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

History of Theology, known from Damascius.
3
This misunderstanding indi-
rectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left
Athens, otherwise they would hardly have been in Theophrastus’ catalogue.
Assuming that these works along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and
Meno’s medical doxography were a part of Aristotle’s historiographical project
(4.2), they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1
(Aristotle’s death).
The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises
(
Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly inde-
pendent. As a rule he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arrang-
ing them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the
1
Fr. 5 = fr. 8 FHSG. To be sure, Aulus Gellius’ account does not seem very reliable.
2
D. L. V, 48, 50: ^Astrologik4~ îstoría~ aV–~V (137 No. 43 FHSG), ^Ariqmhtikõn
îstoriõn (264 No. 2 FHSG, the number of books not indicated), ˆIstorikõn gew-
metrikõn aV–dV (264 No. 3 FHSG).
3
251 No. 2 FHSG = Eud. fr. 150. See above, 130 n. 51.

---

1. Eudemus of Rhodes
167
Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s system or create his own philo-
sophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early
Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in the specific
sciences. There is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and har-
monics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaear-
chus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the
historiography of science, since Eudemus’
History of Geometry, History of
Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also
the last specimens of that genre in antiquity. Although Eudemus’ works were
not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special bi-
ography was devoted to him,
4
in this particular genre he appeared to have no
followers.
This could hardly be explained by Eudemus’ failure to found his own
school. Even if he had only a few students,
5
Theophrastus had two thousand lis-
teners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless his botanical research was not further de-
veloped. Meanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up
the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose
students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very
spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decay of interest in the exact sci-
ences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age (8.1), one should not
think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially taking into
account that we possess only meager remains of the Hellenistic literature. Era-
tosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his
History of Geometry; Dio-
genes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of the
Hellenistic sources, cite his
History of Astronomy.
6
Later, Eudemus’ theoretical
treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s commentators, whereas his
works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who
took these sciences up in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pap-
pus, Proclus, Simplicius, Eutocius. Thus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact
sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the
classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic.
4
Fr. 1. Only Simplicius refers to this biography, written by a certain Damas. It is not
known when Damas lived, but one can guess that he was Eudemus’ student, rather
than a later biographer (Zeller,