to draw with, 500,8 sunôthein, to compress forcibly,
(Sosigenes) 526,33; 527,3; 531,16
sunepistrephein, to turn (trans.) or suntattein, to combine, 528,24
make turn (with or in the same suntaxis, system (491,20.29);
direction), 494,16; 496,21.25; coordination (511,15; 530,23);
498,22; 500,11 order (530,18)
sunepistrephesthai, to turn
174 Greek-English Index
suntelein, to complete, 495,27; (teleiôs printed by Heiberg with A
523,31 against D, E, F, and Karsten);
sunthetos, composite, 489,4 491,9; 506,10
suntithenai, to add or compound, teleutaios, last, 491,20; 498,12;
497,26 (Aristotle); 499,2; 503,5; 502,21.22; 509,25 (all with 293a6
509,14 and 7); 511,3; 518,9; 541,20;
suntomos, brief, 497,17.24; 498,2; 548,15
499,17; 521,21; 535,22; 549,4 teleutê, termination, 514,25 (with
suntribesthai, to be ground 293b12)
together, 441,17 telos, end, 484,8; 9 between 485,14
sunuparkhein, to coincide, 534,7 and 486,17 with 3 in 292b13-8;
suskholazein, to study together 511,22; at 548,14 the last lemma
with, 493,6 indicates that the rest of the
sustasis, structure, 473,20; 526,13; discussion goes to the end of Book
also 293b15 2 (eis tou telous)
sustellesthai, to be contracted, temnein, to cut, 479,12; 501,31.32;
489,15 520,8; 524,5 (with 294b15)
sustrephesthai, to curl, be rolled têrein, to observe, 481,13 (with
up, 518,13.15.23 292a8); 516,5; 516,6
sustrophê, rotation, 527,3 têrêsis, observation, 474,20
tetragônikos, square, 480,4
takhos, speed, 28 occurrences in tetragônizein, to square, 413,8
Simplicius thalatta, sea, 548,3 (with 298a11)
takhus, fast, quick, 471,24.30.31; thattôn, faster, 24 occurrences in
472,9.31; 474,7; 475,16 (all 7 with Simplicius, 4 in Aristotle
291b1); 478,23; see also thattôn thaumastos, wonderful, surprising,
tarakhê, consternation, 503,12 amazing, 523,4; 533,28; 534,3
tarassein, to cause consternation, (with 296a1); 550,9; also 291b29
503,34 thaumatopoios, juggler, 527,9
tasis, stretching, 533,16.18.31 thaumazein, to be surprised, 484,2;
tattein, to order, to assign, to count, 489,13; 490,14; 520,21;
to arrange, 474,19; 476,18; 521,4.16.24 (all 4 with 294a13
488,13.17.23; 489,1.3.8.9; 490,29; and 21)
493,1.3; 497,29; 499,6.10.13; theasthai, to observe, 481,12; 548,23
503,8; 504,10; 506,24; 510,28.30 theios, divine, 483,3.5; 486,19; 487,2
taxis, order, 27 occurrences in (both with 292b22); 487,10.15;
Simplicius, 8 in Aristotle 490,21 (with 292b32); 491,6;
teinein, to stretch, 533,16 (with 509,24; 515,6
295b32) theôrein, to study, to see, 471,2
tekmairesthai, to use as evidence, (with 291a32); 504,32; 523,29
488,14; 538,4 (with 298a12); also (with 294b12); also 292a17
298a18 theôrêma, theorem, 538,29; 550,10
tekmêrion, (sensory) evidence, theôria, theory, study, 501,25;
478,5.8; 505,2; 515,26; 519,5; 523,33
520,10 (both with 294a1); 521,7; theos, god, 483,33; 485,21; 513,20;
525,5 (with 294b22); 525,7 517,9.23
teleios, complete, 471,11; 483,16; therinos, summer, 493,17
485,1; 490,13; 511,9 (teleos thermos, hot, 536,10
printed by Heiberg with A against thesis, position (31 occurrences in
C, F, and Karsten); 515,3; 523,8; Simplicius, 1 in Aristotle, who
translated ‘perfect’ at 510,22 and often uses topos); thesis (491,2)
512,6 thlibein, to compress, 542,20
teleôs, completely, 473,2; 487,19
 Greek-English Index 175
thorubeisthai, to be alarmed, tumpanoeidês, drum-shaped, 479,8;
514,19 (with 293b9) 480,10.14.20.22; 519,8.14.15.21;
thrix, hair, 533,15(2).17.29 (all with 520,11.14.16.30 (all 8 with
295b31) 293b34); 547,6.25
tiktein, to give birth, 478,11.12 tumpanon, disc (used in astronomy;
timios, honourable, 28 occurrences Sosigenes), 504,34
in Simplicius, 5 in Aristotle
tithenai, to place, posit, set out, 18 zêlos, emulation, 512,23
occurrences in Simplicius, 4 in zêtein, to seek, search, inquire,
Aristotle investigate, 42 occurrences in
toikhos, wall, 538,27 Simplicius, 13 in Aristotle
tolmân, to hazard, 488,31 zêtêsis, inquiry, 481,19;
tomê, cutting, 468,5 523,8.12.18.22 (all four with
topos, place, position, region, room, 294b8)
54 occurrences in Simplicius, 15 zôê, life, 490,7.8 (both with 292b29);
in Aristotle also 292a21
trepein, to turn, 527,34 zôidiakos, ho zôidiakos kuklos,
tropos, way, manner, mode, kind, the zodiac, 495,25; 496,22; 516,9;
498,13; 520,17; 534,33; 536,31; to zôidiakon, the zodiac, 495,11;
545,26; translated ‘solstice’ at 507,28.29; 537,4.12.22.25; 541,32;
493,16 and 497,19 and ‘turning’ at 542,1
296b4; 10 other occurrences in zôidion, sign of the zodiac, 22
Aristotle occurrences in Simplicius
tugkhanein, to attain, achieve (19 zôiogonein, to generate living
occurrences in Simplicius, 5 in things, 512,11
Aristotle); to be (12 occurrences in zôion, animal, 478,12; 482,11;
Simplicius, 5 in Aristotle); to 483,21.27; 484,16 (all 3 with
happen (505,3; 533,33.34); ei 292b2 and 7); 489,14.21.29; 514,9
tukhoi is translated ‘perhaps’ at (with 293b6(2)); 529,20; also
476,4 and ‘say’ at 479,8 and 537,7 298a31
and 8; see also tukhôn zôoun, to give life, 489,24
tukhôn, chance, random, 481,27; zôtikôs, in a vital way, 489,27.28
522,30 (with 294b5); 523,6;
530,10; 535,12; also 297b8
 Index of Passages

ARISTOTLE
(a) Testimonia and fragments
Cael. (outside the lemma under
I list here passages from Simplicius discussion) 1.2: 526,16-18; 1.8,
which have been collected as testimo- 276a22-4: 532,35-533,2; 2.3,
nia about or fragments of various an- 286a3-6: 481,27-8; 2.3,
cient authors. 286a18-20: 511,6; 2.4,
287a30-b4: 511,6; 2.8, 289b5-6:
AESCHYLUS (Snell et al. (1971), vol. 3) 511,6; 2.8, 290a7-29: 477,24-5;
25: 517,19 2.8, 290a7-9: 477,8-12; 2.8,
ANAXAGORAS (DK59) 290a35-b7: 478,21-6; 2.12,
A88: 511,23-5; 520,28-31 292a20-1: 472,23-4; 2.12,
A19: 471,1-9; 520,28-31 292a3-6: 479,15-17; 2.12,
ARISTOTLE (Rose (1886)) 293a15-16: 518,31-519,1; 2.13,
49: 485,19-22; 204: 511,25-31; 293b32-294a1: 519,6-8; 2.13,
512,12-14; 211: 505,23-5 294b13-14: 527,5; 4.4,
EMPEDOCLES (DK31) 311b6-13: 525,10-11
B17,17-18: 530,14-15; B35,1-15: Metaph. 12.7, 1072b26-30: 489,25;
529,1-5; B71: 530,1-4; B73: 12.8, 1073b11-17: 505,30-506,3;
530,6-7; B75: 530,9-10; B86: 12.8, 1073b32-8: 497,9-13; 12.8,
529,23; B87: 529,25; B95: 529,27 1073b38-1074a5: 497,26-498,1;
EUDEMUS (Wehrli (1955)) 12.8, 1074a2-4: 499,5-7; 12.8,
146: 471,2-6; 148: 488,18-24; 149: 1074a7-8: 503,7-9; 12.8,
497,15-24 1074a14-17: 506,4-7
EUDOXUS (Lasserre (1966)) Phys. 5.6: 526,16-18
F121: 488,18-24; F124: Top. 1.18: 523,30-3; 1.18,
492,31-497,8; F126: 504,16-22 108a38-b6: 523,25-7
PORPHYRY (Smith (1993)) EUCLID (Heiberg and Menge
124: 506,8-16; 163: 503,22-4 (1883-1916))
THALES (DK11) El. 1, def. 10: 538,23-5; 3, 18:
A14: 522,14-18 538,33-5; 3, 19: 538,30-2
THEOPHRASTUS (Fortenbaugh et al. HOMER
(1992)) Il. (West (2000)) 13.572: 517,17
165B: 491,17-28; 165C: 493,17-20; PLATO
165D: 504,4-15 Lg. 822A4-8: 489,5-7
Phd. 109A4-5: 517,20-2, 532,1-2,
535,28-9
(b) Texts quoted, closely para-
Rep. 617A: 474,16-19; 617A8-B3:
phrased, or clearly referred to by
475,16-18
Simplicius or Alexander
Tim. 35E-40B: 489,7-9; 37C-38E:
APOLLONIUS OF RHODES 487,8-10; 38E6-39A3: 475,11-14;
Arg. (Fränkel (1961)) 1.129: 517,15 40B8-C3: 515,12-13, 517,7-9
 Index of Passages 177
PTOLEMY HERON OF ALEXANDRIA
Alm. (Heiberg (1898-)) 1.1, Dioptr. (Schöne (1903))
25,6-12: 542,7 188,1-204,24: 549,4;
TIMAEUS LOCRUS 292,16-302,2: 549,8
Nat. (Marg (1972)) 31: 517,23-27 HESIOD
Th. 154-82: 487,11
HIPPARCHUS
(c) Early texts cited in the notes
in Arat. (Manitius (1894)) 1.9.2:
References are to the line in the Greek 493,17
text on which a footnote number oc- IAMBLICHUS
curs. VP (Deubner (1975)) 6.31: 507,14
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS Nat. Rer. (Fontaine (1960)) 23.1:
in An. Pr. (CAG, vol. 2.1) 504,30
268,15-16: 539,14 MARTIANUS CAPELLA
in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 1) Phil. (Willis (1983)) 8.883: 504,30
40,26-41,2: 512,8; 703,2-4: PAPPUS
491,13; 703,22-3: 491,20; Col. (Hultsch (1876-8)) 1022-46:
705,39-706,15: 503,33; 706,18: 533,34
506,4 PLATO [and Corpus Platonicum]
[AMMONIUS] Ax. 371B2: 517,12
in An. Pr. (CAG, vol. 4.6) 68,25-9: Cra. 405C9: 517,12
522,27 Epin. 986C4: 517,12
ARCHIMEDES (Heiberg (1910-15)) Rep. 616E8-617A1: 481,3
Aequil. 543,34 Tht. 176B: 483,19
Circ. 1: 549,15; 3: 549,12 Tim. 38C7-D2: 481,3; 53C-56C:
Sph. Cyl. 1, 33: 549,19; 1, 34, por.: 536,12
549,21 PLINY
ARISTOTLE (other than On the HN (Beaujeu (1950)) 2.6.37: 504,30
Heavens) PROCLUS
DA 3.3, 428b2-4: 548,21 Hyp. (Manitius (1909)) 130,16-23:
GA 2.23, 731a24-6: 484,19 505,9; 133,22-4: 548,20;
GC 2.1-3: 536,12 221,16-224,26: 474,28; 224,4-6:
Metaph. 12.8, 1073b17-22: 495,16; 474,21
12.8, 1073b22-32: 495,18; 12.8, in Euc. 90,18: 512,13
1074a1-14: 503,9 in Tim. (Diehl (1903-6)) 2, 106,22:
Phys. 8.1, 250b30: 530,15 512,12.13; 3, 62,16-63,20:
Somn. 2, 460b16-20: 548,21 474,28; 3, 188,2-20: 487,11
CLEOMEDES PTOLEMY
Cael. (Todd (1990)) 2.2.19-30: Alm. (Heiberg (1898-)) 1.1,
547,3; 2.5.41-80: 480,10 19,24-25: 541,26; 1.1,
EMPEDOCLES (DK31) 21,14-22,11: 539,18; 1.2, 98-9:
B39: 522,2 537,7; 1.2, 427,8-9: 548,20
EUCLID (Heiberg and Menge Harm. (Düring (1930)) 103,24:
(1883-1916)) 505,17
Opt. 22: 519,23 Hyp. (Goldstein (1967)) 3-4:
El. 1, 16: 508,6.13; 1, 32: 508,15; 474,28; 4: 549,10
3, def. 7: 539,14 Hyp. (Heiberg (1898-)) 2, 117,21-4:
GEMINUS 506,18; 2, 118,27-31: 506,21; 2,
Int. (Aujac (1975)) 8.11: 479,11 119,26-31: 506,22; 2, 123-145:
HERACLITUS (DK22) 510,23
B3: 548,21 SIMPLICIUS (other than the
commentary on On the Heavens)
178 Index of Passages
in Phys. (CAG, vols 9-10) 22,9-13: THEON OF SMYRNA
531,28; 32,12-33,2: 528,33; Exp. (Hiller (1878)) 124,19-22:
158,1-159,4: 530,15; 331,9: 550,4; 195,5-197,7: 547,3
530,10; 1355,9: 512,12 THEOPHRASTUS
THEMISTIUS Sens. (Stratton (1917)) 8-9: 529,23
in Metaph. (CAG, vol. 5.5) 28,14: TIMAEUS LOCRUS
506,4 Nat. (Marg (1972)) 35: 536,12
THEODOSIUS XENOPHANES (DK21)
Sph. (Heiberg (1927)) 1,15: 501,32 A14: 452,8
THEON OF ALEXANDRIA
Com. Sunt. (Rome (1936))
394,17-395,2: 550,4
 Index of Names

In many cases information on an item or reference to where information can be

found is provided in the note on a given passage. For sun and moon see the
English-Greek Glossary and the Greek-English Index; see also the Introduction.
For Alexander in the index of individuals and groups (section c) I indicate, where
possible, Simplicius’ assessment of what Alexander says; for Aristotle I list
passages in which something general is said about him or there is a reference
to material outside On the Heavens. The index of modern scholars (section d)
does not include editors of texts unless they are mentioned for their position on
an editorial or interpretive issue; reference to a page and line indicate the
position of a note in which the scholar in question is mentioned.

503,2.4; also hê Kronia sphaira at

(a) Astronomical names
475,6 and 476,12); referred to as
Canopus (Kanôbos): 547,22.24 Kronos (491,21; 502,28)
(observed from some locations but Taurus (Tauros): 402,34; 421,21
not others) Ursa Major ((megalê) Arktos):
Jupiter (Zeus): star of (495,28; 496,8; 547,20.23 (visibility from different
497,11; 498,11); sphere of (476,13; locations)
498,13.26; 502,20.22.25; 503,2.4); Venus (Aphroditê): star of (474,21;
referred to as Zeus (474,17; 496,6; 497,23; 504,27.29); distance
491,21; 502,3 (conjectural); 502,28) of (471,9; 474,23.25); sphere or
Leo (Leôn): 537,7.9 circle of (474,10.11.14.17; 503,2);
Mars (Arês): star of (479,16; 481,10 referred to as Aphroditê
(both with 292a5); 496,7; 497,23; (474,18.19.24; 502,30); referred to
504,28); spheres of (503,2); as ho tou Heôsphorou astêr
referred to as Arês (481,9; 502,30) (495,26); see also Morning Star
Mercury (Hermês): star of (474,20;
495,26; 496,7; 497,23); distance of
(b) Geographical names
(471,28; 474,24.26); sphere of
(474,9.14; 503,3); referred to as Athens: 493,7 (visit by Callippus)
Hermês (474,19 (2); 502,30); the Khabur, a river (Aboras): 525,13
name is mentioned at 474,19 Babylon: 506,2 (a source of
Morning Star (ho tou Heôsphorou astronomical information)
astêr = the planet Venus): 495,26 Cadiz (Gadeira): 548,1 (most eastern
Regulus: 537,5-8 area known; possibly connected
Saturn (Kronos): star of (471,17; with India)
495,28; 496,8 (where its earlier Greece (Hellas): 506,12
name ‘star of Hêlios’ is (astronomical records received
mentioned); 497,11 (Aristotle); from Babylon)
498,18.25); sphere of (472,9; India (hê Indikê): 548,2 (with
475,2.6; 480,28; 498,12; 501,26;
180 Index of Names
297b11) (possibly connected with support a great weight, evidence
Spain) which Aristotle fails to give at
Pillars of Hercules: 548,2 (with 294b21-3); 528,14 (an
298a10) (possibly connected with (unsatisfactory) attempt to
India) explain away Aristotle’s
Thebes (Thêbaia Diospolis, modern apparently false suggestion at
Luxor): 547,21 (with a reference 295a29-32 that for Empedocles
to Egypt at 298a3) (astronomical the world is not now under the
observations from) dominance of strife); 532,7 (thinks
it is unclear what, if anything,
(c) Individuals and groups
Aristotle has in mind about Plato
Aeschylus: 517,19 (writes eillomenên when he says at 295b11-12 that
in the Bassarids) ‘there are some people, such as
Alexander of Aphrodisias: 472,8 (on Anaximander among the earlier
whether the east-west motion of thinkers, who say the earth
the planets is forced); 474,7 (on remains at rest because of
the relative position of the uniformity’); 535,7 ((mistakenly)
spheres of Mercury, Venus, and thinks that the words ‘even
Mars); 474,31 (why the more balance’ (isorrhopia) and
distant planets are restored more ‘uniformity’ (homoiotês) refer to
slowly); 478,3 (defence of Aristotle the same thing); 538,11 ((perhaps
against a charge of circularity); incorrectly) takes the words ‘place
481,23 (on the deficiency of the which surrounds the centre’ at
text at 292a14-15); 485,8 (his 296b14 to refer to the heaven
(partially correct) explanation of rather than to the upper air);
the reasoning at 290b10-25); 543,15 ((mistakenly) thinks that a
489,12 ((wrongly) denies that the weight pushes lighter things
four sublunary elements have away from the centre of the
soul and participate in action); cosmos); 545,20 (accepts an
491,2 (wants to separate alternative text for 297b11-12);
290b30-291a4 as a distinct 546,15 (his (graceful) explanation
argument from what precedes it); of why the earth is only
503,33 (disconcerted by Aristotle’s approximately spherical)
statement in Metaph. that on Alexander the Great (Alexandros ho
certain assumptions the total Makedôn): 506,14
number of spheres in his Anaxagoras: 511,24 (Empedocles,
planetary theory will be 47); 513,9 Anaximander, Anaximenes,
(perplexity at Aristotle’s apparent Anaxagoras, Democritus, and
statement that people beside the Plato, say that the earth lies at
Pythagoreans thought that the the centre); 520,31 (Anaximenes,
earth did not occupy the centre of Anaxagoras, and Democritus said
the cosmos); 515,25 (thinks that that the earth is flat and rests on
the people Aristotle refers to at air); 527,1 (Empedocles and
293b21-3 as believing in the Anaxagoras say that the earth
existence of several counterearths came to be at the centre of the
are Pythagoreans); 518,1-21 cosmos because of the vortex);
(defends Aristotle’s claim at 527,32 (the associates of
290b30-2 that Plato believed the Anaxagoras and of Empedocles
earth rotates around the axis of say the vortex is the cause of the
the cosmos); 521,18 (his reading earth’s coming together in the
of 294a19-21); 525,7 centre, but the former make its
((unsatisfactory) attempt to flatness responsible for its rest
provide evidence that air will there, the latter make the vortex
 Index of Names 181
responsible); 543,4 (Anaxagoras is planetary sizes and distances
thought to have said that the became more precise after his
earth was mixed with other time); 471,20 (believes that
things previously and then greater bodies have faster
divided out); also 294b13 motions than smaller ones); 475,9
(Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and (agrees with Plato that what
Democritus, say the earth moves in a smaller circle moves
remains at rest because of its faster than what moves in a
flatness) greater one); 478,16 (holds that
Anaximander: 471,4.8 (first person stars rotate, but do not change
to give an account of the sizes and place on their own; quotation of
distances of the planets); 511,24 290a35-b7); 481,3 (agrees with
(Empedocles, Anaximander, Plato that the next planet above
Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, the moon is the sun); 481,25 (is
Democritus, and Plato, say that terse but not elliptical in
the earth lies at the centre); expression); 485,20 (says in his
531,28 (Anaximander and work on prayer that god is
Anaximenes are thought to say intellect or even something
the universe is infinite); transcending intellect); 489,25
532,3.8.13 (all 3 with 295b12) (ascribes life to intellect); 492,21-4
(thought that the earth remains (denies that heavenly things have
at the centre of the universe weight); 493,5-8 (Callippus lived
because of uniformity) with him in Athens and worked
Anaximenes: 511,24 (Empedocles, with him to correct and fill out
Anaximander, Anaximenes, the planetary theory of Eudoxus);
Anaxagoras, Democritus, and 493,9 (thought that all heavenly
Plato, say that the earth lies at bodies should move around the
the centre); 520,31 (Anaximenes, centre of the universe); 495,18
Anaxagoras, and Democritus are (gives an account of Eudoxus’
thought to have said that the planetary theory in Metaph.);
earth is flat and rests because it 497,8 (what he says about the
is held up by air); also 294b13 planetary theory of Callippus;
(Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and quotation of Metaph. 12.8,
Democritus, say the earth 1073b32-8); 497,16 (does not
remains at rest because of its explain why Callippus added
flatness) spheres to the planetary theory of
Apollonius of Rhodes: 517,14 (use of Eudoxus); 497,24 (adds
word illomenên) counteractive spheres to the
Aratus of Soli: 479,12 (use of word planetary theory of Callippus;
dikhomênon) quotation of Metaph. 12.8,
Archedemus of Tarsus: 513,7 (did 1073b38-1074a5); 498,9-503,9;
not place earth at the centre of 504,4-15 (Sosigenes’ explanation
the cosmos) of the spheres he adds to the
Archimedes: 543,32 (wrote on planetary theory of Callippus);
centres of gravity); 549,11; 550,10 503,11-504,3 (consternation about
(his evaluation of pi) his statement in Metaph. that on
Aristarchus of Samos: 471,11 certain assumptions the total
(investigated sizes and distances number of spheres in his
of the seven planets) planetary theory will be 47);
Aristotheros: 504,25 (his 505,24 (raises difficulties for the
disagreement with Autolycus of astronomers on the basis of the
Pitane) apparent variations in size of the
Aristotle: 471,10 (knowledge of planets in his Physical Problems);
182 Index of Names
505,27-506,10 (recognises the earth is at rest because of
insufficiency of the planetary uniformity, at 295b11-296a23 he
theory of his time; quotation of finds it more suitable to argue
Metaph. 12.8, 1073b11-17 and against Anaximander); 535,4-8
1074a14-17); 506,13 (requested (does not refer to Plato at all at in
that Callisthenes send back to his discussion of uniformity at
him Babylonian astronomical 295b11-296a23); 535,32 (he relies
observations); 509,19 on nature to explain the earth’s
(astronomical theories which use resting at the centre, but in the
eccentrics or epicycles do not Phaedo Socrates gives the
preserve his axiom according to physical cause of this nature,
which every body which moves in namely uniformity and even
a circle moves around the centre balance); 536,3 (at 296a6-17 is
of the universe; cf. 510,5); 512,23 arguing against people who think
(follows Plato in not wanting to that uniformity and even balance
condemn doctrines without first would be sufficient to explain why
setting them out in as plausible a anything would remain at the
way as possible); 513,7 centre of the cosmos and that is
(Archedemus of Tarsus was later why he stresses natural place);
than he (Alexander)); 518,7 (at 536,10 (takes certain qualities to
290b30-32 Aristotle is chastising be the principles of the elements,
what Plato says at Tim. 40B8-C3 but Timaeus Locrus uses
(Alexander); 518,19 (would not geometric figures as the
misunderstand Plato’s text principles of these principles);
(Alexander)); 518,23 (usually 550,5 (fails to specify the unit of
concerns himself with the surface distance when he says at
meaning of what Plato says); 298a15-17 that the circumference
518,31 (perhaps he did not say of the earth is 400,000); 550,11
that Plato held the earth to be (may not believe that the
moving, but the words ‘and measurement of the earth which
moves’ were inserted by someone he gives at 298a15-17 is precise)
else at 290b31); 522,10 (is not Autolycus of Pitane: 503,23.24
clear about Xenophanes’ position (attempt to improve the
at 294a21-28); 522,16 (chooses to astronomical system of Eudoxus
argue against Thales’ explanation and Callippus)
of why the earth is stationary but Babylonians: 481,14 (with 292a8) (a
not Xenophanes’ because Thales’ source of astronomical
view is expressed in the form of a information)
myth by the Egyptians); 525,5 Callippus of Cyzicus: 493,5 (studied
(says at 294b21-3 that people give with Polemarchus, the associate
a lot of evidence that cut-off air of Eudoxus, went to Athens after
can support a great weight, but him and lived with Aristotle, and
doesn’t say what the evidence is); together with him corrected and
525,23 (converts a syllogism of filled out the discoveries of
people he is opposed to); 528,5-6 Eudoxus); 497,6-24 (Callippus’
(apparently says falsely at modification of the planetary
295a29-32 that for Empedocles theory of Eudoxus); 503,14.18.24
the world is not now under the (mentioned in connection with
domination of strife); 530,16 Aristotle’s modification of his
(relies on a mythical statement of theory); 504,20 (failure of the
Empedocles to ascribe a view to theory to account for variations in
him); 532,2 (although both the distances of the planets from
Anaximander and Plato hold that the earth)
 Index of Names 183
Callisthenes: 506,11 (sent 295a29-32, which to Simplicius
Babylonian astronomical data seems to imply the false view
back to Greece) that, according to Empedocles,
Democritus: 511,25 (Empedocles, the world is not now being
Anaximander, Anaximenes, dominated by Strife; in the course
Anaxagoras, Democritus, and of the discussion Simplicius cites
Plato, say that the earth lies at several fragments of Empedocles,
the centre); 520,31 (Anaximenes, namely DK31B31,7-8, B35,1-15,
Anaxagoras, and Democritus said B71, B73, B75, B86, B87, and B95)
that the earth is flat and rests on Eratosthenes: 550,2 (determination
air); also 294b14 (Anaximenes, of difference in height between
Anaxagoras, and Democritus, say highest and lowest places on the
the earth remains at rest because earth)
of its flatness) Euclid: 519,3 (paraphrase of
Egyptians: 481,13 (with 292a8) proposition 22 of the Optics);
(astronomical observations); 538,23-6 (quotation of Elements 1,
522,17 (possible source of Thales’ definition 14 as something
view that the earth rests on water) learned in the Elements); 539,27;
Empedocles: 511,24 (Empedocles, 538,30-5 (quotation of ‘the 19th
Anaximander, Anaximenes, theorem of the third book of the
Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Elements’ followed by a quotation
Plato, say that the earth lies at of ‘the theorem before this’);
the centre); 520,32 (the associates Simplicius does not name Euclid
of Empedocles make the vortex Euctemon: 497,20 (he and Meton
responsible for the earth being at described variation in the lengths
rest); 527,1 (Empedocles and the of the seasons)
associates of Anaxagoras say that Eudemus of Rhodes: 471,5 (said that
the earth came together in the Anaximander was the first to
centre because of the vortex have given an account of sizes
motion of the heaven); 527,6 and distances of the seven planets
(Empedocles (apparently and credits the Pythagoreans
distinguished from Anaximenes, with the first ordering of their
Anaxagoras, Democritus) says position); 488,19.20 (said that
that the earth rests at the centre Eudoxus was the first person to
because of the vortex); 527,32.35 try to explain astronomical
(the associates of Anaxagoras and phenomena in terms of uniform,
of Empedocles say the vortex is ordered, circular motions, Plato
the cause of the earth’s coming having given the challenge to do
together in the centre, but the this); 497,17 (said that Callippus
former make its flatness added more spheres for the sun
responsible for its rest there, the and moon to the system of
latter make the vortex Eudoxus to explain the inequality
responsible); these 5 all of the seasons); 497,24 (gave the
associated with 295a17, where reason why Callippus postulated
Empedocles is picked out as using an additional sphere for each of
the vortex to explain the present Mars, Venus, and Mercury)
stability of the earth whereas Eudoxus: 488,19 (the first person to
everyone else uses it to explain try to explain astronomical
how the earth got to be in the phenomena in terms of uniform,
middle; 522,11 (uncertainty about ordered, circular motions, Plato
the meaning of DK31B39, which having given the challenge to do
Aristotle has cited at 294a25-8); this); 492,31-497,13 (description
528,1-530,26 (discussion of of Eudoxus’ planetary theory);
184 Index of Names
504,17-22 (failure of Eudoxus’ first and most senior thing that
theory to explain apparent has come to be inside heaven);
variations in the distance of 517,3-519,8 (did not believe that
planets from the earth) the earth rotates around the axis
Heraclides of Pontus: 519,10; 541,28 of the cosmos; discussion of Tim.
(hypothesised that the earth 40B8-C3); 517,22; 518,17 (follows
rotated) Timaeus Locrus); 518,5 (in the
Hipparchus: 471,11 (investigated Phaedo says the earth is
sizes and distances of the seven stationary (Alexander)); 518,8
planets) (may or may not be expressing
Homer: quoted at 517,15 the views of Timaeus Locrus in
Iamblichus: 507,14 (said, following the Timaeus (Alexander)); 518,21
Nicomachus, that the (Aristotle not likely to be ignorant
Pythagoreans hypothesised of Plato’s meaning (Alexander));
eccentric circles in astronomy) 521,1 (Anaximander and he say
Meton: 497,20 (he and Euctemon the earth rests because of its
described variation in the lengths uniformity and even balance);
of the seasons) 531,34; 535,6 (like Anaximander,
Nicomachus: 507,14 (said that the he held that the earth rests at the
Pythagoreans hypothesised centre of the cosmos because of
eccentric circles in astronomy) uniformity, but at 295b11-296a23
Plato: 474,16 (his description of the Aristotle chooses to argue against
distances of the planets from the an earlier proponent of the view,
earth in the Republic); 475,9-21 Anaximander)
(agrees with Aristotle that what Polemarchus: 493,6 (associate of
moves in a smaller circle moves Eudoxus); 505,21 (chose to ignore
faster than what moves in a the variation in the distances of
greater one; quotation of Tim. the planets from the earth)
38E6-39A3 and Rep. 617A8-B3); Porphyry: 503,34 (and the number of
481,3 (agrees with Aristotle that spheres hypothesised by
the next planet above the moon is Aristotle); 506,13 (report on the
the sun); 487,9 (his comparison of antiquity of Babylonian
the perfection of what endures astronomical observations)
forever (the Forms) with the first Ptolemy: 471,11 (investigated sizes
heaven which exists for all time); and distances of the seven
488,21; 492,31 (set astronomers planets); 474,26 (placed Mercury
the problem of explaining the beneath Venus; mention of the
apparent motions of the planets Almagest with a tacit reference to
in terms of uniform, ordered the Planetary Hypotheses);
motions); 489,5 (no inconsistency 506,16-22 (attacked the Eudoxan
between what he says in the Laws theory of nested spheres; citation
and what he says in the Timaeus of the Planetary Hypotheses);
about planetary motion); 511,25 539,16 (says that bodies with
(Empedocles, Anaximander, weight fall towards the centre of
Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, the earth; citation of the
Democritus, and Plato, say that Almagest); 541,24-542,7 (holds
