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

op. cit., 37f.; Moraux. Aristotelismus, 348f.; Mendell. The trouble with
Eudoxus, 89.
17
Cf. ˆErmótimo~ dè ô Kolofønio~ tà ûp’ Eÿdóxou prohuporhména kaì Qeai-
t2tou pro2gagen ëpì pléon (Procl. In Eucl., 67.20f. = Eud. fr. 133).
18
In fact, Eudemus, like Theophrastus, never mentioned Aristotle by name in his writ-
ings. The only exception known to me is the end of fr. 31 of his
Physics, but here we
cannot be sure that it comes from Eudemus (see above, 152). If it does, one has to
note that, unlike Eudemian historico-scientific works, his
Physics was written on
Rhodes, after Aristotle’s death (5.1).
19
Heath, T. L.
Aristarchus of Samos, Oxford 1913, 212; cf. Rehm, A. Kallippos, RE
Suppl. 4 (1924) 1431f.
20
See above, 95.

---

1. Eudemus’
History of Astronomyand its readers
233
his theory has reached us only through the mediation of Aristotle and Eudemus,
whose information might have been based on personal contacts with Callippus,
rather than on a written source.
21
Even if this is not the case, it remains obvious
that the work was already inaccessible to Sosigenes, so that the latter’s knowl-
edge of Callippus’ system derives from Eudemus and Aristotle.
In fact, Sosigenes was not interested in Callippus, since his main targets
were, first, Eudoxus, and second, Aristotle, whose system incorporated Callip-
pus’ modifications. Only after he treats these two systems in detail,
22
does Sosi-
genes proceed to discuss the phenomena, which Eudoxus’ students knew but
did not take into account and which Autolycus failed to save, namely the vary-
ing distances of the planets from the earth. It is in this verbatim quotation from
Sosigenes (504.17–506.7) that Callippus, Polemarchus, and Autolycus appear
for the first time, referred to by their full names.
23
The very tone of Sosigenes’
dismissive remark on Callippus implies that the latter does not deserve any
special treatment: “And what is there to say about the other phenomena, some
of which Callippus of Cyzicus also tried to preserve after Eudoxus had failed to
do so, even if Callippus did preserve them?” (504.20–23). This means that the
earlier historical note on Callippus and Polemarchus (493.5–8), where Callip-
pus is also called by his full name, comes directly from Eudemus, and not via
Sosigenes.
24
Indeed, when Simplicius comes to Callippus’ system (497.6–
498.1), he refers not to Sosigenes but to Aristotle and Eudemus (fr. 149).
Sosigenes’ further note on Polemarchus also seems to derive from Eudemus
rather than from his direct acquaintance with Polemarchus’ work. While criti-
cizing Eudoxus’ students, Sosigenes remarks that they were aware of the vary-
ing distances of the planets:
For Polemarchus of Cyzicus appears to be aware of it, but to minimize it as being
imperceptible, because he preferred the theory which placed the spheres them-
selves about the very centre in the universe.
25
We do not know how detailed Eudemus’ account of Polemarchus’ theory was
and whether he dwelled on the discrepancy between the observations and Eu-
doxian theory. Since for the historian the basic theory was always more import-
ant than its further technical elaborations, we can reasonably assume that in this
21
Rehm. Kallippos, 1434. According to Jaeger.
Aristotle, 343 n. 1, the imperfect used
by Aristotle in his story of Eudoxus and Callippus (
Met. 1073b 17, 33) corresponds
to the situation of a personal talk. See also Düring, I.
Aristoteles, Heidelberg 1966,
148f.
22
Eudoxus: 493.11
–
494.20 (solar theory), 494.23
–
495.16 (lunar theory), 495.17–
497.5 (planetary theory); Aristotle: 498.2–503.8, 503.28–32, 503.35–504.15.
23
Callippus of Cyzicus (504.20), Autolycus of Pitane (504.23), Polemarchus of Cyzi-
cus (505.21).
24
For further arguments, see Schramm,