BOOKS OF THE DAY

Science and Politics in the Ancient World (C. E. M.

Joad) ... ... ... ... ... 1135 Inside Asia (Sir Frederick Whyte) ... ... ... 1136 Palestine: The Reality (Prof. G. R. Driver) ... ... 1136 Step by Step, 1936-1939 (Christopher Hobhouse) ... 1137 International Monetary Economies (Honor Croome) ... 1137 Democracy and Socialism (D. W. Brogan) ... ... 1138 The Poetical Works of John Keats (Edmund Blunden)... 1138

The Diary of Dudley Ryder (C. V. Wedgwood) ... ... 1139

Autumnal Palinode (Desmond Hawkins)...

•• • 1140

Doctors (Dr. J. H. Shakespeare) . ...

1140

It Is Later Than You Think (S. K. Ratcliffe) ...

1142

New Writing (Edward Crankshaw) ...

1142

Fiction (Forrest Reid) ... ... 1144

THE OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE IN ANTIQUITY

By C. E. M. JOAD THE so-called opposition between science and religion belongs to the nineteenth century rather than to the twentieth. The dispute, of course, still goes on, but the heyday in the blood of the twentieth-century disputants is tamed and humbled and waits upon the evidence. Theologians graciously leave the domain of the physical to science, while physicists, not to be outdone in courtesy, concede that even the physical admits of—nay, requires—spiritual interpretation.

But it was not always so, and, looking back over the history of this controversy, one notices a curious fact. While the conclusions of the scientists were drawn on evidence, the proclamations of the religious have always—so at least the scientists affirmed—disguised an arriere-pensee. They con- tinued to be embraced in face of the evidence because i: was important that people should believe in something, or because they were necessary to morality, or because they kept the lower orders quiet. " I hope, my dear, that it is not true," said an elderly Victorian lady on being informed of man's supposed ape-ish ancestry, " but if it is, let us pray that it may not become generally known." Politicians have, on the whole, con- curred, and, as science has continued to develop, have shown considerable ingenuity in constructing ring-fences for insu- lating its conclusions. Thus Professor Farrington records Professor Virchow's attempt in the nineteenth century to restrict science to the accumulation of facts, leaving to religion their interpretation. Others have sought to restrict science to the realm of what can be observed, leaving to religion the realm of what cannot. Professor Farrington tells us, for example, how Anaximander " arrived at these conclusions by looking at the universe about him and thinking about what he saw," the inference being that since the spiritual cannot be seen, it may be safely left to the mercies of religion.

Unfortunately, none of these attempts to set bounds to the sphere of science has been successful, and the reason for their lack of success is also the reason which makes attempts to set bounds to religion unsuccessful ; you cannot slit " the seam- less coat of the universe "; the spiritual interpenetrates the material ; mind and body form a single whole ; observation and interpretation are inextricably intermingled in the work of science—in the example given, Anaximander not merely saw ; he reflected upon what he saw: in other words, he interpreted. The separation of spheres is, in short, unworkable.

I stress the point because Professor Farrington does at times seem to treat the two spheres as if they were separable. Tacitly assuming that whatever religion may have to say about this world (and I daresay about the next, too) must be untrue, he is continually on the look out for arriere-pensees to account for men's obstinate adherence to religious, their persistent opposition to scientific, interpretations. The religious account of the physical world, he implies, is such obvious nonsense that there must have been some reason why people clung to it so obstinately ; and the reason, he insists, is a political reason—religion was used to keep the masses quiet. Such is the thesis which he applies to the interpretation of the conflict between science and religion in the ancient world.

It cannot be denied that the adherents of religion play into his hands. He bids us, for example, consider the rise of physical science in sixth- and fifth-century Athens. What a wonderful thing it was: for the first time in history the mind of man got free, free of priests, free of superstitious fears, free of inherited dogma, and considered the nature of " what is" on merits. Here, for example, is Anaximander telling us, in the early sixth century B.c., that the universe consists of a Science and Politics in the Ancient World. By Benjamin Farrington. (Allen and Unwin. ms. 6d.)

single physical substance and that human beings have evolved from fishes ; and here, on the other hand, is Cosmas lndico- pleustes, in the sixth century A.D., setting out to prove that the " earth is a flat plane with high walls enclosing it on each of its four sides," on the ground that the world must have been made on the same model as Moses' tabernacle. As Professor Farrington puts it, the explanation of the nature of the physical universe is sought, not in the accumulation of new facts, but in the perusal of an " old Book." Here, again, is Hippocrates in the fifth century a.c., telling us that the sacred disease (epilepsy) is not more sacred than any other. " It has the same nature as other diseases and its own specific cause "; and here is Origen explaining, seven centuries later, that it is due to demoniacal possession, and excluding epileptics from participation in the Eucharist.

Professor Farrington represents early Greek science as a wholly admirable thing. It was inspired not only by the desire to know, but by the determination to serve ; Hippocrates wished to heal the sick ; Anaxagoras to free mankind from superstitious fears. It exhibits to us, for the first time in recorded history, the picture of man " behaving in a fully rational way in the face of nature, confident that the ways of nature were not past finding out, awed with the discovery of law in nature, freed from the superstition of animism . . . ."

What led to the substitution of Cosmas for Anaximander, of Origen for Hippocrates? Professor Farrington's answer is that, human societies being what they are, scientists, whether they like it or not, must become politicians, for science has its social and political effects, and unless scientists learn to control politics, politicians will control and suppress science. Religion has, in all ages, been used by Governments to perpetuate the inequalities upon which society subsists by " disseminating such ideas as would make the unjust distribution of the rewards and toils of life seem a necessary par: of the eternal constitu- tion of things and suppressing such ideas as might lead to criticism of this view of the universe." Thus Christianity has been used to reconcile the poor to their lot, by promising them Divine equivalents in the next world for the champagne and cigars of which the social system deprives them in this one.

Professor Farrington brings much learning and great ingenuity to the support of his thesis.

We hear much of Plutarch's Dinner-table Discussions, in which one of the speakers tells us that the reason why Plato declared that God occupied Himself with geometry and not with arithmetic is that geometry, " by the employment of pro- portion, distributes things according to merit," while " arith- metic, by its employment of number, distributes things equally." We hear how Anaxagoras is exiled from Athens because his speculations were held to undermine faith in the city's religion, and the governing party played upon the conservative piety of the ignorant mob to expel the critics of the religion which was used to keep the mob in subjection. There is much praise of Epicurus, while Lucretius's De Rerum Natura is represented as a last protest of the scientific spirit of antiquity against the basing of society upon superstitions.

One's admiration for, and enjoyment of, a fascinating book does not necessarily imply a whole-hearted acceptance of a thesis which is plausible rather than convincing. The weight of Professor Farrington's learning oppresses neither his reader nor his style ; he writes well, easily, and, at times, amusingly— I particularly like his epigram, " angels rushed in where fools [the Greek scientists] had feared to tread "—and is sufficiently master of his subject to afford to be at play with it. The result is a gay and vigorous dissertation in which enjoyment is mingled with instruction.