Cosmology

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.013

12 - Cosmology

from PART IV - PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

Edited by

Jaap Mansfeld and

David Furley: Affiliation:
Princeton University
Keimpe Algra: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Jonathan Barnes: Affiliation:
Université de Genève
Jaap Mansfeld: Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Malcolm Schofield: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Summary

Introduction: the fourth-century legacy

By the time of the death of Aristotle, there was some measure of agreement among educated Greeks about the nature of the cosmos. The word cosmos itself soon acquired a canonical meaning. Aristotle used it in its wider sense to mean ‘good order’ or ‘elegance’, but in the context of the study of the natural world he used it as a synonym for ouranos, thinking particularly of the heavens and their orderly movements. But the word was defined by the Stoic Chrysippus as a ‘system of heaven and earth and the natures contained in these’ (Ar. Did. fr. 31 ap. Stob. I.184.8–10), and this is a definition that reappears, sometimes with small variations, fairly frequently. It is repeated by the Peripatetic author of the treatise On the Cosmos attributed to Aristotle (391b9). The Epicurean definition was not significantly different (Ep. Epistula ad Pythoclem 88).

From the start this definition marks a difference between the classical use of the word and our own in the twentieth century. The ancient use of the word leaves open the possibility that the cosmos in which we live is only a part of the universe. A cosmos is a limited system, bounded on its periphery by the heavens: what lay beyond the heavens of our cosmos, if anything, was open to debate. This chapter will therefore be careful to preserve the distinction between the cosmos and the universe.

Aristotle had already provided arguments to show that the earth does not move and occupies a position at the centre of the cosmos (In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria II. 14).

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy , pp. 412 - 451

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521250283.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 1999

References

Algra, K. A. (1988) ‘The early Stoics on the immobility and coherence of the cosmos’, Phronesis 33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Algra, K. A. (1992) ‘“Place”, in context: on Theophrastus fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer’, in Fortenbaugh, et al. (1992).Google Scholar

Algra, K. A. (1993) ‘Posidonius' conception of the extra-cosmic void: the evidence and the arguments’, Mnemosyne 46.CrossRef Google Scholar

Algra, K. A. (1995) Concepts of Space in Greek Thought, PhA 65 (Leiden).Google Scholar

Asmis, E. (1984) Epicurus' Scientific Method, Cornell studies in classical philology 42 (Ithaca/London).Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1989a) ‘The size of the sun in antiquity’, ACD 25.Google Scholar

Barnes, J. (1978) ‘La doctrine du retour éternel’, in Brunschwig, (1978a).Google Scholar

Bodnár, I. (1992) ‘Anaximander on the stability of the earth’, Phronesis 37.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clay, D. (1983a) Lucretius and Epicurus (Ithaca, New York/London).Google Scholar

Cohen, M. R. & Drabkin, I. E., edd. (1966) A Source Book in Greek Science (Cambridge, Mass.; 1st edn New York 1948).Google Scholar

Englert, W. G. (1987) Epicurus on the Swerve and Voluntary Action, American Classical Studies 16 (Atlanta).Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. (1967) Two Studies in the Greek Atomists, 1. Indivisible Magnitudes. 2. Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action (Princeton).Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. (1985) ‘Strato's theory of the void’, in Wiesner (1985–7) I.Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. (1989a (1966)) ‘Lucretius and the Stoics’, in Furley (1989c).Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. (1989b (1985)) ‘Strato's theory of the void’, in Furley (1989c).Google Scholar

Furley, D. J. (1989c) Cosmic Problems: Essays on Greek and Roman Philosophy of Nature (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Glucker, J. (1988) ‘Πρòζτòν ∊ιπóντα – Sources and credibility of De Stoicorum repugnantiis 8’, ICS 13.Google Scholar

Gottschalk, H. B., ed. (1965) Strato of Lampsacus: Some Texts, Edited with a Commentary, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Lit. and Hist. Sect. (11.6).Google Scholar

Gottschalk, H. B. (1967) (rev. Steinmetz 1964) Gnomon 39.Google Scholar

Hahm, D. E. (1977) The Origins of Stoic Cosmology (Columbus Ohio).Google Scholar

Hahm, D. E. (1991) ‘Aristotle and the Stoics: a methodological crux’, AGPh 73.Google Scholar

Huby, P. M. (1978) ‘Epicurus' attitude to Democritus’, Phronesis, 23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kenney, E. J. (1972) ‘The historical imagination of Lucretius’, G&R 19.Google Scholar

Kidd, I. G. (1988) Posidonius, II: The Commentary, 2 vols., Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 14 A & B (Cambridge) (vol. I see Edelstein & Kidd 1972).Google Scholar

Kirk, G. S. (1955) ‘Some problems in Anaximander’, CQ 5 ; repr. in Furley, D. J. & Allen, R. E., edd.Google Scholar

Kirk, G. S. (1970) Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, vol. I (London).Google Scholar

Konstan, D. (1972) ‘Epicurus on “up” & “down” (Letter to Herodotus § 60)’, Phronesis 17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Laks, A. & Most, G. W., edd. (1993a) Théophraste: Métaphysique (Paris).Google Scholar

Lapidge, M. (1978) ‘Stoic cosmology’, in Rist (1978).Google Scholar

Lennox, J. (1985) ‘Theophrastus on the limits of teleology’, in Fortenbaugh et al. (1985).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. (1985) ‘The Stoics on world-conflagration and everlasting recurrence’, in Epp (1985).Google Scholar

Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N., edd. (1987) The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 vols.: i. Translations of the principal sources with philosophical commentary; ii. Greek and Latin texts with notes and bibliography (Cambridge, various reprints).Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1979) ‘Providence and the destruction of the universe in early Stoic thought’, in Vermaseren, M. J., ed., Studies in Hellenistic Religions, EPRO 78 (Leiden) ; repr. in Mansfeld, (1989b) study 1.Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1986) ‘Diogenes Laertius on Stoic philosophy’, in Giannantoni, (1986a) ; repr. in Mansfeld, (1990b).Google Scholar

Mansfeld, J. (1994a) ‘Epicurus peripateticus’, in Alberti, A., ed., Realtà e ragione, Studi di filosofia antica (Florence).Google Scholar

Mau, J. (1954a) Zum Problem des Infinitesimalen bei den Antiken Atomisten (Berlin).Google Scholar

Mau, J. (1973) ‘Was there a special Epicurean mathematics?’, in Lee, E. N., Mourelatos, A. P. D. & Rorty, R. M., edd., Exegesis and Argument. Studies presented to Gregory Vlastos (Assen).Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. (1986) ‘Therapeutic arguments: Epicurus and Aristotle’, in Schofield & Striker (1986a).Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. C. (1994) The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton).Google Scholar

O'Brien, D. (1981) Theories of Weight in the Ancient World, vol. I: Democritus, Weight and Size, PhA 37 (Leiden/Paris).Google Scholar

Sambursky, S. (1959) Physics of the Stoics (London).Google Scholar

Sandbach, F. H. (1985) Aristotle and the Stoics, PCPhS suppl. vol. 10 (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Schmid, W. (1936) Epikurs Kritik der platonischen Elementenlehre, Klassisch-philologische Studien 9 (Leipzig).Google Scholar

Schmidt, J. (1990) Lukrez, der Kepos und die Stoiker, Untersuchungen zur Schule Epikurs und zu den Quellen von De rerum natura (Frankfurt am Main).Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1976a) ‘Epicurus and his professional rivals’, in Bollack, & Laks, (1976).Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1976b) ‘Epicurus and the mathematicians of Cyzicus’, CErc 6.Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1983b) ‘Epicurus’ refutation of determinism’, in AA. VV. (1983).Google Scholar

Sedley, D. N. (1998) Lucretius and the Transmission of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge).CrossRef Google Scholar

Sorabji, R. (1980a) Necessity, Cause, and Blame: Perspectives on Aristotle's Theory (Ithaca, N.Y. and London).Google Scholar

Sorabji, R. (1983) Time, Creation and the Continuum (London).Google Scholar

Sorabji, R. (1988) Matter, Space and Motion: Theories in Antiquity and Their Sequel (London).Google Scholar

Todd, R. B. (1978) ‘Monism and immanence: foundations of Stoic physics’, in Rist, (1978b).Google Scholar

Todd, R. B. (1985) ‘The title of Cleomedes' treatise’, Philologus 129.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vlastos, G. (1965) ‘Minimal parts in Epicurean atomism’, Isis 56 ; repr. in Graham, (1995).CrossRef Google Scholar

Wasserstein, A. (1978) ‘Epicurean science’, Hermes, 106.Google Scholar

Wehrli, F., ed. (1969a) Straton von Lampsakos, Die Schule des Aristoteles: H. 5, Zweite Auflage (Basle/Stuttgart).Google Scholar

Wolff, M. (1988) ‘Hipparchus and the Stoic theory of motion’, in Barnes & Mignucci (1988a).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.