Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:39:02.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodology and Apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

P. B. Wood
P. B. Wood
Affiliation:
Division of History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Central to Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society was the description and justification of the method adopted and advocated by the Fellows of the Society, for it was thought that it was their method which distinguished them from ancients, dogmatists, sceptics, and contemporary natural philosophers such as Descartes. The Fellows saw themselves as furthering primarily a novel method, rather than a system, of philosophy, and the History gave expression to this corporate self-perception. However, the History's description of their method was not necessarily accurate. Rather, as will be argued below, by a combination of subtle misrepresentation and selective exposition, Sprat portrayed a method which would further the aims of social and ecclesiastical stability and material prosperity, essential for the Royal Society since its continued existence depended upon the creation of a social basis for the institutionalized pursuit of natural philosophy. Some link had to be forged between the activities of the Society and the intellectual and social aspirations of the Restoration. To understand the intent and meaning of Sprat's History and the method there portrayed, we must therefore look to the institutional needs which it fulfilled.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1980

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

NOTES

I wish to thank the President and Fellows of the Royal Society for permission to quote from manuscripts in their possession. The bulk of the research was done while the author was supported by a Commonwealth Scholarship at University College London. I should also like to thank Prof P. M. Rattansi, Dr G. N. Cantor, C. Gibson-Wood, Dr J. R. Ravetz, and the Journal's editor and referees for their comments on various drafts of this paper, and especially Michael Hunter for his commments and many discussions relating to the role of science in Restoration England.

1 On this point see Frank, R. G., ‘Institutional structure and scientific activity in the early Royal Society’, in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of the History of Science (1974), 4 vols., Tokyo, 1975, iv, 83Google Scholar. Although there are other themes of Sprat's History which are significant, I assume in this paper that the methodological theme is basic. Consequently discussion will be confined to the History's description of the method and its apologetic function.

2 The question of finance is briefly discussed by Hunter, Michael, ‘The social basis and changing fortunes of an early scientific instutution: an analysis of the membership of the Royal Society, 1660–1685’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1976, 31, 9–114 (16–19).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 For Charles's attitudes see the widely cited remarks recorded by Pepys in The diary of Samuel Pepys (ed. by Latham, R. and Matthews, W.), 9 vols., London, 1970–1976, v, 32–3Google Scholar. Equally revealing is the recently uncovered evidence that Charles called his philosophers ‘court jesters’; see Middleton, W. E. Knowles, ‘What did Charles II call the Fellows of the Royal Society?’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1977, 32, 13–17 (14).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Courtly fashion is discussed by Hunter, , op. cit. (2), pp. 13–14, 23–4, 36–41.Google Scholar

5 ‘Espinasse, Margaret, Robert Hooke, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1962, pp. 4, 83.Google Scholar

6 Hunter, , op. cit. (2), pp. 38–9, 95–7.Google Scholar

7 McAdoo, H. R., The Spirit of Anglicanism, London, 1965, p. 201Google Scholar; Simon, W. G., The Restoration episcopate, New York, 1966, pp. 143–8Google Scholar. The control of the Laudians is discussed by Bosher, R. S., The making of the Restoration settlement, London, 1957, esp. chapters IV and VGoogle Scholar, and Whiteman, Anne, ‘The restoration of the Church of England’, in Nuttall, G. F. and Chadwick, O. (eds.), From uniformity to unity 1662–1962, London, 1962, 21–88Google Scholar. Ward's ecclesiastical efforts are in contrast to Wilkins's advocacy of comprehension and toleration, for which see Thomas, R., ‘Comprehension and indulgence’Google Scholar, in Nuttall, and Chadwick, , op. cit., pp. 198–206Google Scholar. As Thomas notes (p. 204), Archbishop Sheldon probably opposed Wilkins's scheme. More generally, Sheldon did not look favourably upon Wilkins; witness the remarks by Pope, Walter, The life of Seth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury (ed. by Bambrough, J. B.), Oxford, 1961, pp. 56–7.Google Scholar

8 On atheism, materialism, and Hobbesism the best introduction remains Mintz, S. I., The hunting of the Leviathan, Cambridge, 1970Google Scholar; see also Jacob, J. R., ‘Robert Boyle and subversive religion in the early Restoration’, Albion, 1974, 6, 275–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem., ‘Boyle's atomism and the Restoration assault on pagan naturalism’, Social studies of science, 1978, 8, 211–33Google Scholar. Redwood, J., Reason, ridicule, and religion: the age of Enlightenment in England 1660–1750, London, 1976Google Scholar, unfortunately goes little beyond previous work.

9 Early sermons of South's which attack the new philosophy associated with the Royal Society are to be found in his Sermons preached upon several occasions, new edn., 4 vols., London, 1843, i, 19–33, 204–23.Google Scholar

10 Syfret, R. H., ‘Some early reactions to the Royal Society’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1949–1950, 7, 207–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar (219–20, 224–5, 247–8). Miss Syfret was clearly aware of the Society's need to create a social basis, as her remarks (p. 215) indicate. For a brief discussion of Fell and the Oxford University Press see Hunter, Michael, ‘The origins of the Oxford University Press’, The book collector, 1975, 24, 511–34Google Scholar (522–6). On Casaubon see Jones, R. F., Ancients and moderns: a study of the rise of the scientific movement in seventeenth-century England, 2nd edn., Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1965, pp. 241–4Google Scholar. Michael Hunter discusses the relationship between science and learning in his forthcoming Science and society in Restoration England, chapter VI (Cambridge).

11 Webster, C., ‘The College of Physicians: ‘Solomon's House’ in Commonwealth England’, Bulletin of the history of medicine, 1967, 41, 393–412Google Scholar (409–12); idem., The great instauration: science, mediane and reform 1626–1660, London, 1975, pp. 315–23Google Scholar; Rattansi, P. M., ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy in Restoration England’, Ambix, 1964, 12, 1–23 (12–13, 22).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Birch, Thomas, The history of the Royal Society, 4 vols., London, 1756–1757, i, 4, 50, 83, 84, 88, 227Google Scholar. After the revised Charter was granted, Wilkins assumed the occasional duties of a vice-president; see the Royal Society, Council minutes (copy). 1. 16.Google Scholar

13 On Wilkins's popularization programme see Aarsleff, Hans's article in The dictionary of scientific biography, 14 vols., New York, 1970–1976, xiv, 364–8Google Scholar; and Shapiro, B. J., John Wilkins 1614–1672: an intellectual biography, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1969, chapter II.Google Scholar

14 Wilkins is perhaps best understood as a virtuoso; see the brief but perceptive analysis by Houghton, Walter E. Jr., ‘The English virtuoso in the seventeenth century’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1942, 3, 51–73, 190–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar (201–2). Sprat's audience is analyzed by Hunter, in his Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter III.Google Scholar

15 Lloyd, William, A sermon preach'd at the funeral of the Right Reverend father in God, John Wilkins D. D. late lord Bishop of Chester, at the Guildhall chapel London, on Thursday the 12 December, 1672, 6th edn., London, 1710, p. 28Google Scholar; The mathematical and philosophical works of the Right Rev. John Wilkins, 2 vols., London, 1802, i, viGoogle Scholar; Aubrey, John, Aubrey's brief lives (ed. Dick, O. L.), Harmondsworth, 1976, p. 479Google Scholar; Aarsleff, , op. cit. (13), p. 363Google Scholar. Wilkins's modern biographer also remarks on his social prowess; see Shapiro, , op. cit. (13), pp. 3–4, 23, 24, 150Google Scholar. For Wilkins's theological conception of prudence see McAdoo, , op. cit. (7), pp. 223–7.Google Scholar

16 Personal reasons would also have played a role. Sprat had been a protégé of Wilkins in Oxford during the 1650s, and both shared the common patronage of the Duke of Buckingham. Wilkins had nominated Sprat for membership of the Society on 1 April 1663, and he was duly elected on the fifteenth of that month; Birch, , op. cit. (12), i, 216, 218Google Scholar. In his DSB article on Sprat. Hans Aarsleff argues that Sprat was, politically speaking, a ‘safer’ choice for official historian than Wilkins, John; Dictionary of scientific biography, 14 vols., New York, 1970–1976, xii, 584Google Scholar. Although this is a widely held view, it seems implausible in that Wilkins had been the dedicatee of royalist pamphlets by Matthew Wren in the late 1650s and had protected the sons of Royalists while Warden of Wadham, while Sprat on the other hand had penned a verse in praise of Cromwell in 1659; see Wren, Matthew, Monarchy asserted, Oxford, 1959Google Scholar, dedication: Pope, , op. cit. (7), pp. 29–30Google Scholar: Waller, Edmund et al. , Three poems upon the death of his late highnesse Oliver Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland, London, 1659Google Scholar. Moreover, in 1660 Wilkins had been given Royal preferments in Ripon and York; see Shapiro, , op. cit. (13), pp. 150–1Google Scholar. Wilkins's moderate politics would have been acceptable to all but the most extreme at either end of the spectrum. What the Society needed was a stylist who would appeal to the tastes of the virtuosi they were attempting to secure support from, and as Sprat's History was widely praised for its eloquence and style, it would seem that they were successful in this. See for example Glanvill, Joseph, Plus ultra: or, the progress and advancement of knowledge since the days of Aristotle, London, 1668, p. 84Google Scholar, and Wood, Anthony à, Athenae Oxonienses, 3rd edn., 4 vols., London, 1820, iv, 728Google Scholar. A comment by Wood in his biographical entry on Sprat throws further light on the question of Sprat's political acceptability: he wrote: ‘After the restoration of king Charles II. he [Sprat] turned about with the virtuosi …’; ibid, iv, 727. To a man of High Church sympathies, therefore, Sprat was quite as much a trimming commonwealthman as Wilkins.

17 Sprat, Thomas, The history of the Royal Society of London, for the improving of natural knowledge (ed. by Cope, J. I. and Jones, H. W.), London, 1959, p. 94Google Scholar. This quotation shows that Sprat himself claimed the role of stylist.

18 Ibid., p. 251.

19 Purver, Margery, The Royal Society: concept and creation, London, 1967, p. 11.Google Scholar

20 Webster, Charles, ‘The origins of the Royal Society’, History of science, 1967, 6, 106–128 (111–14)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dr Webster is virtually alone amongst historians of the early Royal Society in suggesting that methodology fulfilled apologetic and ideological functions; others to have touched on this point include Shapiro, , op. cit. (13), pp. 205–6Google Scholar, Buck, Peter, ‘Order and control: the scientific method in China and the United States’, Social studies of science, 1975, 5, 265–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21 Webster, , op. cit. (20), pp. 112–13Google Scholar, and The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (ed. and trans, by Hall, A. R. and Hall, M. B.), 11 vols, continuing, Madison and London, 1965–, ii, 320–1Google Scholar, hereafter referred to as Oldenburg.

22 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 120Google Scholar; Webster, , op. cit. (20), p. 112.Google Scholar

23 Purver, , op. cit. (19), pp. 14–15Google Scholar. It would appear that Hooke and Brouncker advised Wilkins on the selection of the examples to be included in the History.

24 Wallis, to Moray, , 26 10 1664Google Scholar, Royal Society, Early letters, W. 1. 12.

25 Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 49.Google Scholar

26 Ibid., ii, 504, 560.

27 Jones, R. F., op. cit. (10), p. 222Google Scholar; Stimson, Dorothy, Scientists and amateurs: a history of the Royal Society, New York, 1948, pp. 75, 252Google Scholar; Merton, R. K., ‘Puritanism, pietism, and science’, in Russell, C. A. (ed.), Science and religious belief, London, 1973, p. 21Google Scholar; Jacob, J. R., ‘Restoration, reformation, and the origins of the Royal Society’, History of science, 1975, 13, 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Jacob cites Purver's work as evidence for his claim that Sprat's History is an authoritative statement of the Society's aims and aspirations without taking into account Webster's criticisms in his review article, op. cit. (20).

