Etiquette, interdependence, and sociability in seventeenth-century science

Critical Inquiry

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 193-237

  Biagioli, Mario ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000955718     PISSN: 00931896     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/448789     Document Type: Article

References (244)

1. While disputes were quite acceptable when staged as entertaining performances in courtly or noble settings, they could threaten the prince's name and honor if they travelled outside of those circumscribed stages, became impolite, or conveyed the impression that the prince had acted as a certifying witness rather than just as a noncommittal (though often appreciative) spectator
2. See Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993), pp. 15-19
3. On the physicians' strategies, see Biagioli, "Scientific Revolution, Social Bricolage, and Etiquette," in The Scientific Revolution in National Context, ed. Roy Porter and Mikuláš Teich (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 11-54
4. Remarks about the prince's role in legitimizing the new anatomy and physiology are in The Correspondence of Marcello Malpighi, ed. Howard B. Adelman, 5 vols. (Ithaca, N. Y., 1975), 1:156, 190, 193
5. The legitimation of experimental practices faced similar disciplinary difficulties as they rested on non-Aristotelian notions of evidence. Because of the Aristotelian privileging of natural (formal) causes over artificial (efficient) causes, instrument-produced evidence might be downgraded by traditional philosophers and could be, in principle, dismissed as an artifact. Also, the acceptance of experiments required a shift from a notion of evidence linked to everyday experience (upheld by Aristotle) to a more specialized one that rested on singular experiences produced through an experimental apparatus
6. see Peter Dear, "Jesuit Mathematical Science and the Reconstitution of Experience in the Early Seventeenth Century," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18 (Mar. 1987): 133-75
7. Among the works on science and court culture, see Robert S. Westman, "The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study," History of Science 18 (June 1980): 105-47 and "Proof, Poetics, and Patronage: Copernicus's Preface to De Revolutionibus," in Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, ed
8. David C. Lindberg and Westman (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 167-205
9. Jay Tribby, "Cooking (with) Clio and Cleo: Eloquence and Experiment in Seventeenth-Century Florence," Journal of the History of Ideas 52 (July-Sept. 1991): 417-39
10. and "Body/Building: Living the Museum Life in Early Modern Europe," Rhetorica 10 (Winter 1992): 139-63
11. Paula Findlen, "Controlling the Experiment: Rhetoric, Court Patronage, and the Experimental Method of Francesco Redi," History of Science 31 (Mar. 1993): 35-64
12. and Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modem Italy (Berkeley, 1994)
13. Bruce T. Moran, The Alchemical World of the German Court: Occult Philosophy and Chemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen, 1572-1632 (Stuttgart, 1991)
14. Patronage and Institutions: Science, Technology, and Medicine at the European Court, 1500- 1750, ed. Moran (Rochester, N. Y., 1991)
15. and Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N. J., 1994)
16. See Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, pp. 353-62
17. Examples of the site-specific character of princely legitimation and of the modalities of its transmission to other environments are in ibid., pp. 54-59, 96-100, 103-39
18. Besides some of the literature on science at court (listed in n. 3), issues of politeness and etiquette are addressed in Steven Shapin, "Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology," Social Studies of Science 14 (Nov. 1984): 481-520
19. "The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England," Isis 79 (Sept. 1988): 373-404
20. '"A Scholar and a Gentleman': The Problematic Identity of the Scientific Practitioner in Early Modern England," History of Science 29 (Sept. 1991): 279-327
21. and A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994)
22. Simon Schaffer, "Self Evidence," Critical Inquiry 18 (Winter 1992): 327-62
23. rpt. in Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines, ed. James Chandler, Arnold I. Davidson, and Harry Harootunian (Chicago, 1994), pp. 56-91
24. Lorraine Daston, "Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity," in Rethinking Objectivity, ed. Allan Megill (Durham, N. C, 1994), pp. 37-63
25. and "The Moral Economy of Science," Osiris 10 (forthcoming); Biagioli, "Tacit Knowledge, Courtliness, and the Scientist's Body," in Choreographing History, ed. Susan L. Foster (Bloomington, Ind., 1995), pp. 69-87
26. and Christian Licoppe, "The Crystallization of a New Narrative Form in Experimental Reports (1660-1690): The Experimental Evidence as a Transaction between Philosophical Knowledge and Aristocratic Power," Science in Context 7 (Summer 1994): 205-44
27. See Norbert Elias, The Court Society, trans. Edmund Jephcott (Oxford, 1983). I sketched this argument in "Scientific Revolution, Social Bricolage, and Etiquette," pp. 15-39
28. The existence of a cross-national trend toward philosophical politeness and its link with Elias's "civilizing process" have been discussed by Daston in "Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity," pp. 53-54
29. On the notion of candidates for true or false claims, see Ian Hacking, "Language, Truth, and-Reason," in Rationality and Relativism, ed
30. Martin Hollis and Steven Lukes (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 48-66. See also Hacking, "'Style' for Historians and Philosophers," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23 (Mar. 1992): 1-20
31. and "La metafisica degli stili di ragionamento scientifico," Iride 4-5 (1990): 7-22, and Davidson, "Styles of Reasoning, Conceptual History, and the Emergence of Psychiatry," in Disunity and Conlextuatism, ed. Peter Galison and David Stump (forthcoming)
32. See Stefano Fermi, Lorenzo Magalotti, scienziato e letterato, 1637-1712 (Piacenza, 1903), p. 73
33. To this category belong Christiaan Huygens, Henry Oldenburg, John Locke, Martin Lister, Samuel Sorbière, Balthasar de Monconys, Otto von Guericke, Cassiano dal Pozzo, Lorenzo Magalotti, and Gottfried Leibniz. On the overlap between diplomatic and philosophical networks of correspondence, see Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, pp. 54-59. On networks of correspondence within the republic of letters
34. see Commercium Litterarium, 1600-1750: Forms of Communication in the Republic of Letters, ed
35. Hans Bots and Françoise Waquet (Amsterdam, 1994)
36. On the tensions inherent to categories of civility, etiquette, and politeness, see Jacques Revel, "The Uses of Civility," in Passions of the Renaissance, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, ed. Roger Chartier, vol. 3 of A History of Private Life, ed. Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), pp. 167-205
37. Frank Whigham, Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy Theory (Berkeley, 1984)
38. and Peter France, Politeness and Its Discontents: Problems in French Classical Culture (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 53-73
39. On the relationship between changes in etiquette and changes in courtly hierarchies see Elias, The Court Society, p. 88
40. and Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, N. J., 1985), pp. 22-154. On the etiquette dimensions of the dispute between Newton and Robert Hooke on the nature of light, see Schaffer, "Glass Works: Newton's Prisms and the Uses of Experiment," in The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, ed
41. David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Schaffer (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 80-96
42. Quoted in Harcourt Brown, Scientific Organizations in Seventeenth-Century France (1620-1680) (Baltimore, 1934), p. 87
43. hereafter abbreviated SO. See Ismael Boulliau, letter to Christiaan Huygens, 6 Dec. 1658, Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, 22 vols. (La Haye, 1888-1950), 2:287
44. Such scandals were precisely what etiquette handbooks were teaching people to avoid when in the presence of the powerful. According to Antoine de Courtin, "when one is to contradict any person of quality, and to answer in the negative, it is not to be done bluntly with a No, Sir, that is not so, but by circumlocution, as Pardon me Sir, I beg your pardon, Madam, if I presume to say" (Antoine de Courtin, The Rules of Civility, or, Certain Ways of Deportment Observed in France Amongst All Persons of Quality upon Several Occasions [London, 1675], p. 32
45. hereafter abbreviated RC). This work was originally published as Kouveau traité de la civilité qui se pratique en France parmi les honnestes gens (Amsterdam, 1671). English etiquette handbooks offered identical advice
46. see The Art of Complaisance, or, the Means to Oblige in Conversation (London, 1677), p. 55. No author is listed, but the preface is signed "S. C."
47. After the scandal, Jean Chapelain wrote Huygens that "the Academy which met in his house [Montmor's] has languished somewhat since the outburst which occurred between him and M. de Roberval" (quoted in SO, p. 108)
48. For instance, in 1611, Galileo's patron.Cosimo II de' Medici, reprimanded him for his conduct in the dispute on buoyancy even though, by that time, the exchange had been taking place outside of the court and not in the presence of the Grand Duke. That his mathematician and philosopher had engaged in public verbal disputations seemed inappropriate to Cosimo, who wanted Galileo to express his ideas in print, which, eventually, Galileo did. See Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, pp. 178-80
49. See Giovanni Alfonso Borelli, letter to Malpighi, 10 Jan. 1664, The Correspondence of Marcello Malpighi, 1:193
50. Leopold de' Medici, letter to Huygens, 14 Sept. 1660, Lettere inedite di uomini illustri perservire d'appendice all'opera inlitolala vilae Italorum doclrina excellentium, ed. Angelo Fabroni, 2 vols. (Florence, 1773-75), 2:82
51. hereafter abbreviated LI. See Paolo Galluzzi, "L'Accademia del Cimento: 'Gusti' del principe, filosofia, e ideologia dell'esperimento," Quademi Storici, no. 48 (Dec. 1981): 788-844
52. See Albert Van Helden, "The Accademia del Cimento and Saturn's Ring," Physis 15, no. 3 (1973): 237-59. The etiquette concerns raised by that dispute also emerge in the letters exchanged between Leopold and his collaborators
53. see LI, 2:82, 87, 97, 98, 101, 103, and 109
54. See Maria Luisa Righini Bonelli and Van Helden, Divini and Campani: A Forgotten Chapter in the History of the Accademia del Cimento (Florence, 1981), p. 13. In a letter to Malpighi dated 18 Sept. 1660, Borelli mentioned that he was testing the hypotheses of Huygens and Eustachio Divini and Fabri and that he would have informed him of the result had Leopold allowed him to do so
55. see The Correspondence of Marcello Malpighi, 1:44
56. Huygens is a very interesting figure. Son of a prominent politician and diplomat from the Netherlands, Huygens displayed a hybrid moral economy that incorporated both noble and artisanal traits: he abided by gentlemanly protocols of behavior while being very sensitive about credit and intellectual property. Also, he was not hesitant to pursue economically rewarding activities such as the solution of the problem of longitude and the patenting of mechanical inventions (such as the spring watch)-pursuits that led him into conflict with artisanally minded practitioners like Hooke. Huygens's "bricolage" is not, I think, idiosyncratic but may indicate the kind of negotiations required by the fashioning of the role of the noble practitioner-of somebody who didn't just practice natural philosophy as a hobby but sought to engage with and gain recognition from other practitioners. Elements of Huygens's ethos are discussed in the essays by H. J. M. Bos, A. G. H. Bachrach, M. B. Hall, Van Helden, J. H. Leopold, and Michael S. Mahoney, in Studies on Christiaan Huygens: Invited Papers from the Symposium on the Life and Work of Christiaan Huygens, Amsterdam, 22-25 August 1979, ed. Bos et al. (Lisse, 1980)
57. See Rob Iliffe, '"In the Warehouse': Privacy, Property, and Priority in the Early- Royal Society," History of Science 30 (1992): 41-55
58. and Adrian Johns's excellent "Wisdom in the Concourse" (Ph.D. diss., Downing College of Cambridge University, 1992), pp. 170-80
59. On Roberval's similar moral economy, see the evidence presented in SO, pp. 82-89. For an unflattering portrait of Roberval by a contemporary
60. see Lorenzo Magalotti, Relazioni di viaggio in Inghilterra, Francia, e Svezia, ed. Walter Moretti (Bari, 1968), p. 194
61. I believe that what Boulliau says about discovery may be applicable to invention as well. Priority disputes about inventions (such as that between Huygens and Hooke on the spring watch) could be quite bitter not only because of the financial rewards one could derive from patents or privileges but because both contenders assumed that they were dealing with precisely the same device. By assuming an "essentialistic" view of a device, the contenders would be disposed to see the similarities between the two inventions as deriving from appropriations-a perception that might then dispose them to see the contender as unethical and therefore undeserving of being treated politely
62. Roger Ariew, "Damned If You Do: Cartesians and Censorship, 1663-1706
63. " Perspectives on Science 2 (Fall 1994): 255-74, shows that Pierre Gassendi's corpuscular philosophy, while in some ways similar to Descartes's, was not the target of much criticism and censorship because, unlike Cartesian philosophy, it was seen as undogmatic
64. Joseph Glanvill, Scepsis Scientifica, or, Confest Ignorance, the Way to Science (London, 1665), p. 170
65. See Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle, Histoire de l'Academie Royale des Sciences depuis son élablissement en 1666 jusqu'à son renouvellemenl en 1699, 2 vols. (Paris, 1733), 1:16
66. hereafter abbreviated HAR; and John Milton Hirschfield, The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1666-1683 (1957; New York, 1981), p. 127
67. Presenting a volume of conferences delivered at the Bureau d'Adresse, Théophraste Renaudot remarked, "[our] discussion could not be reconciled to the manner of arguing of the Schools, because these disputes and contradictions not only obscure all the grace and pleasure of the exchange, but often end up in riots and pedantic insults" (Théophraste Renaudot, "Avis au Lecteur," in Premiere centuries des questions traitées aux conferences du Bureau d'Adresse [Paris, 1634], p. 3)
68. The Royal Society's stance against any type of dogmatism is a leitmotif of Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (London, 1667)
69. In 1668, Oldenburg wrote to Pierre de Carcavy, the moderator of the Academie Royale des Sciences, that the purpose of scientific academies was to oblige people "wholly to desert the quodlibetic learning of the schools which serves no other purpose than to befog the spirit and drag out disputes which are not only useless but often very pernicious" (Henry Oldenburg, The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, trans, and ed. A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall, 13 vols. [Madison, Wis., 1965-86], 4:101
70. hereafter abbreviated CHO). Magalotti, in his "Elogio del Cardinal Leopoldo," presented the founder of the Accademia del Cimento as being opposed to the "servile [that is, scholastic] approach to doing philosophy" (Magalotti, "Elogio del Cardinal Leopoldo," in LI, 1:2)
71. On the courtly contempt of scholastic modes of thinking, see also Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, pp. 112-20, 269-73
72. The (nominal) exclusion of Cartesians or members of religious orders from the ranks of the Académie Royale des Sciences was also connected to the ban on philosophical systems. On the ban against Cartesians, see Roger Hahn, The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666-1803 (Berkeley, 1971), p. 15
73. On early bans against Jesuits and Paracelsians, see Alice Stroup, A Company of Scientists: Botany, Patronage, and Community at the Seventeenth-Century Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences (Berkeley, 1990), p. 17
74. Bans preventing religious people from gaining academic membership were enacted by the Roman Accademia dei Lincei; see Baldassare Odescalchi, Memorie istorico critiche dell'Accademia de' Lincei e del Principe Federico Cesi, Seconda Duca d'Acquasparta, Fondatore e Principe delta Medesima (Rome, 1806), p. 213
75. See Samuel Sorbière, "De la source des diverses Opinions sur une mesme matière," Lettres et discours de M. Sorbière sur diverses matières curieuses (Paris, 1660), pp. 701-4
76. His nominalism also emerged in "De la Verité de nos connoissances Naturelles," ibid., pp. 694-700, esp. p. 699. A comparable proposal (though not one targeted to natural philosophy) is found in The Art of Complaisance, p. 54
77. See Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, pp. 22-109
78. On the politeness of "singular facts," see Daston, "Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity," pp. 38-58
79. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: Or Some Physiological Descriptions of Minute Bodies Made by Magnifying Glasses (London, 1665), p. [30]; first emphasis added
80. On Renaudot's Bureau d'Adresse, see Howard M. Solomon, Public Welfare, Science, and Propaganda in Sevenleenth-Century France: The Innovations of Théophraste Renaudot (Princeton, N. J., 1972), p. 65. On the Lincei
81. see Odescalchi, Memorie islorico critiche dell' Accademia de'Lincei, p. 218. Oldenburg wrote that "the Royal Society says it is not its concern to have any knowledge of scholastic and theological matters, for it is its sole business to cultivate knowledge of nature and useful arts by means of observation and experiment⋯. These are bounds to which the Royal Charter limits this British assembly of philosophers" (CHO, 2:111)
82. In the project for a "Compagnie des Sciences et des Arts" we find that "one shall never discuss in the Meetings the mysteries of Religion nor the affairs of the State" (quoted in Huygens, Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens, 4:325, 328)
83. I think that if the Académie Royale des Sciences was not explicit in leaving theology and reason of state out of its subjects for discussion, it was because such a position was too obvious to state. However, the Académie did take a stance against discussions of metaphysical matters and the pursuit of final causes; see Hahn, The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution, pp. 32-33
84. Quoted in Giuseppe Gabrieli, "II Carteggio Linceo, Parte I (anni 1603-1609)
85. " Alii della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, sloriche, e filologiche, sen 6, no. 7 (1938): 65
86. As Louis XIV put it, reason of state explained everything, though only princes could know what reason of state was about: "Ce qu'ils [les rois] semblent faire quelquefois contre le loi commune est fondé sur la raison d'État, la première des lois par le consentement de tout le monde, mais la plus inconnue et la plus obscure à tous ceux qui ne gouvernent pas" ("That which [the kings] sometimes seem to do against ordinary law has its roots in reason of state, the law that everyone puts first, though one that remains most obscure and misunderstood by those who do not rule") (quoted in Paul W. Fox, "Louis XIV and the Theories of Absolutism and Divine Right," The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26 [Feb. I960]: 139). Similarly, Gabriel Naudé's 1639 Considerations politiques sur les coups d'État claimed that "la consideration du bien et de l'utilité publique pass assez souvent par-dessus celles du particulier" ("considerations of public good and utility often supersede those of the interests of the individual subject")
87. and Daniel de Priezac's 1652 Discours politiques stated that the legitimacy of reason of state derives from the fact that the prince perceives things "par une raison universelle que les sujets ne connaissent pas" ("according to a universal reason that the subjects do not grasp") (both quoted in Henri Eugène Sée, Les Idées politiques en France au dix-septième siècle [1923; Geneva, 1978], pp. 82-83)
88. Renaudot, preface to Première centuries des questions traitées aux conferences du Bureau d'Adresse, p. 2
89. Quoted in Joseph Bertrand, "Les Academies d'autrefois," review of L'Ancienne Académie des sciences, by Alfred Maury, Journal des Savants (June, July, Sept., Nov. 1866): 349. Bertrand does not give the date of the session, but it seems to be from 1669
90. With the important exception of Hobbes's Leviathan, which tried to dispel the aura of mystery surrounding the foundations of the state and of princely power, literature on reason of state reiterated the sharp distinction between ordinary reason and reason of state. The latter was linked to the actions necessary to the stability of the state-actions that often defied individual or ordinary reason, thus "proving" the superior and mysterious nature of princely decisions. Beginning with Justus Lipsius, most of this literature reinterpreted Tacitus's stoicism and proposed a sharp distinction between the individual's need to develop a detached attitude about his or her predicament as a princely subject and his or her public acceptance of reason of state and its mysteries
91. see Gerhard Oestreich, Neostoicism and the Early Modern State, trans. David McLintock, ed. Brigitta Oestreich and H. G. Koenigsberger (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 28-75
92. See also Nanerl O. Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment (Princeton, N.J., 1980), pp. 119-82
93. Interestingly, probability theory emerged under political absolutism, and Pascal's elaboration of that theory was directly connected to his reflections in the Pensées on truth and justice as they related to the power and function of the absolute prince
94. see Matthew Jones, "Pascal's Coeur and Louis' Cour: Justice and Probability in the Pensées," unpublished manuscript, Department of History of Science, Harvard University, 1993
95. See Baldassare Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, trans. Charles S. Singleton (Garden City, N. Y., 1959), p. 96
96. See ibid., pp. 99, 103, 144
97. See Elias, The Society of Individuals, trans. Jephcott, ed. Michael Schroter (Oxford, 1991), pp. 3-66
98. esp. pp. 37-38, 59-60
99. See Louis Marin, Portrait of the King, trans. Martha Houle (Minneapolis, 1988), pp. 26-36
100. Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, p. 28; trans, mod
101. According to de Courtin, it was a "great dis-respect to speak the least immodest word before any, but more especially persons of Honour" (RC, p. 71)
102. Francesco Liberati warned courtiers not to get too close to princes because "they are like fire which, when placed at the appropriate distance, provides light and warmth, but burns and blinds when one gets too close to it" (Francesco Liberati, Il perfetto Maestro di Casa [Rome, 1668], p. 9)
103. Throughout this essay I employ two topoi to discuss the construction of authority: electricity and capital. While my use of electricity is completely metaphorical, that of capital is less so because, following Pierre Bourdieu, I include in this category marks of distinction that are not directly reducible to cash value. While I tend to use these two different topoi to analyze different issues, I do not see them as unrelated. Rather, through the metaphor of electricity I try to visualize the instability of the processes through which credit, authority, and capital are constituted. However, although electricity is valuable for discussing some dimensions of power, I am also aware that it is not a pliable enough metaphor to represent the ways the nature of power and authority changed in the period and environments discussed in this essay
104. Some of the points made here derive from Iliffe, "Author-Mongering: The 'Editor' between Producer and Consumer," in Word, Image, Object, vol. 3 of Commodities and Culture, ed
105. Anne Bermingham and John Brewer (forthcoming) and "Foreign Bodies: 'Strangers' and Natural Philosophy in the Restoration," unpublished manuscript, History of Science Program, Imperial College, London, 1992
106. Warren O. Hagstrom, "Gift Giving as an Organizing Principle in Science," in Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science, ed
107. Barry Barnes and David Edge (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 21-34, argues that scientists' "gifts" of articles to journals still play a crucial role in the construction of credit in modern science
108. Before the Transactions was published in 1665, I would say that the reward expected by those who submitted their work to the Society was to have their work presented to that community and to derive credit from that. However, the Transactions vastly amplified the kind of rewards the Society could bestow on its contributors because it could act as a public (rather than local) register of claims, discoveries, and inventions; see Johns, "Wisdom in the Concourse," pp. 162-63
109. Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge, Mass., 1984) has been an important and ongoing source of insights throughout this essay. On the Society's difficult negotiation of the culture of printers and booksellers to establish the role of "author" in natural philosophy, see Johns's "Wisdom in the Concourse," esp. chap. 4, "Piracy and Usurpation: Natural Philosophy in the Restoration," pp. 135-88
110. See Elias, The Court Society, pp. 84-85, 89, and
111. esp. p. 131
112. See Shapin, "O Henry," review of CHO, by Oldenburg, his 78 (Sept. 1987): 417-24
113. and A Social History of Truth, pp. 267-91
114. See also Iliffe's and Johns's analyses of the tensions caused by the dispute between Hooke and Huygens on the spring watch
115. The privilege the king granted the Society to publish with its own imprimatur was fundamental for the Society to construct itself as a center of power within the republic of letters. On the grant of the imprimatur, see the 1662 charter in The Record of the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge (London, 1940), p. 234
116. On the tension between national and international outlooks within the republic of letters, see Daston, "The Ideal and Reality of the Republic of Letters in the Enlightenment," Science in Context 4 (Autumn 1991): 367-86
117. I do not claim that Oldenburg's policies were unproblematic reflections of the Society's corporate will. While his role necessitated impartiality and transparency, Oldenburg tended to privilege the interests and views of some members of the Society (such as Boyle, his patron) rather than others (such as Hooke). Moreover, the role of the secretary was still a fluid one, and Oldenburg himself helped fashion it, sometimes in ways that other fellows found problematic. In fact, the duties and powers of the secretary were quickly reframed after Oldenburg's death, largely as a result of the tensions and conflicts of interest that had emerged during the dispute between Hooke and Huygens
118. see Johns, "Wisdom in the Concourse," pp. 178-80
119. See Iliffe, "Author-Mongering."
120. Standard sources on the Accademia del Cimento include Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti, Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche accaduti in Toscana nel corso di anni LX. del secolo XVII, 3 vols, in 4 (1780; Bologna, 1967)
121. and W. E. Knowles Middleton, The Experimenters, a Study of the Accademia del Cimento (Baltimore, 1971). Several elements of my discussion draw from Galluzzi, "L'Accademia del Cimento."
122. See Galluzzi, "L'Accademia del Cimento," pp. 790-93
123. See ibid., pp. 793-97
124. See Filippo Baldinucci, Wolizie de' professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, 6 vols. (Florence, 1681-1728)
125. On Leopold and Baldinucci, see Edward L. Goldberg, After Vasari: History, Art, and Patronage in Late Medici Florence (Princeton, N.J., 1988)
126. On the broader dimensions of this project, see Tribby, "Club Medici: Natural Experiment and the Imagineering of'Tuscany,'" Configurations 2 (1994): 215-35
127. For brief biographical sketches of the participants in the Cimento, see Middleton, The Experimenters, a Study of the Accademia del Cimento, pp. 26-40
128. On Antonio Oliva-the most "picturesque" of the academicians-see Ugo Baldini, Un libertino accademico del Cimento: Antonio Oliva (Florence, 1977)
129. rpt. in LAccademia del Cimento, ed
130. Giorgio Abetti and Pietro Pagnini (Florence, 1942), p. 85
131. "Proemio a' lettori," preface to the Saggi; rpt. in Targioni Tozzetti, Nolizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche, 2:2:381. This stance against speculative attitudes was repeated in Magalotti's "Elogio del Cardinal Leopoldo," in LI, 1:2
132. See L'Accademia del Cimento, pp. 83-87,124. A further example of Leopold's commitment to polite exchanges is in a 10 Feb. 1667 letter to Huygens, LI, 1:220
133. "Proemio a' lettori," 2:2:381
134. See Michelangelo Ricci, letter to Leopold, 8 July 1663, LI, 2:117-18
135. See ibid., pp. 805-11
136. See ibid., pp. 795-97
137. See Leopold, letter to Ricci, n.d., LI, 2:131
138. Borelli, letter to Paolo del Buono, 10 Oct. 1657, LI, 1:94-95
139. See "Relation de l'Eclipse Horizontale de Lune observée en risle de Gorgone le 16 Juin 1666 par l'ordre du Serenissime Prince Leopold," Journal des Sçavans, 6 Sept. 1666, pp. 426-30; hereafter abbreviated JS
140. Quoted in Magalotti, letter to Leopold, 13 Mar. 1668, LI, 1:303
141. On Louis's policies of cultural control, see, for instance, Jean-Marie Apostolides, Le Roi machine: Spectacle et politique au temps de Louis XIV (Paris, 1981), esp. chap. 2, "L'Organisation de la culture," pp. 23-40
142. On the place of the Académie within Louis's cultural politics, see Hahn, The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution, pp. 12-13, 52-53
143. The alternative plans Jean- Baptiste Colbert considered before 1666 were equally grand or even grander, like the more technology-oriented Compagnie des Sciences et des Arts; see "Project de la Compagnie des Sciences et des Arts," in Oeuvres completes de Christiaan Huygens, 4:325-29
144. or Charles Per-rault's Académie Générale, a body encompassing all branches of erudition except the more practical subjects; see Charles Perrault, "Note de Charles Perrault à Colbert pour l'établissement d'une Académie Générale," in Lettres, instructions, et mémoires de Colbert, ed. Pierre Clement, 7 vols, in 8 (Paris, 1861-70), 5:512-14. While the technological advantages the state may have reaped from the Académie may have played a role in its establishment, Colbert and Louis seemed to be more concerned with glory than with technology as they did not choose to support the more practical Compagnie des Sciences et des Arts. Also, the Académie Royale des Sciences took a more practical bent only after the death of Colbert, under the protectorship of the Marquis de Louvois
145. The description of the visit of 5 December 1681 is in HAR, 1:319
146. "L'Académie fut mandée sur le lieux, et le roi ne dédaigna pas d'être present à l'examen de quelques-unes des parties" ("The Academie was sent there, and the king did not disdain to be present at the examination of some of the parts") (Bertrand, "Les Académies d'autrefois," p. 345)
147. See Shapin, "The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England," p. 382. Similarly, although Leopold worked with his academicians, such interaction tended to take place in his private rooms, and he did not join the academicians when they debugged experiments in their own residences
148. Until 1672, it was referred to in the Journal des Sçavans not as the Académie Royale des Sciences but rather as "those who meet in the royal library" (quoted in Elmo Stewart Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris" [Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1980], p. 110
149. and Hirschfield, The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1666- 1683, p. 21)
150. See Stroup, A Company of Scientists, p. 211
151. See Hirschfield, The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1666-1683, pp. 68, 119, and
152. Bertrand, "Les Académies d'autrefois," p. 339. Even as late as 1698, a well-introduced English savant like Martin Lister was able to meet many of the academicians only privately and could gather only minimal information about the Académie's protocols; see Martin Lister, A Journey to Paris in the Year 1698 (London, 1699), p. 78
153. hereafter abbreviated JP. In 1709 Fontenelle acknowledged the early secrecy of the Académie in his Histoire de renouvellement de l'Académie Royale des Sciences en 1699, in Histoire de l'Académie des Sciences, vol. 6 of Oeuvres complètes, ed. Alain Niderst (Paris, 1994), p. 66
154. Such secrecy had been a policy, not an accident. In the minutes of the session of 15 January 1667 (one of the very first) we find that "toutes les choses qui seront proposées dans l'assemblée demeureront secrèttes, que l'on ne communiquera rien au dehors que du consantement de la Compagnie" ("everything that was proposed in the assembly stayed secret, so that no one could communicate anything without the consent of the Company") (Archives de l'Académie des Sciences [Paris], Procès-Verbaux des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Registre de Physique, vol. 1, p. 200)
155. The tensions between the academic policy of secrecy and the savants' concerns with claiming priority for their work are discussed in Stroup, A Company of Scientists, pp. 204-17. In the case of the Cimento we find that Borelli developed authorial feelings about his work on testing Huygens's and Divini and Fabri's hypotheses about Saturn's rings; see Targioni Tozzetti, Notizie degli aggrandimenli delle scienze fisiche, 1:385
156. He was also criticized by Magalotti in a letter to Vincenzo Viviani dated 4 Dec. 1661 for "treating as his own the experiments made in the Accademia del Cimento on the positive lightness of bodies, disregarding the laws of that same academy which claim that everything should be treated as communal" (quoted in Fermi, Lorenzo Magalotti, scienziato e lelterato, 1637-1712, p. 83)
157. "En vertu de ce Réglement, l'Academie des Sciences devient un Corps établi en forme par l'autorité royale, ce qu'elle n'étoit pas auparavant" ("By virtue of this Statute, the Academie des Sciences becomes a body formally established by royal authority, something it was not before") (Fontenelle, Histoire de renouvellemenl de l'Académie Royale des Sciences en 1699, p. 66)
158. See Hirschfield, The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1666-1683, p. 19
159. See Jack A. Clarke, "Abbé Jean-Paul Bignon: 'Moderator of the
160. Like Leopold with the Cimento, Colbert and his successors ultimately decided the fate of publications and research programs, assigned tasks, adjudicated grievances and disputes, and, in general, set the body's agenda. When a surintendant died, the Académie went through serious crises not unlike those experienced by individual clients upon the death of their patron; see Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris," pp. 105, 185
161. On tensions around authorship, publication, and communication with outsiders see Stroup, A Company of Scientists, pp. 200-209
162. In 1688 the Académie decided that its members could not publish their books (and claim individual authorship for them) without approval; see ibid., p. 205
163. rpt. in Fontenelle, Histoire de renouvellement de VAcadémie Royale des Sciences en 1699, p. 59
164. On the Society of Jesus' publication policies, see Baldini, "Una fonte poco utilizzata per la storia intellettuale: Le 'censurae librorum' e 'opinionum' nell'antica Compagnia di Gesù," Annali dell'Istituto Storico Italo- Germanico in Trento 11 (1985): 37
165. In 1677, Duclos's manuscript on the principles of natural mixts was not accepted for official publication because it might have offended "some delicate Philosophers." Three years later, Duclos had the book privately printed in Amsterdam (quoted in Stroup, A Company of Scientists, p. 206)
166. See, for instance, "Extrait d'une lettre de Mr Pecquet à Mr de Carcavi,"JS, 4 Apr. 1667, pp. 81-84
167. "Observations faites sur un grand Poisson,"JS, 28 Nov. 1667, pp. 157-60
168. "Extrait d'une lettre écrit à Monsieur de la Chambre,"JS, 5 Dec. 1667, pp. 171-74
169. "Extrait d'une lettre de M. P. à M.," and "Extrait du registre de mathématique,"JS, 30 July 1668, pp. 68, 69-72
170. "Nouvelle découvert touchant la Veuë" and "Lettre de M. Pecquet sur la nouvelle Découvert touchant la Veuë,"JS, 17 Sept. 1668, pp. 79-84
171. "Observation de Saturne,"JS, 11 Feb. 1669, pp. 11-12
172. "Nouvelle manière géometrique,"JS, 2 Sept. 1669, pp. 32-36
173. "Description anatomique d'un Caméleon,"JS, 16 Dec. 1669, pp. 37-42
174. and "Nouvelle manière de balance," JS, 10 Feb. 1670, pp. 9-12. I have used the original edition printed in Paris by Jean Cusson. While some of these articles were based on letters to the editor, most of them tended to be either summaries (probably supplied by academicians) or reviews of pamphlets (probably a few pages long) that had been printed "Chez Frederic Leonard." Leonard was an "Imprimeur ordinaire du Roy," that is, someone authorized to print for the king material that could not be handled by the official printing house, the Imprimerie Royale. The choice of printer and the format of the printing (quarto, rather than the folio used for the Académie's early official publications) indicate that although these short pamphlets (which I have not been able to locate) were not published incognito, they were given a much less official status (consonant with the unofficial picture they presented of the Académie and of its members). Probably they were meant for a Parisian market-allowing the king and the academicians to receive some credit for their works and patronage without exposing them to the risk connected to an official publication
175. Huygens, whose letters and reports the Journal des Sçavans had published since 1666, was identified as belonging to the Academie Royale des Sciences only in the February 1672 issue to which he contributed a letter "touchant la Lunette Catoptrique de M. Newton."
