Towards Solomon's House: Rival Strategies for Reforming the Early Royal Society

For writings up to 1981 see Hunter Michael , Science and society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981). In addition see Lotte and Mulligan Glenn , “Reconstructing Restoration science: Styles of leadership and social composition of the early Royal Society”, Social studies of science, xi (1981), 327–64; Hunter Michael , “Reconstructing Restoration science: Problems and pitfalls in institutional history”, Social studies of science, xii (1982), 451–66; idem, The Royal Society and its Fellows 1660–1700: The morphology of an early scientific institution (Chalfont St Giles, 1982); idem, “Early problems in professionalising scientific research: Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) and the Royal Society, with an unpublished letter to Henry Oldenburg”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxxvi (1981–82), 189–209; Heilbron J. L. , Physics at the Royal Society during Newton's presidency (Los Angeles, 1983); Hunter Michael , “A ‘college’ for the Royal Society: The abortive plan of 1667–1668”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxxviii (1983–84), 159–86; idem, “The cabinet institutionalised: The Royal Society's ‘repository’ and its background”, in Impey Oliver and MacGregor Arthur (eds), The origins museums: The cabinet of curiosities in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe (Oxford, 1985), 159–68.

Hoppen K. T. , “The nature of the early Royal Society”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 1–24, 243–73; 'Espinasse Margaret , Robert Hooke (London, 1956), 8–9, 63–70; Levine J. M. , Dr Woodward's shield: History, science and satire in Augustan England (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1977), ch. 5.

Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), ch. 2; Frank R. G. Jr , “Institutional structure and scientific activity in the early Royal Society”, Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the History of Science (1974) (Tokyo, 1975), iv, 82–101; 'Espinasse Margaret , “The decline and fall of Restoration science”, Past and present, xiv (1958), 71–89.

Birch Thomas , The history of the Royal Society of London (4 vols, London, 1756–57; New York and London, 1968), i, 415; Sprat Thomas , The history of the Royal Society, ed. by Cope J. I. and Jones H. W. (London, 1959), 434. On Hooke's position see 'Espinasse , Robert Hooke (ref. 2), 4, 83.

Birch , History, i, 402–3,406–7. For the minutes of some of these committees see Royal Society Domestic Manuscripts (hereinafter D.M.), 5. 62–68.

Oldenburg Henry to Boyle Robert , 24 Feb. 1666, in Hall A. R. Hall M. B. (eds), The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (11 vols, continuing, Madison, Milwaukee and London, 1965-), iii, 45; Hunter , “A ‘college’” (ref. 1).

Birch , History (ref. 4), i, 5; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), esp. ch. 1.

Loc. cit.; for contributions see for example Birch , History (ref. 4), i, 453, 472–3.

Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), ch. 3.

Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 42–43; Frank , “Institutional structure” (ref. 3), 94–96.

Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 131–2, 265; Lyons Henry Sir , The Royal Society 1660–1940 (Cambridge, 1944), 172–3, 219–20, 247–8.

Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 344, 346, 378.

ibid., ii, 178–9, 194, 206, 212, 355, 441.

ibid., ii, 358, 371, 376, 378–9. Oldenburg had earlier been refused a salary as against piecemeal gratuities: See ibid., ii, 273, and Oldenburg , Correspondence (ref. 5), iv, p. xxiv. Oldenburg's paper of spring 1668, printed in the Correspondence, is taken from British Library Additional Manuscript 4441, fol. 27. It was earlier printed in Weld C. R. , A history of the Royal Society (2 vols, London, 1848), i, 135–6n., where it is wrongly dated to c. 1663. Cf. Lyons H. G. , “The officers of the society (1662–1860)”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, iii (1940–41), 116–40, p. 121, and idem, Royal Society (ref. 11), 46, where it is dated 1664.

See below, Document A. For Neile's activity in the Society at this time see Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, passim, Oldenburg , Correspondence (ref. 5), iv–vi, passim, and Royal Society Classified Papers (hereinafter Cl.P.) iii (1) 48–53.

Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 346.

See Sprat , History (ref. 4), 89–90, 100–9, 115–16. On the method expounded in Sprat see Wood P. B. , “Methodology and apologetics: Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society”, The British journal for the history of science, xiii (1980), 1–26, pp. 6–12.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 63, 70; Hunter , “Early problems” (ref. 1), esp. 192–3. For a complaint in 1671 that “very many things were begun at the society, but very few of them prosecuted” see Birch , History, ii, 469.

Ward Seth to Sheldon Gilbert , 19 Aug. 1673, Bodleian Library MS Tanner 42, fol. 29.

Sharp L. G. , “Sir William Petty and some aspects of seventeenth-century natural philosophy” (unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1977), 255; Robinson H. W. and Adams Walter , (eds), The diary of Robert Hooke 1672–1680 (London, 1935), 57.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 94f.; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 38; Sharp , “Sir William Petty”, 261–73, 401–7. On expulsion see further below, Section 2.

D. M. 5.8 and 1 (printed in Bluhm R. K. , “Remarks on the Royal Society's finances 1660–1768”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xiii (1958), 82–103, p. 97). On the appointment of the committee see Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 118–19; see also D.M. 5.11(bis) and 12A, which evidently relate to the work of this committee, and Bowood House Petty Manuscripts H (8) 6, 8–9 and 11–13.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 155; see also ibid., 137–41, and, for references to replies to the declaration, 190–1. On the bonds see Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 96–97. See also D.M. 5.10 (see below, ref. 27).

D.M. 5.13.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 10, transcribed in Sharp , “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 399–400 (with the following errors: “make” has been omitted between “to” and “pastime” in the tenth line from the bottom of p. 399 and “those” has been mistranscribed as “there” on p. 400, 1. 5; Sharp does not note Petty's deletions). Petty's concern about potential benefactors may have been linked to the Society's hopes of Cutler at this time: See below. From the minutes ( Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 136–7) it sounds as if Petty was asked to get Fellows to agree to advance a year's salary all at once and to get them legally to blige themselves to entertain the Society: These matters are mentioned in his version, but, as with Goddard, it is Fellows deeply in debt who are his main target.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 100. Compare Hooke in Cl.P. xx.50, fols 85 and 98, wanting to make the Royal Society “self subsisting”.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 136–7; D.M. 5.10 (“A Forme propos'd of the Legal Obligation for paying the weekly Contributions to be subscribed by the Fellows of the R[oyal] S[ociety]”, probably dating from summer 1674). It is perhaps worth noting that in D.M. 5.13 Goddard left the amount of the subscription blank.

D.M. 5.15. See below, ref. 33.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 93; see also iii, 70. Lyons H. G. , “The society's first bequest”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, ii (1939), 43–46, p. 44.

Clark George Sir , A history of the Royal College of Physicians (3 vols, Oxford, 1964–66), i, 330–1; Lang Jane , Rebuilding St Paul's after the Great Fire of London (London, 1956), 98.

Ward Seth to Sheldon Gilbert , 19 Aug. 1673, Bodleian Library MS Tanner 42, fol. 29 (this letter suggests that it may have been because of perceived conflict with Cutler's impending benefaction to St Paul's that the Royal Society grant did not materialize); Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 91 (see below, ref. 39). The relevant references in Hooke's Diary (ref. 20) may be divided up as follows: Pp. 47, 56 almost certainly refer to the new endowment; pp. 49, 51 certainly refer to Hooke's arrears; pp. 53, 57, 60, 63, 67, 70–71, 74, 77, 78 could refer to either.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 100; Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 40, 152. Cf. Adamson Ian , “The Royal Society and Gresham College 1660–1711”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxxiii (1978–79), 1–21, p. 2 and p. 16 n. 9.

D.M. 5.14–15. The fair copy (item 15) is printed in Bluhm , “Remarks on finances” (ref. 22), 93–94. The chief differences between the draft and the fair copy are as follows. Firstly, the former has notes on the duties of the curators omitted from the latter: “Dr Grew to have notice to bring in an Experiment every meeting. And Mr Hook undertakes [sic: Replacing “to agree with him”, deleted] doe the like. And the account of the Experiments shall be brought in in writing and be read [“, and left”, deleted]”. Secondly, whereas D.M. 5.15 has arrears valued at £1100 and college subscriptions at £900, 5.14 gives the figures as £1000 each. Thirdly, the conjugate leaf of item 15 (not printed by Bluhm) has further notes originally written in pencil and then inked in, probably in a different hand, of which there is no equivalent in item 14. Here the idea of three secretaries and two curators, as against two and three respectively in Oldenburg's notes, is put forward; in addition, there are totals of Fellows in the classes “Strangers”, “Travell[ers]”, “Exc[used]” and “Doubtf[ul]”, headed “Not to be reckond upon”, and calculations for a sliding scale of membership fees according to social rank (see above at ref. 28) with the total that this would give in terms of the number of Fellows from each class in the Society.

This is suggested by the fact that the arrears are given as £2200, which is a figure at which they must have stood at some point in 1674 (see Bluhm , “Remarks on finances”, 96). That these notes are later than October 1673 is clear from the fact that Oldenburg knew about Wilkins's bequest. The £20 from Sir John Cutler that appears may represent a realistic estimate of the extent of his expected funding for Hooke as Cutlerian Lecturer: Bluhm speculated that it might represent “a projected further endowment by Cutler that never materialised” (art. cit., 95), but it seems to bear no obvious relation - as interest or anything else - to the £1000 hoped for in 1673.

See Hunter , “A ‘college’” (ref. 1), esp. 163–4. The figures given for college subscriptions in both D.M. 5.14 and 15 are less than the total actually promised in 1668, doubtless to allow for the death of some of those who had promised contributions in the interim: See ibid., 177, 178, 185 n. 94.

For the background to this, see Hunter , “Early problems” (ref. 1), esp. 199, 200–1.

In D.M. 5.14 the words “Which in houses amounts to £2860. in lands 3740” are added in what appears to be Hooke's hand.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 5. Other officers are also referred to, but these were presumably voluntary. The fact that the same sum, of £40, is allowed for “Contingents” in this and the Oldenburg papers just referred to could suggest that both are of similar date. A date earlier than the 1680s may be suggested by the fact that Petty here envisaged an expenditure of £440, whereas in 1687 he thought in terms of £500 (see below at ref. 66). It should be noted that some of the financial calculations in this paper may not refer to the Royal Society.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 91. It has been endorsed “Scheme of the R[oyal] S[ociety] in Mr Oldenburgh's hand”.

Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 67.

For example, such headings as “1. Its Antiquity, Ever was & Ever will bee” and “4. Its Extent, for that All Trades are members of the Society”: Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 5.

See Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 136f., esp. 138–9 for the Council meeting of 19 October 1674.

See the accounts referred to in ref. 21.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 309–10.

Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 40–41, 99–100.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 365; de Beer E. S. (ed.), The diary of John Evelyn (6 vols, Oxford, 1955), iv, 125–6. See also Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 333, 335.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 513–14; iv, 6–8, 20. There was also concern about the Society's records: ibid., iii, 514–15, 518; iv, 9.

Evelyn , Diary (ref. 46), iv, 205; John Evelyn to Samuel Pepys, 25 June 1680, in H.M.C. MSS of J. Eliot Hodgkin (London, 1897), 177. See also Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 43, 46.

Birch , History, iii, 516; iv, 7, 16, 20, 65.

Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 41–42.

Philosophical transactions, xii (1677–79), 923–1074. On the Society's publication policy see Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 51–54.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 450–1. For further references to proposed publications at this time see ibid., iii, 491, 501, 514, 518.

ibid., iv, 7, 16, 19.

Except for those relating to his arbitration in the dispute between Hooke and Cutler John Sir in 1682–83: See Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 15–19. For the suggestion that Petty was discouraged by the limited outcome of his efforts in the early 1670s see Sharp , “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 271 and n. 3.

Hunter , “Reconstructing Restoration science” (ref. 1), 458–9.

Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 335, 337–8, 437 (where Hooke records “much cavilling, caballing”), 439–40; Hooke Robert to Beale John , 6 March 1680, British Library MS Sloane 1039, fol. 171 (this copy or draft is in the hand of an amanuensis, thus explaining its erratic spelling). For a further paper on publications by Hooke , of uncertain date, see Cl.P. xx.59.

British Library MS Sloane 1039, fols 112–13. This is printed in Weld , History (ref. 14), i, 148–9, and from thence in Gunther R. T. (ed.), Early science in Oxford (15 vols, Oxford, 1923–67), vi, 123–4. Weld wrongly claimed that this document is to be found in British Library Additional Manuscript 4441. His transcription also contains a number of errors and omissions, of which the most important are the omission of the words “and so hereafter from time to time” after “this present” in the fourth line from the bottom of p. 148, the omission of “such as the character of such new books or Discourses as are published here or elsewhere soe soon as they can procure them” after “occur” in 1.4 on p. 149, the misreading of “A theory” as “Astronomy” in 1.19 on the same page, and the omission of the following incomplete new paragraph after the passage he quoted: “Now that such observations may be made the more effectuall for the purposes aforesaid it is thought fit to communicate [replacing “publish”, deleted] those Instructions following for the better Directions of such as may not otherwise be soe well versed in the performance thereof.” On the dating of this manuscript see Appendix II. On dipping needles see Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 18–19, 21–22, and Hooke to Sturmius J. C. , 6 April 1680, in Gunther , Early science, vii, 552.

Cl.P. xx.50. Since this item comprises a number of separate papers, references within it are here given to the overall pencilled foliation of Cl.P. xx, of which this item occupies fols 85–98. On dating, including references to Hooke's Diary, see Appendix II. It is perhaps worth noting that most of the diary references of 1678–80 involve oral rather than written deliveries on Hooke's part: But since he was now on the Council this is perhaps not surprising.

For instance, as to whether absent members were to receive bulletins fortnightly (fol. 93v) or monthly (fols 95, 96); whether it was to cost two pence (fol. 93v) or “not exceeding 1s” (fol. 97); whether putative members were to be attested by at least six existing members (fol. 87) or ten (fol. 94); whether admission should cost £5 (fol. 87) or £4 (fol. 94v); and as to how many staff the Society should employ, on which see below at ref. 104.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 97.

Ibid., fols 86–87. Points that arise here but not in the longer paper, fols 92–94, include the idea of incentives for curators and of a research and development fund discussed in Section 2, below. See also ref. 123.

Gunther , Early science (ref. 57), vi, xiii, from fol. 95. This section also appears in Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 57, while the whole of fols 95–96 are transcribed in Pugliese P. J. , “The scientific achievement of Robert Hooke: Method and mechanics” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1982), 648–51 (a brief discussion of the papers as a whole appears in ibid., 38–40). In addition, part of fol. 85 and a short section out of context from fol. 86 were printed in Weld , History (ref. 14), i, 138–40 (and dated, without any authority, to c. 1662), whence they were reprinted in Gunther , Early science, vi, 121–2 (dated to 1663). For Hooke's paper for Pepys see Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson A 171, fols 245–6: See also Cl.P. xx.70 and Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 468. It is worth noting here that fol. 98 is a heavily corrected draft for fol. 85.

Cl.P. xx.50, fols 88 (with information on, for instance, the regular performances required of members and honorary Fellows) and 97 (more explicit than other papers on secrecy). The anonymous paper is fol. 89. Its content is as follows: “Symposia [deleted] / Assembly / Philosophical [deleted] debate of causes / All busyed / Ordering Experiments / Curators or sollicitors by turne the contrary making others idle, drayning him & creating to[o] much dependance on him / Recompense piecemeale [substituted for “by times”, deleted] And mulcts upon default latam sententiam & to performers immunity & reward / Registring remarkes & [?deleted] read first and the Reg[iste]r 1st next day / Letters opend & read / Answers dictated [substituted for “directed”, deleted] & sent [“& expected” deleted] / Registry & repository Kalendard & in publicke custody. / Accounts sent to absent wellwillers / Symposia”. There are no conclusive dating clues; the need for the repository to be calendared could suggest a date early in the 1670s; but the need to specify accounts for absent “wellwillers” suggests a date after the death of Oldenburg. The paper by Oldenburg dated 1 Nov. 1673 already discussed is the next item in Cl.P. xx.50 (fol. 91), apart from an old cover sheet that has been bound in (fol. 90).

ibid., fols 85, 95, 96, 97, and below, Document C. See also above ref. 59.

We do, however, hear of “Some proposals being read for regulating the business of the Society” in 1684: See Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 246.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 14, transcribed in Sharp , “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 392. This transcription is correct, but it may be noted that the number of seven suggested for the council of management has apparently been substituted for five. On Petty's election to the Council see Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 555.

For a related draft see the Marquis of Lansdowne , (ed.), The Petty papers (2 vols, London, 1927), ii, 9. Lansdowne notes Petty's renewed interest in education in the mid-1680s: ibid., ii, 3. For an ealier statement of his interest see [ Petty William ], The advice of W. P. to Mr Samuel Hartlib, for the advancement of some particular parts of learning (London, 1648).

In February 1686 Council members were asked to come to the next meeting “prepared to give their thoughts about the means of making experiments in a philosophical method”, while the 1687 committee was intended “to consider of experiments and the correspondents of the Society”: Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 455, 524.

Royal Society Council minutes (copy), ii, 141, 143–5, 148–9; Royal Society journal book (copy), ix, 118, 124; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 45–46.

Royal Society Council minutes (copy), ii, 151; Richard Waller to Hans Sloane, 11 April 1699, British Library MS Sloane 4037, fol. 249. For the text of the regulations, which Waller refers to by number, see Aucoc Leon , L'Institut de France: Lois, statuts et reglements (Paris, 1889), pp. lxxxiv–xcii.

See Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 40.

D.M. 5.12, partially printed in Bluhm , “Remarks on finances” (ref. 22), 92. On its identification and dating see Appendix II.

On the tendency for doctors to drift away from the Society see Hunter , “Early problems” (ref. 1), 204; Frank , “Institutional structure” (ref. 3), 97.

Brewster David , Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1855), i, 102–4; Manuel F. E. , A portrait of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 444–5 and ch. 13; Westfall R. S. , Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, 1980), 685 and ch. 13 passim.

Smith Thomas to Lister Martin , 25 Feb. 1710, Bodleian Library MS Lister 37, fol. 179. See also Smith to Lister , 16 July 1709, ibid., fol. 154, and Lister to Smith, 6 July 1709 and 15 Feb. 1710, Bodleian Library MS Smith 52, fols. 3 and 16.

See Hunter , “The cabinet” (ref. 1), 162–6. See also Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 65–69.

Hooke Robert to Bernard Francis , 7 April 1674, Bodleian Library MD Smith 45, fol. 105; Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 352. See also Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 146.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 137. For comparable comments on later occasions, see ibid., iii, 516–17; iv, 187–8.

See Frank , “Institutional structure” (ref. 3), 91–94, and Heilbron , Physics at the Royal Society (ref. 1), ch. 1. For a highly suggestive study of related themes see Schaffer Simon , “Natural philosophy and public spectacle in the eighteenth century”, History of science, xxi (1983), 1–43.

Lyons , Royal Society (ref. 11), passim. For comments on this see Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 2, 49.

See below, Document Molyneux B. to Halley , 8 April 1686, in Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 476. Cf. Simms J. G. , William Molyneux of Dublin, ed. by Kelly P. H. (Blackrock, 1982), 56. On Molyneux see also Hoppen K. T. , The common scientist in the seventeenth century (London, 1970), esp. ch. 5.

Petty's view of the primacy of experimentation is stated explicitly in his “Advertisements for the Dublin Society”, reproduced by Hoppen , op. cit., 202–3. His activities in the reform efforts of the early 1670s are consistent with this view: See Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, esp. 102, 119. For Hooke, see below, Document C. Compare William Neile, below, Document A.

See below, ref. 85 and Document B. On 'A.B.”s identity see Appendix I.

Spedding J. Ellis R. L. and Heath D. D. , (eds), The works of Francis Bacon (14 vols, London, 1857–74), iv, 95. Cf. Wood P. B. , “Francis Bacon and the ‘experimentall philosophy’: A study in seventeenth century methodology” (unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of London, 1978), 39–45.

Bacon , Works, ii, 335; Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 43, 46; Hunter Michael , John Aubrey and the realm of learning (London, 1975), ch. 2; see also above ref. 17.

See below, Document B.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 8. Cf. ibid., iii, 102. Weld , History (ref. 14), i, 147: On this paper see further below ref. 211.

See below, Document A; Derham William , (ed.), Philosophical experiments and observations of the late eminent Dr Robert Hooke (London, 1726; London, 1967), 26.

Wood , “Francis Bacon” (ref. 84), 222–3; Boyle Robert , Certain physiological essays, in Birch Thomas (ed.), The works of the honourable Robert Boyle (6 vols, London, 1772), i, 303.

See below, Document A.

See Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 315, 318, 320, 328, 332–3, 335, 337–9, 340, 341, 342, 344, 347, 350, 352–4, 358, 361, 362, 377, 381–2, 387–8, 392, 397.

See especially Neile William to Oldenburg Henry , 7 May 1669, in Oldenburg , Correspondence (ref. 6), v, 517–18. On Neile's position see also Bennett J. A. , The mathematical science of Christopher Wren (Cambridge, 1982), 118–19, 122.

Neile William to Oldenburg Henry , 13 May, 7 May 1669, in Oldenburg , Correspondence (ref. 6), v, 544, 518. See also Neile's other letters in ibid., passim, and below, Document A.

See below, Document B; Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 86; Hoppen , Common scientist (ref. 81), 203. See also the anonymous memorandum quoted at ref. 87, above.

See below, Document B.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 14, printed in Sharp , “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 392 (but see above, ref. 66). For Hooke see below, Document C; but for another draft which implies that the Council combined administrative and scientific functions see Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 85.

See above, passim, and below, Document A.

Hahn Roger , The anatomy of a scientific institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences 1666–1803 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971), 21–22.

Cl.P. xx.50, 89. See above ref. 63.

See, however, Hooke as referred to below at ref. 104.

D.M. 5.14–15 and see above ref. 33.

See below, Document B. On the History of Trades see Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), ch. 4.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 5; see above ref. 33.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 85 (it is revealing that “at least” is an insertion); see below Document C: “20” may have been deleted, perhaps due to Hooke's realising that his plans were getting out of hand.

Cl.P. xx.50, fols 86–87. See also Derham , Philosophical experiments (ref. 88), 26–28, where Hooke describes this process in some detail.

Cl.P. xx.50, fols 86–87, and below, Document C. Petty too recognized that the society validated the work of others: See Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 10, transcribed in Sharp, “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 399. On this function in the Académie des Sciences, see Hahn , Anatomy (ref. 98), 21–24.

See below, Document B.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 86. For a slightly different suggestion see below, Document C. Compare the system operated under Newton: Heilbron , Physics at the Royal Society (ref. 1), 18–19.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 86.

ibid., fols 85, 88, and see below, Document C.

See below, Document B.

See below, Document B.

Loc. cit. and Cl.P. xx.50, fols 87, 96. On the 1670s see above at refs 22 and 43.

Waller Richard , (ed.), The posthumous works of Robert Hooke (London, 1705), 19–20: On the dating of Hooke's scheme see Wood , “Methodology and apologetics” (ref. 17), 24 n. 45. It is possibly significant that a manuscript lecture which overlaps with this material is to be found juxtaposed with the papers on the Royal Society analysed here, Cl.P. xx.50a. For a discussion of Hooke's conception of natural histories see Wood , “Francis Bacon” (ref. 84), 216–22, and Pugliese , “Scientific achievement of Robert Hooke” (ref. 62), 9–31.

See Crosland Maurice , “Explicit qualifications as a criterion for membership of the Royal Society: A historical review”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxxvii (1982–83), 167–87.

See below, Document C, and Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 87.

See below, Document C. On existing arrangements see Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), appendix 10.

See below, Document C, and Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 87.

See below, Document C. The last suggestion was presumably linked to the factionalism from which the Society suffered: See Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 44–45.

Waller Richard to Sloane Hans , 11 April 1699, British Library MS Sloane 4037, fol. 249. Cf. Hooke's own view in D.M. 5.12, printed in Bluhm , “Remarks on finances” (ref. 22), 92.

Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 45, 56–57.

See below, ref. 174; Cl.P. xx.50, fols 97, 85.

See below, Documents B and C. On the Society's validating role see above at ref. 106: See also Hooke in Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 86, where he suggests “That any person that hath found out any new & usefull invention which upon his discovery thereof to the Society shall be approved of as such, shall Receive from the Society a publique attestation thereof under their common seal, and be further Gratifyed by a medall picture or some mark of honor & respect suitable to his invention”.

Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 5. The “benefit and satisfaction” of membership is also referred to by Goddard in D.M. 5.13.

Cl.P. xx.50, fols 95, 97. Cf. ibid., fol. 85, and below, Document C.

Ibid., fol. 97. See below, Document C, and ibid., fols 85, 86–87, 95, 96. In fol. 86, Hooke was a little less strict about the museum: Non-members were allowed to see it with the Society's permission. On visitors to the museum, see Altick R. T. , The shows of London (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), 14.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 97, and see below, Document C.

ibid., fol. 85.

See below, Document B; Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 137–9. Richard Waller was later hostile to the presence of non-members at meetings for a slightly different reason - “some forrainers possibly comeing only to spye what is a doing and will never contribute any to us of worth”: Waller to Sloane Hans , 11 April 1699, British Library MS Sloane 4037, fol. 249.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 450–1.

Hahn , Anatomy (ref. 98), 16; Middleton W. E. Knowles , The experimenters: A study of the Accademia del Cimento (Baltimore, 1971), 300–1; Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), 100, and the references cited there. Hahn is perhaps being overly Mertonian when he claims that scientific academies in the late seventeenth century were ‘open’ and that intellectuals freely communicated their discoveries: See Hahn , Anatomy, 3, 43–44. Compare Merton on the norm of ‘communism’: Merton R. K. , The sociology of science, ed. by Storer N. W. (Chicago, 1973), 274.

See above at ref. 53.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iv, 158; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 41 and appendix 8.

Loc. cit.; Waller Richard to Sloane Hans , 11 April 1699, British Library MS Sloane 4037, fol. 249 (see above ref. 70).

Birch , History (ref. 4), ii, 124, 127.

Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 101; see below, Document B.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 119; Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 10, printed in Sharp, “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 400, and see above, Section 1.

See below, Document B; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 100.

See below, Documents B and C.

See Hunter , Science and society (ref. 1), passim. The preoccupation with gaining wider support in the latter part of the letter of ‘A.B.’, below, Document B, further illustrates this.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 95. Compare Neile's view, below, Document A.

Hunter , “Early problems” (ref. 1), esp. 200–1. Compare Heilbron , Physics at the Royal Society (ref. 1), 20–25.

Sharp , “Sir William Petty” (ref. 20), 401–7; Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 143–271, passim.

See above at ref. 72.

Lyons , Royal Society (ref. 11), 243–4, 257. On the reforms which took place at this time see, in addition to ibid., ch. 7: Miller D. P. , “The Royal Society of London 1800–1835: A study of the cultural politics of scientific organisation” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1981); idem, “Between hostile camps: Sir Humphry Davy's presidency of the Royal Society of London, 1820–1827”, The British journal for the history of science, xvi (1983), 1–47; Crosland , “Explicit qualifications” (ref. 115), 179–83; and Hall M. B. , All scientists now: The Royal Society in the nineteenth century (Cambridge, 1984), ch. 3.

Westman R. S. , “The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1980), 105–47; Frank R. G. Jr , “The physician as virtuoso in seventeenth-century England”, in Shapiro Barbara and Frank R. G. Jr , English scientific virtuosi in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Los Angeles, 1979), 59–114.

See below, Document A; on the different styles of Baconianism see Wood , “Francis Bacon” (ref. 84), passim.

Compare here Hahn , Anatomy (ref. 98), 31–32, 36f.

The third item in D.M. 5.11 is a partial transcript of Neile's paper by Oldenburg entitled “Proposals concerning Experiments”. The attribution to Neile is based on the similarity of the handwriting of D.M. 5.11 (first item) to other examples of Neile's script: See, for instance, Cl.P. iii (1) 49. The reference in the document printed here to “the nature of body and motion in generall” also links it to the material by Neile in Cl.P. iii referred to in ref. 15 above. In our transcription, the punctuation has been regularized and ‘u’ and ‘i’ have been modernized as ‘v’ and ‘j’ where appropriate. Here and in the other documents deletions have been noted, but not insertions.

Before “Finally” the words “Now to say s…” have been deleted.

“captivating” has been substituted for “emancipating”, deleted. Earlier in the sentence, “over” is substituted for “too”, deleted, while, later, the letter “e” has been erased before “reason”, as has the letter “d” before “tedious” in the first sentence on fol. 2v, and the letters “sp” before “suplyed” in the second sentence on fol. 3.

On the verso of the second leaf, this item has been endorsed in another hand “A proposal for the Advancement of the Royall Society”. There is also a twentieth century pencil note saying “?Is this Dr Andrew Birch”, evidently on the basis of the Society's membership lists, in which Birch is the only member with the initials A.B.

“Natural History, that is” has here been deleted; “from” remains undeleted.

“in” has been substituted for “of”, deleted.

Illegible deletion of 2–3 words before “But”. In the following sentence, “love” has been cancelled following “every” (at the end of a line).

A quotation from Horace's Ars Poetica, lines 409–10. The revelant passage reads in English: “Often it is asked whether a praiseworthy poem be due to Nature or to art. For my part I do not see of what avail is either study, when not enriched by Nature's vein, or native wit, if untrained; so truly does each claim the other's aid, and make with it a friendly league”: Horace , Satires, epistles and Ars Poetica, trans. by Fairclough H. Rushton (London, 1961), 485.

“of” has been deleted after “either”.

“we” has been inserted to replace a word rendered illegible by deletion.

“A Stocke sure” has been deleted before “A stock”. In the penultimate sentence of this paragraph “beeing” has been altered to “being”.

Illegible deletion of two words following “up”. In the subscription to the letter, “y” has been deleted after “my self”.

This item has been wrongly bound in the volume, so that the leaf which should come first (fol. 94) has been placed last. Fol. 93 is a fly-sheet which is blank on its recto (except where a few words at the top of fol. 92v encroach across the fold). Apart from Hooke's notes on the verso of fol. 93, it is also endorsed “Proposals for advancement of the R[oyal] S[ociety]”. Words in brackets in the transcription have been obscured by repairs to the manuscript; ‘u’ has been modernized to ‘v’ where appropriate throughout. Hooke seems to have made alterations both during and after writing the paper, and his original words are often indecipherable. In one case (see ref. 172) his emendations significantly change his sense, contradicting what he says at the end of fol. 92v about members' obligation to honour changes in the Society's statutes made after their oath of admission.

One word has been deleted before “Naturall”: “erecting”?.

“And these” deleted before “under”. Six words later, “is” has been substituted for a word rendered illegible by deletion: “are”?.

Illegible deletion of two words before “hath”.

Largely illegible deletion of 3–4 words preceding “mankind”.

These words replace a long and largely illegible deletion following “first”.

“or Society” is written above the line over “or body”, which it was presumably intended to replace, though these words are not in fact deleted. It is followed by a long, partly illegible deletion, evidently the result of Hooke reconsidering the way in which he expressed himself in the course of composition. In the previous line, a short deletion (“the”?) precedes “to”. In the following line, the words “suitable [first: Inserted] and” have been deleted before “desirable”.

Hooke originally wrote “suitable” and changed this to “suitableness”. In the next sentence, “and” has been deleted before “delightfull”.

Illegible deletion before “expense”: “indeavour”?.

In this sentence, “now”[?] has been deleted before “It”, “to” before “be”, and “be” before “by”, while an illegible deletion of 1–2 words precedes “or”.

“but shall also [?]” deleted before “but as to such”.

There is a single line through “shall be … made by the”, presumably in error, as it is required by the sense in addition to the inserted “after his … submitt thereunto”; before this, “that” is deleted, but “or”, which precedes “that”, has been accidentally left undeleted. The result of these alterations is to contradict Hooke's original view that members should submit not only to the existing statutes but also to changes to them made while they were Fellows.

One word deleted before “time”. In the following line, an insertion above the line over “Power and ability” has been deleted.

Before this sentence the following passage has been crossed out: “Thirdly that the strictness and Rigour of these first ingagements may not frighten and deter such person[s] as are every ways proper & desirable to be members of this Society from listing and entring themselves thereof there must be made certaine limiting Lawes that shall bound all the Laws and constitutions that shall be mad[e] for the future.”

“First that noe person [deleted] member shall give his vote” deleted before “that”. Later in the sentence, “member” [?] is deleted before “faithfull”. The following sentence, “This is to be a part of the oath”, is emphasized by being boxed round with ink lines.

“before his” deleted before “either”.

“member” inserted to replace the deleted “person”.

Illegible deletion before “4”: “40 shillings”? Previously, “for the year insuing” deleted before “the”.

“And that noe person” deleted after “past”.

“admitted” deleted before “elected”. Later in the sentence, “other” deleted before “othe”.

“monthly or quarterly” inserted, replacing the deleted “twice [?] every year”.

“make such” deleted before “observations”.

Illegible two-word deletion before “for”. Later in the sentence, “to” deleted before “be”, “and” before “to”, while “seasonable” replaces the deleted “convenient”.

“of the R” deleted before “that”. Later in the sentence, “Recorded” is written over something else.

“&” is apparently adapted from something else; previously, “&” has been deleted between “examining” and “trying”.

“all which ref …” deleted before “all”.

“20” appears to have been deleted, or altered from something else.

“persons as” deleted before “correspondents”.

“Holland” deleted after “with”.

“judgd to Deserve” inserted, replacing “agreed with them” [?].

Illegible deletion of 1–2 words before “once”.

“and the Discourse it self layd up in its proper” deleted before “there”.

“200” deleted within the brackets which occur in the text. Earlier in the sentence “&” has been deleted between “made” and “perused”.

“defray” appears to have been altered to “defraying”, but the original has been left here as making better sense.

“by” deleted before “either”.

“collecting &” has been inserted, replacing the deleted “Sup” [?]. Two words later, an illegible deletion precedes “Revenue”: “mon[ey]”?.

“upon” deleted before “at”.

“next” deleted before “day” and replaced by an insertion which has been rendered illegible by an ink smudge. Six words later, “confirmed” has been deleted before “affirmed”.

“with advant[age]” [?] deleted before “Abilitys”.

For the use of the initials ‘A.B.’ for this purpose see, e.g., Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 140, or Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 8.

See Frank R. G. Jr , Harvey and the Oxford physiologists: A study of scientific ideas and social interaction (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980).

We have considered a number of other possible candidates among the Fellows of the Society at this time, but none seems as likely as those dealt with in the text.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 233–41; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), catalogue entry 230. On Needham's research see Frank , Harvey (ref. 201), esp. ch. 8.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 179–80; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), catalogue entry 212. For information on King's interests, we are indebted to Robert Frank.

See Coxe Daniel , “A way of extracting a Volatile Salt and Spirit out of Vegetables”, “A Discourse denying the Præ-existence of Alcalizate or Fixed Salt in any Subject, before it were exposed to the Action of the Fire”, and “A Continuation of Dr Daniel Coxe's Discourse”, Philosophical transactions, ix (1674), 4–8, 150–8 and 169–78.

Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 177, and ibid., 158, 174, 192–3, 221; Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), catalogue entry 189.

In addition, extant letters of Coxe's suggest a similar penchant for densely filling sheets of paper: See e.g. Royal Society Boyle Letters, ii, 52–79.

Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), catalogue entry 189, and see below, Document B.

Ibid., catalogue entry 20; Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 95, 181. Note also a reference in Hooke's diary showing that he talked to Croone about the state of the Society on 10 November 1674: Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 129.

Payne L. M. Wilson L. G. and Hartley Harold Sir , “William Croone, F.R.S. (1633–1684)”, in Hartley Harold Sir (ed.), The Royal Society: Its origins and founders (London, 1960), 211–19; Wilson L. G. , “William Croone's theory of muscular contraction”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xvi (1961), 158–78.

Weld , History (ref. 14), i, 146, 148–9. That this dating is mistaken (and that the manuscript is in MS Sloane 1039, not Additional MS 4441, as stated by Weld) has already been pointed out by Brown Harcourt : Scientific organisations in seventeenth century France (Baltimore, 1934), 187 n. 2. For other misdatings by Weld see above refs 14 and 57. It is perhaps worth mentioning here a further document printed as by Hooke in Weld, History, i, 146–8 (and reprinted from there in Gunther , Early science (ref. 57), vi, 122–3, and Lyons , Royal Society (ref. 11), 41–42) and also dated to 1663. However, the original, which is to be found in British Library Additional Manuscript 4441, fol. 1, is not dated, and we see no reason - on grounds of handwriting or otherwise - for attributing it to Hooke as Weld does: It is therefore treated above, at ref. 87, as an anonymous memorandum of uncertain date.

See above, Section 1.

It is perhaps worth noting that the letter to Beale in British Library MS Sloane 1039, fol. 171, makes it clear that at this point Hooke was evidently considering both a ‘gazette’ for all and a separate publication exclusively for absent members.

Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 97; Bowood House Petty MSS H (8) 16.

See Adamson , “Royal Society and Gresham College” (ref. 32), 2. 7–11.

For instance, the idea of requesting Fellows to provide a lecture or to pay for a substitute if unwilling to do so themselves (Cl.P. xx.50, fol. 88; see Hunter , Royal Society (ref. 1), 38); the request that they should advance a year's subscription (Cl.P. xx.50, fols 88, 96; see above, Section 1); the advocacy of an inventory of the Society's collection of rarities and instruments (ibid., fol. 86; see Birch , History (ref. 4), iii, 158–9, 191, 310–11: But see also above, ref. 47); and the hope for extra staff (see above, Section 1).

For instance, the wish to make the Society more exclusive: See above at ref. 133. Though the concern about the accuracy of the Secretary's records, about access to these and about the Secretary's relations with foreign virtuosi (Cl.P. xx.50, fols 86, 97, and see above, Document C) all smack of Hooke's dissatisfaction with Oldenburg's running of things in the 1670s, this is quite likely to have rankled sufficiently for Hooke still to have felt concern later. The justification of severity to the Secretaries which appears at one point (ibid., fol. 97) might suggest a date outside Hooke's own Secretaryship from 1677 to 1682, but the concern about the openness of committee decisions (see above, Document C) could suggest a date when Hooke was worried that decisions were being made behind his back, which would apply during his secretaryship. On the interrelationship between the different papers in Cl.P. xx.50 see above at refs 61, 63. On discrepancies between them see ref. 59: It is doubtful, however, if these are sufficiently marked to suggest differences of date within them. We are inclined to dismiss as coincidental the slight similarity between the financial calculations by Hooke on fol. 88 and those by Oldenburg in D.M. 5.14–15. In addition, though the fact that Oldenburg's paper of 1 November 1673 is bound up among these papers (fol. 91) might be taken to suggest a similar date for those in Hooke's hand, it seems equally likely that it was brought together with them because of the similarity of their subject matter.

Hooke , Diary (ref. 20), 108, 111, 131; see also 57, 109, 112, 124, 126.

ibid., 311, 328, 391, 448; see also 315, 324, 335, 411 and perhaps also 416. See also above ref. 56.