Partial funding for the research leading to this article was provided by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan.

¹ Glanvill, 's Vanity of dogmatizing, London, 1661Google Scholar, was republished as Scepsis scientifica: or, confest ignorance, the way to science; in an essay of the vanity of dogmatizing, London, 1665Google Scholar, at which time it had appended to it Scire/i tuum nihil est: or, the authors defense of the vanity of dogmatizing; against the exceptions of the learned Tho. Albius and A letter to a friend concerning Aristotle, London, 1665.Google Scholar For an example of Glanvill's private support of the Royal Society in his correspondence, see his letters to Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, in Letters and poem in honour of the incomparable Princess Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, London, 1676Google Scholar, especially the letter of 13 October 1667, pp. 123–7. This correspondence probably began in April 1667.

² For enthusiastic assessments of Glanvill's contributions to the new science, see Cope, J. I., Joseph Glanvill, Anglican apologist, St Louis, 1956Google Scholar; Jones, R. F., Ancients and moderns, St Louis, 1936Google Scholar; and Austin, W. H.'s article in Gillispie, C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography, New York, 1972, v, 414–17.Google Scholar

³ Oldenburg, Henry to Boyle, Robert, 16 12 1664Google Scholar, in , A. R. and Hall, M. B. (eds.), The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, Madison, Wis., 1965Google Scholar, letter 360 (hereafter cited as HOC, with appropriate letter numbers).

⁴ Beale, John to Boyle, Robert, 31 10 1666Google Scholar, in Birch, Thomas (ed.), The works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, 2nd edn., 6 vols., London, 1772, vi, 418.Google Scholar In a letter to Boyle, Oldenburg quoted Beale as expressing to him similar sentiments about Glanvill, ; HOC, 537.Google Scholar John Worthington described Glanvill as ‘a great valuer of Descartes and Dr. More, whom he often mentions in his book [Vanity], having been a great reader of his books. He is a young man, and abating some juvenile heat, there are good matters in his book. As one said of the parts of pregnant young men, we may guess what the wine will be; and it will taste better when broached some years hence’; letter to Hartlib, Samuel of 19 04 1661Google Scholar, in The diary and correspondence of Dr. John Worthington (ed. by Crossley, James), Manchester, 1847, pp. 297–303.Google Scholar The ‘Platonism’ to which Beale objected was Glanvill's discussion of the pre-existence of souls in Lux orientalis, London, 1662Google Scholar; in its stead he recommended Parker, Samuel, A free and impartial censure of the Platonick philosophie, Oxford, 1666.Google Scholar

⁵ The ballad (hereafter cited as ‘Ballad’) is edited below, pp. 68–70.

⁶ For a recent assessment of Sprat, 's HistoryGoogle Scholar, see Wood, P. B., ‘Methodology and apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society’, The British journal for the history of science, 1980, 13, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Austin, , op. cit. (2), p. 416.Google Scholar A similar assessment is given by J. I. Cope in his introduction to the facsimile reprint of Granvill, 's Plus ultraGoogle Scholar, Gainesville, , Florida, 1958, p. ix.Google Scholar

⁸ The full title of Plus ultra is Plus ultra: or, the progress and advancement of knowledge since the days of Aristotle. In an account of some of the most remarkable late improvements of practical, useful learning: to encourage philosophical endeavors. Occasioned by a conference with one of the notional way, London, 1668Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Plus ultra).

⁹ Ibid., sig. A6r-v.

¹⁰ Ibid., sig. A7r.

¹¹ For biographical details on Crosse, see Wood, A., Athenae oxonienses (ed. by Bliss, P.), London, 1813–1820, iv, 122–4Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Wood, Athenae), and Green, V., The commonwealth of Lincoln College, 1427–1977, Oxford, 1979, pp. 160, 180, 185, 226, 241–2, 249, 612.Google Scholar Crosse's answers to questions put to him while a prisoner in Dunster Castle are extant in Bodleian Library, MS. Rawlinson D. 957, fols. 1r–2r. Glanvill discussed the reaction of students like himself to the excesses of the civil war in his continuation of Bacon's New Atlantis: ‘Bensalem, being a description of a catholick and free spirit both in religion and learning’, MS. Joseph Regenstein Library, University of Chicago.

¹² This view is, of course, Glanvill's, but it was also shared in part by Stubbe, Henry, A reply unto a letter written to Henry Stubbe, Oxford, 1671, p. 58.Google Scholar Stubbe was very cautious in his support of Crosse.

¹³ The full reference is given in n. 1, above.

¹⁴ Wood, , Athenae, iv, 123.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘Ballad’, line 113.Google Scholar

¹⁶ John Beale to John Evelyn, undated, but falling between two letters (Nos 57, 59) dated 29 April and 3 May, 1667, in the Evelyn correspondence, Oxford, Christ Church, MS. Evelyn Correspondence 58 (hereafter cited as JEC, with appropriate letter numbers). This and subsequent references to the Evelyn correspondence are cited by the kind permission of the Trustees of the Will of Major Peter George Evelyn, deceased. In making transcriptions, I have modernized spelling and punctuation (and have added occasional words in brackets) to give clarity to Beale's sometimes cryptic style.

¹⁷ Beale's promotional plans for the new science, which are worth a study in their own right, are cautiously set out in the Oldenburg correspondence (HOC), more fully elaborated in the Evelyn correspondence (JEC), and presented in an almost treatise-like form in a series of interesting letters to Christopher Wase, printer to the University of Oxford from 1671 to 1680 (Corpus Christi College, Oxford, MS.332, fols. 18r-29v). Michael Hunter has discussed Beale's promotional ideas orally and is planning to publish additional comments in future papers.

¹⁸ JEC, 58.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Plus ultra, sig. A7r.

²⁰ HOC, 643; 1 06 1667.Google Scholar

²¹ Plus ultra, sig. A8r. and B1r.

²² Glanvill, to Beale, , 10 09 1667Google Scholar, quoted by Glanville-Richards, W. U. S., Records of the Anglo-Norman House of Glanville, from A. D. 1050 to 1880, London, 1882, p. 80.Google Scholar This letter and the one to Williamson cited in n. 23 below are in the Public Record Office, London.

²³ Beale to Joseph Williamson, ibid, 31 August 1667. A letter sent by Beale to Evelyn the same day gives much the same impression (JEC, 63).Google Scholar Beale's reason for writing to Williamson, then principle secretary to Arlington, the Secretary of State, was to inform the government about the activities of nonconformists in the West; see JEC, 62, 63.Google Scholar Glanvill's problems with the local gentry may have stemmed from the fact that he, like Beale, was not sympathetic to the more staunch Calvinist factions in Somerset. Glanvill was rumoured to have said that ‘he would as soon worship a leek or onion as the God of the Calvinists’, British Library, MS. Add. 4460, fol. 53r, as transcribed from the daybook of Mr Henry Sampson (1629?–1700). Beale's views on the threat he (and presumably Glanvill as well) faced from local Calvinists are elaborated in JEC, 87Google Scholar, dated 24 July 1669.

²⁴ There is no direct evidence to prove that Glanvill inserted his attack on Crosse into a draft version of Plus ultra. I would argue that the contrived flow of parts of Plus ultra (for instance, ‘I account these personal matters a kind of digression from the main thing I intended’, p. 71)Google Scholar, combined with Glanvill's introductory comments, strongly indicate that the attack was an afterthought, but which, as constructed, came to dominate the final published version of Plus ultra. To assume otherwise—that is to assume that Glanvill had from the start conceived Plus ultra as an attack on Crosse—would further diminish the importance of this work as a piece of propaganda for the activities of the Royal Society.

²⁵ Plus ultra, pp. 9, 19–21, and 76.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 65–71, 110–115, 118–121, and 128–149.

²⁷ HOC, 672; 1 10 1667.Google Scholar

²⁸ HOC, 833; 7 04 1668.Google Scholar

²⁹ Beale's views on promoting the new science are discussed in n. 17, above.

³⁰ Beale, to Oldenburg, , HOC, 893; 27 06 1668.Google Scholar For Beale's specific suggestions, see his letter to Oldenburg, HOC, 905; 5 07 1668.Google Scholar In the light of these specific comments and Beale's frequent references to advice to Glanvill while writing Plus ultra, it is difficult to take seriously Glanvill's contention that ‘no man, except my transcriber, ever saw my book’ till it was printed, nor did I alter any one word upon any man's suggestion’, Glanvill, Joseph, A praefactory answer to Mr. Henry Stubbe, London, 1671Google Scholar, sig. A8r (hereafter cited as Praefatory answer).

³¹ JEC, 74; 27 06 1668.Google Scholar Similar thoughts are expressed in a letter the same day to Oldenburg, HOC, 893.Google Scholar

³² A shortened version of Plus ultra was printed as one of Glanvill, 's Essays on several important subjects, London, 1676.Google Scholar

³³ Plus ultra, sig. B7v.

³⁴ Glanvill, , Praefatory answer, p. 186.Google Scholar Who it was who blocked the publication of Crosse's book is not clear, although it is possible that Glanvill may have played an active role in the affair. At least this is the implication of a brief note appended to Beale's letter to Evelyn dated 10 May 1669: ‘[If] Mr. Gl[anvill] could stop the raillery of the press against him, could not [the] R[oyal] S[ociety] stop Stubbe?’, JEC, 82.Google Scholar

³⁵ Praefatory answer, p. 187.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid. Probably owing to ambiguity in Wood, Athenae, iv, 124, most subsequent accounts of the Crosse-Glanvill dispute have assumed that the Chew gazette was Crosse's attack on Glanvill. Glanvill's own account of the dispute in Praefatory answer leaves no doubt that this was not the case.

³⁷ Ibid., p. 211. The work of Fell's in question was The life of the most reverend and pious Dr. Hammond, London, 1661.Google Scholar Paradoxically, if Fell did refuse to license Crosse's book, he would have been taking an action that supported the new science at a time when he was supposedly hostile to the activities of the Royal Society; Fell was widely rumoured to have been behind Robert South's criticisms of the Royal Society during the dedication ceremonies at the Sheldonian Theatre on 9 July 1669 (HOC, iii, p. xxvi)Google Scholar and was thought by many to favour Stubbe's attacks, which began shortly thereafter (Wood, , Athenae, iii, 1076).Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 189–90. Stubbe's reply to Glanvill, , The ‘Plus ultra’ reduced to a non-plus, London, 1670Google Scholar, was completed by October or November of 1669, but did not appear in print until May the following year. I will deal with this chronology more fully in a forthcoming study.

³⁹ For some initial thoughts on Stubbe's relations with the Royal Society, see my ‘Robert Boyle, Henry Stubbe, and the Valentine Greatrakes Affair’, forthcoming.

⁴⁰ DuMoulin had planned to publish a short poem praising the Royal Society in his παρεργα: Poematum libri tres, Cambridge, 1670Google Scholar; however, the person responsible for licensing this collection of verses, Peter Gunning, requested that the poem praising the Royal Society be left out, which it was. DuMoulin finally succeeded in getting the omitted poem printed as part of his παρεργων incrementum, Cambridge, 1671Google Scholar, due to the fact that the licence for the latter ‘was got in his [Peter Gunning's] absence’; see Boyle, , op. cit. (4, Works), vi, 580.Google Scholar

⁴¹ DuMoulin, to Boyle, , 28 12 1669Google Scholar, in ibid, p. 579.

⁴² HOC, 957Google Scholar; 15 September 1668. The letter reads ‘nothing’ for ‘anything’, which makes no sense in the context of the letter.

⁴³ [Glanvill, Joseph], Propositions for carrying on a philosophical correspondence, already begun in the county of Somerset, upon encouragement given from the Royal Society, London, 1670.Google Scholar Beale had seen the ‘propositions’ in manuscript form by 26 November 1669, (JEC, 90)Google Scholar and the printed version by 6 December 1669 (JEC, 92).Google Scholar Glanvill had brought his plans to Oldenburg's attention by 19 July 1669 (HOC, 1248, 1248a).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ JEC, 90; 26 11 1669.Google Scholar This assessment of Glanvill's actions was based on Beale's reading of the manuscript version of the Propositions (n. 43, above).Google Scholar Within a fortnight. Beale received the printed version of the Propositions, which were published by the Royal Society's major printer, Collins, James, ‘upon encouragement given from the R. S.’Google Scholar, as Beale somewhat sheepishly admitted to Evelyn. In light of this apparent ‘official’ sanction, which Beale felt was ‘perhaps more Oldenburg's than the Society's’, he back tracked slightly, and agreed to go along with the project, if it were truly the wish of the whole Society. However, he did not soften his assessment of Glanvill himself, emphasizing ‘that there is too much want of veracity, candour, and gratitude’ in Glanvill, , ‘which are three main points’Google Scholar; JEC, 92.Google Scholar The proposition being referred to by Beale is probably No 2: ‘that they make what moral observations they can, for the better assisting each other in the knowledge of human nature’, or No 8: ‘that the persons to be admitted into this correspondence be only such as are solid, modest, and of good inclinations to the promotion of useful knowledge’.

⁴⁵ Wood, , Athenae, iv, 124.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Glanvill defended himself from many of these charges in Plus ultra and Praefatory answer; see, for example, Plus ultra, pp. 128–37Google Scholar, where he set forth his views on Scripture. For Glanvill's caution on the mechanical world view, see, among other sources, his letter to Cavendish, Margaret, 8 07 [1667]Google Scholar, in his op. cit. (1, Letters and poems), pp. 137–42.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ [John Eachard], T. B., An answer to two letters of T. B. by the author of ‘The vindication of the clergy’, London, 1673.Google Scholar This was one of a series of pamphlets that came out as a response to T. B.'s [Eachard's] initial gentle criticism of the clergy in The grounds and occasions of the contempt of the clergy, London, 1670.Google Scholar For the attribution of Eachard as author, see Blount, Thomas's letter to Wood, Anthony, 28 11 1670Google Scholar, Bodleian Library, MS. Wood F. 40, letter 86.

⁴⁸ Ibid. (Answer), pp. 162–3.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 163–5. The ‘philosophical newsbook’ is undoubtedly a reference to the Philosophical transactions.

⁵¹ See n. 45 above.

⁵² Bodleian Library, MS. Wood, E. 2, p. 63, No 73.Google Scholar

⁵³ Glanvill, , Praefatory answer, p. 160Google Scholar, where John A'Court (elected fellow, Lincoln College, 29 December 1662), and Allen, William (MA, Lincoln College, 1666)Google Scholar are cited as witnesses to the affair supporting Glanvill's account of it.

⁵⁴ Notes on the ‘Ballad’ follow the notes on the introduction, followed by variant readings from the British Library MS.