CHAPTER III

SCIENTIFIC THEORY SUBORDINATED TO APPLICATION--ROME: VITRUVIUS

Vitruvius was a cultured engineer and architect. He was employed in the

service of the Roman State at the time of Augustus, shortly before the

beginning of the Christian era. He planned basilicas and aqueducts, and

designed powerful war-engines capable of hurling rocks weighing three or

four hundred pounds. He knew the arts and the sciences, held lofty

ideals of professional conduct and dignity, and was a diligent student

of Greek philosophy.

We know of him chiefly from his ten short books on Architecture (_De

Architectura, Libri Decem_), in which he touches upon much of the

learning of his time. Architecture for Vitruvius is a science arising

out of many other sciences. Practice and theory are its parents. The

merely practical man loses much by not knowing the background of his

activities; the mere theorist fails by mistaking the shadow for the

substance. Vitruvius in the theoretical and historical parts of his book

draws largely on Greek writers; but in the parts bearing on practice he

sets forth, with considerable shrewdness, the outcome of years of

thoughtful professional experience. One cannot read his pages without

feeling that he is more at home in the concrete than in the abstract and

speculative, in describing a catapult than in explaining a scientific

theory or a philosophy. He was not a Plato or an Archimedes, but an

efficient officer of State, conscious of indebtedness to the great

scientists and philosophers. With a just sense of his limitations he

undertook to write, not as a literary man, but as an architect. His

education had been mainly professional, but, the whole circle of

learning being one harmonious system, he had been drawn to many branches

of knowledge in so far as they were related to his calling.

In the judgment of Vitruvius an architect should be a good writer, able

to give a lucid explanation of his plans, a skillful draftsman, versed

in geometry and optics, expert at figures, acquainted with history,

informed in the principles of physics and of ethics, knowing something

of music (tones and acoustics), not ignorant of law, or of hygiene, or

of the motions, laws, and relations to each other of the heavenly

bodies. For, since architecture "is founded upon and adorned with so

many different sciences, I am of opinion that those who have not, from

their early youth, gradually climbed up to the summit, cannot without

presumption, call themselves masters of it."

Vitruvius was far from sharing the view of Archimedes that art which was

connected with the satisfaction of daily needs was necessarily ignoble

and vulgar. On the contrary, his interest centered in the practical; and

he was mainly concerned with scientific theory by reason of its

application in the arts. Geometry helped him plan a staircase; a

knowledge of tones was necessary in discharging catapults; law dealt

with boundary-lines, sewage-disposal, and contracts; hygiene enabled the

architect to show a Hippocratic wisdom in the choice of building-sites

with due reference to airs and waters. Vitruvius had the Roman

practical and regulative genius, not the abstract and speculative genius

of Athens.

The second book begins with an account of different philosophical views

concerning the origin of matter, and a discussion of the earliest

dwellings of man. Its real theme, however, is building-material--brick,

sand, lime, stone, concrete, marble, stucco, timber, pozzolano. In

reference to the last (volcanic ash combined with lime and rubble to

form a cement) Vitruvius writes in a way that indicates a discriminating

knowledge of geological formations. Likewise his discussion of the

influence of the Apennines on the rainfall, and, consequently, on the

timber of the firs on the east and west of the range, shows a grasp of

meteorological principles. His real power to generalize is shown in

connection with his specialty, in his treatment of the sources of

building-material, rather than in his consideration of the origin of

matter.

Similarly the fifth book begins with a discussion of the theories of

Pythagoras, but its real topic is public buildings--fora, basilicas,

theaters, baths, palæstras, harbors, and quays. In the theaters bronze

vases of various sizes, arranged according to Pythagorean musical

principles, were to be used in the auditorium to reinforce the voice of

the actor. (This recommendation was misunderstood centuries later, when

Vitruvius was considered of great authority, and led to the futile

practice of placing earthenware jars beneath the floors of church

choirs.) According to our author, "The voice arises from flowing breath,

sensible to the hearing through its percussion on the air." It is

compared to the wavelets produced by a stone dropped in water, only that

in the case of sound the waves are not confined to one plane. This

generalization concerning the nature of sound was probably not original,

however; it may have been suggested to Vitruvius by one of the

Aristotelian writings.

The seventh book treats of interior decoration--mosaic floors, gypsum

mouldings, wall painting, white lead, red lead, verdigris, mercury

(which may be used to recover gold from worn-out pieces of embroidery),

encaustic painting with hot wax, colors (black, blue, genuine and

imitation murex purple). The eighth book deals with water and with

hydraulic engineering, hot springs, mineral waters, leveling

instruments, construction of aqueducts, lead and clay piping. Vitruvius

was not ignorant of the fact that water seeks its own level, and he even

argued that air must have weight in order to account for the rise of

water in pumps. In his time it was more economical to convey the hard

water by aqueducts than by such pipes as could then be constructed. The

ninth book undertakes to rehearse the elements of geometry and

astronomy--the signs of the zodiac, the sun, moon, planets, the phases

of the moon, the mathematical divisions of the gnomon, the use of the

sundial, etc. One feels in reading Vitruvius that his purpose was to

turn to practical account what he had gained from the study of the

sciences; and, at the same time, one is convinced that his applications

tend to react on theoretical knowledge, and lead to new insights through

the suggestion of new problems.

The tenth book of the so-called _De Architectura_ is concerned with

machinery--windmills, windlasses, axles, pulleys, cranes, pumps,

fire-engines, revolving spiral tubes for raising water, wheels for

irrigation worked by water-power, wheels to register distance traveled

by land or water, scaling-ladders, battering-rams, tortoises, catapults,

scorpions, and ballistæ. On the subject of war-engines Vitruvius speaks

with special authority, as he had served, probably as military engineer,

under Julius Cæsar in 46 B.C., and had been appointed superintendent of

ballistæ and other military engines in the time of Augustus. It was to

the divine Emperor that his book was dedicated as a protest against the

administration of Roman public works. In its pages we see reflected the

life of a nation employed in conquering and ruling the world, with a

genius more distinguished for practical achievement than for theory and

speculation. Its author is truly representative of Roman culture, for

nearly everything that Rome had of a scientific and intellectual sort it

drew from Greece, and it selected that part of Greek wisdom that

ministered to the daily needs of the times. In his work on architecture,

Vitruvius shows himself a diligent and devoted student of the sciences

in order that he may turn them to account in his own department of

technology.

If you glance at the study of mathematics, astronomy, and medicine among

the Romans prior to the time of Greek influence, you find that next to

nothing had been accomplished. Their method of field measurement was far

less developed than the ancient Egyptian geometry, and even for it (as

well as for their system of numerals) they were indebted to the

Etruscans. The history of astronomy has nothing to record of scientific

accomplishment on the part of the Romans. They reckoned time by months,

and in the earlier period kept a rude tally of the years by driving

nails into a statue of Janus, the ancient sun-god. As we shall see, they

were unable to regulate the calendar. Again, so far were they from

contributing to the development of medicine that they had no physicians

for the six hundred years preceding the coming of Greek science. A

medical slave acted as overseer of the family health, and disease was

combated in primitive fashion by prayers and offerings to various gods,

who were supposed to furnish general health or to influence the

functions of the different parts of the body. So rude was the native

culture of the Romans that it is doubtful whether they had any schools

before the advent of Greek learning. The girls were trained by their

mothers, the boys either by their fathers or by some master to whom they

were apprenticed.

The Greeks were conquered by the Romans in 146 B.C., but before that

time Roman life and institutions had been touched by Hellenic culture.

Cato the Censor (who died in 149 B.C.) and other conservatives tried in

vain to resist the invasion of Greek science, philosophy, and

refinement. After the conquest of Greece the master became pupil, and

the conqueror was taken captive. The Romans, however, never rose to

preëminence in science or the fine arts. A further development in

technology corresponded more closely to their national needs, and in

this field they came undoubtedly to surpass the Greeks. Bridges, ships,

military roads, war-engines, aqueducts, public buildings, organization

of the State and the army, the formulation of legal procedure, the

enactment and codification of laws, were necessary to secure and

maintain the Empire. The use in building construction of a knowledge of

the right-angled triangle as well as other matters known to the

Egyptians and Babylonians, and Archimedes' method of determining

specific gravity were of peculiar interest to the practical Romans.

