1 The Birth of Science - MSRI

1.1 The Removal of the Scientific Revolution 5
but none of his works expounding theoretical principles. We will see later
other examples of these selection criteria.
A third reason for our ignorance is that until recently there had been
no systematic excavation of the centers of Ptolemaic Egypt. Even in the
case of Alexandria, the submerged remains of the ancient city only began
to be explored systematically in 1995. Much of our knowledge of Ptolemaic
Egypt comes form papyri found in the last hundred years. These
are fortuitous finds, in general discarded sheets used as “waste paper” by
embalmers.
Fourthly and finally, apart from some diplomatic and military events page 26
transmitted by the Romans and from some legal and related data recoverable,
say, from inscriptions, we know almost nothing about the other Hellenistic
kingdoms. Particularly jarring is our lack of information about the
Seleucid kingdom (which included Mesopotamia), given that several indications
suggest that its contribution to scientific development may have
been comparable to Ptolemaic Egypt’s. Our ignorance is caused partly by
the fact that papyrus and parchment don’t last for millennia other than
under exceptional climates, as in certain areas of Egypt. Hellenistic Mesopotamia
still used cuneiform writing on clay tablets, a much more durable
recording material; but this fortunate circumstance does not appear to
have been taken advantage of to any significant extent. The historian Rostovtzeff
writes:
We know rather more of Babylonia than of the other eastern parts of
the empire. A few Greek inscriptions, the ruins of some buildings of
Hellenistic date and, most important of all, thousands of cuneiform
tablets of the same period mostly from Babylon and Uruk have been
found. Very few of these have been read and published and even
fewer translated. . . 8
Perhaps the phenomenon we have called “removal” is a profound characteristic
of our culture. Not only are cuneiform tablets not being read,
but even the Hellenistic writings that have come down to us are often not
found in accessible editions. 9
We will try to identify the origins of this phenomenon in this book.
And if on the one hand the scarcity of documents makes it hard to prove
any thesis, one should not, on the other hand, be too astounded if some
of the current interpretations turn out to be misguided. If we face Hel- page 27
8 [Rostovtzeff: SE], p. 187.
9 For example, there is no critical edition of the fragments of Eratosthenes. The only attempt
in that direction, by G. Bernhardy, dates from 1822. For scientific works, in particular, there is no
collection of classics comparable to the authoritative series devoted to literary or philosophical
works.
Revision: 1.15 Date: 2002/09/12 02:47:10