28 Hoppen, K. Theodore, ‘The nature of the early Royal Society’, The British journal for the history of science, 1976, 9, 1–24, 243–273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Webster, Charles, op. cit. (11), pp. 88–99Google Scholar; idem., op. cit. (20), pp. 116–26. For a study of methodology in the early Royal Society see my ‘Francis Bacon and the “Experimental Philosophy”: a study in seventeenth-century methodology’, University of London M Phil dissertation, 1978.

29 Birch, , op. cit. (12), i, 84–5.Google Scholar

30 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), pp. 431–3Google Scholar. On the membership lists see Hunter, , op. cit. (2), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

31 Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 193Google Scholar. Similar remarks are made in a letter to Sluse, 6 February 1666/7, ibid., iii, 338.

32 Birch, , op. cit. (12), ii, 249Google Scholar; I should like to thank Michael Hunter for this reference. On the plans for a college see Hunter, , op. cit. (2), appendix IIGoogle Scholar. Oldenburg attempted to gain the esteem and support of foreign dignitaries by sending them copies of the History; Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 618Google Scholar; iv, 119, 538.

33 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), pp. 61, 62.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., pp. 84–6, 91.

35 Ibid., pp. 99; cf. pp. 83, 215.

36 The works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (ed. by Birch, Thomas), 2nd edn., 6 vols., London, 1772, i, 343, 345.Google Scholar

37 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 243.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., pp. 244–5.

39 Ibid., p. 89. Francis Bacon was the first to put forward this view; The works of Francis Bacon (ed. by Spedding, J., Ellis, R. I., and Heath, D. D.), new edn., 14 vols., London, 1870–1874, iv, 413–17.Google Scholar

40 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 115Google Scholar. Despite Sprat's remarks to the contrary, the Society did make some efforts to keep its registers in order; see Royal Society, Council book (copy), 44Google Scholar. The Oxford group had attempted to do the same; see Robinson, H. W., ‘An unpublished letter of Dr. Seth Ward relating to the early meetings of the Oxford Philosophical Society’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1949–1950, 7, 68–70 (69).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 115Google Scholar; cf. Sprat's criticism of Bacon, p. 36.

42 Ibid., p. 175. A comparison of the published and the manuscript version of Hooke's ‘Method’, which Cope and Jones included in the History as appendix C, reveals that Hooke's MS stated the aim of ‘raising axions’ more clearly than the published version. This raises the question as to whether Hooke's manuscript was edited to suit the tenor of the History.

43 Ibid. p. 176.

44 On this point see Houghton, Walter E. Jr, ‘The history of trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought, as seen in Bacon, Petty, Evelyn, and Boyle’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1941, 2, 33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar (34–8). Houghton rightly points to Boyle's perception of the philosophical significance of the programme for the history of trades in contrast to Evelyn and Sprat. However, Petty's utilitarianism is exaggerated at the expense of his philosophical interests.

45 In The posthumous works of Robert Hooke (ed. by Waller, Richard), London, 1705, pp. 3–70Google Scholar. See also the related manuscript on natural histories in the Royal Society, Classified papers 1667–1740, xx. 50aGoogle Scholar. Mary Hesse dates the ‘General scheme’ as being from 1666; ‘Hooke's philosophical algebra’, Isis, 1966, 57, 67–83 (68)Google Scholar. However, 1665 seems equally plausible since much of the material included is closely related to Hooke's work on comets carried out in the winter of 1664–5, and to his discourse on the nature of fire read before the Royal Society on 18 January 1665. His phraseology, esp. p. 47, suggests that the ‘General scheme’ may have been composed soon after this date. Moreover, in January 1665/6 Oldenburg was writing to Boyle of a completed work by Hooke on the method of natural histories, although this may refer to the Royal Society MS; Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 32–3Google Scholar. During the winter of 1665–6 Oldenburg, with the help of Boyle, was busy publicizing the natural history programme in the Philosophical transactions; Oldenburg, ibid., iii, 65, 68, and Philosophical transactions, 1665–1667, 1, 186.Google Scholar

46 Hooke, , op. cit. (45), p. 18.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., p. 19.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid., p. 26.

50 Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), i, 432Google Scholar. Thus Boyle, Hooke, Oldenburg, and Petty held similar views concerning natural histories in general, and the history of trades programme in particular.

51 While Hooke demanded philosophical sophistication of his historian, Sprat made virtually no demands at all. For a more detailed discussion of Hooke's prescriptions see Wood, , op. cit. (28), pp. 216–23.Google Scholar

52 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), fols, Br, B2rGoogle Scholar. Compare Glanvill, Joseph, Scepsis scientifica. London, 1665, pp. 1–8Google Scholar. This is a considerably more restrained version of his speculations in The vanity of dogmatizing, London, 1661Google Scholar, ‘Preface’ and pp. 1–16. Bacon had earlier developed this point in detail; Wood, , op. cit. (28), pp. 9–39.Google Scholar

53 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 112.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., p. 97.

55 Ibid., p. 99.

56 Ibid., p. 101.

57 Ibid., pp. 102–4.

58 Ibid., pp. 104–5.

59 Hunter, , Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter VIIGoogle Scholar. For other discussions by historians of literature of scpeticism in the Restoration see Bredvold, Louis I., The intellectual milieu of John Dryden: studies in some aspects of seventeenth-century thought, Ann Arbor, 1934Google Scholar, passim; Harth, P., Contexts of Dryden's thought, Chicago & London, 1968Google Scholar, esp. chapter I; Cope, J. I., Joseph Glanvill: Anglican apologist, St Louis, 1956, chapter V.Google Scholar

60 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 107.Google Scholar

61 van Leeuwen, H., The problem of certainty in English thought, 1630–1690, The Hague, 1963, pp. 57–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, , Wilkins, op. cit. (13), chapter VIII.Google Scholar

62 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 107.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., p. 108.

64 Boyle, , Works, op. cit. (36), i, 303.Google Scholar

65 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 109.Google Scholar

66 Ibid., p. 110.

67 For analysis of Bacon see Wood, , op. cit. (28), pp. 12–16.Google Scholar

68 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 257.Google Scholar

69 Ibid.

70 McAdoo, , Spirit, op. cit. (7), chapters V and VIGoogle Scholar; Shapiro, B. J., ‘Latitudinarianism and science in seventeenth-century England’, Past and present, 1968, 40, 16–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westfall, R. S., Science and religion in seventeenth-century England, Ann Arbor, 1973, passim.Google Scholar

71 A concise introduction to the Restoration Church and its politics is provided by Beddard, R. A., ‘The Restoration Church’, in Jones, J. R. (ed.), The restored monarchy 1660–1688, London and Basingstoke, 1979, pp. 155–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Green, I. M., The re-establishment of the Church of England 1660–1663, Oxford, 1978Google Scholar, esp. chapter IX on the role of the gentry. Useful older studies include those by Bosher and Whiteman cited in n. 7 above, and Cragg, G. R., From puritanism to the age of reason: a study of changes in religious thought within the Church of England 1660–1700, Cambridge, 1950, chapter VIII.Google Scholar

72 Ward, Seth, Against resistance of lawful powers: a sermon preached at White-Hall, Nov. 5, 1661, London, 1661, p. 6Google Scholar. A similar view is presented in Glanvill, Joseph, A loyal tear dropt on the vault of our late martyred sovereign, London, 1667, passim.Google Scholar

73 Capp, B. S., The Fifth Monarchy Men: a study in seventeenth-century millenarianism, London, 1972, chapter IX.Google Scholar

74 For Overton see Kargon, R. H., Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton, Oxford, 1966, p. 81Google Scholar. The politics of atheism is discussed in Redwood, , Reason, op. cit. (8), pp. 70–83.Google Scholar

75 Hunter, , Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter VIIGoogle Scholar; Redwood, , op. cit. (8), chapter I.Google Scholar

76 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 372Google Scholar. On the theme of reformation see Jacob, , ‘Restoration’, op. cit. (27), pp. 169–70Google Scholar, and Kemsley, Douglas S., ‘Religious influences in the rise of modern science’Google Scholar, in Russell, , Science and religious belief, op. cit. (27), pp. 100–2Google Scholar. I should like to thank Michael Hunter for this last reference.

77 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 371.Google Scholar

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid., p. 356. Boyle held a similar view; Jacob, J. R., ‘The ideological origins of Robert Boyle's natural philosophy’, Journal of European studies, 1972, 2, 1–21 (12–21).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 374.Google Scholar

81 Ibid., pp. 370, 374. While my discussion in what follows concentrates on the problems of enthusiasm and atheism, it should be noted that the experimental method was portrayed as a weapon equally effective against Catholicism. On the role of Catholicism in the politics of the Restoration see Miller, J., Popery and politics in England 1660–1688, Cambridge, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially chapter V, and Kenyon, J., The Popish Plot, London, 1972Google Scholar, chapter I. As Miller points out, Catholicism became a live political issue only in 1673, once james's conversion was widely known.

82 Ibid., pp. 352–3. Sprat's empiricist portrayal of Christ contrasts with Sir Thomas Browne's rationalist view that Christ had appealed to man's reason rather than to his senses; The works of Sir Thomas Browne (ed. by SirKeynes, Geoffrey), new edn., 4 vols., London, 1964, ii, 28Google Scholar. Sprat's portrayal thus reflects his own epistemological and methodological bias, as did Browne's.

83 Ibid., pp. 111, 366–7.

84 Ibid., p. 366, for an explicit discussion of this point.

85 Ibid., pp. 349–50.

86 Ibid., pp. 348–9.

87 Westfall discusses this use of natural theology in his Science and religion, op. cit. (70), chapter V.Google Scholar

88 This view should be compared with that of Robert Boyle, who had developed a similar outlook in the 1640s and 50s; see Jacob, , op. cit. (27), pp. 166–9Google Scholar; idem., op. cit. (79), pp. 7, 11, 13, 18–21; idem., ‘The New England Company, the Royal Society and the Indians’, Social studies of science, 1975, 5, 450–5.Google Scholar

89 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 82.Google Scholar

90 For relevant discussions of voluntarism see Oakley, Francis, ‘Christian theology and the Newtonian science: the rise of the concept of the laws of nature’, Church history, 1961, 30, 433–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McGuire, J. E., ‘Boyle's conception of nature’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1972, 33, 523–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

91 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 351.Google Scholar

92 Ibid., pp. 358–9.

93 Ibid., p. 362. The limiting of the miraculous could be used against Catholicism as well.

94 Ibid., pp. 364–5.

95 Ibid., p. 362. The prophecies concerning the year 1666 have been discussed by Hooker, E. N., ‘The purpose of Dryden's Annus Mirabilis’, Huntingdon Library quarterly, 1946–1947, 10, 49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar (esp. 51–62), and McKeon, M.Politics and poetry in Restoration England: the case of Dryden's Annus mirabilis, Cambridge Mass. & London, 1975, chapters II and VI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 Ibid., pp. 54–6; see also Shapiro, , Wilkins, op. cit. (13), pp. 81–111.Google Scholar

97 Rattansi, P. M.1, ‘Paracelsus and the puritan revolution’, Ambix, 1963, 11, 24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Debus, A. G., Science and education in the seventeenth century: the Webster-Ward debate, London, 1970Google Scholar, passim; Hill, Christopher, The world turned upside down, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp. 289–95Google Scholar. Alchemy and university reformers were associated with enthusiasm in Sprat, , op. cit. (17), pp. 37–8, 328–9.Google Scholar

98 Debus, , op. cit. (97), p. 197Google Scholar; my italics.

99 Ibid., pp. 199, 240.

100 Boyle too drew this type of contrast; Jacob, , ‘Ideological origins’, op. cit. (79), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar

101 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), pp. 53, 54, 358, 361, 362, 364.Google Scholar

102 Ibid., p. 355.

103 Ibid., p. 344.

104 Ibid., p. 33.

105 Ibid., p. 376. Scholasticism was also seen in the History as ultimately leading to practical atheism.

106 For Wilkins's position see McAdoo, , Spirit, op. cit. (7), pp. 217–26.Google Scholar

107 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 368Google Scholar; see also McAdoo, , op. cit. (7), pp. 219–21.Google Scholar

108 Ibid., pp. 341–2, 367; these terms were used to describe Laurence Rooke and Christopher Wren, pp. 189, 317.

109 Ibid., pp. 341–2.

110 Ibid., pp. 346–7. This move was characteristic of moderate theologians such as John Dury, the Cambridge Platonists, and the Latitudinarians.

111 Ibid., pp. 427–30. Oldenburg had come to the same conclusion in the 1650s; Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), i, 90–1, 95, 100–1, 113–14Google Scholar. Glanvill, too, believed that the spirit of dogmatism common to the enthusiast and scholastic led to spiritual and civil disorder; Glanvill, , Plus ultra, op. cit. (16), pp. 148–9Google Scholar, and Loyal tear, op. cit. (72), passim.Google Scholar

112 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 91.Google Scholar

113 Ibid., p. 92.

114 Ibid., pp. 426–7.

115 Ibid., p. 131.

116 Ibid., p. 63.

117 The broader aims of some of the early Fellows are discussed by Jacob, , ‘Restoration’, op. cit. (27), passim.Google Scholar

118 Hunter, , ‘Social basis’, op. cit, (2), p. 37Google Scholar; idem., Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter III.Google Scholar

119 The classic study of the virtuosi is Houghton, , ‘English virtuosi’, op. cit. (14)Google Scholar, which perhaps underestimates their utilitarian interests. On some of the more bizarre curiosities in the Society's museum see Hoppen, K. Theodore, op. cit. (28), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

120 On Aubrey see Hunter, Michael. John Aubrey and the realm of learning, London, 1975, especially chapters I and II.Google Scholar

121 History, op. cit. (17), pp. 404–11Google Scholar. Robert Boyle saw natural philosophy as a means of reforming the morals of the gentry; see Jacob, , ‘Ideological origins’, op. cit. (79), pp. 4–9Google Scholar. Michael Hunter informs me that Evelyn was much concerned with practical divinity, and in many respects resembled Boyle in his desire to bring about a moral reform of the aristocracy; partial confirmation of this can be found in McAdoo, , op. cit. (7), p. 45.Google Scholar

122 Hooke, Robert, Micrographia, London, 1665, fol. d2rGoogle Scholar; on the sensual pleasures to be gained compare Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 344.

123 Gunther, R. T. (ed.), Early science in Oxford, 14 vols., Oxford, 1923–1945, vi, 182–3, 223Google Scholar. In describing Hooke's preface as ‘official’, I mean no more than that it performed apologetic functions similar to those of the History.

124 Glanvill, , op. cit. (52), fols. b2r–b4rGoogle Scholar, b2r. Although Glanvill was not yet a Fellow of the Society when he wrote the address, it nonetheless seems legitimate to treat this piece as an expression of the Society's apologetic programme. Oldenburg remarked of it to Boyle: ‘…the Author expresseth a very great respect to yesd Body and their dessein, wch I was very glad, and so were others, to find to be so well understood, at least, by some …’; Oldenburg, to Boyle, , 10 12 1664Google Scholar, Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), ii, 332.Google Scholar

125 Sprat, , op. cit. (17), p. 428.Google Scholar

126 Ibid., p. 430.

127 A modest beginning towards such an explanation is given in Wood, , op. cit. (28), pp. 255–79.Google Scholar