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

floruit
(Jacoby, F.
Apollodors Chronik, Berlin 1902, 231, 261f., 278f). The reconstructed
date of Oenopides’ birth ca. 484 agrees perfectly with Eudemus’ evidence (see
above, 260 n. 133).
151
Burkert.
L & S, 314 n. 79; Franciosi, op. cit., 96f.
152
kaì prõto~ tõn ˆEll2nwn EÚdoxo~ ô Knídio~, !~ EÚdhmó~ te ën tŒ deutérœ
t4~ @strologik4~ îstoría~ @pemnhmóneuse … (fr. 148).

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
264
text on Ptolemy contains one more excerpt likely to go back to a chronologi-
cally arranged history of astronomy: “After Oenopides, Eudoxus won consider-
able fame in astronomy.”
153
A notion of Oenopides’ methods in mathematical astronomy can be gained
from constructions mentioned in the
History of Geometry: how to draw a per-
pendicular to a given straight line from a point outside it (I, 12), how to con-
struct a rectilinear angle equal to a given rectilinear angle (I, 23), and how to in-
scribe a regular pentadecagon in a circle (IV, 16).
154
The elementary character
of the first two constructions is obviously at variance with the level of problems
that occupied Hippocrates a generation later; usually this was explained by
claiming that Oenopides was the first person who attempted to limit geometri-
cal construction to the use of ruler and compass.
155
Meanwhile, since Oeno-
pides himself considered problem I, 12 to be useful for astronomy and the same
is said of problem IV, 16, it seems more natural to explain these constructions
by the astronomical context of his work. The expression katà gnømona, used
by Oenopides to refer to the perpendicular (I, 12), “since the gnomon stands at
a right angle to the horizon”, suggests that his work treated astronomical instru-
ments as well.
156
Oenopides, then, might have been the first to attempt to give
an astronomical treatise the shape that, though familiar to us from Autolycus’
and Euclid’s works on spherical geometry, must have appeared much earlier.
157
We can surmise, accordingly, that his work, first, incorporated geometrical no-
tions of the structure of the universe developed by the Greeks from Anaxi-
mander to Anaxagoras and, second, expounded them in conformity with the
requirements of the deductive geometry of the mid-fifth century, removing
them from the cosmological context to which they belonged in the works of
physicists.
158
Interestingly, Neugebauer in his
History of Ancient Mathematical Astron-
omy, touching on Oenopides’ calendar period,
159
remains silent on other prob-
lems that occupied Oenopides, though they proved to be of much greater im-
portance for mathematical astronomy. The first of these problems is that of
153
metà dè tòn Oınopídhn, EÚdoxo~ ëpì @strologí+ dóxan 8negken oÿ mikrán
(further follows the synchronization of Eudoxus with Plato and Ctesias of Cnidus).
Cf.: metà dè toñton Mámerko~ … ëpì gewmetrí+ dóxan … labónto~ (Procl. In
Eucl., 65.12f. = Eud. fr. 133).
154
Eud. fr. 138; Procl.
In Eucl., 283.7f., 269.8f.
155
Heath.
History 1, 175; von Fritz. Oinopides, 2265f. As Knorr. AT, 15f., noted, this
claim is groundless.
156
To obtain more or less reliable data, it was important to ensure that the gnomon was
perpendicular to the horizontal surface (Szabó, Maula,
op. cit., 120).
157
See above, 255 n. 109.
158
The last task was carried out stage by stage (see above, 253 n. 105).
159
Neugebauer.
HAMA II, 619. On Oenopides’ calendar cycle, see also Heath. Arist-