{"_index":"sire","_id":"1427","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1427,"authors_free":[{"id":2238,"entry_id":1427,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":368,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","free_first_name":"Leonid","free_last_name":"Zhmud","norm_person":{"id":368,"first_name":"Leonid","last_name":"Zhmud","full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1028558643","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The history of geometry","main_title":{"title":"The history of geometry"},"abstract":"We know little about the founder of the historiography of science, Eudemus of Rhodes. Ancient sources depict him as a devoted student of Aristotle, who considered Eudemus (along with Theophrastus) a possible scholarch of the Lyceum. We know neither exactly when he was born nor when he joined Aristotle\u2019s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle\u2019s death, he returned to Rhodes, where he continued to study and teach (fr. 88). Eudemus did not lose contact with Theophrastus and corresponded with him on the subject of their teacher\u2019s writings (fr. 6).\r\n\r\nWhile Eudemus\u2019 Physics belongs to his Rhodian period, his works on logic and the history of science were written while Aristotle was still alive. In practically all of the logical fragments, Eudemus figures together with Theophrastus, which implies a kind of co-authorship. The list of Theophrastus\u2019 works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus\u2019 works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener\u2019s suggestion that these were Eudemus\u2019 works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus\u2019 list.\r\n\r\nIn the same list, we find another work, \u03a4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2', which, contrary to Wehrli\u2019s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus\u2019 History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus\u2019 historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus\u2019 physical doxography and Meno\u2019s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle\u2019s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335\/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322\/1 (Aristotle\u2019s death).\r\n\r\nThe majority of those who have studied Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter\u2019s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle\u2019s system or create his own philosophical system, this does not mean that he lacked all originality. Several early Peripatetics became prominent not so much in philosophy as in specific sciences.\r\n\r\nThere is no doubt that ancient Greek botany, geography, and harmonics would appear incomparably inferior without Theophrastus, Dicaearchus, and Aristoxenus. Such an appraisal seems all the more appropriate to the historiography of science since Eudemus\u2019 History of Geometry, History of Arithmetic, and History of Astronomy happened to be not only the first but also the last specimens of that genre in antiquity.\r\n\r\nAlthough Eudemus\u2019 works were not forgotten (they were still quoted in the sixth century AD) and a special biography was devoted to him, in this particular genre, he appeared to have no followers. This could hardly be explained by Eudemus\u2019 failure to found his own school. Even if he had only a few students, Theophrastus had two thousand listeners (D. L. V, 37), and nonetheless, his botanical research was not further developed.\r\n\r\nMeanwhile, in contrast, the Hellenistic writers immediately picked up the biographical genre founded by Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus (about whose students we know nothing), since it corresponded to the interests and the very spirit of their epoch. In spite of the general decline of interest in the exact sciences in the philosophical schools of the Hellenistic age, one should not think that Eudemus was virtually unknown in this time, especially considering that we possess only meager remains of Hellenistic literature.\r\n\r\nEratosthenes and probably Archimedes drew upon his History of Geometry; Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandria, known for their extensive use of Hellenistic sources, cite his History of Astronomy. Later, Eudemus\u2019 theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle\u2019s commentators, whereas his works on the history of the exact sciences were frequently quoted by those who engaged with these sciences in one way or another: Theon of Smyrna, Porphyry, Pappus, Proclus, Simplicius, and Eutocius.\r\n\r\nThus, Eudemus, the expert in the exact sciences and their first and perhaps only historian, was no less important for the classical tradition than Eudemus the true Peripatetic. [introduction p. 166-167]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1427,"section_of":1214,"pages":"166-214","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1214,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"en","title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Zhmud2006","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2006","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2006","abstract":"Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Sch\u00fcler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark \u00fcberarbeitete \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz \u00fcber die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The history of geometry"]}