The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy

298 Pages·2009·1.75 MB·English

by  Sylvia Berryman

This page intentionally left blank
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