A perfect and an absolute work: Expertise, authority, and the rebuilding of Dover Harbor, 1579-1583

Technology and Culture

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 239-267

  Ash, E H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034382272     PISSN: 0040165X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/tech.2000.0051     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. Reginald Scot, in his 1586 chronicle of the works, called Dover "a perfect and an absolute work, to the perpetual maintenance of a haven in that place, being such a monument as is hardly to be found written in any record"; "The note of Reginald Scot esquier concerning Douer hauen," in Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ed. John Hooker (reprint, London, 1808), 4:845-68. Scot's chronicle provides an excellent contemporary account of the project, and gives details that could only come from someone personally familiar with it. I have used it throughout this essay as a supplement to the official manuscript sources. (In all contemporary quotations except titles I have modernized spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, and expanded all contractions.)
2. One example will serve to illustrate. The lord admiral of Elizabeth's navy, Charles Howard of Effingham, commented on the harbor's performance in a letter to the lord treasurer, William Burghley, in 1593: "The haven here has served in this last storm in safeguard of diverse English, Scottish, French, and Flemish vessels . . . which by reason thereof were forced to seek harbor there, and except I had myself been an eye-witness of it I should hardly have believed it." Howard to Burghley, 2 November 1593, Public Record Office (PRO), State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth [I] (hereafter S.P.) 12/246/1.
3. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
4. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
5. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
6. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
7. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
8. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
9. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
10. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
11. The notion of expertise was a battleground in the shifting relationship between theory and practice in the early modern period. Did the ability to do something dependably make one an expert, or was expertise rooted in a deeper understanding of how something was done? On the interaction of theory and practice, see: Robert K. Merton, "Science, Technology and Society," Osiris 4 (1938): 360-632; Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. Salvator Attanasio (New York, 1970); E. G. R. Taylor, The Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); A. Rupert Hall, "The Scholar and the Craftsman in the Scientific Revolution," in Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wisc., 1959). Many more recent works have complexified the early modern theory-practice dichotomy: see, for example, Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England," Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319-44, and "Making Mathematical Practice: Gentlemen, Practitioners and Artisans in Elizabethan England" (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1994); Richard S. Westfall, "Science and Technology During the Scientific Revolution: An Empirical Approach," in Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe, ed. J. V. Field and Frank A. J. L. James (Cambridge, 1993); J. A. Bennett, "The Mechanics' Philosophy and the Mechanical Philosophy," History of Science 24 (1986): 1-28; David McGee, "From Craftsmanship to Draftsmanship: Naval Architecture and the Three Traditions of Early Modern Design," Technology and Culture 40 (1999): 209-35. My approach here, though founded on the work of these authors, differs in that I am less concerned with the role of the "craft tradition" or the "mathematical practitioner" in the development of modern science. The issues I am addressing are not so much scientific, mathematical, or philosophical as they are managerial; I am interested in exploring how various people possessing different knowledge, experience, and priorities were nevertheless able to work together on a difficult technical project of such large scale. The interaction of theory and practice itself is secondary here to the perception of that interaction, and the use made of it, by patrons and experts seeking a common end. The Elizabethan Privy Council was not interested in the abstract interplay of theory and practice per se, or in the development of a more empirical or mathematical scientific method, but rather in finding appropriate experts to undertake an important and challenging task. The possession of theoretical understanding or practical experience was important in that they served as the main criteria according to which the project's managers could make the decisions they needed to make.
12. "Men of experience" was the term used by both the Privy Council and the Dover townsmen to refer to those called in to survey the harbor: see William Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven," British Library (BL), Lansdowne MS 22/10; Mayor and Jurats of Dover to the Privy Council, 1577, PRO, S.P. 12/120/24. I am using the term here in a more general sense, however, to include all those involved in the Dover works who claimed to possess expert knowledge.
13. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
14. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
15. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
16. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
17. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
18. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
19. There is a large literature on the rise of the English Privy Council as a national administrative body, handling the day-to-day business of the central government while becoming more actively involved in local affairs as well. The most important work in this vein is that of G. R. Elton, esp. The Tudor Revolution in Government: Administrative Changes in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1966); see also Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England, 1529-1660 (London, 1984), and David Loades, Power in Tudor England (London, 1997), esp. chap. 3. On the Elizabethan era, see Alan G. R. Smith, The Government of Elizabethan England (London, 1967), and Michael Barraclough Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley, Calif., 1971). For a view of the growing administrative power of the Privy Council from the local perspective, see A. Hassell Smith, County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Suffolk and the Tudors: Politics and Religion in an English County, 1500-1600 (Oxford, 1986). Both Smith and MacCulloch show how the Privy Council was able to gain influence over local government by placing its own candidates in key local offices and diminishing the power of traditional local officials. My work on Dover harbor takes a related but slightly different approach by investigating how the Privy Council attempted to shift the management of technically challenging projects from the outlying areas to London, ultimately by means of mediation.
