today “meteorology” refers to the scientific study of the atmosphere. For ancient Greeks, and those romans who incorporated Greek ideas and methods into their own thinking and practices (roMan rESPonSES to GrEEk SCIEnCE anD SChoLarShIP aS a CuL-
turaL anD PoLItICaL PhEnoMEnon), meteōrologia was the study of meteōra, “things high up.” Meteōrologia sought to explain weather phenomena including wind, rain, thunder, and lightning (now classified as atmospheric), as well as comets and earthquakes (now regarded as astronomical or seismological). unlike modern meteorology, meteōrologia was not particularly concerned with weather prediction.
In fact, there seems to have been something of a division of labor between those who wished to explain meteorological phenomena and those who aimed to predict weather, as attested by a sharp distinction between surviving Greek and roman works address-ing these concerns. texts which explain meteorological phenomena were typically written by philosophically motivated authors, including aristotle (whose Meteorology is the earliest extant work on the subject), Epicurus, and the poet Lucretius. those associated with weather prediction, astrometeorological parapēgmata (tracking star phases and weather phenomena: tIME-tELLInG DEvICES) and lists of weather signs, are in many cases the work of unknown authors or compilers. Several are associated with famous names, such as Claudius Ptolemy’s Phases of the Fixed Stars and On Weather Signs, traditionally attributed to theophrastus, the author of a separate text explaining meteōra, the Meteorology or Metarsiology (see Falcon 2005, 3, note 6 on terminology). Somewhat exceptionally, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History addresses both explanation and prediction of meteorological phenomena, but in different books (Books 2 and 18, respectively).
Meteorology 233
c14 233 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
the beginning of the twentieth century saw the publication of work that was foun-dational for studying both meteōrologia (Gilbert 1907) and weather prediction (Diels and rehm 1904). Students and scholars in a number of fields, including Classics, history, philosophy, and archaeology, show renewed interest in these topics in the early twenty-first century, and recent studies highlight further possibilities for future research to better understand the explanation of phenomena and the prediction of weather (e.g., Beardmore 2013).
2. Coping with the Weather
Explanation and prediction of meteorological phenomena can both be understood as attempts to manage the effects of typical seasonal weather and extraordinary events. Planning for and coping with weather was necessary for basic practical economic activi-ties, including agriculture and trade, while potentially terrifying and devastating phe-nomena, such as storms and earthquakes, also had to be explained and dealt with. For some people, gaining intellectual control over and understanding meteorological phe-nomena was related to broader philosophical questions about the world and how we come to understand it, as well as our own place within it.
In the earliest extant Greek writings, meteorological phenomena are often linked to personifications, epiphanies, and actions of gods. In the homeric poems, Zeus is, among other things, “cloud-gatherer” (Odyssey 5.21; Iliad 1.511); “earth-shaker” Poseidon causes seismological and other meteorological phenomena (Odyssey 1.74, 5.423), and athena (as well as other gods) both sends and stalls winds (Odyssey 5.382–385). Such phenomena are similarly within the power of gods in hesiod’s Theogony, where violent weather plays an important role in the account of the gods’ genealogy, as Zeus hurls thunderbolts.
the epic accounts of traditional gods and their meteorological manifestations and activities may be understood as a form of explanation (taub 2003, 6; 2008, 33–35; Lehoux 2011). and the control of weather events also has great symbolic import. the epic poets significantly influenced later Greeks and romans seeking to explain or predict meteorological phenomena; throughout antiquity, the authority of these earliest poets was valued. Even though, in some works, the links between traditional gods and weather phenomena were severed in favor of other, physical, explanations, the poets were still revered as offering relevant information. Furthermore, hesiod, through his Works and Days, is understood by both ancient and modern thinkers as being at the start of a tra-dition of prediction, linking astronomical phenomena to weather (Pliny, NH 18.201; Goldstein and Bowen 1983, 331).
In the explanation of meteōra and the prediction of weather, tradition itself and con-servatism were both valued (kahn 1960, 109; taub 2003, 10 et passim). While not all explanations and predictions were recycled from earlier sources, explicit engagement with earlier authorities is a key characteristic of ancient scientific texts. Parapēgmata that correlate stellar phases and weather phenomena often name specific individuals as sources, often a famous astronomer. Explanations frequently reflected the doxo-graphical approach found in natural philosophical texts more generally. this approach relied upon collecting opinions (doxai), especially reputable opinions associated with particular individuals or schools of philosophy (endoxai) (taub 2003, 72, 117; 2008,
234 Liba Taub
c14 234 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
16–17; runia 1999). however, it is worth emphasizing that authority could be vested in many types of people: farmers, sailors, philosophers, astronomers, and poets.
the earliest Greek philosophers are usually understood as having offered naturalistic explanations of meteorological phenomena, rejecting the roles of traditional gods. aristotle states that the term meteōrologia was used to refer to the subject by “all our predecessors,” indicating that it was regarded as a specific area of study (Meteorology 338a25–26; see also Falcon 2005, 3, note 6). Meteorology aimed to offer “naturalis-tic” or physical explanations (physis is often translated as “nature”). Some of the earli-est Greek philosophical ideas may be understood as linked to theological revisionism (Graver 1999, 47). the absence of traditional gods in Presocratic accounts of meteoro-logical and other physical or “natural” phenomena is conventionally taken as a key char-acteristic of Greek philosophy. Even a brief look at accounts of their views illustrates the style of explanation. For example, reporting the views of anaximander, the doxographer aëtius (first century CE) states:
Concerning thunder, lightning, thunderbolts, fire bursts, and hurricanes, anaximander [says] these all happen as a result of wind. For when wind surrounded by thick cloud breaks out violently owing to its rarity and lightness, then the tearing action produces the sound, the separation against the dark cloud the flash. (TEGP 30)
aristotle, himself an important source concerning Presocratic views, testifies that ana-xagoras says that lightning
[C]omes from the upper aether, which he calls fire, falling down from above. now the flash of this fire is lightning, the sound and hiss of its quenching is thunder, so that lightning re-ally occurs before thunder, just as it appears to. (Meteorology 369b14–19 = TEGP 50)
Gods are excluded from these explanations. the importance of what is seen and heard (the phenomena = what is apparent) is emphasized.
