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

Part of the evidence on Thales as
pro¯tos heurete¯s (D. L. I, 23–27) goes back to the
oral tradition of the sixth century.
43
Prõto~ eûret2~ was always móno~, the possibility of the existence of deútero~
seems never to have been seriously considered (Kleingünther,
op. cit., 57f.). Emerg-
ing later, however, was the motif of bringing the first discoveries to perfection (see
below, 2.5).

---

Introduction: Greek science and its historiography
14
well aware of the youth of their culture in comparison with the Egyptian or
Babylonian. Strengthened by Jewish and early Christian authors, who derived
Greek philosophy and science from the Pentateuch, this tendency not only pre-
vailed in early modern historiography, but repeatedly came into the foreground
even in the 19
th
–20
th
centuries.
44
Taking this tendency into account will make
the analysis of the ancient evidence on the Oriental origins of sciences the more
instructive.
In the second half of the fifth century, interest shifts gradually from individ-
ual discoveries to the emergence of whole branches of knowledge and skills
(técnai) and, later, to the origin and development of culture as a whole. The
history of individual técnai (for example, music and poetry) and philosophical
doctrines on the origin of culture as the sum total of técnai were directly in-
fluenced by heurematography. Still more important was the Sophistic theory of
técnh: undertaken within its framework were the first attempts at analyzing
scientific knowledge, such as the Hippocratic treatise
On Ancient Medicine and
Archytas’ work
On Mathematical Sciences, which considered scientific knowl-
edge from both methodological and historical points of view.
In this period, the exact sciences (geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and har-
monics), though comprising a separate group among other técnai, had not yet
become a model of science conceived of as ëpist2mh. The transition from
science-técnh to science-ëpist2mh is largely associated with Plato, who cre-
ated a theory of knowledge modeled on mathematics. According to Plato, the
chief aim of ëpist2mh consists, not in serving society’s practical needs, but
rather in knowledge as such, which is the worthiest occupation of a free man.
The paradigmatic character of mathematics in Plato’s teaching left little place
for interest in its history, and most of Plato’s mathematical passages important
for the history of science do not yield to simple interpretation. The numerous
works on exact sciences written by the Academics Speusippus, Xenocrates,
Philip of Opus, etc., were also oriented toward the systematic account of scien-
tific knowledge, rather than its history. At the same time, the Platonists showed
an interest in tracing the effect of their teacher on the development of science:
an Academic legend assigned to Plato the role of an ‘architect of science’ who
posed the main problems for mathematicians and defined the methods they
should use.
The central part of this book is concerned with the first generation of Aris-
totle’s pupils – Eudemus, Theophrastus, Aristoxenus, and Meno. Particularly
interesting is the Peripatetic historiographical project, which aimed at the col-
lection, systematization, and preliminary analysis of material related to the
44
Zhmud, L.
Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus, Ber-
lin 1997, 141ff., 202ff. This tendency is also visible in the recent discussions of the
origins of Greek culture: Bernal, M.
Black Athena. The Afroasiatic roots of classical
civilization, Vol. 1–2, New Brunswick 1987–1991. Cf. Palter, R. Black Athena, Afro-
Centrism, and the history of science,
HS 31 (1993) 227–267.

---

2. The historiography of science in Antiquity
15
knowledge accumulated by the Greeks. The exploration of different kinds of
knowledge was distributed among the Peripatetics in accordance with Aris-
totle’s division of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology.
The methods of organizing, describing, and analyzing the material used within
the framework of the project were different for each particular science. Particu-
larly important for us are geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy, whose histories
Eudemus considered in three special treatises. He placed the discoveries of
Greek mathematicians in chronological sequence, starting with Thales and
ending with Eudoxus’ pupils, who were his own contemporaries. In many of its
aspects, the plan of Eudemus’ histories closely followed Aristotle’s favorite
idea of all arts and sciences as gradually approximating to perfection. His de-
scription of scientific discoveries and methods was, however, based on the in-
trinsic criteria of exact sciences rather than on philosophical premises.
Whereas Eudemus wrote of mathematicians and their discoveries, the doc-
trines of physicists were treated in Theophrastus’ fundamental work