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

Philologus 43 (1884)
469f. (about ten interpretations). See also Bluck, R. S.
Plato’s Meno, Cambridge
1964, 322f., 441ff.; Klein, J.
A commentary on Plato’s Meno, Chapel Hill 1965,
205ff.; Thomas, J.E.
Musings on the Meno. A new translation with commentary, The
Hague 1980, 165f.; Lasserre.
Léodamas, 451f.; Knorr. AT, 71f. – On Plato’s in-
tended ambiguity in mathematical matters, see especially Lloyd, G. E. R. The Meno
and the mysteries of mathematics,
Phronesis 37 (1992) 166–183.
57
Lasserre.
Léodamas, 434; Tarán. Proclus, 273; Gaiser. Academica, 448.
58
Krafft.
Mechanik, 143ff.; Mathieu, op. cit., 251f.; Lloyd, G.E. R. Plato and Archytas
in the Seventh letter,
Phronesis 35 (1990) 159–173. If the 7
th
letter emphasizes
Plato’s independence from Archytas, it only means that Plato unwillingly acknowl-
edged this dependency. This tendency coincides with the scarcity of his mentioning
the Pythagoreans in the dialogues and with his total silence about Archytas.

---

Chapter 3: Science in the Platonic Academy
94
Where it is possible to find comparable material, the position of Archytas has
mostly differed from or been directly opposed to Plato’s.
59
According to the
 Catalogue, Theaetetus was of Leodamas’ and Archytas’
generation, so there was not much difference in age between him and Plato.
Theaetetus does not occur in any list of the Academics; Plato himself describes
him as a student of Theodorus of Cyrene (
Tht. 145c). The biography of Theae-
tetus
60
remains extremely confused. Eusebius places his acme in 438/5, which,
if we take it to be the date of his birth, would explain his synchronization with
Leodamas and Archytas, as well as his study with Theodorus. In the
Suda we
find two Theaetetuses, one a student of Socrates who lived at the time of the Pe-
loponnesian War, and the other a student of Plato. E. Sachs’ suggestion that his
dates were 415/412–369 relied mainly on the fact that in the
Theaetetus, whose
dramatic date is 399, he is depicted as an adolescent.
61
But she failed to explain
either the confusion in Eusebius or the appearance of the two entries in the
Suda.
62
Recently H. Thesleff proposed returning to the old date of Theaetetus’
death, i.e., about 390, without changing the date for his birth, about 415.
63
Yet
this revision would make much more sense if we preferred the chronology of
the
Catalogue, which implies that Theaetetus belonged to the generation of
Archytas and Leodamas, to all the other versions. This would perfectly match
the revised chronology of Eusebius, with date of birth instead of acme. In this
case we should date Theaetetus ca. 438/5
–
ca. 390. His main achievements in
mathematics were the theory of the regular solids and the general theory of ir-
rationals. Both of these theories point to his Pythagorean predecessors (among
them Hippasus)
64
and teachers (Theodorus), which makes the influence of
Plato entirely redundant. If one relies on Theaetetus’ traditional chronology
(ca. 415–369), he
might have been one of the older associates of Plato working
at the Academy. However, the absence of any evidence of his activity there on
the one hand, and his studies with Theodorus on the other, make this suggestion
very unlikely.
65
Nothing is known about Neoclides, who follows Theaetetus in the
 Cata-
logue, and he is not mentioned anywhere else. His student Leon is named as the
59
47 A 23–25. Cf. 47 B 1 and