| Title | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
| Publisher | de Gruyter |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Chernoglazov, Alexander(Chernoglazov, Alexander) . |
| Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Schüler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark überarbeitete Übersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz über die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1214","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1214,"authors_free":[{"id":2437,"entry_id":1214,"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}},{"id":2451,"entry_id":1214,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":484,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Chernoglazov","norm_person":{"id":484,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Chernoglazov","full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity"},"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]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":484,"full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2006]}
| Title | The historiographical project of the Lyceum |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 117-165 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century. The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental. Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary. [conclusion p. 164-165] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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 historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their \"perfection\" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the pr\u00f4tos heuret\u00eas principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato\u2019s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.\r\n\r\nThe key notion of Aristotle\u2019s systematics was epist\u0113m\u0113, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.\r\n\r\nEach of these \"histories\" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of \"principles\" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.\r\n\r\nThis perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus\u2019 works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.\r\n[conclusion p. 164-165]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","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":[2006]}
| Title | The history of astronomy |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 228-277 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus’ Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them. Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time. Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate. The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory. Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147). All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time. Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted. Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions. [introduction p. 228-230] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"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 astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"The History of Astronomy, Eudemus\u2019 last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus\u2019 Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In A\u00ebtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.\r\n\r\nInteresting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus\u2019 and Theophrastus\u2019 material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.\r\n\r\nLet us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus\u2019 work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.\r\n\r\nThe number of books in the History of Astronomy (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2') as given in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus\u2019 theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus\u2019 disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 rendering of Callippus\u2019 theory.\r\n\r\nHence, Simplicius\u2019 evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus\u2019 work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius\u2019 three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).\r\n\r\nAll this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus\u2019 work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.\r\n\r\nAs for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius\u2019 predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus\u2019 Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus\u2019 works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.\r\n\r\nGenerally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus\u2019 summary of Posidonius\u2019 Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!\r\n\r\nIn the case of Eudemus, the commentator\u2019s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus\u2019 theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter\u2019s work is not available (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus\u2019 book, was at Simplicius\u2019 disposal.\r\n\r\nFurther, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then \u201camplified\u201d him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.\r\n\r\nAnother possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes\u2019 work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus\u2019 system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.\r\n\r\nHence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.\r\n[introduction p. 228-230]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csHTzFsKJd5J17a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","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":[2006]}
| Title | The history of geometry |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 166-214 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| 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’s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle’s 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’s writings (fr. 6). While Eudemus’ 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’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list. In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death). The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s 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. There 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’ 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. Although Eudemus’ 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’ 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. Meanwhile, 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. Eratosthenes 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’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s 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. Thus, 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL |
{"_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":[2006]}
| Title | Plato as "Architect of Science" |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1998 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 211-244 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The figure of the cordial host of the Academy, who invited the most gifted mathematicians and cultivated pure research, whose keen intellect was able, if not to solve the particular problem, then at least to show the method for its solution: this figure is quite familiar to students of Greek science. But was the Academy as such a center of scientific research, and did Plato really set for mathematicians and astronomers the problems they should study and methods they should use? Our sources tell about Plato's friendship or at least acquaintance with many brilliant mathematicians of his day (Theodorus, Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were never his pupils; rather, vice versa—he learned much from them and actively used this knowledge in developing his philosophy. There is no reliable evidence that Eudoxus, Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholars unite into the group of so-called "Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupils or close associates. Our analysis of the relevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus' History of the Academy, etc.) shows that the very tendency of portraying Plato as the architect of science goes back to the early Academy and is born out of interpretations of his dialogues. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eZULGOyXyPzCdqW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"837","_score":null,"_source":{"id":837,"authors_free":[{"id":1241,"entry_id":837,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":"Plato as \"Architect of Science\"","main_title":{"title":"Plato as \"Architect of Science\""},"abstract":"The figure of the cordial host of the Academy, who invited the most gifted mathematicians and cultivated pure research, whose keen intellect was able, if not to solve the particular problem, then at least to show the method for its solution: this figure is quite familiar to students of Greek science. But was the Academy as such a center of scientific research, and did Plato really set for mathematicians and astronomers the problems they should study and methods they should use? Our sources tell about Plato's friendship or at least acquaintance with many brilliant mathematicians of his day (Theodorus, Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were never his pupils; rather, vice versa\u2014he learned much from them and actively used this knowledge in developing his philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is no reliable evidence that Eudoxus, Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholars unite into the group of so-called \"Academic mathematicians,\" ever were his pupils or close associates. Our analysis of the relevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus' History of the Academy, etc.) shows that the very tendency of portraying Plato as the architect of science goes back to the early Academy and is born out of interpretations of his dialogues. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZULGOyXyPzCdqW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":837,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"43","issue":"3","pages":"211-244"}},"sort":[1998]}
| Title | Plato as "Architect of Science" |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1998 |
| Journal | Phronesis |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 211-244 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The figure of the cordial host of the Academy, who invited the most gifted mathematicians and cultivated pure research, whose keen intellect was able, if not to solve the particular problem, then at least to show the method for its solution: this figure is quite familiar to students of Greek science. But was the Academy as such a center of scientific research, and did Plato really set for mathematicians and astronomers the problems they should study and methods they should use? Our sources tell about Plato's friendship or at least acquaintance with many brilliant mathematicians of his day (Theodorus, Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were never his pupils; rather, vice versa—he learned much from them and actively used this knowledge in developing his philosophy. There is no reliable evidence that Eudoxus, Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholars unite into the group of so-called "Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupils or close associates. Our analysis of the relevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus' History of the Academy, etc.) shows that the very tendency of portraying Plato as the architect of science goes back to the early Academy and is born out of interpretations of his dialogues. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/eZULGOyXyPzCdqW |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"837","_score":null,"_source":{"id":837,"authors_free":[{"id":1241,"entry_id":837,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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":"Plato as \"Architect of Science\"","main_title":{"title":"Plato as \"Architect of Science\""},"abstract":"The figure of the cordial host of the Academy, who invited the most gifted mathematicians and cultivated pure research, whose keen intellect was able, if not to solve the particular problem, then at least to show the method for its solution: this figure is quite familiar to students of Greek science. But was the Academy as such a center of scientific research, and did Plato really set for mathematicians and astronomers the problems they should study and methods they should use? Our sources tell about Plato's friendship or at least acquaintance with many brilliant mathematicians of his day (Theodorus, Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were never his pupils; rather, vice versa\u2014he learned much from them and actively used this knowledge in developing his philosophy.\r\n\r\nThere is no reliable evidence that Eudoxus, Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholars unite into the group of so-called \"Academic mathematicians,\" ever were his pupils or close associates. Our analysis of the relevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus' History of the Academy, etc.) shows that the very tendency of portraying Plato as the architect of science goes back to the early Academy and is born out of interpretations of his dialogues. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1998","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/eZULGOyXyPzCdqW","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":837,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Phronesis","volume":"43","issue":"3","pages":"211-244"}},"sort":["Plato as \"Architect of Science\""]}