Julius Cæsar, 102-44 B.C., instituted a reform of the calendar. This was

very much needed, as the Romans were eighty-five days out of their

reckoning, and the date for the spring equinox, instead of coming at the

proper time, was falling in the middle of winter. An Alexandrian

astronomer (Sosigenes) assisted in establishing the new (Julian)

calendar. The principle followed was based on ancient Egyptian practice.

Among the 365 days of the year was to be inserted, or intercalated,

every fourth year an extra day. This the Romans did by giving to two

days in leap-year the same name; thus the sixth day before the first of

March was repeated, and leap-year was known as a bissextile year. Cæsar,

trained himself in the Greek learning and known to his contemporaries as

a writer on mathematics and astronomy, also planned a survey of the

Empire, which was finally carried into execution by Augustus.

There is evidence that the need of technically trained men became more

and more pressing as the Empire developed. At first there were no

special teachers or schools. Later we find mention of teachers of

architecture and mechanics. Then the State came to provide classrooms

for technical instruction and to pay the salaries of the teachers.

Finally, in the fourth century A.D., further measures were adopted by

the State. The Emperor Constantine writes to one of his officials: "We

need as many engineers as possible. Since the supply is small, induce to

begin this study youths of about eighteen years of age who are already

acquainted with the sciences required in a general education. Relieve

their parents from the payment of taxes, and furnish the students with

ample means."

Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.), in the encyclopedic work which he compiled

under the title _Natural History_, drew freely on hundreds of Greek and

Latin authors for his facts and fables. In the selection that he made

from his sources can be traced, as in the work of Vitruvius and other

Latin writers, the tendency to make the sciences subservient to the

arts. For example, the one thousand species of plants of which he makes

mention are considered from the medicinal or from the economic point of

view. It was largely in the interest of their practical uses that the

Roman regarded both plants and animals; his chief motive was not a

disinterested love of truth. Pliny thought that each plant had its

special virtue, and much of his botany is applied botany. So

comprehensive a work as the _Natural History_ was sure to contain

interesting anticipations of modern science. Pliny held that the earth

hovers in the heavens upheld by the air, that its sphericity is proved

by the fact that the mast of a ship approaching the land is visible

before the hull comes in sight. He also taught that there are

inhabitants on the other side of the earth (antipodes), that at the time

of the winter solstice the polar night must last for twenty-four hours,

and that the moon plays a part in the production of the tides.

Nevertheless, the whole book is permeated by the idea that the purpose

of nature is to minister to the needs of man.

It further marks the practical spirit among the Romans that a work on

agriculture by a Carthaginian (Mago) was translated by order of the

Senate. Cato (234-149 B.C.), so characteristically Roman in his genius,

wrote (_De Re Rustica_) concerning grains and the cultivation of fruits.

Columella wrote treatises on agriculture and forestry. Among the

technical writings of Varro besides the book on agriculture, which is

extant, are numbered works on law, mensuration, and naval tactics.

It was but natural that at the time of the Roman Empire there should be

great advances in medical science. A Roman's interest in a science was

keen when it could be proved to have immediate bearing on practical

life. The greatest physician of the time, however, was a Greek. Galen

(131-201 A.D.), who counted himself a disciple of Hippocrates, began to

practice at Rome at the age of thirty-three. He was the only

experimental physiologist before the time of Harvey. He studied the

vocal apparatus in the larynx, and understood the contraction and

relaxation of the muscles, and, to a considerable extent, the motion of

the blood through the heart, lungs, and other parts of the body. He was

a vivisector, made sections of the brain in order to determine the

functions of its parts, and severed the gustatory, optic, and auditory

nerves with a similar end in view. His dissections were confined to the

lower animals. Yet his works on human anatomy and physiology were

authoritative for the subsequent thirteen centuries. It is difficult to

say how much of the work and credit of this practical scientist is to be

given to the race from which he sprang and how much to the social

environment of his professional career. (In the ruins of Pompeii,

destroyed in 79 A.D., have been recovered some two hundred kinds of

surgical instrument, and in the later Empire certain departments of

surgery developed to a degree not surpassed till the sixteenth century.)

