I. Private Knowledge

. . . .

I. Private Knowledge

A. Books of Secrets

B. Esoteric Knowledge

I. PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE.

LET ME TRY TO CONVINCE YOU OF THIS BY TAKING A VERY BRIEF LOOK AS THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE IN TWO VERY DIFFERENT CULTURAL SETTINGS; ANCIENT GREECE AND MEDIEVAL EUROPE.

THE POINT I WISH TO MAKE IS THIS; WE OFTEN AND EASILY REFER TO "ANCIENT" SCIENCE, "MEDIEVAL" SCIENCE, OR "EARLY MODERN" SCIENCE.

BUT WE MUST BE CAREFUL TO NOTE THAT OUR USE OF THE WORD "SCIENCE" IN THESE THREE VERY DIFFERENT CULTURAL CONTEXTS IS CARELESS AND IMPRECISE .

THE DANGER IS THAT WE MAY IMPOSE GREATER HOMOGENEITY AND UNIFORMITY THAN ACTUALLY EXISTED.

WHILE THERE MAY INDEED BE A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE OF CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY LINKING ANCIENT TO MEDIEVAL SCIENCE, THERE WERE GREAT DIFFERENCES AT THE LEVEL OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTS.

LET ME TRY TO ILLUSTRATE THIS BY COMPARING HOW SCIENTIFIC DISCUORSE TOOK PLACE IN ANCIENT GREECE AND IN A MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.

A. ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE.

LAST WEEK WE HAD AS A VISITING SCHOLAR, G.E.R. LLOYD, AN BRITISH CLASSICIST AND HISTORIAN OF SCIENCE.

HE HAS ARGUED, IN HIS LECTURE AND IN PRINT, THAT MUCH OF WHAT ISSPECIAL ABOUT ANCIENT GREEK SCIENCE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE UNIQUE SOCIO-POLITICAL ENVIRNMENT IN WHICH IT DEVELOPED.

WHAT IS TRULY SPECIAL ABOUT GREEK PHILOSOPHY, HE ARGUES,IS THATIT IS OFTEN CONCERNED WITH SECOND-ORDER QUESTIONS; THAT IS WITHQUESTIONS HAVING TO DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE CALLED THE IMAGE OFSCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

IN ORDER WORDS, THE PRESOCRATIC DEBATES ON COSMOLOGY, THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES, AND MUCH OF ARISTOTLE'S WORKS DEALT WITH QUESTIONS LIKE: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW? WHAT IS LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE? AND WHAT ARE ITS SOURCES?.

NOW LLOYD ARGUES, AND I THINK RATHER CONVINCINGLY, THAT CONCERN FOR SUCH SECOND-ORDER QUESTIONS AND THE PARTICULAR FORM PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE TOOK HAD MUCH TO DO WITH THE UNIQUE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAD DEVELOPED IN ANCIENT GREEK CITY-STATES.

AS LLOYD HIMSELF PUTS IT: "TESTING ARGUMENTS, WEIGHING EVIDENCE AND ADJUDICATING BETWEEN OPPOSING POINTS OF VIEW WERE ... A COMMON PART OF THE EXPERIENCE OF A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF ATHENIAN CITIZENS . . . THAT POLITCAL AND LEGAL TESTINGAND SCRUTINY WERE SOMTIMES SEEN AS PARADIGMATIC OF TESTING AND SCRUTINY OF ANY KIND IS SUGGESTED FIRST BY THE LINGUISTIC DATA. . . . GREEK TERMINOLOGY FOR EVIDENCE AND ITS EXAMINATION DRAWS HEAVILY ON WORDS WITH PRIMARY MEANINGS IN THE POLITICALOR LEGAL SPHERE . . . MOREOVER, WE HAVE GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THE PARALLELISMS BETWEEN POLITICAL AND LEGAL DEBATE ON THE ONE HAND, AND PHILOSOPHICAL AND SOPHISTIC DISCUSSIONS ON THE OTHER,WERE EXPLICITLY RECOGNISED BY SOME ANCIENT WRITERS." (MAGIC, REASON AND EXPERIENCE, P. 253).

IN OTHER WORDS, ANCIENT GREEK DEBATES IN COSMOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY SEEM TO HAVE TAKEN ROUGHLY THE SAME FORM AS POLITICAL DEBATES.

ONE SEES NOT ONLY THE USE OF SIMILAR VOCABULARY, BUT ALSO SIMILAR CONCERNS FOR TESTING AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS OF EVIDENCE.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, HOWEVER, PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE WAS INFORMED BY THE ATTITUDES AND GOALS OF A POLITICAL CONTEST; IT WAS VIEWED AS AN AGONISTIC AFFAIR, WITH A NARROWLY-SELECTED AND COMPETENT AUDIENCE ACTING AS JUDGE AND JURY.

THE GOAL OF PHILOSOPHIC DEBATE WAS TO PERSUADE ONE'S AUDIENCEOF THE CORRECTNESS OF ONE'S POSITION AT THE EXPENSE OF ONE'S OPPONENT.

NOW WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THAT A SIMILAR SET OF SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS INFORMED THE SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.

THE MEDIEVAL DISPUTATION, IF YOU RECALL FROM A LECTURE SEVERALWEEKS AGO, WAS ALSO ESSENTIALLY AGONISTIC IN STRUCTURE.

IT WAS AN INTELLECTUAL CONTEST IN WHICH REWARDS WENT TO THE MOST ERUDITE, MOST ARTICULATE, AND MOST DISPUTATIOUS SCHOLAR.

THE PURPOSE OF SCHOLARSHIP WAS NOT SO MUCH TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENT CRITERIA FOR GROUP CONSENSUS, BUT TO STRIVE TO OVERCOME AN OPPONENT IN INTELLECTUAL COMBAT.

NOW IT MAY SEEM THAT THE FEUDAL SOCIETY SURROUNDING THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY HAD LITTLE IN COMMON WITH THE DEMOCRATIC FORUM OF THE ANCIENT GREEK CITY-STATE.

WHILE THIS IS QUITE TRUE, AT THE LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT SIMILARITIES.

IN BOTH CASES, WE SEE AGONISTIC DEBATES TAKING PLACE WITHIN THEELITE CULTURE AND WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONS OF EACH SOCIETY.

THE SAME CONCERN FOR SECOND-ORDER QUESTIONS INFORMS BOTH ANCIENT GREEK AND MEDIEVAL LATIN DEBATES.

AND NEGATIVELY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, NEITHER THE ANCIENT NORTHE MEDIEVAL SETTING PROVIDED AN INSTITUTIONALIZED MEANS OF SETTLING DISPUTES.

THAT IS, THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SCHOLARS WAS SUCH THAT SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE TYPICALLY LED TO FRAGMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY INTO RIVAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.

IN THE ANCIENT WORLD PLATONISTS, ARISTOTELIANS, STOICS, EPICUREANS, AND THE MATHEMATICIANS.

IN THE WORLD OF THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY; THOMISTS, SCOTISTS, AVERROISTS, OCCAMISTS, NOMINALISTS, AND NEO-PLATONISTS.

WHILE PERHAPS AGREEING ON A BROAD RANGE OF BASIC PRESUPPOSITIONS, THESE SCHOOLS NEVERTHELESS HAD NO MEANS OF SETTLING THEIR DEBATES IN A FASHION COMPELLING FOR ALL.

THEY LACKED A MECHANISM FOR ESTABLISHING CONCENSUS.

AND THUS THEIR CONTINUOUS DEBATES PRODUCED EVER-GREATER REFINEMENTS OF EXPRESSION WITHIN THE ARISTOTELIAN FRAMEWORK WITHOUT, HOWEVER, SUCCEEDING IN MAKING A NEW DEPARTURE.

NOW IF WE STEP BACK FROM THE DEBATES AND TRY TO CHARACTERIZE THE VALUES ATTACHED TO THESE FORMS OF DISCOURSE, WE NOTICE THE FOLLOWING.

WHILE OFTEN TAKING THE FORM OF DEBATES AND THUS NECESSARILY "PUBLIC", ANCIENT GREEK AND MEDIEVAL KNOWLDGE WAS NEVERTHELESS ESOTERIC.

IT WAS PRACTICED AMONG AN ELITE AND SITUATED IN ELITE SETTINGS; THE LYCUEM, THE ACADEMY, THE UNIVERSITY.

AND ONLY THOSE WHO HAD UNDERGONE THE REQUISITE TRAINING WERE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE.

AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE WAS FUNDAMENTALLY AGONISTIC, IT TOOKTHE FORM OF AN INTELLECTUAL CONTEST.

SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE WAS CLOSED IN THE SENSE THAT TOPICS OF DEBATE REMAINED CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTICULAR CANON OFTEXTS AND THE METHODS OF EXPOSITION WERE ESSENTIALLY LITERARY.

AND FINALLY, BOTH ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE WAS ESSENTIALLY LIBERAL RATHER THAN MECHANICAL OR UTILITARIAN;THAT IS, IT WAS DIRECTED TOWARD THE DISCUSSION OF THE THEORETICAL AND NOT THE PRACTICAL.

B. BOOKS OF SECRETS.

NOW THE MODE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE FOUND IN MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES DOES NOT LOOK VERY PROMISING AS THE SOURCE OF THE CHANGE FROM PRIVATE TO PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

ALTHOUGH UNIVERSITIES DID CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION, THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS WERE NOT IN THIS WAY.

IF WE LOOK OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITIES AND ESPECIALLY AT THE IMPACT OF THE PRINTING PRESS ON ONE GENRE OF LITERATURE; NAMELYTHE SO-CALLED BOOK OF SECRETS TRADITION, WE FIND MANY OF THE INGREDIENTS FOR CHANGE.

INDEED, BY TRACING THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF SECRETS WE CAN SEE HOW THE PRINTING PRESS HELPED TO ALTER THE WAY CERTAIN SEGMENTS OF THE EDUCATED ELITE BEGAN TO VIEW KNOWLEDGE.

THE TRAIDTION OF BOOKS OF SECRETS EXTENDS BACK INTO THE MIDDLEAGES AND EVEN INTO MEDIEVAL ARABIC CULTURE.

BOOKS BELONGING TO THIS GENRE WERE TYPICALLY "HOW-TO" MANUALS CONTAINING AND, BEFORE THE ADVENT OF PRINTING LIVED UPTO THEIR NAMES AS REPOSITORIES OF SECRET AND ARCANE KNOWLEDGE.

THE MOST FAMOUS "BOOK OF SECRETS" WAS CALLED "SECRETUM SECRETORUM", OR SECRET OF SECRETS, AND IT WAS ATTRIBUTED (FALSELY) TO ARISTOTLE.

IT WAS AN ENCYCLOPEDIC WORK CONTAINING MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION ON ALL SORTS OF SCIENTIFIC AND ARCANE TOPICS.

THE ATTRIBUTION TO ARISTOTLE GAVE IT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE AUTHORITY AND WAS THOUGHT TO REPRESENT HIS DEEPEST AND MOST ESOTERIC WISEDOM.

EVEN THE STYLE OF THE BOOK REINFORCES THIS NOTION OF HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE: THE AUTHOR EXPLAINS THAT "I AM REVEALING MY SECRETSTO YOU FIGURATIVELY, SPEAKING WITH ENIGMATIC EXAMPLES AND SIGNS, BECAUSE I GREATLY FEAR THAT THE PRESENT BOOK MIGHT FALL INTO THE HANDS OF INFIDELS AND ARROGANT POWERS. . . . BECAUSE OF THIS, I EXPOSE THIS SACREMENT TO YOU IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WASREVEALED TO ME, UNDER THE SEAL OF DIVINE JUSTICE. KNOW THEREFORE THAT WHOEVER BETRAYS THESE SECRETS AND REVEALS THESE MYSTERIES TO THE UNWORTHY SHALL NOT BE SAFE FROM THE MISFORTUNE THAT SHALL SOON BEFALL HIM." (EAMON 1985, P. 324).

CLEARLY THE MESSAGE IS ONE OF SECRECY AND PRIVILEGE; ONLY THOSE WHO ARE MORALLY PURE AND HIGH-MINDED ARE ALLOWED INTOTHE INNER SANCTUM OF TRUE KNOWLEDGE.

MOREOVER, THERE IS THE THREAT OF DIVINE JUSTICE FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT LIVE UP TO THESE HIGH MORAL STANDARDS.

KNOWLEDGE IS FOR THE SELECT FEW, NOT THE MANY, AND THOSE SELECT FEW ARE UNDER A MORAL OBLIGATION TO PREVENT THIS KNWOELDGE FROM FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF THE VULGAR AND CORRUPT.

THE IMAGE OF KNOWLEDGE WE OBTAIN FROM THE EARLY BOOK OF SECRETS TRADITION, THEN, IS OF SOMETHING THAT IS THE PROPERTY OF AN UNNAMED ELITE; IT IS KNOWLEDGE ARCANE, ESOTERIC, AND CLOSELYASSOCIATED WITH THE SACRED.

KNOWLEDGE IS BOUND TO AN ETHIC OF SECRECY AND EXPRESSED IN OPAGUE LANGUAGE WHICH SERVES TO PROTECT HIDDEN MEANINGS.

WE OF COURSE FIND THE STRONGEST EXPRESSION OF THIS ATTITUDE TOKNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGE IN ANOTHER LITERARY GENRE, THE ALCHEMICAL TEXT.

THE ESOTERIC LANGUAGE OF ALCHEMY, FULL OF STRANGE TERMS AND SYMBOLS, WAS NEVER SUPPOSED TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

AND IT WAS TO BE COMMUNICATED ONLY BETWEEN THOSE WORTHY OFTHE SECRETS HIDDEN BEHIND THESE SYMBOLS; MOST TYPICALLY BETWEEN THE OLD MASTER AND THE YOUNG DISCIPLE.

AS IN THE BOOK OF SECRETS, BOTH MORAL AND PRACTICAL GROUNDS PREVENTED THE OPEN COMMUNICATION OF CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE.

NOW IT HAS BEEN ARGUED, MOST RECENTLY BY WILLIAM EAMON, THATPRINTING RADICALLY TRANSFORMED THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF SECRETS FROM A TRADITION OF SECRET ARCANE KNOWLEDGE TO ONE AIMED AT THE PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF USEFUL AND PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE.

AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS NEW AVAILABLILTY OF THE "SECRET" KNOWLEDGE HELPED REDIRECT THE ATTITUDES AND GOALS OF ELITE SCIENTISTS.

BY BRINGING FORMERLY ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE TO A WIDER PUBLIC, THE EARLY PRINTERS OF BOOKS OF SECRETS HELPED CREATE AN ETHOS OF PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, AN ETHOS THAT WAS TO PROVE ESSENTIAL TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL IN THE FINAL THIRD OFTHE 17TH CENTURY.

OVER THE COURSE OF THE 16TH CENTURY, THERE WAS A GROWING DEMAND FOR "INEXPENSIVE VERNACULAR LITERATURE ON PRACTICAL SUBJECTS" (EAMON 1984, P. 114).

THE PEOPLE DEMANDING THIS SORT OF LITERATURE WERE MOSTLY BURGHERS, FREE MEN LIVING IN TOWNS AND EMPLOYED AS CRAFTSMEN AND ARTISANS.

THEY SOUGHT OUT BOOKS THAT WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH THE SORTOF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IN THEIR DAILY TASKS.

THEY WERE, IN OTHER WORDS, LOOKING FOR WHAT WE MIGHT CALL BOOKS OF TECHNICAL 'SELF-IMPROVEMENT'; CHEAP, AVAILABLE, EASY TOREAD AND UNDERSTAND, AND FULL OF PRACTICAL INFORMATION.

THE OPERATORS OF THE EARLY PRINTING PRESSES WERE, OF COURSE, ALWAYS ON THE LOOK-OUT FOR NEW MARKETS, AND IMMEDIATELY SET ABOUT MEETING THIS DEMAND.

BEGINNING IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE 16TH CENTURY, PRINTERS BEGAN TURNING OUT HUNDREDS OF MANUALS ON SELF-EDUCATION ANDSELF-IMPROVEMENT; EVERYTHING FROM HOW TO KEEP ACCOUNTS TO SURVEY AND USEFUL METHODS FOR VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD TASKS.

AS EAMON NOTES: MANY OF THESE WORKS WERE "DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO GIVE READERS THE CHANCE TO MASTER CERTAIN CRAFTSKILLS WITHOUT UNDERGOING A FORMAL APPRENTICESHIP OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO IMPROVE WHAT THEY ALREADY KNEW BY INTRODUCING THEM TO NEWER, MORE 'SCIENTIFIC' TECHNIQUES" (EAMON1984, P. 115).

SOON THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR THESE HANDBOOKS WAS THE RECIPE;THE SIMPLE STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION OF HOW TO DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT IS BEING EXPLAINED.

THIS FORMAT NECESSARILY REQUIRED A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND WHOLLY UNAMBIGUOUS LITERARY STYLE.

IN OTHER WORDS, A PREMIUM WAS PLACED ON SIMPLE, CLEAR, EASILY COMPREHENDED PROSE.

OF COURSE AS SOURCE MATERIAL, THE PRINTERS OF SUCH HANDBOOKS FULLY EXPLOITED THE BOOKS OF SECRETS.

THUS MUCH OF THE ESOTERIC KNOWLEDGE THAT HAD BEEN PART OF THE SPECIALIZED CRAFT TRADITIONS (LIKE SMELTERS OR GOLDSMITHS, OR GLASS-MAKING) WAS PUT INTO PRINT IN CHEAP EASY-TO-READ MANUALS FOR ALL TO USE.

THIS MEANT THAT "THE CUMULATIVE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF GENERATIONS OF MEDIEVAL CRAFTSMEN . . . WERE NOW BEING REVEALEDTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC" FOR THE FIRST TIME (EAMON 1984, P. 121).

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT IT WAS THE PRINTER ANDNOT THE CRAFTSMAN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THE PRINTER WAS TYPICALLY BETTER-EDUCATED THAN THE CRAFTSMANAND IT WAS HE WHO WOULD RECOGNIZE THE POTENTIALS OF AN UNTAPPED MARKET.

ALTHOUGH MUCH OF THE KNOWLEDGE CONTAINED IN THESE WORKS MAY HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE WORKSHOP AND GUILD, IT WAS THE PRINTER WHO GATHERED THE INFORMATION, ASSEMBLED THE RECIPES, PRINTED THE PAGES, AND DISTRIBUTED THE COPIES TO THE MARKETS.

AND IT WAS CERTAINLY THE PRINTER WHO PROFITED FROM THE SUCCESSOF THE WELL-RECEIVED HANDBOOK.

NOW THERE ARE MANY LESSONS AND QUALIFICATIONS TO DRAW FROM THE EMERGENCE OF THIS TRADITION OF THE PRINTED BOOK OF SECRETS.

FIRST, BY WAY OF QUALIFICATION, WE MUST NOTE THAT VERY LITTLE CONTAINED IN THESE WORKS CAN BE CONSIDERED OF LASTING SCIENTIFIC VALUE.

AS MERE COLLECTIONS RECIPES AND TRIED AND TRUE TECHNIQUES, THESE WORKS DID NOT OFFER ANY THEORETICAL INSIGHTS OR EVEN SEEKTO ESTABLISH SUCH.

THEY WERE NAIVELY EMPIRICAL AND NARROWLY UTILITARIAN.

SECOND, THE CREATION OF THIS GENRE REPRESENTS SOEMTHING TRULY NEW; THESE ARE NOT SIMPLY THE TYPOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT LITERATURE; PRINTERS ARE HERE CREATING A NEW GENRE OF TECHNICAL LITERATURE.

THIRD, WE SEE CLEARLY A NEW ETHOS OF KNOWLEDGE IN OPERATION;WHAT WAS ESOTERIC, PRIVATE, AND CLOSED HAS NOW BECOME EXOTERIC -- THAT IS OPEN TO ALL-- AND NOW LIABLE TO PUBLIC TRIAL.

THAT IS, THE RECIPES NOT SIMPLY ALLOW FOR, THEY POSITIVELY INVITE,TESTING BY TRIAL.

NOW THIS IS NOT QUITE EXPERIMENTATION IN THE MODERN SENSE OF THE TERM -- OR EVEN IN THE BACONIAN SENSE.

BUT IT DOES REPRESENT AN APPROACH TOWARD KNOWLEDGE THAT IS BOTH MORE OPEN AND QUESTIONING THAN WHAT WE OBSERVED IN THE MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITY.

BY TESTING A PUBLISHED RECIPE THROUGH PERSONAL TRIAL, THERE CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN A NEW WAY OF KNOWING NATURE.

THIS WAS NOT KNOWLEDGE GAINED THROUGH LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CLASSICAL TEXTS.

RATHER, IT WAS KNOWLEDGE GAINED THROUGH EXPERIMENT.

OR, TO BE MORE PRECISE, THROUGH WHAT WE MIGHT CALL SYSTEMATICAND CUMULATIVE EXPERIENCE.

AND WHAT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THIS NEW METHOD BASED ON EXPERIENCE NECESSARILY ENTAILED A NEW IMAGE OF KNOWLEDGE.

THE SOURCES OF LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE WERE NOW BELIEVED -- AT LEAST BY THE EARLY PRINTERS -- TO BE THE COLLECTIVE TECHNICAL EXPERIENCES OF CRAFTSMEN; ITS GOALS TO BE UTILITARIAN AND PRACTICAL; AND ITS MODE OF DISCOURSE OPEN TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

AND FOURTH, THIS APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE EVENTUALLY BECAME PART OF THE ATTITUDES OF SCHOLARS FROM ELITE CULTURE.

BECAUSE THE BOOKS OF SECRETS LITERATURE WAS NOW PRINTED LITERATURE AND READILY AVAILABLE, SCHOLARS FROM ELITE CULTUREWHO WISHED NOW HAD ACCESS TO A WIDE RANGE OF TECHNICAL AND CRAFT EXPERIENCE THAT THERETOFORE HAD NOT BEEN OPEN TO THEM.

AND IN THE LATTER HALF OF THE 16TH CENTURY, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY-TRAINED SCHOLARS WHO BECAME DEEPLY ENGROSSED IN THE LITERATURE OF SECRETS.

TO TAKE JUST ONE EXAMPLE; IN 1582 A SWISS PHYSICIAN NAMED JOHANN WECKER PUBLISHED A COMPENDIUM OF SECRETS CALLED -- NOT SURPRISINGLY -- "DE SECRETIS" (OR, "ON SECRETS").

WECKER'S COLLECTION OF RECIPES WAS CULLED FROM MORE THAN A HUNDRED PREVIOUS AUTHORS OF BOOKS OF SECRETS; HE CLAIMS TO HAVE TESTED BY TRIAL EACH ONE HIMSELF, AND ARRANGED THE BEST OFTHEM IN A MASSIVE WORK BY CATEGORY.

ANOTHER GRAND WORK IN THIS TRADITION, AND PERHAPS THE MOST FAMOUS, WAS ALESSIO PIEMONTESE'S "SECRETI".

IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1555 AND BY THE END OF THE 17TH CENTURYIT HAD APPEARED IN MORE THAN 70 EDITIONS IN EVERY MAJOR EUROPEAN VERNACULAR.

I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT PIEMONTESE'S WORK IN THE NEXT LECTURE.

THE LESSON TO BE DRAWN FROM THE BOOKS OF SECRETS TRADITION IS ITHINK BEST STATED BY WILLIAM EAMON:.

"FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN SCIENCE A GROUP OF INTELLECTUALS SELF-CONSCIOUSLY DEVOTED THEMSELVES TO COMPILING RECIPES, TESTING THEM EXPERIMENTALLY, AND CLASSIFYINGTHEM ACCORDING TO CATEGORIES CHOSEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION" (EAMON 1984, P. 128).

NOW THIS ALL SOUNDS TERRIBLY BACONIAN, SO YOU MIGHT WONDER WHERE BACON IS.

THAT IS, MUCH OF WHAT I HAVE DESCRIBED SOUNDS VERY MUCH LIKE WHAT BACON WAS TO ADVOCATE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 17TH CENTURY; COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO COLLECT, COMPILE, AND COLLATE THE DIVERSE PHENOMENA OF NATURE IN ORDER TO PRODUCE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MANKIND AND ALL.

IF THIS SOUNDS BACONIAN, IT IS.

EXCEPT THAT IT PREDATES FRANCIS BACON BY ONE OR TWO GENERATIONS AND IS ROOTED NOT TO THE LITERARY PROGRAM OF A LORD CHANCELLOR, BUT TO THE ACTUAL PRACTICES OF THE BURGHERS WHOSE KNOWLEDGE WAS BEING PUBLISHED.

IN OTHER WORDS, ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND BACON'S PROGRAM IS TO SEE HIM AS AN ARTICULATE SPOKEMAN FOR A MOVEMENT ALREADY WELL UNDER WAY; AND ONE THAT DID NOT HAVE ITS ORIGINS IN THE IMAGINATION OF AN ENGLIGH GENTLEMAN, BUT IN THE ACTIVITIES AND NEEDS OF BURGHER CULTURE.

II. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.

IN A WORD, WHAT I AM TRYING TO ARGUE IS THAT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS OF EARLY MODERN SCIENCE WAS THE TRANSITION FROM PRIVATE KNOWLEDGE TO PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.