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

On Philosophy (fr. 6
Rose = fr. 23 Gigon). The same principles are to be found in Eudemus.
54
These two groups are always set apart (
Met. 1071b 27, 1075b 26, 1091a 34).
55
oî pampálaioi kaì prõtoi qeolog2sante~ (Met. 983b 29), oî nñn – oî próte-
ron (1000a 5). To be sure, this should not be taken too literally: Pherecydes was
younger than Thales and Anaximander.
56
muqikõ~ sofizómenoi (Met. 1000a 18). Mansfeld (Aristotle, 41f.) considers the
clarity of statements to have been an important criterion for Aristotle in drawing the
line between the two groups. Aristotle, however, accused many of the physicists of
vagueness, as well. See Palmer,
op. cit., 182ff.
57
Mansfeld, J. Aristotle and the others on Thales, or the beginning of natural philos-
ophy,
Studies, 126–146.
58
It is noteworthy that Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, and Pherecydes found their places in
the later versions of doxography (see index in Diels’
 Doxographi Graeci and below,
295f.). On the penetration of the Homeric material into doxography, see Diels.
Dox.,
88f.; Mansfeld. Aristotle on Thales, 122f. On the Oriental origins of philosophy, see
the prologue in Diogenes Laertius.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
132
Theophrastus’ compendium. While explaining differences between (math-
ematical) astronomy and physics, Aristotle notes: it seems absurd that a physi-
cist should be supposed to know the nature of celestial bodies, but not to know
any of their essential attributes, e.g. that they are spherical, particularly since
these problems are indeed discussed in the works of natural philosophers. But
an astronomer (maqhmatikó~) abstracts from the physical nature of the
heavenly bodies and aims to explain their visible motion in the heavens by ap-
plying mathematical methods.
59
As a result of this asymmetry in the relation-
ship between physics and mathematical astronomy, the physicists had more
freedom than the astronomers to discuss things that were within the compet-
ence of other sciences,
60
whereas physical problems (the eternity of the cos-
mos, the nature of celestial bodies, etc.) were outside the competence of the as-
tronomers.
61
Relying on these criteria, Eudemus limited his
History of Astron-
omy to the purely mathematical aspects of this science, while Theophrastus
treated opinions belonging both to physical and mathematical astronomy,
62
but
only those that come from the physicists. Such typical mathe¯matikoi as Hippo-
crates of Chios, Archytas, and Eudoxus also expressed their views on problems
of physics and physical astronomy,
63
but they are not included in Theophrastus’
work.
64
Unlike Eudemus (fr. 149), Theophrastus does not mention such profes-
sionals in astronomy as Meton and Euctemon.
Along with the distinctions to be made among the various sciences, we
should also take into account the particular aims of each treatise. Theophrastus’
59
Phys. 193b 22–194a 11. On the difference between physics and mathematical as-
tronomy, see also
APo 78b 36f.; PA 639b 7; Met. 1073b 3f. The Stoics held similar
views (D. L. VII, 132–133). Posidonius modifies Aristotle’s theory (fr. 18 E.-K.; see
below, 289 f.). See also Philop.
 In Phys., 218–222.
60
Of course, with due reference to
mathe¯matikoi, as does Aristotle himself (Cael. 291a
29–b 9, 297a 3, 298a 15;
PA 639b 7; Met. 1073b 3). On the same asymmetry in ref-
erence to physics and medicine, see above, 128.
61
According to Theophrastus (
Met. 9b 25f.), astronomy deals with the motion of ce-
lestial bodies, their size and form, and the distance between them.
62
In the first one we can include, e.g., the sections on whether the cosmos is animated
and eternal; what parts it consists of, whether there is a void outside the cosmos,
what the nature of the moon is, of the sun, etc.; in the second, the questions concern-
ing the form of celestial bodies, their order, size, etc. See the corresponding sections
in Aëtius’ book II (