doc.pdf

THE GRECO-SYRIAC AND ARABIC SOURCES OF BARHEBRAEUS' MINERALOGY 227
us the concrete arguments used for refuting Aristotle's view, but what are basically
the same arguments as those given in Cand. are found in more complete forms in
both Olymp. in Mete. and in Olymp. arab.23
Olymp. in Mete. [Stiive] 74.17-19, 75.24-34: on n a h kodv ~ 6 yakzciac, ~~KOPV VGV
cruvr~yopfioavw~. &t ~ f mi~tv : o 6 &an. ~ mihc,, ii~opv cino~i~ov~eq 6th ioapiepwv
bt~&tpqpaTwv. ... 6 Gk pkyac,' Apphvto~ &a ioapi@m knt~etpqpa~wv ano&i~vwnv,
on O ~ EK m mi805 drCpog, (1) ~ ai &on ~p6hov w k~ TOG ava&t~ou. ei yap nahg
jv 6 yaAueag, &kt ainbv a&imv ava&xdat ~ai kv pkv T@ 8Epe~ wov Gta
r6 elvat nkiova fiv ~amh5q avahpiacnv kzpnp6~epov
dyraupoG&t. (2a) G E ~ T E ~ kntxeipqpa ~ V
TO k~ TOG ~a%bu. ~a%bu yap oi&v
u3v ytvo~vm k~ mihug akpoq ii.v iiv ~a.r' aptepbv naq a yij 6piq op6uxt. (2b)
Tpimv bt~~ipqpa k~ (TEA~~v~c,. a h yap intolcarw k d TOG yaAuciou, Gt6n
a.jzi\ pkv napa%mx G~iKwuxt 6& zoko &v ~ V T ~ llzokpaiq, E L om Ta pkv
napa%ooov.ra ~ a ~ d eioi, p w Ta 6& ;)rrov drvdpo. ...
We shall firstly argue that the Milky Way (galaxias) is an affection (pithos). We shall
then demonstrate that it is not an affection using the same number of arguments. ... The
great Ammonius demonstrates using the same number of arguments that it is not an
affection of the air. (1) The first argument is that based on its unchangeability. If the
Milky Way were an affection, it ought to be subject to change, to grow brighter in
summer due to the smoky exhalation being more ample and to grow darker in winter.
(2a) The second is a general argument. In general nothing which arises out of an
affection of the air, being one in number, appears in the same way throughout the
earth. (2b) Third argument based on the moon. The moon is below the Milky Way,
because the moon is subject to alteration and it is demonstrated in Ptolemy's Almgest
that things that are subject to alteration are lower down, while those which are less so
are higher up. ...
Olymp. arab. [Badawi] 98.20-99.2,W.g-11:
~i&j~i.,&-&i&!,.&-.~dl jgfi;iJ5LSi w,i jltllcri~l;;Li
jw6!,b.+ki 2 $ .Id1 j L'JWI ,CVI pu ji jWl, (It) - ..Id1 j i;.,WI .U%I r+i &
yiveaeat, kv Gf: T@ ~etp6vt
j LJWl ,U%I r+l A- Y bi &j p i. .++ fr+l, 2.91 *I$ j 6; i,+JI, .g;Yl *I; L-
.tlli ;j sr,- si, .,d LS,J;~S;- ,ji -,I ..I,+II jihwl .C%I &i -K,I bi &L;JI, ("t) .. . .. 141
JAv ,& i,+JIj .II,'J~ Js id1 pl,JI JA9 G,.S,& $ &I lj! ,A ,ji &j J.c JdI, .,A
.bIJ J b Js 2.31 3 i d 1
[99.10 &I: &I Badawi]
The second opinion may be proven in six ways: (1) Firstly, all affections (athar, here =
pAthos) which occur in the air are changeable, but the Milky Way is not changeable.
For this reason, it cannot be one of the affections occurring in the air. (2a) Secondly,
affections arising in the air are never seen in the same way in all regions of the earth,
but the Milky Way is seen in the same way in all regions of the earth. For this reason,
it cannot be an affection occurring in the air. ... (2b) Fifthly, if it were an affection
arising in the air, it must be below the moon, but it is in fact found above the sphere of
the moon. The proof of this is that when the moon is eclipsed, its eclipse does not
23 Cf. Lettinck (1999) 73-74, 80 (cf. also ibid. 85-6, on the refutaCion of the Aristotelian view in
Abii'l-Barakst and Fakhr abmn al-Rai).