In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

10 Historically Speaking September/October 2006 leading early modern natural philosophers connected these two events, suggesting that religious reformation had provided a precedent for a more general reformation of learning. This sentiment, not surprisingly, was particularly strong among English Protestants. Francis Bacon asserted that the reformation of the Christian Church was but the first stage of a more comprehensive renovation of all learning. This historicist commitment was widespread in 17th-century England.'- Neither was it uncommon in other parts of Europe to associate innovators in the sciences of nature with leading figures in the religious reform movements. Copernicus and Paracelsus, according to one writer, were the Luther and Calvin of natural philosophy. Kepler was known as the Luther of astronomy." So it was that some of the traditional heroes of the Scientific Revolution drew both inspiration and social legitimacy from the almost contemporary upheavals in the realm of religion. For them, too, it seems that the religious reformation was the primary event and, as Bacon expressed it, the "spring" of subsequent reformations . In sum, then, Butterfield articulates the view that there was a Scientific Revolution, albeit one of extended duration, and that this particular revolution was largely responsible for giving Western modernity its characteristic features. Of possible competing events—the Reformation, the Renaissance , and the advent of Christianity—only the last had a comparable influence. What I have suggested is that die Scientific Revolution is still a useful category , provided that we hedge it with appropriate qualifications. So, too, are the Reformation and Renaissance . In the contentious business of ranking these in terms of their influence, however, I part company with Butterfield. The Reformation—and here I admittedly take a broader conception of religious reformation than that assumed by Butterfield —was a major factor in creating the kind of world in which a particular kind of natural philosophy could take root and flourish. And insofar as it made this contribution, it is to be placed before the rise of science both chronologically and in terms of its impact on the West. In any case, the religious upheavals of the 16th century, apart from any impact on the emergence of science, saw the confessionalization of Europe, contributed to the birth of the modern state, and initiated the processes of secularization . (It is tempting to throw capitalism into to this mix, but at his point I imagine that my respondents already have enough controversial claims to reckon with.) Butterfield was right to argue for the importance of the Scientific Revolution (although we might quibble with the exact terminology), but he went too far in claiming it to have been largely independent of, and more influential than, the Reformation . That said, his Origins of Modern Science has weathered the test of time better than most works of a similar vintage. It is remarkably well informed, most of its factual claims would still stand today, and even major contentions of the kind presently under discussion are carefully nuanced. It is a still a book from which we can learn. PeterHarrison isprofessor of history andphilosophy at Bond University. He is author of The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998) andThe Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science (Cambridge University Press,forthcoming). ' For a summaries of the relevant issues see Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (University of Chicago Press, 1996), 1-4; David C. Lindberg, "Conceptions of the Scientific Revolution from Bacon to Butterfield," in David C. Lindberg and Robert Westman, eds., Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge University Press, 1990), 1-26; and A. Rupert Hall, "Retrospection on the Scientific Revolution," in J. V. Field and Frank James, eds., Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and NaturalPhilosophers in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge University Press, 1993), 239-250. - Robert Westman, "Copernicus and the Churches," in David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, eds., GodandNature: Historical Essays on the Encounterbetween Christianity andScience (University of California Press, 1986), 76-113. Cf. Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science [1949] (Free Press, 1997), 44. ' Some would suggest that the same is true of contemporary science , which is said to comprise quite heterogeneous activities that share no common method. ' Johannes Kepler, Mysterium Cosmographicum [1621], trans...

pdf

Share