Johannes Scottus Eriugena,Sun-Centred Planets,and Carolingian Astronomy

Duhem P. , Le système du monde (Paris, 1915), iii, 58–62. Readers should also notice in Duhem's work the author's enthusiasm for any historical source that might appear to use or affirm the so-called Heraclidean system, a planetary arrangement with Mercury and Venus orbiting the Sun, which in turn, with all the other planets independently of the Sun, circled around the Earth. Duhem's devotion to unearthing such sources was laudable for its time, given the willingness of notable astronomers to make claims for such views among the ancients without adequate historical evidence. A leading example was Schiaparelli G. , Scritti sulla storia della astronomia antica (Bologna, 1925), ii, 113–77 (reprint of an 1898 work), arguing that Heraclides of Pontus probably considered all five planets (not the Moon) to orbit the Sun, which orbited the Earth. Such arguments, when not firmly based in directly relevant historical evidence, are grounded primarily ln post-Copernican expectation. Schiaparelli's arguments on Heraclides are ingenious and unacceptable.

See the earlier edition of Sheldon-Williams I. P. , Periphyseon (De divisione naturae) Liber Tertius (Dublin, 1981), 206.5–24, and the current edition of Jeauneau É. , Periphyseon Liber Tertius (Turnhout, 1999), 112.3257–113.3277 (697C–698A). Comparing the two editions of the relevant passage, we find in the later edition the correction of ‘caloris’ to ‘coloris’ at line 3269 by Jeauneau. (Hereafter I refer to this edition of Periphyseon by the abbreviation PP.)

Translation from ed. Sheldon-Williams , 207, with the correction noted above, ref. 2.

These are the only direct statements of the circumsolarity of the four planets concerned in the text. They appear at PP III, 113.3272–3, 3275–6 (698A).

PP III, pp. x–xiii; 113, footnote. I should record that Professor Jeauneau, after reading an earlier draft of this study, both politely and vigorously disagreed with the translation I proffer (below in Section 8) and with my view of Eriugena's astronomical knowledge. As the reader of this study will find, I hold to an interpretation that insists on but is not dependent upon Eriugena's awareness of the observational difficulties of a heliocentrism like that of Figure 1. There appears much surrounding evidence for this interpretation. I consider Jeauneau's interpretation unacceptable because of the extensive evidence against it.

See Duhem , Système (ref. 1), iii, esp. pp. 61–62. He readily assumes what John Scot does not say explicitly about Saturn, the Sun, the Moon, and Earth to complete a full planetary order.

Maurus Rabanus , Martyrologium: De computo 48, ed. by McCulloh J. and Stevens W. (Turnhout, 1979), 259, reports observed planetary positions for 9 July 820, which include the Sun at 23° of Cancer, Jupiter in Libra, Mars in Pisces, and the two planets Mercury and Venus too close to the Sun to be observed (thus being below the horizon with the Sun). This set of observations places Mars a minimum of 113° and a maximum of 143° from the Sun, which is to say, far beyond the largest possible orbit circling the Sun as centre. The observation also recognizes the situation of frequent invisibility for Mercury and occasional invisibility for Venus, which Capella accounted for with his circumsolar orbits for these two planets. We should emphasize here that this sort of observation made by Rabanus was not unique in the ninth century.

Von Erhardt-Siebold E. and Von Erhardt R. , The astronomy of Johannes Scotus Erigena (Baltimore, 1940), 7–8; the authors call the supposed concentric heliocentric model “an obvious astronomical absurdity” and refer to the movement of superior planets in opposition to the Sun, although they do not return to this point again. The burden of the book (pp. 69 seq.) is to find a pattern of planetary motions that fits the terms of Eriugena's text in the Periphyseon and also the known doctrines of his day. A metaphorical interpretation is not explored. No adequate explanation of the mention of Plato's Timaeus is presented. A great amount of relevant information is assembled, all from published sources.

Text with discussion of the date in Burnett C. (ed.), Pseudo-Bede: De mundi celestis terrestrisque constitutione. A treatise on the universe and the soul (London, 1985). Previous discussion of the problem of this pattern and its origin appears in Eastwood B. , “Notes on the planetary configuration in Aberystwyth N.L.W. MS. 735C, f. 4v”, The National Library of Wales journal, xxii (1981), 129–40, esp. pp. 132–4, and 139, n. 20. For uses of such a pattern of intersecting geo-eccentric circles for Sun-Mercury-Venus in the eleventh and twelfth centuries see Eastwood B. , “Plato and circumsolar planetary motion in the Middle Ages”, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, lx (1993), 7–26, esp. pp. 15–19.

Among the difficulties of the Erhardts' use of Plinian doctrines the following two are paramount. They insist that Eriugena applied a pattern of intersecting apsidal circles to all planets but Saturn, an exception that is contradicted by all other texts, glosses, and diagrams on this topic in the Middle Ages. They present an erroneous account of Eriugena's mention of Plato's name and its connection with the Plinian pattern; Pliny, Naturalis historia, II, 38, refers to the astronomer Timaeus, not to Plato's Timaeus, which never mentions the 46° in Pliny's account, despite Erhardt, Astronomy, 48. We may add to these an essentially equal, third difficulty, the uses of an erroneous edition and of bad translations. Any careful reader of the Erhardts' work, searching for citations of Pliny, will find that the attribution of an apogee to the Moon in Naturalis historia, II, 64, depends upon an error in the edition. And the crucial texts of Pliny, applied to support the hypothesis of intersecting planetary orbits, do not say what the Erhardts attribute to them; see Erhardt , Astronomy , 47–48 (ref. Pliny, Naturalis historia, II, 72) and 54 (ref. ibid., II, 34).

With an approximate birthdate of 810 or before, John would have been at least 50 by the year 860 and would most likely have written, and probably updated and revised, a work like, his annotations on Martianus Capella, a Schoolbook of the day. Also, John's literary output in the 860s was sufficiently extensive to make his commentary on Martianus far more likely to be a product of earlier years, perhaps the 840s. For a recent overview of his literary career and reflections on the dating of his glosses, see Contreni J. and Néill P. Ó (eds), Glossae divinae historiae: The Biblical Glosses of John Scottus Eriugena (Florence, 1997), 21–22, 72–82.

The two versions of John's commentary on Martianus Capella are (1) Annotations in Marcianum , ed. by Lutz C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1939) (hereafter Annot.), (2) Commentaire érigénien sur Martianus Capella, ed. by Jeauneau É. in Quatre thèmes érigéniens (Paris, 1978), 91–166. The second of these editions presents only the commentary on Book I of Capella; the unique manuscript for this edition, Oxford Bodleian Library MS. Auct. T.II.19, dated to s. IX–3/3, contains commentary for each of the other books of Martianus. In the introduction to his edition, Jeauneau regards the two published versions of Book I as two different abridgements of a single commentary; see Quatres thèmes, 94, n. 13. The view that the two manuscripts, which establish two different sets of annotations on Book I, are simply two different selections from a larger collection of readings and teachings by John Scot was developed by Schrimpf G. , “Zur Frage der Authentizität unserer Texte von Johannes Scottus' ‘Annotationes in Martianum’”, in O'Meara J. and Bieler L. (eds), The mind of Eriugena (Dublin, 1973), 125–38, esp. pp. 132–4. This view is repeated with approval by Leonardi C. , “Martianus Capella et Jean Scot: Nouvelle presentation d'un vieux problème”, in Allard G. (ed.), Jean Scot écrivain (Montreal, 1986), 187–207, p. 198. A summary of prior views and argument that the Oxford and Paris MSS are sets of excerpts based on two separate Martianus MSS, both glossed by John, appears in Herren M. , “The Commentary on Martianus Capella attributed to John Scottus: Its Hiberno-Latin background”, in ibid., 265–86, pp. 266–71.

The text of Martianus upon which John the Scot is commenting is found in the two modern editions: Dick A. and Préaux J. (eds), Martianus Capella (Stuttgart, 1969), 9.7–10; and Willis J. (ed.), Martianus Capella (Leipzig, 1983), 5.18–20. Both modern editions of Eriugena's commentary are keyed to the page and line numbers of the 1969 edition of Martianus.

Jeauneau , Quatre thèmes, 114.10–24.

See Annot. 14–15 (at 9,6).

Annot. 22–23 (at 13,23). I have translated the text with the inclusion of the word ‘Saturnum’, an emendation by the modern editor, which I have marked by italics in the translation. The Latin text, exactly as presented by Lutz, is the following. “Non inmerito queritur qua ratione Virtus cum Mercurio planetarum circulos quaerentes Apollinem transcendere dicuntur, eumque ultra omnes planetas invenire et iterum reperto Apolline, illos tres Apollinem dico, Mercurium et Virtutem eosdem circulos consultum Jovis flagitantes transvolasse, sed ad hoc dicendum <est> ceterarum planetarum circulos circa solem esse, ac per hoc centrum suum in ipso ponere sicut Calcidius in expositione Timei Platonis exponit. Ipse siquidem Plato planetarum omnium centrum in sole point, ita et ut sub sole sint integri et supra solem. Quid itaque mirum si iste Martianus dum sit omnino Platonicus de situ planetarum documenta edisserit? Ac per hoc bis necesse erat Virtuti cum Mercurio planetarum circulos transire, primum quidem dum sunt infra solem, secundo vero adiuncto ipso Apolline dum sunt supra. Non enim Platonici circulum Satumi Iovis Martis nee non et lune ambire terram sed solummodo <Saturnum> terram ambire perhibebant. Poterat enim intelligi iuxta aliorum philosophorum opinionem bis circulum Veneris ac Mercurii potuisse transire, quoniam et infra solem sunt et supra. Non invenientes vero Apollinem in terra neque in tractibus inferioris aeris qui inter terram lunamque est constitutus, quomodo alium nisi lunarem circulum primum potuerunt invenire? Et si ita est, non nisi tres tantum modo circulos, lunarem scilicet Mercurialem Veneriumque, infra solem transierunt. Itaque si planetarum circuli et infra integri secundum Platonicam doctrinam et supra solem sint, quid impedit bis eos transcendi posse existimari?”.

It is necessary to mention here the only extended previous interpretation of this passage in the Annotationes, which interpretation I consider erroneous and unsatisfactory. See Von Erhardt-Siebold E. and Erhardt R. , Cosmology in the “Annotationes in Marcianum”: More light on Erigena's astronomy (Baltimore, 1940), 45 seq. This work, written in response to the appearance of the edition of the Annotationes, advances the same fundamental thesis as the prior study of the Periphyseon by the same authors and makes further questionable assumptions and translations. See above, refs 8, 10.

See PP III, 113, note to lines 3272–6 (698A), where the editor refers explicitly to this passage in the Annotationes and to other modern writers who agree that John Scot advances the same hypothesis of four heliocentric planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter. The editor also mentions some moderns who disagree. Allard G. , “‘Medietas’ chez Jean Scot”, in Beierwaltes W. (ed.), Begriff und Metapher: Sprachform des Denkens bei Eriugena. Vorträge des VII. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums (Heidelberg, 1990), 95–107, esp. p. 98 nn. 13–15, accepts the heliocentrical interpretation of both Eriugena's commentary on Book I of De nuptiis and the problematical text in the Periphyseon. Allard's concern here is to set forth the various uses of the concept of ‘medietas’ by Eriugena, and he does not question what others have taken to be the obvious geometrical meaning of the critical terms in these astronomical texts.

