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

Catalogue. Whereas Tannery’s answer was negative in both cases,
66
Hei-
berg, van Pesch (who studied Proclus’ sources), and Heath were inclined to the
conclusion that, although Proclus probably had access to Eudemus’ book, he
did not compile the
Catalogue, but took it from another source.
67
While agree-
ing with this opinion, let us emphasize that there are no grounds to believe that
Eudemus’ writings had been lost in the fire of the Alexandrian library and so
were not available after 389 AD.
68
One should recall that Simplicius gives a
long verbatim quotation from the
History of Geometry on the quadrature of the
lunes (fr. 140), cites almost a hundred passages from Eudemus’
Physics, and
transmits three of the seven preserved fragments from the
History of Astronomy
(fr. 146, 148–149), praising Eudemus’ concise and clear style (fr. 149). Euto-
cius’ words also imply that the
History of Geometry was available to him
(fr. 139),
69
whereas Damascius seemed to use Eudemus’
History of Theology
(fr. 150) without any intermediaries. All this simply does not fit with the disap-
pearance of Eudemus’ writings by the time of Proclus, who had at his disposal
the same library of the Academy in Athens as did Simplicius after him.
70
We also have to admit that Geminus, whom many, after Tannery,
71
regarded
as the
Catalogue’s compiler and the intermediary between Eudemus and Pro-
clus, is hardly fit for this role either.
72
All we know about Geminus
73
and his
mathematical encyclopedia
74
agrees neither with Neoplatonic influence in the
66
Tannery. Eudème, 171.
67
Heiberg. Jahresberichte, 345; van Pesch,
op. cit., 84; Heath. Elements 1, 37f. No-
body, except for Eggers Lan, as far as I know, argued in detail for Proclus’ author-
ship.
68
That was Tannery’s view (Eudème, 171).
69
Cf. Knorr.
TS, 126 n. 124 and 128 n. 146.
70
See Heath.
History 2, 530f.; idem. Elements 1, 35.
71
Tannery. Eudème, 172f.; idem.
Géométrie, 71f.
72
See van Pesch,
op. cit., 80f.; Heath. Elements 1, 37; Eggers Lan, op. cit., 140f.
73
Schmidt, M. Philologische Beiträge zu den griechischen Mathematikern,
Philologus
45 (1886) 63–81, 278–320; Tannery.
Géométrie, 18f.; van Pesch, op. cit., 87f., 95f.;
Tittel, K. Geminos,
RE 7 (1912) 1026–1050; Heath. Elements 1, 38f. For Geminus’
chronology (ca. 70 BC), see Jones, A. Geminus and the Isia,
HSCPh 99 (1999)
255–267.
74
Its title is given as Perì t4~ tõn maqhmátwn táxew~ (Papp. Coll. VIII, 1026.9)
and as Maqhmátwn qewría (Eutoc. In Apol. Con. II, 168.17f.). Schmidt. Philo-
logische Beiträge, 71; Tannery.
Géométrie, 18f.; Tittel, op. cit., 1040f., and Heath.

---

3. The
Catalogue of geometers: from Eudemus to Proclus
185
Catalogue, nor with its special interest in the predecessors of Euclid who com-
piled the
Elements. Geminus’ encyclopedia was devoted to the foundations of
the exact sciences and to their classification; his main goal was to show the
logical consistency of Euclid’s mathematics and to refute its critique by the
Sceptics and Epicureans.
75
There is no evidence that he was particularly inter-
ested in the history of mathematics before Euclid or that he knew Eudemus’
book.
76
The only pre-Euclidean geometer mentioned in those passages of Pro-
clus’ commentary that can be safely attributed to Geminus
77
is Menaechmus. In
two of the three cases, the foundations of mathematics and methodological de-
bates are in question (
In Eucl., 72.24f., 78.9f.),
78
and once only Geminus refers
to Menaechmus’ discovery of the conic sections (111.21f.). But even here, his
authority is Eratosthenes’ epigram, and not Eudemus. One gets the same im-
pression from Geminus’