Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:10:05.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Light of Reason, Light of Nature. Catholic and Protestant Metaphors of Scientific Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

William B. Ashworth Jr
Affiliation:
Department of HistoryUniversity of Missouri

Abstract

Many of the epistemological issues that occupied natural philosophers of the seventeenth century were expressed visually in title-page engravings. One of those issues concerned the relative status to be accorded to evidence of the senses, as compared to knowledge gained by faith or reason. In title-page illustrations, the various arguments were often waged by a series of light metaphors: the Light of Reason, the Light of Nature, and the Lights of Sense, Scripture, and Grace. When such illustrations are examined with the authors' theological views in mind, it becomes apparent that in the first half of the seventeenth century, Catholic authors favored the Light of Reason as a source of truth, while Protestant authors favored the Light of Nature. Since by the end of the century it was widely accepted by scientists of all religious persuasions that certain knowledge must be grounded in sense evidence and the direct study of nature, one might argue that in this instance Protestantism was responsible for nurturing an important development of the Scientific Revolution. However, the skewed nature of the sample (the Catholics who used light metaphors were mostly Jesuits; the Protestants who did so mostly alchemists) and the large number of counterexamples available (many Catholic scientists believed in the ascendancy of the senses but failed to engage in metaphorical warfare) mitigate against taking this offshoot of the Merton thesis too seriously.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amici, Bartolomeo, 1626. In Aristotelis Libros De Caelo et Mundo. Naples: Roncaliolum.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas, 1945. Basic Writings of Saint ThomasAquinas, 2 vols., ed. Pegis, Anton C.. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , 1931. The Works of Aristotle, vol. 3: … De Anima, ed. Ross, W. D.. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Arriaga, Roderigo, 1643. Disputationes Theologicae in Primam Partem D. Thomae … Tomus Primus. Antwerp: Plantin-Moretus.Google Scholar
Ashworth, William B. Jr., 1985. “Divine Reflections and Profane Refractions: Images of a Scientific Impasse in Seventeenth-Century Italy,” in Gianlorenzo Bernini: New Aspects of His Art and Thought, ed. Lavin, Irving, 179206. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Ashworth, William B. Jr., 1986. “Catholicism and Early Modern Science,” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. Lindberg, David C. and Numbers, Ronald L., 136166.Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Francis, 1620. Novum Organum. London: Bill.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis, [1629] 1627. Sylva Sylvarum, 2d ed. London: Lee.Google Scholar
Bonaventure, , 19601970. The Works of Bonaventure, 5. vols Patterson, N. J.: St. Anthony Guild Press.Google Scholar
Croll, Oswald [1609] 1622?. Basilica Chymica. Frankfurt: Tampachius (undated reissue of 1609 edition).Google Scholar
Dear, Peter, 1987. “Jesuit Mathematical Science and the Reconstitution of Experience in the Early Seventeenth CenturyStudies in History and Philosophy of Science 18:133–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldhay, Rivka, 1987. “Knowledge and Salvation in Jesuit CultureScience in Context 1:195213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Edward, 1984. “In Defense of the Earth's Centrality and Immobility: Scholastic Reaction to Copernicanism in the Seventeenth CenturyTransactions of the American Philosophical Society 74, Pt. 4 (entire).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannaway, Owen, 1975. The Chemists and the Word: The Didactic Origins of Chemistry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hevelius, Jan, 1647. Selenographia. Gdansk: published by the author.Google Scholar
Kircher, Athanasius, 1646. Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae. Rome: Scheus.Google Scholar
Kunckel, Johann, 1679. Ars Vitraria Experimentalis. Amsterdam: Betkio.Google Scholar
Lindberg, David C., 1986. “The Genesis of Kepler's Theory of Light: Light Metaphysics from Plotinus to KeplerOsiris, 2nd ser., 2:542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mylius, Johann Daniel, 1618. Opus Medico-Chymicum. Frankfurt: Jennis.Google Scholar
Partington, J. R., 1961. A History of Chemistry, vol. 2. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Read, John, 1966. Prelude to Chemistry: An Outline of Alchemy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ripa, Cesare, 1611. Iconologia. Padua: Tozzi.Google Scholar
Scheiner, Christoph, 16261630. Rosa Ursina sive Sol. Bracciano: Phaeum.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Charles B., 1984. “Galilei and the Seventeenth-Century Textbook Tradition,” in Novita celesti e crisi del sapere, ed. Galluzzi, Paolo, 217–28. Florence: Giunti Barbera.Google Scholar
Scilla, Agostino, 1670. La Vana Speculazione disingannata dal Senso. Naples: Colicchia.Google Scholar
Summers, David, 1987. The Judgment of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar