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

History of As-
tronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it second-
hand. With Diogenes and Clement this is evident; Theon himself points to Der-
cyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source.
4
Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eude-
mus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one
can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the
History of
Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to
the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’
predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known
that the
History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference
to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’
Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius,
5
who never fails to
indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing.
6
It is also Simplicius to
whom we owe the longest quotation from the
History of Geometry (fr. 140,
p. 57–66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the sec-
ond) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had
at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that
the
History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.
7
Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was
rather complicated.
8
Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s
Physics, he notes
3
This evidence also suggests that Simplicius was familiar with Eudemus’ work (see
below, 248f.).
4
On Dercyllides’ dates, see Tarrant, H.
Thrasyllan Platonism, Ithaca 1993, 72ff.;
Mansfeld, J.
Prolegomena: Questions to be settled before the study of an author, or a
text, Leiden 1994, 64f.
5
Of its more than hundred fragments, all but fr. 49 derive from Simplicius. Fr. 89 re-
lates to the
History of Theology, not to Physics.
6
“Beginning his
Physics” (fr.32, 34), “in the first book” (fr.43–44, 50), “in the second
book” (fr.59, 62), “in the third book” (fr.75, 81, 85–88), “in the fourth book” (fr. 101,
104–105).
7
For further arguments, see Schramm, M.
Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Wies-
baden 1961, 36ff. Cf. Knorr. Plato and Eudoxus, 319f.
8
On Simplicius’ exactness and generosity in quoting, see Wildberg, C. Simplicius
und das Zitat. Zur Überlieferung des Anführungszeichens,
Symbolae Berolinenses.
Für D. Harlfinger, Amsterdam 1993, 187–199; Baltussen, H. Philology or philo-
sophy? Simplicius on the use of quotations,
Orality and literacy in ancient Greece,
Vol. 4, ed. by I. Worthington, J. M. Foley, Leiden 2002, 173–189.

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
230
that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posi-
donius’
Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then
proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21–292.31) as if he were referring to Ar-
istotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable ped-
antry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory
(fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (oÚte dè Kallíppou
féretai súggramma), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in
Eudemus (EÚdhmo~ dè suntómw~ îstórhse). This assertion would not make
sense unless the