Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:36:19.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of the Early Royal Society Part II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

K. Theodore Hoppen
K. Theodore Hoppen
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The original fellow of the Royal Society best known for his concern for the Hermetic tradition is Elias Ashmole, who was associated with the society as early as 1661 and who in 1664 was appointed a member of its committee ‘for collecting all the phenomena of nature hitherto observed, and all experiments made and recorded’, that typically Baconian attempt to clear the decks for ‘scientific’ action. And it was Ashmole's munificence that was instrumental in establishing the first chemical laboratory at any British university, namely that at Oxford set up in the original Ashmolean Building in 1683.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , November 1976 , pp. 243 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Josten, C. H., ‘Elias Ashmole’, in Hartley, H. (ed.), The Royal Society: its origins and founders (London, 1960), pp. 223–6.Google Scholar
2Sprat, T., The history of the Royal Society (London, 1667), pp. 38 and 97.Google Scholar
3Josten, C. H., ‘William Backhouse of Swallowfield’, Ambix, iv (1949), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Elias Ashmole (1617–1692): His autobiographical and historical notes, his correspondence, and other contemporary sources relating to his life and work, ed. Josten, C. H. (5 vols., Oxford, 1966), i. 136.Google Scholar
5Josten, , ‘Elias Ashmole’, op. cit. (1), p. 225.Google Scholar
6 See, for example, Birch, T., The history of the Royal Society (4 vols., London, 1756–1757), iv. 9.Google Scholar
7 See, for example, Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 4, 37, 41, 68, 109, 130, 132, 177, 183, 207, 236, 238, 239, 240, 243, 249, 250, etc. He also prepared for publication the second edition of his younger brotherGoogle Scholar
Nathaniel, 's Aero-Chalinos: or a register for the air (London, 1677); see D.N.B.Google Scholar
8Sprat, , Royal Society, op. cit. (2), p. 57.Google Scholar
9Turnbull, G. H., ‘Robert Child’, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, xxxviii (1947–1951), 24–5.Google Scholar
10Turnbull, G. H., p. 25. Boyle supported and approved of Hall's translations of this and other of Andreae's works;Google Scholar
see Turnbull, G. H., ‘Samuel Hartlib's influence on the early history of the Royal Society’, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, x (1953), 109.Google Scholar
11Purver, M., The Royal Society: concept and creation (London, 1967), pp. 206–34.Google Scholar
12Yates, F. A., The Rosicrucian enlightenment (London, 1972), pp. 140–50.Google Scholar
13Turnbull, , ‘Robert Child’, op. cit. (9), p. 25.Google Scholar
14The works of Thomas Vaughan: Eugenius Philalethes, ed. Waite, A. E. (London, 1919), pp. 121–3. About this time Henry More entered into a dispute with Vaughan, whom he called ‘a bad chip of the Dr Fludd block’Google Scholar
(The works of Thomas Vaughan: Eugenius Philalethes, p. 471).Google Scholar
15Turnbull, , ‘Robert Child’, op. cit. (9), p. 25. Child was at this time in contact with Christopher Merret (later an original F.R.S.) with whom he was planning to compile inventories of all existing chambers of rarities (p. 28).Google Scholar
16Elias Ashmole. Autobiographical and historical notes, op. cit. (4), ii. 345. Among Oughtred's other pupils were Ward, Wallis, and Foster;Google Scholar
see Hill, C., Intellectual origins of the English revolution (Oxford, 1965), p. 53. Of course, I do not mean to imply that all of his pupils necessarily shared all of his views; they clearly did not.Google Scholar
17 See ‘A diarie and practike given by Mr Oughtred to Mr Thomas Henshaw from whose manuscript I coppied it: June ye 6: 1668’, British Library, Sloane MS. 2222, ff. 136v–41v.Google Scholar
