1 Introduction: a New Instrument

Notes

1 Introduction: A New Instrument

1. For more on the links between early modern technology and the rise of modernity see Philip Brey, “Theorizing Modernity and Technology,” in Modernity and Technology, ed. Thomas J. Misa, Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2003), 33–71; Robert Friedel, A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millennium (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 2007), 1–11. 2. Greenblatt himself claims that the “unmooring” of identity that took place during the first decades of the sixteenth century was rooted in “momentous changes in the material world” such as “a sharp population increase, the growth of cities, the first stages of an ‘agrarian revolution,’ the rapid expansion of certain key industries,” and “the realignment of European-wide economic forces.” Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 88. For more on these cultural changes see Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529–1642 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972). My focus in this study is on Europe, but for the sake of comparison it is worth noting that non-European research also tends to emphasize broadly based cultural and sociological factors. Karl Wittfogel has proposed that the rise of individualism took place primarily in “hydraulic societies” or “irrigation civilizations” such as China and Mesopotamia because they needed “[p]owerful, even despotic, systems of government and bureaucracy . . . to plan, implement, and maintain the large-scale irrigational works.” According to this theory, “the idea of the ‘individual’, could only have taken place within the ‘technological polity’ of the hydraulic or irrigation society.” Peter F. Drucker, “The First Technological Revolution and Its Lessons,” in Terry S. Reynolds and Stephen H. Cutcliffe, eds., Technology and the West: A Historical Anthology from Technology and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), 40–41; qtd. in Jonathan Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 55. 3. While I use the terms tool and machine interchangeably in this study, Hegel noted that the machine, unlike the tool, is autonomous or automatic. Heidegger glosses Hegel’s distinction in Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology” in Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 298. Karl Marx and Adam Smith distinguished the simple and relatively innocuous tool of the craftsman from the large and complex machine of the factory. In his Gundrisse of 1857–58 Marx writes that craftsmen animated their 216 Notes

simple tools, while the development of complex machines after the industrial revolution made humans subordinate to machines. Karl Marx, Gundrisse, in Karl Marx, Selected Writings, ed. David McLellan (1977, second edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 408–9; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 72–75. 4. Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (New York: Penguin, 1976), x. 5. For more on the debasement of the mechanical arts see Elizabeth Pittenger, “Explicit Ink,” in Premodern Sexualities, ed. Louis Fradenberg and Carla Freccero (New York and London: Routledge, 1996), 223–42. 6. Pamela H. Smith, The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 7. For more on attitudes toward labor and the mechanical arts in the medieval and early modern periods see Elspeth Whitney, “Paradise Restored: The Mechanical Arts from Antiquity through the Thirteenth Century,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 80 (1990): 1–169; George Ovitt, The Restoration of Perfection: Labor and Technology in Medieval Culture (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Jacques Le Goff, Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); and David Summers, The Judgment of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Jonathan Sawday has recently argued that the machine books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may have been intended to challenge the superiority of the liberal arts over the mechanical arts. While the mechanical arts did not permanently succeed in gaining pride of place, Sawday sees a partial victory for the mechanical arts in the seventeenth-century rise of the mechanical philosophy. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 83–108, 210–16. 7. Gimpel, The Medieval Machine, x. 8. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, ed. G. W. Kitchin (London: J. M. Dent, 1973), 71. 9. Francis Bacon, The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. (London, 1857–74), 4.271; qtd. in Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 109. 10. Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers, eds., Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production (London and New York: Routledge, 1997). 11. Jessica Wolfe, Humanism, Machinery, and Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 15, 6. Her primary interest is in rhetorical theory, and there is ample evidence that rhetoric was viewed as an instrument or set of instruments. Gabriel Harvey wrote that the orator’s “principall Instrumentes ar[e] Rhetorique, for Elocutio[n], and Pronunciation; and Logique, for Invention, Disposition, and Memory.” Harvey’s ideal orator was an “Artificum Artificem,” a Craftsman of Craftsman. Qtd. in Lisa Jardine, “Gabriel Harvey: Exemplary Ramist and Pragmatic Humanist,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et théologiques 70 (1986): 36–48, quote on 43. 12. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, xvii, xviii. 13. Henry Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), vii. 14. Greenblatt, 1–2. 15. Ibid., 2; Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 51. Notes 217

16. Greenblatt, 17. 17. Ibid., 24. 18. Ibid., 139, 16. 19. Ibid., 195. Later he refers to Tamburlaine as “the appetitive machine” (196). 20. Hamlet (2.2.124), in William Shakespeare, The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus (New York: Norton, 1997); Robert Boyle, Some Considerations Touching the Usefulnesse of Experimental Naturall Philosophy (1663), 27–28; Roy Porter, Flesh in the Age of Reason (New York and London: Norton, 2003), 51; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination; Adam Max Cohen, Shakespeare and Technology: Dramatizing Early Modern Technological Revolutions (Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). 21. For more on Donne, Spenser, and Drayton, see Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 168–70. 22. Margreta de Grazia, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass, eds., Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 5. For a useful critique of object studies see James A. Knapp and Jeffrey Pence’s argument in “Between Thing and Theory” Poetics Today 24.4 (Winter 2003), 641–71. 23. De Grazia, Quilligan, and Stallybrass, eds., 1–2, 8. Object studies like this one are indebted to cultural materialism, the Marxist approach to literary and cultural studies founded by Raymond Williams and others in the late 1970s. Curtis Perry has defined cultural materialism as “an approach to cultural analysis that remains alive to the materiality of all kinds of artifacts, explores the socio-economic condi- tions within which they are produced, and examines their participation in other ideological and material fields of culture.” Curtis Perry, ed. Material Culture and Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2001), xi; For Williams’s own definition see Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 5. 24. Carlo Cipolla, Clocks and Culture, 1300–1700 (New York: Norton, 2000), 119; Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977), 135; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, passim. 25. Francis Bacon, The New Organon, ed. Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 33. Cusanus described the mind as a balance or a lens that could discover the secrets of God’s glory. See Charles Trinkhaus, “Protagoras in the Renaissance: An Exploration,” in Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. Edward P. Mahoney (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 201–2; Paula Blank, Shakespeare and the Mismeasure of Renaissance Man (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006), 21. 26. See for example Cipolla, Clocks and Culture, 119; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 70. 27. Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 4. 28. Edward G. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 5. 29. Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology,” 293. 30. Heidegger argues that modern technology is also a revealing, but that “The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging [Herausfordern], which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such” (296). 218 Notes

31. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 129–32. 32. Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age (London: Fontana, 1987), 16, 402; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 142. 33. See Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene (II.xii.77), ed. A. C. Hamilton (London and New York: Longman, 1977), 296; William A. Oram, Einar Bjorvand, Ronald Bond, Thomas H. Cain, Alexander Dunlop, and Richard Schell, eds., The Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1989), 428; qtd. in Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 134. 34. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 143. 35. Lena Cowen Orlin has argued that the related field of needlework and embroi- dery was “an instrument of oppression.” Women who gathered in groups were carefully supervised, with the lady of the house reading aloud from “histories of virtuous women.” Orlin concludes that the combination of the supervised work and the didactic readings “presumably prevented thoughts from wandering or tongues from wagging on inappropriate lines.” Lena Cowen Orlin, “Three Ways to be Invisible in the Renaissance: Sex, Reputation, and Stichery,” in Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, ed. Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 183–203, quotes on 189. 36. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 148–49. For more on links between gender and machinery see his chapter 4, “Women and wheels: gender and the machine in the Renaissance” (125–65). 37. Cynthia Cockburn, “Caught in the Wheels: The High Cost of Being a Female Cog in the Male Machinery of Engineering,” in The Social Shaping of Technology, ed. Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003), 128; qtd. in Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 146–47. 38. In Authorizing Words: Speech, Writing, and Print in the English Renaissance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), Martin Elsky notes that the 1592 court masque contained the “kernel for many ideas that Bacon was to develop later in his philosophical works” (195). For the masque excerpt see The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding et al. (1968 reprint), 8.123–26. 39. For a new English translation of Novum Organum, see Bacon: The New Organon, ed. Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). The passage cited here comes from Book I, aphorism 129. According to Jardine, “To understand the New Organon in the spirit in which it was written, we need to be clear that it is driven by a strong commitment to new technical scientific instruments and the increasing variety of experiments on nature they made possible” (xii). Regarding the three technologies that Bacon selects, Brian Stock notes “all were Chinese and two were known to medieval man.” Brian Stock, “Science, Technology and Economic Progress in the Early Middle Ages,” in Science in the Middle Ages, ed. David C. Lindberg (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 29. 40. Nor was he one of the first to engage in the historiography of postclassical technology. Alex Keller claims to have found the origin of the study of postclassical technological history in a 1450 essay by an Italian humanist. The essay, presented to the papal court, attempted to list all the items invented since the fall of the Roman Empire. For more on this essay see Alex Keller, “A Renaissance Humanist Looks at ‘New’ Inventions: the article ‘horologium’ in Giovanni Tortelli’s De orthographia,” Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 245–64. 41. See Roy S. Wolper, “The Rhetoric of Gunpowder and the Idea of Progress,” Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (1970): 589–98. Wolper’s article focuses on the tensions between printing and the compass on one hand and gunpowder on the other. Notes 219

42. Anthony Grafton, New Worlds, Ancient Texts: The Power of Tradition and the Shock of Discovery (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 63. 43. Girolamo Cardano, De Subtilitate (1522), in Opera Omnia, ed. Spohn, 10 vols. (Lyon, 1663; reprint New York and London: Johnson Reprint, 1967), 3.609. 44. Lynn White, Jr., Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), xiii. The currency of this trinity during the sixteenth century may suggest the beginning of a shift from exclusive faith in divine providence to a hybrid faith in both divine providence and material progress. For more on the topic of secularization see, for example, Natalie Zemon Davis, Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975). In addition to the religious resonance of the secular trinity, it echoes the educa- tional trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. 45. For more on the clock’s symbolic resonances see Gerhard Dohrn-van Rossum, History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 8. 46. Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization (1934; New York: HBJ, 1962), 14–15; Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr, eds., The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1550–1650 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 1980), vii–ix. 47. Robert Hooke, Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon (1665), sig.a2v. 48. Isaac Vossius, De lucis natura et proprietate (Amsterdam, 1662), 102; qtd. in Ruestow, 37. 49. Ruestow, 37. Catherine Wilson has rejected the idea that seventeenth-century modernists broke with classical tradition. She sees them as attempting to improve on Aristotle and other classical authorities, to do what the ancients did but with supe- rior “technologies of reading, writing, and looking” (28). 50. For more on the relationship between techneˉ, technics, and technology, see Lewis Mumford, “Technics and the Nature of Man,” in Technology and Culture: An Anthology, ed. Melvin Kranzberg and William H. Davenport (New York: Shocken Books, 1972), 207. 51. Foucault wrote that technologies of the self constituted one of the four types of technologies. The other three types—each a “matrix of practical reason”—were technologies of production, which permit us to produce, transform, or manipu- late things; technologies of sign systems, which permit us to use signs, meanings, symbols, or signification; and technologies of power, which determine the conduct of individuals and submit them to certain ends or domination, an “objectivising” of the subject. Foucault believed that all four types of technology were associated with domination and that they usually functioned in concert. Michel Foucault, “Technologies of the Self,” in Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, ed. Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), 18. 52. According to the OED the word technology is first employed to mean “A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts” in 1615, but this more abstract sense does not include the tangible objects and mechanical processes associated with technology today. For an analysis of early modern uses of the word technology, particularly its employment in rhetorical and philological contexts, see Wolfe, 3–4. 53. Angelo Poliziano, “Angeli Politiano praelectio: cui titulis Panepistomon,” in Omnia Opera Angeli Politiani (Venice, 1498), Z2v; qtd. in Wolfe, 38. 54. Arnold Pacey, The Culture of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983). 55. Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 129. 220 Notes

56. Ron Westrum, Technology and Society: The Shaping of People and Things (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), 5. 57. Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology,” 294. 58. Ibid., 315. 59. Ibid., 317. 60. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 174; Turner, English Renaissance Stage, passim. 61. George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie (1589), in English Renaissance Literary Criticism, ed. Nancy Vickers (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 201–2. 62. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 271–72. 63. For more on the Nicomachean Ethics in relation to technology see Turner, English Renaissance Stage, 47–48. For more on the inclusion of stage playing among the mechanical sciences see Turner, English Renaissance Stage, 25; and Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot (Cambridge: Polity, 2000), 84. 64. Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 17. 65. For more on Stubbe, see Michael McKeon, Origins of the English Novel, 1600– 1740 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 71. For Campbell’s study of the narrative elements of science writing see Wonder and Science. 66. References to the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of self come from the second edition. 67. I agree with Greenblatt’s claim that Burckhardt viewed individuality “as a largely secular phenomenon, but it now seems clear that both secular and religious impulses contributed to the same psychic structure.” Greenblatt added that the self and the soul were inextricable: “theological self-fashioning—the power of the book over identity—cannot be long separated from secular self-fashioning—the power of sexual and political struggles at court” (42, 116). 68. St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984), 1072, 1075. My discussion of Augustine is drawn from Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 19–20. 69. David Noble, The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention (London: Penguin Books, 1999), 12. 70. Charles Taylor’s philosophical study Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989) is less skittish about foregrounding the spiritual element in studies of subjectivity. He announces early on that he wants to “explore the background picture of our spiritual nature and predicament” (3). 71. Katharine Eisaman Maus has analyzed a host of critics in the first group, including Francis Barker, Catherine Belsey, and Jean Howard. See Katharine Eisaman Maus, Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), esp. 2–3. Among the medievalist skeptics, Lee Patterson has pointed out that “the dialectic between an inward subjectivity and an external world that alienates it from both itself and its divine source provides the fundamen- tal economy of the medieval idea of selfhood,” A. C. Spearing has asserted that “a new focus on the inner landscape or subjectivity of the human being” occurred in England four centuries before Hamlet, and David Aers has suggested that research into the history of the subject must go back at least as far as St. Augustine’s Confessions. See Lee Patterson, “On the Margin: Postmodernism, Ironic History, and Medieval Studies,” Speculum 65 (1990): 99–100; A. C. Spearing, Readings in Medieval Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 12; David Aers, “A Whisper in the Ear of Early Modernists; or, Reflections on Literary Critics Notes 221

Writing the ‘History of the Subject,’ ” in Culture and History 1350–1600: Essays on English Communities, Identities, and Writing, ed. David Aers (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992), 182. For his part Greenblatt admits that selves were not born in the sixteenth century and that there may even have been less individual autonomy during the period because of the “rigid and far-reaching discipline” imposed by “the family, state, and religious institutions” (1). 72. I agree with Bryan Reynolds, who has argued that for the early modern individual the self was “always in-progress and processual.” Bryan Reynolds, Transversal Enterprises in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: Fugitive Explorations (Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 5. He goes on to suggest that his theoretical approach to the early modern period, which he terms “transversal theory,” is predicated on the notion that “subjectivity . . . develops positively through becomings and comings-to-be; this often occurs through the recognition of differences, but not typically or desirably as a consequence of negation” (10). 73. My survey of clockwork discipline ends in the mid-seventeenth century because, as Samuel L. Macey has noted, by then “the constant use of clock analogies eventually tended to give them a certain staleness compared with those employed in the period leading up to and during the horological revolution.” Samuel L. Macey, Clocks and the Cosmos: Time in Western Life and Thought (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1980), 134.

2 The Clockwork Self: Mechanical Clockwork and Early Modern Discipline

1. For more on this petition see Eugène Vial and Claudius Côte, Les Horlogers Lyonnais de 1550 à 1650 (Lyon, 1927). 2. This discussion of early Christian prayer practices is drawn from David Landes, Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 59–67. 3. In Benedict’s table of hours Arno Borst sees the original source of the modern time- table. See Arno Borst, The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer, trans. Andrew Winnard (Cambridge: Polity, 1993), 26. 4. Landes, Revolution in Time, 62. 5. The regimentation of the Cistercian monastery may have tended toward authoritarianism, but individuality was not totally discouraged. Especially among the Cistercians like Bernard de Clairvaux personal transcendence was paramount. The devout Cistercian could liberate himself from the confines of the body and the world by meditating on and being imaginatively ravished by Christ. 6. Lynn White, Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 120. 7. Otto Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery in Early Modern Europe (Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), xviii. 8. In Landes, Revolution in Time, 10. 9. Friars were among those who designed and built timepieces. For more on friars and Jesuits interested in horology during the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries see Enrico Morpugo, Dizionario degli orologiai italiani (Rome, 1957). 10. Early seventeenth-century clocks were better capable of keeping track of religious holidays. One impressive specimen produced in Augsburg in 1600 could show the time of day, age and phases of the moon, days of the week, movement of planets, and sectors for length of day and night. It could also show such religiously significant 222 Notes

temporal highlights as saints’ days, dominical letters, the golden number, the epact (the age of the moon on January 1, used to calculate Easter), and Easter dates for the years 1600–87. Incredibly, all this was accomplished in a case 52 cm in height. See Landes, Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World (1983; revised edition, London and New York: Viking, 2000), 64. While this refer- ence is to the 2000 edition of Landes’s Revolution in Time, all other references are to the 1983 edition unless otherwise noted. See also Jonathan Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 233. 11. Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 5. 12. Carlo Cipolla, Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700 (London: Collins, 1967), 103–4. David Landes has attempted to downplay the psychological impact of these machines during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries: “it was surely too soon to understand the potential of the new device for forming the persona as well as for dictating the terms of life and work” (Landes, Revolution in Time, 81). 13. In Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 32. 14. Ibid. 15. For more on this imagery see Lynn White, Jr., “The Iconography of Temperantia and the Virtuousness of Technology,” in Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe, ed. T.K. Rabb and J.E. Seigel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969). 16. Henry Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 44. 17. Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 175. 18. Edmund Spenser, Faerie Queene, in Norton Anthology of English Literature, seventh edition, 2 vols. (New York: Norton, 2000), 1.625. 19. For more on this etymological linkage, see Gerhard Dohrn-van Rossum, History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 5. 20. See Lynn White, Jr., Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 201–2. 21. White, Medieval Religion and Technology, xix. As Ernst Benz and others have noted, Christian belief in the virtue of technological advance may have a biblical precedent in Genesis, where God the Father shaped man from clay and then com- manded him to help fulfill the divine will by serving as God’s creative assistant. See Ernst Benz, “Fondamenti cristiani della tecnica occidentale,” in Tecnica e casistica, ed. Enrico Castelli (Rome, 1964), 241–63. 22. According to Mayr, chivalry as “a social and cultural movement was then reaching its most refined and formalized stage. Mesure or temperantia was the virtue that defined the perfect knight.” Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 34–35. 23. Thomas More, Utopia, trans. Robert M. Adams (New York: Norton, 1975), 41. 24. R. W. Chambers, Thomas More (London: Jonathan Cape, 1953), 135–37. 25. François Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel, 1.52, in The Complete Works of François Rabelais, trans. Donald M. Frame (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991). Frame notes that Friar John’s “tidy truism recalls and may derive from Socrates, Erasmus, or both” (819). Subsequent references to Gargantua and Pantagruel are cited parenthetically in the text. 26. Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 16–17. 27. Cipolla, Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700, 103. Arno Borst has challenged this claim, asserting that the “revolutionary influence” of clocks and watches has been “overrated by modern scholars” (92). Notes 223

28. Landes, Revolution in Time (2000 edition), 118. 29. Don Antonio de Guevara, The Diall of Princes, trans. Thomas North (1557), sig. biv. 30. Thomas Dekker, The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London (1606), 24–25; qtd. in Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 235, 236. 31. John Webster, The Complete Workes of John Webster, ed. F. L. Lucas, 4 vols. (New York: Chatto and Windus, 1927), 1.120. 32. Christoph Lehmann, Florilegium politicum: Politischer Blumengarten (Lübeck, 1630; Frankfurt, 1662), 693. 33. William Davenant, “Poem, Upon His Sacred Majesties Most Happy Return to His Dominions,” (1660). 34. Thomas Traherne, Selected Poems and Prose, ed. Alan Bradford (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 231; qtd. in Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 244. 35. Landes, Revolution in Time, 72. 36. Ibid., 81. 37. J. Drummond Robertson, The Evolution of Clockwork (London: Cassel, 1931), 53. 38. Ibid., 53. 39. Ibid. 40. F. S. Shears, Froissart: Chronicler and Poet (London: Routledge, 1930), 203. 41. Quotations from Froissart come from Robertson’s translation. In places I have pro- vided the French original in brackets. 42. Froissart’s description compares favorably with some of the earliest technical treatises on the function of various clocks, including Giovanni Dondi’s early treatise (ca. 1364); an early fifteenth-century manuscript by Fusoris depicting the construction of the clock of the cathedral of Bourges; and a late fifteenth-century manuscript in the library at Augsburg by Paulus Alemannus that shows some interesting designs. Six copies of Dondi’s manuscript survive. His clock included elliptical gears to mimic the movements of the moon and Mercury. For more on early treatises on clockwork and some of their classical antecedents see Bertrand Gille, The Renaissance Engineers (London: Percy Lund, Humphries and Company, 1966), 198. 43. Cipolla, Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700, 123. For more on the responsibilities of the horologer see Edouard Gélis, L’Horologerie ancienne (Paris, 1949). 44. For a detailed study of Christine de Pisan’s work, see Marilynn Desmond and Pamela Sheingorn, Myth, Montage, and Visuality in Late Medieval Manuscript Culture: Christine de Pizan’s Epistre Othea (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003); Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 35. De Pisan may have gravitated toward the clock-self analogy in part because her father was an astrologer at the court of King Charles V of France. 45. In Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 35. 46. In Shears, Froissart, 204. 47. In F. J. Britten, Old Clocks and Watches and their Makers, seventh edition (London: E & F. N. Spon, 1956), 18. 48. Lynn White, Jr., has speculated that the idea of the conical axle may have derived from military engineering. Keyeser’s Bellifortis (ca. 1405) shows a conical axle used to help span a crossbow. See White, Jr., Medieval Technology and Social Change, 127–28. Today Jacob Zech of Prague is often credited with devising the fusee around 1525. The stack-freed was an earlier attempt to account for the variable force of the unwinding mainspring. For more on the solutions to the variable force problem see Mayr, Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery, 8; and James Francis Kendal, A History of Watches and Other Timekeepers (London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1892). 49. Some of the first watches were built by Peter Heinlein of Nuremberg around the middle of the sixteenth century. The first Nuremberg watches were referred 224 Notes

to as “Nuremberg eggs” because they were oval in shape. See Ilan Rachum, The Renaissance: An Illustrated Encyclopaedia (London: Octopus Books, 1979), 234, 338. 50. As early as 1488 Lodovico Sforza ordered pendant watches that could be worn around the neck. See White, Medieval Technology and Social Change, 127; and Cipolla, Clocks and Culture: 1300–1700, 49. 51. Britten, Old Clocks and Watches, 88. 52. Landes, Revolution in Time, 89. 53. John Suckling, “Love’s Clock,” in Cavalier Poets: Selected Poems, ed. Thomas Clayton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 235. 54. I am inclined to agree with Jonathan Sawday’s assessment: “We should not, however, take this poem too seriously as a meditation on mechanism . . . . Indeed, the ironic point of the poem is to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion of a clockwork lover, and how entirely irrational the ‘motions’ of love may be.” Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 126. 55. Alberti, I Libri della famiglia, in Landes, 91–92. The Petrarch quote is also drawn from Landes, Revolution in Time, 92. 56. Landes, Revolution in Time, 92. 57. John Davies of Hereford, Respice finem (ca. 1610), in The Complete Works, ed. A.B. Grossart, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1878), 2.45. For more examples of timepieces as memento mori objects see Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 237. 58. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. and ed. Talcott Parsons (London: Allen & Unwin, 1930). 59. Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (1964; reprint Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), 127. 60. Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), 621; Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre- Revolutionary England, second edition (New York: Shocken, 1967), chap. 5; Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 199–200. 61. Bartholomew Newsam held the appointment of clockmaker and dialmaker to Queen Elizabeth ca.1582, and Randolf Bull (fl. 1590–1617) was clockmaker to James I. 62. Christopher Marlowe, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, in Christopher Marlowe, The Complete Plays, ed. J. B. Steane (London: Penguin, 1986), 1.3.90–92. Subsequent references to this edition of the play, which uses the B-text as its basis, are cited parenthetically. 63. Greenblatt comments that the fact that “the moments of intensest time- consciousness all occur at or near the close of [Marlowe’s] plays has the effect of making the heroes seem to struggle against theatrical time” (200). For more on the relationships between chronometric innovation, narrative temporality, and identity formation see Stuart Sherman, Telling Time: Clocks, Diaries, and English Diurnal Form, 1660–1785 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996). 64. References to Shakespeare’s plays are drawn from William Shakespeare, The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition, ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus (New York: Norton, 1997) and cited parenthetically in the text. 65. The Norton editors note that there may also be a pun here between “hours” and “whores,” words that were pronounced similarly at the time. 66. One example of the type of anti-authoritarianism inspired by the clock was a sonnet by the seventeenth-century Italian poet Ciro di Pers, which begins: “The moving engine, with its toothed cogs, tears up the day and divides it into hours [Mobile ordignio di dentate rote / Lacera il giorno e lo divide in ore . . .]” and Notes 225

ends by claiming that the clock “taps by the hour at the tomb to open [ognor pic- chia a la tomba].” For commentary on this poem see John Kerrigan, ed., William Shakespeare, The Sonnets and A Lover’s Complaint (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1999), 35. In Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery Mayr asserts that the English were particularly skeptical regarding clockwork mechanisms after the English Civil War, in part because of their general anti-authoritarianism, but the literary evidence that Mayr marshals for this assertion is not conclusive. 67. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 9. Subsequent references to Leviathan are included parenthetically in the text. 68. Leon Battista Alberti, The Ten Books of Architecture: The 1755 Leoni Edition, trans. James Leoni (New York: Dover, 1986), 124. Animals were also routinely described as engines, clocks, or automata during the early modern period. Robert Hooke, for instance, insisted that God had ordered the “most curious Engines of Insect’s bodies” like “little Automatons.” Hooke, Micrographia, 193. 69. Thomas Hobbes, De Cive, Preface. Boyle agreed that the natural philosopher was like a clockmaker diligently analyzing the components of the clock-like universe: “the world being but, as it were, a great piece of clockwork, the naturalist, as such, is but a mechanician; however the parts of the engine he considers, be some of them much larger, and some of them much minuter, than those of clocks or watches.” See Boyle, The Excellency of Theology Compared with Natural Philosophy (1665). 70. Hobbes reiterates this linkage between dreams and intemperance when he asserts that dreams are caused by some physical distemper: “by the distemper of some of the inward parts of the Body; diverse distempers must needs cause different Dreams” (17). 71. In Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers, eds., Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production (New York: Routledge, 1997), 1. 72. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 245. 73. Ralph Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe (1678), 846–47. 74. Robert Boyle, The Christian Virtuoso (1690), in The Works of Robert Boyle, ed. Thomas Birch, 6 vols. (1772), 5.513. 75. This quotation is drawn from the King James edition of the Bible. 76. Thomas Sprat, History of the Royal-Society of London for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (1667), 112–13. For more on scientists’ uses of metaphors see Peter H. Niebyl, “Science and Metaphor in the Medicine of Restoration England,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 47 (1973): 356–74.

3 Confessions of a Man in Print: Cataloguing Erasmian Literary Ambition

1. Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday claim that Gutenberg’s innovation was the combination of three factors: “a means of moulding the faces of the letters, the press itself, and oil-based inks.” Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday, eds., The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the First Age of Print (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), 1. For more on the debate surrounding the nature of Gutenberg’s innovation see James Moran, Printing Presses: History and Development from the Fifteenth Century to Modern Times (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), 18. For the debate regarding whether Gutenberg, Johann Fust, Coster of Haarlem, or printers in southern France were the first to use movable type, see T. K. Derry and Trevor I. Williams, A Short History of Technology from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1900 (New York: Dover, 1960), 238. 226 Notes

2. Alex Keller, A Theater of Machines (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 51. 3. Quoted in Keller, Theater of Machines, 51. 4. Agostino Ramelli, Diverse and Artificial Machines, (Paris, 1588), 317. For further reading on this remarkable technology see Bert S. Hall, “A Revolving Bookcase by Agostino Ramelli,” Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 389–400; Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977), 59; Leah S. Marcus, “The Silence of the Archive and the Noise of Cyberspace,” in Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 19; Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 111–16. 5. Graham Hollister-Short, “Cranks and Scholars,” in History of Technology, ed. Graham Hollister-Short and Frank A. J. L. James (London: Mansell, 1995), 17.217. 6. Keller, Theater of Machines, 95. 7. See Lisa Jardine and Anthony Grafton, “ ‘Studied for Action’: How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy,” Past and Present 129 (November 1990): 30–78. 8. For the shifts that took place when the scroll gave way to the codex see Roger Chartier, Forms and Meanings: Text, Performances, and Audience from Codex to Computer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 18–20; and Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers, eds., Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production (New York: Routledge, 1997), 3. 9. Masten et al., Language Machines, 13. 10. Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 6–7. 11. See Walter Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London and New York: Routledge, 1982), 115–29. 12. Roger Chartier, The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe, ed. Roger Chartier, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity, 1989), 1. 13. Chartier, Culture of Print, 1. 14. See Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 190. 15. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 79. Today parents and teachers lament that hand-held calculators are stunting the student’s ability to learn arithmetic. This concern was foreshadowed in John Napier’s claim in 1616 that logarithms were invented as artificial aids to assist the “weaknesse of memory.” John Napier, A Description of the Admirable Table of Logarithms, trans. Edward Wright (1616), sig. A4; qtd. in Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 238. 16. Roger Chartier has conceded that it may be impossible to “organize this indistin- guishable plurality of individual acts according to shared regularities.” See Roger Chartier, “Texts, Printing, Readings,” in The New Cultural History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 154–75, esp. 156. 17. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Shocken Books, 1969), 217–51. 18. Stephen Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 80, 86. 19. Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 9; Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe Between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Oxford: Polity, 1994), 62. 20. Ann Moss, Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), v. 21. Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 12–13. 22. Henry Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 67. Notes 227

23. Stephen Johnston “Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England,” Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319–44. 24. Pamela O. Long, “Power, Patronage, and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-how to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age,” Isis 88 (1997): 1–41. 25. Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 8. For more on individual printers and the culture of the printshop more generally see Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 26. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning (1605), ed. G. W. Kitchin (London: J. M. Dent, 1973), 38. 27. Early modern authors like Erasmus, Spenser, and Jonson might have encountered the Icarian myth in Polydore Vergil’s De inventoribus rerum (1499). For a modern English translation see On Discovery (De inventoribus), ed. and trans. Brian P. Copenhaver (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 459. My discussion of the pitfalls of ambition is drawn from Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 20–24. 28. Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 4–5. 29. Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 175. 30. Rhodes and Sawday, Language Machines, 12. 31. Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 23. 32. Ibid., 29. 33. Erasmus, letter 337, lines 12–14, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976). 34. Erasmus, letter 493, lines 114–15, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 4. 35. Erika Rummel, The Erasmus Reader (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 7. 36. Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 129. 37. Qtd. in Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, 189. 38. See Eisenstein, Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 401. Eisenstein learns of this practice from Jean Hoyaux, “Les Moyens d’Existence d’Erasme,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 5 (1944): 7–59. For more on the intersections between textual production and sexuality suggested by Mistress Page’s statement see Jeffrey Masten, Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). 39. Thomas Dekker, Lanthorne and Candle-light (1608), sig. Fv. The plot is depicted from sig. Fv to sig. F2v, and the account concludes with a bit of doggerel in couplets lamenting how “One booke hath seauen-score patrons: thus deseart, / Is cheated of her due: thus Noble art / Giues Ignorance (that common strumpet) place, / Thus the true schollers name growes cheape and base.” For a discussion of cony- catching practices via the medium of print see Alexandra Halasz, The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 115–16. 40. Erasmus, Catalogue, lines 131–35, Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 9. Subsequent references to the Catalogue come from this edition and note line numbers only. 41. J. W. Saunders, “The Stigma of Print,” Essays in Criticism 1.2 (1951): 145. 42. See letter 980, lines 56–58, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 6. 43. E. G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery, Martin Luther (London: Edward Arnold, 1970), 25–26; Rhodes and Sawday, Renaissance Computer, 5–6. 44. Nita Krevans, “Print and the Tudor Poets,” in Reconsidering the Renaissance, ed. Mario A. Di Cesare (Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992), 301–14; quotes on 311–12. 228 Notes

45. Krevans, “Print and the Tudor Poets,” 312–13; and Steven May, “Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical Stigma of Print” Renaissance Papers 10 (1980): 11–18. 46. Erasmus, “Festina Lente,” in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 33, page 10. As the Collected Works do not include line numbers for the adages my references are to page numbers here. 47. Erasmus, Lingua, trans. Elaine Fantham, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 7. As with the adages parenthetical citations refer to page numbers. 48. Margaret Mann Phillips, Erasmus on his Times: A Shortened Version of The Adages of Erasmus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 22, 23. 49. Letter 181, trans. R. A. B. Mynors and D. F. S. Thomson, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), lines 99–101. 50. Erasmus, Compendium vitae, in Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 4, page 410, lines 170–73.

4 Painted Words Put into the Press: The Forms and Functions of Ambition in Spenser’s The Shepheardes Calender

1. David Hill Radcliffe, Edmund Spenser: A Reception History (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1996), vii. 2. Robert Lane, Shepheards Devises: Edmund Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender and the Institutions of Elizabethan Society (Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 1993), 46–47. 3. Edmund Spenser, Faerie Queene (I.i.20), in Spenser, The Faerie Queene, Book 1, ed. P. C. Bayley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 53. 4. Joseph Loewenstein, “Spenser’s Retrography: Two Episodes in Post-Petrarchan Bibliography,” in Spenser’s Life and the Subject of Biography, ed. Judith H. Anderson, Donald Cheney, and David A. Richardson (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996), 100. 5. Ruth S. Luborsky, “The Allusive Presentation of The Shepheardes Calender,” Spenser Studies, 1 (1980): 29. Heninger concedes that Spenser acquiesced in the poem’s formatting, but he denies that he directed it. See S. K. Heninger, Jr., “The Typographical Layout of Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender,” in Word and Visual Imagination: Studies in the Interaction of English Literature and the Visual Arts, ed. Karl Josef Höltge, Peter M. Daly, and Wolfgang Lottes (Erlangen: Univ.- Bibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1988). 6. See Louis A. Montrose, “Spenser’s Domestic Domain: Poetry, Property, and the Early Modern Subject,” in Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture, ed. Margreta de Grazia, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 7. Spenser, Faerie Queene, 39. 8. Richard Neuse, “Milton and Spenser: The Virgilian Triad Revisited,” English Literary History 45 (1978): 611. 9. Harry Berger, “Narrative as Rhetoric in The Faerie Queene,” English Literary Renaissance 21 (1991): 3. 10. See William Nelson, The Poetry of Edmund Spenser: A Study (1963; reprint New York: Columbia University Press, 1965), 32–33. 11. Luborsky, “The Allusive Presentation of The Shepheardes Calender,” 29. 12. Heninger, introduction to The Shepheardes Calender, 1579, ed. S. K. Heninger, Jr. (Delmar, New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 1979), xiii. Notes 229

13. Ibid., sig.¶iii recto. References to the front matter come from Heninger’s edition. 14. This summary of Spenser’s professional career is drawn from Richard Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 7–9. 15. J. W. Saunders, “The Stigma of Print,” Essays in Criticism 1.2 (1951): 141. Steven May has challenged the stigma of print paradigm by suggesting that “It was poetry, not the printing press, which our ancestors viewed with suspicion: the ‘stigma of print’ should give place to the ‘stigma of verse.’ ” See Steven May, “Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical Stigma of Print,” Renaissance Papers 10 (1980): 11–18; Nita Krevans, “Print and the Tudor Poets,” in Reconsidering the Renaissance (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992), 301–14; Phoebe Sheavyn, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age, second edition, revised by J. W. Saunders (Manchester: Manchester University Press 1967). 16. David R. Carlson has shown the ways in which publication, whether in print, in a presentation copy, or in the compilation of miscellaneous manuscripts, was an essential activity for the aspiring humanist in the first three generations of the print revolution. See David R. Carlson, English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475–1525 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993). 17. For more information about Spenser’s family, see Ray Heffner, “Edmund Spenser’s Family,” Huntington Library Quarterly 2 (1938–39): 79–84. 18. Montrose, “Spenser’s Domestic Domain,” 83. 19. Ibid., 84. 20. References to the envoy and the eclogues are drawn from The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser, ed. Francis Child, vol. 4 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1855). 21. Krevans, “Print and the Tudor Poets,” 309. 22. Thomas Nashe, Works, ed. R. B. McKerrow, 5 vols. (London: A. H. Bullen, 1904–10), 1.296, 3.127. 23. Letter 1, page 5. Quotations from the letters come from The Works of Edmund Spenser; A Variorum Edition: The Prose Works, ed. Edwin Greenlaw, Charles Grosvenor Osgood, and Frederick Morgan Pedelford (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1949). 24. Ibid. 25. Calender, sig. iiiv. 26. Ibid. 27. The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser, vol. 4, 261–62. 28. Calender, sig. ¶ iir. 29. Ibid., sig. ¶ iir. 30. Ibid., sig. iiir. 31. Ibid., sig. iiir. 32. Ibid., sig. iiir. 33. Ibid., sig. B iiiv. 34. Ibid., sig. B iiiv. 35. Rambuss, Spenser’s Secret Career, 15. 36. Calender, sig. H 1v. 37. Ibid., sig. K 4v. 38. Patrick Cheney, Spenser’s Famous Flight: A Renaissance Idea of a Literary Career (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993). 39. Spenser may not have held an official position in Leicester’s household in 1579, but he claims in a letter to Harvey that he was a frequent guest at Leicester house, where he enjoyed the company of Dyer, Greville, and Sidney, among others. 40. Cheney, Spenser’s Famous Flight, 33. 230 Notes

41. Variorum, 386. 42. The Cromwell, Wyatt, and Skelton references come from Patricia Thomson, “Wyatt’s Boethian Ballade,” Review of English Studies 15.49 (August 1964): 267n. 1. 43. His professional success in Ireland may also have had something to do with his reluctance to publish in the 1580s. 44. My transcription of the epilogue comes from the 1579 edition, ed. Heninger, sig. N4r.

5 All Works and No Plays: Jonson’s 1616 Folio and the Redefinition of Dramatic Authorship

1. William Drummond, Conversations with Drummond, in Ben Jonson, edited by C. H. Herford, Evelyn Simpson, and Percy Simpson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925–52), 1.136. This edition is hereafter cited as H & S. 2. Edmund Spenser, Shepheardes Calender, in The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser, ed. Francis Child, vol. 4 (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1855). 3. Drummond, Conversations, H & S, 1.132. Subsequent references to Drummond are drawn from this same text. Jonson may have found the “matter” of the Faerie Queene distasteful because of the poem’s anti-Catholic allegory. While serving a prison sentence Jonson converted to Catholicism. 4. James A. Riddell and Stanley Stewart, Jonson’s Spenser: Evidence and Historical Criticism (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1995), 27. 5. Drummond, 143, lines 392–403. 6. Ben Jonson, The Workes of Benjamin Jonson (1616), 1013–14. Subsequent references to the folio are to this edition. 7. One scholar has suggested that the cart may also be an allusion to Jonson’s own history as an actor, which Dekker mocked in Satiro-mastix: “thou has forgot how thou amblest (in a leather pilch) by a play-wagon in the high way, and took’st mad Ieronimoes part, to get service among the Mimickes” (1.13). For more on this interpretation see Sara van den Berg, “Ben Jonson and the Ideology of Authorship,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, ed. Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991), 116. Despite Jonson’s Spenserian flair for autobiography, particularly in his verse, it seems unlikely that Jonson would draw attention to his demeaning past as an actor here given the folio’s overall goal of establishing Jonson’s poetic genius. 8. Folio, 443. 9. This information about Jonson’s contemporaries is drawn from Richard Helgerson, Self-Crowned Laureates: Spenser, Jonson, Milton, and the Literary System (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), 146. The English peerage also held a rather dim view of playwriting, and Jonson was well aware of this. In the 1600 edition of Every Man In His Humour and in his 1601 edition of Cynthia’s Revels he quoted lines 90 and 93 of Juvenal’s Satire VII: “The actor will provide what the nobles are unwilling to give [i.e. money for playtexts]. Yet you should not scorn the poet whom the stage feeds.” This translation comes from W. David Kay, “The Shaping of Ben Jonson’s Career: A Reexamination of Facts and Problems,” Modern Philology 67.3 (February 1970), 223. In the folio Jonson has three epigrams addressed to playwrights: 49, 68, and 100. Epigram 49 criticizes playwrights for their affinity for bawdry, and epigram 100 condemns a fellow playwright for plagiarizing Jonson’s work. Only epigram 68 presents the playwright in a positive light, as a sort of martyr who shows an active brain and sturdy bones to receive his beatings from critics. Notes 231

10. Joseph Loewenstein, The Author’s Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 94. 11. Richard C. Newton, “Jonson and the (Re-)Invention of the Book,” in Classic and Cavalier: Essays on Jonson and the Sons of Ben, ed. Claude J. Summers and Ted- Larry Pebworth (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982), 31–55. 12. Samuel Daniel, The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel, ed. A. B. Grosart, 4 vols. (London: Privately printed, 1885), 3.196. For more on the similarities and differences between Daniel’s Works and Jonson’s Workes, see Joseph Loewenstein, Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 193–94. 13. Folio, 925–26. 14. Henry Turner sees in the conflict that developed between Jonson and Jones “some of the clearest evidence we have for the way in which the fields of literary production and the practical spatial arts were beginning to redefine themselves and seek new principles of legitimization, in part by appealing to principles of design that were explicitly structural and classical in their orientation.” Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 132. 15. Loewenstein, Author’s Due, 82. Loewenstein is interested in showing how Jonson’s “furies and ambitions are intelligible as a personal node in the history of intellectual property” (83). 16. Turner, English Renaissance Stage, 253. See also my Shakespeare and Technology: Dramatizing Early Modern Technological Revolutions (Houndmills, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 2. 17. A. W. Johnson, Ben Jonson: Poetry and Architecture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 10–17; Turner, English Renaissance Stage, 254. Turner claims that in Every Man Out Jonson “borrows methods of reasoning that were typical of the engi- neer or the military strategist . . . and transforms them into a model for representing action on stage,” while in The Alchemist he employs “techniques of representation that derived from the spatial arts” including “geometry, surveying, architecture, and military engineering” (39, 217). 18. H & S, 7.288. Jonson’s mounting reservations about techneˉ become evident a decade and a half later when in the anti-masque to Neptune’s Triumph (1623/4) he describes “the Poet” as “a kind of Christmas Ingine; one, that is used, at least once a yeare, for a trifling instrument, or wit, or so.” H & S, 7.682. 19. H & S, 6.491. 20. For the laureate comment made in 1605 see Sir Thomas Smithes Voiage and Entertainment in Rushia (1605), sig. Kv. Though James may not have conferred upon Jonson the title of poet laureate, the title he did convey plus the pension were the equivalent of laureate status. 21. See van den Berg, “Ben Jonson and the Ideology of Authorship,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, 117. 22. See Richard Helgerson, “Milton Reads the King’s Book: Print, Performance, and the Making of a Bourgeois Idol,” Criticism 29 (1987): 1–25. 23. Newton, “Jonson and the (Re-)Invention of the Book,” 34. 24. Joseph Loewenstein, “The Script in the Marketplace,” Representations 12 (Fall 1985), 101. 25. Loewenstein, The Author’s Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 85. Loewenstein sees Jonson’s entire career as “a constant scramble for vantage, from theater to press, from theater to banqueting house, from banqueting house to press, from quarto to folio—all of which can be described as a constant flight from publicity to privacy” (Jonson and Possessive Authorship, 93). 232 Notes

26. Newton, “Jonson and the (Re-)Invention of the Book,” 44. 27. Folio, 441. 28. See Jennifer Brady, “ ‘Noe fault, but Life’: Jonson’s Folio as Monument and Barrier,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, 193–95. 29. Turner, English Renaissance Stage, 217–18. 30. In H & S, 9.13. 31. The Oxford editors have speculated that the large paper copies may have been produced after the initial print run for use as presentation copies (H & S, 9.17). 32. Johan Gerritsen, “Stansby and Jonson Produce a Folio: A Preliminary Account,” English Studies 40 (1959), 52–55. One possible explanation for the use of multiple presses was that Stansby had his hands and his presses full with work on another monumental volume, Ralegh’s The History of the World (1614), to which Jonson contributed. 33. Thomas Heywood, The Fair Maid of the West (1631), sig. A4. 34. Thomas Heywood, The English Traveller (1633), sig. A3. 35. See Harleian MS 4955 in the British Library for the complete text of Cary’s guarded praise of the folio. The poem has also been reprinted in Ben Jonson, The Critical Heritage, 1599–1798, ed. D. H. Craig (London: Routledge, 1990), 158. 36. Selden’s poem appears on sigs. ¶3v-¶4r of Jonson’s folio. The English translation of Selden’s poem cited here is drawn from Ben Jonson: The Critical Heritage, 1599–1798, 126. 37. Marjorie Swann, Curiosities and Texts: The Culture of Collecting in Early Modern England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 149, 163. 38. Thomas Greene, “Ben Jonson and the Centered Self,” Studies in English Literature 10 (1970): 325–48. 39. Greene, “Ben Jonson and the Centered Self,” 330. 40. H & S, 8.63. 41. Greene, “Ben Jonson and the Centered Self,” 331. 42. Another possible influence may have been Ralegh’s immense The History of the World, published in 1614. According to Drummond, Jonson contributed “a piece . . . of the Punic War” to this volume and a poem entitled, “The Mind of the Frontispiece to a Book,” also known as The Underwood 24. Richard Dutton records that “The printers were eventually so overwhelmed by Raleigh’s monumental work, published in 1614, that they had to delay the printing of Jonson’s folio.” Richard Dutton, Ben Jonson: To the Folio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 11. 43. Drummond, Conversations, lines 284–86. 44. Dutton writes, “It is difficult to know how seriously to take any of this; certainly the quarrels did not preclude Marston and Jonson from collaborating on a play a few years later” (Ben Jonson, 7). 45. My account of the war of the editors is drawn primarily from “Appendix XVII: An Attack upon the Folio,” in H & S, 9.74–84. 46. Bastiaan A. P. van Dam and Cornelis Stoffel, “The Authority of the Ben Jonson Folio of 1616,” Anglia 14 (1903): 377–92. 47. De Vocht, Comments on the Text of Ben Jonson’s Every Man out of his Humour: a research about the comparative value of the quarto and the folio (Louvain, 1937), 116–17. 48. Evelyn Simpson, “The Folio Text of Ben Jonson’s Sejanus,” Anglia 49 (1937): 398–415. 49. Samuel Hieron, All the sermons of Samuel Hieron (1614), sig.¶2; qtd. in Jonathan Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 82. Notes 233

50. See Newton, “Jonson and the (Re-)Invention of the Book.” For more on authorial involvement in the printing process, see Phoebe Sheavyn, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age, second edition, rev. R. W. Saunders (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967), 82; and H. S. Bennett, English Books and Readers 1475–1640, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 3.211–12. 51. H & S, 9.76. 52. H & S, 9.78. 53. H & S, 9.84. 54. In H & S, 9.76. 55. In a recent article on the folio Kevin J. Donovan asserts that the Oxford editors see Jonson’s hand in press corrections that are more likely the work of a com- positor. See Donovan, “Jonson’s Texts of the First Folio,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, 23–37. Overall, though, Donovan concurs with the Oxford editors’ position, as does Joseph Loewenstein, who writes, “Jonson intruded himself on the mechanisms of print publication—revising, annotating, correcting print runs.” Loewenstein, “The Script in the Marketplace,” 108. 56. Sara van den Berg, “Ben Jonson and the Ideology of Authorship.” 57. Horace, Sermones, 1.10.73–74. This translation and the one that follows are drawn from Sara van den Berg, “Ben Jonson and the Ideology of Authorship,” 114–15. 58. Horace, Ars Poetica, 92. 59. For more on the title page see Margery Corbett and R. W. Lightbown, The Comely Frontispiece: The Emblematic Title-Page in England, 1550–1660 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 145–52; and Timothy Murray, Theatrical Legitimation: Allegories of Genius in Seventeenth-Century England and France (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 23–104, esp. 65–76. 60. For more on Jonson’s co-authorship see Anne Barton, Ben Jonson, Dramatist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 9. 61. Joseph Loewenstein has traced Jonson’s masque publications from 1604 forward, noting that Jonson achieved “a propriety in the printed masque text that he had never felt in the printed dramatic text.” This “propriety eventually became the model for his relation to the dramatic and lyric texts of the 1616 folio.” See Joseph Loewenstein, “Printing and ‘The Multitudinous Press’: The Contentious Texts of Jonson’s Masques,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, 182. 62. H & S, 1.143. Richard Dutton notes that the folio is significant both for what it includes and what it leaves out. Dutton asserts that the most ambitious assertion made by the folio is that each facet of Jonson’s career contributed to a single endeavor: the entertainment and education of his age (Ben Jonson, 13). 63. Loewenstein, “The Script in the Marketplace,” 109. 64. Folio, 603. 65. Folio, 179. Jonson had originally dedicated Cynthia’s Revels to Camden, but in the folio he opted to dedicate Every Man In His Humour to Camden instead to honor his inspirational teacher by bestowing upon him the folio’s first fruits. 66. See W. H. Herendeen, “A New Way to Pay Old Debts: Pretexts to the 1616 Folio,” in Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio, 38–63, esp. 54. 67. Folio, 681. 68. It is important not to accept Jonson’s self-presentation uncritically. As Henry Turner has noted, there are often differences between what Jonson’s authorial persona claims he is doing as a playwright and what he actually does. Turner notes that “the structures of his plays do not always conform to the principles articulated by their critical personas, and this inconsistency indicates the enduring gap between theatrical practice and a critical theory of ‘drama’ that was beginning to circulate 234 Notes

during the period, as well as how important the idea of theory was to Jonson in his attempt to fashion a distinct professional identity for himself” (216–17). 69. Herendeen, “A New Way to Pay Old Debts,” 18.

