Table Of Content

THE MECHANICAL HYPOTHESIS IN ANCIENT GREEK NATURAL PHILOSOPHY IthasoftenbeenthoughtthattheancientGreeksdidnottakemechanics seriously as part of the workings of nature, and that this contributed to the marginalization of their natural philosophy. In this book Sylvia Berryman challenges that assumption, arguing that the idea that the world works ‘like a machine’ can be found in ancient Greek thought, predating the early modern philosophy with which it is most closely associated. Her discussion ranges over topics including balancing and equilibrium, lifting water, sphere-making and models of the heavens, andancientGreekpneumatictheory,withdetailedanalysisofthinkers suchasAristotle,ArchimedesandHeroofAlexandria.Herbookshows scholarsofancientGreekphilosophywhyitisnecessarytopayattention to mechanics, and shows historians of science why the differences between ancient and modern reactions to mechanics are not as great as was generally thought. Her historical treatment of the meaning of ‘mechanistic’or‘mechanical’isofvaluetocontemporaryphilosophical debatesaboutexplanation. SYLVIA BERRYMAN isAssociateProfessor,DepartmentofPhilosophy, UniversityofBritishColumbia. THE MECHANICAL HYPOTHESIS IN ANCIENT GREEK NATURAL PHILOSOPHY SYLVIA BERRYMAN CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521763769 © Sylvia Berryman 2009 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2009 ISBN-13 978-0-511-60498-0 eBook (NetLibrary) ISBN-13 978-0-521-76376-9 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents List of illustrations page vii Acknowledgements viii 1 Introduction 1 Mechanics and the mechanical: some problems 9 of terminology 11 Thecriticsofprevailingusage 15 Somecandidatedefinitionsofthe‘mechanistic’ 2 21 ‘Mechanistic’ thought before mechanics? 24 Divineversushumantechnology 29 Workingartifactsbeforethefourthcentury 34 Ancient atomism and th e machin e analo gy 39 The‘shortfalls’ofancienttechnology 43 The‘exclusion’ofancientmechanics 3 54 Mechanics in the fourth century 55 The scope of ancient Greek mec hanics 87 Archytasandthefoundationofmechanics 97 Aristotle’s‘mechanics’ofmotion 104 Conclusion 4 105 The theory and practice of ancient Greek mechanics 106 TheAristotelianMechanica 115 Ctesibius 117 Archimedes 123 PhiloofByzantium v vi Contents 130 Vitruvius 134 HeroofAlexandria 143 PappusofAlexandria 146 Modelsoftheheavens 5 Ancient Greek mechanics continued: the case of 155 pneumatics 157 Pneumatictechnologyinthepost-classicalperiod 165 AncientGreekpneumatictheory 170 Thestatusofmechanicsrevisited:naturalorartificial? 6 177 The philosophical reception of mechanics in antiquity 179 Mechanicaltheoryinnaturalphilosophy 191 Thetheoryofpneumaticsinnaturalphilosophy 197 Pneumaticsandmedicaltheory 201 Workingartifactsandthenotionofaself-mover 205 Mechanicalanalogiesforthefunctioningoforganisms 216 Workingartifactsinastronomy 220 Mechanicalanalogiesincosmology 231 Conclusion Appendix: Ancient mechanics and the mechanical in the 236 seventeenth century 250 Bibliography 274 Index of passages 282 General index Illustrations 1 Hagniste¯rion, a device associated with purification rituals. 1851 93 50 Illustration from Woodcroft ( ), p. page 2 Sketch of a working model, built by the author, of a standing theatre-piece ascribed to Philo of Byzantium; based on descriptions by Hero of 1899 455 74 Alexandria and drawings in Schmidt ( ), p. 3 Three-dimensional sketch of a barulkos, ‘weightlifter’, based on illustrations from manuscripts in 1963 135 Drachmann ( a) 4 Sketch of a cylinder on slopes of different inclinations, to illustrate Hero’s use of the balancing point to account for the greater downward tendencies of 138 cylinders on steeper slopes 5 Hero’s moving theatrical automaton. Illustration from 1899 361 141 Schmidt ( ), p. 6 Sketch of Ctesibius’ water organ, adapted from a 2004 229 159 drawing by James A. Diamond, Russo ( ), p. 7 Water-level regulator. Illustration from Woodcroft 1851 92 163 ( ), p. 8 ‘Owl-and-birds’, a water-driven pneumatic device. 1851 31 165 Illustration from Woodcroft ( ), p. vii Acknowledgements Given the wide-ranging nature of this project, stretching over several years and two research leaves, I can only begin to acknow- ledge the advice, encouragement and support I have received. For invaluable advice, comments on chapters, encouragement and help inarticulatingmyprojectatvariousstages,Iamimmenselygrateful to Markus Asper, Bob Batterman, Tad Brennan, David Creese, Andrea Falcon, Monte Johnson, Sean Kelsey, Paul Keyser, Stephen Menn,JohnMurdoch,TimO’Keefe,GeorgesRey,AlanRichardson, Bob Sharples, Heinrich von Staden and Rob Wisnovsky. I owe a greatongoingdebttomyteachers,JimHankinson,AlexMourelatos, Richard Sorabji and Stephen White, who have shaped the way I approach the study of ancient Greek philosophy. This project has required going out of my field, and I particularly thank Daniel GarberandMichaelMahoneyforallowingmetoaudittheirgraduate seminar on Galileo and Descartes; Alan Gabbey for helpful advice onMoreandBoyle;AlanBowenforcommentsandreferencesonthe sectionsonastronomy;andLenBerggrenandJimEvansforinstruc- tion on astronomical devices. 2001 2 For generous support during the academic year – , I would liketothanktheCenterforHellenicStudies,theNationalHumanities CenterandNationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,andtheCollege of Humanities at The Ohio State University. For research funding 2003 4 during the academic year – , I am grateful to the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and the National Science Foundation; this material is based on work supported by the National Science 0500100 Foundation under Grant No. . I thankthe SocialScience and viii Acknowledgements ix HumanitiesCouncilofCanadaforadditionalresearchsupportduring the last year of revisions. I am grateful to the Department of Philosophy and College of Humanities at The Ohio State University and The University of British Columbia for granting me study leaves toundertakethisproject,andforlendingmoralsupporttoworkona projectthatextendsbeyondanarrowviewofthescopeofphilosophy. Not every department of philosophy would humour junior scholars looking for philosophical insight in catapult building manuals. Earlier versions of some parts of chapters have appeared in other publications. I thank Brill for permission to use material from ‘Ancient Automata and Mechanical Explanation’, published in 484 2003 Phronesis . ( ), which appears in reworked form as part of 2 6 Chapters and ,andAcademicPrintingandPublishing,forpermis- sion to reproduce parts of my article, ‘Galen and the Mechanical Philosophy’, Apeiron: a Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 35 2002 6 ( ), included in revised form within Chapter . I also thank W.W. Fortenbaugh and Rutgers University Press for permission to 5 usematerialwithinChapter frommyarticle‘TheEvidenceforStrato from Hero of Alexandria’s Pneumatics’, forthcoming in the Rutgers University Series in the Classical Humanities volume on Strato of Lampsacus. Thistalegrewinthetelling.Fordiscussion,ideasandencourage- ment,IparticularlythankcolleaguesandaudiencesattheCenterfor HellenicStudies,TheUniversityofTexasatAustin,OberlinCollege, The Ohio State University, the University of Maryland at College Park, UNC-Greensboro, the University of South Carolina, the History of Science Department at Harvard University, the Stanford University conference on artificial life, The University of British Columbia, Columbia University, Northwestern University, the Friday Harbor History of Science Workshop, the History of Science Society, and Cambridge University History and Philosophy of Science Department. I benefitted greatly from comments by anony- mousreadersonanearlierdraftofthismanuscript;theirgenerousand detailed observations allowed me to avoid many infelicities, mistakes and omissions. Roger Stanev and Max Weiss gave able assistance in checking references and editing; I am indebted to Jan Chapman’s