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

Met. 984a 11), who placed Empedocles after the three pairs
of physical monists, though
before Anaxagoras. Theophrastus could have
placed Empedocles either after Parmenides, or before Anaxagoras, but reliable
data on this subject is lacking.
185
Having presented in the first chapter of the
Physiko¯n doxai a general genea-
logical scheme of the development of philosophy, Theophrastus hardly felt
compelled to reproduce it in exactly the same way in every chapter. He could
have related the opinions of the physicists on particular problems in any order
182
See above, 156. It is not clear how this method is connected with the division into
different schools. The Pythagorean school was the only one that Aristotle and
Theophrastus mentioned directly. Both, however, pointed out the difference between
the Eleatics’ principles and those of the Ionians, as well as the Atomists’ dependence
on the Eleatics.
183
Von Kienle,
op. cit., 62ff.
184
McDiarmid,
op. cit., 89. It follows from Theophrastus’ fragments that each of the
two pairs (Thales – Hippon and Hippasus – Heraclitus) was mentioned in the same
sentence, unlike all the others (fr. 1 Diels = Simpl.
In Phys., 23.22f., 23.33f.). Aris-
totle adopted the same order (
Met. 984a 2, a 7). Aristotle and Theophrastus provide
no data on the chronology of Hippon, Hippasus, and Heraclitus. Though Simplicius,
unlike Theophrastus, places Diogenes immediately after Anaximenes, he character-
izes their teachings separately and indicates their chronology, doctrinal affiliation,
etc. In contrast, Simplicius does not seem to have found in Theophrastus any trace of
a specific teaching on principles by Hippon and Hippasus that would have been dif-
ferent from that of Thales and Heraclitus.
185
The order of names in Aëtius’ chapter Perì @rcõn partly confirms the general re-
construction. Here we find both series: Thales – Anaximander – Anaximenes – An-
axagoras – Archelaus (I,3.1–6), and Xenophanes –
– Leucippus – De-
mocritus – Metrodorus (I,3.12–17), as well as the pair Heraclitus – Hippasus
(I,3.11). Anaximenes and Diogenes are named separately (I,3.26), Hippon is absent.
On the other hand, we find here Pythagoras (I,3.8), Philolaus (I,3.10), and Ecphantus
(I,3.19), who are lacking in Theophrastus’ fragments.

---

Chapter 4: The historiographical project of the Lyceum
164
that suited him, e.g. according to the degree of their complexity; this order
would often, though not necessarily, coincide with the chronological one.
186
Any reader interested in knowing who influenced whom could easily check his
hypothesis against the scheme presented at the beginning of the book.
Deciding how the material was organized in Meno’s book is still more dif-
ficult. First, we have but brief excerpts by a late author from the
Medical Col-
lection, which are not at all certain to follow the original plan without omis-
sions and compositional changes.
187
Second, the papyrus contains quite a
number of lacunae. Third, the chronology of many of the physicians figuring in
Meno is highly problematic, since nearly half of them (ten out of twenty-one)
are not mentioned anywhere else. The general outline of Meno’s scheme is
nevertheless clear. All opinions are divided, as in Theophrastus’
De sensibus,
into two groups: those that connected the causes of diseases with the residues of
digestion (perittømata), and those that explained the diseases by proceeding
from the constitutive elements of the body (stoice$a).
188
The doctrines within
these groups, to all appearances, were considered in accordance with the degree
of their sophistication, which coincides in many cases with the chronological
arrangement.
189
* * *
Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to
point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek
science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time,
Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their ‘perfection’ long before,
had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chro-
nologically and using the