Hall, Marie Boas. 1994. The Scientific Renaissance 1450-1630. New York: Dover, with a new preface by the author. First published New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962 as Volume II in The Rise of Modern Science Series, edited by A. Rupert Hall.
First published in 1962, The Scientific Renaissance 1450—1630 has aged well. The new preface in the 1994 edition says that the book has not been superseded, but correctly acknowledges that revising it would entail entirely rewriting it. The field of Renaissance science has significantly expanded since 1962, yet, still, no new synthesis has replaced Marie Boas Hall’s classic. Its cracks are starting to appear, and reading The Scientific Renaissance today tells us as much about the early days of the history of science as it tells us about the early days of modern science.
The main argument of the book is that the period from 1450 to 1630 marks a “definite stage in the history of science.” Without denying the importance of the medieval contribution to science, especially in mathematical physics, Hall makes a strong case that the attempt to revive Greco-Roman antiquity in the mid-fifteenth century (the start date for the study) separated Renaissance science from its medieval predecessor. The theories of this early scientific renaissance, Hall's argument continues, were fully realized in practice by 1630, the end date for the study. Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (completed 1630) and Harvey’s De Motu Cordis (published 1628) mark the culmination of this distinct "Renaissance" stage in the history of science and signify a definitive break. Thus as well as being the starting point of the traditional seventeenth-century scientific revolution, Galileo and Harvey are seen as the culmination of an earlier stage in the history of modern science.
Hall views Renaissance science sympathetically, but always from the vantage point of modern science, which she sees as unified and universal. The majority of the book consists in expositions of the writings and scientific contributions of a vast array of Renaissance scientists: Georg Agricola, Cornelius Agrippa, Ulysee Aldrovandi, Francis Bacon, Cardinal Bellarmine, Giordano Bruno, Jerome Cardan, Andreas Cesalpino, Duke Frederigo Cesi, Copernicus, John Dee, and dozens of more minor figures. Alongside these generally even-handed expositions, Hall frequently interjects her acerbic judgment about the significance of individual scientists and their contribution to knowledge. Regarding della Porta, she remarks: “Porta made a parade of learning, but his interest was really that of the party conjurer who deceives the eye by the quickness of his hand or mind before demonstrating how the thing was done.” (p. 187) Because her primary purpose is to trace how Renaissance investigations led to modern scientific thinking, alchemists, astrologers, magicians, and mystics are depicted alternately as visionaries or blind guides depending upon the outcome of their investigations. Complementing these individual portraits, Hall covers the rise of scientific education and scientific societies: The Accademia dei Lincei in Italy, the Royal Society in England, and the Académie des Sciences in France.
Among the sciences, pride of place is given to astronomy followed by mathematics and physics. Hall attributes advances in the science of biology to the study of medicine rather than the practice of Renaissance natural history with its dead-end encyclopedic approach and jejune preoccupation with wonders.
The change in attitude of early scientists toward the ancients helps define and validate the outer bounds of the Scientific Renaissance stage of science. While modern scientists, including Hall, are preoccupied with progress, she admirably demonstrates how fifteenth century scientists were not: “In 1450 the scientist was either a classical scholar or dangerously close to a magician. By 1630 he was either a new kind of learned man or a technical craftsman.” Renaissance scientists saw themselves as humanists reviving Greek scientific texts not revolutionaries or innovators. By the end of this stage, the non-scientist leaves the classically trained university scholar and his literary studies behind—astronomy was no longer comprehensible by the non-specialist. Hall’s over-reliance on dichotomies emerges in her depiction the stage as a transition from bad to good science: the magical tradition gives way to rationalism, number mysticism transforms into number theory, chemistry replaces alchemy, and math free itself from astrology—all this presages things to come: soon experimental science and mechanical philosophy dispel natural magic.
The Scientific Renaissance stage, according to Hall, ends with the twin triumphs of Galileo over the church and Harvey over Galen. Galileo lost his trial, she writes, but won the bigger debate about natural science being a question of empirical evidence rather than religious belief. Harvey’s modern study of anatomy and physiology built upon and finally surpasses the ancient learning of Galen. The experimental methods drawn from medicine, in turn, freed botany and zoology from their dependence on the authority of antiquity.
Despite Hall committing what may seem to a contemporary reader as the unforgivable sins of Whigism and presentism, The Scientific Renaissance remains valuable because of its heavy reliance on primary sources and the absence of a clear alternative. The bibliographical notes say that the book relied upon the primary texts wherever possible and compared English translations to the originals—in some cases Hall made her own translations. The reliance on primary texts is reflected in its expository style, with frequent block quotations and book summaries. Though its unfashionable perspective is clear to any contemporary reader, Hall also rarely engages in open historiographical debate, which helps to keep the book from seeming as old as it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment