Foreign Bodies: Travel, Empire and the Early Royal Society of London. Part II. The Land of Experimental Knowledge.
... the English are great lovers of themselves, and of everything belonging to them; they think that there are no other men than themselves, and no other world but England; and whenever they see a handsome foreigner, they say that `he looks like an Englishman' and that `it is a great pity that he should not be an Englishman'; and when they partake of any delicacy with a foreigner, they ask him, `whether such a thing is made in their country'?(1)
In the first part of this paper I examined the nature of foreign travel undertaken by a number of members of the early Royal Society. Traversing the key sites of Continental Europe was becoming a central part of the development of many English gentleman, although individuals with scientific interests naturally displayed a more pronounced predilection for attending foreign lectures and cabinets of curiosity. The diaries and letters of these young men show a tension in their dealings with foreigners. Large portions of their itinerary were spent interacting with foreigners of a similar social background to themselves, and there is a great deal of evidence of mutual respect. However, this does not appear to have dispersed the cultural baggage they took with them which ranged from an ironic recognition of national differences to an arrogant and xenophobic denunciation of many aspects of foreign society.
At first sight this tension seems problematic and even irreconcilable, and historians have dealt with the relevant evidence in a number of ways. Derogatory contemporary accounts of foreigners can be dismissed as irrelevant gossip, or as hypocritical private comments made at the same time as public professions of respectful internationalism. On this assumption, international cooperation proceeded apace despite such views, and the corporate message sent out to all comers of Europe by the members of the early Royal Society was plausible and ultimately successful. In this part of the paper I suggest that the proponents of a co-operative, international experimental philosophy simultaneously argued that it was peculiarly English. By itself, this view is hardly novel, and a number of recent studies have shown how various apologists for the Society held up English cultural and philosophical traits as uniquely conducive to experiment. However, I want to argue further that it was a peculiarity of experimentalism of the Royal Society that its propagandists were internationalist at the same time as being hostile to many elements of foreign cultures. For them, the future of natural philosophy rested on persuading others of the unique philosophical fertility of English experimentalism, while their notions of Englishness were defined by, and actively co-produced along with, disparaging attitudes to foreign individuals and practices. Paradoxically then, xenophobic comments which reinforced Englishness also served to bolster philosophical internationalism.(2)
There is obviously insufficient space here to offer an adequate account of the development of the English state and of English conceptions of "Englishness." It is not my purpose to suggest that English self-perceptions and their views of others were or were not accurate, and I am primarily concerned to analyse the ways in which individuals used representations of English "character" as a resource. However, it is worth pointing briefly to relevant historical factors underlying the development of the English "character" before the late seventeenth century. A substantial literature has drawn attention to the events in the sixteenth century which gave rise to robust and persistent notions of what it meant to be English. The impact of the English Reformation reinforced existing conceptions of Englishness while introducing novel foreign betes noires. Spurred on by atrocities committed against English Protestants under the reign of Mary and against reformers in various parts of Europe, Catholicism came to be seen by Protestant apologists such as John Foxe as the anti-religion described in Revelation. Ordinary Catholics were ignorant pawns in the throes of an evil regime, while the slavish adherence to tradition and to the authority of obfuscating priests and false miracles contrasted with the freedom of religious action and Biblical interpretation associated with Protestantism. England was an Elect nation which had bravely shaken off the tyranny of Romish rule, and it was without a trace of irony that many believed God to be English. English acceptance of different cultures and nationalities was the mirror image of what could be found in Catholic countries, where foreigners and heretics were suppressed with brutal and barbaric force, and Englishmen particularly professed the loathing of intolerance. Likewise, the English had a natural simplicity, integrity and modesty at odds with the deceitful and duplicitous practices shamelessly promoted as necessities or even virtues by Jesuits, conduct writers and Machiavelli.(3)
Although the English gentry saw many of these characteristics as the property of their own class, Englishmen were taught at the pulpit and elsewhere that these values were widely distributed in English society. A central element in this self-perception was that Englishmen, from yeomen to Dukes, were blessed with greater degrees of freedom than any other country. These rights and benefits had been formed over a long period of time -- going back in many accounts to time immemorial -- and were enshrined in Magna Carta, parliament and English common law. Early on in the early modern period, Englishmen already saw themselves as enjoying an unrivalled degree of social mobility between the trading and gentry classes, while trade itself was held to be free from the restrictions and tariffs which, with the exception of the avaricious Dutch, benighted other countries. Despite the fact that wealth was said to be one of the least significant aspects of gentlemanly values, the English gentleman, unrestrained by the financial needs which determined the activity of lower ranks of society, was held to be sufficiently wealthy to be able to enjoy productive leisure time. Gentlemen and especially Christian gentlemen were not constrained to lie for profit or for any other form of gain and, in so far as the gentleman was to lead a godly and virtuous life, it would be through a hard-earned self-discipline which was exercised voluntarily. As members of the early Royal Society argued, it was these accomplishments and values which made gentlemen the ideal practitioners of experimental natural philosophy.(4)
The creation of a national church headed by the sovereign initiated numerous internal effects relating to individual conduct and discipline, while far-reaching changes in the administration of the nation were largely completed by the end of the reign of Elizabeth. Protestant Englishmen were reminded at regular intervals that hard, productive work was part of their heritage, and were warned of the moral and economic consequences of idleness. Englishmen also prided themselves on respecting and embracing foreigners with similar dispositions to themselves. As long as they worked hard, paid their dues and did not offend the indigenous populace, it was held that refugees who had special skills or who were the victims of religious persecution would be welcomed. Anglicanism itself was explicitly formulated in doctrinally minimalist terms so as to avoid controversies in religion and to present a broad framework which might encompass the diverse views of Anglo-Catholics and radical Reformers. As John Henry and others have pointed out, this irenic formulation informed the seventeenth century theology of the Great Tew Circle and the Restoration Latitudinarians which in turn characterised the outlook of the early Royal Society. These groups held to a "mitigated sceptical" epistemology which emphasized moral certainty rather than the infallible certainty claimed by Roman Catholics and radical sectaries. After a vicious Civil War, these epistemologies, and indeed the Anglican model itself, were central resources for many members of the early Royal Society, who embraced its irenicism and probabilism as vital features of a viable internationalist philosophical programme.(5)
England's position as a leading naval power had become a significant part of English self-consciousness by the end of the sixteenth century. This was aided by the publication of the extraordinarily influential travel accounts by the Hakluyts which told of great discoveries and derring-do of men like Drake, Hawkins and Ralegh, and which promised an alliance of trade with the institution of colonial outposts. English shipping increased dramatically as a result of efforts to compete with the Iberian presence in the Americas and by the creation of bodies such as the Turkey, Muscovy and East India Companies to organize trading routes. English privateering vessels displayed an extraordinary aptitude for warfare and predation against Spain and later against France and the Dutch, although the English navy was not to become a significant power until the 1650s. The creation of a thrusting maritime empire was aided by unprecedented colonizing activity in the early seventeenth century. Although men like Sir Robert Cecil actively supported much of this at the start of the seventeenth century, state backing for overseas expansion declined during the Thirty Years War to be partially revived under Cromwell and then vigorously promoted after the Restoration of 1660. The fortunes of English trade and settlement in the following years were intimately bound up with the position of London as a uniquely powerful commercial centre which allowed large amounts of money to be made available for investment in colonial and commercial projects. This view of the role of naval power in free trade and imperialist projects was used by propagandists of the early Royal Society to show how information might be acquired from all comers of the world and brought back to the Metropolis.(6)
In so far as this sort of imperialism had specific qualities, it was justified in terms which pointed to the benign and even altruistic export of self-evidently preferable values that would benefit its recipients. In trade, social intercourse and religion, it was obviously preferable if people behaved as if they were honorary Englishmen, possessing the "natural" English characteristics of restraint, modesty and simplicity. In reality however, English colonialism was often achieved by brutal methods, and in the kingdom itself nonconformists and recusants periodically felt the power of the alliance between Church and State. As Philip Corrigan and Derek Sayer point out, historians have disagreed about fundamental features in the development of the English state. It can be argued, for example, that the English state was relatively "weak" and "open," facilitating the porosity of boundaries which allowed the vertical social mobility and the interchange between moneyed and landed interests that were to prove central to the transformation of England and Britain. On the other hand, this very openness clearly required some state activity to sustain it, while the invisible and often insidious exercise of state power -- broadly construed -- is perhaps most visible in the support of dominant images of homogenous and integrative tradition and national character which serve to dilute and efface differences. In the rest of this paper, I attempt to show that the approach to natural philosophy practised by members of the early Royal Society was carried out on the imperialist lines outlined above. Although professing a moderate and pacific internationalism, in fact the Society set out to discipline foreigners and to create a philosophical empire whose centre would be London. This was not of course, a brutal imposition of empire inflicted on unwilling groups and individuals. Instead, apologists called for a radical overhaul in the mental and bodily comportment of recalcitrant foreigners in language which was couched in the universalist terms of truth and progress.(7)
Seventeenth century propagandists for the Royal Society such as Henry Oldenburg and Thomas Sprat argued that it was an intellectual haven for strangers, a place where individuals from all nations might converse civilly without fear of their conversation descending into nationalist or personal abuse. Within the spaces and places delineated by the Society's various activities -- such as the pages of the Philosophical Transactions, the institutional edifices which housed its weekly deliberations, and the extended world mapped out by the locations of its foreign members -- everyone was formally equal. Whether English or foreign, each member qua member deserved to be accorded a certain kind of respect explicitly formulated on the basis of English gentlemanly codes of behaviour, while the writings and persona of Robert Boyle served as exemplary templates.(8)
Although Boyle's work was by no means representative of the many different activities carried out under the auspices of the early Royal Society, Oldenburg in particular referred to Boyle and his experiments as worthy ideals for others to follow and imitate. Sculpting his approach to dovetail with contemporary political and religious sensibilities, Boyle developed a provisionalist and strictly pointillist version of classical Baconianism. Although in private and in the long-term he sought causal explanations in terms of the corpuscular philosophy, his findings were for the time being limited to statements about facts which could be understood and believed by both witnesses of his experiments and readers of his books. His lengthy reports of these experiments were couched in a "historical narrative" style which referred to specific trials performed on specific occasions; and publicly he rarely if ever produced speculations about the microstructure of the world from these reports. The provisionalist and inductivist features of Boyle's approach caused him to criticize those who overhastily and fancifully built micro-systems from inadequate experimental evidence. All these approaches were soon to be superseded by the mathematical tours de force of Newton.(9)
Oldenburg, its official Secretary between 1662 and 1677, was undoubtedly the most important propagandist on behalf of the Society. His letters, many of which were printed after 1665 in the Philosophical Transactions (which he edited), were the most influential means by which foreign correspondents discovered the nature of the Society's activities. Little is known of his background before the mid-1650s, yet by this time, he had gained a reputation for being both a competent Protestant scholar and a highly accomplished and urbane linguist who, through his diplomatic activities on behalf of the town of Bremen, had won the confidence of members of the English Government. Once in England, Oldenburg quickly came into contact with the group of Oxford natural philosophers practising experimental philosophy in the 1650s, concurring with John Milton's views on the "inane subtleties" and "high salaries" of the scholastic philosophers there. At the end of the decade he was sufficiently trusted to be given the care of the educational development of Robert Boyle's nephew on a tour of the Continent.(10)
Oldenburg's cosmopolitanism did not prevent him from embracing aspects of the jaundiced xenophobia of his new host country. These were clearly expressed in his letters back to England, in which the culture and practice of the French and Italian intellectuals were contrasted unfavourably with what he had experienced at Oxford. In an early letter to Milton he spoke of the "spirit of the people" in France: "whoever knows how to charm their ears and to gratify their affection by fawning words can easily win their favour, even though his life and doctrine are worlds apart." In such places, there were all sorts of moral and intellectual threats, as he informed Robert Boyle from Italy in May 1659:
it is a very pestiferous climat, and vice hath a fermenting quality ... You know Sir, how few there are, [y.sup.t] in [y.sup.e] strength of him, in whom we can do all, take up a resolution against vice and the satisfaction of their senses, as also, how few there be of such guides, [y.sup.t] are sollicitous and watchfull to warne those, whom they guide, against those morall dangers [w.sup.ch] every where, though in some places more than others, doe attend us.(11)
Oldenburg wrote describing French intellectual culture as one in which there was too much talking and too little of the sterner mettle like that found in England. He informed Samuel Hartlib that he doubted that the French would ever produce "any great matter in point of Tubes, or chymistry, or any mechaniques," because they did not have the "required steddiness; and besides, they complaine of want of encouragement by men of power and means." Three weeks later he told Boyle that he had been taking his nephew to "meetings here of philosophers and statists ... to study men, as well as books," but had found that [y.sup.e] French naturalists are more discursive, [y.sup.n] active or experimentall." In "the meane time," he added, "the Italian proverb is true: le parole sone femine, le fatti maschii." After a meeting of the Montmor Academy, he complained that he wished "these discourses may not rather tend to speculation and shew of wit, [y.sup.n] usefulness to [y.sup.e] life of man, [w.sup.ch] latter I much doubt off, considering [y.sup.e] nature of most of [y.sup.e] French, and indeed of most of men, [y.sup.t] love rather to prate [y.sup.n] to work." Still more dissatisfaction was expressed about "optique glasses" in a letter to Hartlib in which Oldenburg remarked that there was little point waiting for the French to produce anything in that area, "[y.sup.e] people here hearkening rather after what is done in England & Holland [y.sup.t] way, [y.sup.n] putting their brains and hands to it [y.sup.m] selves."(12)
These letters obviously should not be read as a faithful, accurate picture of French science nor indeed of the Montmor Academy, although-- unlike the Oxford group and the Royal Society -- the remit of this and nearly every other body he visited was much wider than natural philosophy. More significantly perhaps, he was merely voicing conventional English representations of aspects of French and Italian culture. However, despite the fact that many members shared Oldenburg's view of foreign natural philosophy, the Royal Society sought from its inception to avoid excessive insularity. At its first meeting on 28 November 1660, the founding members proposed an organization which would promote `Physico-Mathematicall Experimentall Learning' by engaging in "a more regular way of debating things, and according to the manner of other countries." In its Royal Charter of 15 July 1662 it was granted "full power and authority, by letters or epistles ... to enjoy mutual intelligence and knowledge with all and all manner of strangers and foreigners, whether private or collegiate, corporate or politic, without any molestation, interruption, or disturbance whatsoever." Despite early attempts to form committees for correspondence, Oldenburg soon took over responsibility for the exchange of letters between the Royal Society and foreigners and he also continued the correspondence with European intellectuals previously carried out by individuals such as John Wallis and Sir Robert Moray. Throughout his tenure as Secretary, he attempted to convince alien institutions and philosophers to take up the empiricist programme endorsed by many senior members of the Royal Society, and he incessantly promoted the Baconian modus vivendi as a rival and superior model to the practices pursued abroad.(13)
Oldenburg initially doubted that foreigners would be admitted to the Society but in fact it soon elected a number of eminent foreign members such as Christiaan Huygens. Moreover, a number of visitors came to the Society in the 1660s. In June 1663 for example, Oldenburg reported to Boyle that Balthazar de Monconys and Samuel Sorbiere had attended a meeting of the Society, and then later the two Huygens brothers, who "were more pleased to be treated [w.sup.th] a good store of occasional observations discoursed of promiscuously pro re nata ... [y.sup.n] with set and formall discourses." Such was the visitors' importance that Boyle was asked to dispense with Robert Hooke for a while "for such a publick use ... while the above-mentioned Strangers ... continue here yet a while." In September 1664, he told Boyle of a "Mr. Bley" who was "much pleasd [w.sup.th] our Experimentall method (tho we had not any considerable experiments then ready) and [w.sup.th] our sedate and friendly way of conference, as also [w.sup.th] the gravity and majestickness of our order." By March 1668, he was informing Boyle that "strangers flock hither in troupes," and that he was "contriving a method for settling my correspondence with Rome." Boyle replied encouraging Oldenburg's contacts with Rome, "that being the chief centre of intelligence," but added that he had his own "share of troublesome visits from strangers."(14)
Oldenburg kept a close eye on the way in which other institutions were funded, and the attitude of the French monarch in particular seemed to offer a stark contrast to the lack of support given to the Royal Society by Charles II. In 1663 he told Boyle that Louis XIV was about to give a massive amount of money to several learned men, but that most of these were "poets and Romancers, except Huygens and Hevelius." Three years later, when the French had founded their own Academy, Oldenburg remarked that he hoped "our Society will in time ferment all Europe, at least; I wish only, we had a little more Zeale, and great deale more assistance, to doe our work thoroughly; as, I am apt to believe, the French will study to do theirs (they being like to be endow'd) were it but out of emulation." In April 1668, he again complained bitterly of the "French letters" which "doe still assure me of [y.sup.e] Encouragements, [w.sup.ch] their philosophers receive for Experiments." The perceived lack of support from the English Court must have been even more galling some months later when Henri Justel told Oldenburg: "Here it is said that your Society no longer works seriously, that the King treats it in a discourteous manner, and that he has no good opinion of it, that most of the members attend no longer, and that soon it will be quite dispersed." However, some simply assumed that the Society was the beneficiary of Royal largesse; a German called Sachs told Oldenburg that the group in London "buttressed by Royal Authority and selected from such very able men (in whom England abounds), and doubtless cherished by Royal Grants ... will be quite furnished with everything necessary for performing experiments and all the funds that are required." This situation, coupled with the seafaring prowess of England which "lays all comers of the Earth open to you" contrasted with the state of learning in Germany, whose philosophers "know only narrower limits, magnates with slender purses, and a shortage of grand patrons."(15)
The grass was not always greener from the perspective of London, and the state of natural philosophy in post-Galilean Italy was often seen as parlous. Oldenburg's November 1663 list of fellows recorded no native Italians, although the Italian-based John Finch was an important member of the Society. Despite the fact that Giovanni Borelli took Finch and other English anatomists in Italy to be chauvinistic charlatans, Finch had been made Professor of Anatomy at Pisa by the Grand Duke himself in 1655. In a letter of December 1665, Oldenburg asked Finch -- now knighted and the English Ambassador at the Court of the Grand Duke in Florence -- for news of the "Italian virtuosi," although Finch conveyed little concrete information about the state of learning in Italy. The general view of Italian natural philosophy was also affected by the dissolution of the Accademia del Cimento at the end of the 1660s, and there was a perceived falling off in the productivity and quality of experimental work of Italian natural philosophers. Nevertheless, interest in Italian affairs continued. Oldenburg told Boyle in January 1665/6 that in the forthcoming Philosophical Transactions, there was to be a review of Francesco Redi's book on vipers "which has the reputation, I perceive, to have been composed with much care and accurateness," although ultimately the review was taken from the Journal des Savants as the book was "not yet come into England."(16)
From the early 1660s, the Society awaited the publication of the experiments of the Accademia del Cimento, later to be called Saggi di Naturali Esperienze ("Examples of Experiments in Natural Philosophy"). Oldenburg pestered Finch for news of its progress and once verification of its publication was received, he wrote to Leopold in November 1667 asking him to join the Royal Society in rejecting the authority of men and to trust only to "minds, hands and eyes." Ironically however, this was just at the moment when the Cimento disbanded due both to the elevation of Leopold to the position of Cardinal and to the departure from Tuscany of some of its most important members (including Borelli). Nevertheless, responding to the gift of Sprat's History which had accompanied the November letter, the Society was given a copy of the Saggi in early March 1668, not long after its bearer, Lorenzo Magalotti, had formed an extremely favourable view of Boyle in conversation. Magalotti told Leopold on March 13 that the copy given to the Society had been bound in the "most magnificent style" and that Lord Brouncker, the President, had said that "these matters were among the most essential and the most difficult in the order of natural phenomena, and that having been examined in the presence and under the protection of a prince so great, so splendid, and so wise, they could not be otherwise than extremely well determined and illuminated." Initial impressions were favourable and Oldenburg told Boyle "I doubt, by some circumstances, I spyed, that this Book hath been craftily composed." These hopes were soon dashed and in his next letter he informed Boyle that the work was "pompous." Moreover, the members of the Society who were asked to report on the book's contents (Robert Hooke and Walter Pope) strongly implied that the Accademia was not the author of all the experiments it claimed as its own. Despite this, in January 1668/9, Oldenburg was desperately urging John Downes to make contact with Italian natural philosophers, as little news was filtering back to London.(17)
In December 1670 Francis Vernon told Oldenburg about the plight of Paulo Boccone, who, tiring of the collecting culture which dominated post-Cimento natural philosophy in Italy, was keen to implement a more experimental natural history. Boccone was apparently desperate to come over to England "because the Italians are not very curious after Sciences, & are very penurious & left to make any expence for the encouradgeing of them ..." From the Venetian Embassy, John Dodington offered himself up to Oldenburg in 1671 as a correspondent who would write "[not] for ostentation, but for Information," and three weeks later sent Oldenburg three copies of the new Giornale de Letterati:
I finde it is very lately they have begun this work & possibly [y.sup.r] monthly Experiments gave them the model. But I feare twil not hold long here, not only [because] there are very few who pursue solid enquiries here, but that a small pittance of Learning sufficeth to acquire the reputation of being a Virtuoso, the Achme of their Ambition, but I doe not heereby conclude All. Another Thing is Their Religion will not permitt them to pursue even Philosophical troths too far.
