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

op. cit., 129.
118
For parallels between Aristotle’s mathematical passages and Eudemus’
History of
Geometry, see below, 197 f., 202f. The material of the History of Theology overlaps
that of the
Metaphysics and On Philosophy (see above, 131 n. 53). On Theophrastus’
dependence on Aristotle, see McDiarmid, J. B. Theophrastus on Presocratic causes,
HSCPh 61 (1953) 85–156; Mansfeld. Aristotle.
119
He wrote about Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Archelaus,
Democritus, Diogenes, and Metrodorus (D.L. V, 42–44, 49). Besides, he could have
used the material of Aristotle’s monographs on Xenophanes, Alcmaeon, and Melis-
sus (D. L. V, 25).
120
Interestingly, Theophrastus wrote a special work on Hippocrates of Chios’ student
Aeschylus (D. L. V, 50 = 137 No. 42 FHSG) but seemed not to mention him in the
Physiko¯n doxai (cf. above, 132 n. 63); on Menestor, see below, 158 n. 166.
121
Casadio, G. Eudemo di Rodi: Un pioniere della storia delle religioni tra Oriente e
Occidente,
WS 112 (1999) 39–54.
122
On Hippon, cf. 38 A 6 (= Arist.
Met. 984a 3) and A 3–4, 10, 13–14, etc. (from
Theophrastus), A 11 (from Meno). Aristotle only once refers to Philolaus’ oral dic-
tum (
EE 1225a 30) and ascribes his astronomical system to anonymous ‘Pythago-
reans’. Theophrastus and Meno attribute specific theories to Philolaus (44 A 16–23,
27).

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
146
the question of the nature of the sun (II, 20);
123
none of them concurs with the
solution offered by Aristotle and Theophrastus (the sun consists, like the other
celestial bodies, of the fifth element, ether).
124
What was the purpose of collect-
ing them? It is very unlikely that they intended to turn to this problem again
after enriching themselves with new – or rather with old – knowledge. This col-
lection was mainly of historical interest, showing the difficult path to the truth
that was finally revealed in Aristotle’s and Theophrastus’ physical teaching,
i.e., outside of the
Physiko¯n doxai.
125
Aristotle attributed to facts an independent value. These acquire even great-
er significance when, properly selected and arranged, they help in the search for
the ‘causes’ (dióti). Although explaining the ‘causes’ was not among the im-
mediate tasks of the historiographical project, this does not mean that the Peri-
patetics limited their studies to particular facts. The discoveries of the scientists
and the opinions of the philosophers, doctors, and theologians not only paved
the way for conclusions of a general character, they themselves had already
been selected and arranged in accordance with Aristotle’s theoretical views on
science and its development. This means that the conclusions, as so often, were
known in advance. Thus, e.g., at the beginning of his
History of Geometry,
Eudemus states a general rule of cognitive evolution from aÍsqhsi~ to logis-
mó~ and further to noñ~ (fr. 133), and this is not the only case in which philo-
sophical ideas were applied to historical material (5.4).
Speaking of the original objectives of the Peripatetic project, one has to bear
in mind one important circumstance. In terms of their literary form, neither
Eudemus’ histories, nor Theophrastus’ doxography can be regarded as ‘eso-
teric’ writings,
pragmateiai, intended only for use in the Lyceum. In spite of the
certainly not easily digestible subject matter of these works, both their form and
their subsequent fate strongly imply that, just like the