An unpublished letter of Dr Seth Ward relating to the early meetings of the Oxford Philosophical Society

This letter, of which a transcription is given below, was addressed to Sir Justinian Isham, who later became one of the original Fellows of the Royal Society. It is of interest to us principally because it adds a few details to the little-known particulars of the activities of the members of the Oxford Philosophical Society in the early years of its existence. The Minute Book of the Society from 1683 onwards has been published. Dr Seth Ward, when he wrote the letter, was a fellow-commoner at Wadham College, Oxford. At that time Oxford was the home of many illustrious men of science, among whom may be mentioned John Wilkins, the Warden of Wadham ; Robert Boyle; Thomas Willis; Jonathan Goddard; and John Wallis. These men constituted a brilliant intellectual group and they, together with Ward and others, formed the Oxford Philosophical Society. All of the above took an active interest in the formation of the Royal Society in 1660 and became original Fellows. Oldenburg dedicated the fourth volume of his Philosophical Transactions to Seth Ward, who by that time (1669) had become Bishop of Salisbury. He said, ‘ We ought to remember, that ’tis now about 15 or 16 years, since your Lordship Geometrized Astronomy , which did oblige the chief Astronomers of this Learned Age : And that you added Life to the Oxonian Sparkles, I mean that Meeting, which may be called the Embryo or First Conception of the Royal Society .´

The lack of a definitive study of the life of Lord Brouncker, a spiteful remark of Pepys so often quoted against him (1), and possible confusion with his less reputable brother Henry (2), all combine to prompt an intriguing question. Why was he chosen as the first President of the Royal Society rather than John Wilkins, John Wallis, Robert Boyle or Sir Robert Moray? The wisdom of the choice was proved by the devoted and able service he gave to that high office during the infant years of the Society. William, second Viscount Brouncker of Castle Lyons, in the Irish peerage, was the elder son of Sir William Brouncker, gentleman of the privy chamber to Charles I, and vice-chamberlain to his son, Charles, Prince of Wales. ‘This loyal knight’ Wood records in his Athena Oxonienses ‘who was the son of Sir Henry Bruncker, President of Mounster in Ireland , by Anne, his wife, sister of Henry, Lord Morley, was created Viscount of Castle Lyon in the said kingdom 12 September 1645, and dying in Wadham College, in the middle of November following, was buried on the 20th of the said month.’ We know little of Brouncker’s early life, even the date of his birth, 1620, is conjectural. He was sent to Oxford at the age of sixteen, where he quickly made himself proficient in several languages. He was probably intended to follow the profession of medicine, as in 1647 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Physick at Oxford, but his inclination led him to the study of mathematics, for which he evidently had a flair. He soon began to correspond with distinguished mathematicians, notably John Wallis, and it was not long before his reputation as a mathematician was recognized both at home and abroad.


2001 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhodri Lewis

Summary In the aftermath of the publication of John Wilkins’s Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (1668), the Royal Society established a committee to consider and develop Wilkins’s proposals, whose members included Seth Ward (1617–89), Robert Hooke (1635–1703), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), John Wallis (1616–1703), John Ray (1627–1705), Christopher Wren (1632–1723) and William Holder (1616–1698). Despite the fact that this committee never reported, work on the Essay did continue, with many of the individual members conducting a detailed correspondence, marshalled by John Aubrey (1626–1697). In addition to the members of the original Royal Society committee, this group’s participants included Francis Lodwick (1619–1694), the Somerset clergyman Andrew Paschall (c.1630–c.1696), and Thomas Pigott (1657–1686), fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. The correspondents could not, however, agree on the best means of advancing the Essay, with the principal bone of contention being the ideas of Seth Ward. Thus, their efforts were eventually fruitless. This article traces the activities of this group and the intellectual milieu in which the revision of Wilkins’s Essay took place.


In the years 1672—74 the very existence of the Royal Society hung in Xthc balance. With the deaths of John Wilkins in November 1672 and Sir Robert Moray in July 1673, the Society lost two of its most prominent and energetic Fellows, while the problems of mounting arrears, lack of funds and declining activity grew ever-more acute (1). To make matters worse, the outbreak of the third Anglo-Dutch War in March 1672 seriously disrupted the one facet of the Society’s operations which had flourished hitherto, namely the correspondence of the Society’s Secretary, Henry Oldenburg. As the relevant volumes of The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg show, letters continually went astray, and foreign virtuosi often had to reroute their letters through Oldenburg in order to reach destinations rendered inaccessible to them because of the hostilities (2). Many of Oldenburg’s continental contacts were thus inconvenienced in various minor ways by the conflict, but one Foreign Fellow who, in addition, suffered significant financial loss, was the Danzig astronomer Johann Hevelius. In the early months of the war, Hevelius had written to Oldenburg apparently seeking the assistance of his Royal Society colleagues in securing the return of shipping captured by Scottish privateers in which Hevelius had a substantial stake (3). Replying to Hevelius in August 1672, Oldenburg reported that he had enlisted the aid of the Society’s President, Lord Brouncker, on Hevelius’s behalf and that they would attempt to obtain a Royal Letter ordering the release of the vessels which were then being held in Scotland.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ειρήνη Γκουνταρούλη

