Charles II., the Fish, and the Royal Society

1893 ◽  
Vol s8-III (65) ◽  
pp. 235-235
Author(s):  
A. Hall
Keyword(s):  

I have shown elsewhere that in 1660 and 1661 both Robert Southwell (1635-1702, later Sir Robert and P.R.S.), and Sir John Finch (1626-1682) tried to establish a correspondence between the virtuosi in England and in Florence, more especially between Prince Leopold de’ Medici and Robert Boyle, by far the most widely known English man of science at that time. For some mysterious reason the desired correspondence did not take place; Boyle did not write, but did send through Oldenburg two copies of the Latin edition of his New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall , one for the Prince and one for Vincenzo Viviani. This was in October 1661. Indeed, the only knowledge that the Royal Society obtained about the Florentine Accademia del Cimento came through Oldenburg’s French correspondents. They learned nothing substantial except that the experiments made by the Accademia were to be published all together in a book. Finally, in 1667, they were; but for several years the appearance of this work had been expected and in fact eagerly awaited throughout the learned world. As far as the experiments are concerned it could have been published as early as 1662, and the long delay can largely, though not entirely, be blamed on the Secretary who wrote it, Count Lorenzo Magalotti (1637-1712), who was a perfectionist, and a fussy one, not about natural philosophy, but about language.


Keyword(s):  

Joseph Moxon (1627-1691), printer, publisher, author, and maker of globes, maps and mathematical instruments, was appointed Hydrographer to the King by Charles II in 1662 and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 1678. Much of Moxon’s output was mathematical, and he either published or printed works for many of the leading mathematicians of the day. The signatures on his petition to the King in support of his. appointment as Royal Hydrographer reveal that Moxon was well connected both professionally and politically. His election as a Fellow of the Royal Society was remarkable: Moxon was a tradesman, and perhaps the only tradesman to be elected during the first 40 years of the Society’s existence.


Author(s):  
Matt Jenkinson

This paper outlines the sinological activities of Nathanael Vincent (d. 1722), an obscure and elusive fellow of the Royal Society (1683–7; readmitted 1694) who was also fellow of Clare Hall in Cambridge and chaplain in ordinary to Charles II. An amateur scientist operating in the shadow of the great fellows of the early Royal Society, Vincent's involvement ranged from investigating the work of Denis Papin to presenting a manuscript of Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica . However, his greatest contribution to the intellectual history of the Restoration is located in his 1685 translation of Confucius's ‘Great Learning’, which seems to be the first time that a Confucian book began to be printed in the English language. Hitherto unnoticed, hidden away in an appendix to a court sermon, it nonetheless represented part of the interest in Chinese culture in the circles of the early Royal Society. This paper places Vincent in the context of the activities of the early Royal Society and offers an overview of this interest in sinology. It then considers how Vincent gained access to Confucian texts, how he was able to ‘translate’ from them, and what ramifications the philosophy had for an Anglican divine in Restoration England.


1957 ◽  
Vol 147 (929) ◽  
pp. 423-426 ◽  

Nearly three hundred years ago, in 1665, Robert Boyle published a series of remarkable essays on the effects of cold. The title page of the second edition, which was published 18 years later, and included biological material, is reproduced in figure 1. Boyle was a member of the group which used to meet at Gresham College, and was one of the members of the first Council of the Royal Society named in the Charter granted by Charles II. Christopher Merret, also mentioned on the title page, was another of the early Fellows of the Society, having signed the Charter Book in 1663. The subject under discussion today, therefore, has not only a long history, but also the distinction of early association with the Royal Society. In Boyle’s day it seems to have been thought less reputable. His paper on ‘New thermometrical experiments and thoughts’ opens as follows: ‘It may to most men appear a work of needless Curiosity, or superfluous diligence, to examine sollicitously, by what Criterion or way of estimate the Coldness of Bodies, and the degrees of it are to be judg’d; Since Coldness being a Tactile Quality, it seems impertinent to seek for any other judges of It than the Organs of that sense, whose proper object it is.’


