What do you think?
Rate this book
Man and Nature in the Renaissance
Man and Nature in the Renaissance offers an introduction to science and medicine during the earlier phases of the scientific revolution, from the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-seventeenth century. Renaissance science has frequently been approached in terms of the progress of the exact sciences of mathematics and astronomy, to the neglect of the broader intellectual context of the period. Conversely, those authors who have emphasized the latter frequently play down the importance of the technical scientific developments. In this book, Professor Debus amalgamates these approaches: The exact sciences of the period are discussed in detail, but reference is constantly made to religious and philosophical concepts that play little part in the science of our own time. Thus, the renewed interest in mystical texts and the subsequent impact of alchemy, astrology, and natural magic on the development of modern science and medicine are central to the account. Major themes that are followed throughout the book include the effects of humanism, the search for a new method of science, and the dialogue between proponents of the mystical-occult world view and the mathematical-observational approach to nature.
172 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1978
4 people are currently reading
124 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 16, 2014
In 1620, Francis Bacon wrote that all the changes that had shaken up the European world over last century or two could be traced back to three things: the printing press, gunpowder, and the magnet. He's right, to a certain extent - it's pretty easy to construct a history of science in which technology gets progressively better and better, and where new inventions power new social/economic/political developments, and history chugs slowly forwards. The best thing about studying Renaissance science is how quickly this idea blows up, and the realization that in a lot of ways modern science grew up out of what we would consider some pretty solidly unscientific practices.
I love early modern science. It will not take a lot for me to like a book on the subject. This is a pretty good introduction to the period, even though it's fairly old at this point. Debus focuses on the contradictions of the period, and the mixed, ambivalent attitude the Renaissance had towards science. Many humanists were openly disdainful of science and the head of London College of Physicians was nearly kicked out of his profession for daring to claim that Galen was not infallible. Robert Fludd chastised Galileo for the pettiness of using math to investigate falling objects instead of investigating the hidden patterns of the universe. But at the same time there was the learning of Greek, recovery of older scientific texts and their wider spread via the printing press, and the renewed interest in Hermeticism. There was increased access to information as texts were translated into the vernacular (John Dee’s translation of Euclid’s Geometry was designed for artisans, regular people and in fields of medicine, mining, and mechanics). The discovery of the Americas brought a rise in the authority of observation when everyone came to the uncomfortable realization that none of the plants matched the traditional botanical categories. It was a weird time.
Debus covers several topics: alchemy, botany, medicine, and astronomy. His approach to chemistry is a good illustration of his approach, though. Paracelsus was the big figure in early modern chemistry. By modern standards he sounds kinda like a crackpot: he declared chemists and physicians to be a divine position based on the biblical Ecclesiasticus; he was fixated on concepts of sympathy, like the idea that ‘aerial niter’ caused thunder and hot springs and - when inhaled - became arterial blood that carried the life force. But at the same time, his mystical ideas about the blood caused him to vehemently denounce bloodletting in medicine, and his version of medicine and chemistry was the first real challenge to Galen. This story of 'accidental' discoveries, or scientific discoveries drenched in mystical motivations and language can be found in almost all fields of science during the Renaissance.
It's a brief intro to the topic, and almost every section could really use more information. But it's a good primer if you'd like to figure out what aspect of the period you're most interested in.
I love early modern science. It will not take a lot for me to like a book on the subject. This is a pretty good introduction to the period, even though it's fairly old at this point. Debus focuses on the contradictions of the period, and the mixed, ambivalent attitude the Renaissance had towards science. Many humanists were openly disdainful of science and the head of London College of Physicians was nearly kicked out of his profession for daring to claim that Galen was not infallible. Robert Fludd chastised Galileo for the pettiness of using math to investigate falling objects instead of investigating the hidden patterns of the universe. But at the same time there was the learning of Greek, recovery of older scientific texts and their wider spread via the printing press, and the renewed interest in Hermeticism. There was increased access to information as texts were translated into the vernacular (John Dee’s translation of Euclid’s Geometry was designed for artisans, regular people and in fields of medicine, mining, and mechanics). The discovery of the Americas brought a rise in the authority of observation when everyone came to the uncomfortable realization that none of the plants matched the traditional botanical categories. It was a weird time.
Debus covers several topics: alchemy, botany, medicine, and astronomy. His approach to chemistry is a good illustration of his approach, though. Paracelsus was the big figure in early modern chemistry. By modern standards he sounds kinda like a crackpot: he declared chemists and physicians to be a divine position based on the biblical Ecclesiasticus; he was fixated on concepts of sympathy, like the idea that ‘aerial niter’ caused thunder and hot springs and - when inhaled - became arterial blood that carried the life force. But at the same time, his mystical ideas about the blood caused him to vehemently denounce bloodletting in medicine, and his version of medicine and chemistry was the first real challenge to Galen. This story of 'accidental' discoveries, or scientific discoveries drenched in mystical motivations and language can be found in almost all fields of science during the Renaissance.
It's a brief intro to the topic, and almost every section could really use more information. But it's a good primer if you'd like to figure out what aspect of the period you're most interested in.
November 11, 2024
What is most interesting is understanding the course of the history of science - a process that weaves and bobs rather than running straight. Experimentalists who reject mathematics as a legacy of scholastic philosophizing, mathematician astronomers seeking a model of the skies which will reflect a mystical geometry more truly, and physicians struggling to reconcile anatomy and practice. Along the way, correct theories are rejected for correct reasons - a "central fire" as the cause of volcanism is rebutted for want of air to fuel that fire.
Leaving it with a better view by far of the challenges and achievements of Renaissance scholars.
Leaving it with a better view by far of the challenges and achievements of Renaissance scholars.
October 18, 2019
Es impresionante la cantidad de información que Debus nos presenta en este ensayo. Nos lleva en un mar de temas que reinaban en los siglos XV-XVII, que van desde la medicina de Paracelso, hasta la astronomía de Copérnico, pasando por el descubrimiento revolucionario de Harvey y las autopsias públicas de Vesalio. Concluye finalmente en los padres del método científico, Bacon (inductivo), Descartes (Deductivo) y el integrador de ambos métodos, Galileo.
Muestra a todos estos grandes sabios como un puente entre el escolasticismo de la Edad Media y la Ilustración del siglo XVIII.
Muestra a todos estos grandes sabios como un puente entre el escolasticismo de la Edad Media y la Ilustración del siglo XVIII.
November 23, 2021
Excellent read that captures the renaissance obsession with the occult, while also describing the wide progress of science in the period. Well worth a read and full of ibtriguing facts
June 12, 2024
Muy buen libro para introducirnos en la ciencia renacentista. Comprobamos que mucha de la ciencia que hoy conocemos fue producto de la búsqueda de mucho de lo que hoy conocemos como seudociencia.
February 22, 2014
These days "magic" seems quite separate from the pursuit of science; Paracelsian iatrochemistry sounds about as scientific as the use of an ouija board. But to divorce these two different kinds practices - the art of magic, the power to conjure, to discern the occult "mathematical secrets of the universe" on the one hand and what we would consider rigorous, empirical observation on the other - is quite ahistorical and misunderstands the spirit of science in the Renaissance. Allen Debus, professor for many years at the University of Chicago and historian of early modern science, drives this point home repeatedly in each of the general area discussed in this book.
The topics covered are ones that you would expect to be found in a book that summarizes the history of major scientific developments from approximately 1400 to 1650 - the study of nature (especially flora and fauna), the increased understanding of human physiology, cosmology, and a brief precis explaining the development of the scientific method generally speaking.
Many of the Renaissance humanists, most notably Paracelsus, wholly rejected the scholasticism and Aristotelianism of previous generations and wished to infuse science and the study of nature with a renewed appreciation for mysticism and alchemy. While a religious understanding of the universe was utterly central to Paracelsian science, he simultaneously emphasized observation, which had been critically ignored by Aristotle and his studious promulgators. (His interest in chemistry, especially iatrochemistry, speaks to his interest in observation.) Aristotle's appreciation of science had been vitiated of all divine wisdom and knowledge by his paganism; Paracelsus wished to correct for this by suffusing science with neo-Platonic, Hermetic, and alchemical texts. He thought that the mathematical formalism of science resembled scholasticism, and he avoided it like the plague.
Empiricism and observation critically improved a number of scientific areas, not just alchemical medicine. In the fifteenth century, crude medieval woodcuts of plants based on Pliny's centuries-old descriptions dominated the scholarship of botany. The drawings of Swiss naturalist Conrad Gesner and Italian botanist Aldrovandi were much more accurate than previous ones, and therefore could greatly benefit both botanists and physicians alike.
