FURTHER READING
Anthony T. Edwards, Hesiod’s Ascra (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 2004).
Bettany Hughes, Helen of Troy: Goddess, Princess, Whore (New
York: Knopf, 2005).
Andrea G. McDowell, Jurisdiction in the Workmen’s Community of
Deir el-Medina (Leiden, Netherlands: NINO, 1991).
Raphael Sealey, Demosthenes and His Time: A Study in Defeat (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Pascal Vernus, Aff airs and Scandals in Ancient Egypt, trans. David
Lorton (Ithaca, N.Y., and London: Cornell University Press,
2003).▶ science
introduction
In the modern world scientists adhere to the scientifi c method
in pursuing their work. Th ey make hypotheses about prob-
lems, test those hypotheses by gathering data under controlled
conditions, and then arrive at generalizations that might in
time gain the status of scientifi c laws, such as the law of grav-
ity. Ancient scientists did not approach science in this system-
atic way and in fact might not have regarded themselves as
“scientists” at all. Among ancient peoples, science was associ-
ated with magic and religion, two areas of thought that oft en
overlapped. People saw themselves as subject to the will of the
gods and to mysterious natural forces. Th eir only hope for sur-
vival was discovering ways of controlling those forces. Knowl-
edge consisted primarily of knowing the will of the gods and
possibly making predictions about future events.Ancient science, then, oft en overlapped with what the
modern world sees as superstition. In many ancient cultures
the scientists were oft en the seers, the diviners, the shamans
and priests, who acquired insight into the properties of na-
ture, the movements of heavenly bodies, the functioning of
the human system, and the like. Ancient astronomers and
healers provide good examples. Both of these classes of sci-
entists were believed to have divine, supernatural knowl-
edge, which they could use for the benefi t of people in their
communities.
Another distinction between ancient and modern science
is that ancient science was almost never theoretical. Ancient
people did not have time to pursue purely theoretical knowl-
edge, or scientifi c knowledge for its own sake. Th ey were
too busy with the practical concerns of day-to-day survival.
Th us, science tended to be more in the nature of technology,
of fi nding solutions to practical problems. In attacking those
problems, they looked around and saw four fundamental
elements that aff ected their lives: earth, fi re, air, and water.
Science represented an eff ort to control these four elements.
Th us, perhaps the best way to categorize and summarize an-
cient science is to focus on how they learned to tame these
four elements.
Th e earth was the most stable, tangible reality, so ancient
peoples made eff orts to achieve some understanding of it and
of ways to use it. Stone Age peoples, for example, learned to
make weapons, cutting tools, and the like out of the stones on
the ground that surrounded them. Th eir Bronze Age and Iron
Age descendants learned to make these weapons and tools
out of metal. To do that, they needed to develop ways to fi nd
metal ore, mine it, smelt it, purify it, and cast it into the ob-
jects they needed. As ancient chemists, they learned ways todone away with entirely. Th us the judiciary law started
another factional contest that lasted for a long time and
was fully as harmful as the previous ones.
Gracchus constructed long highways over Italy and
thus made an army of contractors and workmen
dependent on his favor and rendered them subject
to his every wish. He proposed the establishment of
a number of colonies. He prompted the Latin allies
to clamor for all the privileges of Roman citizenship,
for the senate could not becomingly deny them to the
kinsmen of the Romans. He attempted to give the
right to vote to those allies that were not permitted
to take part in Roman elections, so as to have their
assistance in the passing of measures that he had in
mind. Th e senate was greatly perturbed at this and
commanded the consuls to set forth the following
proclamation, “No one that does not have the rightto vote shall remain in the city or come within forty
stadia of it during the time that the voting is taking
place upon these laws.” Th e senate also got Livius
Drusus—another tribune—to intercede his veto
against the measures brought forward by Gracchus
without telling the plebs his reasons for so doing; for
a tribune did not have to give his reasons for a veto. In
order to curry favor with the plebs they gave Drusus
permission to found twelve colonies, and the people
were so much taken with this that they began to jeer at
the measures that Gracchus proposed.From: Appian, “Civil Wars,” in Oliver
J. Th atcher, ed., Th e Library of Original
Sources, Vol. 3, Th e Roman World
(Milwaukee, Wisc.: University Research
Extension Co., 1907).science: introduction 9210895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i921 921 10/10/07 2:30:26 PM