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

particular (Patzer,
op. cit., 33ff., 40), might have been an additional reason for put-
ting ‘related’ elements together. It should be noted that the earlier thinker is men-
tioned first in each of the three pairs.
153
984a 12: to$~ d’ Érgoi~ Ûstero~. Alexander understood these words to mean that
Anaxagoras was worse than Empedocles, but they are more likely to have a temporal
sense (Zeller, E.
Die Philosophie der Griechen, 6
th
ed., Leipzig 1919, 1261 n. 2;
Ross,
op. cit., 132; Mansfeld. Studies, 300ff.).
154
The latter is called prõto~ twice (985a 8, 29), in connection with various aspects of
his theory.
155
Among other candidates for introducing this cause, whose authorship Aristotle
doubted, he names Hermotimus of Clazomenae (who lived before Anaxagoras), He-
siod, and Parmenides. Aristotle postpones considering the question tí~ prõto~
(984b 31), never to return to it.
156
Democritus is called the êta$ro~ of Leucippus (985b 4–5), and this is the first in-
dication of the teacher-student relationship, which proved of great importance for
the history of philosophy.
157
Ross,
op. cit., 28; von Kienle, op. cit., 52.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
156
thagoreans, who come next in his account: the latter lived “at the same time and
even earlier” than the former. The principles of these Pythagoreans, who “were
the first to advance mathematics” (985b 23–24), were numbers, while other
(probably, later) Pythagoreans named ten pairs of opposite principles.
158
Aris-
totle concludes that Alcmaeon speculated along the same lines, and that either
he derived this view from them, or they derived it from him (986a 27f.). It is re-
vealing that Aristotle does not limit himself to indicating the similarity between
the doctrines, but tries to establish who influenced whom. The words that come
next (986a 29–30), “for Alcmaeon was contemporary with the old age of Py-
thagoras” (kaì gàr ëgéneto t3n 1likían ^Alkmaíwn ëpì géronti Puqa-
gór+), if they are in fact Aristotle’s own,
159
show that he was inclined, though
not without hesitation, to date Alcmaeon before these (later) Pythagoreans, so
that Alcmaeon is said to influence them, rather than vice versa.
160
Having reached the penultimate stage of his overview in his account of the
pluralists, Aristotle goes back to the ‘metaphysical’ monists, namely, the
Eleatics. In the first place he names Xenophanes (prõto~ toútwn ênísa~,
986b 21), with Parmenides “who is said to have been his student” and Melissus
coming next. Finally, “after these systems came the philosophy of Plato” (987a
30f.), whose similarity to the teaching of the Pythagoreans Aristotle is never
tired of emphasizing, without, however, forgetting to mention Cratylus, Hera-
clitus, and Socrates, who influenced Plato in his youth (cf. 988a 15–17). Plato,
according to Aristotle, added to the two causes the third, formal one, himself
admitting only two. As for the fourth cause, the final one, no one used to speak
of it clearly.
Let us sum up the distinctive historical features of Aristotle’s overview.
1) Chronological sequence. Without being the only or even the main method of
arranging the material, it is, nevertheless, constantly in the foreground of Aris-
158
986b 22f.: limit – unlimited, even – odd, etc. In fact, the table of opposites goes back
to Speusippus (Cherniss.
Aristotle’s criticism, 391; Burkert. L & S, 51f.; Tarán.
Speusippus, 33ff.; Zhmud. Philolaus, 261ff.). Cf. Arist. Met. 1092a 35, 1087b 4, b
25, 1085b 5.
159
These words, absent from one of the manuscript traditions (A
b
) and from Alex-
ander’s commentary, survived in a more reliable tradition (EJ), as well as in the com-
mentary by Asclepius (