¹ History of the Royal Society, pp. 416–17. Earlier in the volume he had found in Bacon's prose traits quite different from those demanded by the Royal Society. See p. 36. See also R. Boyle, Works, ed. T. Birch, V, 39.

² The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, new ed., 7 vols., 1879–1890, III, 11.

³ Ibid., III, 282–4, 330. The first reference contains his famous explanation of, and attack on, Ciceronianism. Though his own prose reveals elements that ally him to the Anti-Ciceronians, his emphasis upon a plain style is quite foreign to them; furthermore, as will be noted later, he was so far from approving their style that he considered it one of the distempers of learning.

⁴ Ibid., IV, 22. In a Preparative towards a Natural and Experimental History he lists rhetorical ornaments among the factors which increase the difficulty of, while adding nothing to, the work. “And for all that concerns ornaments of speech, similitudes, treasury of eloquence, and such like emptiness, let it be utterly dismissed” (IV, 254).

⁵ Ecclesiastes, or a Discourse concerning the Gift of Preaching as it falls under the Rules of Art, 1646, p. 72.

⁶ The Advice of W. P. to Mr. Samuel Hartlib, for the Advancement of some particular Parts of Learning. London, 1648, Harleian Miscellany, vol. 6, p. 2.

⁷ A Treatise of the Rickets, 1651. (This is a translation of the Latin edition which appeared the preceding year.) Mention might here be made of John Drury's The Reformed School (c. 1649), a passage from which (p. 49) reads: “Whatsoever in the teaching of Tongues doth not tend to make them a help unto Traditionall knowledge, by the Manifestation of Reali Truths in Science, is superfluous, and not to be insisted upon, especially towards Children, whence followeth that the Curious study of Criticisms and observations of Styles in Authors and of straines of wit, which speak nothing of Reality in Sciences, are to be left to such as delight in vanityes more than in Truths.” Drury belonged to that group of educational reformers which centered around Comenius, and to which Samuel Hartlib also belonged. Their philosophy, which is shot through with the spirit of scientific utilitarianism, was largely inspired by Bacon, and properly falls in the scientific movement. Drury's emphasis upon “reality” manifests the same attitude as is revealed in the quotation from Petty, and clearly indicates that the materialistic nature of the new science, with its insistence upon direct sense-observation of natural phenomena, was the chief source of this craving for a plain style. For an extended discussion of the influence of the Baconian philosophy upon educational theory, see Foster Watson, The Beginning of the Teaching of Modern Subjects in England, chap. VI.

⁸ See end of the Leviathan.

⁹ Leviathan, ed. A. R. Waller, pp. 526–7.

¹⁰ Idem, p. 185.

¹¹ Idem, pp. 43–44.

¹² Idem, pp. 14–15.

¹³ Idem, pp 21, 25.

¹⁴ Idem, p. 26.

¹⁵ P. 88.

¹⁶ Pp. 295, 301. See also Boyle's Works, ed. T. Birch, II, 92, 136; III, 2,512; V, 54.

¹⁷ P. 2.

¹⁸ P. 1.

¹⁹ Numerous references might be given to support this statement, but I shall quote only one writer, who figures in this study. “Aristotelian Philosophy is a huddle of words and terms insignificant.” And again, speaking of entities, modes, and formalities, “What a number of words here have nothing answering them..... To wrest names from their known meaning to Senses most alien, and to darken speech by words without knowledge; are none of the most inconsiderable faults of this Philosophy..... Thus these Verbosities do emasculate the Understanding; and render it slight and frivolous, as its objects.” Joseph Glanvill, Vanity of Dogmatizing, 1661, pp. 150 ff. He also speaks of the verbal emptiness of Aristotle's philosophy.

²⁰ One stylistic vice obviously came under the ban of the experimental philosophers. The latter's violent attack upon the ancients and upon authority in general did much to depreciate the value of Latin and Greek quotations. Glanvill in the Vanity of Dogmatizing, attacks this habit on the ground that reliance on antiquity is no longer to be countenanced, so that appeals to it are impertinent and futile. “‘T was this vain Idolizing of Authors, which gave birth to that silly vanity of impertinent citations; and inducing authority in things neither requiring, nor deserving it. That saying was much more observable, That men have beards and women none; because quoted from Beza; and that other Pax res bona est; because brought in with a said, St. Austin,” pp. 142 ff. In 1678 he says that “the custom is worn out everywhere except in remote, dark corners.” An Essay Concerning Preaching, pp. 11 ff. See also Hobbes’ view of the same matter given earlier in this article.

²¹ Pp. 111–113.

²² Cf. Thomas Birch, History of the Royal Society, II, 3, 47, 51, 138, 161, 163, 197.

²³ P. 113. Sprat believed that English writers in general were freer from stylistic vices than the French. “There might be,” he says, with an eye on France, “a whole volume compos'd in comparing the Chastity, the newnesse, the vigour of many of our English Fancies, with the corrupt, and the swelling metaphors, wherewith some of our Neighbors, who most admire themselves, do still adorn their books.” And again, “We have had many Philosophers, of a strong, vigorous, and forcible judgment, of happy and laborious hands, of a sincere, a modest, a solid, and unaffected expression, such who have not thought it enough to set up for Philosophers, only to have got a large stock of fine words, and to have insinuated into the acquaintance of some great Philosophers of the age.” Observations on Monsieur de Sorbier's Voyage into England, 1665, pp. 265, 671. See also Hist. of Roy. Soc., pp. 40–1. Evelyn expresses the same sentiment, only he makes a luxuriant prose style a characteristic of the whole French nation. “The Reader will find,” he remarks in the preface to his translation of a French treatise on painting, “in this discourse (though somewhat verbose, according to the style of this overflowing nation) divers useful remarks.” Miscellaneous Writings of John Evelyn, ed. W. Upcott, 1825, p. 559. Another sturdy Englishman expresses the same sentiment in more emphatic words. “And indeed however our smoother tongued Neighbors may put in a claim for those bewitcheries of speech that flow from Gloss and Chimingness; yet I verily believe that there is no tongue under heaven, that goes beyond our English for speaking manly strong and full.” Nathaniel Fairfax, A Treatise of the Bulk and Selvedge of the World, 1674, “To the Reader.” In view of the common opinion that French influence played a great part in the simplification of English prose, these quotations are worthy of note. Furthermore, not a single stylistic reformer in England, as far as my knowledge extends, every refers, directly or indirectly, to any influence from across the Channel.

²⁴ Plus Ultra, p. 84.

²⁵ The following quotation from Sprat's History clearly evinces the important place granted style in the obligations of the scientists. In fact, it shows that the experimental philosophers considered a reformation in current methods of expression essential to the advancement of science. “Their [members of the Royal Society] purpose is, in short, to make faithful Records, of all the Works of Nature, or Art, which can come within their reach: that so the present Age, and posterity may be able to put a mark on the Errors, which have been strengthened by long prescription: to restore the Truths, that have lain neglected: to push on those, which are already known, to more various uses: and to make the way more passable. to what remains unreveal'd. This is the compass of their Design. And to accomplish this, they have indeavour'd to separate the knowledge of Nature, from the colours of Rhetorick, the devices of Fancy, or the delightful deceit of Fables.” Pp. 61–2.

²⁶ See P. H. Hembt, “The influence of Early Science on Formative English, 1645–1675,” Journal of Chemical Education, III, 1051, and C. S. Duncan, The New Science and English Literature, pp. 147–54.

²⁷ This version is accessible in a modern edition by John Owen, 1885. All references are to this edition.

²⁸ See Birch, op. cit., I, 500. Glanvill's purpose is also suggested by a change introduced in the body of the work. A passage in the Vanity, p. 240, reads, “And the sole Instances of those illustrious Heroes, Cartes, Gassendus, Galileo, Tycho, Harvey, More, Digby, will strike dead the opinion of the Worlds decay, and conclude it, in its prime.” In the Scepsis, p. 209, there is substituted for the names given above “that Constellation of Illustrious Worthies, which compose the Royal Society.”

²⁹ In an earlier passage he gives another excuse for this style, though at the same time suggesting the immaturity of youth as one. After speaking of some ingenious people laboring under the prejudices of education and customary belief, he says, “For Such it was then that the ensuing Essay was designed; which therefore wears a dress that possibly is not so suitable to the graver Geniuses, who have out grown all gayeties of style and youthful relishes; But yet perhaps is not improper for the persons, for whom it was prepared. And there is nothing in words and styles but suitableness, that makes them acceptable and effective. If therefore this Discourse, such as it is, may tend to the removal of any accidental disadvantages from capable Ingenuities, and the preparing them for inquiry, I know you have so noble an ardour for the benefit of Mankind, as to pardon a weak and defective performance to a laudable and well-directed intention.” P. liv. In still another passage he touches upon this all-important matter: “And ‘Tis none of the least considerable expectations that may be reasonably had of your Society, that ‘twill discredit that toyishness of wanton fancy; and pluck the misapplyed name of the Wits, from those conceited Humourists that have assum'd it; to bestow it upon the more manly spirit and genius, that playes not tricks with words, nor frolicks with the Caprices of froathy imagination.” P. lxv. These words clearly indicate the popular association of stylistic reform with the society, and the important place such a reformation occupied in the scientific movement.

³⁰ This case furnishes strong support to Herford's contention that Browne's style was the obstacle in the way of his joining the Royal Society. Browne had early become notorious for his style. In Medicus Medicatus, 1645, an attack on the Religio Medici, Alexander Ross says, “Your Rhetoricall descriptions (which are both useless in and destructive of Philosophy) make the soule sometimes equal with God, sometimes no better than a corruptible body, ..... If you lay the fault of this upon your Rhetoricall expressions, I must answer you, that Rhetorick in such a subject may be well spared: use your Rhetorick when you will work upon the affections, but not when you will informe the understanding. Rhetoric .... ought not to be used, but with great discretion, especially in abstruse questions ..... If you will dispute like a philosopher, you must lay aside Rhetorick, and use Philosophical termes; otherwise you will do as the fish Sepia, to wit, you'l so thicken the waters of your discourse, with the liquor that cometh out of your mouth, that you will make your self invisible, and delude the Reader, which is the fashion of those, who dare not confide in the strength of their arguments; whereas naked truth cares not for such dressings, nor seeks she after such corners.” P. 92. Ross has nothing but scorn for “Rhetoricall flourishes” and “Tullian pigments.” See C. H. Herford's edition of Browne's works, Everyman's Library, p. xiv.

³¹ Ferris Greenslet in Joseph Glanvill, 1900, pp. 200–201, has listed all such verbal changes, which amount to less than a score. Doctor Greenslet notices the difference between Glanvill's early and later work in the matter of diction, clearness, and simplicity, as well as in the quality of imagination. But since he failed to compare the Vanity with the version that appeared in the Essays, he did not perceive the extent or fully understand the nature of the author's stylistic evolution. Though he attributes the change in part to the influence of science, he failed to perceive the conscious and decisive nature of the influence which the Royal Society exerted on Glanvill. He is correct in detecting Bacon in the concrete imagery and balanced brevity of sentence structure, but he limits Browen's influence too narrowly to words. Though he accurately characterizes Glanvill's later style as simple, plain, reasonable, he is not sufficiently aware of the profound change that had taken place. See Chapter VII.

³² Concerning this essay, “Against Confidence in Philosophy,” a passage in the preface to the volume reads: “[It] is quite changed in the way of Writing, and in the order. Methought I was somewhat fetter'd and tied in doing it, and could not express my self with that ease, freedom, and fulness which possibly I might have commanded amid fresh thoughts. Yet 'tis so alter'd as to be in a manner new.” A Comparison of the two versions reveals that chapters xvi, xvii, xviii, and xix, attacking Aristotle and the peripatetic philosophy, as well as chapters i, ii, vi, xi, xx, xxi, and xxii, have been omitted almost in toto; that there is much beneficial rearrangement of material; and that much other material has been either left out or highly condensed. These changes, together with the compression in style have caused the treatise to shrink to a fourth or a fifth of its first dimensions. A passage in the “Epistle Dedicatory” again calls attention to a change in his stylistic taste: “They [essays] were some of them written several years ago, and had trial of the World in divers Editions: Now they come abroad together (with some things that are new) reduced to such an Order, as is most agreeable to my present judgment.”

³³ Likewise the enthusiastic, exclamatory, and picturesque elements of the following passage are strangely subdued to a quieter level. “What cement should unite heaven and earth, light and darkness, natures of so divers a make, of such disagreeing attributes, which have almost nothing, but Being in common; This is a riddle, which must be left to the coming of Elias. How should a thought be united to a marble-statue, or a sun-beam to a lump of clay! The freezing of the words in the air in the northern climes, is as conceivable as this strange union. That this active spark, this (as the Stoicks call it) should be confined to a Prison it can so easily pervade, is of less facile apprehension, then that the light should be pent up in a box of Crystall, and kept from accompanying its source to the lower world: And to hang weights on the wings of the winde seems far more intelligible.” (Vanity, p. 20.) “So that, what the Cement should be that unites Heaven and Earth, Light and Darkness, viz. Natures of so divers a make, and such disagreeing Attributes, is beyond the reach of any of our Faculties: We can as easily conceive how a thought should be united to a Statute, or a Sun-Beam to a piece of Clay: How words should be frozen in the Air, (as some say they are in the remote North) or how Light should be kept in a Box; as we can apprehend the manner of this strange Union” (Essays, p. 4).

³⁴ Vanity, pp. 26, 27, 28, 29, 53, 137; Essays, pp. 5, 6, 13, 25.

³⁵ It would be easy to quote many more parallel passages illustrating this change, but the reader should compare the two versions himself in order to realize fully the transformation that has taken place. It is hardly necessary to point out that all Glanvill's later works reveal the same stylistic evolution.

³⁶ Later Glanvill joined in the attack on pulpit eloquence, which arose about 1668, and which will be treated in a future article, and his words show that science was by no means without its influence upon this attack. Furthermore, the terms used by the reformers of the pulpit are startingly similar to those with which the scientists have made us familiar. See Glanvill, Philosophia Pia, pp. 73, 90–1; the last essay in Essays on Several Important Subjects, 1676; and An Essay Concerning Preaching, 1678, pp. 11–51. For an account of Glanvill's vigorous defense of the Royal Society, consult the present writer's “Background of the Battle of the Books,” Washington University Studies, VII, Humanistic Series, No. 2 (1920), 125–129.

³⁷ VIII, 431–433.

³⁸ P. 310.

³⁹ Abraham Cowley, The Essays and Other Prose Writings. ed. A. B. Gough, 1915, p. 143.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 199.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 169.

⁴² Birch, Hist. Roy. Soc., II, 200–202.

⁴³ Ibid., I, 499. The late Professor Emerson in “John Dryden and the British Academy” (Proceedings of the British Academy, X, 1924) calls attention to the fact that Cowley was not a member of this committee, and thinks that Evelyn's memory had played him false in mentioning Cowley. But we must remember that Evelyn does not say that Cowley and the others were members of the committee, and that there is no reason why both the poet and Clifford, who also was not a member, should not have met with the committee.

⁴⁴ Another possible example of the influence of the Royal Society in sobering the style of its members is found in Samuel Parker, later bishop of Oxford, who in 1666 published A Free and Impartial Censure of the Platonic Philosophie, dedicated to Bathurst, then president of Trinity College, Oxford, and formerly a member of the Oxford group of Baconians, to which reference has already been made. Both in the dedication and in the body of the work (pp. 2, 64) Parker expresses his gratitude to Bathurst for turning him from the unprofitable study of the old scholastic philosophy to the new experimental science. Though disclosing the influence of both Hobbes and Descartes, the Censure reveals chiefly the influence of Bacon and his followers. Parker brings to bear upon Platonism the same arguments which the experimental philosophers had used, and were using, against Aristotelianism; namely, that, as regards natural phenomena anyway, its empty notions could not be tested by sense-observations or experiments, the criteria of truth. From this attack on a philosophy which presumably is mainly words, he passes naturally to an onslaught upon a wordy and figurative style, which is fully in keeping with the attitude of the scientists, and in the composition of which he undoubtedly had an eye on the Cambridge Platonists. These latter, he says, “put us off with nothing but rampant metaphors and Pompous Allegories, and other splendid but empty Schemes of speech, ..... True Philosphie is too sober to descend to these wildernesses of the Imagination, and too Rational to be cheated by them. She scorns, when she is in chase of Truth, to quarry upon trifling gaudy Phantasms: Her Game is in things not words. ..... I remember I had not long conversed with Platonick Authors, when I took occasion to set it down as a note to my self, that though a huge lushious stile may relish sweet to childish and liquorish Fancies, yet it rather nauceates a discreet understanding then informs and nourishes it. ..... And to discourse of the Natures of things in Metaphors and Allegories is nothing else but to sport and trifle with empty words, because these Schemes do not express the Natures of Things but only their Similitudes and Resemblances.” (Pp. 73 ff.) And he continues his attack on metaphors at great length. But in spite of this expressed antipathy to rhetorical prose, the style of the Censure is far from being bare and unadorned. (Note, for instance, the following: “But when they pretend to be Nature's Secretaries, to undersand all her intrigues, or to be Heavens Privadoes, talking of the transactions there, like men lately drop'd thence encircled with Glories, and cloathed with the Garments of Moses & Elias,” etc., p. 73.) He had been for only a short time a member of the Royal Society, and perhaps its influence had not had time to bear fruit. In his next important works, however, A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie, 1670, and A Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Politie, 1671, we note a decided toning down of his enthusiastic language, though he himself claims that he is pursuing a middle way between a bare and an ornate style. (A Defence, pp. 97–8.) Parker will be treated more at length in my article on pulpit eloquence.

⁴⁵ Cam. Hist. of Eng. Lit., VIII, 346, 423.

⁴⁶ “His [Tillotson's] joining with Dr. Wilkins in perfecting the scheme of a real character and philosophical language, the essay towards which was publish'd in 1668, led him to consider exactly the truth of language and style, in which no man was happier, or knew better the art of uniting dignity with simplicity, and tempering these so equally together, that neither his thoughts sunk, nor style swell'd; keeping always a due mean between flatness and false rhetoric. ..... Together with the pomps of words he cut off likewise all superfluities and needless enlargements. He said what was just necessary to give clear ideas of things, and no more. He laid aside long and affected periods. His sentences were short and clear; and the whole thread was of a piece, plain and distinct. No affectations of learning, no torturing of texts, no superficial strains, no false thoughts, nor bold flights All was solid and yet lively, and grave as well as elegant.... he retrenched both the luxuriance of style, and the length of sermons:” Thomas Birch, The Life of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson, 2nd ed., London, 1753, pp. 22–23.

⁴⁷ Birch, Hist. Roy. Soc., I, 119; II, 265, 281, 283.

⁴⁸ In the Dedication a passage reads, “To which it will be proper for me to add, That this design will likewise contribute much to the clearing of some of our Modern differences in Religion, by unmasking many wild errors, that shelter themselves under the disguise of affected phrases; which being Philosophically unfolded and rendered according to the genuine and natural importance of Words, will appear to be inconsistencies and contradictions. And several of those pretended, mysterious, profound notions, expressed in great swelling words, whereby some men set up for reputation, being this way examined, will appear to be, either nonsence, or very flat and jejune.” Later he speaks of “the Common mischief that is done, and the many impostures and cheats that are put upon men, under the disguise of affected insignificant Phrases.” On pages 17–18, he says, “As for the ambiguity of words by reason of Metaphor and Phraseology, this is in all instituted languages so obvious and so various, that it is needless to give any instances of it, .... And although the varieties of Phrases in Language may seem to contribute to the elegance and ornament of Speech; yet, like other things of fashion, they are very changeable, every generation producing new ones; witness the present Age, especially in the last times, wherein this grand imposture of Phrases hath almost eaten out solid knowledge in all professions; such men generally being of most esteem who are skilled in these Canting forms of speech, though in nothing else.” The same values that appear in the previous discussions of style also appear in the use of such terms as brevity, perspicuity, significancy, and facility of expression, and the like. See pp. 319, 443, 447.

⁴⁹ That the Royal Society looked upon Wilkins as specially qualified for the study of language or style is revealed in the fact that, though he was not appointed on the committee to improve the language, perhaps because he was too busy with the Essay, he was ordered to attend the first meeting of the committee and outline to them the proper method of procedure. Birch, Hist. Roy. Soc., II, 7.