In the mid-1670s, Oldenburg succeeded in starting up an exchange with James Crawford, Dodington's replacement in the Embassy at Venice who remarked of the natural philosopher Travagino that he was "an indefatigable Student (a rare thing in Italy)."(18)
On other occasions, Oldenburg received enthusiastic reports on the state of affairs in Italy. In July 1672, for example, he was informed that the experiments in Redi's book on vipers, which "for severall years passes almost in this countrey as an article of faith," had been replicated. His correspondent, Thomas Platt, told him of the beneficence of the Italian princes and reassured Oldenburg of the trustworthiness of the Italian witnesses: "that [w.sup.ch] urged me to make this repetition, was the thought that it might be acceptable to you, to see his assertions corroborated by the testimony of so many persons, who are the more able to be judges of [y.sup.m]: because their understandings are such, that `tis not possible to pass any iugling tricks on them." He spoke of "the excellency of the Italian Witts," and remarked that "all or most of the Authors have bin beholding for their subject & meanes to the genius & generosity of these most serene Princes." Platt's vision clashes with the perception of Italian natural philosophy given by many others in the Royal Society, although Oldenburg and others were also aware that the nature and quality of natural philosophy in Italian states and republics could differ from one town or city to the next.(19)
Despite -- or because of -- these increased contacts with foreign scholars, fellows of the Royal Society became increasingly keen to preserve the reputation of its English members. This insularity was particularly obvious in the aftermath of the founding of the Academie Royale des Sciences in 1666. Perhaps the most serious national dispute involved claims and counterclaims about the reality of and priority for blood transfusions. Richard Lower reported some trials involving the transfusion of blood from one dog to another in 1666, but the following year Jean Denis in France performed two blood transfers between lambs and humans, claiming priority for the success of the operations in the process. Oldenburg defended the Englishman by referring to some experiments carried out by Lower in 1665, but other transfusions performed in the winter of 1667-68 called into question the morality, propriety and success of such procedures. After some fatalities, the whole affair was ended by French and then English bans placed on such research, but the episode placed a great deal of strain on the sort of mutual respect required for international co-operation. Oldenburg was keenly aware of the anarchy that would prevail if this trust broke down. In 1667, he told Boyle of "a certain Physician" who at a meeting of the Society had called into question the word of Johannes Hevelius concerning the success of blood transfusions in Dantzig (modern Gdansk):
I could not but take him afterwards aside, and represent to him How he would resent it, if he should communicate upon his owne knowledge an unusual Experiment to [y.sup.e] Curious at Dantzick, and they in publick brand it wth [y.sup.e] mark of falsehood: That such Expressions in so publick a place, and in so mixt an assembly, would certainly prove destructive to all philosophical commerce, if the Curious abroad should be once informed, how their Symbola's were received at [y.sup.e] R. Society.
Branding with "the mark of falsehood" had to be avoided at all costs in the Republic of Letters, and occasional disputes, often conducted along nationalistic lines, did not bring philosophical commerce to a halt. Wiser counsel prevailed, with the periodic application of methods designed to save the reputations of both sides of the conflict.(20)
Oldenburg was briefly incarcerated in 1667, almost certainly because the government became suspicious of his reception of political information from abroad. After this, he decided to stop receiving political news although this proved impossible given his central position as an intelligencer. The events surrounding claims over blood transfusion caused the Society to institute procedures for guaranteeing priority, while people such as Hooke repeatedly claimed that they had been the first the invent or discover something, and that this subsequently had been stolen by "foreigners." Hooke's xenophobia was supported by a number of members, and distrust of foreigners was virtually institutionalised in the 1670s. It is noticeable, for example, that when the Society received Newton's reflecting telescope at the end of 1671 Oldenburg told him that the Society "think it necessary to use some meanes to secure this Invention from [y.sup.e] Usurpation of forreiners." He remarked that he was sending a description to Huygens in Paris "to prevent the arrogation of such strangers, as may perhaps have seen it here, or even [w.sup.th] you at Cambridge; it being too frequent, [y.sup.e] new Inventions and contrivances are snatched away from their true Authors by pretending bystanders." Not long afterwards, having received Newton's new theory of light and colours, Oldenburg asked for permission to print the paper to prevent the "ingenuous & surprising notion therein" from being "snatched from you, and the Honor of it be assumed by forainers, some of them, as I formerly told you being apt enough to make shew of and to vend, what is not of the growth of their country." In the middle of the decade, Hooke engaged in a vicious priority dispute with Huygens, and Oldenburg's own nationality became part of a complicated confrontation in which national allegiance was a central factor. At this time the Society discussed banning foreigners from attending meetings and passed a resolution enjoining secrecy on those who did attend their weekly gatherings.(21)
Foreign members of the Society viewed such events in a broader context. In a premature death-bed utterance, Huygens himself gave an account of the differences between the French and English institutional styles which coincided with the views of the majority of English natural philosophers. Francis Vernon initially told Oldenburg in January 1669/70 that the ailing Dutchman was "a little suspitious of the workings of the English nation," but a month later informed him that Huygens had paid his compliments to the Royal Society "whose members ... did embrace & promote Philosophy not for interest, not through ambition or a vanity of excelling others [but] out of naturall principles of generosity & inclination to Learning & a sincere Respect & love for troth," whereas at Paris "the Academie was mixt [w.sup.th] tinctures of envy because it was supported upon suppositions of profitt [and] because it wholly depended upon the humour of a Prince & the favour of a minister." These remarks are in keeping with the views of many Englishmen, and Italians such as Giovanni Borelli, that the French were overly competitive and would claim other nations' discoveries for themselves.(22)
Huygens was right to be suspicious of English professions of altruism, since -- apart from the growing concern with property rights -- most English natural philosophers saw English values as uniquely suited to future progress in philosophy. Like Oldenburg, Thomas Sprat was an avid evangelist for a specifically English experimental philosophy and his first venture into philosophical apologetics consisted of a response to Samuel Sorbiere's account of the Society. Nevertheless, his History of the Royal Society of London also constituted a valiant effort to assert the international nature of a truly Baconian science. He began by noting that despite the recent miseries suffered by the nation, England had managed "not onely to attain to the perfection of its former Civility, and Learning," but also to institute "a new way of improvement of Arts, as Great and as Beneficial (to say no more) as any the wittest or the happiest Age has ever invented." He attacked the cellular myopia and barrenness of scholasticism and proposed communal enterprise as a solution to problems posed by the excessive attachment to philosophical systems. Although other nations had recently produced academies, these had rather tended towards the purification of their language than the production of useful knowledge. Despite requiring further reform, the English language was marvellously adapted for the latter: "the English Genius is not so airy, and discoursive, as that of some of our neighbors, [and] we generally love to have Reason set out in plain, undeceiving expressions; as much, as they to have it deliver'd with colour, and beauty." Sprat's remarks on the suitability of a reformed English language should be seen in the context of the efforts of John Wilkins to construct a universal language; Wilkins probably played the most significant advisory role to the work after the delay caused by the plague and the Fire of London.(23)
After describing the geographical origins and genealogy of the early Royal Society, which "had its beginning in the wonderful pacifick year, 1660," Sprat made a point of referring to the cosmopolitan and non-sectarian constitution of the Society: "They have freely admitted Men of different Religions, Countries, and Professions of life," he remarked, and "openly profess, not to lay the Foundation of an English, Scotch, Irish, Popish, or Protestant Philosophy; but a Philosophy of Mankind." By "naturalizing Men of all Countries" the members of the Society had "laid the beginnings of many great advantages of the future [and] by this means, they will be able, to settle a constant Intelligence, throughout all civil Nations; and make the Royal Society the general Banck, and Free-port of the World." By such means one might reap the advantages of each nation's natural characteristics and philosophical styles and he suggested that the ideal philosopher "should have the Industry, Activity, and Inquisitive humor of the Dutch, French, Scotch and English, in laying the ground work, the heap of Experiments: And then he should have added the cold, and circumspect, and wary disposition of the Italians, and Spaniards, in meditating upon them, before he fully brings them into speculation." This could not be found in one man, and so "it must be suply'd, as well as it may, by a Publick Council; where in the various dispositions of all these Nations, may be blended together." In this vein, the generosity of the Society towards foreigners had been witnessed by many travellers "who have been introduc'd to their meetings, and have admir'd the decency, the gravity, the plainess, and the calmness of their debates." England was the place where knowledge would be advanced and where the foreign gentry would send their sons: "though, perhaps, they send their Youth into other parts, to learn Fashion, and Breeding: yet their Men come hither for nobler ends; to be instructed, in the masculine, and the solid Arts of Life."(24)
