Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and The Past and Present Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Past & Present.
http://www.jstor.org
PURITANISM, CAPITALISM AND THE
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
THE STUDY OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION OF THE SEVENTEENTH
century reached some time ago the stage of sophistication when the
historian was required to deal not with the "facts" of Copernicus or
Galileo but a variety of interpretations. For those seeking an
explanation why the acceleration of scientific advance took place
between I540 and 1700, the choice is threefold. In the work of some
historians, the role of individual genius is stressed as the decisive
factor; with others, the evolutionary character of scientific develop-
ment; or among the sociologically minded, the significance of the
immediate social environment against which the discoveries took
place. It would be easy to illustrate the differences between these
interpretationsby means of specially chosen examples, but it would
be less misleading to suggest that among the leading historians of
science, the distinction is mainly one of emphasis. All agree, for
example, in recognizing the importance of the unique insight which
is called genius; where they differ is in the varying significancewhich
they attach to it. Butterfield, while stressing that the lightning of
genius strikes unpredictably, would admit that some atmospheric
conditions are more favourable to electrical disturbance than others.
Marxist historians, on the other hand, find it difficult to ignore the
personal role of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, though they may
argue that social forces would have filled any gap in the ranks. For
the moment, however, it will be convenient to stress the differences
between these various historical points of view.
Of those who emphasize the role of men of genius, the most
outstanding are Butterfield, Koestler and Koyre.1 Butterfield, for
example, uses phrases like "an epic adventure", "a certain dynamic
quality", "a creative product of the west", "a great episode in human
experience", all of which hint at indefinable entities. He continually
emphasizes the difficulty of putting on "a new thinking cap", of
breaking the bonds of education, habit and practical experience.
Clearly,from this point of view, the Scientific Revolution is ultimately
inexplicable; it could not have been predicted. Butterfield refers to
the existence of a complicated set of conditions which existed only in
Western Europe, such as the rise of the middle class or the influence
H. Butterfield, Origins of Modern Science (London, 1950). A. Koestler,
The Sleepwalkers (London, 1959). A. Koyr6, Etudes Galileennes (Paris, I939).
82 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 28
Bonapartehad not existed, another man would have arisen to fill the
social vacuum. By analogy, it may be expected that if Newton or
Lavoisier had not existed their work would have been done by others.
In this as in other sociological interpretationsof the history of science,
there is little if any scope for the unique, the fortuitous and the
visionary.
With the publication of Mr. Christopher Hill's book The Century
of Revolution(196I), reinforcedby his Ford Lectures given at Oxford
in I962,8 a sociological interpretation of the Scientific Revolution
made its first real impact in the field of general English history, as
distinct from specialist studies in the history of science or of literature.
In Hill's work, science is treated as general social phenomenon,
analogous and related to the rise of Puritanism and the rise of the
bourgeoisie. Indeed, Hill regards science along with these as one of
the causes of the Civil War. The "causes" of the rise of science are
to be sought in the state of English society at the time. Individual
contributions by scientists such as Briggs and Gunter do not go
unrecognized, but the main emphasis is upon sociological considera-
tions. If geniuses do exist, they are essentially spokesmen for social
movements and trends, which are more important than any single
human being.
The great attraction of Hill's interpretation is that it makes the
history of science part of general English history and one can easily
appreciate why it has had such a favourable reception. It is
expounded with great skill. It hangs together as a rational whole.
Moreover, Hill is surely correctin thinking that now is the moment to
offer explanation, rather than narrative. Nevertheless there are
grounds for thinking that in many ways this interpretation carries
simplicity to excess and imposes a rationalframeworkmore rigid than
the complexity of the period will stand.
The central point round which Hill's interpretationdevelops is the
figure of Francis Bacon. On this view, it was Bacon's Advancement
of Learningand New Organon,which provided a blueprint for the
"forward looking" merchants and artisans of early Stuart England.
The self-taught, eager merchantsand artisanssought to come to terms
with the new astronomy of Copernicus and Galileo, increasingly
rejected authority in Church and State and, optimistic for the future,
found their spokesmanin Francis Bacon, the prophet whom the court
rejected. The court, the clergy and the universities looked to the
8 Published in abbreviated form in The Listener
(May-July I962). Shortly
to be published in full by the Oxford University Press, under the title Intellectual
Origins of the English Revolution.
PURITANISM, CAPITALISMAND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 85
I
Gresham College occupies a strategic position in the argument.
Hill stresses several aspects: first, that it was a lay institution, distinct
in kind from the clerically dominated universities; secondly, it was
endowed by a merchant and controlled by merchants; thirdly, it
provided up to date instruction in science in the vernacular for
merchantsand artisans. Finally he hints that the Puritanconnections
of Gresham College were of some significance. The College seems
to provide decisive evidence for his view that Puritanism, modern
science and the merchant-artisangroups are all interrelated.
Now it is indisputable that in Briggs, Gunter and Gellibrand,
Gresham College possessed several distinguished scientists on its
staff. But this should not lead too readily to the conclusion that
the College was essentially scientific in character. Readers of
F. R. Johnson's classical article on Gresham College might well draw
this conclusion, but it would be mistaken." In fact, Sir Thomas
Gresham endowed an institution which closely resembled the
traditional image of a university. It provided for the instruction in
the three majorfaculties of divinity, law and physic, and, in the junior
faculties of arts, for music and rhetoric12 as well as astronomy and
geometry. If we concentrateour attention on the last two arts of the
traditionalquadrivium,we obtain a misleadingimpression of Gresham
College. It was, in fact, much closer to Oxford and Cambridge in
concept than to, say, a technical institute, such as the Casa de
Contractionin Seville. When the university of Cambridgeobjected
to its foundation, this was not a simple case of the outmoded attacking
the up to date, of Ancients against Moderns; ratherit was of one of the
ancient universities scenting the danger to its monopoly of higher
learning. Fear of the Great Wen, not defence of the Great Chain
of Being, was the motive. The fact that the law taught at Gresham
"1F. R. Johnson, "Gresham College: Precursor of the Royal Society",
repr. from Ji. Hist. Ideas in Roots of Scientific Thought, pp. 328-53.
12
It seems likely that Ben Jonson was assistant professor of rhetoric c. I620.
Cf. Poems of Ben Jonson, ed. G. B. Johnston (London, I954), p. xxxiii.
PURITANISM, CAPITALISMAND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 87
was Civil Law was of great significance, since this reinforces the
suggestion that Oxford and Cambridge were the model. Common
Law as taught at the Inns of Court was already catered for in
London. 13
Once Gresham College had been set up, the connection between it
and the universities could hardly have been closer. It recruited its
professors exclusively from the universities. It produced no alumni
of its own. Many of its professors combined fellowships at Oxford
and Cambridge with their posts at Gresham. Richard Holdsworth
was a fellow of St. John's Cambridge,while at the same time professor
of divinity at Gresham, and did not resign his Gresham post when he
was elected Master of Emmanuel. John Greaves continued to hold
his fellowship at Merton despite his appointment to a Gresham chair
in I630. Peter Turner, who succeeded Briggs at Gresham in I620,
continued to hold his fellowship at Merton - if Briggs came to
Greshamize Merton, Turner went to Mertonize Gresham. Thomas
Eden combined his Gresham Chair of Civil Law with the Mastership
of Trinity Hall from I625. In short, one cannot draw a division
between Gresham College and the universities. There were close
links between the two.
To regard Gresham teaching as in some way in advance of the
universities is equally mistaken. It was fortunate in having Briggs,
a great mathematicianby the standards of the day, but it also carried
dead wood. The first professor of astronomy, Edward Brerewood
(1596-I6I3), was an Oxford M.A. whose main achievements were in
logic and ethics. He wrote textbooks on these and published nothing
in astronomy. His successor, Thomas Williams (I613-19), was the son
of a merchantwho showed no aptitude for the post. It was not until
Edward Gunter was appointed in I619 that the chair had an occupant
who was a true mathematician. But Gunter was a student of Christ
Church, he was in orders and he was a bachelor of divinity to boot.
He is no evidence for the existence of lay science, apart from
universities. His successor, Henry Gellibrand, was an Oxford M.A.
who had been a pupil of Sir Henry Sauile there. Nor does the story
of the geometry chair under Briggs (1596-I620), Peter Turner
(I620-30) and John Greaves (I630-43) offer any evidence for a split
between Gresham and the universities. Briggs was a fellow of St.
John's and lecturer in mathematics at Cambridge before coming to
Gresham, while Turner and Greaves both retained their connection
13
There is no full modern study of Gresham College. The standard work is
J. Ward, Lives of the Professors of Gresham College (London, I740) from which
much of the following information is taken.
88 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 28
II
We must next examine the second element in Hill's explanation
of the rise of science, namely the role of the merchants and artisans,
"the idea of co-operation between the humblest craftsmen and the
scientist" and "the intimate connection between merchants and
17G. Hakewill, Apologie of the Power and Providence of God (Oxford, I630).
18The Ghost of Sir Thomas Gresham (London, I647).
PURITANISM, CAPITALISMAND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 9I
26
R. Hooykaas, Humanisme, Science et Reforme (Leyden, I958), p. 34.
27
W. E. Houghton, "The History of Trades" in Roots of Scientific Thought,
PP. 354-8i.
PURITANISM, CAPITALISMAND THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION 97
term, the sense in which it designated an obscurantist utilitarianism hostile
to all disinterested curiosity and to all enquiry about unsolved problems about
the physical world.28
In the I640os this combination of religious enthusiasm and
utilitarianzeal gave birth to a group known as the "Invisible College".
Hartlib was prominent among them, so also were Haak and
Oldenburg, who were later to be associated with the Royal Society.
One of their members, Boate, produced a Natural History
of Ireland, written, typically enough, not for its own sake, but to serve
the needs of the Cromwellian Plantation. Another man who was
once attractedby the group was Robert Boyle, though his enthusiasm
waned after a time. The "Invisible College" was at once Comenian
and Baconian, amateurish, enthusiastic and utilitarian, certainly the
precursorof the Royal Society in one of its aspects.
It is also clear, however, that a different kind of group can claim to
be an ancestor of the Royal Society, namely the scientists who
congregatedat Oxford in the i65os. They differedfrom the "Invisible
College" in several respects. In the first place, they were nearly all
skilled mathematicians, and it was in mathematics rather than in
experiment that they placed their hopes for the advancement of
learning. This certainly put them out of step with Bacon and gave
them more in common with Descartes. Secondly they were
Aristotelian enough to place discovery above utility, "Light" above
"Fruit". Thirdly, in the persons of Wilkins and Ward, they
defended the universities and traditional learning against the attacks
of the Puritan pamphleteers. Finally, as has already been pointed
out, in their religious views they tended to identify themselves with
a non-Puritan outlook. This group, which included many of the
leading scientists of the day, was serious and professionalin a way that
the "Invisible College" could never hope to be. They and the spirit
which they represented were to form the hard core of the Royal
Society, the "players" as distinct from the "gentlemen".
The difference between the "Invisible College" and the Oxford
group is to be seen in the movement of Robert Boyle from one to the
other. As Professor Boas has pointed out, by I635 Boyle was
becoming less and less the dilettante amateur and more and more
the serious scientist. As soon as this change of attitude took place, he
moved from London to Oxford. Even then his lack of mathematics
and his interest in the experimental side of chemistry made him
suspect. In i66o he wrote:
Some Learned Men ... thought it strange (if not amisse also) that one whose
28 Reason and the Imagination, ed. J. A. Mazzeo (London, I962), p. 142.
98 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 28
studies they were pleased to have too favourable an Expectation should spend
upon Chymicall tryalls (to which I then happened to be invited by the
opportunity of some Furnaces and some leisure) much of those Endeavours
which they seemed to think might be farre more usefully employ'd then upon
such empty and deceitful study.29
The Oxford scientists were very critical of the practical aims of
mere "sooty empiricks". They poked fun at the "company of mere
and irrationaloperatorswhose experimentsmay indeed be serviceable
to Apothecaries and perhaps to Physicians, but are useless to
a philosopher, that aims at curing no disease but that of Ignorance".
It was not surprising that the unquiet utilitarian spirit of Petty
should find Oxford oppressive and lead him to seek more practical
and financiallyprofitableactivities in Ireland. All this may lead us to
question whether the connection between Puritanism and science is
as clear as Hill makes out.
One final point remains to be discussed, namely the significance of
the Civil War period. Hill clearly attaches great significance to this
period. "In this intoxicating era of free discussion and free
speculation, nothing was left sacred". Victory in the Civil War went
to the side which supported the new science. "The Civil War was
fought between rival schools of astronomy, between Parliamentarian
heliocentrists and Royalist Ptolemaics: Ptolemy perished with
Charles I". Moreover "more of Bacon's works were published in
I640-I than in all the fourteen years since his death".30 Here again
the evidence seems to be overwhelming, but here again it is open to
criticism of a serious kind.
First, the spread of Bacon's writings. A glance at the standard
bibliography reveals that the evidence of this is by no means as clear
as one would have expected from Hill's categoricalstatement.31 Of
the editions of the New Organon, one was published in I620 in
London, the other three editions in Holland in I645, I650 and I66o.
What this tells us about the spread of Baconianideas is a matter for
conjecture. Of the editions of De Augmentis Scientiarum, one
appeared in I623, the remaining six were continental.3la Similarly,
of the Advancementof Learning, all editions were published before
I640 including two by Oxford University Press in I633 and I640.
Of the Sylva Sylvarum, much the most popular work apart from the
essays, the first six editions appeared before I640 and only three
32
M. Nicolson, "English Almanacks and the New Astronomy", Annals of
Science, iv (I939), pp. I-I33. The passage quoted is at pp. I9-20.
IO0 PAST AND PRESENT NUMBER 28