| Title | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
| Publisher | de Gruyter |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) | Chernoglazov, Alexander(Chernoglazov, Alexander) |
Dies ist die erste umfassende Untersuchung von Inhalt, Form und Zielen der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften. Zhmud konzentriert sich auf den Aristoteles-Schüler Eudemus von Rhodos, dessen Werk die Grundlage der Peripatetischen Historiographie der Naturwissenschaften bildet. Pluspunkte international renommierter Autor stark überarbeitete Übersetzung aus dem Russischen (zuerst Moskau 2002) innovativer Ansatz über die Wurzeln der Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Europa. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1214","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1214,"authors_free":[{"id":2437,"entry_id":1214,"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}},{"id":2451,"entry_id":1214,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":484,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","free_first_name":"Alexander","free_last_name":"Chernoglazov","norm_person":{"id":484,"first_name":"Alexander","last_name":"Chernoglazov","full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity","main_title":{"title":"The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity"},"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]","btype":1,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4CRyOOElYdy3pJr","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":484,"full_name":"Chernoglazov, Alexander","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}}],"book":{"id":1214,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity"]}
| Title | The historiographical project of the Lyceum |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 117-165 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their "perfection" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the prôtos heuretês principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato’s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century. The key notion of Aristotle’s systematics was epistēmē, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle’s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental. Each of these "histories" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of "principles" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge. This perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus’ works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary. [conclusion p. 164-165] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1215","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1215,"authors_free":[{"id":1797,"entry_id":1215,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"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 historiographical project of the Lyceum","main_title":{"title":"The historiographical project of the Lyceum"},"abstract":"Going back to the beginnings of Peripatetic historiography, I would like to point out again that its emergence corresponds with the period when Greek science, philosophy, and medicine reached a certain maturity. By that time, Greek poetry and music, which had arrived at their \"perfection\" long before, had already become subjects of historical surveys generally organized chronologically and using the pr\u00f4tos heuret\u00eas principle. Early heurematography and doxography, Sophistic theories on the origin of culture, Plato\u2019s theory of science, and the expert knowledge of specialists in each of the arts and sciences belong to the most important sources the Lyceum relied on. Yet on the whole, the attempt by Aristotle and his disciples to systematize the entire space of contemporary culture and to give a historical retrospective of its development was unique in antiquity and found no analogies until the 18th century.\r\n\r\nThe key notion of Aristotle\u2019s systematics was epist\u0113m\u0113, embracing theoretical sciences, productive arts (music and poetry), and such practical sciences as he was interested in, like politics and rhetoric. Of course, not every historical outline of any of these fields written in the Lyceum was based on the Aristotelian classification of science, the more so since the latter itself consisted of three different schemes that had emerged at different times: first, the Pythagorean quadrivium, then the division of sciences into three kinds, and finally the later subdivision of theoretical sciences into mathematics, physics, and theology. But in the case of the historiographical project, which inquired into the past of all three theoretical sciences (and into medical theories related to physics, as well), the coincidences between Aristotle\u2019s philosophy of science and the history of science written by his disciples are too detailed and numerous to be accidental.\r\n\r\nEach of these \"histories\" bore individual features, depending upon the nature of the material and the particular task of each treatise. A description of irrefutable discoveries in mathematics and (partly in) astronomy differed, naturally, from that of the contradictory and often erroneous doxai of the physicists, which in turn had little in common with a historical overview of \"principles\" considered by theologians. Nevertheless, in spite of the predominantly systematic character of the physical and medical doxography, Theophrastus and Meno did their best to build into the very structure of their works the historical perspective shared by all the Peripatetics in their approach to accumulated scientific knowledge.\r\n\r\nThis perspective is quite clearly reflected in Eudemus\u2019 works on the history of science. We will turn to these works in the next chapters, drawing parallels from Theophrastus, Meno, and Aristoxenus when necessary.\r\n[conclusion p. 164-165]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VCMVnSXEqYwQDKH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1215,"section_of":1214,"pages":"117-165","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 historiographical project of the Lyceum"]}
