![]() Either we must assume that Timocharis and Aristyllus knew and used the circle graduated into 360° but that this was not taken up by scientists again until 100 years later-which in view of the obvious convenience of the usage seems incredible or (and this is the most likely explanation) it was Ptolemy who tacitly converted the observations of Timocharis and Aristyllus (originally given in the customary fractions of a segment) into degree figures in order to make clearer the comparison with his own and Hipparchus' results. It is hardly conceivable that Aristarchus, for example, would have chosen to say that at quadrature the moon's distance from the sun is ‘less than a quadrant by one-thirtieth of a quadrant’ ( ἔλασσον τεταρτημορίον τῷ τοῦ τεταρτημορίον τριακοστῷ) if he could have expressed exactly the same meaning by ‘87°’ ( μοίρας πζ). Heath,, The Works of Archimedes xvi Google Scholar), who likewise did not use degrees (see below). Yet, if degrees were in use at the time of Timocharis and Aristyllus, why did not Aristarchus and Archimedes use them instead of clumsy circumlocutions involving fractions of a certain segment? The latter at least had close connexions with Alexandrian scientists including Eratosthenes ( cf. ![]() Pannekoek, A., A History of Astronomy, 1961, 124 Google Scholar ad fin.) which all points to the late introduction of the 360° division of the circle, not before the second century B.C. This appears to contradict our other evidence ( cf. vii 3 Ptolemy lists the declinations of a number of stars as observed by himself, by Hipparchus, and by Timocharis and Aristyllus, two Alexandrian astronomers who were active between 295 and 280 B.C., and in each case Ptolemy gives the data in degrees north or south of the celestial equator. There is, however, one piece of evidence which might seem at first sight to suggest that the use of degrees was known in the third century B.C. Autolycus, Euclid, Aristarchus, and Archimedes. 68).ġ5 This holds good for all the extant works of e.g. ![]() ii 15.6 = DK 12A18) which ‘beweist nichts, da Metrodor und Krates von Mallos in das Lemma mit eingeschlossen sind’ (p. For example, he accepts Pliny's evidence without question, despite the mention of Atlas, but rejects (rightly-see below) Aëtius' attribution of knowledge of the planets to Anaximander (Aët. 3), is well illustrated in Burkert's book (which is nonetheless useful for its comprehensive documentation). ![]() The curious ambivalence exhibited by modern scholars in their treatment of the doxographical evidence, to which I have already drawn attention ( CQ (1959) 305 n. ii 31 (DK 12A5), ‘obliquitatem eius intellexisse, hoc est rerum foris aperuisse, Anaximander Milesius traditur primus olympiade quinquagesima octava, signa deinde in eo Cleostratus, et prima arietis ac sagittarii, sphaeram ipsam ante multo Atlas.’ In view of the ready acceptance by most modern scholars of the truth of Pliny's statements here, it seems strange that the last five words of this quotation have been so sadly neg lected … do they not provide ‘incontrovertible evidence’ for the existence of a fully-developed, prehistoric, astronomical system-in Atlantis, of course? For juster estimates of Pliny's competence in scientific matters, see Bunbury,, History of Ancient Geography, ii 373 ff. One must, however, be thankful that the uncritical acceptance of Thales' alleged prediction of a solar eclipse is now discountenanced.Ĩ Nat. 58) ‘…according to an unchallenged tradition, had himself visited Egypt’ (my italics), despite my demonstration that nowhere in the primary group of sources is Thales' name linked with Egypt, and that the whole story of his introducing Egyptian mathematical knowledge to the Greeks is a mere invention (probably by Eudemus) based on separate, unrelated statements by Herodotus. Professor Guthrie, in a work obviously destined to be the standard English textbook on early Greek philosophy for decades to come, can still say (p. The classic example is Thales, whom I have discussed in an earlier article it is chastening (but hardly surprising) to find that the views there expressed have had very little influence on the traditional, vastly exaggerated estimate of Thales as the founder of Greek mathematics and astronomy and the transmitter of ancient Egyptian and Babylonian wisdom. The literature is now full of references to the scientific achievements (so-called) of the Presocratics, and the earlier the figure (and consequently the less information of reliable authenticity we have of him) the more enthusiastically do scholars enlarge his scientific knowledge-a proceeding which, of course, has plenty of precedent among the doxographers and commentators of antiquity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |