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

Aristarchus, 331f.; Lasserre. Eu-
doxos, 211). In Anaximander, distances from the earth to the stars, the moon, and the
sun must have been equal to 9, 18 and 27 radii of the earth, respectively (see below,
250f.). Mathematical astronomy of Aristotle’s time (Eudoxus?) claimed that the

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
248
stars and planets under the moon (12 A 18). Still, Anaximander remains the
first to put forth a theory, lógo~, on this subject, which proved a giant step for-
ward and brought him, most deservedly, the glory of a discoverer. Following
the general principle of
pro¯tos heurete¯s, Eudemus modifies it to include in the
history of astronomy the pioneering theories whose further development con-
tributed to the creation of the ‘correct’ picture of the world. A similar principle
is predominant in the historico-scientific literature of the modern period as
well, which concentrates chiefly on the precursors of successful scientific the-
ories contemporary to it. Though from this perspective scientific progress does
indeed often look like a teleological growth of a ‘scientific fruit’ from its
‘seed’ (admittedly, this was Eudemus’ own view), attempts to reject this prin-
ciple
altogether generally result in relativism, which is no less harmful for the
history of science than teleologism.
As for the second part of Simplicius’ evidence, which relates to the Pytha-
gorean discovery of the ‘correct’ order of the heavenly bodies, we will return
later to it. It is sufficient to say here that Simplicius’ words suggest an immedi-
ate familiarity with Eudemus’ work, rather than dependence on a secondary
source. Commenting on Aristotle’s passage on the order and the sizes of the
heavenly bodies, Simplicius picks from Eudemus’ history the authors of these
discoveries – Anaximander and the Pythagoreans. In the chronologically or-
ganized
History of Astronomy, these names could hardly have stood side by
side; in addition, Simplicius considers here two different discoveries, and not
one and the same problem taken up by scientists of different generations (Hip-
pocrates, Archytas, Eudoxus, etc.). Hence, it is not to Eudemus himself, but to
his reader – here most naturally identified as Simplicius – that the comparison
between Anaximander and the Pythagoreans apparently belongs. The other ex-
cerpts from the
History of Astronomy either treat one figure only – Thales, An-
axagoras – or present a chronological list of discoveries, and that full of mis-
takes (Dercyllides–Theon). Unlike these, Simplicius’ evidence is not only ac-
curate in its account of facts, but also provides an important detail: Anaxi-
mander is credited not with the discovery of the true sizes and distances of the
heavenly bodies, but with the first account of this subject. In lists that hand the
information down through two or three intermediaries, such details normally
tend to be lost.
85
Is it possible to find additional evidence on Anaximander’s astronomy that
might derive from Eudemus? In searching for additional material from the
His-
tory of Geometry (5.2), we relied among other things on the fact that Eudemus
was one of the very few authors from whom the information about concrete dis-
sun’s distance from the earth is many times greater than that of the moon (
Mete. 345a
36f.).
85
Though the possibility that Simplicius borrowed Eudemus’ evidence from an earlier
work, e.g. from Alexander’s lost commentary to
De Caelo, cannot be completely
ruled out, this seems to me less likely; cf. above, 234 n. 27.

---

2. Thales and Anaximander
249
coveries by early Greek mathematicians could actually derive. Yet even in this
field, the existence of ‘rivals’ whose works have perished has to be taken into
account (3.1). In astronomy, which partly overlapped natural philosophy, the
number of such rivals was considerably greater, which makes it difficult to dis-
tinguish Eudemus’ evidence from what could go back to, say, Theophrastus. In
principle, it is clear that we should proceed by ruling out, first, data from auth-
ors who made immediate use of doxographical sources (Aëtius, Achilles, Hip-
polytus) and, second, the doxographical data contained in the rest of the tradi-
tion. Of all the non-doxographical evidence, sources that use the