18Elias Ashmole. Autobiographical and historical notes, op. cit. (4), ii. 733. Henshaw continued his friendship with Ashmole after this date and was still meeting him in 1677Google Scholar
(Elias Ashmole. Autobiographical and historical notes, i. 217). Henshaw also acquired the manuscripts of the Lullian alchemist, Nicholas Hill (d. 1610).Google Scholar
See Jacquot, J., ‘Harriot, Hill, Warner and the new philosophy’, in Shirley, J. W. (ed.), Thomas Harriot: Renaissance scientist (Oxford, 1974), pp. 110 and 126.Google Scholar
19Webster, C., ‘Henry Power's experimental philosophy’, Ambix, xv (1967), 150–78, especially 164, 168, 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Power, to Henshaw, , [c. 1655], British Library, Sloane MS. 1342, f. 8.Google Scholar
21Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 41. The papers are printed inGoogle Scholar
Sprat, , Royal Society, op. cit. (2), pp. 260–76 and 277–83 (see also p. 155).Google Scholar
22Sprat, , Royal Society, op. cit. (2), pp. 267–8.Google Scholar
23Stubbe, H., Legends no histories (London, 1670), p. 87. See pp. 35–129 for Stubbe's critique of Henshaw's essays.Google Scholar
24King, L. S., The road to medical enlightenment 1650–1695 (London, 1970), pp. 169–72.Google Scholar
25Henshaw, 's piece is in Philosophical transactions, i (1665), 33–6 (reprinted in Journal des sçavans, i. 214–16).Google Scholar
See also Thorndike, L., A history of magic and experimental science (8 vols., New York, 1929–1958), vii. 165; viii. 113 and 386.Google Scholar
26Oldenburg, to Stiernhelm, Georg, 9 12 1669, inGoogle Scholar
, A. R. and Hall, M. B. (eds.), The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (9 vols. to date, Madison, 1965– in progress), vi. 365.Google Scholar
27Advancement of learning (2nd Book), in The works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding, J., Ellis, R. L., and Heath, D. D. (14 vols., London 1868–1890), iii. 362–3.Google Scholar
28Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iii. 454–5.Google Scholar
Goad, 's major work was Astro-Meteorologica (London, 1686), in which he presented an astrology based on sacred authorities and on what he saw as reason and experiment. Robert Hooke had been in touch with Goad some years earlier;Google Scholar
see The diary of Robert Hooke… 1672–1680, ed. Robinson, H. W. and Adams, W. (London, 1935), entries for 11 February 1673–4, 11 May 1674Google Scholar
‘At Dr Goads about predicting the weather’, and 28 12 1675. In the later 1640s Jonas Moore (like Henshaw, then a pupil of Oughtred and later F.R.S.) was moving in astrological circles in London, and it was he who introduced the astrologer William Lilly to Ashmole;Google Scholar
see Elias Ashmole. Autobiographical and historical notes, op. cit. (4), ii. 345 and 397.Google Scholar
29 Buckingham (an original F.R.S.) was a considerable patron of esoteric practitioners and himself well known as something of a chemist. Above all, he was patron to Heydon, John, who, in The holy guide (London, 1662), produced an adaptation ofGoogle Scholar
Bacon, 's New Atlantis along Rosi-crucian lines.Google Scholar
Heydon, dedicated his Theomagia, or the temple of wisdome… containing the occult powers of the angels of astromancy (London, 1664) to Buckingham and implied that Rosicrucian lore had once saved Buckingham from death. In the ‘life’ ofGoogle Scholar
Heydon, , prefixed to his Elhavarevna (London, 1665), it is said that Buckingham once saved him from prison. Buckingham was like Moray and Ashmole a freemason; indeed he was grand master 1674–9.Google Scholar
See also O'Brien, J. J., ‘Samuel Hartlib's influence on Robert Boyle's scientific development’, Annals of science, xxi (1965), 266.Google Scholar
30Athenae Oxonienses… by Anthony à Wood, ed. Bliss, P. (4 vols., London, 1813–1820), iii. 722–6.Google Scholar
31Martin, D. C.. ‘Sir Robert Moray’, in Hartley, Royal Society, op. cit. (1), pp. 247–8.Google Scholar
32Webster, C., ‘The College of Physicians: “Solomon's House” in Commonwealth England’, Bulletin of the history of medicine, xli (1967), 410–11. Webster has done a simple count of some fellows' names for the period December 1660 to December 1662. Moray's appears 114 times, Boyle's 90, Goddard's 92, Petty's 46. In the first volume of Birch's printing of the society's minutes (covering December 1660 to December 1664) Moray's name appears on 234 pages, Boyle's on 173, and Henshaw's on 67;Google Scholar
see Scala, G. E., ‘An index of proper names in Thomas Birch, The history of the Royal Society’, Notes and records, xxviii (1974), 263–329. Moray at times presided at meetings before the society had obtained its first charter;Google Scholar
see Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 85 and 87.Google Scholar
33Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 406–7.Google Scholar
34Philosophical transactions, i (1665), No. 3; i (1666), No. 18; ii (1667), No. 26. When the Transactions had to be published at Oxford during the Plague, this was arranged by Wallis, Boyle, and Moray, the last then at Oxford with the court and lodging with Wallis;Google Scholar
see Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), ii. p. xx.Google Scholar
35 See Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens [Société Hollandaise des Sciences] (22 vols., The Hague, 1888–1950), vols. iii. iv. v. vi., passim.Google Scholar
36Evelyn, to MrWotton, , 30 03 1696, inGoogle Scholar
Diary and correspondence of John Evelyn F.R.S., ed. Bray, W. (London, [1906]), p. 703.Google Scholar
37Robertson, A., The life of Sir Robert Moray: soldier, statesman and man of science (London, 1922), p. 149;Google Scholar
also Martin, , ‘Sir Robert Moray’, op. cit. (31), p. 240.Google Scholar
38Yates, F. A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition (London, 1964), p. 422; onGoogle Scholar
Kircher, , see pp. 416–23.Google Scholar
39Moray, to Oldenburg, , 19 10 1665, in Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), ii. 574–5.Google Scholar
40Oldenburg, to Dodington, , 10 01 1669–1670,Google Scholar
Oldenburg, to Dodington, , vi. 422. In October 1665 Moray called Kircher his ‘friend’Google Scholar
(letter to Oldenburg, , 29 10 1665,Google Scholar
Oldenburg, , i. 583), and, indeed, Kircher printed a letter on tides from Moray in one of his own worksGoogle Scholar
(Oldenburg, , i. 592).Google Scholar
41Oldenburg, to Boyle, , 19 03 1657–1658,Google Scholar
Oldenburg, to Boyle, , i. 155.Google Scholar
SirSouthwell, Robert (an original F.R.S. and the society's president from 1690 to 1695) was also interested in this plant;Google Scholar
see Southwell, to Oldenburg, , 30 10 1659 [N.S.],CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwell, to Oldenburg, , i. 324, whichGoogle Scholar
Boyle, also discussed in his A discourse… about the possibility of the Resurrection (London, 1675).Google Scholar
42Hooke, , Diary, op. cit. (28), entries for 20 09 and 24 12 1678, 14 05 and 30 07 1679.Google Scholar
See also Schneer, C. J., ‘The rise of historical geology in the seventeenth century’, Isis, xlv (1954), 257. In 1662 the society asked a member to investigate Kircher's ‘secret way of music’.Google Scholar
43Martin, , ‘Sir Robert Moray’, op. cit. (31), pp. 244 and 246.Google Scholar
44Robertson, , Life of Moray, op. cit. (37), p. 184.Google Scholar
45Moray, to Bruce, , 19/29 10 1657, Royal Society, Kincardine Papers, f. 15. These are transcripts of originals (assumed now to be lost).Google Scholar
46Moray, to Bruce, , 4/14 02 1658[–9], Royal Society, Kincardine Papers, ff. 154–5.Google Scholar
47Baily, F., An account of the Revd. John Flamsteed (London, 1835), pp. 22, 23, 34. In 1669 some astronomical papers of his were presented to the society through the good offices of Elias Ashmole. Flamsteed, of course, was not elected a fellow until 1677.Google Scholar
48Powell, A., John Aubrey and his friends (London, 1948), p. 139.Google Scholar
49Kargon, R. H., ‘William Petty's mechanical philosophy’, Isis, lvi (1965), 63–6.Google Scholar
