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

History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simpli-
cius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in his turn excerpted from
Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from
Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148).
9
Though we
cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then ‘amplified’ him,
prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation
seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another
possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were
direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source
was. But even so, his two other references to the
History of Astronomy cannot
come from Sosigenes. Fr. 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has no-
thing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fr. 149 is related to the
Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately
omitted.
10
Hence, even if, in the case of fr. 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled
the reader into believing that he knew the
History of Astronomy at first hand, in
two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.
As a matter of fact, it is hardly surprising that this work was available to him.
Simplicius read and quoted not only Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and Empe-
docles, but even such a rare text as Eudemus’ biography (fr. 1), written by a cer-
tain Damas, who must have been Eudemus’ disciple.
11
Eudemus’ works consti-
tuted an important part of the Lyceum’s heritage and were often used to com-
ment on other works. Thus, Alexander and Philoponus referred to Eudemus’
Analytics when commenting on Aristotle’s logical treatises; Proclus cited the
History of Geometry in his commentary on Euclid; and Damascius used the
History of Theology in his commentaries on Plato’s Parmenides. Simplicius,
while commenting on Aristotle’s
Physics, relies on Eudemus’ Physics and uses
the
History of Astronomy in his commentary on De caelo. Though the large
number of his quotations from Eudemus’
Physics cannot be compared with the
three fragments from the
History of Astronomy, it is quite comparable with one
long quotation from the
History of Geometry. In his Physics, Eudemus strictly
followed Aristotle, generalizing and elaborating his ideas, whereas the
History
9
See above, 87f. Discussing Hippocrates’ quadrature of lunes, Simplicius also dis-
tinguishes between Eudemus’ text and its exposition in Alexander (fr. 140).
10
See below, 233.
11
See above, 167 n. 4.

---

1. Eudemus’
History of Astronomyand its readers
231
of Astronomy differs from Aristotle’s De caelo both thematically and in genre.
The first of these treatises was related to astronomical discoveries and their
authors, while the second was a theoretical work in which
mathematical astron-
omy occupied a modest place. Where Aristotle mentions the theories of
ma-
the¯matikoi, for example in De caelo 291a 29, the commentator adds historical
information on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans that he borrowed from
Eudemus. Particularly detailed is Simplicius’ account of the theory of homo-
centric spheres developed by Eudoxus and his school, which Aristotle refers to
in 293a 4f. and elaborates in more detail in
Met. L 8. Most of Simplicius’ in-
formation on the theories of Eudoxus and his disciples goes back to Eudemus,
either directly or through Sosigenes.
The Peripatetic Sosigenes, the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias, was the
author of the treatise Perì tõn @nelittousõn (sc. sfairõn).
12
This book, re-
peatedly quoted by Simplicius in his long commentary on