Concerns about our relation to the divine, and the limits to our powers to observe and acquire knowledge, underlie many meteorological accounts. Meteorology was to some extent powered by theological and epistemological issues, for the study of those phenomena that occur beyond (including high above and far beneath) our powers of observation involve considerations regarding the limits of knowledge. one way to explain phenomena that are difficult to comprehend is through divine agency; when that agency was denied in ancient accounts of meteōra, epistemological issues still remained a concern for ancient philosophers (Graver 1999, 45–47).
Even while offering rational explanations of meteorological phenomena in which no direct role was played by traditional gods, many philosophers retained ideas regarding divinity within the cosmos (taub 2003, 73–74). For example, Seneca reports thales’ explanation of earthquakes: “he says that the earth is supported by water and floats like a ship, and it is being tossed by the waves, thanks to its mobility, when it is said to be quaking” (NQ 3.14.1, trans. hine = TEGP 19). Yet while there are no gods in this account, not even Poseidon the earth-shaker, this is not to say that thales did not
Meteorology 235
c14 235 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
discuss divinities, for aristotle reports that thales thought that “all things are full of gods” (On the Soul 411a8 = TEGP 35).
there is a strong sense of philosophers’ desire to confront issues relating to fears asso-ciated with the traditional gods and their control of the meteōra. Some scholars have argued that Greek natural philosophy excluded the gods as agents in the natural world. however, this is an oversimplification. In most ancient philosophical schools, there was an assumption of the existence of some “divine” (that is, eternal) presence in the cos-mos (naturE anD thE DIvInE). Furthermore, in those philosophical schools wherein the existence of gods was accepted, the role of gods was subject to debate, and questions about whether the gods play a role in causing meteorological phenomena recur (cf. Mansfeld 1992, 319–324; taub 2003, 158–159, 166–168 et passim).
Many philosophical authors wrote about meteorology within a broader philosophi-cal framework in which the explanation of meteorological phenomena played only a minor part. nevertheless, authors generally shared the aim of explaining meteorological phenomena as due to physical causes, rather than the extra- or supernatural. the Greek word phaenomena refers to “what is observed.” accordingly, there was an emphasis on studying meteorological phenomena as observed events, that individuals themselves witnessed or about which they had heard testimony, in contrast, for example, with some-thing imagined or hypothetical. Furthermore, it was assumed that, when observation is limited, the ability to explain may be affected. as a way to seemingly counter this limita-tion, a common feature found in many meteorological explanations is the use of analo-gies to everyday experience, for example, comparing the sound of thunder to the noise produced when a blacksmith throws a hot iron into water (theophrastus, Meteorology 1.10–11). By referring to something familiar, it is possible to extrapolate about some-thing difficult to access.
Engagement with earlier thinkers and writers is another signal characteristic of ancient meteorology, but explanations were not simply borrowed from earlier writers, whose views are often criticized. Several authors, including aristotle and Epicurus, particularly discuss the methodology used in their meteorological studies, and they deliberately con-front issues involved in achieving adequate empirical access to phenomena. although many Greek and roman explanations of meteorological phenomena shared certain themes, such as the assumption of the possibility of rational understanding and a link between the heavens and the earth, variations in these and other ideas were neither insig-nificant nor restricted to simply rearranging details (taub 2003, 10; cf. kahn 1960, 109).
the earliest Greek work on meteorology to survive in its entirety is aristotle’s Meteoro-logy (Meteorologica). aristotle presents this work as part of his larger project to develop a comprehensive philosophy of the natural world, following from his studies of natural motion in Physics, astronomy in On the Heavens, and the four elements in Generation and Corruption. these works, including the Meteorology, are preliminary, he explains, to his work on animals and plants. aristotle does not appear to have taken up meteorol-ogy because of a particular interest, but because he thought meteorology was part of a comprehensive elucidation of the natural world. For aristotle, meteorology sits, almost literally, between the study of astronomy and of life on earth, in many ways central to the study of nature as a whole, reflecting a view that meteorological processes play a crucial mediating role between the motions in the heavens and living things on earth (taub 2003, 91; Wilson 2013).
236 Liba Taub
c14 236 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
aristotle defines the objects of meteorological study as “everything which happens naturally, but with a regularity less than that of the primary element of bodies, in the region which borders most nearly on the movements of the stars.” they include “all phenomena that may be regarded as common to air and water, and the various kinds and parts of the earth and their characteristics,” embracing, for example, “the causes of winds and earthquakes and all the occurrences associated with their motions” (Mete-orology 338b1–339a2, trans. Lee). a broad range of phenomena are included, from comets to earthquakes, including shooting stars, colorful phenomena at night (perhaps the aurora borealis), rain, clouds, mist, dew, snow, hail, rivers and springs, coastal ero-sion and silting, the sea, thunder and lightning, hurricanes, typhoons, whirlwinds, halos, and rainbows. For aristotle, most of the meteōra are explained with reference to two “exhalations” (342a28–9), which is why they can be treated within one study (taub 2003, 88–91).
at many points, aristotle reports, and often criticizes, the views of Presocratic philo-sophers, distinguishing his own explanation from those of his predecessors, who posited only one exhalation. But while he mentions the dual exhalations several times, he does not offer a single, comprehensive definition. nevertheless, the meteōra can be under-stood as forming an integrated unity, based on a unity of cause: exhalations. aristotle’s emphasis on his dual-exhalation theory assists his goal of presenting a theory with an integrated structure (Wilson 2013).
In the Meteorology, epistemological and methodological issues are foregrounded from the very beginning. aristotle warns that meteorological phenomena are difficult, pos-sibly impossible, to understand. Complete knowledge cannot be guaranteed (339a2–33). to some extent, difficulties in explaining meteorological phenomena arise from constraints on accessing information. Limiting factors include distance from observers (e.g., of clouds) and rarity (as with lunar rainbows). acknowledging various limitations, aristotle states “we consider that we have given a sufficiently rational explanation of things inaccessible to observation by our senses if we have produced a theory that is possible” (344a5–7, trans. Lee).
aristotle uses several explanatory tactics, including drawing analogies with familiar experiences, to explain distant and difficult-to-observe phenomena. For example, he suggests that the noise of thunder (by his account produced when the windy exhalation in a cloud strikes a dense cloud formation) is like the noise of a crackling flame when an exhalation suddenly erupts in a log fire (Meteorology 369a34–35). he also reports “experiments” or contrived observations that might be undertaken to understand phenomena, such as the saltiness of the sea as due to a mixture of substances (358b34–359a14; hYDroLoGY: oCEanS, rIvErS, anD othEr WatErWaYS).
aristotle uses empirical arguments, often citing observational evidence that conflicts with his predecessors’ theories and supports his own. From a modern philosophical per-spective, aristotle’s emphasis on a structured unity of cause (dual exhalations) may seem at odds with what appears to be thoroughgoing empiricism, but empirical evidence has been selected to support his theory. We seldom see aristotle considering evidence that might undermine his own general principles (Wilson 2013). aristotle draws conclusions that he assumes can be taken for granted based on earlier work (Physics; On the Heavens; GC). the Meteorology has an empirical flavor, because the basic foundations, as part of natural philosophy, have already been established (Wilson 2013; on empiricism in aristotle’s physical works: Bolton 1991).
Meteorology 237
c14 237 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
Because the Meteorology was envisioned as part of aristotle’s bigger philosophical project, encompassing all of nature, the absence of reference to the purposes served by meteōra, their teleology, might seem surprising. For example, rain is not described as necessary to support life. however, the absence of the final cause within the Meteorology itself is possible because the work is part of a larger undertaking concerned with nature and teleology (Wilson 2013).
In contrast to aristotle’s emphasis on a unity of cause, his student and colleague theophrastus held the view that, for some meteorological phenomena, a number of dif-ferent causes may exist. In his Metarsiology (Mansfeld 1992), surviving only in apparently partial arabic and Syriac versions (edited and translated by Daiber 1992, see 282–288; kidd 1992), theophrastus specifies which causes are responsible for particular phenom-ena, often presenting a number of possibilities. So, for example, thunderbolts may be due to fire hidden in a cloud suddenly slipping away, or to wind hidden in a cloud catch-ing fire as it circulates (Metarsiology 6.16–28 = Daiber 1992, 264). Some phenomena have only one explanation: hail is due to drops of water hardened by cold. For some phenomena, theophrastus invokes both analogies and direct experience, such as when he states that “we can see with our own eyes” that snow contains air, by compacting it in our hands (Metarsiology 9.5 = Daiber 1992, 267; see also Sedley 1998, 179–182; taub 2003, 115–127).
theophrastus’ emphasis on the possibility of multiple causes for particular meteoro-logical phenomena was shared by Epicurus, whose Letter to Pythocles is a key extant text concerned with meteōra. Produced apparently as an aide-memoire requested by one of his followers, the text is preserved in Diogenes Laërtius’ account of Epicurus’ life. one aim of Epicurean philosophy was the attainment of freedom from anxiety (“being undisturbed”), and Epicurean meteorology was motivated by a desire to alleviate fear of gods. While Epicurus recognized the existence of gods, he denied the possibility of their influence in the world. he put forward a strictly materialist philosophy, providing natural explanations of phenomena often regarded as due to the actions of gods, such as thunder, lightning, hail, and earthquakes. If such potentially violent natural phenom-ena are not caused by gods, there is no reason to fear their involvement in the world. Epicurean meteorology explained meteōra without recourse to the gods (taub 2009).
In many cases, Epicurus provided several possible explanations for a phenomenon, without favoring one in particular. thinking it sufficient to offer plausible explanations, he aimed to show that phenomena could in principle be explained naturally, for if “we think that an event could happen in one or other particular way out of several, we shall be as tranquil when we recognize that it actually comes about in more ways than one as if we knew that it happens in this particular way” (Letter to Herodotus 80, trans. hicks). the suggestion of multiple possible causes is a hallmark of Epicurus’ approach in his Letter to Pythocles, where he offers his explanations of meteōra. For example, possible causes of thunder include: the rolling of wind in a hollow portion of cloud, as when air is trapped in ordinary vessels; roaring fire blown by wind; splitting of clouds; and friction in clouds when they have hardened. In Epicurus’ view, any of these causes is possible and acceptable as an explanation; it is not necessary to identify one definitively.
Concerned with epistemology, Epicurus recognized limits to our ability to acquire knowledge and fully comprehend. In his view, meteorology is particularly difficult, requiring a set of methodological procedures different from those applied to gen-eral physical questions or human life (on the reliance of Epicurean ethics on scientific
238 Liba Taub
c14 238 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
doctrine: Wasserstein 1978). he justified his advocacy of multiple causation, explaining that “we do not seek to wrest by force what is impossible, nor to understand all matters equally well, nor make our treatment always as clear as when we discuss human life or explain the principles of physics in general.” Epicurus cautioned against becoming too attached to one dogmatic explanation, for “when we pick and choose among [causes], rejecting one equally consistent with the phenomena, we clearly fall away from the study of nature altogether and tumble into myth” (Letter to Pythocles 86–87, trans. hicks).
Epicurus strongly advocated the use of empirical observation, emphasizing that the causes proposed and accounts offered must not contradict experience. agreement with the phenomena is an imperative requirement: even though a meteorological phenom-enon may be explained by any number of causes, none of these may contradict sense perception. Furthermore, no divine cause can be offered for phenomena. Indeed, this is not only a key feature of his physics, but also of his theology. Epicurus believed that the gods reside in perfect bliss, unbothered by the world and our concerns (Letter to Pythocles 97; cf. 113–114).
another key text for Epicurean meteorology is the Latin poem On the Nature of the Things by Lucretius, with an account of Epicurus’ physical theory (Furley 1966; Clay 1983; Sedley 1998). however, we should not assume that Lucretius followed Epicurus completely (see Furley 1999, 419). rather traditionally, the poem opens with a prayer to venus for inspiration, but, like Epicurus, Lucretius denied a role for gods in the physi-cal world, aiming to eliminate fear of their possible intervention in the world. Linking his own work closely to Epicurus’ ideas, in the last book of the poem (6, which may be unfinished), Lucretius discussed meteorological phenomena, including volcanoes and earthquakes.
Like the Epicureans, Stoic philosophers were also concerned with achieving freedom from anxiety, and they sought to explain phenomena as due to natural causes. toward the end of his life, Lucius annaeus Seneca, embroiled in the politics of nero’s court (he had been nero’s tutor), wrote the Natural Questions, focusing largely on meteorology. a prolific author writing on a wide range of topics, he primarily aimed to inspire moral improvement, also a concern in the NQ (Williams 2012; cf. Inwood 2002, suggesting that Seneca sought to demonstrate literary virtuosity; on Seneca as a “Stoic,” see Griffin 1976, Inwood 1995, 2002; veyne 2003).
unusually, there is clear evidence that Seneca was drawn to meteorology as a subject in itself, as he explained to his mother in 41 CE (To Helvetia 20.2). Indeed, of our Greek and roman sources, Seneca seems to have been the only one addressing the subject for its own sake (taub 2003, 142). he also mentioned that as a young man he wrote about earthquakes (NQ 6.4.2). Sadly, this work does not survive. the NQ was addressed to Seneca’s close friend Lucilius, sometimes identified as the author of Aetna (Corcoran 1971/2.1.xii; Goodyear 1984), a poem that explained the volcano. Seneca and Lucilius seem to have shared a long-standing interest in meteorological, especially geological, phenomena.
the NQ does not survive in its entirety, and it is difficult to determine the original order of the extant books. the preface to Book 3 seems appropriate to the larger work, and hine’s 2010 translation of the NQ follows the order probably intended by Seneca: that is, Books 3 through 7, followed by 1 and 2 (also Gauly 2004, 53–67; hine 1981, 4–23; Codoñer Merino 1979, xii–xxi). (here, we use the traditional order of the books.) Each book treats particular meteorological topics: terrestrial waters, the nile, clouds
Meteorology 239
c14 239 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
(along with rain, hail, and snow), winds, earthquakes, comets, fires in the sky (including meteors and rainbows), lightning, and thunder (taub 2003, 143–159; on particular phenomena, Williams 2005b, 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b). Several of the extant books include prefaces and epilogues, wherein Seneca engages in moral exhortation. Book 4b, on snow, ends with a criticism of the luxurious fad of using snow to chill drinks (4b.13). the NQ accords with Seneca’s overall program of moral improvement, while the detail in which the phenomena are explored argues against the view that the meteorological focus is merely a vehicle for Seneca’s ethical messages (taub 2003, 141–161; cf. Inwood 2002, 156).
Seneca’s approach to explaining meteorological phenomena shares much with his predecessors, whose ideas influenced his choice of topics (Williams 2012, 2). With very few exceptions, such as the Milky Way, he addressed the same subjects covered by aristotle in Meteorology 1–3. Like aristotle, theophrastus, Epicurus, and Lucretius, Seneca employed familiar analogies, some that were notably homely and offered details about contemporary roman life (including the fashion for cooling drinks). Seneca was particularly interested in etymology and in providing clear definitions of terminology. he touched only briefly on the use of “experiment” and mentioned mathematical approaches almost disparagingly. he also provided a rather detailed, at times historical, discussion of signs and auspices. throughout the work, he discussed and criticized, at great length, others’ explanations in the course of arguing for his own views. Like aris-totle, Seneca provided information on the history of meteorology, mentioning many thinkers whose works are lost to us. For example, in his discussion of comets, he focused on the theories of Epigenes and apollonius of Mynda, otherwise practically unknown (Pliny, NH 7.193 refers to Epigenes as an important author; see also Corcoran 1971/2, 2.233 note 4; hall 1977). Seneca, significantly, reports the ideas of Poseidonius of apa-mea, of whose writings only fragments survive (kidd 1988; 1996; cf. Clarke 1999, 130 on Poseidonius’ reputation; taub 2003, 222 note 65; hYDroLoGY: oCEanS, rIvErS, anD
othEr WatErWaYS; GEoGraPhY; GrEEk anD roMan CartoGraPhY).For Seneca, the study of the physical world is not separable from human concerns and
activities, including morality (Williams 2012). he encouraged others to study nature in order to leave behind sordid things, to keep the mind separate from the body, and to exercise the mind on hidden matters, so as to deal with ordinary ones successfully (NQ 3 preface 18). In the NQ, Seneca created a literary-scientific prose discourse in which ethi-cal messages are integrated into the surrounding “scientific” material (Williams 2012, 11–12; Williams 2005a; cf. Graver 1999).
In the anonymous Aetna, the volcano’s eruptions are explained as principally due to wind moving at high pressure in subterranean channels. In addition to offering a physi-cal explanation of the volcano, the Aetna poet also encouraged others to participate and engage in the study of natural phenomena, offering advice and examples regarding good “scientific” practice, while also providing examples of what to avoid. In particular, the Aetna poet warned about myths referring to gods, emphasizing the importance of rational explanation. he stressed the intellectual benefit of studying the natural world, suggesting that the pursuit of knowledge is a worthwhile activity in itself.