In the area of medicine, matters had similarly stagnated. The practices of Galen predominated for a millennium after Galen's death because of their wide use and various translations. Debus discusses the historical developments contributed by those from Vesalius to William Harvey, the first person to accurately characterize blood flow in the human body.
This book is a wonderful introduction for two reasons: it covers the wide range of what were considered the sciences in the few centuries Debus is most concerned with without overwhelming the non-specialist reader, and he continually stresses the continuity between what we would today consider “magic” and empirical, rational, deductive reasoning, or what we would be more likely today to associate with science. He does this effectively in every chapter, and as someone who has a longstanding interest in the history of medieval and Renaissance science, it is refreshing to see an author who isn’t trying to retrospectively make modern science out of something supposedly written by Hermes Trismegistus. He lets the two stand side by side in whatever tension they might have, and deals with them as they are, not as he wants them to be.
The topics covered are ones that you would expect to be found in a book that summarizes the history of major scientific developments from approximately 1400 to 1650 - the study of nature (especially flora and fauna), the increased understanding of human physiology, cosmology, and a brief precis explaining the development of the scientific method generally speaking.
Many of the Renaissance humanists, most notably Paracelsus, wholly rejected the scholasticism and Aristotelianism of previous generations and wished to infuse science and the study of nature with a renewed appreciation for mysticism and alchemy. While a religious understanding of the universe was utterly central to Paracelsian science, he simultaneously emphasized observation, which had been critically ignored by Aristotle and his studious promulgators. (His interest in chemistry, especially iatrochemistry, speaks to his interest in observation.) Aristotle's appreciation of science had been vitiated of all divine wisdom and knowledge by his paganism; Paracelsus wished to correct for this by suffusing science with neo-Platonic, Hermetic, and alchemical texts. He thought that the mathematical formalism of science resembled scholasticism, and he avoided it like the plague.
Empiricism and observation critically improved a number of scientific areas, not just alchemical medicine. In the fifteenth century, crude medieval woodcuts of plants based on Pliny's centuries-old descriptions dominated the scholarship of botany. The drawings of Swiss naturalist Conrad Gesner and Italian botanist Aldrovandi were much more accurate than previous ones, and therefore could greatly benefit both botanists and physicians alike.
In the area of medicine, matters had similarly stagnated. The practices of Galen predominated for a millennium after Galen's death because of their wide use and various translations. Debus discusses the historical developments contributed by those from Vesalius to William Harvey, the first person to accurately characterize blood flow in the human body.
This book is a wonderful introduction for two reasons: it covers the wide range of what were considered the sciences in the few centuries Debus is most concerned with without overwhelming the non-specialist reader, and he continually stresses the continuity between what we would today consider “magic” and empirical, rational, deductive reasoning, or what we would be more likely today to associate with science. He does this effectively in every chapter, and as someone who has a longstanding interest in the history of medieval and Renaissance science, it is refreshing to see an author who isn’t trying to retrospectively make modern science out of something supposedly written by Hermes Trismegistus. He lets the two stand side by side in whatever tension they might have, and deals with them as they are, not as he wants them to be.
February 6, 2022
This book synthesizes historical scholarship on the influence of what are now regarded as mystical and occult traditions (e.g., neoplatonism, hermeticism, and alchemy) on the early phase of the scientific revolution. It challenges the view that the revolution - if it can be called that - represented a clean break from earlier ways of knowing. And it makes a pretty convincing case that the spirit of empiricism was initially cultivated by traditions that are in retrospect viewed as nonscientific. Readers familiar with the historical scholarship of Frances Yates will recognize a kindred scholar here and the development of the Yates thesis in the areas of chemistry and medicine.
Read
December 8, 2011Excellent (if a bit dated) introductory account of the relationship between science and magic during the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. Chapter VII was a real highlight, with a thoughtful account of Robert Fludd's beliefs and the reasons others weren't so keen on his approach to the 'new science'. I wish I'd read this earlier and would recommend it both to historians of science and non-specialists interested in the subject — Debus always wrote clearly and concisely.
July 20, 2013
Interesting, but a bit dry.
Read
December 27, 2012Source: University of Calgary
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews