CHAP. 13.—WHY THE SAME STARS APPEAR AT SOME TIMES
MORE LOFTY AND AT OTHER TIMES MORE NEAR.
The above is an account of the aspects and the occultations
of the planets, a subject which is rendered very complicated
by their motions, and is involved in much that is wonderful;
especially, when we observe that they change their size and
colour, and that the same stars at one time approach the
north, and then go to the south, and are now seen near the
earth, and then suddenly approach the heavens. If on this
subject I deliver opinions different from my predecessors, I
acknowledge that I am indebted for them to those individuals who first pointed out to us the proper mode of inquiry;
let no one then ever despair of benefiting future ages.
But these things depend upon many different causes. The
first cause is the nature of the circles described by the stars,
which the Greeks term apsides[1], for we are obliged to use
Greek terms. Now each of the planets has its own circle,
and this a different one from that of the world[2]; because the
earth is placed in the centre of the heavens, with respect to
the two extremities, which are called the poles, and also in
that of the zodiac, which is situated obliquely between them.
And all these things are made evident by the infallible results
which we obtain by the use of the compasses[3]. Hence the
apsides of the planets have each of them different centres, and
consequently they have different orbits and motions, since it
necessarily follows, that the interior apsides are the shortest.
(16.) The apsides which are the highest from the centre
of the earth are, for Saturn, when he is in Scorpio, for Jupiter
in Virgo, for Mars in Leo, for the Sun in Gemini, for Venus
in Sagittarius, and for Mercury in Capricorn, each of them
in the middle of these signs; while in the opposite signs,
they are the lowest and nearest to the centre of the earth[4].
Hence it is that they appear to move more slowly when
they are carried along the highest circuit; not that their
actual motions are accelerated or retarded, these being fixed
and determinate for each of them; but because it necessarily
follows, that lines drawn from the highest apsis must approach
nearer to each other at the centre, like the spokes of a wheel;
and that the same motion seems to be at one time greater,
and at another time less, according to the distance from the
centre.
Another cause of the altitudes of the planets is, that their
highest apsides, with relation to their own centres, are in
different signs from those mentioned above[5]. Saturn is in
the 20th degree of Libra, Jupiter in the 15th of Cancer,
Mars in the 28th of Capricorn, the Sun in the 19th of Aries,
Venus in the 27th of Pisces, Mercury in the 15th of Virgo,
and the Moon in the 3rd of Taurus.
The third cause of the altitude depends on the form of the
heavens, not on that of the orbits; the stars appearing to
the eye to mount up and to descend through the depth of
the air[6]. With this cause is connected that which depends
on the latitude of the planets and the obliquity of the zodiac.
It is through this belt that the stars which I have spoken of
are carried, nor is there any part of the world habitable, except what lies under it[7]; the remainder, which is at the poles,
being in a wild desert state. The planet Venus alone exceeds
it by 2 degrees, which we may suppose to be the cause why
some animals are produced even in these desert regions of
the earth. The moon also wanders the whole breadth of the
zodiac, but never exceeds it. Next to these the planet Mercury moves
through the greatest space; yet out of the 12 degrees (for there are
so many degrees of latitude in the zodiac[8]),
it does not pass through more than 8, nor does it go equally
through these, 2 of them being in the middle of the zodiac,
4 in the upper part, and 2 in the lower part[9]. Next to these
the Sun is carried through the middle of the zodiac, winding
unequally through the two parts of his tortuous circuit[10].
The star Mars occupies the four middle degrees; Jupiter
the middle degree and the two above it; Saturn, like the
sun, occupies two[11]. The above is an account of the latitudes as they descend to the south or ascend to the north[12].
Hence it is plain that the generality of persons are mistaken
in supposing the third cause of the apparent altitude to
depend on the stars rising from the earth and climbing up
the heavens. But to refute this opinion it is necessary to
consider the subject with very great minuteness, and to
embrace all the causes.
It is generally admitted, that the stars[13], at the time of
their evening setting, are nearest to the earth, both with
respect to latitude and altitude[14], that they are at the commencement of both at their morning risings, and that they
become stationary at the middle points of their latitudes,
what are called the ecliptics[15]. It is, moreover, acknowledged, that
their motion is increased when they are in the
vicinity of the earth, and diminished when they are removed
to a greater altitude[16]; a point which is most clearly proved
by the different altitudes of the moon. There is no doubt
that it is also increased at the morning risings[17], and that the
three superior planets are retarded, as they advance from
the first station to the second. And since this is the case, it
is evident, that the latitudes are increased from the time of
their morning risings, since the motions afterwards appear
to receive less addition; but they gain their altitude in the
first station, since the rate of their motion then begins to
diminish[18], and the stars to recede.
And the reason of this must be particularly set forth.
When the planets are struck by the rays of the sun, in the,
situation which I have described, i. e. in their quadrature,
they are prevented from holding on their straight forward
course, and are raised on high by the force of the fire[19]. This
cannot be immediately perceived by the eye, and therefore
they seem to be stationary, and hence the term station is
derived. Afterwards the violence of the rays increases, and
the vapour being beaten back forces them to recede.
This exists in a greater degree in their evening risings, the
sun being then turned entirely from them, when they are
drawn into the highest apsides; and they are then the least
visible, since they are at their greatest altitude and are
carried along with the least motion, as much less indeed as
this takes place in the highest signs of the apsides. At the
time of the evening rising the latitude decreases and becomes
less as the motion is diminished, and it does not increase
again until they arrive at the second station, when the altitude is also diminished; the sun's rays then coming from
the other side, the same force now therefore propels them
towards the earth which before raised them into the heavens,
from their former triangular aspect[20]. So different is the
effect whether the rays strike the planets from below or
come to them from above. And all these circumstances
produce much more effect when they occur in the evening
setting. This is the doctrine of the superior planets; that
of the others is more difficult, and has never been laid down
by any one before me[21].
1. "(Ayi\s, ligneus rotæ circulus, ab a(/ptw 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.
2. "mundo."
3. "ratione circini semper indubitata."
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. "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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. "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.
11. 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.
12. 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 |
13. It appears from the remark at the end of this chapter, that this explanation applies to the superior planets alone.
14. It is not easy, as Marcus observes, Ajasson, ii. 344, 345, to comprehend the exact meaning of this passage, or to reconcile it with the other
parts of our author's theory.
15. "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.
16. We may presume that our author here refers to the apparent motion
of the planets, not to their actual acceleration or retardation.
17. The editors have differed in the reading of this passage; I have followed that of Lemaire.
18. "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 phénomènes
célestes qui sont contemporains sont engendrés les uns par les
autres." Ajasson, ii. 349.
19. 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.
20. "ex priore triquetro."
21. Alexandre supposes, as I conceive justly, that our author, in this
passage, only refers to the writings of his own countrymen; Lemaire, ii.
276.