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

Particular facts mentioned in the text, such as the development of the theory of
proportions, of analysis and of diorism, are indeed found in Eudemus. But
Eudemus’ knowledge of it, however, must have been first-hand rather than bor-
rowed from a book on Plato.
To judge from its title, Hermodorus’ work Perì maqhmátwn was broader in
scope than the treatise quoted by Philodemus. Unfortunately, we know very
little about its subject matter. It remains unclear whether it treated mathemat-
160
See above, 87f.
161
Eudemus does not mention the term metrología, which is now considered to have
referred to the general theory of proportions (for other variants, see Dorandi.
Filodemo, 209). His words concerning Eudoxus being the first to have increased the
number of so-called general theorems must have referred, however, to the general
theory of proportions (see below, 206f.). Eudemus ascribes the discovery of diorism
to Leon, who is not mentioned in the papyrus passage. Associating analysis with
Eudoxus, the
Catalogue does not, however, call him its discoverer. Mentioning Plato
as the author of the method of analysis, Favorinus (D. L. III, 24 = fr. 25 Mensching)
might well have been developing the ideas of the Academic work.
162
Gaiser.
Academica, 153f.
163
This is also indicated by the beginning of the quotation: [kate]nenóhto dè fhsí,
kaì tõn maqhmátwn ëpídosi~ poll3 kat^ ëke$non tòn crónon. Mathematics is
not mentioned before this or after the words about mechanics and optics.

---

Chapter 3: Science in the Platonic Academy
116
ical sciences or, in the traditional sense, various branches of learning in general.
The fact that the two short references to this work concern Zoroaster and the
Persian Magi as his successors,
164
rather than mathematics, seems to favor the
second alternative. Diogenes Laertius, on the other hand, mentions Hermodo-
rus in the context of a discussion of the origin of philosophy, quoting Aristotle
on the Magi being older than the Egyptians, and Eudemus on the Magi’s belief
in the immortality of the soul.
165
The quotation from Aristotle goes back to his
dialogue
On Philosophy, which traces the Oriental origins of philosophy and its
further development by the Greeks, while Eudemus’ fragment must be taken
from his
History of Theology.
166
To guess by analogy – and we do not seem to
have any alternative – Hermodorus’ work
could have been related to the history
of knowledge, mathematical in particular, starting from its origin in the Orient.
All of this, however, remains highly conjectural.
Summing up our survey of the testimonies of the Platonists’ works related to
the history of science, we can conclude that, beyond doubt, they did discuss the
development of the exact sciences, though the evidence for this is very poor.
Which means, in turn, that in the Academy this subject did not become a topic
of special studies that later authors could use, as was the case with Eudemus’
works. For example, if Xenocrates’ numerous works on exact sciences
167
con-
tained any historical data on the development of geometry or astronomy, traces
of it would have survived in Greek literature. Their absence seems to indicate
that the Platonists’ preoccupation with exact sciences was not motivated by his-
torical interests.
168
Though many ideas that later entered the historico-philo-
sophical conception of Eudemus are occasionally to be found scattered through
the works of Plato and his students, it is only in the Lyceum that history, the
exact sciences, and philosophy were united in such a way as to produce a new
subject, the history of science.
164
D. L. I, 2 and 8 = fr. 6 Isnardi Parente.
165
I, 8–9 = Arist. fr. 6 Rose = fr. 23 Gigon; Eud. fr. 89.
166
See below, 130 n. 51, 131 n. 53.
167
See above, 90 n. 41.
168
An excellent parallel is Speusippus’ work