Richard S. Westfall - DSB Biographies
Robert A. Hatch - University of Florida
Richard S. Westfall
|You will find that these
thoughts have been set down at different stages of the project.
As I write these lines, I am nearing the end of the process of purging the list from the DSB in order to establish the final list for the catalogue. At least two major problems have emerged: continuity and classification. [This was the first entry in this file; further thoughts have been added at later times.]
I considered purging all those who can only be called Scholastic Philosophers on the grounds that they did not belong to the new scientific community. In the end, the considerable number of other analogous problems of continuity convinced me that I should leave them in. Thus I have one classification that is 'Scholastic Philosophy.' I'll discuss the other problems of continuity in a moment. For the time being, only note that the Scholastic Philosophers do seem to introduce a skewing factor that no other category does. The Scholastic Philosophers in the DSB are a sharply limited group, mostly those who had some impact on the scientific revolution or perhaps on some single person in it. Those in the DSB are the tiniest fraction of the Scholastic Philosophers who were alive and functioning through the 16th century and on into the 17th. I don't think that any other category is selected in a similar manner, and the presence of this handful of Scholastic Philosophers, not part of the new community, but in no way representative of the size of their own community, has to be a distorting factor. By labeling them as Scholastic Philosophers, I introduce the possibility of factoring them out electronically to run counts without them.
The problem of continuity within the scientific community appears in many other places. It is particularly acute in medicine, where it appears impossible to me to draw a line and to say that those on one side (possibly of a date) are part of the modern scientific community, and those on the other side are not. After roughly 1640-50, most active medical scientists, at least in the western countries, saw themselves as part of the new enterprise in natural philosophy. But can one possibly eliminate the earlier figures, such as Vesalius, Fabricius, et al. [As I realize much later, the number that could be listed with Vesalius and Fabricius is far larger than I had understood before.] Their work appears to me to have been essentially continuous with the work that goes back to the revival of learning. I have not eliminated anyone within the category of medicine except for one or two who got into the DSB through famous plagiarisms. I eliminate them as not being scientists or, if you will, intellectuals; I do not eliminate them for the nature of what they supposedly did, whether it was plagiarized or not.
Closely associated with medicine is another continuous tradition, natural history. By the end of the 17th century, at least the major figures within it, such as Ray and Tournefort, saw themselves as part of the scientific community and could in no way be eliminated. Since I see no way to draw a line, I include all within the tradition of natural history.
In a different way, mathematics is equally difficult. Again there is a continuous tradition fed at once by Greek geometry and by commercial arithmetic. I am excluding only those who are wholly trivial. From the early decades there are some, left in, who were hardly more than teachers. Note, however, that almost from the beginning the mathematicians were the heart of the scientific revolution; the problem with mathematicians is different from that with medicine.
Geography/cartography is another similar group. By the end of the 17th century, we are certainly into scientific cartography, and perhaps cartography was a scientifically oriented profession from the dawn of modern cartography right at the end of the 15th century. [I have now learned a lot more about the history of cartography. Modern cartography began virtually with the scientific revolution, and nearly every major figure in it would be in my catalogue for other activities as well. Cartography was a scientifically determined enterprise from its inception.] Geography does not seem to me to have been, but I have not seen the way to distinguish its early practitioners from the rest and eliminate them. They remain in.
I cannot see how I can exclude the occult sciences. They represent part of the break from Aristotelianism; whatever one thinks of them, they were part of the scientific revolution, which would not have been the same without them.
As you can see, my original concept of a distinct, identifiable modern scientific community is looking increasingly difficult, or if you will beyond defense. [My initial impulse was to say that I was increasingly astonished that I could ever have held such a notion. I recall, however, all the cases of scientists convinced that the Scholastic tradition had to be rejected and a new start made; very recently, in rereading Newton's Preface to the first edition of the Principia I realized the extent to which it expresses the conviction that he belongs to a new tradition. Let me say merely that the notion of the modern scientific community needs to be far more nuanced than I once believed.] Certainly I cannot identify it with the men who got into the DSB. Perhaps I will see what I can do with the hard core of physics-mechanics-astronomy. As the issue is appearing to me at this moment, we start (at the arbitrary date I have chosen in order to include Copernicus in the first decade) with an established community, many of whom were associated with universities (although this is not always true of the naturalists or the geographers and others), which goes back to the revival of learning when it picked up traditions of learning that began in the ancient world. In the 16th and 17th centuries a handful of men committed to the replacement of Aristotelian natural philosophy appear; from the beginning they have a strong mathematical bent and include most of the outstanding mathematicians. Out of this group comes the scientific revolution and the new community. By the middle of the 17th century they have acquired a coherence and produced achievements such that they begin to influence the rest of the scientific community whatever the disciplines. Before the end of the 17th century, there is no tradition of natural learning uninfluenced by the new school and few if any engaged in the study of nature who did not think of themselves as part of a new enterprise. The modern scientific community has appeared, partly from the creation of a new tradition in physics and natural philosophy, partly by the conversion of all of the old traditions. I have been especially impressed by the networks of correspondence that have appeared by the second half of the 17th century among men in the same discipline.
The classification of the sciences appears related to the problem of continuity. Certain disciplines are clear enough--mathematics, for example. But most of the major disciplines appear to need subclassifications. Thus there is physics, but there appears to be a need for mechanics, optics, magnetism, and electricity. Medicine needs surgery, anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, embryology. Natural history will need a number of subclassifications. I need to include such disciplines as astrology (under astronomy) and alchemy (under chemistry, which also needs iatrochemistry). I need to include people like Oldenburg, who were not important scientists themselves but were certainly part of the community, and I need a category, or categories, for them. I had wanted to have a small number of disciplines. I end up with thirty-eight, [alas, now forty-three] and am convinced that I cannot do with less. I have them grouped, with major disciplines and subdisciplines. The major disciplines number 12, which include geography, demography, instrumentation, engineering, and scientific organization, which are perhaps all peripheral. Without them, there remain seven major disciplines. As it begins to appear to me, the very number of disciplines reflects the richness of the enterprise of studying nature. All sorts of different studies were in progress, not just physics.
I intend to deal with the scientists by cohorts born in the same decade. A decade begins with 1 (as in 147l) and ends with 0 (as in 1480). I start with 1471 in order to include Copernicus. Because the birth date of many of the early figures is not known exactly, the DSB includes a number who were born c.1470. I have silently changed that to c.1471; the date is an estimate in any case. I continue to those born in 1680.
From the total population within these time limits that appear in the DSB (more than 650 in all) I have eliminated a number. I am doing a study of the Western scientific community. All non-Western scientists (and this includes Arabs) are excluded. I assume there can be no question about them, and I will not comment on the individuals here. Others I need to explain.
Johann Heinrich Alsted: he was an encyclopedist, not a scientist.
William Ames: a theologian, not a scientist.
Roberto Bellarmino: he was a Catholic polemicist, not a scientists. He appears in the DSB solely because of his role in the early trial of Galileo.
Johann Heinrich Bisterfeld: a theologian and philosopher with no deep involvement in science.
Jacob Boehme: a spiritual writer, not a scientist.
John Amos Comenius: an educator with no deep concern with science.
Sebastian Franck: a German pietist of great religious importance but not of scientific significance.
Thomas Geminus: in the DSB solely because of a publication plagiarized from Vesalius.
Zacharias Jansen: in the DSB only because of a false claim, now universally rejected, that he invented the telescope.
Jean Leurechon: in the DSB because of a volume of 'mathematical recreations' that he published; they were borrowed from elsewhere.
Georg Englehardt von Lohneyss: in the DSB because of a work on mining that has now been proved to be a plagiarism.
Jean Nicot: a philologist whose only connection to science is the fact that his name became the root of the word 'nicotine'; he did not do any scientific work on the tobacco plant.
Michael Nostradamus: an interpreter of prophecies, but not a scientist.
Francois Rabelais: his literary attainments are irrelevant; he was a physician, but as physician he did nothing of scientific note.
Girolamo Ruscelli: he wrote on books of secrets, but I am not yet convinced that such are to be seen as science.
Thomas Sprat: I have more hesitations about eliminating him than about any other. There is no evidence that he had any interest in science or was really part of the scientific community. He wrote the History under orders from a patron.
Marcantonio della Torre: an Italian anatomist of the early 16th century of note solely because of a baseless claim that he collaborated with Leonardo.
Juan Bautista Villalpando: an authority on the temple of Solomon, who does not appear to have contributed anything to science.
Juan Luis Vives: a distinguished humanist with no true involvement in science.
Izaak Walton: there is no evidence that he contributed to the scientific study of fish.
Valentin Weigel: a mystic like Boehme, but not a member of the scientific community.
|Comments on individuals under various
headings. These comments were made at all sorts of different
times, as I completed the sketches of the individuals in question. I alphabetized
them later and have also added further comments in brackets.
Dates: As mentioned above, decades begin for me with 1 and end with 0. Lifespan equals the year of death minus the year of birth without consideration of the month and day.
Father's Occupation/Status and Financial Status: I have used the category 'Gentry' for England and have attempted to extend it to analogous groups, minor nobility, on the continent. Governmental official is perhaps too general a category considering the various levels it comprises. City magistrates seemed a special class, and I have separated them as a distinct category.
I used Merchant as another general category, including things as diverse as bankers, manufacturers, and shopkeepers along with great merchants. In the end, apothecaries and publishers (or anyone in the book trade) seemed important enough for this study for me to make them separate categories. There have turned out to be far more sons of 'Merchants,' in this broad definition, than I was realizing as I gathered the data. As I said, I went back through and separated out apothecaries and publishers. Nevertheless the remaining number is large, and the grossness of the category makes it difficult to interpret the numbers. Let me add that it will be hard to divide Merchants into smaller categories with any precision because the sources frequently say only that the father was a merchant. I am well aware that other categories are equally gross. On the one hand, most of the sources doe not give enough information to make distinctions with categories such as aristocrat; on the other hand, too many microcategories get in the way of interpretation rather than helping it. I stick with the gross categories.
The evidence on financial status is frequently extremely vague. I have put in only three categories: wealthy, affluent, and poor, plus those for whom there is no solid information. I did not see how I could determine a category between affluent and poor. I do not have much trust in the information on financial status.
Boulliau's father was a notary; I list him under Lawyer.
Bramer's father died when he was three. I list both the father (Ecc) and the foster father (Sci)
Christmann illustrates a fairly common phenomenon. I find nothing about his father, but I do find the information that one Konrad Marius (of whom I know nothing) recognized his quality early and financed his education.
Copernicus's father (Mer) died when Copernicus was ten. His uncle (Ecc) became his guardian.
Gesner's father was apparently a furrier; Gesner was reared for the most part by an uncle, a chaplain. I list both.
Glauber's father was a barber. Artisan does not seem right for this; I list him under Miscellaneous.
De Graaf's father was an architect. After some hesitation I categorized that with Engineer.
Hobbes's father was a poor clergyman. Hobbes was reared by an uncle who was a prosperous glover (Mer).
Horrebow's father was a fisherman, which I also list under Miscellaneous.
Both Marci's and Zaluzan's fathers were administrators of estates. I decided to add that category and found others.
Mello's family is described as noble, but without other information I list the financial status as unknown. And so with others.
Gerard Mercator was the son of a very poor shoemaker. He was reared in the home of an uncle, a prospering cleric. [I have found a considerable number of cases somewhat like this. Since I am interested here in the economic circumstances under which scientists grew up, I list the status of the one who effectively reared them.]
Abraham de Moivre's father was a provincial surgeon 'of modest means.' This is too vague to list; I put it under N (no information).
Newton's father died when he was three. Just because I know the details, I do not list the influence of his stepfather. Obviously depth of knowledge influences this catalogue. This is one of the cases that leads me to be increasingly cautious in the raw numbers that can come from the catalogue.
Pires' father was a royal apothecary in Portugal; at first I listed him as a governmental official but changed it to apothecary (Phr). Ricci's father was a 'pharmacist' (i.e., apothecary); I listed him originally under Merchant but later instituted the category of apothecary or pharmacist.
Wotton's father was beadle of the University of Oxford. I list this as Miscellaneous.
Nationality: I have used modern designations that had no meaning in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus the Spanish/Hapsburg low countries are called Belgian (and residents of the later United Provinces are called Dutch even before independence), and the few Croats and Slovenes Yugoslavs (a name that is ceasing to have meaning even as I write). I list all Germans as such and not as Prussians, Austrians, Bavarians, etc. So also I list Czechs and Hungarians. I have considered all colonial societies (Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English) as aspects of the home society, although I have (inconsistently) listed the Irish even though the few here were all part of the English ruling class.
Nothing much has transpired here. I have found only one person, a Portuguese Jewish physician who finally fled Christian Europe to live in the Turkish empire, who did not live and work within what I would call a European society. Perhaps the few Jesuits in China are another exception, but I'm not convinced they ever abandoned a European context and truly entered Chinese society. I find there was another Portuguese among the first Europeans to visit China who was imprisoned there and presumably died in prison.
Education: The number of universities, or pretended universities, is proving to be a problem. I'm not sure that all of them were really universities, and right now I am not sure how I will be able quickly to decide. I will add that there appear to have been degree mills even then, so that degrees from these institutions are not really indications of serious study of academic disciplines. [This is no longer appearing as a major problem to me. The universities of which I am uncertain appear only once or twice each, though I do think degrees from the degree mills modestly inflate the numbers with apparent university backgrounds. My interest focuses on the universities that were centers of scientific study, as indicated by the number in my group who studied there. There is no question about the university status of these institutions.]
Mandated degrees are a potential problem. I have decided that where a degree was clearly by mandate, without study, I will not count it, whatever the level.
I am not worrying about precise degrees. I am calling all legal degrees (in the dBase code) LD, and all medical degrees MD, and all advanced theological degrees DD. Especially with legal degrees, the designation of 'advanced' degree is not accurate. My interest focuses on the educational background of scientists, on university intellectual culture in general and on legal and medical studies as well, and this I have tried to capture. It is not always clear that those getting a medical degree, especially in Germany, got a B.A. along the way. My concern is with their participation in the tradition of learning sustained in universities, and I am considering them to have obtained the equivalent of a B.A. (There are two clear exceptions to this, Nicolas Lemery and Sloane, both of whom obtained the M.D. without anything approaching a university experience.) And so with legal degrees.
Note that the category 'None' refers explicitly and only to university study.
[I find that many and perhaps most Italian physicians completed a doctorate in both medicine and philosophy. I list both, but I should learn more about Italian universities and their practices before I try to make anything out of the number of advanced degrees. In an analogous case, Scotland, where the basic degree was the M.A., I count it as a B.A., not as an advanced degree.]
[I am increasingly interested in the relatively small number of universities that seem to have been true foci of scientific work. This is revealed in the number of scientists with degrees from them. What trouble me right now are the universities that gave out medical degree without study there. Caen was such, but only a small number had their degrees from there. Anger was another, and more in my sample had degrees from there. I am gaining the impression that Basel did this as well, and with Basel there is a much larger number. I will need to check carefully about Basel.]
T. Ceva raises a problem that I should have noted before. He was apparently educated entirely within the Jesuit order, without attending any institution I identify as a university. Surely I need to classify men like him as having the equivalent of a B.A. I have gone back through attempting to make the few corrections where this applies, and I have made a category 'Ord' (Order) under which to list the institutions at which they studied.
George Owen leads me to note that many of the people like him, gentry and aristocrats, had no need of a university degree. However, they did acquire education--in Owen's case, at the Inns of Court.
Religion: No especial problems here. Despite the ambiguity, I list obvious Puritans in England before 1662, not as Anglicans, but as Calvinists. I am listing Zwinglians (I just dealt with Erastus) as Calvinists. It does not seem wise to me to multiply categories in order to capture every nuance of distinction; rather I wish to deal with the fewest categories that are necessary. In this situation, I think Zwinglians and Calvinists can fit well enough in a single category.
[I added some categories. I became fascinated with Iberian Jews, conversoes, who appear to me to be the first Jewish participants in modern Western science. I have found a sprinkling of similar figures from other countries. I added the category Jew in order to be able to sort them out by computer. 'Jew' here refers to the scientist's origin; I do not care to enter into the issue of whether each individual was a sincere convert or not. There is one Russian Orthodox Christian. I put in the category of Sectarian, and the category of Heterodox.]
Disciplines: As I comment by inserts above, I have had further to expand the number of disciplines, but otherwise there are not many problems here. I am finding that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between cartography and navigation. [More and more it seems to me that many of the fine distinctions here, given the fact that we are working from secondary sources, are arbitrary. Although I have put them in, I must beware of giving credence to counts of them. I shall probably end up using the larger categories, such as physics (rather than mechanics, etc) and medicine (rather than anatomy, etc) when I run statistical analyses.]
Means of Support: I am using the term merchant to cover a wide variety who drew their support from a business enterprise of some sort. I do not find, I might add, many of these. Merchant will not be a term in heavy use. [I find that it is in heavier use for the fathers.] Initially I listed instrument makers, who sold on the market, as merchants; I decided to make a separate category for them. As with fathers, I separated apothecaries and publishers from merchants in general.
I have listed mapmakers (i.e., those who made maps for sale) as merchants.
I am listing salaried physicians to a city under both medical practice and governmental official.
Above, under Father, I discussed the problem of governmental employees. A very large proportion of the scientists in this catalogue drew part of their support from governmental positions. They were of all sorts, and I am aware how gross the category is. Here also I separated city magistrates as a category distinct from other governmental employees.
I added agriculture as a category, but I am not finding much occasion to use it. I do not apply it to those who owned estates but merely rented them out.
I have categorized professors at Gresham College in London, at the Jardin du Roi in Paris, and at the Academy of Design in Florence as Academic.
I finally added a category of miscellaneous. I found a tiny number who just did not fall into any of the categories. I eventually added a couple of categories when I found as many as two within the miscellaneous category, so that the remaining number under miscellaneous is very small.
I use schoolmaster to include private lessons. Thomas Wright, who lectured on navigation for the East India Company, gets listed under that category, along with others. And by analogy, Whiston's public lectures are under that category.
Bayer was the only lawyer I have met so far. I put him under personal means. Meeting another, I made lawyer a category and altered Bayer accordingly. [Aldrovandi had a law degree and practiced briefly out of economic necessity until he could abandon it for natural history.]
Some members of Catholic orders raise problems. Thus Baranzano was a Barnabite who served his order by teaching in its college (in its original meaning, not its modern American one) in Annecy. Because of his primary connection to the order I list him as supported by an ecclesiastical or church position. In general, I am doing this with Jesuits who taught in the schools of the order. Clearly schoolmaster would not be wholly incorrect here. I do not see how to avoid all ambiguity in categories. If I can be consistent, that will be enough.
Support from a scientific organization is a category for those like Oldenburg and Hooke, employees of a society. It does not apply to Members of the Académie Royale; they are listed as governmental employees.
The distinction between Schoolmaster and Academic position is frequently unclear, as with many German Gymnasia and the Atheneum (Hortensius) in Amsterdam. I tend to count a professorship in a Gymnasium as Academic.
Dasypodius taught in Sturm's famous gymnasium in Strassburg. I am treating this as the equivalent of an academic position.
Most of Dorn's support is unknown. For several years, however, he worked as a translator, perhaps on commission for a publisher. I categorize this as Publishing.
I list Vincenzio Galileo under Mus, Pat, and Sch. It might be quite impossible to distinguish the three roles which appear to have melded with each other in his life.
Kirch supported himself partly by publishing calendars and ephemerides. I listed this initially under Miscellaneous but found several others doing the same and instituted the category 'Calendars.'
Maria Kirch, who was Gottfried Kirch's wife for most of her adult life, I also list under Miscellaneous.
Kircher is the first I can recall who was able to command significant income from the sale of his works. His books on Egypt were especially popular. He signed a contract with a Dutch publisher, who gained exclusive rights to publish Kircher's works in exchange for a considerable sum. I list this under Publishing.
Marsili is the only military man (that is, primarily a military man) I have met in the catalogue. [I have now found some others and have created a category for them.]
Ramus, who was from an impoverished noble family reduced to the need to labor, supported himself as a manservant while obtaining his education. I list this as Mis.
Riccati is one of the small number who appear to have lived solely on their inherited means.
Rolle, who had no advanced education, worked as a scribe until he established himself as a mathematician. I list this as Mis.
Perhaps inevitably Servetus followed some different occupations. He corrected for presses, and a pharmacological book that he published sold very well, apparently providing incoome while he studied medicine. I list all of this under Publishing.
Swammerdam was supported by a father increasingly annoyed with a son who could not, or would not, earn a living. Boerhaave's sketch of Swammerdam has a great passage about the father and his perception of the utter uselessness of scientific research.
Torricelli appears to have earned considerable money by making and selling telescopes in Florence. I list him as I lidy other instrument makers.
The two Tradescants are of interest. Who knows where the elder came from? Yet solely from his skills as a gardener/naturalist he was able, apparently, to prosper. He owned a fair bit of property by the time he died. Learning (including natural philosophy) was valued by the society of the day.
is ambiguity that is not to be avoided in some of the categories here--court,
governmental official, and aristocracy. Patronage by most courts was mediated
by governmental officials, so that one is frequently not sure which category
to use. Likewise governmental officials were generally members of the aristocracy.
I have not worked out any systematic device to distinguish here. In general,
I am trying to list it as court when the patronage did derive from the
court, regardless of who was instrumental in obtaining it, and governmental
official when such a person patronized as an individual but in his capacity
as a governmental official. Finally, I am trying to reserve aristocracy
for instances when the aristocrat was not patronizing as an official. However,
the distinctions are arbitrary and largely empirical. In Catholic countries
especially ecclesiastical officials will also be sources of ambiguity.
Patronage by Parliament during the English civil war is listed as government
I am convinced from many examples that every academic appointment involved patronage, and where no source of it is given, I list the source as unknown.
I am using dedications of books quite a bit. I have so many instances in which benefits flowed directly from dedications that even where there is no further evidence I usually take a dedication as an instance of patronage. There are a few instances that clearly seem otherwise.
I have noted a lot of individual cases that could reward further investigation; having taken them down as they came up, I have later alphabetized them:
Abreu's relationship with Sotomayor, confessor to Philip IV, and his pension from Philip.
Albinus presents a picture much like Wedel at the same time. The Electors of Brandenburg showed him considerable favor as their personal physician and nothing less than diplomatic negotiations at the ambassadorial level were necessary to gain his release for an appointment at Leiden. He was also a private counsellor to the Elector.
Aldrovandi was related to powerful people, including a Pope. I am counting the assistance he received (from the Pope and from a Senator in Bologna who was related to him) as patronage, but it is clear that we have here one of the many ambiguities of patronage. Aldrovandi, who was not only learned, but from a good family and related to Pope Gregory XIII, had the support of an incredible array of prominent men. In the dedication of two volumes of his Ornithology to Card. Montalto he stated that without the Cardinal's monetary support he would not have been able to publish the volumes. After his death the Senate of Bologna, not wanting the fruits of his learning to be lost, paid annual stipends to two successive men to arrange and publish Aldrovandi's papers.
Dedications: in the 1590's Alpini was pursuing an appointment in Padua. He dedicated a book in the Riformatori (in effect, Trustees) of the university in 1591, and he re-issued it a year later. He was appointed in 1594. In 1601, the year of re-appointment, he dedicated another book to the Riformatori. Later I find precisely the same pattern of dedication-appointment with Angeli.
Andreae dedicated two books to Duke August of Braunschweig-Lüneberg in 1642. He received in return a gift of 100 imperials and shortly thereafter appointment to a position with a salary of 400 imperials--and other favors later.
Angeli wrote to the Grand Duke of Tuscany and to his brother Leopold, sending copies of the book he had dedicated to them. The two letters (published in Michieli) express the expectations from a publication more clearly than anything I have seen elsewhere. He also used dedication (to the Riformatori of Padua and to a Cardinal-Patrician influential with them) to gain an appointment at Padua.
Apian, with his relationship to the emperor, looks like a great subject.
Aranzio was reared by his uncle, a powerful physician in Bologna. In the same year in which he received his medical degree (at the University of Bologna) he received appointment in the university (where his uncle also taught). I list this as patronage, but the ambiguities (I mean between family and patron) are obvious.
Arbuthnot offers some insight into the status of the personal physician. He chanced to be present when Anne's consort, Prince George was sick. When he cured the Prince, Arbuthnot gained an entree to the court and appointment as personal physician. You can undoubtedly interpret this as employment of a competent man, but to me the whole affair reeks of the mores of patronage, especially in the creation of a personal relation.
Arnauld illustrates patronage as protection. As leader of the Jansenists, he was under fairly continuous persecution. Various members of the very uppercrust of society, including Louis' sister-in-law, gave him refuge.
Ashmole, who became wealthy by marriage, became the patron of fellow alchemist Robert Plot.
Assalti obviously depended on Papal patronage.
Auzout dedicated an Ephemerides of the comet of 1664 to Louis XIV, urging the establishment of a royal observatory. This was in 1665. In 1666 he was a founding member of the observatory.
Bachet was one of the men born to wealth who preferred a quiet life and shunned patronage.
Bacon is an excellent example who ought to be studied more fully. The patronage he received had nothing to do with supporting his scientific work, although he did use dedications of his works to elicit patronage. Bacon was the youngest son of a wealthy and powerful man, who died before Bacon could be established in any position and left him resources far short of what he was used to and wanted (although plenty of other scientists would have lived happily on half as much). As long as Elizabeth lived and Burghley (who was indeed his uncle, but also the father of another young man in competition with Bacon) influenced her, he could not get royal patronage. He turned to Essex, and barely escaped disaster. With James he cultivated the favorites and finally received the position and income he desired. He left much that documents all of this, and when he fell in disgrace he left a commentary on himself that bears on the issue.
Baldi, far more a literary figure than a scientist, was perhaps typical of literary figures in living almost entirely on patronage. He had an abbacy for twenty-four years, but he owed it to his patron.
The Bartholin family appears to embody a tradition of royal patronage that was inherited through three generations--all physicians. I think I see a development. At this point I do not know much about Caspar (I), but let me assume that he represented the traditional patronage of court for personal physicians. Thomas also held that position, but we are told he seldom treated the king. He seems to have been esteemed for his contributions to learning. Thomas's son, Caspar (II), about whom I presently know little, contributed to basic knowledge as his father did. I have read that Thomas placed four sons in chairs at the University of Copenhagen. I know that his nephew, Matthias Jacobsen received the chair in anatomy over Stensen. I wish that I could read Danish literature about the University of Copenhagen; Danish historians appear to take it as general knowledge that for a good century the Bartholins had a lock on university positions. [Later I have run into the physician Paulli, who did well enough at the Danish court to be the king's personal physician. In the middle of the century he briefly held a position at the university, but was forced out by the Bartholins. That is really fascinating. See the paragraph in the sketch on Fink (or Finke) about this family dynasty.]
Bartoli is one of those for whom I found nothing I would call patronage. He was a devoted Jesuit, heavily employed by his order and certainly promoted within it. He did not appear to aspire to any honors or powers or wealth outside it and (unlike some other Jesuits) did not participate in the scramble for patronage as far as I could find.
Johann Bayer dedicated his Uranometria to two leading citizens of Augsburg and received an honorarium of 150 gulden.
Becher looks like a great example.
Bellaval offers an interesting case. He won the patronage of Henri de Montmorency, and through him of Henry IV, and with their patronage he was appointed to a chair at Montpellier and got support for his botanical garden. He was always an outsider in Montpellier, however, and a local, Jacques d'Estienne, coveted his chair. d'Estienne had the backing of local patrons, so that the contest between the two men was also a contest between patrons.
Bellini was one of those who profited from the patronage of Redi.
Belon, originally an apothecary, spent his entire life as the client of a series of well placed patrons, many of them princes of the Church.
Berger and the Electors of Saxony. As an example of the control of universities then, see the powers of the Elector over the Univ. of Wittenberg. Note also that Berger's two brothers also held chairs at the university.
We are told that Christina of Lorraine obtained the chair in philosophy at Pisa for Berigard.
Beringer and the Prince Bishop of Würzberg.
The Bernoulli's and the Basel establishment.
The States General rewarded Blaeu several times for his publications. He dedicated at least one globe and a work on navigation to the States General.
Blondel, who was the son of a prominent father, early won the favor of Richelieu, and following him a host of high officials, so that patronage, which recognized his gifts, made his career.
Bock and the Duke of Zweibrucken.
Boerhaave and the monarchies of Europe. Note, however, that although Boerhaave consulted for the monarchs of Europe and no doubt received enormous gifts in return, he was making a handsome income and consistently refused to accept appointment (though many were offered) as a court physician.
Bombelli is a case where patronage is difficult to separate from the employment of technical skill. He spent his whole life in the service of Rufini, much of it draining swamps.
Bonaventura, more a literary figure than a scientist (and thus similar to Baldi), illustrates the accepted pattern of patronage in literary circles. It merely chanced that some of his interests fell within the domain of science--Aristotelian science to be exact.
Bonomo, whose career was rather disheartening, appears to have been a poor boy without connections. Without Redi he would have gotten nowhere.
Borelli dedicated De motu animalium to Queen Christina of Sweden, who paid for its publication.
Borro's liberation from the prison of the Inquisition because of the direct intervention of the Pope, despite Borro's clearly naturalistic views, is as good an indication of the power of patronage as I have seen. Borro's appointments in Pisa also illustrate the political control of the universities; he was explicit in attributing the appointments to the Grand Duke.
Botallo established himself in the favor of Catherine de' Medici, and through this relation became physician to a whole range of men and women in the very top rank of the aristocracy.
Boulliau's whole career depended on patronage.
Bourdelot was a physician who lived largely from patronage from the great families of France (especially the Condés), and from the Queen of Sweden.
Boyle's relationship with the court of Charles II is illuminating. He had no need of financial assistance and sought none. He turned down possible appointments, such as the Provostship of Eton. However, there were favors that only the court could grant and he accepted them--membership on the Board of Directors of the East India Company and membership in the Company of Royal Mines. With Boyle note that he did not dedicate any work to the wealthy and powerful, but that he himself was the object of quite a few dedications.
Tycho's patronage by the crown in Denmark, well treated by Thoren, must be one of the best examples.
Henry Briggs' only recorded patronage was from Sir Henry Saville, who appointed him to the chair in Oxford. Briggs is reported to have condemned riches and to have preferred a life of retirement. Later I have found that he dedicated his big work on logarithms to Prince Charles.
Bruno was rather like Vanini; he electrified the rich and powerful. In France the king wanted to appoint him to a chair and did arrange for him to accompany his ambassador to England. Other powerful men later befriended him.
Buergi and Wilhelm IV. Buergi was wholly dependent on patronage.
The Camerarius's family's lock on the professorship at Tübingen. This academic dynasty could not have existed without the patronage of the ruling family. See if I can get hold of the history of the family by the two Camerers.
Campanella offers an excellent example of patron as protector. Rather, he attempted constantly, thoughout a stormy life, to extract protection from the system. Note that he dedicated a book to the Grand Duke, hoping to get an appointment in Pisa. He did not get the appointment, but he did get a gift.
Caramuel is a great example. See the note at the bottom of his sketch.
The King of Denmark, in seeking to recruit Cardano as his personal physician, offered him 800 crowns per year plus living expenses for himself and five servants and forage for three horses. This bears on the position of a personal physician; I think these are the terms of patronage, not mere employment. In the case of Cardano note as well the protection he received from a number of cardinals (despite his problems with the Inquisition) when his situation began to sour in Bologna.
With Casseri there is again a dedication directly connected to an offered position (the Duke of Parma). There is also an interesting relationship with Fabrizio, who initially encouraged Casseri but came to hate him as Casseri became a rival.
The Cassinis present a fascinating spectacle. Right now I forget the details of Gian Domenico (Cassini I), though he was plucked out of Italy by Louis XIV and set up in princely style in Paris. His son Jacques (Cassini II) moved in the upper echelons of French society. All of Jacques' sons followed careers on that level, and his two daughters married on that level. I think we have here the special status of astronomy. For all that, the history of the family presents a fascinating story of what patronage could do.
There is apparently a great story waiting to be told of Castelli's relations with the Barberini and his unsuccessful attempts to escape from their control. See the finaly pages of Favaro's essay in Amici e correspondenti.
Cataldi offers another example of the use of dedications. He held a position in the university of Bologna, and he dedicated books to the Senate of Bologna as well as to a number of aristocrats who I suspect were members of the Senate.
Cavalieri's appointment to Bologna (see Favaro, Amici e correspondenti on Cavalieri and Marsili) is one of the clearest examples of how such appointments were made. Cavalieri then consciously used his publications, dedicated to the Senate of Bologna, to ensure his re-appointments.
Cesalpino was charged with heretical views while in Pisa. He was nevertheless appointed as physician to Clement VIII in Rome.
Giovanni Ceva dedicated his first book (1678) to the Duke of Mantua. Less than ten years later he was a technical expert in the service of the court in Mantua.
Tomasso Ceva likewise used dedications liberally, to a fair proportion of the important figures in Milan. He dedicated his popular work, Jesu puer to Joseph the later emperor, and he became caesarian theologian in return. And he was assiduous in turning out celebratory works for them.
Walter Charleton was a physician who does not appear to have pushed hard on his practice. He was a prolific author, however, and an equally prolific dedicator. Toward the end of a long life, as his literary production tailed off, he fell into penury.
George Cheyne offers real possibilities. He lived right in the transition to a literary market in which an author could hope to support himself from his writings. His correspondence with Samuel Richardson, which is published, is apparently full of details of his relations with booksellers, etc. At the same time, he was also still involved in the patronage system. One of his patrons was the Countess of Huntingdon, who was also his patient. Their long correspondence is also published, and I think it could illuminate the relations of physicians to patrons.
Colombo dedicated De re anatomica to Pope Paul IV. Both Colombo and the Pope died just as publication was being completed. His sons retrieved the copies issued and printed a new title page, dedicating the work to the new Pope.
There are letters detailing Commandino's dedication of a book to the Duke of Parma. When the Duke was assured of the dedication, he agreed to finance its publication.
In 1542 Valerius Cordus presented his Dispensatorium to the city council of Nurnberg, which gave him 100 guilders and published it.
Coronelli appears to be an excellent example of one who built his career on successful exploitation of patronage. See Armao for his dedications. And at a certain point he passed out of favor and his career sort of collapsed so that he died in relative oblivion.
Crabtree was a proserous merchant in Manchester. We know very little about him, but he does not appear to have aspired to position beyond what he had. In what we know there is no reference to anything I would call patronage.
John Craig came south of England in 1689 to take advantage of the patronage of his distant relative, Bishop Gilbert Burnet. He made his whole career from Burnet's patronage.
Oswald Croll and Prince Christian of Anhalt.
Ignatio Danti was called to the attention of Cosimo I by his (Danti's) brother. His mathematical skills then recommended him to other powerful figures, including the Pope. In his dedications he carefully cultivated the powerful. A Dominican, he lived largely on patronage.
Davison and the Polish royal family.
John Dee lived almost entirely from patronage. His expertise in astrology appears to have attracted patrons, but in the case of Elizabeth at least it appears also to have led her to hold him at arm's length. Dee wrote at least two pieces justifying his receipt of patronage and complaining of how little it was. I think that Dee might be one of the most revealing subjects. Incidentally, Dee was intimately connected with the Sidney circle. Sir Philip Sidney, himself a poet, was also apparently a patron. His 'Apology' might have a good statement of a patron's rationale for patronage.
Derham's letter to Hans Sloane of 3 Oct. 1715, expressing his desire for some additional preferment, is one of the best documents I have seen.
Descartes raises all sorts of interesting questions. He generally spurned financial patronage. He had enough money to live comfortably. When Montmor offered him a country home and income of 3-4,000, Descartes declined because it would make him Montmor's dependent. On the other hand he frequently needed protection, and he utilized his connections to get it.
Digby came from wealthy surroundings, and as a member of the gentry did not pursue cultural patronage. He dedicated his major work to his son. He was himself a patron and received dedications. He was, however, a courtier, and he received the patronage courtiers receive from the court.
Dodart was not much liked by Louis XIV because of his connection with Port Royal. However, he had powerful allies, the Princess of Conti (Louis' daughter) and Mme. de Maintenon, and through them he received a string of favors, including membership in the Académie.
Dodoens dedicated a book to a counsellor to Philip II. When Philip needed a new personal physician, Dodoens was nominated.
James Douglas helps illuminate the status of the personal physician. In return for attending the royal daughter in a pregnancy he received a pension of £500 from George II--i.e., he should be seen as a client, not as an employee. Note that Douglas' younger brother dedicated a book to him--a nice example of the art.
Drebbel will repay attention, although I may already have exhausted the reliable literature about him. He lived almost entirely off patronage. He seldom lived well. He strove to produce spectacles for the court, and was apparently classed with entertainers, and not higher.
Though I have not seen it, there is apparently an interesting letter in which Robert Dudley appealed to the Grand Duke of Tuscany for protection and told him of all the services (mostly naval) that he could render in return.
Duerer illustrates patronage to the artist. In 1512 he did drawings of the Emp. Maximilian; in 1515 he asked for a pension from the emperor and received one--100 gulden for life.
Duverney gave lessons in anatomy to the Dauphin, who in turn got Duverney into the Académie.
Ercker is a good example of the relation of patronage to plain employment. His whole career was spent in various governmental positions. However, they all depended on the good will of the rulers in question; he was dismissed from his first one, for example, because intrigues against him made the favor of the Elector of Saxony turn away from him.
Escholt made his career entirely within the Lutheran church of Denmark/Norway. The benefices he held were awarded by the patronage of Sehested, one of the greatest aristocrats of the realm.
Eustachi was the client primarily of the della Rovere family.
Evelyn was a wealthy country gentleman. He was always willing to have the favor of the court, and he dedicated books to Charles II. Nevertheless, he was mostly independent of patronage, and he despised the life of the court, which he avoided. However, later in life as his resources ran lower than his needs, he had need of the favor of powerful aristocrats, and he ended up playing the dedications game (Godolphin, Somers) and angling for appointments, both for himself and for his son and grandson.
Fabrici dedicated the three parts of one work to the three patricians who secured the status of sopraordinario for him at Padua. Fabrici helped to cure Sarpi after the attempted assasination. Venice made him a knight of St. Mark. In regard to physicians and patronage, note that Fabrici charged his wealthy patients nothing; he received in return extravagant gifts and died a wealthy man.
Guy-Crescent Fagon is not in this catalogue. He was a court physician to Louis XIV who became very influential. At least three men in this catalogue (Tournefort, Vaillant, and Vieussens) owed significant aspects of their careers to his patronage. He would bear investigation. Later I came upon two other court physicians (I mean the court of Louis XIV) who preceded Fagon in time, Vautier (I failed to write down his first name) and Antoine Vallot. In succession, both of them succeeded in having themselves put in charge of the Jardin du Roi (as I think Fagon may later have done) and then used that position to makes themselves patrons of scientific learning. Davison owed his appointment to Vautier. Christopher Glaser, LeFebvre, and Magnol were all indebted to Vallot.
The paragraph above leads me to add another here about personal physicians. One book I read asserted that this position should be seen as salaried employment, not patronage. The three royal physicians in the paragraph above, plus numerous others in this list, all of whom used their positions to elevate their status considerably, indicates to me how mistaken it would be to consider them merely as salaried employees. They were part of the system of patronage, and they exploited the system in the same way that other clients did. In a different way, Boerhaave illustrates this as well. He had an enormous income (much of it from treating the wealthy and powerful), and he shied away from any permanent arrangement apparently because it would compromise his independence.
Fernel came from very prosperous circumstances. He attracted the attention of the court very early, and the patronage of the court to its physician was apparently a central theme of his whole career, although he also had a thriving practice. He illustrates well the essential patronage of the relation of the personal physician to a monarch. There are two stories. According to one, Fernel cured Diane de Poitiers, Henry II's mistress. According to the other he cured Catherine de' Medici of sterility and received in reward 40,000 ecus (plus 10,000 for each royal birth--six in all). Either way he made his fortune.
Although Flamsteed had a prosperous father, he would never have been able to escape from the provinces into the world of astronomy without the assistance of a patron, Sir Jonas Moore.
Fludd is another example of one who had nothing to gain and remained apparently mostly outside the patronage system.
There is no need to list here all of the details of patronage in the career of Galileo.
Vincenzio Galilei was the client of Count Giovanni Bardi, who appreciated and utilized his musical skills--i.e., a case of wholly conventional patronage.
Gascoigne, from a well-to-do family of gentry, and apparently barred from prominence by his Catholicism, has no discernable traces of patronage in his short career.
Gassendi's life was nearly a succession of patrons. Gassendi was the client of a succession of powerful men--Peiresc, Lullier, Valois, Richelieu, and Montmor. Some of them overlapped.
There is a nice little vignette in Gellibrand's life. A letter recommending him for the chair at Gresham said that he was satisfied with his small patrimony and preserved his time for his studies by not pursuing preferment.
Gesner's life is a perfect reflection of the absolute dependence of a man without means and dedicated to an intellectual life on patronage.
When Ghetaldi as a young man was aspiring to a name in mathematics, Viète allowed him to oversee the publication of one of Viète's works. Though I am sure no money was involved, I certainly call this patronage.
Gilbert was a very prosperous physician. Instead of dedicating his book on the magnet to someone, he had Edward Wright compose an epistle that dedicated the book to Gilbert. He did become physician to Queen Elizabeth. He received a 'pension' of £100. This was the standard 'pension' for a royal physician, and in this case it is difficult to distinguish it from a salary.
In his edition of Stevin (in the preface, I assume) Girard complained of living in a foreign country without a maecenas and burdened with a family. He said that he would have to postpone the publication of his mathematics until a time when the pursuit of the sciences was more highly esteemed than it was then.
Glanvill is a fine example of one who strained every nerve to extract all he could out of patronage. He was a prolific dedicator.
There are details on Glaser's appointment as a professor at the Jardin du Roi. Through his apothecary shop he gained the protection of Fouquet, who introduced him to Vallot. Vallot secured his appointment as apothecary to the King and the Duke of Orleans. When LeFevre resigned from the Jardin, their combined influence secured the appointment to Glaser.
Glauber appeared for a time to offer an exception, a man who experienced patronage as a court apothecary in Giessen, and then refused (according to some accounts) to be tied to a patron. Right now, this story looks doubtful, but let me record it in case.
Gohory was the son of a very prominent family who appear to have been ashamed of him. He started out in the service of the powerful, but he complained that they did not appreciate him. As soon as he was able, he retired from service in order to be free of its dependency. Nevertheless, De Thou seized Ramus' bequest to the College de France and installed Gohory as the first professor supported by the bequest. Gohory was a prolific dedicator, and I think that his dedications mights be a mine of information and insight.
Charles II recommended Graunt to the Royal Society.
After the early death of James Gregory, Charles II granted a pension to his widow and children. The two Gregories offer an interesting comparison. The item above, and the probable influence of Moray on his appointment at St. Andrews are the only items of patronage I found in James Gregory's life. He is described as devoid on ambition. David Gregory, in contrast, had considerable family means but even more ambition. He pursued the patronage of the powerful, in the manner of the day, throughout his life.
Guericke was himself wealthy. When he dedicated his Experimenta nova to the Elector of Prussia, his son (an official for the Elector) received the message that there would be no gratification because Guericke was known to be wealthy.
When Guidi went to Paris, with an introduction to Francis I, he carried the splendidly illustrated manuscript of his translation of some Greek works on surgery. Francis named him professor of medicine to the new Collège Royale, and Guidi dedicated the publication of the manuscript to Francis.
Gunter was placed in his living by the Duke of Bridgewater. He is known to have made one of Oughtred's horizontal instruments for the Duke.
Haak was, by all appearances, a gentleman supported with adequate personal means. He kept refusing patronage, especially appointment as secretary to the Elector of the Palatinate, because he preferred to defend his serenity.
Hakluyt looks like a great example. Note that he dedicated a manuscript to Queen Elizabeth, who then bestowed a prebend at Bristol on him.
Hales was a very prominent scientist who clearly could have enjoyed whatever patronge he chose. He was happy with his life as a cleric and remained mostly outside the system, though he did accept some minimal patronage.
Halley dedicated his planisphere of the stars of the southern hemisphere to Charles II and received a mandamus for his M.A. at Oxford. Halley, who became a man with nothing after his father's financial ruin, depended on the patronage of the powerful, especially a group of aristocrats powerful in the navy office.
Harriot is an excellent case of patronage.
Harris' whole career appears to have been shaped by the patronage of Lord Cowper.
Hartlib would be another good subject. He received support from Parliament. As in the case of Haak, I have classified this patronage under government officials. Also support from Puritan aristocrats and gentry.
Johannes Hartmann was the client of Moritz of Hesse all his life.
Hartsoeker lived twelve years in the court of the Elector Palatine. When the Elector died, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel tried to attract Hartsoeker there, but Hartsoeker, who was tired of court life, declined.
Harvey's relations with Charles I.
I consider Hauksbee's relation to Newton as patronage.
Helmont reminds me of Descartes. He was in rebellion against established learning, and he had personal means. He refused all offers of patronage and lived on his own income. However, he had troubles with the Church, and Marie de' Medici intervened on his behalf.
Francisco Hernandez is an excellent example. Commissioned by Philip II to do a natural history of the New world, he returned to Spain after heroic labors in Mexico to find the political climate entirely changed so that his work was ignored. Instead of being published by the king, it was archived. I have xeroxed two pieces in which Hernandez complains about his lot.
I will have trouble getting good material on Hiaerne, but he was clearly a poor boy who learned early how to procure patrons. He had a highly successful career, and he died wealthy.
Highmore attended Prince Charles (II) in a bout of measles in 1642 and got a mandate for an MD in 1643.
Hobbes would be an excellent case study, especially his relations with the Cavendish family. And of course Locke and the Shaftesburys.
Hoffman did very well with the Elector (and then King) of Prussia. Frederick II (in what I take to have been normal procedure) named him to a chair in Halle. Years later he was called to the Prussian court to treat Frederick William I; he departed handsomely rewarded. Keep this in mind while considering whether or not a royal physician should be seen as a client rather than an employee.
Homberg's successful career in France was built entirely on patronage--first of Colbert, then of a couple of abbés, and finally of the Duke of Orleans.
Homberg raises the issue of the Elector of the Palatinate. In 1704 he tried to lure Homberg there. At that time, if I recall correctly, the Elector had Hartsoeker in his retinue. I gather that he had aspirations.
William Jones' relationship with Parker/Macclesfield. Once he found Parker, Jones became his permanent client. Jones is an interesting example of a talented man (well short of brilliant, however) who rose in the world through patronage. His son became Sir William Jones, a man of some distinction; Sir William's grandfather was a small yeoman farmer.
John Jonston turned down several university chairs because he preferred to remain the client of a Polish noble.
James Keill's relationship with Hans Sloane was certainly a form of patronage. Sloane used him as the provincial physician of his wealthy London patients when they were at their country estates.
John Keill attracted the attention of Dr. Aldrich of Christ Church by his attack on Burnet's Sacred Theory. From that time on he had the patronage of the high church party.
As I knew well enough already, Kepler is another prime example of patronage. The long sketch in the file is mostly details of patronage. Let me note that he dedicated his Mysterium to the Estates of Styria and received 250 gulden in return. Emperor Ferdinand gave him 4000 gulden for the dedication of the Rudolphine Tables. There are other dedications and gifts in Kepler's life. The Duke of Bavaria's gift to Kepler for a copy of Astronomia pars optica was so small that his official, Herwart von Hohenburg increased it out of his own pocket--some indication of prevailing mores and expectations.
As a widow Maria Kirch was allowed to stay on in the house that the Elector had provided for her husband, and she even got his professional position on the calendar.
Kircher's whole life, like his father's before him, stemmed from patronage--of the upper level of the Church in Rome, of courts, of higher nobility, of governmental officials. Kircher was the client of a succession of powerful patrons. Ferdinand III supported the cost of having manuscripts copied for him, paid for the publication of his book on the Egyptians, and awarded a pension to Kircher.
After the patronage of the Great Elector, Kunkel ran agroud under his successor. The issue is shrouded in mystery. Clearly he had enemies. Maybe alchemy was involved. At any rate he lost all of the privileges he had enjoyed. In regard to Kunckel, note the glass chalice that he gave to the Elector of Cologne. For the 'gift' he received an enormous gift in return.
La Faille became very close to Don Juan of Austria and undoubtedly profited from it.
Lancisi illustrates the status of a personal physician. He cured Pope Clement XI of a renal calculus and was named in returned to a canonry in a Roman church.
Langren's map of the moon, with features named for all sorts of prominent figures, is a perfect embodiment of the mores of patronage.
Lansberge dedicated a collection of sermons to the States of Zeeland. He received a pension from the States, and in gratitude for that he dedicated another book to them.
In 1582, Philip II, now King of Portugal and aware that Spain lagged in navigation, established an Academy of Mathematics and took Lavanha and Onderiz from Portugal to Madrid. See Naverrete, pp. 225f.
l'Ecluse was the scion of a wealthy aristocratic family in Artois who adopted Protestantism and were ruined. l'Ecluse's entire livelihood, from that time, was dependent of patronage.
Delft recognized Leeuwenhoek's scientific achievements. He dedicated his works to them, and the city rewarded him upon their publication.
LeFevre was a minor astronomical figure who got into the Académie through the patronage of Picard and LaHire. He apparently did not understand how precarious his position was, and when he turned on the younger LaHire he was ejected from the Académie.
Leibniz is a complicated case. Much of the time he was a governmentalofficial, yet the relationship was clearly one of patronage, which supported him most of his life.
Louis Lémery clearly rose as the son of an established father--a sort of dynasty of clients. Note that not one but two sons followed Nicolas Lémery into the Académie as chemists. Episodes in Lémery's life illustrate patronage as protection.
l'Hospital is another wealthy man who stood mostly outside the patronage system, though he was in it to the extent of receiving appointment to the Académie.
Lister was fairly independent--from an affluent gentry family, and himself a successful physician. Even so, patronage from three different sources entered his life--a mandated fellowship and later personal physician to Queen Anne, personal physician to Lord Portland in Paris, a dedication to Sidney Godolphin about the time of the appointment with Queen Anne. I.e, the system pervaded every facet of life.
John Locke's entire career rested on patronage. When he was a young man, a local member of the gentry and patron of his father, secured his admission first to Westminster School and then to Christ Church. Then, while Locke was still a young don at Oxford, Ashley-Shaftesbury plucked him out and introduced him to the great world of influence where he spent the rest of his life.
James Logan was a poor schoolmaster and failed merchant in Bristol until William Penn tapped him for his personal secretary. Logan went on to be far more than merely a client, but without that beginning none of the rest of his career would have happened.
As a student in Tübingen, Maestlin was supported by a stipend from the Duke of Württemberg in order that he prepare for the ministry.
Magalotti spent virtually his whole career in the service of the Medici, and he hated the servile status of the client. He wrote a nice poem about it. Nevertheless, after years of complaining, when he tried to leave for a religious order, he found that he could not live without the court. He did write a plaintive poem about his plight.
Magini of course wanted the patronge of Rudolph II, and when the emperor heard about his great mirrors and requested one, Magini immediately responded. He never got the expected recompense, however, and until his death he pursued it, by petition and by new dedications (for none of which was he also ever rewarded). Magini is of interest in other aspects of patronage as well; he dedicated maps to all and sundry.
Magiotti live his whole adult life in Rome as a client, and he could not bring himself to think of abandoning his comfortable life for more active patronage.
Magni is another case in which a patron delivered a client from the Inquisition. Magni was arrested for heresy, but he had too many powerful patrons for that to stick.
In the company of Mazarin Louis XIV visited Maignon in Maignan's monastery in Toulouse and was so impressed by his work that he had Mazarin offer him a position at court. Maignon preferred the simple life and refused. It is worth noting that Maigan came originally from an apparently wealthy family.
Unlike earlier philosophers, Malebranche operated pretty much outside the system of patronage.
Malpighi presents another case of a man who made himself prominent through scientific achievement and was then bid for by patrons (mostly for university appointments). He moved out of Bologna and back a couple of times, until finally the Pope attracted him to Rome.
The Marchants are another father-son team. The son, who does not sound like an outstanding scientist, succeeded his father in both the Académie and the Jardin du Roi. Undoubtedly the patronage was inherited.
Markgraf serves to raise my interest in the expedition of Johan Maurits of Nassau to Brazil in 1636. The expedition was to set up a permanent colony in what had been a military outpost. What interests me is the fact the Johan Maurits took along a retinue of learned men to study Brazil, and apparently also an artist.
Marsili was himself a patron, but as a military man, necessarily pursuing his career outside of Italy, he was dependent on patronage--of the Emperor and of high officials in the imperial administration.
Maurolico's life was a succession of patrons. The Ventimiglia (first father, then son) had him lodge with them and the son was setting up a press just to publish Maurolico's works when the son died. The Spanish viceroy of Sicily had Messina give him a pension for two years to finish his mathematical and historical works. Maurolico's letter to Cardinal Bembo, asking him to accept a dedication, and Bembo's reply accepting survive.
Mayr lived his whole life under the patronage of the Margraves of Ansbach. He was even educated by them.
I find that Melanchthon (who is not part of this catalogue) helped both Rheticus and Reinhold.
Mello was wholly dependent on the Portuguese king, but there appears to be precious little about Mello.
Mengoli dedicated heavily to men in the ruling hierarchy of Bologna. Like Cavalieri (if I remember correctly) he was subject to reappointment every four years, and some of his dedications to senators fell on those years.
Mercati's father was a papal physician. Undoubtedly through him Mercati also gained papal patronage and spent his entire career in Rome as supervisor of the pope's botanical garden. There was a significant episode in which Ferdinand I de' Medici, to show his appreciation of Mercati's learning, inducted him into the Florentine aristocracy.
Gerard Mercator was cosmographer to the Duke of Cleves for forty years.
Mersenne was a poor boy without connections. It appears that he consciously used dedications to insure his support.
Mery, though much involved in the patronage game, found court life insupportable and did his best to stay out of it.
Micheli was the uneducated son of a poor laborer. Only patronage allowed him to pursue a life of science. The severe limits imposed on the career of this uneducated man indicate as well the limitations of patronage.
Michelini lost the favor of the Grand Duke and was ruined. Targioni-Tozzetti prints letters, like none I have seen elsewhere, as he tried through Leopold to win the favor back.
Thomas Moffett enjoyed the patronage of a series of high aristocracts; ultimately he went to the Earl of Pembroke's estate in Wiltshire, where he spent the rest of his life as Pembroke's personal physician. On the issue of personal physicians as client, note Moffett's relation to Lady Pembroke, the dedication of a book to her, and especially the composition of a life of her brother, Sir Philip Sidney.
Georg Mohr (late 17th century), though he accepted some patronage from the King of Denmark, did not like the dependence and subordination and he left. For the most part he resisted patronage relations for the rest of his life.
De Moivre was one of the unfortunates. Forced into exile, he never fully became English, and though he tried with all his might, he never attracted significant patronage. He had then to scrounge his living by giving lessons in mathematics.
Molyneux was one of those who did not need patronage to live. He did want to participate in the life of Ireland, however, and for that he needed the favor of the powerful, which he obtained.
Monardes was a wealthy man, though not of the aristocracy, and he saw fit to dedicate his works to the powerful.
Montanari established a name as a mathematician. Venice revived the chair in mathematics at Padua to lure him there.
Moray was primarily a statesman and diplomat, and in that life he needed and obtained patronage. His patronage had nothing to do with his scientific activities.
Henry More is another of the small circle who effectively shunned patronage. It may be significant that he had a good inheritance, though I tend to think he would have lived the same way on his fellowship.
Morin was supported first by the Bishop of Boulogne and then by the Duke of Luxemburg.
Robert Morison was always dependent on patronage to support his work in botany. The dedicationto his Praeludia has a very interesting passage that states that his patron, the Duke of Orleans, was going to finance publication of Morison's system of taxonomy when the Duke suddenly died in 1660. The dedication, which was addressed to Charles II, in effect begs Charles to pick up the burden. Charles declined, but Morison was able to recruit a whole platoon of patrons who supported publication of his major work, the Historia by financing individual plates.
Morland cast his lot with patronage upon leaving the university. He bet on the Puritan regime. With the Restoration, he was able to switch, though not without arousing lots of suspicion. He spent the rest of his life begging Charles for preferment; whatever he had was not enough. A passage in his autobiographical sketch is explicit in saying that he turned to inventions to attract the king's attention, and he was always careful to show the inventions off before Charles.
Mylon is one of the small number for whom there is no perceptable patronage. He was a wealthy lawyer in Paris, and there is no evidence that he tried to push himself further.
Napier was wealthy. However, he received grants of land from the king of Scotland, and he dedicated books to the royal family.
Newcomen was a practical engineer from the artisan class. There is no trace of patronage associated with him. He makes a good comparison with others: on the one hand learning (and a modicum at least of gentility), on the other hand practical utility without a trace of gentility. The great and the wealthy would contract with a Newcomen; apparently they never thought of relating to him in the context of patronage.
I am not listing any patronage for Nieuwentijt. However, he married into the most prominent patrician family in his city (Purmerend) and was immediately received into the ruling elite.
Norwood's Journal has some passages that help to illuminate the whole system of patronage.
Nuñez, who was patronized by the Portuguese court for his mathematical learning, is an excellent example.
Oldenburg was another person in a foreign land, like Papin, DeMoivre, and Girard, who was never able to break through to significant patronage.
In 1582, Philip II, now King of Portugal and aware that Spain lagged in navigation, established an Academy of Mathematics and took Onderiz (not in DSB) and Lavanha from Portugal to Madrid. See Naverrete, pp. 225f.
