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

APo 75b 37f.;
SE 171b 15f., 172a 3f.). Later Aristotle’s commentators discussed it (Heath. Mathe-
matics, 47f.; Mueller. Aristotle, 160ff.; Knorr. AT, 76f.), but they, it seems, had no
sources apart from Aristotle. That means that Eudemus, while reporting Antiphon’s
attempts, fails to mention Bryson. Whatever Eudemus’ motives could have been,
Bryson was certainly not a mathematician.
51
In Eucl., 77.16, 202.11, 220.9, 254.4; cf. van Pesch, op. cit., 112f. On Geminus, see
below, 184f., 291f.
52
See Bowen. Menaechmus, 14f.; Knorr.
AT, 74f.
53
Cf. Tannery.
Géométrie, 138 n. 1. Knorr. AT, 74f. and Tarán. Proclus, 238 n. 37, are
indecisive about Amphinomus’ chronology; Lasserre included him in the list of the
‘Academic mathematicians’ (
Léodamas, 149f., 587f.).

---

3. The
Catalogue of geometers: from Eudemus to Proclus
179
are otherwise unknown; Oenopides of Chios was the older contemporary of
Hippocrates. But was he
the Oenopides that Geminus had in mind? Geminus
discusses the distinction between theorems and problems; their definitions
given by Zenodotus are very close to those of Posidonius’ followers (80.15f.).
Thus, in all probability, Oenopides, Zenodotus, and Andron also belong to the
Hellenistic period.
54
The chronology of Aristeas the Elder, who wrote on conic sections and regu-
lar solids (Pappus and Eutocius mention him), is still uncertain.
55
In any case,
he was younger than Menaechmus, who discovered the conic sections and
probably belonged to Euclid’s generation.
56
3. The
 Catalogue of geometers: from Eudemus to Proclus
Moving from the evident cases to the less evident, we come to one of our cen-
tral problems: who was the author of the
Catalogue of geometers and how did
this document come to Proclus? It was customary since the late 19
th
century to
think of the information in the
 Catalogue as going back, albeit through inter-
mediaries, to Eudemus’
History of Geometry (fr. 133).
57
Although Proclus does
54
Knorr.
AT, 374 n. 70, cf. Bowen. Menaechmus, 13f. Since Geminus’ methodological
discussion of theorems and problems is based on Posidonius (
In Eucl., 77.7–78.10,
80.15–81.4 = fr. 195 E.-K.), the other references to Amphinomus, Speusippus, Me-
naechmus, Oenopides, Zenodotus, and Andron might derive from the same source.
Aëtius (I,7.17) mentions Oenopides along with the Stoics Diogenes and Cleanthes,
and a Stoic idea, the god is the soul of the world, is ascribed to him (see below, 7.5).
Von Fritz. Oinopides, 2267f., was wrong to relate the methodological discussion on
theorems and problems to Oenopides of Chios: it could not have taken place in the
fifth century.
55
Allman,
op. cit., 194ff.; Heath, T. L. Apollonius of Perga, Cambridge 1896, xxiff;
Knorr, W. R. Observations on the early history of the conics,
Centaurus 26 (1982)
1–24; idem.
AT, 32f.; Pappus of Alexandria. Book 7 of the Collection, transl. by
A. Jones, Pt. 2, New York 1986, 404, 577f.
56
More complicated is the case of the mathematician Thymaridas. Iamblichus (
In
Nicom., 11.2f., 27.4, 62.19, 65.9, 68.3f. = Timpanaro Cardini, M. Pitagorici – Tes-
timonianze e frammenti, Pt. 2, Florence 1962, 444f.) quotes his definition of a
number and an arithmetic puzzle, the so-called epanthem. Since a certain Thymari-
das of Paros is named in the catalogue of the Pythagoreans compiled by Aristoxenus
(