I ordered this book as it’s the reading for the Royal Society, History of Science Book Group’s August meet-up. I might not be able to make that event (it’s clashing with a late at the Science Museum), but I’m glad to have had the opportunity to read a book that I probably wouldn’t have stumbled across otherwise. The book was long-listed for the Royal Society Science Book Prize 2010, and it’s not difficult to see why.
Medieval conceptions of science were totally different to our own, and are often very difficult to grasp, given their completely different world view. But Hannam smooths the corners away, helping us understand the important role of magic and astrology in moving knowledge forward, and how medieval Catholicism was actually often a force for improved scientific knowledge rather than against it. He even manages to, half, rehabilitate that dread organisation: the Inquisition! And he does all this while making us aware of the, often unacknowledged, debt that ‘modern’ scientific thinkers from the renaissance onwards owe to their medieval forebears.
My only quibble with this book is that Hannam defends medieval thinkers a little too zealously. I have no doubt that their contribution to the birth of modern science, and the advancements that were made in the Renaissance, has been woefully underestimated. But I also think that Hannam goes a little too far the other way. Whilst he bemoans the use of the term the ‘dark ages’, the period up to 1000 AD (so the 600 years after the fall of the Roman Empire) get a scant 20 pages in his book – for a very good reason – not a lot happened.
In fact, there’s only another 40 pages from that up to the 12th century, which Hannam calls a renaissance in itself. And if you accept that the Renaissance ‘proper’ began in the late 13th century, then most of the book isn’t actually taken up with the medieval period at all. However, the section that is does describe some interesting advancements, especially in architecture, mathematics, and related to that astrology and clock-making.
But much of the time of medieval scholars seemed to be spent either in darkness, or in trying to access and understand the knowledge of the Islamic world. Hannam seems to be playing a sleight of hand by taking a large period of time which most people accept as the early Renaissance and rebranding it as the late medieval period, so he can hold up the accomplishments of medieval scholars.
That aside, it is a fascinating book, making a dry and difficult subject accessible and enjoyable. And I can forgive Hannam his zeal as he does illuminate the debt modern science owes to those scholars who went before them – whatever period they were working in.
Liz Loves Books 
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 26, 2010 at 4:49 am
Tim O'Neill
Not a bad review, but you make some odd comments about the relevant terms and timeframes:
“there’s only another 40 pages from that up to the 12th century, which Hannam calls a renaissance in itself.”
Actually, Hannam doesn’t call it a renaissance, it’s been generally regarded as one by historians for almost a century. Charles Homer Haskins wrote his seminal work “The Twelfth Century Renaissance” back in 1927 and you can find a collection of more recent leading scholarship on the revival of learning and art in the Twelfth Century in Robert Benson, Giles Constable, and Carol Lanham’s “Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century” (1982). You make it sound like this is Hannam’s idea. It is a commonplace amongst students of the period.
“if you accept that the Renaissance ‘proper’ began in the late 13th century”
That would be a rather odd thing to “accept”. One strange thing I’ve noticed as the idea that the later Medieval period wasn’t the benighted period of superstitious darkness that has been popularly supposed has filtered down, the reaction has been to try to claim more and more of the Medieval Period as being part of “the (proper) Renaissance”. Then, by a kind of definitional sleight of hand, dismissing the idea of any Medieval advances etc in this period on the grounds that it’s “really” the “(proper) Renaissance” and not part of the (dark and squalid) Medieval period at all.
This is very weird.
Historians these days are increasingly wary of using the term “the Renaissance” as a term to describe a *period*. It was more of an artistic/intellectual movement that began in some places (mainly northern Italy) in the later Medieval period and spread to others to take root in others (Holland, Germany) much later, well into the Early Modern Period.
Hannam is using the term “Medieval” correctly and according to modern conventions – to refer to the period from 500-1500. And he contrasts the dominant scholastic intellectual movement of that period with the Neo-Classicist humanism that was part of the Renaissance movement that began in the late Medieval period. To use “the Renaissance” to refer to a period is not only rather old fashioned, but confusing. And to push it back into the Thirteenth Century makes Aquinas a “Renaissance theologian”, Dante and Chaucer into “Renaissance poets” and the Hundred Years War into a “Renaissance conflict”, which would be very weird. Like the things described in Hannam’s book, these people and elements are all quintessentially Medieval in every sense of the word and little or nothing to do with the “Renaissance”
August 26, 2010 at 9:06 am
lizkeenaghan
Thanks Tim – well I am just an interested general reader rather than a scholar of the period which is probably why I wasn’t familiar with the concept of seeing the 12th centurty as a renaissance. Part of the reason I read the book was to increase my knowledge of a period I know very little about.
Again, the debate about when the Renaissance began, if you are old fashioned enough to see it as a period rather than a movement – and I agree with you that it’s probably more sensible to view it as a movement, is something I’m not academically familar with. I can see both points of view, but accept your argument that there may have been some attempt to push the period earlier and earlier – I just did some general searches to come up with the dates I used.
Whatever you want to view the last few hundred years as through, there is a large gap until at least 1000AD where not a lot happened that I’m not sure Hannam adequately expalins given his disagreement with the term ‘dark ages’.
But as I say – I just a general reader.
August 26, 2010 at 10:30 am
Tim O'Neill
“Whatever you want the view the last few hundred years as through, there is a large gap until at least 1000AD where not a lot happened that I’m not sure Hannam adequately expalins given his disagreement with the term ‘dark ages’.”
He explains that disagreement on pages 11-12. The term has its origin in the Nineteenth Century as a dismissive perjorative , but Hannam goes on to quote modern medievalist Roger Collins who notes that this Early Medieval Period (the term historians generally use these days) “constitute a period of the greatest significance for the future development , not only of Europe, but in the longer term, of much of the rest of the world.”
Hannam then goes on to explain what Collins was referring to. It was this period that saw Europe not only recover from the devastation of the fall fo Rome and its chaotic aftermath but develop and innovate new technology that led to a Europe far richer, more productive and robust than it had ever been. And this laid the foundations for the subsequent revival of learning.
So he’s not saying that the “Dark Ages” of 500-1000 AD were a period of great learning, just that they weren’t as “dark” and barbaric as has often been made out. Because it was in this period that the harnessing of new agrarian technology (mouldboard ploughs, horseshoes etc) and mechanical power (watermills, windmills, tidal mills) that gave Europe the wealth and relative peace that *allowed* the revival of learning in the Twelfth Century Renaissance.
Clearer?
August 26, 2010 at 1:00 pm
lizkeenaghan
Yes, thanks but whilst I did really enjoy the book overall I did feel that Hannam overstated his case a bit. But it was a fascinating read and a good way into a period I knew little about.
September 13, 2010 at 10:59 am
Sceptical agnostic
I would agree with you on this one ,Liz. it’s a fun book to read but Hannam is over the top on medieval progressiveness ( one must remember that he is a member of the Catholics brought civilization school). No historian would seriously argue that the early medieval period was so rich and productive as he does (or,at least, i have never read one who does- the fallout from the collapse of the Roman empire was pretty dramatic). He underplays the forces that stopped intellectual progress, ignores the major contributions of Italy (that would actually have added to the strength of his argument) and his sections on Renaissance humanism are very weak. ( I suppose he has to play it down to support his argument that the medieval thinkers were still respected in the seventeenth century.) However, i agree with you that if you take his thesis with a pinch of salt this is quite fun to read- but on the shortlist for Science Book of the year – one does have to wonder!
September 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm
lizkeenaghan
Glad you enjoyed the review. It is an interesting popular science book but a little overstated – but I guess that’s what gets the attention, something a little overblown!
September 13, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Tim O'Neill
“No historian would seriously argue that the early medieval period was so rich and productive as he does (or,at least, i have never read one who does- the fallout from the collapse of the Roman empire was pretty dramatic). ”
Hannam seems well aware that the fallout from the end of the WRE was dramatic, since he talks about its vast impact at several points in the book. That’s why the recovery from it took centuries. But the overview he gives of developments in agriculture, agrarian technology and the corresponding standards of living are totally unremarkable – I recall being taught exactly what he outlines in detail in my first year lectures 25 years ago. This is basic, standard, elementary stuff, so why you’re claiming “no historian would argue” something that any undergraduate Medieval history student learns in a foundational course is a mystery. Perhaps this period is one you aren’t very familiar with.
