~ 43 ~
In the second case the reverse of this. As we all know, we get something quite different from either, and here at last we must deal fully with this vital question, why the week-order of the planets is what it is.
The quotation from Dion Cassius, the first part of which was given on page 21, proceeds as follows:
I have heard two explanations given of the order…The first is as follows. Apply the harmony called Diapason which holds the supremagy in music to these stars among which the sphere of heaven is parted out, following the order in which they severally make their revolutions. Begin with the outermost circle which is ascribed to Saturn; pass over the two next and set down the name of the deity which presides over the fourth circle. Again pass over two more thus reaching the seventh: go in this same way round and round the circles and their presiding deities. Apply the names thus obtained to the days and you will find that on this musical principle they agree with the arrangement in which the heaven is ordered.
This explanation need not detain us. In fact, I doubt whether it is an explanation at all or anything more than a statement of the fact we have already noted that the week-order is obtained from the normal order of the planets by dropping two each time, with the addition that in this it follows the analogy of the Diapason. I pass on to his second explanation:
