1. Hill, Christopher, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar; Merton, R. K., “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England,” Osiris, IV (1938), 360–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jones, R. F., Ancients and Moderns (St. Louis, 1936)Google Scholar; Stimson, Dorothy, “Puritanism and the New Philosophy in 17th Century England,” Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine, III (1935), 321–334Google Scholar; Allen, Phyllis, “Scientific Studies in the English Universities of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the History of Ideas, X (1949), 219–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greaves, R. L., “Puritanism and Science; The Anatomy of a Controversy,” Journal of the History of Ideas XXX (1969), 345–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar; SirAshby, Erik, Technology & the Academies (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Purver, M., The Royal Society (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 62–75Google Scholar; Hill, C., “The Intellectual Origins of the Royal Society – London or Oxford,” Royal Society Notes and Records, XXIII (1968), 144–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Kearney, Hugh, Gentlemen and Scholars (London, 1970)Google Scholar.

2. For an earlier criticism of this view see Curtis, Mark, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition (Oxford, 1959)Google Scholar. For Hill's reply see Hill, Intellectual Origins, Appendix, pp. 301-314. See also M. Curtis, “The English Universities and the New Philosophy: Reflections on an Historical Controversy,” a paper read to the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association, which is largely devoted to differing uses of the concept “science.”

3. Johnson, F. R., Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England (Baltimore, 1937)Google Scholar; Curtis, , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, pp. 233n, 234-235, 239–240Google Scholar. Allen was the teacher and friend of such scientific notables as John Dee, Thomas Hariot, Walter Warner, Nathaniel Torperly. Curtis has described the widening influence of this circle in Ibid., 236-239.

4. De War, Mary, Sir Thomas Smith: A Tudor Intellectual in Office (London, 1964), pp. 13–15Google Scholar.

5. Savile, the head of Merton College, was much admired at Oxford as "Mathematicorum facile, Principus.” Madan, Falconer, Oxford Books (Oxford, 1895), I, 116Google Scholar.

6. Curtis, , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, pp. 116, 117, 231Google Scholar.

7. In this period, the Tychonic and Copernican views were considered equally advanced. Johnson, , Astronomical Thought, pp. 249, 268–270Google Scholar.

8. Ward, John, Lives of the Professors of Gresham College (London, 1740), p. 81Google Scholar.

9. Greaves, John, Miscellaneous Works (London, 1737), IGoogle Scholar, Introduction, ii.

10. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 54Google Scholar.

11. Kearney, H. F., “Puritanism, Capitalism and the Scientific Revolution,” Past and Present, XXVIII (1964), 86Google Scholar. See Jordan, W. K., Philanthropy, in England, 1480-1660 (New York, 1959)Google Scholar.

12. Kearney, , “Puritanism,” Past and Present, XXVIII, 87Google Scholar.

13. SirHartley, Harold, The Royal Society (London, 1960), p. 4Google ScholarPubMed.

14. Kearney, , “Puritanism,” Past and Present, XXVIII, 87Google Scholar.

15. Hartley, , Royal Society, p. 34Google Scholar. See also p. 56. Six of the first seven appointments were awarded to Oxford and Cambridge nominees. Of the more talented Gresham professors Edmund Gunter had been educated at Christ Church, Henry Gellibrand had learned his mathematics from Savile at Oxford, and Briggs had lectured at Cambridge on mathematics. Kearney, , “Puritanism,” Past and Present, XXVIII, 87Google Scholar.

16. Henry Briggs, first Savilian Professor of Geometry, provides a good ex-ample. Another was John Greaves, who left the Gresham geometry post for the Savilian Professorship of Astronomy, Ward, Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, p. 43Google Scholar. Gunter was interviewed but did not suceed Briggs. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 55Google Scholar. Thomas Clayton, Gresham Professor of Music, became anatomy reader at Oxford. Matthew Gynne, Professor of Music, became Professor of Physics at Gresham. Ward, , Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, pp. 39, 208–211Google Scholar.

17. The statutes governing the chair dictated that Aristotle be taught. In other respects, however, Savile's statutes provided something of a model. Mullinger, J. B., The University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1911), III, 65nGoogle Scholar.

18. Ibid., p. 65; Mullinger, J. B., “The Relations of Francis Bacon, Lord Verulum, with the University of Cambridge,” Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, IX, 228, 230–231Google Scholar.

19. Madan, , Oxford Books, I, 107Google Scholar.

20. Mullinger, , “Relations of Francis Bacon,” Proceedings, IX, 233Google Scholar, citing Abbott, , Bacon, p. 314Google Scholar. Samuel Collins, Provost of Kings College, after reading The Advancement “found himself, in a case to begin his studies anew.” Ibid., p. 232, Bacon's death was commemorated by a collection of laudatory verse composed by university men. Ibid., p. 235.

21. Turnbull, G. S., “Samuel Hartlib's Influence on the Early History of the Royal Society,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society, X (1953), 114Google Scholar.

22. Mallet, Charles E., The History of the University of Oxford (London, 1924) II, 245Google Scholar.

23. About the time of the Savilian benefactions, however, Francis Osborn noted that “some of the foolish gentry” kept their sons from the university so that they would not be “smutted by the Black Art.” Allen, Phyllis, “Scientific Studies in the English Universities of the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of the History of Ideas, X (1948), 227Google Scholar, citing Osborn, F., Advice to a Son (London, 1896), p. 14Google Scholar. Even in this instance there is no suggestion that the university was worried.

24. Myres, J. N. L., “The Painted Frieze in the Picture Gallery,” Bodleian Library Record (1950), III, 87Google Scholar; Myres, J. N. L., “Thomas James and the Painted Frieze,” Bodleian Library Record (1950), IV, 30–63Google Scholar. The frieze of 89 portraits was painted about 1616.

25. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

26. James, T., Catalogus Universalis tibrorum in Biblioteca Bodleiana (Oxford, 1620)Google Scholar.

27. Madan, , Oxford Books, I, 116-117, 123, 182-183, 189, 197, 266Google Scholar. Carpenter's Geography Delineated, which was dedicated to the Chancellor and which gave greater emphasis for experiment, was printed in 1625 and again in 1635.

28. Preaelectiones Tresdemcim in Principum Elementorium Euclids.

29. Madan, , Oxford Books, II, 474, 130Google Scholar.

30. Almost 12 percent of all works published between 1475 and 1640 dealt with scientific subjects. Stearns, R. P., “The Scientific Spirit in England in Early Modern Times,” Isis, XXXIV (1943), 297Google Scholar. See also McKie, Douglas, “Men and Books in English Science, 1600-1700,” Science and Progress, CLVIII (1958), 608Google Scholar.

31. Hartley, , Royal Society, p. 57Google Scholar.

32. Greaves, Miscellaneous Works, Intro., p. ii.

33. Pope, Walter, Life of Seth Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, ed. Bamborough, J. B. (Oxford, 1961), pp. 9–10Google Scholar. Jeremiah Horrox also learned his astronomy from books. Gunther, R. T., Early Science in Cambridge (Oxford, 1937), p. 155Google Scholar. For the importance of the printed book, see Eisenstein, Elizabeth L., “The Advent of the Printed Book and the Problem of the Renaissance,” Past and Present, XLV (1969), 19–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34. See Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, passim; M. Curtis, review of Costello, William T., The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in Isis, (1960), pp. 112–113Google Scholar. Costello, who emphasized the longevity of the scholastic tradition, indicated that there were efforts to improve medical education throughout the seventeenth century and that there was considerable interest in anatomy. He also suggests that the exodus to Padua was due to Padua's excellence rather than Cambridge's inadequacies. Costello, , Cambridge, pp. 129, 130–131Google Scholar.

35. See Verney, F. P., Memoirs of the Verney Family (London, 1892–1899), I, 62Google Scholar. Curtis, , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, pp. 239–240Google Scholar. Johnson, , Astronomical Thought, p. 13Google Scholar.

36. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 308Google Scholar.

37. Hearne, Thomas (ed.), Peter Langtoft's Chronicle (Oxford, 1735), I, cxlvii–cxlviiiGoogle Scholar; Pope, , Life of Seth Ward, pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

38. See SisterReif, Patricia, “Textbooks on Natural Philosophy, 1600-1650,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXX (1969), 17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sister Reif surveyed twenty textbooks used throughout Europe. Lists of prescribed course and textbooks may be misleading. A recent study indicates that on at least one occasion modern experimental physics had been taught for thirty years without making any alteration in the title of courses or officially prescribed textbooks. Lanning, J. T., “Tradition and the Enlightenment in the Spanish Colonial Universities,” Journal of World History, X (1967), 705–21Google Scholar.

39. Gunther, R. W. T., Early Science in Oxford (Oxford, 1920–1945), I, 13Google Scholar.

40. His fellow experimentdrs, who were associated with the scientific circle in London, the Wadham scientific group of the 1650s and later the Royal Society, included Bathurst, Scarborough, Willis, Highmore and Ent. Chauvois, Louis, William Harvey (London, 1957), pp. 145–147Google ScholarPubMed. See also Keynes, Geoffrey, The Life of William Harvey (London, 1966), pp. 298–314Google Scholar. Crombie, A., Oxford's Contribution to the Origins of Modem Science (Oxford, 1954), p. 17Google Scholar. In 1645 Harvey became Warden of Merton College.

41. It should be reemphasized that the fundamentals were much the same in the old and new philosophy. Curtis, , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, pp. 231–232Google Scholar.

42. Pope, , Life of Seth Ward, p. 10Google Scholar.

43. Hearne, , Peter Langtojt's Chronicle, I, cxlvii–vxlviiiGoogle Scholar.

44. Curtis, , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition, p. 245Google Scholar.

45. Oughtred, William, To the English Gentry (n.p., 1632?), p. BlGoogle Scholar. Seth Ward and Charles Scarborough had been Oughtred's pupils. Oughtred did not spend his whole career in Cambridge and at times students had to travel to gain instruction from him.

46. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 48Google Scholar. We have indicated earlier that the sharp contrast frequently made between Gresham College and the universities requires modification. The two-way traffic between Gresham and the universities which began long before 1640 continued throughout the Interregnum and into the Restoration period. Ralph Button, Gresham Professor of Astronomy from 1643-48, spent most of his time in Oxford and lived there as much as possible until 1660. Daniel Whistle (1648-59) one of the many geometry professors to be elected from Merton College, held the Gresham post simultaneously with his Oxford fellowship until his marriage. Isaac Barrow, also possessor of a Gresham chair, left it to become the first Lucasian Professor at Cambridge. He later became Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Vice Chancellor at Cambridge. The careers of several other Gresham professors confirm the symbiotic relationship. Laurence Rooke, who held both the astronomy and geometry posts at Gresham, spent as much time as possible with the Wadham group. Christopher Wren, a member of the Wadham group and a fellow of AH Souls, was Gresham Professor of Astronomy at Oxford. Walter Pope, also a Wadhamite, served as Gresham Professor of Astronomy from 1661 to 1687. William Petty, who became Professor of Anatomy at Oxford and Vice Principal of Brasenose in 1650, also served as Gresham Professor of Music from 1650 to 1675. Jonathan Goddard, a Gresham Professor of Physic, held the position simultaneously with the headship of Merton College, Oxford, for two years. Thomas Horton, Gresham Professor of Divinity from 1641 to 1660, was at the time head of Queens College, Cambridge. Ward, , Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, pp. 68, 154, 155Google Scholar.

47. Burrows, Montague, The Registers of the Visitors of the University of Oxford, 1647-1658 (Camden Society, 1881), p. lxxivGoogle Scholar. Only six of the eighteen heads of houses submitted in 1648. Ten were ejected and two vacancies existed. Conant, J. B., “The Advancement of Learning During the Puritan Commonwealth,” Proceed, of the Mass. Hist. Society, LXI (1936), 22Google Scholar.

48. William Harvey, a Royalist appointee, had been ousted as Warden of Merton by the Puritans and replaced with Sir Nathaniel Brent, hardly an improvement from a scientific point of view.

49. The Vice Chancellors of the Interregnum, Reynolds, Greenwood, Owen, and Conant, were all able men widely admired for their piety, learning, and preaching. Most of the new heads of houses were men of the same type and stature as Fell and Sheldon, leading Anglican divines.

50. Wilkins, John, The Discovery of a New World (London, 1638)Google Scholar; Wilkins, John, Discourse Concerning a New Planet (London, 1640)Google Scholar.

51. His patrons included Lord Saye and Sele, Lord Berkeley, and Sir Richard Knightley. Or these only Berkeley, an Anglican, was interested in science. Wilkins had also been chaplain to the Elector Palatine. It is clear from the scurrilous Royalist pamphlets that Wilkins was little known except as the author of popular astronomical treatises and as a chaplain of the Elector. Anon., The Lord Have Mercy (Pembroke and Montgomery, 1648); Anon., Pegasus (n.p., 1648).

52. While Wilkins has frequently been considered a Puritan, H. R. McAdoo has placed him squarely in the Anglican tradition. McAdoo, H. R., The Spirit of Anglicanism (New York, 1965)Google Scholar. See also Shapiro, Barbara, John Wilkins, 1614-72: An Intellectual Biography (Berkeley, 1969)Google Scholar.

53. Pope, , Life of Seth Ward, p. 48Google Scholar. Ward later became head of Trinity College, Oxford as a result of pressure applied by Goddard and Wilkins. Ibid., pp. 48-50.

54. Ibid., p. 20.

55. Ibid. Greaves was not the mathematician that Ward became and his scientific interests had become increasingly biological. One of his biological works was published in the Philosophical Transactions for 1678. He also pressed for improvements in navigation and a public professorship of navigation at Trinity House. Greaves, John, Miscellaneous Works, II, 359, 379, 387Google Scholar. Emphasis on the utilitarianism side of science was thus not a Puritan preserve. Greaves, a close friend of Harvey, Ent, and Scarborough, was ejected from Merton for his “bringing in Doctor Harvey” as Warden at Merton. Ibid., I, xxviii.

56. Mallet, , Oxford, II, 391Google Scholar; Burrows, , Register, p. 1xGoogle Scholar.

57. Burrows, Register, passim; Mallet, , Oxford, II, 391.Google ScholarWood, Anthony, History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford, ed. Gutch, J. (Oxford, 1792–1776), II, 676Google Scholar.

58. Burrows, , Registers, p. 396Google Scholar.

59. Pope, , Life of Seth Ward, pp. 46, 48, 50Google Scholar.

60. Shapiro, , Wilkins, pp. 122–123Google Scholar.

61. Boyle, Pope, Life of Seth Ward, p. 30Google Scholar; Robert, , Works (London, 1744), V, 630Google Scholar.

62. See Shapiro, Barbara, “Latitudinarianism and Science in 17th Century England,” Past and Present, IX, 28Google Scholar.

63. John Hall, a critic of both universities, frankly admitted the scientific superiority of Oxford. Mullinger, J. B., The University of Cambridge, (Cambridge, 1911), III, 372Google Scholar.

64. Conant, , Proceed, of the Mass. Hist. Soc., LXVI, 15Google Scholar. Ten of 16 heads were ejected for Royalism or refusal to sign the Covenant. Ibid.

65. The Presbyterians were reported to have forbidden the study of the new philosophy in some colleges. S.P, , A Brief Account of the New Sect of Latitude Men (1661)Google Scholar, in The Phoenix (London, 1707–1709), p. 516Google Scholar.

66. Dell, William, The Works of William Dell (London, 1817), II, 34, 52, 55–56, 219Google Scholar.

67. Webster, John, Academiarum Examen (London, 1654)Google Scholar.

68. In 1653 Parliament discussed the possibility of “suppressing Universities and all Schools … as heathenish and unnecessary.” Wood, Anthony, History and Antiquities of Oxford, ed. Gutch, J. (Oxford, 1792–1796), II, 657Google Scholar. See also Mullinger, , Cambridge, III, 471Google Scholar; Conant, , Proceedings, 26–27Google Scholar. In 1659 it was reported that the radicals again intended “to rout up all and ruine those things that smelt of an Academy … and bring humane learning and arts into disgrace.” Wood, Anthony, The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, ed. Clark, A. (Oxford, 1891–1900), I, 292, 293Google Scholar.

69. Owen, John, The Works, ed. Russell, T. (London, 1826), I, 132Google Scholar.

70. Jones, R. F., “The Humanistic Defense of Learning in the Mid-Seventeenth Century,” in Reason and the Imagination, ed. Mazzeo, J. A. (New York, 1962), p. 72Google Scholar. For further discussion of the educational controversies of the 1650s, see Jones, R. F., Ancients and Moderns (St. Louis, 1936)Google Scholar; Conant, James, “The Advancement of Learning During the Puritan Commonwealth,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, LXVI (1936), 3–31Google Scholar; Schlatter, Richard, “The Higher Learning in Puritan England,” Hist. Mag. of the Prot. Episcopal Church, XXIII (1954), 167–187Google Scholar; Greaves, Richard, “The Early Quakers as Advocates of Educational Reform,” Quaker History (1969), pp. 22–30Google Scholar; Greaves, Richard, “Gerrard Winstanley and Educational Reform in Puritan England,” British Journal of Educational Studies, XVII (1969), 166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solt, Leo, “Anti-intellectualism in the Puritan Revolution,” Church History, XXIV (1956), 306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosen, George, “Left Wing Puritanism and Science,” Bull, of the Institute of the History of Medicine, XV (1944), 375–380Google Scholar; Vincent, V. A. L., State and School Education, 1640–1660 (London, 1950)Google Scholar. Greaves, Richard, The Puritan Revolution and Educational Thought (New Brunswick, 1969), pp. 63–92Google Scholar.

71. S [Joh]N. [Wilkin]S. and Ward [Set]H. Vindiciae academiarum, (London, 1654). Henry Oldenburg indicated that they had vindicated “our famous Universities from a general deluge, when many had a Sinister mind against them.” MSS Royal Society, Early Letters, B.I. 62.

72. Wilkins, and Ward, , Vindiciae, pp. 6, 64Google Scholar. Richard Baxter, too, indicated that “Reason, Sound Doctrine, Order and Concord were strangers” to Dell's mind. Solt, Leo, Saints in Arms (Stanford, 1949), p. 94Google Scholar, quoting from Baxter, Richard, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), p. 64Google Scholar. Ward and Wilkins had few objections to Dell's proposals concerning elementary education.

73. Wilkins, and Ward, , Vindiciae, pp. 1-2, 5-7, 29, 31, 36, 39, 46, and 64Google Scholar.

74. Ibid., pp. 2, 5, 28, 29, 31, 36; Webster, , Academiarum examen, pp. 24, 25, 28, 45, 68, 70, 74Google Scholar.

75. Wilkins, and Ward, , Vindiciae, pp. 3, 5, 24, 25Google Scholar; Webster, , Academiarum examen, pp. 24–25Google Scholar.

76. Ward and Wilkins were aware that the naive cult of induction among the unlearned owed much to Bacon and noted “it is a misfortune to the world, that my Lord Bacon was not skilled in Mathematicks, which made him jealous of their Assistance in all natural Enquiries,” Vindiciae, p. 25.

77. There has been considerable discussion and some disagreement recently concerning the contribution of the hermetic and Paracelsean tradition to the development of science. See Yates, F. A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London, 1964)Google Scholar; Debus, Allen, The English Paracelsians (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Debus, Allen and Multhauf, Robert, Alchemy and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (Los Angeles, 1966)Google Scholar; Rattansi, P. M., “The Intellectual Origins of the Royal Society,” Royal Society, Notes and Records, XXIII (1968), 129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Even if the more occult aspects of Paracelseanism were rejected by those seriously interested in “chemistry” and chemical medicine, the religious radicals were not so sophisticated and frequently retained the mystical and occult.

78. The complaints of Thomas Hobbes were also rejected by Ward and Wilkins. Hobbes in 1651 indicated that the universities were out of touch with scientific advance and taught only scholastic philosophy. Ward responded that Hobbes was hopelessly out of date. Ward, and Wilkins, , Vindiciae, pp. 6, 7, 58Google Scholar. Hobbes had left Oxford nearly a half century earlier and had little to do with the universities since. For a fuller discussion of the educational controversies of the 1650s, see Shapiro, Barbara, John Wilkins, pp. 81–147Google Scholar; R. Greaves, Educational Revolution.

79. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 125Google Scholar. See also Hill, , “The Intellectual Origins of the Royal Society — London or Oxford,” Royal Society Notes and Records, XXIII (1968), 145Google Scholar. He thus views the Royal Society as a royal, aristocratic “cover-up,” Ibid. Miss Purver, too, insists that with the Restoration “Aristotelianism closed in again,” Purver, , The Royal Society (London, 1967), p. 67Google Scholar. She attributes this to the end of the Wadham group. Miss Allen, too, insisted that there was a “general housecleaning” and “sweeping away” of “Puritan modernization,” Allen, , “Scientific Studies,” Journal of the History of Ideas, X, 238Google Scholar. See also 'Espinasse, M., “The Decline and Fall of Restoration Science,” Past and Present, XIV (1958), 71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. Quoted in Burrows, Registers, p. cv. Clarendon became a F.R.S. in 1665.

81. Mallet, , Oxford, II, 416Google Scholar.

82. Seven reclaimed headships at Oxford. Varley, F. J., The Restoration Visitation of the University of Oxford and its Colleges (London, 1948)Google Scholar, passim. Five heads were reinstated at Cambridge. John Wilkins lost his post at Trinity College, Cambridge, under similar circumstances.

83. Seth Ward and Matthew Wren are examples of this development.

84. Willis owed his appointment to Archbishop Sheldon. Willis, ignoring the Sedleian Statute, gave up-to-date lectures on physiology and medicine. Dewhurst, K.Thomas Willis, (Los Angeles, 1964), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

85. When Willis died Bathurst used his influence to secure the appointment of Dr. Millington because “naturall philosophy is of a fare large extent; and its late improvements have been so great, that no ordinary things are expected from the professors of it.” Warton, Thomas, Life of Ralph Bathurst (London, 1761), p. 138Google Scholar.

86. It is true that Christopher Wren did not attend to his professorial duties as faithfully as he might have, but this was due to the great demands for his services, not hostility to science on the part of the regime.

87. Robb-Smith, A. H. T. and Sinclair, H. M., A Short History of Anatomical Teaching at Oxford (Oxford, 1950), pp. 14, 21Google Scholar.

88. Dewhurst, Kenneth, John Locke, Physician and Scholar (London, 1963), pp. 12–13Google Scholar. Instruction in anatomy was often available. Wallis, John, “A Letter from a Friend of the Universities,” in Collectanea Curiosa, ed. Gutch, John (Oxford, 1781), II, 30Google Scholar.

89. Arber, Agnes, “Robert Sharrock (1630-1684), a Predecessor of Nehemiah Grew,” Isis (1969), pp. 4, 6Google Scholar. Sharrock's History of Vegetables, published by the university was dedicated to Boyle. Instruction in botany was provided in the garden by Dr. Morison for “such as desire it.” Wallis, “A Letter,” p. 30.

90. Joster, C. H., Elias Asbmole (Oxford, 1966), I, 255Google Scholar. An earlier organizer of chemical experiments in Oxford, Peter Sthael, also had connections with the Royal Society. He was successively an operator for the Society at Oxford, and then again for the Royal Society. Gunther, , Early Science at Oxford, IX, xviii, xxivGoogle Scholar. Dr. Martin Lister, a well-known scientific figure, left his library to the old Ashmolean Museum. Gunther, , Science at Cambridge, p. 353Google Scholar. Wallis emphasized the “convenient” chemical laboratory “built by the University” and described it as “well furnished with furnaces and Utensils. …” Wallis, , “A Letter,” p. 30Google Scholar. Cambridge was not far behind in chemical instruction. John Vigani, a skilled chemist, began to teach in 1683. He taught for many years and held the honorable title of Professor of Chemistry from 1703-1713. Although chemical facilities in Cambridge did not equal those available to Plot, there were several attempts to improve them. The Master of Trinity College built a chemical laboratory and Vigani gave his lectures, which were illustrated by experiments, there. Queens College, too, aided his teaching by purchasing a “collection” for him. Ibid., pp. 221, 222, 223.

91. Crombie, A. C., Oxford's Contribution to the Origins of Modern Science, a, paper read to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1954), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

92. Hone, C. R., The Life of Dr. John Radcliffe (London, 1950), pp. 24, 25, 27Google Scholar.

93. Allen, , Journal of the History of Ideas, X, 239Google Scholar.

94. Ibid., 244-245. Funds were also provided for the purchase of mathematical instruments.

95. Between 1660 and 1760 Cambridge provided acceptable and, at times, a high standard of medical education. This was less true, however, after 1730. See Rook, Arthur, “Medicine at Cambridge, 1660-1760,” Medical History, XIII (1969), 107–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Although the early years of Trinity College, Dublin were dominated by Puritans its scientific offerings were not noteworthy. Nor did its essentially traditional curriculum significantly alter with either Laudian rule or the Commonwealth regime. Some mathematics, however, was provided by a mathematical lectureship founded in 1612 which lasted through the 1630s and by another which was instituted in 1632. Mathematics was put on a more permanent foundation, however, with the foundation of a chair in mathematics in 1668 and the appointment of Narcissus Marsh, later Archbishop of Armagh, as Provost in 1678. Marsh, a mathematician of some stature, for several years gathered a circle of virtuosi in his lodgings to discuss matters of mutual interest. This group later developed into the Royal Dublin Society. Although there was no administrative connection between the Dublin Society and Trinity College several important members of the scientific society were prominent members of the college. Both Robert Huntington and St. George Aske, a mathematics professor, were key members of the Society who also served as Provosts of Trinity. Although there were complaints about the scientific education available, William Molyneux developed an interest in the new philosophy while a Trinity student. In 1685 the college purchased a telescope and began to develop an observatory. Two years later the college decided to establish a physic and herbal garden at college expense. If Aske felt that Trinity was not receptive enough to the new science it is clear that mathematical and scientific discussion were not excluded from Trinity College. Dixon, W. Mackneil, Trinity College, Dublin (London, 1902), pp. 54–78Google Scholar; Hoppen, T. K., The Common Scientist in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Dublin Philosophical Society 1683-1708 (Charlottesville, 1970), pp. 59–61, 63, 64Google Scholar.

96. It is true that Newton's public lectures were sparsely attended. It should be remembered, however, that Newton never repeated a lecture series and began where he left off the previous year, a practice that would have made it difficult for the uninitiated to learn a great deal. It is equally true that Isaac Barrow was accustomed to “talk to the walls,” but that was in his capacity of Regius Professor of Greek. Osmond, P. H., Isaac Barrow (London, 1944), p. 92Google Scholar. It seems that the general habits of students rather than a preference for traditional over scientific and mathematical subjects were responsible for the scarcity of Newton's auditors. John Flamsteed at Gresham College also complained that his lectures were very badly attended. Hoppen, , Common Scientist, p. 5Google Scholar.

97. Among those who owed their positions to Newton's patronage were David Gregory, who became Savilian Professor of Astronomy in 1692, and Roger Cotes, who became Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge in 1706. Newton was also responsible for establishing the terms on which the latter chair would be held. The Plumian Professor was required to publish regularly at Cambridge or in the Philosophical Transactions. William Whiston owed his nomination to the Lucasian chair to Newton. John Keill, Savilian Professor of Astronomy in 1712, owed a great deal to Newton, as did Edmund Halley, who obtained the same post in 1703. Manuel, Frank, A Portrait of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 212–214Google Scholar.

98. North, Roger, The Lives of the Norths (London, 1826), p. 259Google Scholar. The fact that both North and Barrow were famous Greek scholars should suggest that the common assumption of the incompatability between scientific and humanistic learning was not an assumption of the seventeenth century.

99. An anonymous defense of the Royal Society published in 1670 indicated that although scientific studies were “not the chief business of those Illustrious Nurseries of Learning, where the youth of the Kingdom is fitted for the service of the Church and State, yet they are countenanced there and persuaded within their walls by some of their most worthy members, as far as their other studies and exercise … will permit.” A Brief Vindication (London, 1670) p. 70Google Scholar. See for example Luttrell, N., A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, (London, 1857)Google Scholar; Ramesey, William, The Gentleman's Companion (London, 1672)Google Scholar; Sir Balthazer Grazier, Project for an Academy in Collectanea Curiosa, ed. Gutch, John (Oxford, 1781)Google Scholar; Wallis, “A Letter,” in Ibid., pp. 24-35; A Memorial Relating to the Universities in Ibid., pp. 53-71. David Douglas's study of historical and antiquarian scholars suggests a wide and frequently deep acquaintance with scientific and mathematical subjects. Douglas, David, English Scholars (London, 1939), Pp. 129, 130, 131, 137-9, 156, 176, 216, 221Google Scholar. See also Jones, W., The Rhetoric of Science (Berkeley, 1966)Google Scholar.

100. Wallis, , “A Letter,” p. 25Google Scholar. The fact that one such student purchased the Philosophical Transactions in Oxford to send to his father indicates the availability of the Royal Society publication. MacGrath, John (ed.), The Flemings in Oxford (Oxford, 1904), II, 176Google Scholar.

101. Sprackling, Robert, Medula Ignorantia (London, 1665), p. 74Google Scholar.

102. Foxcroft, H. C., A Supplement of Burne's History (Oxford, 1902), pp. 46–47Google Scholar. Burnet felt this condition was somewhat less true of Oxford.

103. Quoted in Gunther, R. T., Early Science at Cambridge (Oxford, 1937), p. 76Google Scholar. North was also a student of mathematics.

104. Barlow, Thomas, The Genuine Remains (London, 1693), p. 157Google Scholar. Barlow associated the promotion of science with the Roman Catholics, particularly the Jesuits. Ibid., p. 158.

105. Glanvill, Joseph, A Further Discovery of Mr. Stubbe (London, 1671), p. 51Google Scholar.

106. Bodleian MSS, Smith 13, p. 49.

107. Purver, , Royal Society, p. 74Google Scholar, citing Cranston, M., John Locke (London, 1957), p. 467Google Scholar.

108. Madan, Oxford Books, II, III, passim.

109. See the 1674 Bodleian catalog.

110. Arbuthnot, J., An Essay on the Usefulness of Mathematical Learning (Oxford, 1701), pp. 1, 50, 54Google Scholar. Arbuthnot's authorship is not certain.

111. 'Espinasse, , “The Decline and Fall,” Past and Present, XIV, 76Google Scholar, quoting Locke, , “Some Thoughts Concerning Education,” p. 193Google Scholar.

112. Oldenburg, Henry, Correspondence, ed. and trans. Hall, A. R. and Hall, M. B. (1965-, Madison, Wisconsin), II, 543Google Scholar.

113. Royal Society, MSS Early Letters, BB. 62, undated.

114. Royal Society, MSS Boyle Letters, V, 98.

115. Gunther, , Early Science in Oxford, IV, 5Google Scholar.

116. Although the effort failed for “want of persons willing to try experiments,” Newton, Henry More, and Charles Montague, later president of the Royal Society, were involved in the 1695 scheme. Weld, C. R., A History of the Royal Society (London, 1848), I, 305Google Scholar. The Vice Chancellor's accounts for 1673 indicate plans for a museum at Cambridge. The following year the Bishop of Ely left a bequest of £500 to build a public school or museum. Gunther, , Science at Cambridge, I, 20Google Scholar. Natural rarities were on display at St. Johns in 1695. Ibid.

117. Hoppen, , The Common Scientist, p. 211Google Scholar.

118. To be sure there was initial fear that the Royal Society might usurp or undermine the universities, but this was a function of the fear that the Society might become a degree granting institution. See Sprat, Thomas, History of the Royal Society, ed. Cope, J. I. and Jones, J. (St. Louis, 1958), Appendix B., pp. 71–72Google Scholar. Miss Purver emphasizes the hostility between the Royal Society and the universities. Purver, , Royal Society, p. 63Google Scholar. See also Syfre, R. H., “Some Early Reactions to the Royal Society,” Royal Society Notes and Records, VII (1950), 202–258Google Scholar; Syfret, R. H., “Some Early Critics of the Royal Society,” Royal Society Notes and Records, VIII (1950), 2–64Google Scholar. These fears should be viewed as the defense of an educational monopoly rather than as hostility to science. The universities had expressed a similar desire to maintain their monopoly of higher education when a new university at Durham was proposed in 1657. Wilkins and Ward had opposed the radicals' desire to proliferate universities in the 1650s, and Wallis headed the Oxford opposition against the Durham scheme. The response of the Royal Society was to make it clear that the Society would not grant degrees, emphasized its respect for the universities' scientific accomplishments and the continuing filial relation of its own members to alma mater. See Glanvill, J., A Praefactory Answer, (London, 1671), p. 70Google Scholar; Glanvill, J., Plus Ultra (London, 1668)Google Scholar. When Robert South attacked the Royal Society as “underminer of the University” in 1669, John Evelyn indicated how “foolish” and “untrue” South's statements had been. The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. DeBeer, E. S. (Oxford, 1955), III, 531–532Google Scholar.

119. Wood, , History and Antiquities, II, 686–694Google Scholar; Mallet, , Oxford, II, 402Google Scholar, 420n. Mullinger, , Cambridge, p. 523Google Scholar. Samuel Hartlib and some of his associates seem to have had some connection with the Durham venture. None of the Wadham circle were involved. See G. H.Turnbull, “Oliver Cromwell's College at Durham,” of Durham), III (1952), 1-7. Webster, Charles, ed., Samuel Hartlib and the Advancement of Learning (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar. For the religious emphasis of Durham see James, Margaret, Social Problems and Policy during the Puritan Revolution (London, 1930), pp. 318, 324, 325Google Scholar. Trinity College, Dublin, founded in 1591, was thought to have been a Puritan stronghold, at least until Laud made his influence felt there. Yet, here, too, we see a very traditional curriculum.

120. Of the approximately 130 with university degrees who emigrated before 1646, 100 were educated at Cambridge. A large proportion were from Emmanuel College. Morison, S. E., The Founding of Harvard College (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), pp. 360, 362Google Scholar.

