Tom McLeish has written a book that is perhaps braver than he imagines. Its courage ‘incubates’ (a favourite word of his) for most of the work but comes to fruition in the final chapter. McLeish affirms the role of Abrahamic theology, especially the strong Augustinian conception of the Biblical Fall (aka ‘Original Sin’), in the formation of the modern scientific and artistic imaginations. According to the two thirteenth-century Oxford Franciscans on whom McLeish mainly relies, Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon, science and art are two aspects of the same human imagination in search of recovering species unity with God through nature. This empowered imagination is governed by what Grosseteste dubbed the ‘metaphysics of light’, a conception of primary matter that provided the matrix out of which all physical relations emerge. It is what Newton would later dub the ‘divine sensorium’. In effect, it provided a platform for understanding nature as a unified whole – that is, a ‘universe’. Historians of science seem agreed that Grosseteste’s own imagination was responsible for this unprecedented expansion of humanity’s imaginative powers (McEvoy 2000, 90). Needless to say, I agree with all this (Fuller 2008, 2010), as well as the seminal historical work that he cites for support (Harrison 2007). However, a rather embarrassing question arises: If the modern scientific and artistic imaginations are already as inextricably linked as McLeish suggests, why does he need to present the matter as if it were news? The obvious answer is that somehow they have become severed over the past several centuries. In other words, there would seem to have been a ‘second fall’, whereby science and art have increasingly gone their separate ways – not only in terms of how they are institutionalized as practices but also how they are perceived by the general public. Based on the final politic pages of The Poetry and Music of Science, it seems that McLeish believes that the removal of theology as the ‘queen of the sciences’ has expedited if not caused this schism. I say ‘politic’ because McLeish is careful to observe that such recent thinkers as Hannah Arendt (the go-to philosopher for modern expressions of ambivalence and foreboding) realize that something has been lost – but without quite naming it or saying how it might be restored.

中文翻译：

---

艺术与科学：再现还是表达？

汤姆·麦克利什 (Tom McLeish) 写了一本书，也许比他想象的更勇敢。它的勇气在大部分作品中“孵化”（他最喜欢的词），但在最后一章中取得了成果。麦克利什肯定了亚伯拉罕神学，尤其是奥古斯丁对圣经堕落（又名“原罪”）的强烈概念，在现代科学和艺术想象的形成中的作用。根据麦克利什主要依赖的两个 13 世纪牛津方济各会士罗伯特·格罗塞泰斯特和罗杰·培根的说法，科学和艺术是人类通过自然寻求与上帝统一的同一想象力的两个方面。这种强大的想象力受到格罗塞泰斯特所谓的“光的形而上学”的支配，这是一种基本物质的概念，它提供了所有物理关系从中出现的矩阵。这就是牛顿后来所说的“神圣的感官”。实际上，它提供了一个平台，可以将自然理解为一个统一的整体——即“宇宙”。科学史学家似乎同意格罗塞泰斯特自己的想象力是造成人类想象力空前扩张的原因 (McEvoy 2000, 90)。不用说，我同意所有这些（Fuller 2008, 2010），以及他引用的开创性历史著作（Harrison 2007）。然而，一个相当尴尬的问题出现了：如果现代科学和艺术想象已经像麦克利什所说的那样密不可分，他为什么要把这件事当作新闻来呈现？显而易见的答案是，在过去的几个世纪里，它们以某种方式被切断了。换句话说，似乎有“第二次坠落”，因此，科学和艺术越来越分道扬镳——不仅在它们如何被制度化为实践方面，而且在它们如何被公众感知方面。根据《科学的诗歌和音乐》的最后政治篇章，麦克利什似乎认为，如果不是导致这种分裂，神学被取消为“科学女王”的地位已经加速。我说“政治”是因为麦克利什仔细地观察到，像汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）（现代表达矛盾和不祥的现代哲学家）这样的思想家意识到某些东西已经丢失了——但没有完全命名它或说明它可能如何恢复了。根据《科学的诗歌和音乐》的最后政治篇章，麦克利什似乎认为，如果不是导致这种分裂，神学被取消为“科学女王”的地位已经加速。我说“政治”是因为麦克利什仔细地观察到，像汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）（现代表达矛盾和不祥的现代哲学家）这样的思想家意识到某些东西已经丢失了——但没有完全命名它或说明它可能如何恢复了。根据《科学的诗歌和音乐》的最后政治篇章，麦克利什似乎认为，如果不是导致这种分裂，神学被取消为“科学女王”的地位已经加速。我说“政治”是因为麦克利什仔细地观察到，像汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt）（现代表达矛盾和不祥的现代哲学家）这样的思想家意识到某些东西已经丢失了——但没有完全命名它或说明它可能如何恢复了。