Rattansi, P. M., in ‘The intellectual origins of the Royal Society’, Notes and records, xxiii (1968), 130, calls Petty ‘a representative virtuoso of a certain sort’.Google Scholar
50Petty, , Advice, pp. 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 See Ronan, C. A., Edmond Halley (London, 1970), p. 57 (Halley did not, however, ‘dismiss it out of hand’), andGoogle Scholar
'Espinasse, M., Robert Hooke (London, 1956), p. 119. However, Hooke was interested enough to meet such astrologers as Gadbury (M. 'Espinasse) and Goad (see note 28, above).Google Scholar
52Wood, , Athenae Oxonienses, op. cit. (30), iii. 1262–4.Google Scholar
53 See, for example, Philosophical transactions, iii (1669), Nos. 43 and 44; iv (1669), No. 46; v (1670), No. 57.Google Scholar
54Tongue, to Oldenburg, , 6 06 1670, inGoogle Scholar
Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), vii. 28.Google Scholar
55 See Tongue, to Oldenburg, , c. 15 01 1671,Google Scholar
Tongue, to Oldenburg, , vii. 388.Google Scholar
56Burnet, Bishop's History of his own time (new edn., 2 vols., London, 1838), i. 281.Google Scholar
57Hartlib, to Worthington, , 4 06 1660, inGoogle Scholar
The diary and correspondence of Dr John Worthington, ed. Crossley, J. (Chetham Society Publications XIII, 1847), i. 196–7.Google Scholar
Webster, G., in Samuel Hartlib and the advancement of learning (Cambridge, 1970), p. 62, calls Tongue a ‘mystical and alchemical natural philosopher’.Google Scholar
58 For evidence that they corresponded, see Stearns, R. P., Science in the British colonies of America (Urbana, Illinois, 1970), p. 131.Google Scholar
59Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), ii. 59 n.Google Scholar
60Wilkinson, R. S., ‘“Hermes Christianus”: John Winthrop Jr. and chemical studies in seventeenth century New England’, in Debus, A. G. (ed.), Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance: essays to honor Walter Pagel (2 vols., London, 1972), i. 222–3. Winthrop certainly corresponded with Helmont, as he did with Hartlib.Google Scholar
61Wilkinson, R. S., p. 222.Google Scholar
62Wilkinson, R. S., ‘The problem of the identity of Eirenaeus Philalethes’, Ambix, xii (1964), 41.Google Scholar
See also Wilkinson, R. S., ‘George Starkey, physician and alchemist’, Ambix, xi (1963), 121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63Wilkinson, R. S., ‘The alchemical library of John Winthrop Jr.’, Ambix, xi (1963), 33–51, and xiii (1966), 139–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64Winthrop, to Hartlib, , 16 12 1659, inGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, G. H. (ed.), ‘Some correspondence of John Winthrop Jr. and Samuel Hartlib’, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, lxxii (1957–1960), 36–40.Google Scholar
65Wilkinson, 1966, op. cit. (63), p. 141; andGoogle Scholar
Browne, C. A., ‘Scientific notes from the books and letters of John Winthrop Jr.’, Isis, xi (1928), 337.Google Scholar
66Rossi, P., Francis Bacon. From magic to science, trans. by Rabinovitch, S. (London, 1968), p. 16.Google Scholar
67Rossi, P., p. 32.Google Scholar
68Walker, D. P., Spiritual and demonic magic from Ficino to Campanella (London, 1958), pp. 199–202.Google Scholar
69 Digby was by no means the only alchemically inclined fellow of the Royal Society with whom Winthrop was in touch. Ashmole, Dickenson, and Moray have already been mentioned in this connexion. Winthrop also corresponded with William Brereton, who actually proposed him for membership. In 1660 Brereton wrote to him about a manuscript he had received from an ‘American adeptus’ as a result of Hartlib's ‘secret communications’; see Turnbull, , ‘Correspondence of Winthrop and Hartlib’, op. cit. (64), p. 49.Google Scholar
70Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 4.Google Scholar
71Kargon, R. H., Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966), pp. 72–3.Google Scholar
72 See Hall, M. B.'s article on Digby in Gillispie, C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography (13 vols. to date, New York, 1970– in progress), iv. 95–6.Google Scholar
73Petersson, R. T., Sir Kenelm Digby the ornament of England 1603–1665 (London, 1956), pp. 283–4.Google Scholar
74 It was first published in French. For an account of it, see Petersson, R. T., pp. 265–74.Google Scholar
75 Quoted in Petersson, R. T., p. 271.Google Scholar
76Petersson, R. T., pp. 98–100. His collection of manuscripts included works on exorcism, casting nativities, the philosopher's stone, the universal remedies of Hermes TrismegistusGoogle Scholar
(Petersson, R. T., p. 242).Google Scholar
77Oldenburg, to Boyle, , 10 03 1659–1660, in Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), i. 363.Google Scholar
78 See Fulton, J. F., ‘Sir Kenelm Digby’, in Hartley, Royal Society, op. cit. (1), p. 204.Google Scholar
It was published as A discourse concerning the vegetation of plants. Spoken by Sir Kenelm Digby at Gresham-Colledge, on the 23d. of January 1660 [i.e. 1661] (London, 1661).Google Scholar
See Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 13.Google Scholar
79Petersson, , Kenelm Digby, op. cit. (73), pp. 298–300.Google Scholar
80 Both Digby and Winthrop were also clearly influenced by the Paracelsian stress on charity towards the poor. Both men saw their chemical work as heavily involved with medicine, and both made their remedies widely available without charge.Google Scholar
81Petersson, , Kenelm Digby, op. cit. (73), p. 280. Evelyn also attended a course given by Le Fèvre at Paris in 1647. For this (and for a general account of Le Fèvre),Google Scholar
see Partington, J. R., A history of chemistry (4 vols., London, 1961–1970), iii. 17–24.Google Scholar
82Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 54 and 67.Google Scholar
83Le Fèvre, , A compleat body of chemistry (London, 1664), pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
84Le Fèvre, , pp. 1 and 3.Google Scholar
85Le Fèvre, , p. 130. Chapter 1 of Part I is entitled ‘Of the universal spirit’.Google Scholar
86Oldenburg, to Boyle, , 2 08 1659 [N.S.], inGoogle Scholar
Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), i. 286–7. Boyle was clearly much interested in such news, and Oldenburg's letters at this period contain several references to alchemy and esoterica in general. In November 1659 he wrote ‘about the projections of the Elector of Mainz, of which he told Sir Kenelm Digby’ (i. 328) and about a ‘proposition to open gold for the price of £100 sterling’ (i. 333).Google Scholar
87Thorndike, , Magic and experimental science, op. cit. (25), viii. 131–2.Google Scholar
88Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), i. 68, 82, 215–18, 241, 268–9, 406. In July 1663 he presented an account which opened with the words ‘Paracelsus saith’ and concluded with a quotation from Helmont.Google Scholar
89 See Hall, A. R.'s introduction to the Johnson Corporation reprint of Birch's Royal Society (4 vols., New York and London, 1968), i. xix. Of the 115 ‘original’ fellows of May 1663, no fewer than 24 were physicians;Google Scholar
see Gillispie, C. C., ‘Physick and philosophy: a study of the influence of the College of Physicians of London upon the foundation of the Royal Society’, Journal of modern history, xix (1947), 216–17.Google Scholar
90Webster, , ‘College of Physicians’, op. cit. (32), pp. 393–412.Google Scholar
91 I do not imply that Paracelsianism and Helmontianism were the same thing—far from it. But the writings of both men (despite their considerable, and, on the part of Helmont, angry, differences) show a certain similarity of approach.Google Scholar
92 On the controversy in general, see Rattansi, P. M., ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy in Restoration England’, Ambix, xii (1964), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93 The declaration is printed in Thomas, H., ‘The Society of Chymical Physitians’, in Underwood, E. A. (ed.), Science, medicine and history (2 vols., Oxford, 1953), ii. 62–4. Thomas's essay is the best account of the affair.Google Scholar