Perhaps surprisingly, the poem ends with a legend about nature, man, and a god, extolling the virtuousness of nature in not harming two devoted brothers who saved their parents during an eruption: nature shielded the family from harm, and Pluto gave them a special place in the underworld (Aetna 606–646). the poem exemplifies the
240 Liba Taub
c14 240 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
complicated character of many ancient Greek and Latin accounts of the physical world, in which gods are not totally absent, even as their role in the human realm is restricted or even denied (taub 2008, 45–55; toohey 1996, 190–192).
as we have seen, the subject of meteorology was addressed by authors with various concerns. In later antiquity, commentaries were produced on aristotle’s Meteorology. although the genre of “commentary” is not wholly homogeneous, commentaries are explicit about their relation to and dependence upon earlier “target” texts (Sluiter 2000, 183–184). Significant portions of three commentaries on the Meteorology survive, by alexander of aphrodisias (circa 200 CE), John Philoponus (circa 490–570 CE, whose commentary on the Meteorology was produced after 529), and olympiodorus (writing after 565). While explaining aristotle’s work, these commentators included their own ideas and criticisms and, like other meteorological authors, they were broadly concerned with philosophical questions and attended to other aristotelian texts.
as an example of how commentators expressed originality, Philoponus, who did not always agree with aristotle, was concerned to distinguish his own views, some of which were absolutely opposed to aristotle’s, even as he sought to explicate the Meteorology (verrycken, 1990, 241–242). a Christian neoplatonist who repeatedly asserted the doctrine of creation, Philoponus attempted to eliminate aither, aristotle’s eternal and divine fifth element (Westerink 1990, 327). he rejected aristotle’s claim that the world is eternal; for if the world is eternal then creation, an important tenet of Christianity, is denied. (Philoponus’ lost De Aeternitate Mundi contra Aristotelem [On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle] is partially reconstructed in Wildberg 1987.)
however, while Philoponus’ views were at times in sharp contrast to those of aristo-tle, he did, like the other ancient commentators on the Meteorology, incorporate many of aristotle’s explanatory tactics. Philoponus used analogy, the citation of different types of authorities (including poets and mathematicians) and lettered diagrams (as had aristotle in discussing halos and rainbows), but not always precisely in the same ways or to the same end. Philoponus disagreed with aristotle on some fundamental points regarding the nature of the world, and he was not the only commentator to criticize and innovate.
aristotle often indicated his own debt to his frequently anonymous sources for their reports of particular meteorological events, as well as for various explanations. Similarly, all these commentators referred to a range and different types of sources and authorities, yet each commentator introduced sources unique to his own discussion, incorporating quotations from “new” (post-aristotelian) authors. obviously, chronology plays a role here, but that is not the only factor determining whether a particular source or authority is named. For example, like aristotle himself and other commentators, olympiodorus used etymology as part of his explanatory approach, with reference to specific sources and types of authorities. Commenting on Meteorology 370b3, in his discussion of whirl-winds (typhoon), olympiodorus explained a type of sudden storm:
homer calls it Thuella, but aristotle typhon, in consequence of vehemently striking against as it were and breaking solid bodies. Sailors however call it Siphon, because like a siphon it draws upward the water of the sea. But the alexandrians call it in their native tongue anemo-soure, because it resembles the circular bed-chambers of women, which the inhabitants [call] anemsouris. and physicians from the similitude of the passion produced in the spirals of the intestines, call it borborugmos. (3.1; Stüve 1900, 200; trans. taylor 1807, 540 note 1, slightly altered; taylor explains that borborugmos is meant to refer to the noise of the intestines)
Meteorology 241
c14 241 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
here, olympiodorus presented an unusually wide range of sources in one passage. he mentioned the names used by, arguably, the most influential epic poet (homer) and the philosopher who wrote most systematically on meteorology (aristotle), but he did not confine himself to terminology used by these two illustrious figures. Instead, his list of terms describing whirlwinds includes words used by ordinary people, as well as words used by professional specialists, including sailors and physicians, whose livelihoods relied on an understanding of the effects of meteorological phenomena. olympiodorus’ commentary was learned, citing homer, but some of the erudition was incorporated from contemporary alexandrian informants. Such adaptations of aristo-tle’s tactics (introducing different sources and authorities) highlight the flexibility of commentary to explicate and update. Even when focused on tradition, and on aris-totle’s canonical text, meteorology was not so conservative that it did not experience some degree of innovation.
4. Predicting Weather
In numerous Greek and Latin texts, weather phenomena are correlated to other natural occurrences, including the risings and settings of stars and the activities of birds. Scholars distinguish two types of texts offering such correlations, both presumably intended to aid in weather prediction. But the status of those predictions is not well understood; nor is it clear how seriously (or consistently over time and in various situations) the predic-tions were regarded. astronomical phenomena, likely calculated rather than observed, were correlated with weather in astrometeorological parapēgmata, surviving in stone inscriptions and literary treatises (e.g., Geminus; see also tIME-tELLInG DEvICES). these may be understood as tracking cyclical phenomena, such as stellar phases, and seasonal weather trends. no direct causal link is posited between stellar phases and weather events. In contrast, works such as On Weather Signs, traditionally attributed to theo-phrastus, are lists of various phenomena (primarily, but not exclusively, in nature, e.g., the activities of animals) understood as indications of particular weather events, such as rain. these have been interpreted as providing what might be regarded, in modern terms, as “short-range” forecasts (Sider 2002, 100), such as “If there is a cloud in front of the setting sun which splits up its rays, this is a sign of stormy weather. and if the sun sets or rises while burning hot and there is no wind, this is a sign of rain” (On Weather Signs 11; trans. Sider and Brunschön). the signs are presented as conditional sentences: “If X, then Y,” where X is the sign and Y is the weather (Sider 2002, 107).
the term parapēgma seems originally to have described “something on which you fix something next to something else.” Fragments of two stone parapēgmata, late sec-ond and early first century BCE, found at Miletus, have peg-holes, representing days in the year—a peg was placed in the hole to mark the appropriate day. the following is a sample from the Milesian fragment 456D. the symbol “ ” represents a peg-hole, while the square brackets indicate gaps in the original, partially restored by the editor (Lehoux 2007, 225):
…] the south wind blows according toEudoxus [and the Eg]yptians; andaccording to the Indian Cal[laneus,]Scorpio sets with thunder and wind.
242 Liba Taub
c14 242 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
as tools to track astronomical events (such as star phases) and seasonal weather, parapēgmata could be used in conjunction with local civic and astronomical calendars. the discovery of inscriptional fragments aided in elucidating textual parapēgmata, such as Ptolemy’s Phases of the Fixed Stars. (the ancient name for these inscriptions seems to have been applied to the literary texts. that usage persevered, even when knowledge of the inscriptions was lost. But see Lehoux 2004, 231, who urges caution in assum-ing that inscriptional parapēgmata predated literary versions.) the information given is often attributed to famous figures, such as Euctemon and Democritus. In the Phases of the Fixed Stars Ptolemy names nineteen parapegmatists. In contrast, the signs offered in lists, such as On Weather Signs, are generally reported anonymously. however, a number of these lists were nevertheless associated with famous names (e.g., theophrastus). Sev-eral were appended to and circulated with works widely available in antiquity, including aratus’ Phaenomena (also translated several times into Latin). While compilations of weather signs seldom name sources, the opinions of experts are valued (On Weather Signs 3). thus, examples of both types of texts valorize specialist sources.
the relationships between the parapēgmata and lists of weather signs have not been much studied (but see now Beardmore 2013). to some extent, both types of texts can be understood as being in the form of a list, and as a compilation of information gathered from various sources. Like the lists of weather signs, some parapēgmata (particularly those in literary form, e.g., that of Columella) refer to non-astronomical phenomena, including the appearance of birds. numerous questions about these texts and their uses remain. While the information presented has often been understood as based on observa-tions (cf. Geminus 17.23), Lehoux (2004, 236) argues that, in some cases, calculations were used. Ptolemy did not himself observe the weather, but relied on reported observa-tions of earlier authorities, converting them into a common format and standardizing this “traditional” knowledge concerning the occurrence of meteorological events (Grasshoff 2016). the compiler of On Weather Signs (1) explains that some observations are the product of autopsy, others are reports from people of good repute.
the usefulness of transferring information based on one place to another was ques-tioned (Pliny, NH 17.19–32, focusing on heat and cold in different locations at NH 31–32; at NH 18.190, he notes that “everyone should know their own soil and water”). the compiler of On Weather Signs (3) also stresses the importance of location. the practicality of using a list of weather signs, organized by weather events (such as rain, hail, or wind) rather than by sign, has also been addressed (Sider and Brunschön 2007, 30; Beardmore 2013). and there are questions concerning for whom these written tools and texts were intended. the importance of the knowledge of seasonal weather patterns for agriculture is obvious, but, as both the compiler of On Weather Signs and Pliny men-tion, different places have different weather patterns and different agricultural condi-tions. While scholars stress the usefulness for agriculture and navigation, this presumes that farmers, or bailiffs, and sailors, or captains, would have had the necessary literacy to read these texts. Furthermore, the provision and inscription of a stone parapēgma would have been a laborious and costly procedure. It is worth remembering the invest-ment represented. those fragments that do survive are relatively large, and this suggests a very public setting (cf. hannah 2001, 144). Literary parapēgmata were presumably intended for use by individuals.
In the parapēgmata, statements about weather phenomena are often of the form “according to X,” where X names a well-known person. Such references to the work
Meteorology 243
c14 243 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
of earlier “authorities” like Eudoxus and Euctemon are a telling indication of the tra-ditional character of approaches to Greco-roman weather prediction (taub 2003, 26). Parapēgmata allow non-expert but literate users to take advantage of astronomical information for weather prediction. the ability to locate the peg in the inscription (or the date in the written calendar) obviated the need to look at the sky to determine the stellar phases and the time of year (Lehoux 2004, 239; Grasshoff 2016). they conveyed knowledge based on which people could make decisions using the sources of informa-tion at their disposal, including other texts and personal experience. Events linked to the weather (signs such as the migration of birds) might be predicted but are not specifically listed in the parapēgmata. Such information was either handed down orally or recorded in other formats. For example, sailors knew which winds would allow them to embark on the dangerous route from alexandria to rome (Grasshoff 2016; navIGatIon anD
thE art oF SaILInG). however, that knowledge of astronomical signs was not purely the domain of specialist astronomers is made clear by a much later author, vegetius (circa 450 CE), writing on military navigation (4.40): “the days of new moons too are filled with storms and are very much to be feared by navigators, as is understood not only by scientific study but the experience of common people” (trans. Milner; see taub 2011). this indicates the value of “common” knowledge, information not necessarily collected and transmitted through texts. vegetius’ reference to “common” people echoes olym-piodorus’ trust in the information provided by everyday alexandrians.
