The Caelestia is an astronomical digression, and the only surviving part of a series of
lectures on all aspects of Stoic philosophy by its author. It conveys more about contempor-
ary Stoicism by its program of following P in defining astronomy as a science
that operates within first principles derived from physical theory and cosmology than it does
about current astronomical theory. Indeed, the astronomy it presents is elementary and
mostly limited to the Sun, Moon, and celestial sphere. After an introductory section on
cosmology, which provides important evidence on the Stoic theory of the void, Kleome ̄de ̄s
deals with the following topics: the division of the world into zones, seasonal and climatic
differences (1.1–4); the sphericity and centrality of the Earth (1.5–6); the absence of paral-
lax in observations of the Sun and beyond (1.8); the sizes of the heavenly bodies (2.1–3)
- specifically, the claim by Epicurus that they are the size they appear to be – the illumin-
ation and phases of the Moon (2.4–5); and lunar eclipses (2.6). There is a brief appendix
(2.7) listing reliable values for planetary latitudes and elongations. Underlying this presenta-
tion is, of course, Stoic cosmology but also a methodology of arguments (or “procedures,”
ephodoi) that represent, probably through Poseido ̄nios’ influence, the extension of earlier
Stoic epistemology into the realm of the philosophy of science. In this regard, the treatise
often addresses optics (possibly based on E), especially when discussing the illusions
involved in observations of the heavenly bodies. Indeed, the polemic against Epicurus is
largely an excuse to demonstrate the nature of such observations, and the possibilities for
integrating them in calculations of the size of the Sun and the Moon.
Historians of astronomy have valued the Caelestia mainly for offering two geometrical
arguments estimating the size of the Earth (1.7), one attributed to E,
the other to Poseido ̄nios. The presentation of these arguments, however, is plainly governed
by Kleome ̄de ̄s’ goal of illustrating that aspect of Poseido ̄nios’ philosophy of science that
allowed for the structuring of data so as to permit inferences regarding unobservables. It is,
therefore, difficult to assess the historicity of these accounts, and in particular the calcula-
tion attributed to Eratosthene ̄s, especially when the value for the circumference of the Earth
ascribed to Eratosthene ̄s differs from the one reported in numerous earlier sources.
Ed.: Robert B. Todd, Cleomedis Caelestia (1990); R. Goulet, Cléomède: Théorie élémentaire (1980); Alan C.
Bowen and Robert B. Todd, trans., Cleomedes’ Lectures on Astronomy (2004).
CTC 7 (1992) 1–11, Robert B. Todd; DPA 2 (1994) 436–439, R. Goulet; ECP 147, Robert B. Todd; BNP
3 (2003) 431–432, W. Hübner; Alan C. Bowen, “Cleomedes and the Measurement of the Earth: A
Question of Procedures,” Centaurus 45 (2003) 59–68.
Alan C. Bowen and Robert B. Todd
Kleomene ̄s the Libyan (before ca 400 CE?)
Author of remedies for horses and other beasts of burden. The remedies are preserved in
the Hippiatrika, cited in Hierokle ̄s’ text (for abrasions of the neck, Hippiatrica Berolinensia 23.1;
for orthopnoia, Hippiatrica Parisina 457 = Hippiatrica Berolinensia 27.2; for nephritis,
Hippiatrica Berolinensia 30.2, attributed to “Kleomene ̄s the Lindian”). H may have
used Kleomene ̄s’ work via an agricultural compilation related to C D’
reworking of Mago ̄n.
CHG v.1; McCabe (2007) 234–236.
Anne McCabe
KLEOMENE ̄S THE LIBYAN