“He underplays the forces that stopped intellectual progress, ignores the major contributions of Italy (that would actually have added to the strength of his argument) and his sections on Renaissance humanism are very weak. ”
You might want to elaborate on those comments as well. How, exactly, does he “underplay” any such forces? What “intellectual progress” precisely did they “stop”? Which “major contributions of Italy” did he “ignore”? Details please.
“However, i agree with you that if you take his thesis with a pinch of salt this is quite fun to read- but on the shortlist for Science Book of the year – one does have to wonder!”
Given that his work is simply popularising several decades of research by leading historians of early science like Numbers, Lindberg and Grant, the main thing I’m now taking with a “pinch of salt” is your grasp of the relevant material. Your comments sound a lot like someone who wants to cling to the Nineteenth Century myths about the Medieval period and doesn’t like the idea that they may be wrong.
September 13, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Sceptical agnostic
Yes,it is good to have someone make a way-out case but I have been surprised he has not been challenged more – it would make for an interesting debate. I have an interest in sixteenth and seventeenth century science at the moment so I suppose I was extra disappointed that he disparaged that period so much! (It certainly wasn’t that progressive but there were some important developments he passes over. ) I am surprised too that the judges for the Science Book Award, some of whom must know something of that period, especially in the 250th anniversary of the Royal Society, haven’t picked him up on that.
Good reading!
September 14, 2010 at 8:35 am
Sceptical agnostic
Hey, Tim O’Neill, we are just discussing a book not having a seminar on medieval history! I have read Edward Grant, who is balanced and cautious on what the medieval era achieved ,and Hannam goes way beyond him- it is precisely from reading Grant that one can criticise Hannam!
There is so much new work by outstanding medievalists that 25 year old research is dated. Most medievalists are very sober about their period as they are aware of how much war, internal disruptions and plague disrupted anything we can call sustained progress.
Anyway we are all agreed that this is an interesting book to read whether we accept its ‘overblown’ ( I agree with Liz) conclusions or not.
September 14, 2010 at 10:54 am
Tim O'Neill
“Hey, Tim O’Neill, we are just discussing a book not having a seminar on medieval history! ”
I was under the impression we were discussing and disagreeing on a book *about* Medieval history. So how can we do that without discussing that period?
“I have read Edward Grant, who is balanced and cautious on what the medieval era achieved ,and Hannam goes way beyond him- it is precisely from reading Grant that one can criticise Hannam!”
Okay, then go ahead. Less assertions and some substance would give you a bit of credibility. What exactly does Hannam say that “goes way beyond” Grant?
“There is so much new work by outstanding medievalists that 25 year old research is dated. ”
You seem to have misunderstood my point. What Hannam says about agrarian development in the Early Medieval Period is so basic that I learned it in my first year lectures. And it is still taught today. It is not remarkable at all – it’s elementary stuff. So your comment that “no historian” would accept it is pure nonsense and indicates that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Most medievalists are very sober about their period as they are aware of how much war, internal disruptions and plague disrupted anything we can call sustained progress.”
All things Hannam would fully accept. In fact, he talks about this kind of disruption at several key points. And?
September 14, 2010 at 10:19 am
Sceptical agnostic
P.S. If Hannam is ‘simply popularising decades of research’ (Tim’s words with which I don’t agree especially when Hannam comes on to the sixteenth century where he appears to have little knowledge of recent work on humanism) , then I would go for someone who was doing ORIGINAL scientific work and popularising that if I were awarding prizes!
P. P.S. as Grant says in his God and Reason in the Middle Ages ( p.290), ‘In the Middle Ages, reason was employed in an abstract and often a priori manner, and frequently applied to hypothetical arguments and examples with little relevance to the real world. By contrast, nonscholastic, or better antischolastic, scholars in the seventeenth century, beginning with Francis Bacon, and continuing on through a stellar list of natural philosophers and scientists, laid great emphasis on empirical evidence as a control on pure reason.’ Hannam fails to make this contrast and I don’t think he even mentions Francis Bacon!