the practice of correlating meteorological phenomena to astronomical and other natural events to predict the weather is often traced back to hesiod. Parapēgmata may be linked to the sort of “farmers’ almanac” presented in the final section of his Works and Days (Goldstein and Bowen 1983, 331), where non-astronomical weather signs are offered as well. Just as modern farmers’ almanacs offer suggestions of what to do when, so too did hesiod. Consider the description of the end of winter and beginning of spring:
now, when Zeus has brought to completion sixty more winter days, after the sun has turned in his course, the star arcturus, leaving behind the sacred stream of the ocean, first begins to rise and shine at the edges of evening. after him, the treble-crying swallow, Pandion’s daughter, comes into the sight of men when spring’s just at the beginning. Be there before her. Prune your vines. (564–570, trans. Lattimore)
attention is turned to counting days and watching the sky, not only the stars, but also the swallow, mentioned as a harbinger of spring. this is done with a view to order-ing agricultural activity (see also 597–608 and 609–617), amid references to a god and to myth. Indeed, hesiod’s poetic farmer’s almanac is situated within a wider-ranging ethical work, explaining how to behave and what to do to improve life. the Works and Days may be the earliest representative of what later developed into parapēgmata and lists of weather signs (see also Pinsent 1989, 33–34; Mair 1908, 104–146 “the Farmer’s Year in hesiod,” appended to his translation; Stokes 1962, 1963). Similar approaches to weather prognostication can be found in medieval and even modern weather calendars and almanacs, attesting to the longevity of traditions of weather prediction.
244 Liba Taub
c14 244 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
REfEREnCEs
Beardmore, M. 2013. Ancient Weather Signs: Text, Science and Tradition. university of St. an-drews doctoral thesis, unpublished.
Bolton, r. 1991. “aristotle’s Method in natural Science: Physics I.” In Aristotle’s Physics: A Col-lection of Essays, edited by L. Judson, 1–29. oxford: Clarendon.
Clarke, k. 1999. Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World. oxford: Clarendon.
Clay, D. 1983. Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca: Cornell university Press.Codoñer Merino, C., ed. and trans. 1979. L. Annaei Senecae Naturales Quaestiones. Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.Cronin, P. 1992. “the authorship and Sources of the Peri semeion ascribed to theophras-
tus.” In Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings, edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, 307–345. ruSCh 5.
Daiber, h. 1992. “the Meteorology of theophrastus in Syriac and arabic translation.” In Theo-phrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings, edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, 166–293. ruSCh 5.
Diels, h. and a. rehm, 1904. “Parapegmenfragmente aus Milet.” Sitzungsberichte der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historischen Classe 23: 92–111.
Falcon, a. 2005. Aristotle and the Science of Nature: Unity without Uniformity. Cambridge: Cam-bridge university Press.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. and D. Gutas, eds. 1992. Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings. ruSCh 5.
Furley, D. 1966. “Lucretius and the Stoics.” BICS 13: 13–33.Furley, D. 1999. “Cosmology.” In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by k. algra,
J. Barnes, J. Mansfeld, and M. Schofield, 412–451. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.Gauly, B. M. 2004. Seneca’s “Naturales Quaestiones.” Naturphilosophie für die römische Kaiserzeit.
Zetemata 122. Munich: Beck.Gilbert, o. 1907. Die Meteorologischen Theorien des Griechischen Altertums. Leipzig: teubner.Goldstein, B. r. and a. C. Bowen. 1983. “a new view of Early Greek astronomy.” Isis 74: 330–340.Goodyear, F. r. D. 1984. “the ‘aetna’: thought, antecedents, and Style.” ANRW 2.32.1: 344–363.Graver, M. 1999. “Commentary on Inwood.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in An-
cient Philosophy 15: 44–54.Grasshoff, G. 2016. “Living according to the Seasons—the Power of Parapēgmata.” In Knowledge,
Text and Practice in Ancient Technical Writing, edited by M. Formisano and P. J. van der Eijk. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Griffin, M. t. 1976. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. oxford: Clarendon.hall, J. J. 1977. “Seneca as a Source for Earlier thought (Especially Meteorology).” CQ 27: 409–436.hannah, r. 2001. “From orality to Literacy? the Case of the Parapēgma.” In Speaking Volumes:
Orality & Literacy in the Greek & Roman World, edited by J. Watson, 139–159. Leiden: Brill.hine, h. M. 1981. An Edition with Commentary of Seneca, “Natural Questions” Book Two. new
York: arno Press.hine, h. M. 2010. Lucius Annaeus Seneca: “Natural Questions.” Chicago: university of Chicago Press.Inwood, B. 1995. “Seneca in his Philosophical Milieu.” HSPh 97: 63–76.Inwood, B. 2002. “God and human knowledge in Seneca’s Natural Questions.” In Traditions of
Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, Its Background and Aftermath, edited by D. Frede and a. Laks, 119–157. Leiden: Brill.
kahn, C. h. 1960. Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology. new York: Columbia university Press.
kidd, I. G. 1988. Posidonius II. The Commentary. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.
Meteorology 245
c14 245 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
kidd, I. G. 1992. “theophrastus’ Meteorology, aristotle and Posidonius.” In Theophrastus: His Psychological, Doxographical, and Scientific Writings,, edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, 294–306. ruSCh 5.
kidd, I. G. 1996. “Posidonius.” In The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by S. hornblower and a. Spawforth, 1231–1233. 3rd edition. oxford: oxford university Press.
Lattimore, r., trans. 1991. Hesiod: The Works and Days; Theogony; The Shield of Herakles. ann arbor: university of Michigan Press.
Lehoux, D. 2004. “observation and Prediction in ancient astrology.” SHPS 35: 227–246.Lehoux, D. 2007. Astronomy, Weather, and Calendars in the Ancient World: Parapēgmata and
Related Texts in Classical and Near Eastern Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.Lehoux, D. 2011. “Myth and Explanation in Manilius.” In Forgotten Stars: Rediscovering Manil-
ius’ “Astronomica,” edited by k. volk and S. J. Green, 45–56. oxford: oxford university Press.Lee, h. D. P., trans. 1952. aristotle. Meteorologica, Cambridge, Ma: harvard university Press.Mair, a. W. 1908. Hesiod: The Poems and Fragments. oxford: Clarendon.Mansfeld, J. 1992. “a theophrastean Excursus on God and nature and Its aftermath in hellen-
istic thought.” Phronesis 37: 314–335.Milner, n. P., trans. 1996. Vegetius: Epitome of Military Science. 2nd revised edition. Liverpool:
Liverpool university Press.Pinsent, J. 1989. “Boeotian Calendar Poetry.” In Boiotika: Vorträge vom 5. Internationalen Böotien-
Kolloquium zu Ehren von Professor Dr. Siegfried Lauffer: Institut für Alte Geschichte, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 13.-17. Juni 1986, edited by h. Beister and J. Buckler, 2: 33–37. Munich: Editio Maris.
runia, D. t. 1999. “What is Doxography?” In Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity, edited by P. J. van der Eijk, 33–55. Lei-den: Brill. Studies in Ancient Medicine 20.
