Hiring Practices and Craftsmen at the University of Edinburgh, 1583 – 1750 Aaron Geoffrey Mitchell Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in the History and Philosophy of Science (Thesis) July 2014 Produced on archival quality paper The School of Historical and Philosophical Studies The University of Melbourne Abstract This thesis examines hiring practices at the University of Edinburgh from its foundation in 1583 until 1750. A prosopography involving the regents and professors of the university examines whether local networks, such as craft guilds, could have provided individuals from unorthodox backgrounds, particularly craftsmen, to access academic posts at Edinburgh University, as occurred at Leiden University during this time. This study is undertaken in the context of the Zilsel thesis, which suggests that early modern science was formed by a coming together of the scholar and the craftsman. Craftsmen in Edinburgh appeared to be in a good position to move their relatives into academic positions, due to their relatively high representation on the Edinburgh town council; the council was largely responsible for many aspects of the university, including hiring. This could constitute a situation where members of craft families may have been able to come together with scholars on equal terms leading to the exchange of ideas. This thesis concludes that craftsmen were responsible for very few of their relatives being accepted into university positions. This seems to have been partly due to the stifling influence of strong rival influences and the craftsmen’s subordinate status, compared to merchants, on Edinburgh’s Town Council. It is also argued that, while some craftsmen were able to have their offspring hired as academics within the university, this is still an insufficient situation for the type of interactions that Zilsel was suggesting. This is because craftsmen could only reach a sufficient status within the council to affect these types of decisions by becoming members of the merchant’s guild – a process which required first having permanently abandoned any manual labour. This seems to indicate that social limitations on physcial work in Edinburgh remained firmly in place, a condition which the Zilsel thesis argues needed to be altered before the formation of early modern science could take place. 1 Declaration This is to certify that: i. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the masters except where indicated in the Preface, ii. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used, iii. this thesis is 28 682 words in length as approved by the Research Higher Degrees Committee. Signed: date: ………………………………. Aaron Mitchell 2 Acknowledgements I’d like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Gerhard Wiesenfeldt, for his useful advice and endless patience. I wish to acknowledge the staff of the Athenaeum library, for both their companionship and for providing an ideal environment in which to complete much of this work. I would especially like to offer my love and thanks to Donnalyn Wigan, whose constant care and kindness has sustained me through innumerable challenges. Finally, I want to thank my family for their continued assistance throughout this process, particularly Beth Neyland, for her encouragement, and my parents, Sue and Roger Mitchell, for the ongoing reassurance and support which they have offered, without which this thesis would never have been written. 3 Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 1 Declaration ....................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 2 Chapter 1: Networks, Craftsmen and the Early Modern University ..................... 5 Chapter 2: The University of Edinburgh and its City ............................................ 12 Chapter 3: Between King and Council – Hiring at the University of Edinburgh ......................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 4: Prosopography and the Regents of Edinburgh .................................. 36 Chapter 5: Powerful Networks and a Lack of Craftsmen ..................................... 48 Chapter 6: The Town Council of Edinburgh and the Craft Minority ................. 68 Chapter 7: High schools and opportunities amongst the burgess of Edinburgh .................................................................................................. 76 Chapter 8: Shifting networks and the city of Edinburgh ....................................... 84 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 89 Appendix........................................................................................................................ 97 4 Chapter 1: Networks, Craftsmen and the Early Modern University It has been many years since it was first proposed that the origins of modern science were not confined to the European university and its scholars, but were as much a product of the forges and workshops of early modern craftsmen. Although less controversial than when it was first suggested, the idea that craftsmen may have been partly responsible for the formation of early modern science is still provoking discussion amongst historians of science. One of the original pioneers of this thesis, Edgar Zilsel, argued that while the university scholars of the time were rational and well-trained they would have been unable to create the methods of early science alone. This was due to their belief that physical work was connected with a lower social status and was therefore beneath them, a view which was common throughout the upper classes of the era. As a result they avoided all manual work, which would have made employing an experimental approach impossible. He maintained that it was actually the craftsmen who had first begun to utilise an experimental method. These groups, the scholars and the craftsmen, had each possessed important skills necessary for the development of science, but a convergence of ideas was not possible while those social limits were still in place. Zilsel contended that at some stage near the beginning of the seventeenth century this all changed when “the social barrier between the two components of the scientific method broke down, and the methods of the superior craftsmen were adopted by academically trained scholars: real science was born”.1 Originally criticised and then largely neglected, the Zilsel thesis was reinvigorated and has since undergone a number of revisions and refinements. Several modern historians have added their own contributions, offering novel interpretations of the ways in which artisans may have been involved in the 1 Edgar Zilsel, “Sociological Roots of Science,” American Journal of Sociology, 47 (1941) 553- 4. 5 forming of science.2 Despite some variation, the numerous modern versions agree that it was the combined contributions of craftsmen and academics which led to the creation of early modern science and that a clear understanding of how this interaction took place is a goal worth pursuing. In her recent book on the subject Pamela O. Long argues that the distinctions which are often used when discussing this area of history, such as ‘scholar’ and ‘craftsmen’, need to be treated carefully. This is because the roles and activities that these men undertook during this period often fall outside of those definitions which are generally used when discussing them.3 This occurred as a result of the blurring of these respective categories which was taking place at the time. The divisions between each group became confused as “some artisans took up pens and began to write books, while some learned men began to take up artisanal practices”.4 Long contends that it was this blending of the scholar and the craftsman, as members of each group took on some elements of the other, which was integral to science’s development.5 This situation does not seem to present a particular problem for historical terminology, as many European countries maintained their own divisions between scholars and craftsmen which can still be used. These standards remain useful even if by their actions these individuals do not easily remain inside current definitions. The central claim, however, that science was formed by those who embodied elements of both scholars and craftsmen remains an intriguing concept. It is particularly interesting to consider in the context of a recent paper on hiring practices at the University of Leiden. This article, written by historian of science Gerhard Wiesenfeldt, suggests that there were certain stages during the early modern period in which the University of Leiden seemed to be far more open to 2 Some examples include: Pamela O. Long, Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences: 1400 – 1600 (Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2011), Pamela H. Smith, The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution, (London: The University of Chicago Press, 2004) Paolo Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era (New York: Harper and Row, 1970). 3 Long, Artisan/Practitioners, 7. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 employing academics from unorthodox social backgrounds, including craftsmen