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

Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung, ed. by J. Wiesner,
Vol. 1, Berlin 1985, 577–593; Mansfeld.
Studies, 147ff.; Runia, D. Xenophanes or

---

4. The aims of the historiographical project
143
the Presocratics in order to return to them once again in his theoretical dis-
cussion of the respective physical problems finds no corroboration.
The following also testifies against this thesis: from the Peripatetic point of
view, the problems presented in Theophrastus’ doxography are mostly among
those already
solved. It is hard to imagine that Aristotle commissioned his stu-
dent to collect the opinions of Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Anaxago-
ras, and others on the moon’s eclipses in order to rethink this question again.
Most of his physical treatises were written before Theophrastus started to col-
lect material for the
Physiko¯n doxai, and it is unlikely that Aristotle intended to
rewrite them after his student had finished his work.
Another confirmation that Theophrastus’ doxography deals mainly with al-
ready solved physical problems comes from Aristotle’s little-known treatise
De
inundatione Nili, preserved in an abridged Latin translation of the thirteenth
century.
111
The abridged version is mainly doxographical; to what extent this
corresponds to the original version, which included three books, is hard to say.
At the beginning of this work, Aristotle poses the problem: “Why do the Nile’s
floods, unlike those of all other rivers, come in the summer?” Then he cites and
criticizes his predecessors’ opinions: in particular, those of Thales, Diogenes,
Anaxagoras, Nicagoras of Cyprus, and Herodotus.
112
In the doxographical part
of the treatise our attention is especially attracted by one detail, typical of the
first chapter of the
Physiko¯n doxai: Aristotle gives not only the names of the
authors, but also their patronymics and birthplaces.
113
Yet in contrast to do-
xography, the ending of this work contains a solution to the problem: “The
problem does not exist anymore”, notes Aristotle, and, referring to observa-
tions, claims that the Nile’s floods are caused by the Ethiopian seasonal rains
Theophrastus? An Aëtian
doxographicum on the sun, Theophrastus of Eresus,
112–140.
111
On the authorship and history of this treatise, see Diels,
Dox., 226f.; Partsch, J. Des
Aristoteles Buch “Über das Steigen des Nil”,
ASGW 27 (1909) 553–600; Balty-Fon-
taine, J. Pour une édition nouvelle du “Liber Aristotelis de inundatione Nili”,
Chro-
nique d’Égypte 34 (1959) 95–102; Bonneau, D. Liber Aristotelis De inundatione
Nili,
Etudes de Papyrologie 9 (1971) 1–33; Bollack, M. La raison de Lucrèce, Paris
1979, 539f. Bollack counters Steinmetz’s attempt (
op. cit., 278ff.) to ascribe this
treatise to Theophrastus. Editions of the text: Arist. fr. 248 Rose;
FGrHist 646 F 1;
Bonneau,
op. cit., 3–7; Jacoby (FGrHist 646 T 1–2) collects references by ancient
authors to the Greek text of Aristotle.
112
The theories of Euthymenes of Massalia, Oenopides, and possibly Ephorus and
Plato are presented anonymously. In the chapter on Nile’s floods (IV, 1), Aëtius cites
the opinions of Thales, Euthymenes, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Herodotus, Ephorus,
and Eudoxus. Cf. above 141 n. 105.
113
Thales, son of Examyes, from Miletus (3), Diogenes, son of Apollothemis, from
Apollonia (4), Anaxagoras, son of Hegesibulus, from Clazomenae (5). Nicagoras’
patronymic is not mentioned (9), and Herodotus is presented only by name (10). Cf.
below, 161.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
144
that filled the river to overflowing (sec. 12).
114
It is obvious that he did not turn
to the history of this problem in order to solve it on the basis of earlier opinions.
He addressed this issue