| Title | The history of astronomy |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 228-277 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The History of Astronomy, Eudemus’ last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus’ Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In Aëtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them. Interesting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus’ and Theophrastus’ material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time. Let us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus’ work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate. The number of books in the History of Astronomy (Ἀστρολογικῆς ἱστορίας α'-ς') as given in Theophrastus’ catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus’ theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus’ disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus’ rendering of Callippus’ theory. Hence, Simplicius’ evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus’ work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius’ three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147). All this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus’ work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. As for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius’ predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus’ Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus’ exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus’ works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time. Generally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus’ summary of Posidonius’ Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand! In the case of Eudemus, the commentator’s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus’ theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter’s work is not available (οὔτε δὲ Καλλίππου φέρεται σύγγραμμα), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (Εὔδημος δὲ συντόμως ἱστόρησε). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus’ book, was at Simplicius’ disposal. Further, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then “amplified” him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus. Another possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes’ work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus’ system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted. Hence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions. [introduction p. 228-230] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/csHTzFsKJd5J17a |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1426","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1426,"authors_free":[{"id":2237,"entry_id":1426,"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 astronomy","main_title":{"title":"The history of astronomy"},"abstract":"The History of Astronomy, Eudemus\u2019 last treatise on the history of science, can be appropriately analyzed by comparing it with the astronomical division of Theophrastus\u2019 Physikon doxai. Astronomy, the only exact science Theophrastus covers, held an important place in his compendium. In A\u00ebtius, the whole of Book II and part of Book III are related to cosmology. It is natural that the names figuring in Eudemus and Theophrastus partly coincide (Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans), and so do many discoveries attributed to them.\r\n\r\nInteresting for us, however, are not only these coincidences but also the differences found in Eudemus\u2019 and Theophrastus\u2019 material, as well as the criteria of selection. A comparative analysis of the History of Astronomy and the corresponding part of the Physikon doxai allows us to state more precisely the specificity of their genres, which largely reflects the distinction between astronomy and physics as conceived by the Peripatetics and astronomers of that time.\r\n\r\nLet us first attempt to bring together the little evidence on the History of Astronomy available to us and form a better idea of that treatise. The seven extant fragments of this work have come to us through five late authors: Theon of Smyrna (fr. 145), Clement of Alexandria (fr. 143), Diogenes Laertius (fr. 144), Proclus (fr. 147), and Simplicius, who cites it three times (fr. 146, 148-149). The title of Eudemus\u2019 work is mentioned by four of these authors: Theon, Clement, Diogenes, and Simplicius, the latter again proving the most accurate.\r\n\r\nThe number of books in the History of Astronomy (\u1f08\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1'-\u03c2') as given in Theophrastus\u2019 catalogue is most likely in error. According to Simplicius, Eudemus discusses Eudoxus\u2019 theory in the second and probably final book of his work (fr. 148). The historian did, in fact, set forth the theory of Callippus and did mention Eudoxus\u2019 disciples Polemarchus and probably Menaechmus, but this could hardly have needed an additional book: Simplicius (fr. 149) stresses the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 rendering of Callippus\u2019 theory.\r\n\r\nHence, Simplicius\u2019 evidence appears to be the fullest and most detailed: he cites the title of Eudemus\u2019 work more correctly than the others, refers to a particular book of the treatise, and notes its clear and concise style. It is also important that Simplicius\u2019 three quotations come from different books: Anaximander and the Pythagoreans were obviously treated in the first book (fr. 146), Eudoxus and his disciples in the second (fr. 148-149). Further, of all the excerptors of the History of Astronomy, Simplicius preserved the largest number of names: Anaximander, the Pythagoreans (fr. 146), Eudoxus (fr. 148), Meton, Euctemon, Callippus (fr. 149), and Polemarchus, while Theon reports about Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Oenopides (fr. 145), Clement and Diogenes about Thales (fr. 143-144), and Proclus about Anaxagoras (fr. 147).\r\n\r\nAll this leads us to suppose that Simplicius had the text of the History of Astronomy at his disposal, while the other aforementioned authors cited it secondhand. With Diogenes and Clement, this is evident; Theon himself points to Dercyllides, a Platonist of the early first century AD, as his intermediate source. Proclus obviously cited from memory; there is no evidence that he read Eudemus\u2019 work, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.