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

History of Astronomy with Thales’ explanation of solar eclipses.
The debate concerning Thales’ prediction has gone on for centuries.
55
Until
the mid-20
th
century, the predominant opinion was that Thales’ prediction
could have relied on some Babylonian computational scheme.
56
A more de-
51
So Panchenko, D. Thales’s prediction of a solar eclipse,
JHA 25 (1994) 275–288;
Bowen. Eudemus’ history. In contrast to Bowen, Panchenko believes Thales to have
known the true cause of eclipses. See also Waerden, B. L. van der. Die Astronomie
der Griechen, Darmstadt 1988, 11.
52
11 A 2 (
Suda), A3 (Hesychius), A17a (Aëtius), A19 (Apuleius). On Aristarchus, see
above, 239 n. 47, 240 n. 49.
53
So Tannery.
Recherches, 33 n. 3; Boll, F. Finsternisse, RE 6 (1909) 2341f.; Heath.
Aristarchus, 18f.; Dicks. Thales, 295f.; Guthrie, W. K. C. A history of Greek philos-
ophy, Vol. 1, Cambridge 1971, 49.
54
Cf. Heath.
Aristarchus, 13f.
55
For old literature on the question, see Demandt, A. Verformungstendenzen in der
Überlieferung antiker Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse,
AAWM no. 7 (1970) 26 n. 1.
56
Usually the saros was mentioned here: Tannery, P.
Pour l’histoire de la science hel-

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
242
tailed acquaintance with Babylonian astronomy has shown, however, that
neither in the sixth century nor later was it able to make a
reliable prognosis of a
solar eclipse for a given latitude. This fact was particularly stressed by Neuge-
bauer,
57
who questioned the authenticity of the whole tradition concerning
Thales’ and Pythagoras’ scientific discoveries.
58
Because of Neugebauer’s un-
deniable authority, the hypercritical attitude toward the tradition of Thales’ pre-
diction found a good number of adherents.
59
Meanwhile, this tradition goes
back to Thales’ younger contemporaries (Xenophanes); even if invented, it
would still date to the sixth century. Yet to invent a story of a sage who pre-
dicted an eclipse, one has to know about the very
possibility of such a predic-
tion, based on the periodic character of this phenomenon (unlike, say, a divine
revelation or a sign given to a prophet). Since Greek tradition before Thales
does not know of any predictions of eclipses, the very idea could have been
only of Babylonian origin.
60
Neugebauer certainly knew but refused to take into account that Babylonian
predictions concerned all
potential lunar and solar eclipses for a given year.
Among them, the Babylonians singled out by observations those that were ac-
tually visible, ignoring a great number of others that were either insignificant,
or happened on a stormy night, or simply could not be seen at Babylon’s lati-
tude.
61
From at least the seventh century, Babylonian astronomers were pre-
dicting lunar eclipses, relying on various schemes of varying complexity, in-
cluding saros, the period of 223 synodic months (≈ 18 years).
62
The accuracy
lène, Paris 1887, 62f.; Ginzel, F. K. Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinster-
nisse, Berlin 1899, 167f., 171f. (with references to earlier literature).
57
Neugebauer.
ES, 142f.; idem. HAMA, 604.
58
Neugebauer.
ES, 148.
59
See e.g. Dicks. Thales; Classen. Thales, 944f.; Samuel, A.
Greek and Roman chro-
nology, Munich 1972, 22 n. 4 (“The story is probably still not dead, but see Neuge-
bauer,