[221] There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of the terms employed by our author in describing the course of the planet Mercury through the zodiac; “medio ejus,” “supra,” and “infra.” Hardouin’s comment is as follows: “Duas zodiaci partes seu gradus pererrat, quum ipse per medium incedit signiferum: supra, quum deflectit ad Aquilonem, per quatuor alias ejusdem partes vagatur: infra, quum descendit ad Austrum, discedit duabus.” Lemaire, ii. 271, 272. But Marcus has shown that the opinion of Hardouin is inadmissible and inconsistent with the facts; Ajasson, ii. 338-341. He proposes one, which he conceives to be more correct, but we may probably be led to the conclusion, that the imperfect knowledge and incorrect opinions of our author on these subjects must render it impossible to afford an adequate explanation.
[222] “flexuoso draconum meatu;” Poinsinet remarks, “Les Grecs ... appellaient dragons les bracelets, les hausse-cols, les chainettes, et généralement tout ce qui avait une figure armillaire;” i. 79, 80.
[223] As this remark appears to contradict what was said in the last sentence respecting the sun, we may suspect some error in the text; see Poinsinet, Alexandre, and Marcus, in loco.
[224] The following comparative statement is given by Alexandre of the geocentric latitudes of the planets, as assigned by Pliny, and as laid down by the moderns. Lemaire, ii. 273:—
| Pliny. | Moderns. | |
|---|---|---|
| Venus | 8° | 9° 22′ |
| Moon | 6 | 6 0 |
| Mercury | 5 | 6 54 |
| Mars | 2 0 | 1 51 |
| Jupiter | 1 30 | 1 30 |
| Saturn | 1 (or 2°) | 2 30 |
[225] It appears from the remark at the end of this chapter, that this explanation applies to the superior planets alone.
[226] It is not easy, as Marcus observes, Ajasson, ii. 341, 345, to comprehend the exact meaning of this passage, or to reconcile it with the other parts of our author’s theory.
[227] “Ecliptica,” called by the moderns the nodes; i. e. the two points where the orbits of the planets cut the ecliptic. See the remarks of Marcus on this term; Ajasson, ii. 345, 346.
[228] We may presume that our author here refers to the apparent motion of the planets, not to their actual acceleration or retardation.
[229] The editors have differed in the reading of this passage; I have followed that of Lemaire.