Science and Philosophy in Stuart England: The Royal Society
 |
| Coat of Arms of The Royal Society |
The creation of The Royal Society laid the groundwork for future generations. Formed on November 28, 1660, as a collective unit for shared scientific knowledge by a group of natural philosophers, the group has become the oldest national organization for promoting scientific research in Britain. While the society was officially formed in 1660, it had existed in spirit for decades in the form of regular meetings between members of the ‘scientific’ community. Members would meet and discuss their own discoveries and experimental findings, and the discoveries of other notable natural philosophers of the time, such as Francis Bacon.
Founding members included:
Christopher Wren
Robert Boyle
Bishop John Wilkins
Sir Robert Moray
William Petty
William Brounker
Alexander Bruce
Sir Paul Neile
Jonathan Goddard
William Ball
Abraham Hill,
Lawrence Rooke
William Croune
On July 15, 1662, after petitioning from members of the society, King Charles granted a Royal Charter, with the stipulation that he become a founding member. Once the charter was granted, the society was officially known as The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge. The grant of a charter was significant for several reasons. Firstly, the royal charter provided an institutional structure for the society, with official roles such as president, treasurer, secretaries, and council. Secondly, the society was now receiving royal patronage, though it was officially a voluntary organization, completely separate from the British state. Membership began with only 12 members, though quickly expanded to 228 by 1669.
The official status of the Royal Society eased communication between scientists, not only in Britain but across Europe, as members of the organization (known as ‘fellows’) were able to easily meet and share ideas. This led to the creation of Philosophical Transaction, the oldest continuously published scientific journal in the world. The establishment of the journal led to the peer-review method becoming widespread, and the belief that “knowledge be gained from observation and experiment, rather than from preconceived theories”
Published by: Marcus, Christina, Rachel, Yannick
Excellent post! At present it strikes me as a "no-brainer" to form an organization or society specifically for natural philosophers ("scientists"), especially at a time when early "science" was flourishing within the Scientific Revolution. It makes sense. It's also true, though, that to create such an organization required a degree of commonality in goals for men involved in natural philosophy, and a tolerance for their activities within society at large. The 17th century was a time when there were enough such individuals - like-minded - and increasing tolerance for (even encouragement of) their activities and interests. At last!
ReplyDeleteI see that the members of the Royal Society were all males. I know that during this time Margaret Cavendish published many works addressing political philosophy and the scientific method. She corresponded with Hobbes, Descartes and others as well as contributed to natural philosophy and 'science'. Do you think she would have been admitted to the Royal Society?
ReplyDeleteYes during this time period there were indeed only males in the Royal Society. Margaret Cavendish may have had a large involvement in science and philosophy but given the time period, the nature of the Royal Society required membership. A woman in this society likely would have their work seen as discredited and less valuable in comparison to a mans work. Although the Royal Society would have likely taken her ideas into consideration, it is more likely her works would be stolen from her than she would actually be let into the Royal Society.
DeleteThis is such an interesting topic! I found the link to the Royal Society a useful resource on further educating myself on this, so thank you for including that to the post, it really enhances it. It demonstrates the ideals of the time, with the members being all male, being a male dominant society. Especially since the royal society held such powerful roles in society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteIts fascinating to see that the Royal Society was only founded in 1660. It's such a prominent body in English literature, so omnipresent in discussions of the English Enlightenment Era and colonial exploratory expeditions, it seems like it should've been around for way longer.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that the above list of founding members includes clergy, though there is lots of precedent for the Church (particularly the monastic orders) contributing to the study/pursuit of natural sciences and philosophy. Wouldn't have expected to see a bishop on that list though.
Many of the natural philosophers of the day, such as Robert Boyle or Robert Hooke were also devout Christians. Alongside their scientific papers, they published theological treatises. To Boyle in particular, he thought it was his duty to study God's handiwork by trying to further understand the natural world.
DeleteI think that we in general have a flawed view of the so-called 'Dark Ages', a legacy no doubt from Renaissance writers such as Petrarch. We view the Catholic church as a corrupt institution full of lecherous monks and criminous priests. While the Church in later years began to oppose the new worldviews brought about by the Scientific Revolution; science, medicine and learning have their foundations firmly rooted in the Medieval Catholic world.
DeleteThis is such a great introduction to probably one of the most important scientific organizations that laid the foundation for the evolution of scientific theory alongside a growing proof of the 'illegitimacy' of the bible alone. I remember the Darwin games that Annie hosts, which had the Royal Society as its backdrop. Interestingly, it is fascinating how at this time in the early 17th century, science and religion was quite going hand in hand; from there we have our modern contemporary understanding of science being at odds with religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBTW this is Archie.
Delete