Of particular relevance was England's position as an aggressive trading nation, and Sprat optimistically asserted that English vessels were carrying such levels of philosophical correspondence around the world that "in short time, there will scarce a Ship come up the Thames, that does not make some return of Experiments, as well as of Merchandize." London itself was ideally suited to be the centre of learning. Ancient cities such as Babylon, Carthage and Memphis were all flawed to some degree, as were the modern Amsterdam -- "a place of trade, without the mixture of men of freer thoughts" -- and Paris -- like Athens "the Seat of Gallantry, the Arts of Speech, and education." London alone lacked inconveniences, being the "head of a mighty Empire, the greatest that ever commanded the Ocean" and "compos'd of Gentlemen, as well as Traders"; it was thus ideally positioned to be "the constant place of residence for that Knowledg, which is to be made up of the Reports, and Intelligence of all Countreys." Moreover, English merchants lived honourably and conversed freely in foreign parts "having in their behaviour, very much of the Gentility of the Families, from which so many of them are descended." This was in stark contrast to the Dutch, "onely a Race of plain Citizens" who lived "meanly, minding their gain alone." Sprat also compared the rapacious and short-sighted approach of the Iberians to the native riches of South America with the enlightened and productive attitude of the English to the transplantation of crops. This concern represented one of the most important projects of the early Royal Society's programme to link knowledge to utility.(25)
England had proved uniquely receptive to the new philosophy and it had been admitted into all areas of English life such as the Royal Exchange, the Church of England, and the Royal Courts. Sprat also noted that the English gentry had sizeable advantages over other nations in their capacity to carry out experiments. Firstly, they were freed up to do other things by the fact that England's great naval strength was composed of common men. Secondly, they were "scatter'd in the Country" and "the usual cours of life of the English Gentlemen is so well plac'd between the troublesome nois of pompous Magnificence, and the baseness of avaricious Sordidness." Finally, freed from the tumults of cities, the gentry could more easily be supplied with intelligence from neighbours and had greater leisure to engage in experiments. In case there were still genteel despisers of trade, Sprat reminded them that "Trafic, and Commerce have given mankind a higher degree than any title of Nobility, even that of Civility, and Humanity itself."(26)
The Church of England itself, recently restored and apparently so conformable to the calm temper of the English nation and to experimentalism, could only be strengthened by its association with the dealings of the Royal Society. Both institutions were now guarded by the authority of the same sovereign while the Protestant Reformation was the result of the identical "Inquiring Temper of the Age" which underpinned the present reformation of learning. On the other hand, the counter-empire of learning organized by Jesuits was the result of a different set of motives. The Church of Rome had developed an increasingly tolerant attitude towards the new philosophy and "the severity with which they handled Galileo, seems now very much abated." Moreover, data from travelling Jesuits had extended the bounds of natural knowledge but "still it is a question, Whether that Church does not rather connive at, than really intend its progress." In so far as they did promote experimental learning, this was probably "not out of zeal to the continuance of such Studies, but that the Protestants might not carry away all the glory, and thence withal get new strength to oppose them." Sprat urged that the Church of England would "incorage Experiments, which will be to our Church as the British Oak is to our Empire."(27)
Above all, what suited the English to their task was their natural genius. "Satyrists" from neighbouring nations disgracefully accused them "with a want of familiarity; with a melancholy dumpishness; with slowness, silence, and with the unrefin'd sullenness of their behaviour," but these were misrepresentations of the very characteristics which made England ideal for measured progress in natural knowledge. Their true character was
that they have commonly an unaffected sincerity; that they love to deliver their minds with a sound simplicity; that they have the middle qualities, between the reserv'd subtle southern, and the rough unhewn Northern people: that they are not extreamly prone to speak: that they are more concern'd, what others will think of the strength, than of the fineness of what they say: and that an universal modesty possesses them.
In passages which were hardly calculated to endear the work to foreign readers, Sprat argued that all the advantages which accrued to the English were natural whereas the vices which had been practised by the English in recent years were all of foreign origin: "The English Generosity, Fidelity, Magnanimity, Modesty, Integrity, they ow to themselves," while "their Luxury, their Debauchery, their Divisions, their Spiritual Schisms, they have receiv'd from abroad." Everything, "the position of our climate, the air, the influence of the heaven, the composition of the English blood; as well as the embraces of the Ocean" joined with the labours of the Royal Society to render England "a Land of Experimental knowledge."(28)
Sprat's enthusiastic description of the progress achieved and promised by the Society was not the product of mere wishful thinking, and he based his account on real projects instituted within the organization. From its inception, the Society explicitly set out to make itself the centre of a new world empire of intelligence in which all lines of communication terminated in the capital city. These links would bring back philosophical information and edifying examples of flora and fauna rather than the rarities which were the province of "curiosity." In February 1660/1, the Society instituted a committee to consider the "proper questions to be enquired of in the remotest parts of the world," and it set up similar bodies in 1662 and 1664. Indeed, its Royal Charter of 15 July 1662 gave it power and authority "to enjoy mutual intelligence and knowledge with all and all manner of strangers and foreigners, whether private or collegiate, corporate or politic, without any molestation, interruption, or disturbance whatever." Correspondents such as John Beale, a significant member of the Hartlib network and a pioneering promoter of plantations, waxed lyrical over the potential of London to function as the centre of an intellectual market where information could be mobilized and redeployed both speedily and usefully. In January 1662/3 he remarked to Oldenburg that if great persons and families "shal make it their busines, glory, & advancement to spread & accelerate valuable Communications & to rayse an Eccho from all places," the Society could "makenot only [y.sup.r] Metropolitan City but thiese three nations throughout the Emporium of the world." "In fewe yeares" he continued, it would be "a paradyse, the very ayre epidemically purifyed & sweetened, & contending [w.sup.th] all [y.sup.e] world for exchanges of all kinds of accomodations." Members sent in considerations and enquiries for others to act upon in their travels and thereafter to report back to the Metropolis; Beale in particular was concerned to use centralised intelligence to ascertain the prospects for transplanting useful European and Asian flora and fauna to the West Indies.(29)
The most public forum for international correspondence was the Philosophical Transactions, a journal founded by Oldenburg and edited by him until his death. The publication began in an avowedly international manner, and issue two carried a debate between Auzout in Paris and Cassini in Rome. There was also a report by Walter Pope of the "Mines of Mercury at Frinli, and a way of producing Wind by the Fall of Water," and in issue five, there was a relation of "the designed Progress to be made in the Breeding of Silkworms, and the Making of Silk, in France." The next two editions carried reports of Settala's work on burning lenses, and of the secret he claimed to possess, "of making Porcelain as good as in China itself." Issue eight contained a series of letters from Paris, Germany and Basel, and a pompous set of "Directions for Sea-men, bound for far Voyages." The article in which these instructions appeared announced that the Royal Society had previously employed the now deceased Lawrence Rooke, Gresham Professor of Geometry,
to think upon and set down some Directions for Sea-Men going into the East and West-Indies, the better to capacitate them for making such observations abroad, as may be pertinent and suitable for their purpose; of which the said Sea-men should be desired to keep an exact Diary, delivering at their return a fair Copy thereof to the Lord High Admiral of England, his Royal Highness the Duke of York, and another to Trinity-house to be perused by the R. Society.
The length of the directions was doubled in an "Appendix" in the next issue and in Issue eleven, Boyle drew up "General Heads for a Natural History of a Country, small or great" which requested information about the "Inhabitants themselves; in particular, their Stature, Shape, Colour, Features, Strength, Agility, Beauty (or the want of it) Complexions, Hair Dyet, Inclinations and Customs that seem not due to Education." This advice was directed more at the travelling gentleman than the lowly seaman. Oldenburg began his "Preface" to the third year of the journal with an account of the "Philosophical Correspondencies [of] the Generous and Intelligent Citizens of this Famous Metropolis of England, especially the Eminent Governours of the East-India and Turky Companies." This was followed by a series of "Inquiries" or "Directions" for Correspondents in other Countries. The next two issues contained "Directions for Observations and Experiments to be made by Masters of Ships, Pilots, and other fit persons in their Sea-Voyages," and more "Inquiries" regarding the same.(30)
Members of the Royal Society had close links to Gresham College and the practical arts of navigation and surveying and there were also personal connections with senior government officials, many of whom were fellows. Travellers abroad routinely informed the Secretary of State, Joseph Williamson, of philosophical events taking place in France, such as the appearance of the Journal des Savants in 1666 and the continuing experiments on blood transfusions, which William Perwich assured Williamson "is a great peice of news to the English Greshamites." In his early years as Secretary, Oldenburg received vast amounts of political and social intelligence from his correspondents and remained in close contact with Williamson, even after he was temporarily incarcerated in 1667. When it was learned in 1673 that he was to travel to Aachen, Oldenburg was directed to think of enquiries to which Williamson might stimulate replies. The queries generally concerned the perennial problem of damps in mines, but Oldenburg reminded Williamson in September that the Society's broader goals were to
engage and conjoine, by an incessant philosophical correspondence, [y.sup.e] researches and labors of all sagacious men everywhere: whereby at length there may be accumulated into one stock ye Ingenuities of all considerable men, and their various Observations and Experiments concerning Nature and Art, now scatter'd up and down in [y.sup.e] world: for all [w.sup.ch], our England may be made [y.sup.e] common repository or Magazeen, to serve hereafter for Materials to build a Masculin and Usefull philosophy upon.(31)
As Oldenburg's letter shows, the Royal Society deliberately set out to turn itself into what Latour has called a "centre of calculation," and it speedily linked itself to already existing networks. These included the correspondence web managed by Samuel Hartlib, and the trading routed followed by vessels of the leading trading companies. Successful or not, the scale of the projected enterprise was extraordinary, and indeed it shared many features of the network managed over a century later by Joseph Banks. As such, it had all the hallmarks of an empire whose centre was a metropolis where different institutions overlapped and exchanged intelligence.(32)
The Society's own identity was fashioned and co-produced along with their recognition of various approaches as deviant and barren, and utilitarian and empirical natural philosophers sought to root out the enemies within. A good example of this is the confrontation between the Cambridge Platonist Henry More and empirical natural philosophers in the 1660s and 1670s. More had already clashed with William Petty at the end of the 1640s, although his own work was not seen as explicitly contrary to the function of the Royal Society until the late 1660s. Asked for his view of the Cartesian philosophy, More downgraded what he called "slibber sauce experimentes" and praised Descartes' "quicknesse and penetrancy of witt, fixedness of animadversion [and] close and subtill deduction of reason." The primary principles of nature had "more of Divinity and Majesty in them then ever to suffer themselves to be Hermetically imprison'd in some narrow neck'd glasse, or like a Jack in a box to astartle the eyes of the vulgar at the opening of a Lidd." Petty, himself just returned from France, acknowledged Descartes' "strong witt" but wished that he and others like him, "the great witts of these times, could employ themselves in collecting & setting downe in good order & Method all Luciferous experiments & not be too buisy in making inferences from them till some volumes of that nature are compiled." Such "gallant witts" existed in the universities, but spent their time "wrangling each against the others figments." More countered that Petty "would measure the work of all Philosophy by what it can procure for [y.sup.e] back, bed and bord," and that those that took up Petty's philosophy would be no better than a "common wealth of rarely improved beastes, not of learned men, that shall know how to keep up and maintaine the low interest of our darling senses to a cow's-thumb, excellent Artists!" There was more need "of an Architectonicall witt, then of an Empiricks industry."(33)
Although More collaborated with Robert Boyle in the 1660s in order to collect spirit testimonies against Hobbist materialists, his anti-empirical Platonism came to be seen as increasingly antithetical to the interests of the Royal Society (of which he was a member). This is demonstrated well in an extraordinary letter sent to Oldenburg in June 1671 by John Beale. Beale urged Oldenburg to reiterate to his foreign correspondents that "neither yu, nor [y.sup.e] RS, are engaged, or addicted eyther to [y.sup.e] Cartesian, or to ye Epicurean Philosophy, or to any body or phil. systeme, [w.sup.ch] hovers in Generals, or adventures further in any notional way, then may be supported by a sufficient share of faythfull & severe experiments." He then moved on to the topic of More's Enchiridion Metaphysicum of 1671, a work that criticized the experimental programme for not making use of More's "hylarchic principle" to demonstrate the existence of spirit. As Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer point out, More's efforts to associate Boyle's work with his own principle did not go down well with Boyle who called the concept "precarious" and "a mere Hypothesis advanced without any clear positive proof." Boyle hinted at what Beale stated explicitly, namely that More had overstepped the bounds of etiquette, and Beale linked this to the extravagance and inappropriateness of More's book:
His confidence is as strong as Enthusiasme; & yet yu see [w.sup.t] he does. As if he had a mind to drawe a suspicion, or (at leaste) to rayse [y.sup.e] style of Infamy [ags.sup.t] [y.sup.e] RS & candid Experiment, as to be so Magicall as to call in [y.sup.e] ayde of Spirits & Angells. If [Hon.sup.ble] Mr Boyles health will beare it, He owes him a chastisement.
More was deeply upset by Boyle's response and was worried that he might have been seen to call Boyle's word into question. He would have been even more alarmed by Beale's remarks, not least because he himself had written a book against enthusiasm in 1656. Yet by the early 1670s his own work was considered by senior fellows to be irrelevant and even dangerous to the experimental programme.(34)
Beale was also aware of the existence of a powerful external enemy, namely the intellectual, religious and political domain controlled by the Catholic Church. However, like Boyle, Oldenburg and many others, Beale mixed a loathing for Jesuits and their goals with a real admiration for their intelligence network. In early June 1671 he told Oldenburg that his next "designe" was to be "at some speciall wayes of inciteing, & engageing [y.sup.e] ayde of [y.sup.e] learnedest forreigners to adorne [y.sup.e] R Institution." Referring to a recent paper in the Transactions which had been composed by Catholic missionaries about the tidal motion of the Euripus (a channel between Greece and the island of Euboea), he remarked that "Though yu have no Coll[ege] nor revenue, Yet these Jesuites have store of all things." Oldenburg could set up his rival philosophical empire by building on the successes of the Jesuits themselves: "if yu can learne, howe to plough in [y.sup.e] fields of Philosophy, [w.sup.th] their Flameing bulls, (or to use a more holy style their heyfer) by a right ordering of that utensile, yu may do more, than by ten Universityes."(35)
Two weeks later, in the same letter to Oldenburg in which he criticised More, Beale went on to denounce the "confidence" of philosophers who were inclined to a "mathematical" view of the world. Although ostensibly a criticism of the pretensions of mathematicians, Beale linked this explicitly to the machinations of Jesuits:
yu may note Howe far greate wits can swerve from Reasone, & greate Mathematicians carry all their Mathematics about them, to blinde arte, & sophisticate reasone, especially [w.sup.n] prepossessed [w.sup.th] a pretence to Religion, as Ricciolus & Fabri doe (whom I doe not name contemptuously) & generally all [y.sup.e] Jesuits to justify [y.sup.e] censure of Galileus, & Campanella, some drawe all [y.sup.e] Mathematicall lines in a hurry, others whirle all [y.sup.e] heavens, & all [y.sup.e] world about our ears in a trice.
He expressed conventional Protestant worries about the Jesuits' goals, and warned Oldenburg that "they have a secrete & effective influence & powerfull negotiation by all trades, & Merchandises, by all Arts & languages, in all imaginable guises & disguises, all over [y.sup.e] world, by sea and land." In short, "(to say truth) They are like Spirits good or bad, invisible & irresistible." After an account of the order's phenomenal growth since its foundation, Beale remarked that he "could easily believe [y.sup.t] there is scarse a P[rivy] Councell or Junto in [y.sup.e] world, in [w.sup.ch] they do not agitate, at least like Husbands, but yu may easily avoyde [y.sup.e] danger, by adhering to [y.sup.r] principles of declining controverseyes in Rel[igion], or reflecting on it." Regarding their credibility, Beale advised that "they are to be suspected in pointe of candour, & severe troth, till [y.sup.r] example & strict examination can render them cautious." The best starting point would be to make contact with the Jesuits of France, outside the control of the Inquisition, "& more truely Catholic, than [y.sup.e] Bigots of Sp."(36)
These letters, like those of Oldenburg and the writings of Sprat, ostensibly reflect contradictions between the internationalist motives and prejudices against foreigners. Beale recognised that such views were inappropriate for a more public airing, and told Oldenburg that these "hints" were for his eyes only. Nevertheless, they display a vivid perception of the changing role of the Society in a broader historical and geographical perspective. In the first place, Beale practised and articulated the ideal of the marriage of knowledge and power, a goal which -- as Charles Webster powerfully demonstrated in The Great Instauration -- he had shared with many others in the years before the Society came into being. This required a practical empiricism which Beale thought was best exemplified by the works of Bacon, and which was opposed to Cartesian, Platonist and other anti-empiricist systems. As he saw it, the Society could no longer countenance the ravings of men like More which were alien to its ethos and goals. In addition to this, he possessed a deeply ambivalent attitude to the Jesuit empire. On the one hand they were artful and inveterate imperialists, extending the bounds of their empire into the far east and Africa. As such, they could convey useful information which was inaccessible to others. On the other, they were an anti-empire, using this same information not for the good of mankind but simply to extend their pernicious influence in high places. Such knowledge constituted counter-intelligence, a counter-archive to be used where possible but also to be suspected in terms of its methods and aims. Beale hoped that the functionaries of the evil empire could be turned to work for the righteous one and told Oldenburg: "Yu may have thousands of [y.sup.e] J[esuits] to serve yu: yu cannot serve them for their fireworks: This is [y.sup.r] prerogative & yu may use other considerable Orders in [y.sup.e] R[oman Church] ... Yu are free, they are all enslavd to run false."(37)
The foregoing should not be read as implying that the Royal Society's programme constituted the origins of modern experimental science. Boyle's philosophy and the template for behaviour which his public bearing presented were soon to be taken over by the approach offered by Newton, who sought to present a mathematical view of nature. In any case, a number of contemporaries politely objected to the thrust of Boyle's work. For example, having read Boyle's Origin of Formes and Qualities, the astronomer Adrien Auzout complained to Oldenburg at the end of 1666:
I came across many fine experiments but it is annoying that nearly always some mishap prevented their being carried to a conclusion; although I am certain of the author's sincerity this kind of mishap is so common among chemists (since it is always the end of all their fine promises) that I am sorry Mr. Boyle should have recourse to it in presenting his work historically.
Although Auzout misrepresented the strategic function of Boyle's refusal to draw consequences from his experiments, his dissatisfaction with Boyle's approach was also voiced by people such as Baruch Spinoza and Gottfried Leibniz. In correspondence with Oldenburg in the 1660s, Spinoza criticised Boyle for not evincing necessarily true causal accounts of the world from the perceived effects of his experiments. Some decades later, in the context of praising the general attempt to analyse bodies experimentally, Leibniz remarked that Boyle was a "gifted practitioner" of experiment, but "unless we add to that the art of using experiments and of drawing from them, we can lay out a king's ransom and still achieve less than an acute thinker could discover in a moment." Citing a letter from Spinoza to Oldenburg, Leibniz agreed with Spinoza that Boyle, "it must be said, does spend rather too long on drawing from countless fine experiments no conclusion except one which he could have adopted as a principle, namely that everything in nature takes place mechanically." Such a principle, he concluded, "can be made certain by reason alone, and never by experiments, however many of them one conducts."(38)
Nevertheless, Boyle came to be supported by a group of scholars whose approach to natural philosophy was also deeply problematic for him. When Newton published his paper on light and colours in the Philosophical Transactions in early 1672, he brought forward a "crucial" experiment to prove that white light was heterogeneously composed of more basic, primary coloured rays. In response Robert Hooke argued in a probabilistic vein that he had formed his own theory only after "some hundreds" of experiments, implying that Newton should either perform or publish many more experiments before his own theory could become credible. From Liege, a number of Jesuits took up cudgels against Newton's theory and defended a modification theory of light which Newton had tried to overthrow. In so doing they adhered to epistemological strategies developed earlier in the century to make locally produced "experiences" universal. Although, like Newton, they aimed at the highest level of certainty, against Newton, they argued that a large number of experiments performed in many places before a number of eminent people was the only foundation of experimental truth. As Anthony Lucas wrote to Oldenburg in October 1676, only when many experiments in different situations showed that individual rays had specific degrees of refrangibility (as Newton believed) would it be "morally impossible" that the cause was not intrinsic to the rays themselves:
This I conceive, was the reason why severall worthy members of [y.sup.e] Royall Society have bottomed new Theorys upon a Number of experiments, particularly the ingenious Mr Boyle strongly asserting the weight of the Atmosphere by a vast number of new experiments, each whereof, is deservedly conceived to add new strength to this Theory.
In his "Galilean" idealisations of experimental situations, Newton famously professed to eschew discussion of philosophical systems (which he dismissed as "hypotheses"), and this, as with the case of Boyle, was seen as perverse by critics like Leibniz. It would take five decades before Newton's physical doctrines were generally accepted in France; in the 1660s and 1670s, Boyle's approach appeared to be in greater harmony with Continental practice.(39)
The self-perception of the early Royal Society rested on the revulsion expressed by various of its members towards a set of deviant practices and attitudes. Amongst the most common denunciations launched by Oldenburg, Sprat and others were accusations that "foreign" natural philosophy tended to be individualist, ambitious, dogmatic, sectarian, emulative, litigious, superstitious, sceptical, secretive, textbound, (merely) witty, theatrical, superficial and discursive. Such attacks drew from classical, humanist, Protestant, scholarly and aristocratic resources and served to produce the typical Restoration English (and by extension universal) natural philosopher who was a hard-working and genteel man of sincerity, integrity, and persistence. Although the rhetoric of the Society lauded the free exchange of information and the internationalism of cooperative research, the same propaganda sought to discipline foreigners and turn them into honorary Englishmen.(40)
The position of the Royal Society as a major centre of world intelligence was facilitated by diplomats, sailors, traders and gentlemen travellers who were extending the bounds of the empire. Studies of the material and cognitive sources of social and intellectual power in Italy and France can point justly to the Court (and to a lesser extent, the university) as a crucial source of legitimation for Continental astronomers and natural philosophers. This can not be done in the case of England where Royal patronage was a sham and where the sources of credibility were more diffuse. These included the social standing of its fellows, the status of its international correspondence network, and the related fact that educated English travellers were in a position to report back to a central authority from many different places in the known world. For English contemporaries, not the least of these features was the fact that the Royal Society was based in London and was composed of people who possessed English characteristics. Nevertheless, there is a real sense in which the Society's self-image was fanciful self-deception, and its projects were mere fantasies of power. The transplantation schemes whose origins lay in the 1640s and 1650s came to little, as did the "History of Trades" programme which purported to be able to perfect craft activity by uncover the principles which underlay it. More significantly perhaps, fellows were genuinely alarmed by attacks which suggested that nothing important ever went on in its hallowed grounds. To poke fun at the Society was also to penetrate the thin veneer of credibility that it possessed, and skillful wits and bloody-minded opponents like Thomas Hobbes and Henry Stubbe harried the anxious Emperor-administrators of this dominion with the claim that they had no clothes.(41)
In his book Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson points out that nations are "cultural artefacts [which] arouse deep attachments," and individuals within them have identities which are shaped by both cultural memories and by the contingent nature of contemporary oppositions. Although I have attempted to avoid any reference to "real" national characteristics of individuals, readers will undoubtedly consider whether what the individuals discussed in this paper say and the way they say it betrays (or does not betray) the very characteristics that they ascribe to themselves. Despite the fact that such descriptions may be said to capture certain persistent qualities of national or cultural characteristics, their utility is limited by their very lack of attention to the differences within national and institutional groups, as well as their ignorance of the dynamics of group formation. In so far as internationalism was successful in this period, it was the result of an improvement in networks of communication and the effect of the construction of internationally acceptable philosophical gestures and standards. These standards were created in the face of the experience of individuals of different nations who recognised major differences between themselves and others in terms of etiquette and scientific practice. However, just as there was no monolithic practice in the early Royal Society, so the internationalism of the early European scientific community did not stop the continuous creation of local and distinctive sites and styles of practice in the following centuries.(42)
Imperial College, London
(1) Anon., A Relation, or Rather a True Account, of the Island of England ... About the Year 1500, trans. C.A. Sneyd, Camden Society (London, 1848), pp. 20-21, cited in Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition (Oxford, 1978), p. 174. The Italian author was part of the embassy of Andrea Trevisano to Henry VII in 1497.
The themes treated in both parts of this article have been expressed in papers delivered at various venues in the United States, Canada, France, Italy, Holland and Britain. I am extremely grateful for the many comments that have been made by a number of scholars, including Pascal Brioist, David Edgerton, Michael Gorman, Simon Schaffer, Iordan Avramov, Larry Stewart, Moti Feingold, Michael Hunter, Marlo Biagioli. The analytical views expressed in these articles are, of course, my own.
(2) See in particular S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994), pp. 42-125 and especially pp. 95-99. For Englishness see inter alia G.R. Elton, "English National Self-consciousness and the Parliament in the Sixteenth Century" in O. Dann (ed.), Nationalismus in Vorindustrieller Zeit (Munich, 1986), pp. 73-82; P. Furtado, "National Pride in Seventeenth-Century England" in R. Samuel (ed.), Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of English National Identity, 3 vols. (London, 1989), p. 1: and K. Tidrick, Empire and the English Character (London, 1990). For internationalism see P. Forman, "Scientific internationalism and the Weimar physicists: the ideology and its manipulation in Germany after World War I," Isis, 64 (1973), 151-80 and H.W. Paul, The Sorceror's Apprentice. The French Scientists' Image of German Science, 1840-1919, (Gainesville, 1972).
(3) See K. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain, 1530-1645 (Oxford, 1979); P. Christianson, Reformers and Babylon: English Apocalyptic Visions from the Reformation to the Eve of the Civil War (Toronto, 1978); D. Cressy, Bonfires and Bells. National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989); R. Helgerson, Forms of Nationhood: The Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago and London, 1992); P. Corrigan and D. Sayer, The Great Arch. English State Formation as Cultural Revolution, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1991); P. Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Ca., Mass, 1990) and J.P. Sommerville, "`The New Art of Lying': Equivocation, Mental Reservation, and Casuistry" in E. Leites (ed.), Conscience and Casuistry in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 159-84. Contemporaries recognized distinctions between England and Britain although the terms were often used loosely and interchangeably; for the later period see L. Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707-1837 (New York and London, 1992), esp. pp. 13-25.
(4) See J.G.A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law (Cambridge, 1957); Macfarlane, "The Origins of English Individualism," pp. 165-203 and especially Shapin, "Social history," pp. 48-52, 74-86, 123, 164-68. See also R. Kelso, "The Doctrine of the English Gentleman in the Sixteenth Century," University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature, 14 (1929), 1-152 and A. Bryson, "The Rhetoric of Status: Gesture, Demeanour and the Image of the Gentleman in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England," in L. Gent and N. Llewellyn, eds., Renaissance Bodies: The Human Figure in English Culture. c. 1540-1660 (London 1990), pp. 136-152.
(5) See amongst others G. Elton, England under the Tudors, 2nd ed. (London, 1974); D. Loades, Politics and the Nation (London, 1977); Corrigan and Sayer, "Great Arch," 43-68; I. Scouloudi (ed.), Huguenots in Britain and their French Background, 1550-1800 (Totowa, New Jersey, 1987); B.J. Shapiro, "Latitudinarianism and Science in Seventeenth Century England," Past and Present, 40 (1968), 16-41; M.C. Jacob and J.R. Jacob, "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science: The Metaphysical Foundations of the Whig Constitution," Isis, 71 (1980), 251-67; J. Henry, "The Scientific Revolution in England," in M. Teich and R. Porter, eds., The Scientific Revolution in National Context, (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 178-209, esp. pp. 191-98 and J. Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646-1689 (New Haven and London, 1991).
(6) See R. Davis, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry (London, 1962); idem, A Commercial Revolution (London, 1967); T.K. Rabb, Enterprise and Empire (Ca. Mass., 1967); K. Andrews, Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire. 1480-1630 (Cambridge, 1984); R. Brenner, Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London's Overseas Traders (Cambridge, 1993); R. Grassby, The Business Community of Seventeenth Century England (Cambridge, 1995).
(7) See Corrigan and Sayer, "Great Arch," 90-92 and 190-98. M.J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State. 1559-1714, (Manchester, 1996) and J. Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War. Money and the English State, 1688-1783, (London, 1989). For an excellent general account of imperialist ideology in the period, see A. Pagden, Lords of all the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France, c. 1500-1800 (New Haven, Ct., 1995) and cf. L. Greenfield, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Ca. Mass., 1992), esp. pp. 78ff. For foreigners within the British body politic, see C.W. Chitty, "Aliens in England in the Sixteenth Century," and idem., "Aliens in England in the Seventeenth Century to 1660," in Race, 8 (1966-67), 129-45, and 11 (1969-70), 189-201.
(8) Cf. T. Sprat, The History of the Royal Society, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (London, 1667). See K.T. Hoppen, "The Nature of the Early Royal Society," British Journal for the History of Science, 9 (1976), 1-24 and 243-73; M. Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 32-58; idem, Establishing the New Science: The Experience of the Early Royal Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989); P. Wood, "Methodology and Apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 13 (1980), 1-26; P. Dear, "Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society," Isis, 76 (1985), 145-61; S. Shapin and S. Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life (Princeton, 1985), esp. p. 306; Shapin, "Social History of Truth" xxv-xxvi; and A. Goldgar, Impolite Learning: The Republic of Letters, 1660-1750 (New Haven and London, 1995).
(9) See Shapin and Schaffer, "Leviathan and the Air-Pump," R-M. Sargent, The Diffident Naturalist: Robert Boyle and the Philosophy of Experiment (Chicago, 1995); Shapin, "Social History," 310-54; Dear, "Discipline and Experience," 180-209; C. Webster, The Great Instauration. Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626-1660 (London, 1975), esp. pp. 32-245.
(10) Cf. Oldenburg to Philip Howard, c. 1655, in A.R. and M.B. Hall, eds., The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, 13 vols. (Madison and London, 1965-86), I, 78-79; to Sherley, April 1656, (ibid., I, 98); Milton to Oldenburg, 25th June 1656 (ibid., I, 104); Oldenburg to Thomas Coxe, 24th January 1656/7, (ibid., I, 113-14). See in particular M. Hunter, "Promoting the New Science: Henry Oldenburg and the Early Royal Society," in idem, "Establishing the New Science," 245-60 and R. Frank, Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists.' Scientific Ideas and Social Interaction (Berkeley, 1980).
(11) Letters of 27th June 1657 and 7th May 1659; Oldenburg, "Correspondence," I, 122-32 and 252.
(12) Letters of2nd, 23rd and 30th July, 13th and 27th August 1659; ibid., I, 278, 287, 291, 303 and 306. The Huygens brothers had a similar view of the style of the proceedings in the Montmor Academy and Constantijn Huygens wrote to Christiaan on November 18th 1660: "those gentlemen in Florence are worth much more than these Parisians and treat things with forethought and modesty." Cf. Middleton, "The Experimenters," 298-99, and Oldenburg, "Correspondence," III, 178.
(13) Hall, "Promoting Experimental Learning," 9 and 55, and Hunter, "Establishing the New Science," 80 and 93-94. For an example of Oldenburg's evangelizing, see Oldenburg to Jean Sainte Croix, 21st June 1673 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," X, 38); Sainte Croix had presented the Society with a dissertation on Duns Scotus. More generally, see M.B. Hall, "The Royal Society's Role in the Diffusion of Information in the Seventeenth Century," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 29 (1974), 173-92 and S. Gomez, A. Milian, C. Moreno and M.J. Pascual, "Las relaciones internacionales de la Royal Society of London (1660-1700)," Sylvia Clius: Revista de Historia de la Ciencia, I, (1987), 21-107.
(14) See Oldenburg to Boreel, 13 December 1660 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," I, 406); Oldenburg to Boyle, 10th June 1663, 22nd September 1664 and 30th March 1668; (ibid., II, 66-67 and 235; IV, 282); Boyle to Oldenburg, 3rd April 1668 (ibid., IV, 299-300). See also S. Sorbiere, A Voyage to England, Containing Many Things Relating to the State of Learning, Religion, and Other Curiosities of that Kingdom, etc., (London, 1709), pp. 4, 6, 9 and 38. French impressions of Britain in this period are analysed in G. Bonno, "La culture et la civilisation Britannique devant l'opinion francaise de la Paix d'Utrecht aux Lettres Philosophiques, 1713-1714," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 38 (1948), 1-184; cf. also G. Roth (ed.), Un Voyageur Francais a Londres en 1685 (Paris, 1968).
(15) Oldenburg to Boyle, 22nd June 1663, 8th June 1666 and 7th April 1668 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," II, 75; III, 155 and IV, 307); Justel to Oldenburg, c. early September 1668 (ibid., V, 39); Sachs to Oldenburg, 12th January 1664/5 (ibid., II, 345). See also R. Hahn, "Louis XIV and Science Policy," in D.L. Rubin (ed.), Sun King: The Ascendancy of French Culture during the Reign of Louis XIV (Washington, 1991), pp. 195-206 and Hunter, "Science and Society," 40-41.
(16) Oldenburg to Finch, 7th December 1665 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," II, 631); to Boyle, January 16th 1665/6 in T. Birch (ed.), The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, 6 vols. (London, 1772), VI, 212. For natural philosophy in Italy in the second half of the century see inter alia W.E. Knowles Middleton, "Science in Rome, 1675-1700, and the Accademia Fisicomatematica of Giovanni Giustino Ciampini," British Journal for History of Science, 8 (1975), 138-54; M. Torrini, "L'Accademia degli Investiganti Napoli 1663-1670," Quaderni Storici 16 (1981), 845-81; M. Segre, In the Wake of Galileo (New Brunswick, NJ, 1991) and M. Biagioli, "Scientific Revolution, Social Bricolage and Etiquette," in Teich and Porter, "Scientific Revolution," 11-54. For the relations between the Royal Society and Italian individuals and institutions, see M. Cavazza, "Bologna and the Royal Society in the Seventeenth Century," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 35 (1980), 105-23 and M.B. Hall, "The Royal Society and Italy, 1667-1795," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 37 (1983), 63-81.
(17) Oldenburg to Leopold, 26th November 1667 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," III, 621 (see also Philosophical Transactions, no. 9 [February 12th 1665/6], 160-62); to Boyle, March 10th and 17th 1667/8 (ibid., IV, 234 and 248); Justel to Oldenburg, 18th March 1668 (ibid., IV, 257); Oldenburg to Downes, 3rd January 1668/9 (ibid., IV, 314-16) and Downes to Oldenburg, 13th February 1668/9 (ibid., IV, 407ff). See Middleton, "The Experimenters," 287 and 309-29, and P. Galluzzi, "L'Accademia del Cimento: `gusti' del principe, filosofia e ideologia dell' esperimento," Quaderni Storici, 16 (1981), 788-844. For Redi see J. Tribby, "Cooking (with) Clio and Cleo: Eloquence and Experiment in Seventeenth-Century Florence," d. History of Ideas, 52 (1991), 417-39. Borelli gathered a significant group of individuals such as Marcello Malpighi at Pisa, where they performed a number of seminal dissections and experiments which formed the basis of Borelli's De Motu Animalium, 2 vols. (Rome, 1680-81).
(18) Vernon to Oldenburg, 14th December 1670 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," VI, 323); Dodington to Oldenburg, 4th April 1671 (ibid., VI, 551); Crawford to Oldenburg, 5 February 1674/5 (ibid. XI, 181-8).
(19) Platt to Oldenburg, 27th July 1672; Oldenburg, "Correspondence," IX, 181-84. Platt's comment on "iugling tricks" was changed by Oldenburg when the letter was printed in the Philosophical Transactions to "'tis not possible to impose upon them"; ibid. no. 87, (October 14th, 1672), 5066.
(20) Oldenburg to Boyle, 10th December 1667 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," IV, 27). For aspects of the controversy see A.R. Hall and M.B. Hall, "The First Human Blood Transfusion: Priority Disputes," Medical History, 24 (1980), 461-65 and S. Schaffer, "Regeneration. The Body of Natural Philosophers in Restoration England" in C. Lawrence and S. Shapin (eds.), Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge (Chicago, 1998), pp. 83-120. For discussion of the techniques used to resolve another major international dispute of the 1660s, see Shapin, A Social History of Truth, (Chicago 1994), pp. 266-91, esp. 284 and 290-91.
(21) Oldenburg to Newton, 2 January and 8 February 1671/2 in H.W. Turnbull et al., eds, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), I, 73 and 107-8. See also R. Iliffe, "'In the Warehouse': Privacy, Property and Priority in the Early Royal Society," History of Science, 30 (1992), 29-68, esp. 60 n. 26 and P.B. Wood and M. Hunter, "Towards Solomon's House: Rival Strategies for Reforming the Royal Society," in Hunter, "Establishing the New Science," 185-244.
(22) Vernon to Oldenburg, 15th February 1669/70 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," VI, 505); Hunter, "Science and Society," 39-41 and 48-50; Middleton, "The Experimenters," 300-301. For Colbert and Louis XIV's support of astronomy and natural philosophy in the new institution, see A. Stroup, A Company of Scientists (Berkeley, 1990), pp. 34-63, 103-16 and 221-26, and for a good account of general relations between French and English scientists see A.R. Hall and M.B. Hall, "Les liens publics et prives dans les relations franco-anglaises (1660-1720): I. D'apres la correspondance d'Oldenburg. II. D'apres la correspondance de Newton," Revue de Synthese, 97 (1976), 51-75.
(23) Sprat, "History," 3, 39-42 (cf. 417). For the genesis of the work see Wood, "Methodology" and Hunter, "Establishing the New Science," 45-71, esp. 52-53. For contemporary interest in universal languages see J. Knowlson, Universal Language Schemes in Britain and France, 1600-1800 (Toronto, 1975).
(24) Sprat, "History," 58, 63 (cf. 427), 64-65. For a brief description of the relations with foreign academies and nobles see ibid., 124-29.
(25) lbid., 86-88, 383-88.
(26) Ibid., 405-8.
(27) Ibid., 369, 371-74.
(28) Ibid., 114, 420. See also ibid. 120-22 for extended comments on the plucky courage of the "meanest Artificers" in the wake of the plague and the Fire of London, and on their "invincible and heroick genius" in simultaneously waging a war against three of the most powerful states in Europe. For the widely held perception that the English were a nation fatally addicted to foreign novelty see S. Wameke, "A Taste for Newfangledness: The Destructive Potential of Novelty in Early Modern England," Sixteenth Century Journal, 26 (1995), 881-96.
(29) T. Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 4 vols. (London, 1756-57), I, 5; Oldenburg to Boyle, August 1664 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," 2: 209); Beale to Oldenburg, 8th January 1662/3 (ibid., II, 4) and 1 April 1664 (ibid., II, 151-62). For Beale see Webster, "Great Instauration," passim.; M. Stubbs, "John Beale, Philosophical Gardener of Herefordshire Part I. Prelude to the Royal Society (1608-1663)," Annals of Science, 39 (1982), 463-89; idem, "John Beale, Philosophical Gardener of Herefordshire Part II. The Improvement of Agriculture and Trade in the Royal Society (1663-16.83)," Annals of Science, 46 (1989), 323-63, and M. Leslie, "The Spiritual Husbandry of John Beale," in idem and T. Raylor, eds., Culture and Cultivation in Early Modern England (Leicester, 1992), pp. 151-72. See also C.M. Andrews, British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622-1675 (Baltimore, 1908) and J.R. Jacob, Robert Boyle and the English Revolution: A Study in Social and Intellectual Change (New York, 1977), pp. 140-45 and 155-59.
(30) Philosophical Transactions, no. 2 (April 3rd 1665), 17-20, 21; no. 5 (July 3rd 1665), 87-91; no. 6 (November 6th 1665), 95-98; no.7 (December 4th 1665), 127; no. 8 (January 8th 1665/6), 131-40, 141-43; no. 9 (February 12th 1665/6), 147-49; no. 11 (April 2nd 1666), 186-89; no. 23 (March 11 th 1666/7), 409-415, 416-422; no. 24 (April 8th 1667), 433-481; no. 27 (September 23rd 1667), 467-472 and no. 33 (March 16th 1667/8), 634-39. See also Shapin, "Social History of Truth," 243-54 and esp. D. Carey, "Compiling Nature's History: Travellers and Travel Narratives in the Early Royal Society," Annals of Science, 54 (1997), 269-92.
(31) G. L'E. Turner, "Mathematical-Instrument Making in London in the Sixteenth Century" in S. Tyacke (ed.), English Map-Making. 1500-1650 (London, 1983), pp. 93-106; J.A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science, 24 (1986), 1-28, and D.B. Quinn (ed.), The Voyages and Colonizing Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert (London, 1940). For the news on the Journal des Savants, see the (unpublished) Calendar of State Papers (France), passim, but especially Compton to Williamson, January 14th 1666, in Stoye, "English Traveller Abroad, 1604-1667," (2nd ed., New Haven, 1989) 358-59, n. 39; Perwich to Williamson, January 22nd 1670, in M. Beryl Curran, The Despatches of William Perwich. English Agent in Paris, 1669-1677 (London, 1903), p. 60; Oldenburg to Boyle, 12th September 1667 (Oldenburg, "Correspondence," III, 474); cf. ibid., IX, 625-631, and Oldenburg to Williamson, September 2nd 1673, (ibid., X, 175-76). For a fuller account of Williamson's activities, see A. Marshall, Intelligence and Espionage in the Reign of Charles II, 1660-1685 (Cambridge, 1994) and for a general analysis of the intelligence services see P. Fraser, The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State and their Monopoly of Licensed News, 1660-1688 (Cambridge, 1956).
(32) See B. Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, 1987) and D. Miller and H. Reill, eds., Visions of Empire: Voyages. Botany and Representations of Empire (Cambridge, 1996), esp. pp. 2-6 and 33; S.J. Hams, "Long-distance Corporations, Big Sciences and the Geography of Knowledge," Configurations, 6 (1998), 269-304; S.J. Schaffer, "Weighing coins," unpublished typescript, and D.S. Lux and H. Cook, "Closed Circles or Open Networks?: Communicating at a Distance During the Scientific Revolution," History of Science, 36 (1998), 179-211.
(33) See c. Webster, "Henry More and Descartes: Some New Sources," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 4 (1969), 359-77; 365-72, and more generally A. Gabbey, "Philosophia Cartesiana triumphata: Henry More (1646-1671)" in T.M. Lennon, J.M. Nicholas and J.W. Davis, eds., Problems of Cartesianism, (Kingston, Ontario, 1982), pp. 171-250.
(34) Oldenburg, "Correspondence," VIII, 119-20; Shapin and Schaffer, "Leviathan," 209 and 214-18; Boyle, "An Hydrostatical Discourse, Occasioned by the Objections of the Learned Dr. Henry More," in Birch, "Works of Boyle," 3: 596-628, p. 624; Shapin, "Social History of Truth," 297-99, and More to Boyle, 4 December 1671, in Birch, "Works of Boyle," 6: 513-15.
(35) Beale to Oldenburg, c. 12 June 1671, in Oldenburg, "Correspondence," VIII, 92. In an earlier letter of 15 March 1669/70 Beale had told Oldenburg, who had made some complimentary remarks about Louis XIV in the most recent edition of the Transactions: "They say many of [y.sup.e] R S &c by their travayling have learnt to admire other Countreys, & to despise & hate their own. And thus great Lds doe chuse [y.sup.e] French Cooke, [y.sup.e] Monsieur Vallet de chambre, French Lacqueys, dauncing Masters, Perriwigmakers, all French; And ye great Ladyes doe well approve, & make use of their Lds choice; They prefer a French Du Vall before an English Duke"; (ibid., VI, 561). Du Vai was a valet to the Duke of Richmond who turned highwayman.
(36) Beale to Oldenburg, 24 June 1671; ibid., VIII, 120-22.
(37) Ibid., VIII, 123. The notion of an enemy archive is discussed with reference to a later period in T. Richards, The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire (London and New York, 1993), esp. p. 111.
(38) Auzout to Oldenburg, 28 December 1666 in Oldenburg, "Correspondence," III, 294; A.R. Hall and M.B. Hall, "Philosophy and Natural Philosophy: Boyle and Spinoza" in R. Taton and I.B. Cohen, eds., Melanges Alexandre Koyre. II. L'aventure de l'esprit (Paris, 1964), pp. 241-56; Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, (trans. and ed.) P. Remnant and J. Bennett (Cambridge, 1982), sect. 455 For Hobbes's criticisms of Boyle and aspects of the Royal Society, see Shapin and Schaffer, "Leviathan," 110-54.
(39) See Newton, "Correspondence," I, 92-107, esp. 94-95; Hooke to Oldenburg, 15 February, 1671/2 (ibid., I, 110-16, esp. 110-11); Newton to Oldenburg, 11 June, 1672 (ibid., I, 171-93, esp. 186-87); Lucas to Oldenburg, 13 October 1676 (ibid., I, 104-8, esp. 104-5).
(40) See Shapin, "Social History," passim. For representations of and encounters with the "Other" see U. Bitterli, Cultures in Conflict: Encounters Between Europeans and Non-European Cultures, 1492-1800 (Cambridge, 1989) and S.B. Schwarz (ed.), Implicit Understandings: Observing, Reporting, and Reflecting on the Encounters between Europeans and Other Peoples in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, 1993).
(41) For the "History of Trades" programme see Hunter, "Science and Society," 91-103 and K. Ochs "The failed revolution in applied science: studies of industry by members of the Royal Society of London, 1660-1688" (diss. Univ. of Toronto, 1981). For attacks on the early Society see Hunter, "Science and Society," 136-61; R. Syfret, "Some Early Reaction to the Royal Society," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 7 (1950), 207-58; idem, "Some Early Critics of the Royal Society," Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 8 (1950), 20-64 and Shapin and Schaffer, "Leviathan and the Air-Pump," 110-224.
(42) B. Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd ed. (London, 1991), p. 4 and, in particular, E. Said, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (Toronto, 1995). For the notion of cultural memory, see J. Fentress and C. Wickham, Social Memory (Oxford, 1992), Cressy, "Bonfires and Bells" and F. Raphael, Theatres of Memory, vol. 1. Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London and New York, 1994). For the existence of national styles, see N. Reingold, "The Peculiarities of the Americans or are there National Styles in the Sciences?," Science in Context, 4 (1991), 347-66 and J. Harwood, Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetic Community 1900-1933 (London, 1933).3
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Canadian Journal of History|
|Date:||Apr 1, 1999|
|Previous Article:||A Game of Cat and Mouse: Henri De Navarre and the Huguenot Campaigns of 1584-89.|
|Next Article:||Sex, Simians, and Spectacle in Nineteenth-Century France; Or, How to Tell a "Man" from a Monkey.|