Στη διατριβή αυτή μελετάται η διαμόρφωση της έννοιας της δύναμης στον αγγλικό φιλοσοφικό λόγο στα μέσα του 17ου αιώνα. Εν ολίγοις, η μελέτη εστιάζει το ενδιαφέρον στη σημασία της διερεύνησης τόσο του ιστορικού και του διανοητικού πλαισίου όσο και των εννοιολογικών συνθηκών της περιόδου. Μίας περιόδου όπου στο επίκεντρο του αγγλικού φιλοσοφικού λόγου έρχεται η συζήτηση σχετικά με το ποια είναι η κατάλληλη φιλοσοφική γλώσσα για να περιγράψει τη φύση. Βασικό σημείο της μελέτης αυτής, είναι η σφοδρή αντίθεση για το ζήτημα της κατάλληλης φιλοσοφικής γλώσσας, η οποία αναπτύσσεται μεταξύ του Thomas Hobbes και του John Wilkins, πρώιμου μέλους της Βασιλικής Εταιρείας. Η μελέτη αντλεί τα μεθοδολογικά και θεωρητικά της εργαλεία από το πεδίο της εννοιολογικής ιστορίας (ή ιστορίας των εννοιών). Υπό αυτό το πρίσμα, η έννοια της δύναμης μελετάται με βάση τα σχετικά σημασιολογικά πεδία τα οποία εντοπίζονται στα γλωσσικά περικείμενα αφενός του Hobbes και αφετέρου των πέντε μελών της πρώιμης Βασιλικής Εταιρείας, δηλαδή, του Wilkins, του Robert Hooke, του Robert Boyle, του Thomas Sprat και του Joseph Glanvill. Με άλλα λόγια, στη μελέτη αυτή η έννοια της δύναμης δεν προσεγγίζεται απλώς ως μία συμπύκνωση μαθηματικών σχέσεων και φυσικών φιλοσοφικών τεχνικών, αλλά ως η συμπύκνωση ενός πλήθους ιστορικών, διανοητικών και σημασιολογικών σχέσεων οι οποίες εντοπίζονται σε συγκεκριμένα γλωσσικά περικείμενα. Η μελέτη λαμβάνει υπόψη της την πληθώρα των ιστοριογραφικών ρευμάτων οι οποίες σχετίζονται με την νευτώνεια έννοια της δύναμης που δρα από απόσταση. Ωστόσο, πηγαίνει πέρα από αυτές εστιάζοντας στις υπο-διαμόρφωση εννοιολογικές δομές οι οποίες σχετίζονται με την έννοια της νευτώνειας δύναμης και οι οποίες συγκροτούνται βάσει της συζήτησης περί της κατάλληλης φιλοσοφικής γλώσσας. Οι συγχρονικά ασαφείς εννοιολογικές δομές συμπυκνώνονται στη, αλλά και συγκροτούν τη διαμάχη οι οποία βασίστηκε και διαμορφώθηκε από τα αντιθετικά φιλοσοφικά μοντέλα αφενός του Thomas Hobbes και αφετέρου των πρώιμων μελών της Royal Society. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, ο Νεύτωνας δεν θεωρείται πνευματικό επίγονος της Royal Society, αλλά της φιλοσοφικής διαμάχης μεταξύ του Hobbes και των πρώιμων μελών της Royal Society. Όπως ακριβώς και η νευτώνεια έννοια της δύναμης που δρα από απόσταση δεν είναι η συσσώρευση μαθηματικών και φυσικών φιλοσοφικών λεπτομερειών της εποχής, αλλά αναγνωρίζεται ως η συμπύκνωση μίας πληθώρας εννοιολογικών, πνευματικών, θρησκευτικών, πολιτικών και φυσικών φιλοσοφικών σχέσεων, οι οποίες θέτουν ένα συγκεκριμένο ορίζονται πιθανών εμπειριών και θεωριών.


Author(s):  
Margaret J. M. Ezell

An overview of the founding of the Royal Society of London and early members, including Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton, John Wilkins, Robert Boyle, and Henry Oldenburg, who first published the Philosophical Transactions. In addition to the creation and improvement of scientific instruments, including microscopes and telescopes, as recorded by their historian Thomas Sprat, the members of the Royal Society wished to create a language of science free from distorting images and metaphor and to base science on empirical experiments and direct observation. Although challenged by many for promoting an atheist understanding of the natural world, members such as Robert Boyle defended science as complementary with theology. The Society promoted publications and established networks of scientific correspondence to include members outside London and on the Continent.


