1. PLATO.
The Ionian school of philosophy died about the middle of the fifth century b.c., and the Pythagorean towards the end of the fourth. But meanwhile a new school of astronomers was growing up. The philosophers still laid down general principles, founded on abstract reasoning, which they believed must regulate the nature and movements of the heavenly bodies, but astronomy began to be regarded as a branch of mathematics, not of philosophy, and the mathematicians, leaving problems of ultimate causes to the philosophers, devoted themselves to observation and calculation. They carefully studied the peculiar motions of each planet, and their chief aim was to represent these geometrically by some scheme which should include them all, and make it possible to predict the places of the heavenly bodies in the sky for any given date.
One cause of this great progress in methods was no doubt the natural intellectual growth of the Greek race, as they discovered that their eager curiosity concerning nature could only be satisfied by patient investigation. The value of observation was taught, in the latter half of the fourth century, by the philosophy of Aristotle, and a great impetus must have been given by the campaigns of Alexander, in which the Greeks saw distant countries, new climates, strange peoples and customs.
But a potent cause of the advance in astronomy seems to have been the closer connection between Greek astronomers and those of Egypt and Babylon. The astronomer Callisthenes went with Alexander to the East, and received a letter from Aristotle praying him to send to Athens the Babylonian eclipse records which were centuries old; and Aristotle mentions, when speaking of the motions of the planets, that the Babylonians and Egyptians had furnished trustworthy information about each one of them. Even before this, we find that the Greek descriptive names of the planets were changed for names of Greek deities which are believed to correspond with the Babylonian gods and goddesses who presided over the planets. Thus Plato speaks of “the star sacred to Hermes” as well as Stilbon the Glitterer, and he is the last to use commonly the name of Phosphor for the planet which henceforth was known as Aphrodite among the Greeks, and Venus among the Romans, corresponding with the Babylonian Ishtar; and so on with the rest. Instead of vague records of journeys in Egypt or Babylonia, we have a definite statement that Eudoxus, who was the founder of the new school, went to Egypt about 378 b.c., with letters from the king of Sparta to the king of Egypt, and we are told that he studied the planetary motions under a priest of Heliopolis. It seems highly probable, to say the least, that Eudoxus was the first Greek to appreciate the value of those methods of observation and continuous recording of phenomena which he found among the Egyptians, and to understand the wonderful regularity which was hidden behind the seeming irregularities of the “wandering stars.” He was also, apparently, the first Greek to write a detailed description of the forty-eight ancient constellations.
But if Egypt and Babylonia gave to Greece records of celestial phenomena, and set the example of accurate and long-continued observations, Greece made the new knowledge her own, and transformed it. The legend that Eudoxus applied his mathematical skill to the ancient monuments of the Egyptians, and showed them how to calculate the height of the Great Pyramid by measurements of its shadow, is typical of the history of Greek treatment of Oriental astronomy. One geometrical theory after another was invented to represent the planetary motions, was compared with the skies, and rejected or improved, and meanwhile observation became much more close and accurate; new instruments were introduced, new methods of calculation invented, new motions discovered which had to be accounted for; finally, five hundred years after Eudoxus’ visit to Egypt, the result of all this labour was summarized in a truly epoch-making work, which remained the standard treatise on astronomy until the time of Copernicus.
Eudoxus was born at Cnidos, in Asia Minor, but at the age of twenty-three he went to Athens, and studied under Plato. It is said to have been Plato who inspired the young man with the idea of devoting his brilliant mathematical powers to solving the problem of celestial motions, and with this view he went to Egypt. The story is easy to believe when we recall the many passages in the Dialogues in which Plato uses the splendid imagery of the skies to illustrate his philosophic doctrines, dwelling especially on the perfect though little understood symmetry of the celestial motions, and it will be remembered that astronomy was one of the subjects to be learned by the rulers of his ideal state.
It is true that Glaucon is gently but decidedly snubbed by Socrates in the Republic, for suggesting that the study of astronomy is valuable because of its use in navigation, husbandry, and the arts of war. This is “vulgar praise,” but has there ever been nobler praise of astronomy than that which Socrates himself then proceeds to give? Although he believes that true knowledge, knowledge of realities, is only to be obtained by the exercise of pure reason without the aid of sense, he considers that the study of celestial motions is one of the best means of training the mind to reach those heights, and he does not hesitate to say that sight was given to us in order that we might look at the skies. For the embroidery of heaven, says Socrates, though wrought upon a visible ground, is the fairest and most perfect of visible things; and it is displayed to our mortal eyes as a pattern of the eternal realities which are granted to the vision of the soul.
In the Timaeus this idea is elaborately developed, and it undoubtedly had an effect on Plato’s contemporaries, although his direct influence on astronomy cannot be compared with that of Aristotle. The Timaeus was widely read also in the Middle Ages, during the long period when Plato’s other writings were unknown, and it is quoted by Dante. We are often reminded of him when reading the astronomical and quasi-astronomical parts.
Timaeus, who is introduced to Socrates by Critias as “the most of an astronomer among us, and one who has made a special study of the nature of the Universe,”[30] describes the Creation as he conceives it most probable that it took place. He assumes a chaos to begin with, where there is no order, and no matter which can be distinguished by name, but all is confused and seething with random restless motions.