94 Quoted from Nedham, 's Medela medicinae (London, 1665), inGoogle Scholar
Debus, A. G., Science and education in the seventeenth century (London, 1970), p. 62 (see also p. 64). For Nedham's Baconianism,Google Scholar
see Hill, Intellectual origins, op. cit. (16), p. 116. Nedham was one of Le Fèvre's cosignatories of the Chymists' Declaration of 1665; another was Winthrop's associate, George Starkey.Google Scholar
95 Gilbert Sheldon, Archbishop of Canterbury; Humphrey Henchman, Bishop of London; the Dukes of Buckingham and Albermarle; the Earls of Lindsey, Northampton, Anglesey, and Carlisle; Sir Kenelm Digby; Thomas Collpeper; and Freschevills Holies. John Locke was also probably sympathetic to the Society of Chemical Physicians; see Dewhurst, K., John Locke, (1632–1709) physician and philosopher (London, 1963), p. 20.Google Scholar
96Rattansi, , ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy’, op. cit. (92), p. 13. However, as Rattansi points out, some Helmontians like Starkey optimistically regarded Boyle ‘as one of their company’.Google Scholar
97Rattansi, P. M., ‘Paracelsus and the Puritan revolution’, Ambix, xi (1963), 26 and 30–1. Charleton, both a fellow of the College of Physicians and an original F.R.S., exchanged hisenthusiastic Helmontianism for an equally enthusiastic corpuscularianism.Google Scholar
98Castle, , The chymical Galenist: a treatise wherein the practise of the ancients is reconcil'd to the new discoveries in the theory of physick (London, 1667), Epistle Dedicatory.Google Scholar
99 See Castle, , pp. 15–16, 177–80, 190, and Epistle Dedicatory. In fact, Castle seems to have been intent on combining modified Galenism, mild iatrochemistry, and mechanism into a new medical synthesis. He explains the action of the Plague in terms of atomic particles (pp. 119–20), and insists that it is not to ‘be question'd, that a man is as mechanically made as a watch’ (p. 5).Google Scholar
100Clarke, , Some papers writ in the year 1664. In answer to a letter concerning the practice of physick in England, by Dr. C.T. (London, 1670), pp. 4, 20, and 32. On p. 24 he refers to ‘our great Verulam’. It is just possible that this piece was the work of the physician, Christopher Terne, also an original F.R.S.Google Scholar
101Stubbe, , Campanella revived (London, 1670), Preface. A similar message is to be found in the two other books published in the same year by Stubbe: Legends no histories and The plus ultra reduced to a non plus. By this time the Helmontian medics were in retreat, having been overcome individually by the Plague, and generally as a result of increasing attacks from their erstwhile allies, the apothecaries.Google Scholar
See Rattansi, , ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy’, op. cit, (92), pp. 21–3.Google Scholar
102 He also contributed several articles to the Philosophical transactions on subjects ranging from the sepulchral lamps of the ancients, i.e. the ‘problem’ of the lamps supposedly still burning in ancient tombs (vol. xiv [1684], No. 166), to the collection of meteorological data (vol. xv [1685], No. 169).Google Scholar
103 The group's minutes and correspondence are printed in Gunther, R. T., Early science in Oxford (14 vols., Oxford, 1923–1945), vols. iv and xii. In all, fifty-one members joined the Oxford Society between 1683 and 1690.Google Scholar
104Emery, F. V., ‘English regional studies from Aubrey to Defoe’, Geographical journal, cxxiv (1958), 318.Google Scholar
105 See Plot, , Natural history of Oxford-shire (2nd edn., Oxford, 1705), pp. 183, 230–311. All the persons mentioned were fellows of the Royal Society.Google Scholar
106Plot, , pp. 159, 225, and 234–5.Google Scholar
107Plot, , Natural history of Stafford-shire (Oxford, 1686), p. 32.Google Scholar
108Bacon, , Novum organum, Book Two, Section xxxiGoogle Scholar
(Works, op. cit. [27], iv. 170).Google Scholar