6 The Nimble Gunner and the Versatile Prince: Agility and the Early Modern Military Revolution

1. Francesco Guicciardini, Historie of Guicciardini, trans. Geoffrey Fenton (1618), 87–88; qtd. in Charles Edelman, Shakespeare’s Military Language: A Dictionary (New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone, 2000), 159. The Bourne and Tomkis quotations that follow are also cited in Edelman, 159. 2. Edelman, Shakespeare’s Military Language, 226. 3. Edward Davies, Art of War and England’s Traynings (1619), 2–3. 4. Ibid., 11. 5. Another set of engravings produced by the Dutch military reformers depicted the arrangements of infantry in the field. The desire for confidentiality likely contributed to the fact that these engravings were not published until the 1670s. 6. For more on the influence of the Jacob de Gheyn engravings see Jacob de Gheyn, The Renaissance Drill Book, ed. David J. Blackmore (London: Greenhill Books, 2003), 7–8. 7. Qtd. in Blackmore, 20. This discussion of the impact of the drill book on European military practice is drawn from Blackmore. 8. Thomas Dekker, “The Artillery Garden, A Poem dedicated to the Honor of all those Gentlemen, who (There) practize Military Discipline,” (1616, reprint Oxford: Bodleian, 1952), sig. C3r-v. The central conceit of the poem is that the author, who is in debtors’ prison, needs one or more soldier-patrons to rescue him. 9. Davies, “To the Reader.” 10. Blackmore, 7. 11. Bert S. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 13. 12. Michael Roberts, The Military Revolution 1560–1660 (Belfast: Marjory Boyd, 1956), 10–11. There is not a great deal of written evidence of the “intelligent sub- ordination” of the rank and file, partly because few rank and file soldiers possessed the literary skills or the leisure time required to write military treatises. 13. Vegetius, The foure books of Flauius Vegetius Renatus, briefely contayninge a plaine forme, and perfect knowledge of Martiall policye, feates of Chiualrie, and whatsoeuer pertayneth to warre (1572), sig. 2r. 14. Vegetius, sig C*iir. 15. Machiavelli, The Art of War (Florence, 1521), in Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, trans. Alan Gilbert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 2.587. Subsequent references to The Art of War come from this edition. 16. See J. R. Hale, “War and public opinion in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,” Past and Present 22 (1962): 23. 17. Maurice Keen, Chivalry (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 241. 18. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, 10, 45. Keen agrees that “Chivalrous society indeed found no real difficulty in coming to terms with artillery as such” (241). 19. Keen, Chivalry, 241. 20. For more on the term and its uses, see the essay devoted to it in The Prince, ed. Quentin Skinner and Russell Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Notes 235

21. Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 163. 22. Ibid., 166. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. For his views on the various branches of the military see his Discourses, 168. 26. Hall, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, 159. 27. J. R. Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy (London: English Universities Press, 1961), 1. 28. Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Skinner and Price, 85–87. Subsequent references to The Prince in English translation are drawn from this edition and are cited parenthetically. Where I insert the Italian original the edition consulted is Machiavelli, Il Principe, ed. L. Arthur Bird (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891). 29. Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 24. 30. Machiavelli, The Literary Works of Machiavelli, ed. J. R. Hale (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 128–29. 31. Machiavelli, Discourses, 90. 32. Castiglione, qtd. in Skinner and Price, eds., xv. 33. Machiavelli, Art of War, 570. 34. Ibid., 724–25. 35. This anecdote is described in Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 26–27. 36. See Hale, Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy, 10. 37. Roberts, Military Revolution 1560–1660, 11. 38. Machiavelli also disapproved of the tactics employed by mercenary armies. He claimed they ignored the value of infantry and relied too much on cavalry. He lamented that a mercenary army of 20,000 would contain scarcely 2,000 foot soldiers: “The outcome of their activities is that Italy has become enslaved [schiava] and despised [vituperata]” (The Prince, 47). 39. See Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary (1617), 3.170. 40. Edelman, Shakespeare’s Military Language, 226–27. 41. The Prince, 90. Artillery is noticeably absent from this discussion for two possible reasons: either he meant for it to be considered part of the infantry, or he purpose- fully excluded it because he places little stock in heavy artillery for the reasons noted above.

7 Perspectives on Perspective: The Philosophic Eye and the Prehistory of the Telescope and the Microscope

1. In Kepler’s Optics of 1604 and elsewhere he acknowledged the ability of a glass globe filled with water to bend light rays, but refraction did not receive a comprehensive treatment until 1611. For Kepler’s early observations on refraction see John Lear, Kepler’s Dream (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965), 160. 2. See Edward G. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 32–34. 3. Savile Bradbury, The Evolution of the Microscope (Oxford: Pergamon, 1967), 4. For a detailed study of the history of eyeglasses see Edward Rosen, “The Invention of Eyeglasses,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 11 (1956): 13–306. Huygens has a little “digression on eyeglasses” in his autobiography in part to confirm the superiority of modernity over antiquity, and in part to 236 Notes

introduce his discussion of optics. See J. A. Worp, “Fragment eener Autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens,” in Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het historisch Genootschap 18 (1897): 1–122, esp. 100 ff. 4. Johannes Kepler, Ad Vitellionem, in Gesammelte Werke, ed. Walther van Dyck and Max Caspar, 22 vols. (Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1937–), 2.143. My summary of Kepler’s study of the human eye comes from Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 33–37. 5. Henry Power, Experimental Philosophy (1661), preface 5–6. 6. Athanasius Kircher, Ars magna lucis et umbrae in decem libros digesta (Rome, 1646), 834–35. 7. Janis Cane Bell, “Perspective,” in The Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (London: Macmillan, 1996), 24.485–95. 8. See the OED entry for “perspective glass.” 9. See John North, “Thomas Harriot and the First Telescopic Observations of Sunspots,” in Thomas Harriot, Renaissance Scientist, ed. John W. Shirley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974). 10. See Sir Hugh Plat, Jewell-house of Art and Nature, 2.6, quoted in the OED in the entry for “perspective glass.” 11. Bell, “Perspective,” 485. 12. Ibid. 13. Henry Power, Experimental Philosophy, in Three Books, Containing New Experiments, Microscopical, Mercurial, Magnetical (1664; reprint New York: Johnson Reprint, 1966), preface. 14. See E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion (London: Phaidon, 1960); Pierre Francastel, Peintre et société (Paris, 1965); Erwin Panofsky, Die Perpektive als “symbolische form” (Berlin: Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1927); and S. Y. Edgerton, Jr., The Heritage of Giotto’s Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991). 15. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Alle de brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, 12 vols. to date (Amsterdam, 1939–), 8.70–73, trans. and qtd. in Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 176; John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. Gordon Teskey (New York: Norton, 2005), 11.418. 16. Francis Bacon, The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. (London, 1857–74), 4.55. 17. On Gestalt theory see D. N. Perkins, “The Perceiver as Organizer and Geometer,” in Organization and Representation in Perception, ed. Jacob Beck (Hillsdale, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), 73–93. 18. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 3, 4. 19. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), 54–56. 20. Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 251. 21. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 262–63. 22. For more on what Leeuwenhoek saw and what he imagined see Edward G. Ruestow, “Images and Ideas: Leeuwenhoek’s Perception of the Spermatozoa,” Journal of the History of Biology 16 (1983): 185–224. 23. Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 103. 24. Leeuwenhoek, Alle de brieven, 2.68–71, 88–91, 98–99, 144–45; 5.20–21; 3.396–97, qtd. in Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 180. 25. Nicolas Andry de Boisregard, An Account of the Breeding of Worms in Human Bodies (1701), 189, qtd. in Campbell, Wonder and Science, 194–95. This work was Notes 237

originally published as De la génération des vers dans le corps de l’homme (Paris, 1700). 26. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 109. 27. For a detailed discussion of the early modern idea of proportion and its relationship to concepts of measurement see Paula Blank, Shakespeare and the Mismeasure of Renaissance Man (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006). 28. Alpers, Art of Describing, 17–18. For a comprehensive study of Protagoras’s concept of homo mensura, or man as the measure of all things, see Blank, Shakespeare and the Mismeasure of Renaissance Man, passim. 29. In Worp, “Autobiographie,” 120; qtd. in Alpers, Art of Describing, 18. 30. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 115. In Bruno’s theory of the plurality of worlds Campbell sees what Susan Bordo has described as “the cultural reawakening to the multiplicity of possible human perspectives,” in addition to what Campbell herself calls “the salience of perspective itself, in several senses of the word.” Susan Bordo, Flight to Objectivity: Essays in Cartesianism and Culture (Binghamton: SUNY, 1987), 115; Campbell, Wonder and Science, 114. For more on Bruno’s concep- tion of the universe see Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). 31. Bernard de Fontenelle, Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, trans. H. A. Hargreaves (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 12; qtd. in Wilson, Invisible World, 219. 32. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 2; and Henry Hitchings, Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 127. 33. John Hill, Essays in Natural History and Philosophy (1752), 6. 34. Worp, “Autobiographie,” 18.120; qtd. in Alpers, Art of Describing, 6–7. 35. Vasco Ronchi, New Optics (Florence: Leo S. Olschi, 1971), 23 ff. 36. Alpers, Art of Describing, 32–33. Alpers claims that early modernists understood that what they were seeing through lenses were not unmediated visions of nature but “representations.” Catherine Wilson likewise describes the lens as “an awk- ward and frequently troublesome apparatus that interposed itself between observer and subject matter” (71). 37. Robert Hooke, “Discourse concerning Telescopes and Microscopes,” in Philosophical Experiments and Observations, ed. William Derham (1726; reprint London: Cass, 1967), 257–58. My survey of skepticism regarding refracting tools is drawn from Alpers, Art of Describing, 33; and Wilson, Invisible World, 215–16. 38. Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, The Vanitie and Uncertaintie of the Artes and Sciences (1531, trans. J. Sanford, 1575), 37. 39. Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in Opere, 20 vols. (Florence: Barbera, 1968), 1.366. 40. Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, “The Blazing World” in An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Fiction, ed. Paul Salzman (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 268. 41. Cavendish, 269; Jonathan Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 227–28. Regarding Cavendish’s feminism see Lisa T. Sarahson, “A Science Turned Upside Down: Feminism and the Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish,” Huntington Library Quarterly 47 (1984): 289–307. 42. George Berkeley, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, in The Works of George Berkeley, ed Arthur Aston Luce and Thomas Edmund Jessop, 9 vols. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948–57), 2.245. 238 Notes

43. In Frier Bacon his discovery of the miracles of art, nature, and magick. Faithfully translated out of Dr Dees own copy, By T. M. and never before in English (1659), 20. 44. Roger Bacon, The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, trans. Robert Belle Burke (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928), 2.582. 45. This overview of the surprising perspectival shifts produced by a simple convex lens is drawn from Albert Van Helden, The Invention of the Microscope (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1977), 16–20. 46. Bourne’s “A treatise on the properties and qualities of glasses for optical purposes . . . ” can be found in Rara mathematica, ed. J. O. Halliwell (1839), 32–47. I have silently modernized some of the spelling in these passages. 47. For more on the improvements in glassmaking techniques during the second half of the sixteenth century see R. J. Charleton and L. M. Angus-Butterworth, “Glass,” in A History of Technology, ed. Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Hall, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954–58), 3.216–19. 48. Two strong convex lenses can also produce the telescope’s powerful magnifying effect. For more on the practical and theoretical prerequisites for the invention of refracting technologies see Albert Van Helden, The Invention of the Microscope, 12–16. 49. Dee, Preface, sig. a.iiiiv-sig. bir. 50. Pierre Victor Palma Cayet, Le Mercure François, ou la suitte de l’histoire de la paix. Commençant l’an M.D.C.V. pour suitte du septenaire de D. Cayer [sic], & finissant au sacre du treschrestien roy de France & de Navarre Loys XIII (Paris, 1611), sig. 338v–sig. 339r. 51. Galileo Galilei, cited in The Starry Messenger, ed. and trans. Albert Van Helden (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 7.

8 A New “Perspective Glass”: Telescopic Discoveries of Universal Uniformity

1. Huygens, qtd. in Origin and Development of the Microscope, ed. Alfred N. Disney, Cyril F. Hill, and Wilfred E. Watson (London: Royal Microscopical Society, 1928), 90. 2. Quoted in The Starry Messenger, ed. and trans. Albert Van Helden (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 3–4. My account of the early development and dissemination of the telescope is drawn from Van Helden. 3. It is of course possible that more than one of the competing accounts of the telescope’s invention are correct. Perhaps Zacharias Janssen invented a version of the telescope in 1590 and kept the details of its manufacture secret as long as possible in accordance with the wishes of the Dutch States-General. Hans Janssen or Hans Lippersheim may then have produced newer models in 1608 or 1609 either in response to threats to the Janssen monopoly or because of military or civilian demand. 4. Van Helden, The Starry Messenger, 7. 5. Ibid., vii. 6. Galileo Galilei, The Starry Messenger, ed. Van Helden, 35. Unless otherwise noted subsequent references to The Starry Messenger come from Van Helden’s edition and appear parenthetically in the text. 7. Timothy Reiss suggests in The Discourse of Modernism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982) that in Galileo’s The Starry Messenger we see an example of “modern technological thinking” in which the telescope serves as a key metaphor. For Reiss the telescope is also an intermediary “between the human mind Notes 239

and the material world before it, the object of its attracting gaze” (24). Reiss’s primary interest is in the ways in which Galileo’s The Starry Messenger, William Gilbert’s De magnete (1600), and the execution of Giordano Bruno in 1600 ush- ered in a new and ultimately dominant form of objective proto-scientific discourse. Thus he argues that “Galileo’s telescope marks a total distancing of the mind from the world and the imposition upon that world of a system which belongs to the realm of discourse” (140). 8. Galileo promises at one point to publish “a complete theory of this instrument,” but no such treatise is extant (39). 9. Galileo, qtd. in Stillman Drake, “Galileo’s First Telescopic Observations,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 7 (1976): 158. 10. For more on the challenges associated with the use of the telescope see The Starry Messenger, 14. 11. Qtd. in Marjorie Nicolson, Science and Imagination (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press and London: Oxford University Press, 1956). 12. Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 130–31. 13. See Harold I. Brown, “Galileo on the Telescope and the Eye,” Journal for the History of Ideas 46 (1985): 487–501. 14. Edward G. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 287–88. 15. Horky’s letter has been translated and published in The Starry Messenger, 92–93. 16. Van Helden, The Starry Messenger, 102–13. 17. Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 13 (Munich: Kepler Commission, 1945), 39.241–44. 18. Johannes Kepler, Kepler’s Somnium: The Dream, or posthumous work on Lunar Astronomy, trans. Edward Rosen (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), xviii. 19. Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, vol. 18 (Munich: Kepler Commission, 1959), 386.45–49. The Dream is sometimes erroneously dated to 1608 because that date is mentioned in the work’s initial framing tale, but most scholars agree that the 1609 date is correct. 20. John Lear, Kepler’s Dream: With the Full Text and Notes of Somnium, Sive Astronomia Lunaris, Joannis Kepleri, trans. Patricia Frueh Kirkwood (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965), 66. 21. Classical texts also had a prominent influence on the genesis of Kepler’s Dream. Kepler reports in note 28 that he was inspired to expand the Dream while pondering the following line from Virgil that he had read in Martin Del Rio’s Investigations of Magic: “Incantations can even bring the moon down from the sky.” See Kepler’s Somnium, ed. Rosen, 47–48. Subsequent references to Kepler’s Dream come from Rosen’s edition and are cited parenthetically in the text. 22. Rosen, Kepler’s Somnium, 64 n128. 23. See Marjorie Nicolson, “Kepler, the Somnium and John Donne,” in Roots of Scientific Thought, ed. Philip P. Wiener and Aaron Noland (New York: Basic Books, 1957), 306–27. Nicolson’s speculation regarding the links between Kepler and Donne was based largely on Kepler’s note 8: “If I am not mistaken, the author of that insolent satire called Ignatius, His Conclave, got hold of a copy of this little work of mine; for he stings me by name at the very beginning” (Lear, Kepler’s Dream, 90). In fact Donne was not likely to have read Kepler’s Dream prior to composing his work. 24. Rosen, Kepler’s Somnium, xxiii. 25. See Gérard Simon, Kepler, astronome astrologue (Paris, 1979), 421; and Reiss, chapter 4. 240 Notes

26. Kepler used the word “Daemon” to describe the supernatural being at the center of his tale. He chose that word based on false etymology, believing that the word “daemon” derived from the Greek daiein, meaning “to know” (see Kepler’s notes 34 and 51). In retrospect this choice proved unfortunate as it fueled suspicion that Fiolxhilde and Kepler’s own mother were conjuring and communicating with evil spirits. 27. Timothy Reiss has suggested that commentators on the Dream all wrongly infer that Duracotus himself makes the journey to the moon (150). Reiss overstates the originality of his literary critical insight somewhat, but the point he makes is intriguing because this subtle but significant shift in narrative point of view from the earth-bound Duracotus to the intergalactic Spirit parallels the more jarring perspectival shift from geocentrism to selenocentrism at the heart of the Dream. 28. Marjorie Nicolson, Voyages to the Moon (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 41. 29. See Kepler, Gesammelte Werke (Munich: Kepler Commission, 1959), 18.143. 30. Lear, Kepler’s Dream, 12. 31. Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Vintage Books, 1973). 32. Reiss, 148–49. While Reiss emphasizes the conflict between these two discursive approaches, he concludes his discussion with the suggestion that they are not mutu- ally exclusive (166). 33. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 136. For Campbell’s analysis of the Somnium see also her “Alternative Planet: Kepler’s Somnium (1634) and the New World,” in The Arts of 17th-Century Science (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). 34. William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 5.1.134–35. 35. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 141. 36. Kepler’s imagination seems to tire for a moment here as his narrator notes that Brazil and North America “cannot be likened to anything” (24). 37. The following depictions of lunar life forms and lifestyles are drawn from pp. 27–28 of Rosen’s edition of the Dream. 38. Campbell points out that we hear a great deal about what things look like from the moon before we learn what the moon’s inhabitants themselves look like: “we are identifying vividly with lunarians, or at least seeing through their eyes, well before we know what they look like.” Campbell notes that this also happens routinely in early modern travel narratives (Wonder and Science, 140). 39. Kepler, Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger, ed. Edward Rosen (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1965), 42. 40. Van Helden, The Starry Messenger, 99. For the anthropocentric backtracking in the Conversation see 43–46. 41. See Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

9 “To see a World in a Grain of Sand”: Microscopic Perspectives on Subvisible Wonders

1. In Savile Bradbury, The Evolution of the Microscope (Oxford: Pergamon, 1967), 15. 2. Ibid. 3. Johan Wodderborn, Quatuor problematum quos Martinus Horky . . . (Padua, 1610), 7. 4. Qtd. in Origin and Development of the Microscope, ed. Alfred N. Disney, Cyril F. Hill, and Wilfred E. Watson (London: Royal Microscopical Society, 1928), Notes 241

98–99. Others also give Demisiano credit for having invented the name telescope around 1611 at the request of Prince Cesi. 5. For more on the invention and early history of the microscope see Disney et al., eds., 89–115; and Edward G. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 7. 6. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 157–58. Ruestow adds that Hooke’s interest in the microscope was relatively “sporadic and occasional” after the publication of his Micrographia (158). 7. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 303–4. 8. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, “Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice,” in Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters, ed. Leroy Loemker, second edition (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1969), 566. 9. On the belatedness of microscopic enthusiasm see Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 75; and Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 36. Ruestow points out that microscopy gained momentum in Holland in part because of Cartesian corpuscularism, the presence of a visual culture, ana- tomical theory, and religious theory (chapter 2). For a study of visual experience in the eighteenth-century leisure industry see Barbara Maria Stafford, Artful Science: Enlightenment Entertainment and the Eclipse of Visual Education (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994). 10. Robert Hooke, “Discourse Concerning Telescopes and Microscopes,” in Philosophical Experiments and Observations, ed. William Derham (1726; reprint London: Cass, 1967), 261–62; qtd. in Wilson, Invisible World, 226. 11. Marian Fournier, The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996). Alluding to the work of Shapin and Schaffer on the sociology of science, Catherine Wilson has noted that “The eventual establishment of the microscope as a trustworthy and informative research tool” in the mid-nineteenth century was “not a matter simply of its technology but rather one of its context” (249). 12. Jim Bennett, Michael Cooper, Michael Hunter, and Lisa Jardine, London’s Leonardo: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). 13. Opinions vary on the attribution of the illustrations. Lisa Jardine has suggested that the flea and the louse were drawn by Wren and that Hooke completed the others. See Lisa Jardine, The Curious Life of Robert Hooke: The Man Who Measured London (London: Harper Perennial, 2004). 14. Edward Ruestow has suggested that the book’s impact was not as large as it could have been among the Dutch because they could not understand English (Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 22). For more on the popularity of Micrographia see Elizabeth Spiller, Science, Reading and Renaissance Literature: The Art of Making Knowledge, 1580–1670 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 137; and Michael Hunter, “Hooke the Natural Philosopher,” in London’s Leonardo: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke, ed. Jim Bennett, Michael Cooper, Michael Hunter, and Lisa Jardine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 105–62; esp. 124–31. 15. In Bradbury, Evolution of the Microscope, 40. 16. Sawday writes that “the beautifully crafted microscopes and telescopes that were now available for purchase in seventeenth-century London and Paris, with their ornate scrollwork, veneered carrying cases, and intricate engraving, were clearly fashioned as ostentatious objects to be seen with, as well as with which to see.” Jonathan Sawday, Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise 242 Notes

of the Machine (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 209. For more on the scientific instrument as luxury item see Linda Levy Peck, Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 306–7, 324–25, 339. 17. Samuel Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Henry B. Wheatley, 8 vols. (London: B. Bell and Sons, 1938), 4.202–3. 18. Bradbury, Evolution of the Microscope, 39–40. See also Mary Baine Campbell, who writes in Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), “Although Robert Hooke was not the first natural philosopher to describe what he saw through the microscope, his superbly illustrated Micrographia (1665) was the first published work adequate to its important novelty” (180). 19. Bradbury, Evolution of the Microscope, 39. 20. Wilson, Invisible World, 87. 21. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 17. 22. Wilson, Invisible World, 87. 23. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985), 51. 24. John Harwood, “Rhetoric and Graphics in Micrographia,” in Robert Hooke: New Studies, ed. Michael Hunter and Simon Schaffer (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 1989). 25. Robert Hooke, Micrographia (1665), sig. A2v. Subsequent references to Micrographia appear parenthetically in the text. 26. Francis Bacon, Great Instauration, in The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. (London, 1857–74), 4.30. 27. This is not to suggest that Hooke rejected Baconian reforms altogether. He writes that if the “ascent” to an elevated form of knowledge “be high, difficult and above [the intellect’s] reach, it must have recourse to a novum organum, some new engine and contrivance, some new kind of Algebra, or Analytic Art before it can surmount it” (93). 28. Sawday, Engines of the Imagination, 3. Catherine Wilson counters that Hooke is not “seriously proposing the microscope as a means of secular salvation or release from original sin, but only countering the arguments of religious pessimists who employ skepticism under the guise of piety to depreciate research, and of the genu- inely pious who see nature as forbidden territory” (67). 29. Joseph Glanville, Vanity of Dogmatising (1661), 5. 30. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Alexander Campbell Fraser, 2 vols. (1894, reprint New York: Dover, 1959), 1.403. For an eighteenth- century consideration of the pitfalls of the “microscopic eye” see Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man (1733), in The Poems of Alexander Pope, ed. John Butt (London: Methuen, 1968), 511. 31. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 190. 32. This discussion of the optical challenges faced by early modern microscopists is drawn from Wilson, Invisible World, 80–85. 33. Jan Swammerdam, The Book of Nature, trans. Thomas Flloyd (London, 1758), 1.157; qtd. in Wilson, Invisible World, 221. 34. Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, “Concerning the Animalcula in Semine humano,” Philosophical Transactions 21.255 (1699): 301–8; quote on 306. Eyewitness cor- roboration of his findings was particularly critical for Leeuwenhoek because he refused to divulge his methods. In 1676–77 he brought in witnesses to observe the Notes 243

microorganisms in pepper-water infusions, in 1688 he called in witnesses to confirm the circulation of the blood in tadpoles and other lower animals, and as late as 1711 he complained that he had to show spermatozoa to disbelievers (Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 153–55). 35. Gerald L’E. Turner, “The Microscope as a Technical Frontier in Science,” in Historical Aspects of Microscopy, ed. Savile Bradbury and Gerard L’E. Turner (Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1967), 173–99; Wilson, Invisible World, 223. 36. Hooke also speculates that technologies will be invented to aid the other senses: “And as Glasses have highly promoted our seeing, so ’tis not improbable, but that there may be found many Mechanical Inventions to improve our other Senses, of hearing, smelling, tasting, touching” (b2v). 37. Mary Campbell sees in the organization of Hooke’s treatise the “gradual progress from the repulsively irregular cultural artifact to the desirably lovely work of Nature” (Wonder and Science, 195). 38. Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, in Works of Francis Bacon, ed. Spedding et al. (1877–89), 1:168, 232–35. For more on these hidden schematisms see Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 37; and John Preston, Thought and Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 42. 39. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 182. 40. Wilson, Invisible World, 231. 41. Croll, Basilica chymica, preface. 42. Joseph Glanville, Plus Ultra (1668; reprint, edited by Jackson I. Cope, Gainsville: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1958), 57; in Wilson, Invisible World, 64. 43. Frances Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964), 155. 44. King James version. 45. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles in The Library of Christian Classics, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 1.51–53, 62, 69n. 44; Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 57. Calvin’s view contrasted Luther’s unsympathetic view of so-called ver- min, a category that included butterflies, flies, and bedbugs. Luther believed these creatures were unfortunate byproducts of the Fall. See Jaroslav Pelikan, “Cosmos and Creation: Science and Theology in Reformation Thought,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105.5: 464–69; Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 58. 46. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 302. 47. J. A. Worp, “Fragment eener Autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens,” in Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het historisch Genootschap (Utrecht) 18 (1897): 1–122; 120. Translated in Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 7, 9. 48. Wilson, Invisible World, 176. 49. Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 38. 50. Thomas Moffett’s Theater of Insects was originally written in Latin in 1590, first published in 1634, and reprinted and translated into English by Theodore de Mayherne for publication in Edward Topsell’s The History of Four-Footed Beasts and Serpents (1658). This quotation appears in Topsell’s preface. 51. Hooke’s observation of the fly’s eyes can be found in Micrographia, 175–80. 52. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 187–202. 53. See Alpers, Art of Describing, 201, for a commentary on the general tendency toward self abnegation and the ways in which this moment in Micrographia challenges this trend. 54. Campbell, Wonder and Science, 198. 244 Notes

55. Leeuwenhoek, Alle de Brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, 10 vols. (Ams- terdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1939–79), 10.126; qtd. in Alpers, Art of Describing, 83–84. 56. In his account of his observation of an ant Hooke confesses a preference for vivisection: “for this is the nature of these minute Bodies, that as soon, almost, as ever their life is destroy’d, their parts immediately shrivel, and lose their beauty” (203). 57. Anatomy of Plants, “Epistle dedicatory.” Subsequent references to The Anatomy of Plants will be included parenthetically in the text. Grew concludes his epistle by comparing natural philosophy to a journey of discovery: “In Sum, Your Majesty will find, that we are come ashore into a new World, whereof we see no end.” 58. Wilson, Invisible World, 239–42. 59. Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), 1.182. 60. Alpers, Art of Describing, 51, 59. 61. Catherine Wilson calls Hooke’s images “composites.” See Wilson, Invisible World, 87.

Afterword: Reconsiderations and Prospects

1. Machiavelli, The Art of War (Florence, 1521), in Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, trans. Alan Gilbert (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 608. 2. Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 34. 3. Johannes Kepler, “Preface” in “The Sidereal” of Galileo and a Part of the Preface to Kepler’s “Dioptrice,” trans. E. S. Carlos (London: Rivingtons, 1880); qtd. in Mary Baine Campbell, Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 200–201. 4. Constantijn Huygens, De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens, ed. J. A. Worp, 8 vols. (Groningen: Wolters, 1892–98), 2.236. 5. Jan Swammerdam, Ephemeri Vita (Amsterdam, 1675), 245–46; qtd. in Edward G. Ruestow, The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 119. This confession is ironic con- sidering his earlier claim: “Hence, I now consider to be happy only those who, far from anxiety and ambition [procul a metu & ambitione], live content with their lot and determine their fate themselves.” Jan Swammerdam, Miraculum naturae sive uteri muliebris fabrica (Leiden, 1672), 53, qtd. in Ruestow, Microscope in the Dutch Republic, 123. 6. Michael Roberts, The Military Revolution 1560–1660 (Belfast: Marjory Boyd, 1956), 24–25. 7. Jeffrey Masten, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers, eds., Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production (London: Routledge, 1997), 4; and Margreta de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 32. 8. Jeffrey Masten, “Pressing Subjects: Or, the Secret Lives of Shakespeare’s Compositors,” in Language Machines, ed. Masten, Stallybrass, and Vickers, 75–107, esp. 82, 99. 9. See Joseph Moxon, Mechanick Exercises: Or, the Doctrine of handy-works. Applied to the Art of Printing, 2 vols. (1683), 2.220; qtd. in Masten, “Pressing Subjects,” 95. The negotiation between writer and reader was often difficult. Roland Barthes has noted the distinction between “writerly” texts that require active work on the part of the reader versus “readerly” texts that are already shaped for passive consumption (qtd. in Masten et al., eds., Language Machines, 4–5). Notes 245

10. Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday, introduction to The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the First Age of Print, ed. Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday (New York and London: Routledge, 2000). 11. Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology” in Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), 314–15. 12. Masten, Stallybrass, and Vickers have noted this phenomenon in relation to information technologies: “In naturalizing our own writing, reading, and printing machines, we cease to see how they have shaped, and continue to shape, our cultural practices.” Where they focus on “our cultural practices,” my interest in this study has been to consider how technologies have shaped and continue to shape us as individuals (Language Machines, 5). Bibliography

Aers, David. “A Whisper in the Ear of Early Modernists; or, Reflections on Literary Critics Writing the ‘History of the Subject.’ ” In Culture and History 1350–1600: Essays on English Communities, Identities, and Writing. Edited by David Aers. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992. Alberti, Leon Battista. The Ten Books of Architecture: The 1755 Leoni Edition. Translated by James Leoni. New York: Dover, 1986. Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. St. Augustine. Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. Translated by Henry Bettenson. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1984. Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning. Edited by G. W. Kitchin. London: J. M. Dent, 1973. ———. Francis Bacon: The New Organon. Edited by Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. ———. Great Instauration. In The Works of Francis Bacon. Edited by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath. 14 vols. London, 1857–74. Vol. 4. ———. The Works of Francis Bacon. Edited by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, 14 vols. London, 1857–74; 1877–89. Bacon, Roger. Frier Bacon his discovery of the miracles of art, nature, and magick. Faithfully translated out of Dr Dees own copy, By T. M. and never before in English. 1659. ———. The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon. Translated by Robert Belle Burke. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928. Barton, Anne. Ben Jonson, Dramatist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Bell, Janis Cane. “Perspective.” In The Dictionary of Art. Edited by Jane Turner. London: Macmillan, 1996. Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations. Edited by Hannah Arendt. Translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Shocken Books, 1969. Bennett, H. S. English Books and Readers 1475–1640. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Vol. 3. Bennett, Jim, Michael Cooper, Michael Hunter, and Lisa Jardine. London’s Leonardo: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Benz, Ernst. “Fondamenti cristiani della tecnica occidentale.” In Tecnica e casistica. Edited by Enrico Castelli. Rome, 1964. Berger, Harry. “Narrative as Rhetoric in The Faerie Queene.” English Literary Renaissance 21 (1991): 3. Berkeley, George. Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. In The Works of George Berkeley. Edited by Arthur Aston Luce and Thomas Edmund Jessop. 9 vols. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1948–57. Vol. 2. 248 Bibliography

Blank, Paula. Shakespeare and the Mismeasure of Renaissance Man. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2006. Bordo, Susan. Flight to Objectivity: Essays in Cartesianism and Culture. Binghamton: SUNY, 1987. Borst, Arno. The Ordering of Time: From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer. Translated by Andrew Winnard. Cambridge: Polity, 1993. Bourne, William. “A Treatise on the Properties and Qualities of Glasses for Optical Purposes . . . ” In Rara mathematica. Edited by J. O. Halliwell. 1839. Boyle, Robert. The Christian Virtuoso. 1690. In The Works of Robert Boyle. Edited by Thomas Birch. 6 vols. 1772. ———. The Excellency of Theology Compared with Natural Philosophy. 1665. ———. Some Considerations Touching the Usefulnesse of Experimental Naturall Philosophy. 1663. Bradbury, Savile. The Evolution of the Microscope. Oxford: Pergamon, 1967. Brady, Jennifer. “ ‘Noe fault, but Life’: Jonson’s Folio as Monument and Barrier.” In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio. Edited by Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991. Brey, Philip. “Theorizing Modernity and Technology.” In Modernity and Technology. Edited by Thomas J. Misa, Philip Brey, and Andrew Feenberg. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2003. Britten, F. J. Old Clocks and Watches and Their Makers. Seventh edition. London: E. and F. N. Spon, 1956. Brown, Harold I. “Galileo on the Telescope and the Eye.” Journal for the History of Ideas 46 (1985): 487–501. Burke, Peter. A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot. Cambridge: Polity, 2000. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. In The Library of Christian Classics. 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. Vol. 1. Campbell, Mary Baine. “Alternative Planet: Kepler’s Somnium (1634) and the New World.” In The Arts of 17th-Century Science. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. ———. Wonder and Science: Imagining Worlds in Early Modern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Cardano, Girilamo. De Subtilitate. 1522. In Opera Omnia. Edited by Spohn. 10 vols. Lyon, 1663. Reprint New York and London: Johnson Reprint, 1967. Carlson, David R. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475–1525. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Cavendish, Margaret. “The Blazing World” In An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Fiction. Edited by Paul Salzman. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Cayet, Pierre Victor Palma. Le Mercure François, ou la suitte de l’histoire de la paix. Commençant l’an M.D.C.V. pour suitte du septenaire de D. Cayer[sic], & finissant au sacre du treschrestien roy de France & de Navarre Loys XIII. Paris, 1611. Chambers, R. W. Thomas More. London: Jonathan Cape, 1953. Charleton, R. J. and L. M. Angus-Butterworth. “Glass.” In A History of Technology. 5 vols. Edited by Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954–58. Vol. 3. Chartier, Roger. Forms and Meanings: Text, Performances, and Audience from Codex to Computer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. ———. The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe Between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Oxford: Polity, 1994. Bibliography 249

———. “Texts, Printing, Readings.” In The New Cultural History. Edited by Lynn Hunt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Chartier, Roger, ed. The Culture of Print: Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Cambridge: Polity, 1989. Cheney, Patrick. Spenser’s Famous Flight: A Renaissance Idea of a Literary Career. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Cipolla, Carlo. Clocks and Culture, 1300–1700. London: Collins, 1967. New York: Norton, 2000. Cockburn, Cynthia. “Caught in the Wheels: The High Cost of Being a Female Cog in the Male Machinery of Engineering.” In The Social Shaping of Technology. Edited by Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003. Cohen, Adam Max. Shakespeare and Technology: Dramatizing Early Modern Technological Revolutions. Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Corbett, Margery and R. W. Lightbown. The Comely Frontispiece: The Emblematic Title-Page in England, 1550–1660. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979. Craig, D. H., ed. Ben Jonson: The Critical Heritage, 1599–1798. London: Routledge, 1990. Croll, Oswald. Basilica chymica. 1635. Cudworth, Ralph. The True Intellectual System of the Universe. 1678. Daniel, Samuel. The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Samuel Daniel. 4 vols. Edited by A. B. Grosart. London: Privately printed, 1885. Vol. 3. Davenant, William. “Poem, Upon His Sacred Majesties Most Happy Return to His Dominions.” 1660. Davies, Edward. Art of War and England’s Traynings. 1619. Davies, John. Respice finem. Circa 1610. In The Complete Works. Edited by A. B. Grossart. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1878. Davis, Natalie Zemon. Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975. de Boisregard, Nicolas Andry. An Account of the Breeding of Worms in Human Bodies. 1701. ———. De la génération des vers dans le corps de l’homme. Paris, 1700. de Gheyn, Jacob. The Renaissance Drill Book. Edited by David J. Blackmore. London: Greenhill Books, 2003. de Grazia, Margreta. Shakespeare Verbatim. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. de Grazia, Margreta, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass, eds. Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. de Guevara, Antonio. The Diall of Princes. Translated by Thomas North. 1557. de Vocht, Henry. Comments on the Text of Ben Jonson’s Every Man out of his Humour: a research about the comparative value of the quarto and the folio. Louvain, 1937. Dekker, Thomas. “The Artillery Garden, A Poem dedicated to the Honor of all those Gentlemen, who (There) practize Military Discipline.” 1616. Reprint Oxford: Bodleian, 1952. ———. Lanthorne and Candle-light. 1608. ———. The Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London. 1606. Derry, T. K. and Trevor I. Williams. A Short History of Technology from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1900. New York: Dover, 1960. Desmond, Marilyn and Pamela Sheingorn. Myth, Montage, and Visuality in Late Medieval Manuscript Culture: Christine de Pizan’s Epistre Othea. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003. 250 Bibliography

Dick, Steven J. Plurality of Worlds: The Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Dohrn-van Rossum, Gerhard. History of the Hour: Clocks and Modern Temporal Orders. Translated by Thomas Dunlap. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Donovan, Kevin J. “Jonson’s Texts of the First Folio.” In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio. Edited by Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991. Drake, Stillman. “Galileo’s First Telescopic Observations.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 7 (1976): 158. Drucker, Peter F. “The First Technological Revolution and Its Lessons.” In Technology and the West: A Historical Anthology from Technology and Culture. Edited by Terry S. Reynolds and Stephen H. Cutcliffe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Dutton, Richard. Ben Jonson: To the Folio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Edelman, Charles. Shakespeare’s Military Language: A Dictionary. New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone, 2000. Edgerton, Jr., S. Y. The Heritage of Giotto’s Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Elsky, Martin. Authorizing Words: Speech, Writing, and Print in the English Renaissance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989. Erasmus, Desiderius. Collected Works of Erasmus. Vols 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 33. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974–. Fontenelle, Bernard. Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds. Translated by H. A. Hargreaves. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1977. ———. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books, 1973. ———. “Technologies of the Self.” In Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Edited by Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. Fournier, Marian. The Fabric of Life: Microscopy in the Seventeenth Century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996. Francastel, Pierre. Peintre et société. Paris, 1965. Friedel, Robert. A Culture of Improvement: Technology and the Western Millennium. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press, 2007. Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In Opere. 20 vols. Florence, 1968. Vol. 1. ———. Starry Messenger. Edited and translated by Albert Van Helden. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Gélis, Edouard. L’Horologerie ancienne. Paris, 1949. Gerritsen, Johan. “Stansby and Jonson Produce a Folio: A Preliminary Account.” English Studies 40 (1959): 52–55. Gille, Bertrand. The Renaissance Engineers. London: Percy Lund, Humphries and Company, 1966. Gimpel, Jean. The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages. New York: Penguin Books, 1976. Bibliography 251

Glanville, Joseph. Plus Ultra. 1668. Edited by Jackson I. Cope. Reprint Gainsville, FL: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1958. ———. Vanity of Dogmatising. 1661. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon, 1960. Grafton, Anthony. Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977. ———. New Worlds, Ancient Texts: The Power of Tradition and the Shock of Discovery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Greene, Thomas. “Ben Jonson and the Centered Self.” Studies in English Literature 10 (1970): 325–48. Grew, Nehemiah. The Anatomy of Plants with an Idea of the Philosophical History of Plants and several other lectures read before the Royal Society. 1682. Guicciardini, Francesco. Historie of Guicciardini. Translated by Geoffrey Fenton. 1618. Halasz, Alexandra. The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Hale, J. R. Machiavelli and Renaissance Italy. London: English Universities Press, 1961. ———. “War and Public Opinion in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.” Past and Present 22 (1962): 18–55. Hall, Bert S. “A Revolving Bookcase by Agostino Ramelli.” Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 389–400. ———. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Harwood, John. “Rhetoric and Graphics in Micrographia.” In Robert Hooke: New Studies. Edited by Michael Hunter and Simon Schaffer. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 1989. Heffner, Ray. “Edmund Spenser’s Family.” Huntington Library Quarterly 2 (1938–39): 79–84. Heidegger, Martin. “The Question Concerning Technology.” In Martin Heidegger, Basic Writings. Edited by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper and Row, 1977. Helgerson, Richard. “Milton Reads the King’s Book: Print, Performance, and the Making of a Bourgeois Idol.” Criticism 29 (1987): 1–25. ———. Self-Crowned Laureates: Spenser, Jonson, Milton, and the Literary System. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983. Heninger, Jr., S. K. “The Typographical Layout of Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender.” In Word and Visual Imagination: Studies in the Interaction of English Literature and the Visual Arts. Edited by Karl Josef Höltge, Peter M. Daly, and Wolfgang Lottes. Erlangen: Univ.-Bibliothek Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1988. Herendeen, W. H. “A New Way to Pay Old Debts: Pretexts to the 1616 Folio.” In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio. Edited by Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991. Heywood, Thomas. The English Traveller. 1633. ———. The Fair Maid of the West. 1631. Hieron, Samuel. All the Sermons of Samuel Hieron. 1614. Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England. New York: Shocken, 1964. Second edition New York: Shocken, 1967. Reprint Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986. Hill, John. Essays in Natural History and Philosophy. 1752. Hitchings, Henry. Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. 252 Bibliography

Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. 1642. ———. Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Hollister-Short, Graham. “Cranks and Scholars.” In History of Technology. Edited by Graham Hollister-Short and Frank A. J. L. James. London: Mansell, 1995. Hooke, Robert. “Discourse Concerning Telescopes and Microscopes.” In Philosophical Experiments and Observations. Edited by William Derham. 1726. Reprint London: Cass, 1967. ———. Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon. 1665. Hoyaux Jean. “Les Moyens d’Existence d’Erasme.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 5 (1944): 7–59. Hunter, Michael. “Hooke the Natural Philosopher.” In London’s Leonardo: The Life and Work of Robert Hooke. Edited by Jim Bennett, Michael Cooper, Michael Hunter, and Lisa Jardine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Huygens. Christiaan. Dioptrique. In The Origin and Development of the Microscope. Edited by Alfred N. Disney, Cyril F. Hill, and Wilfred E. Watson. London: Royal Microscopical Society, 1928. Huygens, Constantijn. “Fragment eener Autobiographie van Constantijn Huygens.” Edited by J. A. Worp. In Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het historisch Genootschap 18 (1897): 1–122. ———. De gedichten van Constantijn Huygens. Edited by J. A. Worp. 8 vols. Groningen: Wolters, 1892–98. Vol. 2. Jardine, Lisa. The Curious Life of Robert Hooke: The Man Who Measured London. London: Harper Perennial, 2004. ———. Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. ———. “Gabriel Harvey: Exemplary Ramist and Pragmatic Humanist.” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et théologiques 70 (1986): 36–48. Jardine, Lisa and Anthony Grafton. “ ‘Studied for Action’: How Gabriel Harvey Read His Livy.” Past and Present 129 (November 1990): 30–78. Johnson, A. W. Ben Jonson: Poetry and Architecture. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Johnston, Stephen. “Mathematical Practitioners and Instruments in Elizabethan England.” Annals of Science 48 (1991): 319–44. Jonson, Ben. Ben Jonson. Edited by C. H. Herford, Evelyn Simpson, and Percy Simpson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1925–52. ———. The Workes of Benjamin Jonson. 1616. Kay, David W. “The Shaping of Ben Jonson’s Career: A Reexamination of Facts and Problems.” Modern Philology 67.3 (February 1970): 224–37. Keen, Maurice. Chivalry. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984. Keller, Alex. “A Renaissance Humanist Looks at ‘New’ Inventions: the article ‘horologium’ in Giovanni Tortelli’s De orthographia.” Technology and Culture 11 (1970): 245–64. ———. A Theater of Machines. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Kendal, James Francis. A History of Watches and Other Timekeepers. London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1892. Kepler, Johannes. Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger. Edited by Edward Rosen. New York: Johnson Reprint, 1965. ———. Gesammelte Werke. Munich: Kepler Commission, 1938–. Vols. 13 and 18. ———. Kepler’s Dream: With the Full Text and Notes of Somnium, Sive Astronomia Lunaris, Joannis Kepleri. Edited by John Lear. Translated by Patricia Frueh Kirkwood. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965. Bibliography 253

———. Kepler’s Somnium: The Dream, or Posthumous Work on Lunar Astronomy. Translated and edited by Edward Rosen. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967. ———. “The Sidereal” of Galileo and a part of the preface to Kepler’s “Dioptrice.” Translated by E. S. Carlos. 1880. ———. Ad Vitellionem. In Gesammelte Werke. Edited by Walther van Dyck and Max Caspar. 22 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1937–. Vol. 2. Kircher, Athanasius. Ars magna lucis et umbrae in decem libros digesta. Rome, 1646. Knapp, James A. and Jeffrey Pence. “Between Thing and Theory.” Poetics Today 24.4 (Winter 2003): 641–71. Krevans, Nita. “Print and the Tudor Poets.” In Reconsidering the Renaissance. Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1992. Landes, David. Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Revised edition London and New York: Viking, 2000. Lane, Robert. Shepheards Devises: Edmund Spenser’s Shepheardes Calender and the Institutions of Elizabethan Society. Athens and London: University of Georgia Press, 1993. Le Goff, Jacques. Time, Work, and Culture in the Middle Ages. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Lehmann, Christoph. Florilegium politicum: Politischer Blumengarten. Lübeck, 1630. Frankfurt, 1662. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. “Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice.” In Leibniz: Philosophical Papers and Letters. Edited by Leroy Loemker. Second edition. Dordrecht, 1969. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Alexander Campbell Fraser. 2 vols. 1894. Reprint New York: Dover, 1959. Vol. 1. Loewenstein, Joseph. The Author’s Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2002. ———. Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ———. “Printing and ‘The Multitudinous Press’: The Contentious Texts of Jonson’s Masques.” In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio. Edited by Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991. ———. “The Script in the Marketplace.” Representations 12 (Fall 1985): 101–114. ———. “Spenser’s Retrography: Two Episodes in Post-Petrarchan Bibliography.” In Spenser’s Life and the Subject of Biography. Edited by Judith H. Anderson, Donald Cheney, and David A. Richardson. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1996. Long, Pamela O. “Power, Patronage, and the Authorship of Ars: From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age.” Isis 88 (1997): 1–41. Luborsky, Ruth. “The Allusive Presentation of The Shepheardes Calender.” Spenser Studies 1 (1980): 29. Macey, Samuel L. Clocks and the Cosmos: Time in Western Life and Thought. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1980. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Art of War. Florence, 1521. In Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others. Translated by Alan Gilbert. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ———. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. 254 Bibliography

Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Literary Works of Machiavelli. Edited by J. R. Hale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961. ———. The Prince. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russell Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ———. Il Principe. Edited by L. Arthur Bird. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891. Marcus, Leah S. “The Silence of the Archive and the Noise of Cyberspace.” In The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the First Age of Print. Edited by Neil Rhodes and Jonathan Sawday. London: Routledge, 2000. Marlowe, Christopher. The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. In Christopher Marlowe, The Complete Plays. Edited by J. B. Steane. London: Penguin Books, 1986. Marx, Karl. Gundrisse. In Karl Marx, Selected Writings. Edited by David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Masten, Jeffrey. “Pressing Subjects: Or, the Secret Lives of Shakespeare’s Compositors.” In Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production. Edited by Masten et al. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. ———. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Masten, Jeffrey, Peter Stallybrass, and Nancy Vickers, eds. Language Machines: Technologies of Literary and Cultural Production. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Maurice, Klaus and Otto Mayr, eds. The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata 1550–1650. Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 1980. Maus, Katharine Eisaman. Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. May, Steven. “Tudor Aristocrats and the Mythical Stigma of Print.” Renaissance Papers 10 (1980): 11–18. Mayr, Otto. Authority, Liberty, and Automatic Machinery in Early Modern Europe. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. McKeon, Michael. Origins of the English Novel, 1600–1740. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987. Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Edited by Gordon Teskey. New York: Norton, 2005. Moffett, Thomas. Theater of Insects. 1634. Reprinted in The History of Four-Footed Beasts and Serpents. Translated by Theodore de Mayherne. Edited by Edward Topsell. 1658. Montrose, Louis A. “Spenser’s Domestic Domain: Poetry, Property, and the Early Modern Subject.” In Subject and Object in Renaissance Culture. Edited by Margreta de Grazia, Maureen Quilligan, and Peter Stallybrass. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Moran, James. Printing Presses: History and Development from the Fifteenth Century to Modern Times. London: Faber and Faber, 1973. More, Thomas. Utopia. Translated by Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton, 1975. Morpugo, Enrico. Dizionario degli orologiai italiani. Rome, 1957. Moryson, Fynes. Moryson An Itinerary. 1617. Moss, Ann. Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises: Or, the Doctrine of handy-works. Applied to the Art of Printing. 2 vols. 1683. Vol. 2. Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilization. 1934. New York: HBJ, 1962. ———. “Technics and the Nature of Man.” In Technology and Culture: An Anthology. Edited by Melvin Kranzberg and William H. Davenport. New York: Shocken Books, 1972. Murray, Timothy. Theatrical Legitimation: Allegories of Genius in Seventeenth-Century England and France. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Bibliography 255

Napier, John. A Description of the Admirable Table of Logarithms. Translated by Edward Wright. 1616. Nashe, Thomas. Works. Edited by R. B. McKerrow. 5 vols. London: A. H. Bullen, 1904–10. Nelson, William. The Poetry of Edmund Spenser: A Study. 1963. Reprint New York: Columbia University Press, 1965. Neuse, Richard. “Milton and Spenser: The Virgilian Triad Revisited.” English Literary History 45 (1978): 606–39. Newton, Richard C. “Jonson and the (Re-)Invention of the Book.” In Classic and Cavalier: Essays on Jonson and the Sons of Ben. Edited by Claude J. Summers and Ted-Larry Pebworth. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1982. Nicolson, Marjorie. “Kepler, the Somnium and John Donne.” In Roots of Scientific Thought. Edited by Philip P. Wiener and Aaron Noland. New York: Basic Books, 1957. ———. Science and Imagination. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press and London: Oxford University Press, 1956. ———. Voyages to the Moon. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Niebyl, Peter H. “Science and Metaphor in the Medicine of Restoration England.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 47 (1973): 356–74. Noble, David. The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention. London: Penguin Books, 1999. North, John. “Thomas Harriot and the first Telescopic Observations of Sunspots.” In Thomas Harriot, Renaissance Scientist. Edited by John W. Shirley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London and New York: Routledge, 1982. Orlin, Lena Cowen. “Three Ways to be Invisible in the Renaissance: Sex, Repu- tation, and Stichery.” In Renaissance Culture and the Everyday. Edited by Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Ovitt, George. The Restoration of Perfection: Labor and Technology in Medieval Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Pacey, Arnold. The Culture of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983. Panofsky, Erwin. Die Perpektive als “symbolische form.” Berlin: Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg, 1927. ———. Early Netherlandish Painting. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953. Vol. 1. Patterson, Lee. “On the Margin: Postmodernism, Ironic History, and Medieval Studies.” Speculum 65 (1990): 99–100. Peck, Linda Levy. Consuming Splendor: Society and Culture in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pelikan, Jaroslav. “Cosmos and Creation: Science and Theology in Reformation Thought.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105: 464–69. Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Edited by Henry B. Wheatley. 8 vols. London: B. Bell and Sons, 1938. Vol. 4. Perkins, D. N. “The Perceiver as Organizer and Geometer.” In Organization and Representation in Perception. Edited by Jacob Beck. Hillsdale, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982. Perry, Curtis, ed. Material Culture and Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2001. Phillips, Margaret Mann. Erasmus on his Times: A Shortened Version of The Adages of Erasmus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Pittenger, Elizabeth. “Explicit Ink.” In Premodern Sexualities. Edited by Louis Fradenberg and Carla Freccero. New York and London: Routledge, 1996. 256 Bibliography

Poliziano, Angelo. “Angeli Politiano praelectio: cui titulis Panepistomon.” In Omnia Opera Angeli Politiani, et alia lectu digna. Venice, 1498. Pope, Alexander. An Essay on Man. 1733. In The Poems of Alexander Pope. Edited by John Butt. London: Methuen, 1968. Porter, Roy. Flesh in the Age of Reason. New York and London: Norton, 2003. Power, Henry. Experimental Philosophy, in Three Books, Containing New Experiments, Microscopical, Mercurial, Magnetical. 1661. 1664. Reprint New York: Johnson Reprint, 1966. Preston, John. Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. 1589. In English Renaissance Literary Criticism. Edited by Nancy Vickers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Rabelais, François. Gargantua and Pantagruel. In The Complete Works of François Rabelais. Translated by Donald M. Frame. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. Rachum, Ilan. The Renaissance: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. London: Octopus Books, 1979. Radcliffe, David Hill. Edmund Spenser: A Reception History. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1996. Ralegh, Walter. The History of the World. 1614. Ramelli, Agostino. Le Diverse et Artificiose Machine. Paris, 1588. Reiss, Timothy. The Discourse of Modernism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982. Renatus, Flavius Vegetius. The foure books of Flauius Vegetius Renatus, briefely contayninge a plaine forme, and perfect knowledge of Martiall policye, feates of Chiualrie, and whatsoeuer pertayneth to warre. 1572. Reynolds, Bryan. Transversal Enterprises in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries: Fugitive Explorations. Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Riddell, James A. and Stanley Stewart. Jonson’s Spenser: Evidence and Historical Criticism. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1995. Roberts, Michael. The Military Revolution 1560–1660. Belfast: Marjory Boyd, 1956. Robertson, J. Drummond. The Evolution of Clockwork. London: Cassel, 1931. Ronchi, Vasco. New Optics. Florence: Olschki, 1971. Rosen, Edward. “The Invention of Eyeglasses.” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 11 (1956): 13–306. Ruestow, Edward G. “Images and Ideas: Leeuwenhoek’s Perception of the Sperma- tozoa.” Journal of the History of Biology 16 (1983): 185–224. ———. The Microscope in the Dutch Republic: The Shaping of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Rummel, Erika. The Erasmus Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Rupp, E. G. and Benjamin Drewery. Martin Luther. London: Edward Arnold, 1970. Sarahson, Lisa T. “A Science Turned Upside Down: Feminism and the Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish.” Huntington Library Quarterly 47 (1984): 289–307. Saunders, J. W. “The Stigma of Print.” Essays in Criticism 1.2 (1951): 145. Sawday, Jonathan. Engines of the Imagination: Renaissance Culture and the Rise of the Machine. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age. London: Fontana, 1987. Shakespeare, William. The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. New York: Norton, 1997. Bibliography 257

———. William Shakespeare, The Sonnets and A Lover’s Complaint. Edited by John Kerrigan. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1999. Shapin, Steven and Simon Schaffer. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Shears, F. S. Froissart: Chronicler and Poet. London: Routledge, 1930. Sheavyn, Phoebe. The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age. Second edition. Revised by J. W. Saunders. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Sherman, Stuart. Telling Time: Clocks, Diaries, and English Diurnal Form, 1660–1785. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Simon, Gérard. Kepler, astronome astrologue. Paris, 1979. Simpson, Evelyn. “The Folio Text of Ben Jonson’s Sejanus.” Anglia 49 (1937): 398–415. Smith, Pamela H. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Smith, Thomas. Sir Thomas Smithes Voiage and Entertainment in Rushia. 1605. Spearing, A. C. Readings in Medieval Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Spenser, Edmund. The Faerie Queene. Edited by A. C. Hamilton. London and New York: Longman, 1977. ———. Faerie Queene. In The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Seventh edition. 2 vols. New York: Norton, 2000. ———. Faerie Queene. In Spenser, The Faerie Queene, Book 1. Edited by P. C. Bayley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. ———. The Poetical Works of Edmund Spenser. Vol. 4. Edited by Francis Child. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1855. ———. The Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser. Edited by William A. Oram, Einar Bjorvand, Ronald Bond, Thomas H. Cain, Alexander Dunlop, and Richard Schell. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. The Works of Edmund Spenser; A Variorum edition: The Prose Works. Edited by Edwin Greenlaw, Charles Grosvenor Osgood, and Frederick Morgan Pedelford. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1949. Spiller, Elizabeth. Science, Reading and Renaissance Literature: The Art of Making Knowledge, 1580–1670. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Sprat, Thomas. History of the Royal-Society of London for the improving of natural knowledge. 1667. Stafford, Barbara Maria. Artful Science: Enlightenment Entertainment and the Eclipse of Visual Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994. Stock, Brian. “Science, Technology and Economic Progress in the Early Middle Ages.” In Science in the Middle Ages. Edited by David C. Lindberg. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Stone, Lawrence. The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529–1642. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Suckling, John. “Love’s Clock.” In Cavalier Poets: Selected Poems. Edited by Thomas Clayton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Summers, David. The Judgment of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Swammerdam Jan. The Book of Nature. Translated by Thomas Flloyd. 1758. ———. Ephemeri Vita. Amsterdam, 1675. ———. Miraculum naturae sive uteri muliebris fabrica. Leiden, 1672. Swann, Marjorie. Curiosities and Texts: The Culture of Collecting in Early Modern England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. 258 Bibliography

Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971. Thomson, Patricia. “Wyatt’s Boethian Ballade.” The Review of English Studies 15.49 (August 1964): 262–67. Traherne, Thomas. Selected Poems and Prose. Edited by Alan Bradford. London: Penguin Books, 1991. Trinkhaus, Charles. “Protagoras in the Renaissance: An Exploration.” In Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller. Edited by Edward P. Mahoney. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Turner, Gerard L’E. “The Microscope as a Technical Frontier in Science.” In Historical Aspects of Microscopy. Edited by Savile Bradbury and Gerard L’E. Turner. Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1967. Turner, Henry S. The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. van Dam, Bastiaan A. P. and Cornelis Stoffel. “The Authority of the Ben Jonson Folio of 1616.” Anglia 14 (1903): 377–92. van den Berg, Sara. “Ben Jonson and the Ideology of Authorship.” In Ben Jonson’s 1616 Folio. Edited by Jennifer Brady and W. H. Herendeen. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1991. Van Helden, Albert. The Invention of the Microscope. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1977. van Leeuwenhoek, Antoni. Alle de brieven van Antoni van Leeuwenhoek. 12 vols. to date. Amsterdam, 1939–. Vols. 8 and 10. ———. “Concerning the Animalcula in Semine humano.” Philosophical Transactions 21, no. 255 (1699): 301–8. Vergil, Polydore. De inventoribus rerum. 1499. ———. On Discovery (De inventoribus). Edited and translated by Brian P. Copenhaver. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Vial, Eugene and Claudius Côte. Les Horlogers Lyonnais de 1550 à 1650. Lyon, 1927. von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. The Vanitie and Uncertaintie of the Artes and Sciences. 1531. Translated by J. Sanford, 1575. Vossius, Isaac. De lucis natura et proprietate. Amsterdam, 1662. Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated and edited by Talcott Parsons. London: Allen and Unwin, 1930. Webster, John. The Complete Workes of John Webster. Edited by F. L. Lucas. 4 vols. New York: Chatto and Windus, 1927. Westrum, Ron. Technology and Society: The Shaping of People and Things. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991. White, Jr., Lynn. “The Iconography of Temperantia and the Virtuousness of Technology.” In Action and Conviction in Early Modern Europe. Edited by T. K. Rabb and J. E. Seigel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. ———. Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. ———. Medieval Technology and Social Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Whitney, Elspeth. “Paradise Restored: The Mechanical Arts from Antiquity through the Thirteenth Century.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 80 (1990): 1–169. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Wilson, Catherine. The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Bibliography 259

Wodderborn, Johan. Quatuor problematum quos Martinus Horky. Padua, 1610. Wolfe, Jessica. Humanism, Machinery, and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Wolper, Roy S. “The Rhetoric of Gunpowder and the Idea of Progress.” Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (1970): 589–98. Yates, Frances. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. Zuckerman, Solly. Beyond the Ivory Tower. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970. Index

Academy of the Lynx-Eyed 174 Bodley, Thomas 211 Aers, David 220n. 71 Bordo, Susan 237n. 30 Agricola, Rudolf 61 Boreel, William 174 Alberti, Leon Battista 40–1, 46, Borel, Pierre 192 140, 210 Borst, Arno 221n. 3, 222n. 27 al-Haytham, Ibn (Alhazen) 146 Bourne, William 147–9, 152 Alpers, Svetlana 143, 145, 207, Boyle, Robert 6, 49, 200, 217n. 20, 236n. 4, 237n. 36, 237n. 37 225n. 69 Angus-Butterworth, L. M. 238n. 47 Bradbury, Savile 178 Archimedes 25 Brady, Jennifer 97–8 Aristotle 2 Brahe, Tycho 50, 164 Augustine, Saint (of Hippo) 16, 145 Brey, Philip 215n. 1 automata 6, 45–6, 49, 122, 215n. 3 Brown, Harold I. 157 Brunelleschi, Filippo 140 Bacon, Francis 2–3, 180, 189; The Bruno, Giordano 144, 190, Advancement of Learning 2–3; 237n. 30, 239n. 7 New Atlantis 139; Novum Budé, Guillaume 60–1 Organum 7–8, 11, 218n. 39 Bull, Randolf 224n. 61 Bacon, Roger 145, 146–7, 149 Bulwer, John 47–8 Badovere, Jacques 152, 153 Burckhardt, Jacob 1, 7, 40, 220n. 67 Barthes, Roland 224n. 9 Burke, Peter 220n. 63 Barton, Anne 233n. 60 bayonet 120 Calvin, John 41, 190, 243n. 45 Beaumont, Francis 97, 109 Camden, William 96–7, 233n. 65 Bedwell, Thomas 58 camera obscura 138, 145 Bell, Janis 140–1 Campbell, Mary 15–16, 56, 142–4, Benjamin, Walter 57, 60–1 156–7, 167, 168, 179, 182, 189, Bennett, H. S. 233n. 50 193, 196, 237n. 30, 240n. 33, Benz, Ernst 222n. 21 240n. 38, 242n. 18, 243n. 37 Berger, Harry 73 cannon 37, 115–16, 126 Berkeley, George 145 Cardano, Girolamo 12, 189 Bernegger, Matthias 166 Carlson, David R. 229n. 16 Besold, Christopher 163 Cary, Lucius 99, 232n. 35 Bingham, John 120 Castiglione, Baldassare 129–30 Blackmore, David J. 122, 234n. 7 cavalry 122–3, 125–6, 134 Blank, Paula 217n. 25, Cavendish, Margaret 145 237n. 27, 237n. 28 Cesi, Federico 174, 192 262 Index

Chambers, R. W. 29 de Fontenelle, Bernard 144 Chapman, George 93, 109 de Gheyn, Jacob 117–21, 234n. 6 Charles II, King 32, 179, 200 de Grazia, Margreta 7, 217n. 23, Charleton, R. J. 238n. 47 244n. 7 Chartier, Roger 56, 226n. 8, de Guevara, Antonio 31 226n. 16 de Montgomery, Louis 120 Chaucer, Geoffrey 71, 72, 76, 79, 82, de Pisan, Christine 38–9, 223n. 44 83, 89, 92 Dee, John 95, 149 Cheney, Patrick 86 Dekker, Thomas 31–2, 62, 102, Cicero, Marcus Tullius 27, 32, 130 108–9, 120–2, 227n. 39, Cipolla, Carlo 7, 26, 31, 38 230n. 7, 234n. 8 clockwork 23–50; and Del Rio, Martin 239n. 21 court culture 31; and della Porta, Giovanni Battista 145, discipline 23–4, 27–33, 39–45, 196 47–8; invention of 25–6; delle Bande Nere, Giovanni 131 invention of spring drive 39; Demisiano, Giovanni 174 Jesuit manufacturers 221n. 9; Derry, T. K. 225n. 1 and monastic discipline 23–8; Descartes René 49, 191 and Protestant work ethic 41; Desmond, Marilynn 223n. 44 and Puritan industriousness 42; di Pers, Ciro 224n. 66 secular trinity 12; symbolic Dick, Steven J. 170, 237n. 30 power of 45; and Digges, Leonard 94, 145 temperance 27–9, 38–9, 44 Digges, Thomas 94 Cockburn, Cynthia 11 Dohrn-van Rossum, Gerhard 219n. 45, Cohen, Adam Max 217n. 20, 222n. 19 231n. 16 Donatello (Donato di Betto Colet, John 61, 65 Bardi) 140 commonplace books 57–8 Dondi, Giovanni 223n. 42 Copernicus, Nicolaus 50, 141, 156, Donne, John 7, 16, 165, 239n. 23 160, 162–3, 166, 168, 190 Donovan, Kevin J. 233n. 55 copyright law 77 Drake, Stillman 239n. 9 Corbett, Margery 233n. 59 Drayton, Michael 7, 93 Coster, Laurens Janszoon 225n. 1 Drebbel, Cornelis 144 Côte, Claudius 221n. 1 Drucker, Peter F. 215n. 2 Croll, Oswald 189–90 Drummond, William 91–2 Cromwell, Thomas 87 du Pont, Giovanni 173 Cudworth, Ralph 49 Dutch military reforms 120–2 cultural materialism 217n. 23 Dutton, Richard 232n. 42, 232n. 44, curiosity 189 233n. 62 Cusanus, Nicolaus (Nicholas of Kues) 217n. 25 Edelman, Charles 116, 132–3, cyborgs 56 234n. 1 Edgerton, Jr., S. Y. 141 Daniel, Samuel 93–4, 101 Eisenstein, Elizabeth 56, 61, 227n. 25 Davenant, William 32 Elizabeth, Queen 74, 86, 87, 140 Davies, Edward 116, 122 Elsky, Martin 218n. 38 Davies of Hereford, John 41 Erasmus, Desiderius 6, 19, Davis, Natalie Zemon 219n. 44 42, 57, 59–70; Adagiorum de Boisregard, Nicolas Andry 143 Collectanea [Collected de Clairvaux, Bernard 221n. 5 Adages] 68–9; Catalogus Index 263

omnium Erasmi Roterodami Gille, Bertrand 223n. 42 lucubrationum [Catalogue Gimpel, Jean 216n. 4, 216n. 7 of the complete works of Glanville, Joseph 181, 190 Erasmus of Rotterdam] 62–70; Goldberg, Jonathan 18 Compendium Vitae Erasmi Gombrich, E. H. 141 Roterodami [Brief Outline Grafton, Anthony 11, 54, 219n. 42 of the Life of Erasmus of Greenblatt, Stephen 1, 5–7, 57, Rotterdam] 70; De copia 215n. 2, 220n. 67, 221n. 71 verborum atque rerum [On Greene, Thomas 100 the abundance of words and Greville, Fulke 93 things] 57–8, 65; Lingua [The Grew, Nehemiah 20, 174, 200–7, Tongue] 67–8; Moriae 244n. 57; Anatomy of Plants 20, encomium [Praise of 200–7; skepticism regarding the Folly] 69–70; New microscope 200–1 Testament 69–70 Grocyn, William 63 Evelyn, John 3 gunpowder weaponry 115–34; eyeglasses, history of 235n. 3 caliver 116–18; harquebus 116–18, 125; Faber, Giovanni 174 musket 118–19; nimble festina lente 18, 23, 42–3, 68, 104, gunner 115–16; pistol, 184, 209 wheel-lock 125 Fiamma, Galvano 33 Gunter, Edmund 94–5 Fontana, Francesco 192 Gutenberg, Johann 53, 225n. 1 Foucault, Michel 7, 13, 142, 167, 219n. 51 Halasz, Alexandra 227n. 39 Fournier, Marian 176 Hale, J. R. 124–5, 127, 128, 131, Frame, Donald M. 222n. 25 235n. 35 Francastel, Pierre 141 Hall, Bert S. 123, 124, 127, 226n. 4 Friedel, Robert 215n. 1 Hariot, Thomas 139, 162 Froben, Johann 60, 61, 65, 69 Harvey, Gabriel 75–6, 78–9, 82, 83, Froissart, Jean 33–9 85, 87, 88, 216n. 11 Fumerton, Patricia 18 Harwood, John 179 Fusoris, Jean 223n. 42 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Fust, Johann 225n. 1 Friedrich 215n. 3 Heidegger, Martin 9, 14, 212, Galilei, Galileo 137, 145, 150, 217n. 30 152–64, 169–70, 173–6, 181–2, Heinlein, Peter 223n. 49 185, 190, 199–200, 212, Helgerson, Richard 74, 96, 230n. 9 239n. 8; Dialogue Concerning the Heninger, Jr., S. K. 74, 228n. 5 Two Chief World Systems 145; Herbert, George 56 Jupiter’s moons, discovery Herbert, Mary (Countess of of 158–60; microscope, use Pembroke) 93 of 173; moon, observations Herendeen, W. H. 110, 111 of 155–6; Sidereus Nuncius [The Hero of Alexandria 25 Starry Messenger] 137, 150, 152; Hieron, Samuel 104 telescope, construction of 152 Hill, Christopher 42 Geertz, Clifford 216n. 15 Hill, John 144 Gélis, Edouard 223n. 43 Hitchings, Henry 144 gestalt theory 142, 236n. 17 Hobbes, Thomas: De Cive 46; Gilbert, William 239n. 7 Leviathan 45–9 264 Index

Hodierna, Giovanni 192 Man Out of His Humour 93, Holbein, Hans (the Younger) 5 95, 102–5; The Golden Age Hollister-Short, Graham 226n. 5 Restored 92; Masque of Hooke, Robert 12, 145, 176–200; Queens 95; Neptune’s Bacon’s influence on 242n. 27; Triumph 231n. 18; on “Discourse concerning Telescopes playwrights 230n. 9; poet and Microscopes” 145; laureate status 231n. 20; extraterrestrial life 191; eyes Poetaster 95, 102, 103, 104, of insects 192–9; inventions, 106, 110–11; and Ralegh key 176; lunar 232n. 42; and Spenser 91–3; observations 199; Volpone 92, 97, 103, 104; and Micrographia 12, 145, 175, the war of the editors 102–6, 176–200, 242n. 18; 232n. 45; Workes 92, 93, microscopic limitations 182–3; 97–111 optimism 185; predictions Juvenal (Decimus Junius regarding technology Juvenalis) 230n. 9 243n. 36; Royal Society, roles within 178–9; vivisection, Kay, W. David 230n. 9 preference for 244n. 56 Keen, Maurice 124–5, 234n. 18 Horace (Quintus Horatius Keller, Alex 53–4, 218n. 40 Flaccus) 98, 108, 233n. 57, Kendal, James Francis 223n. 48 233n. 58 Kepler, Johannes 137, 138, 145, Horky, Martin 161–2 156–7, 161–70, 185, 190–1, Hoyaux, Jean 227n. 38 193, 198, 210; Ad Vitellionem Huygens, Christiaan 12, 45, 151 Paralipomena [Appendix to Huygens, Constantijn 143, 144, 145, Witelo] 138; demonology, 190–1, 210, 235n. 3 accusations of 240n. 26; Dioptrice 137; Dissertatio cum individual 7–8, 10, 13, 18; and Nuncio Sidereo [Conversation clocks 26; development of with the Starry Messenger] 170; individualism 39; and group perspectives on planet identity 179; and information earth 168–70; Rodolphine technology 55–6; Jonson’s views Tables 165; Somnium [The of 97; military service 122–3; Dream] 20, 156, 163–70, 185, see also self 239n. 19; telescopic discoveries, reflections on 163–4; university James I of England, King 96 years 162–3 Janssen, Hans 151, 238n. 3 Kerrigan, John 225n. 66 Janssen, Zacharias 151, 174, 238n. 3 Keyeser, Konrad 223n. 48 Jardine, Lisa 54, 60, 216n. 11, Kircher, Athanasius 138, 192 218n. 39, 241n. 13 Knapp, James A. 217n. 22 Johnson, A. W. 95 Kratzer, Nicholas 42 Johnston, Stephen 58 Krevans, Nita 65–6 Jones, Ann Rosalind 18 Jones, Inigo 94, 109 Landes, David 24, 31, 33, 39, 41, Jonson, Ben 91–112; 221n. 2, 222n. 10, 222n. 12 Catholicism 230n. 3; Catiline Lane, Robert 71 his Conspiracy 105, 109–10; Le Franc, Martin 39 Cynthia’s Revels 102, 104, 110; Le Goff, Jacques 216n. 6 and Drummond 91–2; Every Lear, John 163, 166, 235n. 1 Index 265

Lehmann, Christopher 32 mercenaries 131–3 Leibniz, Gottfried 175, 178 Michele, Henri 53 lens manufacture 149 microscope 8, 12, 20, 137–9, Lightbown, R. W. 233n. 59 141–2, 144–5, 147–9, 151, Lippersheim, Hans 151, 238n. 3 160, 167, 196, 199–202, 205, Locke, John 49; An Essay 207, 210–11; Brücke lens 173; Concerning Human and Christianity 190–1; Understanding 50, 181 early terminology 174; Loewenstein, Joseph 72, 93–4, 97, insects, studies of 192; 109, 231n. 25, 233n. 55, 233n. 61 invention of 174; as Long, Pamela O. 58 luxury item 241n. 16; longbow 124 mysticism 189–91; simple vs. Love, Harold 93 compound 174–5 Luborsky, Ruth Samson 72, 73 Miller, David Lee 74 Luther, Martin 41, 64, 69–70, Milton, John 141 243n. 45 modernism 219n. 49 Moffett, Thomas 192 Macey, Samuel L. 221n. 73 Montrose, Louis 72, 74, 77 Machiavelli, Niccolò 19, 124, Moran, James 225n. 1 125–34, 209; ancients vs. More, Thomas 6, 28–9 moderns debate 125–6; Art of Morpugo, Enrico 221n. 9 War 130, 209; artillery, distrust Moryson, Fynes 132 of 126, 235n. 41; Discourses on Moss, Ann 58 Livy 125–6, 127, 129; Mulcaster, Richard 77 fortuna 127–8; mercenaries, Müller, Veit 163 dislike of 131–3, 235n. 38; Mumford, Lewis 12, 219n. 50 The Prince 126–34; Murray, Timothy 233n. 59 virtù 125–7, 133 mysteries, natural 189 Magini, Giovanni Antonio 161 Malpighi, Marcello 143, 174, 209 Napier, John 226n. 15 Manutius, Aldus (Teobaldo Nelson, William 73 Manucci) 67, 69, 209 Neuse, Richard 73 Marlowe, Christopher 15, 109; new philosophy 49 Doctor Faustus 43–4 Newsam, Bartholomew 224n. 61 Marston, John 102, 109 Newton, Richard C. 94, 96–7, 105 Marx, Karl 7, 215n. 3, 217n. 23 Nicolson, Marjorie 165, 166, Masaccio (Tommaso Giovanni di 239n. 11, 239n. 23 Simone Guidi) 140 Niebyl, Peter H. 225n. 76 Masten, Jeffrey 4, 55–6, 211, Noble, David 220n. 69 227n. 38, 245n. 12 North, John 236n. 9 Mästlin, Michael 162, 164 Maurice, Klaus 12 Ong, Walter 56 Maus, Katharine Eisaman 220n. 71 optics 146–50, 153–4; and May, Steven 66, 229n. 15 diabolism 147; and double Mayr, Otto 12, 25, 26, 28, 31, vision 154; medieval 146–9; 222n. 22 and naked eye 153; McKeon, Michael 220n. 65 optical challenges 154; and McLuhan, Marshall 54, 56 warfare 149–50 mechanical philosophy 13, 15, 18, Orlin, Lena Cowen 218n. 35 23, 49 Ovitt, George 216n. 6 266 Index

Pacey, Arnold 13–14 Recorde, Robert 147 Panofsky, Erwin 141, 205, 207 refraction 235n. 1 Paracelsus (Philip von Reiss, Timothy 165, 167, 238n. 7, Hohenheim) 189 240n. 27, 240n. 32 Patterson, Lee 220n. 71 Renatus, Flavius Vegetius 123–4 Peck, Linda Levy 242n. 16 Reynolds, Bryan 221n. 72 Pence, Jeffrey 217n. 22 Rhodes, Neil 4, 56, 58, 60, 211, Pepys, Samuel 178 225n. 1 Perkins, D. N. 236n. 17 Riddell, James A. 92 Perry, Curtis 217n. 23 Roberts, Michael 123, 131, 210–11 perspective 138–50; Robertson, John Drummond 33–4 anamorphic 5, 139–40; and Ronchi, Vasco 144–5 optical technologies 138–50; Rosen, Edward 164, 165, 235n. 3 painter’s perspective 140–1 Ruestow, Edward 9, 142, 144, 160, Petrarch 40–1, 80 174, 190, 192, 236n. 22, 241n. 9, Petty, Sir William 3 241n. 14 Pieroni, Giovanni 164 Rummel, Erika 61 pike 116–17, 119–22, 134 Pittenger, Elizabeth 216n. 5 Santini, Antonio 162 Plat, Sir Hugh 140 Sarahson, Lisa T. 237n. 41 Plato 9, 15, 27, 181 Saunders, J. W. 64, 76 Pliny the Elder 192 Sawday, Jonathan 3, 4, 7, 10–11, Poliziano, Angelo 13 14–15, 180–1, 211–12, 216n. 6, Pope, Alexander 242n. 30 218n. 36, 224n. 54, 225n. 1, Porter, Roy 217n. 20 241n. 16 Power, Henry 138, 140–1, 178, 184 Schaffer, Simon 179 Price, Russell 125, 234n. 20 scientific method 8, 190, 192 printing press 53–112; and secular trinity 11–12 ambition 57; and class Selden, John 99–101 status 76; Galileo’s use self 13, 16–18, 209–13; classical of 160–1; invention of 53; views 13; critical debate 17–18; print technology 53–5; related early modern definitions innovations 53–4; revised of 16–18; Heidegger’s views 9; editions 68–9; stigma of self vs. soul 16–17, 32, 49, print 74 220n. 67; self-aggrandizement 77; proportion 143, 237n. 27 self-discipline 23, 28, 31, 41, 47, Protagoras 217n. 25, 237n. 28 201; see also individual Puttenham, George 15 Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (the Younger) 130, 137 Quilligan, Maureen 7 Sforza, Ludovico 131, 224n. 50 Shadwell, Thomas 50 Rabelais, François 29–31 Shakespeare, William 6, 44, 108, Rachum, Ilan 224n. 49 109, 111, 116; All’s Well 44; Radcliffe, David Hill 71 First Folio of 1623 111; Ralegh, Sir Walter 73, 157, Hamlet 58, 116; 2 Henry 232n. 32, 232n. 42 IV 116; Henry V 115–16; Rambuss, Richard 83, 229n. 14 Macbeth 116; Merry Wives Ramelli, Agostino 10, 54–5 of Windsor 61–2, 87; A Ramus, Petrus 61 Midsummer Night’s Dream 168; reading machines 54–6 Much Ado About Nothing 44; Index 267

Othello 44; technology 1–16; anti-mechanical Rape of Lucrece 44–5; bias 2, 3, 49; Bacon’s views Richard II 139–40 regarding 2, 7–8, 11, 59, 139, Shapin, Steven 179 180–1; classical notions of 9, 13, Shears, Frederick Sidney 34 14, 27, 106–8; clockwork 23–50; Sheavyn, Phoebe 233n. 50 early modern definitions of 13; Sheingorn, Pamela 223n. 44 and ego 16; and the Fall 16, Sherman, Stuart 224n. 63 180–1; gender bias 9–11, Sidney, Sir Philip 72, 75–6, 78, 218n. 36; Greenblatt 5–7; 80–1, 110 gunpowder weaponry 115–34; Simon, Gérard 165 Heidegger 9, 14, 141, Singleton, Hugh 72, 75, 85, 87 212, 215n. 3; literary Skelton, John 87 approaches 15–16; skepticism 20, 61, 138–9, 144–5, microscope 173–207; 225n. 66, 237n. 37, 242n. 28 modern definitions 13–14; Skinner, Quentin 125, 234n. 20 optics and perspective 137–50; Smith, Adam 215n. 3 print technology 53–112; Smith, Pamela 2, 216n. 6 religious dimensions of 16–17; Spearing, A. C. 220n. 71 and rhetoric 6–7, 8, 77–8; spectacles, invention of 137 skepticism regarding 20, 138, Spenser, Edmund 7, 17, 19, 27–8, 59, 145, 161, 185; telescopes 151–71; 71–89, 91–3, 101–2; Cambridge tool vs. machine 215n. 3 years 77; Faerie Queene 71–3; telescope 5, 8, 12, 20, 138–40, 141, Irish career 75; Shepheardes 144–58, 161–4, 167, 170, 173–93, Calender 73–89, 91 196, 199–200, 205, 207, 210–11; Spiller, Elizabeth 241n. 14 invention of 151; military spinning wheel 9–10 applications 149–50; Sprat, Thomas 49–50 terminology, early 174 Stafford, Barbara Maria 241n. 9 Thomas, Keith 42 Stallybrass, Peter 4, 7, 18, 55–6, Thomson, Patricia 230n. 42 245n. 12 Tortelli, Giovanni 218n. 40 Stansby, William 97, 99, 101–5, Traherne, Thomas 16, 32 232n. 32 Trinkhaus, Charles 217n. 25 Stelluti, Francesco 192 Turner, Gerard L’E. 184–5 Stewart, Stanley 92 Turner, Henry 4–5, 58, 95, 98, Stock, Brian 218n. 39 220n. 63, 231n. 14, 231n. 17, Stockholder, Kay 18 233n. 68 Stone, Lawrence 215n. 2 Tyndale, William 57 Stubbe, Henry 15, 220n. 65 subtlety 189–90 Valla, Lorenzo 61 Suckling, Sir John 39–40 van den Berg, Sara 96, 106, Summers, David 216n. 6 233n. 57 surfing through texts 54 van der Noot, Jan 73 Suso, Henricus 26–7 van Dorp, Maarten 60 Swammerdam, Jan 143, 174, van Eyck, Jan 205, 207 184, 190, 209, 210, 244n. 5; Van Helden, Albert 152, 170, Ephemeri vita 210 238n. 45, 238n. 48, 238n. 2 Swann, Marjorie 100 van Leeuwenhoek, Antoni 141, 142–3, 174–5, 182, 184, 196, Taylor, Charles 220n. 70 209–10, 242n. 34 268 Index van Nassau-Siegen, Johan water clocks 24–5 Maurits 117, 122 Weber, Max 41 Vergil, Polydore 227n. 27 Webster, John 32 Vial, Eugène 221n. 1 White, Jr., Lynn 12, 26–7, 28, Vickers, Nancy 4, 55–6, 245n. 12 223n. 48 Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro) 72, Whitney, Elspeth 216n. 6 74, 76, 80, 86, 98, 239n. 21 Williams, Raymond 71, 217n. 23 Visconti, Gaspari 39 Williams, Trevor I. 225n. 1 Vitello (Erazmus Ciolek Wilson, Catherine 9, 142, 175, 189, Witelo) 146 191, 209, 219n. 49, 237n. 36, Vitruvius (Marcus Vitruvius 237n. 37, 241n. 11, 242n. 28, Pollio) 95 242n. 32, 244n. 61 Vives, Juan Luis 61 Wittfogel, Karl 215n. 2 von Botzheim, Johann 62, 68 Wodderborn, Johan 173–4 von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius Wolfe, Jessica 4, 216n. 11 Agrippa 145 Wolfe, John 58, 72 von Wackenfels, John Matthew Wolper, Roy S. 11, 218n. 41 Wackher 163 Wren, Christopher 178, 241n. 13 von Wiek, Heinrich 33–4, 37 Zech, Jacob 223n. 48 watch, invention of 223n. 49 Zonca, Vittorio 54