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

In Met., 39.21). Ross, who generally preferred EJ (op. cit.,
clxv), nevertheless considered these words to be a later interpolation. Wachtler, J.
De
Alcmaeone Crotoniata (Diss.), Leipzig 1896, 3f. analyzed this passage in detail, ar-
guing very convincingly for its authenticity. See also Guthrie,
op. cit., 342; Zhmud.
Wissenschaft, 75.
160
Irrespective of the authenticity of these words, the conclusion that Alcmaeon lived
earlier follows from the fact that he spoke vaguely (@diorístw~), while the Pytha-
goreans “declared both how many and which their contrarieties are” (986a 34–b 2).
There are two more places where Aristotle clearly indicates that he considers these
Pythagoreans to be a later school of thought: prõtoi and oî ^Italikoí (987a 5, a 10),
oî próteron and oî Álloi (987a 28).

---

6. Doxography: between systematics and history
157
totle’s attention. 2) Frequent references to the
 pro¯tos heurete¯s of various ideas.
3) Direct references to the teacher-student relationship (Xenophanes and Par-
menides, Leucippus and Democritus). 4) Where the principles held by two
philosophers are identical, the earlier is mentioned first (Thales and Hippon,
Anaximenes and Diogenes, Hippasus and Heraclitus); if the principles are
similar, Aristotle solves the problem of priority by resorting to chronological
arguments (Alcmaeon and the Pythagoreans). 5) Attention is paid to the in-
fluence of earlier thinkers on later ones (Pythagoreans and Plato). 6) There are
some references to places of birth.
161
7) Finally, one can recognize in this over-
view the beginnings of the future arrangement in schools (Ionians, Pythago-
reans, Atomists, Eleatics).
Theophrastus developed and more consistently applied all these features,
along with the systematic grouping of the
doxai, especially in the chapter on
the first principles.
162
Let us remind the reader that the
Physiko¯n doxai are
known mainly from the following sources. The first is a work by Aëtius (a re-
vised version of an earlier compendium,
Vetusta placita, which, in turn, is a re-
vised version of Theophrastus), reconstructed by Diels from Ps.-Plutarch, Sto-
baeus, and other later doxographers. The second source is the fragments,
quoted by Simplicius, of the chapter Perì @rcõn (Aët. I, 3), taken most prob-
ably directly from Theophrastus.
163
The third is Theophrastus’
De sensibus, a
long fragment that originally was a division of the
Physiko¯n doxai related to
the doctrines on the five senses. What precisely the general systematic struc-
ture of Theophrastus’ compendium was, remains unknown. We can, however,
get an idea of it from the composition of
Vetusta placita as reconstructed by
Diels. Its first part deals with the fundamental physical principles and cat-
egories, the second with cosmology and astronomy, the third with meteorol-
ogy, the fourth with the earth, the sea, and the Nile’s floods, the fifth with the
soul (psychology and physiology), the sixth with the body (physiology and
embryology).
164
Except for the first part, this structure corresponded on the
whole both thematically and to a certain extent compositionally to many Pre-
socratic writings, starting at least from Alcmaeon. In principle, the subject
matter of the
Physiko¯n doxai covered the whole of what the Peripatetics under-
161
Hippon, Diogenes, Hippasus, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Hermotimus, Alcmaeon.
Mete. 365a 14f. gives the birthplaces of Anaxagoras, Anaximenes, and Democritus,
as well as their relative chronology.
Cael. 294a 22f. mentions Xenophanes of Colo-
phon and Thales of Miletus. Occasional indications of the birthplace of a thinker are
found still more often. Cf. above, 143 n. 113.
162
Diels, H. Leucippos und Diogenes von Apollonia,