Sedley, D. 1998. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom. Cambridge: Cambridge uni-versity Press.
Sider, D. 2002. “on On Signs.” In On the Opuscula of Theophrastus: Akten der 3. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung vom 19.-23. Juli 1999 in Trier, edited by W. W. Fortenbaugh and G. Wörhle. Stuttgart: Steiner. Philosophie der Antike 14: 99–111.
Sider, D. and C. W. Brunschön, eds. 2007. Theophrastus of Eresus: On Weather Signs. Leiden: Brill.Sluiter, I. 2000. “the Dialectics of Genre: Some aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre
in antiquity.” In Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society, edited by M. Depew and D. obbink, 183–203. Cambridge, Ma: harvard university Press.
Stokes, M. C. 1962. “hesiodic and Milesian Cosmogonies: I.” Phronesis 7: 1–37.Stokes, M. C. 1963. “hesiodic and Milesian Cosmogonies: II.” Phronesis 8: 1–34.taub, L. 2003. Ancient Meteorology. London: routledge.taub, L. 2008. Aetna and the Moon: Explaining Nature in Ancient Greece and Rome. Corvallis:
oregon State university Press.taub, L. 2009. “Cosmology and Meteorology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism,
edited by J. Warren, 105–124. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.taub, L. 2011. “Greco-roman Meteorology and navigation.” In Maritime Technology in the
Ancient Economy: Ship-Design and Navigation, edited by W. v. harris and I. kara, 133–146. Jra supplementary series no. 84.
taylor, t. 1807. The Treatises of Aristotle, On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, and On Meteors. London: robert Wilks.
toohey, P. 1996. Epic Lessons: An Introduction to Ancient Didactic Poetry. London: routledge.verrycken, k. 1990. “the Development of Philoponus’ thought and Its Chronology.” In
Aristotle Transformed, edited by r. Sorabji, 233–274. London: Duckworth.veyne, P. 2003. Seneca: The Life of a Stoic. translated by D. Sullivan. London: routledge.Wasserstein, a. 1978. “Epicurean Science.” Hermes 106: 484–494.
246 Liba Taub
c14 246 14 December 2015 6:01 PM 246mm×189mm
Westerink, L. G. 1990. “the alexandrian Commentators and the Introductions to their Com-mentaries.” In Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, edited by r. Sorabji, 325–348. London: Duckworth.
Wildberg, C. 1987. Philoponus: Against Aristotle, on the Eternity of the World. London: Duckworth.Williams, G. D. 2005a. “Interactions: Physics, Morality, and narrative in Seneca Natural Ques-
tions 1.” CPh 100: 142–165.Williams, G. D. 2005b. “Seneca on Winds: the art of anemology in Natural Questions 5.” AJPh
126: 417–450.Williams, G. D. 2006. “Greco-roman Seismology and Seneca on Earthquakes in Natural Ques-
tions 6.” JRS 96: 124–146.Williams, G. D. 2007. “Seneca on Comets and ancient Cometary theory in Natural Questions
7.” Ramus 36: 97–117.Williams, G. D. 2008a. “reading the Waters: Seneca on the nile in Natural Questions, Book 4a.”
CQ 58: 218–242.Williams, G. D. 2008b. “Cold Science: Seneca on hail and Snow in Natural Questions 4B.”
PCPhS 54: 209–236.Williams, G. D. 2012. The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca’s Natural Questions. oxford:
oxford university Press.Wilson, M. 2013. A More Disorderly Nature: Structure and Method in Aristotle’s Meteorologica i–
iii. Chicago: university of Chicago Press.
fuRthER REadIng
aristotle’s Meteorologica is the earliest work on the topic to survive from antiquity, and was influential for many later, including medieval and early modern, thinkers.
Johnson, M. r. 2009. “the aristotelian Explanation of the halo.” Apeiron 42: 325–358. Discusses the quantitative aspects of aristotle’s approach, and the influence on modern explanations of the halo and rainbow.
Lehoux 2007. Discusses the tools used to track astronomical events and seasonal weather, providing translations of relevant texts.
Philoponus, J. 2011. Philoponus On Aristotle Meteorology 1.1-3, with translation, intro-duction, commentary by Inna kupreeva. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. together with the following volume, offers the first English translation of this important commentary on aristotle’s Meteorology.
Philoponus, J. 2012. Philoponus: On Aristotle Meteorology 1.4–9, 1.12, with translation, introduction, commentary by Inna kupreeva. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.
hine’s 2010 translation of Natural Questions is preceded by two very helpful introductions.
taub 2003. the first book in English to deal with the subject.
taub 2008. Considers whether the ancient philosophers replaced myth with rational explanations, closely reading the anonymous Latin poem about the volcano Etna.
Sider and Brunschön’s 2007 edition and translation of On Weather Signs, traditionally attributed to theophrastus, is very helpful, especially the introduction.
Williams 2012. a detailed and richly rewarding examination of Seneca’s Natural Ques-tions, arguing that he wishes us to engage with lofty things, not only in a natural philo-sophical but also in a moral sense.
Wilson 2013. a detailed and philosophically oriented treatment of this aristotle’s Meteorology.
