There can be no denying that in many respects Tudor England was a time of great turmoil, as the country was experiencing considerable change, equally in politics, theology, and intellectual life. The shifting ideologies and methodologies in the latter are the subjects of Antonia McLean’s study, Humanism & the rise of Science in Tudor England. From the beginning of the text McLean emphasizes the importance of the printing press in spreading the ‘new learning’ of humanism and the sciences. Her argument is lucid and convincing, and is an opinion which is generally in congruence with other scholars. By the end of the text, however, a correlative yet apparently contradictory thesis is forwarded. Despite the accessibility of the new scholarship due to printing, during the initial period of the English Renaissance many of the older Medieval traditions and doctrines remained in existence, and even benefited from a wider circulation. The author focuses on the dissemination of the innovative views of humanism solely in education, the mathematical sciences, and medicine, and while this allows an extensive study of her selected fields, it is in this respect that her study is somewhat limited. Irrespective of such restraints however, McLean does provide an interesting and comprehensive analysis of the scientific advances within the aforementioned disciplines and their humanistic derivation. Consequently, McLean’s book remains an important and engrossing study of the origins of the scientific revolution.
Interestingly, McLean begins her study by quoting Bacon’s Aphorism 129 from his Novum Organum. At this early point her thesis becomes apparent, and one might in fact criticize her transparency. This quotation is however an interesting device in that it imparts a sense of inevitability to McLean’s ideology and a validity to her thesis. The remainder of the book does in fact substantiate Bacon’s claims on the importance of printing to “change the whole face and state of things throughout the world”. Scholars agree with McLean on the reasons for the rapid success of the printing presses in England, although it’s development lagged behind that in the continent. There was an increase in the demand for books due to an increasingly literate population, caused by both the increasing accessibility of education, as well as a change in the attitude toward literacy by the upper classes. The demand for books caused the printing industry to grow at an exponential rate, which in turn fuelled the increase in literacy, inducing what one scholar has dubbed a “virtuous circle”. McLean argues that this increase in book production directly led to the spread of humanism among the educated. Unlike a few scholars, she provides some important information concerning early humanism in England. McLean is in agreement with other scholars in her beliefs that humanism initially came to England when several scholars travelled to Italy to learn Greek. This early humanist foundation was important, as the work of such men as Grocyn, Linacre, and Colet allowed the Italian Renaissance to be introduced into England. The main influence of humanism on the scientists of the Tudor period was the introduction of Greek sources, especially the scientific and philosophical texts of the Hellenistic Age. Although the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic concept of the universe was followed and some Latin translations of Greek texts existed, it was not until the introduction of Greek texts England from the Arab world that the many scientific advances of the sixteenth century were realized. As these texts were printed, many scholars had access to them. McLean’s elucidation of the number of Greek texts contained in several personal and private libraries is adequate proof of their influence, yet the lists disrupt the flow of the text and should have been placed in the footnotes.
McLean provides a detailed analysis concerning the importance of Greek texts as catalysts for English scientific innovation during the Tudor period. Once again she is noteworthy for providing a background for the later advances, in particular pre-Tudor mathematics and medicine. Particularly consequential was the adoption of Platonism and the influence of Bacon’s Merton school of thought. Neither of these systems of scientific and mathematical inquiry were hampered by the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic canon of the middle-ages. The author proceeds to demonstrate the many achievements of the period and traces their development from humanism: Recorde’s Platonic dialogues on mathematics, written in English; Dee’s impact on scientific inquiry and observation; and Dr. Caius’s foundation of the College of Physicians. Similarly, she provides an adequate description of the influence of the mathematical advances on navigation and cartography. Beginning with a lengthy description of the pre-Tudor navigational sciences, McLean follows with an in-depth analysis of the relationship between seamanship and the practical sciences. In describing the optical experiments of Dee and Digges and the mathematical experiments of Harriot, McLean provides an interesting supposition on the relatively advanced directions that science could possibly have taken. During such asides, McLean’s delightful enthusiasm for her subjects is quite engaging. As they were printed, the books written by these authors were widely read and themselves instigated a great deal of scholarship. Although it is never explicitly stated, McLean implies that mass produced and error-free texts allowed for a consensus among scientists, which eventually led to the establishment of scholastic ‘guilds’ such as the College of Physicians. By providing so many elaborate illustrations of the consequences of humanistic thought in science, McLean strengthens her argument. The evidence is exhaustive, at least concerning the advances in mathematics and medicine, and it allows the reader to easily comprehend and agree with the author. Nearly all of the other scholars here cited agree with McLean (and additionally with Bacon) that printing caused a monumental shift in the ideologies of the Tudor age. Herein lies the importance of the author’s work. Her work is not wholly original; alternately, she collates studies from numerous fields, science and medicine, humanism, and print history. McLean does however create an important study that is frequently given only a superficial treatment, and is in fact sometimes completely overlooked, by scholars. Humanism & the rise of Science in Tudor England remains an intriguing study due to the extent to which McLean substantiates her thesis by relating it to the most notable aspects of the English Renaissance.
The Platonic system that derived from humanism and was espoused by many of the period’s foremost scientists was not without its faults however, as it “contained elements which proved unscientific”. It is at this point in her study that McLean asserts the second and somewhat lesser division of her thesis. Many aspects of the earlier late-medieval traditions remained extant during the early- to mid-sixteenth century despite the new and frequently opposing scholarship. During the early years of book production, printing allowed for a wide distribution of the early medieval texts, and consequently despite the new learning they became entrenched in the beliefs of many scholars. McLean provides as an example the influence of Hermeticism on many scholars of the Tudor period, most notably John Dee. She, along with other authors, argues that such ‘prejudices’ had the initial effect of arresting scientific advance, notably the acceptance of the Copernican universe. A similar trend occurred in the medical community, where the works of Galen were paramount for the entire sixteenth century despite the “rapid advance in anatomical knowledge and surgical techniques”. While these predispositions to orthodoxy gradually disappeared, they hindered a great deal of scientific progress for most of the sixteenth century. It is interesting that McLean provides this counter-argument to the impact of humanism on Tudor scientific achievements, as it in fact lends a credibility to her entire thesis. There are few instances of an instantaneous change in intellectual thought, and indeed one must question any author who proposes such an argument. Intellectual revolutions are indeed much more gradual than suggested by a cursory study; throughout the text McLean demonstrates her acknowledgment of this axiom. Indeed, in the concluding chapter of the book, McLean briefly articulates such an understanding: “The knowledge of new discoveries spread more widely and with greater rapidity through the printed book, but this is not the same thing as saying that they were accepted”.
If one is to find a failing in McLean’s study, it is in her somewhat limited analysis of the range of Tudor achievements. While focussing on mathematical and medical advancements allows her to more comprehensively examine the influence of humanism on the science, it does not convey the breadth of scientific study undertaken during the period. Unlike other authors, she does not refer to advances in architecture, engineering, or music (considered a part of mathematics), or even the ‘achievements’ in alchemy or astrology which had diverted John Dee as well as several other scientists, during the Tudor period. The analysis of John Dee’s mystical investigations does redeem the omission of the latter somewhat, and proves quite interesting of its own merits, especially when it outlines Dee’s connections between ‘natural magic’ and mathematics. Perhaps a more critical miscue was her avoidance of Aristotelian physics, which had a remarkable inter-disciplinary influence. Indeed, it has been argued that the rejection of Aristotelian physics led to the acceptance of the more advanced theories of the Tudor age. The sole reference to an important break with the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe made by McLean is to the work of Thomas Digges, which does not adequately examine the shift to a Copernican universe. A second and infinitely lesser fault of Humanism & the rise of Science is McLean’s aforementioned insistence on listing the contents of library lists in great detail and within the body of the text. This relatively minor structural infraction unnecessarily impedes the flow of the narrative and quickly induces a sense of tedium in the reader. Thankfully, McLean engrosses the reader by providing an interesting selection of extracts from sixteenth century sources that support her thesis. These excerpts are well chosen and more importantly well edited, as she does not include any superfluous data nor does she utilize more of a specific quotation than is necessary. Such editorial restraint, along with the obvious enthusiasm of the author towards her subject, imparts a readability to the text which is sometimes lost in scholarly works.
The importance of McLean’s investigation into the rise of science in the Tudor period which had its origins in humanism is not due to its originality. Yet, she combines the work of other scholars and subsequently builds upon their foundations to create an interesting, important, and readable text. McLean craftily argues that the invention of printing led to the rapid spread of humanistic ideas which in turn greatly influenced the scientific progress of the age. Simultaneously however, in examining the conservative publishing trends of the early sixteenth century, she elucidates the degree to which printing supported and entrenched the earlier ideologies, which is an important correlation to her main thesis. Despite the initial tendencies toward orthodoxy however, printing ultimately allowed for many innovations in the sciences. As McLean clearly elucidates, printing was to have a profound impact on the course of western civilization.
Bibliography
McLean, Antonia. Humanism & the rise of Science in Tudor England. New York: Neale Watson
Academic Publications, 1972.
Secondary
Burke, James. The Day the Universe Changed. Toronto: Little, Browne and Company, 1985.
Boas, Marie. The Scientific Renaissance 1450-1630. New York: Harper & Row, 1962
Dahl, Svend. History of the Book. Metuchen, USA: The Scarecrow Press, 1968.
Dowling, Maria. Humanism in the Age of Henry VIII. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
Elton, G.R. England under the Tudors. London: Methuen & Co., 1974.
Hay, Denys. “Fiat Lux”, Printing and the Mind of Man. Ed. John Carter & Percy H. Muir.
London: Cassell and Company, 1967. Pp. xv-xxxiv.
Nutton, Vivian.“Greek science in the sixteenth-century Renaissance”, Renaissance & Revolution. Ed. J.V. Field and Frank A.J.L. James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pp. 15-28.
Ridley, Jasper. The Tudor Age. London: Constable, 1988.
Voigts, Linda Ehrsam. “Scientific and medical books”, Book Production and Publishing in
Britain 1375-1475. Ed. Jeremy Griffiths and Derek Pearsall. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989. Pp. 345-402.
Westfall, Richard S. “Science and technology during the Scientific Revolution: and empirical
approach”, Renaissance & Revolution. Ed. J.V. Field and Frank A.J.L. James.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pp. 63-72.
Woodward, G.W.O. Reformation and Resurgence: England in the Sixteenth Century. New York:
Humanities Press, 1963.
No comments:
Post a Comment