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

telos.” (Burkert, W. Impact and limits of the idea of progress in An-
tiquity,
The idea of progress, ed. by A. Burgen et al., Berlin 1997, 31).
211
Poet. 1449a 15; Pol. 1252a 26–1253a 9; Met. 993a 15f. “Since in few years great
progress has been achieved, philosophy will be finished and perfected in a short
time.” (fr.53 Rose). Cf. similar remarks on the arts (
EN 1098a 23f.) and political sys-
tems (
Pol. 1264a 3).
212
Theophrastus expressed similar views, though more cautiously (fr. 34a FHSG). See
Edelstein,
op. cit., 148 n. 31.

---

5. Teleological progressivism
211
authors of the period of classical rationalism: Hippocratic physicians, scien-
tists, rhetoricians, and poets.
213
Without casting doubt upon Eudemus’ Aris-
totelianism, we should emphasize that in this case (as well as in many others)
he did not follow his teacher’s ideas slavishly, but rather shared with him the
views common for that period.
The same common attitude is seen in the thesis that all the sciences appeared
due to practical necessity. Geometry, in particular, was discovered by the Egyp-
tians, and arithmetic by the Phoenicians, who were employed in trade (
In Eucl.,
64.17). The author of
Ancient Medicine also believed that medicine had been
discovered due to necessity and need. We find analogous notions of the origin
of técnh in many classical writers, including Aristotle.
214
The idea that ge-
ometry originated with the Egyptians has even more predecessors.
215
But
whereas Herodotus noticed the practical origin of Egyptian geometry, Plato the
practical character of Egyptian geometry and Phoenician arithmetic, and Philip
wrote that the Greeks bring to perfection the knowledge they receive from the
barbarians, Aristotle points out that maqhmatikaì técnai were first discovered
in Egypt because the local priests had leisure.
216
This remark clarifies the
preceding passage, where he states that in every civilization practical crafts are
born first, then appear the fine arts, and after them theoretical sciences whose
end is knowledge. For the latter, adds Aristotle, leisure time is needed.
As we have already noticed, the same historical scheme was known before
Aristotle; some of his predecessors noticed the role of leisure, whereas others
did not.
217
It is therefore possible that in this case Eudemus followed the
simpler version that also occurs in Aristotle.
218
But does this mean that Aris-
totle denied the practical origin of Egyptian geometry? He would hardly argue
against the fact that the Egyptians’ practical geometry had preceded the scien-
tific geometry. The general line of cognitive development known from the
Catalogue has quite obvious parallels in Aristotle.
219
In accordance with this
213
VM 2; De locis in hom. 46; De arte 1; Isoc. Nic. 32, Euag. 7, Antid. 82, 185, Paneg.
10; Chairem.
 TrFG 71 F 21; Alex. fr. 31 K.–A. See above, 2.2, 2.4.
214
Democritus (68 B 144); Isocrates (
Bus. 12–15, 21–23); Philip (Epin. 974d 8f., 975c
9f.); Aristotle (fr. 53 Rose =
Protr. fr. 8 Ross; Pol. 1329b 25f.; Met. 981b 12–22,
982b 22f.). See above, 2.2–3.
215
Herodotus (II, 109); Isocrates (
Bus. 28, cf. 23); Plato (Phaedr. 274d 1f.; Leg.
747a–c); Philip (
Epin. 986d 8f., 987d 9); Aristoxenus (fr.23). See also Democr. test.
XIV Luria.
216
Met. 981b 23. Further he adds that the difference between técnh and ëpist2mh was
explained in detail in the