Of this, in order to produce something which should express his own goodness,[31] the Creator formed the four elements,—earth, water, air, and fire,—and of them he made a world, which became a fair and intelligent being, animated by a living soul. He made it in the most perfect form, that of a sphere, polished and smooth on the outside, “as if from a lathe.” The soul was placed in the centre, and hence diffused throughout the whole bodily frame. It is the cause of the harmonious motions of the stars, and of these there are two kinds: the motion of the Same (the diurnal revolution of the whole heavens) is in the noblest direction, simple and uniform; the motion of the Diverse is in the opposite direction and diagonal to the first, and it is divided into seven parts (the seven orbits of the planets), which bear certain definite ratios to one another.
Timaeus does not name the planets, but in the Republic Socrates names some, and indicates the rest by their colour or other characteristic,[32] so we know that the order which he assigns to them, counting outwards from the central earth, is: Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
It was in order to make the world like its eternal pattern that the Creator made a “moving image of eternity,” which we call Time, in the revolutions of the heavenly bodies; and to make it visible he “lighted a fire which we now call the sun, in the second of these orbits, that it might give light to the whole of heaven [note that the stars shine by reflected sunlight, as well as moon and planets], and that the animals who were by nature fitted might participate in number: this was the lesson they were to learn from the revolutions of the Same and the Like. Thus, then, and by these means, the night and the day were created, being the period of the one most intelligent revolution. And the month was created when the moon had completed her orbit and overtaken the sun; and the year, when the sun had completed his own orbit. The periods of the other stars [the planets] have not been understood by men in general, but only by a few, and they have no name for them, and do not estimate their comparative length by the aid of a number, and hence they are hardly aware that their wanderings, which are infinite in number and admirable for their variety, make up time. And yet there is no difficulty in seeing that the perfect number of time completes the perfect year when all the eight revolutions, having their relative degrees of swiftness, are accomplished together, and again meet at their original point of departure, measured by the circle of the Same moving equally.”
The heavenly bodies, according to Timaeus, are all divine intelligent beings. In form they are perfect spheres, like the world of which they form part, and they are composed of fire. The stars have two motions, for each rotates on its own axis while it is carried round the centre on the rotating star sphere.
Earth is also a sphere, immoveable at the centre of the World. Of her Timaeus says: “The earth, which is our nurse, encircling the pole which is extended through the universe, he made to be the guardian and artificer of night and day.”
This passage has given rise to the idea that Plato believed the apparent diurnal revolution of the heavens to be caused by earth’s rotation on her axis; but the word here translated “encircling”[33] may mean—as that does—either motion or situation round about something, and the whole context ascribes the diurnal movement so clearly and emphatically to the heavens, that it seems evident Plato could only have meant that earth was guardian and artificer of day and night by virtue of her position. The only strong argument in favour of the other meaning is that Aristotle, when speaking of Earth as supposed by some to be central in the Universe but moving, quotes Plato and the Timaeus. It might easily happen, however, that Aristotle knew from other sources, perhaps from conversation with Plato, that at some time the latter had inclined towards belief in Earth’s motion, and remembering the ambiguous expression in the Timaeus he quoted it from memory as a statement of Plato’s belief.
There is some evidence that late in life Plato accepted the doctrine of Philolaus that Earth was not only in motion, but in motion round a Central Fire. There is a legend that he bought the books of Philolaus at a great price, and Theophrastus, a disciple of Aristotle, is reported by Plutarch to have said that “Plato when old assigned to Earth another place, the central and nobler place being reserved for something else more worthy of it.” However this may be, he does not teach either theory in his writings. His views seem to be quite the same as those of Pythagoreans of the old school, whom he sometimes quotes.
After describing the creation of the Universe, Timaeus relates that the Creator deputed the gods whom he had made (including the stars) to create living beings on the earth, he himself creating directly only their immortal part, which he made of the same essence as the World-Soul, but diluted. Then follows the passage which came to the mind of Dante when he met the first spirits of Paradise in the moon.
“And when he had framed the Universe, he distributed souls in equal numbers to the stars, and assigned each soul to a star; and having placed them as in a chariot, he showed them the nature of the Universe, and the decrees of destiny appointed for them, and told them that no one should suffer at his hands, and that they must be sown in the vessels of the times severally adopted to them.... He said that he who lived well during his appointed time [on earth] would return to the habitation of his star, and there have a blessed and suitable existence.” If he lived ill, he would be a woman at his second birth, if a bad woman, then a beast, and as long as he continued to do ill he would “not cease from his toils and transformations until he followed the original principle of sameness and likeness within him.... When he had given all these laws to his creatures ... he sowed some of them in the earth, and some in the moon, and some in the other stars which are the measures of Time.”
The creation of man’s body and all the remainder of the Timaeus does not concern us here, except that when speaking of the highest use of man’s faculty of sight, we realize how near Dante and Plato are in their feeling for the revolving heavens:
“God invented and gave us sight to this end, that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed to the perturbed; and that we, learning them and being partakers of the true computations of nature, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries.”