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

Janus 35 (1931) 67–105, 125–151; eadem. Die
Medizingeschichtsschreibung von ihren Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 16. Jh.s, Ber-
lin 1938; eadem. Die Geschichte der Medizingeschichtsschreibung,
Einführung in
die Medizinhistorik, ed. by W. Artelt, Stuttgart 1949, 202–237.

---

1. The historiography of science in the 16th–18th centuries
3
science converged to a much greater extent than they did, for example, in An-
tiquity, and this gave the historiography of science an important additional im-
petus. Such a convergence of interests is by no means common. As opposed to
the history of philosophy – which is still an integral part of philosophy
3
– or the
history of medicine – which remained an integral part of medicine up to the 19
th
century – the history of science usually focuses on tasks quite different from
those of science itself. For most physicians of the late 18
th
century, Hippocrates
and Galen remained topical,
4
just as the problems posed by Plato, Aristotle and
Descartes remain topical for the greater part of modern Western philosophy.
But the problems that occupied Archimedes, Ptolemy, or Copernicus are very
far from those of modern science.
5
The history of science becomes really
necessary for scientists only when, for whatever reason, the scientific or, in a
more general sense, the cultural tradition, which normally ensures the trans-
mission of knowledge from generation to generation, is disrupted. It is when
foreign science is being assimilated that the main question of the history of
science – ‘who discovered what?’ – arises in the process of scientific investi-
gation itself. The absence of clear answers to this question can hinder research,
for instance, by forcing scientists to spend time and energy proving what has al-
ready been proven or refuting what has already been refuted.
One such period was the 8
th
–10
th
centuries, when Greek science was appro-
priated by the Arabic-speaking world and became an integral part of Arabic
science. Unlike medieval Europe and, in many ways, unlike Byzantium, Arabic
culture borrowed, along with Greek science, both the ancient historico-scien-
tific tradition
6
and its major methodological approaches to science.
7
It would
3
That is why its earlier stages are studied much more fully. See e.g. Braun, L.
Histoire
de l’histoire de la philosophie, Paris 1973; Del Torre, M.A. Le origini moderne della
storiografia filosofica, Florence 1976; Piaia, G. “Vestigia philosophorum”: il Medio-
evo e la storiografia filosofica, Rimini 1983; Models of the history of philosophy, ed.
by G. Santinello, C.W. T. Blackwell, Vol. 1–3, Dordrecht 1993.
4
The classical history of medicine of the time, Sprengel, K.
Versuch einer pragma-
tischen Geschichte der Medizin, T. 1–5, Halle 1792–1803, still regarded doctors’
familiarity with ancient and Arabic medicine, which the author knew first-hand, as
being of practical use.
5
On the ongoing ‘dehistorisation’ of mathematics since the 18
th
century, see Sieg-
mund-Schultze, R. Über das Interesse der Mathematiker an der Geschichte ihrer
Wissenschaft,
Amphora. Festschrift für H. Wussing, ed. by S. Demidov et al., Basel
1992, 705–736.
6
On the Arabic historiography of science and medicine, see Meyerhof, M. Sultan Sa-
ladin’s physician on the transmission of Greek medicine to the Arabs,
BHM 18
(1945) 169–178; Rosenthal, F. Al-Asturlabi and as-Samaw’al on scientific progress,