Kahn - On Early Greek Astronomy

On Early Greek Astronomy
Author(s): Charles H. Kahn

Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 90 (1970), pp. 99-116
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/629756
Accessed: 01-09-2018 21:56 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Sat, 01 Sep 2018 21:56:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY
IN a somewhat polemical article on 'Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Pres

Dicks has recently challenged the usual view that the Presocratics in
Milesians in particular, made significant contributions to the developm
astronomy in Greece. According to Dicks, mathematical astronomy begi
of Meton and Euctemon about 430 B.C. What passes for astronomy in t
'was still in the pre-scientific stage' of 'rough-and-ready observations,
recorded and imperfectly understood, of practical men' whose chief concer
seasons for ploughing, seed-time, sailing voyages and religious festivals. Ion
says Dicks, took very little note of such observation: 'some of its wilder fligh
have been avoided, if it had taken more'.2 In this account of the rise of Gr
the natural philosophers have no part to play. Their theories represen
enterprise without a scientific future, a philosophic sideline with no impac
ment of observational science from Hesiod to Meton or the developmen
astronomy from Meton to Ptolemy.
I believe that such a dichotomy between early philosophy and early s
is misguided in principle, and that it seriously distorts our picture of the i
each discipline. It also imposes a considerable strain upon our credulit
of Anaxagoras who, according to Plato and Theophrastus, had given a c
of eclipses of the moon a generation before Meton.3 Is Anaxagoras not
sentative of Ionian philosophy? Since Dicks will allow no scientific astro
Presocratics, what are we to make of this ? Is Anaxagoras' essentially co
of eclipse a wild flight of fancy? Or was it derived from unsystemat
imperfectly understood ? And what shall we say of Parmenides who, a
was well on his way to understanding lunar eclipse, since he realised th
region of the moon is always turned in the direction of the sun (DK 28BI5; c
in BI14)? This suggests a rather more advanced stage of astronomy th
knowledge of seasons and star-risings in Hesiod. Why should Dicks ign
ments of the early and middle fifth century in order to begin the history of
in 432 B.C.?
At first, the issue appears to be one of terminology. Dicks speaks of mathematical
astronomy, by which he means a study based upon careful measurements (for example, of
the length of the lunar month and solar year) permitting precise predictions as to the
recurrence of certain phenomena, such as the coincidence of 19 solar years and 235 lunar
months. Now it is true that 432 B.c. is the earliest date for which we know that such precise
observations and predictions were carried out. But it certainly does not follow from our
ignorance of the earlier period that no systematic observations were made before that date! Dicks'
case against the existence of scientific astronomy in the Presocratic period depends in large
part upon a fallacious inference from the absence of relevant evidence. It is an inference
from We do not know that observations were systematically made and recorded before 432 to We know
that they were not. The impression of cogency in his argumentation derives almost entirely
from his considerable knowledge of Hellenistic and late Greek astronomy. It turns out,
1 JHS lxxxvi (1966) 26-40, quoted hereafter as Department, Swarthmore College. Needless to say,
'Dicks'. In reflecting on Dicks' discussion of theneither is responsible for the views here presented,
astronomical problems, I have received valuable except where their names are cited.
advice from Professor Howard Stein of the Depart- 2 Dicks 39.
ment of Philosophy, Case Western Reserve Uni- 3 The evidence is conveniently assembled by
versity, and from Dr W. D. Heintz of the AstronomyHeath, Aristarchus 78 f. Also DK 59A42. 8-io, A76.
I00 CHARLES H. KAHN
however, that his use of that knowledge establishes no
are concerned, the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.
Nevertheless, Dicks' article raises a number of int
interpretation, which call for further discussion. One
his general contrast between scientific (or mathema
speculation of the Presocratics. This is expressed as
tion and wild flights of fancy, with the implication t
from the former (when 'the accumulation of mater
owes nothing to the bold speculation of the natura
essentially a Baconian or neo-Baconian view of scienc
tation together with empirical observation as the ne
which denies any role to speculative hypotheses of
this view is false, and indeed generally discredited
philosophy of science (by the writings of Alexandre
among others). Furthermore, Dicks does not always
he recognises the importance for Greek astronomy of
including a spherical heaven, a spherical earth, and
motion. For the attempt to construct such a model is
of Presocratic speculation. If we accept Neugebaue
parts of human interest in celestial phenomena wh
treatment',5 the Presocratic model is astronomical
proposed a clearly defined geometrical system of cylin
with relative dimensions specified by numerical rat
Neugebauer who seems to favour a similar dichotom
view that the history of Greek astronomy before 400 B
the history of Greek philosophy, and that the cosmolo
importance for the development of science by prop
universe. If anyone wishes to call the theory of eclipse
stage of precise predictions, we need not quarrel abo
is that the possession of a generalised model, like that
step not only to a more refined theory of eclipses
advances, such as the precise measurement of the si
and other reasons, I think we would be ill-advised t
sees the history of Greek astronomy as a continuou
Ptolemy and which regards the speculative constructio
ancestors and progenitors of the more solidly based sy
One merit of Dicks' paper is to raise certain gener
describes two errors of anachronism against which eve
his guard: (I) 'a failure to understand what knowledg
with regard to the historical development of scientific
the tacit assumptions, based on the scientific theory o
our own times, that underlie so much of the writing a
the first principle of anachronism seems circular, sinc
what course the development of ideas actually follow
and can be reformulated so as to include what Dicks pr
as well. We might agree on the following maxim of m
indicate as clearly as possible just what level of knowle
4Dicks 39. 6 Dicks 27 and 29.
5 0. Neugebauer, 'The History of Ancient Astro-
nomy, Problems and Methods' in Journal of Near
Eastern Studies iv (i945) 2.
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY IOI
to the scientist or period which he studies. He should distinguish shar
explicit ascription of knowledge and the convenient but potentially m
which he describes an early result in the conceptual terms of a later sta
it follows from this maxim that the historian will ascribe to any given tim
that degree of explicit knowledge and insight which he is willing to incorpo
account of the development of scientific ideas for the period in questi
formulate these principles than to follow them consistently, but it is surely
Applying them to my own account of Anaximander, I shall respond to
clarifying an ambiguity which was present in my earlier treatment of the
ecliptic. On the other hand, I shall argue that, in the light of these same p
chief thesis about the radically different scientific status of equinoxes and s
mistaken. And by avoiding the more strident tones of personal polemic, I
controversy in a constructive direction.7
Let us begin with the question of the ecliptic, since it raises most of th
Aatius, our most unreliable source, tells us that according to Anaximan
circle of the moon, like that of the sun, 'lies aslant'.8 We might ignor
confusion of AMtius if we did not have Pliny's statement that Anaximande
the obliquity of the zodiac (nat. hist. ii 31 = DK I2A5: obliquitatem eius [sc.
lexisse, hoc est rerumforis aperuisse), with a precision of date (548-545 B.c.) t
source, since it corresponds to the only other date preserved for An
Apollodorus: DK 12AI.2). Behind Pliny's note, then, stands some Helle
astronomy, or biography of philosophers, and we have no reason to su
information from this source must be unreliable. AMtius may be draw
source as Pliny, or on a parallel tradition. In either case, there is the p
information in question goes back to Eudemus or to Theophrastus.9 He
to take it as 'obvious that the words KELfLEVOV A 6v are a late addition in
tradition, inserted by someone who was so familiar with the slanting eclip
astronomy that he could not conceive of its not being a well-known co
period'.10 On the contrary, the point of Pliny's remark is that the concept
at all until Anaximander; and the related notice in Aftius ii 12.2 also
importance of this as an innovation (although the discovery is there attribu
7 Thus I shall not follow the precedent set by Tvr OY w~oBtaKO 5dciWOatv, where Diels
E6pE uzpd)-rTog
Dicks' article, which accuses me not only read
of systematic
(ataKoY 20muaLtv on the basis of the parallel in
AMtius.
error and 'lack of historical sense', but also Now if Eudemus regarded Oenopides as the
of selecting
and rejecting doxographical material on the
first basis the
to observe offact that the sun's annual path is set at
personal preference in order to produce an angle to the line of diurnal motion, or to the
a 'monstrous
edifice of exaggeration', 'a travesty of equator,
the historical
he cannot have ascribed the same discovery
to Anaximander.
truth', whose key features are 'entirely unsubstantiated But there are other possible
by the available evidence' (Dicks 31, 35-38). One interpretations of Theon's report: (i) What Eudemus
hopes that this vehemence of tone reflects Dicks' sense attributed to Oenopides was not the mere discovery
of the importance of the questions at issue between us. that the zodiac is inclined but a precise determination
of the angle (so von Fritz in PW xvii 2260 f., followed
8 DK 12A22 = AMtius ii 25.I (Kv'K2 O" ( aE2i4g))
-vp d g~2jptl KaOTEp zdv TO5 I'2lov, KEiKEVOV 2o$5v, by W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft 285, n. 42);
W g KaKEtVOV. (2) keeping 6tdiwrat in Theon's text, we might sup-
9 For AMtius' dependence on Theophrastus in this pose that what Eudemus (or Theon) meant by the
context see Aetius ii 20.3 = Theophr. Phys. Op.fr. I6. 'belting' of the zodiac was a definite description or
Eudemus' report on the early investigation of the measurement of the zodiacal signs. However, the
ecliptic, as given by Theon of Smyrna, is also reflected whole context in Theon makes a very unreliable
(and distorted) in Aetius ii 12.2: HvOaydpa zrpwtrog impression as a 'fragment' of Eudemus. Finally,
ntvevo)KEvat )2iyETat Tnv 26owatLv O-r og 6taKov even if Eudemus did not ascribe knowledge of the
KVKAOV, ~7viTtva Olvoi'6rg 6 Xiog cT idiGavy ivotav ecliptic to Anaximander, the common source of Pliny
arqpet[rep at. (DK41A7; see Wehrli, Eudemosfr. 145 and Aetius may have drawn this conclusion-rightly
with commentary, p. 20o.) Theon's version is or wrongly-from information in Theophrastus.
Ei,iog iaTZopei i v "Tal 'AaZpo2oyiatg 6'Tt Oivomddrl10 Dicks 35 f.
102 CHARLES H. KAHN
or Oenopides). Our sources are unani

its obliquity was developing between
indeed, do not attempt to specify-jus
Hence we must apply our maxim an
is implied by the doctrine of the obliq
tion in question must be that of 'th
(Anaximander 88), and spoke of the su
and 103 n. 2). Dicks observes corr
ascribing such a doctrine to Anaxim
Heath nor I made clear was that this
to making him the discoverer of the c
the diurnal motion. For, strictly spe
reference to the celestial equator.12
Let us call this interpretation of t
maximum interpretation of Anaximan
is that there is a weaker interpretation
so much theoretical insight to our Mil
sense in which the zodiac or ecliptic
obliquity at all. First the weaker interp
Suppose that the circle or wheel of
(monthly) path among the stars but
mean that the circles of sun and moon
horizon, just as the daily motion of the
of the earth.13 Now the tilting of the
for the Presocratics, as a phenomen
However, the term for this general til
technical expression for the obliquity
never, as far as I can see, a designation
favours the stronger interpretation
intersecting circles on the celestial sphe
plex model) which Pliny or his source
insight as 'opening the door to <our k
prefer for historical reasons to assign
extract it from our sources. The we
11 Heath, Aristarchus
among36: 'the
(or rather above) hoops remain
the stars, towards the north a
inclinations to the plane of
in spring, then, the
turning, equator'.
towards the south under the
12 Hence I do not see the
influence point
of the exhalations; of Dicks'
and all com
the while, the
(36) that I 'cannot circle
envisage
turns on itself, one the
revolution ecliptic
per day.' w
mentioning the equator, although
14 See, for Anaxagoras, DK 59Ai.9there is
(rcd 6'adr-pa Ka no
about this in the original quotation'. How
dp1d 1g v Oo2oEtAcg veZOIvat . .. 'aGvepov 6& -ijv
Dicks interpret the 'YKl2tUtv
reference to obliquity
2afliv); similarly cyK2tOjval ( ro v KTdVKdaLov i
and Aetius ? Geminus says the zodiac is calle
8K -ov GavLtOdaTOv in 59A67. The former passage is
fromnapa2212ovg
61d Tr6 o iEvetv troj0 Diogenes Laertius, the latterKVK2ovg
from Aetius. The (E
astronomiae ed. Manitius,
same two authorsv 53).
ascribe a similarOne
doctrine toof
the the
it cuts is of course the equator.
atomists (AMtius iii 12 = DK 67A27 and 68A96),
It should also be noted that to attribute to Anaxi-
and once to Empedocles (Aetius ii 8.2 = DK 31A58);
mander the concept of the ecliptic is actually to credit
in Aetius it is generally the earth rather than the
him with more than the celestial sphere and the heavens which is said to be tilted. The ancient
inclined zodiac. See below, esp. n. 24. sources do not clearly distinguish such cyK2rat; from
13 I owe this suggestion to Howard Stein, who the obliquity of the zodiac, but an outright confusion
writes: 'It seems to me that this fits better with
of the two nowhere occurs except in the proposed
Anaximander's attribution of the solstices to meteoro-
emendation of Diogenes ix I printed in DK 67AI.33
logical causes: the circle of the sun, remaining always
<(Tlxv 6d 2oldwattv Toi5 ~(dtaKov EViU Oat> T- KEKALtrOat
parallel to the circles of the stars, moves as a whole
Tipv yinv pdog wIEorflpltav.
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY 103
other version, astronomically trivial. If Anaximander intr
explain the diurnal motion of sun and moon, then he was obliged
horizon. For better or worse, however, what the Hellenistic so
discovery of obliquity in the stronger sense, which presupposes th
motion had already been recognised.
At this point we should make clear that there is another sense
rather the zodiac could have been, and almost certainly was, discov
to its obliquity. Even to speak of the 'ecliptic' in connection w
may be misleading since the term EKA ELTTLK6d, which reflects th
only circle in which eclipses can occur, is not used until much lat
for the sun's path is J S&' ptowv <-rov Splwov (KtUKAOS), 'the circ
zodiacal signs', which clearly shows that the zodiac is the pr
are concerned with, then, is the first recognition of the fact tha
and moon (and, later, of the planets also) lie within a given
conspicuous stars. Let us call this 'the empirical discovery
discovery is clearly independent of any spherical model for th
particular identification or division of the zodiacal constellati
identification of stars lying along the annual path of the sun.
zodiac was discovered by the Babylonians. Note that this is no
ecliptic or circle of the sun; the latter requires a recognition that
merely within the zodiacal band but always on a single line, namely
middle of this band. In fact, it seems that the Babylonians fir
the 'path of the moon', marking the constellations through which
month. These so-called stations of the moon are much easier to ob
since the circuit is completed more frequently and the relevant s
same time as the moon. One of the Babylonian tablets known
specifies that the sun and the five planets ('all six gods') travel
which is here identified by 17 constellations, 14 of which lie
makes clear that the empirical zodiac, as the path of sun, moon an
the Babylonians by the seventh century B.C.; in fact the informa
probably goes back to the second millennium.17 At some poin
15 See Arist. Met. Io73b2o, Euclid, same Phaenomena

tablet divides the year into four p
p. 6, 2I ff. (ed. Menge), Geminus,three Elementa months v 51.each during which the sun i
Even technical authors do not always makein
as located a clear
the path of Anu (twice, in
terminological distinction between the fall),zodiac
in the andpaththe of Enlil (summer), and
sun's circle, but use an expression of for
Ea the former
(winter). Since the path of Anu m
represent an equatorial belt some 30o de
(o z(rcv soov KVK2aOg, d 0iltaKog) in asserting some-
thing true only of the latter (e.g.the statement
that thatathe
it is sun moves in and out of this
great
circle, Euclid op. cit. 8, 15; that it touches
path can bethe tropicas showing that the Babylo-
interpreted
at a solstitial point, Achilles Isagoge xxv
nians knew 4,(by
ed. Maasstimes, and perhaps much
Assyrian
p. 57.21). It seems to have been understood
earlier) 'that the that
sun inmoves in an oblique circle'
referring to celestial KlVKAot that are
(van derreally
Waerden, bands,
op. cit. 24). This is, however, a
such as the zodiac and the Milky Way, very Greektheway astrono-
of describing their knowledge. As
mers normally take the middle circle far asof the
I can band
judge, as
the Babylonian texts quoted do
its geometrical representation. not refer to the sun's path as a circle; there is no
16 See E. F. Weidner, Amer. Journal mentionof Semitic
of the equator, and the concept of obliquity
Languages and Literatures xl (1924) is 192-5;
at best J. Schaum-
implicit in the recognition that the sun
berger, in Sternkunde und Sterndienst in back
passes Babeland iii (1935)
forth across the (presumably parallel)
319; and now B. L. van der Waerden, bordersErwachende
of the way of Anu.
Wissenschaft Band ii: Die Anfdnge der In
Astronomie
his 1966 book(1966)
van der Waerden has developed
77. This last work will be quoted below as 'van
the consequences der
of his own description and explicitly
Waerden (1966)'. assigned not only the obliquity of the ecliptic but also
17 See Weidner, op. cit., and B. L. the
van der Waerden,
celestial sphere to the Babylonian astronomers of
Journal of Near Eastern Studies viii the (1949)
'Mul apin' 6-26.
periodThe
(78 f. with fig. 10; and i34)-
104 CHARLES H. KAHN
the 12 canonical constellations and eventually
each. The conventional use of a zodiac of 1
constitute a new level of astronomical knowledge,
both as an index of Babylonian influence in G
of a new desire for systematic quantitative prec
and planets. The date of this mathematical zo
does not appear in Greece before the early t
second) century B.C. In the present context, i
zodiac are to the earlier, less precise system of f
sun and moon.
When was this empirical knowledge of the zodiac available to the Greeks in some form ?
There is no trace of the corresponding constellations in Hesiod, but the Scorpion appears
in a quotation from the astronomical poem of Cleostratus of Tenedos, from the late sixth
century apparently, and two other zodiacal constellations (Aries and Sagittarius) are
ascribed to him by Pliny (DK 6BI and B2). This same Cleostratus is mentioned by
Theophrastus in a list of observational astronomers preceding Meton.19 Now the designa-
tions of Scorpio and Sagittarius derive from Babylon, and it is not likely that Cleostratus
has hit upon them by himself.20 Whether or not Cleostratus knew that these constellations
marked the sun's path cannot be ascertained from the insignificant remains of his poem,
but it is difficult to suppose that a practising astronomer would not have received this
information together with the names of the constellations. There are two other bits of
evidence for Greek astronomy around 500 B.C. which also point to Babylonian influence
(leaving aside the question of the gnomon and polos, to which we shall return): (I) the use
of an 8-year intercalation cycle for the soli-lunar calendar, again associated with the name
of Cleostratus, and (2) the knowledge that Morning and Evening Star are one and the
If this view were correct, the whole question of fromthe the East. For a more modest estimate of the
originality of Greek astronomy would have to knowledge
be available to the Greeks in the sixth
regarded in a new light. But it seems unlikely that century, see below.
van der Waerden's conclusion will prove acceptable19 DK 6AI. Dicks 26 f. is very contemptuous of
to other historians of Babylonian science. I have Cleostratus, and of those modern historians who take
the impression (from a conversation with Dr Heintz) him seriously, on the grounds that our authority,
that the paths or zones of the 'Mul apin' text canPliny,
be is unreliable. But Dicks ignores this reference
understood in purely observational terms (e.g. as to Cleostratus in Theophrastus and the surviving
designating which stars rise and set together) without
verses from his poem which mention the Scorpion.
reference to any geometric model. The fact that Atlas is included by Pliny in the same
18 See van der Waerden (1966) 125; and compare context as discoverer of the celestial globe (by obvious
0. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (2nd rationalising
ed. of a well-known story derived from
1957) 140. I regret that I helped confuse matters Hesiod, and often represented in vase-painting and
by quoting from the Ist edition (1952) of Neugebauer's
sculpture) shows that Pliny is uncritical of his sources,
book (in Anaximander 92); and indeed my entire but it cannot be used to impugn his authority whole-
quotation there is regrettable since, in either edition,
sale. Like Diogenes Laertius, Pliny repeats what-
Neugebauer is referring to a level of astronomical ever he has found written somewhere, and what he
has found is often silly. But each case must be
refinement at the end of what he calls the 'prehistory'
of Babylonian astronomy (dated to 'about 400 B.C.' judged on its merits, and in this case, what Pliny tells
in the second edition, o103) which was certainly us notabout Cleostratus is just what we would expect on
the basis of the other evidence.
reached in sixth-century Miletus, and perhaps no-
where in Greece before the time of Meton.
20 See A. Rehm, Abh. bayer. Akad. (Munich I941)
Nonetheless the point which I intended to illustrateHeft xix 12-14. Other discussions of Cleostratus are
by the quotation from Neugebauer is one which Icited in W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft 312
still maintain: that the creation, by the Milesians andnn. 56 and 58. For a comparison of Greek and
their successors, of a theory of geometric world-Babylonian constellations in the zodiac, see van der
models different in kind from mythic speculation is to
Waerden, Journal of Near Eastern Studies viii (i949)
be understood in part as the Greek reaction to new13 f. and now van der Waerden (1966) 256 ff.
and more extensive contact with astronomical lore
same, first attested for Parmenides in Greece but known sinc
Babylon.21
Now it would be possible to suppose that any one of these items had been discovered
independently by the Greeks of the sixth century: the constellations of Scorpio and
Sagittarius, the eight-year cycle, and the identity of Evening and Morning Star. Taken
together, however, they point unmistakably to a new if rudimentary acquaintance with
Babylonian astronomy, an acquaintance reflected in Herodotus' statement that it was from
the Babylonians that the Greeks derived their knowledge of the gnomon, the polos, and the
division of the day into 12 parts (ii og9). It is almost certain that they learned of the
empirical zodiac at the same time, in the sixth century. I take it that this is one of the
things Parmenides is alluding to when he makes his goddess promise to reveal 'all the signs
in the aither and the obscure deeds of the pure torch of the brilliant Sun ..., and the circling
deeds of the round-faced Moon (B I E ~' . .. 7. E' ECv alOEpt rvraval/ 7l, Larat KaC KaOapCDa EvaCLyOS
7)EAClOLO I0/ T aSOS- Ery' &'S-qAa Kal O7T7TOOEV EeEyEVOVTO,/ E'pya cE KvKAW7TOS 7TEvc' 7rTEptcfI-c
EhEApr7s). The deeds of the sun are als818Aa, both 'invisible' and 'making invisible', because
the zodiacal constellations through which it moves are blotted out by the brilliance of its
torch, whereas these constellations are observable in the course of the moon's peregrinations
as marked by her phases: KvKAW/ here plays upon the fact that the moon's cyclical progress
(7TEpgotTLa Epya) through the zodiac is reflected in the periodic changes of her face.22
If such items of old Babylonian lore had reached Parmenides in distant Elea by the
beginning of the fifth century (as the identity of Venus in her two appearances certainly had
reached him), then it is surely more plausible to assume that this knowledge was transmitted
through Miletus (which provides so much of the background for Parmenides' work) than
to imagine some other, entirely unattested channel for scientific ideas passing from the
Persian empire to southern Italy. (Pythagoras comes to mind, but this would not be a
genuinely alternative route. Pythagoras' island of Samos is practically within sight of
Miletus.) I suppose that the Milesians were familiar with the zodiac in the descriptive
sense if they were doing any astronomy at all.23 Now to proceed from the empirical zodiac
to a discovery of its obliquity only one step is required: either to conceive somehow of a
division of the sky oriented parallel to the equator but without a spherical model, as the
Babylonians are said to have done with their 'path of Anu', or to conceive the fixed stars as
lying on a sphere. The nature of the Babylonian solution is not entirely clear, and there
seems to be no trace of it in Greece. For Greece, then, the discovery of the obliquity, given
some knowledge of the empirical zodiac, is just the discovery of the fact that the diurnal
movement of the stars can be accounted for by the rotation of fixed points in a celestial
sphere. For as soon as the stellar sphere is so conceived, the empirical zodiac will appear
on it as a great circle inclined to the equator.24
21 See Cleostratus DK 6B4, Parmenides DK and (2) 'cycle-faced', i.e. changing her appearance
28AI.23 and A4oa. For the Venus observations in according to the monthly cycle. The first is the
early Babylon, see A. Pannekoek, A History of Astro-surface reading, on the level of Parmenides' Homeric
nomy (1961) 33; van der Waerden (1966) 49. Fordiction; the second is the deeper reading, on the level
the Babylonian 8-year cycle, Pannekoek 51 f. and of his astronomical concerns. For further remarks
van der Waerden (1966) I12. Dicks is sceptical ofon intentional ambiguity in Parmenides see my review
the 8-year cycle (33, n. 39), but the convergence ofof J. Bollack, Empidocle, in Gnomon xli (1969) 441 f.
Geminus, Censorinus, and the evidence from Babylon 23 The suggestion that the Milesians were not
should suffice to establish its chronological priorityinterested in observational astronomy seems to be
over the Metonic cycle. incompatible with almost every one of the stories
22 In the case of KVK)AL) as in the case of didir/a Iconcerning Thales, and with the traditional ascription
see an intentional use of ambiguity or plurisignifi-to him of an old 'Nautical Astronomy'. On this and
cance, which is an essential feature of Parmenides' other early didactic poems with scientific content,
style too often overlooked by commentators. Forsee Nilsson, Rh. M. lix (1904) 18o-6.
KViKA)lO there are at least two appropriate meanings: 24 This is an oversimplification, since only the
(i) 'round-faced' or 'round-eyed' (so Diel-Kranz),ecliptic is a great circle. As suggested above, we
I0o6 CHARLES H. KAHN
In this sense, the discovery of the celestial sphere im
functions, and no geometry beyond what can be learned
on an axis, where parallel circles are traced by a statio
rotated. What is required is not advanced mathemati
suddenly transforms a complex mass of star observations
simple and easy to grasp.25
Since I had not realised this connection between the
spherical model for stellar motion, I claimed the former
the latter. When properly posed, however, the questio
ascribing the obliquity of the zodiac to Anaximander pres
did he or did he not interpret the diurnal motion of t
model? I do not think this question can be answered de
is worth discussing.
When is the spherical model for the fixed stars first at
points to Parmenides (fr. Io):
E&ELS K3 Lovpavov oLtS ovTa

OVEV [jE yJp] Va V7 E Kacc's -kv 4Yovur(a) I7TE"8qTEV
7rtpa" EXELW acr'Tpov.

'You shall learn about the surrounding Heaven,
from what source it was formed, and how Necessity
to hold the limits (or fastenings) of the stars'
The goddess will explain how 'outmost Olympus' ('Avtr

heaven enclosing the aither and all the stars within the a
probably as a solid sphere, and now forms the dark backd
fiery mrq/a-ra are attached, and whose uniform rotation
Ananke. Neither these verses nor the confused doxog
explicitly that the outmost heaven is spherical in form, bu
interpretation.26 In the first place, once the stars are fast
Erastai
must distinguish between (I) the i32a-b (DK 41.2)
discovery wherethe
that two boys are said to
zodiac is inclined to the equator, and 'about
be disputing (2) the dis- or Oenopides; for
Anaxagoras
covery that the sun always moves in the
they appeared to be middle of and representing
drawing circles
this band on a single great circle. Pliny assigns only
certain inclinations (yK,'laeLg), by inclining their
(I) to Anaximander; Aitius combines this
hands relative to with (2) (ntLKvovtrs),
one another by all in
referring to the distinct circles
greatof sun and
earnestness'. Ourmoon
questionasis: who was the
'lying aslant'. (Howard Stein reminds
first scientist me
to do that
for the there
zodiac, or for the ecliptic,
is in fact no single circle for the
whatmoon's
our authorpath,
imagines but this
schoolboys doing in the latter
error could be due to Anaximander rather than to part of the fifth century ?
the doxography.) I am therefore inclined to suppose 26 In favour of the spherical shape for Parmenides'
that AMtius has conflated two reports, both of which
o0pavos see Heath, Aristarchus 69; and now L. Tarin,
were given in his sources: (i) the inclination ofParmenides
the (1965) 24i: 'a solid sphere of Night'.
zodiac, as reported by Pliny, (ii) the explanation of
Burnet's case against the spherical heaven (EGP
sun and moon as huge circles or rings, as given I88bywith n. 2) relies entirely upon the untrustworthy
other doxographers such as Hippolytus. If Aitius wording of Aitius, who compares the outer circle to
is responsible for this confusion, then Anaximander
a Teriog or city-wall. I have argued (Anaximander
may in fact have discovered the obliquity of I16 the f.) that spherical shape is first assigned to the
zodiac (or learned of it from Babylon) without
earth (by Parmenides or by Pythagoreans) as a
discovering the ecliptic in any precise sense. Hegeneralisation
may of the principle of cosmic symmetry.
have thought of the circles of sun and moon as alwaysAfter Parmenides, the spherical shape is reasonably
lying parallel to those of the stars, and rotating daily,
well attested for Empedocles. See fr. 38.4 aiO0p
but as pushed north and south in the course of the
ogpyywv nrepi KVKlOV a~ravTa. A spherical o'pav6I for
year (for the moon, in the course of the month).Empedocles
See is presupposed by the reference to hemi-
below, p. 107. spheres in DK 3 A5I (Aetius); that the fixed stars
25 Compare the passage in the pseudo-Platonic are 'bound' to it is stated in 3IA54 (also Aitius).
says they are, no other simple, symmetrical shape will readily acco
And in view of the unique importance of the sphere as a sym
symmetry for Parmenides (as later for Empedocles), it is hard to b
the celestial sphere in mind here as the visible work of Ananke, th
recurrence.27
In all probability, then, the stellar sphere is attested for Parmenides. What are th
chances that it was known earlier, in Miletus? The evidence is partial and inconsisten
I mention the positive indications for what they are worth.
I. Anaximander's world-model is spherical in some sense, since the earth remains at
rest in the centre because of its symmetrical distance 'from everything', in all directions.28
Distance from what exactly? Perhaps from 'the rings of the heavenly bodies, of which the
sun's is the largest', as Kirk and Raven suggest.29 Simpler and more natural, however,
the idea of a central position within a celestial sphere (as in Plato's restatement of th
argument from dpoto'~d~7 and loopporrla at Phaedo Io9a).
2. The fixed stars, we are told, were explained by KvKOL or wheels, derived (like su
and moon) from the separation or sectioning of a primordial 'sphere of flame' ( bAoyd
ca'itpav DK I2AIo). Now the wheels of the fixed stars are presumably oriented so as t
account for the diurnal motion. That means that they are, in effect, set perpendicular
the axis of rotation. If these circles are all assumed to have the same diameter, the resu
will be a cylinder. But a cylindrical model is unattested, and it would in any case be
incompatible with Anaximander's conception of celestial symmetry, since the cylinder
would have to be set obliquely to the plane of the earth. The only natural solution is t
suppose that the circles were in fact smaller near the pole, larger near the zenith. And this
assumption is roughly equivalent to placing them in a celestial sphere. If Anaximand
himself did not see this, his own construction of the stars as rings could easily have led the
next man to introduce a spherical model as a simplification of the whole scheme. That the
spherical model is Anaximander's own, however, is suggested by his use of the 'sphere
flame' in explaining the origin of the wheels.
3. When
4. Anaximander
we turn himself is said we
to Anaximenes, to have constructed
are told a ora^pa,
that the stars a celestial
are 'fastened globe.30
like nails in the
crystalline (or ice-like)' circumference of heaven.31 This has often been interpreted as 'the
The conflicting view reported by Aitius in another placed the tropics too far from the equator-i.e. that
context (3iA5o), that Empedocles' heaven is egg- he had too high a value for the obliquity of the
ecliptic-perhaps tells against this being a late
shaped, must be mistaken, and is in fact contradicted
fabrication. Note that Parmenides' error could
by other evidence in Aetius (cf. the aqopapa enclosing
the sun in A58 with the statement in A5o that easily the be explained by the assumption that the
circuit of the sun marks the limit of the KO6FyO;). ecliptic, as a single circle, had not yet been distin-
27 If, as I suggest, Parmenides was working with guished from the wider zodiacal band. In that case,
the model of a celestial sphere on which the ecliptic
the true discovery of the ecliptic (and its obliquity)
or zodiac is drawn obliquely, there may be a grainwould
of belong after all to Oenopides in the middle of
truth to Strabo's report (DK 28A44a), on the the fifth century. This discovery would naturally be
authority of Poseidonius, that Parmenides was connected
the with an Anaxagorean investigation of the
inventor of the division into five zones. The only precise circumstances of lunar eclipse. See n. 25
anachronism may lie in Poseidonius' application of
above.
this to the earth (although, if Parmenides' earth was 28 Evidence and discussion in Anaximander 53-5-
spherical, as it is reported to have been, even On thethis point even Dicks is not sceptical, though he
projection of the zones on to the earth is not impossible
doubts whether the argument from symmetry should
for his time: it may at first have been done a priori,
be regarded as a mathematical insight (36 n. 53).
without latitude observations). Three of the five29 The Presocratic Philosophers 134 f.
celestial zones are given as soon as the ecliptic is30 DK 12AI.2 (Diogenes Laertius). Also Pliny
drawn. The other two are easily defined: the arctic
nat. hist. vii 56.203 cited in Anaximander 6o: sphaerarn
region where the stars never set and the antarctic invenit.
where they never appear (to an observer, say, in
Elea). The fact that Parmenides is said to have 31 DK i3AI4 (Aetius): ji'wv bKlKqV Kataore7Vyvat
Td faTpa T) KpvaTa0oet6eL.
io8 CHARLES H. KAHN
conception of the stars being fixed on a

tation has been doubted, by Burnet and
sphere is incompatible with Anaximenes
under it.33 These grounds are inconclu
5. Anaximenes held that 'the stars do n
but around it, as a cap (irtMov) turns
passes under the earth, but by being c
greater distance from us' (DK I3A7.6, H
really incompatible with a spherical m
in relation to the earth, for then very f
In contrast to the naive view, which thin
up vertically in the east, setting (vertica
Anaximenes may have been trying to c
parallel circles, inclined to the earth's
towards the north. If the comparison to
been explaining the crucial idea of the
which is so frequently mentioned in Pre
6. Finally, if the Milesians thought of
explanation for Xenophanes' choice of
that Theophrastus has correctly unde
himself be identical with the astral s
causes this sphere-and everything els
lying invisibly around it, like the surro
No one of these points is decisive in its
stantial evidence in favour of the view t
in Miletus, whether by Anaximander or
can also be found which tells against thi
statement that Anaximander placed th
strictly incompatible with a spherical
Secondly, there is the problem, for both
meteorological causes. Here again we h
non-geometrical way of envisaging ce
we have the apparently hopeless dilem
parallel to the stellar circles, in order
KEltJEVOV A0odv is just a mistake) or el
in that case they do not explain the diur
combinations of which the doxograph
and in the absence of more detailed in
32 Heath, Aristarchus
hidden45, following
part of the time by the northerly partsTannery.
of the
33 Burnet, EGP 77 with earth, since in n. 4. they
their turning Similarly
sink behind it.' Kirk
Raven, I55. For a different view, see W. K. C. Anaximenes' metaphor of the cap revolving on our
Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy i (1962) head 'approaches the metaphor of the celestial sphere.
135-8. A cap, after all, sits back on the head: it goes low in
34 For the tilting, see above, n. 14. My comments back and high in front. If a cap is twisted around on
on Anaximenes are based upon a suggestion of the head in the most natural way, it stays "on" the
Howard Stein, who writes: 'If I were trying to convey head (does not go "under" it), but the part that goes
to a student the basic notion, and the chief difference around in back does also sink down low "behind"
from the naive view, the first point I should make is the head. The very fact that later commentators
that the stars do not, in the naive sense, "rise" and seem mystified by this phrase prevents any suspicion
"traverse the sky" and "go down" and "return here of a backwards attribution of later ideas.'
underneath", but in a more accurate view they go 35 See capatpoetubi in DK 21A33.2 (Hippolytus),
around; the ones near the pole go around remaining with the parallels cited by Diels in note on Doxographi
always in view, while the ones farther from it are graeci 481I.9.
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY og9
aspects of Milesian cosmology fitted together. What we can say i
possible that either Anaximander or Anaximenes explained the di
spherical model, and perhaps more probable that this innovation was m
Miletus than at any later moment in the history of Greek astrono
appeal to the legendary exploits of Pythagoras or the unrecorded t
before Philolaus.36
If the Milesians invented the model of a stellar sphere, I think it is sufficiently obvious
in what sense they contributed to the development of scientific astronomy in Greece. For
the conception of a rigid sphere for the fixed stars 'remained the fundamental postulate of
all astronomy up to Copernicus',37 as it remains still the convenient assumption in descriptive
astronomy. Even if they did not achieve this insight themselves, however, they clearly
prepared the way for it by the attempt to present some geometric model as an explanation of
the observed motions-and indeed, a model based on circular motion. As Neugebauer has
observed, the assumption of circular motion for the heavenly bodies 'remained the corner-
stone of celestial "dynamics" of ancient astronomy comparable to a law of inertia'.38 And
it is just here that the principal difference lies between Greek and Babylonian astronomy.
At its highest stage of perfection, as Dicks points out, Babylonian astronomy operated as far
as we know 'without any underlying cinematical model at all: . . . without any knowledge
of the fundamental concepts of the spherical earth set in the middle of the celestial sphere,
of the obliquity of the ecliptic, and of geographical latitude and longitude; these are all
Greek discoveries and in comparison with their fertility, the arithmetical methods of
Babylonian astronomy proved sterile'." On this point, apparently, all can agree. But I
ask: when were these decisive discoveries made? The spherical earth is presented in the
Phaedo as a familiar concept in the fifth century (Phaedo 97d8); a good tradition ascribes it
to Parmenides.40 The celestial sphere is also, as we have seen, as old as Parmenides and
probably older. The obliquity of the ecliptic may have been recognis'ed as soon as the
sphere was understood; it was known at latest to Oenopides in the middle of the fifth century.
Thus, except for terrestrial latitude and longitude (which required the refined mathematical
techniques of Hellenistic times), all of the fundamental concepts which distinguish Greek
36 I have not touched upon the possibility of 40 See Anaximander 15. Neugebauer's statement
significant work in astronomy by Pythagoras or that the discovery of the sphericity of the earth was
Pythagoreans in the period between Anaximenes and 'recent' in the time of Eudoxus is one for which I can
Parmenides, since the evidence for such is practically find no evidence (The Exact Sciences in Antiquity 153).
non-existent. This does not mean that there was no
A reader points out that Phaedo 97d8 nor6epov ' y
Pythagorean astronomy around 500 B.C.; only ~2arTe;id
that axrt7v i o'rpoyyVd' would not be decisive if the
we can scarcely hope to know anything aboutwords
it. could refer to a choice 'between the two kinds
B. L. van der Waerden, in Die Astronomie der Pythago-
of flat earth, the traditional one, round like a penny,
andanan oblong rectangular one, such as Herodotus
reer (1951) 28 f. and PW xxiv 290o-4, reconstructs
earlier and a later Pythagorean world-system, but
believed in'. At the dictionary level, perhaps, the
he does not attempt to specify how old the early
words might mean this (just as 'the earth is round' in
system is. If we could trust Aitius' statement
English might mean 'the earth is disk-shaped'), but
(DK 24A4) that Alcmaeon recognised that the in the context of the Phaedo such an interpretation is
movement of the planets was in the reverse directionimplausible, to say the least. The words quoted
to that of the fixed stars, and if we were sure of the
express the first burning question in cosmology which
early date of Alcmaeon, we would have a faint Socrates wished to have Anaxagoras decide on the
glimmer of pre-Parmenidean astronomy in Magnabasis of a rational order for the whole universe; and
Graecia. the immediately following questions are concerned
3 Heath, Aristarchus 45. with the position of the earth and the position and
38 The Exact Sciences in Antiquity I55. movements of the astral bodies. In this connection,
39 Dicks 39 n. 64. Cf. the remarks of Neugebauer
the hypothesis of an oblong earth is of no interest, but
cited over n. 45. But it now seems that van der the question of spherical shape is of very great interest
Waerden would dissent; see his new thesis on the indeed, and is, with the position of the earth, the
geometric elements in Babylonian astronomy (1966),first question to be decided when the subject is taken
I34, and my comment above, n. 17. up again at Phaedo Io8e5.
IIO CHARLES H. KAHN
from Babylonian astronomy were developed before M
Dicks calls the 'pre-scientific stage' of Greek astronomy
Neugebauer has recently contrasted the Greek re
mathematics and in astronomy. In the first case, 'th
period had long since become common mathematical
East'.41 What the Greeks added to the mass of geo
information available was 'a fundamentally new asp
mathematical proof. It is only then that mathemat
existence'.42 In regard to astronomy, however, the
Neugebauer sees 'the really significant contribution
astronomy ... in the establishment of very accurate val
of lunar and planetary theory'.43 Now this is a relative
that did not have any great impact in Greece until Hip
the geometrical theory required to exploit such refi
can speak of Greek astronomy as beginning its own developm
Yet he recognises that the Greek enterprise of 'mathem
celestial bodies' was completed by Ptolemy 'on the ba
trigonometry, both unknown to his Babylonian predec
I submit that, if spherical geometry and trigonometry
period, the later cinematic models are direct descend
Elea and Athens, from Anaximander to Eudoxus
astronomy, the idea of a geometric model for earth and hea
as the idea of proof in mathematics. It is in this sense
as the founder of Greek astronomy, just as the first pr
he was, might be described as the founder of Greek m
the first models were relatively crude, just as the early
satisfied the canons of Euclidian rigour. What matte
a beginning without which there could have bee
Copernicus.
In insisting here upon the continuity in the development of Greek astronomy from the
sixth century on, I do not mean to deny the importance of the differences that emerge in the
course of time and to assimilate the Presocratics to Hellenistic mathematicians. Just as the
cosmic scheme of Anaximander was not geometric in the same sense as that of Eudoxus or
Hipparchus, so the observational techniques of Miletus must have seemed quite unsystematic
by the time of Meton. It would surely be a mistake to suggest that an attempt at very
accurate observations played a great role in early Greek astronomy, since the notion of
accuracy is itself one which evolves with the general development of science. Nevertheless,
it is essential to see that, from the beginning, some work in empirical observation went hand
in hand with the predominant Presocratic interest in a theoretical model for the heavens
(and in the cosmogony which 'explains' this model), and that early improvements in the
model were accompanied by important scientific discoveries, such as the illumination of the
moon by the sun and the explanation of eclipse. Thus Oenopides is credited not only with
the discovery or study of the obliquity and with a reasonably precise solar-lunar cycle of
59 years, but also with a highly speculative account of the origin of the Milky Way as the
41 Neugebauer, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. cvii (1963)
of proof in mathematics must have been a slow
530. development, perhaps not completed before Euclid.
42 ibid. Neugebauer dates this discovery in the But the origins can be traced back to the early fifth
time of Theaetetus and Eudoxus. But the most century, in fact, to nearly the same time (c. 500 B.c.)
powerful form of geometric proof, by reductio, is the celestial sphere is first attested.
when
brilliantly exemplified in Zeno's paradoxes and
43 ibid. 534-
clearly embedded in the argument of Parmenides'44 ibid. 530.
poem. The systematic generalisation of the notion
45 ibid. 535-
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY III
former path of the sun (DK 41.7-10). And Dem

bold as any, wrote a book on the planets and a
recording astral and meteorological observation
III4, BI Ir-I4. The suggestion that this is not Dem
ible). We find Democritus standing here next to M
astronomers for whom systematic observations ar
It is hard to say how far Greek astronomy in thi
its progress depends upon new data from the Ea
should be regarded as profoundly original from it
periodically fructified by successive waves of in
these waves make possible a decisive advance in
acquaintance with the zodiac, with at least one of t
and probably also with the technique of gnom
(2) more precise knowledge of the five planets (an
the Metonic cycle, about 450-430 B.C., and (3) th
and to precise data concerning lunar and planeta
quotation from Neugebauer.46
The more developed and complex a science bec
contribute to its progress. Plato and Aristotle mad
they kept abreast of the latest developments. But
century, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, and Democritus
of astronomy may well complain that this earl
exclusively studied as a subordinate part of the his
astronomers like Cleostratus, Oenopides, and Meton
in ancient and in modern writing on the subje
invention of the celestial sphere, the doctrine o
lunar eclipse have no place in the history of ast
their earliest known Greek advocates happened t
Dicks dates the rise of mathematical astronomy
part because of their precise measurements of the
for the mean lunar month 'accurate to within two
over the next two centuries, as Dicks points ou
accuracy attained in 432 B.C. was itself the result
ment in the course of the preceding century?
measurements, but one passage of Theophrastus do
together with Cleostratus of Tenedos and Matr
46 See n. 43. For some suggestions on fifth- was essentially different from the knowledge of astral
century contacts, see W. Burkert, Weisheit u. Wissen- cycles that had reached Meton and others in the fifth
schaft 295. My metaphor of the three waves is ofcentury. In any case, the really important astro-
course a simplification, and is not intended to excludenomical innovation of Plato's old age, the theory of
more or less continuous contacts with Eastern science
uniform circular paths for the 'planets' (mentioned at
on the part of individual Greeks. Thus I leave openLaws 822a), is surely a Greek and not a Babylonian
the question whether a distinct 'wave' should be achievement. What is suggested by the tradition
recognised in Plato's old age and associated with the
concerning Eudoxus' travels is that the specifically
alleged voyage of Eudoxus to Egypt. (See, e.g. GreekF. interest in a simple cosmic model led him to
Solmsen, Plato's Theology 96, n. 23; van der Waerden
seek more detailed information on the relative lengths
[1966] 129-31.) The Epinomis (986e-988a) recog- of the cycles. But that these planetary phenomena
nises that the names and knowledge of the planets were characterised by cyclical recurrence had been
originated in Eastern lands, and Aristotle in de Caelo
known-in the case of Venus--since early Babylonian
292a6-9 speaks of the elaborate observational datatimes, and in Greece since Parmenides. Some of the
accumulated in Egypt and Babylon. What is not details were presumably recorded in Democritus'
clear, however, is how much information was made book on the planets.
available to Eudoxus and his contemporaries that 41 Dicks 33 f., following Heath, Aristarchus 294.
II2 CHARLES H. KAHN
from a mountain or dominant peak, and at least
solstice observations (A Ep7rEptL S po'~S 7TUVVEiSE

the calendar begin in Greece? The doxographica
solstices and equinoxes were observed in Miletus
the seasons and hours (and thus to establish a reli
for this purpose.49 The evidence is late and m
Anaximander and his associates as practical astr
Euctemon. Dicks would have us reject this ev
doubt, because he does not see that the alliance
speculation is not only natural but essential in early
the creation of science and philosophy in the Greek
that the tradition in this case must be worthless be
and equinoxes together, whereas the two phenomen
level. While the early knowledge of solstices is p
that the attribution of such knowledge to Anaxim
equinoxes was non-existent, so that its attribution t
of Dicks' article is 'to show that, whereas knowle
anything other than (relatively) simple observati
more sophisticated one, involving necessarily the
and the celestial sphere with equator and tropics and
by the sun' (p. 30).
I submit that Dicks has not shown this, and canno
Or rather, part of it is true just in case one unde
precise, theoretical sense as the concept of the poin
the celestial equator-and in that case, one must u
an equally theoretical way, as knowledge of the poin
Dicks' thesis about equinoxes is defensible only in so
if he means by 'equinox' the concept defined in the
sphere. But then he should mean the same kind o
it is incorrect to say that the concept of equinoxes
a spherical earth. The fact that the Babylonians o
never discovered the sphericity of the earth, should
an extravagant assertion.
Dicks begins with a true premiss, namely that sol
which equinoxes are not. If we carefully note where
may spot, in the course of a year, the northernm
48 DK 6AI.
dote about the sundial at Sparta), and (2) that
49 DK 12AI, A2, A4 (Diogenes Laertius, Suda, in turn appealed to the four authors cited
Eudemus
Eusebius, all referring to Anaximander). Exactly
as his own source of information.
the same list of achievements is assigned by Pliny
Dicks'toattempt (33, n. 35) to discredit this doxo-
Anaximenes, apparently as a result of agraphicalcopying tradition by deriving it all from Diogenes'
error (DK I3AI4a). A systematic interest text, asin
if Eusebius had Diogenes in front of him as
solstices (together with eclipses) is ascribed he
to copied
Thalesout the entry on Anaximander, will not
by Diogenes Laertius, on the authority of recommend
Eudemus itself to anyone familiar with the usual
(Eudemusfr. 145 Wehrli = DK IIAI = D.L. standards
i 23).of doxographical scrutiny. In fact Dio-
In this context, Diogenes mentions as witnesses to
genes, although the earliest, is the least restrained of
Thales' competence in astronomy not only Herodotus
our three Greek sources here: he alone cites the
but also Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Democritus.
improbable anecdote from Favorinus. All we can
This suggests (I) that Eudemus is the sourceinfer is that Diogenes, Suda and Eusebius have a
for the
consistent core of the late doxography concerning
common source, who is earlier than Favorinus and
practical astronomy in Miletus (whereas Favorinus
Pliny (DK 13AI4a).
is quoted only for an implausible variant, the anec-
points, and call these four points the -rporal, the 'turnings'.50 We
way, note the points on the horizon where the sun rises and sets w
equal length (unless we have a good clock, of course; and the ea
These points must be located indirectly, by more subtle observ
calculation. But it does not follow that the only calculations w
Meton or Hipparchus. In claiming that 'without the fundamen
tropics, and ecliptic on the celestial sphere, the equinoxes are m
is involved in a strange anachronism, a violation of the very rules
proclaims. For his conclusion, which draws upon the procedure
period of ancient astronomy, depends for its cogency upon the fan
simpler method existed in the earlier period for forming the concep
out to determine their dates.
It is easy to see that this assumption is false. In the first place, -pocral means not only
the points on the horizon where the sun turns but also the two seasons of the year when this
occurs. This is the sense of -rpocral in Hesiod (Op. 479, 564, 663). Similarly, the term
for equinoxes, l1upEpla, refers primarily to the season at which day and night are of equal
length; and it is in just this seasonal sense that the word is first attested, in the fifth-century
Hippocratic treatise On Airs, Waters, Places.51 The concept is certainly earlier than the
word, for anyone who reflects on the fact that days get longer after the winter solstice and
shorter after the summer solstice will realise that there is in each case a moment when day
and night are about equal in length. There is probably a reference to this fact in a Hesiodic
phrase laovlaOa vKT'as 7'E Kal 7'j~'tcra, in verses which are generally bracketed by the editors.52
Whatever the date of these verses, they illustrate the concept of equality of day and night in
a thoroughly untechnical context.
Suppose now that the Milesians wanted to specify the date of the equinoctial season more
closely. The simplest method would be to count the number of days from solstice to
solstice and divide by two. This involves, I trust, no theory which Dicks is unwilling to
grant to our primitive astronomers. Furthermore, the assumption that the four solar
seasons are equal, although false, is a natural one which seems to have been used by the
Babylonians at one time and still accepted by Eudoxus, despite the more precise (but only
partially correct) estimates of Meton and Euctemon.53 Thus in order to fix the date of the
equinoxes no theory is required except for the assumption that the sun's annual motion-
understood simply as the variation in time of sunrise and sunset-is uniform from season to
season.
If the Milesians were carrying out rudimentary observa

they would naturally have attempted to check this dating of
50 This seems to be the sense of Tponai teAioto

