“In the Warehouse”: Privacy,Property and Priority in the Early Royal Society

Brouncker to Oldenburg, c. 23 June 1673 ( The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg , ed. by Hall A. Rupert Hall Marie Boas (13 vols, Madison and London, 1965–86; hereafter cited as Oldenburg), x, 39); Flamsteed to Towneley , 27 May 1676 (quoted in Howse D. Finch V. , “John Flamsteed and the balance spring”, Antiquarian horology, ix (1974–76), 664–74, pp. 671–2).

Merton R. K. , Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England , (New York, 1970), 169; idem, “Priorities in scientific discovery”, in Merton , The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations , ed. by Storer N. W. (Chicago, 1973), 286–324, and “The Matthew Effect in science (2): Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 606–23, esp. p. 622. See also Gaston J. , Originality and competition in science (Chicago, 1973).

See for example Brannigan A. , The social basis of scientific discoveries (Cambridge, 1981), and Shapin S. Schaffer S. , Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life (Princeton, 1985); Schaffer S. , “Scientific discoveries and the end of natural philosophy”, Social studies of science, xvi (1986), 387–420, and Collins H. , Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice (London, 1985), esp. his Eighth Proposition: “Where there is disagreement about what counts as a competently performed experiment, the ensuing debate is coextensive with the debate about what the outcome of the experiment is. The closure of debate about the meaning of competence is the ‘discovery’ or ‘non-discovery’ of a new phenomenon” (ibid., 89). These remarks apply with equal force to debates about the owner of intellectual property.

Merton , “Priorities in scientific discovery” (ref. 2), 290.

Ibid. , 303 and 323. Merton goes on to claim that scientific culture is “pathogenic”: “deviant behaviour” takes the form of “contentiousness, self-assertive claims, secretiveness lest one be forestalled, reporting only the data that support an hypothesis, false charges of plagiarism, even the occasional theft of ideas, and, in rare cases, the fabrication of data …” (ibid., 323). Merton in this instance does not distinguish between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ forms of deviant scientific behaviour — For a similar view, see Broad W. Wade N. , Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and deceit in the halls of science (New York, 1982). Merton's source for his notion of ‘deviant response’ and its ‘active’ and ‘passive’ varieties is Talcott Parsons, The social system (Illinois, 1951).

Intellectual property is now a massive industry, spanning scientific, technological and legal expertise. Amongst numerous works on the subject, see in particular Cornish W. R. , Intellectual property: Patents, copyright, trade marks & allied rights (London, 1981); Nelkin D. , Science as intellectual property: Who controls research? (New York, 1984); Rip A. , “Mobilizing resources through texts”, in Callon M. Law J. Rip A. (eds), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology (London, 1986), 84–99; and Campbell B. , “Generalists, practitioners, and intellectuals: The credibility of experts in English patent law”, in Smith R. Wynne B. (eds), Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law (London, 1989), 210–36.

For this analysis I have drawn from the work of Bruno Latour, Steven Shapin, and Erving Goffman; see in particular Latour, “Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world”, in K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science (London, 1983), 141–70; Shapin , “Who was Robert Hooke?”, in Hunter M. Schaffer S. (eds), Robert Hooke: New studies (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989), 253–86, esp. pp. 256–69; idem, “The House of Experiment in seventeenth century England”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 373–404; and Goffman , The presentation of self in everyday life (London, 1971).

The classic example of this is the Leibniz-Newton priority dispute of the 1710s, the ramifications of which ranged over areas of religion, metaphysics and natural philosophy — See the comments by Steven Shapin in “Licking Leibniz”, History of science, xix (1981), 293–305, esp. pp. 301–2. See also Gingerich O. Westman R. , “The Wittich connection: Conflict and priority in late sixteenth century cosmology”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, lxxviii (1988), 1–58, and Gooding D. , ” ‘He who proves discovers’; John Herschel, William Pepys and the Faraday effect”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xvii (1985), 205–30.

Merton , “Priorities in scientific discovery” (ref. 2), 322. This question reaches to the heart of Merton's influential discussions of ‘multiple discoveries’ in science; cf. his paper “Singletons and multiples in science”, in Merton, The sociology of science (ref. 2), 343–70. We may also make the significant point here that Leibniz and Newton differed radically in their conceptions of what the calculus was, just as Wallace and Darwin's accounts of natural selection were often at extreme variance with one another. Yet both sets of workers are held to have credit for having come across the same ideas. Both attributions of identity were in fact achievements of the relevant communities and not at all self-evident. See Shapin , “Licking Leibniz” (ref. 8), and Kottler M. J. , “Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: Two decades of debate over natural selection”, in Kohn D. (ed.), The Darwinian heritage (Princeton, 1985), 367–434).

For the socially constructed nature of similarity relations, see Collins , Changing order (ref. 3).

The problem of the proper place for the judgement of this problem is closely connected to the question of the social status of the participant and the site of knowledge production. The work by Westman, Hannaway, Biagioli and Westfall explicitly raises questions of the relations between patronage, place and social status. Galileo was not unusual in seeking patronage outside the University; only by displacing himself elsewhere could he transform the university curriculum and the place of the mathematics-based disciplines in it. See Hannaway O. , “Laboratory design and the aim of science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brache”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 585–610; Biagioli M. , “Galileo's system of patronage”, History of science, xxviii (1990), 1–62; idem, “The social status of Italian mathematicians, 1450–1600”, History of science, xxvii (1989), 41–95; Westfall R. , “Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 11–30; Westman R. , “The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1980), 105–47; Latour , op. cit. (ref. 7), esp. 161ff.; and Ophir A. Shapin S. , “The place of knowledge: A methodological survey”, Science in context, iv (1991), 3–21. For the role of mathematics in Italian universities during this period, see Schmitt Charles , “Science in Italian universities”, in idem, Aristotelian tradition and Renaissance universities (London, 1984), 35–56, esp. pp. 45–49. For accessibility between social spaces, see in particular Shapin, “The House of Experiment in seventeenth century England” (ref. 7), passim.

See Bacon , New Organon, passim; Webster C. , The Great Instauration (London, 1975), Pts III and V; Houghton W. E. , “The history of trades: Its relationship to seventeenth century thought”, Journal of the history of ideas, ii (1941), 49–60; Turnbull G. H. , “Samuel Hartlib's influence on the early Royal Society”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, x (1953), 101–30; MacLeod C. , “Accident or design? George Ravenscroft's patent and the invention of lead crystal glass”, Technology and culture, xxviii (1987), 776–803; and Ochs Kathleen , “The Royal Society's History of Trades Programme: An early episode in applied science”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxxix (1985), 129–58, esp. pp. 146–50.

Sprat T. , History of the Royal Society (London, 1667), 67 and 155. In 1664, some members of the Royal Society had even supposed that it should be able to examine all new mechanical inventions to see if they were “new, true and useful” ( Birch T. , The history of the Royal Society (4 vols, London, 1756–57), i, 391).

Sprat, History (ref. 13), 317 and 85. See also Christine MacLeod's excellent Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The history of the British patent system. 1660–1800 (Cambridge, 1988), chs 10–11, esp. pp. 186–8 and 204–6.

Sprat uses ‘invention’ here literally, as ‘finding out’ — Though it could mean ‘inventiveness’, ‘deviousness’, or even have its modern connotation. Cf. MacLeod , op. cit. (ref. 14), 209–10. While ‘invention’ has connotations of artifactuality, the expression ‘discovery’ implies that whatever is ‘discovered’ is natural and not susceptible to ownership. For brief comments, see Shapin Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 3), 67. Nevertheless, in fact similar credit conventions still applied, and the division between the two was porous. For example, in the seventeenth century, mathematicians described new mathematical objects both as ‘inventions’ and ‘discoveries’, although I have not made any systematic investigation of whether these different usages were deemed significant. On the other hand, as is clear from Sprat's comments, there is a widely accepted convention that ‘inventions’ can be withheld from the public for a certain period of time until they be ‘perfected’ — And discoveries are not the sort of things that can be ‘perfected’. Latour and Woolgar point out that in modern science, “substances ‘discovered’ in the laboratory are described in the texts of patents as having been ‘invented’” (cf. Latour B. Woolgar S. , Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (Princeton, 1986), 186, n. 21). For an excellent discussion of Watt's attempts to draw up a definition of ‘principle’ in a patent specification in such a way that he could not be accused of patenting a natural object, see Robinson Eric , “James Watt and the law of patents”, Technology and culture, xii (1972), 115–39, esp. pp. 122–5.

Sprat , History (ref. 13), 392–3 and 75.

Ibid., 398.

Cf. the discussions by Foucault , “What is an author?”, in Rabinow P. (ed.), The Foucault reader (London, 1986), 101–20; Minnis A. J. , Mediaeval theory of authorship: Scholastic literary attitudes in the later Middle Ages (London, 1984); Eisenstein E. L. , The printing press as an agent of change: Communication and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe (Cambridge, 1982), esp. pp. 119–22, 229–30, 233–5, 271–302, 337 and 553–66; Prager F. D. , “A history of intellectual property from 1547 to 1787”, Journal of the Patent Society, xxvi (1944), 714–19; and Feather J. , “The publishers and the pirates: British copyright law in theory and practice, 1710–1775”, Publishing history, xxii (1987), 5–32.

Cf. Westman , “The astronomer's role” (ref. 11), 108–9, 117–21; Biagioli , “The social status of Italian mathematicians” (ref. 11), passim; and Dear P. , “Jesuit mathematical science and the reconstitution of experience in the early seventeenth century”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, xviii (1987), 133–75.

Cf. in particular Shapin Steven , “Robert Boyle and mathematics”, Science in context, ii (1988), 23–58 for Boyle's distrust of the epistemological grounds of mathematics. Boyle was deeply suspicious of the epistemological claims of mathematics because mathematical proofs claimed inappropriately high levels of certainty and compelled assent on grounds other than comprehensibility.

For the relationship between controversy and flexibility of interpretation of experiments, see Collins , op. cit. (ref. 3); Shapin Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 3), chs 5 and 6; Pinch Trevor , Confronting nature: The sociology of solar neutrino detection (Dordrecht, 1986); and Latour Bruno , Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Milton Keynes, 1987).

Perhaps the most perceptive critic of its claimed democratic structure in this period was Hobbes (cf. Shapin Schaffer , op. cit. (ref. 3), esp. ch. 8 and p. 350). For a good account of the ‘closed’ nature of the early Royal Society, see Hoppen K. T. , “The nature of the early Royal Society”, The British journal of the history of science, ix (1976), 1–24 and 243–73.

Oldenburg to Boyle, 24 Nov. and 3 Dec. 1664 (Oldenburg (ref. 1, 2, 319 and 329). In July 1663, Hooke warned Boyle that Power was “about to publish several expts about colours, which I am confident might be originally yours” (letter of 3 July, in The works of the honourable Robert Boyle, ed. by Birch T. , 2nd edn (6 vols, London, 1772), vi, 487).

Moray to Oldenburg, 8 Jan. 1665/6 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), iii, 8). Hooke later claimed the invention was his as far back as 1658, and inscribed a finished watch of 1675 (which he presented to the King) “Robert Hook inv. 1658 T. Tompion fecit 1675”. See Hall A. R. , “Robert Hooke and horology”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, viii (1951), 167–77, esp. pp. 168–72; idem, “Horology and criticism: Robert Hooke”, Studia Copernicana, xvi (1976), 261–81, esp. pp. 277–8; and Wright M. , “Robert Hooke's longitude time keeper”, in Hunter Schaffer (eds), op. cit. (ref. 7), 63–118. Hall showed that in a manuscript from this period, Hooke does not mention the isochrony of the spring's vibrations, and the “equal arcs of the balance['s motion] were regulated not by the springs but by the constant-force escapement” (cf. Hesse M. , “Hooke's philosophical algebra”, Isis, lvii (1966), 67–83, 439, and esp. Wright , op. cit., 105 and 115–16). Hooke later claimed that the secret of this escapement was contained in the general “Method I had made for myself for Mechanick Inventions“. Cf. Hesse, op. cit., 74–75, and her “Hooke's vibration theory and the isochrony of strings”, Isis, lvii (1966), 433–41.

Oldenburg to Boyle, 17 Mar. 1665/6 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), iii, 61 (“M.H” was Robert Hooke)). Compare with the dispute between Hooke and Newton over a “new kind of refraction” (see The correspondence of Isaac Newton (hereafter Newton), ed. by Turnbull H. W. Tilling L. Hall A. R. (7 vols, Cambridge 1959–77), i, 383–4).

Boyle to Oldenburg, 17 and 26 Oct. 1667 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), viii, 532–3, and 540). Boyle's sentiments in the second letter to Oldenburg, namely that the English had “lost” a great deal through being insufficiently “solicitous”, echoed Wallis's incessant complaint that the English spoke too freely to foreigners, “it being their common fate that out of modesty they forbear to publish their discoveries till prosecuted of certainty or profession” (Wallis to Boyle, 25 Apr. 1666; cf. also Wallis to Oldenburg, 21 March 1666/7 (ibid., iii, 373); 11 Feb. 1668/9 (ibid., v, 390); 16 Apr. 1671 (ibid., vii, 563); 23 June 1673 (ibid., x, 40–43); 4 Oct. 1673 (ibid., x, 276ff.); and 11 Jan. 1674/5 (ibid., xi, 154–5)). Oldenburg's initial contact with Newton was heavily informed by the need to protect English intellectual property rights. Newton was asked to send his description of the reflecting telescope to “secure” it from “y^e Usurpation of forreiners”, and Oldenburg added that he had described the instrument in a “Solemne letter to Paris to M. Huygens, thereby to prevent the arrogation of such strangers, as may perhaps have seen it here, or even w^th you at Cambridge”. When his paper on light and colours had been read at the Royal Society, he was asked if Oldenburg could print it because “forainers … were apt enough to make shew of and to vend, what is not of the growth of their country”. See Oldenburg to Newton , 2 Jan. 1671/2 and 8 Feb. 1671/2 (Newton (ref. 25), i, 73 and 107, and, on the same subject, Wallis to Collins, 25 Jan. 1671/2, in Rigaud S. J. (ed.), Correspondence of scientific men (2 vols, repr. Hildesheim, 1965), ii, 529–30.

Oldenburg to Boyle, 18 Feb. 1667/8 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), iv, 185). The Society had already confirmed the practice of sealing letters at their meeting of 16 Nov. 1667. Cf. Birch , op. cit. (ref. 13), i, 212–13.

Ibid., 185–6.

See in particular Robinson, op. cit. (ref. 15), and Latour , op. cit. (ref. 20), 131–4, who argues that the same ‘black-boxing’ processes apply to ‘scientific’ facts as ‘technical’ artefacts. For the methods and problems of patenting in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, see MacLeod , op. cit. (ref. 14); Robinson E. , “Eighteenth century commerce and fashion: Matthew Boulton's marketing techniques”, Economic history review, 2nd ser., xvi (1936), 39–60; idem, “Matthew Boulton and the art of parliamentary lobbying”, Historical journal, vii, (1964), 209–29; and Dutton H. I. , The patent system and inventive activity during the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1852 (Manchester, 1984).

Boyle to Oldenburg, 21 Feb. 1667/8 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), iv, 193).

Wallis to Oldenburg, 11 Feb. 1668/9 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), v, 390). For Wallis's expertise in cypher decoding, see Scriba C. J. , “The autobiography of John Wallis, F.R.S.”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxv (1970), 17–46, esp. pp. 37–38, and Smith D. E. , “John Wallis as cryptographer”, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, xxiv (1917), 82–96.

Huygens to Oldenburg, 20 March 1668/9 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), v, 451).

Huygens to Oldenburg, 4 Sept. 1669 ( ibid. , 211); cf. also Oldenburg to Huygens, 6 Sept. 1669 (ibid., 221).

Most famously, in the case of the Newton-Leibniz dispute, such appeals required access — Heavily policed by Newton — To manuscripts almost fifty years old.

For example, see Lister to Oldenburg , 1 Jan. 1672/3 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), ix, 377–8).

Hooke referred to the Society's Register in a Cutlerian Lecture of c.1666; “Every communicating person … shall be free to search the Register to see whether there be any history observation or conjecture the same with his already entered … [to prevent] any fowle dealing in the management of this business …”; see Hunter M. , “Science, technology and patronage: Robert Hooke and the Cutlerian lectureship”, in idem, Establishing the new science: The experience of the Early Royal Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1989), 279–338, p. 338.

Leibniz to Oldenburg, 26 Feb. 1672/3 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), ix, 493–4). See also Hooke's Diary, ed. by Robinson H. W. Adams W. (London, 1935), 2, 4 Feb. and esp. 8 Feb., where Hooke met Leibniz and “Haux” at Hooke's house “all afternoon” (Diary, 27).

Leibniz to Oldenburg, 26 Feb. 1672/3, whereupon Hooke offered to build the Society a similar but much better and more compact machine (Oldenburg (ref. 1), ix, 493–4).

An example of his trustworthiness is his appointment on 6 February 1675/6 as licensor of “books of history”. See Oldenburg to Williamson , 18 Apr. 1676 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 254–5). On this occasion Oldenburg had informed the Bookseller in question of the unfitness of one of the books he was vending, and he had done this in person to prevent “men [being] shy of me by seising and keeping y^e books they brought to me” (ibid., 254). He evidently did his job well, as he was then entrusted with authorising “Licences for Books of a Political nature”. However, even the indefatigable Oldenburg found this extra burden too much, and asked to be relieved of his duty. He still found himself obliged to defend his honour (in a letter to Williamson) against those “who by sinister suggestions have been busy to raise Jealousies in y^r breast against a person whom they know not well”; amongst other things, he mentioned that the extra work had taken a vast amount of time, and he defended himself by saying that he had taken the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, “both w^ch I did at the y^e same time w^th our Noble Friend Mr Boyle”; and (fascinatingly) that he had “rejected a farr greater number of Books and Papers than I have licensed” (Oldenburg to Williamson, 29 Apr. 1676 (ibid., 263–4)).

Huygens C. , Horologium oscillatorium sive de motu pendulorum ad horologia aplato demonstrationes geometricae (Paris, 1673). For a basic account of these disputes, see Hofmann J. , Leibniz in Paris, 1672–76 (Cambridge, 1974), chs 8 and 9.

Cf. Hofmann , op. cit. (ref. 40), 106–9; Huygens , Oeuvres complètes (22 vols, The Hague, 1888–1950; hereafter cited as Huygens), xiv, 234–53. Huygens apparently refuted Hobbes's proof as soon as it appeared, as well as an attempt by Hobbes to correct it (Huygens to Wallis, 5 March 1655/6 (N.S.); Huygens, i, 392, and 439–40). Unless otherwise stated, I use Old Style dates.

Printed in Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 309. In October 1673, Wallis told Oldenburg that “it was absolutely certain that that very thing was first discovered and demonstrated two years before by the Englishman William Neile. … [Huygens] was quite mistaken” (Wallis to Oldenburg, 4 Oct. 1673; Oldenburg (ref. 1), x, 279).

For key letters in this affair, cf. Oldenburg to Huygens, 2 and 27 June 1673 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), x, 1–3 and 67); Wallis to Huygens , 30 May 1673 (ibid., 3ff. (accompanying Oldenburg's letter of 2 June)); Huygens to Wallis , 30 June 1673 (printed in full in Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 339–40) and Huygens to Oldenburg, 14 and 30 June (ibid., 28–31 and 71–73); Brouncker to Oldenburg , c. 23 June ( ibid. , 39); Wallis to Oldenburg , 23 June and 4 Oct. 1673, 11 Jan. 1674/5 (ibid., x, 40–43, 276ff. and xi, 154–5).

Oldenburg to Huygens, 2 June 1673 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), x, 2). Brouncker's paper was printed (anonymously) in Philosophical transactions, no. 94 (19 May 1673), a rewrite of a demonstration of the isochronism of cycloidal motion which he had sent to Huygens as far back as 1662. Hooke received a copy on 11 May (Diary (ref. 37), 43). The seventh proposition of the Horologium was the rectification of the cycloid in which Wren was given credit for its first treatment. In the ninth, Heuraet is cited as the first inventor of the rectification of the semicubic parabola; while Neile is mentioned, Huygens maintains that he had probably not ‘understood’ it as well as Heuraet. See Hofmann , op. cit. (ref. 40), 112–16. Huygens mentioned his own communication of the determination of the surface of the paraboloid to Heuraet's teacher Schooten, since he felt that the rectification of the parabola followed ‘easily’ from it. Cf. Hofmann op. cit. (ref. 40), 115.

Huygens's own phrase — See his letter to Constantijn Huygens, 7 Aug. 1674 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 235–6; Huygens (ref. 41), 390–3). Cf. Hooke, Diary for 30 May: “Sent Harry to Oldenburg, but he sent Zulichems book of penduls by his man at noon. … Saw that he had taken my Invention of circular pendulum and for falling bodys”. On 25 June he prepared a lecture on Huygens's book, and on 18 August, he “examined my demonstration of Circular Pendulum and found it to be true” (ibid. (ref. 37), 45, 49 and 56).

Cf. Wallis to Huygens , 30 May 1673 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), x, 3–4); Wallis to Oldenburg , 23 June 1673 ( ibid. , 41–43); and Oldenburg to Huygens , 27 June 1673 ( ibid. , 67), where Oldenburg “as witness the Register of the Royal Society” also defended Hooke's claim to have independently constructed a circular pendulum clock, “seen by several foreigners”. Wallis ( ibid. , 4) cited Huygens's own suggestion that if Neile really had discovered the rectification, “he or others on his behalf would have spread abroad such a notable discovery”. Oldenburg had to admit in a further letter to Huygens that he had printed a private letter of Newton (about Huygens's response to his theory of light and colours) in the Philosophical transactions without his knowledge, although he had not mentioned Huygens by name (Oldenburg to Huygens, 4 Aug. 1673; ibid., x, 112).

Constantijn Huygens to Oldenburg, 19 March 1674/5 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 233–4); Hooke , Some animadversions on the first part of Hevelius his Machine coelestis (London, 1674), 105–6; Hall , “Horology and criticism” (ref. 24), 272–4.

Shapin Steven , “Closure and credibility in seventeenth-century science”, paper presented to Joint Meeting of the History of Science Society/British Society for the History of Science, typescript of proceedings (Manchester, 1988), 147–54.

Huygens to his father, 7 Aug. 1674 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 235–6).

The repeal was voted in on 19 October 1674, following a representation of 15 October which is worth reproducing in full: It being represented, that the permitting of such, who are not of the Society, to be present at the meetings thereof, is both troublesome and prejudicial to the same, it was ordered, that the repeal of that statute which allows such an admission, and which is the second of the fourth chapter, containing the statutes about the ordinary meetings of the Society, shall be propounded at the next meeting of the Council. It being likewise represented, that the liberty of divulging what is brought in to the meetings of the Society is also prejudicial to the same, which renders divers members thereof very shy of presenting to them what they have discovered, invented, or contrived; it was moved, that a form of a statute might be prepared, injoining secrecy to the members of the Society in such matters, as shall be brought in, and by the president or vice-president declared to be kept secret, as the communicators desire. And a form to this end was proposed as follows: “Every fellow of the Royal Society shall make a solemn promise before the same, not to discover, directly or indirectly to any person, not being of the Society, such observations, experiments or other communications, as shall be brought into the meetings of the same, and there by the president or vice-presidents declared to be kept secret, at the desire of the communicator.” Birch , History (ref. 13), iii, 137–9.

Wallis to Oldenburg , 11 Jan. 1674/5; Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 154–5. Hooke was drawing up new statutes concerning secrecy at the Royal Society in November 1674 (cf. entries for 17th and 18th of that month ( Diary (ref. 37), 131)). See also Hunter M. Wood P. B. , “Towards Solomon's House: Rival strategies for reforming the early Royal Society”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 49–108. The ms. by “A.B.” printed as Appendix 2 to this article was composed on the day of the repeal mentioned in the previous footnote. “A.B.” advocated a policy of secrecy: “a secret is wont to be admired, what ever it be … it will make Tradesmen & others more free & open, when they understand they may dare trust their secrets with us” (ibid., 87).

De Graaf to Oldenburg, 15 July 1669 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 122). This enclosure seems to have been lost in transit.

A classic example of the necessity of bringing over a witness to vouch for one's credentials is the case of Hevelius and Halley; see Hevelius , Annus climactericus (Danzig, 1685), esp. pp. 54–60 (a letter reprinted in Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 458–66) and the favourable review in Philosophical transactions , no. 180 (1686), 1162–82; and Halley to Molyneaux , 27 March 1686, in MacPike E. (ed.), Correspondence and papers of Edmond Halley (London, 1937), 57–60, esp. p. 60.

Cf. Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 408–16; Huygens to Oldenburg , 20 Jan. 1674/5 (30 Jan. N.S.) (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 162–3). His sketch of a double balance mechanism is dated 23 Jan. (Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 409). For Thuret, see the short piece by Foster G. : “Isaac Thuret, clockmaker to Louis XIV”, Antiquarian horology, iii (1959–62), 73–75; Huygens to Colbert , 5 Feb. 1675 (N.S.) Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 401); Colbert to Huygens , 15 Feb. 1675 (N.S.) ibid., vii, 419–20).

Oldenburg to Huygens , 2 Feb. 1674/5 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 177); Huygens to Oldenburg , 10 Feb. 1674/5 (ibid., xi, 185).

Huygens to Colbert, 9 February 1675 (N.S.), and to Gallois, 11 February 1675 (N.S.) ( Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 405–8). The dates in this and the following paragraph are all New Style. For more detail, see the short Diary of the affair by Huygens in ibid. , 409–16, begun on 1 Feb. (Huygens made final additions to it in July 1676). Justel told Oldenburg that Thuret had made a quite considerable contribution to the project; see Justel to Oldenburg , 17 and 24 Feb. 1674/5 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 194 and 203).

Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 411–15; and Huygens to Colbert , 16 Feb. 1675 (ibid., 420–1). Huygens referred to Thuret as a “méchant homme” in a letter to his brother of 15 March 1675 (ibid., 426).

Birch , History (ref. 13), iii, 190, 18 Feb. 1674/5; R.S meeting, 18 Feb. 1674/5. Hooke's Diary records “Flamstead here. Mr. Newton, Cambridge, here … Zulichems watch spoken of by his letter. I shewd when it was printed in Dr. Spratt's book. The Society inclind to favour Zulichems …. Mr. Newton told me his way of polishing metall on pitch” (ibid. (ref. 37), 147–8). Hooke had been informed about Huygens's watch by Boyle the previous day (cf. ibid., 147).

Oldenburg to Huygens , 11 March 1674/5 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 220–1).

Hunter has pointed out that at this time a number of Hooke's lectures would not have appeared in the Society's minutes because they were part of the Cutlerian Lectures and thus not (then) regarded as part of the Society's normal programme; see Hunter M. , op. cit. (ref. 36), 300, n. 74.

Diary (ref. 37), 148–50; Flamsteed to Towneley , 16 March 1674/5, cited in Howse Finch , op. cit. (ref. 1), 666. The 20 February entry in the Diary includes the comment “Zulichems spring not worth a farthing”. Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 224–5, prints Oldenburg's application for a patent “to grant him [i.e. Oldenburg] y^e sole Right of making and disposing of such watches within y^r Majies dominions, for the usual term of fourteen years”. Hall , “Horology and criticism” (ref. 24), 276, points out that as foreigners, neither Oldenburg nor Huygens was entitled to benefit from a patent drawn up in England.

It is worth remarking that Moray did tell Huygens of the existence of a new watch of Hooke's that could be used at sea in September 1665, and added that Hooke had imparted its secret to himself and Brouncker. Furthermore, Hooke showed some sort of spring-regulated watch to Brouncker c. 1664, and, according to Magalotti, to the Society in February 1667/8 (Moray to Huygens, 30 Sept. (N.S.) 1665 (Huygens (ref. 41), v, 503–4), and Hall, “Horology and criticism” (ref. 24), 269).

For gift-giving and patronage strategies in the Court system, see Biagioli , “Galileo's system of patronage” (ref. 11), 16–22, 28–32 and 50–51, and esp. p. 19, for the concept of the gift as “probe”. Brouncker had equal access to the King and used this capability on Huygens's behalf; with respect to Biagioli's accounts of gift-giving strategies in the early seventeenth century, this episode in 1675 offers an extraordinary situation. The King regularly returned these watches to be repaired, and Hooke and Brouncker used the King's responses to their timepieces as gauges of whether their opponents were designing watches that the King found pleasing. No doubt too, the King found the dispute between the two groups highly entertaining, and only tactically allowed each side to think they had or had not gained a patent.

Diary (ref. 37), 151–7. George Graham later claimed that Tompion had told him that Hooke had “imployed [him] three months that year … in making some parts of … watches, before he let him know, for what use they were designed” (in Ward J. , Lives of the professors of Gresham College (London, 1740), 182). For Tompion, see Symonds R. W. , Thomas Tompion: His life and work (London, 1951), esp. 4–38. On 1 August 1674, Robert Seignior was appointed “in the place & quality of Watchmaker and clockmaker for makeing & mending of his Ma^ties watches and clocks in Ordinary w^thout ffee untill the Death Surrender or other Determinacion of Edward East …” (quoted in Symonds, op. cit., 19, n.1). See also Jagger C. S. , “Robert Seignior”, Antiquarian horology, i (1953–56), 39–43.

I.e. he told Hooke to pursue his work on longitude, to which there are myriad references in Hooke's Diary. This was the Holy Grail of late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century horology; on 25 February, Hooke was offered “£150 per annum for Discovery of it or £1000 ready money” (Hooke wanted the former) (ibid., 149 and Birch, History (ref. 13), 191). By 12 May Hooke was being promised nearly £4000 (cf. Diary, 160). For Huygens's work on the measurement of longitude, see Mahoney M. S. , “Christiaan Huygens: The measurement of time and of longitude at sea”, in Bos H. J. M. (eds), Studies on Christiaan Huygens (Lisse, 1980), 234–70. It should be noted that Hooke already had access to the King and his “closet” (see for example Diary, 3 March (ibid., 150); and Shapin , “House of experiment” (ref. 7), 389, n.43).

Diary (ref. 37), 151, 153, 156–7. Sir Joseph Williamson confirmed that Oldenburg's patent had been turned down, but “advised [Hooke] to joyn Oldenburg”. Oldenburg had written to Huygens on 27 March saying that Brouncker wished to see (and pay for) one of Huygens's new watches as soon as possible (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 245). This request was repeated in letters of 19 April and 5 May. The former mentioned that Hooke had also asked for a patent “pour une sienne montre, qu'il pretend dependre du mesme principe, et qu'il dit avoir eue il y a plusieurs années” (ibid., 282 and 300). By now, Oldenburg had published a translation of the passage describing Huygens's watch in the Journal des sçavants — See Philosophical transactions, no. 112 (25 March 1675).

Diary (ref. 37), 158–9. On 13 April Hooke tried out a new “perpendicular Spiral spring” at Tompion's, helped no doubt by what he had seen of Huygens's watch. The next day he tested a “Double perpendicular spring” which “did well” (ibid., 159). In return for his favours, Montague probably offered the picture of a “naked woman” mentioned in entries for 6 July, 26, 27 August and passim.

Huygens to ?, 21 April 1675 (N.S.) Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 434–6), and to Constantyn Huygens (brother), 26 April 1675 (ibid., 436–8). The claim by the Abbé Hautefeuille was particularly time-consuming for Huygens, and he had to insist that his invention was quite different from that of the Abbé; cf. Huygens to ? [1675] (ibid., 460–1).

Howse Finch , op. cit. (ref. 1), 666–7. On 3 July, Towneley was told that Tompion and Hooke were producing a watch for sale, and Flamsteed warned him “not to take notice of [this fact] when you write to Sr Jonas, whom they engage as much as they can to secrecy” (ibid., 668); cf. Flamsteed to Towneley , 15 November 1675 (ibid., 669).

For Hooke's meetings with the King (often in the presence of Moore), cf. Diary (ref. 37), 160–3 (17, 18, 19, 25 and 31 May), when Harry and Tompion were with him (see entry for 25th).

Cf. Huygens to Oldenburg, 29 May 1675, where Huygens promised to send a working example of the watch via a highly trusted Italian comedian (a “Sr. Dominique”) (Oldenburg (ref. 1), ii, 327, and Oldenburg to Huygens, 7 June 1675, ibid., 334). Huygens was also at this time producing a watch for William of Orange; see Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 464–5. Cf. also Hooke's Diary entries for the three successive Thursdays, 3–17 June, for attacks on Oldenburg (“for not Registring Experiments”) and Brouncker (ibid., 163–5).

Ibid., 164.

Huygens to Oldenburg, 11 June 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 341–2). Huygens gave highly detailed instructions for the care and maintenance of the watch, and asked Oldenburg to tell him “a quoy en est M. Hooke avec ce qu'il a entrepris en ces sortes d'ouvrages”. Oldenburg received the watch on 20 June — See Oldenburg to Huygens , 21 June (ibid., 360).

Diary (ref. 37), 165; Oldenburg to Huygens , 21 June 1675 ( Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 359); Oldenburg to Huygens , 24 Sept. 1675 ( ibid. , xi, 507). Apparently, the King would not discuss Hooke's watch with anyone until the patent was published; see Oldenburg to Huygens , 28 June 1675 (ibid., xi, 375). This information must have come via Brouncker—moreover the King let it be known that he “had a good opinion” of Hooke's watch (ibid., xi, 375, and Oldenburg to Huygens, 24 Sept. 1675 (ibid., xi, 507–8), where Oldenburg mentioned that the King was “completely satisfied” with Hooke's watch, but that Hooke had not yet displayed its “inner workings”).

Oldenburg to Huygens, 28 June 167 ( ibid. , xi, 375). Hooke's watch also suffered problems; see diary for 24 July (Moore's watch had “stood twice”), and for 5 October, where the King told him that the weather had “altered” it (ibid., 170 and 185). Such problems remained private.

Huygens to Oldenburg, 1 July 1675 (ibid., xi, 378–9).

Hooke was told the price of Huygens's watch by Colwall, and made it equivalent to £6.13s.4d (Diary (ref. 37), 174, entry for 8 August). Colwall was treasurer of the Society and thus a member of Council.

Oldenburg to Huygens, 15 July 1675 ( Oldenburg (ref. 1), xi, 405–6); Oldenburg to Huygens , 12 Aug. 1675 (ibid., 451–2); Huygens to Oldenburg, 31 July 1675 ( ibid. , 440–2). At the end of the letter Huygens included three more instructions for opening and closing the watch. On the same date (31 July O.S.) Papin told Huygens that Brouncker's watch slowed somewhat, but that he only had to wind it twice a day. Apparently Brouncker had too little estimation of the skill of English workmen to have the watch overhauled. Papin also remarked that Oldenburg had said to him that Hooke's watch “would never appear, but he would not say why” (ibid., xi, 437–8).

Oldenburg to Huygens, 13 Sept. 1675 ( ibid. , xi, 494–5), and note to the same letter in Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 499. Brouncker's watch was still tending to stop even though he was carrying it “properly” and there was no dust in it (which Huygens had suggested might be a cause of it slowing down or stopping). Huygens was told on 28 August that the watch he had given the French King had not stopped, though at first it had slowed ( ibid. , vii, 493). On 22 July, Oldenburg had asked that Huygens's watch be able to display minutes “if not seconds”, since it was known that Hooke's watch would at least have minutes when it appeared ( ibid. , 412). Cf. also Hooke's comment in the Diary for Friday, 25 June: “At Sir J. Mores. He told me Zulichems watch wanted minutes and seconds” (op. cit. (ref. 37), 166).

Cf. Huygens to Constantyn Huygens (brother), 9 Aug. 1675 (N.S.); Huygens to de Chevreuse Duc , 31 Aug. 1675 (N.S.); Gallois to Huygens , 2 Sept. 1675 (N.S.); and Huygens to Perrault , Sept. 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), vii, 483–5, 494–5, 496, and 497–8).

Diary (ref. 37), 170–4. Hooke had mentioned on 7 July that he and Tompion had discussed “Sir J. Mores Letter about King's Watch” ( ibid. , 168). Hook reprimanded Tompion “for slownesse” on 17 July (ibid., 169); on the 20th Sir William Jones “promised patent for Oldenburg, affirmd [Hooke] to have right” (ibid., 170).

Ibid. , 176–84. Oldenburg constantly stressed to Huygens that the Duke carried around his watch. Hooke told Tompion (regarding the version of late August) that he “would not pay him for it but he must expect it from the King”. For Worden, see also entries for 6 June and 10 July (“Seignior told me of Sir J. Worden about Zulichems Watch”). In September, Tompion moved from his site in Water Lane to the more prestigious junction between Water Lane and Fleet Street (Symonds, op. cit. (ref. 63), 57, 36–37).

Ibid. , 180–6; cf. Hooke , A description of helioscopes (London, 1676). Cf. also Diary, 27 July: “At Sir J. Mores. He told me that he had told Lord Brouncker of favouring French &c” (ibid., 171).

Williamson “frowned” when Reading called Brouncker a “dog” on the 15th (Diary, 170, 176, 178, 180, and 188–9). Compare with his letter to Aubrey, on 24 August: “You best know how. I dream [?] much at setting up a select clubb, whether 'twill take I know not. As we are, we are too much enslaved to a forreine spye, and think of nothing but that, and while 'tis soe I will not doe any[thing] towards it. I have many things which I watch for an opportunity of publishing, but not by the R. S. Oldenb. his snares I will avoid if I can”, in Gunther R. , Early science in Oxford (Oxford, 1930), vii, 435; and the fascinating entry for 1 Jan. 1675/6 in Diary, 205–7, the first meeting of the ultra-secretive “Philosophicall Clubb” (although another “New Clubb” had met at “Joe's” coffeehouse on 11 December, with much the same membership (ibid., 198)). As he said of plants at the later secret meeting of 1 January, Hooke here mentioned that “all vegetables were femals”).

The Society was officially adjourned until 21 October (Birch, History (ref. 13), iii, 228; Cf. Diary (ref. 37), 186). Hooke had in fact been correcting “the last sheet” since 1 October — On the 3rd Martin had, according to Hooke, “advised him to let stand against Oldenburg”. On the 5th, Hooke met the King at Whitehall (where he told Hooke that the watch had been altered by the weather), and on the following day Hooke “shewd him the Experiment of Springs” in the Royal Closet (“He was very well pleasd”). On the same day Hooke “Saw Prohibition at Martins from Lord Brouncker”, but he added “Lord Brouncker and Colwall abroad” (ibid., 184–5).

Huygens to Oldenburg, 2 Oct. 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 2). This can be compared with Leibniz's accusation of early 1672/3 mentioned earlier, and with Huygens's marginal note to Oldenburg's letter of 13 September. Leibniz was at this time in Paris with Huygens and was working on watch developments of his own; in any case, Oldenburg was keeping him informed of developments. Thuret, who by now was doing excellent trade in these watches, had conceded to Huygens on 31 August in a text agreed at Versailles that his own work was based on Huygens's invention, and the rift was healed (though Thuret still insisted that he had used a spring to regulate the pendulum some years earlier). See Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 498, and Huygens to Oldenburg, 11 Nov. 1675 (Oldenburg, xii, 48–49). Thuret required the official permission of Huygens to market the watches; Huygens suggested a price (for a silver version of the watch) of 100 livres.

Oldenburg to Huygens , 11 Oct. 1675 (ibid., 11–12); he asked Huygens to burn it, as he did of the letter of 15 October. Hooke picked up four copies of Helioscopes on the same day (Diary (ref. 37), 186).

Hooke removed the passage about Oldenburg defrauding him and of Oldenburg being Huygens's spy. See Diary (ref. 37), 8 April 1675, 157 (for an early accusation of defrauding), and Oldenburg to Huygens, 15 Oct. 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 16).

The Postscript is printed in Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 517–26. Cf. Oldenburg to Huygens, 15 Oct. 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 16–17), where he pointed out that Hooke's working still gave “to attentive readers” the impression that he had “secretly communicated his method of clocks” to Huygens.

Oldenburg to Huygens, 18 Oct. 1675 ( ibid. , xii, 18–19); Huygens to Oldenburg , 22 Oct. 1675 and to Brouncker, 21 Oct. 1675 ( ibid. , 19 and 22). Oldenburg repeated the request on 1 November (ibid., 28), and on 8 November, where he emphasised that he now wanted the gold (and not a silver) watch ( ibid. , 40). Brouncker also stressed that he required a gold watch with a minute hand in his reply to Hugyens (ibid., 41). Apparently, Flamsteed repeatedly asked Hooke “how hee could find how many vibrations any spring would make or sway in an hour, but could never get any other answer from him than that hee knew the Theory of Springs, and would discover it on a good occasion” (Flamsteed to Towneley, 22 Sept. 1675; Howse Finch , op. cit. (ref. 1), 668).

The review is reprinted in Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 42–44. Oldenburg appealed to the possibility that “heads well versed in Mathematicks and Mechanicks, and furnisht with a genuine method of Investigation, may, and not seldome do, fall upon the same Discoveries and Inventions …” (ibid., 43). Hooke responded in the second Appendix to Lampas (printed in Huygens (ref. 41), vii, 538–40).

Diary (ref. 37), 21 Oct. 1675, 189. Hooke handed out a number of copies of Helioscopes on this date (including one to Flamsteed, having picked up six copies from Martin the previous day. Cf. also Birch , History (ref. 13), iii, 319–24.

Diary (ref. 37), 189–90, 192, and 193. By 15 November, Flamsteed doubted whether Hooke's watch would perform much better than Huygens's (Howse and Finch, op. cit. (ref. 1), 669).

Huygens to Oldenburg, 11 and 13 November 1675, the latter being the last known letter to Oldenburg from Huygens (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 48–50 and 54). He conceded that no balance-spring watch could attain the accuracy of a pendulum clock, but argued nevertheless that they went “incomparably better” than “ordinary” watches (ibid., 50). Alongside the features of gift-giving present in this exchange, a “proof-race” involving precision is also clearly visible. For relevant studies, see MacKenzie D. , “From Kwajalein to Armagedon? Testing and the social construction of missile accuracy”, in Gooding D. Pinch T. Schaffer S. (eds), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences (Cambridge, 1989), 409–36; idem, “Missile accuracy: A case study in the social processes of technological change”, in Bijker W. E. Hughes T. P. Pinch T. (eds), The social construction of technological systems (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), 195–222, and Moran B. T. , “Princes, machines, and the valuation of precision in the sixteenth century”, Sudhoffs Archiv, lxi (1977), 209–28.

Oldenburg to Huygens, 13 and 16 Dec. 1675 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 88–9 and 93–94). On the 14th, Moore told Hooke of “Zulichems new watch moving 1/4 turn”; cf. Diary (ref. 37), 200. One louis d'or was equal to twenty livres.

Oldenburg to Huygens, 17 Jan. 1675/6; 7 Feb., where Oldenburg conceded that Huygens was too ill to make any undue demands upon him, and 22 Feb., where Oldenburg refrained from mentioning the dispute; see Huygens Constantijn to Oldenburg , 21 Jan. 1675/6 (Oldenburg (ref. 1), xii, 143, 185, 200–1 and 146). The information on Thuret was contained in a letter from d'Alencé to Oldenburg, 25 Dec. 1675 (ibid., 114). For Adamson, see Howse Finch , op. cit. (ref. 1), 670, and entries in Hooke's Diary for 21 and 31 October and 2 November 1675 (Diary (ref. 37), 190–1). It may be the case that Adamson concentrated on developing the known ‘Huygens’ technique after failing to elicit the relevant information from Hooke.

Diary (ref. 37), 194 and 212–13. He discussed the patent with Hill on 23 December.

Ibid., 219, 221, 222, 229, 231, and 238–9.

The book was licensed by George Hooper on 21 August (ibid., 246). For the relevant meetings of the Council, see ibid. entries for 3, 5, 8–14, 20, 21, 24–28 October, 2, 3, and 30 November (Birch, History (ref. 13), iii, 319–25). At the meeting of 2 November it was decided that Croune and Hill should examine the affair to decide how the Society should react to the “scandalous” postscript (cf. Birch, op. cit., 321 and Diary (ref. 37), 255).

Cf. Philosophical transactions, no. 129 (20 Nov. 1676), 749–50, and Johns A. D. S. , “Piracy and usurpation: The problems of natural philosophy publishing in the scientific revolution” (typescript), 18, n. 148, which cites the relevant draft ms. concerning Martin (and signed by Brouncker) from Bl. Sloane Ms. 4441 fol. 61^r. Oldenburg's draft for the response to Hooke is at fols 59^v-r [sic], while the Halls print yet another version (fols 100^r–v) in Oldenburg (ref. 1), xiii, 148–50.

Hooke was clearly working on, or at least discussing with Tompion, a “double Spring in watches” in October 1674 (Diary (ref. 37), 125); see also the mss. from the mid-1660s and (at latest) the early 1670s in Wright, op. cit. (ref. 24), 105 and 115–16).

Locke, Two treatises of government, ed. by Laslett P. (Cambridge, 1988), Second Treatise, secs 27 and 40; Halley to Newton , 29 June 1686, in Newton (ref. 25), ii, 443; and Westfall's account of the history of the Commercium epistolicum — In which Newton develops a complex sociology of Leibniz's plagiarism — In Never at rest (Cambridge, 1984), 725–8.

Hall , op. cit. (ref. 24), 280; and Wright , op. cit. (ref. 24), 66. For another account of the context-dependant status of instruments (in this case Galileo's telescope), see Biagioli M. , “Galileo the emblem maker”, Isis, lxxxi (1990), 230–58, esp. pp. 243–5.

Further ambiguity is provided by the fact that both Tompion, Thuret, and Huygens's other workmen had a large input into the successive designs and versions of the watches. However, their presence is largely invisible in the historical record (hence the belief that it was a dispute between the merits of the watches of the two named antagonists). For comments on this invisibility, see Shapin , “The house of experiment” (ref. 7), 394–4.

For industrial secrecy in this period, see MacLeod , op. cit. (ref. 12), 791, 793, 798–803.

Bennett J. , “The mechanics' philosophy and the philosophy of the mechanics”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 1–28, pp. 6–7; Shapin , “Who was Robert Hooke?” (ref. 7), 274–5; and Hooke Robert , Micrographia (London, 1665), Preface. Bennett further points out the relevance of the discipline of the mathematical sciences to the mechanics' philosophy (op. cit., 11). For similar views to mine concerning the relationships between individuals, strategies, conventions, and etiquette, see Whigham F. Jr , Ambition and privilege: The social tropes of Elizabethan courtesy theory (Berkeley, 1984.

Hazen R. M. , Superconductors: The breakthrough (London, 1988), 39.

Pippard B. , “The need to cool it”, review of Hazen in Times literary supplement , 9–15 Dec. 1988, 1141. On the other hand, Watson's Double helix “describes a genuine breakthrough of the first order” (ibid).