|
Williams |
We have seen that
the third century B.C. was a time when Alexandrian science was at its height,
but that the second century produced also in Hipparchus at least one investigator
of the very first rank; though, to be sure, Hipparchus can be called an
Alexandrian only by courtesy. In the ensuing generations the Greek capital
at the mouth of the Nile continued to hold its place as the centre of scientific
and philosophical thought. The kingdom of the Ptolemies still flourished
with at least the outward appearances of its old-time glory, and a company
of grammarians and commentators of no small merit could always be found
in the service of the famous museum and library; but the whole aspect of
world-history was rapidly changing. Greece, after her brief day of political
supremacy, was sinking rapidly into desuetude, and the hard-headed Roman
in the West was making himself master everywhere. While Hipparchus of Rhodes
was in his prime, Corinth, the last stronghold of the main-land of Greece,
had fallen before the prowess of the Roman, and the kingdom of the Ptolemies,
though still nominally free, had begun to come within the sphere of Roman
influence.
Just what share these political changes
had in changing the aspect of Greek thought is a question regarding which
difference of opinion might easily prevail; but there can be no question
that, for one reason or another, the Alexandrian school as a creative centre
went into a rapid decline at about the time of the Roman rise to world-power.
There are some distinguished names, but, as a general rule, the spirit
of the times is reminiscent rather than creative; the workers tend to collate
the researches of their predecessors rather than to make new and original
researches for themselves. Eratosthenes, the inventive world-measurer,
was succeeded by Strabo, the industrious collator of facts; Aristarchus
and Hipparchus, the originators of new astronomical methods, were succeeded
by Ptolemy, the perfecter of their methods and the systematizer of their
knowledge. Meanwhile, in the West, Rome never became a true culture-centre.
The great genius of the Roman was political; the Augustan Age produced
a few great historians and poets, but not a single great philosopher or
creative devotee of science. Cicero, Lucian, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, give
us at best a reflection of Greek philosophy. Pliny, the one world-famous
name in the scientific annals of Rome, can lay claim to no higher credit
than that of a marvellously industrious collector of facts - the compiler
of an encyclopaedia which contains not one creative touch.
All in all, then, this epoch of Roman domination
is one that need detain the historian of science but a brief moment. With
the culmination of Greek effort in the so-called Hellenistic period we
have seen ancient science at its climax. The Roman period is but a time
of transition, marking, as it were, a plateau on the slope between those
earlier heights and the deep, dark valleys of the Middle Ages. Yet we cannot
quite disregard the efforts of such workers as those we have just named.
Let us take a more specific glance at their accomplishments. |
|