Talk:On the Heavens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"de mundo-on the cosmos" (pages: Bekker 391-401) is the title of another work in the Corpus Aristotelicum (a spurious one). It's not the same as "de caelo-on the heavens" (pages: Bekker 268-313)

  • I have made this fix. Thanks for the catch. By the way, since it seems you've got a reference with Bekker numbers in them, if you have a chance, could you update that page? I added in all the ones I could find, but I can't find a comprehensive list of them anywhere. --Arcadian 17:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

in the last days I've added as many numbers as I could, now the major titles are all in (do we need the numbers to "on the colours"? :) ) Anyway, the Greek Canon on supplies page numbers for most of Aristotle's works (and all other Greek authors, in case). That's where I found them.

On my last edit, I couldn't mention the theory of the multiple circles, but that's a minor topic... if anyone's willing to, see Metaphysics book XII... If someone would correct the English...

Not written by Aristotle?

I believe this work is "traditionally attributed to Aristotle but generally considered a pseudepigraphic work." See URL.

Bos, A. P. Supplementary Notes on the "De mundo" in Hermes (1991), pp. 312-332 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Article Stable URL: Sawyer207 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible additions to the article This article is accurate but could use further development. I believe the aether mentioned would be quintessence. A section showing Aristotelian physic's impact on future scientists could be interesting. For example, the various astronomers that modeled their universe geocentric due to Aristotelian thought. The time frame that the book was influential would be an interesting fact to include. Stev6675 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Hey I just wanted to let you know that I reviewed your section for this article in connection with our assignment for HSCI 3103. I thought it was very informative, and it flowed very well with the rest of the article. Your grammar use was very good and I did not see anything that needed to be changed. I would add a picture when you get the chance. Other than that, great job.King0979 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


A list of commentaries should eventually be compiled. One was Thomas Bungay's. — LlywelynII 23:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)