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

De anima (I, 2), he pointed out that for the
study of the soul “it is necessary to consult the views of those of our prede-
cessors who have declared any opinion on this subject” (403b 20f.).
147
In this
context, many more names and opinions naturally appear,
148
whose individual
features make the consistent application of the diaeretical scheme practically
impossible.
149
Although Aristotle uses different systematic methods at once
(or, rather, owing to this), the results of his systematization do not look very
convincing here, while there is no chronology or indications of the historical
links between separate theories.
The doxographical survey in
Metaphysics A 3–7, which, along with the
treatise
On the Nile’s Floods, can be regarded as one of the most important
models for the
Opinions of the Physicists,
150
appears completely different. In
(1907) 1507–1511; Gigon, O.
Der Ursprung der griechischen Philosophie, Basel
1945, 48ff.; Lloyd, A. B.
Herodotus Book II. Commentary 1-98, Leiden 1976, 91ff.,
98ff.; Bollack,
op. cit., 539f.; Brodersen, K. Euthymenes aus Massalia, DNP 4
(1998) 318–319.
146
Mansfeld. Aristotle, 55ff.; Zhmud. Doxographie.
147
Cf.
Met. 983b 1f. and the characteristic note made in another doxographical pas-
sage: “It is what we are all inclined to do, to direct our inquiry not by the matter itself,
but by the views of our opponents.” (
Cael. 294b 7–9).
148
Democritus, Leucippus, the Pythagoreans, Anaxagoras, Homer, Empedocles, Plato,
Thales, Diogenes, Heraclitus, Alcmaeon, Hippon, Critias.
149
Aristotle starts from two main principles: the soul is a source of motion and mind
(403b 24f.), which can be combined (Diogenes, e.g., admitted both, 405b 21f.);
then he adds to them the third, binary principle, that of corporeality/uncorporeality
(404b 30f.), so that at the end of his overview he mentions three of them (405b 11f.).
These principles can be reduced, in turn, to the @rcaí of every thinker (water, air,
fire, etc.), but there are a few exceptions. One is admitted by Aristotle himself:
Critias derived soul from blood (405b 5f., 13), the others ignored (Thales did not
consider water to be the source of a soul; nothing is said at all on Alcmaeon’s @rcaí,
405a 19f., 29f.). The difference between the monists and pluralists is noticed (404b
9f., 405b 17), but does not play any particular role in the account. Mansfeld. Aris-
totle, 37ff., believes that Aristotle combined two principles here: 1) by related ideas,
which goes back to Hippias; 2) by the number and nature of the @rcaí.
150
See already Zeller, E. Über die Benützung der aristotelischen Metaphysik in den

---

6. Doxography: between systematics and history
155
this survey, which traces the development of the notions connected with the
four causes, the main principle for presenting the opinions is by the type of
causes (first comes the material cause, then the efficient, etc.). But from the
very beginning, this principle is combined with the historical one,
151
since all
the early physicists, including Thales, the @rchgó~ of natural philosophy
(983b 20), and some of the later ones as well, admitted only the material cause.
In the section on material causes, the monists’ opinions are grouped according
to the similarity of their elements: Thales and Hippon suggested water; Ana-
ximenes and Diogenes, air; Hippasus and Heraclitus, fire.
152
The monists were
followed by Empedocles, who added the fourth element, earth, to the three al-
ready known ones, and, later, Anaxagoras, who considered the number of el-
ements to be infinite. Here Aristotle adds an important chronological reason:
though Anaxagoras was older than Empedocles, his philosophy was later;
153
as
a result the succession ‘one element – many elements – an infinite number of el-
ements” acquires a historical meaning.
Under the pressure of facts and the truth itself, Aristotle continues, philos-
ophers, namely Anaxagoras (984b 18) and Empedocles (985a 5),
154
turned
from material causes to causes of motion.
155
Immediately after these, however,
he names Leucippus and Democritus,
156
who admitted material causes only.
This lack of consistency is explained, first of all, by the fact that the Atomists
lived later than the majority of the philosophers mentioned previously.
157
An-
other chronological remark connects Leucippus and Democritus with the Py-
Schriften der älteren Peripatetiker (1877),
Kleine Schriften, Vol. 1, Berlin 1910,
197ff. See also McDiarmid,
op. cit., 91ff. Cf. above, 143 f.
151
Kienle, W. von.
 Die Berichte über die Sukzessionen der Philosophen in der helle-
nistischen und spätantiken Literatur (Diss.), Berlin 1961, 51f.; Gigon. Die @rcaí
der Vorsokratiker, 121f.
152
The presence in this section of material from Hippias’ work, on Thales and Homer in