Circulation Of Writings Research Articles

Marginalia, commonplaces, and correspondence: Scribal exchange in early modern science

In recent years, historians of science have increasingly turned their attention to the “print culture” of early modern science. These studies have revealed that printing, as both a technology and a social and economic system, structured the forms and meanings of natural knowledge. Yet in early modern Europe, naturalists, including John Aubrey, John Evelyn, and John Ray, whose work is discussed in this paper, often shared and read scientific texts in manuscript either before or in lieu of printing. Scribal exchange, exemplified in the circulation of writings like commonplace books, marginalia, manuscript treatises, and correspondence, was the primary means by which communities of naturalists constructed scientific knowledge. Print and manuscript were necessary partners. Manuscript fostered close collaboration, and could be circulated relatively cheaply; but, unlike print, it could not reliably secure priority or survival for posterity. Naturalists approached scribal and print communication strategically, choosing the medium that best suited their goals at any given moment. As a result, print and scribal modes of disseminating information, constructing natural knowledge, and organizing communities developed in tandem. Practices typically associated with print culture manifested themselves in scribal texts and exchanges, and vice versa. “Print culture” cannot be hived off from “scribal culture.” Rather, in their daily jottings and exchanges, naturalists inhabited, and produced, one common culture of communication.

The Question of Marie-Antoinette: The Queen and Public Opinion before the Revolution

Did scandalous representations of Marie‐Antoinette help to bring on the Revolution? This old and new question is examined in this article. The number and circulation of writings, talk and imagery before 1789 were less than historians assume. Scandal‐mongering had largely aristocratic origins, and was promoted by money‐hungry writers not always successful. Its range was predominantly in Versailles and Paris, and its resonance among provincials was limited. Public response was ambiguous, not just unquestioned acceptance but also scepticism and criticism, along with praise for the queen. Scandalous diatribes were intricately related to political developments. Beginning in 1787 mounting opposition to royal policies triggered venomous attacks against Marie‐Antoinette which intensified in 1789 and later. Scandal‐mongering against the queen did not undermine the regime, but opposition to Bourbon policy and action fomented scandalous attacks as an arm of combat.