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

forthcoming).
104
Cf. Runia. What is doxography?, 51.
105
Hdt. II, 20–23 presents one of the earliest doxographical overviews on the Nile’s
floods.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
142
ing to this procedure any independent value that might be described in terms of
historical interest. The doxographical overview at the beginning of the
Meta-
physics undoubtedly reveals such an interest.
106
Certainly, the material of Aris-
totle’s doxographical overviews, the opinions of physicists, was directly related
to his scientific and philosophical views, so that it is quite natural to expect here
much aberration and subjectivism. But even these features reflect, to a large ex-
tent, his
historical views, rather than prove that ideas of his precursors were im-
portant to him
only insofar as they could provide material for the construction
of his theories.
107
As W. Jaeger acutely observed, Aristotle “was the first thinker
to set up … a conception of his own position in history”; he invented “the notion
of intellectual development in time and regards even his own achievements as
the result of an evolution dependent solely on its own laws.”
108
From this per-
spective, the opinions of the Presocratics were, naturally, regarded as a prelimi-
nary stage for Aristotle’s own theories. No wonder Theophrastus interpreted
them in Peripatetic terms, quite often making the earlier thinkers answer ques-
tions that they had never formulated themselves. This prompts us to treat
Theophrastus’ interpretations with much caution, but hardly casts doubt on the
historical orientation of his
Physiko¯n doxai.
Theophrastus’
Physiko¯n doxai and especially Eudemus’ history of the the-
oretical sciences were much less related to the problems of their own theoreti-
cal works than Aristotle’s doxographical overviews. Eudemus was neither a
mathematician, nor an astronomer, nor a theologian, and could not regard the
heroes of his histories as his predecessors. Theophrastus was a fusikó~, but
his own
Physics, if we judge from the preserved fragments, followed Aris-
totle’s
Physics, i.e., developed contemporary fusik3 ëpist2mh, leaving aside
the fusikõn dóxai that he had collected.
109
It is revealing that Democritus is
nearly the only Presocratic mentioned in the fragments of Theophrastus’
Physics (fr. 238 FHSG), except for the controversial reference to Xeno-
phanes.
110
Therefore, the thesis that Theophrastus systematized the opinions of
106
See below, 154f.
107
As H. Cherniss thought (
Aristotle’s criticism of Presocratic philosophy, Baltimore
1935, 347ff.).
108
Jaeger.
Aristotle, 3.
109
Though it is possible that Theophrastus’
Physics was written before Physiko¯n doxai,
doxographical passages in his systematic works are generally very rare: Gottschalk,
H. Rec.,
Gnomon 39 (1967) 20. Cf. below, 144 n. 115, 158 n. 166. Eudemus’
Physics, although it contains many such passages (see below, 152 n. 141), followed
Aristotle’s
Physics even more closely than Theophrastus’, sometimes nearly para-
phrasing it. It is unlikely that Eudemus’ used Theophrastus’ doxography.
110
Qeófrasto~ ën to$~ Fusiko$~ gégrafen (fr. 232 FHSG). This reference can be
either from Theophrastus’
Physics or from his Physiko¯n doxai. See Steinmetz, P. Die
Physik des Theophrastos von Eresos, Bad Homburg 1964, 334ff.; Sharples, R.W.
Theophrastus on the heavens,