The work of Robert Hooke on acoustics and music theory is a larger subject than might seem the case from studies of his career so far available. First, there are his experiments for the Royal Society which can be defined as purely acoustical, which anticipate later experiments performed by men such as J. Sauveur and E. Chladni. Second, there are passages in many of his writings which by extensive use of musical analogy attempt to account for all physical phenomena of (...) the universe, which operates on the principles of ‘harmony’ and ‘dissonance’. It is in this context that the hitherto unpublished manuscript presented at the end of this paper should be considered. This essay, which combines both the older tradition of the ‘praise of music’ and the newer consideration of the physical nature of musical sound, illustrates a particular aspect of Hooke's thought which exercised a profound influence on all his studies. (shrink)

SummaryEdmund Chilmead (1610–54), a little-known scholar and musician, was the author of a possibly unique testimony to the interest among English natural philosophers in the nature of sound and philosophical music theory during the years following the publication of Francis Bacon's Sylva Sylvarum (1626). Chilmead's ‘An Examination … of the Naturall History’ is a manuscript treatise which takes the form of twenty ‘Quaeres’ on the second and third centuries of experiments of the Sylva which are concerned with the nature of (...) sound. In the treatise, Chilmead reveals his familiarity with the developments in the field of musical acoustics made by the French natural philosopher Marin Mersenne (1588–1648) and his circle.The paper falls into two complementary sections. In the first, Feingold gives an account of Chilmead's life and career (which has hitherto never been fully documented) in order to place him in the context of the intellectual and social milieu of Oxford and London during this period. In the second, Gouk discusses the contents of the ‘Examination’ and Chilmead's debt to both Bacon and Mersenne. (shrink)

The last third of the twentieth century was a time of great change within the humanities, as new directions of study and intense interest in methodology challenged traditional approaches in even the most conservative fields and found practical expression in the growth of institutional structures intended to foster innovative and interdisciplinary approaches. One of the results of this academic self‐consciousness was an increased interest in the history of scholarship. Stephen Dyson has attempted to provide a history of classical archaeology as (...) it emerged in the United States, placing individuals and institutions in the context of American culture from the eighteenth century to the present. The aim is a good one, but the book is flawed in conception and execution.Dyson follows a generally chronological organization, at the same time stressing several major themes: academic and para‐academic programs and institutions, professional organizations, the practice of archaeological fieldwork, and museums. Each receives sharp criticism, for the most part based on accusations that the discipline is dominated by the “power brokers” of “the Establishment” , whose “elite private connections” enforce conservative practices and “stiffle [sic] intellectual innovation” .It is not clear for whom the book is intended. The professional audience is already familiar with the criticisms of its institutions and practices and has heard them voiced more convincingly. A subheading like “The Met Hot Pot and the Antiquities Trade” suggests that a more general audience is intended, but if that is so, the nonspecialist reader will be hindered by an insufficient explanation of the scope and aims of the discipline and by the absence of a key to the abbreviations used in the bibliography.Dyson cites some archival materials and has made extensive use of published sources such as diaries, reports, and obituaries. For the most part, however, his treatment seems to derive from secondary syntheses such as encyclopedias, institutional histories, and general accounts of historical periods. This reliance results in sometimes conflicting generalizations. The book lacks the kind of intellectual focus that characterizes, for example, Suzanne Marchand's Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970 .The exclusive focus on the “ruling elite” in the archaeological United States leaves many questions inadequately discussed. For example, the relationship between science and the humanities is a central interest for our time, but the uneasy attempts by archaeologists to make their discipline “scientific” are only alluded to , and the discussion of governmental funding for archaeology by the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities is cast in terms of the machinations of “the ruling elite in the humanities” .Dyson's approval is reserved for the “New Archaeology” of the late 1950s and for academic programs that favor its anthropological approaches and promote new methods in fieldwork instead of emphasizing excavation and the teaching of Greek and Latin . Yet the limitations of survey archaeology are a topic of current discussion; nor does it seem unreasonable that scholars of the classical cultures should be able to read the texts.The book is filled with small errors that cumulatively cast doubt on its reliability. For example: H. F. DeCou was murdered on 11 March 1911 on page 78, but on 10 March on page 79; “Eric Sjoqvist” and “Kurt Weitzman” ; Charles Waldstein “changed his name from Waldstein to Walton” and is inaccurately quoted. (shrink)

(1983). The union of arts and sciences in the eighteenth century: Lorenz Spengler (1720–1807), artistic turner and natural scientist. Annals of Science: Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 411-436.