Robert Plot Research Articles

Addendum to ‘Graphs in the 1680s: Martin Lister, Robert Plot, William Molyneux and John Warner’.

Addendum to ‘Graphs in the 1680s: Martin Lister, Robert Plot, William Molyneux and John Warner’.

Graphs in the 1680s: Martin Lister, Robert Plot, William Molyneux and John Warner

In late 1683, the physician and F.R.S. Martin Lister displayed to the Royal Society a new way of recording barometric observations, which amounted in all but name to the construction of line graphs. The innovation was communicated to the Oxford Philosophical Society, where Robert Plot used the method to display a year’s observations, published in the Philosophical Transactions early in 1685. At the Dublin Philosophical Society, William Molyneux displayed a month’s worth of observations kept in the same way during May 1684. Lister’s own engraved forms—what amounted to graph paper—circulated among these groups but are not known to survive; Molyneux had forms of his own engraved. Finally, the London instrument maker John Warner engraved his own version of a similar form for recording weather observations and offered it to Plot. Two exemplars survive, but neither Warner’s offer nor this graphical method itself seem to have been more widely taken up in this period. This paper reviews the evidence for this early interest in and promotion of line graphs and graph paper, a century before the wider uptake of these technologies.

The Old Ashmolean Museum and Oxford’s Seventeenth-Century Chymical Community: A Material Culture Approach To Laboratory Experiments

Towards the end of the seventeenth century, Oxford's chymical community came together in the Ashmolean Museum. Founded in 1683, the institution was part of Oxford University and home to the first official chair of chymistry in the country, with practical teaching directed by Robert Plot in the basement laboratory. The information at our disposal is scarce and Plot did not leave us detailed accounts of his laboratory work. However, a large assemblage of ceramic crucibles and distillation apparatus was recovered from the site where the laboratory once operated, an invaluable material perspective on the experimental agenda of one of the most important chymical laboratories in early modern Europe. The scientific analysis of the materials indicates that the work focused on technological innovation in the fields of glassmaking, specialised pottery, and zinc metallurgy, and shows how the laboratory kept close contact with some renowned artisan-entrepreneurs of the time. We argue that material culture offers an informative perspective on chymical practice in and beyond Oxford. The results provide fresh insight into the Old Ashmolean Museum, an institution that grew out of the Baconian spirit, where doing chymistry meant working at the intersection of artisanal and scholarly worlds.

Sociable Knowledge: Natural History and the Nation in Early Modern Britain. Elizabeth Yale. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. Pp. xii+346.

Sociable Knowledge: Natural History and the Nation in Early Modern Britain. Elizabeth Yale. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. Pp. xii+346. Consider this depiction of “An Antiquary” offered by John Earle (ca.1600–1665), bishop of Salisbury: “A great admirer he is of the rust of old Monuments. … Printed bookes he contemnes, as a novelty of this latter age; but a Manu-script he pores on everlastingly, especially if the cover be all Moth-eaten, and the dust make a Parenthesis between every Syllable.”1 Written before some of the people in the book under review were born, Earle’s caricature catches aspects of their behavior, but only superficially. Men such as Elias Ashmole, John Aubrey, Anthony Wood, Edward Lhuyd, John Evelyn, and Robert Plot cannot be fully captured by the label “antiquary,” in part because their interests embraced natural history, and also because they did not work alone, as Earle implied. They were linked by correspondence in intellectual collaboration, using both manuscript and print.

The Saline Chymistry of Color in Seventeenth Century English Natural History.

Before Newton's seminal work on the spectrum, seventeenth-century English natural philosophers such as Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Nehemliah Grew and Robert Plot attributed the phenomenon of color in the natural world to salts and saline chymistry. They rejected Aristotelian ideas that color was related to the object's hot and cold qualities, positing instead that saline principles governed color and color changes in flora, fauna and minerals. In our study, we also characterize to what extent chymistry was a basic analytical tool for seventeenth-century English natural historians.

The Chymistry of "The Learned Dr Plot" (1640-96).

In the seventeenth century, there were developing norms of openness in the presentation of scientific knowledge that were at odds with traditions of secrecy among chymists, particularly practitioners of chrysopoeia, or the transmutation of metals. This chapter analyzes how Dr. Robert Plot, the first professor of chymistry at Oxford, negotiated these boundaries within an institutional context. I first delineate his chymical and experimental practice, which incorporated procedures from medieval alchemical sources, particularly the Lullian corpus, as well as more novel practices from seventeenth-century chymistry. Then, I analyze how personal and institutional ambitions and economic considerations shaped to what extent Plot negotiated the boundaries between secrecy and the public dissemination of chymical knowledge.

Inside Solomon’s House: An Archaeological Study of the Old Ashmolean Chymical Laboratory in Oxford

This paper is based on the archaeological and analytical study of the laboratory remains from the Officina Chimica of the Old Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. Following a contextualisation of this laboratory, founded in the wake of Bacon’s utopian idea of Solomon’s Temple, it is argued that the assemblage is likely to date from the late seventeenth century and thus be connected to the work of Robert Plot, Christopher White, and, indirectly, Robert Boyle. The analytical study of the equipment reveals that the chymists at the Old Ashmolean obtained crucibles from the best manufacturers in Europe, and that they used these and other utensils for experiments involving mercury, sulphur, zinc, lead glass, manganese, and antimony. The importance of these elements for early modern chymistry is discussed in the light of relevant historical sources, including some of Boyle’s chymical texts. Altogether, these finds illustrate some of the rich diversity of experiments that took place in one of the most prominent laboratories of the period, showing strong connections with longstanding alchemical concerns as well as with cutting-edge research and development ventures.

Piss Profits: Thomas Willis, His Diatribae Duae and the Formation of His Professional Identity

(ProQuest: ... denotes Greek characters omitted (or Cyrillic characters omitted.))(ProQuest: ... denotes strike-through in original text omitted.)The English physician Thomas Willis (1621-75) occupies a curious place in histories of seventeenth-century English science and medicine. As Sedleian Professor of Natural Philosophy and pre-eminent physician of Restoration period, was a prominent figure of intellectual and social landscape. He wrote more than a dozen medical works and his patients included Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of York's family, and Lady Anne Conway. He associated with such renowned philosophers as William Petty, John Wilkins, John Wallis, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke and Christopher Wren, and was a close friend to notable Caroline and Restoration churchmen, including Henry Hammond (a chaplain to Charles I), Samuel Fell (another chaplain to Charles I as well as Dean of Christ Church and Vice-Chancellor of University of Oxford), John Dolben (the Bishop of Rochester and a future Archbishop of York), John Fell (Dean of Christ Church and Bishop of Oxford), and Richard Allestree (Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford and a chaplain to Charles II). By all contemporary accounts, Willis was one of most influential and respected physicians and philosophers of his time. Anthony a Wood noted that he became so noted, and so infinitely resorted to, for his practice, that never any physician before went beyond him, or got more money yearly than he.1 Robert Plot, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford, claimed that his theories were the most universally known, and therefore most likely (in this inquisitive Age) to be truest?Modern authors have been almost as adulatory in their assessment of Willis's significance. Yet despite being proclaimed Harvey of Nervous System almost half a century ago, Willis remains an understudied figure and typically appears in passing in most histories of early modern science and medicine.3 However, a Willisian cottage industry has produced some more detailed studies over years. This body of literature shares two defining characteristics. Firstly, it has focused primarily on his neurological writings. Although some of his other works, such as those on fever and fermentation, have occasionally been studied, others, like his tract on urine, his defence of his convulsive pathology of hysterical passions and hypochondriacal affections, and his massive Pharmaceutice rationalis (1674-5) have not been subject to lengthy or detailed scrutiny. Secondly, it has tended to downplay or ignore completely significance of his non-medical/scientific beliefs and activities. Willis and his works have typically been presented as being somehow detached from such worldly concerns. When historians have included these details within their accounts, they seem intended to do little more than provide some 'colour' to Willis's character. They have rarely considered possibility that religious or political interests informed his natural philosophical theories.4A number of publications stand out as exceptions to these trends. Kenneth Dewhurst's editions of Willis's unpublished works have contributed greatly to our understanding of his life and early career. He provided detailed accounts of Willis's activities as natural philosopher and physician in Commonwealth England, and as Sedleian Professor following Restoration.5 Similarly, Bill Bynum, Robert Martensen, Robert Frank Jr and I have all argued that Willis's religious beliefs fundamentally informed his research on brain and nerves. Bynum's groundbreaking work showed how his anatomical observations were shaped by a set of religious presumptions about hierarchy of perfection in God's creatures.6 Frank Jr described how Willis's attribution of mental and behavioural illnesses to a defect in corporeal animal soul was prompted by his desire to preserve dignity and perfection of immortal rational soul. …

Jack of Hilton and the History of the Hearth-Blower

The resurfacing of a late medieval hearth-blower, first brought to public notice by Robert Plot in 1686 but subsequently seen only infrequently, provides the opportunity for a review of the type. Examples of these anthropomorphic aeolipiles from England, all late medieval in date, are placed in context, both in time – stretching back to the Classical period – and in space. They prove to have been widely distributed in Continental Europe, while related types are known from as far east as the Himalayas. Although latterly limited in application to fanning the flames of a fire, earlier references show an awareness of a range of potential uses in domestic and industrial contexts.

From the rise of the Enlightenment to the beginnings of Romanticism (Robert Plot, Edward Lhwyd and Richard Brookes, MD)

From the rise of the Enlightenment to the beginnings of Romanticism (Robert Plot, Edward Lhwyd and Richard Brookes, MD)

History of Palaeobotany: an Introduction

This volume concentrates on selected historic aspects of palaeobotany that are, perhaps, hard to find elsewhere. In writing historical accounts it is often of much greater value to provide fresh material concerning little known personages and events rather than re-invent the wheel by going over welltrodden paths more expertly tackled in other works. Therefore we have not endeavoured to include all those who have made substantial contributions to the science, so that there are inevitable gaps and omissions. Instead, we hope that the compilation presented in this volume will be of interest to those who wish to explore some of the byways of our palaeobotanical heritage. A full history of 'Palaeobotany' has yet to be written, but we hope that this volume may help to spur such future activity. The history of palaeobotany contains fascinating insights into scientific endeavour. In the past it has been too easily dismissed as the 'Cinderella' of palaeontological studies in which many of the early workers were pursuing personal interests rather than a full-time career. This publication falls into several broad sections with a couple of minor themes occurring throughout. The first two papers serve as an introduction into the early developments of selected aspects of palaeobotany. Wilding briefly examines the work and setting of Robert Plot and Edmund Lhwyd, who laid down foundations for what would eventually become the sciences of Palaeontology and Palaeobotany. Torrens looks at the life and work of the Moravian minister, Reverend Henry Steinhauer, who became a disciple of William Smith's stratigraphic methods. Steinhauer's tragic premature death from consumption in 1818 may have contributed to his subsequent obscurity. Early 19th century developments are covered by Chaloner & Pearson in their accotmt of some of the work of John Lindley. Lindley was a pioneer in the true sense of the word, combining experimental technique with meticulous description. Together with William Hutton, John Lindley published the much-acclaimed Fossil Flora of Great Britain. Aspects of Lindley's pioneering work in palaeobotany remain topics of active research today. Cleal et al. examine the role of 'Illustrations and Illustrators' during the early 19th century. Their accounts of the works by Schlotheim, Sternberg and Brongniart demonstrate the importance of collaboration between taxonomists, artists and illustrators in raising the awareness of the value of palaeobotanical material amongst the larger scientific community.

Peter C . Mancall on Robert Plot's Natural History of Oxford-Shire

Previous articleNext article No AccessGalleryPeter C . Mancall on Robert Plot's Natural History of Oxford-ShirePeter MancallPeter Mancall University of Souther california Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 9, Number 2April 2004 Published for the American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society Views: 1Total views on this site Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/3986089 Views: 1Total views on this site © 2003 American Society for Environmental History and Forest History SocietyPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The earliest discoveries of dinosaurs: the records re-examined

The history of English discoveries of dinosaurs is recounted, from Robert Plot's first illustration of a dinosaur bone in 1677 to the first formal scientific description and naming of a dinosaur genus by William Buckland in 1824. It is shown that the English discoveries were more numerous than recognized hitherto and that they amply predated the first finds in France and North America. Though bones of other dinosaur groups were discovered, the majority of English finds were of carnosaur (probably megalosaur) bones and teeth. It is considered probable that all the various bones and teeth of Megalosaurus , obtained piecemeal from the Stonesfield Slate at Stonesfield, Oxfordshire over 125 years, were the remains of a single individual dinosaur.

Sir Thomas Spencer's Chinese seal

The discovery of an ancient Chinese seal in an Oxfordshire garden three centuries ago still provokes interest. This note examines how the seal came to be published by Dr Robert Plot, and what it might have represented.

In search of Edward Lhuyd

near Oswestry but visited fairly frequently his mother and her family at Gogerddan in north Cardiganshire. He entered Jesus College, Oxford, in 1682 and immediately attracted the attention of Dr Robert Plot, the Professor of Chemistry. He assisted him in his experimental work and later he became his assistant in the Ashmolean Museum. He followed Plot as the Keeper of the Museum in 1691 and until 1693 he

Robert Plot: Britain's 'genial father of county natural histories'

Robert Plot (1640—1696) has deservedly been called the ‘genial father of County Natural Histories in Britain’ for his work in this Field. Like his friend John Aubrey, Plot was interested in promoting useful knowledge, emphasizing how his own work would contribute ‘to the great benefit of Trade, and advantage of the People’. Also like the famous Aubrey he was interested in the supernatural and therefore he included accounts of occult phenomena in his natural histories. His Natural History of Oxfordshire, published after a lengthy period when natural history was still experiencing some difficulty in firmly superseding the chorographic element in the field of regional study, was chiefly responsible for popularizing regional natural history. It was deliberately intended by its author to supplement the ‘Civil and Geographicall Historys’ which up to that time still managed to exert an influence on the field as a whole. These ‘Civil and Geographicall Historys’ were generally called ‘chorographies’ by most of Plot’s fellow virtuosi, a name originally derived from the Classical Greek art of chorography whose purpose, according to Ptolemy, was to treat the geography and history of a relatively small area of the Earth’s surface. This genre was practiced by W illiam Camden, John Leland and other sixteenth and early seventeenth-century men, who adapted it to their own particular purposes. Plot, however, was one of the first ‘regional writers’ to discard many of the methods and interests of the chorographers, preferring rather to scientifically investigate the natural history.

"Hippocephaloides of Dr Plot" Or How One Thing Leads To Another

Dr. Robert Plot (1640 - 1696) is perhaps best known as the first Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford (opened in 1683), although he also served as Professor of Chemistry in the University and as Secretary and Editor to the Royal Society. Since Plot apparently had a reputation for greediness, it is arguably somewhat surprising that he accepted the Ashmolean Keepership; it was, as its second holder, Edward Lhwyd (1660 - 1709), pointed out, "a mean place, seeing that there is no salary" (Vernon and Vernon, 1909, p. 17). However, despite being described by Lhwyd as having "as bad morals as ever M. A. had, " Plot was a man of extensive learning and a prolific publisher. Probably his most famous work is The Natural History of Oxfordshire (1677), which includes accounts of 'formed stones', many of which can easily be recognised as being fossils in the modern sense of the term. Plot, however, was no believer in the organic origin of even these. One of them, recognisable from Plot's illustration as an internal mould of the Upper Jurassic bivalve Myophorella hudlestoni, was described as "the most like to the head of a Horse as anything I can think of " and therefore given the name Hippocephaloides.

The Balliol-Trinity Laboratories, Oxford, 1853 - 1940

THE subject of chemistry was first introduced to Oxford by Robert Boyle, a founder member of the Royal Society, during his residence in the City for a dozen or more years from 1654. In 1659 he brought Peter Sthael of Strasburgh to give lectures and instruction which were attended by senior and junior members of the University. Robert Plot (F.R.S. 1677), was appointed in 1683 to a chair of chemistry and given charge of the (Old) Ashmolean, then just constructed, in the basement of which was a chemical laboratory containing furnaces similar to those of Boyle. Throughout the eighteenth century, however, chemistry shared with other Oxford studies the low academic standards of the period. Interest increased in the early eighteen hundreds, and by the middle of the century, through the influence of a small group headed by Henry Acland (F.R.S. 1847), John Ruskin and Charles Daubeny (F.R.S. 1822) the University was persuaded to accept science as a respectable subject. Acland’s aim was to include some science in all degree courses, but specialization was preferred. An Honour School of Natural Science leading to the degree of B. A. was set up in 1850, and at the same time money was found for the erection of the Science Museum with attached laboratories. Daubeny, in 1848, had moved out of the Ashmolean to a laboratory he built at his own expense in the Physic Garden, and which he left at his death to Magdalen College.

Alchemical Papers of Dr. Robert Plot

DR. ROBERT PLOT (1640-1697) is a fairly important figure in the chemical history of the late seventeenth century. Accounts of his chemical work 1 at Oxford and of his life and scientific work 2 generally have been given by R. T. Gunther. We may recall here Plot's animadversions on chemical matters, contained in his Natural History of Oxfordshire (1677) and his Natural Hist01'Y of Staffordshire (1686), and the fact that he became in 1683 the first Professor of Chemistry in the University of Oxford, where he read the first chemical lectures and was responsible for the fitting out of the elaboratory in the vaults of the Ashmolean Museum. Among the manuscripts left by him, but now lost sight of, was a copy of his lectures, which bore the title Praelectiones Chymicae in Schola Naturalis Historiae Oxon. habitae: Gunther's statement S that samples of these are preserved in MS Rawlinson D 888, at the Bodleian, is incorrect, for this MS contains only the title in a list of Plot's MSS. We have therefore no direct evidence as to how far alchemy entered into Plot's lectures, but from his statement (p. 71) that he had kept his connection with the subject secret, we may infer that it did not. In fact Plot's connection with alchemy long remained unknown to his biographers, for the notice of the manuscript which affords the evidence thereof (Sloane 3646 in the British Museum) appeared in Ayscough's Catalogue of the Manuscripts preserved in the British Museum (London, 1782, p. 491) as I ROB. PLOTT [Professor of Chymist~y, Oxon.] Collection of papers, chiefly chymical', without any reference to alchemy. Gunther consulted this MS, gave some account of it, and quoted two passages (op. elit. note 2, pp. 355-6, 411-3), but failed to point out the alchemical character of its contents or to mention the very interesting papers transcribed on pp. 70-74 below. It may be noted that Gunther commonly omitted to make any mention of the alchemical studies of his subjects, and his work therefore gives a somewhat misleading picture of such men as Fludd, Ashmole and Plot. For this reason it has been thought advisable to give some account of the above MS and to transcribe certain passages.

Alchemical Papers of Dr. Robert Plot

Alchemical Papers of Dr. Robert Plot