When the Royal Society was founded in 1660, its initiators were far from being young men, as one would expect remembering that the long-lived John Wallis (1616-1703) gave its origins as lying in meetings begun as long before as 1645. Fifteen years after that date, most of its founders were, in 1660, well on in their 40s; even among the original Fellows of 1663 the youngest were Christopher Wren (38 in 1660), Robert Boyle (33) and William Croone (27), nor were the first recruits to the new, formal Society younger. Hence it is not surprising that the next 20 years saw the loss through death of the majority of them, nor that those who survived into the 1680s slowly withdrew from active participation in the meetings. Even Robert Hooke, only 27 when appointed Curator of Experiments in 1662, was by 1680 well on in years by 17th-century usage, and reasonably more interested in his various professional activities than anxious to labour at performing repetitions of experiments for the edification of fellow-members.


2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHAEL HUNTER

This paper documents an important development in Robert Boyle's natural-philosophical method – his use from the 1660s onwards of ‘heads’ and ‘inquiries’ as a means of organizing his data, setting himself an agenda when studying a subject and soliciting information from others. Boyle acknowledged that he derived this approach from Francis Bacon, but he had not previously used it in his work, and the reason why it came to the fore when it did is not apparent from his printed and manuscript corpus. It is necessary to look beyond Boyle to his milieu for the cause, in this case to the influence on him of the Royal Society. Whereas the Royal Society in its early years is often seen as putting into practice a programme pioneered by Boyle, this crucial methodological change on his part seems rather to have been stimulated by the society's early concern for systematic data-collecting. In this connection, it is here shown that a key text, Boyle's influential ‘General Heads for a Natural History of a Country, Great or small’, published in Philosophical Transactions in 1666, represents more of a shared initiative between him and the society than has hitherto been appreciated.


Italy has often held a special place in the view of cultivated Englishmen, and this is especially the case for Italian sciences in the seventeenth century (1). At the first beginnings of the Royal Society in 1645 the young men who met for discussions in London held Italian science in high esteem. So much was this the case that among their topics of discussion, as John Wallis, by then Savilian Professor at Oxford, recalled in 1678, were the valves in the veins (whose description by Fabricius of Aquapendente had so impressed William Harvey), Galileo s telescopic discoveries and Torricelli s barometric experiment, all part of that ‘New Philosophy’ which he took to have been founded by Galileo and Bacon. This last was certainly the view to which most of the early Fellows of the Royal Society subscribed, paying constant tribute to Galileo’s role in the foundation of the new experimental science as well as in the advancement of the Copernican theory, as can be seen from the works of Robert Boyle and, later, Newton. The chronological point, self-evident but not always remembered, that living men are not constrained by dates, although historians may wish to be, is exemplified in the case of Newton’s respect for Galileo enunciated in 1687 in the first edition of the Principia , maintained through all the vicissitudes of revision in 1713 and 1723, and as long as the Principia was read, as it was throughout the seventy-five years after Newton’s death (1727), his 1687 tribute to Galileo remained fresh. Similarly, the works of post-Galilean Italian scientists by no means lost their influence because time had worn on into the eighteenth century and they had published in the seventeenth; even today a fifty-year-old book in a new edition may excite new readers, and this of course was even more true in the past when scientific advances approximated in their rate of development to those of, say, economics or psychology today.


We there discoursed . . . the Copernican Hypothesis, the Nature of Comets and new Stars, the Attendants on Jupiter , the Oval shape of Saturn, the Inequalities and Selenography of the Moon , the several Phases of Venus and Mercury , the Improvement of Telescopes, the grinding of Glasses for that purpose . . . THIS was written by John Wallis in 1678 in his Defence of the Royal Society and he was referring to the meetings held in London about 1645 by men interested in experimental philosophy. The ‘Oval shape of Saturn’ was a reference to what was then an important problem in astronomy: the explanation of the different appearances of Saturn. Among the men who were to become founding members of the Royal Society were a number who had an interest in this problem, John Wallis, Seth Ward, Dr Jonathan Goddard and Sir Paul Neile, who both kept operators at their houses for the grinding of lenses, John Wilkins, Laurence Rooke, William Balle, and Christopher Wren. Neile, Balle and Wren especially spent a great deal of time and effort on the problem in the 1650’s, effort that resulted in Wren’s hypothesis on Saturn, which is the subject of De Corpore Saturni.


I take as my text this afternoon verse 33 of Chapter 38 from the Book of Job. Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the Earth ? The foundation of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich in 1675 was closely associated with the early years of the Royal Society, founded 15 years earlier. The first Secretary of the Royal Society was Dr John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, a diocese in which I live and work. You will appreciate, I am sure, that today I feel constrained by the recommendation in his book The Gift of Preaching that the ‘style of the pulpit should be plain and without rhetorical flourishes’. Wilkins was one of the remarkable figures of that age—an embodiment of the belief in the unity of knowledge and purpose. He had been a Parliamentarian—even to the extent of marrying Cromwell’s sister. Yet less than a year after King Charles returned to England he was one of the small group of founders of the Royal Society persuading the King to look through a telescope at the moons of the planet Jupiter and the rings of Saturn. We have the authority of Evelyn’s diary that the King was so greatly impressed by this sight of the heavens that he was discussing the particulars even two weeks later, and that the event helped substantially towards the grant of a Royal Charter to the new Society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document