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

pro¯tos heurete¯s principle. Early heurematography
and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of
science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences
belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole,
the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of con-
186
Diels, H. Über die Excerpte von Menons Iatrika in dem Londoner Papyrus 137,
Hermes 28 (1893) 415, believed that the doxai were arranged by their affinity, yet the
systematic order often proved to coincide with the chronological one.
187
Diels (ibid.) was doubtful about Hippon’s and Thrasimachus’ positions; Grensem-
ann (
op. cit., 13f.) suggests a different place for Alcamenes; Manetti (op. cit., 118f.)
places Plato after Philistion.
188
Diels. Über die Excerpte, 415f.; Manetti,
op. cit., 100f.
189
See e.g. the second group (Manetti,
op. cit., 119), containing few unfamiliar names:
Philolaus – Polybus (a student of Hippocrates) – Menecrates (a doctor of the fourth
century) – Petron – Philistion (a contemporary of Plato) – Plato. The first group runs
from Euryphon of Cnidus to Aegimius of Aelis, the younger contemporary of Hip-
pocrates.

---

6. Doxography: between systematics and history
165
temporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was
unique in Antiquity and found no analogies until the 18
th
century.
The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was ëpist2mh, embracing theor-
etical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences
as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical
outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristote-
lian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of
three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythago-
rean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the
later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theol-
ogy. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the
past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to
physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science
and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous
to be accidental.
Each of these ‘histories’ bore individual features, depending upon the na-
ture of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of ir-
refutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, nat-
urally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous
doxai of the physi-
cists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of ‘prin-
ciples’ considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly
systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus
and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the his-
torical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumu-
lated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eude-
mus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next
chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when
necessary.

---

Chapter 5
The history of geometry
1. Eudemus of Rhodes
We know little about the founder of the historiography of science Eudemus of
Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who con-
sidered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Ly-
ceum.
1
We know neither exactly when he was born, nor when he joined Aris-
totle’s Lyceum. Eudemus certainly was younger than Theophrastus (born ca.
370), and after Aristotle’s death he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to
study and to teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and
corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher’s writings (fr. 6).
While Eudemus’
Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic
and on the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In
practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theo-
phrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus’
works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as
Eudemus’ works.
2
Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theo-
phrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that
these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophras-
tus’ list. In the same list we find another work, Tõn perì tò qe$on îstoría~
aV–~V, which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’