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

Dox., 268).
63
See 1) Hippocrates and his student Aeschylus (Arist.
Mete. 342b 29f. = 42 A 5); this
opinion about the comets (though without Hippocrates’ name) entered Aëtius’ do-
xography (III,2.1) through Posidonius (
Dox., 230f.); 2) Archytas (Arist. Met. 1043a
19 = 47 A 22; Eud.
Phys. fr. 60, 65 = 47 A 23–24; 47 A 25); 3) Eudoxus (fr. 287–288
Lasserre).
64
Eudoxus’ opinion on the Nile’s floods with reference to Egyptian priests (
Dox.,
386.1f.) entered the doxography after Theophrastus (
Dox., 228f.; cf. Eudox.
fr. 287–288 Lasserre); the same is true of the reference to Eudoxus and Aratus (
Dox.,
347.21f.). See below, 295f.

---

3. History in the Lyceum
133
compendium was devoted specifically to the
doxai of the physicists as a distinc-
tive group that – in Aristotle’s view and that of his students – differed from the
other groups, such as theologians, mathematicians, and physicians.
65
For this
reason, we do not find theologians even in the section perì qeoñ (Aët. I, 7), nor
mathematicians in the astronomical part, nor doctors in the embryological part.
In contrast, Eudemus’ histories of geometry, astronomy, and arithmetic do not
deal with the opinions of mathematicians as a specific group, but with
math-
ematical discoveries, which could also have been made by those whom the
Peripatetics considered physicists – Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and
others. In the same way, as the title implies, Meno’s
Medical Collection con-
tained not physicians’ opinions, but
medical theories about the origins of dis-
eases. For this reason, Meno could legitimately include in his work ideas on
this subject coming from Hippon, Philolaus, and Plato. Finally, Eudemus’
His-
tory of Theology, though similar in title and in the chronological arrangement of
material to his histories of sciences, was in its criteria for the selection of ma-
terial closer to the
Physiko¯n doxai, because it dealt with the specific group that
Aristotle called the theologians.
3. History in the Lyceum
Close interconnection between Aristotle’s views on specific sciences and Peri-
patetic writings on the history of these sciences; clear evidence of cooperation
between Eudemus, Theophrastus, and Meno; the absence of apparent signs of
duplication – all this supports my hypothesis that here we are dealing with a
project that was rationally planned and implemented. Meanwhile, in recent
decades the historical and even the historiographical
66
character of these writ-
65
The traditional understanding of the title of Theophrastus’ work as Fusikõn dóxai
(
Opinions of the Physicists), rather than Fusikaì dóxai (Physical Opinions), as
Mansfeld proposes (Doxography and dialectic, 3057 n. 1; idem.
Physikai doxai and
Proble¯mata physica from Aristotle to Aëtius (and beyond), Theophrastus: His psy-
chological, doxographical, and scientific writings, ed. by W. Fortenbaugh, D. Gutas,
New Brunswick 1992, 63–111) is supported by the fact that the expression dóxa(i)
tõn fusikõn (tõn fusiológwn, tõn perì fúsew~) is found both in Aristotle
(
Phys. 187a 27; Met. 1062b 21, 25; cf. dóxai tõn ârmonikõn, Aristox. Elem.
harm., 7.3) and in his commentators (e.g. Alex. In Met., 72.2, 652.30, 719.8; Them-
ist.
In Phys., 211.29; Simpl. In Phys., 148.28, 355.20, 358.12; In Cael., 561.1;
Philop.
In Phys., 26.23, 89.7, 108.15; Olymp. In Mete., 150.28; see also Strab. II,
5.2.22–24 = Posid. fr. 3c Theiler; Euseb.