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

Allgemeinbildung und Fachbildung in der Antike, Berlin 1961 (the best collection of
literary evidence); Fuchs,
op. cit.
35
Vlastos, G. Zeno of Sidon as a critic of Euclid,
The Classical tradition, ed. by L.Wal-
lach, Cornell 1966, 148–159; Sedley. Epicurus; Mueller, I. Geometry and scepti-
cism,
Science and speculation. Studies in Hellenistic theory and practice, ed. by
J. Barnes et al., Cambridge 1982, 69–95; Angeli, A., Colaizzo, M. I frammenti di Ze-
none Sidonio,
CErc 9 (1979) 47–133; Romeo, C. Demetrio Lacone sulla grandezza
del sole,
CErc 9 (1979) 11–35; Angeli, A., Dorandi, T. Il pensiero matematico di
Demetrio Lacone,
CErc 17 (1987) 89–103; Barnes, J. The size of the sun in An-
tiquity,
ACD 25 (1989) 29–41; Erler, M. Epikur, Die Philosophie der Antike, Vol. 4,

---

1. The decline of the historiography of science
287
decline in the interest in mathematics in the Academy after Xenocrates is no
less manifest
36
than the wane of scientific interest in the Lyceum after Strato,
who never pursued the exact sciences personally. The Cynics’, Cyrenaics’, and
Sceptics’ negative attitude toward science is generally known.
37
Epicurus de-
nied mathematics, mathematical astronomy, and the entire ëgkúklio~ pai-
deía; the mathematician Polyaenus of Lampsacus, whom Epicurus converted
to Epicureanism, wrote a special treatise on the fallacy of geometry as a
whole.
38
The Epicureans continued their polemic against geometry, though two
of them, Philonides, a friend of Apollonius of Perga, and Basilides of Tyre
seem to have succeeded in combining their Epicureanism with mathematical
studies.
39
The attitude toward theoretical sciences among the Stoics was more compli-
cated.
40
Zeno in his early
Republic declared ëgkúklio~ paideía to be useless
(D. L. VII, 32), probably under Cynic influence. That he changed his attitude
toward the exact sciences later is plausible, though not evident.
41
Cleanthes ac-
cused Aristarchus of Samos of impiety because of the latter’s heliocentric hy-
pothesis.
42
Chrysippus expressed a more favorable opinion of ëgkúklio~ pai-
deía; he compared some theorems of geometry with Platonic Forms; his view
of geometrical solids and figures contradicts mathematics;
43
all the elementary
astronomical data assigned to him had already been included in physics in
Plato’s and Aristotle’s time.
44
Judging by this scanty evidence, during the first
two centuries,
mathe¯mata were irrelevant for the Stoics; what they wrote on
this subject was often at variance with the views of professionals. Unlike Plato
169f.; Cambiano, G. Philosophy, science and medicine,
The Cambridge history of
Hellenistic philosophy, ed. by K. Algra et al., Cambridge 1999, 585–613.
36
Still, Arcesilaus, the scholarch of the Academy in the mid-third century, studied with
the mathematicians Autolycus and Hipponicus (D. L. IV, 29–32).
37
Kühnert,
op. cit., 99f.
38
Cic.
Acad. pr. II, 106; De fin. I, 20, 71–72; cf. D. L. X, 6; Epic. fr. 117, 163, 227, 229
Usener.
39
Erler, M. Philonides; Basilides und Thespis,
Die Philosophie der Antike, Vol. 4,
251f., 280. Apollonius mentions Philonides (
Conic. II, praef.) and Hypsicles men-
tions Basilides in the introduction to book XIV of the
Elements. To be sure, as Cam-
biano remarks (Philosophy, 589), “it is not possible to determine whether, at the time
Apollonius and Hypsicles mention them, they had already become attached to Epi-
cureanism”.
40
See e.g. Jones, A. The Stoics and the astronomical sciences,