RavenC. E., John Ray, naturalist: His life and works (Cambridge, 1942; Cambridge, 1986). For an important recent study of Glisson see HenryJohn, “Medicine and pneumatology: Henry More, Richard Baxter, and Francis Glisson's Treatise on the energetic nature of substance”, Medical history, xxxi (1987), 15–40.
2.
Shapin and Schaffer are, of course, not alone in emphasizing the praxis of science. Another exemplary study of seventeenth century English science sharing such a perspective is FrankRobert G.Jr, Harvey and the Oxford physiologists: A study of scientific ideas and social interaction (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980).
3.
For perceptions of Hobbes's dogmatism see Leviathan and the air-pump, 134, 136–9, 296, 305. Shapin and Schaffer imply (p. 138) that Sprat's attack on modern dogmatists was aimed primarily at Hobbes, but the passages which they quote indicate that Sprat had Descartes in his sights as well.
4.
WardSeth, In Thomas Hobbii philosophiam exercitatio epistolica (Oxford, 1656), passim. Ward also refers critically to Hobbes in the unpaginated preface to A philosophical essay towards an eviction of the being and attributes of God, immortality of the souls of men, [and] truth and authority of scripture, 2nd impression with additions (Oxford, 1655). Better known is Ward's response to Hobbes in [WilkinsJohn and WardSeth], Vindiciae academiarum… (Oxford, 1654), 51–61. Ward continued to attack Hobbes publicly in the 1660s; see his Concerning the sinfulness, danger & remedies of infidelity. A sermon preached at Whitehall. February 16. 1667/68, in Seven sermons preached by the right reverend father in God, Seth Lord Bishop of Sarum, 2nd edn (London, 1674), 180–90. For Wallis's attacks see: WallisJohn, Elenchus geometriae Hobbianae (Oxford, 1655), 135–6; idem, Due correction for Mr Hobbes or schoole discipline, for not saying his lessons right. In answer to his Six lessons, directed to the Professors of Mathematics (Oxford, 1656), esp. 56–57; idem, Hobbiani punctio dispunctio. Or the undoing of Mr Hobbs's points … (Oxford, 1657).
5.
Leviathan and the air-pump, 311.
6.
John Wallis to Christiaan Huygens, 1 January 1659, quoted in ScottJ. F., The mathematical work of John Wallis, D. D., F.R.S. (1616–1703) (London, 1938), 170–1; cf. Leviathan and the air-pump, 311.
7.
SkinnerQuentin, “Thomas Hobbes and the nature of the early Royal Society”, The historical journal, xii (1969), 217–39; HunterMichael, Science and society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981), 178–80; Leviathan and the air-pump, 131–9. Shapin and Schaffer's explanation of Hobbes's exclusion from the Royal Society is closer to Hunter's than they suggest.
8.
It should be noted here that there were other Fellows of the Royal Society who were actively trying to discredit Hobbes than Boyle and Wallis. In 1661 Hobbes submitted a geometrical proposition to the King, who passed it on to the Royal Society. Having seen Hobbes's work before it was made public, Lord Brouncker immediately produced a refutation, which according to Robert Moray damaged Hobbes's reputation with Charles. Moray informed Huygens of this episode, and can be seen to have been trying to enlist Huygens's support. In one of his letters, Huygens remarked in passing “Et d'ailleurs il y a long temps qu'en matiere de Geometrie Monsieur Hobbes a perdu tout credit aupres de moy”. See the letters from MorayRobert to Christiaan Huygens dated 23 September 1661 and 19 October 1661, and the letter from Huygens to Moray dated 22 October 1661 in Oeuvres complètes de Christiaan Huygens (22 vols, The Hague, 1888–1950), iii, 336, 368–70, 383–5 (p. 384).
9.
On the methodological divisions within the Royal Society see HunterMichael and WoodPaul B., “Toward Solomon's House: Rival strategies for reforming the early Royal Society”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 49–108. An interesting example of a Fellow whose philosophical views closely resembled those of Hobbes is NeileWilliam; see ibid., 52–53, 78–80, and Neile's letters to Henry Oldenburg, dated 7 May 1669 and 13 May 1669, along with his “Hypothesis of motion”, in HallA.R. and HallM. B. (eds), The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (13 vols, Madison, Milwaukee, London, and Philadelphia, 1965–86), v, 517–18, 519–24, and 542–4. I would like to thank John Henry for referring me to Neile's “Hypothesis of motion” in this regard; Dr Henry also deserves thanks for suggesting the title of this review.
10.
LockeJohn, An essay concerning human understanding, ed. by FraserA. C. (2 vols, Oxford, 1894), i, 14, 26.
