Chapter XX: Appendix: Of Corrections (2)

[189] Hipparchus is generally regarded as the first astronomer who prosecuted the science in a regular and systematic manner. See Whewell, C. 3. p. 169 _et seq._, 177-179. He is supposed to have made his observations between the years 160 and 125 B.C. He made a catalogue of the fixed stars, which is preserved in Ptolemy’s Magn. Const. The only work of his now extant is his commentary on Aratus; it is contained in Petau’s Uranologie. We find, among the ancients, many traces of their acquaintance with the period of 600 years, or what is termed the great year, when the solar and lunar phænomena recur precisely at the same points. Cassini, Mem. Acad., and Bailly, Hist. Anc. Astron., have shown that there is an actual foundation for this opinion. See the remarks of Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 302, 303.

[190] Seneca, the tragedian, refers to this superstitious opinion in some beautiful verses, which are given to the chorus at the termination of the fourth act of the Thyestes.

[191] We have an account of this event in Thucydides, Smith’s trans. ii. 244, and in Plutarch, Langhorne’s trans. iii. 406. It is calculated to have happened Aug. 27th, 413 B.C.; Brewster, _ut supra_, p. 415, 421.

[192] The elegant lines of Ovid, in his Fasti, i. 297 _et seq._, express the same sentiment: “Felices animos, quibus hoc cognoscere primis,” &c.

[193] I have already remarked upon the use of this term as applied to the eclipses of the moon in note [164], p. 31.

[194] According to the remarks of Marcus, it appears probable that this sol-lunar period, as it has been termed, was discovered by the Chaldeans; Ajasson, ii. 306, 307.

[195] “coitus.”

[196] “Hoc enim periodo (223 mensium) plerumque redeunt eclipses, non multum differentes, denis tamen gradibus zodiaci antecedentes;” Kepler, as quoted by Alexandre, in Lemaire, ii. 238.

[197] The terms “sub terra” and “superne” are interpreted, by most of the commentators, below and above the horizon respectively; see Marcus in Ajasson, ii. 307.

[198] “globo terræ obstante convexitatibus mundi.” The term _convexus_, as applied to the heavens, or visible firmament, simply signifies _arched_; not opposed to _concave_, like the English word _convex_.

[199] This point is discussed by Ptolemy, Magn. Const. vi. 6; “De distantia eclipticorum mensium.” See also the remarks of Hardouin in Lemaire, ii. 260, 261; and of Poinsinet, i. 67.

[200] These are styled horizontal eclipses; they depend on the refractive power of the atmosphere, causing the sun to be visible above the horizon, although it is actually below it. Brotier states, that eclipses of this description occurred on the 17th July, 1590, on the 30th November, 1648, and on the 16th January, 1660; Lemaire, ii. 260.

[201] This is supposed to have been in the year 72 of our æra, when it is said that the sun was eclipsed, in Italy, on the 8th, and the moon on the 22nd of February; see Hardouin and Alexandre, in Lemaire, ii. 261.

[202] In a subsequent part of the work, xviii. 75, the author gives a different rate of increase, viz. 51-1/2 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.”

[314] It would be difficult to reconcile this phænomenon with any acknowledged atmospherical phenomenon.

[315] Perhaps the phænomena here alluded to ought to be referred to some electric action; but they are stated too generally to admit of our forming more than a conjecture on the subject. Virgil refers to the occurrence of storms of wind after the appearance of a falling star; Geor. i. 265-6.

[316] These phænomena are admitted to be electrical; they are referred to by Seneca, Nat. Quæst. i. 1. This appearance is noticed as of frequent occurrence in the Mediterranean, where it is named the fire of St. Elmo; see Hardouin in Lemaire, i. 311, and Fouché in Ajasson, ii. 382.

[317] Perhaps this opinion may be maintained on the principle, that, when there is a single luminous appearance only, it depends upon the discharge of a quantity of electrical fluid in a condensed state; its effects are, in this case, those that would follow from a stroke of lightning.

[318] This is said by Livy to have occurred to Servius Tullius while he was a child; lib. i. cap. 39; and by Virgil to Ascanius, Æn. ii. 632-5.

[319] “Ut circumagendo balistæ vel fundæ impetus augetur.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 313.

[320] “sed assidue rapta (natura) convolvitur, et circa terram immenso rerum causas globo ostendit, subinde per nubes cœlum aliud obtexens.” On the words “immenso globo,” Alexandre has the following comment: “Immensis cœli fornicibus appicta sidera, dum circumvolvitur, terris ostendit;” and on the words “cœlum aliud,” “obductæ scilicet nubes falsum quasi cœlum vero prætexunt.” Lemaire, i. 313.

[321] The author probably means to speak of all the atmospheric phænomena that have been mentioned above.

[322] Marcus has made some remarks on this subject which may be read with advantage; Ajasson, ii. 245-6.

[323] The diminutive of Sus.

[324] Ab ὕω, pluo.

[325] The Hædi were in the constellation Auriga.

[326] We have the same account of the Oryx in Ælian, lib. vii. cap. 8.

[327] Our author again refers to this opinion, viii. 63, and it was generally adopted by the ancients; but it appears to be entirely unfounded.

[328] “cum tempestatibus confici sidus intelligimus.”

[329] “afflantur.” On this term Hardouin remarks, “Siderantur. Sideratio morbi genus est, partem aliquam corporis, ipsumque sæpe totum corpus percutientis subito: quod quum repentino eveniat impetu, e cœlo vi quadam sideris evenire putatur.” Lemaire, i. 317.

[330] Cicero alludes to these opinions in his treatise De Divin. ii. 33; see also Aul. Gellius, ix. 7.

[331] The heliotropium of the moderns has not the property here assigned to it, and it may be doubted whether it exists in any plant, except in a very slight and imperfect degree: the subject will be considered more fully in a subsequent part of the work, xxii. 29, where the author gives a more particular account of the heliotrope.

[332] “conchyliorum;” this term appears to have been specifically applied to the animal from which the Tyrian dye was procured.

[333] “soricum fibras;” Alexandre remarks on these words, “fibras jecoris intellige, id est, lobos infimos ...;” Lemaire, i. 318; but I do not see any ground for this interpretation.

[334] It does not appear from what source our author derived this number; it is considerably greater than that stated by Ptolemy and the older astronomers. See the remarks of Hardouin and of Brotier; Lemaire. i. 319.

[335] The Vergiliæ or Pleiades are not in the tail of the Bull, according to the celestial atlas of the moderns.

[336] “Septemtriones.”

[337] The doctrine of Aristotle on the nature and formation of mists and clouds is contained in his treatises De Meteor. lib. i. cap. 9. p. 540, and De Mundo, cap. 4. p. 605. He employs the terms ἀτμὶς, νέφος, and νεφέλη, which are translated _vapor_, _nubes_ and _nebula_, respectively. The distinction, however, between the two latter does not appear very clearly marked either in the Greek or the Latin, the two Greek words being indiscriminately applied to either of the Latin terms.

[338] It is doubtful how far this statement is correct; see the remarks of Hardouin, Lem. i. 320.

[339] The words in the original are respectively _fulmen_ and _fulgetrum_; Seneca makes a similar distinction between _fulmen_ and _fulguratio_: “Fulguratio est late ignis explicitus; fulmen est coactus ignis et impetu jactus.” Nat. Quæst. lib. ii. cap. 16. p. 706.

[340] “Præsertim ex tribus superioribus planetis, uti dictum est, cap. 18.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 322.

[341] Our author’s opinion respecting the origin of winds nearly agrees with that of Aristotle; “nihil ut aliud ventus (ἄνεμος) sit, nisi aër multus fluctuans et compressus, qui etiam spiritus (πνεῦμα) appellatur;” De Meteor. This treatise contains a full account of the phænomena of winds. Seneca also remarks, “Ventus est aër fluens;” Nat. Quæst. lib. 3 & 5.

[342] Aristotle informs us, that the winds termed apogæi (ἀπόγαιοι) proceed from a marshy and moist soil; De Mundo, cap. 4. p. 605. For the origin and meaning of the terms here applied to the winds, see the remarks of Hardouin and Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 323.

[343] This is mentioned by Pomp. Mela.

[344] “In domibus etiam multis manu facta inclusa opacitate conceptacula....” Some of the MSS. have _madefacta_ for _manu facta_, and this reading has been adopted by Lemaire; but nearly all the editors, as Dalechamps, Laët, Grovonius, Poincinet and Ajasson, retain the former word.

[345] The terms in the original are “flatus” and “ventus.”

[346] “illos (flatus) statos atque perspirantes.”

[347] “qui non aura, non procella, sed mares appellatione quoque ipsa venti sunt.” This passage cannot be translated into English, from our language not possessing the technical distinction of genders, as depending on the termination of the substantives.

[348] “Septem nimirum errantibus.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 306.

[349] In his account and nomenclature of the winds, Pliny has, for the most part, followed Aristotle, Meteor. lib. ii. cap. 4. pp. 558-560, and cap. 6. pp. 563-565. The description of the different winds by Seneca is not very different, but where it does not coincide with Aristotle’s, our author has generally preferred the former; see Nat. Quæst. lib. 5. We have an account of the different winds, as prevailing at particular seasons, in Ptolemy, De Judiciis Astrol. 1. 9. For the nomenclature and directions of the winds, we may refer to the remarks of Hardouin, Lemaire, i. 328 _et seq._

[350] Odyss. v. 295, 296.

[351] In giving names to the different winds, the author designates the points of the compass whence they proceed, by the place where the sun rises or sets, at the different periods of the year. The following are the terms which he employs:—“Oriens æquinoctialis,” the place where the sun rises at the equinox, i. e. the East. “Oriens brumalis,” where he rises on the shortest day, the S.E. “Occasus brumalis,” where he sets on the shortest day, the S.W. “Occasus æquinoctialis,” where he sets at the equinox, the W. “Occasus solstitialis,” where he sets on the longest day, the N.W. “Exortus solstitialis,” where he rises on the longest day, the N.E. “Inter septemtrionem et occasum solstitialem,” between N. and N.W., N.N.W. “Inter aquilonem et exortum æquinoctialem,” between N. and N.E., N.N.E. “Inter ortum brumalem et meridiem,” between S. and S.E., S.S.E. “Inter meridiem et hybernum occidentem,” between S. and S.W., S.S.W.

[352] “Quod sub sole nasci videtur.”

[353] This name was probably derived from the town Vulturnum in Campania.

[354] Seneca informs us, that what the Latins name Subsolanus, is named by the Greeks Ἀφηλιώτης; Quæst. Nat. lib. 5. § 16. p. 764.

[355] “quia favet rebus nascentibus.”

[356] “... semper spirantes frigora Cauri.” Virgil, Geor. iii. 356.

[357] The eight winds here mentioned will bear the following relation to our nomenclature: Septemtrio, N.; Aquilo, N.E.; Subsolanus, E.; Vulturnus, S.E.; Auster, S.; Africus, N.W.; Favonius, W.; and Corus, N.W.

[358] The four winds here mentioned, added to eight others, making, in the whole, twelve, will give us the following card:—

N. Septemtrio.
N.N.E. Boreas or Aquilo.
E.N.E. Cæcias.
E. Apeliotes or Subsolanus.
E.S.E. Eurus or Vulturnus.
S.S.E. Euronotus or Phœnices.
S. Notos or Auster.
S.S.W. Libonotos.
W.S.W. Libs or Africus.
W. Zephyrus or Favonius.
W.N.W. Argestes or Corus.
N.N.W. Thrascias.

We are informed by Alexandre, Lemaire, i. 330, that there is an ancient dial plate in the Vatican, consisting of twelve sides, in which the names of the twelve winds are given both in Greek and in Latin. They differ somewhat from those given above, both absolutely and relatively; they are as follows:—

Ἀπαρκτίας, Septemtrio.
Βορέας, Aquilo.
Καικίας, Vulturnus.
Ἀφηλιώτης, Solanus.
Εὖρος, Eurus.
Εὐρόνοτος, Euronotus.
Νότος, Auster.
Λιβόνοτος, Austroafricus.
Λὶψ, Africus.
Ζέφυρος, Zephyrus.
Ἰάπυξ, Corus.
Θρασκίας, Circius.

[359] This wind must have been N.N.W.; it is mentioned by Strabo, iv. 182; A. Gellius, ii. 22; Seneca, Nat. Quæst. v. 17; and again by our author, xvii. 2.

[360] We may learn the opinions of the Romans on the subject of this chapter from Columella, xi. 2.

[361] corresponding to the 8th day of the month.

[362] ... lustro sequenti ...; “tribus annis sequentibus.” Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 334.

[363] corresponding to the 22nd of February.

[364] a χελιδὼν, hirundo.

[365] This will be either on March 2nd or on February 26th, according as we reckon from December the 21st, the real solstitial day, or the 17th, when, according to the Roman calendar, the sun is said to enter Capricorn.

[366] “quasi Avicularem dixeris.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 334.

[367] Corresponding to the 10th of May.

[368] According to the Roman calendar, this corresponds to the 20th July, but, according to the text, to the 17th. Columella says, that the sun enters Leo on the 13th of the Calends of August; xi. 2.

[369] “quasi præcursores;” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 335. Cicero refers to these winds in one of his letters to Atticus; xiv. 6.

[370] ἐτησίαι, ab ἔτος, annus.

[371] This will be on the 13th of September, as, according to our author, xviii. 24, the equinox is on the 24th.

[372] This corresponds to the 11th of November; forty-four days before this will be the 29th of September.

[373] Or Halcyonides. This topic is considered more at length in a subsequent part of the work; x. 47.

[374] The author, as it appears, portions out the whole of the year into fourteen periods, during most of which certain winds are said to blow, or, at least, to be decidedly prevalent. Although the winds of Italy are less irregular than those of England, Pliny has considerably exaggerated the real fact.

[375] On this subject the reader may peruse the remarks of Seneca, Nat. Quæst. v. 18, written in his style of flowery declamation.

[376] The greatest part of the remarks on the nature of the winds, in this chapter, would appear to be taken from Aristotle’s Treatise De Meteor., and it may be stated generally, that our author has formed his opinions more upon those of the Greek writers than upon actual observation.

[377] 9 A.M.

[378] In the last chapter Ornithias is said to be a west wind.

[379] This obviously depends upon the geographical situation of the northern parts of Africa, to which the observation more particularly applies, with respect to the central part of the Continent and the Mediterranean. See the remarks of Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 340.

[380] The influence of the fourth day of the moon is referred to by Virgil, Geor. i. 432 _et seq._ “Sin ortu quarto,” &c.

[381] This refers to the genders of the names of the winds, analogous to the remark in note [346], p. 71.

[382] Eudoxus was a native of Cnidus, distinguished for his knowledge in astrology and science generally; he was a pupil of Plato, and is referred to by many of the ancients; see Hardouin’s Index Auctorum, in Lemaire, i. 187, and Enfield’s Hist. of Phil. i. 412, with the very copious list of references.

[383] “flatus repentini.”

[384] Cicero refers to an opinion very similar to this as maintained by the Stoics; De Div. ii. 44.

[385] “procella.”

[386] “ἐκ νέφους, ex nube, erumpente spiritu.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 343. Perhaps it most nearly corresponds to the term “hurricane.”

[387] a τύφω, incendo, ardeo. We have no distinct term in our language which corresponds to the account of the typhon; it may be considered as a combination of a whirlwind and a hurricane.

[388] Plutarch, Sympos. Quæst. iii. 5, refers to the extraordinary power of vinegar in extinguishing fire, but he ascribes this effect, not to its coldness, but to the extreme tenuity of its parts. On this Alexandre remarks, “Melius factum negassent Plinius et Plutarchus, quam causam inanem rei absurdissimæ excogitarent.” Lemaire, i. 344.

[389] The terms here employed are respectively “turbines,” “presteres,” and “vortices.”

[390] πρηστὴρ, a πρήθω, incendo. Seneca calls it “igneus turbo;” Nat. Quæst. v. 13. p. 762. See also Lucretius, vi. 423.

[391] Plutarch.

[392] A water-spout. We have a description of this phænomenon in Lucretius, vi. 425 _et seq._

[393] “fulmen.”

[394] This has been pointed out by Alexandre, Lemaire, i. 346, as one of the statements made by our author, which, in consequence of his following the Greek writers, applies rather to their climate than to that of Italy. The reader may form a judgement of the correctness of this remark by comparing the account given by Aristotle and by Seneca; the former in Meteor. iii. 1. p. 573, 574, the latter in Nat. Quæst. ii. 32 _et seq._

[395] “fulgur.” The account of the different kinds of thunder seems to be principally taken from Aristotle; Meteor. iii. 1. Some of the phænomena mentioned below, which would naturally appear to the ancients the most remarkable, are easily explained by a reference to their electrical origin.

[396] “quod clarum vocant.”

[397] This account seems to be taken from Aristotle, Meteor. iii. 1. p. 574; see also Seneca, Nat. Quæst. ii. 31. p. 711. We have an account of the peculiar effects of thunder in Lucretius, vi. 227 _et seq._

[398] This effect may be easily explained by the agitation into which the female might have been thrown. The title of “princeps Romanarum,” which is applied to Marcia, has given rise to some discussion among the commentators, for which see the remarks of Hardouin and Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 348.

[399] Sometimes a partial thunder-cloud is formed, while the atmosphere generally is perfectly clear, or, as Hardouin suggests, the effect might have been produced by a volcanic eruption. See Lemaire, i. 348.

[400] Seneca gives us an account of the opinions of the Tuscans; Nat. Quæst. ii. 32; and Cicero refers to the “libri fulgurales” of the Etrurians; De Divin. i. 72.

[401] According to Hardouin, “Summanus est Deus summus Manium, idem Orcus et Pluto dictus.” Lemaire, i. 349; he is again referred to by our author, xxix. 14; Ovid also mentions him, Fast. vi. 731, with the remark, “quisquis is est.”

[402] The city of Bolsena is supposed to occupy the site of the ancient Volsinium. From the nature of the district in which it is situate, it is perhaps more probable, that the event alluded to in the test was produced by a volcanic eruption, attended by lightning, than by a simple thunder-storm.

[403] “Vocant et familiaria ... quæ prima fiunt familiam suam cuique indepto.” This remark is explained by the following passage from Seneca; Nat. Quæst. ii. 47. “Hæc sunt fulmina, quæ primo accepto patrimonio, in novo hominis aut urbis statu fiunt.” This opinion, as well as most of those of our author, respecting the auguries to be formed from thunder, is combated by Seneca; _ubi supra_, § 48.

[404] This opinion is also referred to by Seneca in the following passage; “privata autem fulmina negant ultra decimum annum, publica ultra trigesimum posse deferri;” _ubi supra_.

[405] “in deductione oppidorum;” according to Hardouin, Lemaire, i. 350, “quum in oppida coloniæ deducuntur.”

[406] The following conjecture is not without a degree of probability; “Ex hoc multisque aliis auctorum locis, plerique conjiciunt Etruscis auguribus haud ignotam fuisse vim electricam, licet eorum arcana nunquam divulgata sint.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 350.

[407] Alexandre remarks in this place, “An morbus aliquis fuit, qui primum in agros debacchatus, jam urbi minabatur, forsitan ab aëris siccitate natus, quem advenientes cum procella imbres discusserunt?” Lemaire, i. 350.

[408] For a notice of Piso, see Lemaire, i. 208.

[409] We have an account of the death of Tullus Hostilius in Livy, i. 31.

[410] “ab eliciendo, seu quod precationibus cœlo evocaretur, id nomen traxit.” This is confirmed by the following lines from Ovid, Fast. iii. 327, 328:—

“Eliciunt cœlo te, Jupiter: unde minores
Nunc quoque te celebrant, Eliciumque vocant.”

[411] “beneficiis abrogare vires.”

[412] “ictum autem et sonitum congruere, ita modulante natura.” This remark is not only incorrect, but appears to be at variance both with what precedes and what follows.

[413] The following remark of Seneca may be referred to, both as illustrating our author and as showing how much more correct the opinions of Seneca were than his own, on many points of natural philosophy; “... necesse est, ut impetus fulminis et præmittat spiritus, et agat ante se, et a tergo trahat ventum....;” Nat. Quæst. lib. ii. § 20. p. 706.

[414] “quoniam læva parte mundi ortus est.” On this passage Hardouin remarks; “a Deorum sede, quum in meridiem spectes, ad sinistram sunt partes mundi exorientes;” Lemaire, i. 353. Poinsinet enters into a long detail respecting opinions of the ancients on this point and the circumstances which induced them to form their opinions; i. 34 _et seq._

[415] See Cicero de Divin. ii. 42.

[416] “Junonis quippe templum fulmine violatum ostendit non a Jove, non a Deis mitti fulmina.” Alexandre in Lemaire, i. 354. The consulate of Scaurus was in the year of Rome 638. Lucan, i. 155, and Horace, Od. i. 2. refer to the destruction of temples at Rome by lightning.

[417] Obviously because faint flashes are more visible in the night.

[418] We have an explanation of this peculiar opinion in Tertullian, as referred to by Hardouin, Lemaire. i. 355; “Qui de cœlo tangitur, salvus est, ut nullo igne decinerescat.”

[419] Although it has been thought necessary by M. Fée, in the notes to Ajasson’s trans., ii. 384, 385, to enter into a formal examination of this opinion of the author’s, I conceive that few of our readers will agree with him in this respect.

[420] Suetonius informs us, that Augustus always wore a seal’s skin for this purpose; Octavius, § 90.

[421] The eagle was represented by the ancients with a thunderbolt in its claws.

[422] There is strong evidence for the fact, that, at different times, various substances have fallen from the atmosphere, sometimes apparently of mineral, and, at other times, of animal or vegetable origin. Some of these are now referred to those peculiar bodies termed aërolites, the nature and source of which are still doubtful, although their existence is no longer so. These bodies have, in other instances, been evidently discharged from distant volcanoes, but there are many cases where the substance could not be supposed to have proceeded from a volcano, and where, in the present state of our knowledge, it appears impossible to offer an explanation of their nature, or the source whence they are derived. We may, however, conclude, that notwithstanding the actual occurrence of a few cases of this description, a great proportion of those enumerated by the ancients were either entirely without foundation or much exaggerated. We meet with several variations of what we may presume to have been aërolites in Livy; for example, xxiv. 10, xxx. 38, xli. 9, xliii. 13, and xliv. 18, among many others. As naturally may be expected, we have many narratives of this kind in Jul. Obsequens.

[423] The same region from which lightning was supposed to proceed.

[424] We have several relations of this kind in Livy, xxiv. 10, xxxix. 46 and 56, xl. 19, and xliii. 13. The red snow which exists in certain alpine regions, and is found to depend upon the presence of the Uredo nivalis, was formerly attributed to showers of blood.

[425] This occurrence may probably be referred to an aërolite, while the wool mentioned below, i. e. a light flocculent substance, was perhaps volcanic.

[426]

Armorum sonitum toto Germania cœlo
Audiit.—Virgil, Geor. i. 474, 475.

“ ... in Jovis Vicilini templo, quod in Compsano agro est, arma concrepuisse.” Livy, xxiv. 44.

[427] See Plutarch, by Langhorne; Marius, iii. 133.

[428] See Livy, iii. 5 & 10, xxxi. 12, xxxii. 9, _et alibi_.

[429] I have already had occasion to remark, concerning this class of phænomena, that there is no doubt of their actual occurrence, although their origin is still unexplained.

[430] The life of Anaxagoras has been written by Diogenes Laërtius. We have an ample account of him by Enfield in the General Biography, _in loco_; he was born B.C. 500 and died B.C. 428.

[431] There is some variation in the exact date assigned by different authors to this event; in the Chronological table in Brewster’s Encyc. vi. 420, it is said to have occurred 467 B.C.

[432] Aristotle gives us a similar account of this stone; that it fell in the daytime, and that a comet was then visible at night; Meteor. i. 7. It is scarcely necessary to remark, that the authority for this fact must be referred entirely to Aristotle, without receiving any additional weight from our author. The occurrence of the comet at the same time with the aërolite must have been entirely incidental.

[433] “Deductis eo sacri lapidis causa colonis, extructoque oppido, cui nomen a colore adusto lapidis, est inditum, Potidæa. Est enim ποτὶ Dorice πρὸς, ad, apud; δαίομαι, uror.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 361. It was situated in the peninsula of Pallene, in Macedonia.

[434] The Vocontii were a people of Gallia Narbonensis, occupying a portion of the modern Dauphiné.

[435] “Manifestum est, radium Solis immissum cavæ nubi, repulsa acie in Solem, refringi.”

[436] Aristotle treats of the Rainbow much in detail, principally in his Meteor. iii. 2, 3, 4, and 5, where he gives an account of the phænomena, which is, for the most part, correct, and attempts to form a theory for them; see especially cap. 4. p. 577 _et seq._ In the treatise De Mundo he also refers to the same subject, and briefly sums up his doctrine with the following remark: “arcus est species segmenti solaris vel lunaris, edita in nube humida, et cava, et perpetua; quam velut in speculo intuemur, imagine relata in speciem circularis ambitûs.” cap. 4. p. 607. Seneca also treats very fully on the phænomena and theory of the Rainbow, in his Nat. Quæst. i. 3-8.

[437] _Vide supra_, also Meteor. iii. 2, and Seneca, Nat. Quæst. i. 3.

[438] Aristotle, Meteor. iii. 5. p. 581, observes, that the rainbow is less frequently seen in the summer, because the sun is more elevated, and that, consequently, a less portion of the arch is visible. See also Seneca, Nat. Quæst. i. 8. p. 692.

[439] Aristotle treats at some length of dew, snow, and hail, in his Meteor. i. cap. 10, 11 & 12 respectively.

[440] When water is frozen, its bulk is increased in consequence of its assuming a crystalline structure. Any diminution which may be found to have taken place in the bulk of the fluid, when thawed, must be ascribed to evaporation or to some accidental circumstance.

[441] “Velini lacus ... præcipiti cursu in gurgitem subjectum defertur, et illo aquarum lapsu, dispersis in aëra guttis humidis, ... iridis multiplicis phænomenon efficit....” Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 365.

[442] We have an example in Martial, v. 34. 9, of the imprecation which has been common in all ages:

Mollia nec rigidus cespes tegat ossa, nec illi
Terra gravis fueris;

and in Seneca’s Hippolytus, _sub finem_:

... istam terra defossam premat,
Gravisque tellus impio capiti incubet.

[443] The author refers to this opinion, xxix. 23, when describing the effects of venomous animals.

[444] inertium; “ultione abstinentium,” as explained by Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 367.

[445] “Quod mortis genus a terræ meritis et benignitate valde abhorret.” Hardouin, in Lemaire, i. 367.

[446] “Terra, inquit, sola est, e quatuor naturæ partibus sive elementis, adversus quam ingrati simus.” Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 368.

[447] “Est ironiæ formula. Quid, ait, feras et serpentes et venena terræ exprobramus, quæ ne ad tuendam quidem illam satis valent?” Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 369.

[448] “ossa vel insepulta cum tempore tellus occultat, deprimentia pondere suo mollitam pluviis humum.” Alexandre, in Lemaire, i. 370.

[449] “figura prima.” I may refer to the second chapter of this book, where the author remarked upon the form of the earth as perfect in all its parts, and especially adapted for its supposed position in the centre of the universe.

[450] “... si capita linearum comprehendantur ambitu;” the meaning of this passage would appear to be: if the extremities of the lines drawn from the centre of the earth to the different parts of the surface were connected together, the result of the whole would be a sphere. I must, however, remark, that Hardouin interprets it in a somewhat different manner; “Si per extremitates linearum ductarum a centro ad _summos_ quosque vertices montium circulus exigatur.” Lemaire, i. 370.

[451] “... immensum ejus globum in formam orbis assidua circa eam mundi volubilitate cogente.” As Hardouin remarks, the word _mundus_ is here used in the sense of _cœlum_. Lemaire, i. 371.

[452] As our author admits of the existence of antipodes, and expressly states that the earth is a perfect sphere, we may conclude that the resemblance to the cone of the pine is to be taken in a very general sense. How far the ancients entertained correct opinions respecting the globular figure of the earth, or rather, at what period this opinion became generally admitted, it is perhaps not easy to ascertain. The lines in the Georgics, i. 242, 243, which may be supposed to express the popular opinion in the time of Virgil, certainly do not convey the idea of a sphere capable of being inhabited in all its parts:

Hic vertex nobis semper sublimis; at illum
Sub pedibus Styx atra videt, manesque profundi.

[453] “spiritus vis mundo inclusi.”