The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 1, Ancient Science.

• Author: Morgan, Daniel Patrick

The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 1, Ancient Science. Edited by ALEXANDER JONES and LlBA TAUB. Cambridge: CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2018. Pp. xix + 642. $160.

As one would expect from a Cambridge History volume dedicated to "ancient science," this book provides a coherent and accessible overview of the history, sources, philosophy, and sociology of the principal fields of natural inquiry in the ancient world. In terms of geographical span, the book covers Mesopotamia (4 chaps., 93 pp.), Egypt (4 chaps., 62 pp.), the Mediterranean (16 chaps., 321 pp.), India (3 chaps., 66 pp.), and China (3 chaps., 65 pp.). In terms of subject matter, to each civilization or language tradition are devoted independent chapters on medicine, mathematics, and astronomy/astrology, though not necessarily in that order, and, to the Greco-Roman world, additional chapters on zoology, botany, geography, optics, harmonics, mechanics, and alchemy. Lastly, in the case of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Mediterranean, this idea-oriented core is complemented by introductory chapters outlining the social, historical, and philosophical background relevant to the chapters that follow.

As to framing, as presented in the introduction, the editors' approach might be described as a mix of thoughtful minimalism and nonintervention. The introduction is barely four pages long, and it is largely dedicated to highlighting the pitfalls that the volume aims to avoid: essentialism, anachronism, "scientific" and Greco-Roman exceptionalism, insisting on overly rigid definitions, and reading technical literature independent of context. "Science," for example, is given a loose working definition comprising "three elements that did not all have to be present in a particular tradition: the collection and organization of information and knowledge; prediction; and causal explanation" (p. 2). The editors leave it at that; they deny any pretention to exhaustiveness or perfect historiographical objectivity, and they inform us that the authors were essentially free to organize their chapters and interpret "ancient" and "science" as they saw fit. Where the editors do speak out, if only briefly, is in their interest in exploring: (1) transmission and interconnection, both across and within individual language cultures, notably between different fields and across the divide between specialist and amateur; (2) "the people who engaged in scientific work, their education, their motivations, and their professional status" (p. 2); (3) emic or actor's concepts, values, and categorization; and (4) cultural, institutional, and religious settings.

Barring the...