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

Aristarchus, 19; Bicknell, op. cit., 59; KRS, 156; Wöhrle, G. Wer entdeckte
die Quelle des Mondlichts?,
Hermes 123 (1995) 244–247. Cf. Boll. Finsternisse,
2342.
113
13 A 7, 13. The order in which the sun, moon, and planets were arranged in his sys-
tem is unknown.
114
Pl.
Crat. 409a–b = 59 A 76, see also 59 B 8, A 77 and below, 256 n. 117.

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
256
taken to mean that the moon shines by ‘borrowed light’,
115
Parmenides’ cos-
mology, due to his “intentional use of ambiguity”, hardly has a chance of being
reliably reconstructed.
116
Even if Theophrastus credited him with the idea that
the moon’s light is received from the sun, he ascribed the explanation of
eclipses to Anaxagoras.
117
Eudemus, to all appearances, shared this view. Inter-
estingly, in Hippolytus, who in the case of Anaxagoras employs a reliable do-
xographical source, we find the formula
pro¯tos heurete¯s,
118
which is frequently
attested in the astronomical division of the
Physiko¯n doxai.
119
It is very likely
that this time it also derives from Theophrastus. This makes it still more plaus-
ible that Eudemus, too, mentioned only Anaxagoras; it would have been
strange if the views of the two Peripatetics had diverged on this point.
Proclus’ commentary on
Timaeus contains still another piece of Eudemus’
evidence on the position of both luminaries in Anaxagoras’ system. Comment-
ing on the order of planets in Plato – the moon, the sun, Venus, Mercury (
Tim.
38d) – Proclus dwells in detail on a later arrangement (shared by Ptolemy),
which placed the sun after Mercury. He concludes with the following note:
ô d^ oÑn Plátwn eı~ t3n poll3n koinwnían kaì t3n ômofu4 párodon @pò
t4~ aÿt4~ aıtía~ 1líou kaì sel2nh~  kaì t3n eı~ tòn kósmon
próodon aÿtõn !~ sunhmménhn paradédwke. kaì oÿdè taúth~ 7rxen
aÿtò~ t4~ ûpoqésew~, @ll^ ^Anaxagóra~ toñto prõto~ ûpélaben, !~ îs-
tórhsen EÚdhmo~.
At any rate, as Plato saw that there is a lot of common (between the sun and the
moon) and that the passage of the sun and the moon is of a similar kind because of
the same reason, he also handed down to us their progression into the cosmos as
tied together. Meanwhile, it was not Plato who came up with this hypothesis – the
first to conceive it was Anaxagoras, as Eudemus reports (fr. 147).
It seems to follow from this rather ambiguous passage that Eudemus did not
write on the order of planets in Plato, but rather on the close relation between
the sun and the moon in Anaxagoras, which he regarded as a certain inno-
vation.
120
According to Hippolytus, Anaxagoras believed the moon to be closer
to the earth than the sun (59 A 42.7). It remains unclear, however, whether this
was his discovery or rather whether Eudemus could consider it a discovery at
115
See also Empedocles (31 B 45). Cf.
DK I, 243n.; Heath. Aristarchus, 75f.; Wöhrle,
op. cit., 245.
116
Kahn,
op. cit., 105 n. 22; Burkert. L & S, 307 n. 40. Doxographical reports on Parme-
nides’ moon are contradictory: now it has a fiery nature, now it is lit by the sun (
Dox.,
335b 20, 356b 3, 357a 6, 358b 20 = 28 A 37, 42). The fragment on heavenly bodies
(B 10) also allows many conflicting readings.
117
Dox., 360b 14f., 23f. (= fr. 227e FHSG), 562.19f.
118
Dox., 562.26 = 59 A 42: o0to~ @førise prõto~ tà perì tà~ ëkleíyei~ kaì
fwtismoú~ (sc. t4~ sel2nh~).
119
See above, 161.
120
Heath.
Aristarchus, 85; Taylor, A. E. A commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Oxford
1928, 123.

---

4. Anaxagoras. The Pythagoreans
257
all. The same order is found in Empedocles (31A 61), who hardly followed An-
axagoras here.
121
A further question arises: how does this evidence agree with
the fact that Eudemus ascribes to the Pythagoreans the discovery of the ‘cor-
rect’ order of heavenly bodies, the one starting with the moon and sun (fr. 146)?
Does he mean the Pythagoreans who were a generation younger than Anaxa-
goras – Philolaus, for instance?
122
If this is so, and if Eudemus indeed ignored
Empedocles, his words may be understood to mean that, while Anaxagoras cor-
rectly placed the two luminaries, the Pythagoreans discovered the true arrange-
ment of all the heavenly bodies: the moon, the sun, the five planets, and the
fixed stars. There is nothing uncommon in dividing a discovery into two parts:
according to the
History of Geometry, Hippocrates is the first to correctly ap-
proach the problem of doubling the cube, while Archytas is the first to solve it.
And still, this version implies too many reservations and does not agree very
well with what we know of the development of astronomy in the fifth century.
There is another possibility. Eudemus’ words on the close relation between
the sun and the moon may refer not to the fact that they are closer to the earth
than the other planets,
123
but to Anaxagoras’ explanation of eclipses. Proclus
must have quoted Eudemus at second hand or from memory; he seems not to
know about Eudemus’ testimony that it was the Pythagoreans who introduced
the right order of planets, and so takes Anaxagoras’ explanation of eclipses as
the introduction of this right order. Such an interpretation allows us to consider
Eudemus’ testimonies on Anaxagoras and on the Pythagoreans separately and
drops the question of Empedocles’ priority.
The astronomy of the fourth century accepted the following order of the
heavenly bodies: the moon, the sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
124
First, this order is attested in Plato,
125
who could have borrowed it from his Py-
thagorean friends. But Eudemus obviously had in mind not the Pythagoreans of
Plato’s time (e.g., Archytas), but either Philolaus or his precursors. That Phi-
lolaus did accept this order is beyond doubt,
126
but was it him Eudemus meant
121
Aristotle (
Met. 984a 11f.) and Theophrastus (fr. 227a FHSG) considered Anaxago-
ras to have been older than Empedocles, yet Aristotle added that he was “later in his
philosophical activity” (see above, 155 n. 153).
122
As Burkert suggested (
L & S, 313).
123
No evidence on the position of planets in Anaxagoras has survived; it is said, how-
ever, that comets appear due to planets’ collisions with each other (59A 1.9, 81). See
Burkert.
L & S, 311. It cannot be excluded that he placed planets closer to the earth
than the moon. Boll, F. Hebdomas,
RE 7 (1912) 2566, pointed out that Proclus
speaks of the close relation between the sun and the moon, not about the order of the
heavenly bodies on the whole.
124
Boll. Hebdomas; Burkert.
L & S, 300 n. 7. It relies on the periods of their revolution
around the earth: the moon completes its revolution in 29½ days, the sun and the
inner planets in a year, etc.
125
Res. 616d–617b; Tim. 38c–d, see also [Pl.] Epin. 987b–d.
126
Aët. II,7.7 = 44 A 16: stars, the five planets, the sun, the moon. Though the do-

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
258
to be the
pro¯tos heurete¯s? If so, why did he refer to anonymous Pythagoreans
rather than to Philolaus? An answer to this could be prompted by Aristotle’s ac-
count of Philolaus’ astronomy: he never calls the latter by name, referring in-
stead to the ‘Pythagoreans’ in general.
127
But Theophrastus and Meno (44 A
16–23, 27) had given up this manner of reference, and nothing suggests that
Eudemus followed it. Aristotle, while criticizing the ‘Pythagorean’ system, put