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

Magna Moralia und aristotelische Ethik, Ber-
lin 1929, 37ff.; Vogel, C. de. Quelques remarques à propos du Premier chapitre de
l’Ethique de Nicomaque,
Autour d’Aristote, ed. by A. Mansion, Louvain 1955,
315f.; Fiedler,
op. cit., 169ff.

---

2. Aristotelian theory of science and the Peripatetic historiographical project
125
this aim.
24
As we have already noted, the principal difference between the new
and the old model is that while técnh was aimed ultimately at the practical ap-
plication of knowledge, (qewrhtik3) ëpist2mh aspired to pure knowledge.
This opposition goes back to Plato, yet he was far from keeping to it systemati-
cally on the terminological level. In his dialogues, técnh and ëpist2mh quite
often appear interchangeable,
25
and even the notion of
mathe¯mata is not orig-
inally, or exclusively, limited to the sphere of mathematics.
26
In Aristotle, the
distinction between técnh and ëpist2mh, found occasionally in his early treat-
ises (
APo 89b 7f., 100a 8), was theoretically grounded only in the Nicoma-
chean Ethics (1139b 14ff.; cf. Met. 981b 26f.), which is one of his latest works.
Like Plato, he could write of maqhmatikaì técnai,
27
the more so because in
certain contexts his theory allowed not only opposing técnh and ëpist2mh, but
also bringing them together. Técnh, e.g., is similar to ëpist2mh in being the
knowledge of the general (tà kaqólou), not the particular, as in the case of ëm-
peiría.
28
The point, therefore, is not only that Aristotle proved unable to draw a
clear terminological distinction between the notions of técnh and ëpist2mh,
but also that his theory substantiated their kinship in a new way. One has to note
that in Antiquity the consistent distinction between técnai and ëpist4mai was
never made, to say nothing of their differentiation into sciences, arts, and
crafts.
29
After the fourth century BC, exact sciences could again be called téc-
nai (sometimes semnaí, ëgkúklioi or logikaì técnai), while grammar and
rhetoric were identified as maq2mata.
30
How did the division of cognitive space suggested by Aristotle affect the Ly-
ceum’s historiographical project? Students of Aristotle’s thought have long
noted that he distributed the historiography of different branches of knowledge
among his disciples,
31
presumably taking their professional interests into ac-
count. So far, however, many important aspects of this project have not been
24
See above, 46 ff.
25
Schaerer,
op. cit.; Cambiano G. I rapporti tra episteme e techne nel pensiero pla-
tonico,
Scienza e technica nelle letterature classiche, Genoa 1980, 43–61. Similar
terminological uncertainty is characteristic of the
Epinomis as well. Xenocrates de-
voted special works to técnh and ëpist2mh (D. L. IV, 13).
26
In the
Laws, maq2mata, as a rule, are included in mathematics (817e, 822d, 846d,
967e, 968e), but still there are exceptions (810b). In the earlier dialogues, máqhma
could mean the study of toñ kaloñ (Symp. 211c), one of the técnai (Men. 90e), a
doctrine (
Prot. 313c), a field of knowledge (Tht. 206b, Tim. 87b), a tactic (Lach.
182b), etc.
27
Met. 981b 23. In APr 46a 19–22 @strologik3 técnh is synonymous to @strolo-
gik3 ëpist2mh.
28
APo 100a 6–9; Met. 981a 16; Rhet. 1356b 29; EN 1138b 2.
29
In the modern period, this also happened rather late; see above, 21f.
30
For examples, see Fuchs,