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

De caelo II, 12
(492.25–510.35), dealt not only with the retrograde spheres introduced by Ar-
istotle, but also with various theories of ‘saving the phenomena’ in general.
Sosigenes started with Plato’s setting of the problem and proceeded to the so-
lutions offered by Eudoxus and his pupils and, after them, by Aristotle. Sub-
jecting Eudoxus’ theory and its subsequent modifications to his quite profes-
sional criticism, Sosigenes then examines the theory of eccentrics and epi-
cycles, criticizing it for its incongruity with Aristotle’s philosophical postu-
lates.
13
All the evidence suggests that, in his work, the
History of Astronomy
played a role analogous to that of the
History of Geometry in Eratosthenes’ Pla-
tonicus. The similarity with the Platonicus accounts perfectly for the fact that,
in Sosigenes, Plato plays the same role as in Eratosthenes: he sets the problems
to which the scientists, in turn, offer their solutions (3.1). Yet in contrast to Era-
tosthenes, who presented the consecutive solutions of the problem by Archytas,
Eudoxus, and Menaechmus, Sosigenes concentrated mainly on the astronomi-
cal systems of Eudoxus and Aristotle, mentioning Eudoxus’ students Callippus
and Polemarchus as well as their younger contemporary Autolycus of Pitane
only in passing.
The analysis of the ample quotations from Sosigenes found in Simplicius
allows us to supplement the fragments of Eudemus’
History of Astronomy with
additional evidence and to shed some light on the fate of this work.
14
What is no
less important, this analysis confirms that in several cases Simplicius derives
his material directly from Eudemus. In addition to the already mentioned fr. 146
on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans and fr. 149 on Callippus’ system, there
12
See Procl.
Hypotyp. IV, 130.17f. On Sosigenes and his work, see Rehm, A. Sosi-
genes (7),
RE 3 A (1927) 1157–1159; Schramm, op. cit., 21f., 32ff.; Moraux. Aris-
totelismus, 344ff.
13
Schramm,
op. cit., 32ff.; Moraux. Aristotelismus, 355f.
14
On this, see also Mendell, H. The trouble with Eudoxus,
Ancient and medieval tradi-
tions in the exact sciences. Essays in memory of Willbur Knorr, ed. by P. Suppes et
al., Stanford 2000, 59–138.

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
232
is also the historical note inserted by Simplicius when he returns once again to
the problem of ‘saving the phenomena’ and its solution offered by Eudoxus:
Callippus of Cyzicus, who studied with Polemarchus, Eudoxus’ pupil, arrived
after him (i.e., Eudoxus) in Athens and stayed there with Aristotle, together with
him correcting and augmenting Eudoxus’ discoveries.
15
The historical information on Callippus and Polemarchus, their origin in Cyzi-
cus (cf. ibid., 505.21), their study with Eudoxus, and the subsequent arrival of
Callippus in Athens undoubtedly goes back to Eudemus, who spent the late
330s and the 320s in the Lyceum and must have known Callippus personally.
16
Revealingly, we find here a number of features characteristic of Eudemus’
works: he indicates the astronomers’ origin, names their teachers, and alludes
to discoveries they made in the wake of their teachers’ theories.
17
In this pas-
sage, we owe to Simplicius himself only the mention of Aristotle’s active part
in correcting and augmenting Eudoxus’ achievements in exact sciences: Callip-
pus hardly needed such aid, nor was Eudemus himself inclined to exaggerate
his teacher’s achievements in the exact sciences.
18
Earlier, this passage was understood to mean that Callippus was the disciple
of Eudoxus’ pupil Polemarchus, rather than of Eudoxus himself.
19
This inter-
pretation was based on the wrong dating of Eudoxus’ death in 355;
20
since Cal-
lippus’
floruit falls, presumably, in 330 and his birth in 370, this made it im-
possible that he studied with Eudoxus. Eudemus’ testimony, however, should
rather be understood to mean that Callippus studied under Eudoxus together
with Polemarchus; the most probable dating of Eudoxus (390–337) is quite
consistent with this version. To all appearances, Callippus and Polemarchus be-
longed to the school founded by Eudoxus in Cyzicus; if they visited Athens to-
gether around 350–349, Callippus had the opportunity to make Aristotle’s ac-
quaintance; their relations in Athens in the late 330s must have been particu-
larly intensive. We know nothing about Callippus’ treatise on heavenly spheres;
15
Kállippo~ dè ô Kuzikhnò~ Polemárcœ suscolása~ tŒ Eÿdóxou gnwrímœ
met’ ëke$non eı~ ^Aq2na~ ëlq§n tŒ ^Aristotélei sugkatebíw tà ûpò toñ Eÿ-
dóxou eûreqénta sùn tŒ ^Aristótelei diorqoúmenó~ te kaì prosanaplhrõn
(493.5–8).
16
Schramm,