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

particular events and individuals, with the general stages of the development of
civilization. Dicaearchus for the first time introduces and causally explains the
transition from gathering to cattle breeding and further to agriculture
(fr. 47–51).
99
His view on the moral decline as inseparable from the economical
progress can be traced to Plato.
100
Dicaearchus’ other work,
On the Destruction
of the People (fr. 24), seems to be related to Aristotle’s general conception of
93
See e.g. fr. 504, 512, 532, 549, 558, 583 Rose. Dovatour,
op. cit., 149.
94
“Constitutions of 158 cities arranged by the type (kat’ eÍdh), democratic, oligar-
chic, aristocratic, tyrannical” (D. L. V, 26). kat’ eÍdh was suggested by P. Moraux,
kat’ ıdían by I. Düring.
95
See
Die Philosophie der Antike, Vol. 3, 566.
96
His praise of Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ style (fr. 697 FHSG) may come from this
work (Regenbogen, O. Theophrastos,
RE Suppl. 7 [1940] 1526). See also Wehrli, F.
Praxiphanes,
Die Philosophie der Antike, Vol. 3, 603.
97
Leo,
op. cit., 99f., 102f.; Dihle, A. Die Entstehung der historischen Biographie, Hei-
delberg 1987.
98
Zhmud, L. Dikaiarchos aus Messene,
Die Philosophie der Antike, Vol. 3, 568ff. On
Dicaearchus’ historical approach to philosophy, see White, S. A.
Principes sapien-
tiae: Dicaearchus’ biography of philosophy, Dicaearchus of Messana, 195–236.
99
Cf.
VM 3; Thuc. I, 2ff.
100
Schütrumpf, E. Dikaiarchs Bío~ ˆElládo~ und die Philosophie des vierten Jahrhun-
derts,
Dicaearchus of Messana, 269ff.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
140
history, according to which humanity is eternal, while different natural dis-
asters separate one civilization from another.
101
Having discussed various natu-
ral catastrophes, Dicaearchus claims that more people have been destroyed by
the “attack of people” (wars, revolts, etc.) than by any other evil. His conclu-
sion that the people mostly help as well as damage the other people is close to
the view, expressed in Aristotle’s
Politics (1253a 31ff.).
Thus, relationship between history and theory cannot be conceived as
strictly unilateral, insofar as many historical works of the Peripatetics were not
simply chronologically arranged collections of facts intended for further theor-
etical analysis, but proceeded from certain philosophical premises and relied on
Aristotle’s conception of the progress of civilization and its separate branches
(técnai, philosophy, sciences, etc.).
4. The aims of the historiographical project
The immediate tasks of the historiographical project were collection, system-
atization, and preliminary analysis of the evidence, related to the historical de-
velopment of the theoretical sciences. But whereas these immediate tasks are
quite securely reconstructed on the basis of sources available to us, the further
use of the collected and systematized material remains a matter of speculation.
The problem is that this project falls in the last decade of Aristotle’s life, and
what was to follow afterward remained apparently unrealized owing to his es-
cape from Athens and sudden death. Neither his preserved works, nor frag-
ments and titles of the perished writings indicate that he used the evidence col-
lected and arranged by his students.
102
Hence, we can only guess what kind of
new knowledge did he expect to discover by directing his students to the history
of philosophy and science. Did Aristotle, relying on this material, intend to re-
vise some particular theories in physics or theology? Did he regard the project
as relevant to his theory of science? Or did the establishment and systematiz-
ation of the facts related to the history of knowledge possess in his eyes a value
of their own, irrespective of any further use?
The problem does not get any easier if we abandon the idea of the common
project initiated by Aristotle and treat the respective works of the Peripatetics
separately. What were then Theophrastus’ and Eudemus’ objectives in collect-
ing and systematizing the opinions of the physicists and theologians and the
discoveries of the mathematicians? Did they intend to build some further the-
ories on this material or to use it in their systematical works, in the way Aris-
totle’s