this purgative, with another pharmakopo ̄le ̄s, E K, who took a draught of
hellebore with impunity.
RE 6.1 (1907) 903–904 (#16), M. Wellmann.
Jean-Marie Jacques
E P ⇒ P L
Eude ̄mos of Rhodes (330 – 285 BCE)
Student of A, founded a philosophical school in Rhodes. D’ vita of
Eude ̄mos is lost (fr.1 Wehrli). From biographical sources on other members of the
Lyceum we can glean that Eude ̄mos, already a mature scholar by 322 BCE, was a
candidate to succeed Aristotle (fr.5 Wehrli); that, upon T’ designation as
scholarch, Eude ̄mos left for his native Rhodes and set up a school there; furthermore,
that he remained in correspondence with Theophrastos about matters of Aristotelian
philosophy (fr.6 Wehrli).
Eude ̄mos is credited with some works on logic (frr. 7 – 24 Wehrli, these testimonies almost
always mention Eude ̄mos together with Theophrastos, suggesting there was no specific
contribution by him which would have set him apart from Theophrastos), On angle (fr. 30
Wehrli), a Physics (frr. 31 – 123 Wehrli), a collection of data on animal behavior (frr. 125 – 132
Wehrli), and histories of the mathematical sciences (geometry: frr. 133 – 141 Wehrli, arith-
metic: fr.142 Wehrli, astronomy: frr. 143 – 149 Wehrli), and perhaps one of theology (fr. 150
Wehrli). The testimony from On angle situates angles in terms of Aristotelian ontology, as
belonging to the category of quality. The Physics – which must have been composed for
purposes of Eude ̄mos’ own school – follows the discussion of Aristotle’s Physics in a linear
fashion, omitting Book VII. The collection of data on animal behavior continues Aristotle’s
investigations in the History of Animals.
Practically everything we know about early Greek mathematics and astronomy comes
from Eude ̄mos’ histories. These histories must have belonged to the category of collections
of data, known as hypomnematic works in the Aristotelian corpus. Nevertheless, such
hypomnematic works were not just loose collections: rather, Eude ̄mos’ histories rested on
what could be termed a framework of the rational reconstruction of the development of
these disciplines, in terms of a sequence of crucial discoveries, each attributed to a first
discoverer (pro ̄tos heurete ̄s), and contributing to the perfection of the discipline – a perfection
which either has already been achieved by Eude ̄mos’ contemporaries, or which can be
expected to be achieved soon.
When assessing Eude ̄mos’ sources and methods in writing his histories, we can with
some confidence assume that he had access to his predecessors’ works, at least beginning
with O and H K, and for earlier authors he relied on collec-
tions, like e.g. the collection (Sunago ̄ge ̄) of H. These works, however, must have been
less rich in detail about earlier mathematicians than Eude ̄mos’ histories, hence Eude ̄mos
almost certainly had some further material at his disposal to supplement these earlier
collections.
Ed.: Wehrli, v. 8; H. Baltussen, “Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes,” in Bodnár and Fortenbaugh
(2002) 127–156.
Bodnár and Fortenbaugh (2002); Zhmud (2006).
István Bodnár
EUDE ̄MOS OF RHODES