Annot. xxviii–xxx.

For this reading and that in the next sentence I have depended upon a microfilm and have not looked at the manuscript ‘in the flesh’.

For these two points in the sentence in question, see Annot. 22.33–34. The text also appears above in ref. 16.

The precise wording is from Shanzer D. , A philosophical and literary commentary on Martianus Capella's ‘De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii’ (Berkeley, 1986), 205 (sect. 11 K). Shanzer's commentary has appended at pp. 202–19 the best available English translation of Book I. For the section (I, 11) of De nuptiis, see the edition of Willis, Martianus Capella, 6–7.

With regard to the music of the trees in the grove and John's gloss see Sullivan B. , “The polyphony of the spheres”, Viator, xxviii (1997), 33–43, esp. pp. 37–39.

I have greatly compressed the account of De nuptiis I, 8–30. See Willis (ed.), Martianus Capella , 5–13; transl. in Shanzer , Philosophical and literary commentary, 204–10.

Willis (ed.), Martianus Capella, 7.24–25.

This is especially apparent in the other, Bodleian MS of John's commentary on Book I of De nuptiis. See Jeauneau , Quatre thèmes, 123–30, esp. p. 126.16–21, where the following statement by John, remarkable in itself, is based upon this coming together of the planetary apsidal circles: “… in octo caelestibus sonis omnes musicas consonantias fieri posse credendum est, non tantum per tria genera, diatonicum, dico, chrommaticum, enarmonicum, verum etiam in aliis ultra omnium mortalium ratiocinationem.” Analysis of John's cosmic harmonies as music appears in Münxelhaus B. , “Aspekte der musica disciplina bei Eriugena”, in Roques R. (ed.), Jean Scot Érigène et l'histoire de la philosophie (Paris, 1977), 253–62; Münxelhaus comments especially (pp. 261–2) upon the Latin phrase quoted here from the Oxford MS.

Secundus Plinius C. , Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII, ed. by Mayhoff K. (Leipzig, 1906), I, 147.4–17 (but excise “lunae in tauro” in lines 9–10, based upon a corrupt MS text), for the Plinian doctrine of apogees, one aspect of his larger doctrine of apsides. Capella Martianus , De nuptiis , VIII, 884–6, reports the same apogees for the three outer planets as does Pliny, Naturalis historia, II, 63–64. Early in the ninth century Carolingians extracted and began to disseminate widely the Plinian doctrine, often accompanied by diagrams. See Eastwood B. , “Plinian astronomical diagrams in the early Middle Ages”, in Mathematics and its applications to science and natural philosophy in the Middle Ages, ed. by Grant E. and Murdoch J. (Cambridge, 1987), 141–72, esp. pp. 145–6, 153–7, for apsidal diagrams. An example of combined Plinian apogees and Capellan orbits, including heliocentric Mercury and Venus, drawn in or about the year 816, probably at a royally supported scriptorium, appears in Leiden UB ms. Voss. lat Q. 79, f. 93v, which can be seen in a clearer, schematic representation in Bischoff B. , Aratea: Kommentar zum Aratus des Germanicus MS Voss. Lat. Q. 79 (Lucerne, 1989), plate 33 (emend date to 18 March 816); note the intersections of planetary apsidal circles, which are not the same as actual planetary orbits.

Lutz , in Annot. 22, n. 4, refers to Macrobius, In somnium I.x.7–16, which is not quite sufficient.

John Scot's text here is Annot. 21–22 (at 13,1). The references to Pyriphlegethon can be found in Martianus Capella, ed. Willis , 49.1, 53.14. For the Macrobian texts on the Platonist positions about the punishment of souls, see MacRobius , Commentarii in Ciceronis somnium Scipionis , ed. by Jan L. (Leipzig, 1848), 68–69 (I.xi.4–7), 78 (I.xiii.14–16). John also glosses ‘Pyrphlegetonta’ briefly where it appears in Book II of De nuptiis; see Annot. 70 (at 69,2). On this particular point it seems that Remigius of Auxerre provides a much clearer and more useful gloss than John at the two relevant points; see Remigius , Commentum in Martianum Capellam libri I-II, ed. by Lutz C. (Leiden, 1962), 91–92 (at 13.6), 189 (at 69.1).

On the doctrines, especially of Platonists, on the soul and the afterlife in late Antiquity, in relation to Books I-II of De nuptiis, see Shanzer , Philosophical and literary commentary , 21–28, 56–58, 65–67, 69–71, et passim; and Lenaz L. , Martiani Capellae De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii liber secundus: Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Padua, 1975), 27–32, 101–20.

See, for example, John's comment on entelechia in De nuptiis, I, 7; Annot. 10.16–24.

There are extant eleven mss. from the ninth century of Macrobius's commentary, six of them extensive or complete texts. As early as 811 the monk Dungal wrote a letter to Charles the Great on astronomical matters in which Dungal used Macrobius extensively as an astronomical source. See also below, ref. 97.

Plato latinus, IV: Tïmaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus, ed. by Waszink J. (London, 1962/1975), 118.9–13.

The Pythagorean order and the Pythagorean doctrine of the Sun as middle and the heart of the planetary world appears at Tïmaeus a Calcidio , ed. by Waszink , 119 (c. 72); Plato's placement of the Sun in the second circle is at ibid., 121.6–8 (c. 73); Calcidius's further account of the Sun as heart of the world appears at ibid., 151–2 (cc. 99–100). The central importance of the Sun is also explained by Macrobius, Comentarii, I.xx.6, where he promotes the equation of mens mundi and cor celi with sol; he does not cite Plato. Cicero's Somnium Scipionis 4, describes the Sun as mind, moderator, and director of the world. For Macrobius's text, including the relevant quotations from Cicero, see Commentarii, ed. Jan , 110–11. Pliny also relates this Stoic theme in Naturalis historia , II, 12–13 (ed. Mayhoff , I, 131.18–23): “Eorum [septem siderum] medius sol fertur, amplissima magnitudine ac potestate nee temporum modo terrarumque, sed siderum etiam ipsorum caelique rector. Hunc esse mundi totius animum ac planius mentem, hune principale naturae regimen ac numen credere decet opera aestimantes”.

The astronomical materials in this compilation, found in Paris BnF ms. lat. 13955, are described by Eastwood B. , “Calcidius's Commentary on Plato's Tïmaeus in Latin astronomy of the ninth to eleventh centuries”, in Nauta L. and Vanderjagt A. (eds), Between demonstration and imagination: Essays in the history of science and philosophy presented to John D. North (Leiden, 1999), 172–8.

The circumsolar paths of Mercury and Venus are, of course, familiar as a Capellan model. Calcidius provides a far superior, qualitative and reasoned account of Venus's appearances with respect to the Sun by employing an epicycle around the Sun for Venus; the Sun is not at the centre of this epicycle but is located on the radius from the Earth that bisects the epicycle of Venus. See Timaeus a Calcidio , ed. Waszink , 157–9 (cc. 110–12); an interpretation with translation of these paragraphs appears in Eastwood B. , “Heraclides and heliocentrism: Texts, diagrams, and interpretations”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxiii (1992), 233–60, esp. pp. 238–44.

Remigius , Commentum libri I-II , 89–93, esp. the comments for 12.3, 12.4–12.9, 12.19–12.23, 13.1, 13.6, and 13.22. Remigius's comments allow non-concentric planetary circles with a non-central Earth located inside the inner circle of the Moon; these comments neither support nor suggest heliocentrism for all or most of the planets.

These are the Oxford manuscript, Auct. T.2.19, ff. 122v–140r, and Bern Burgerbibliothek cod. 331, ff. 75v–78v (s. X, prov. Auxerre); the indicated folia hold the commentary on Book VIII.

In her 1939 introduction Cora Lutz referred primarily to the contents of John's commentary on Book I, by far the longest part of the commentary on the nine books, in discussing characteristics defining it as John's work; see Annot. pp. ix–xxvii. In his edition of the Oxford manuscript Édouard Jeauneau noted the similarities between the texts of the later books of the commentary across the two manuscripts of Paris and Oxford and raised no question about attributing the full commentary to John Scot; see Jeauneau , Quatre thèmes, 94. Accepting these two manuscripts and listing locations for other copies of only certain books of John's commentary, Leonardi C. , “Glose eriugeniane a Marziano Capella in un codice leidense”, in Roques (ed.), Jean Scot Érigène et l'histoire de la philosophie (ref. 26), 171–82, esp. p. 173, gives Bern 331 as well as two much later mss., Paris 8675 and Wien 3222, for the commentary on Books VI-IX; Leonardi deals primarily with Leiden BPL 88 (s. IX), where John's commentary on Book IX alone adjoins commentary on the other eight books by anonymous scholars. Herren , “The Commentary on Martianus” (ref. 12), 265–86, p. 268, includes Bern 331 among accepted mss. for John's commentary on Book VHIt most of Herren's study focuses upon the relationship between the Paris and the Oxford manuscripts.

Remigius , Commentum in Martianum Capellam libri III-IX, ed. by Lutz C. (Leiden, 1965), devotes less than eight full pages to grammar, but twice as much space as John to astronomy.

Annot. 165.7–9.

Annot. 169 (at 427,8): “… de absidibus planetarum …, id est ubi iungitur circulus unius planete alteri circulo alterius planete.” This definition requires interpretation, since the widely received doctrine of planetary apsides, based on an excerpt from Pliny, sometimes showed multiple intersections of apsidal circles, sometimes few or no intersections. In this gloss John shows the doctrine that he appealed to and used in his teaching on cosmic harmonies; see above, refs 26–27. For reproductions from six manuscripts of various patterns of intersecting circles in apsidal diagrams see Eastwood B. , “Plinian astronomy in the Middle Ages and Renaissance”, in French R. and Greenaway F. (eds), Science in the early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, his sources and influence (London, 1986), 197–251, esp. pp. 240–2, 246, 248–9.

Annot. 173–4 (at 434, 14). Pliny , Naturalis historia , II, 71. The Carolingian excerpt from Pliny for the planetary latitudes is discussed in Eastwood, “Plinian astronomical diagrams” (ref. 27), 146–7, 157–61. Further discussion appears in Eastwood B. , “Latin planetary studies in the IXth and Xth centuries”, Physis, n.s., xxxii (1995), 217–26, esp. pp. 218–22.

Annot. 182 (at 457,1).

Annot. 177 (at 447,8).

Martianus Capella, ed. Willis , 324.10–13 (VIII, 857).

Annot. 178 (at 450,22).

Annot. 178–9 (at 451,4). In the Oxford MS this comment appears at ff. 133v–134r. The identical wording appears in the tenth-century copy of John's commentary, Bern Burgerbibliothek cod. 331, f. 77v. The gloss, its meaning, and the different understandings of the relevant Capellan text are discussed by B. Eastwood, Astronomy and optics from Pliny to Descartes (London, 1989), ch. 2, esp. pp. 151–5; see also idem, “Astronomical images and planetary theory in Carolingian studies of Martianus Capella”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxi (2000), 1–28, esp. pp. 2–5.

Here we should remark that Erhardt, Cosmology, 23–26, misunderstands every Capellan text and Eriugenian comment on the inner planets referred to on these pages. In most cases the reason for misunderstanding is lack of awareness of relevant manuscript sources. On these texts and relevant manuscripts regarding Mercury and Venus, see the two studies by Eastwood cited in ref. 48 above.

For early manuscripts of Macrobius and Calcidius, see Huglo M. , “La réception de Calcidius et des ‘Commentarii’ de Macrobee à l'époque carolingienne”, Scriptorium, xliv (1990), 3–20; idem, “Trois manuscrits présentés par Hélisachar”, Revue bénédictine, xcix (1989), 272–85. The MSS of Macrobius are listed by Eastwood B. , “Manuscripts of Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, before 1500”, Manuscripta, xxxviii (1994), 138–55. Early excerpting and criticism of Macrobius's astronomy appears in the letter of the monk Dungal to the emperor Charlemagne in 811; see Eastwood B. , “The astronomy of Macrobius in Carolingian Europe: Dungal's letter of 811 to Charles the Great”, Early medieval Europe, iii (1994), 117–34. The MSS of Dungal's letter show an amalgamation in the ninth century with other materials from Macrobius, Bede, and Isidore, suggesting that the letter quickly became either a scholarly or educational source in its own right. The earliest astronomical excerpt from Calcidius is discussed in Eastwood, “Calcidius's Commentary” (ref. 35), 172–8. For early MSS of Plato and of Calcidius and especially for glosses on Calcidius, see Somfai A. , “The transmission and reception of Plato's ‘Timaeus’ and Calcidius's ‘Commentary’ during the Carolingian Renaissance”, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1998. In addition to Calcidius's translation of the Timaeus, Olsen Munk B. , L'Étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XIe et XIIe siècles (Paris, 1982), i, 99 ff., lists five extant ninth-century copies of Cicero's translation of Plato's Timaeus, four of which have the astronomical section, one copied under Hadoard at Corbie, one annotated by Lupus of Ferrières, and these four copies are contained in manuscripts that included the De natura deorum, De divinatione, and other Ciceronian works. Pliny's astronomy from his Naturalis historia was excerpted and diagrammed in the early ninth century; see King V. , “An investigation of some astronomical excerpts from Pliny's Natural History found in manuscripts of the earlier Middle Ages”, Litt B. , thesis, Oxford University, 1969; Eastwood , “Plinian astronomical diagrams” (ref. 27). The catalogue of MSS for Martianus Capella shows the widespread consultation of his work by Carolingians; see Leonardi C. , “I codici di Marziano Capella”, Aevum, xxxiii (1959), 443–89; xxxiv (1960), 1–99, 411–524.

Rabanus , De computo (ref. 7), 163–323, e.g., 252 (advocates oral instruction and observation with an experienced observer in preference to simply reading about stellar positions) and 259 (observes planetary positions for 9 July 820). For Martianus Capella see Eastwood , “Astronomical images and planetary theory” (ref. 48).

An example is John's gloss on ‘Euan’ and ‘vietus’, which may seem so brief as to be simplifications, but the corresponding glosses by Remigius make it much easier for the neophyte to grasp the meanings. Annot. 165–6 (at 423,5 and 423,6); Remigius , Commentum II, 238–9 (at 423,5).

Annot. 168 (at 427,6). The place where Martianus introduces the relevant astronomical doctrine is VIII, 872 (ed. Willis, 330.9–22). In the edition of Dick it appears at 459.17 − 460.16. Annot. 183 shows no reference to the doctrine, nor does Remigius, Commentum II, 285–6, show an adequate account. The reason for this is that Martianus's text does not include the precise reference to the equinoxes that John includes. He almost certainly introduced it because he found it as a diagram in one of the preexisting glossed codices of Martianus Capella; see Eastwood , “Astronomical images and planetary theory” (ref. 48), 27, n. 31. The precise information derives from computus and appears, inter alia, in Bede's De temporum ratione 6, where these locations originate with God's Creation.

For these, see Annot. 179–80 (452,9 − 454,10). The former of these comments raises an engaging possibility, viz., that it is inspired by Calcidius's mention of three shapes of shadow cast by a light source past different sizes of opaque sphere. John uses the adjectives ‘cylindris’, ‘turbonidis’, and ‘pyramidis’ for the shapes of shadow; Calcidius uses the labels ‘cylindroides’, ‘calathoides’, and ‘conoides’; see Timaeus a Calcidio, ed. Waszink , 142–3 (c. 90). Pliny , Naturalis historia , II, 47, may be a source for the term ‘turbonidis’, but Pliny refers there to the shape of an inverted top, not an upright one, to compare with the conical shape of the Earth's shadow; nor does Pliny refer to more than one shape of shadow. Of the books possibly known to John, only Calcidius's commentary mentions or describes the three different shapes of shadow. While John may be only remembering this Calcidian description, when the commentary on the Timaeus is not readily available to him, his shift to a more Latinate terminology may also be due to his intended audience, readers for whom the reference to a familiar toy (turbo) should be much more meaningful than the Greek-based word ‘calathoides’. Thus John writes explicitly in this comment of the shape of “… turbo quo ludunt pueri”. This would require us to understand his reference to a top that is wider at the bottom and comes to a small neck at the upper end; such are available in shops today and are much more stable than those of the opposite and more common modern orientation. This seems also to be the shape that Pliny has in mind when he refers to the cone of the Earth's shadow as an inverted top.

