Methodology and apologetics: Thomas sprat's history of the royal society

The British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 1980, Pages 1-26

  Wood, P B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976112060     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: 1474001X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087400017453     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. On this point see R. G. Frank, ‘Institutional structure and scientific activity in the early Royal Society’, in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of the History of Science (1974), 4 vols., Tokyo, 1975, iv, 83. Although there are other themes of Sprat's History which are significant, I assume in this paper that the methodological theme is basic. Consequently discussion will be confined to the History's description of the method and its apologetic function.
2. The question of finance is briefly discussed by Michael Hunter, ‘The social basis and changing fortunes of an early scientific instutution: an analysis of the membership of the Royal Society, 1660-1685’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1976, 31, 9-114 (16-19).
3. For Charles's attitudes see the widely cited remarks recorded by Pepys in The diary of Samuel Pepys (ed. by R. Latham and W. Matthews), 9 vols., London, 1970-6, v, 32-3. Equally revealing is the recently uncovered evidence that Charles called his philosophers ‘court jesters'; see W. E. Knowles Middleton, ‘What did Charles II call the Fellows of the Royal Society?’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1977, 32, 13-17 (14).
4. Courtly fashion is discussed by Hunter, op. cit. (2), pp. 13-14, 23-4, 36-41.
5. Margaret ‘Espinasse, Robert Hooke, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1962, pp. 4, 83.
6. Hunter, op. cit. (2), pp. 38-9 95-7.
7. H. R. McAdoo, The Spirit of Anglicanism, London, 1965, p. 201; W. G. Simon, The Restoration episcopate, New York, 1966, pp. 143-8. The control of the Laudians is discussed by R. S. Bosher, The making of the Restoration settlement, London, 1957, esp. chapters IV and V, and Anne Whiteman, ‘The restoration of the Church of England’, in G. F. Nuttall and O. Chadwick (eds.), From uniformity to unity 1662-1962, London, 1962, 21-88. Ward's ecclesiastical efforts are in contrast to Wilkins's advocacy of comprehension and toleration, for which see R. Thomas, ‘Comprehension and indulgence’, in Nuttall and Chadwick, op. cit., pp. 198-206. As Thomas notes (p. 204), Archbishop Sheldon probably opposed Wilkins's scheme. More generally, Sheldon did not look favourably upon Wilkins; witness the remarks by Walter Pope, The life of Seth, Lord Bishop of Salisbury (ed. by J. B. Bambrough), Oxford, 1961, pp. 56-7.
8. On atheism, materialism, and Hobbesism the best introduction remains S. I. Mintz, The hunting of the Leviathan, Cambridge, 1970; see also J. R.Jacob, ‘Robert Boyle and subversive religion in the early Restoration’, Albion, 1974, 6, 275-93, and idem., ‘Boyle's atomism and the Restoration assault on pagan naturalism’, Social studies of science, 1978, S, 211-33. J. Redwood, Reason, ridicule, and religion: the age of Enlightenment in England 1660-1750, London, 1976, unfortunately goes little beyond previous work.
9. Early sermons of South's which attack the new philosophy associated with the Royal Society are to be found in his Sermons preached upon several occasions, new edn., 4 vols., London, 1843, i, 19-33, 204-23.
10. R. H. Syfret, ‘Some early reactions to the Royal Society’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1949-50, 7, 207-58 (219-20, 224-5, 247-8). Miss Syfret was clearly aware of the Society's need to create a social basis, as her remarks (p. 215) indicate. Fora brief discussion of Fell and the Oxford University Press see Michael Hunter, ‘The origins of the Oxford University Press’, The book collector, 1975, 24, 511-34 (522-6). On Casaubon see R. F.Jones, Ancients and modems: a study of the rise of the scientific movement in seventeenth-century England, 2nd edn., Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1965, pp. 241-4. Michael Hunter discusses the relationship between science and learning in his forthcoming Science and society in Restoration England, chapter VI (Cambridge).
11. C. Webster, ‘The College of Physicians: ‘Solomon's House’ in Commonwealth England’, Bulletin of the history of medicine, 1967, 41, 393-412 (409-12); idem., The great instauration: science, medicine and reform 1626-1660, London, 1975, pp. 315-23; P.M. Rattansi, ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy in Restoration England’, Ambix, 1964, 12, 1-23 (12-13, 22).
12. Thomas Birch, The history of the Royal Society, 4 vols., London, 1756-7, i, 4, 50, 83, 84, 88, 227. After the revised Charter was granted, Wilkins assumed the occasional duties of a vice-president; see the Royal Society, Council minutes (copy). 1. 16.
13. On Wilkins's popularization programme see Hans AarslefF s article in The dictionary of scientific biography, 14 vols., New York, 1970-6, xiv, 364-8; and B. J. Shapiro, John Wilkins 1614-1672: an intellectual biography, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1969, chapter II.
14. Wilkins is perhaps best understood as a virtuoso; see the brief but perceptive analysis by Walter E. Houghton Jr., ‘The English virtuoso in the seventeenth century’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1942, 3, 51-73, 190-219 (201-2). Sprat's audience is analyzed by Hunter in his Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter III.
15. William Lloyd, A sermon preach'd at the funeral of the Right Reverend father in God, John Wilkins D. D. late lord Bishop of Chester, at the Guildhall chapel London, on Thursday the 12 December, 1672, 6th edn., London, 1710, p. 28; The mathematical and philosophical works of the Right Rev. John Wilkins, 2 vols., London, 1802, i, vi; John Aubrey, Aubrey's brief lives (ed. O. L. Dick), Harmondsworth, 1976, p. 479; Aarsleff, op. cit. (13), p. 363. Wilkins's modern biographer also remarks on his social prowess; see Shapiro, op. cit. (13), pp. 3-4 23, 24, 150. For Wilkins's theological conception of prudence see McAdoo, op. cit. (7), pp. 223-7.
16. Thomas Sprat, The history of the Royal Society of London, for the improving of natural knowledge (ed. by J. 1. Cope and H. W. Jones), London, 1959, p. 94. This quotation shows that Sprat himself claimed the role of stylist.
17. Margery Purver, The Royal Society: concept and creation, London, 1967, p. 11.
18. Charles Webster, ‘The origins of the Royal Society’, History of science, 1967, 6, 106-128(111-14). Dr Webster is virtually alone amongst historians of the early Royal Society in suggesting that methodology fulfilled apologetic and ideological functions; others to have touched on this point include Shapiro, op. cit. (13), pp. 205-6 Peter Buck, ‘Order and control: the scientific method in China and the United States’, Social studies of science, 1975, 5, 265-7.
19. Webster, op. cit. (20), pp. 112-13, and The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (ed. and trans, by A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall), 11 vols, continuing, Madison and London, 1965-, ii, 320-1, hereafter referred to as Oldenburg.
20. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 120; Webster, op. cit. (20), p. 112.
21. Purver, op. cit. (19), pp. 14-15. It would appear that Hooke and Brouncker advised Wilkins on the selection of the examples to be included in the History.
22. Wallis to Moray, 26 October 1664, Royal Society, Early letters, W. 1. 12.
23. Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 49.
24. R. F. Jones, op. cit. (10), p. 222; Dorothy Stimson, Scientists and amateurs: a history of the Royal Society, New York, 1948, pp. 75, 252; R. K. Merton, ‘Puritanism, pietism, and science’, in C. A. Russell (ed.), Science and religious belief, London, 1973, p. 21; J. R.Jacob, ‘Restoration, reformation, and the origins of the Royal Society’, History of science, 1975, IS, 169. Jacob cites Purver's work as evidence for his claim that Sprat's History is an authoritative statement of the Society's aims and aspirations without taking into account Webster's criticisms in his review article, op. cit. (20).
25. K. Theodore Hoppen, ‘The nature of the early Royal Society’, The British journal for the history of science, 1976, 9, 1-24, 243-273; Charles Webster, op. cit. (11), pp. 88-99; idem., op. cit. (20), pp. 116-26. Kor a study of methodology in the early Royal Society see my ‘Francis Bacon and the “Experimental Philosophy”: a study in seventeenth-century methodology’, University of London MPhil dissertation, 1978.
26. Birch, op. cit. (12), i, 84-85.
27. Sprat, op. cit. (17), pp. 431-3. On the membership lists see Hunter, op. cit. (2), pp. 13-14.
28. Birch, op. cit. (12), ii, 249; I should like to thank Michael Hunter for this reference. On the plans for a college see. Hunter, op. cit. (2), appendix II. Oldenburg attempted to gain the esteem and support of foreign dignitaries by sending them copies of the History; Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), iii, 618; iv, 119,538.
29. Sprat, op. cit. (17), pp. 61, 62.
30. The works of the Honourable Robert Boyle (ed. by Thomas Birch), 2nd edn., 6 vols., London, 1 772, i, 343,345.
31. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 243.
32. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 115. Despite Sprat's remarks to the contrary, the Society did make some efforts to keep its registers in order; see Royal Society, Council booh (copy), 44. The Oxtbrd group had attempted to do the same; see H. W. Robinson, ‘An unpublished letter of Dr. Seth Ward relating to the early meetings of the Oxford Philosophical Society’, Notes and records of the Royal Society, 1949-50, 7, 68-70(69).
33. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 115; cf. Sprat's criticism of Bacon, p. 36.
34. On this point see Walter E. Houghton Jr, ‘The history of trades: its relation to seventeenth-century thought, as seen in Bacon, Petty, Evelyn, and Boyle’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1941, 2, 33-60 (34-8). Houghton rightly points to Boyle's perception of the philosophical significance of the programme for the history of trades in contrast to Evelyn and Sprat. However, Petty's utilitarianism is exaggerated at the expense of his philosophical interests.
35. Hooke, op. cit. (45), p. 18.
36. Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), i, 432. Thus Boyle, Hooke, Oldenburg, and Petty held similar views concerning natural histories in general, and the history of trades programme in particular.
37. While Hooke demanded philosophical sophistication of his historian, Sprat made virtually no demands at all. For a more detailed discussion of Hooke's prescriptions see Wood, op. cit. (28), pp. 216-23.
38. Sprat, op. cit. (17), fols, Br, B2r. Compare Joseph Glanvill, Scepsis scientifica. London, 1665, pp. 1-8. This is a considerably more restrained version ol his speculations in The vanity of dogmatizing, London, 1661, ‘Preface’ and pp. 1-16. Bacon had earlier developed this point in detail; Wood, op. cit. (28), pp. 9-39.
39. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 112.
40. Hunter, Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter VII. For other discussions by historians ot literature of scpeticism in the Restoration see Louis I. Bredvold, The intellectual milieu of John Dryden: studies in some aspects of seventeenth-century thought, Ann Arbor, 1934, passim; P. Harth, Contexts of Dryden's thought, Chicago 8c London, 1968, esp. chapter I; J. I. Cope, Joseph Glanvill: Anglican apologist, St Louis, 1956, chapter V.
41. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 107.
42. H. van Leeuwen, The problem of certainty in English thought, 1630-1690, The Hague, 1963, pp. 57-8; Shapiro, Wilkins, op. cit. (13), chapter VIII.
43. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 107.
44. Boyle, Works, op. cit. (36), i, 303.
45. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 109.
46. For analysis of Bacon see Wood, op. cit. (28), pp. 12-16.
47. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 257.
48. McAdoo, Spirit, op. cit. (7), chapters V and VI; B.J. Shapiro, ‘Latitudinarianism and science in seventeenth-century England’, Past and present, 1968, 40, 16-41; R. S. Westfall, Science and religion in seventeenth-century England, Ann Arbor, 1973, passim.
49. A concise introduction to the Restoration Church and its politics is provided by R. A. Beddard, ‘The Restoration Church’, in JR. Jones (ed.), The restored monarchy 1660-1688, London and Basingstoke, 1979, pp. 155-75; see also I. M. Green, The re-establishment of the Church of England 16601663, Oxford, 1978, esp. chapter IX on the role of the gentry. Useful older studies include those by Bosher and Whiteman cited in n. 7 above, and G. R. Cragg, From puritanism to the age of reason: a study of changes in religious thought within the Church of England 1660-1700, Cambridge, 1950, chapter VI11.
50. Seth Ward, Against resistance of lawful powers: a sermon preached at White-Hall, Nov. 5, 1661, London, 1661, p. 6. A similar view is presented in Joseph Glanvill, A loyal tear dropt on the vault of our late martyred sovereign, London, 1667, passim.
51. B. S. Capp, the Fifth Monarchy Men: a study in seventeenth-century millenarianism, London, 1972, chapter IX.
52. For Overton see R. H. Kargon, Atomism in England from Hariol to Newton, Oxford, 1966, p. 81. The politics of atheism is discussed in Redwood, Reason, op. cit. (8), pp. 70-83.
53. Hunter, Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter VII; Redwood, op. cit. (8), chapter I.
54. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 372. On the theme of reformation see Jacob, ‘Restoration’, op. cit. (27), pp. 169-70 and Douglas S. Kemsley, ‘Religious influences in the rise of modern science’, in Russell, Science and religious belief, op. cit. (27), pp. 100-2. I should like to thank Michael Hunter for this last reference.
55. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 371.
56. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 374.
57. Westfall discusses this use of natural theology in his Science and religion, op. cit. (70), chapter V.
58. This view should be compared with that of Robert Boyle, who had developed a similar outlook in the 1640s and 50s; see Jacob, op. cit. (27), pp. 166-9; idem., op. cit. (79), pp. 7, 11, 13, 18-21; idem., ‘The New England Company, the Royal Society and the Indians’, Social studies of science, 1975 5,450-5.
59. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 82.
60. For relevant discussions of voluntarism see Francis Oakley, ‘Christian theology and the Newtonian science: the rise of the concept of the laws of nature’, Church history, 1961, JO, 433-57; J. E. McGuire, ‘Boyle's conception of nature’, The journal of the history of ideas, 1972, 33, 523-42.
61. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 351.
62. P. M. Rattansi, ‘Paracelsus and the puritan revolution’, Ambix, 1963 11, 24-32; A. G. Debus, Science and education in the seventeenth century: the Webster-Ward debate, London, 1970, passim; Christopher Hill, The world turned upside down, Harmondsworth, 1976, pp. 289-95. Alchemy and university reformers were associated with enthusiasm in Sprat, op. cit. (17), pp. 37-8 328-9.
63. Debus, op. cit. (97), p. 197; my italics.
64. Boyle too drew this type of contrast;Jacob, ‘Ideological origins’, op. cit. (79), pp. 13-16.
65. Sprat, op. cit. (17), pp. 53, 54, 358, 361, 362, 364.
66. For Wilkins's position see McAdoo, Spirit, op. cit. (7), pp. 217-26.
67. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 368; see also McAdoo, op. cit (7), pp. 219-21.
68. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 91.
69. The broader aims of some of the early Fellows are discussed by Jacob, ‘Restoration, op. cit. (27), passim.
70. Hunter, ‘Social basis’, op. cit, (2), p. 37; idem., Science and society, op. cit. (10), chapter III.
71. The classic study of the virtuosi is Houghton, ‘English virtuosi’, op. cit. (14), which perhaps underestimates their utilitarian interests. On some of the more bizarre curiosities in the Society's museum see K. Theodore Hoppen, op. cit. (28), pp. 8-9.
72. On Aubrey see Michael Hunter, John Aubrey and the realm of learning, London, 1975, especially chapters I and 11.
73. History, op. cit. (1 7), pp. 404-11. Robert Boyle saw natural philosophy as a means of reforming the morals of the gentry; see Jacob, ‘Ideological origins’, op. cit. (79), pp. 4-9. Michael Hunter informs me that Evelyn was much concerned with practical divinity, and in many respects resembled Boyle in his desire to bring about a moral reform of the aristocracy; partial confirmation of this can be found in McAdoo, op. cit. (7), p. 45. Robert Hooke, Micrographia, London, 1665, fol. d2r; on the sensual pleasures to be gained compare Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 344.
74. R. T. Gunther (ed.), Early science in Oxford, 14 vols., Oxford, 1923-45, vi, 182-3, 223. In describing Hooke's preface as ‘official’, I mean no more than that it performed apologetic functions similar to those of the History.
75. Glanvill, op. cit. (52), fols.b2r-b4r,b2r. Although Glanvill was not yet a Fellow of the Society when he wrote the address, it nonetheless seems legitimate to treat this piece as an expression of the Society's apologetic programme. Oldenburg remarked of it to Boyle: ‘… the Author expresseth a very great respect to yesd Body and their dessein, wch 1 was very glad, and so were others, to find to be so well understood, at least, by some. f; Oldenburg to Boyle, 10 December 1664, Oldenburg, op. cit. (21), ii, 332.
76. Sprat, op. cit. (17), p. 428.
77. A modest beginning towards such an explanation is given in Wood, op. cit. (28), pp. 255-79.