109Plot, , Natural history of Stafford-shire, op. cit. (107), pp. 9–13, 449, and 188. A large part of Chapter 8, ‘Of men and women’, is devoted to ‘monsters’, of various kinds. In 1683 Plot presented to the society's museum ‘an earth found under fairy-rings’;Google Scholar
see Gunther, , Early science in Oxford, op. cit. (103), xii. 349–51, for a list of his many gifts to the museum.Google Scholar
110 British Library, Sloane MS. 3646, ff. 1–92v. Some, but by no means all, of the items in this MS have been printed in Gunther, , Early science in Oxford, op. cit. (103), xii. 335–6, and 411–13; and inGoogle Scholar
Taylor, F. S., ‘Alchemical papers of Dr Robert Plot’, Ambix, iv (1949), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
111 British Library, Sloane MS. 3646, ff. 11–16, 67, 58–61v, 70–5, and 38.Google Scholar
112Taylor, F. S., f. 44. His ‘Annotations on the manuall operations of Basill Valentine’ are on ff. 48–50.Google Scholar
113Taylor, F. S., f. 55: ‘Of the most secret secret of the more abstruse chymistry or of the first and onely matter of menstruums’.Google Scholar
114Taylor, , ‘Alchemical papers of Plot’, op. cit. (110), p. 69.Google Scholar
115 British Library, Sloane MS. 3646, f. 78v. Specific references to times for meetings, etc. suggest that these agreements refer to real and not merely fanciful projects.Google Scholar
116Taylor, , ‘Alchemical papers of Plot’, op. cit. (110), p. 75.Google Scholar
117 British Library, Sloane MS. 3646, f. 76.Google Scholar
118 It is possible, of course, that Plot, with his Hermetic interests, may have read the openly Rosicrucian interpretation of Bacon, 's New Atlantis inGoogle Scholar
Heydon, John's The holy guide (London, 1662).Google Scholar
See Yates, , Rosicrucian enlightenment, op. cit. (12), pp. 128–9.Google Scholar
119Taylor, , ‘Alchemical papers of Plot’, op. cit. (110), p. 76. Taylor suggests that the avowal of alchemical habits of thought would have been ‘prejudicial to a man in an official scientific position’; yet such considerations do not seem to have prevented Plot (a man known for his ambitious, indeed grasping nature) from publicly defining his chemical goals in strongly traditional Hermetic terms; see below.Google Scholar
120 Printed in full in Gunther, , Early science in Oxford, op. cit. (103), iv. 130–2.Google Scholar
121 Minutes of the Dublin Society for 20 July 1685 in British Library Add. MS. 4811, f. 172. Allan Mullen had been elected F.R.S. in 1683; Jacobus Sylvius was to become F.R.S. in 1687. See Hoppen, K. T., ‘The Royal Society and Ireland, II’, Notes and records, xx (1965), 78–99.Google Scholar
122Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iv. 434. Plot's interest in ‘magic’ of various kinds, as evidenced in his public writings, was hardly a secret either. Nor did he hesitate to entertain such concerns at the Royal Society, as when, in 1683, he showed the members ‘a paper with Arabic letters and some strange characters, being a spell found wrapt in the hair of the Guinea Negros’. See also Bodleian Library MS. Rawlinson K 35, f. 170a—a paper in Plot's hand concerning an apparition in 1627 foretelling the death of the then Duke of Buckingham.Google Scholar
123Blomberg, W. N., An account of the life and times of Edmund Dickinson M.D. (London, 1737), p. 16. In fact, this book is largely a (useful) summary of Dickenson's writings.Google Scholar
124 See the account of this work in Blomberg, W. N., pp. 65–8.Google Scholar
125Blomberg, W. N., pp. 69, 80–1, 70–1, and 78.Google Scholar
126Blomberg, W. N., pp. 134–6.Google Scholar
See also Partington, , History of chemistry, op. cit. (81), ii. 328. This work of Dickenson's shows acquaintance with the microscopical research of Leeuwenhoek and includes a denial of the possibility of spontaneous generation.Google Scholar
127Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iv. 488–9.Google Scholar
128 Extracts appear in a number of contemporary alchemical manuscripts, such as British Library Sloane MS. 3758, ff. 58–62; Sloane MS. 3629, ff. 202–86; Sloane MS. 3762, ff. 32–63.Google Scholar