Further examples of John's use of preexisting glosses and/or diagrams are those for “aut acutis aut spatiosis” (VIII, 868), Annot. 182 (457,12); “ultra xxxii partes” (VIII, 880), Annot. 184 (464,10); “orbe castiore diffusioreque” (VIII, 857), Annot. 178–9 (451,4). An example of John's use of Pliny appears in his gloss on ‘statio’ (VIII, 884), Annot. 185 (467,8), which shows understanding of the original doctrine in Pliny , Naturalis historia , II, 59, unlike the later gloss by Remigius , Commentum II, 292 (467.8), which simply paraphrases Martianus.

Annot. 19–20 (at 11.20; 11,23).

Annot. 20 (at 12,3; 12,9).

Annot. 21 (12,11). This Plinian interval is characteristically depicted in Eastwood, “Plinian astronomical diagrams” (ref. 27), 150, Fig. 1 (from Wien NB cod. 387, f.123r).

Annot. 21 (12,15). Martianus could not use Plinian apsides for Mercury and Venus, because he made these two planets circumsolar.

See above, ref. 34.

Jeudy C. , “L'attitude de Rémi d'Auxerre face aux innovations linguistiques de Jean Scot”, in Allard G. (ed.), Jean Scot écrivain (Montreal, 1986), 299–310, esp. pp. 303–5. Significantly, John made this sort of exchange only in a non-astronomical and non-scientific work.

The text of the annotation appears above in ref. 16.

That is, Capellan astronomy, by placing Mercury and Venus on circumsolar orbits, makes these two planets have apogees under various signs of the zodiac, since these planets are tied to the motion of the Sun. Capella gives fixed locations in the zodiac for the apogees of only the three upper planets. Pliny gives fixed zodiacal locations for the apogees of all the planets but the Moon, whose circle he understood to have no apogee, its centre being in the Earth. For the sources in Martianus Capella and Pliny, see above, ref. 27.

Above, ref. 34, for Plato's location of the Sun geocentrically and as the next planet beyond the Moon from the Earth. Macrobius, Commentarii I.xix.1, I.xxi.27, also reports quite clearly for Carolingian readers that Plato placed the Sun in the orbit next after the Moon in ascending order. Macrobius never proposes that Plato did make or might have made any planet revolve in an orbit around the Sun. Calcidius takes up the question of Mercury and Venus as possibly moving around the Sun in cc. 108–12 of his commentary. He attributes to Plato the view that these two planets have their geocentric orbits above the Sun but always move at speeds keeping them near the Sun, sometimes racing ahead, sometimes apparently travelling backward. In c. 112 Calcidius allows Venus to appear closer to and farther from the Earth, suggesting that the planet comes closer to Earth than does the Sun, and draws a circle around the Sun to indicate the limits of Venus's appearances. Yet Calcidius nowhere says that Venus or Mercury has its orbit around the Sun, and he follows instead the tradition of Greek mathematical astronomy in claiming that the epicyclic pattern for planetary motion is a way of regularizing appearances that otherwise seem erratic.

Plato's pattern for the inner planets was also reported by Macrobius, Commentarii I.xix.1–8. Macrobius's account included one change, the exchange of positions in the sequence by Mercury and Venus. For an exposition of the account by Macrobius, see Eastwood , Astronomy and optics (ref. 48), ch. 1, esp. 383–91.

Here we note that Erhardt, Cosmology, 7, makes the assumptions (a) that John was not interested in commenting on the allegorical events but only on the planetary pattern in Capella's account, (b) that in John's comment Mercury and Virtue are said to begin their travel through planetary space from the Earth, (c) that every reference to Apollo in the text is a reference to the solar orbit and not to the deity. These incorrect assumptions vitiate the Erhardts' interpretation of John's commentary on De nuptiis I, 16, in the Annotationes.

Martianus Capella made no reference to the heliocentrism of Mercury and Venus in the first two, allegorical books of De nuptiis. His sole references to it, multiple and clear, were in the astronomical handbook in De nuptiis. Book VIII, sections 854, 857, 879–82.

In c. 73 of his commentary on the Timaeus Calcidius reported different planetary orders, hinging upon disagreements about the locations of Mercury and Venus. In c. 83 he made some distinctions between these two and the rest of the planets but did not set them wholly apart. In c. 97 he separated Mercury and Venus from all others according to their widely recognized differences in appearance, their non-appearance in opposition to the Sun and their limited elongations from the Sun. In cc. 108–12 he commented upon the passage of Plato that places the two planets together with the Sun in the planetary order and speaks of their oscillations with respect to the Sun; Calcidius here devoted much space to distinguishing Platonic schools of thought and geometrical explanations for the observed phenomena of the two solar companions. For details of these explanations, see Eastwood , “Heraclides and heliocentrism” (ref. 36).

Annot. 23.2–4.

There is a large literature on this topic, for which a useful starting point is Lloyd G. , “Saving the appearances”, Classical quarterly, n.s., xxviii (1978), 202–22; regarding Calcidius some discussion of this topic appears in Eastwood, “Heraclides and heliocentrism” (ref. 36).

Annot. 22.30–32.

Annot. 22.32–34.

Martianus Capella , ed. Willis , 323.23–24 (sect. 855). Timaeus a Calcidio, ed. Waszink , 128.6–8, 130.6–9.

Annot. 22.34–23.6.

Remigius , Commentum, I, 88.31–93.5 (comm. 11.20–13.22).

PP III, 107.3099–108.3148 (693D–695A).

PP III, 108.3149–111.3225 (695A–697A); esp. lines 3210–17 (696C).

John's critical definition here appears at PP III, 111.3230–112.3232 (697A). Having modified Pliny's etymology of ‘caelum’ to emphasize the ordering of things from top downward, John wrote that the planetary realm was called the firmament, because “… it stands in its height above every composite bodily creature of nature” (my emphasis).

PP III, 87.2509–10, 2519–21 (680A, 680B).

PP III, 140.4070 (717B), 144.4248 (721B).

PP III, 137.3989–138.3993 (715C), 145.4246–7 (721A).

PP III, 137.3986–138.4000 (715B-C). Here John used the same vocabulary as in the supposedly heliocentrical passage, for he referred to these middle planetary bodies as “sol omnesque planetae quae circa eum volvuntur” (lines 3998–9). See also below at ref. 89.

PP III, 146.4281–148.4335 (722A–723A). Despite his closing observation that the calculations of Pythagoras cannot be definitively proven, John both approves of and uses them.

PP III, 112.3239–56 (697B-C).

Pliny , Naturalis historia , ed. Mayhoff , 152.7–16 (II, 79): “Colores ratio altitudinem temperat, siquidem earum similitudinem trahunt, in quarum aera venere subeundo, tinguitque adpropinquantes utralibet alieni meatus circulus, frigidior in pallorem, ardentior in ruborem, ventosus in horrorem, sol atque commissurae apsidum extremaeque orbitae atram in obscuritatem. Suus quidem cuique color est: Saturno candidus, Iovi clarus, Marti igneus, Lucifero candens, Vesperi refulgens, Mercurio radians, Lunae blandus, Soli, cum oritur, ardens, postea radians….” Bede, De natura rerum 15, in Jones C. (ed.), Bedae Venerabilis opera, pars I: Opera didascalica (Turnhout, 1975), 207, has the same text, slightly rearranged. John had used this Plinian material in his commentary on Martianus Capella; see Annot. 20.6–16 (at 11, 23), where John described the planets Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars with different colours in the higher and lower arcs of their circles, which were their apsidal circles. John also used planetary apsidal circles to create his harmonic theory of the planets; see above, refs 26, 42.

Annot. 20–21 (annotations numbered 11,23 − 12,15); see esp. 20 (11, 23): “unaquaeque planetarum, Plinio teste, suum proprium possidet colorem. Sepe tamen ipse stelle V, Saturnus videlicet, Iovis Mars Venus Mercurius mutant colores. In quarum enim, ut verbis eius utar, aera veniunt, subeundo illarum coloris similitudinem trahunt. Verbi gratia, stella Saturni naturaliter pallida est, nam et frigida, dum autem in circulum Iovis descendit, ipsius claritatem attrahit. Similiter Iovis Stella, dum sit naturaliter clara, quando sursum versus circulo Saturni miscetur, pallida videri necesse est, et eodem modo de ceteris intelligendum”.

PP III, 113.3272–7 (698A): “Planetae vero quae circa eum volvuntur mutant colores secundum qualitates spatiorum in quibus discurrunt, Iovem dico et Martern, Venerem et Mercurium. Quae semper circulos suos circa solem peragunt, sicut Plato in Timaeo edocet; atque ideo dum supra solem sunt, claros ostendunt vultus, dum vero infra, rubeos.” I should acknowledge here that Édouard Jeauneau firmly rejects my translation of this passage and prefers to mine the translation of Sheldon-Williams, used above in Section 1 of this study. I disagree with Jeauneau, whose insistence on a uniform meaning for ‘circa’ here allows to Eriugena less flexibility than that author seems to assume at other points.

PP III, 17.463, 465 (629D), where John uses ‘circa’ metaphorically; 146.4261 (721C), where it has the sense of encircling a region, not of moving around a point or body. Allard, “Medietas” (ref. 18), offers a number of different senses of the word ‘middle’ in John's Periphyseon. Although I differed with Allard on accepting the heliocentric pattern for the planets, the larger purpose of his study lends further support to my point here and shows a variety of meanings in the words John used for middleness. Erhardt, Astronomy, 14–30 and esp. 30–31 n. 49, exhibits the virtual absence of precedents for a heliocentricity of more than Mercury and Venus in the Greek and Latin traditions before Eriugena. The Erhardts show various uses by Eriugena of ‘circa’ in other than a strictly geometrical way.

PP III, 137.3987–138.4000 (715B-C). I have added a comma after the ‘planetae’ appearing near the end of the passage.

Thus, below at PP III, 146.4285–147.4298 (722A-B), Eriugena described the two harmonic octaves from Earth to the fixed stars and stated that all the planets are included in the middle region.

Erhardt , Astronomy , 40, argues that Eriugena considered both Mars and Jupiter to pass in their orbits below the Sun. This is a misunderstanding of Eriugena, who more than once pointed to the apsides of these planets as carrying each of them as far as the next planetary circle below its own but no farther. Erhardt, Cosmology, 12, n. 14, claims that Eriugena at Periphyseon 717C “emphasized” the eccentricity of the Moon; this is not correct, as a careful reading of that passage reveals ( PP III, 140.4085–8). There he points out that the Moon is precisely geocentric, though it seems to be slightly farther away when in the sign of Taurus. He also attributes this to ‘philosophi’, which surely refers to a disagreement in the Plinian tradition. The text of Pliny, Naturalis historia , II, 63–64, does not contain an apogee for the Moon, although Mayhoff (ed.), Naturalis historia (Leipzig, 1906), I, 147.9–10, includes a lunar apogee drawn from a medieval annotation to Bede, De natura rerum 14; see Bede , Opera (ref. 85), 206, apparatus to line 11. Likewise the text, not to mention the diagrams, for the Computus of 809, when listing the apogees of the planets, gives no apogee for the Moon; see Eastwood , “Plinian astronomical diagrams” (ref. 27), 145–4, 153–7.

PP III, x–xi: Jeauneau writes, “Il est probable qu' Erigène n'avait pas une claire vision du système du monde qu'il esquissait en quelques lignes. Il eût été sans doute bien embarrassé si on lui avait demandé de le traduire en un schema…”. To this view I would reply that contemporaries of Eriugena could have pointed out to him his error, had he not recognized it. It would seem excessive to suppose that Eriugena never had any discussion with any contemporary scholar about this point and in addition to suppose that (a) Eriugena never recognized the astronomical error in the sort of interpretation followed by Duhem and others, and (b) no ninth-century scholar ever remarked upon a new, heliocentrical planetary pattern put forth in two different texts by Eriugena.

PP III, 167.4898–4901 (735C). The parallel positions of Pliny and Plato here are interesting. We know that John knew Pliny's text, at least for cosmology and astronomy, rather well. Regarding John's knowledge of Plato there is scepticism; see Cappuyns M. , Jean Scot Érigène: Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pensée (Louvain, 1933), 389, 392. It seems curious, though not impossible, that John would give Plato the same standing as Pliny, if John did not know some body of Platonic doctrine.

Pliny , Naturalis historia, II, 12–13; II, 69–71; II, 72–73 give the most important statements of solar force.

Capella Martianus , De nuptiis VIII, 887.

Boethius , The theological tractates. The consolation of philosophy, ed. by Warmington E. (London, 1973), 270 (III, pr. 9.99–100). The importance of Boethius's Consolatio as a vector for the influence of the Timaeus in Carolingian Europe appears in P. Courcelle, La consolation de philosophie dans la tradition littéraire (Paris, 1967), 275–99; and in F. Troncarelli, Boethiana aetas: Modelli grafici efortuna manoscritta tra IX e XII secolo (Alexandria, 1987), 113–14 (Boethian Philosophia identified with biblical Sapientia), 114–15 (Eriugena and the Consolatio), 277 (22 extant MSS. of Consolatio from s. IX out of 135 from s. IX-XII).

The Timaeus is named by Macrobius as a doctrinal source ten times: At I.vi.2, 24, 28, 45; I.xii.6; I.xx.2; II.ii.14, 22; II.iii. 15; II.x.14. Plato is named at least 32 times, especially for the doctrines of the construction of the cosmos from number, planetary order, the Sun as the mind of the cosmos, the world soul, and the soul as self-mover.

Another example appears at PP IV, 48.28–29 (762C); there John wrote that Plato defined angels as rational and immortal, a definition that Jeauneau (in ibid. , 291, n. 61) identifies as a statement by Calcidius (c. 135). This is, in fact, a definition that pervades the late ancient Platonic tradition. For John's references to Plato and the Timaeus see Madec G. , “Jean Scot et ses auteurs”, in Jean Scot écrivain (ref. 12), 143–86, esp. p. 183.

See, for example, Bede , De temporum ratione 28.

Augustine St , De doctrina christiana II, xxix (46), ed. by Martin J. (Turnhout, 1952), 64.22–65.45. Idem, De Genesi ad litteram II, 14, ed. by Zycha J. (Vienna, 1894), 53–56, for Augustine's approval and use of the doctrines and rules for luni-solar time-keeping; at II, 16–17 (pp. 58–62) Augustine warns of the uncertainties and dangers of further planetary astronomy and of astrology.

See above, ref. 34.

Boethius , Consolation (ref. 96), 272 (III, metr. 9.13–17).

Eriugena Scotus Johannes , Expositiones in lerarchiam coelestem, ed. by Barbet J. (Turnhout, 1985), p. 45, lines 941–2, 948–53.

Scot Jean , Homélie sur le Prologue de Jean, ed. by Jeauneau É. (Paris, 1969), 275 (XV, 291D).

Scotus Ioannes , Versio operum S. Dionysii Areopagitae: Liber tertius, De divinis nominibus 5 (Patrologia Latina 122, 1150B-C): “Si enim juxta nos sol sensibilium essentias et qualitates, et quidem multas et discretas existentes, tamen ipse unus ens, et uniformis illuminans lux renovat, et nutrit, et custodit, et perficit, et discernit, et unit, et refovet, et fecunda esse facit, et auget, et mutat, et colocat, et plantat, et removet, et vivificat omnia…”.

PP III, 87.2509–88.2540 (680A-C).

It seems that Eriugena knew the doctrines of both Plato and Calcidius regarding the position of the Sun in the order of the planets and likewise knew their doctrines regarding the centre or centres of revolution of the planets. The presence of such doctrines in more widely known texts, especially Macrobius's commentary, requires that one wishing to show that John did not know Plato's order and system of the planets would need stronger evidence than exists. On the other hand, we do not know how John gained his knowledge. It may have come from reading texts other than those of Calcidius, or it may have come from reading those texts directly. It may have come from reading excerpts, from glosses to other texts, or from scholarly discussions with his contemporaries. The extent of Eriugena's understanding of the full text of either Plato's Timaeus or Calcidius's Commentarius remains unknown and does not affect the argument of this study of his references to the Sun as central among the planets.

PP I, 43.1254–8 (471C).

PP I, 49.1441–4 (476A). He repeats the same sort of phrasing in 476C.

The text with “circa Christum volvuntur” is at PP V, 1000B; the explanation by John is at 1000C.

PP V, 907B.

Expositiones, 94 (VII, 102–5). The full passage, of which this forms a part, appears on lines 101–45.

Ibid., lines 112–15, 118–19, 122, 129–31, 136, 137.

Ibid., lines 131–2.

PP III, 113.3275–6 (698A).

For example, at ref. 109 above.

Above, at ref. 89.

PP III, 138.4001–16 (715D–716A).