20. These and other case studies are the subject of my dissertation research.
21. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
22. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
23. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
24. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
25. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
26. On the development and use of technical knowledge in early modern Europe, see William Barclay Parsons, Engineers and Engineering in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1939). Many more recent works discuss the growing use of technical knowledge made by increasingly powerful and centralized nation-states, and how the status of technical knowledge often rose insofar as it provided the state with the means to achieve its ends and bolster its own legitimacy. See, for example: Hélène Vérin, La gloire des ingénieurs: L'Intelligence technique du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1993); Henry Heller, Labour, Science and Technology in France, 1500-1620 (Cambridge, 1996); David C. Goodman, Power and Penury: Government, Technology, and Science in Philip II's Spain (Cambridge, 1988); Pamela H. Smith, The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire (Princeton, N.J., 1994); Pamela O. Long, "Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age," Isis 88 (1997): 1-41.
27. See, for example, Nicholas Adams, "Architecture for Fish: The Sienese Dam on the Bruna River - Structures and Designs, 1468-ca. 1530," Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768-97; Petra J. E. M. van Dam, "The Hydraulic Revolution of the North European Fenlands, 1400-1600" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, Baltimore, 16 October 1998); Michael S. Mahoney, "Organizing Expertise: Engineering and Public Works Under Colbert, 1662-83," typescript in author's possession; J. R. Hale, "Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485-1558," in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vol. 4 (London, 1982), 367-401. This list could easily be expanded, but these examples of specific projects give a good impression of both the wide scope of large-scale technical projects undertaken in early modern Europe and the historiography dedicated to them. The issues they raise regarding the administration of technical expertise are not limited to the early modern period; see, for example, Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Berkeley, Calif., 1990), on the rhetorical use made of scientific expertise in water analysis by government agents in nineteenth-century Britain.
28. See, for example, Nicholas Adams, "Architecture for Fish: The Sienese Dam on the Bruna River - Structures and Designs, 1468-ca. 1530," Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768-97; Petra J. E. M. van Dam, "The Hydraulic Revolution of the North European Fenlands, 1400-1600" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, Baltimore, 16 October 1998); Michael S. Mahoney, "Organizing Expertise: Engineering and Public Works Under Colbert, 1662-83," typescript in author's possession; J. R. Hale, "Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485-1558," in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vol. 4 (London, 1982), 367-401. This list could easily be expanded, but these examples of specific projects give a good impression of both the wide scope of large-scale technical projects undertaken in early modern Europe and the historiography dedicated to them. The issues they raise regarding the administration of technical expertise are not limited to the early modern period; see, for example, Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Berkeley, Calif., 1990), on the rhetorical use made of scientific expertise in water analysis by government agents in nineteenth-century Britain.
29. See, for example, Nicholas Adams, "Architecture for Fish: The Sienese Dam on the Bruna River - Structures and Designs, 1468-ca. 1530," Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768-97; Petra J. E. M. van Dam, "The Hydraulic Revolution of the North European Fenlands, 1400-1600" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, Baltimore, 16 October 1998); Michael S. Mahoney, "Organizing Expertise: Engineering and Public Works Under Colbert, 1662-83," typescript in author's possession; J. R. Hale, "Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485-1558," in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vol. 4 (London, 1982), 367-401. This list could easily be expanded, but these examples of specific projects give a good impression of both the wide scope of large-scale technical projects undertaken in early modern Europe and the historiography dedicated to them. The issues they raise regarding the administration of technical expertise are not limited to the early modern period; see, for example, Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Berkeley, Calif., 1990), on the rhetorical use made of scientific expertise in water analysis by government agents in nineteenth-century Britain.
30. See, for example, Nicholas Adams, "Architecture for Fish: The Sienese Dam on the Bruna River - Structures and Designs, 1468-ca. 1530," Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768-97; Petra J. E. M. van Dam, "The Hydraulic Revolution of the North European Fenlands, 1400-1600" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, Baltimore, 16 October 1998); Michael S. Mahoney, "Organizing Expertise: Engineering and Public Works Under Colbert, 1662-83," typescript in author's possession; J. R. Hale, "Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485-1558," in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vol. 4 (London, 1982), 367-401. This list could easily be expanded, but these examples of specific projects give a good impression of both the wide scope of large-scale technical projects undertaken in early modern Europe and the historiography dedicated to them. The issues they raise regarding the administration of technical expertise are not limited to the early modern period; see, for example, Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Berkeley, Calif., 1990), on the rhetorical use made of scientific expertise in water analysis by government agents in nineteenth-century Britain.
31. See, for example, Nicholas Adams, "Architecture for Fish: The Sienese Dam on the Bruna River - Structures and Designs, 1468-ca. 1530," Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768-97; Petra J. E. M. van Dam, "The Hydraulic Revolution of the North European Fenlands, 1400-1600" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, Baltimore, 16 October 1998); Michael S. Mahoney, "Organizing Expertise: Engineering and Public Works Under Colbert, 1662-83," typescript in author's possession; J. R. Hale, "Tudor Fortifications: The Defence of the Realm, 1485-1558," in The History of the King's Works, ed. H. M. Colvin, vol. 4 (London, 1982), 367-401. This list could easily be expanded, but these examples of specific projects give a good impression of both the wide scope of large-scale technical projects undertaken in early modern Europe and the historiography dedicated to them. The issues they raise regarding the administration of technical expertise are not limited to the early modern period; see, for example, Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Berkeley, Calif., 1990), on the rhetorical use made of scientific expertise in water analysis by government agents in nineteenth-century Britain.
32. Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners" (n. 3 above), Goodman, and Smith all address the role of the mediator of technical knowledge in early modern Europe.
33. Thomas Digges (d. 1595) was born in Kent, the son of the mathematician Leonard Digges. He was educated at Cambridge and became a respected mathematician and astronomer, whose work was admired by John Dee and Tycho Brahe. In addition to his more theoretical pursuits, he was interested in such practical mathematical fields as surveying, mensuration, cartography, and military science. Although Digges published some of his own and his father's work in practical mathematics (Pantometria, 1571, on surveying; Stratioticos, 1579, on military uses of geometry), he is best known for his astronomical work, specifically his observations of the 1572 supernova (published in Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae in 1573) and A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbes, his 1576 translation of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, in which he included the first printed diagram of an infinitely vast heliocentric universe. Digges was the muster-master-general to the English forces during the Earl of Leicester's Netherlands campaign (1586-94), and he sat in the parliaments of 1572 and 1584, for Wallingford and Southampton, respectively. No comprehensive biography of him has been published; such material as exists tends to focus on only one branch of his intellectual pursuits. See Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore, 1937), esp. chap. 6; Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, "Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the Universe in 1576," Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934): 69-117; E. G. R. Taylor, Tudor Geography, 1485-1583 (London, 1930), and Mathematical Practitioners (n. 3 above). Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), attempts to synthesize a more comprehensive and satisfying biography of Digges by analyzing his mathematical pursuits in terms of his gentlemanly social status; he also discusses Digges's role in the Dover works in some detail.
34. Thomas Digges (d. 1595) was born in Kent, the son of the mathematician Leonard Digges. He was educated at Cambridge and became a respected mathematician and astronomer, whose work was admired by John Dee and Tycho Brahe. In addition to his more theoretical pursuits, he was interested in such practical mathematical fields as surveying, mensuration, cartography, and military science. Although Digges published some of his own and his father's work in practical mathematics (Pantometria, 1571, on surveying; Stratioticos, 1579, on military uses of geometry), he is best known for his astronomical work, specifically his observations of the 1572 supernova (published in Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae in 1573) and A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbes, his 1576 translation of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, in which he included the first printed diagram of an infinitely vast heliocentric universe. Digges was the muster-master-general to the English forces during the Earl of Leicester's Netherlands campaign (1586-94), and he sat in the parliaments of 1572 and 1584, for Wallingford and Southampton, respectively. No comprehensive biography of him has been published; such material as exists tends to focus on only one branch of his intellectual pursuits. See Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore, 1937), esp. chap. 6; Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, "Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the Universe in 1576," Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934): 69-117; E. G. R. Taylor, Tudor Geography, 1485-1583 (London, 1930), and Mathematical Practitioners (n. 3 above). Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), attempts to synthesize a more comprehensive and satisfying biography of Digges by analyzing his mathematical pursuits in terms of his gentlemanly social status; he also discusses Digges's role in the Dover works in some detail.
35. Thomas Digges (d. 1595) was born in Kent, the son of the mathematician Leonard Digges. He was educated at Cambridge and became a respected mathematician and astronomer, whose work was admired by John Dee and Tycho Brahe. In addition to his more theoretical pursuits, he was interested in such practical mathematical fields as surveying, mensuration, cartography, and military science. Although Digges published some of his own and his father's work in practical mathematics (Pantometria, 1571, on surveying; Stratioticos, 1579, on military uses of geometry), he is best known for his astronomical work, specifically his observations of the 1572 supernova (published in Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae in 1573) and A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbes, his 1576 translation of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, in which he included the first printed diagram of an infinitely vast heliocentric universe. Digges was the muster-master-general to the English forces during the Earl of Leicester's Netherlands campaign (1586-94), and he sat in the parliaments of 1572 and 1584, for Wallingford and Southampton, respectively. No comprehensive biography of him has been published; such material as exists tends to focus on only one branch of his intellectual pursuits. See Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore, 1937), esp. chap. 6; Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, "Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the Universe in 1576," Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934): 69-117; E. G. R. Taylor, Tudor Geography, 1485-1583 (London, 1930), and Mathematical Practitioners (n. 3 above). Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), attempts to synthesize a more comprehensive and satisfying biography of Digges by analyzing his mathematical pursuits in terms of his gentlemanly social status; he also discusses Digges's role in the Dover works in some detail.
36. Thomas Digges (d. 1595) was born in Kent, the son of the mathematician Leonard Digges. He was educated at Cambridge and became a respected mathematician and astronomer, whose work was admired by John Dee and Tycho Brahe. In addition to his more theoretical pursuits, he was interested in such practical mathematical fields as surveying, mensuration, cartography, and military science. Although Digges published some of his own and his father's work in practical mathematics (Pantometria, 1571, on surveying; Stratioticos, 1579, on military uses of geometry), he is best known for his astronomical work, specifically his observations of the 1572 supernova (published in Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae in 1573) and A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbes, his 1576 translation of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, in which he included the first printed diagram of an infinitely vast heliocentric universe. Digges was the muster-master-general to the English forces during the Earl of Leicester's Netherlands campaign (1586-94), and he sat in the parliaments of 1572 and 1584, for Wallingford and Southampton, respectively. No comprehensive biography of him has been published; such material as exists tends to focus on only one branch of his intellectual pursuits. See Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England: A Study of the English Scientific Writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore, 1937), esp. chap. 6; Francis R. Johnson and Sanford V. Larkey, "Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the Universe in 1576," Huntington Library Bulletin 5 (1934): 69-117; E. G. R. Taylor, Tudor Geography, 1485-1583 (London, 1930), and Mathematical Practitioners (n. 3 above). Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), attempts to synthesize a more comprehensive and satisfying biography of Digges by analyzing his mathematical pursuits in terms of his gentlemanly social status; he also discusses Digges's role in the Dover works in some detail.
37. Thomas Digges (d. 1595) was born in Kent, the son of the mathematician
38. William Minet, "Some Unpublished Plans of Dover Harbour," Archaeologia 72 (1922): 185-224. In addition to providing a thorough description of the harbor and a very readable history of the port from antiquity to the time of its publication, Minet's article includes several reproductions of contemporary plans of the harbor and many helpful diagrams of his own design. Much of the following section is taken from his account.
39. Ibid., 188. Minet points out that Julius Caesar's description of an attempted landing site during his first invasion of Britain corresponds very closely to the landscape at Dover, and the Roman lighthouse that still stands within the castle grounds is the only surviving example of such a structure in Britain.
40. A fate that has befallen many harbors on that coast. Camber, Winchelsea, and Rye, for example, once thriving commercial ports on the same estuary southwest of Dover, are now separated from the coast by roughly a mile of open fields, the cumulative result of tidal silting in the Channel. This phenomenon is not limited to the English coastline; see Parsons (n. 7 above), 460-77, on the gradual destruction of Harfleur harbor and the subsequent construction of Le Havre in Normandy during the sixteenth century.
41. Minet, 188-95; Martin Biddle and John Summerson, "Dover Harbour," in Colvin (n. 8 above), 729-55.
42. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven" (n. 4 above); Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 227-28. The surveyors were also commissioned in 1576 to carry out similar investigations at Rye, Winchelsea, and Camber harbors. Borough reported that the latter two were beyond repair (in 1558 Camber accommodated fifty-two ships at low tide, while in 1576 it was dry) but that Rye might still be saved if quick action were taken. There is no evidence that the Privy Council ever attempted to salvage the harbor at Rye.
43. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven" (n. 4 above); Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 227-28. The surveyors were also commissioned in 1576 to carry out similar investigations at Rye, Winchelsea, and Camber harbors. Borough reported that the latter two were beyond repair (in 1558 Camber accommodated fifty-two ships at low tide, while in 1576 it was dry) but that Rye might still be saved if quick action were taken. There is no evidence that the Privy Council ever attempted to salvage the harbor at Rye.
44. Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. J. R. Dasent (hereafter Acts), vol. 11 (London, 1895), 54-55 (21 February 1579).
45. Biddle and Summerson, 757-58. The council's preference for local gentry over outsiders mirrors the contemporary cases researched by Smith (Norfolk) and MacCulloch (Suffolk) (n. 5 above).
46. Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 161 (15 August 1580); Acts, vol. 11 (London, 1895), 55 (21 February 1579).
47. Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 161 (15 August 1580); Acts, vol. 11 (London, 1895), 55 (21 February 1579).
48. Acts, vol. 11 (London, 1895),55 (21 February 1579).
49. Mayor and Jurats of Dover to the Privy Council (n. 4 above).
50. Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), 228.
51. Minet (n. 11 above), 194-95.
52. Though Borough may well have come up with his plan independently and before the Flemings submitted their own, the works he proposed for Dover in 1579 had a great deal in common with early modern hydraulic technology in the Low Countries, which was well established by the middle of the sixteenth century. Flemish dams and seawalls usually consisted of two parallel rows of wooden piles pounded into the sea floor, the gap between the rows being filled with tightly packed earth; this was almost certainly the construction technique Borough originally favored for Dover. Likewise, lakes in the Low Countries were commonly used as reservoirs for surplus water, which was then shunted into the sea by means of sluice gates that were opened at low tide. See van Dam (n. 8 above).
53. Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 228.
54. Philip Chilwell de la Garde, "On the Antiquity and Invention of the Lock Canal of Exeter," Archaeologia 28 (1840): 7-26. Though de la Garde wrote that Trew's canal accommodated vessels of up to sixteen tons, which was more than Trew had promised, the city's governors were unhappy with his work, and they sued him. Trew was involved in litigation over his role in building the Exeter canal for many years. See Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 277-78.
55. Philip Chilwell de la Garde, "On the Antiquity and Invention of the Lock Canal of Exeter," Archaeologia 28 (1840): 7-26. Though de la Garde wrote that Trew's canal accommodated vessels of up to sixteen tons, which was more than Trew had promised, the city's governors were unhappy with his work, and they sued him. Trew was involved in litigation over his role in building the Exeter canal for many years. See Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 277-78.
56. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven" (n. 4 above); Scot (n. 1 above), 851.
57. Although Trew planned to incorporate the foundation laid for Thomson's pier during the reign of Henry VIII, it is not unlikely that such a heavy wall would have settled into the mud and sand of Dover Bay, eventually destroying the wall's structural integrity.
58. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven."
59. Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 161 (15 August 1580). When the Privy Council consulted him in September 1580, William Borough did not initially object to Trew's proposal, saying halfheartedly that he would support it "if it might [be] performed so effectually as he promised . . . the rather for the easiness of the charge, and to keep life in that action." However, very shortly after this first consultation Borough wrote a lengthy condemnation of Trew's plan, calling it "frivolous and vain." Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven."
60. Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 161 (15 August 1580). When the Privy Council consulted him in September 1580, William Borough did not initially object to Trew's proposal, saying halfheartedly that he would support it "if it might [be] performed so effectually as he promised . . . the rather for the easiness of the charge, and to keep life in that action." However, very shortly after this first consultation Borough wrote a lengthy condemnation of Trew's plan, calling it "frivolous and vain." Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven."
61. Dover commission to Privy Council, 24 August 1580, PRO, S.P. 12/141/36.
62. Cobham to Walsingham, and other materials regarding Trew's requests to the council, 1 September 1580, PRO, S.P. 12/142/1-3. As principal secretary, Walsingham was the main point of contact between the Privy Council and the Dover commission, the man to whom virtually all Dover-related correspondence was addressed. Although his name is ubiquitous in Elizabethan studies, there is no comprehensive biography of him, but see Conyers Read, Mr. Secretary Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1925), for a treatment of his role in diplomatic affairs.
63. Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 197 (11 September 1580). A copy of the commission also survives: Queen Elizabeth to all Justices of the Peace, etc., 11 September 1580, PRO, S.P. 12/142/16.
64. Scot (n. 1 above), 851. Much of the stone hewn at this time was probably used years later in constructing the new harbor mouth and some reinforcement jetties for the pent.
65. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven" (n. 4 above); "Notes towching the 'decaie' and 'remedie' of Douer Hauen," attributed (without certainty) to Thomas Digges, BL, Lansdowne MS 22/11; "The reasons that moved the Comissioners for Douer Hauen to condempne the woorkes begoon by John Treewe," BL, Lansdowne MS 31/74; Barrey to Walsingham, 6 January 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/152/2; Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), 275-86.
66. Borough, "Notes Touching Dover Haven" (n. 4 above); "Notes towching the 'decaie' and 'remedie' of Douer Hauen," attributed (without certainty) to Thomas Digges, BL, Lansdowne MS 22/11; "The reasons that moved the Comissioners for Douer Hauen to condempne the woorkes begoon by John Treewe," BL, Lansdowne MS 31/74; Barrey to Walsingham, 6 January 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/152/2; Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), 275-86.
67. Scot, 851.
68. Acts, vol. 13 (London, 1896), 80 (14 June 1581).
69. Acts, vol. 13 (London, 1896), 139-40 (26 July 1581). The published Acts of the Privy Council are a transcript of the council's contemporary records of its meetings. The original volume for the years 1582-85 was unfortunately lost and could not be transcribed and published, so no further record of the works from the council's perspective is available.
70. "Whate ys thoughte mete to be proceedyd unto By the Comyssyoners," March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/52; Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice," 276. In 1588, however, despite his earlier failure, Trew was bold enough to petition the queen that he might assist in fighting the Spanish with some military inventions of his; Trew to Queen Elizabeth, December 1588, PRO, S.P. 12/219/52.
71. "[The council,] having of late perused two several plats drawn for the repairing of Dover haven, the one by William Borough with the advice of some skillful persons of Dunkirk, the other by one Trew, and finding that the first doth require a far greater charge than can be yielded, and that the invention of Trew . . . doth, in their Lordships' opinions, carry great likelihood that thereby the haven shall be sufficiently made serviceable with a small charge, to be borne almost by the benefit of Her Majesty's grant to the town of Dover for the transporting of certain beer and grain . . . do think meet the same be put in proof as soon as may be." Acts, vol. 12 (London, 1896), 161 (15 August 1580); emphasis added.
72. Scot (n. 1 above), 851.
73. Digges to Walsingham, 8 June 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/171/13(I).
74. Digges's plan survives as "A briefe discourse declaringe how honorable and profitable to youre most excellent maiestie, and howe necessary and commodiouse for your realme, the making of Douer Haven shalbe, and in what sorte, wt leaste charge in greateste perfection, the same maye be accomplyshed," in the archives of the Society of Antiquaries of London; it has been edited by T. W. Wrighte and published in Archaeologia 11 (1794): 212-54. Copies of some parts of the plan may also be found scattered through the State Papers. Figure 5 is almost certainly a copy of Digges's survey, the original of which may well have been included as a part of Digges's proposal.
75. Scot, 851-55.
76. Biddle and Summerson (n. 14 above), 757.
77. Dover commission to Privy Council, 21 April 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/153/15. "Articles agreed upon betwene the Lordes & others of Her Ma[jes]ties Privye counsell and Ffarnando Poyntz," 27 June 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/154/20.
78. Privy Council to Dover commission, 14 April 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/153/8; "Articles agreed upon betwene the Lordes & others of Her Ma[jes]ties Privye counsell and Ffarnando Poyntz," 27 June 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/154/20.
79. Bedwell is first mentioned in the State Papers as the author of some notes on the repair of Dover harbor ("A note of things considered of by Thomas Bedwell for Dov[er] haven & not before used or remembered," April 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/153/27) which he offered to the Privy Council, along with some proposals for various mathematical measuring instruments, and even a water clock to be used in determining longitude at sea. While at Dover he took every opportunity to complain to the councillors that Poyntz was incompetent and never took his advice; Barrey to Walsingham, 12 December 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/156/14; Bedwell to Burghley and Walsingham, 19 December 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/156/23-24. For more on Bedwell, see Stephen Johnston, "Mathematical Practitioners" (n. 3 above).
80. In addition to working closely with members of the Privy Council as a member of parliament, Digges also dedicated his astronomical treatise Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae (n. 10 above) to the lord treasurer, William Burghley, in 1573. Moreover, Digges credited Burghley with instigating his systematic astronomical investigation of the 1572 supernova by asking him to explain the astrological significance of the new star; Digges to Burghley, 11 December 1572, PRO, S.P. 12/90/12. After 1573 Digges remained Burghley's client, in both parliamentary and private contexts. See Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), 60-62.
81. In addition to working closely with members of the Privy Council as a member of parliament, Digges also dedicated his astronomical treatise Alae seu Scalae Mathematicae (n. 10 above) to the lord treasurer, William Burghley, in 1573. Moreover, Digges credited Burghley with instigating his systematic astronomical investigation of the 1572 supernova by asking him to explain the astrological significance of the new star; Digges to Burghley, 11 December 1572, PRO, S.P. 12/90/12. After 1573 Digges remained Burghley's client, in both parliamentary and private contexts. See Johnston, "Making Mathematical Practice" (n. 3 above), 60-62.
82. "A breefe note of the chardges of the Platt of Douer hauen presented by all the Commissioners confered w[ith] a Platt offered by Mr. Poynes," 15 May 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/153/51.
83. In defense of Poyntz's honesty, it appears that the mistake was a genuine misunderstanding; within a few weeks of being asked to do so he had accounted for his expenditures to the council's satisfaction, and he was allowed to continue with the works through the summer.
84. Barrey to Walsingham, 12 December 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/156/14; Barrey to Cobham, 26 January 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/25; Report by William Borough, 10 February 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/61; Dover commission to Privy Council, 8 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/11(I).
85. After Poyntz came under heavy attack, Bedwell was indeed given greater responsibilities, though he never managed to supplant Poyntz entirely, and he disappears from the record of the works at roughly the same time Poyntz does.
86. Barrey to Privy Council, 29 December 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/156/33; Poyntz to Walsingham, 2 February 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/53.
87. Poyntz to Walsingham, 19 December 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/156/22.
88. Poyntz to Walsingham, 2 February 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/53. Barrey was Poyntz's harshest critic, and he never had anything good to say about him to Cobham, the commission, or the Privy Council.
89. Scott to Walsingham, 18 May 1582, PRO, S.P. 12/153/53; Mayor and Jurats of Dover to the Privy Council, 3 February 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/54.
90. Specifically, the groin that Poyntz built to keep shingle from collecting near the new harbor mouth was depicted as "decaied" in 1595 (see fig. 6, #11).
91. Scot (n. 1 above), 853; Report by William Borough, 18 February 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/158/72.
92. This kinsman was almost certainly Reginald Scot, surveyor of the Romney works, chronicler of the Dover project, and Thomas Scott's cousin.
93. Biddle and Summerson (n. 14 above) state unequivocally that faggots were used as a revetment to reinforce the outer surface of the seawalls: "[The Romney method] involved neither shingle nor timber but consisted of earth and chalk rammed together, with an outer covering of mud or 'sleech' well beaten into the sides, against which was applied a revetment of faggots anchored with withies" (759). They cite Scot as their source, though Scot himself (n. 1 above) implies that only the mud coating was necessary for reinforcement: "For the same [mud] being beaten with beetles [a type of wooden mallet] to the sides of the wall, would by and by cleave so fast and close thereunto, as thereby the walls were strengthened. . . . This also preserved the wall from annoyance by rage of waters, almost as well as if they were otherwise armed with thorn and faggots" (860).
94. Dover commission to Privy Council, 8 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/11(I).
95. Boys to Walsingham, 25 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/45.
96. Digges to Walsingham, 20 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/26.
97. Scott to Walsingham, 24 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/44.
98. Ibid.
99. "Articles concerning the wales for the pent of Douer harber, to bee answered by the m[ar]chmen . . .," 29 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/49; "The Articles of those M[ar]shemen . . .," 29 March 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/159/50.
100. Digges always based his support for the Romney method not on its success in Romney marsh but rather on his knowledge of a similar technique sometimes used in the Low Countries. This could be interpreted as an attempt to ground his own expertise on a criterion (foreign travel and observation) that he knew his fellow commissioners (including Thomas Scott) could not easily match, in order to justify further his comparatively higher status as the expert mediator.
101. The Elizabethan exclusion crisis refers to the widespread fear in England of having a Catholic monarch succeed Elizabeth, which was particularly acute in the early 1580s, when the Catholic Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, was still the only legitimate successor to the childless, unmarried, and aging Elizabeth. See Patrick Collinson, "The Monarchical Republic of Elizabeth I," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69 (1986): 394-424,
102. and "The Elizabethan Exclusion Crisis and the Eliza-bethan Polity," Proceedings of the British Academy 84 (1993): 51-92.
103. I am using the word "client" here not in its modern sense but in its contemporary sense: one who is under the protection and patronage of another.
104. Digges to Walsingham, 8 June 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/171/13(I).
105. Digges's report of his proceedings and services at Dover, November 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/175/18.
106. Scot (n. 1 above), 851.
107. Digges to Walsingham, 8 June 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/171/13(I). Digges declined to say who had offered him the money.
108. Scot, 854-55.
109. Digges to Walsingham, 8 June 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/171/13(I). A new plan and estimate (of £14,420) from Pett and Baker, submitted with Borough's approval, offered criticism and doubts regarding the Romney method; Estimate by William Borough, according to the plan of Pett and Baker, 3 April 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/160/3.
110. Scot, 856.
111. Dover commission to Privy Council, 10 April 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/160/6(I).
112. Scott to Walsingham, 31 May 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/160/61; Scott to Walsingham, 2 June 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/161/2.
113. Scot (n. 1 above), 861.
114. Scott to Walsingham, 21 July 1583, PRO, S.P. 12/161/39.
115. The backwater pent became the Wellington Dock, the new harbor (originally called "Great Paradise") was transformed into Granville Dock and the Tidal Basin, and the long wall that separates them both from the sea is now the beachfront Esplanade, a main attraction in what has become a seaside resort town (Minet, n. 11 above). However, in the last five years most of what had once been the pent has been filled in and transformed into trendy retail stores along the Esplanade.
116. Scot, 867. Many of those actively involved in the works said the same of Walsingham in letters they sent to him, but presumably Scot (who never held a commission office at the works, and was writing after the bulk of the project was completed) would have had less reason to flatter him.
117. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. James Gairdner, vol. 11 (London, 1888), no. 745 (17 October 1536). Thomson was actually dismissed from the works in 1537, but was rehired after only a few months' absence, during which time he consulted at Winchelsea harbor, which was already experiencing serious difficulties; Letters and Papers, vol. 12, part 2 (London, 1891), nos. 397 (July 1537) and 645 (4 September 1537). See also Biddle and Summerson (n. 14 above), 729-755.
118. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, ed. James Gairdner, vol. 11 (London, 1888), no. 745 (17 October 1536). Thomson was actually dismissed from the works in 1537, but was rehired after only a few months' absence, during which time he consulted at Winchelsea harbor, which was already experiencing serious difficulties; Letters and Papers, vol. 12, part 2 (London, 1891), nos. 397 (July 1537) and 645 (4 September 1537). See also Biddle and Summerson (n. 14 above), 729-755.
119. Although a few members of the commission did support Trew's appointment, it is indicative of the primacy of the Privy Council in making the decision to hire him that Trew was the only officer in the history of the project to receive an official commission of his own directly from the council and the lord chancellor. Even Digges held his office through the commission, though at the council's insistence.
120. Not surprisingly, perhaps, given the enthusiasm of the king for the project combined with such lax management from London, the budget for Thomson's works was grossly inflated for what was actually achieved. Scot (n. 1 above) claimed that fifty thousand pounds was spent (848), and William Lambarde, the pioneering historian of Kent, put the figure as high as sixty-three thousand pounds; A Perambulation of Kent, Conteining the Description, Hystorie, and Customes of that Shire (London, 1576; reprint, London, 1826), 133-34. These were enormous sums of money; in comparison, the entire Elizabethan project, which took place fifty years later and was far more extensive, cost less than a third as much.
121. Scott to Smyth, 25 June 1584, PRO, S.P. 12/171/52.
122. Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton, "'Studied for Action': How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy," Past and Present 129 (1990): 30-78; William H. Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst, Mass., 1995).
123. Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton, "'Studied for Action': How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy," Past and Present 129 (1990): 30-78; William H. Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance (Amherst, Mass., 1995).
124. Collinson, "Monarchical Republic" (n. 68 above), and Michael A. R. Graves, Thomas Norton, the Parliament Man (Oxford, 1994).
125. Collinson, "Monarchical Republic" (n. 68 above), and Michael A. R. Graves, Thomas Norton, the Parliament Man (Oxford, 1994).