vott`piJEtvat shows, in the author can ass
Homer, Od. xv 404, though we people, are notor told
mostwhich doctors, are perfectly
solstitial rising (or setting) pointthe isconcept
intended. Com-
of equinoxes.
pare dvTroai 'HEW0oto in Od. xii52 4 Op.
('mean562.rising
Wilamowitz comments (H
point' = due east); in both cases io6):
a place 'Dasorvollendete
direction Jahr wird durch
is named for the phenomena which occur
Nachtgleiche there.
bezeichnet. ... Der Verfasser hat an
einI Jahr
51 Hept dipwov v66dTcov rTdn)v ch. gedacht,
I (the most dasdanger-
mit Friuhling anfing, wie z.B.
in Keos...
ous changes of the seasons are): ?Alov Tpo0nalund an djcLpdTepat
die Isemerie'. Friedrich Solmsen
Kat /~Ialov at OeptvaL Kat ai iarjlepial
suggests to volu
me (in td?,evL
a letter) that the 'interpolation' is
elvat dcaiqdTzpat, itdAAov 68 aat not likely to be later
'ETronwptvac , than
'boththe sixth century; and he
solstices, and especially the summer one,
agrees that and the
the reference must be to the equinoxes.
equinoxes, both of which are generally believed
53 Cf. Dicks to the
34 f. For be Babylonian practice in
dangerous (volttdutsvat Edvat sc.the pre-Hellenistic period, see Neugebauer, The
ECtKLtV6vvdTaTat)
but the fall equinox is especially
Exactso'. Dicks'
Sciences com-
in Antiquity 102: 'it is the summer
ment on these words, 'the equinoxes, which
solstices which are as a less
systematically computed, whereas
familiar concept require an explanatory
the equinoxes description'
and the winter solstices are simply
(33, n. 38), is unintelligible to me.
placed As the
at equal term
intervals'.
114 CHARLES H. KAHN
For example, they might have plotted the poi
settings) by bisecting the angle, and then simp
(or set) at that point on the day expected. On the
shadow, more precise measurements could easil
up a vertical gnomon at a place with a clear v
noted the line of the gnomon's shadow each d
could be used for solstitial observations, of course
southern excursion of the shadow. But to use it
even have to compare the line of the shadow f
phenomenon can be recognised on the day when it
the morning shadow and the evening shadow form a s
This is indeed a method for determining equino
theory and no computation. A theory is requir
night are equal when the sun rises exactly in the
is of course that of the celestial sphere.
It would be idle to speculate further as to just w
carried out and what theories they used to exp
that no theory is required for observations which
accuracy as naked-eye observations of solstices.
doubt the tradition that some attempts to fix
century. Furthermore, the great precision of the
in 432 B.C. suggest that they are not likely to refl
astronomical year, and may rest on earlier Gree
Meton's equipment was known as a rd)rAos; the
several quotations from Aristophanes.56 Now the
report
54 This procedure with the of the Babylonian
gnomon was origin of the gnomon.
suggested
to me by Howard Stein. Note that
See van der by
Waerden either
(1966) 63, 8o. pro-
cedure one has an astronomical determination of due In his I966 book, p. 134, van der Waerden suggests
east and due west. It is worth recalling that a variant of the straight line test which does not
Anaximander was a cartographer, and that Greekdepend upon sunrise and sunset observations but
maps were normally oriented by reference to sixmakes use of the fact that only at the equinox does
cardinal points: 'equinoctial sunrise' (=east), 'equi-the tip of the gnomon shadow describe a straight line
noctial sunset' (=west), plus summer and winter on a flat sundial, as the shadow moves throughout
sunset and sunrise at the four solstitial points. Seethe day.
Aristotle, Meteorology ii 6, and W. A. Heidel, The 56 Professor Stein and Dr Heintz, working on
Frame of the Ancient Greek Maps. different assumptions as to the procedure used, agree
Dr W. D. Heintz points out that the gnomon pro-that the accuracy of measurement reflected in the
cedure described in the text is exposed to systematicMetonic cycle requires a comparison of observations
error if the horizon is not perfectly level in east and recorded over at least a century. If Meton and
west, and that more precise measurement is possible Euctemon discovered the cycle themselves, they must
on the basis of the sun's altitude at noon (as computed have had access to solstice and/or equinox records
from the shadow length): one dates the equinox by going back to the time of Anaximenes, if not earlier.
the noon altitude half-way between two solstitialOf course these records, or more likely the cycle
measurements. Here again, no spherical model is itself, may have been introduced directly from
required for the measurements, but only for their Babylon in the fifth century. Hence Meton's
theoretical justification. achievement- cannot guarantee the antiquity of
After writing this, I notice that essentially the samesystematic observations in Greek astronomy.
two procedures are conjecturally assigned to the
66 'AptroQpdvr]g v TOg Aatrateiotv (cited by
Babylonians by Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Achilles, Isagoge xxviii, ed. Maass p. 62; not included
Babel i 175 f. Tables correlating the length of in the numbered fragments):
shadow with the hour of the day at different dates in
axd6oS roi"r' iW, i "'v KoAjwovC
the year are partially preserved in the second 'Mul aKORTOvOt Ti 1STEzopa zavzt Kat ri nAdytLa zavtt.
apin' tablet; see Weidner, Am. Journal Sem. Lang. fr. xl I63 (Gerytades):
(1924) 198-201. Both Weidner and van der nd2og rz6'"~ariv; elsa 0do~rtv ~i~tog rrpanrTat;
Waerden regard these tables as confirming Herodotus'
ON EARLY GREEK ASTRONOMY I I5
the Greek borrowings from Babylon, together with the gnomon and the divisio
into twelve parts. The duodecimal scheme is authentically Mesopotamian, a
a gnomon is indirectly attested by the Babylonian tables for shadow-lengt
about the rdAo" ? If this means, as Rehm argues and as the name suggests,
or hemisphere on which the sun's shadow was traced (with reference to circles
lines of equinox and solstice), i.e. the instrument later called the UK 7 1,57 then
more likely to be a Greek improvement on an earlier flat sundial than a slavish
Babylonian prototype. (A continued use of the gnomon with a flat base wou
be required for shadow measurements.) The name iAdhos seems to refer to the
of heaven turning round the pole, and the shape of the instrument itself is diff
except on the basis of a spherical model for celestial motion. In fact the geome
of the idAos, with its system of concentric circles, is strikingly reminiscent of the w
of Anaximander and Parmenides. Perhaps the true antecedent of Meton's
racapa which Anaximander is said to have constructed. At all events the i
cannot have been a new invention in 432 B.C., since Herodotus ascribes it t
the hemispherical plan was already traditional by that time, this would pro
piece of indirect evidence for the relatively early date proposed here for the sp
in Greek astronomy.
One final point about historical method. Neugebauer has shown that n
techniques existed in Babylon which would have permitted Thales to pred
eclipse of 586 B.c. Does it follow that Herodotus and the later tradition are
that no such prediction was made ? Dicks describes Herodotus' story as a 'hoary
implies that it is sufficient proof of a lack of historical sense for anyone to refer
prediction in any less derogatory terms.58 But what follows from Neugebauer's
only that, if Thales predicted the eclipse, he did not do so on a scientific
predicted a solar eclipse, he made an extremely lucky guess, perhaps on the bas
information. It would be absurd to assert the occurrence of Thales' predi
historical fact. But I do not see that it is the least bit more historical to d
Herodotus is the closest thing we have to a contemporary testimony; hence it is
task to report Herodotus' story with the appropriate qualifications. Where
evidence in favour of an unlikely (but not impossible) event, and no direct evid
it, the reasonable man will suspend judgment. It is not sound method but s
to suppose that the cause of historical truth is served by a dogmatic rejection o
tradition as we find it preserved in Herodotus, Eudemus, and the later doxogra
tradition is not always reliable, and can never be accepted without critical s
except for an occasional fragment from a Presocratic poem or treatise, this tra
only source for the development of Greek science from 600 to 432 B.C. T
tradition as unreliable in principle is to close the door to any understandin
history of Greek astronomy.
The story of Thales' eclipse deserves to keep its place in the traditional narra
a well-established report of an historical event, but as part of the popular mem
true pre-history of Greek astronomy, the first period of Milesian ta-ropl-0 whe
were stirring of which we perceive only a distorted echo. Whatever the facts a
may have been, we can see that by the end of the Milesian period the character
form of astronomy, operating with kinematic models and (initially crude) geome
had come into existence. There is every reason to suppose that the tradition
correct, and that these first Greek cosmologists were also engaged in crude
57 See A. Rehm, s.v. 'Horologium', PW viii 2417:

58 Dicks 37.
'eine hohle Halbkugel, das Gegenbild des Himmels-
gew6lbes'.
II6 CHARLES H. KAHN
astronomy where practical and theoretical interest
Milesian enterprise of cartography.
To isolate the history of science in Greece from the
have us do, is not simply an act of historical injustice
false to the very nature of Greek science and philo
contrast with, for example, the science that develop
that developed in India. What distinguishes Greek g
dents is the notion of mathematical proof. Similarly,
is the systematic use of a geometric model to represen
because Greek science was initially developed by men o
turn of mind that such a momentous innovation w
terises Greek philosophy in its classical development, f
close connection with actual scientific research in
There appears to be nothing comparable in the majo
where linguistics seems to play the role which mathem
Greeks.59 But this conjunction of philosophic and sc
Western tradition, for example in medieval Islam
doctors and authors of works on medicine) and, m
revolutionary interaction of natural science and philos
What is at issue here in the discussion of early Greek
the doxography for two or three Presocratic thinkers
mental character of the relationship between science a
we have inherited from the Greeks, a tradition which
Descartes, and which happens to have begun in Mile
CHARLES H. KAHN.
University of Pennsylvania.
59 It may be argued that in India Pdnini's gram-

Staal, 'Euclid and Pdnini', Philosophy East and West
mar occupies the position of geometry in Greece,xv
as (1965) 99-116.
the paradigm of scientific knowledge. See I. F.

Kahn - On Early Greek Astronomy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kahn - On Early Greek Astronomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Early Greek Astronomy

Author(s): Charles H. Kahn

IN a somewhat polemical article on 'Solstices, Equinoxes, and the Pres

or Oenopides). Our sources are unani

15 See Arist. Met. Io73b2o, Euclid, same Phaenomena

E&ELS K3 Lovpavov oLtS ovTa

7rtpa" EXELW acr'Tpov.

The goddess will explain how 'outmost Olympus' ('Avtr

conception of the stars being fixed on a

former path of the sun (DK 41.7-10). And Dem

solstice observations (A Ep7rEptL S po'~S 7TUVVEiSE

If the Milesians were carrying out rudimentary observa

50 This seems to be the sense of Tponai teAioto

57 See A. Rehm, s.v. 'Horologium', PW viii 2417:

59 It may be argued that in India Pdnini's gram-

You might also like