Basically I see this book, as I think Liz does, as a book to enjoy for its own sake. If it is ‘simply’ a popularisation then anyone with a serious interest in the subject will go back to the works it popularises (or fails to popularise!).
September 14, 2010 at 11:04 am
Tim O'Neill
“‘In the Middle Ages, reason was employed in an abstract and often a priori manner, and frequently applied to hypothetical arguments and examples with little relevance to the real world. By contrast, nonscholastic, or better antischolastic, scholars in the seventeenth century, beginning with Francis Bacon, and continuing on through a stellar list of natural philosophers and scientists, laid great emphasis on empirical evidence as a control on pure reason.’ Hannam fails to make this contrast”
You don’t seem to have read the book very carefully then. Hannam repeatedly contrasts the theoretical basis and methodology of the ancient and medieval periods with that of modern science. This is one of the reasons he is careful to call the scholars he discusses “natural philosphers” rather than “scientists”, as he explains early in his book. He makes the contrast very clearly.
“If it is ‘simply’ a popularisation then anyone with a serious interest in the subject will go back to the works it popularises (or fails to popularise!).”
What a weird statement. If they did that (and many will, thanks to his carefully selected suggestions for further reading) then he has achieved one of the primary aims of a populariser. Even if they don’t, his work does an excellent job of at least beginning to inform the average reader of what has been going on in the academic study of this subject for many decades and dispelling some hoary myths. Which is precisely why it is odds on favourite to win the Royal Society prize.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the problem here is your failings as a reader rather than his as a writer.
September 14, 2010 at 11:44 am
Sceptical agnostic
Tim,calm down. This is clearly a blog for the general reader who loves books, not a tribunal. Most of us can distinguish between serious scholarship and popularisations and we don’t judge them to the same standard.It is hard to know why you are making such a fuss about THIS book when it is hardly the case that Grant and Lindberg are difficult to read for those who want to follow established academics in this area. (I wonder if either of them has commented on it.) Probably subtitling the book with the ‘Foundations of Modern Science’ was a hype by the publishers but we are all grown-up enough readers to accept that it was probably introduced as a selling point and did not necessarily represent the author’s views on what is meant by ‘science’. It was when Hannam referred to humanists as ‘incorrigible reactionaries’ that I knew he had lost the plot for the period after 1450!
September 14, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Tim O'Neill
“Tim,calm down.”
Pardon? I’m perfectly calm thanks. Serenely so.
“Most of us can distinguish between serious scholarship and popularisations and we don’t judge them to the same standard.It is hard to know why you are making such a fuss about THIS book when it is hardly the case that Grant and Lindberg are difficult to read for those who want to follow established academics in this area.”
It’s a popularisation for those who *don’t* want to follow established academics or who aren’t aware of those academics’ works. That’s what popularisations are. And it’s not only a popularisation of a topic that is pretty much unknown to the average non-specialist but it’s also an excellent, judicious and well-written one. That’s why the Royal Society has short-listed it.
“Probably subtitling the book with the ‘Foundations of Modern Science’ was a hype by the publishers but we are all grown-up enough readers to accept that it was probably introduced as a selling point and did not necessarily represent the author’s views on what is meant by ‘science’.”
Have you actually *read* the book? Try reading its final chapter.
“It was when Hannam referred to humanists as ‘incorrigible reactionaries’ that I knew he had lost the plot for the period after 1450!”
They *were* reactionaries. Their whole movement was motivated by a devotion to (a version of) the ancient world that at its worst bordered on the slavish. But let me guess – this standard interpretation of humanism is news to you as well?
September 14, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Sceptical agnostic
‘Their whole movement was motivated by a devotion to (a version of) the ancient world that at its worst bordered on the slavish.’
‘Now indeed may every thoughtful spirit thank God that it has been permitted to him to be born in this new age, so full of hope and promise, which already rejoices in a greater array of nobly gifted souls than the world has seen in the thousand years that preceded it’. Matteo Palmieri, On Civic Life ( c.1432)
Slaves,indeed. Tim, wherever you are, I despair of you!
September 14, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Tim O'Neill
Yes, well I’m now despairing of you ever understanding a single thing I said. What the hell has that quote got to do with what I said? You seem to have given up bothering to listen some time ago.
September 14, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Sceptical agnostic
Perhaps you don’t know these humanist texts. They show how the knowledge of the past was used creatively and with enormous confidence to look in a whole range of things in a new way. See any standard introduction to humanism ( I have several on my shelve as it is an interest of mine) but the field is being transformed with the I Tatti translations of texts that have long been untranslated or out of print. Your and Hannam’s view will look increasingly strange (well, they are pretty strange already) as these texts are integrated into the standard narratives. I,for one, am excited by it -I only wish I could afford the I Tatti volumes as they come out.
Last year Richard Holmes’ marvellous The Age of Wonder won the Royal Society Prize, an original work of enormous scope. I came into this blog because I agreed with Liz on a book I had read that is not a patch on Holmes. Perhaps it is a poor year, we shall see. Let’s leave Liz to her reading -(Liz -I warmly recommend Holmes if you have not read it already and you will see what I mean!).
September 14, 2010 at 6:13 pm
lizkeenaghan
Thanks – I have read The Age of Wonder, which I thought was a fantastic book – illuminating as well being a riveting read. I also attended an interesting lecture at the Royal Society last year by Prof. David Knight, from the Philosophy Department at Durham University on Sir Joseph Banks, Sir Humphry Davy, and the Age of Wonder, which was obviously closely connected to the book.
Thanks for both yours and Tim’s comments – it’s always good to see a lively discussion! But I agree that it may be best to draw it to a close now as it seems unlikely to reach a resolution any time soon!
Thanks again.
September 14, 2010 at 7:27 pm
John Heard
Well, that was entertaining while it lasted! I read The Age of Wonder too (it was the first book we discussed in the RS Reading Group). It was a very worthy winner of the Science Book prize, and I think it would easily have trumped God’s Philosophers if they had been competing against each other. Nevertheless, God’s philosophers is the 3-1 favourite for this year’s prize!
Liz, I look forward to meeting you soon at a Reading Group meeting!
September 14, 2010 at 9:40 pm
lizkeenaghan
Thanks John! I don’t think I’ll be able to make the October meeting (I have an exam about a week after that and I will need to be getting stuck into the books at that point) but I’m hoping to make the November one. I stumbled across the book group a couple of months ago but haven’t managed to make one meeting yet to my shame!
September 14, 2010 at 11:31 pm
John Heard
I won’t be there in October, either – I’ll be sunning myself in Greece, on holiday! You can imagine how upset I feel. But I’ll be at the November meeting, as per usual, so I hope you make it then!
October 23, 2010 at 10:59 am
Sceptical agnostic
Dear Liz, I have now come out of being a sceptical agnostic, though I still am, and have posted a review of God’s Philosophers on the new Humanist website that may be of interest to you. Charles Freeman
October 23, 2010 at 11:45 am
lizkeenaghan
Hi Charles – could you post a link please?
Thanks
October 24, 2010 at 9:59 am
Sceptical agnostic
You just need to google ‘New Humanist blog’ and you will find it. Good reading.Charles.
October 23, 2010 at 3:12 pm
John Heard
That reminds me, Liz – Book Group, Nov 3rd, see you there?
October 27, 2010 at 8:27 am
lizkeenaghan
Well, I forgot to buy the book and I’m away for a couple of days for work just before it, and I have to get through another book for a different book group so I may bow out again. But I was planning to put December’s meeting in my diary, now my life has calmed down a little, to make sure I got the book and went but it now appears to have disappeared from the Facebook page!
October 27, 2010 at 12:18 pm
John Heard
I’ve just ordered the book by Pierre Bayard that caused a bit of a kerfuffle a couple of years ago in France: “How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read”! It seems like a useful skill to develop, especially if you belong to a reading group …
Anyway, the December meeting has been cancelled for reasons unknown (to me). Fingers crossed for January!
October 27, 2010 at 1:50 pm
lizkeenaghan
At least it’s not just my Facebook playing games! We will meet at some point…