{"title":"Science and the Enlightenment Revisited","authors":"D. B. Meli","doi":"10.5840/jems20231212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At nearly forty, Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1985) by Thomas L. Hankins is seriously dated but still widely used, broadly reliable for what it covers and frustrating for its omissions, richly informative in its contents and somewhat opaque in its intellectual coordinates. For better or for worse, with its compact two hundred pages of text and remarkably well-chosen images, it remains the best textbook on the period, even though recent research has greatly enriched, problematized, and subverted older assumptions. This essay situates Hankins’s textbook within our changing understanding of the sciences in the Enlightenment, providing a critical evaluation of its achievements, problems, and intellectual agenda. I focus on periodization and the role Isaac Newton’s main works, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (1687) and Opticks (1704)—both with much expanded later editions—play in Hankins’s narrative with respect to their intellectual and methodological agenda. While offering some thoughts on what mid-1980s readers may have reasonably expected from a textbook on the Enlightenment, I also include brief reflections on how the field has changed in recent times and some comments on what a new textbook may look like, forty years later.","PeriodicalId":53837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Early Modern Studies-Romania","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/jems20231212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
At nearly forty, Science and the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1985) by Thomas L. Hankins is seriously dated but still widely used, broadly reliable for what it covers and frustrating for its omissions, richly informative in its contents and somewhat opaque in its intellectual coordinates. For better or for worse, with its compact two hundred pages of text and remarkably well-chosen images, it remains the best textbook on the period, even though recent research has greatly enriched, problematized, and subverted older assumptions. This essay situates Hankins’s textbook within our changing understanding of the sciences in the Enlightenment, providing a critical evaluation of its achievements, problems, and intellectual agenda. I focus on periodization and the role Isaac Newton’s main works, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (1687) and Opticks (1704)—both with much expanded later editions—play in Hankins’s narrative with respect to their intellectual and methodological agenda. While offering some thoughts on what mid-1980s readers may have reasonably expected from a textbook on the Enlightenment, I also include brief reflections on how the field has changed in recent times and some comments on what a new textbook may look like, forty years later.
托马斯·l·汉金斯(Thomas L. Hankins)的《科学与启蒙》(Science and the Enlightenment,剑桥,1985)出版近40年了,虽然已经严重过时,但仍被广泛使用。该书所涵盖的内容大体可靠,但其遗漏之处令人沮丧。无论是好是坏,它紧凑的200页文字和精心挑选的图片,仍然是关于那个时期最好的教科书,尽管最近的研究大大丰富了旧的假设,提出了问题,并颠覆了旧的假设。这篇文章将汉金斯的教科书置于我们对启蒙运动时期科学不断变化的理解之中,对其成就、问题和学术议程进行了批判性的评价。我关注的是周期化,以及艾萨克·牛顿的主要著作《自然哲学的数学原理》(1687年)和《光学》(1704年)在汉金斯的叙述中所扮演的角色,这两部著作都是后来扩充的版本。在提供一些关于20世纪80年代中期读者可能对启蒙运动教科书的合理期望的想法的同时,我也简要地反思了近年来该领域的变化,并对四十年后的新教科书可能是什么样子的一些评论。