Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community 1700–1900

For further development of these brief remarks, see Thackray Arnold Merton's Robert K. “On discipline building: The paradoxes of George Sarton”, Isis, lxiii (1972), 473–95; Kuhn Thomas S. , “The history of science”, in Sills David L. , ed., The international encyclopedia of the social sciences (New York, 1968), xiv, 74–83; Thackray Arnold , “Science: Has its present past a future?”, in Stuewer Roger H. , ed., Historical and philosophical perspectives of science (Minneapolis, 1970), 112–27. See also ref. 3.

See especially Elkana Yehuda , “Rationality and scientific change” (forthcoming in the Proceedings of the 1973 Yväskylä conference on science and philosophy, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, ed. Cohen R. S. Wartofsky M. ).

See Debus Allen G. , ed., Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance (2 vols, New York & London, 1972); Toulmin Stephen , Human understanding (Princeton, N. J., 1972); Thackray Arnold , “Scientific knowledge and its historical problems”, Minerva, x (1972), 491–5.

Ben-David Joseph , The scientist's role in society: A comparative study (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971), vii. See also Kuhn Thomas S. , “Scientific growth: Reflections on Ben-David's ‘Scientific Role’”, Minerva, x (1972), 166–78.

Namier L. B. , The structure of politics at the accession of George III (London, 1929).

The exception is of course Robert K. Merton, whose pioneering 1938 study of Science, technology & society in seventeenth century England (reprinted New York, 1970) critically depended on prosopography as a technique of enquiry. However, in the classic sociological sense, Merton was marginal to the community of historians of science, and the possibilities inherent in his approach lay dormant through three decades, for reasons partially explored in Hall A. Rupert , “Merton revisited: Or science and society in the seventeenth century”, History of science, ii (1963), 1–16.

Stone Lawrence , “Prosopography”, Daedalus (Winter 1971), 46–79, p. 46. A bibliography of key sources is provided at the end of Stone's article. The subject of prosopography has been introduced to readers of this journal by McGuire J. E. , “Newton and the demonic furies: Some current problems and approaches in history of science”, History of science, xi (1973), 21–48 (esp. 22–27).

Stone Lawrence , op. cit. (ref. 7), 73.

Although we do not have space to discuss the matter here, it may be seen that a prosopographical approach to the history of science implicitly denies the dichotomy between ‘external’ and ‘internal’ factors and offers prospect of a release from such barren morphology. However valuable prosopography may prove to be in this connection, dissatisfaction with the dichotomy has been building for some time along quite different lines. See, for example, Barnes Barry , Scientific knowledge and sociological theory (forthcoming, London, 1974), esp. ch. v; Hesse Mary , “Hermeticism and the historiography of science: An apology for the internal history of science” in Stuewer , op. cit. (ref. 1), 134–62; Lilley S. , “Cause and effect in the history of science”, Centaurus, iii (1953), 58–72.

See Musson's A. E. editorial introduction to Science, technology and economic growth in the eighteenth century (London, 1972), 1–68.

See Morrell J. B. , “Individualism and the structure of British science in 1830”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, iii (1971), 183–204; Ross Sydney , “‘Scientist’: The story of a word”, Annals of science, xviii (1962), 65–86.

Cardwell D. S. L. , The organisation of science in England (rev. ed., London, 1972); Ben-David Joseph , op. cit. (ref. 4), chs v-vii.

See, for example, Ben-David's rather teleological treatment of ‘science’ and ‘scientism’ in eighteenth century France and England: Ref. 4, 80–84, 89–93.

Namier L. B. , England in the age of the American Revolution (London, 1930), 16–17.

As late as 1862 an officer of a major scientific society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, was vigorously arguing that admission to such organizations ought not to depend on “an artificial standard of literary and scientific distinction”. Of those lacking a “professional acquaintance with science”, he said “Let them come, and freely, and let us regard their adhesion to our ranks as a compliment on either side”. Forbes J. D. , “Opening address [to meeting of 1st December, 1862]”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, v (1866), 5–6.

Indeed, Kuhn Thomas S. , in his The structure of scientific revolutions (Chicago, 1962), has persuasively argued that the ultimate objectivity of successive scientific theories fails to account for the fact or the manner of their adoption by scientists, let alone by the wider public.

For an expansion of this general point in the context of American science, see Ezrahi Yaron , “The political resources of American science”, Science studies, i (1971), 117–33, and Rosenberg Charles E. , “Science and American social thought”, in Van Tassel D. Hall M. G. , (eds), Science and society in the United States (Homewood, Illinois, 1966), 135–62.

Beside the classic work of Peter Gay on the Enlightenment, see Jacob M. C. , “The Church and the formulation of the Newtonian world-view”, Journal of European studies, i (1971), 128–48.

Thus one obvious and persuasive, though ultimately sterile, task was to subsume chemistry under this model. See Thackray Arnold , Atoms and powers: An essay on Newtonian matter-theory and the development of chemistry (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970).

This point is made in the French context by Hahn Roger , The anatomy of a scientific institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666–1803 (Berkeley, 1971), ch. ii. See also Ben-David , op. cit. (ref. 4), 82–83, 85–86, 89–94. It is also an important theme of Robert Merton's Science, technology and society (ref. 6). For its rather different implications for provincial England, see Thackray Arnold , “Natural knowledge in cultural context: The Manchester model”, forthcoming in American historical review, lxxix (1974).

Aspects of the economic justification of science during the Industrial Revolution are explored by Porter Roy , “The Industrial Revolution and the rise of the science of geology”, in Teich M. Young R. M. (eds), Changing perspectives in the history of science (London, 1973), 320–43; and by Shapin Steven , “The Pottery Philosophical Society, 1819–35: An examination of the cultural uses of provincial science”, Science studies, ii (1972), 311–36.

See Mathias Peter , “Who unbound Prometheus? Science and technical change, 1600–1800”, in Mathias (ed.), Science and society 1600–1900 (Cambridge, 1972), 54–80.

Shaw Simeon , The chemistry of pottery (London, 1837), 8. Note the change in the social locus of anti-scholastic rhetoric from the seventeenth century leisured ‘virtuoso’ to the nineteenth century man of industry. See also Thackray Arnold , “The Industrial Revolution and the image of science” in Mendelsohn E. Thackray A. (eds), Science and values: Patterns of tradition and change (New York, 1973), 5–22.

This list is taken from Shaw (ref. 23) and similar texts, but lists of this sort may be found very generally in the early to mid nineteenth century, sometimes stretching the point to include men of science from families in quite comfortable circumstances, e.g. Black Joseph .

The usual framework in which the debate over the technological usefulness of science is cast is one in which contemporary science either can or cannot be specifically associated with given pieces of contemporary technology. Gillispie Charles C. , “The natural history of industry”, Isis, xlviii (1957), 398–407, and “The discovery of the Leblanc process”, ibid. , 152–70, argues the con; Schofield Robert E. , “The industrial orientation of science in the Lunar Society of Birmingham”, ibid. , 408–15, argues the pro. See also the selections in Musson A. E. , ed., op. cit. (ref. 10), and Musson A. E. Robinson's Eric massive documentation of a modified pro line in Science and technology in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, 1969).

New trends in education in the eighteenth century (London, 1951), 31–36. The inadequacy of relying on the D.N.B. for this sort of study will be briefly discussed below.

See Thackray Arnold , op. cit. (ref. 20) and John Dalton: Critical assessments of his life and science (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1972). The influence of local context on membership in the scientific enterprise is illustrated by the very different situation in Edinburgh. See Shapin Steven , “Property, patronage and the politics of science: The founding of the Royal Society of Edinburgh”, British journal for the history of science, vii (1974), 1–41.

A relationship discussed in general terms by Gellner Ernest , Thought and change (London, 1964), esp. 35, 179–80.

A general overview of scientific societies is given by Schofield Robert E. , “Histories of scientific societies: Needs and opportunities for research”, History of science, ii (1963), 70–83. Information about British provincial literary and philosophical societies may be found in Kelly Thomas , A history of adult education in Great Britain (Liverpool, 1970), 107–09, 112–15; Hudson J. W. , The history of adult education (London 1851); a list of such societies is in Hume A. , The learned societies and printing clubs of the United Kingdom (London, 1847). See also ref. 32.

Smiles Samuel , Boulton and Watt (London, 1865), 367–8, cited by Robinson Eric , “The Derby Philosophical Society”, Annals of science, ix (1953), 359–67, p. 359.

It is noteworthy that while many provincial societies were established to encompass “all branches of science, erudition and taste”, they by and large became scientific societies within several decades. This was certainly the case with the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Royal Irish Academy. Factors which may account for this include a higher local approval of scientific culture, the greater energy and entrepreneurship of scientific performers, and the suitability of the organizations' general format to scientific productions.

A number of centenary histories of British provincial societies are listed in section iv below. Recent studies of these organizations include Thackray Arnold , op. cit. (ref. 20) and “Medicine, manufacturers and Manchester men”, forthcoming in Proceedings of the XIIIth international congress of the history of science (Moscow, 1971); Orange A. D. , “The British Association for the Advancement of Science: The provincial background”, Science studies, i (1971), 315–29; “The origins of the British Association for the Advancement of Science”, British journal for the history of science, vi (1972), 152–76; Philosophers and provincials: The Yorkshire Philosophical Society from 1822 to 1844 (Yorkshire Philosophical Society, 1973); Shapin Steven , op. cit. (refs. 21, 27), and “The Royal Society of Edinburgh: A study of the social context of Hanoverian science” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1971). Morris Berman's work on the Royal Institution of London also emphasized the provincial direction of a metropolitan organization: “The early years of the Royal Institution 1799–1810: A re-evaluation”, Science studies, ii (1972), 205–40; “Social change and scientific organization: The Royal Institution, 1799–1810” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The John Hopkins University, 1971).

The proportions of the various categories differ markedly from one provincial society to another. Gentry were both numerous and influential in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, constituted only eight percent of the founders of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, and were almost totally absent from the Pottery Philosophical Society. Similarly, manufacturers of china and earthenware made up the majority of Pottery Philosophical Society members; manufacturers and merchants of all types made up almost half of the early nineteenth century Manchester Society, but were a negligible group in the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Also see ref. 60.

The distinction between ‘performer’ and ‘audience’ in scientific societies is a very useful organizing principle in assessing the cultural significance of natural knowledge. While the scientific productions of the few performers provide the stuff for the history of scientific ideas (considered in themselves), the reception of such performances by the relevant audience is the problem which leads us to look at the role of scientific activity in the process of cultural change.

“Patriot”, letter to editor of Pottery Mercury [Hanley, North Staffordshire], 12 October 1825. Cited in Shapin, op. cit. (ref. 21), 331.

Anonymous letter to editor, ibid., 28 September 1825. Cited in Shapin , ibid., 333.

“Caveat”, letter to editor, ibid., 21 September 1825. Cited in Shapin , ibid. , 333. On science in the Mechanics' Institutes, see Simon Brian , Studies in the history of education 1780–1870 (London, 1960); Tylecote Mabel , The Mechanics' Institutes of Lancashire and Yorkshire before 1851 (Manchester, 1957); and also Kelly Hudson , op. cit. (ref. 29).

In the Pottery Philosophical Society, for example, many of the manufacturer-members were also closely associated with the Society for the Prosecution of Felons, Central Savings Banks for workers, agitation for Parliamentary Acts for municipal police and lighting, and, later, with the Mechanics' Institute. Members of the Manchester Society sponsored the ‘lying-in’ and ‘lock’ hospitals, street widening, the Portico library and the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. See Shapin, op. cit. (ref. 21) and Thackray, op. cit. (ref. 20).

Barnes Thomas Henry Thomas , as quoted in Thackray, op. cit. (ref 20). For an analogous defence of the study of natural history in the Edinburgh context, see Smellie William , The philosophy of natural history (Dover, New Hampshire, 1808; orig. publ. Edinburgh, 1790), 7–8: “It is a source of interesting amusement, prevents idle or vicious propensities, and exalts the mind to a love of virtue and of rational entertainment. … This knowledge will be a perpetual and inexhaustible source of manly pleasures; it will afford innocent and virtuous amusement, and will occupy agreeably the leisure or vacant hours of life”. Also see Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 21), 319.

As it was, natural philosophy in Britain did, to a certain extent, become involved in the domestic reaction to the ‘French Philosophy’ and to ‘free-thinking’ in general. See Morrell J. B. , “Professors Robison and Playfair, and the Theophobia Gallica: Natural philosophy, religion and politics in Edinburgh, 1789–1815”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxvi (1971), 43–63; Garfinkle Norton , “Science and religion in England 1790–1800”, Journal of the history of ideas, xvi (1955), 376–88; and also the numerous accounts of the 1791 Priestley riots.

Very little has been written about these societies (also known as ‘field clubs’). Although several such organizations were founded before the mid nineteenth century, the greatest number appeared during the 1860s, 1870s and 1880s. The scope of their scientific interest was almost always local and their general purpose was to establish natural history and archaeology as ‘genteel’ avocations rather than to contribute to the advance of esoteric scientific knowledge. For a society founded in the 1870s, see Stephens Michael D. Roderick Gordon W. , “Science training for the nineteenth century English amateur: The Penzance Natural History and Antiquarian Society”, Annals of science, xxvii (1971), 135–41; for an earlier society, which changed in character during the nineteenth century, see Goddard T. Russell , History of the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1829–1929 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1929).

By the early 1880s British scientists were suffering a massive assault on their ‘arrogance’ and the inaccessibility of their esoteric knowledge. In some quarters the scientific community was accused of attempting to supplant traditional theological and intellectual loyalties by a ‘priestcraft of science’. The appearance of such criticism may be taken as a landmark of cultural divorce. See MacLeod Roy M. , “Resources of science in Victorian England: The Endowment of Science movement, 1868–1900”, in Mathias Peter (ed.), op. cit. (ref. 22), 111–66 (esp. 151–54).

Howarth O. J. R. , The British Association for the Advancement of Science: A retrospect, 1831–1931 (2nd ed., London, 1931), 13, 15.

This approach is taken to the study of the influence of progressively minded local gentry on the Edinburgh school of geology by Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 32), 236–53, 285–96.

We shall argue below that the printed sources permit the historian to establish whatever criteria he wishes for the ‘scientific’ nature of a publication.

Among the 495 ordinary Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh elected from 1783 to 1820, only fortyfour percent were at all active in the society, only twentysix percent read papers to the Society, and an even smaller percentage published papers in the Transactions. See Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 32), 309.

Almost needless to say, we recognize significant overlap between these artificial categories and intend no hierarchical significance by the ordering of levels.

Of the recent studies which have adopted the prosopographical approach to the social context of British science, Shapin's and Thackray's are the largest in scale. Shapin's work includes all 495 ordinary Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh elected from 1783 to 1820. Thackray's ongoing study of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society deals with 589 members over a longer period of time. Berman's study of the Royal Institution's Board of Governors examined a smaller sample (ref. 32). See also Bonnie Bullough Vern , “Intellectual achievers: A study of eighteenth-century Scotland”, American journal of sociology, lxxvi (1971), 1048–63; Vern Bullough Bonnie , “The causes of the Scottish medical Renaissance of the eighteenth century”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, xlv (1971), 13–28.

We are concerned here only with printed sources. Our intent is not in any way to de-emphasize the value of manuscript sources but to illustrate just how much may be learned from relatively accessible non-manuscript material. In the bibliographical essay which follows we make no attempt to be comprehensive and we have made a selection of sources which we believe to be the most useful of their kind. On manuscript sources for British men of science, see MacLeod R. M. Friday J. R. , Archives of British men of science (London, 1972) and the bibliography in the same authors' “The quest for archives of British men of science”, History of science, xi (1973), 8–20.

The Dictionary of scientific biography is being edited under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies, editor-in-chief, C. C. Gillispie. When finished it will consist of twelve volumes, treating scientists of all times and nations. Seven volumes have appeared to date. From them it appears that every included British man of science for the period is also to be found in the D.N.B. Other biographical dictionaries of men of science include: Debus Allen G. (ed.), World who's who in science (Chicago, 1968) and Williams Trevor I. , A biographical dictionary of scientists (London, 1969).

There is also a German edition called Das gelehrte England.

Mention must also be made in this connection of the very valuable ‘Isis’ cumulative bibliography, edited by Whitrow Magda (London, 1971). The section on “Personalities” in the first two volumes leads one to a massive secondary literature on men of science, many of lesser stature.

Especially the section on “Biography” in vol. i, 849–61.

Album studiosorum Academiae Lugduno Batavae, MDLXXV–MDCCCLXXV, compiled by Du Rieu W. N. (The Hague, 1875).

Actually mistitled; it is an index to all matriculants.

See the appendix of Hans, op. cit. (ref. 26) for a list of masters teaching at dissenting academies.

As an example of the kind of study which may be done with the Glasgow University sources, see Mathew W. M. , “The origins and occupations of Glasgow students, 1740–1839”, Past and present, xxxiii (1966), 74–94.

For a guide to sources for nineteenth century British universities, see Silver Harold Teague S. John , The history of British universities 1800–1969, excluding Oxford and Cambridge: A bibliography (Research into higher education monographs, no. xiii, London, 1970). Also useful in this connection is Raven-Hart H. Johnston Marjorie , “Bibliography of the registers (printed) of the universities, inns of court, colleges and schools of Great Britain and Ireland”, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, ix (1931–32), 19–30, 65–83, 154–70; x (1932–33), 109–13; now partially updated by Jacobs Phyllis M. , Registers of the universities, colleges and schools of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1964).

Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 32).

Data for the Royal Society of London are from Lyons Henry Sir , The Royal Society 1660–1940 (Cambridge, 1944), 342; for Edinburgh, from Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 32), 107, 317; for Manchester, from Thackray, op. cit. (ref. 20). The less significant Pottery Philosophical Society had just eight physicians and surgeons among its 72 members, but they were among the most active scientific performers. See Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 21), 321, 324.

Thompson E. P. , The making of the English working class ( Pelican ed., Harmondsworth, 1968), 812.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 32), 32–39, 120–22, 152–57.

Though some useful information is given in Bourne M. R. Fox , English merchants: Memoirs in illustration of the progress of commerce (2 vols, London, 1866).

See, for example, Gross Charles , A bibliography of British municipal history (2nd ed., Leicester, 1966); Humphreys Arthur L. , A handbook to county bibliography (London, 1917); Norton Jane E. , Guide to the national and provincial directories of England and Wales (London, 1950); Goss C. W. F. , The London directories, 1677–1855: A bibliography (London, 1932). The indexes to the Victoria county history also make a good starting point.