This essay aims to reappraise Agnes Arber's contribution to the history of science with reference to her work in the history of botany and biology. Both her first and her last books are classics: the former in the history of botany, the latter in that of biology. As such, they are still cited today, albeit with increasing criticism. Her very last book was rejected by Cambridge University Press because it did not meet the publisher's academic standards – we shall return (...) to it in due course. Despite Kathryn Packer's two essays about Arber's life in context, much remains to be done toward a just appreciation of her research. We need such a reappraisal in order to avoid anachronistic criticisms of her contributions to the historiography of botany, or, on the other hand, uncritical applause for her studies in plant morphology. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss Elias Ashmole’s collections and views about John Dee. I consider Dee as an object of collection against the broader background of Ashmole’s collecting practices. I also look at the uses to which Ashmole put some of his collections relating to Dee, as well as those which he envisaged for posterity. I argue that Ashmole’s interest in Dee stemmed from his ideas about the uses of antiquity in the reconstruction and transmission of knowledge. They partly reflected (...) Ashmole’s interpretation of Francis Bacon’s Advancement of learning as well as the influence of William Backhouse and William Oughtred’s ideas about publishing natural philosophy in English. (shrink)