| Title | On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1998 |
| Journal | Archive for History of Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 221-278 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Yavetz, Ido |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In 1877, Schiaparelli published a classic essay on the homocentric spheres of Eu- doxus. In the years that followed, it became the standard, definitive historical reconstruc- tion of Eudoxian planetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to show that the two texts on which Schiaparelli based his reconstruction do not lead in an unequivocal way to this interpretation, and that they actually accommodate alternative and equally plausible interpretations that possess a clear astronomical superiority compared to Schiaparelli's. One should not mistake all of this for a call to reject Schiaparelli's interpretation in favor of the new one. In particular, the alternative interpretation does not recommend itself as a historically more plausible basis for reconstructing Eudoxus's and Callippus's planetary theories merely because of its astronomical advantages. It does, however, suggest that the exclusivity traditionally awarded to Schiaparelli's reconstruction can no longer be maintained, and that the little historical evidence we do possess does not enable us to make a justifiable choice between the available alternatives. [Introduction, p. 221] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gcPN7eWrurXkTM9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"838","_score":null,"_source":{"id":838,"authors_free":[{"id":1242,"entry_id":838,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":366,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yavetz, Ido","free_first_name":"Ido","free_last_name":"Yavetz","norm_person":{"id":366,"first_name":" Ido","last_name":"Yavetz","full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156978416","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"In 1877, Schiaparelli published a classic essay on the homocentric spheres of Eu- \r\ndoxus. In the years that followed, it became the standard, definitive historical reconstruc- \r\ntion of Eudoxian planetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to show that the two texts \r\non which Schiaparelli based his reconstruction do not lead in an unequivocal way to \r\nthis interpretation, and that they actually accommodate alternative and equally plausible \r\ninterpretations that possess a clear astronomical superiority compared to Schiaparelli's. One should not mistake all of this for a call to reject Schiaparelli's interpretation in favor \r\nof the new one. In particular, the alternative interpretation does not recommend itself as a \r\nhistorically more plausible basis for reconstructing Eudoxus's and Callippus's planetary theories merely because of its astronomical advantages. It does, however, suggest that \r\nthe exclusivity traditionally awarded to Schiaparelli's reconstruction can no longer be \r\nmaintained, and that the little historical evidence we do possess does not enable us to \r\nmake a justifiable choice between the available alternatives. [Introduction, p. 221]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gcPN7eWrurXkTM9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":838,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"52","issue":"3","pages":"221-278"}},"sort":[1998]}
| Title | On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1998 |
| Journal | Archive for History of Exact Sciences |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 221-278 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Yavetz, Ido |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In 1877, Schiaparelli published a classic essay on the homocentric spheres of Eu- doxus. In the years that followed, it became the standard, definitive historical reconstruc- tion of Eudoxian planetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to show that the two texts on which Schiaparelli based his reconstruction do not lead in an unequivocal way to this interpretation, and that they actually accommodate alternative and equally plausible interpretations that possess a clear astronomical superiority compared to Schiaparelli's. One should not mistake all of this for a call to reject Schiaparelli's interpretation in favor of the new one. In particular, the alternative interpretation does not recommend itself as a historically more plausible basis for reconstructing Eudoxus's and Callippus's planetary theories merely because of its astronomical advantages. It does, however, suggest that the exclusivity traditionally awarded to Schiaparelli's reconstruction can no longer be maintained, and that the little historical evidence we do possess does not enable us to make a justifiable choice between the available alternatives. [Introduction, p. 221] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gcPN7eWrurXkTM9 |
{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"838","_score":null,"_source":{"id":838,"authors_free":[{"id":1242,"entry_id":838,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":366,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Yavetz, Ido","free_first_name":"Ido","free_last_name":"Yavetz","norm_person":{"id":366,"first_name":" Ido","last_name":"Yavetz","full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1156978416","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus","main_title":{"title":"On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus"},"abstract":"In 1877, Schiaparelli published a classic essay on the homocentric spheres of Eu- \r\ndoxus. In the years that followed, it became the standard, definitive historical reconstruc- \r\ntion of Eudoxian planetary theory. The purpose of this paper is to show that the two texts \r\non which Schiaparelli based his reconstruction do not lead in an unequivocal way to \r\nthis interpretation, and that they actually accommodate alternative and equally plausible \r\ninterpretations that possess a clear astronomical superiority compared to Schiaparelli's. One should not mistake all of this for a call to reject Schiaparelli's interpretation in favor \r\nof the new one. In particular, the alternative interpretation does not recommend itself as a \r\nhistorically more plausible basis for reconstructing Eudoxus's and Callippus's planetary theories merely because of its astronomical advantages. It does, however, suggest that \r\nthe exclusivity traditionally awarded to Schiaparelli's reconstruction can no longer be \r\nmaintained, and that the little historical evidence we do possess does not enable us to \r\nmake a justifiable choice between the available alternatives. [Introduction, p. 221]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gcPN7eWrurXkTM9","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":366,"full_name":"Yavetz, Ido","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":838,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archive for History of Exact Sciences","volume":"52","issue":"3","pages":"221-278"}},"sort":["On the Homocentric Spheres of Eudoxus"]}