176. See "Extrait d'une lettre de M. Hugens de l'Academie Royalle des Sciences à l'Auteur du Journal des Sçavans, touchant la Lunette Catoptrique de M. Newton,"JS, 29 Feb. 1672, pp. 53-55
177. This designation (which was not given to any of the other academicians who published in the Journal before 1672) became common after that date
178. See Betty Trebelle Morgan, Histoiredu "Journal des Sçavans" depuis 1665 jusqu'en 1701 (Paris, 1929), pp. 127-74
179. Académie Royale des Medailles et des Inscriptions, Medailles sur les principaux événevients du regne de Louis de Grand (Paris, 1702), p. 214
180. On this event, see also I. Bernard Cohen, "G. D. Cassini and the Number of the Planets: An Example of Seventeenth-Century Astro-Numerical Patronage," in Nature, Experiment, and the Sciences: Essays on Galileo and the History of Science, ed. Trevor H. Levere and William R. Shea (Boston, 1990), pp. 199-205
181. The description of the medal as published by the Académie des Inscriptions was also silent about the author of the discovery, which was collectively indicated as the "Scavants Hommes, que le Roy entretient à l'Observatoire" (Academie Royale des Medailles et des Inscriptions, Medailles sur les principaux événements du regne de Louis de Grand, p. 214)
182. The first line of the "Avertissement" of the Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des planks (Paris, 1676) states that "this book is the work of the Académie as a whole" (p. I). While the title page credits Denis Dodart with having "dressez" (that is, prepared) the volume, the "Avertissement" (written by Dodart himself) lists the various contributors to the project and describes their tasks as having been equally important to the conception and completion of the project. On the other hand, the Recueil de plusieurs traitez de mathématique de l'Académie Royale des Sciences (also published in Paris in 1676) lists the names of the individual authors of its chapters while stressing, at the same time, that the volume is a publication of the academy, not of some of its members. The third major publication of the early Academie, the Histoire des Animaux (Paris, 1676), reverted to a more collective view of authorship. While these works do not present identical views of authorship (and some of those differences may reflect the different scales of the projects and the different levels of collaboration required by their completion), they do share a tension between presenting themselves as the work of a royal body and the work of the individual members of that body. On the tensions between individual and collective authorship in the Académie
183. Bertrand, VAcadémie des Sciences et les académiciens de 1666 à 1793 (Paris, 1869), p. 45
184. See Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris," p. 76
185. Even the first edition of the Récueil de plusieurs traitez de mathématique de l'Académie Royale des Sciences was not reviewed in the Philosophical Transactions, indicating how poor its diffusion must have been
186. See Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris," p. 183. While some people received pensions for their participation in that body (though these payments were presented as generic gratifications and not as academic stipends), others drifted in and out of its meetings; see Lettres, instructions, et mémoires de Colbert, 5:470-98
187. To be an academician was not seen as a job but as a favor, some sort of gratification, and no taxes were levied on that income; see Stroup, "Royal Funding of the Parisian Academie Royale des Sciences during the 1690s," Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 77, pt. 4 (1987): 22. On the porousness of the membership during the early decades of the Académie
188. see Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris," pp. 183-88. Only in 1699 did the statutes spell out the number, classes, and hierarchies of membership as well as the protocols for selecting new members, whose election, however, was still decided by the king; see the 1699 "Réglement ordonné par le Roi pour l'Academie Royale des Sciences," pp. 55-66
189. see Saunders, "The Decline and Reform of the Académie des Sciences à Paris," pp. 115-17, 118-20, 209-11. In the case of the dispute on the speed of light between Cassini and Olaus Roemer we see that, while the manuscript procès-verbaux claim that the differences between the two academicians had been resolved during an academic meeting, Cassini later went to print rejecting Roemer's claims
190. see Bertrand, "Les Académies d'autrefois," p. 423. Auzout's departure from the Académie seems to be related to unresolvable internal disputes
191. see Alessandro Segni, letter to Leopold, n.d.,LI, 1:310. Prescriptions for polite behavior were eventually inscribed in the 1699 statute: "L'Académie veillera exactement à ce que dans les occasions oil quelques Académiciens seront d'opinions différentes, ils n'emploient aucun terme de mépris et d'aigreur l'un contre l'autre, soit dans leur discours, soit dans leur écrits" ("The Académie will watch carefully so that when some academicians are of different opinions, they shall not use any harsh or derogatory word against each other, neither in conversation nor in their writings") ("Réglement ordonné par le Roi pour l'Académie Royale des Sciences," item 26, p. 60). Items 37 and 38 also dealt with politeness-related issues
192. see p. 63
193. That the dispute went public may be due to the fact that Mariotte was not an official member of the Academie when he communicated his findings to that body early in 1668. His letter to Pecquet, summarized in the Journal des Sçavans and followed by Pecquet's reply, is signed from Dijon and cites a Father Jacques de Billy (a Jesuit from Dijon) as a witness to Mariotte's experiments; see "Nouvelle découverte touchant la Veuë" and "Lettre de M. Pecquet sur la nouvelle Découvert touchant la Veuë." Mariotte was officially admitted to the Académie only at the end of that year; see René Taton, "Mariotte et l'Académie Royale des Sciences," in Mariotte, savant et philosophe (d. 1684): Analyse d'une renommée (Paris, 1986), p. 14. Therefore, Pecquet may have printed his reply to Mariotte not as part of a dialogue with a fellow academician but as an opinion about the work of an outsider. However, the Académie corroborated the striking empirical finding on which Mariotte was rooting his claim that the choroid was the site of vision: the discovery of the blind spot at the place where the optical nerve entered the eye. This allowed for a representation of the dispute as a matter of subtle interpretation of the visual function of two very thin contiguous membranes (the retina and the choroid). With a humorously revisionist twist, Fontenelle wrote that the two different positions were as distant as those two membranes, each as thin as a thin sheet of paper and finely attached to each other
