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

Prom.: Prometheus ëxhñron (460), people ëkmaq2sontai
(256).
89
Phaed. 85c, 99c 9–d2, see also Crat. 439b 7f., Hipp. Min. 372c 6–8. In Meno, Plato
treats the difference between máqhsi~ and z2thsi~ as relative, both being in his
view a ‘reminiscence’ (81d).
90
Lach. 186c–187a. Plato, however, does not always understand máqhsi~ as passive
acquisition of knowledge; learning is often merely a stimulus to independent re-
search and discoveries (
Tht. 150d–151a; Res. 455b 7f.).

---

Chapter 2: Science as técnh: theory and history
66
time and willing more than all others to give their minds to the search for what is
new (208–209).
91
In all these respects the Spartans are, according to him, more backward not only
than the Athenians, but even than the ‘barbarians’, who are both pupils and
teachers of many discoveries. Let us note again how crucial these epistemologi-
cal notions are to the theory and the history of culture: if everything culture
consists of is the result of either an independent discovery or learning (borrow-
ing), then every time when faced with two similar things, whether in sciences,
or arts, or religious rites, one has to bear in mind that they
both originate from
one first discoverer and teacher, whose knowledge was then disseminated by
his imitators and students. This very specific approach of the Greeks to culture,
allowing no independent appearance of similar phenomena, led in particular to
endless charges of plagiarism and to no less numerous attempts to attribute
their own achievements to their neighbors.
Very close to máqhsi~–eÛresi~ is another pair of notions – that of mímhsi~–
eÛresi~. Isocrates directly contrasts invention with learning and imitation: ac-
cording to him, sophistic discourses follow one and the same pattern, which is
easily enough found, or learned and imitated (oÚq’ eûre$n oÚte maqe$n oÚte
mim2sasqai, Hel. 11). In many cases máqhsi~ comes close to mímhsi~, though
it yields to it in activity and does not have the negative connotations that are
often (though not always) associated with imitation. The importance of the
pairing of mímhsi~ and eÛresi~ has been discussed above (1.4); here it interests
us as an additional way to contrast borrowing and imitation with independent
finding. Let us consider a few examples that demonstrate the currency of this
model among Archytas’ contemporaries.
92
Speaking of Lycurgus, Isocrates
says that the latter did not, in fact, invent the constitution of Sparta, but only
imitated ancient Athenian regulations (
Panath. 153). In the discourse addressed
to the young Nicocles, the king of Cyprus, the rhetorician recommends him to
improve state regulations and laws. There are two ways to accomplish this task:
either by discovering what is best independently, or, if that proves impossible,
by imitating what one finds best in others (
Ad Nic. 17). In Xenophon, Socrates
suggests two means of restoring the good morals of past times: either to find out
the customs of their ancestors and practice them, or failing that, to imitate those
of their contemporaries who have preeminence (
Mem. III,5.14).
91
Transl. by G. Norlin. Cf. an analogous passage in Plato: a man richly endowed by na-
ture is easy to teach and, after a short period of learning, is apt to discover a great deal
more than he has learned (
Res. 455b 7f.). For comparison between máqhsi~, eÛ-
resi~ and z2thsi~, see also Phaed. 99c 9–d 2; Men. 81d; Res. 618c; Crat. 439b 7f.
92
As early as Aristophanes we have a writer contrasting his own creative approach to
plagiarism and imitation on the part of his rivals: I do not seek to show my pieces
twice or thrice and always think up kainà~ ıdéa~, while Eupolis and Hermippus
make use of them and imitate (mimoúmenoi) my inventions. Some may like their
comedies as well, but the good judgment of those who praise my eûr2mata will be
glorified for ever (
Nub. 545–562).

---

3. Archytas and Isocrates
67
Being a teacher as well as a scientist, Archytas must have been well aware of
the importance of education as a means of transmitting knowledge.
93
His con-
trasting of máqhsi~ and eÛresi~, however, emphasizes the dependent char-
acter of learning, drawing it closer to imitation. The words of Archytas leave no
doubt that he, personally, preferred the way of independent research and dis-
covery. This way is then characterized in more detail by means of another pair
of notions already familiar to us, that of z2thsi~–eÛresi~. To make a dis-
covery, conscious research is needed, because one cannot conduct research
without knowing how to do it (m3 ëpistámenon dè zhte$n @dúnaton). What,
then, must the one ëpistámeno~ zhte$n know? To all appearances, he must
know