Osiander was a bellicose theologian who succeeded first in making himself prominent as a cleric in Nuremberg and then in alienating enough people that he had to leave. But he had impressed Duke Albrecht of Prussia, who took him in, provided him with a position, continued to support him in the furocious struggles that Osiander immediately fomented in Konigsberg, and even supported his family after Osiander's death.
Oughtred lived a fairly retired life. He refused to accept money from the very large number he tutored in mathematics. He is said to have refused an appointment in Tuscany. However, he did not spurn the favor of the Earl of Arundel (I wonder if his patronage placed Oughtred in his living), and he needed the influence of Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke to avoid sequestration by the Puritans.
George Owen was the client of the Earl of Pembroke in the classic sense of clientelisme. He illustrates how that supposedly separate system merged with intellectual patronage. Pembroke had need of a map of Milford Haven for military reasons. He knew that Owen could produce such; he asked, and he received.
Palissy, a Huguenot, won the patronage of the duc de Montmorency because of his artistic talents--and through the Duc the patronage of Catherine de Medici, who had him released from prison (where his religious beliefs had landed him).
Papin was perpetually dependent on patrons--scientists such as Huygens and Boyle, but above all the Elector of Hesse--making him an excellent subject. I gather that his letters to Leibniz from c.1697 on are full of comments on his problems with other clients of the Elector. He was yet another refugee, always somewhat of an outsider, whom the system of patronage ultimately failed.
At one point Paracelsus dedicated a book to a prominent jurist, who accepted the dedication and promised to have the book published--though he reneged on the promise.
Although Pardies was not heavily into patronage, the Comte de Guiche requested of the order that Pardies spend the summer of 1668 instructing him in mathematics.
Patrizi had the support of Clement VII who kept him in a chair in Rome even with the Inquisition baying at Patrizi's heels. Note that Patrizi used dedications diligently, first to win the patronage of the Este in Ferrara, and then to win patronage in Rome.
The physician Paulli did well enough at the Danish court to be the king's personal physician. In the middle of the century he briefly held a position at the university, but was forced out by the Bartholins. Lack of Danish forestalls me from pursuing Paulli, whose career was related to the fascinating Bartholin phenomenon. Through his father, Paulli had connections with the Danish court and a professorship at the University of Copenhagen from 1639-48. Apparently the Bartholins saw him as a threat to their turf, and they forced him out in 1648. In 1650 he nevertheless became personal physician to the king and spent the rest of his career outside the university, supported essentially by royal patronage dispensed through the church. For all that, the Bartholins were powerful enough to thwart him.
Claude Perrault appears to have been dependent heavily on the patronage of Colbert. Note that his brother Charles was the assistant to Colbert. It appears that all four brothers may have enjoyed Colbert's patronage--but Pierre got caught with his hand in the till.
William Petty could be a study of extraordinary interest. His career hinged on patronage--two contacts when he was young. But he was too associated with the Commonwealth and its policies to thrive during the Restoration. He wanted appointment, but it was denied him. His papers are apparently full of his bitter comments on the wiles of courtiers. I think they could reveal a great deal about patronage.
Piccolomini was a physician teaching in France. His dedication of a book to a Papal nunzio opened the door to patronage in Rome.
Pires offers a nice example of one who made his way, in this case in the new Portuguese empire in India, by winning the support of the powerful.
Note that Piso was later added to the following scientific establishment. Markgraf went on an expedition with Maurice of Nassau to Brazil. Maurice seems to have taken an extensive scientific establishment with him. This would be worth investigating.
Pitcairn was another either entirely or virtually entirely outside the patronage system. Significantly, he always had money.
Robert Plot offers a couple of insights. In 1686 he dedicated a book to James II; in 1688 he became the Historiographer Royal. In addition, Wood prints a couple of letters that illuminate the practice of subscriptions that came in at the end of the 17th century. Note also that Plot became the client of fellow alchemist Elias Ashmole.
Porta's patron, Card. d'Este, probably saved him from the Inqusition.
Power is another scientist who was the son of a prosperous father and who followed the lucrative career of medicine. There is not much evidence of patronage in his career. However, a late manuscript of physiology was direct to Lord Delamere.
When Ramus made himself obnoxious to certain groups, first the established academics, and then the established church, he found refuge with the very highest secular authorities such as Condé and Catherine de Medici.
Ray's long connection with Willughby reveals both the dependence of the scholar without means and the ambiguity that attaches to the word 'friend.' After Willughby's death, Ray, who could have had patronage in the church, chose rather to live in relative poverty.
Redi's whole career passed in the patronage of the Medici court. Redi, who was at the heart of the Florentine court, became a patron himself, an avenue of access, and books were dedicated to him.
Reinhold: I find that Melanchthon (who is not part of this catalogue) helped both Rheticus and Reinhold.
Reyna cared for the horses of the nobility near Zamora, Spain. I list this as patronage; it is one of the cases that stands right at the line where patronage shades into mere employment.
Rheticus's whole life seems to have been dominated by a series of patrons--first Melanchthon, then a series of courts, governmental officials and aristocrats. He appears to be one of the outstanding examples. I find that Melanchthon (who is not part of this catalogue) helped both Rheticus and Reinhold.
Riccati, who was wealthy, preferred to live quietly with his family and pursue his studies. He rejected several offers of courtly patronage.
Matteo Ricci, who appears to have had the patronage of the Chinese court, is an interesting case.
Riccioli, a Jesuit, nevertheless dedicated books to the usual spectrum of the rich and powerful.
What little we know about Risner appears to indicate that he lived almost entirely as Ramus' client.
Roemer was patronized by Christian V of Denmark. Roemer, who did not come from a major family but married a Bartholin, ended up as a major figure in the Danish government with more positions than one can readily count.
Rolle's elegant solution to a challenge problem brought him to the attention of Colbert and Louvois, who both became his patrons.
On personal physicians: Rondelet was the personal physician to the Cardinal. He received 600 livres annually for six months attendance. When the Cardinal was especially pleased with one cure, he gave him a pension of 200 livres for life.
Saccheri appears to have been a humble person not interested in making a big splash in the world. Nevertheless, as a Jesuit, he was inevitably plunged into the aristocratic circles of Milan, with whom he then hung out and to whom he dedicated his books.
Sala was the son of a spinner. As a personal physician to the Duke of Mecklenburg early in the 17th century he rose to the point where his son became a prominent official in Güstrow and his great grandson could be elevated to the status of Count of the Empire.
As a young man Scaliger (or Bordon) composed a poem dedicated to Alfonso and Isabella d'Este, manifestly intended to gain their patronage. The indications are that it failed. Scaliger would be a good case to examine in any case. He was a young man of talent without means. Patronage was the classical avenue for such. His initial break came as physician to a bishop of the della Rovere clan. In what I have read there is not enough information about Scaliger and patronage, but I think it could be found.
Schegk dedicated books to the usual broad spectrum of patrons. Like Wieland he used two dedications to thank patrons. In 1540 the Univ. of Leipzig offered him a position he declined, but he dedicated a book to the Senate of the university in 1544. A few years later an offer from the Univ. of Strassburg; in 1550 he dedicated a book to the Council of the city of Strassburg.
Scheiner and the ruling family of the Tyrol. Note that Scheiner, a Jesuit, nevertheless worked the system of patronage for all it was worth.
Scheuchzer appears to illustrate the unavoidable role of patronage in every municipal appointment (in his case in Zürich). Steiger's account of Scheuchzer's appointment makes this very clear. Scheuchzer's career appears also to indicate that he did not have sufficient patronage; he never had a position commensurate with his abilities.
Scilla reminds me that a scientific community was not yet distinct from others. His patronage was connected primarily with his painting, though there are suggestions that his learning was respected as well.
Sendivogius' first patron was a rich merchant of Prague, Koralek. I find no indication of what Koralek expected from the relation, but it must have had to do with alchemy. Koralek himself is also called an alchemist. Undoubtedly in connection with his alchemy, Sendivogius had a considerable retinue of patrons.
Servetus strikes me as illustrative. Despite his grossly heretical views (which he concealed, to be sure, by adopting a pseudonym) he readily won the patronage of several influential men, one of them an Archbishop. He was obviously extremely bright, and apparently he instantly attracted attention wherever he was.
Severinus may help illuminate the position of the personal physician. He had already attracted the patronage of the Danish court, and to earlier favors he added that of personal physician to the king (two successive kings) at a high salary. More simply than service as a physician appears to be involved.
Jeremy Shakerley was supported by Towneley.
Sherard's history is not clear to me right now. He lived for more than ten years as tutor to a succession of great houses. He appears to have made the right connection somewhere, suddenly vaulted into a governmental position that probably made money for him, became consul to the Levant Company (making a fortune), and ended up as a patron himself.
I think that Hans Sloane would bear investigation. He started out without much, but he clearly had the capacity to ingratiate. It appears to me that he moved through the system of patronage into great wealth and influence, and befitting his new status became a patron himself. His correspondence might illuminate much.
Episodes in Spiegel's career are illustrative. In 1606 he dedicated a book to the German nation in Padua, which wanted to reward him with money. In 1607 they did recommend him for a chair, without success. Nine years later, with the recommendation of an influential patrician, he got a chair.
Stevin's long relationship with Prince Maurice, from at least 1590 until Stevin's death, must be one of the best examples of patronage. Note also his multifarious dedications; we know that at least two led to payments.
John Strachey was another member of the gentry who apparently just wanted to run his estate. He did not need patronage, and I found no evidence that he received patronage.
Struss's long career rested primarily on patronage. The dedication of a poem brought him to the attention of the important Laski family, who initially promoted him. As personal physician to Andrei Gorka he amassed a fortune.
Suchten, of whom I had never heard, lived his whole life as the client of a series of courts to which he was personal physician. Suchten, who came from a promient Polish family, was the object of patronage from his maternal uncle and later, when he had a medical degree, he was the personal physician of the King of Poland, the Duke of Prussia (in Königsberg), and a German magnate in Bavaria.
Swammerdam, though not untouched by patronage, clearly feared to be a client. He lived at his father's expense and put up with his father's hectoring. Thévenot and the Grand Duke of Tuscany both offered to free him from this status, but he refused both times, apparently preferring father's constant complaints to the life of a client. Note with Swammerdam another instance of a direct payment following a dedication.
Sydenham as a young man was materially forwarded by patronage the stemmed from his Puritan credentials. Once a successful physician, he does not appear to have pursued patronage. His dedications were to peers, not to patrons.
Tartaglia might repay investigation. He was utterly without connections and family, and he carried the scars of horrible wounds to his head. Though extremely able, he never attracted much patronage and had to publish many of his books at his own expense. Ability along may not have been enough.
Telesio was from the aristocracy. He never had or sught a salaried position. He gained a reputation as a philosopher and was much feted by the papal heirarch, which protected him from attack. And soon after his death, he was put on the Index.
According to van Dorssen, Ten Rhijne (or Rhyne) was the victim of the patronage of another. Andreas Cleijer, whom van Dorssen treats as an intellectual nonentity envious of Ten Rhijne, was a skillful operator who monopolized patronage (of medicine, that is) in the East Indies and used his power to exclude Ten Rhijne. I begin to wonder, primarily because of the name (Israel) of his father, if Ten Rhijne was Jewish and whether this might have been part of his problem.
Thévenot is a slightly different case. Like Mylon he was wealthy. However, for some reason unknown, he wanted to be in charge of the king's library--i.e., patronage from the court.
Thurneysser, an alchemist, had the patronage of a series of courts. He was successful in converting patronage into a fortune, which in turn he lost. He dedicated his Historia to Stephen Bathory, King of Poland; when the honorarium was less than he expected, he dedicated the second edition to the Elector of Brandenburg.
Torricelli, born either to poverty or at most to modest circumstances, was suddenly elevated to the status of Mathematician to the Grand Duke. Conscious always of his dependence, he was caution itself in his public stance.
Tournefort first gained the support of an influential court physician, Fagon, and through him moved to Paris and won the patronage of the court.
Towneley is another wealthy squire who was a patron rather than a client. As heir of a prominent Catholic family, he was foreclosed from any civil position for which he might have needed patronage.
Tozzi was one of the few apparently uninterest in patronage. He refused promotions, and he published nothing.
The two Tradescants perfectly embody the ambiguity of the patronage relation. They were gardeners and were on salary from their patrons; they might be classed as hired employees. And yet they were paid out of proportion to ordinary gardiners, and they received special benefits. I do not see how to distinguish their services, meant to project the magnificence of patrons such as Salisbury and Buckingham, from those of the painters whose pictures the patrons collected for the same purpose. Note also the dedication of Musaeum Tradescantianum by the younger Tradescant to the College of Physicians. He was then growing medicinal plants for the college and negotiating with them about the establishment of a physic garden.
Tschirnhaus had the patronage of the Elector of Saxony as he tried to develop what might be the first industrial scientific laboratory. This would bear investigation. It is a bit like the patronage that Papin had from the Elector of Hesse.
Tulp is one of the few I find with no overt indications of patronage. But he was the son of a wealthy merchant in Amsterdam and was from the beginning familiar with the uppermost reaches of Dutch society.
Tunstall (far more an ecclesiastical official than a scientist) offers a great illustration of how patronage worked. Though not without family connections, he appears primarily to have impressed powerful men, such as Archbishop Warham, with his capacities, and from that moment preferments showered down on him. Very quickly he was at the center of English government and had ecclesiastical preferment to go with it.
Peter Turner caught Laud's eye, apparently through his work on the committee to revise the statutes of Oxford. Laud wanted to appoint him to an important post with the government. Turner prefered the studious life; he got the Savilian chair.
Tyson, who was always wealthy, was largely outside the patronage system. However, he needed influence on at least two occasions, and Lord Keeper North exercised it on his behalf. Tyson, like some other prosperous physicians, was himself a patron to Jame Keill.
Vallisnieri was a bit like Redi. He too experienced great success in his age. He was inducted into all the academies that ever existed. And like Redi, he became one to whom lesser scientists dedicated works.
Don't lose sight of Vanini, a classic case. He could apparently charm anyone, and he collected patrons like flies. He gave the impression of learning, which he spiced with radical ideas in religion, and apparently he had great charm.
Varenius was another young man of talent wholly without resources and thus dependent on patronage. Note that there may not be a lot available on him.
Varignon presents a modest mystery. He showed up in Paris, unknown, in 1686, and in 1688 got two important appointments--to the Académie and to a chair in the Collège Mazarin. In 1687 he did publish a book, dedicated to the Académie, but it is hard for me to see how that could win favor since collective bodies are almost exactly what could not exercise patronage. The book could have attracted notice, however.
Verantius was born into the highest circles in Croatia. He aspired apparently to power and prominence, and for this he was dependent on the patronage of the Emperor.
Patronage fashioned the whole of Viète's career, first as client to some prominent Huguenots, then to Antionette d'Aubeterre (of the prominent Subise family), ultimately to Henry IV.
Vieussens is another example of patronage as protection. He made enemies in the medical faculties, and he received protection from his patron.
Viviani's entire career was shaped by the patronage of the Medici court. He appears not to have prospered the way Redi did and thus may constitute some sort of contrast with him. At any rate, he deserves study. Note that in 1677 he dedicated a work to Jean Chapelain. Chapelain, who had done Viviani a major service was then dead; the dedication was a gift of gratitude.
Wallis' entire career was built on patronage initially received from the Puritan, Parliamentary government, apparently in reward for his success in deciphering royalist codes. With the Restoration he succeeded in hanging on. Interestingly, Wallis did not much use dedications for patronage. The vast majority of his dedications are to scientific and academic peers. I have not seen them as I write this, but they might reveal something about what advantage or benefit a dedication was thought to convey.
Ward is an excellent example--an ambitious young man of talent able to ingratiate himself with whatever party held power. Aubrey has a great story of his elevation to the bishopric of Exeter. Walter Pope, who lived a number of years as his client, talks about their relationship in a way that illuminates patronage.
Wedel, a physician in Germany in the late 17th century, ended up with an extraordinary collection of honors--Counsellor (as well as personal physician) to the Elector of Saxony, ennoblement by the Emperor as Count Palatine, Imperial Counsellor, Electoral Counsellor to the Elector of Mainz. Note that Albinus presents a picture much like Wedel at the same time.
For all his pose of independence, Whiston was dependent on a considerable array of patrons. His independence from religious conformity would probably have been impossible without the assurance of the patronage.
Wieland used a dedication to Battista Grimaldi (of the Genoese family) to thank him for assistance ten years earlier when Wieland arrived there desititute after a shipwreck (while returning from being ransome from the Barbary pirates).
Wilhelm IV of Hesse-Kassel, though not himself the object of patronage, was a considerable patron of scientific learning.
Wilkins, who had no great personal wealth or position, received the patronage of a whole succession of powerful figures, culminating in Charles II. Wilkins ended up prominent enough to be something of a patron himself.
Willis, obviously a bright lad, was plucked out of rural obscurity by a Canon of Christ Church and enrolled in the college as the Canon's servitor. His whole career followed from that. In 1666 lightning struck again when Archbishop Gilbert Sheldon, already Willis' patron, had a stroke in Oxford. As a result of Willis' treatment, Sheldon invited him to London, where he quickly attained the richest practise ever seen in London until that time.
Francis Willughby is one of the small number of wealthy scientists who aspired to no higher position and apparently never received patronage. He was himself a patron.
Winthrop is yet another prosperous squire who never needed patronage and never received it. He was himself a modest patron, of George Starkey, a fellow alchemist.
Wolff may be the best single figure I have come upon. He attained extraordinary prominence primarily but not solely in Germany in the mid 18th century, so that he was lionized by the rulers of Germany as they attempted to lure him to their universities.
Woodward was rather like Willis. Apprenticed to a linen draper in London, he caught the eye of a physician in need of an amanuensis. The physician educated him in medicine and encouraged him in much else, and Woodward's career flowed from that initial relationship.
Despite his superb skill, Wren's entire career as an architect depended on the patronage of the King. That patronage opened to him the sort of public buildings on which his reputation rests.
Wright is one of the rare ones patronized by specifically merchant types--London merchants who sponsored his lectures on navigation, and Hugh Myddleton who employed his skill on the New River project.
Stephen Bathory offered to appoint Zabarella to a chair at Krakaw. Zabarella dedicated a book to him in response, and the King in turn knighted Zabarella. Note as well that Zabarella, who was in trouble with the Inquisition, dedicated a whole string of books to cardinals and even a pope.
Zambeccari was another one of those who profitted from the patronage of Redi.
Zucchi was one of the Jesuit stars in the mid and late 17th century. He dedicated books to the standard assortment of prominent people, but I find it interesting that he did not dedicate any of his devotional works, just scientific ones.
My goal here is to get beyond the Baconian talk about useful knowledge
to see how far science did find practical applications at that time and
how far scientists engaged in matters of utility.
The case of Napier and his screw device to raise water starts me thinking. It is listed, as it needs to be, as a technological application, but in fact it has nothing to do with Napier's own scientific work. This might be an issue to watch.
Astrology presents an obvious problem, but I do not wish to include it as a technological application of science.
By definition I take medical practice to be the technological application of scientific knowledge. Pharmacology appears likewise. [I find that I am listing, as it appears to me I must, publication on pharmacology as both a discipline and a technological application of scientific knowledge. In a similar way, I am listing publications on navigation as a technological application. That is, one did not have to go out and administer a drug, and one did not have to go out and navigate a ship. I have done the same with military engineering.]
Watch the use of applied mathematics. Collins is said to have applied mathematics to administration. I have it listed, but there is no doubt that I would like to see concrete evidence of what this amounted to. So far I think that I have only one other case that I have cared to list under this category--a Spaniard, though I cannot summon up his name. [I came upon some Dutch examples later. Giovanni Ceva's pioneering essay in mathematical economics is another possible example. And I have listed all aids to computation as applied mathematics.]
Surveying, cartography, and navigation offer problems. I finally decided that I needed the category of cartography here, and inserted it. Often it is difficult to draw a line between cartography and navigation. At first I listed pure surveying under civil engineering, but I have ended up seeing all surveying as essentially cartography. I went back and moved surveying and hydraulics out of civil engineering into separate categories (surveying, as I just said, going into cartography). The more I learn about cartography, the more it fascinates me. In my present understanding, it was the first fully scientific technology. It had almost no empirical tradition. Scientists defined it, and scientists supplied to means to solve its problems. A very large number of scientists did some cartography.
Mining is a possible category. It comes up with Bromell. Napier, who developed a screw device to raise and remove water, possibly belongs here. As of now, I list Bromell under civil engineering and Napier under hydraulics. [Much later, 85% done, I have not come upon enough mining to make a separate category. However, I am calling all water management hydraulics.]
I am struck by the number of surveying instruments. Thus Mariotte invented a new levelling device--as did Thévenot and Picard.
There were a couple of persons involved with what we call veterinary medicine. I have categorized them under Agriculture, which has a few others as well.
I begin to be impressed by the almost unanimous involvement of Dutch scientists in technological projects--Anthonisz, Metius, Snel, and especially Stevin (apparently an excellent subject--one of the best examples of the scientist as technologist I have found), who was involved in practical endeavors on all levels. Much of this (i.e., of the Dutch in general) is cartography/surveying and of course navigation.
Amontons proposed an optical telegraph. This is close to the most practical application of science that I have seen, though I gather that nothing came of it. He also proposed that his clepsydra could be used to keep time at sea.
Barba and the amalgamation process in refining silver might offer a good case of technolgical advance. See Lopez Piñero. In Lopez Piñero see also Bartolomé de Medina. who made the first beginnings on the amalgamation process.
Becher might bear further investigation here. Apparently he was full of projects, but it is not clear that anything ever came of them. Consult the Steinhueser work.
Beeckman presents the case of a man who was always involved in practical projects, was skeptical of plans to improve technology (precisely because they tended to think in terms of absolute transformations), and believed devoutly that the only foundation for improvement was the general scientific education of craftsmen. See Van Berckel's book.
Biringuccio is an excellent example of how a man with technical expertise, especially in military affairs, could move freely through Italy, and I suspect through all of Europe, in the sixteenth century.
Bombelli is suggestive. He had no formal education and was trained by a practicing architect-engineer who also drained swamps. The work corresponded to Bombelli's mathematical bent. Far from applying science to draining, the quantitative work may have brought him to mathemaics.
Bosse applied Desargue's method of perspective to painting. I am treating this as a practical application of mathematics.
Jacques Cassini, like his father, was automatically also involved in cartography.
Although nothing is said about practical activity, van Ceulen was appointed to teach, inter alia, military engineering at Maurice's school--on the basis, I gather, of his reputation as a mathematician.
Giovanni Ceva applied mathematics to the monetary problems of a small territory with multiple coinages in circulation--a pioneering endeavor in mathematical economics.
Crabtree was another with mathematical skills who found himself also doing some surveying and mapping--even though he happened to be a prosperous merchant. Note that Jonas Moore, who is not in this catalogue, also an astronomer with mathematical skills, did a survey of the fens for Cromwell.
Egnatio Danti was capable in mathematics. He was called up then for cartographic, hydraulic, and architectural projects, and he left behind a manuscript on fortification. He is among the best examples of technologically employed scientists.
Desargues, an engineer, designed a new device using an epicycloidal wheel, to pump water. In many ways he sounds like a scientifically oriented engineer, as much a one as I now recall.
There is some interest attached to Drebbel. All of his projects looked toward use, although it is questionable that one should consider them as applied science. None of the projects realized anything. Drebbel seems to embody the futility of premature utility.
Dudley was a practical man able in mathematics. He was involved in every one of the technological activities that, in his day, demanded mathematical expertise. He wrote an essay (in his Arcano) on the mathematical sciences that enter into the work.
Ercker's entire career was directed toward improving metallurgy and mining.
Feuillée was an astronomer. While on an expedition to South America he did a map of the coast of Chile and later the French government sent him to the Canaries to establish the longitude of the place.
Finé is an interesting case. He was in prison when brought to the attention of Francis I, who immediately sent him off to Pavia to work on the fortifications.
Fludd appears under Mechanical Devices because of some self-acting automata he developed. I recall Stevin's wind driven carriage. Look carefully at all mechanical devices; they are not necessarily incipient industrial revolutions.
Gassendi corrected the geographical coordinates of the Mediterranean.
Glauber (much of whose career was in the Netherlands) was deeply into useful projects of all sorts--or of a chemical sort.
Grandi, like Giovanni Ceva (of his own age and area) was, as a mathematician, drawn into questions of hydraulics.
The two Gregories indicate how readily those skilled in mathematics got involved somehow in cartography. James Gregory determined the longitude of St. Andrews by means of a lunar eclipse. David Gregory lectured on surveying as part of his series in Edinburgh.
Grisogono (early in the 16th century) was learned in mathematics. It is reported that he was involved, in 1537, near the end of his life in harbor construction in Rimini.
I had to list Hakluyt under something; all of his work on geography was oriented toward practical use. I ended up listing both navigation and cartography because, in different ways, he promoted both, although he did not contribute to either in any technical way.
Hales developed a method of preserving fresh water and meat and of distilling salt water to make fresh on long sea voyages. The government put the method into practice. I am listing this under chemistry. Note that Hales is one of the best examples of a scientist constantly seeking practical applications in a large number of areas.
Halley was as much concerned with practical problems, especially naviagation, as he was with pure science. His primary effort in astronomy was directed toward the moon, with the goal of determining longitude.
Like Halley Harriot was deeply involved with practical problems, primarily navigation, and its intimate companion cartography.
Henckel discovered useful processes in the fabrication of porcelain. This is one of the few contributions to industrial technology I have met. It falls in the 18th century. I have listed it under chemistry.
Kellner wrote a book on brewing, wine, and vinegar. Because of the association with food, I have listed it under agriculture.
I find that Kepler was expected to map the region of Linz.
Kircher, though a general polymath, was involved in a surprising array of technological projects: instruments, navigation, surveying, cartography.
Kunckel worked on the chemistry of colored glass and directly applied his results.
La Faille is another mathematician who got into fortification.
Langren was an engineer in Belgium engaged in all sorts of projects, the majority of which involved water (canals, ports, etc.). He was the brother, son, and grandson of engineers (an article on the family is listed). See the description of his manuscripts in Marez for an extensive indication of the extent of his activities.
Leibniz developed a calculating machine (categorized as applied mathematics). Leibniz's enterprise with the silver mines was a conscious attempt to apply science to technology--and it failed.
Magnitsky, the first imporant Russian mathematician, was employed by Peter in a Navigation School in Moscow, and at the time of the Swedish invasion he was set to work on the fortification of Tver.
I am struck by the number of surveying instruments. Thus Mariotte invented a new levelling device--as did Thévenot and Picard.
Marsili was a military man with mathematical training. Almost inevitably he did fortification, civil engineering, cartography, and hydraulics. He was a cartographer almost by instinct--he mapped everything he saw.
Nicholaus Mercator developed a better method of sailing into the wind; I am listing this under navigation.
Merrett translated Neri's book on the Art of Glass and added 'Observations' equal in length to the book. The volume was apparently influential in promoting the glass industry of northern Europe. I list it under practical chemistry.
Montanari, an astronomer and hence a mathematician, was called to Padua in 1678 and immediately set to work by the Venetian government on water control and fortification.
Moray has 'None' under technology even though his interests tended heavily toward the utilitarian. I did not find his actively engaged in any technological enterprise despite his Baconian tendencies--a bit like Bacon himself.
Newcomen's engine appears to have derived, not from scientific knowledge, but from practical experience and from trial and error.
Norwood's whole position in the DSB rests on his relation to practical, technological, endeavors--basically navigation and cartography, but a number of other ones as well in lesser amounts.
In 1544, the demands of navigation seem to have stood behind the naming of Pedro Nuñez as professor of mathematics at Coimbra. There was no place for him in any of the four faculties, but a strong incentive to have such a discipline pursued stood behind the appointment. I gather that sources will be hard to come by here.
As a young man, Olaus Magnus developed a method to raise water from mines. Olaus' fame as a scientist is connected with his map of Scandanavia and his contributions to the geography of the area. The drainage method seems not to have had any connection to his scientific expertise.
George Owen was a country squire. Except for carotgraphy, his practical interests and needs had no connection with his antiquarian interests which generated his contributions to geography and geology. Nevertheless he had practical involvement in agricultural improvements, an agricultural instrument, and defense activities.
Pallisy worked as a land surveyor, which I categorize under cartography. However, mathematics was not his scientific forte.
Papin seems like an excellent subject. He improved the air pump. Above all he worked at developing a steam engine and a steam powered ship. What seems especially interesting to me, much of this was done, not directly for the economic system, but under the patronage of the Elector of Hesse. Apparently Papin's letters to Leibniz (and possibly to Huygens) are full of this. Note that one thing he did was to develop a glass industry in Hesse. He is most interesting because almost none of his inventions came to fruition in his own time.
Blaise Pascal was involved in a plan to drain marshes.
Etienne Pascal was called upon to serve on a commission to examine Morin's method of determining longitude.
Peletier was a leading mathematician of the early 16th century. As personal physician to the Marechal de Cosse he was called upon to offer advice on fortification.
Picard, an astronomer, was given the task of surveying the meridian in France. He also helped to correct the coordinates of Franch cities, and he planned the supply of water for the foundtains of Versailles and Marly.
Rauwolf is one of the very few I have found who was specifically employed by a commercial firm to find new products. He was sent to the Near East to look for new plants that might profitably be imported for pharmacological use.
Richer, an astronomer and mathematician, seems automatically to have been involved in cartography and navigation, and he was assigned to duties as a military engineer.
Adam Ries was a skilled mathematician of the early 16th century. His sons reported that he did some surveying for the Elector of Saxony (a patron). I take this sort of activity to have been almost automatic for anyone accomplished in mathematics.
Roemer ended up as a sort of public works minister in Denmark. He laid out street, lighting, water supply, drainage, etc., in a rapidly growing Copenhagen. He reformed weights and measures. Earlier, in France, he built instruments.
Ruini published a book on the anatomy of the horse, its diseases and their treatment. I list this under agriculture.
I list under instrumentation Ruysch's method of preparing anatomical specimens, even though it appears that he kept the method secret. At the very end of his life he apparently passed it on to one man.
Sendivogius is an interesting case. He apparently helped to establish founderies in Silesia and made money from them. I hardly know what to do with this information.
Snel contributed both to navigation and to cartography.
I begin to be impressed by the almost unanimous involvement of Dutch scientists in technological projects--Anthonisz, Metius, Snel, and especially Stevin (apparently an excellent subject--one of the best example of the scientist as technologist I have found), who was involved in practical endeavors on all levels. Much of this (i.e., of the Dutch in general) is cartography/surveying and of course navigation.
Swammerdam developed new, fine, instruments for his dissections of insects, and (though this is not strictly an instrument) new methods (using injections) to prepare and preserve specimens.
I am struck by the number of surveying instruments. Thus Thévenot invented a new levelling device--as did Mariotte and Picard.
Tschirnhaus ran what was virtually an industrial research laboratory in Saxony--perhaps the clearest case I have found of real Baconianism in action.
Tunstall's arithmetics was wholly practical in its intent.
A detail in connection with Vauban raises an issue that has come up before. He wrote a treatise on pig farming, for which I have entered him under the category of agriculture. Whatever the content of the book, this was hardly his area of scientific expertise.
Viviani was one of the scientists with extensive technological involvement, especially, but not exclusively, in hydraulics.
Wren was involved in a broader range of technological activities than anyone else in the catalogue. There are only four of my categories in which he was not involved; I had to expand that field in the dBase file in order to list them all.
Scientific Societies: Many (perhaps most) of the reports contain information about the informal networks in which individual scientists were involved and about their correspondence.
The tight academic-intellectual circle in Denmark that centered on the Bartholins is of great interest. In three successive generations a total of four Bartholins of importance to science held university chairs at Copehagen (and must therefore have enjoyed the patronage of the crown), and apparently other Bartholins, especially the sons and nephews of Thomas, held non-scientific chairs as well. Thomas Bartholin's mother (the wife of Caspar B.) was the daughter of Thomas Finke, and his aunt was married to Ole Worm. Peder Severinus (Soerensen), Longomontanus, Roemer, and Borch were also related to this family circle. Janus, 21 (1916) apparently devoted a fascicle to the Bartholins). See also Meisen, Prominent Danish Scientists, (Copenhagen, 1932)--though it is a rather shallow and disappointing book.
By the time we get into the 18th century, we begin to meet scientists in a large number of societies, such as Johann Bernoulli who was in five, and Boerhaave.
I found a fascinating detail about Cavalieri. Near the end of his life, when he was crippled with arthritis, Stefano degli Angeli (then his student) helped with what was described as the 'fatiguing difficulty' [faticoso disbrigo] of correspondence. Already the network of correspondence was big enough to be, not solely an advantage, but also an annoyance.
Cestoni's extensive contacts by correspondence are interesting. Despite his lack of education and his isolation in a provincial backwater, there was a scientifi community into which he could move. See also Micheli for a similar case.
I am impressed by the evidence, which forced itself on my attention in connection with van Ceulen, of lively exchanges of pamphlets in the Netherlands in the 1580's on mathematical questions--the value of pi, and the calculation of interest. I do not know of an example similar to this buta earlier of the emergence of a nascent community interested in and capable of spirited debate on such matters. Recall the story of Descartes' meeting with Beeckman about 35 years later, and later still the affair between Wassenaer, Descartes, and Stampioen.
The relations of James Logan in Pennsylvania with scientific circles in London is of interest.
Michael Maier had some connection with the circle of alchemists gathered by Moritz of Hesse-Kassel. See the article by Moran on this circle in the Maier bibliography.
Adelmann's Malpighi overflows with detailed references to the network of correspondence, not confined to Italy, of biological scientists in the late 17th century.
There was a circle of botanists in the Jardin du Roi at the time of Nicolas Marchant (1670's). See the Laissus article.
Micheli's extensive correspondence with all of the natural historians of Europe is described and quoted in great detail by Targioni-Tozzetti. Micheli was much like Cestoni--and of the same generation. He also had little formal schooling. But there was a scientific community into which he could move.
Rheticus had a virtual research establishment in Cracow.
Scheuchzer was in the Leopoldina at the same time as Wepfer. Steiger's account is full of information about his extensive correspondence, and about the organizations (or academies) in Zürich in the later 17th century, in which the scientifically interested segment of the population came spontaneously together.
The Swiss physician Wepfer, who was in the Leopoldina, maintained an extensive correspondence with most of the leading physicians of the Germanis area. This if briefly described in Fischer's biography, and there is a published volume of the correspondence.
G. Westfall (Dec.98)