If it is too much to say that the Roman environment is responsible for

Galen's achievements, we can at least say that it was characteristic

of the Roman people to welcome such science as his, capable of

demonstrating its utility.

Dioscorides was also a Greek who, long resident at Rome, applied his

science in practice. He knew six hundred different plants, one hundred

more than Theophrastus. The latter laid much stress, as we have seen in

the preceding chapter, on the medicinal properties of plants, but in

this respect he was outdone by Dioscorides (as well as by Pliny).

Theophrastus was the founder of the science of botany, Dioscorides the

founder of materia medica.

Quintilian, born in Spain, spent the greater part of his life as a

teacher of rhetoric in Rome. He valued the sciences, not on their own

account, but as they might subserve the purposes of the orator. Music,

astronomy, logic, and even theology, might be exploited as aids to

public speech. In the time of Quintilian (first century A.D.), as in our

own, oratory was considered one of the great factors in a young man's

success; mock debating contests were frequent, and the periods of the

future orators reverberated among the seven hills of Rome. To him our

schools are also indebted for the method of teaching foreign languages

by declensions, conjugations, vocabularies, formal rhetoric and

annotations. He considered ethics the most valuable part of philosophy.

In fact, it would not be pressing our argument unduly to say that, so

far as the minds of the Romans turned to speculation, it was the

tendency to practical philosophy--Epicureanism or Stoicism--that was

most characteristic. This was true even of Lucretius (98-55 B.C.),

author of the noble poem concerning the Nature of Things (_De Rerum

Natura_). In this work he writes under the inspiration of Greek

philosophy. His model was a poem by Empedocles on Nature, the grand

hexameters of which had fascinated the Roman poet. The distinctive

feature of the work of Lucretius is the purpose, ethical rather than

speculative, to curb the ambition, passion, luxury of those hard pagan

times, and likewise to free the souls of his countrymen from the fear of

the gods and the fear of death, and to replace superstition by peace of

mind and purity of heart.

From the work on Physical Science (_Quæstionum Naturalium, Libri

Septem_) of Seneca, the tutor of Nero, we learn that the Romans made use

of globes filled with water as magnifiers, employed hothouses in their

highly developed horticulture, and observed the refraction of colors by

the prism. At the same time the book contains interesting conjectures in

reference to the relation of earthquakes and volcanoes, and to the fact

that comets travel in fixed orbits. In the main, however, this work is

an attempt to find a basis for ethics in natural phenomena. Seneca was a

Stoic, as Lucretius was an Epicurean, moralist.

When we glance back at the culture, or cultures, of the great peoples of

antiquity, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman, that which had its

center on the banks of the Tiber offers the closest analogy to our own.

Among English-speaking peoples as among the Romans there is noticeable a

certain contempt for scientific studies strangely mingled with an

inclination to exploit all theory in the interest of immediate

application. An English author, writing in 1834, remarks that the

Romans, eminent in war, in polite literature, and civil policy, showed

at all times a remarkable indisposition to the pursuit of mathematical

and physical science. Geometry and astronomy, so highly esteemed by the

Greeks, were not merely disregarded by the Italians, but even considered

beneath the attention of a man of good birth and liberal education; they

were imagined to partake of a mechanical, and therefore servile,

character. "The results were seen to be made use of by the mechanical

artist, and the abstract principles were therefore supposed to be, as it

were, contaminated by his touch. This unfortunate peculiarity in the

taste of his countrymen is remarked by Cicero. And it may not be

irrelevant to inquire, whether similar prejudices do not prevail to some

extent even among ourselves." To Americans also must be attributed an

impatience of theory as theory, and a predominant interest in the

applications of science.

REFERENCES

Lucretius, _The Nature of Things_; translated by H. A. J. Munro.

Pliny, _Natural History_; translated by Philemon Holland.

Professor Baden Powell, _History of Natural Philosophy_.

Seneca, _Physical Science_; translated by John Clarke.

Vitruvius, _Architecture_; translated by Joseph Gwilt, 1826.

Vitruvius, _Architecture_; translated by Professor M. H. Morgan, 1914.

An Introduction to the History of Science · 第 3 / 20 章