\r\n\r\nAs for Simplicius, one can hardly imagine that he praised the clear and laconic style of the History of Astronomy twice without being immediately familiar with it. The reference to the second book of the treatise could, of course, have been found in Simplicius\u2019 predecessor, but Simplicius was unlikely to have repeated it if he had known that the History of Astronomy had long ago been lost, in which case a reference to a particular book would make little sense. Let us recall that Eudemus\u2019 Physics is known to us almost exclusively from Simplicius, who never fails to indicate pedantically the particular book he is citing. It is also Simplicius to whom we owe the longest quotation from the History of Geometry (fr. 140, p. 57-66 Wehrli). Here he also refers to a particular book of this work (the second) and points out the brevity of Eudemus\u2019 exposition. If the commentator had at least two of Eudemus\u2019 works at his disposal, we cannot simply assume that the History of Astronomy was unavailable by that time.\r\n\r\nGenerally, Simplicius explained the origin of his quotations, even if this was rather complicated. Thus, while commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, he notes that Alexander copied verbatim a quotation from Geminus\u2019 summary of Posidonius\u2019 Meteorologica, which takes its starting points from Aristotle, and then proceeds to cite this long passage (291.21-292.31) as if he were referring to Aristotle fourth-hand!\r\n\r\nIn the case of Eudemus, the commentator\u2019s invaluable pedantry also provides some important details. In his account of Callippus\u2019 theory (fr. 149), he remarks that the latter\u2019s work is not available (\u03bf\u1f54\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u039a\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03c0\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03cd\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1), referring subsequently to the summary of his theory in Eudemus (\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5). This assertion would not make sense unless the History of Astronomy, unlike Callippus\u2019 book, was at Simplicius\u2019 disposal.\r\n\r\nFurther, while citing Sosigenes, who in turn excerpted from Eudemus, Simplicius makes clear that the evidence on Eudoxus comes from Eudemus, whereas that on Plato comes from Sosigenes (fr. 148). Though we cannot rule out that Sosigenes quoted Eudemus and then \u201camplified\u201d him, prompting Simplicius to note the resulting discrepancy, a different explanation seems more likely: Simplicius found no mention of Plato in Eudemus.\r\n\r\nAnother possibility would be that here Simplicius quotes an indirect source as if it were direct, unintentionally leaving us with no clue to figure out what this source was. But even so, his two other references to the History of Astronomy cannot come from Sosigenes. Fragment 146 on Anaximander and the Pythagoreans has nothing to do with the subject of Sosigenes\u2019 work, and fragment 149 is related to the Eudemian exposition of Callippus\u2019 system, which Sosigenes deliberately omitted.\r\n\r\nHence, even if, in the case of fragment 148, Simplicius purposely beguiled the reader into believing that he knew the History of Astronomy firsthand, in two other cases we have the means to check his assertions.\r\n[introduction p. 228-230]","btype":2,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/csHTzFsKJd5J17a","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":368,"full_name":"Zhmud, Leonid","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1426,"section_of":1214,"pages":"228-277","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 astronomy"]}
| Title | The history of geometry |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2006 |
| Published in | The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity |
| Pages | 166-214 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Zhmud, Leonid |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
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’s Lyceum. Eudemus was certainly younger than Theophrastus (born ca. 370), and after Aristotle’s 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’s writings (fr. 6). While Eudemus’ 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’ works contains three writings on the history of science with the same titles as Eudemus’ works. Since there are no other traces of such writings in Theophrastus, the editors of his fragments subscribed to Usener’s suggestion that these were Eudemus’ works, which were later mistakenly added to Theophrastus’ list. In the same list, we find another work, Τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ἱστορίας α'-ς', which, contrary to Wehrli’s opinion, should be identified with Eudemus’ History of Theology, known from Damascius. This misunderstanding indirectly confirms that Eudemus’ historical works were written before he left Athens; otherwise, they would hardly have been included in Theophrastus’ catalogue. Assuming that these works, along with Theophrastus’ physical doxography and Meno’s medical doxography, were part of Aristotle’s historiographical project, they can be dated between 335/4 (foundation of the Lyceum) and 322/1 (Aristotle’s death). The majority of those who have studied Eudemus’ theoretical treatises (Physics, Analytics, etc.) agree that in this domain he was not particularly independent. As a rule, he followed Aristotle, clarifying the latter’s ideas and arranging them more systematically. But though Eudemus, like his colleagues at the Lyceum, did not greatly develop Aristotle’s 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. There 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’ 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. Although Eudemus’ 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’ 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. Meanwhile, 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. Eratosthenes 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’ theoretical treatises remained of interest only to Aristotle’s 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. Thus, 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] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/KWyxYRnHtT2JfTL |
{"_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"]}