194. see HAR, 1:103. However, the feelings generated by the dispute seemed inversely proportional to the distance between the two membranes. Furthermore, Mariotte did not soften his preacademic position after joining the Académie but responded to new criticism coming from Perrault (in a letter that was initially kept within the bounds of the Académie) to accuse his critics of prejudice
195. see Edme Mariotte, "Réponse de Monsieur Mariotte à la lettre de Monsieur Perrault," Oeiwres de Mr. Mariotte, de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, 2 vols. (1711; Leide, 1717), 2:522-34
196. Interestingly, Mariotte responded only after Pecquet's death in 1674. In short, he displayed an ethos similar to that of Borelli or Hooke, that is, of academicians who brought their preacademic "combative" disposition into a body that tried to discipline it. All the texts pertaining to the dispute were eventually published in 1676 in the Académie's official Récueil de plusieurs traitez de mathématique de VAcadémie Royale des Sciences, pp. 1-26-a decision that may have resulted from Mariotte's acquired power within the academy (four of the six pieces in the Recueil were by Mariotte) and from the fact that the volume was about mathematics, not anatomy (the "class" to which Pecquet and Perrault belonged). On the dispute
197. see Mirko D. Grmek, "Mariotte et la physiologie de la vision," in Mariotte, savant et philosophe, pp. 153-203
198. Fontenelle attributed to Louis the prescription that in its forthcoming collective work on mechanics the Académie should stay clear of physical (that is, philosophical) issues (see HAR, 1:99) and that "all that might be a cause for dispute should be enclosed in a manner of introduction to the entire work" (quoted in Licoppe, "The Crystallization of a New Narrative Form in Experimental Reports," p. 226)
199. see Hirschfield, The Académie Royale des Sciences, 1666-1683, pp. 125, 127
200. These tensions are lucidly discussed in Sorbière's discourse of 3 April 1663 to the Montmor academy, in which he spelled out the serious etiquette problems that marred its meetings and were threatening its continuity
201. see Sorbière, "À l'ouverture de l'Academie des Physiciens qui s'assemblent tous les Mardis chez Monsieur de Montmor," in Les Premieres Sociétés savantes de Paris au dix-septième siècle et les origines de l'Académie des Sciences, ed. Guil- Iaume Bigourdan (1900; Paris, 1992), p. 16. Sorbière sent a copy of this discourse to Colbert, suggesting that a royal academy might have provided the solution to these problems
202. For instance, Roberval (whom we have seen creating serious trouble at Montmor's) became a member of the Académie despite his lack of etiquette in polite conversational settings. I believe that his participation would have been problematic if, in its early- years, the Académie had not shielded itself from the rest of polite society
203. Quoted in Clarke, "Abbé Jean-Paul Bignon," p. 219
204. Brown discusses these tensions in SO, pp. 180-81
205. The Society emphasized individual authorship even in connection with works it sponsored and licensed for publication under its own imprimatur-as in the case of Hooke's 1665 Micrographia. On 6 July 1663 the Council Book of the Society reported that "Mr. Hook was charged to show his Microscopical Observations in a handsome book to be provided by him for that purpose" (Archives of the Royal Society [London], Council Book, vol. 1, p. 19
206. hereafter abbreviated CB). But rather than worrying about receiving credit for the book, the Society seemed concerned with developing a polite distance from the author-not unlike the insulation it had established between itself and the Transactions. For instance, according to a Council Book entry from 23 November 1664, it was ordered that Mr. Hook do give notice in the Dedication of his Microscopical Treatise to the Society, that though they have licensed that Book, ýet they own no Theory, nor will be thought to do so: also, that the overall Hypotheses and Theories laid down by him therein are not delivered as certainties, but as conjectures, and that he intends not at all to obtrude or expose them to the world as the Opinion of the Society. [CB, 1:82]
207. Hooke obliged. In the dedication of Micrographia to the Society he stated that there may perhaps be some Expressions, which may seem more positive then YOUR Prescriptions will permit: And though I desire to have them understood only as Conjectures and Queries (which YOUR Method does not altgether disallow) yet if even in those I have exceeded, 'tis fit that I should declare, that it was not done by YOUR Directions. For it is most unreasonable, that YOU should undergo the imputation of the faults of my Conjectures. [Hooke, Micrographia, p. (4)]
208. Both wishes were granted in the first charter of 1662
209. see The Record of the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge, pp. 234-35
210. Scientific correspondence could cause diplomatic concerns because it often contained relevant political information, and in fact Oldenburg was detained in the Tower for three months in 1667 under suspicion of improper handling of information about the Dutch Wars. The charter of 1662 explicitly prohibited the Society from corresponding on topics outside "things philosophical, mathematical, or mechanical" (quoted in ibid., p. 235)
211. That the Transactions was not just Oldenburg's brainchild is indicated by a 6 September 1661 letter to Huygens from Sir Robert Moray, a prominent member of the Royal Society, in which he mentioned that the Society was planning to print responses to the letters it received and to develop a journal because it was becoming unable to keep up with the mounting correspondence
212. see SO, p. 185. That the Society did exercise control over the content of the Transactions is indicated, for instance, by the minutes of the council meeting of 29 March 1665
213. The Papers of the next Philosophical Transactions, having been considered of, and the account therein given concerning the Structure and Advantages of Sir William Petty's Doublebottomed ship; it was resolved, that the Publication of them should be deferred, till his Majesty had been more acquainted with the particulars therein relating to the said ship. [CB, 1:91] '
214. On the ambiguous status of the Transactions, see also E. N. da C. Andrade, "The Birth and Early Days of the Philosophical Transactions," Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 20 (1965): 9-27
215. See Licoppe, "The Crystallization of a New Narrative Form in Experimental Reports (1660-1690)." The notion of "virtual witnessing" was introduced by Shapin, "Pump and Circumstance," pp. 490-97
216. Similarly, the Académie could act as a judge in matters of patents and technological innovations, but, again, its jurisdiction was limited to the king's realm
217. Such a choice may reflect not so much his own intellectual interests but rather the limited benefits his relatively modest royal image might have gained from the sponsorship of a grand academic project (as in Louis's case) or from a direct investment in the celebration of his national scientific tradition (as with Leopold). Testimonies of Charles's strong interest in natural philosophy can be found in Sorbière, Relation d'un voyage en Angleterre: Où sont touchées plusieurs choses, qui regardent l'eslat des Sciences, et de la Religion, et autres matieres curieuses (Cologne, 1669), pp. 32-33, hereafter abbreviated RV
218. trans, under the title A Voyage to England: Containing many Things relating to the State of Learning, Religion, And other Curiosities of that Kingdom (London, 1709), pp. 61-62, hereafter abbreviated V. Because this translation is not always faithful to the French text, I have entered occasional corrections
219. Then, when it seemed that Charles might visit the Society, the fellows planned an event that would have resembled Louis's ceremonial visit to the Académie in 1681. Like Louis, who did not participate in the knowledge-making process but observed only unproblematic and well-debugged demonstrations, Charles was not to witness experiments but to enjoy a show, as indicated by the council minutes, which described the event in terms of the "King's Entertainment." Then, to avoid embarrassments to the royal guest and his academy, the council "ordered that Mr. Hook and the Operator take care so to prepare the Compressing-Engin, that it may not fail in the trying of Experiments therein" (CB, 6 July 1663, 1:18; emphasis added)
220. "Corps bigearre" (RV, p. 100). This passage was not included in the English edition
221. Commenting on the weakness of the English monarchy, Sorbière remarked that "the Genius of the English does require they should be governed after this gentle manner" (V, p. 50; RV, p. 94). Also, they are fond enough of a King, for the greater Glory of their Country; they love the Title, and prefer Regal Government before any other. But they own their over-free and too arrogant Temper requires some restraint, so as that it may not salley out to an Excess of Rudeness
222. and they pretend that their King ought to apply himself entirely to maintain the Publick Peace, to promote the Happiness of his People, and to advance the Honour and Reputation of his Country abroad, as much as possibly he can. [V p. 54; RV pp. 101-2]
223. He then traced this pattern of widespread "democracy" or uneasiness about social hierarchies down to the army where, to his great surprise, low-ranking officers addressed their superiors without uncovering; see V, p. 50; RV, p. 94
224. See Magalotti, Lorenzo Magalotti at the Court of Charles II: His "Relazione d'Inghilterra" of 1668, trans, and ed. Middleton (Waterloo, 1980), p. 17
225. Sorbière stressed the effect that geographical isolation has had on English manners: "Hence arises that careless Air wherewith they look upon Strangers, or make Answer to them" (V p. 46; RV, p. 86)
226. As he put it, the English have a certain "natural Roughness incident to them in their own" (V p. 45; RV, p. 85). On the pure peasant trope
227. see France, Politeness and Its Discontents, pp. 35-36, 38
228. Sprat, Obsenalions on Monsieur de Sorbier's Voyage into England (London, 1665), p. 255; hereafter abbreviated OS
229. He also remarked that "'tis certain the French are the most Polite Nation in the World, and can Praise and Court with a better Air than the rest of Mankind" (JP, pp. 3-4)
230. He made a similar point in his History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge, p. 40. The French, in turn, tended to accuse Italians and Spaniards of the same verbal excesses
231. see France, Politeness and Its Discontents, p. 16. Fontenelle joined the chorus: Enfin le renouvellement de la vraye Philosophie a rendu les Academies de Mathématique et de Phisique si necessaires, qu'il s'en est établi aussi en Italie, quoique d'ailleurs ces fortes des sciences ne regnent guère en ce pais-là, soit à cause de la delicatesse des Italiens, qui s'accomode peu de ces épines. (The renewal of the true philosophy has made it necessary to establish academies of mathematics and physics, and they have also been founded in Italy, though such strong sciences did not thrive for long in that country because the Italians, being so delicate, adjust badly to the demands of those disciplines.) [HAR, 1:5]
232. He mentions Thomas More and comments on "the Masculine easinesse of his stile" (05, p. 267). The trope of the masculinity of science also emerges in Sprat's History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge, p. 65, as well as in A. Cowley's dedicatory poem, "To the Royal Society," at the beginning of Sprat's book, in which he calls philosophy a "Male Virtu" (p. [v]). On Oldenburg's perception of the masculinity of English science, see CHO, 1:287
233. See France, Politeness and Its Discontents, p. 56
234. The criticism of "wits" and the praise of "modest" and "sober" philosophers is a recurrent theme of Sprat's History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge
235. As Oldenburg put it in a letter to Boyle in March 1668, he had seen a copy of the Saggi, which he termed "the pompous Book of their Experiments" (CHO, 4:248)
236. Magalotti's description of the proceedings of the Royal Society is translated in R. D. Waller, "Lorenzo Magalotti in England, 1668-9," Italian Studies 1, no. 2 (1937): 49-66
237. See also Magalotti, letter to Leopold, 2 Mar. 1668, LI, 1:298-301, and Segni, letter to Leopold, 20 Jan. 1668, LI, 1:288-90
238. Parts of this description appear diametrically opposed to Sorbière's negative account of the meetings of the Montmor academy in his "A l'ouverture de l'Académie des Physiciens qui s'assemblent tous les Mardis chez Monsieur de Montmor." De Monconys, a frequent participant in Parisian philosophical academies who visited the Royal Society in 1663, provided a similar appreciative description of its protocols, politeness, and orderliness; see Balthasar de Monconys, Journal des voyages de Monsieur De Monconys (Lyon, 1665-66), p. 26
239. see Waller, "Lorenzo Magalotti in England, 1668-9," p. 54
240. Sorbière remarked on the ceremonial entry of the mace together with the president, a rite that marked the official beginning of the meeting; see V, p. 35; RV, p. 67
241. This etiquette did not develop accidentally but was prescribed by the statutes; see The Record of the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge, p. 289
242. See Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump, pp. 22-26
243. On Oldenburg's careful editing of incoming letters to be published in the Transactions, see Shapin, "O Henry," p. 420
244. I am not claiming that scientific texts and letters had not circulated before, or that a practitioner's status was determined exclusively by his patron. Rather, I am trying to stress that, while these were crucial resources with which to build one's credit, such a credit in a courtly environment was ultimately actualized (cashed) through one's prince-the local authority who could convert that work into an official title or prestigious position. See my Galileo, Courtier, pp. 103-57, where I argue that patronage niches were local and discuss the effects of their local status on practitioners' tactics for legitimation