Charles II ranks as founder of the Royal Society because he granted to it the charter which incorporated it and gave it its name. Its arms declare their origin; if not devised or proposed by him, at least they were consciously granted by him. The mace, which is placed before the President of the Society at all meetings of the Society and of Council, was also given to the Society by Charles as its founder. These (and other) benefactions were due not so much to any profound interest in science on Charles’s part as to his general character and to the tendencies of his time, and more especially to his friendship with some of the royalists among the founding members of the Society. He was born on 29 May 1630, the son of Charles I, King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, and of his French queen, Henrietta Maria; his grandparents were James I, ‘the wisest fool in Christendom’, Anne of Denmark, who was almost a nonentity, Henri IV, one of the most genial of men and the ablest of kings, and Marie de Medicis, at all times a source of trouble.


Scholars in Tuscany heard early in 1661 that the Royal Society had been formed. This was by way of a letter from Dr John Finch, later Sir John and F.R.S., a fervent Italophile who had taken the degree of M.D. at Padua and was professor of anatomy at Pisa from 1655 until at the restoration of Charles II in 1660 he returned temporarily to England. In this letter he flattered its recipient, Prince Leopold, by referring to the establishment in London of ‘an Academy, begun on the model of that of Your Highness’ (1), a reference to the Accademia del Cimento formed by the Prince and his brother Ferdinand the Grand Duke of Tuscany.


I. Statutes relating to the admission of Fellows of the Royal Society. That inhabitants of the British colonies in America were sometimes elected Fellows of the Royal Society of London has been known since the foundation of the Society, but no one has attempted to prepare from the Society’s original records a complete list of colonial Fellows. 2 Such a list, as it may indicate the names of those colonial scientists, both amateur and professional, who, by constant intercourse with Fellows of the Royal Society in England and with the Society itself as a corporate body, contributed most to the introduction and development of * 34 experimental philosophy ’ in the New World, it is the purpose of this paper to supply. From the aims and practices both of its immediate predecessors, the groups that met in Oxford and in London, and of a number of its earliest Fellows, the Royal Society inherited as a prime motive of its existence the accurate collection, classification, and interpretation of scientific data from all parts of the world. Such an undertaking required collaborators in remote places, and in the first charter of the Society (15 July 1662),4 for the improvement of the experiments, arts, and sciences of the aforesaid Royal Society/ Charles II granted to the President, Council, and Fellows of the Society, and to their successors, the privilege `. . . to enjoy mutual intelligence and knowledge with all and all manner of strangers and foreigners, whether private or collegiate, corporate or politic, without any molestation, interruption, or disturbance whatsoever: Provided nevertheless, that this our indulgence, so granted as it is aforesaid, be not extended to further use than the particular benefit and interest of the aforesaid Royal Society in matters or things philosophical, mathematical, or mechanical.’ 3


1893 ◽  
Vol s8-III (65) ◽  
pp. 234-235
Author(s):  
John Pickford
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Margaret Dalivalle ◽  
Martin Kemp ◽  
Robert B. Simon

From the evidence of contemporary literary sources, manuscript inventories, correspondence, and eyewitness accounts, Chapter 8 considers the penetration of literary concepts of Leonardo as an artist and thinker (pictor doctus), how the early reception relates to the wider ‘invention’ of Leonardo as a cultural entity, and whether a distinctly ‘British version’ of Leonardo can be detected. It focuses on the introduction into England of sixteenth-century Italian receptions of Leonardo via Richard Haydocke’s 1598 translation of Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo’s Trattato dell’arte della pittura, and from contact with Giorgio Vasari’s Lives. It proposes that, due to the scarcity of Vasari’s text in early modern England, it was Lomazzo’s account of Leonardo that influenced the earliest understanding of the artist in Britain. The chapter tracks the absorption of Vasari’s text in seventeenth-century England through the interventions of key individuals at the Stuart courts, before and after the Interregnum. A particular focus is the prominent role of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, who collected Leonardo’s writings and drawings from the Jacobean period until the mid 1640s. The dispersal of his collection throughout the seventeenth century, and the acquisition in the 1670s of the Windsor Volume by Charles II, and the Codex Arundel by the Royal Society, signal key staging posts in the reception of Leonardo in Restoration England.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document