129Manuel, F. E., A portrait of Isaac Newton (Cambridge Mass., 1968), p. 425, note 15.Google Scholar
130Maddison, R. E. W., The life of the honourable Robert Boyle (London, 1969), p. 203. After Boyle's death Locke helped Dickenson to prepare a posthumous collection of Boyle's medical recipes for the press;Google Scholar
see Dewhurst, , John Locke, op. cit. (95), p. 284.Google Scholar
131Clarke, G. N. and Cooke, A. M., A history of the Royal College of Physicians (3 vols., Oxford, 1964–1972), i. 361–2.Google Scholar
132Multhauf, R. P., The origins of chemistry (London, 1966), p. 330.Google Scholar
133Thorndike, , Magic and experimental science, op. cit. (25), viii. 381.Google Scholar
134Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iii. 329. The matter was further discussed at the next meeting.Google Scholar
135 The letter is printed in Philosophical transactions, xi (1676–1677), No. 131. An English translation (from which I quote) is inGoogle Scholar
The Philosophical transactions… abridged, ed. Hutton, C. et al. (18 vols., London, 1809), ii. 368.Google Scholar
136Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iii. 374. He was elected at the meeting at which Dickenson was proposed for membership.Google Scholar
137Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), vi. 631–4, andGoogle Scholar
Philosophical transactions, vii (1672), No. 81.Google Scholar
138 Read on 28 March 1672 and printed in Latin, in Birch, , Royal Society, op. cit. (6), iii. 30–40. An English translation which I have used is given inGoogle Scholar
Cole, F. J., ‘Dr William Croone on generation’, in Montagu, M. F. A. (ed.), Studies and essays in the history of science and learning offered in homage to George Sarton (New York, [1946]), pp. 115–35.Google Scholar
139Thorndike, , Magic and experimental science, op. cit. (25), viii. 367.Google Scholar
140Kisner, to Oldenburg, , 12 05 1671, andGoogle Scholar
Sluse, to Oldenburg, , 8 07 1671, inGoogle Scholar
Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), viii. 39 and 149.Google Scholar
The review is in Philosophical transactions, vi (1671), No. 71.Google Scholar
141Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), vii. p. xxviii.Google Scholar
142Oldenburg correspondence, vii. 532–3; viii. 13–14.Google Scholar
143Sachs, to Oldenburg, , 16 06 1671,Google Scholar
Sachs, to Oldenburg, , viii. 109.Google Scholar
144Leibniz, to Oldenburg, , 23 08 1671 [N.S.],Google Scholar
Leibniz, to Oldenburg, , vii. 67; 1 March 1670–1, vii. 490; 29 April 1671, viii. 29; and 8 June 1671, viii. 80–1.Google Scholar
145Leibniz, to Oldenburg, , viii. 80–1.Google Scholar
Leibniz refers to Plattes, 's A discovery of subtenaneall treasure (London, 1639, 1653, 1679). Plattes was protégé of Hartlib, and is now known to have been the author of the utopian workGoogle Scholar
A description of the famous kingdome of Macaria (London, 1641);Google Scholar
see Webster, C., ‘The authorship and significance of Macaria’, Past and present, No. 56 (1972), 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
146 See Wiener, P. P., ‘Leibniz's project of a public exhibition of scientific inventions’, Journal of the history of ideas, i (1940), 232–40. The exhibition was to include ‘unusual and rare animals’, ‘fire-works’, and ‘artificial meteors’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
147Sluse, to Oldenburg, , 8 07 1671, in Oldenburg correspondence, op. cit. (26), viii. 149.Google Scholar
148Sprat, , Royal Society, op. cit. (2), p. 327.Google Scholar
See also Purver, , The Royal Society, op. cit. (11), pp. 235–9.Google Scholar
149 See Mulligan, L.'s articles, ‘Civil War politics, religion, and the Royal Society’, Past and present, No. 59 (1973), 92–116, andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
‘Anglicanism, latitudinarianism and science in seventeenth century England’, Annals of science, xxx (1973), 213–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar