Leonid Zhmud The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity

Timaeus (47a 1–6), but in the Epinomis the divine
character of the heavenly bodies following their circular paths stands in the fore-
ground.
63
974d 3–977b 8. For a detailed analysis, see Tarán.
Academica, 69ff.
64
See above, 40.

---

Chapter 7
The history of astronomy
1. Eudemus’
History of Astronomy and its readers
The
History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can
be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of
Theophrastus’
Physiko¯n doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophras-
tus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of
book II and part of book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names
figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander,
Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.
Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences, but also the differ-
ences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of
selection. A comparative analysis of the
History of Astronomy and the corre-
sponding part of the
Physiko¯n doxai allows us to state more precisely the spe-
cificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astron-
omy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.
Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the
History of As-
tronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant
fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of
Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144),
Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it thrice (fr. 146, 148–149). The title
of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Dio-
genes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.
1
The number
of books in the
History of Astronomy (^Astrologik4~ îstoría~ aV–~V) as given
in Theophrastus’ catalogue,
2
is most likely in error. According to Simplicius,
Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of
his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus
and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus,
but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149)
stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory.
Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he
cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a par-
ticular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also im-
portant that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaxi-
1
Theon: ën ta$~ ^Astrologíai~, Clement: ën ta$~ ^Astrologika$~ îstoríai~, Dio-
genes: ën tÆ perì tõn @strologouménwn îstorí+, Simplicius: ën tŒ deutérœ
t4~ ^Astrologik4~ îstoría~.
2
Fr. 137 No. 43 FHSG. See above, 166 n. 2.

---

1. Eudemus’
History of Astronomyand its readers
229
mander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146),
3
Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148–149). Further, of all the excerp-
tors of the
History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of
names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton,
Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about
Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Dio-
genes about Thales (fr. 143–144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).
All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the