121. Morison's biographical studies of these men yield only one or two with such interests. Ibid., pp. 364-66. Robert Child was involved with the London scientific group and had pursued medical studies in Padua and Leyden prior to his brief sojourn in New England, Ibid., pp. 371-372. Child was expelled after requesting religious toleration for Presbyterians. Morison, S. E., The Intellectual Life of Colonial New England (New York, 1956), p. 250Google Scholar. John Sherman was an amateur astronomer who compiled almanacs. Morison, , Founding, p. 400Google Scholar. The scientific interests of John Winthrop, Jr., the colonist most deeply engaged in scientific activities, are well known. But he was exceptional among the New Englanders of the 17th century. See Black, Robert C., The Younger John Winthrop (New York, 1966)Google Scholar. John Leverett and William Brattle, both born in 1662, too late to speak of Puritan influence on scientific development, became F.R.S. in 1714. Scientific activity and interest in the eighteenth century was by no means rare.

122. Morison, , Founding, pp. 247, 249, 250Google Scholar; Curtis, Oxford and Cambridge in Transition.

123. Miller, Perry, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), p. 105Google Scholar.

124. See Morison, , Founding, p. 330Google Scholar.

125. During the 17th century only arithmetic and plane and spherical geometry were taught and these only in the senior sophister year. There was no trace of algebra in the curriculum until 1720. Thomas Brattle, a Harvard graduate, complained about Harvard's neglect of mathematics. Morison, , Founding, p. 208Google Scholar.

126. Morison, , Intellectual Life, pp. 245–246Google Scholar. Almanacs rather than scientific treatises seem to have been the chief means by which the new astronomy spread in New England. Morison, S.E., Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), pp. 216, 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

127. Morison, , Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 240, 242, 251Google Scholar; Morison, , Intellectual Ufe, p. 267Google Scholar.

128. Morison, , Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, p. 251Google Scholar. As early as 1656 there were already many up-to-date textbooks in the vernacular. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 16Google Scholar.

129. Miller, , New England Mind, pp. 217, 218Google Scholar.

130. Morison, , Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century, p. 233Google Scholar.

131. Morison, Ibid., pp. 395, 401, 503. For a discussion of the possibility that Comenius might become president of Harvard and the diffusion of Comenian literature, see Matthews, Albert, “Comenius and Harvard College,” Publications Colonial Soc. of Mass., XXI, pp. 146–190Google Scholar.

132. Morison, , Founding, pp. 265–268Google Scholar. Although the 17th century colonists had a great interest in books, their libraries and book purchases do not reflect any great interest in science. See Wright, T. G., Literary Culture in Early New England, 1620-1730 (New Haven, 1920)Google Scholar.

133. More than one out of ten books published between 1475 and 1640 deal with scientific subjects. Stearns, R. P., “The Scientific Spirit in England in Early Modern Times,” Isis, XXXIV (1943), 297Google Scholar. About one of every six books listed in London, William, The Catalogue of the Most Vendible Books (London, 1657)Google Scholar dealt with such topics. Hill, , Intellectual Origins, p. 16Google Scholar. A. R. Hall has estimated that between 1600 and 1700, 4,300-8,600 books and pamphlets dealing with scientific topics were published. Many of these were popular works. “English Science in Seventeenth Century England,” Scientific Literature in 16th and 17th Century England (Los Angeles, 1961), pp. 23–24Google Scholar.

134. New England's First Fruits (London, 1643)Google Scholar reprinted in Morison, , Founding, pp. 432–446Google Scholar, emphasized their public declamations in Greek and Latin and their logical and philosophical disputations. Although recreation of the traditional curriculum and religious studies were clearly basic, they also mentioned that arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy were taught.

135. See Hornberger, T., Scientific Thought in the American Colleges 1638-1800 (Austin, Texas, 1945)Google Scholar; Brasch, F., “The Newtonian Epoch in the American Colonies, 1680-1783,” Proceed, of the American Antiquarian Society, XLIX (1939)Google Scholar; F. Brasch, “The Royal Society of London and its Influence upon Scientific Thought in the American Colonies,” Ibid. XXXII (1931), 336-355, 448-469; Kilgour, Frederick G., “Science in The American Colonies and the Early Republic,” Journal of World History, X (1967), 393–416Google Scholar; Bell, W. J., Early American Science: Needs and Opportunities for Study (Williamsburg, 1955)Google Scholar. Early grammar school education was also conservative and suggests no special concern for mathematics or the natural sciences. See Middlekauf, R. L., Ancients and Axioms: Secondary Education in Eighteenth Century New England (New Haven, 1963)Google Scholar.

136. Griffith, Olive, Religion and Learning (Cambridge, 1935), p. 35Google Scholar.

137. Parker, Irene, Dissenting Academies in England (Cambridge, 1914), pp. 53, 55, 56, 74, 75, 78, 102Google Scholar. Charles Morton's academy at Newington Green is frequently singled out by those positing a link between Puritanism and science. But Morton's scientific inclinations probably owe more to his Wadham education than to his Puritanism. See also Smith, J. W. Ashley, The Birth of Modern Education (London, 1954)Google Scholar. For a discussion concerning the introduction of Scientific Studies in the Scottish Universities, see Ibid., pp. 67-70: Kearney, , Gentlemen and Scholars, pp. 154–56Google Scholar.