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

The place of astronomy in the
ancient world, ed. by F. R. Hodson, London 1974, 23).
97
Dicks (Solstices) dates the beginnings of scientific astronomy to the last third of the
fifth century (cf. Kahn,
op. cit.). See also Aaboe. Scientific astronomy, 40f. (astron-
omy before Hipparchus is not scientific); Neugebauer.
HAMA II, 571 (starts with
Meton); idem. On some aspects of early Greek astronomy, Neugebauer, O
. Astron-
omy and history: Selected essays, New York 1983, 361–369; Bowen, Goldstein.
Meton, 54, 78f. (the astronomy of the fifth century is thoroughly practical; there was
no theory); Toomer, G. J. Astronomie,
Le savoir grec, ed. by J. Brunschwig et al.,
Paris 1996, 303f. (Meton is the first worthy of being called an astronomer, and even
then owing to Babylonian influence). In Goldstein, B. Saving the phenomena: The
background to Ptolemy’s planetary theory,
JHA 28 (1997) 1–12, the tendency to re-
date Greek mathematical astronomy as close to Ptolemy as possible has reached its
culmination: this time it starts with Ptolemy himself!
98
For some notes on the subject, see von Fritz.
Grundprobleme, 132f.
99
As G. Lloyd argues (Saving the appearances), instrumentalism was not character-
istic of Greek astronomy, either in its early or in its later phase. On the ‘realistic’
orientation of astronomy from Copernicus to Newton, see von Fritz.
Grundprob-
leme, 157, 192f.

---

3. Physical and mathematical astronomies
253
Babylonian astronomy, which, mathematical as it was, relied on arithmetical
schemes, not on geometrical models. The geometrical models of Eudoxus and
Callippus (as well as of Autolycus and Euclid) were predominantly qualitative
and offered little properly numerical data. The models of the Presocratics con-
tained still less such data; those that are known to us are purely speculative.
100
This kind of astronomy was incapable of making accurate predictions and
hardly sought to. It strove primarily to give
an account of how exactly the cos-
mos is structured, what the real (and not apparent) motions of the heavenly
bodies are, what their sizes and shapes are, why eclipses take place, etc.
101
An
important role was also played by ‘calendar’ astronomy that tried to find the
best scheme of a luni-solar calendar. Involved in this search were both practi-
tioners of ‘observational’ astronomy (Cleostratus, Harpalus, Matricetas, Phaei-
nos, Meton, Euctemon), physicists (Philolaus, Democritus), and mathema-
ticians (Oenopides).
102
Eudoxus’ and Callippus’ activity encompassed every
major line of astronomical thought: 1) observations of stars, 2) problems re-
lated to the calendar, and 3) modeling the movements of the heavenly bodies.
103
Eudemus may well be supposed to have traced the development of each of
these lines, with a focus on the second and particularly the third.
Having approached, by 450, the second stage of its evolution, Greek astron-
omy advanced still more quickly toward geometrization. This trend is mainly
(though to a different degree) represented by Oenopides, Hippocrates, and Phi-
lolaus;
104
occasionally they employ physical arguments, too.
105
Eudemus
100
The Pythagoreans and Empedocles believed, e.g., that the moon’s distance from the
sun is twice that from the earth (31 A 61). See also above, 247 n. 84.
101
Von Fritz.
Grundprobleme, 141f.
102
Eudemus assigns to Oenopides the discovery of the Great Year (fr. 145), the 59-year
calendar cycle (41 A 8–9) that is also associated with Philolaus (44 A 22; Burkert.
L & S, 314 n. 79). Theophrastus reports on observations by Cleostratus, Matricetas,
and Phaeinos; it is from the latter that Meton allegedly learned about the 19-year
cycle (
De sign. 4 = 6 A 1). On Harpalus, see below, 270 n. 190. On Democritus, see
68 B 12, 14.1–3. Eudemus could have also mentioned the first calendar cycle, Cleo-
stratus’ octaëteris (cf. 6 B 4