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

History of Medicine, the first to go
beyond the biographies of famous doctors and annotated lists of their works,
finishes at Galen, so that it can rightfully be considered a history of ancient
medicine.
25
In the historiography of medicine, this kind of proportion in the se-
20
Duval, R.
De veritate et antiquitate artis chemicae, Paris 1561. On the continuation
of this discussion in the 17
th
–18
th
centuries, see Weyer, J.
Chemiegeschichtsschrei-
bung von Wiegleb (1790) bis Partington (1970), Hildesheim 1974, 17f.
21
Rose,
op. cit., 258.
22
See e.g. Moderus, S. J.
Disputatio de mathematicarum disciplinarum origine, Seu
primis inventoribus etc., Helmstedt 1605; Biancani, G. De natura mathematicarum
scientiarum tractatio, atque clarorum mathematicorum chronologia, Bologna 1615;
Deusing, A.
De astronomiae origine, ejusdemque ad nostram usque aetatem pro-
gressu, Hardwijk 1640; Voss, G. J. De universae mathesios natura et constitutione
liber, cui subjungitur chronologia mathematicorum, Amsterdam 1650; Glanvill, J.
Plus ultra: or the progress of knowledge since the days of Aristotle, London 1668;
Borrichius, O.
De ortu et progressu chemiae dissertatio, Copenhagen 1668; De-
chales, C. F. M.
Cursus seu mundus mathematicus. Pars I. Tractatus prooemialis, de
progressu matheseos et illustribus mathematicis, T. 1, Leiden 1690, 1–108; Cassini,
D. De l’origine et du progrès de l’astronomie (1693),
Mémoires de l’Académie
Royale des Sciences 8 (1730) 1–52.
23
Biancani, G. Aristotelis loca mathematica …
atque Clarorum mathematicorum
chronologia, Bologna 1615; Molther, J. Problema Deliacum, de cubi duplicatione,
Frankfurt 1619; Beverwyick, J. van.
Idea medicinae veterum, Leiden 1637; Nottna-
gel, C.
De originibus astronomiae, Wittenberg 1650; Schmidt, J. A. Archytam Ta-
rentinum dissertatione historica-mathematica, Jena 1683; idem. Archimedem ma-
thematicorum principem dissertatione historico-mathematica, Jena 1683; Valentini,
M. B.
Medicina nov-antiqua, h.e. cursus artis medicae e fontibus Hippocratis,
Frankfurt 1698.
24
Riccioli, G. B. Chronicon duplex astronomorum, astrologorum, cosmographorum et
polyhistorum,
Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens,
Bologna 1651; Boulliau, I.
Astronomia Philolaica … Historia, ortus et progressus
astronomiae in prolegomenis describitur, Paris 1645.
25
Le Clerc, D.
Histoire de la médicine, Geneva 1696. In the subsequent editions, Le

---

Introduction: Greek science and its historiography
8
lection of material shows up quite frequently until the end of the 18
th
century.
Thus, of the 33 chapters of Ackermann’s history of medicine, 26 deal with An-
tiquity, 3 with the Arabs, 3 with the school of Salerno, and only one considers
“the revival of Galen’s and Hippocrates’ medicine in Europe”.
26
The general history of a science, mathematics for example, was normally di-
vided into the following periods: the mathematics of the Jews, starting with
antediluvian times; the mathematics of the Egyptians and Babylonians, who re-
ceived it from the Jews (an account of this was already based on Greek
sources); the mathematics of the Greeks, who borrowed it from the Egyptians
and Babylonians; the mathematics of the Arabs, who inherited it from the
Greeks; etc.
27
As we have already noted, this perspective derives from early
Christian writers and, in particular, from Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius,
who tried, in the wake of such Jewish authors as Aristobulus, Philo, and es-
pecially Josephus Flavius, to combine the Bible with the doctrines of ancient
philosophy.
28
After an account of fabulous discoveries made by Seth, Abraham,
or Moses, the historians finally passed on to Thales and the Greek tradition,
where they could rely on more dependable sources and demonstrate not only
their learning, but their critical sense as well. With time, this perspective shifts
progressively to the pagans, so that the biblical theme slowly but irrevocably
disappears from works on the history of science.
29
Yet within the limits of ancient Greek tradition, too, a clear boundary be-
tween mythologized and real history was lacking until the late 18
th
century. Le
Clerc, following the authority of Celsus and Galen, started his history with As-
clepius, not with Hippocrates. The solid