Greek Science in Antiquity by Marshall ClagettReview by: B. L. van der WaerdenIsis, Vol. 48, No. 3, The George Sarton Memorial Issue (Sep., 1957), pp. 359-360Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/226483 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 22:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:23:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 359 theory of volcanism (von Buch). Was it only coincidence that so many major chal- lenges to continental dogmatism originated in non-Napoleonic England, beginning with Hutton's refutation of Werner's Neptunism, that of Poulett Scrope of von Buch, Lyell's uniformitarianism, and finally Darwinian evolution? It is the continental philosophy which is stressed in this volume, albeit in the case of Cuvier, almost apologetically. Cuvier did well under the Jacobins; he flourished under Napoleon; and reached full authority under the returned Bourbons. "Was ubrigens bei schwachen Charakteren unerfreulicher Opportunismus sein mag, ist bei starken Geistern ilberlegene Klugheit, gepaart mit Wiurde. . . ." But his dominance was owing less to politics than to his significance for German romantic nature-philosophy, and the eclipse of Lamarck, Beringer points out, is related to his adherence to an older mechanistic rationalism. Agassiz in the United States played a role much like that of Cuvier, but he had the misfortune of coming later. His Essay on Classification appeared the same year as Darwin's Origin of Species, and the combination of authority and roman- tic nature-philosophy which had drowned La- marckism in turgid metaphysics for half a century was at an end. After von Baer, von Hoff, Hegel, and Cuvier, Darwin appears to the author to lack depth.

The heavy dose of Spengler, which can be so fruitful of insights into mid-nineteenth century Germany, is woefully unproductive when applied to the Dark Ages. "Next to the cathedral stood the gallows and the wheel," is a pertinent comment on the character of early European thought, but it tells us little of the ideas or complexity of a millennium of history, a millennium more- over which was preoccupied with earth and cosmos.

Although this volume covers the period from ancient times to the present, the author is concerned with geology as an historical science of the earth and the source of our secular cosmology, and as such geology can only dimly be extended back to the time of Columbus and Copernicus. Geology as tech- nology (mining, engineering); geology as earth chemistry, with its economic sig- nificance to the seventeenth century Bacon- ians, with its links by way of crystallography and mineralogy to mathematics and atomism;

and geology as earth physics, all of which played some part in pre-Copernican thought -are largely outside of the scope of the present volume.

A useful time scale for the history of geology is appended.

CECIL J. SCHNEER University of New Hampshire

MARSHALL CLAGETT: Greek Science in Antiquity. Xii + 2I7 PP., 52 fig. New York: Abelard-Schuman, I955. $4.75.

This is a well-written and interesting in- troduction to the study of ancient Greek science, including medicine and physics as well as mathematics and astronomy. The author, having thoroughly studied the Egyp- tian medical papyri and also Neugebauer's recent work on exact sciences in antiquity, is able to present, in Chapter i, a very good survey of science in Egypt and Mesopotamia. In this respect, the book is far superior to most of its predecessors. The only gross er- ror in this chapter seems to be the inser- tion of a picture of a modem sundial (taken from Hogben's Science for the Citizen). Ancient sundials, as described by Vitruvius, Thabit ben Qurra and others, had a horizontal or vertical rod, and indicated seasonal hours, whereas in Fig. 5 the rod is directed to the North Pole and the hours are modem equinoctial hours.

Chapters 2 and 3 deal with early Greek science and natural philosophy. I am in- clined to doubt the author's statement that "the Museum was not an organization for religious worship, in spite of the fact that its director is sometimes designated as Arch- priest of the Museum." I have no opinion of my own, but I should like to ask the au- thor in this and other cases: How do you know this?

Chapter 4 on Greek medicine and biology, is very instructive, because many fragments and excerpts from ancient authors are given. The same can be said of Chapter 5, on Greek mathematics.

In Chapter 6 on Greek physics, many sec- tions (e.g., the one on optics at the end) are excellent, but the section on acoustics seems to be rather poor. The fundamental ideas of the Pythagorean theory of music,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:23:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

360 BOOK REVIEWS

and Heracleides' discovery that a higher tone means a larger number of air waves per unit of time, are not treated adequate- ly (see my "Harmonielehre der Pythago- reer," Hermes, 78, p. I63).

Chapter 7 on Greek astronomy is on the whole very good. The author has drawn largely on the excellent monograph of Th. Heath, "Aristarch of Samos, the ancient Copernicus." As usual, he ascribes to Hera- cleides the doctrine that Mercury and Venus revolve about the sun. In my Astronomie der Pythagoreer (Amsterdam, I95I, quoted by the author on p. 208) I have shown that another interpretation is possible, one that explains the texts even better.

In Chapter 8 on Roman science the opinions of Lucretius, Vitruvius, Celsus, Seneca and Pliny are discussed. The discus- sion, based directly upon texts, is very in- structive.

Part II (Chapters 9-I4) is devoted to science in late antiquity. Much attention is given to the church fathers and to the Latin tradition (the Physiologus, Chalcidius, Ma- crobius, Martianus Capella, Boethius, Isi- dore of Sevilla, Gregory of Tours, Bede, John the Scot).

On page II9 "the recent discovery of a block of some i,ooo papyri containing in Coptic the religious books of Gnosticism" is mentioned. This is very interesting and important, but no reference is given.

This brings me to the question of foot- notes. In my opinion, footnotes are the most convenient form of showing the reader where he can find further literature on the subject. It seems that modern readers or publishers or authors do not like footnotes. Well, there are ways to avoid them: one can give the necessary references in the text, or at the end of every short subdivision, or (still less convenient) at the end of the book. In this and in many other modern books, the references are collected chapter- wise at the end of the book. So, if one wants to check a statement given without proof in the text, one has first to find the number of the chapter. In the present case (Gnos- ticism), this would be Chapter 9. At the end of the book, one finds eleven "further readings" to Chapters 9 and I0. Therefore, in order to find one single source, one has to consult eleven books, some consisting of two or three volumes!

Very instructive are the seven Appendices, in which fragments from Archimedes, Ap- pollonius and Ptolemy are presented in simplified form.

Less satisfactory are the suggestions for "further reading." Instead of referring to primary sources and papers on special sub- jects, the author invites the reader to study compilations of the same kind as the one he just has read, but less up to date. Thus, the common tendency to use second- and third-hand literature is encouraged, whereas it ought to be discouraged.

On page 205 it appears that this book is meant not only for the general reader, but also as a text-book for teachers. I should wish that future teachers of history of science would not follow this advice, but study the sources for themselves, guided by monographs and papers containing full references.

The other counsel given repeatedly by the author, viz., to use Cohen and Drabkin's Source Book in Greek Science, is excellent.

B. L. VAN DER WAERDEN Mathematisches Institut der Universitlit, Zurich

PHILIP MERLAN: From Platonism to Neoplatonism. XVi + 210 pp. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, ig5.

The subject of this book is a crucial point in the history of thought, namely, the actual importance and development of late Pytha- gorean ideas inside the orbit of Platonic thought.

It has often been said that there is more of Neoplatonism in Plato than meets the eye. Fr. Festugiere once made the point, in a most learned work, as far as certain aspects of mystical thought are concerned; and so did Leon Robin concerning the "Idea- Numbers." Mr. Merlan now tries to bridge the gap separating the two doctrines five hundred years apart in time, and to show that Plotinus was right in claiming to be nothing else but an interpreter of Plato. Such an attempt commands our sympathy, for it appears to be good method to assume in the first place (what historians rarely do) that a philosopher knows what he is saying. Mr. Merlan, moreover, has a stake

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.174 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:23:34 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions