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

Physiko¯n doxai was or-
ganized to unfold for the reader a historical picture of the gradual perfection of
philosophy from its first immature ideas to the present state (as Aristotle under-
stands this).
178
Having presented brief biographical data (place of birth, patro-
nymic, name of teacher), Theophrastus focuses his entire attention on the origin
and reception of new ideas, on the particular forms of the development of philo-
sophical doctrines, on their succession in time, and on each thinker’s individual
contribution and his dependence on his predecessors.
179
Theophrastus’ striving
to give the doxography a historical dimension is obvious, even if we fail to re-
construct safely the original sequence of the names in the chapter
On the Prin-
ciples. The relative chronology of the Presocratics was hardly the only method
of arranging the material. It is noteworthy that no contemporary history of
Greek philosophy is based on chronology alone; affiliation to various schools,
such as the Ionians, Pythagoreans, Eleatics, or Atomists, is always taken into
account. Pointing out that such an approach to the philosophical past was al-
ready widespread in Hellenistic historiography, von Kienle assumed that
Theophrastus used an analogous method, arranging the Presocratics in ‘succes-
sions’. Specifically, he considered it very likely that, after the first series:
Thales – Anaximander – Anaximenes – Anaxagoras – Archelaus, Theophras-
tus turned again to Xenophanes, who was followed by Parmenides – Leucippus
– Democritus – Diogenes – Plato.
180
Indeed, the survey begins with Thales and
ends with Plato, preceded by Diogenes (“almost the youngest of all the physi-
cists”). Furthermore, each subsequent philosopher is connected with the pre-
vious one
in his own series.
181
At the same time, Xenophanes turns out to be the
only philosopher – except for the later eclectic Diogenes (fr. 226a FHSG) – to
connect these two series with each other: he is said to have heard Anaximander
(fr. 227d FHSG). This reference seems to indicate, quite pertinently in this con-
text, that soon after Archelaus Theophrastus turns back to the sixth century.
information of this kind does not always come from Theophrastus. Cf., e.g., the idea
that Thales was the first who called the soul “eternally movable or self-movable”
(386.10).
178
Met. 993a 15–17; fr. 53 Rose (see above, 121 n. 12).
179
Von Kienle,
op. cit., 38ff., 52ff., 58ff.; Mansfeld. Aristotle, 28ff.
180
Von Kienle,
op. cit., 61–62.
181
1) Anaximander was a student of Thales, Anaximenes of Anaximander, Anaxagoras
followed Anaximander and Anaximenes, and Archelaus his teacher Anaxagoras.
2) Parmenides was a student of Xenophanes, Leucippus developed Parmenides’
ideas, Democritus was a student of Leucippus. McDiarmid,
op. cit., 89, believed that
Theophrastus combined his method of exposition by the four causes (borrowed from
Metaphysics A) with the chronological one, which resulted in two series: 1) Thales –
Anaximander – Anaximenes – Anaxagoras – Archelaus and 2) Xenophanes – Par-
menides – Empedocles, and Leucippus – Democritus – Metrodorus.

---

6. Doxography: between systematics and history
163
This is all the more probable because Aristotle, in his doxographical overview,
also returns to Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Melissus after the Atomists and
the (later) Pythagoreans.
182
It is also clear enough that Melissus followed Parmenides and that Metrodo-
rus followed Democritus. The situation with others – Hippasus, Heraclitus,
Empedocles, and Hippon – is more complicated. The suggestion that Theo-
phrastus included them in a separate group of ‘random’ philosophers (oî spo-
rádhn of the Hellenistic tradition)
183
does not seem convincing. Theophrastus
must rather have used the same method as Aristotle, linking Thales and Hip-
pon, Hippasus and Heraclitus by affinity of their principles.
184
Hippon, in this
case, is mentioned in violation of chronology with Thales, while Heraclitus and
Hippasus are mentioned in accordance with chronology between Anaximenes
and Anaxagoras. Empedocles, in contrast, is referred to as both Parmenides’
adherent and Anaxagoras’ younger contemporary. The latter reference is also
found in Aristotle (