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

APo 89b 29, 93a 16f.; PA 639b 7f., 640a 14f. and esp. HA 491a 7–14. In as-
tronomy, @strologik3 ëmpeiría provides the researcher with the evidence and
principles, while @strologik3 ëpist2mh bases its proofs on these grounds (APr
45a 17f.). See Kullmann, W.
Wissenschaft und Methode, Berlin 1974, 204ff.
80
See above, n. 78.
81
Arist.
HA 650a 32, De inc. an. 704b 10; Aristotle often called his empirical studies
of animals îstoríai perì zŒwn, e.g. GA 716b 31, 717a 33, 728b 14, 740a 23; cf.
Theophr.
CP I,1,1–2, I,5,3, I,9,1. As an empirical type of research, fusik3 îstoría
has to be distinguished from perì fúsew~ îstoría that traditionally referred to
natural philosophy (fusik3 ëpist2mh in the Aristotelian terms) and included the
study of general regularities. Perì fúsew~ îstoría (Cael. 268a 1) means the same
as perì fúsew~ ëpist2mh (298b 2), and 1 t4~ yuc4~ îstoría (De an. 402a 4) is
characterized as purely theoretical research; see also
PA 639a 12, 641a 29 and
Theoph. fr. 224–225, 230 FHSG.
82
Arist.
Rhet. 1360a 36. Louis, P. Le mot îstoría chez Aristote, RPh 29 (1955)
39–44; Weil.
Aristote, 90f.

---

3. History in the Lyceum
137
titled ˆIstorikà ûpomn2mata, we can easily see that Theophrastus deals with
natural history, whereas his colleagues in the Lyceum study historico-bio-
graphical material. Like natural history, political history describes particular
things, tà kaq^ Êkaston, such as what Alcibiades did or suffered.
83
But in
contrast to natural history, political history does not possess its own theoretical
counterpart, though the facts and evidence collected by history appear useful
for practical sciences, such as politics.
84
Being restricted
mostly to the particu-
lar, history does not explore general causes and, therefore, from the viewpoint
of philosophy, is not a true science. This is the sense in which the well-known
words that poetry is more ‘philosophical’ and ‘serious’ than history (
Poet.
1451b 2f.) are often interpreted.
85
Whatever Aristotle meant by this remark, it
is true that none of the passages in which he discusses sciences includes history,
in contrast to grammar, the science that studies all (articulated) sounds (
Met.
1003b 19f.). One of the reasons for this marginal position of history is that a
few Aristotle’s remarks on this subject refer to the traditional type of political
history
86
rather than to history as it was practiced in the Lyceum. Otherwise, it
remains incomprehensible why Aristotle and his students paid so much atten-
tion to studies that qualify as historical both from the ancient and from the mod-
ern point of view.
Thus, when trying to understand why and how Aristotle and his students
studied the history of knowledge, we should rely not only on their theoretical
views on îstoría, but on their actual practice as well. Let me start with some
parallels. Along with theoretical sciences, the other two types of sciences, prac-
tical and productive – rhetoric, poetics, and music – also became subjects of
historical and antiquarian studies. In his Tecnõn sunagwg2, Aristotle con-
sidered the history of rhetoric with special attention to the
pro¯toi heuretai and
their discoveries. He started with the founders of rhetoric, Corax and Tisias,
and ended, as it seems, with Isocrates.
87
Such an approach, which we know
from Glaucus’ book
On the Ancient Poets and Musicians, was also character-
istic of Heraclides Ponticus’ Sunagwg3 tõn ën mousikÆ (fr. 157–163) and the
first book of Aristoxenus’