Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis (review)

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS 227 Science and Creation in the Middle Ages: Henry of Langenstein (d. 1397) on Genesis. By Nicholas H. Steneck. (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976. Pp. xiv + 213. $14.95) Ever since the ground-breaking studies of Pierre Duhem in the first decades of this century, historians of science have tussled with the problem of determining the relationship of late medieval science to the development of "modern" scientific method in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yet, in spite of the wealth of new information unearthed by numerous scholars, no single analysis of the overall problem posed by Duhem has won universal acceptance , and general historians of early modern science as well as specialists not directly familiar with medieval scientific literature still frequently tend to fall back upon outmoded generalizations . It is largely in response to this state of affairs, Steneck informs us, that the present study was undertaken. Its aim is to provide a "general survey of late medieval science" through an analysis of the work of a representative medieval scientist. The author's particular concern is to isolate the "working world view," the "actual procedures" that characterized medieval science , so as to establish a foundation for a general comparison with the practices of modern scientists. Given the breadth of this expressed purpose, Steneck's choice of a representative medieval scientist may occasion some surprise. Henry of Langenstein or Hesse (1325-1397) was a renowned theologian who taught at the Universities of Paris and Vienna. He composed several works of an overtly scientific character , presumably in conjunction with his teaching in the arts faculty at Paris. These were first examined by Thorndike, 1who noted their closeness in several respects to the work of Henry's great contemporary, Nicole Oresme, but criticized their author's lack of originality, consistency , and scientific rigor. By themselves, Henry's early writings hardly provide enough material for an overall study of the medieval scientist at work. So, although Steneck has made use of them in this book (taking issue as he does with Thorndike's rather harsh appraisal of their merit), he has drawn upon a far more comprehensive source for his assessment of Henry's science, and this from a somewhat unexpected quarter: Henry's massive series of lectures on the opening chapters of Genesis, composed during the author's years expounding theology at Vienna. Henry's preoccupations as a theologian clearly did not preclude his maintaining an avid interest in the study of natural science, and his lectures on the biblical account of creation contain a veritable goldmine of information covering a broad spectrum of scientific issues. In this respect, Steneck argues, they are closer in spirit to the encyclopedic hexameral literature of the twelfth century than to the more strictly theological commentaries on Genesis produced by thirteenth-century scholastics. Steneck performs an important service by demonstrating the centrality of the Lecturae to an understanding of Henry's place in the history of medieval science. He explores the full range of Henry's interests, following the order of the six days of creation. The exposition is admirably clear and engagingly written, imposing order on a bulky and complicated text. The author is careful to place Henry's position in proper historical perspective and displays both a familiarity with his major sources and a sensitivity to the intellectual framework within which his views were developed and to the functions they were intended to serve. He emphasizes Henry's dependence on Aristotle and Augustine while singling out as recurring themes his doctrine of seminal potencies predisposing prime matter for the reception of form and the limitation of the influence of celestial intelligences on the sublunar realm as a foil to astrological prognostication. Steneck stresses throughout the mechanistic aspects of Henry's worldview , arguing that his conception of the universe differs from that of early modern science chiefly in matters of detail, not in basic conceptualization. Although his analysis is thoughtprovoking , one cannot help but feel that this conclusion is at least in part a function of the ' L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 8 vols. (New York, 1923-1958), 3:472-510. 228 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY...