Читать книгу The Natural History of Pliny (Vol. 1-6) - Pliny the Elder - Страница 239

202 In a subsequent part of the work, xviii. 75, the author gives a different rate of increase, viz. 51¹⁄₂ minutes; neither of these numbers is correct; the mean rate of increase being, according to Alexandre, about 54′ or 55′; Lemaire, ii. 261, 262. See also Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 311-14.

203 It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the effect, as here stated, has no connexion with the supposed cause.

204 “luminum canonica.”

205 Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

206 They are then said, in astronomical language, to rise heliacally.

207 In the last chapter this distance was stated to be 7 degrees; see the remarks of Alexandre, in Lemaire, ii. 263.

208 “radiorum ejus contactu reguntur.” The doctrine of the ancient astronomers was, that the motions of the planets are always governed by the rays of the sun, according to its position, attracting or repelling them.

209 A planet appears to be stationary, i. e. to be referred to the same point of the zodiac, when it is so situated with respect to the earth, that a straight line passing through the two bodies forms a tangent to the smaller orbit. The apparent motion of the planets, sometimes direct and at other times retrograde, with their stationary positions, is occasioned by the earth and the planets moving in concentric orbits, with different velocities. One hundred and twenty degrees is the mean distance at which the three superior planets become stationary. We have an elaborate dissertation by Marcus, on the unequal velocities of the planets, and on their stations and retrogradations, as well according to the system of Aristotle as to that of Copernicus; Ajasson, ii. 316 et seq. He remarks, and, I conceive, with justice, “... ce n’est pas dans les traités d’astronomie de nos savans que l’on doit puiser les détails destinés à éclaircir le texte des chapitres xii, xiii, xiv et xv du second livre de Pline.... Je ne dis rien des commentaires de Poinsinet, d’Hardouin et d’autres savans peu versés en matière d’astronomie, qui ont fait dire à Pline les plus grandes absurdités.”

210 “Occasus planetæ vespertinus dicitur, quo die desinit post occasum solis supra horizontem oculis se præbere manifestum;” Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 265. It is then said to set heliacally.

211 The interpretation of this passage has given rise to much discussion among the commentators and translators; I may refer the reader to the remarks of Poinsinet, i. 70, 71; of Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 266; and of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 328. I conceive the meaning of the author to be, that while the other planets become stationary, when at 120 degrees from the sun, Mars becomes so at 90 degrees, being detained by the rays, which act upon him more powerfully, in consequence of his being nearer to their source.

212 I may refer to the remarks of Marcus on the respective distances from the sun at which Venus and Mercury become stationary, and when they attain their greatest elongations; Ajasson, ii. 328, 329. According to Ptolemy, Magn. Constr. lib. viii. cap. 7, the evening setting of Venus is at 5° 40′ from the sun, and that of Mercury at 11° 30′.

213 “Ἁψὶς, ligneus rotæ circulus, ab ἅπτω necto;” Hederic in loco. The term is employed in a somewhat different sense by the modern astronomers, to signify the point in the orbit of a planet, when it is either at the greatest or the least distance from the earth, or the body about which it revolves; the former being termed the apogee, aphelion, or the higher apsis; the latter the perigee, perhelion, or lower apsis; Jennings on the Globes, pp. 64, 65.

214 “mundo.”

215 “ratione circini semper indubitata.”

216 In consequence of the precession of the equinoxes these points are continually advancing from W. to E., and are now about 30 degrees from the situation they were in when the observations were first made by the modern astronomers.

217 Our author here probably refers to the motions of the planets through their epicycles or secondary circles, the centres of which were supposed to be in the peripheries of the primary circles. See Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 270.

218 It is to this visible appearance of convexity in the heavens that Ovid refers in the story of Phaëton, where he is describing the daily path of the sun; Metam. ii. 63-67.

219 “quam quod illi subjacet;” under this designation the author obviously meant to include the temperate zones, although it technically applies only to the part between the tropics. It is scarcely necessary to remark, that modern discoveries have shown that this opinion respecting the Arctic zone is not strictly correct.

220 The breadth of the zodiac, which was limited by the ancients to 12 degrees, has been extended by the modern astronomers to 18, and would require to be much farther extended to include the newly discovered planet. Herschel’s Astronomy, § 254.

221 There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the terms employed by our author in describing the course of the planet Mercury through the zodiac; “medio ejus,” “supra,” and “infra.” Hardouin’s comment is as follows: “Duas zodiaci partes seu gradus pererrat, quum ipse per medium incedit signiferum: supra, quum deflectit ad Aquilonem, per quatuor alias ejusdem partes vagatur: infra, quum descendit ad Austrum, discedit duabus.” Lemaire, ii. 271, 272. But Marcus has shown that the opinion of Hardouin is inadmissible and inconsistent with the facts; Ajasson, ii. 338-341. He proposes one, which he conceives to be more correct, but we may probably be led to the conclusion, that the imperfect knowledge and incorrect opinions of our author on these subjects must render it impossible to afford an adequate explanation.

222 “flexuoso draconum meatu;” Poinsinet remarks, “Les Grecs ... appellaient dragons les bracelets, les hausse-cols, les chainettes, et généralement tout ce qui avait une figure armillaire;” i. 79, 80.

223 As this remark appears to contradict what was said in the last sentence respecting the sun, we may suspect some error in the text; see Poinsinet, Alexandre, and Marcus, in loco.

224 The following comparative statement is given by Alexandre of the geocentric latitudes of the planets, as assigned by Pliny, and as laid down by the moderns. Lemaire, ii. 273:—

	Pliny.	Moderns.
Venus	8°	9° 22′
Moon	6	6 0
Mercury	5	6 54
Mars	2 0	1 51
Jupiter	1 30	1 30
Saturn	1 (or 2°)	2 30

225 It appears from the remark at the end of this chapter, that this explanation applies to the superior planets alone.

226 It is not easy, as Marcus observes, Ajasson, ii. 341, 345, to comprehend the exact meaning of this passage, or to reconcile it with the other parts of our author’s theory.

227 “Ecliptica,” called by the moderns the nodes; i. e. the two points where the orbits of the planets cut the ecliptic. See the remarks of Marcus on this term; Ajasson, ii. 345, 346.

228 We may presume that our author here refers to the apparent motion of the planets, not to their actual acceleration or retardation.

229 The editors have differed in the reading of this passage; I have followed that of Lemaire.

230 “incipit detrahi numerus.” According to the explanation of Alexandre, “numerus nempe partium quas certo temporis intervallo emetiuntur.” Lemaire, ii. 275. Marcus remarks in this place, “Dans tout ce chapitre et dans le suivant, Pline a placé dans une correlation de causité, tout ce qu’il croit arriver en même temps; mais il n’a pas prouvé par-là que les phenomènes célestes qui sont contemporains sont engendrés les uns par les autres.” Ajasson, ii. 349.

231 The hypothesis of Pliny appears to be, that the planets are affected by the rays of the sun, and that according to the angle at which they receive the impulse, they are either accelerated or retarded in their course.

232 “ex priore triquetro.”

233 Alexandre supposes, as I conceive justly, that our author, in this passage, only refers to the writings of his own countrymen; Lemaire, ii. 276.

234 According to Ptolemy, these numbers are respectively 47° 51′ and 24° 3′; the modern astronomers have ascertained them to be 48° and 29°. The least elongations of the planets are, according to Ptolemy, 44° 7′ and 18° 50′, and according to the observations of the moderns, 45° and 16°; Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 354.

235 I have not translated the clause, “quum sint diversæ stelæ,” as, according to Hardouin, it is not found “in probatissimis codd.,” and appears to have little connexion with the other parts of the sentence; it is omitted by Valpy and Lemaire, but is retained by Poinsinet and Ajasson.

236 When these inferior planets have arrived at a certain apparent distance from the sun, they are come to the extent of their orbits, as seen from the earth.

237 “Quum ad illam Solis distantiam pervenerunt, ultra procedere non possunt, deficiente circuli longitudine, id est, amplitudine.” Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 277.

238 The transits of the inferior planets had not been observed by the ancients.

239 “utroque modo;” “latitudine et altitudine;” Hardouin in Lemaire, ii. 279.

240 “Catholica.”

241 “... quæ (stella Martis) ut maxime excentrica volvitur, motus etiam maxime dissonos habere diu visa est....;” Alexandre in Lemaire, ii. 180.

242 “... qui numerus sexangulas mundi efficit formas.”

243 Lynceus was one of the Argonauts and was celebrated for the acuteness of his vision; Val. Flaccus, i. 462 et seq.

244 The relative situation of these astronomical phænomena has changed since the time of Pliny, in consequence of the precession of the equinoxes. For an illustration and explanation of the various statements in this chapter I may refer to the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 368-370.

245 Ptolemy’s account of the colours of the planets is nearly similar to that of our author; “Candidus color Jovialis est, rutilus Martius, flavus Veneris, varius Mercurii;” De Jur. Astrol. ii. 9.

246 This effect cannot be produced by any of the planets, except perhaps, to a certain extent, by Venus.

247 “mundi.”

248 It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the method which Pliny employs to explain the different phases of the moon betrays his ignorance, not only of the cause of these particular phænomena, but of the general principles which affect the appearance of the heavenly bodies.

249 “seminani ambitur orbe.” According to the interpretation of Hardouin, “Orbe non perfecto et absoluto;” “major dimidia, minor plena;” Lemaire, ii. 284.

250 As Alexandre justly remarks, our author refers here to the aspects only of the planets, not to their phases; ii. 284.

251 “centrum terræ;” the equator, the part equally distant from the two poles or extremities.

252 It may be remarked, that the equinoxes did not actually take place at this period in the points mentioned by Pliny, but in the 28th degrees of Pisces and Virgo respectively; he appears to have conformed to the popular opinion, as we may learn from Columella, lib. ix. cap. 14. The degrees mentioned above were those fixed by the Greek astronomers who formed the celestial sphere, and which was about 138 years before the Christian æra. See the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 246 & 373, 374.

253 The same remark applies to this as to the former observation.

254 “siderum.”

255 The hypothesis of the author is, that the excess of moisture in the orbit of Saturn, and the excess of heat in that of Mars, unite in the orbit of Jupiter and are discharged in the form of thunder.

256 Alexandre remarks, that Pliny mentions this, not as his own opinion, but that of many persons; for, in chap. 21, he attempts to prove mathematically, that the moon is situated at an equal distance between the sun and the earth; Lemaire, ii. 286.

257 Marcus remarks upon the inconsistency between the account here given of Pythagoras’s opinion, and what is generally supposed to have been his theory of the planetary system, according to which the sun, and not the earth, is placed in the centre; Enfield’s Philosophy, i. 288, 289. Yet we find that Plato, and many others among the ancients, give us the same account of Pythagoras’s doctrine of the respective distances of the heavenly bodies; Ajasson, ii. 374. Plato in his Timæus, 9. p. 312-315, details the complicated arrangement which he supposes to constitute the proportionate distances of the planetary bodies.

258 Sulpicius has already been mentioned, in the ninth chapter of this book, as being the first among the Romans who gave a popular explanation of the cause of eclipses.

259 “Διὰ πασῶν, omnibus tonis contextam harmoniam.” Hardouin in Lemaire, ii. 287.

260 These appellations appear to have originated from different nations having assumed different notes as the foundation or commencement of their musical scale. The Abbé Barthelemi informs us, that “the Dorians executed the same air a tone lower than the Phrygians, and the latter a tone still higher than the Lydians; hence the denomination of the Dorian, Phrygian, and Lydian modes.” It appears to have been a general practice to employ the lowest modes for the slowest airs; Anacharsis’s Travels, iii. 73, 74.

261 Hence the passus will be equal to 5 Roman feet. If we estimate the Roman foot at 11·6496 English inches, we shall have the miliare of 8 stadia equal to 1618 English yards, or 142 yards less than an English statute mile. See Adam’s Roman Antiquities, p. 503; also the articles Miliare and Pes in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities; and for the varieties of the stadium, as employed at different periods and in different countries, see the article Stadium. The stadium which Herodotus employed in measurements of Babylon has been supposed to consist of 490 English feet, while that of Xenophon and Strabo has been estimated at 505; see Ed. Rev. xlviii. 190. The Abbé Barthelemi supposes the stadium to be equal to 604 English feet; Anach. Travels, vii. 284.

262 There appears to have been two individuals of this name, who have been confounded with each other; the one referred to by Pliny was an astronomer of Alexandria, who flourished about 260 years B.C.; the other was a native of Apamea, a stoic philosopher, who lived about two centuries later; see Aikin’s Biog. in loco; also Hardouin’s Index Auctorum, Lemaire, i. 209.

263 The terms in the original are respectively nubila and nubes. The lexicographers and grammarians do not appear to have accurately discriminated between these two words.

264 The words in the text are “vicies centum millia” and “quinquies millia.”

265 Archimedes estimated that the diameter of a circle is to its circumference as 1 to 3·1416; Hutton’s Dict. in loco. Ptolemy states it to be precisely as 1 to 3; Magn. Const. i. 12.

266 The author’s reasoning is founded upon the supposition of the length of the sun’s path round the earth being twelve times greater than that of the moon’s; the orbit therefore would be twelve times greater and the radius in the same proportion.

267 “Non inter Lunam et Saturnum, sed inter Lunam et cœlum affixarum stellarum, medium esse Solem modo dixerat. Quam parum sui meminit!” Alexandre in Lem. i. 291.

268 “Qui computandi modus plurimum habet verecundiæ et modestiæ, quum ibi sistit, nec ulterius progreditur.” Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 292.

269 “... ad Saturni circulum addito Signiferi ipsius intervallo, ...”

270 We may remark, that our author, for the most part, adopts the opinions of Aristotle respecting comets and meteors of all kinds, while he pays but little attention to those of his contemporary Seneca, which however, on some points, would appear to be more correct. See the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 244. Under the title of comets he includes, not only those bodies which are permanent and move in regular orbits, but such as are transient, and are produced from various causes, the nature of which is not well understood. See Aristotle, Meteor. lib. i. cap. 6, 7, and Seneca, Nat. Quæst. lib. 7, and Manilius, i. 807 et seq.

271 a κόμη, coma.

272 a πωγωνίος, barbatus. Most of these terms are employed by Aristotle and by Seneca.

273 ab ἀκόντιον, jaculum.

274 a ξίφος, ensis.

275 a δίσκος, orbis.

276 a πίθος, dolium. Seneca describes this species as “magnitudo vasti rotundique ignis dolio similis;” Nat. Quæst. lib. i. § 14. p. 964.

277 a κέρας, cornu.

278 a λαμπὰς, fax.

279 ab ἵππος, equus. Seneca mentions the fax, the jaculum, and the lampas among the prodigies that preceded the civil wars; Phars. i. 528 et seq.

280 Alexandre remarks, that these dates do not correspond, and adds, “Desperandum est de Pliniana chronologia; nec satis interdum scio, utrum librarios, an scriptorem ipsum incusem,....” Lemaire, i. 295. According to the most approved modern chronology, the middle of the 109th olympiad corresponds to the 211th year of the City.

281 “errantium modo;” this may mean, that they move in orbits like those of the planets and exhibit the same phænomena, or simply that they change their situation with respect to the fixed stars.

282 Seneca remarks on this point, “Placet igitur nostris (Stoicis) cometas ... denso aëri creari. Ideo circa Septemtrionem frequentissime apparent, quia illic plurimi est aëris frigor.” Quæst. Nat. i. 7. Aristotle, on the contrary, remarks that comets are less frequently produced in the northern part of the heavens; Meteor. lib. i. cap. 6. p. 535.

283 Ubi supra.

284 See Aristotle, ut supra, p. 537.

285 “Videtur is non cometes fuisse, sed meteorus quidam ignis;” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 296.

286 Virgil, Geor. i. 488 et seq., Manilius, i. 904 et seq., and Lucan, i. 526 et seq., all speak of the comets and meteors that were observed previous to the civil wars between Pompey and Cæsar. In reference to the existence of a comet about the time of Julius Cæsar, Playfair remarks, that Halley supposed the great comet of 1680 to have been the same that appeared in the year 44 A.C., and again in Justinian’s time, 521 P.C., and also in 1106; Elem. Nat. Phil. ii. 197, 198. See Ptolemy’s Cent. Dict. no. 100, for the opinion, that comets presented an omen especially unfavourable to kings. To this opinion the following passage in the Paradise Lost obviously refers; “And with fear of change perplexes monarchs.”

287 Seneca refers to the four comets that were seen, after the death of Cæsar, in the time of Augustus, of Claudius, and of Nero; Quæst. Nat. i. 7. Suetonius mentions the comet which appeared previous to the death of Claudius, cap. 46, and Tacitus that before the death of Nero, Ann. xiv. 22.

288 “A Julio Cæsare. Is enim paulo ante obitum collegium his ludis faciendis instituerat, confecto Veneris templo;” Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 299. Jul. Obsequens refers to a “stella crinita,” which appeared during the celebration of these games, cap. 128.

289 “Hoc est, hora fere integra ante solis occasum;” Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 299.

290 All these circumstances are detailed by Suetonius, in Julio, § 88. p. 178.

291 “terris.”

292 Seneca remarks, “... quidam nullos esse cometas existimant, sed species illorum per repercussionem vicinorum siderum,... Quidam aiunt esse quidem, sed habere cursus suos et post certa lustra in conspectum mortalium exire.” He concludes by observing, “Veniet tempus, quo ista quæ nunc latent, in lucem dies extrahat, et longioris diei diligentia;” Nat. Quæst. lib. 7. § 19. p. 807.

293 For some account of Hipparchus, see note 189, p. 37.

294 Nothing is known respecting the nature of these instruments, nor have we any means of forming even a conjecture upon the subject.

295 The terms “faces,” “lampades,” “bolides,” and “trabes,” literally torches, lamps, darts, and beams, which are employed to express different kinds of meteors, have no corresponding words in English which would correctly designate them.

296 From this account it would appear, that the “fax” was what we term a falling star. “Meteora ista, super cervices nostras transeuntia, diversaque a stellis labentibus, modo aërolithis ascribenda sunt, modo vaporibus incensis aut electrica vi prognata videntur, et quamvis frequentissime recurrant, explicatione adhuc incerta indigent.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 302.

297 Seneca refers to this meteor; “Vidimus non semel flammam ingenti pilæ specie, quæ tamen in ipso cursu suo dissipata est ... nec Germanici mors sine tali demonstratione fuit;” Nat. Quæst, lib. i. cap. 1. p. 683.

298 This meteor is mentioned by Dion Cassius, lib. xlv. p. 278, but is described by him as a lampas.

299 We may presume that the trabes are, for the most part, to be referred to the aurora borealis. The chasma and the appearances described in the twenty-seventh chapter are probably varieties of this meteor. On these phænomena we have the following remarks by Seneca: “Lucem in aëre, seu quamdam albedinem, angustam quidem, sed oblongam, de noctu quandoque visam, sereno cœlo, si parallelo situ sit, Trabem vocant; si perpendiculari, Columnam; si, cum cuspide Bolida, sive Jaculum.” Nat. Quæst. vii. 4, and again, vii. 5, “Trabes autem non transcurrunt nec prætervolant, ut faces, sed commorantur, et in eadem parte cœli collucent.”

300 Seneca describes this meteor, ubi supra, i. 14. “Sunt chasmata, cum aliquando cœli spatium discedit, et flammam dehiscens velut in abdito ostentat. Colores quoque horum omnium plurimi sunt. Quidam ruboris acerrimi, quidam evanidæ et levis flammæ, quidam candidæ lucis, quidam micantes, quidam æquabiliter et sine eruptionibus aut radiis fulvi.” Aristotle’s account of chasmata is contained in his Meteor. lib. i. cap. 5. p. 534.

301 The meteor here referred to is probably a peculiar form of the aurora borealis, which occasionally assumes a red colour. See the remarks of Fouché, in Ajasson, i. 382.

302 The doctrine of the author appears to be, that the prodigies are not the cause, but only the indication of the events which succeed them. This doctrine is referred to by Seneca; “Videbimus an certus omnium rerum ordo ducatur, et alia aliis ita complexa sint, ut quod antecedit, aut causa sit sequentium aut signum.” Nat. Quæst. i. 1.

303 It would appear that, in this passage, two phænomena are confounded together; certain brilliant stars, as, for example, Venus, which have been occasionally seen in the day-time, and the formation of different kinds of halos, depending on certain states of the atmosphere, which affect its transparency.

304 This occurrence is mentioned by Seneca, Nat. Quæst. i. 2; he enters into a detailed explanation of the cause; also by V. Paterculus, ii. 59, and by Jul. Obsequens, cap. 128. We can scarcely doubt of the reality of the occurrence, as these authors would not have ventured to relate what, if not true, might have been so easily contradicted.

305 The term here employed is “arcus,” which is a portion only of a circle or “orbis.” But if we suppose that the sun was near the horizon, a portion only of the halo would be visible, or the condition of the atmosphere adapted for forming the halo might exist in one part only, so that a portion of the halo only would be obscured.

306 The dimness or paleness of the sun, which is stated by various writers to have occurred at the time of Cæsar’s death, it is unnecessary to remark, was a phænomenon totally different from an eclipse, and depending on a totally different cause.

307 Aristotle, Meteor. lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 575, cap. 6. p. 582, 583, and Seneca, Quæst. Nat. lib. i. § 11, describe these appearances under the title which has been retained by the moderns of παρήλια. Aristotle remarks on their cause as depending on the refraction (ἀνάκλασις) of the sun’s rays. He extends the remark to the production of halos (ἅλως) and the rainbow, ubi supra.

308 This occurrence is referred to by Livy, xli. 21.

309 This meteor has been named παρασελήνη; they are supposed to depend upon the same cause with the Parhelia. A phænomenon of this description is mentioned by Jul. Obsequens, cap. 92, and by Plutarch, in Marcellus, ii. 360. In Shakspeare’s King John the death of Prince Arthur is said to have been followed by the ominous appearance of five moons.

310 This phænomenon must be referred to the aurora borealis. See Livy, xxviii. 11. and xxix. 14.

311 “clypei.”

312 Probably an aërolite. Jul. Obsequens describes a meteor as “orbis clypei similis,” which was seen to pass from west to east, cap. 105.

313 “ceu nubilo die.”