Greek Science

by Benjamin Farrington

Book by Farrington, Benjamin

Genres: History, Science, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History Of Science

320 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1953

About the author

Scholar and professor of Classics, teaching in Ireland (1916–1920), South Africa (1920–1935), and Great Britain (1935–1956). Although his academic career spanned several disciplines, he is most well known for his contributions to the history of Greek science. Moreover, within the development of the discipline his books were some of the first written in the English language that focused specifically on Greek science. In addition to his professional academic career he was also active in socialist politics, using his intellectual capabilities to speak and write on it. While beginning his academic career in South Africa in 1920 he became heavily involved in the Irish Republican Association of South Africa. In the process he wrote several articles for local South African newspapers about the need for Ireland to separate from England. In addition he was instrumental in forming the Irish Peace Conference in Paris in 1922. Such political commitments inevitably influenced his teaching style, giving him the reputation in South Africa of being an intellectual Marxist. However, from the perspective of some critics, his Marxist commitments overshadowed his scholarly work, heavily tainting his work. One of his better known pamphlets on socialism, written in 1940, is The Challenge of Socialism.

Reviews

[Connor B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Greek thought begins with the various techniques of traders, doctors, and other men of action, then enters into a period of stasis and ossification with the solidification of the new slave owning class. Suddenly philosophy turns from a means of bringing natural forces under our control to justifying the ownership and control of human beings by human beings. Absolutely fascinating, with implications that would still be controversial in philosophy classes today, more than 50 years after it was published. This book, read well, has the power to make you rethink what philosophy really is.

[Benjamin Curry · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting read. It really is quite remarkable what Greek science achieved, the speculations on the origins of civilisation by Democritus, the writings of the Hypocratic School, the advances of the Lyceum after Aristotle under Theophrastus and Strato, the heliocentric universe of Aristarchus: they are astonishing tracts, remarkably modern and scientific in their outlook.

Farringdon attempts to give a materialist explanation of the trajectory of Greek science from its Ionian materialist roots to its ossification with the rise of idealism as the slave mode of production took root. There are some really interesting insights in this book, I recommend it...

But. While it is a good primer on what Greek science achieved, it definitely feels like there are gaps in Farringdon's analysis of how Greek society itself evolved, and that this is filled in with speculative hypotheses by Farringdon himself which I'm not sure are supported by the facts.

For instance, on the Presocratic philosophers, he suggests that a vigorous class of craftsmen and traders who were interested in the applications of science dominated in the high period of Ionian materialism but he doesn't justify this with evidence. He alludes to the idea that Solon's revolution represented the interests of this class but he doesn't provide evidence to support the hypothesis. He makes suggestions such as that Heraclitus made Fire the principle element not as is commonly assumed because it is the most ephemeral and changing, but because he observed its creative power in the kitchens, ironmongers workshops, etc. But there is so little remaining of Heraclitus' fragments that it is hard to see how he can justify this, that it is anything more than a speculation.

I get the impression that in some places he overemphasises the value of the practical application of science outside of limited domains like navigation and architecture among the Ancient Greeks.

So, while it is a well worthwhile read, I felt unfortunately that some parts had to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[William Connolley · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is not new - part one was published in 1944, part two in 1949 - so is missing any more modern scholarship; perhaps also importantly BF was a professor of classics and in some respects seems uncomfortable with the actual science. Time and again he veers off into philosophy. Perhaps this is unavoidable; so much of the antient Greek stuff is actually that, and it is what they are really famous for, but nonetheless he lets himself get distracted at the expense of actually talking about science.

Using the - correct - paradigm that science is characterised by conjectures and refutations, per Popper, the antient Greeks were fertile in their conjectures but never really knuckled down to the hard work of refutations. Also, none of this actually mattered to them in any practical way, and it is unlikely that you will knuckle down to hard work about things that don't really matter.

BF himself evolves the idea that their problem was their slave society: since no self-respecting freeman ever did any manual work, they were a bit stuck for observing the proscessing of metal in forges, or even tinkering around. BF is a Marxist, though, so I'm suspicious of his sociology.

They had also fairly early on realised that, in a philosophical sense, it was difficult to see how you can acquire certain true knowledge as opposed to mere informed opinion about the world, from observation; and took the fork of retreating into the world of Ideals and Forms in search of Truth, which of course failed; but again, left them disinclined to spend much effort looking at the world.

But what, I hear you ask, of the actual science? This was most of my reason for picking up the book and I was disappointed by the thinness. We get, of course, Euclid; but that is maths, not science; BF gives no hint that he understands the difference. At one point he tells me that Archimedes invented the Archimedian screw, which does not fill me with confidence; and that no-one knows how it works; ditto. There is some geography, and some medicine, but of the latter very little of what they could actually do, and rather more of opinions.

BF wonders how it was that they achieved so much, and yet failed to step over into Modern Science - well, modern meaning the slow gradual rise that started ~1500 years after them. My answer would be that their apparent "so much" is largely illusion and exaggerated crippling respect; they were missing so much basic tech.

Overall BF is too deeply in thrall towards the antients-called-greats to be useful as anything other than a superficial introduction.

Full review: https://mustelid.blogspot.com/2025/07...

[Gavin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extremely important and at the time novel thesis. But I remember ditching this for having so little analysis

[Ronald Wise · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting history of the development of scientific thinking in ancient Greece and how, after being stifled by the rise of slavery and Christianity, its development was resumed after the Dark Ages. The string of Greek names was overwhelming at times, and I'll probably not remember many of them for long, but the stages of development were interesting as explained by Farrington in the social context of the times. This one came to my reading list from the bibliography of David C. Lindberg's Beginnings of Western Science.

[Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who's interested in science it's really thrilling to read about the origin of it all.
However the book is somewhat dry and could have been made much easier to get through.