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

apparent irregularities in
planetary motion to the
true circular movement.
Eudoxus of Cnidus, as Eudemus reports in the second book of his
History of As-
tronomy and as Sosigenes repeats on the authority of Eudemus, is said to have
been the first of the Greeks to deal with this type of hypotheses. For Plato, Sosi-
genes says, set this problem for students of astronomy: ‘By the assumption of
what uniform and ordered motions one can save the apparent motions of the
planets’? (fr. 148).
199
Plato’s supposed role in posing this problem has been sufficiently discussed
above (3.1). In Plato’s dialogues the expression s¢zein tà fainómena, as well
as the very idea that a mathematical model has to be verified by empirical ob-
servations, are totally lacking, though he was certainly not opposed to observa-
tions as such. In Aristotle, on the contrary, expressions similar but not identical
in meaning (@podidónai tà fainómena, ômologe$n to$~ fainoménoi~, ômo-
logoúmena légein to$~ fainoménoi~) occur quite often,
200
whereas the con-
viction underlying them belongs to the fundamentals of his philosophy. Eude-
mus, no doubt, also knew and shared the scientific principle expressed by the
formula s¢zein tà fainómena. But does this really mean that this principle
goes back to Aristotle and Eudemus, rather than to Eudoxus and Callippus?
Let us specify: what we are discussing here is not so much the general thesis,
shared both by many Presocratics
201
and by Aristotle, that phenomena are the
visible aspect of hidden things (Óyi~ @d2lwn tà fainómena), but rather a
199
kaì prõto~ tõn ˆEll2nwn EÚdoxo~ ô Knídio~, !~ EÚdhmó~ te ën tŒ deutérœ
t4~ @strologik4~ îstoría~ @pemnhmóneuse kaì Swsigénh~ parà Eÿd2mou
toñto labøn, Âyasqai légetai tõn toioútwn ûpoqésewn, Plátwno~, <~
fhsi Swsigénh~, próblhma toñto poihsaménou to$~ perì tañta ëspouda-
kósi, tínwn ûpoteqeisõn ômalõn kaì tetagménwn kin2sewn diaswqÆ tà perì
tà~ kin2sei~ tõn planwménwn fainómena.
200
APo 89a 5; Cael. 306a 7, 309a 26; GC 325a 26; GA 760b 33; Met. 1073b 36; EE
1236a 26. Cf. ‘inversed’ formulas: biázesqai tà fainómena, ënantía légein
prò~ tà fainómena (Cael. 315a 4; EE 1236b 22).
201
Anaxagoras (59 B 21 A), Democritus (68 A 111). See Regenbogen, O. Eine For-
schungsmethode antiker Wissenschaft (1930),
Kleine Schriften, Munich 1961,
141ff.; Diller, H. ¨Oyi~ @d2lwn tà fainómena, Hermes 67 (1932) 14–42.

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
274
more specific theory that explained the celestial motions by reducing their ap-
parent variety to a limited number of mathematical regularities. This astro-
nomical theory was anticipated by the mechanics of Archytas, which reduced
the action of various tools and devices to the principle of unequal concentric
circles and provided a mathematical analysis of their movement, of linear and
angular velocities in particular.
202
Another parallel to this theory is to be found
in the mathematical harmonics of the same Archytas. It is worth noting that the
Peripatetic Aristoxenus criticized the mathematical treatment of music by the
Pythagoreans, reproaching them for their neglect of phenomena.
203
Theophras-
tus’ criticism was similar (fr. 716 FHSG). Hence, the principle ômologe$n to$~
fainoménoi~ does not necessarily imply the mathematical treatment of phe-
nomena; moreover, the very concept of fainómena is much broader in Aris-
totle than in Eudoxus.
As a result, the formula s¢zein tà fainómena became associated, not with
the explication of phenomena in general, but rather with the astronomical pro-
gram, so it was very likely related to Eudoxus’ theory from the very begin-
ning.
204
The expression @podidónai tà fainómena appears twice in the very
passage of the