… there is not to be wished a more generall liberty in point of judgment or debate, then what is here allowed. So that there is scarce any Hypothesis, which hath been formerly or lately entertained by Judicious men, and seems to have in it any clearenesse or consistency, but hath here its strenuous Assertours, as the Atomicall and Magneticall in Philosophy, the Copernican in Astronomy &c. (John Wilkins on Oxford University, 1654.)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WardS., Vindiciae academiarum (Oxford, 1654), Preface by WilkinsJ., p. 2.
2.
Quoted in BoasM., The scientific renaissance 1450–1630 (London, 1962), 301.
3.
GilbertW., De magnete, trans, by MottelayFleury P. (New York, 1958), 333.
4.
Ibid., 328–9.
5.
Ibid., 333.
6.
Ibid., 344.
7.
GingerichO. refers also to the influence of Jean Taisner; see Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. by GillispieC. C. (New York, 1970–80), vii, 295.
8.
JohnsonF. R., Astronomical thought in Renaissance England. A study of English scientific writings from 1500 to 1645 (Baltimore, 1937), 235.
9.
Ibid., 237.
10.
JonesR. F., Ancients and moderns (St Louis, 1936), chap. 4.
11.
See, for example, LaudanL., “The clock metaphor and probabilism: The impact of Descartes on English methodological thought, 1650–65”, Annals of science, xxii (1966), 73–104.
12.
On Gresham College, see especially JohnsonF. R., “Gresham College: Precursor of the Royal Society”, Journal of the history of ideas, i (1940), 413–38. On the mathematical sciences community in general, see TaylorE. G. R., The mathematical practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, 1954); BennettJ. A., “Christopher Wren: Astronomy, architecture and the mathematical sciences”, Journal for the history of astronomy, vi (1975), 149–84, pp. 149–52.
13.
GellibrandH., Discourse mathematical on the variation of the magneticall needle (London, 1635).
14.
Bennett, op. cit., 163–7.
15.
WilkinsJ., The discovery of a new world. Or, a discourse tending to prove, that 'tis probable there may be another habitable world in the Moone … (2nd edn, London, 1640), 203–42.
16.
Ibid., 211.
17.
Ibid., 232.
18.
Ibid., 213–14.
19.
WilkinsJ., A discourse concerning a new planet, tending to prove that 'tis probable our Earth is one of the planets (London, 1640), 142–88.
20.
Ibid., 161–3.
21.
Ibid., 214–15.
22.
CharletonW., Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana: Or a fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms (London, 1654), 227; note also ibid., 281.
23.
Ibid., 289.
24.
Ibid., 401.
25.
Ibid., 283.
26.
Ibid., 388.
27.
Ibid., 390–1.
28.
Ibid., 412.
29.
WrenC., Parentalia: Or, memoirs of the family of the Wrens (London, 1750), 204. Collatinus was associated with the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus in 509 b.c.
30.
BennettJ. A., “Hooke and Wren and the system of the world”, British journal for the history of science, viii (1975), 32–61, pp. 33–39.
31.
Wren, Parentalia, 239.
32.
See The posthumous works of Robert Hooke, ed. by WallerR. (London, 1705), “The Life of Dr Robert Hooke”, pp. vii–viii; The life and works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, ed. by BirchT. (London, 1772), i, 41; A history of the Royal Society of London, ed. by BirchT. (London, 1756–57), iii, 464; MiddletonKnowles W. E., “A footnote to the history of the barometer”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xx (1965), 145–51, p. 145.
33.
Bennett, “Hooke and Wren …”, 47–49.
34.
From a letter, Wren to BrounckerW., 30 July 1663, Royal Society MS. EL.W.3 no. 3.
35.
Bennett, “Hooke and Wren …”, 33–39.
36.
Birch, A history of the Royal Society, ii, 88, 89; “An essay of Dr. John Wallis, exhibiting his hypothesis about the flux and reflux of the sea”, Philosophical transactions, i (1665–66), 263–89.
37.
“An essay of Dr. John Wallis”, 272–3.
38.
Ibid., 271–2.
39.
Ibid., 282.
40.
WallisJ., A discourse of gravity and gravitation, ground on experimental observations (London, 1675).
41.
Ibid., 2.
42.
Bennett, “Hooke and Wren …”, 42–43.
43.
Ibid., 43–44.
44.
Ibid., 44–46.
45.
Birch, A history of the Royal Society, ii, 91.
46.
Bennett, “Hooke and Wren …”, 49–60.
47.
For Wilkins, see above; for Gilbert, see De magnete, Book 6.
48.
HookeR., Lectures and collections (London, 1678), included in his Lectiones Cutlerianae (London, 1679), which is reprinted in GuntherR. T., Early science in Oxford (Oxford, 1931), viii, see p. 260.
49.
Ibid., 228.
50.
See, for example, ibid., 229.
51.
Ibid., 28.
52.
Ibid., 339.
53.
Ibid., 340.
54.
Waller (ed.), The posthumous works of Robert Hooke, 171.
55.
Ibid., 177–9.
56.
Ibid., 171.
57.
See ApplebaumW., Kepler in England: The reception of Keplehan astronomy in England, 1599–1687 (University Microfilms Inc., Michigan, 1969), 159–60, 173–4.
58.
WhitesideD. T., “Newton's early thoughts on planetary motion: A fresh look”, British journal for the history of science, ii (1964), 117–37; “Before the Principia: The maturing of Newton's thoughts on dynamical astronomy, 1664–1684”, Journal for the history of astronomy, i (1970), 5–19; WestfallR. S., Force in Newton's physics (London, 1971), chaps 7, 8.
59.
For the correspondence, see KoyréA., “An unpublished letter of Robert Hooke to Isaac Newton”, Isis, xliii (1952), 312–37, reprinted in KoyréA., Newtonian studies (London, 1965), 221–60.
