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

Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, if “the modern notions of an objective
historical research” are applied? From the viewpoint of the present-day criteria,
Eudemus’ works belong to the history of science only with some reservation.
Even more reservations can be held concerning Theophrastus’ doxography, es-
pecially concerning Meno’s doxography. In applying rigid criteria to the first
specimen of newly-born genres, however, we should be aware of the limitation
of this procedure, which, though quite legitimate, is hardly the only correct one.
On the contrary, the historical approach to the project of the Lyceum shows
that, in spite of all the differences between the Peripatetic historiography of
science and philosophy and its contemporary counterpart, the latter is deeply
rooted in the ancient tradition, which in turn begins with Aristotle and his
all these other fields of civilization.” (Jaeger, W. Rec.: Cherniss, H.
Aristotle’s Criti-
cism of Presocratic Philosophy, AJP 58 [1937] 354).
75
See above, 111 f. Hussey, E. Aristotle and mathematics,
Science and mathematics in
ancient Greek culture, ed. by C. J. Tuplin, T. E. Rihll, Oxford 2002, 217–229.
76
On Aristotle’s contribution to the development of historical research, see von Fritz.
Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles für die Geschichtsschreibung, 91ff.; Weil, R.
Aristote
et l’histoire, Paris 1960; idem. Aristotle’s view of history, Articles on Aristotle 2.
Ethics and politics, ed. by J. Barnes et al., London 1977, 202–217; Huxley, G. On
Aristotle’s historical methods,
GRBS 13 (1972) 157–169; De Ste. Croix, op. cit.;
Blum,
op. cit., 20ff.
77
Baltussen, H. A ‘dialectical’ argument in
De anima A 2–4, Polyhistor. Studies in the
history and historiography of ancient philosophy presented to J. Mansfeld, ed. by
K. Algra et al., Leiden 1996, 335f.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
136
school. Thus, without identifying Peripatetic historiography with modern his-
toriography, we have every reason to compare them, particularly since we are
dealing with the development of one and the same phenomenon.
To realize better the importance that the Peripatetics attached to îstoría, we
should bear in mind the following. First, the Aristotelian theory of science
stresses the empirical origin of any knowledge. The question Ôti, ‘that (some-
thing is the case)’, i.e., the collection and description of facts, not only precedes
the question dióti, ‘why (something is the case)’, i.e., the explanation of gen-
eral or particular causes, but actually makes it possible in the first place.
78
Thus,
any scientific explanation is based on the facts established by observation (fai-
nómena) and correspondingly arranged beforehand.
79
In this sense, even a
purely descriptive work is a necessary part of scientific procedure inasmuch as
it is the prerequisite for subsequent theoretical analysis; and the Peripatetics, as
we know, wrote hundreds of such works. In natural sciences, the questions
about facts and about their causes can be asked within the framework of two
different types of research, empirical and theoretical, which nevertheless be-
long to the same science, e.g. zoology (physics).
80
What the Peripatetics related
to the field of natural history (fusik3 îstoría),
81
however, was not just a
loosely arranged collection of facts lacking any analysis. For example, two of
Theophrastus’ works,
Historia plantarum and De causis plantarum, are de-
voted to research on Ôti and on dióti respectively. In Historia plantarum, how-
ever, we find not merely assembled data but botanical classification, morphol-
ogy, and taxonomy.
Second, for Aristotle and the Lyceum as a whole, natural history was not yet
rigidly separated from the history of human deeds and events, îstoríai perì
tõn práxewn.
82
Comparing the contents of Theophrastus’ (fr. 196a FHSG),
Aristoxenus’ (fr. 131), and Hieronymus of Rhodes’ (fr. 35–36) identically en-
78
Ôti mèn gàr oÛtw tañta sumbaínei, d4lon ëk t4~ îstoría~ t4~ fusik4~, dióti
dé, nñn skeptéon (De inc. an. 704b 9). See also HA 491a 7–14, PA 646a 8–12.
79
E.g.