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

On Velocities must have occupied the larger part of the second book
of Eudemus’
History of Astronomy. Simplicius cites it in a shortened, yet ad-
equately extensive exposition by Sosigenes.
217
Only in two cases does Simpli-
cius refer to Eudemus’ text directly. Once, he points out a disagreement be-
209
See Simpl.
In Cael. comm., 488.23, 492.28. 30, 493.3f., 497.21, 499.15, 501.24
(@podidónai tà fainómena), 502.9, 504.18f., 505.18, 509.16, 510.31.
210
Exp., 150.20, 166.5, 175.1, 175.15, 180.9, 198.14, etc.
211
Simpl.
In Phys., 292 = Her. Pont. fr. 110 = Posid. fr. 18 E–K.
212
Eisag., 10.20, 118.26, 122.9–11. 23, 142.14. Cf. ëpimarture$n to$~ fainoménoi~
(178.4).
213
sumfwne$n to$~ fainoménoi~, diafwne$n prò~ tà fainómena, sumfønw~
@podidónai tŒ fainoménœ, etc. (Hipparch. In Arat., 4.9. 13, 24.10. 15, 34.9, 70.6,
106.6, 128.18–20, 138.21–22).
214
Hipparch.
In Arat., 176.10; Attalus, fr. 28 (Comm. in Arat. reliquiae, p. 23.37
Maass).
215
Cf. Mendell. The trouble with Eudoxus, 84ff.
216
Transl. by A. Jenkinson. On the relation of the observational data (tà fainómena) to
astronomical theory see also
APo 78b 35–79a 6 and esp. PA 639b 6f., 640a 13f.
217
In Cael. comm., 493.11–497.8; Schramm, op. cit., 36ff. The preference Simplicius
gave to Sosigenes’ text is accounted for, in particular, by the fact that he used it as a
source for a large section devoted to the discussion of different astronomical theories
(492.31–510.23).

---

Chapter 7: The history of astronomy
276
tween Sosigenes and Eudemus whether the program of ‘saving the phenomena’
belongs to Eudoxus or to Plato (fr. 148). In the second case, the explanation of
reasons why Callippus introduced additional spheres, which interests Simpli-
cius, happens to be absent from Sosigenes, who did not enter into a detailed de-
scription of these modifications because, in his view, they had not improved the
ability of Eudoxus’ theory to save the phenomena,
218
But Eudemus briefly stated what were the phenomena in explanation of which
Callippus thought it necessary to assume the additional spheres. According to
Eudemus, Callippus asserted that, assuming the periods between the solstices and
equinoxes to differ to the extent that Euctemon and Meton held that they did, the
three spheres in each case (i.e. for the sun and moon) are not sufficient to save the
phenomena, in view of the irregularity which is observed in their motions.
219
But
the reason why he added the one sphere which he added in the case of each of the
three planets, Mars, Venus, and Mercury was shortly and clearly stated by Eude-
mus (fr. 149, transl. by T. Heath).
As for the rest of the material, Simplicius must have found Sosigenes’ exposi-
tion perfectly adequate. It is worth noting, however, that Simplicius’ under-
standing of Eudoxus’ system seems more superficial than Eudemus’. That, at
least, is the opinion shared by most of the scholars who, relying on Simplicius’
text, have tried to reconstruct Eudoxus’ system.
Attempts at such a reconstruction have been made since the beginning of the
19
th
century; an Italian astronomer G. Schiaparelli proved the most successful;
his reconstruction (1875) was considered exemplary throughout the 20
th
cen-
tury. Heath, however, was probably wrong to maintain that, in the absence of
new evidence, the reconstruction of Schiaparelli “will no doubt be accepted by
all future historians … as the authoritative and final exposition” of the Eudox-
ian system.
220
Recently it has been criticized by two historians of Greek astron-
omy.
221
Leaving this discussion for the specialists, I still venture to hope that its
results will not change the traditional opinion of Eudemus as a trustworthy and
competent historian of early Greek astronomy and mathematics.
218
See above, 233; Schramm,