Science,Medicine and the Universities of Early Modern England: Background and Sources,Part I

Oldenburg Henry , Correspondence, ed. and trans. Hall A. Rupert and Hall Marie Boas (Madison, Wisconsin, 1965-), i, 112–13.

The increased interest began with two articles by Allen Phyllis , “Medical education in seventeenth century England”, Journal of the history of medicine, i (1946), 115–43, and “Scientific studies in the English universities of the seventeenth century”, Journal of the history of ideas, x (1949), 219–53.

See Purver Margery , The Royal Society: Concept and creation (Cambridge, Mass., 1967).

Curtis Mark H. , Oxford and Cambridge in transition, 1558–1642 (Oxford, 1959), 227–60, argued that the universities had established a respectable scientific tradition before the Civil War.

Hill Christopher , Intellectual origins of the English revolution (Oxford, 1965), 14–84, 301–14. Hill is at great pains to argue the sharp differences in scientific activity before and after the parliamentary victory. Similarly, he sees a decline in university science after the king's restoration. See also his article “The intellectual origins of the Royal Society—London or Oxford?”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxiii (1968), 144–56, as well as the response by Hall A. Rupert and Hall Marie Boas , “The intellectual origins of the Royal Society—London and Oxford”, ibid., 157–68.

Shapiro Barbara J. , “The universities and science in seventeenth century England”, Journal of British studies, x (1971), 47–82.

Kearney Hugh , Scholars and gentlemen: Universities and society in pre-industrial Britain, 1500–1700 (Ithaca, New York, 1970), 77–173 passim.

Frank Robert G. Jr , “Oxford and the Harveian tradition in the seventeenth century”, (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1971).

For documents of the early modern period there is no published catalogue or guide to the holdings of the University of Oxford Archives; a handwritten shelf-list is available for consultation in the Bodleian. The large collection of manuscripts in the Bodleian Library has been catalogued on several occasions. The most complete is that by Madan Falconer , A summary catalogue of western manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford (Oxford, 1895–1953), 7 vols. However, Madan's work does not treat again the manuscripts which had already been described in the long series of ‘quarto’ catalogues which appeared in the nineteenth century; those for western manuscripts bear the title Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, and were issued in many parts. The only one containing a significant amount of information for the historian of university science is the catalogue of the Rawlinson manuscripts, issued in three fascicles in 1862, 1878, and 1893. Manuscripts which are the property of the various Oxford colleges were described in Coxe Henry O. , Catalogus codicum MSS. qui in collegiis aulisque Oxoniensibus (Oxford, 1852). Many of these manuscripts have since been deposited in the Bodleian, where they are available for consultation.

For Cambridge, the archives are described in Peek Heather E. and Hall Catherine P. , The archives of the University of Cambridge: An historical introduction (Cambridge, 1962). The manuscripts in the university library are described in A catalogue of the manuscripts preserved in the Library of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1856–67), 6 vols. Additions since the 1860s are indexed briefly in Owen A. E. B. , Summary guide to accessions of western manuscripts (other than medieval) since 1867 (Cambridge, 1966). The manuscripts in the various Cambridge colleges are very fully described in a series of separate catalogues written by Montague Rhodes James, and published at Cambridge by the University Press in the period 1895–1925.

Unfortunately, there is no complete printed catalogue of the Sloane MSS, although a manuscript list is kept in the British Museum. A key to this list is Edward J. L. Scott, Index to the Sloane manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1904), which is arranged alphabetically.

The standard source for the history of Cambridge to 1700 is Mullinger James Bass , The University of Cambridge , 3 vols (Cambridge, 1873–1911). Cooper Charles , Annals of Cambridge , 5 vols (Cambridge, 1842–1908), contains remarkably little of interest for the historian of science. Wordsworth Christopher , Scholae academicae: Some account of studies at the English universities in the eighteenth century (Cambridge, 1877) is a mine of useful information, especially about Cambridge. Gunther Robert T. , Early science in Cambridge (Oxford, 1937) is a compilation. Standard biographical collections are Venn John and Venn J. A. , Alumni Cantabrigiensis , Part I, to 1751, 4 vols (Cambridge, 1922–27), and for the period before the beginning of the seventeenth century, Cooper Charles , Athenae Cantabrigiensis , 3 vols (Cambridge, 1858–1913). There are few good diary sources for seventeenth century Cambridge. For Oxford the indispensable reference tool is Cordeaux E. H. and Merry D. H. , A bibliography of printed works relating to the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1968). The standard history is Mallet Charles E. , A history of the University of Oxford , 3 vols (London, 1924–27), while Wood Anthony , History and antiquities of the colleges and halls in the University of Oxford , ed. Gutch J. , 2 vols (Oxford, 1786–90) is both a history and a contemporary commentary. Wood's Athenae Oxoniensis, and the Fasti Oxoniensis bound with it, ed. Bliss Philip , 5 vols (London, 1813–20) is a marvellously detailed source of biographical facts, as well as an indispensable repository of data concerning Oxford's institutional structure and development. For both universities there is a complete series of college histories published around the turn of the century; they vary greatly in quality.

Jordan Wilbur K. , Philanthropy in England, 1480–1660 (London, 1959), 279–91, and Stone Lawrence , “The educational revolution in England, 1560–1640”, Past and present, no. 28 (1964), 44–47.

Stone , ibid., 52, 55–57. He quite rightly points out that many men who came to the Inns of Court—he estimates fifty percent—had spent some time at the universities, although usually only a year or two.

Raach John H. , A directory of English country physicians, 1603–1643 (London, 1962), 14.

The process by which the role of scholar, legitimated in Europe since the high middle ages, was transformed into a scientist's role, has received curiously little attention from historians of science. Ben-David Joseph , The scientist's role in society (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971), 75–87, has a stimulating chapter on the case of seventeenth century England.

C[larke] T[imothy] , Some papers writ in the year 1664, in answer to a letter, concerning the practice of physick in England (London [1670]), 2–3.

See, for example, Hoppen K. Theodore , The common scientist in the seventeenth century: A study of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1708 (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1970).

The most complete and specific description of the Arts curriculum at late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century Oxford is to be found in Clark Andrew , Register of the University of Oxford , vol. ii (1571–1622), Part I (Oxford, 1887). For Cambridge see Costello William T. , The scholastic curriculum at early seventeenth-century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass., 1958). Edited versions of statutes for both universities are easily accessible. The ancient statutes of Oxford are printed in Gibson Strickland , ed., Statuta antiqua universitatis Oxoniensis (Oxford, 1931), while the Laudian Statutes of 1636 are available in Ward G. R. M. , trans., Oxford University statutes (London, 1845), vol. i. The earliest Cambridge statutes are available in Heywood James , ed., Early Cambridge university and college statutes (London, 1855), while the Latin text of the Elizabethan Statutes of 1570 is available in George Dyer, The privileges of the University of Cambridge (London, 1824), vol. i, 157–210, and an English translation, The statutes of Queen Elizabeth for the University of Cambridge (London, 1838) is usually annexed to Collection of statutes for the University and the colleges of Cambridge (London, 1840). Peacock George , Observations on the statutes of the University of Cambridge (London, 1841), contains many useful comments on the evolution of the university's constitution.

[ Ward Seth ], Vindiciae academiarum (Oxford, 1654), 2; see also a recent treatment of the debate on education in the 1650s by Debus Allen , Science and education in the seventeenth century: The Webster-Ward debate (London, 1970).

See Reif Patricia , “The textbook tradition in natural philosophy, 1600–1650”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxx (1969), 17–32.

Barrow Isaac , Works (Cambridge, 1859), ix, 46; Ward , Vindiciae, 2; North Roger , Autobiography (London, 1887), 15.

For a full description of the period of ‘necessary regency’ at Oxford, and of the duties of the regent master, see Clark , Register , 90–107; the system at Cambridge seems to have been essentially similar. In both universities the period of necessary regency was initially two years, but by the late sixteenth century the increased numbers of masters made possible a commutation to one year. This was succeeded by a practice of entrusting the duties of lecturing to certain regent-masters as deputies for the remaining masters, who paid a fee for this service to their ‘delegati’.

For a fuller discussion of these and other endowed positions at Oxford and Cambridge, see the section on scientific benefactions below.

BL MSS. Savile 29–32, 37.

Trinity College, Dublin, MSS. 382–6; see also BL MS. Smith 92 and MS. Add. A. 380.

BL MSS. Savile 41, 47, 49; MSS. Smith 15 and 93.

Ward Seth , De cometis (Oxford, 1653); BL MS. Savile 89.

BL MS. Auct. F. 6, 16; MS. Bodl. 886; MS. Lat. misc. c. 1; MS. Lat. misc. d. 2; MSS. Lat. misc. e. 3, 6, 8, 12, and 15; MSS. Lat. misc. f. 2, 4, 7, 9, and 11; MSS. Smith 7, 12, 45, 47–66 passim, and 72.

Gregory David , Catoptricae et dioptricae sphaericae elementa (Oxford, 1695), Astronomiae, physicae et geometriae elementa (Oxford, 1702), and A treatise of practical geometry (Edinburgh, 1745).

BL MS. Rawl. D. 237.

Keill John , Introductio ad veram astronomiam (Oxford, 1718).

BL MSS. Bradley 1–48.

BL MS. Locke f. 19.

Keill John , Introductio ad veram physicam (Oxford, 1701).

BL MS. Bradley 48; MS. Add. C. 272; CUL MS. Add. 6301.

BL MSS. Bradley 1, 3–13, 17, and 19; students' notes of his lectures are MS. Rigaud 34, MS. Eng. misc. e. 15 and 50.

Barrow Isaac , Lectiones habitae in scholis publicis Academicae Cantabrigiensis, Annis Domini 1664, 1665, 1666 (London, 1684), the Lectiones XVIII Cantabrigiae in scholis publicis habitae, in quibus opticorum phaenomenon genuinae rationes investigantur, ac exponentur (London, 1669), and the Lectiones geometricae (London, 1670).

Newton Isaac , Lectiones opticae, annis 1669, 1670, et 1671 in scholis publicis habitae (London, 1729); see also CUL MS. Dd. ix. 67; the lectures on mathematics are CUL MS. Dd. ix. 68.

CUL MS. Dd. iv. 18; also CUL MS. Dd. ix. 46.

See Whiston William , Praelectiones astronomicae (Cambridge, 1707) and Praelectiones physico-mathematicae (Cambridge, 1710); English translations of the former were published in 1715 and 1728; an English translation of the latter was issued in 1716.

BL MSS. Rigaud 3 and 4; more lectures by Sanderson are CUL MSS. Add. 589, 2977, and 6312.

Cotes Roger , Hydrostatical and pneumatical lectures (London, 1738); these lectures were first given in 1707.

The best explanation of the various disputations which the Oxford scholar had to complete successfully is in Clark, Register; although Clark describes the procedures under the old statutes, the protocols and terminology were left substantially unchanged by the Laudian Statutes.

“Registrum examinatorum et candidatorum, 1638–1669”, Oxford University Archives S.P. 52. The manuscript records the participation, either as examiner or candidate, of dozens of Oxford virtuosi, including Daniel Whistler, Francis Barksdale, George Joyliffe, Martin Llewellin, Ralph Bathurst, Henry Clerke, Thomas Willis, John Lydall, William Levinz, Henry Yerbury, Robert Wood, Nathaniel Hodges, Thomas Millington, Walter Pope, Richard Lower, Henry Stubbe, Robert Lovell, Thomas Jeanes, Christopher Wren, Nathaniel Crew, John Locke, Joseph Williamson, Thomas Sprat, Thomas Jeamson, George Castle, Thomas Brancker, Joseph Glanvill, Thomas Guidott, Benjamin Woodroffe, Robert Plot, Robert Sharrock, and John Mayow. All had recognizable scientific interests, and sixteen later became members of the Royal Society.

See Clark , Register, 50–66, for an explanation of this complicated ceremony.

For a list of the extant examples of “Ordo baccalaureorum determinantium in Quadragesima” , see Cordeaux and Merry , Bibliography, 181.

These disputations at ‘inception’ in arts are discussed in Clark, Register, 82–88.

Clark , Register, 70–79.

The “Quaestiones in Vesperiis et Comitiis” for the period after 1622 are to be found in the series of Registers of Congregation, Oxford University Archives.

Registrum Congregationis (1648–59), Oxford University Archives Q a 17, f. 154r.

Wordsworth , Scholae academicae, 26–60.

Scriba Christoph J. , “The autobiography of John Wallis, FRS”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxv (1970); cf. p. 29.

Ward , Vindiciae, 2.

Wordsworth , Scholae academicae, 66–70.

ibid., 301.

See the Allen article on medical education, ref. 2 above, and the more recent treatment by Robb-Smith A. H. T. , “Medical education at Oxford and Cambridge prior to 1850”, in The evolution of medical education in Britain , ed. Poynter F. N. L. (London, 1966); on medicine at Cambridge see: Rolleston Humphrey D. , The Cambridge medical school (London, 1932); Langdon-Brown William , Some chapters in Cambridge medical history (London, 1946); and recent articles by Rook Arthur , “Medicine at Cambridge, 1660–1760”, Medical history, xiii (1969), 107–22, and by Towers Bernard , “Anatomy and physiology in Cambridge before 1850”, in Cambridge and its contributions to medicine, ed. Rook Arthur (London, 1971).

See, for example, Calendar of state papers, domestic (1640–1641), 341, in which Clayton Thomas Jr , petitions Charles I for the reversion which James I had previously granted to John Speed.

BM MS. Sloane 2251, f. 19.

Caius College MSS. 65 and 430–32.

BM MSS. Sloane 3306–15.

For an explanation of these procedures, see Clark , Register , 123–9, 189–94, the relevant sections of the Laudian Statutes for Oxford in Ward, Statutes, vol. i, 52–54, 61, 65–66, and the analogous sections in the Elizabethan Statutes for Cambridge, The Statutes of Queen Elizabeth, 10, 17–18.

“Questiones in Medicina” for the period 1571–1622 are printed in Clark, Register, 189–94. The questions for the remainder of the century are in the Registers of Congregation, Oxford University Archives.

Letter to the author of 7 March 1972 from E. Leedham-Green, University Archives, Cambridge University.

They are to be found predominantly in BM MSS. Sloane 3307–12.

Clark , Register, 190.

ibid., 191; Registrum Congregationis (1634–47), Oxford University Archives, Q 16, f. 180v.

Registrum Congregationis (1648–59), Oxford University Archives, Q a 17, ff. 150v, 151v.

Registrum Congregationis (1659–69), Oxford University Archives, Q b 18, f. 174r.

Registrum Congregationis (1669–80), Oxford University Archives, B d 19, f. 209r.

BL MS. Smith 91; Francis Nicholls, Compendium anatomicum (London, 1732); BL MS. Add. A. 302.

BL MS. Lat. misc. c. 11; MSS. Lat. misc. d. 25–27; MSS. Lat. misc. e. 28–31.

For Vigani see Caius College MSS. 630 and 631, as well as CUL MS. Dd. xii. 53; for Mickleburgh see Caius College MS. 619, and for Hadley, Trinity College, Cambridge, MSS. R. 1. 50–51.

Collignon Charles , Compendium anatomico-medicum (Cambridge, 1756); see also his Tyrocinium anatomicum (Cambridge, 1763).

Bradley Richard , A course of lectures, upon the materia medica, antient and modern (London, 1730).