Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:32:26.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1. Science and Society in Restoration England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

Quentin Skinner
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

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

1 Bracketed figures in the text refer to letters by their number in the Halls' edition.

2 The terminology is Professor Hall's own suggestion. See his important critique of the thesis , Merton Revisited’, History of Science, II (1963), 116Google Scholar.

3 Merton, Robert K., ‘Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England’, Osiris, iv (1938), 360632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The thesis is sketched in The Century of Revolution (London, 1961)Google Scholar ; further insights in Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (London, 1964)Google Scholar ; full statement in Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar ; defended in Puritanism, Capitalism and the Scientific Revolution’, Past and Present, xxix (1964), 8897.Google Scholar

5 Oldenburg to Peter van Dam, Letter 257 of the Correspondence, 11, 14. (My stress.)

6 As Professor Hall has himself pointed out, developing craft skills neither imply nor necessarily lead to any important theoretical advances. See his essay ‘The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution’ in Clagett, M., ed., Critical Problems in the History of Science (Madison, 1959), pp. 323Google Scholar.

7 Correspondence, Vol. 11, Introduction, p. xxi.

8 Correspondence, Vol. in, Introduction, p. xxv.

9 The assumption in Merton and in Hill, op. cit. See also Bredvold, L. I., ‘Dryden, Hobbes and the Royal Society’, Modern Philology, xxv (1928), 422.Google Scholar See too the biographies of Hobbes–e.g. Peters, R. S., Hobbes (Harmondsworth, 1956), pp. 41–2Google ScholarPubMed.

10 See my article, Thomas Hobbes and his Disciples in France and England’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, vIII (1966), 153–67Google Scholar.

11 See Birch, Thomas, The History of the Royal Society, 4 vols. (London, 1756), I, 26–7.Google Scholar

12 Oldenburg to , Hobbes, Letter 32 of the Correspondence, 1, 75Google Scholar.

13 This point of course connects with an alternative type of explanation of the rise of seventeenth-century science, in which interpretation does proceed by ‘internal’ analysis of scientific developments themselves. This equally has its distinguished historiography. For pioneering work see Koyré, A.Études galiléennes (Paris, 1939).Google Scholar For emphasis on relevance of Aristotelian background, see esp. Crombie, A. C., Augustine to Galileo (London, 1952) andGoogle ScholarClagett, M., The Science of Mechanics in The Middle Ages (Madison, 1959)Google Scholar.

14 The suggestion is made in Kearney, H. F., ‘Puritanism, Capitalism and the Scientific Revolution’, Past and Present, XXVIII (1964), 81101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.