--2 14
--4 28
--8 56

A line before the first, second, and fourth of these numbers
indicated that it is necessary to multiply 7 by 1 plus 2 plus
8--that is, by 11, in order to obtain 77; that is to say, 7 goes
11 times in 77. All this seems very cumbersome indeed, yet we
must not overlook the fact that the process which goes on in our
own minds in performing such a problem as this is precisely
similar, except that we have learned to slur over certain of the
intermediate steps with the aid of a memorized multiplication
table. In the last analysis, division is only the obverse side of
multiplication, and any one who has not learned his
multiplication table is reduced to some such expedient as that of
the Egyptian. Indeed, whenever we pass beyond the range of our
memorized multiplication table-which for most of us ends with the
twelves--the experimental character of the trial multiplication
through which division is finally effected does not so greatly
differ from the experimental efforts which the Egyptian was
obliged to apply to smaller numbers.

Despite his defective comprehension of fractions, the Egyptian
was able to work out problems of relative complexity; for
example, he could determine the answer of such a problem as this:
a number together with its fifth part makes 21; what is the
number? The process by which the Egyptian solved this problem
seems very cumbersome to any one for whom a rudimentary knowledge
of algebra makes it simple, yet the method which we employ
differs only in that we are enabled, thanks to our hypothetical
x, to make a short cut, and the essential fact must not be
overlooked that the Egyptian reached a correct solution of the
problem. With all due desire to give credit, however, the fact
remains that the Egyptian was but a crude mathematician. Here, as
elsewhere, it is impossible to admire him for any high
development of theoretical science. First, last, and all the
time, he was practical, and there is nothing to show that the
thought of science for its own sake, for the mere love of
knowing, ever entered his head.

In general, then, we must admit that the Egyptian had not
progressed far in the hard way of abstract thinking. He
worshipped everything about him because he feared the result of
failing to do so. He embalmed the dead lest the spirit of the
neglected one might come to torment him. Eye-minded as he was, he
came to have an artistic sense, to love decorative effects. But
he let these always take precedence over his sense of truth; as,
for example, when he modified his lists of kings at Abydos to fit
the space which the architect had left to be filled; he had no
historical sense to show to him that truth should take precedence
over mere decoration. And everywhere he lived in the same
happy-go-lucky way. He loved personal ease, the pleasures of the
table, the luxuries of life, games, recreations, festivals. He
took no heed for the morrow, except as the morrow might minister
to his personal needs. Essentially a sensual being, he scarcely
conceived the meaning of the intellectual life in the modern
sense of the term. He had perforce learned some things about
astronomy, because these were necessary to his worship of the
gods; about practical medicine, because this ministered to his
material needs; about practical arithmetic, because this aided
him in every-day affairs. The bare rudiments of an historical
science may be said to be crudely outlined in his defective lists
of kings. But beyond this he did not go. Science as science, and
for its own sake, was unknown to him. He had gods for all
material functions, and festivals in honor of every god; but
there was no goddess of mere wisdom in his pantheon. The
conception of Minerva was reserved for the creative genius of
another people.


III. SCIENCE OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA

Throughout classical antiquity Egyptian science was famous. We
know that Plato spent some years in Egypt in the hope of
penetrating the alleged mysteries of its fabled learning; and the
story of the Egyptian priest who patronizingly assured Solon that
the Greeks were but babes was quoted everywhere without
disapproval. Even so late as the time of Augustus, we find
Diodorus, the Sicilian, looking back with veneration upon the
Oriental learning, to which Pliny also refers with unbounded
respect. From what we have seen of Egyptian science, all this
furnishes us with a somewhat striking commentary upon the
attainments of the Greeks and Romans themselves. To refer at
length to this would be to anticipate our purpose; what now
concerns us is to recall that all along there was another nation,
or group of nations, that disputed the palm for scientific
attainments. This group of nations found a home in the valley of
the Tigris and Euphrates. Their land was named Mesopotamia by the
Greeks, because a large part of it lay between the two rivers
just mentioned. The peoples themselves are familiar to every one
as the Babylonians and the Assyrians. These peoples were of
Semitic stock--allied, therefore, to the ancient Hebrews and
Phoenicians and of the same racial stem with the Arameans and
Arabs.

The great capital of the Babylonians during the later period of
their history was the famed city of Babylon itself; the most
famous capital of the Assyrians was Nineveh, that city to which,
as every Bible- student will recall, the prophet Jonah was
journeying when he had a much-exploited experience, the record of


<< previous page | next page >>

Jump to page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |