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

HAMA, 574.
109
Tarán.
Academica, 115ff., 135f.; Lasserre. Léodamas, 596f. The identification of
the book on lunar eclipses and the meteorological writings seems relatively safe.
110
In the mid-fourth century, a “demonstration of the sphericity of the moon” (Tarán.
Academica, 136) cannot be regarded as a discovery. Even in the field of parapeg-
mata, Philip was not original (Neugebauer.
HAMA, 740 n. 12).
111
Tarán.
 Academica, 98–114.
112
Evans, P. The astronomy of Heraclides Ponticus,
CQ 20 (1970) 102–111; Neuge-
bauer, O. On the alleged heliocentric theory of Venus by Heraclides Ponticus,
AJP
93 (1972) 600–601. Gottschalk’s arguments in favor of Heraclides’ epicyclical
model do not seem convincing (Gottschalk, H. B.
Heraclides of Pontus, Oxford
1980, 69ff.). Our main source, Chalcidius, was by no means an expert in astronomy
(
In Tim., 176 = fr. 109), and the fact that he attributes the same epicyclical model to
Plato makes his evidence about Heraclides especially suspicious.
113
Heraclides (fr. 106) interpreted a controversial passage in
Timaeus (40b) in this
sense; it turned out to be a point of great debate among the Academics (Arist.
Cael.
293b 30f.). It is interesting that Proclus, seeing such a divergence between Plato and
Heraclides, refused to consider him a student of Plato (Tarán. Proclus, 263f.).

---

Chapter 3: Science in the Platonic Academy
104
phantus (51 A 1, 5), who continued the line of Philolaus.
114
According to Dio-
genes Laertius, Heraclides studied with the Pythagoreans and wrote a special
book about them (V, 86); his ideas have a whole series of other similarities with
the Pythagorean astronomy (fr. 104, 113).
Is it really necessary to recall that the Academy never produced even one
significant mathematician or astronomer? It does seem necessary, especially
when one takes into account the exaggerated significance usually attributed to
the program of mathematical education described in the Platonic dialogues.
The
 Republic, Theaetetus, and Laws probably persuaded not a few talented
youths to take up mathematics, but having begun the study of it, they inevitably
had to comply with the demands worked out by the
mathe¯matikoi. If they still
considered Plato more worthwhile than mathematical truth, then they devel-
oped a mathematical theology in the spirit of Anatolius or Iamblichus, or com-
piled a commentary to the mathematical passages in the Platonic dialogues, or
in the best case, wrote a philosophical commentary on Euclid, as Proclus did.
115
4. Plato on science and scientific directorship
It is evident that tracing back all the stories about Plato as an organizer of
science (the duplication of the cube, the ‘saving the phenomena’, the discovery
of analysis and general progress in mathematics) to their Academic sources
does not prove their reliability. That these stories are not supported by sources
outside the Academy, especially Peripatetic, is not decisive in itself: one can al-
ways object that, if the Academics exaggerated the role of their teacher, the
Peripatetic attitude toward Plato was anything but objective, as well.
116
How-
ever, neither the independent evidence on the mathematicians of the fourth cen-
tury, nor the writings of the Academics themselves – unlike the Academic
leg-
ends – actually support the idea of the exact sciences flourishing under Plato’s
directorship. The source of these legends, therefore, was not the real relation-
114
According to Philolaus, the earth rotates round the Central Fire in 24 hours; Ecphan-
tus transformed his idea into that of the earth’s rotation around its own axis.