the earth lies at the centre); that earth is stationary at the
512,23 (like Aristotle after him centre of the cosmos; 2 citations of
does not choose to condemn the Almagest); 549,10 (calculated
doctrines without first setting the circumference of the earth to
them out in as plausible a way as be 180,000 stades; reference to
possible); 515,12 (Plato Tim. the Geography)
40B8-C3 says that earth is the Pythagoreans: 471,5 (the first people
 Index of Names 185
to give a correct account of the 293b32 that Plato made the earth
order of the seven planets, move)
according to Eudemus); 507,13 Xenophanes of Colophon: 520,7;
(conceived the astronomical 533,5.7 (all 3 with 294a23) (says
hypothesis of eccentric circles, that what is under the earth is
according to Nicomachus); infinite )
511,25-512,21; also 515,19, Zeus, the god: 512,12-14; 513,21-32
536,19, and 548,27 (with 293a21; (all with 293b3) (some
they placed fire at the centre of Pythagoreans call fire the tower
the cosmos, made the earth of Zeus, some the guardpost of
revolve around it, and postulated Zeus, some the throne of Zeus)
a counterearth); 513,7-32; 515,6
(all with 293b1; why they placed
(d) Modern scholars cited in
fire at the centre of the cosmos);
the notes
515,20-29 (they may have
postulated other invisible bodies Allan, D.J., p. 5 n. 4
revolving around the central fire) Aujac, Germaine, 491,15; 491,23;
Saturn, the god (Kronos): 487,12 494,28; 495,15; 499,12; 499,19;
(Platonist interpretation of his 502,7; 503,33; 508,22
overthrow of Ouranos) Baltes, Matthias, 517,25
Socrates (in the Phaedo): 535,9.34; Berger, Hugo, 550,4
536,8 (his explanation of why the Berggren, J. Lennart, 549,10
earth rests at the centre of the Bergk, Theodor, 529,2, p. 5 n. 5
cosmos) Bidez, J., 474,16
Sosigenes is named at 488,20.22, Böckh, August, 493,8
498,2, 499,16, 501,22, 502,20, Boll, F., 495,29
503,29.35, 504,4.17, 509,27, and Bossier, Fernand, p. 5 n. 4
510,24, and it is clear that much Bousset, D.W., 474,13
of the material on the planetary Bowen, Alan, 480,10
theories of Eudoxus, Callippus, Burkert, Walter, 507,14
and Aristotle presented between Cherniss, Harold, 517,2
492,31 and 510,36 derives from Christ, W., p. 127 n. 3
him Cornford, Francis Macdonald, 517,7
Thales: 520,28; 522,14.18 (all with Daremberg, Ch., 483,14
294a29) (Thales says that the Dicks, D.R., 493,7; 495,16; 515,15
earth rests on water; in the third Diels, Hermann, 522,2; 529,2.10;
passage Simplicius suggests that 530,4.7.15
the doctrine may have come from Dillon, John, 507,14
Egypt) Görgemanns, Herwig, 488,20; 505,9
Theophrastus: 491,19; 493,18 (called Guthrie, W.K.C., 512,22
the spheres introduced by Hadot, Ilsetraut, 525,13; p. 127 nn.
Eudoxus starless); 504,6 (called 1, 8
the spheres introduced by Hall, J. J., 471,6
Aristotle restorative) Hartner, Willy, 474,28
Timaeus (= Timaeus Locrus): 517,22 Heath, Thomas, 471,11; 493,11;
(quoted); 518,8 (Alexander); 495,16.29; 496,7.9; 497,3.20.24;
518,10.17; 536,11. There are 504,17.32; 538,22; 539,14; 541,28;
explicit references to Plato’s 543,34
Timaeus at 475,11, 489,7, Heiberg, J.L., passim
517,6(2).12, 518,2.7 (both Hoffmann, Philippe, p. 7 nn. 1, 2
Alexander), and 519,3 (the last 6 Huffman, Carl, 511,2
with Aristotle’s assertion at Ideler, Ludwig, 495,16
186 Index of Names
Jaeger, W., 497,10.13; 497,28; 506,6; Pottier, Edmond, 483,14
p. 127 nn. 3, 13 Prandi, Luisa, 506,12
Jenkins, Ian, 483,14 Reinach, Salomon, 483,14
Jones, Alexander, 549,10 Rome, A., 548,31
Kahn, Charles H., 532,8 Ross, W.D., 497,10.13; 497,28; 506,6;
Karsten, Simon, passim p. 127 nn. 3, 13
Kidd, Douglas, 479,12 Saglio, Edmond, 483,14
Kneale, William, 536,21 Schiaparelli, Giovanni, 493,12;
Kneale, Martha, 536,21 496,13; 497,24; 499,17; 502,7;
Kranz, Walther, 522,2; 529,2.10; 503,33; 504,25.32; 505,25
530,4.7.15 Schoch, Karl, 480,25
Lameer, Joep, 525,13 Sharples, R.W., 472,8
Lasserre, François, 493,17 Stein, Heinrich, 530,4; 530,7
Last, Hugh, 524,2 Tarán, Leonardo, p. 127 n. 1
Longo, Oddone, 512,22; 548,2 Tardieu, Michel, 525,13
Marcovich, Miroslav, 371,3 Taylor, A.E., 475,12
Marg, Walter, 517,23,24,25 Toomer, G.J., 506,16
Mendell, Henry, 493,11; 496,9; Verdenius, W. J., 527,18
497,24 Vlastos, Gregory, 489,11
Mioni, Elpidio, p. 3 Wallis, R.T., 387,16
Moraux, Paul, passim Wartelle, André, pp. 2-4
Neugebauer, Otto, 474,13; 493,17; Willamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von,
504,34; 506,16; 509,16; 510,23; 522,2
546,25; 549,10 Wright, M.R., 528,14.33; 529,10
Pedersen, Olaf, 474,28 Yavetz, Ido, 493,12; 496,13
Peyron, Amedeo, p. 7 n. 3
 Subject Index

This index lists places where Simplicius’ discussion goes beyond straightfor-
ward exposition of Aristotle’s text. See also the other indices and the English-
Greek Glossary.

action for the sake of an end, 522,3-12; because it rests on

482,16-489,30 water (Thales), 522,13-523,2;
because of the vortex
causation, 472,8-474,6 (necessity and (Empedocles and Anaxagoras),
final causation) 526,34-531,31; because of
centres of gravity, 543,28-545,9; uniformity (Anaximander and
546,15-23 Plato), 531,34-536,12; because it
is natural for it to be at rest in
dialectical method, 523,3-33 (with the centre of the cosmos,
two references to the Topics) 540,24-542,7
its shape, 519,13-520,16;
earth, the, 511,3-550,14 524,3-525,4; 542,14-550,13
engages in action, 489,20-30 its size, 547,17-550,13
why study of it is included in On elements (sublunary), 489,12-30
the Heavens, 511,3-15 (have soul and engage in action);
the position of the earth in the 536,9-12
cosmos, 511,20-515,13; the
Pythagorean theory of a central intellect, 482,19 (the
fire around which the earth much-honoured); 485,16-22
moves, 511,25-515,6; 548,25-7
its motion or rest, 515,16-519,11; logic
520,9-542,9; the Pythagorean formalisation of argument,
view that the earth revolves 477,18-24; 484,3-14 (second
around the centre of the cosmos figure); 512,32-513,2 (a
and the (possibly Pythagorean) syllogism in the first figure);
view that there is more than one 515,9-10; 522,26-523,2
such body, 515,16-516,31; does (conversion with antithesis);
Plato think the earth rotates 525,17-27 (conversion of a
around the axis of the cosmos?, syllogism); 536,20-32 (second
517,3-519,11; explanations hypothetical mode; second figure)
offered for the earth’s being at circularity of argument,
rest, 520,9-16; 520,22-536,12; 477,24-478,15
540,24-542,7; because of being
shaped like a drum, 520,9-16; myth, Platonist interpretation of,
524,3-525,4; because what is 487,10-13 (overthrow of Ouranos
beneath it stretches downward by Kronos)
ad infinitum (Xenophanes),
188 Subject Index
natural and forced motion and rest, counteractive spheres in
526,8-33 (references to Phys. general, 493,11-507,8; of
and Cael. 1); 527,13-30; Eudoxus, 493,11-497,8; of
531,7-14; 532,35-533,2; Callippus, 497,8-24; of Aristotle,
535,4-536,12; 535,32-536,9; 497,24-504,15; consternation
536,19-34; 537,27-538,9; about his statement in the
538,17-540,21; 542,32-543,27; Metaphysics that on certain
545,30-546,14 assumptions the total number of
nature, 477,16-17 (does nothing spheres in his planetary theory
unreasonable) will be 47, 503,10-504,3; failure
to explain all the phenomena,
observations, 474,19-21 (passage of notably the apparent variation
Mercury under Venus); of a planet’s distance from the
479,3-480,15 (shapes of the earth, 504,16-23; Aristotle’s
lighted part of the moon during awareness of its inadequacy,
the month); 480,16-23 (shape of 504,23-506,16; Ptolemy’s
the darkened part of the sun in censure of it, 506,16-22; a
solar eclipses); 481,10-12 criticism by Simplicius,
(passage of moon under Mars); 506,23-507,8
481,12-15 (Babylonian and the theory of eccentric circles and
Egyptian); 487,20-488,7; the theory of epicycles,
488,14-18, 25-30; 489,5-11 507,9-510,23
(planetary motions); 492,25-28 the theory of Heraclides of Pontus
(are only appearances, not that the heaven is stationary
truth); 504,22-505,26 (apparent and the earth rotates, 519,9-11;
variations in distance of the 541,28-542,2
planets from the earth); plants and animals (and action),
505,1-11 (annular eclipses); 484,14-485,2; 489,12-30
506,11-15 (Babylonian records Plato and Aristotle, 475,9-21 (agree
sent back to Greece by that what moves in a smaller
Callisthenes); 519,13-520,8 circle moves faster than what
(while rising or setting the sun moves in a greater one);
appears to be divided by a 531,34-535,4 (both Anaximander
straight line); 541,13-542,7 and Plato hold that the earth is
(phenomena showing that the at rest because of uniformity but
earth is stationary at the centre at 295b11-296a23 Aristotle finds
of the cosmos); 546,26-547,14 it more suitable to argue against
(the shape of the moon in eclipse Anaximander); 535,32-536,9
shows the sphericity of the (Aristotle relies on nature to
earth); 547,17-24 (effect of explain the earth’s resting at the
change in latitude on what is centre, but in the Phaedo
observed in the heaven); 549,4-9 Socrates gives the physical
(procedure for measuring the cause of this nature, namely
earth); 550,1-4 (determination of uniformity and even balance);
difference between highest and 536,9-12 (Aristotle takes certain
lowest points on earth) qualities to be the principles of
One (Platonist), 485,16-19; 485,19-22 the elements, but Timaeus
(believed in by Aristotle) Locrus uses geometric figures as
the principles of these principles)
planetary theory, 488,7-24; power (finite and infinite), 492,3-11
491,15-492,3; 492,25-510,23; prime mover, 476,9; 482,16-19;
537,1-26 489,25-6; 490,9-10 (the first
the theory of homocentric efficient and moving cause)
 Subject Index 189
sophistical argumentation, 478,15-32; 509,30-510,15 (their
533,14-534,2 rotation); 480,26-481,15 (why do
sphere of the fixed stars, superiority planets further from the earth
to the planetary spheres, have more motions than those
489,33-490,16; 492,12-21 closer to it?); 481,16-19;
stars, 470,29-471,11; 474,7-30; 489,33-492,24 (why does the
481,1-4 (their sizes and fixed sphere have so many stars
distances from the earth); in it, whereas each of the
471,12-477,2 (inverse spheres under it contains no
proportionality between their more than one?); 482,3-489,30;
speed and their distance from 509,28-30 (have rational souls
the earth); 472,4-474,6 (are their and engage in action)
motions forced?); 476,28-477,2
(isodromic stars and the time and eternity, 484,6-12
geocentric hypothesis);
477,5-480,23 (their sphericity); weight, 531,15-31