⁵⁰ Congreve's dedication of Dryden's Dramatic Works, quoted by Ker, Essays of John Dryden, I, xxvii n.

⁵¹ “Defense of an Essay of Dramatic Poesy,” Essays of John Dryden, ed. Kerr, I, 124. Dryden in the preface to Religio Laici called himself a sceptic in philosophy, and Kerr, I, xv, speaks of him as “sceptical, tentative, disengaged.” How much of this quality was due to the scepticism of science that stretched from Bacon to the Royal Society? See Bredvold's “Dryden, Hobbes, and the Royal Society,” Mod. Phil., XXV, 417–38.

⁵² In discussing this paper, a fraction of which was read before one of the groups of the Modern Language Association at Toronto, 1928, one scholar maintained that there was some relation between the two movements and referred to Professor Morris Croll's very able articles on Anti-Ciceronianism. During my own investigations I had discovered no such relationship, and a close study of the problem has confirmed me in the belief that the two movements were separate and distinct in that the scientific demand for stylistic reform neither had its origin in, nor drew support from, the Anti-Ciceronian revolt. For Professor Croll's theories consult the following: “Juste Lipse et le Mouvement Anti-Ciceronien,” Revue du Seizieme Siede, II, 1914; “‘Attic’ Prose in the Seventeenth Century,” Stud. in Philol., XVIII, April, 1921; “Attic prose: Lipsius, Montaigne, Bacon”, Schelling Anniversary Papers, 1923; “Muret and the History of ‘Attic prose’,” PMLA, XXXIX (1924).

⁵³ See Schelling Anniversary Papers, pp. 138–9.

⁵⁴ Probably the most remarkable example of this passion for concrete, material reality in language as well as in philosophy, is discovered in the startling proposal advanced by Nathaniel Fairfax in the preface to A Treatise of the Bulk and Selvedge of the World, 1674. Fairfax displays a violent antipathy to all imported words in the English language, and in his own work he tries as far as possible to substitute English coinages for words of foreign origin, with grotesque results in some cases. Since he was a great admirer of the Royal Society and the experimental philosophy, which impressed him with its practical and utilitarian character, it is not strange to find him proclaiming an interest in things, not words. Thus he advocates the purification and enlargement of the English vocabulary, made necessary by the activities of the new scientists, through the introduction of plain homely words, gathered from the fields and shops. He wishes to realize literally Sprat's “so many things in the same number of words,” not difficult Latinisms but the common words of daily use, “words that answer works, by which all Learners are taught to do, and not make a Clatter.” More of his sentiments are worth quoting. “Now the Philosophy of our day and land being so much workful as the world knows it to be, methinks this of all times should be the time, wherein, if ever, we should gather up those scatter'd words of ours that speak works, rather than to suck in those of learned air from beyond Sea, which are as far off sometimes from the things they speak, as they are from us to whom they are spoken. Besides, it may well be doubted, whether Latine can now be made so fit to set the writings of a Working Philosophy by, as our own Speech.—For we must know that almost all the old pieces of good Latine that we draw by, have been taken up by that sort of learning that is wont to be worded in the Schools, and spent in the setting to sale of such things as could best be glazed with the froth of ink, by the men of the Closets. Whence he that is best skill'd in it, is so hard put to it, in the kitchin, the shop, and the ship; and ever will be, though Plautus should be as well understood as Tully. For the words that are every day running to and fro in the Chat of Workers, have not been gotten into Books and put abroad for other Lands until this way of Knowing by Doing was started amongst us.—But as Learnings being lockt up in the Tongues of the Schools, or Love's being lickt up in more womanly simprings of the lips, and the smiling kissing speeches of some others abroad, have been enough to enkindle in us a panting after, and fondness for some of those Outlandish dynns: So if the works of our own men shall be shipt over by words of our own tongue, it may happily make others who have love enough for things, to seek as much after our words, as we upon other scores have done after theirs; the first draught being English, name and thing, doing and speaking.” Cf. what Sprat says about the Royal Society's “preferring the language of Artizans, Countrymen, and Merchants, before that of wits, or Scholars.”

⁵⁵ Leviathan, ed. A. R. Waller, p. 14.

⁵⁶ A Free and Impartial Censure, p. 61.