Ideas above His Station: A Social Study of Hooke's Curatorship of Experiments

Shapin S. , “Who was Robert Hooke?”, in Hunter M. and Schaffer S. (eds), Robert Hooke: New studies (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1990), ch. 9; Hunter M. , Establishing the New Science: The experience of the early Royal Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989).

Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 1), ch. 9.

Evelyn J. , Diary, entry for 19 July 1661: “In which [diving-bell] our curator continued half an hour under water.” Quoted in The Oxford English dictionary (Oxford, 1933), ii, s.v. “Curator”. The event to which Evelyn refers is reported in Birch Thomas , The history of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge, from its first rise (4 vols, London, 1756–57), i, 35. Interestingly for the thesis of this article, this first “curator” turns out to have been the Society's humble amanuensis (clerk).

Compare the versions of the minutes in Birch , History , i, 124, and Gunther R. T. , Early science in Oxford (15 vols, Oxford, 1923–27), vi: The life and work of Robert Hooke (Part I), 76, and his discussion on p. 74. Gunther assumed that Hooke was the Curator (with added capital “C”) from 1662. I have not read the original minute. Conflation of dates occurs in Andrade E. , “Robert Hooke”, Proceedings of the Royal Society, ser. A, cci (1950), 439–73. See p. 439. I give the correct chronology below (see ref. 94).

Espinasse M. , “The decline and fall of Restoration science”, Past and present, xiv (1958), 71–89; her Robert Hooke (London, 1956) gives a grand account of Hooke's golden period and his senescence. The social evolution has been discussed by Mulligan L. and Mulligan G. , “Reconstructing Restoration science: Styles of leadership and social composition of the early Royal Society”, Social studies of science, xi, (1981), 327–64. See the critique by Hunter M. in Social studies of science, xii, (1982), 451–66, reprinted as Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 1), appendix.

See Hunter M. , Science and society in Restoration England (Cambridge, 1981), esp. ch. 2.

See Shapin S. and Schaffer S. , Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985); Hunter M. , The Royal Society and its Fellows 1660–1700: The morphology of an early scientific institution (The British Society for the History of Science Monographs, no. 4; Chalfont St Giles, Bucks, 1982), passim; also Hunter, op. cit. (refs 1, 5 and 6).

Another important study in which the importance of Hooke's presence is noted is Bennett J. A. , “Robert Hooke as mechanic and natural philosopher”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxxv (1980), 33–48, pp. 33–34.

Touched on in Bennett J. A. , “The mechanics' philosophy and the mechanical philosophy”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 1–28, esp. pp. 22–24, and Bennett, op. cit. (ref. 8).

This can be inferred from Birch , History, i, 6–7, where payments to employees must be agreed by “the curators of that experiment, or the major part of them”. The eleven named curators were Winthrop, Moray, Wilkins, Henshaw, Croune, Charleton, Abraham Hill, Ent, Goddard, Wren and Hooke. See Birch , History, i, 171, 192, 212, 250, 304, 315, 322, 333, 338, 349.

See Wood P. , “Methodology and apologetics: Thomas Sprat's ‘History of the Royal Society’”, The British journal for the history of science, xiii (1980), 1–26; Shapin and Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 7), ch. 2. Early examples of multiple curatorship can be found in Birch , History, i, 23, 34, 115, 118.

Sprat T. , The history of the Royal-Society of London, For the Improving of Natural Knowledge (London, 1667; reprint edn, London, 1959), 84–85, 99. Sprat's account agrees with (perhaps because it was based on) the Society's statutes of 1663. See The record of the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge (4th edn, London, 1940), 289–90 (ch. 5, Statute III), and Sprat, op. cit. (ref. 12), 145.

For Committees, see Birch , History, i, 12, 18, 20. Groups of curators and committees were interchangeable terms at this period, and in 1668 (see ref. 21). Compare references to the work on insects in Birch , History, i, 23 and 24. The hitherto ignored work of the committees is discussed and transcribed in Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 1), ch. 3. The duties of virtuosi are touched on below. See ref. 66.

Birch , History, i, 192, 212, 349, 412, 440–2. Hooke's relationship to Boyle is touched on in Section 3, but more fully dealt with by Shapin, op. cit. (ref. 1).

Balle to Oldenburg, 14 April 1666, in Oldenburg H. , The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (15 vols, Madison and London, 1965–1986), ed. by Hall A.R. and Hall M. B. , iii, 89–91. For some of Balle's contributions, see Birch , History, i, 77, 85, 440–2. His last work is recorded in Birch , History, ii, 296. William Balle must not be confused with his brother Dr Peter Balle.

Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 84, 77, 79.

The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 294; Birch , History, i, 6–7; ii, 136.

Compare the two charters in The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 221 and 245 (translated on pp. 232 and 258). I am most grateful to Dr Michael Hunter, of Birkbeck College, London, for this point. The statutes for “Curators by Office” are in The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 296–8. These foresee a full-time paid curator, but Hooke was not one in 1663. A sub-clause was introduced, which covers Hooke's position, allowing that “it may happen, that some persons, engaged in other employments, may yet be of eminent usefulness for the business of Curators; therefore, if any such shall be employed by the Society, such allowance shall be made, as shall be proportionable to the time bestowed in that service”, ibid., 296. This sub-clause also covers the remuneration given to some curators in the 1680s, and that envisaged by Hooke in his reform proposal of the 1670s. See ref. 35.

Quoted from Westfall R. S. , “Hooke, Robert”, in Dictionary of scientific biography (16 vols, New York, 1970–80), ed. by Gillispie C. C. , vi, 483 (hereafter DSB).

Birch , History, ii, 317, 321, 329. Notice that curators can still be called committees. It is perhaps significant that these experiments included vivisection of dogs, which Hooke disliked. For Plot, see Birch , History, iv, 333.

See Section 3.1.3.

Birch , History, ii, 265.

The strongest candidate for the position was the Oxford physiologist Richard Lower. Boyle and Hooke campaigned hard for him. He began to attend the Society, to contribute, and was quickly elected Fellow, before being approached as a “fit” person with “inclinations to such an employment” as curator of anatomy. Lower declined, however, because “on account of some business, in which he was at present engaged, he could not immediately undertake that office”. The offer was not renewed, Lower soon ceased to be active, and achieved the rare distinction of being expelled from the Fellowship in 1675. It would seem that the Society was not sympathetic to Lower's other duties, perhaps expecting curators either to be at leisure, or at their command. See Birch , History, ii, 172, 178–9, 200, 206, 212, 242–3, 355; Hooke to Boyle , 5 September 1667, in Boyle R. , The works (6 vols, London, 1757; reprint edn, Hildesheim, 1966), ed. by Birch T. , vi, 509; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 7), 99; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 41–42.

See 'Espinasse, op. cit. (ref. 5), ch. 5. 'Espinasse seems to exaggerate Hooke's importance beyond the assistant surveyor role recorded in Wren C. Jr , Parentalia: Or, memoirs of the family of Wrens (London, 1750; reprint edn, Farnborough, 1965), 263. For secretaryship see Birch , History, iii, 353.

Birch , History, ii, 415, 417, 424, 435, 436, 442, 451, 461.

Birch , History , ii, 452, which is significant as initiation of dismissal in the context of Statute XIII, in The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 297–8; Birch , History, ii, 441, 472–3. Brouncker played down Hooke's suffering!.

E.g. Birch , History, iii, 410; iv, 176, 210, 284, 489.

Birch , History, iii, 365–6. For the attack, see Section 3.

Hunter M. and Wood P. , “Towards Solomon's house: Rival strategies for reforming the early Royal Society”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 49–108, esp. pp. 58, 60, 91–92, reprinted as Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 1), ch. 6.

On Grew see Birch , History, iii, 42, 49; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 41; Metcalfe C. R. , in DSB (ref. 18), v, s.v. “Grew, Nehemiah”. Denis Papin, the self-taught Huguenot mechanic, was introduced by Hooke in May 1679 (iii, 486 – all references here are to Birch, History). Ostensibly paid for scribal work (iii, 491), he used his entrée to produce a wildly successful series of pneumatic and culinary experiments, using his invention of the “digester” (a primitive pressure cooker), and made himself an indispensable curator (iii, 492–504). Thus when Hooke alleged that “Mr. papin was suddenly going for Paris”, the Society was panicked into offering him five guineas back-pay, free lodging and “twenty pounds a year certain”. This was surely more for the curatorial work of “the time, which he had spent in entertaining the Society at their meetings” than for “writing letters” (iii, 504). Papin now found himself able to stay with Hooke (iii, 506–7). Still paid as a clerk, Papin used the time to complete his experiments, writing them up as The digester; or, the description of an engine for the softening of bones (London, 1681). This received its imprimatur in December 1680, where Papin is now described as F.R.S. (iv, 60). Launched by the Society as a philosophical author, Papin had decamped for a successful career on the continent by 2 March 1681 (iv, 72). Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 23), 82, 225, describes Papin as an operator, although curator is perhaps more fitting for this role. Papin returned to the Society in 1684 and was immediately made a curator (iv, 277).

Westfall , op. cit. (ref. 19), 487; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 23), 39–40; Birch , History, iv, 176. 'Espinasse, op. cit. (ref. 5), is curiously silent on this part of Hooke's career.

Birch , History, iv, 187–8.

Birch , History, iv, 333, 399; 262.

Birch , History, iv, 260–1; for Papin, see ref. 30.

Hooke , quoted from the document reproduced in Hunter and Wood, op. cit. (ref. 29), 90–91. See their discussion on pp. 69–70. quotation from p. 70.

Birch , History, iv, 489, 518, 545, 553.

Heilbron J. , Physics at the Royal Society during Newton's presidency (Los Angeles, 1983), 18, 20–21, 24–27, 30–31.

Wrightson K. , English society 1580–1680 (London, 1982), ch. 1, quotations from pp. 18, 22. Gregory King, “Scheme of the income and expence of the several families of England”, reproduced in Laslett, op. cit. (ref. 40), 32–33. For a discussion of King and of problems of gentility, see Speck W. , Stability and strife: England 1714–1760 (London, 1977), ch. 2, quotation from p. 49.

The best discussion of professions is Holmes G. , Augustan England: Professions, state and society, 1680–1730 (London, 1982), esp. chs 1, 6. I am very grateful to my colleague Dr J. Walton for the analogy with land stewards. On this see Hecht J. J. , The domestic servant class in eighteenth-century England (London, 1956), ch. 2, and 181–99. For an example of how a land steward could be treated, see Thomas G. G. , Life in a noble household 1641–1700 (2nd edn, London, 1950), 350.

Everitt A. , Changes in the provinces: The seventeenth century (Occasional Papers of the Department of Local History, 2nd series, no. 1; Leicester , 1970), 43; Holmes , op. cit. (ref. 39), esp. ch. 8, for ways into government service.

See Hecht , op. cit. (ref. 39).

Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 60, identified “sons of clergy” as the second largest group of Restoration scientists (Hunter's groups serve his purpose admirably, but need subdividing in the context of this paper); 'Espinasse, op. cit. (ref. 5), 3; Chambers's biographical dictionary , ed by Thorne J. O. (London, 1961), s.v. “Wren, Sir Christopher (1632–1723)”.

On coffee houses see Ellis Aytoun , The penny universities: A history of the coffee-houses (London, 1956).

Chamberlayne E. , Angliae notitia: Or, the present state of England: With divers remarks upon the ancient state thereof (London, 1694), 617–20. This is not the first edition; it was revised every year, and I have not had access to more contemporary editions.

Chamberlayne , op. cit. (ref. 42), 633–8; Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 289; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 35–36; Birch , History, iv, 454.

Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 221, 245, 293–9; Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 10), 146–8; Chamberlayne , op. cit. (ref. 42), 634–5; Middleton W. (ed. and tr.), Lorenzo Magalotti at the Court of Charles II: His Relazione d'Inghilterra of 1668 (Ontario, 1980), 137.

The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 253, 257, 258; Chamberlayne , op. cit. (ref. 42), 637–8.

The Record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 293–5.

The Record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 296–8, 290.

For examples on Hooke see Birch , History , i, 179, 192, 379; ii, 66, 68, 90; for Hooke and others see examples in Birch , History , i, 178, 322; ii, 69, 77. The manner of addressing Hooke was pointed by Andrade, op. cit. (ref. 4), and Shapin, op. cit. (ref. 1).

Birch , History , i–iii, passim. On Charleton see i, 328 (but note that on p. 335 it was the operator who gave the account). On Willisel see for example ii, 371, and Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 6), 41. See also Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 1).

Oldenburg , Correspondence (ref. 15), ii, pp. xxiv–xxvi, iv, pp. xxiv–xxv, and vi, p. xxviii.

The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 298; Birch , History, iv, 229.

Halley to Molyneux , 27 March 1686, in Macpike E. F. , Correspondence and papers of Edmond Halley (London, 1937), 58.

Birch , History, iv, 453–5.

The record of the Royal Society (ref. 12), 344. Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 7), 95 and 149, ref. 38, also noted Halley's omission from the list of Fellows, and pointed out that Halley was abroad at the time. Halley was not obliged to keep other conditions, and so less immediate evidence will be needed to determine whether in fact he resigned. The conditions he could not fulfil on his accession to the clerkship are given in Ronan C. A. , Edmond Halley: Genius in eclipse (London, 1970), 74–75. Ronan also reviews in pp. 63–68 the highly debatable issue of Halley's financial position in the 1680s, after the losses and murder of his father, and the refusal of his step-mother to pay Halley's patrimony. It would fit my story if Halley had in fact been in straitened circumstances at the time.

Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 333.

DSB (ref. 19), 482; Waller , “Life” in Gunther , op. cit. (ref. 4), vi, 7–8; Holmes , Augustan England (ref. 46), 209–10.

Birch , History , i, 124; Oldenburg to Boyle , 10 June 1663 in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 147.

Birch , History , i, 124; Boyle , op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 482; Birch , History , i, 240–1; I am most grateful to Dr Michael Hunter, of Birkbeck College for privately communicating the existence of this manuscript, which has since been reproduced in Hunter, op. cit. (ref. 1), 72.

For Papin see Birch , History , iv, 355, 454; on operators see Birch , History , i, 216, 218, 273, 286, 331; for Hooke's rebuke see Birch , History, ii, 452.

Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 6), 22–24.

Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), ch. 4 passim, esp. pp. 76, 87; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 7), 25, 115. I do not disagree with Hunter's analysis, except to claim a somewhat greater importance and persistence of the elite disdain of labour.

Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 391–2, 404.

Sprat , op. cit. (ref. 12), 397, 396, 427.

Houghton W. , “The English virtuoso in the seventeenth century”, Journal of the history of ideas, iii (1942), 51–73, 190–219, esp. p. 63.

Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 101.

For a history of the “History of Trades” project see Houghton , “The History of Trades: Its relation to seventeenth-century thought”, Journal of the history of ideas, ii (1941), 33–60, and Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 91–99. The Cutlerian lectures were first intended to be on the history of trades (which Hooke considered “tedious”, then on any subject chosen by the Royal Society, then experimental philosophy, and finally on “Nature and art”. See Birch , History , i, 442, 453, 473, 479, 496, 503, and Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 1), ch. 9.

Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 1).

For the exotic range, see Hoppen K. T. , “The nature of the early Royal Society”, The British journal for the history of science, ix, (1976), 1–24, 243–73.

Andrade , “Robert Hooke” (ref. 4), 441–2, and Moray, quoted by Shapin, op. cit. (ref. 1), forthcoming.

See Pumfrey S. P. , “William Gilbert's magnetic philosophy 1580–1684: The creation and dissolution of a discipline” (unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1987), ch. 5.

Pumfrey , op. cit. (ref. 72), ch. 5, and Pumfrey , “Mechanising magnetism in Restoration England”, Annals of science, xliv (1987), 1–22, esp. pp. 8, 17–20.

For the general roles of Brouncker, Moray and Neile, see Hartley Harold Sir , The Royal Society: Its origins and founders (London, 1960). See also on Neile Birch , History, ii, 152.

Gunther , op. cit. (ref. 4), vi, 11.

Pumfrey , op. cit. (ref. 73), ch. 6, esp. 307–11.

ibid., 7–8, 17–18.

Birch , History, ii, 54–55.

On Power see Birch , History, i, 80–81, 271, although Balle was fleetingly involved (see Birch , History, i, 22).

See ref. 15.

Birch , History, i, 440.

Pumfrey , op. cit. (ref. 73), 17–20.

Birch , History, i, 133–4; Hunter and Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 1).

Bennett J. A. , “Hooke, Wren, and the system of the world: Some points towards an historical account”, The British journal for the history of science, viii (1975), 32–61, p. 42; Birch , History, i, 154.

Birch , History, i, 449, 455, 466.

Birch , History, i, 476.

Birch , History, i, 495; Oldenburg to Boyle in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 161, 184.

Birch , History, i, 500.

Birch , History, i, 507.

Birch , History, i, 505–6.

Birch , History, i, 506–7.

See, for example, Birch , History, ii, 23–24, 26, 54–55, 58–59.

Birch , History, ii, 69–72, 90–92.

For the recorded evolution of Hooke's position see Birch , History, i, 123 (proposed as unremunerated employed curator), 124 (accepted), 309 (conditions discussed), 341–2 (paid to curate Royal experiments), 488 (proposed as curator by office), 490 (proposal announced), 499 (formally proposed), 510 (approved and recommended by council; ii, 4 (elected, 11 January 1665). For relationship with the corresponding development of the Cutlerian Lectureship see Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 1), 285f.

Published in London, 1661. Reprinted in Gunther, op. cit. (ref. 4), x, 1–50.

Birch , History, i, 123; Hooke to Boyle , 5 June 1663, in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 481–2; Shapin , op. cit. (ref. 1).

There is some evidence in the minutes of dispute surrounding Hooke's election. In May 1663, just after the Royal Charter was proclaimed, the Council wished to settle on an agreed list of members, and thus had to consider the delicate matter of whom to exclude. There must have been dissenters to the criterion of “all those, who had met hitherto as fellows”, and they ordered “that the debate … be kept under secrecy”. David Bruce and William Balle's brother Peter were admitted on the same day. At the next meeting the Council published a list of Fellows to be registered. With the exception of John Lindsay, 1st Earl of Crawford and Lindsay and Lord High Treasurer, who retired from public life to his Scottish estate, the only person on this list who was not already a Fellow is Hooke, since Bruce and Balle were formally elected at the same meeting. It was not until 3 June that the Council elected Hooke. George Bate was also elected on that day. Curiously, he had already been elected in 1660 but he owed the Society money. It is possible that “the debate” simply concerned Bate's outstanding subscription, but if this was the cause of his delayed election, what was the cause of Hooke's? Could it have been opposition to the statute making the curator a Fellow? See Birch , History, i, 236, 239, 244, 250; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 23), 160–84, 34, 104.

Birch , History, i, 268, 271–2.

Birch , History, i, 272, 309, 316 and esp. 340.

Birch , History, i, 213, 272; 396. Notice that the experiments discussed here are those for the Royal entertainment (see p. 391).

Birch , History, i, 453, 472, 488, 490. Cutler is normally the party accused of bad faith, but it is clear from the Society's parallel considerations of Cutler's endowment and Hooke's curatorship that they hoped secretly to use Cutler's money to save on the expenses of a curator. See Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 1), ch. 9.

Hooke to Boyle , 24 November 1664, in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 499. The Society scrutinized, and was apprehensive of the mechanistic “hypotheses” in, the Micrographia. They checked that Hooke had written a suitable disclaimer, which appeared just before the preface. See Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 107), sig. A2^v; Birch , History, i, 490.

Birch , History, i, 490, 505–7.

Hooke to Boyle , 8 July, 15 August, 26 September 1665, and 3 February 1666, in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 501–5. Quotation from p. 505.

Hooke in Gunther , op. cit. (ref. 4), x, 7–10.

ibid., 41.

Hooke R. , Micrographia: Or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses (London, 1665). Reprinted in Gunther, op. cit. (ref. 4), xiii. Quotations from sig. a2^v, pp. 161–2.

Birch , History, i, 490–1. The apology appears in Hooke, Micrographia as an unnumbered preface “To the Royal Society”.

Birch , History, i, 490–1, 503–7.

Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 84), 32–61, pp. 40, 59.

Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 84), passim; Bennett J. A. , “Cosmology and the magnetic philosophy, 1640–1680”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xii (1981), 165–77; see supra, op. cit. (ref. 104).

Birch , History, ii, 69–73, quotation from p. 72; also in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 506–8.

Hooke to Boyle in Boyle, op. cit. (ref. 23), vi, 505; Birch , History, ii, 73.

Birch , History, ii, 75, 77–78 (see Palter R. , “Early measurements of magnetic force”, Isis, lxiii (1972), 544–58); Birch , History, ii, 90–92; Hooke , An attempt to prove the motion of the Earth (London, 1674), reprinted in Gunther, op. cit. (ref. 4), viii, 28.

Birch , History, ii, 83 et seq.

Birch , History, ii, esp. 69–77, 83–90, 96, 109, 140, 170–82, 192–3, 201–4; iii, 102, 114–33, 162.

See supra, the paragraphs of Section 3.1.3 to which refs 105–9 relate; Bennett , op. cit. (ref. 111), 175.

Birch , History, i, 336–7, 498; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 23), 34–35, 104.

Birch , History, ii, 109–10, 132.

Birch , History, ii, 181, 182, 184–6, 192–3; 288, 292, 296. See esp. pp. 192–3.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 107), “Preface”, sig. al.

Westfall , op. cit. (ref. 19), 487.

Birch , History, iv, 167–8.

Frank R. G. , Harvey and the Oxford physiologists (London, 1980), 286.

Keller A. G. , DSB (ref. 19), xi, 40–41, s.v. “Plot, Robert”.

See ref. 32.

See Birch , History, iv, 170–400 passim.

Carr J. , DSB (ref. 19), viii, 415–16, s.v. “Lister, Martin”; Rappaport R. , “Hooke on earthquakes: Lectures, strategy and audience”, The British journal for the history of science, xix (1986), 129–46, esp. pp. 133–4.

See Pumfrey , op. cit. (ref. 73), 9–10.

Idem.

Birch , History, iv, 237–8, 258.

See Pumfrey , op. cit. (ref. 73), 9–15.

Birch , History, iv, 198 (two entries).

Hooke to Hoskins, 31 Marks 1683, Royal Society manuscripts, Early Letters H.3.70. I am most grateful to Dr Michael Hunter for communicating this corroborating reference.

Birch , History, iv, 251; Hooke R. , Philosophical experiments and observations, ed. by Derham W. (1726; reprint edn, London, 1967), 87–157.

The report appeared in Philosophical transactions, xiv (1684), 517–19; Lister cited it earlier in Birch, History, iv, 251.

ibid., 252.

Birch , History, iv, 252, 253.

Hooke , op. cit. (ref. 136), 128–9. Note that Lister defended himself by claiming that brass was also magnetic.

Birch , History, iv, 261–2, 260.

Carr , op. cit. (ref. 129), 413; Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 44–45.

Birch , History, iv, 318, 416.

Birch , History, iv, 518, 515.

Hunter , op. cit. (ref. 6), 45; 'Espinasse, op. cit. (ref. 5), passim, e.g. p. 75; Heilbron , op. cit. (ref. 37), 20–24, 73–77.