Science and Politics in the Ancient

World 1st Edition Benjamin Farrington

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/science-and-politics-in-the-ancient-world-1st-edition-b
enjamin-farrington/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Ancient Nasca World New Insights from Science and

Archaeology 1st Edition Rosa Lasaponara

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-ancient-nasca-world-new-
insights-from-science-and-archaeology-1st-edition-rosa-
lasaponara/

Moral Values in the Ancient World 1st Edition John

Ferguson

https://textbookfull.com/product/moral-values-in-the-ancient-
world-1st-edition-john-ferguson/

The Adventure of the Human Intellect Self Society and

the Divine in Ancient World Cultures Ancient World
Comparative Histories 1st Edition Kurt A. Raaflaub

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-adventure-of-the-human-
intellect-self-society-and-the-divine-in-ancient-world-cultures-
ancient-world-comparative-histories-1st-edition-kurt-a-raaflaub/

Money Warfare and Power in the Ancient World 1st

Edition Jeremy Armstrong

https://textbookfull.com/product/money-warfare-and-power-in-the-
ancient-world-1st-edition-jeremy-armstrong/
Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World Martin
Bommas

https://textbookfull.com/product/memory-and-urban-religion-in-
the-ancient-world-martin-bommas/

Peace in the Ancient World Concepts and Theories 1st

Edition Kurt A. Raaflaub

https://textbookfull.com/product/peace-in-the-ancient-world-
concepts-and-theories-1st-edition-kurt-a-raaflaub/

Collectors, scholars, and forgers in the ancient world

: object lessons 1st Edition Higbie

https://textbookfull.com/product/collectors-scholars-and-forgers-
in-the-ancient-world-object-lessons-1st-edition-higbie/

Empire and Ideology in the Graeco Roman World Selected

Papers Benjamin Isaac

https://textbookfull.com/product/empire-and-ideology-in-the-
graeco-roman-world-selected-papers-benjamin-isaac/

Birds in the Ancient World: Winged Words Jeremy Mynott

https://textbookfull.com/product/birds-in-the-ancient-world-
winged-words-jeremy-mynott/
SCIENCE AND POLITICS
IN THE

AN CIENT WORLD
 by the same author

PRIM U M G RAIU S HOMO

Cambridge University Press

SC IEN CE IN AN TIQ U ITY

Home University Library

TH E CIVILIZATION
OF GREECE AND ROME
Gollancz
SCIENCE AND POLITICS
IN T H E

ANCIENT WORLD
BY

B E N JA M IN F A R R IN G T O N
Professor of Classics, University College
Swansea

LO N D O N

G E O R G E A L L E N & U N W IN L T D
 Ον κόμπον ovhc φωνής Ιργαστικονς ovhe την περιμάχητον
παρά τοΐς πολλοΐς παώςίαν όνΰακννμόνονς φνσιολογία
παρασκ€νάζ€ΐ, άλλα σοβαρούς καί αντάρκεις και cm τοΐς
ίδιοι? άγαθοΐς, ούκ cm τοΐς των πραγμάτων μόγα φρονονντας.

E p ic u r u s

The knowledge o f natural law docs not produce men given to

idle boasting or prone to display the culture for which the many
strive, but men o f a haughty independence o f mind who pride
themselves on the goods proper to man, not to his circumstances.
 A c k n o w le d g m e n t s

I wish to thank the fo llo w in g : D r. C y r il B a iley fo r per­

mission to quote fro m his translation o f Epicurus; A . and C .
Black, Ltd., fo r permission to quote fro m Thom as W h it­
taker’ s Priests, Philosophers and Prophets; G . B ell and Sons,
Ltd., for permission to quote from M u n ro ’s translation o f
Lucretius; M r. W . H . S. Jones for permission to quote from
his version o f the Hippocratic writings (Loeb Library,
Heinemann); the Jo w e tt Trustees for permission to quote
from Jo w e tt’ s translation o f The Republic of Plato (O .U .P .);
John M urray for permission to quote from A . W . Benn’s
The Greek Philosophers; and Professor George Thomson
for permission to quote from his version o f the Prometheus
o f Aeschylus.
 C o n te n ts

CHAPTER PACE
LIST OF CHIEF FIGURES FROM ANTIQ UITY II

1. INTRODUCTORY 13
A Modem Illustration

2 . A FIRST GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM 19

From. Anaximander to Cosmas Indicopleustes
3 . A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM 26
The Geometer-God
4- A THIRD GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM 33
I From Empedocles to Prudentius
5. P A G A N A N D C H R IS T IA N S U P E R S T IT IO N 52

6. T H E T W O G R E A T A C H IE V E M E N T S OF PRE-
S O C R A T IC S C IE N C E 57 '

7. P R O M E T H E U S B O U N D 67
The Clash between Science and the City-State
j 8. PL A T O A N D T H E R E L IG IO N O F T H E C IT Y -S T A T E 87
! 9. T H E R E V O L T FR O M TH E R E LIG IO N OF T H E
' C IT Y -S T A T E 107
10. W H A T E P IC U R U S D ID 118
11. E P IC U R U S A N D P LA T O 130
12. T H E R E LIG IO N OF E P IC U R U S 148
13. E P IC U R E A N ISM R E A C H E S R O M E 160
14. L U C R E T IU S 172
15 A FT E R L U C R E T IU S 2 17

BIBLIOGRAPH Y 235

INDP.X 239
 CH A PTE R ONE

INTRO D UCTO RY
A M O D ERN ILLUSTRATIO N

Haeckel, by stressing the application to Man of Darwin s theory

of the Origin of Species, finds that he has transformed himself
from a pure scientist to a politician.*I

\ This is a book about the obstacles to the spread o f a

I scientific outlook in the ancient w orld. O f these obstacles
I the chief is generally characterized as Popular Superstition.
The purpose o f this study is to raise the question h o w far
popular superstition means superstition originated by the
people or imposed upon the people. Plutarch, in his brilliant
essay O n Superstitition, says o f the victims o f this disease that
“ they despise Philosophers and Grave Personages o f State
and Governm ent, w ho do teach and show that the Majesty
of God is accompanied with bounty, magnanimity, love
and careful regard o f our good.” 1 But w e shall find
much evidence to show that philosophers and grave per­
sonages o f State and Government inculcated also less com­
fortable doctrines o f acknowledged falsity. Ancient writers
will inform us o f the nature o f these doctrines and the
motive for their dissemination. Their testimony will h elp '
us to distinguish between the two sources o f ancient super­
stition, popular ignorance and deliberate deceit. T o the
writer it seems that the keeping o f this elementary distinc-
Uon results in a shifting o f the perspective in which the
Instory o f science in antiquity is seen and in the clarifying
° f several issues that were previously obscure. Above all,
13
 INTRODUCTORY

it throws light on the history o f Epicureanism, and on the

strange figure of the Latin poet Lucretius, in whose work
the war against superstition reached its highest expression
in the ancient world.
In the later chapters o f this book w e shall be concerned
to trace the interactions between Natural Philosophy and
Political Philosophy in the world o f Classical Antiquity.
In our view the development o f Natural Philosophy was
violently interfered with by considerations that arose in a
field extraneous to it, namely politics. The invasion o f the
domain o f Natural Philosophy by political ideas is most
evident in Plato. The last determined endeavour to rescue j
Natural Philosophy from politics was made by Lucretius.
Our enquiry, therefore, though it will start before Plato
and continue after Lucretius, will centre mainly round these
two great figures. But since it may not be immediately
apparent that Natural Philosophy and Politics can and do
interact, it may be well to give first an example from modem
times of such interaction.
A m ong the advocates o f the biological th eo ry o f e v o lu ­
tion w hich produced such a ferment, not o n ly in scientific
circles but in society in general, in the closing decades o f
the nineteenth century one o f the m ost p rom inent and i
most zealous was Ernst Haeckel. Round his head broke the
most violent storms o f controversy. Haeckel was a m em ber
o f the upper classes with no particular interest in ■ i
problems. O nly experience revealed to him, and the S° Cial
lation puzzled him somewhat to his dying day t h * ^ 6”
uncompromising public championship o f his scientific ^ ^
was a form o f political action which roused the i Vlews
controversy and made him a hero to one political
and an object o f suspicion to another. P arty
Darwin, when he published his Origin o f Species '
 IN TRODUCT ORY

soft-pedalled its application to the origin o f man. H e pro­

vided his b o o k w ith a theistic conclusion, and m erely
suggested eti passant, as am on g the probable results o f his
theory o f N atu ral Selection, that “ light w ill be throw n on
the origin and history o f hum anity.” His Germ an translator,
jBronn, w hose version appeared in i860, still more timid
[than D a rw in , thought it better not to render the passage
Iat all. H e sim ply omitted the dangerous sentence. B u t at
ja scientific congress at Stettin in 1863 Haeckel, w ho was
the first speaker, vigorously underlined the implications for
the natural history o f man that must logically be developed
from D a rw in ’ s theory. H e had the general approval o f his
colleagues, V irc h o w am ong them. But V ircho w had a sense
for the social implications o f science that Haeckel in his
innocence did not yet possess. A t a later stage o f the same
congress he proceeded to limit the field o f action o f science
in a sense the full significance o f which did not become
clear for m any years. It was the business o f the scientist,
said V irch o w , to establish facts, but not to go on to philo­
sophize about them. In the domain o f fact science is supreme.
I f it be established as a fact that man is descended from the
ape, no tradition in the world w ill be able to suppress the
fact. An d the supremacy o f science in the domain o f fact
must be respected even beyond its frontiers. Church and
State must both bow to science in the realm o f fact. “ The
far-seeing Government and the open-minded Church will
always assimilate these advancing and developing ideas and
make them fruitful.” But at the same time, said Virchow,
science must not seek to trespass beyond its frontiers. And
in the drawing o f those mysterious frontiers Virchow showed
a wish to compromise with the claims o f the far-seeing
Government and die open-minded Church which was later to
produce the sharpest divergence between him and Haeckel.
15
 IN T R O D U CT O R Y

-S i
At the Stettin congress Virchow did not indicate
nature of the compromise he sought with Government,
concession was to the Church, and very curious was the
line he drew between the spheres o f Science and the Church.
Consciousness, said Virchow, and above all those facts of
consciousness that dominate our whole higher life, can never
be the concern of science. “ That is, I think,” he said, the
point where science makes its compromise with the
Churches, recognizing that this is a province that each can
survey as he will, cither putting his own interpretation on
it or accepting the traditional ideas; and it must be sacred
to others.”
V ir c h o w ’ s position w as anything but completely clear,
b u t en ou gh o f it w as clear to be inacceptable to H aeckel
T h e scientist m igh t gather facts but he must n o t d ra w con­
clusions, at least in the sphere o f consciousness. T o impose
such a com prom ise on H aeck el w o u ld have been to forbid
him to think. H e w as to be free to trace the evolu tion of
the physical structure o f livin g things fro m the moneron
to man, but not free to associate th erew ith a n y conclusions
on the evolution o f the psychic activities that dep en d on
the physical structure. Vesalius had already m uttered under
such restrictions three hundred years before. H aeckel con­
tinued to enquire, to speculate, and to publish. Virchow,
now openly settmg expediency above truth, m oved into
full opposition. A t the congress o f i8 ? 7 , it ^ n o ,ongc,
w ith the open-minded Church (its pow er had declined in
the meantime in Germany! that i_
compromise, hut with J fo t-^ L V c o 8 *° .
f o r t h e m o m e n t w x ,h . mg Governm
for the moment was the more powerful nf fL ent,
C' winch
time, no. the Deposit o f the F^th bm
were to define the limits o f the scientist’s StatC’
winism was now opposed on the ground A ^ t h ^ s S a l
16
 INTRO D U CTO RY

Democrats had taken to it. Science was to be restricted

because the people were becoming interested in its con­
clusions. Not truth but political expediency was to be the
controlling factor in the growth o f science.
Haeckel n o w felt h im self crushed between the upper and
the nether m ill-stone. H e had always dreaded the ignorance
o f the m ultitude; n o w he began to fear that his w orst enem y
was the alliance o f the Ch u rch w ith the reactionary political
party in G erm an y. Ignorance, he reflected, m ay be cured;
the appeal to interest is always addressed to d e a f ears. He
had always concerned him self w ith publishing his con­
clusions to the educated non-specialist; n ow he would seek
a wider public still. He w ould, i f he could, enlighten the
multitude. T h at w a y at least lay hope for the future o f
mankind. Haeckel had turned politician, but not by aban­
doning science; he had merely found that to be a consistent
.and courageous scientist was politics in the highest degree.
/With the composition o f The Riddle o f the Universe he
addressed him self to the man in the street. The book,
translated into fourteen languages, sold in its hundreds o f
•[thousands. T h e Jena professor, whose weak voice could
Jiardly be heard in the lecture-room, had spoken to the
‘tvorld. His determination not only to enquire but to publish
*hc results o f his enquiries had transformed the very nature
-inf his activities. His opinions ceased to be a matter o f merely
academic concern; they, and his right to express them, had
'become the symbol o f a struggle o f the people for eman­
cipation. T o his bewilderment, and possibly not altogether
(to his satisfaction, he was exalted to the rank o f a prophet
J w the democracies o f the world.
Such were the repercussions in Church and State o f one
ian’s advocacy o f Darwinism at the end o f the nineteenth

i c'ntury. I f it was observed with alarm that he was being

LUnt* a * d I'o litu i u* Ikt XikK tU World I7 D

 INTRODUCTORY

read by factory-workers and fishermen; if it was discovered

in his own country that his works were “ a fleck o f shame
on the escutcheon o f Germany,” “ an attack on the foun­
dations o f religion and morality” ; and in Glasgow that die
impeccable author himself was “ a man of notoriously
licentious life,” these phenomena have, as we shall see, their
analogy in the history o f science in the ancient world .1
2

1 Plutarch’s de Supersfitione, chap. 6. Translation by Philemon Hollani

2 The source for the account o f Ernst Haeckel given in this chapter
is Haeckel, His Life and Work; by Wilhelm Bolsche; translated by Joseph
McCabe, Fisher Unwin, 1906.
 CHAPTER TWO

A FIRST GLANCE AT OUR

PROBLEM
FROM A N AXIM AN D ER TO COSMAS
INDICOPLEUSTES

Anaximander, in the sixth century B.C., teaches a theory of

solution based on observation. Cosmas, in the sixth century
A.D., teaches a theory based on the Bible, that the universe is
made on the model of the Tabernacle of Moses.

Attention has often been directed to the “ miraculous” rise

jof Greek science in sixth-century Ionia. Equally marvellous
is the state o f its decline in the sixth century o f our own
era after more than a thousand years o f civilization. This
being the phenomenon w e hope to explain in some measure,
it w ill be w ell to take a preliminary survey o f it.
In the sixth century in Ionia, within the compass o f the
lifetime o f tw o men, Thales and Anixamander,^ science
achieved an astonishing development. It is a fact, which
anyone can confirm w ho cares to take the trouble, that the
kind o f things that Anaximander was saying in his book
On Nature were the same kind o f things that an up-to-date
writer puts forward to-day in a scientific handbook o f the
universe. Thus, Anaximander was already maintaining
that the sun, moon, and stars, the eardi, and the sea, were
all made o f one fundamental substance; that they came
to occupy their present positions in the universe as a
natural result o f the motion with which the primary
19
 A F IR S T GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

matter is endowed; that this motion tended to send the

hot and fiery element to the outside o f the universe, the
cold and earthy to the centre, while water and mist lay
between; that the earth was still undergoing a great pro­
cess o f change, owing to the fact that the encircling heat
continually dried up the moisture from the sea and the
surface o f the earth, a process plainly proved by the observed
phenomenon o f raised beaches; that living things had been
produced in the course o f the natural process thus described
and were under the necessity o f adapting themselves to their
environment or perishing; that “ the first animals were
produced in moisture, and were covered with a spiny
tegument; in course o f time they reached land; when the
integument burst they quickly modified their mode o f life” ;
and that “ living creatures were bom from the moist element
when it had been evaporated by the sun; man, in the begin­
ning resembled another animal, to wit, a fish.” These
were the kind o f things Anaximander was writing. And
he was further aware that he had arrived at these conclusions
by looking at the universe about him and thinking about
what he saw. He realized that the kind o f things he was led
by observation and reflection to believe about the universe
constituted a new kind o f knowledge not the same as that
taught by poets and priests; but he thought that it could be
trusted to make its w ay by itself with intelligent people and
would be found useful to humanity. He him self began to
apply his knowledge to the practical purpose o f making a
map o f the known world.
People have been rightly astonished at the progress in
science that was made in a generation in Ionia in the sixth
century. But is it not even more astonishing that this
promising beginning should in due time have completelv
failed ? In the sixth century o f our own era a writer call d
20
 A F IR S T GLANCE AT OUR P R O B LE M

Cosm as Indicopleustes, w hose w o r k has survived w hile on ly

the smallest fragm ents o f An axim an der’s remain, set out to
prove, in his C hristian T o pography, that the earth is a flat
plain w ith high walls enclosing it on each o f its four
jsides. H e w as led to this opinion not prim arily b y the
jexamination o f the w o rld , but b y a conviction that the
jworld w as made on the model o f the tabernacle o f Moses
[described in H o ly W r it. W ith this supernatural guidance
;to aid him he kn ew that the sky was a semi-cylindrical lid
(which rested on the four walls and thus formed a cover for
ΐ the plain. Other knowledge also he possessed. It had been a
[defect o f Greek science that it had failed to develop a theory
;-of energy, and much nonsense was believed and written by
jGreek philosophers on the question o f the power that moved
'the heavenly bodies. Bu t Cosmas had a solution for this
(problem also. According to him the motive power for the
heavenly bodies was supplied by angels. It was angels who
produced the phenomena o f night and day, and other
phenomena o f the sort, by carrying the heavenly bodies
round a high mountain that lay to the north o f the plain.
The defect o f Greek science was thus made good. The foolish
Greeks had hesitated on the threshold o f a theory o f energy;
angels rushed in where fools had feared to tread. But the
most significant thing o f all is that Cosmas had parted with
the idea that the universe is evidence o f its own nature. This
evidence is now to be derived not from study o f nature but
from study o f a book; and this book is not believed because
it is new, but because it is old; and not simply because it is
old, but because it is supernatural. W hat causes had operated
to produce the change from the world o f Anaximander to
the world o f C o sm a s Indicopleustes ? This is the question
Iwith which we shall be concerned.
It m a y be ob je cte d that in con trastin g A n a x im a n d e r w ith
21
 A FIR ST GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

Cosmas we are contrasting one o f the greatest o f Greek

thinkers with a Christian writer o f no very great intellectual
pretensions. But this objection is not valid, for the compari­
son is intended not between the individual thinkers, but
between the two men as representative o f their times, and
both Anaximander and Cosmas are representative figures.
I f it had been a question o f finding a better scientist than
Cosmas in the sixth century o f the Christian era, Joannes
Philoponus, the distinguished commentator on Aristotle’s
Physics, w ho was converted from Neo-Platonism to
Christianity about a . d . 520, would serve our turn. But
Philoponus is not a typical figure. In so far as he was a
scientist he represents the survival o f a dying tradition. It
was the opinion o f Cosmas, namely, that in the Bible we
have the key to the understanding o f the nature o f things,
that was to be characteristic o f the coming age.1
The problem, then, is to find an adequate cause for the
decline o f the scientific activity o f the ancient world, the
disappearance o f the spirit o f enquiry into the nature o f
things. M any answers have been suggested. Christianity has
been blamed. B ut this is no answer to our problem; for,
in so far as Christianity was incompatible with science, we
have still to ask w hy the ancients abandoned their science for
Christianity.
The inroads o f the barbarian peoples on the frontiers o f
the Roman Empire are credited with the destruction o f the
tradition o f civilization. But this raises the enormous question
why the civilized portion o f the world should have declined
in power and the uncivilized portion increased, until the dis­
proportion became so great that the barbarians overran the
Empire. I f science had been doing what science can do for
mankind the Empire would never have fallen before the
attack o f the rude invaders.
22
 A FIRST GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

Greek science, it has also been said, failed because the

Romans could n ot assimilate it; w h e n the R om ans assumed
the political m astery o f the Greeks, the creative race was
reduced to a subject position, and the Rom ans themselves
could not take up the torch. B u t the racial incapacity o f the
Romans for science is a v e ry doubtful argument, as doubtful
as the supposed racial basis o f the scientific achievement o f
the Greeks. T h ere w as no Greek race, and no Rom an race.
jThe Greek thinkers w ere, racially, a thoroughly mongrel
lot. T hen, as in the m odem w orld, m any o f the most
distinguished “ European” scientists had a good porportion
o f oriental blood in their veins.2 A n d i f there was no Greek
race w ith a special aptitude for science, there was no Roman
race w ith a special inaptitude for it. The ancient Romans
were as mixed a lot as the m odem Italians; and i f the modern
Italians have contributed richly to science, while the ancient
Romans contributed very litde, the explanation does not
he in race.
External causes for the failure o f ancient science proving
I insufficient, internal causes have been sought for. It has been
said, with m uch justification, that the basis o f Greek science
was too narrow. R oughly it m ay be said that the Greeks,
conspicuously successful in mathematics, failed in physics.
They indulged in much physical speculation, but they did
not establish a tradition o f systematic experiment. Such
experiments as they are known to have employed were
rather in the nature o f illustrations o f speculative conclusions
than part o f a clearly apprehended technique o f research.
This explanation is good so far as it goes. But it still leaves
the further question, why die development o f Greek science
should have been so lop-sided. T o diis again a partial answer
has been given by those who point to the slave-basis o f
ancient society, and who see in the divorce o f theory and
23
 A F IR S T GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

practice that fo llo w s fro m the institution o f sla very a r^ asoI\

fo r the d e ve lo p m en t o f the speculative and abstract side o f
science and the failure o f its co n crete applications.
To the present writer the line o f explanation opened up by
those who approach the problem o f the failure o f ancient
science from the point o f view o f the social structure o f
ancient society seems the true one. The problem is complex,
and in this essay only one aspect o f it w ill be stressed. Many
writers have shown a lively sympathy with the view that
science is the creation o f an elite and is endangered i f it be
entrusted to the ignorant mob. It is not so common to find
any corresponding sense o f the responsibility o f governments
for the existence o f such ignorance; still less o f the active
part played by governments in the promotion o f ignorance.
Salomon Reinach3 accounts for the retrogressions towards
animism and magic, whether in nineteenth-century France
or fourth-century Greece, by “ the admixture o f minds
emancipated, but few in number, with the ignorant and
superstitious multitude.” But though he does utter a
reproach against the “ cultivated rationalistic classes, which
cared nothing for enlightening the poor folk,” he shows no
true sense o f the issues involved. He is unaware o f the
resistance offered by oligarchies to the spread o f knowledge
among the people. This is another aspect o f the truth,
without which the halting progress o f enlightenment cannot
be understood either in the ancient or in the modern world.
Readers o f C o lle t’ s History o f the Taxes on Knowledge* w ill
understand the problem as it existed in E n g la n d in the
nineteenth century, and w ill be able to set in its h isto rical
con text the fam ous inscription on the Examiner n ew sn
in the 1 8 3 0 ’s: “ Paper and print 3 j d ., T a x e s on K n o w l r T ^
3 id ., Price 7 d .” T h e n , “ learning that the State ,” in P
phrase o f G eo rg e Ja co b H o lyo ak e , “ w as fo r a hundred ai d
24
 A FIRST GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

forty-three years the active and determined frustrator o f

public information,” they will turn back to the study o f the
oligarchical policies o f Greece and Rome with a sharpened
comprehension. In the view o f the present writer, the
problem o f government in the class-divided societies o f
classical antiquity reveals its acuteness not only in the
descriptions o f open stasis, or class-warfare, in which the
records o f the ancient historians abound, but in the
systematic efforts on the part o f governments, priesthoods,
and leaders o f thought in various fields o f human achieve­
ment, to provide the mass o f their people not with true
| ideas but with “ wholesome” ones.

1 For Joannes Philoponus see Brunet et M idi, Histoire des Sciences:

Antiquiti, Paris, 19 35, pp. 963 if. It m ay be noted that the opinion o f these
two authorities is w holly against the out-moded view that Christianity
killed Greek science. According to them it died o f internal decay. Elle
aurait eu le meme sort, aoyons-nous, sans Vintervention ie I’iglise chritienne234
(p. 978).
2 See Seignobos, in his recent Essai d'une Histoire Compare des
Peupies de ΓEurope (Rieder, Paris, 1938), p. 29: Les Grecs, opdrant sur les
connaissanccs accumuldes en Orient cr&rent une methode de pensie si
nouvcllc qu’clle a ctd appelcc “ le miracle grec” et attribute i un g&iie
propre a la race hcllinique. En fait, elle fut l’ oeuvre du n petit nombre
d’individus, savants, philosophes, dcrivains, venus dcs points les plus
eloignes, la plupart meme de pays dont la population n’<ftait d’origine
hcllenique.
3 Sec Salomon Reinach’s Orpheus, English translation, Routledgc,
1931. pp. 24 and 95.
4 Collet’s History of the Taxes on Knowledge, Watts (Thinker’s
Library), Intro, pp. x and xi.

25
 CHAPTER THREE

A SEC O N D G L A N C E A T O U R
PRO BLEM
T H E G E O M E T E R -G O D

In this chapter it appears that arithmetic is democratic, geometry

oligarchic, and that God prefers the latter.

Science, as has been implied in our last chapter, can advance ,

or retreat along two roads. There is first the advance that
consists in the actual progress o f knowledge and refinement
o f ideas, irrespective o f the numbers o f those who share
in the advance. In the second place there is the progress o f
the dissemination o f scientific ideas among the general mass
o f the people.
In our modern world, where the practical applications
o f science have transformed and continue to transform
society, the question o f the dissemination o f scientific know­
ledge among the people at large assumes a different aspect
from that which it presented in antiquity. Pure science, in
our western democracies, may still to some extent be the
preserve o f an oligarchy, but without a wide dissemination
o f technical knowledge modem society is unworkable. The
problem that presents itself to societies o f oligarchical com­
plexion is how to combine political ignorance with technical
efficiency.
These considerations reveal to us the further fact that there
is a connection between the character o f science and its
dissemination. In this matter our democracies are at the
26
 A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

cross-roads. Either our science must transform itself by the

recognition that the history o f its development is unin­
telligible without an understanding o f its social origins; that
men cannot be adequately trained in applied science without
instruction in its social function; and that the obstacles to
the progress o f science can be external to it, in the sense that
they rise out o f the structure o f society as well as out o f
theoretical errors; either this transformation must take place
or science must retreat. The future o f science is now plainly
a political question. Either we must base our civilization
j more thoroughly on scientific foundations, or we must
destroy science itself. Both processes are taking place in the
I world to-day.
| Bu t in the w orld o f Classical Antiquity, though there
was an analogous situation, it had recognizable differences.
The machine age had not come. A t the basis o f the social
pile lay man himself, not man and the machine. There was
therefore no problem to be solved o f combining technical
training w ith political incompetence. The problem was the
simpler one o f disseminating such ideas as would make the
unjust distribution o f the rewards and toils o f life seem a
necessary part o f the eternal constitution o f tilings, and o f
suppressing such ideas as might lead to criticism o f this view
o f the universe. That the extent to which this political
principle operated seriously conditioned the history o f !
science, and was, in fact, a major cause o f that degeneration
o f science which took place between Anaximander and
Cosmas Indicopleustes, it is the object o f this essay to
prove.
There will be those who will deny that any such con­
siderations affected die judgments o f leaders o f thought and
opinion in Classical Antiquity. There will be many more,
who diough they will admit that there is some evidence
27
 A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

for this contention, w ill think that it is o f little or no moment.

This must be so, otherwise it is difficult to account for the
fact that they make so little mention o f it in their books.
The usual practice is to affirm, or to assume without affirm­
ing, that the opinions o f all ancient thinkers are innocent
o f any other consideration than devotion to Truth. It will
be well therefore to give an example o f what is meant by the
contention that both the character o f ancient science and the
problem o f its dissemination were affected by political
considerations.
In the Eighth B ook o f Plutarch’s Dinner-table Discussions,
the second topic raised is Plato’s meaning in saying, i f he
did say, that God is always busy with geometry. Diogenianus
raises the question, and after a preliminary assent has been
given to Plutarch’s view that the saying, though not to be
found in any o f the writings o f Plato, is certainly conform­
able to the spirit and style o f the man, the discussion begins.
The first speaker, Tyndares, is not disposed to see any
special difficulty in the saying. Are we to suppose, he asks,
that Plato meant anything more unusual or subtle than his
oft-repeated opinion that the function o f geometry is to
draw us away from the sensible and the perishable to the
intelligible and the eternal? For the contemplation o f the
eternal is the end o f philosophy, as the contemplation o f
the mysteries is the end o f initiation. W e must remember,
he says, that it was for this reason that Plato found fault
with the attempts o f Eudoxus, Archytas, and Menaechmus
to find solutions for geometrical problems by instrumental
and mechanical devices. For these bring us down to material
things again, and away from the eternal and bodiless Forms
with which God, being God, is always occupied.
(So spoke Tyndares. And I think we may take it that it
is generally, if still not universally, admitted that this shrink-
28
 A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR P RO BLE M

ing o f Platonic science from contact with material things is

not unconnected with the aristocratic contempt for manual
labour. If further evidence should be wanted on this point,
it can be found in those chapters o f his Life of Marcellus in
which Plutarch records with approval the contempt felt by
the great engineer Archimedes for his own mechanical
achievements.)
B u t the second speaker, Florus, was far from being
i content w ith this simple explanation. H e thinks there m ay be
[ something m ore particular implied. W ith pointed reference
; to the fact that Tyndares was a Lacedaemonian, he reminds
the com pany that Plato was w on t to link the name o f his
master Socrates w ith that o f Lycurgus the law-giver o f
j Sparta; indeed that he looked upon the founder o f the
| Spartan constitution as being as important an influence on
Socrates as the mathematician Pythagoras himself. He then
offers the following remarkable interpretation o f Plato’s
conception o f the geometer-God. “ Lycurgus is said to have
banished the study o f arithmetic from Sparta, as being
democratic and popular in its effect, and to have introduced
geometry, as being better suited to a sober oligarchy and
constitutional monarchy. For arithmetic, by its employment
o f number, distributes things equally; geometry, by the
employment o f proportion, distributes things according
to merit. Geometry is therefore not a source o f confusion
in the State, but has in it a notable principle o f distinction
between good men and bad, who are awarded their portions
not by weight or lot, but by the difference between vice
and virtue. This, the geometrical, is the system o f proportion
which God applies to affairs. This it is, m y dear Tyndares,
which is called by the names o f D ike and Nemesis, and
which teaches us that we ought to regard justice as equality,
hut not equality as justice. For what the many aim at is the
29
 A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

greatest o f all injustices, and God has removed it out o f the

world as being unattainable; but he protects and maintains
the distribution o f tilings according to merit, d e te rm in in g it
geometrically, that is in accordance with proportion and
iaw.”
(The equation between Spartan oligarchy, geometry, and
the law o f God, m ay seem surprising to some. W e shall
unhappily be familiar enough with such thoughts before we
have finished our enquiry.)
The third speaker, Autobulus, was not quite satisfied with
what Florus had said. T o him it seemed that Plato had
intended something less political and more cosmic in
significance. W hat Plato intended to convey is that Matter
is a principle o f disorder and discord on which geometry
imposes order and harmony. For “ when number and
proportion are put into Matter, then the indeterminate is
bound and circumscribed, first by lines, next by surfaces
and depths, and so furnishes the first forms and different
bodily shapes which serve as the foundation and base, as it
were, for the coming into being o f air and earth, o f water
and fire.”
When Plutarch himself, who spoke last, was asked to
make his contribution, he expressed himself as o f the opinion
that there was something in what each o f them had said.
He rejected neither the ethical view that the function o f
geometry is to lift up our minds from things earthly to
things heavenly; nor the political view that geometry is
oligarchic, and arithmetic democratic; nor the cosmic view
that an understanding o f the principles o f geometry is the
key to the understanding o f the universe, the view that
exalts a priori mathematics above observational physics; he
rejected none o f these views but rather summed them all up
in a religious interpretation o f his own. ^
30
 A SECOND GLANCE AT OUR PR OBL EM

God, according to Plutarch’s interpretation o f Plato’s

meaning, being the supreme geometer, had set himself, in
the act o f creation, the supreme geometrical problem. This
is not, as might be supposed, the demonstration that the
square on the hypotenuse o f a right-angled triangle is equal
to the sum o f the squares on the other two sides; rather was it
that altogether choicer problem, on finding the solution
to which Pythagoras had felt moved to sacrifice to God.
This was: Given any two figures, construct a third similar
to one and the same size as the other. The universe, Plutarch
explained, owed its origin to three things, God, Matter,
and Form. Matter is o f all subject things the most disorderly;
; Form is o f all patterns the fairest; G od is o f all causes the
| best. G od, therefore, set H im self the problem to make a
third thing like Form and coextensive with Matter. The
L result was the Kosm os, in which Form is imposed on all
I Matter.
So ends this particular Dinner-table Discussion. It is
obvious that it comes out o f a rich culture. And when w e
remember that some five hundred years separate Plutarch
from Plato w e are reminded o f the vitality o f that culture.
The Academ y which Plato had founded was still alive and
was not to be closed for another four hundred years. W e
cannot but be impressed with the tenacity as well as the
intellectual content o f the Platonic tradition. But, equally,
nobody can pretend that the system has not got a political
side to it. It is the philosophy o f an oligarch. The ethics, die
I science, the religion are quite consciously held as part o f the
j creed o f an oligarch. Or, i f one prefers to put it the other
I W a y , the political theory o f oligarchy is held to be the
necessary consequence o f the ethical, scientific, and religious
views.
Furthermore, one cannot but be struck with the emphasis
31
 A SECOND GLANCE AT O UR PROBLEM

upon mathematical, and the neglect o f physical, science.

Again, even within the domain o f mathematics it is possible
for one branch o f die subject to be felt to be oligarchical
and another democratic. And not only is arithmetic con­
demned as having egalitarian tendencies; mechanics are
rejected as a danger to the soul. Amidst prejudices so violent
as these, is it not possible, or even probable, that the neglect
o f physics is a further example o f the influence o f politics
on science ? That this is indeed so we shall attempt to show
in the sequel. And the consequences o f its neglect were
neither slight nor soon mended. They were, in a famous
phrase with which we shall be concerned later, “ wounds
o f life,” the occasion o f groaning and tears to many
generations o f men.
 CHAPTER FOUR

A THIRD GLANCE A T OUR

PROBLEM
FROM EM PEDOCLES TO PRUDENTIUS

In the fifth century B.C. the pagan poet Empedocles preaches

the need fo r a knowledge o f the Nature o f Things. In the fifth
century A.D., the Christian poet Prudentius rejects the knowledge
o f the Nature o f Things.

In discussing the history o f science even in m odem times

it is far fro m easy to be certain how far the dissemination
o f ideas am on g the public has kept pace with the progress
o f know ledge in itself. This information is still more difficult
to acquire w ith regard to ancient times. And in speaking
o f the high level o f scientific know ledge attained by
Anaximander in Miletus in the middle o f the sixth century
we intended no guarantee that his ideas had permeated
society w idely and deeply.
Nevertheless, there is much evidence in support o f the
view that the Ionian renaissance was in a very real sense
a popular m ovem ent o f enlightenment. Thus in a medical
treatise on The Nature of Man, which dates from the second
half o f the fifth century, we have evidence o f a wide interest
in the science o f the day. The writer opens with the remark:
“ He who is in the habit o f listening to speakers who discuss
the nature o f man in a way that goes beyond its connexion
with the science o f medicine will find nothing to interest
him in the present account.” Then, after a few acid com-
I'o lilu t M Ikt AruU nl World 33
 A TH IR D GLANCE AT OUR P R O tf tB i '»

ments on the random speculations o f philosophers who

discuss human nature without a study o f medicine, e
writer observes that the fact that they contradict one another
is proof that their approach is at fault, and proceeds: One
can easily convince himself o f this by attending their
debates. Though the same debaters appear again and again
before the same audiences, no one ever wins three times
in succession. N o w one is victorious now another, the
popular favour going to the talker who displays the readiest
eloquence before the crowd.”
The evidence for a wide popular interest in the most
advanced physical speculations o f the day seems conclusive.
And this becomes the more impressive i f it is remembered
that the philosophical opinions attacked by the Ionian medi­
cal writer are those o f the poet-philosopher, Empedocles
o f Acragas in Sicily. Empedocles was probably still alive
when the treatise from which we have been quoting was
written. It is startling testimony to the permeation o f the
Greek w orld o f the fifth century by philosophic and scien­
tific ideas that the views o f a Sicilian poet should be the
rage with popular audiences in the lecture halls o f Asia
Minor, and should provoke an acrid discussion by an
Asiatic doctor.
Further evidence o f the impact o f the scientific thought
o f the day on society in general is provided i f w e turn
to the mainland o f Greece. Before the vast audiences in the
theatre o f Dionysus at Athens the choruses were already
chanting lyrics in which Euripides was introducing to his
somewhat backward fellow-citizens the views o f the Ionian
thinkers which he had learned from Anaxagoras, their
representative in Athens. And already, before Empedocles,
two philosophic poets o f considerable powers had appeared,'
one in Asia Minor, one in Italy. These were Xenophanes
34
 A THIRD GLANCE AT OUR PROBLEM

and Parmenides. And their choice o f verse for a medium

is sure proof that they intended their utterances to reach
a wide audience. Xenophanes, we know, gave public reci­
tations o f his poetry, and in his old age he could boast that
his thought had already been sixty-five years in circulation
throughout the world o f Greece. What was the specific
quality o f this new and exciting knowledge ?
A m o n g the fragments o f verse b y Xenophanes that
have com e d o w n to us are tw o lines in w hich he says that
“ the G ods have not revealed everything to men from the
beginning, but men b y searching in time find out better.”
This is in the true spirit o f the age. But as men became
conscious o f knowledge as a slow accumulation o f expe­
rience acquired b y active search they became curious also
to understand the nature o f knowledge and the process by
iwhich it is acquired. Thus opened the great debate on the
jvalidity o f the information conveyed to us by the senses,
and on the part played by Reason in the constitution o f
human knowledge. The second poet o f whom w e have
spoken, Parmenides, convinced, by many proofs, o f the
fallibility o f the senses, was o f opinion that Reason alone
could be relied on, and endeavoured to construct a system
o f philosophy from which the evidence o f the senses should
be ejected.
Empedocles, although the doctors scented danger to their
science from the too hasty application o f his theories, was
a true scientist as well as a philosopher and a poet; and he
took a middle course. He was too wise to reject the evidence
o f the senses. I f he did not regard sense evidence as in itself
science, he knew that it was the material o f science; and
he knew that it was by reflection on the evidence o f the
senses that advance in physical knowledge is made. He
himself was responsible for one o f the major advances in
35
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
for having been employed by Mahomet as amanuensis to record his
early revelations, he had proved in some way unfaithful to the trust;
and on the capture of Mecca, was in consequence proscribed from
the amnesty, and only at the intercession of Othmân escaped being
put to death. Possessed of administrative
ability, he had been appointed by Omar to Abu Sarh supersedes Amru in
the government of Upper Egypt. But some Upper 647.
Egypt. a.h. XXVI. a.d.

years after, he fell out with Amru, in whom

was vested the supreme control of the province; and each appealed
to Othmân. Amru was declared to be in fault, and the Caliph
deposed him altogether from the civil charge of Egypt. Amru
objected. ‘To be over the army,’ he said, ‘and not over the revenue,
was but holding the cow’s horns, while another milked her.’ He
repaired angrily to Othmân, who, after some words of bitter
altercation, transferred the entire administration, civil and military,
into the hands of Abu Sarh. The act was unfortunate for the Caliph. It
threw Amru into the ranks of the disaffected party at Medîna; while
the bad repute of ‘the renegade’ Abu Sarh, though he was an able
warrior, gave point to the charges of partiality and nepotism now rife
against Othmân.[444]
Abu Sarh, left thus in sole command,
carried his arms vigorously along the coast Conquest in Northern Africa.
beyond Tripoli and Barca, and threatened a.h. XXVI. a.d. 647.
Carthage and the far west. The Byzantine Governor, Gregory,
reinforced by the Emperor, advanced against him with an army, we
are told, of one hundred and twenty thousand men. Othmân, warned
of the danger, strengthened Abu Sarh by a large contingent of Arab
troops; and with them marched a numerous company of veterans
and ‘Companions,’ including the sons of Abu Bekr, of Abbâs, and of
Zobeir. The field was long and hotly contested; and Abu Sarh, to
stimulate his men, promised the hand of Gregory’s daughter, with a
large dower, to the warrior who should slay her father. The enemy
was at last discomfited with great slaughter, and a citizen of Medîna
gained the lady for his prize. He carried her off on his camel to
Medîna; and the martial verses which he sang by the way are still
preserved.[445] In this campaign, Othmân incurred much odium by
granting Abu Sarh a fifth of the royal share of the booty as personal
prize. The rest was sent as usual to Medîna; and here again Othmân
is blamed for allowing Merwân his cousin to become the purchaser
of the same at an inadequate price.[446]
But it is as the first commander of a
Moslem fleet that Abu Sarh is chiefly Naval operations, forbidden
famous, in which capacity he both added by Omar.
largely to the conquests of Islam, and also by his pre-eminence
contributed anew to the obloquy Cast on his master’s name. Muâvia
had for a long time keenly missed the support of a fleet, and had
sought permission of Omar to embark his soldiery in ships. ‘The isles
of the Levant,’ he wrote, ‘are so close to the Syrian shore, that you
might almost hear the barking of the dogs and the cackling of the
hens: give me leave to attack them.’ But Omar dreaded the sea, and
wrote to consult Amru, who answered thus:—‘The sea is a
boundless expanse, whereon great ships look but tiny specks; there
is nought saving the heavens above and the waters beneath; when
the wind lulls, the sailor’s heart is broken; when tempestuous, his
senses reel. Trust it little, fear it much. Man at sea is an insect
floating on a splinter, now engulfed, now scared to death.’ On receipt
of this alarming account, Omar forbade Muâvia to have anything to
do with ships. ‘The Syrian sea, they tell me, is longer and broader
than the dry land, and is instant with the Lord, night and day, seeking
to swallow it up. How should I trust my people on the bosom of the
cursed infidel? Remember Alâ. Nay, my friend, the safety of my
people is dearer to me than all the treasures of Greece.’
Nothing, therefore, was attempted by
sea in the reign of Omar. But on his death, But undertaken by Othmân.
Muâvia renewed the petition, and, at his
reiterated request, Othmân at last relaxed the ban, on condition that
the service should be voluntary. The first
fleet equipped against Cyprus, in the Cyprus occupied. a.h. XXVIII.
twenty-eighth year of the Hegira, was a.d. 649.
commanded by Abu Cays as admiral; it was joined by Abu Sarh with
a complement of ships manned by Egyptians, and carried a body of
Arab warriors from Alexandria. Cyprus was taken easily, and a great
multitude of captives carried off. The Cypriots agreed to pay the
same revenue as they had done to the Emperor; but, unable as yet
to guarantee their protection, the Caliph remitted the ordinary poll-
tax. Of Abu Cays we are told that he headed fifty expeditions by land
and by sea, but was killed at the last, while engaged in exploring a
Grecian sea-port.[447]
Three years after the fall of Cyprus,
driven now from the harbours of Africa, and Naval victory off Alexandria.
seriously threatened in the Levant, the a.h. XXXI. a.d. 652.
Byzantines gathered a fleet of five or six hundred vessels of war, and
defied the Arabs at sea. Abu Sarh was appointed to take up the
challenge. He manned every available ship in the ports of Egypt and
Africa; and his squadron, though much inferior in weight and
equipment to the enemy’s, was crowded with valiant warriors from
the army. The Byzantine fleet came in sight near Alexandria. The
wind lulled, and both sides lay for a while at anchor. The night was
passed by the Moslems in recitation of the Corân and prayer, while
the Greeks kept up the clangour of their bells. In the morning, a
fierce engagement took place. The Arab ships grappled with their
adversaries, and a hand-to-hand encounter with sword and dagger
ensued. The slaughter was great on both sides; but the Greeks,
unable to withstand the wild onset of the Saracens, broke and
dispersed. Constantine, who had been in command, sailed away to
Syracuse, where the people, infuriated at the defeat, despatched him
in his bath.[448]
In this expedition, the discontent
against Othmân, notwithstanding the Obloquy cast on Othmân in
splendid victory, for the first time found this affair.
open and dangerous expression among some of the leading
Companions. Mohammed son of Abu Bekr, and Mohammed son of
Abu Hodzeifa (afterwards leaders in rebellion), murmured against
the Caliph for appointing Abu Sarh admiral. ‘Othmân hath changed
the ordinances of his predecessors,’ they said, ‘and made captain of
the fleet a man whom the Prophet proscribed, and desired to have
put to death; and such like men also hath he put in chief command at
Kûfa and Bussorah, and elsewhere.’ The clamour reaching the ears
of Abu Sarh, he declared that none of these men should fight in his
line of battle. Excluded thus from the victory, they were the more
incensed. Spite of the threats of Abu Sarh, the inflammatory
language spread, and men began to speak openly and unadvisedly
against Othmân.[449]
The clouds were louring, and the
horizon of the unfortunate Caliph Caliph’s outlook darkens.
darkening all around.
 CHAPTER XXXI.
DOMESTIC EVENTS DURING THE CALIPHATE OF OTHMAN. HIS
GROWING UNPOPULARITY.

Kûfa and Bussorah at this period

exercised an influence on the destinies of Discontent at Kûfa and
Islam hardly less potent than that of the Bussorah.
Court of Medîna itself. The turbulent and factious atmosphere of
these cities became rapidly and dangerously charged with
sentiments of disloyalty and rebellion, and an unwise change of
governors aggravated the evil.
Moghîra did not long enjoy the power to
which the weakness of Omar had raised Sád reinstated in the
government of Kûfa; a.h.
him. He was removed by Othmân shortly XXXIV. a.d. 645,
after his accession; and, to fill the vacancy,
in obedience (as some say) to the dying wish of Omar, Sád, the
conqueror of Medâin, was reinstated in his former office. The issue
was again unfortunate. To provide for his luxurious living, Sád,
shortly after his appointment, took an advance of money from the
chancellor of his treasury, Ibn Masûd; who, by and by, became
importunate for its repayment. A heated altercation ensued, and Sád
swore angrily at Ibn Masûd. The factious city ranged itself, part with
the great warrior, and part with the quondam slave. The quarrel
reached the ears of Othmân, who was much displeased, and
recalled Sád before he had been a year at Kûfa. As successor, the
Caliph appointed Welîd ibn Ocba, a brave
warrior, but suspected of intemperance, but shortly superseded by
and withal a uterine brother of his own. To Welîd ibn Ocba,
make the choice the more unfortunate, Welîd was son of that Ocba
who, when taken prisoner in the battle of Bedr and about to be put to
death, exclaimed in the bitterness of his soul, ‘Who will care for my
little children?’ and was answered by the Prophet, ‘Hell-fire!’ The
words were not forgotten, and faction was careful now to turn them
to the worst account. Nevertheless, Welîd was popular; and as, for
several years, he directed successive campaigns in the east with
gallantry and vigour, he managed thus to divert the restless spirits of
his people from discontent at home. But in the end, the unruly
populace was too strong for him. A murder took place, and sentence
of death was executed at the city gate against three of the culprits.
[450] Their relatives resented the act of
justice, and lay in wait to find ground of who was deposed for
inebriety. a.h. XXX. a.d. 651.
accusation against the governor, whose
habits gave them ready opportunity to attain their object. Charges of
intemperance were repeatedly laid against him, and as often
dismissed by Othmân, because wanting in legal proof. At last his
enemies succeeded in detaching from his hand the signet-ring of
office while he slept (as they said) from the effects of a debauch, and
carried it off in triumph to Medîna. But still worse, it was established
that Welîd had on one occasion conducted the morning prayers in
such a state of inebriation that, having come to the end of the proper
service, he went on, without stopping, to commence another. The
scandal was great; and the majesty of Islam must be vindicated.
Welîd was recalled to Medîna, scourged according to law, and
deposed.[451]
At Bussorah, too, things were going
from bad to worse. Abu Mûsa had now Abu Mûsa deposed at
been many years governor, when the Bussorah. 650.
a.h. XXIX. a.d.

restless citizens became impatient of his

rule. He had been preaching to the pampered soldiery the virtue of
enduring hardness as good soldiers of the faith, and therefore of
going forth on foot to war. When the next expedition was ready to
start, they watched to see whether he would himself set the
example. And as his ample baggage issued forth, winding in a long
string of mules from the approaches to the castle, they set upon him,
crying out, ‘Give us of these beasts to ride upon, and walk thou on
foot, a pattern of the hardness thou preachest unto us.’ Then they
repaired to Medîna, and complained that their governor had drained
the land of its wealth, pampered the Coreish, and tyrannised over
the Arab tribes. Instead of checking with promptitude their petulance
and insubordination, Othmân gave it new life by deposing Abu Mûsa
on these vague complaints, and appointing an obscure citizen whom
they desired, to be their governor. Found unequal to the post, this
man was deposed, and a youthful cousin of the Caliph, Ibn Aámir,
[452] promoted in his room. When tidings of
his nomination reached Bussorah, Abu Ibn Aámir appointed governor.
Mûsa told the people: ‘Now ye shall have a taxgatherer to your
hearts’ content, rich in cousins, aunts, and uncles; he will flood you
with his harpies!’ And so, in truth, it turned out; for he soon filled all
the local offices and the commands in Persia with creatures of his
own. But in other respects he proved an able ruler, and took a
leading part in the struggle now close at hand.
The government of Kûfa, vacated by
the deposition of Welîd, together with the Saîd governor of Kûfa. a.h.
XXX. a.d. 651.
whole province of Mesopotamia, was
conferred by Othmân upon another young and untried kinsman, Saîd
ibn al Aás. His father was killed fighting against the Prophet at Bedr;
and the boy, thus left an orphan, had been brought up by Omar, and
was eventually sent by him to the wars in Syria. Receiving a good
account of his breeding and prowess, Omar summoned him to his
court, and gave him two Arab maidens to wife.[453] This youth, now
promoted to the most critical post in the empire, was not only without
experience in the art of governing, but was vainly inflated with the
pretensions of the Coreish. Accustomed in Syria to the discipline of
Muâvia’s rule, he wrote to Othmân, on reaching Kûfa, that license
reigned there; that noble birth passed for nothing; and that the
Bedouins were away, beyond control, with the bit between their
teeth. His final address as governor was a blustering harangue, in
which he glibly talked of crushing the sedition and arrogance of the
men of Kûfa with a rod of iron.
Countenanced by the Caliph in his vain Discontent gains ground at
career, he fomented discontent by Kûfa.
advancing to invidious distinction the Coreishite nobility, and treating
with contumely the great body of the citizens. ‘One Coreishite
succeedeth another in this government,’ they said;—‘the last no
better than the first. It is but “out of the frying-pan into the fire.”’ The
under-current of faction gained daily in strength and volume. But the
vigorous campaigns of Saîd in northern Persia, for he was an active
soldier, served for a time to occupy men’s minds, and to stay the
open exhibition of the rebellious spirit.
Meanwhile other causes were at work
throughout the empire calculated to Other causes of disaffection.
increase the disaffection; or which, if
unimportant in themselves, were adroitly seized by the Caliph’s
enemies and turned to that purpose.
First may be mentioned the recension
of the Corân. The Moslem warriors had Othmân’s recension of the
Corân. a.h. XXX. a.d. 651.
spread themselves over such vast areas,
and the various columns, as well as converted peoples, were so
widely separated one from the other, that differences arose in the
recitation of the sacred text, as it had been settled in the previous
reign. Bussorah followed the reading of Abu Mûsa; Kûfa was guided
by the authority of Ibn Masûd, their chancellor; and the text of Hims
differed from that in use even at Damascus. Hodzeifa, during his
campaign in Persia, having witnessed the variations in the different
provinces, returned to Kûfa strongly impressed with the gravity of the
evil and the need of a revision. Ibn Masûd was highly incensed with
the slight thus put upon the authority of his text. But Hodzeifa
persisted in his views, and, supported by Saîd, the governor, urged
Othmân to restore the unity of the divine word, ‘before that believers
began to differ in their scripture, even as do the Jews and
Christians.’ The Caliph took the advice of the leading Companions at
Medîna, and, in accordance therewith, called for samples of the
manuscripts in use throughout the empire. He then appointed a
syndicate, from amongst the Coreish, of men whose authority could
be relied upon, to collate these copies with the sacred originals still
in the keeping of Haphsa, the widow of Mahomet. Under their
supervision the variations were reconciled, and an authoritative
exemplar written out, of which duplicates were deposited at Mecca
and Medîna, Kûfa and Damascus. From these exemplars, copies
were multiplied over the empire; all former manuscripts were called
in and committed to the flames; and the standard text was brought
into exclusive use. The uniformity thus secured by the secular arm,
and maintained by the same in every land and every age, is taken by
the simple believer as a proof of divine custodianship. The action of
Othmân was received at the moment, as it deserved, with a very
general consent, excepting at Kûfa. There Ibn Masûd, who prided
himself on his faultless recitation of the oracle, pure as it fell from the
Prophet’s lips, was much displeased; and the charge of sacrilege in
having burned the former copies of the sacred text, was readily
circulated amongst the factious citizens. By and by the charge was
spread abroad, and was taken up with avidity by the enemies of
Othmân; and, ages afterwards, we find it still eagerly urged by the
partisans of the Abbasside dynasty as an unpardonable offence on
the part of the ungodly Caliph. The accusation, thus trumped up for
party purposes, was really without foundation. Indeed, it was scouted
by Aly himself. When, several years after, he proceeded as Caliph to
Kûfa, he found the citizens still blaming his ill-starred predecessor for
the act. ‘Silence!’ he said; ‘Othmân acted as he did with the advice of
the leading men amongst us; and if I had been ruler at the time,
instead of him, I should myself have exactly done the same.’[454]
A great body of the nobility from Mecca
and Medîna about this time transferred Many of the Coreish migrate
their residence to Irâc. These had no right to Irâc.
to share in the endowments of that province, the special privileges of
which, in virtue of their conquest, were reserved for the present
citizens of Kûfa and Bussorah. They were allowed, however, to do so
on selling to Othmân, on behalf of the State, the properties which
they owned in the Hejâz; and the concession appears to have added
a fresh grievance to foment the rising discontent at the extravagant
pretensions of the Coreish.[455]
The story of Abu Dzarr Ghifâry is
singularly illustrative of the times, and his Story of Abu Dzarr Ghifâry,
harsh treatment is ordinarily mentioned as
a serious ground of complaint against the Caliph. He was one of the
earliest converts to the faith; and tradition asserts that he even
anticipated Mahomet himself in some of the observances of Islam.
An ascetic in his habits, he inveighed against the riches and
extravagance of the day—evils which were altogether alien from the
simplicity of Mahomet, and which, rushing in like a flood, were now
demoralising the people. Gorgeous palaces, crowds of slaves,
multitudes of horses, camels, flocks and herds, profusion of costly
garments, sumptuous fare, and splendid equipage, were the fashion,
not only in Syria and Irâc, but had begun to find their way even into
the Hejâz.[456] The protest of Abu Dzarr points to the recoil of the
stricter class of believers against all this luxury and indulgence; and
the manner in which the discontented classes, and the advocates of
communism, were beginning to turn that recoil to their own account,
and to the discredit of the government. Visiting Syria, the spirit of the
ascetic was stirred at the pomps and vanities so rife around him, and
he preached repentance to the inhabitants of Damascus. ‘This gold
and silver of yours,’ he cried, ‘shall one day be heated red-hot in the
fire of hell; and therewith shall ye be seared in your foreheads, sides,
and backs, ye ungodly spendthrifts![457] Wherefore, spend now the
same in alms, leaving yourselves enough but for your daily bread; or
else woe be to you in that day!’ Crowds flocked to hear him, some
trembling under the rebuke; the envious rejoicing at the contempt
poured on the rich and noble; and the people dazzled by the vision
of themselves sharing in the treasures thus denounced. Uneasy at
the disturbance caused by these diatribes in the public mind, Muâvia
resolved to test the spirit of the preacher. He sent him a purse of a
thousand pieces; in the morning, affecting to have made a mistake,
he demanded the return of the gift; but during the night Abu Dzarr
had distributed the whole in charity. Upon this, Muâvia, apprehensive
of the spread of communistic doctrines, despatched the preacher to
Medîna, telling Othmân that he was a sincere but misguided
enthusiast. Before the Caliph, Abu Dzarr persisted in fearlessly
denouncing the great and wealthy, and urged that they should be
forced to disgorge their riches. Othmân condescended to reason
with him. ‘After men have completely fulfilled their legal obligations,’
he asked, ‘what power remaineth with me to compel them to any
further sacrifice?’ and he turned to Káb, the learned Jewish convert,
in corroboration of what he had said. ‘Out
upon thee, thou son of a Jew! What have I banished by Othman to
to do with thee?’ cried Abu Dzarr, and with Rabadza.
651.
a.h. XXX. a.d.

these words smote Káb violently upon the

stomach. Argument being thus of no further use, Othmân banished
the preacher to Rabadza in the desert of Nejd, where two years after
he died in penury. As he felt his end approach, the hermit desired his
daughter to slay a kid, and have it ready for a party of travellers who,
he said, would shortly pass that way to Mecca, and bury him; then,
making her turn his face toward the Kâaba, he quietly breathed his
last. Soon after, the expected party came up, and amongst them Ibn
Masûd from Kûfa, who, weeping over him, bewailed his fate, and
buried him on the spot on which he died. The death of Ibn Masûd
himself, a few days after, added to the pathos of the incident. The
plaintive tale was soon in everyone’s mouth; and the banishment of
the pious ascetic and preacher of righteousness was made much of
by the enemies of the Caliph. The necessity was forgotten; the
obloquy remained.[458]
When he was himself minded to
assume the office of censor and rebuke the Othmân incurs odium by
ungodliness of the day, the unfortunate putting down unlawful
amusements, and by
Caliph fared no better. The laxity of Syria extending the square of the
had reached even to the sacred precincts Kâaba. a.h. XXVI. a.d. 647.
of the Hejâz; and Othmân, on attempting to
check the games and other practices held to be inconsistent with the
profession of Islam, incurred resentment, especially from the gay
youth whose amusements he had thwarted. Gambling and wagering,
indeed, were put down with the approval of all the stricter classes of
society; but there were not wanting many who, displeased with the
Caliph’s interference, joined in the cry of his detractors.[459]
The enlargement of the grand square of
the Kâaba, commenced by Omar, was The Mosque at Medîna
carried on by Othmân during his visits to enlarged and beautified. a.h.
XXXII. a.d. 653.
Mecca at the time of pilgrimage. And here,
too, the ill-fated Caliph met with opposition. The owners of the
houses demolished in the course of the work refused to accept the
compensation offered, and raised a great outcry against it. The
Caliph put them into prison, for, said he, ‘My predecessor did the
same, and ye made no outcry against him.’ But what the firm arm of
Omar could do, and none stir hand or foot against him, it was a very
different thing for the weak and unpopular Othmân to attempt. He
was more successful with the Great Mosque at Medîna, originally
built by Mahomet, and hallowed by the mortal remains of the Prophet
himself and his two Successors. This was now greatly enlarged and
beautified. The supports, made at the first of the trunks of date-trees,
were removed, and the roof made to rest on pillars of hewn stone.
The walls, too, were built up with masonry, richly carved and inlaid
with rare and precious stones. It was a pious work, and none
objected.[460]
Yet another, and a very gratuitous, cause of murmuring arose
from certain changes made by Othmân in the ceremonial of the
annual pilgrimage, which, though in themselves trivial and
unmeaning, excited strong disapprobation at the Caliph’s court. He
pitched tents for shelter during the few
days spent for sacrifice at Minâ, a thing Unwise changes in the pilgrim
which had never been done before; and, to ceremonial.
653.
a.h. XXXII. a.d.

the prayers heretofore recited there and on

Mount Arafat, he added new ones with two more series of
prostrations. The ritual, as established by the Prophet himself, had
been scrupulously followed by his two successors, and a
superstitious reverence attached thereto even in the minutest detail.
When expostulated with on the rash and unhallowed innovation,
Othmân gave no reasonable answer, but simply said it was his will
that it should be so.[461] Aly, Abd al Rahmân, and others were much
offended at these alterations; and the disregard of the sacred
example of the Founder of the faith raised a scandal among the
Companions unfavourable to Othmân.
On the other hand, beyond the
immediate circle of his kinsfolk, Othmân Othmân makes many
made no personal friends. Narrow, selfish, enemies.
indiscreet, and obstinate—more and more so, indeed, with
advancing years—he alienated those who would otherwise have
stood loyally by him; and he made many enemies, who pursued him
with relentless hatred. We have already seen how Mohammed son
of Abu Bekr, and Mohammed son of Abu Hodzeifa, were embittered
against him at the naval victory of Alexandria. And yet no very
special cause can be assigned for their enmity. The first is said to
have been actuated by ‘passion and ambition.’ The other was nearly
related to Othmân, and as an orphan had been kindly brought up by
him; he was now offended at having been passed over for office and
command. Both joined the rebellion which shortly broke out in Egypt,
and were amongst the most dangerous of the Caliph’s enemies. Nor
was it otherwise with the people at large. A factious spirit set in
against the unfortunate prince. The leaven fermented all around; and
every man who had a grievance, real or supposed, hastened to swell
the hostile cry.[462]
To crown the Caliph’s ill-fortune, in the
seventh year of his reign, he lost the He loses the Prophet’s ring.
signet-ring of silver which had been a.h. XXIX. a.d. 650.
engraven for the Prophet, and which had been worn and used
officially both by him and his successors. It was a favourite and
meritorious occupation of Othmân to deepen the old wells, and to
sink new ones, in the neighbourhood of Medîna. He was thus
engaged when, sitting by the well Arîs,[463] and pointing with his
finger in direction to the labourers, the ring dropped and
disappeared. Every effort was made, but in vain, to recover the
priceless relic. The well was emptied of the water and the mud
cleared out, and a great sum was offered; but no trace of the ring
ever appeared. Othmân grieved over the loss. The omen weighed
heavily on his mind; and it was some time before he was prevailed
upon to supply the place of the lost signet by another of like fashion.
[464]

Othmân had married successively two

of the Prophet’s daughters, both of whom Othmân marries Nâila. a.h.
died before their father. Three of his wives XXVIII.
still survived when, in the fifth year of his Caliphate, being then
between seventy and eighty years of age, he took Nâila to wife. Of
her previous history we know little more than that she had once been
a Christian, but, before her marriage with the Caliph, had embraced
Islam. She bore him a daughter; and through all his trials clung
faithfully by her aged lord, to the bitter end. The days were coming
when he needed such a helper by his side.[465]
 CHAPTER XXXII.
DANGEROUS FACTION AT KUFA. GROWING DISAFFECTION.

A.H. XXXII.—XXXIV. A.D. 653–655

Towards the close of Othmân’s reign,

the ferment, which (excepting Syria Seditious elements at work.
perhaps) had long been secretly at work
throughout the empire, began to make its appearance on the
surface. The Arab people at large were everywhere displeased at
the pretensions of the Coreish. The Coreish themselves were ill at
ease, the greater part being jealous of the Omeyyad branch and of
the favourites of the Caliph. And the temptation to revolt was
fostered by the weakness and vacillation of Othmân himself.
Ibn Aámir had been now three years
governor of Bussorah, when Ibn Saba (or, Ibn Sauda preaches sedition
as he is commonly called, Ibn Sauda), a in Egypt. a.h. XXXII. a.d.
653.
Jew from the south of Arabia, appeared on
the scene, and professed the desire to embrace Islam. It soon
appeared that he was steeped in disaffection to the existing
government—a firebrand of sedition; and as such he was expelled
successively from Bussorah, Kûfa, and Syria, but not before he had
given a dangerous impulse to the already discontented classes. At
last, he found a safe retreat in Egypt, and there became the setter
forth of strange and startling doctrines. Mahomet was to come again,
even as the Messiah was expected to come again. Meanwhile, Aly
was his legate. Othmân was a usurper, and his governors a set of
godless tyrants. The people were stirred. Impiety and wrong, they
heard, were rampant everywhere; truth and justice could be restored
no otherwise than by the overthrow of this wicked dynasty. Such was
the preaching which gained daily ground in Egypt; by busy
correspondence it was spread all over the empire, and startled the
minds of men already foreboding evil from the sensible heavings of a
slumbering volcano.[466]
 The breaking out of turbulence was for
the moment repressed at Bussorah by Ibn Émeute at Kûfa. a.h. XXXIII.
Aámir; but at Kûfa, Saîd had neither power a.d. 654.
nor tact to quell the factious elements around him. He offended even
his own party by ostentatiously washing the steps of the pulpit before
he would ascend a spot pretended to have been made unclean by
his drunken predecessor. He was not only unwise enough openly to
foster the arrogant assumptions of the Coreish,but he had the folly to
contemn the claims of the Arab soldiery, to whose swords they owed
the conquest of the lands around them. He was so indiscreet as to
call the beautiful vale of Chaldæa (the Sawâd) ‘the Garden of the
Coreish’—‘as if,’ cried the offended Arabs, ‘without us—our strong
arm and our good lances—they could have ever won this Garden.’
The disaffection, stimulated by a popular leader named Ashtar, and a
knot of factious citizens, found vent at last in an émeute. As the
governor and a company of the people, according to the custom of
the time, sat one day together in free and equal converse, the topic
turned on the bravery of Talha, who had shielded the Prophet in the
day of battle. ‘Ah!’ exclaimed Saîd, with an invidious contrast, ‘he is a
warrior, if ye choose, a real gem amongst your Bedouin counterfeits.
A few more like him, and we should dwell at ease.’ The assembly
was still nettled at this speech, when a youth incautiously gave
expression to the wish, how pleasant it would be if the governor
possessed a certain property which lay invitingly by the river bank
near Kûfa. ‘What!’ shouted the company with one voice, ‘and out of
our Sawâd!’ So saying, and with a torrent of abuse, they leaped
upon the lad and upon his father, who vainly endeavoured to urge
his youth in excuse of his indiscretion, and went near to killing both.
[467]

The factious spirits were emboldened

by the outbreak; and discontent now found The ringleaders are exiled to
Syria.
open and disloyal expression throughout
the kingdom. Saîd, supported by the Coreishite nobility, appealed
against their machinations to Othmân, who ordered that ten of the
ringleaders should be expelled to Syria.[468] There the Caliph hoped
that the powerful rule of his lieutenant and the loyal example of the
Syrians would inspire the malcontents with better feelings. Muâvia
quartered them in the church of St. Mary; and morning and evening,
as he passed by, abused them roundly on their folly in setting up
their crude claims against the indefeasible rights of the Coreish.
Crest-fallen under several weeks of such treatment, they were sent
on to Hims, where the governor, son of the great Khâlid, subjected
them for a month to like indignities. Whenever he rode forth, he
showered invectives on them as barbarous and factious creatures,
who were doing all in their power to undermine the empire. Their
spirit at last was thoroughly broken, and they professed to be
repentant. They were then released; but, ashamed to return to Kûfa,
they remained for the time in Syria, excepting the dangerous
demagogue Ashtar, who made his way secretly to Medîna.
Months passed, and things did not
mend at Kûfa. Most of the leading men, Saîd expelled from Kûfa. a.h.
whose influence could have kept the XXXIV. a.d. 655.
populace in check, were away on military command in Persia; and
the malcontents, in treasonable correspondence with the Egyptian
faction, gained head daily. Disheartened at this, Saîd, in an unlucky
moment, planned a visit to Medîna, there to lay his troubles before
the Caliph. No sooner had he gone than the conspirators came to
the front, and recalled the exiles from Syria. Ashtar, too, was soon
upon the scene. Taking his stand at the door of the Great Mosque of
Kûfa, he stirred up the people, as they assembled for worship,
against Saîd: ‘He had just left that despot,’ he said, ‘at Medîna,
plotting their ruin, counselling the Caliph to cut down their stipends,
even the women’s; and calling the broad fields which they had
conquered The Garden of the Coreish.’ The acting governor, helped
by the better class of citizens, sought in vain to still the rising storm.
He inculcated patience upon them. ‘Patience!’ cried Cacâa, the great
warrior, in scorn; ‘ye might as well roll back the Great River when in
flood as attempt to quell the people’s uproar till they have the thing
they want.’ Yezîd, brother of one of the exiles, then raised a
standard, and called upon all the enemies of the tyrannical governor
to join and bar his return to Kûfa. When Saîd drew near, they
marched out as far as Câdesîya, and sent forward to say that ‘they
did not need him any more.’ Saîd, little expecting such a reception,
said to them, ‘It had sufficed if ye had sent a delegate with your
complaint to the Caliph; but now ye come forth a thousand strong
against a single man!’ They were deaf to his expostulations. The
servant of Saîd, endeavouring to push on, was slain by Ashtar; and
Saîd himself fled back to Medîna, where he found Othmân already
terrified by tidings of the outbreak, and prepared to yield whatever
the insurgents might demand. At their
desire he appointed Abu Mûsa governor in Abu Mûsa appointed in his
place of Saîd. To welcome him the room.
captains in command of the reserves and outlying garrisons came in
from all quarters; and Abu Mûsa received them in the crowded
Mosque of Kûfa. He first exacted from all present the pledge of
loyalty to the Caliph, and then installed himself in office by leading
the prayers of the great assembly.
If, instead of giving way, Othmân had
inflicted on the ringleaders condign Othmân’s fatal mistake.
punishment, he might haply have
succeeded in weathering the storm. It is true that thus he would, in
all likelihood have precipitated rebellion, not only in Kûfa, but also in
Bussorah and Egypt. But, sooner or later, that was inevitable; and in
the struggle, he would now have had a strong support. For here the
contention was between the Coreish and the nobility of Islam on the
one hand, and the Arab tribes and city rabble on the other; and in
this question the leaders of martial renown would all have rallied
round the throne. By his pitiable weakness in yielding to the
insurgents, Othmân not only courted the contempt of all around him,
but lost the opportunity of placing the great controversy about to
convulse the Moslem world, upon its proper issue. It fell, instead, to
the level of a quarrel obscured by personal interests, and embittered
by charges of tyranny and nepotism against himself. The crisis was
now inevitable. Men saw that Othmân lacked the wisdom and the
strength to meet it, and each looked to his own concern. Seditious
letters circulated freely everywhere; and the claims began to be
canvassed of successors to the irresolute and narrow-minded
Caliph, who, it was foreseen, could not long retain the reins of
empire in his grasp.