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

pro¯toi heuretai.
In the
History of Astronomy, Eudemus, judging from the preserved frag-
ments, also focused on the most important discoveries, starting from Thales’
prediction of the solar eclipse (fr. 143–144) and ending with Callippus’ modifi-
cation of Eudoxus’ system (fr. 149). Unlike the astronomical division of Theo-
139
Leo,
op. cit., 47f., 49, even believed that the principle of pro¯tos heurete¯s, developed
by Aristotle in Tecnõn sunagwg2, came to be accepted as a method of research and
presentation of material by all of his students, including Theophrastus.
140
In Theophrastus (fr. 728–732, 735 FHSG) we find Prometheus, Demeter, Cadmus,
Palamedes, the Oriental primogenitors of crafts, and Delas, one of the Phrygian Dac-
tyls, with whom heurematography actually starts (see above, 24f.). But even in cases
where historical figures are mentioned, the context remains traditional (fr. 733–736).
Heraclides’ only fragment ascribes the invention of coins to Pheidon of Argos
(fr. 152). Strato argues against Ephorus, who was too enthusiastic about Scythian
inventors, and discusses the authorship of the saying ‘nothing beyond measure’
(fr. 144–147).

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
152
phrastus’ doxography, the
History of Astronomy was selective and did not pre-
tend to completeness; this allowed Eudemus to present the development of as-
tronomy by charting the figures of the first discoverers in succession. Accord-
ingly, he was not concerned with opinions, but with discoveries, whose import-
ance was evaluated by the criteria of contemporary astronomy. From the earlier
periods of astronomy, he selected those ideas that his own time considered to be
true, or at least those that appeared significant in the progressive development
of this science. It is revealing that the histories of geometry and astronomy trace
the development of these sciences up to Eudoxus’ students, i.e., two gener-
ations further than the
 Physiko¯n doxai, which concludes with Plato. This means
that Theophrastus’ point of departure was Aristotle’s physical teaching. It is
from this position that he treated and criticized all the previous opinions,
whereas Eudemus relied on the criteria shared by the community of contem-
porary mathematicians and astronomers. Although both considered natural
philosophy (fusik3 ëpist2mh) to be a science in the same way as mathemat-
ics, their historiographical writings reveal fundamental distinctions between
philosophy and science, in spite of their theoretical views.
At the same time, I would not account for Eudemus’ historical approach
solely by recourse to the differences between the exact sciences and physics
and to the peculiarities of their development. Eudemus’ interest in the history
of ideas is manifest outside mathematics as well. The fragments of his
Physics
contain an uncommonly large number of doxographical digressions, where
ideas of Parmenides, Zeno, Melissus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, the Pythago-
reans, Archytas, and Plato are considered and/or criticized.
141
All these names
(except for Archytas) can be found in Aristotle’s
Physics as well, but Eudemus,
it seems, paid much more attention to historical details. Thus, he says at the be-
ginning of his
Physics (fr. 31) that Plato was the first to call the principles
(@rcaí) stoice$a and (if the rest of the fragment comes from Eudemus) that it
was Aristotle who further found the concept of Ûlh.
142
Eudemus’
History of
Theology is obviously indebted to Aristotle’s dialogue On Philosophy, whose
first book shows the development of philosophy from the Persian Magi (whom
Aristotle believed to be more ancient than the Egyptians) to Plato.
143
Although
in discussions on the principles of theologians the topic of discoveries was
rather irrelevant, Eudemus arranged their names in chronological order, which
he might have considered most natural.
141
Fr. 31, 35–47, 53–54, 60, 65, 67, 75, 78, 82, 89, 110–111, 118. Gottschalk, H. Eude-
mus and the Peripatos,