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

Catalogue is part, was subjected to Pla-
tonizing revision
after the fourth century BC. It is this revision that explains the
Platonizing tendency of the
Catalogue and makes it similar to the quotation in
Philodemus.
Let us note again that the
Catalogue contains chronological indications con-
cerning practically all the mathematicians mentioned in it. The accuracy of
these indications differs according to information that was at Eudemus’ dis-
posal. Sometimes he only gives the chronological sequence, e.g. Mamercus
comes after Thales, Pythagoras after Thales and Mamercus, and Anaxagoras
after Pythagoras. Beginning with Oenopides, the information becomes more
detailed: the latter was “a bit younger than Anaxagoras”, and after him follow
Hippocrates and Theodorus (both, as we know, were of the same generation).
As with any other historian, the dates in Eudemus become more and more ac-
curate as he approaches his own time. Thus, the indications concerning geo-
meters of the fourth century are more precise: Neoclides and his student Leon
were younger than Leodamas, and Eudoxus “was a little younger” than Leon.
Then follows the generation of Eudoxus’ students: Menaechmus, Dinostratus
and others, and Athenaeus, “who lived in the same time”. In all cases in which
Eudemus’ evidence can be verified, it proves correct and serves as a reliable
basis for further chronological reconstruction.
What we are dealing with here is not just a collection of the separate dates,
but a continuous chronological series, or scale, that connects all mathema-
ticians from Thales till Eudemus’ own time. A somewhat analogous genealogi-
cal scheme is given in the first chapter of the
Opinions of the Physicists (4.5),
but it is not as consistent as that of Eudemus. Besides, Theophrastus often pro-
ceeded not from the real fact of apprenticeship, but from the similarity of doc-
trines. Eudemus’ relative chronology does not depend on doctrinal similarity,
nor on the fact of apprenticeship: Anaxagoras was neither a pupil nor a follower
of Pythagoras; Oenopides was neither a pupil nor a follower of Anaxagoras;
and Eudoxus was neither a pupil nor a follower of Leon. The last case is par-
ticularly revealing: Eudemus undoubtedly knew that Eudoxus was Archytas’
student, but he preferred to give a more accurate chronological reference rather
than mention his teacher: “a bit younger than Leon”. Although Eudemus did
not use any of the general chronologies that existed by his time (e.g., the chro-
62
Note the similarity of the two passages in structure and word usage (67.23f.,
68.20f.):
Fílippo~ … kaì tà~ zht2sei~ ëpoie$to
Eÿkleídh~ … kaì tÆ proairései dè
katà tà~ Plátwno~ ûfhg2sei~ kaì
Platwnikó~ ësti kaì tÆ filosofí+
tañta proúballen êautŒ, Ôsa °eto
taútæ oıke$o~, Ôqen d3 kaì t4~
tÆ Plátwno~ filosofí+ suntele$n.
sumpásh~ stoiceiøsew~ télo~
proest2sato t3n tõn kalouménwn
Platwnikõn schmátwn sústasin.

---

3. The
Catalogue of geometers: from Eudemus to Proclus
183
nology of Olympic games, or of the archons of Athens), his system allowed one
to calculate from the dates of one geometer a rather acceptable chronology for
almost all his contemporaries.
63
Revealingly, it is precisely Plato and his faithful disciple Philip who do not
fit in this system. Plato is mentioned
 earlier than Leodamas, Archytas, and
Theaetetus, who were older than him (3.2); the latter, in turn, are dated in
“Plato’s time”. For a history of geometry, this chronological link seems odd
enough and has no parallels in Eudemus. Philip, in contrast, emerges at the end
of the