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

after gaining access to the new empirical evidence that
finally settled it. The
Physiko¯n doxai does not contain ‘correct answers’, i.e.,
the solutions to the problems posed by the Presocratics, because these answers
belong to fusik3 ëpist2mh and are given in the respective theoretical works
of Aristotle and Theophrastus; moreover, including them would have made the
already voluminous compendium still larger. But the principal approach to the
doxai remains the same as in De inundatione Nili: their collection does not
open a discussion on the specific physical problem, but gives
a historical retro-
spective of this discussion after the problem itself appears to have been
solved.
115
Unlike the case with physics, in mathematics and mathematical astronomy
Aristotle and his disciples could not claim the independent solution of prob-
lems; at best, they could register those that contemporary specialists considered
to have already been solved. Nor did the principles of the theologians hold any
but purely historical interest for them. As for the causes of diseases, the many
remarks on this subject scattered in Aristotle’s works seem to suggest that he
thought the main cause was the imbalance between the natural qualities (warm,
cold, wet, and dry) as a result of bad nutrition, overstraining, or some external
factors.
116
In its general form, this doctrine had been proposed by Alcmaeon
(24 B 4) and was later developed in the works of the Hippocratics and the phys-
icians of other schools, such as Philistion of Locri (An. Lond. XX, 25–40). In
Meno’s medical doxography, a similar point of view was represented by a
group of physicians who explained the diseases proceeding from the four el-
ements (ibid. XIV, 9), connected, in turn, with the four qualities. Another
group, twice as large as the first, saw the cause of the diseases in the so-called
residues, perittømata (ibid. XIV, 7). It is quite probable that Aristotle, who
did not consider himself a specialist in medicine, tended in this case to rely on
114
The Greek quotation from Aristotle, oÿkéti próblhmá ëstin, preserved in an
anonymous biography of Pythagoras cited by Photius (
Bibl. 242, 441a 34 = FGrHist
646 T 2a), agrees with the Latin translation: jam non problema videtur esse (Partsch,
op. cit., 574). Aristotle apparently relied on the results of the expedition organized by
Alexander to solve the problem of the causes of the Nile’s floods. This allows us to
date the treatise to 330–327 BC (Bonneau,
op. cit
., 21f.).
115
The order of the subjects in the chapter on meteorological
doxai (Aët. III, 3–7)
agrees with the sequence known from Theophrastus’
Meteorology (Daiber, H. The
Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic translation, Theophrastus of Ere-
sus, 166–293). Typically, no names of the Presocratics appear in the Meteorology
itself; their theories are integrated in Theophrastus’ own doctrine. Cf. above, 142
n. 109.
116
Tracy, T.
Physiological theory and the doctrine of the mean in Plato and Aristotle,
The Hague 1969. On excess and defect as causes of diseases, see also Manetti,
op.
cit., 126f.

---

4. The aims of the historiographical project
145
the opinions of the professionals more than he normally did in other fields. Still,
the collection of their opinions here, as everywhere, answered the same pur-
pose as Theophrastus’ doxography, showing the difficult way to the ‘truth’ that
was already at Aristotle’s disposal.
117
Much of the data collected by Theophrastus and Eudemus must have been
known to Aristotle long before. The very fact that these data were mentioned
and analyzed by the head of the Lyceum was for the Peripatetics one of the rea-
sons to pay attention to them.
118
Theophrastus, for his part, proceeded from his
own numerous works dealing with individual Presocratics.
119
Important, there-
fore, was not only the collection of separate facts from which to draw con-
clusions, but the totality of them organized to reveal the intrinsic logic of scien-
tific and philosophical development. The historiographical project presupposed
a certain completeness of evidence, which indeed was achieved in most cases.
Apart from the physicists mentioned in Theophrastus, we know almost no one
else from the relevant period.
120
The same is true for the mathematicians: Eude-
mus gives the names of practically all the geometers up to his own time. His list
of Greek ‘theologians’ is indeed complete, and his account of the Oriental theo-
gonies is highly valuable.
121
Almost half of the names given by Meno are not
found in other sources. Theophrastus and Meno missed neither those whom Ar-
istotle obviously held in low regard (like Hippon), nor those whose names he
preferred not to mention at all (like Philolaus).
122
As a result, here, as in the cor-
pus of the constitutions, many more data were collected than the most detailed
analysis of every particular problem actually needed, which testifies to the sig-
nificance of the facts themselves. In Aëtius we find, e.g., 15 different answers to
117
See the similar conclusion in Manetti,